Obama says risky to attack Iran, wants diplomatic fix

Comments (27)
Redford wrote:

You can’t negotiate when only one partner is negotiating in good faith; the other stalling for time.

Feb 05, 2012 7:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
goldenrules1 wrote:

We simply can’t afford to fight another preemptive war with money borrowed from the Communist Chinese. In 2003, Dick Cheney estimated that the Iraq war would cost $100 Billion and be concluded in two years. In 2007, the Congressional Budget office estimated that the long term costs of the Iraq war will total over $1,900 billion. Much of this cost is interest expense, because the war was financed with borrowed money. If Iran attacks us, we should wipe them off the face of the earth. If they don’t attack us, we should leave them alone.

Feb 05, 2012 7:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Wonder if he will say the same thing should he win this Nov election

Feb 05, 2012 7:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse

“Obama also said he did not believe Tehran had the “intentions or capabilities” to attack the United States, playing down the threats from Tehran” Doesn’t he mean playing down the propaganda from Israel that Iran has missiles that can hit the US?

Feb 05, 2012 8:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
andrea00lauro wrote:

Diplomatic is really the best way.

The war hawks here need to read ‘The Missiles of October’ where a real-nuclear ready missiles were already at America’s doorstep and there was no fear yet of American defeat because it was before Vietnam has left its lessons. Insights into Kennedy and Kruschev as leaders and people with worries would be profound reading.

Iran is just another saber-rattler just like North Korea. Nothing more. Ever ytime America blows its enemies out of proportion, it ends up getting itself all bent-out-of-shape and severely in debt.

North Korea was solved with diplomacy and now its hawkish mad leader is gone. It was diplomatic game of time that America wins everyday because it takes a diplomatic route.

Remember that attacking Iran this time would draw a clear line between Muslims and the rest of the world. America is not attacked yet. It just thinks it may (not ‘will) be attacked.

Would-be leaders who push a pre-emptive agenda are the most dangerous people in the world. There are enough pro-democracy movements in the Arab world to merit a wait-and-see attitude.

Feb 05, 2012 8:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fastrack111 wrote:

The US has tried for 20 years to engage or open a channel to ir
Iran without success. That happened in much better times, withou such radicalism. Iran is a hard case. Since the leadership follows Imam Mehdi, who advocated for world-wide upheavel, WW III is a natural result. So appeasement and negotiation won’t easily work here.

Feb 05, 2012 8:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
NewsDebbie wrote:

Foreign policy Obama has done very well. I would continue to trust his judgement. I do not support or trust Romney who is touting GWBush policies of “preemptive war.” It is not only wrong it is anti-American values as well as against the US Constitution to provide for the common defense not offense.

Feb 05, 2012 8:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
LenicGB wrote:

War won’t help and should always be considered a last resort. Isolate the country economically. The president is making the right choices.

Feb 05, 2012 8:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BlueCannon wrote:

Defense Secretary purposely speculated an Israel attack on Iran was actually intended to deter an unprovoked strike by Israel without U.S. blessing. It would too risky for Israel to act solo if U.S. doesn’t come to its aid when needed.

So far, there isn’t solid evidence that Iran has committed war crimes. The U.S. had long time ago departed from pre-emptive strike at will strategy. Nuclear arsenal capability doesn’t mean stockpile. Obama is smart not to repeat the same mistake as Bush in Iraq’s WMD.

Feb 05, 2012 9:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sam_22 wrote:

The problem with the west negotiating with Iran, is that they are underestimating Iran. They think that Iran rulers are like Saddam’s government. One day they are friend and the next day they ask for his death. Iran has learned so much during two golf and Afghanistan wars allowing them to assess each step they make carefully. In the last round of negotiations, Iran agreed to give up their pile of enriched uranium in exchange in exchange for the west to provide them low enrich uranium, however, Iran calculated, rightly so, that if they give up all their enrich uranium at once, then they will have no bargaining chip any longer, so they turned and asked that they will either send their enrich uranium to either Turkey or Brasil, something that the west refused. Why did they west refused, you may ask. Because the west has no intention of helping Iran. They want Iran to be held hostage and dependent on the West, as it is the case with most of the Arab nations.
All in all, the west and Iran must get the next negotiation opportunity right, otherwise, buy a Prius or start riding a bicycle if you don’t want to pay $5.00 or more at the pump. And that’s the least of the cost to a war with Iran. After all, you can look back at Iraq and Afghanistan’s wars and remember what US General Zini have said:
” If you like Iraq and Afghanistan, you are going to love Iran.”

Feb 05, 2012 9:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Intriped wrote:

Negotiate? I thought we did not negotiate with supposed terrorists sponsors.

Feb 05, 2012 9:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse

yes we do and yes we can Obama.

Feb 05, 2012 9:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

Obama has it exactly right. His handling of these issues has been spot on. Left to the Republicans we would never have left Iraq or be leaving Afghanistan. And we would already been engaged in a messy war with Iran.

Feb 05, 2012 10:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Pirouz wrote:

Which country is not “negotiating in good faith” — Israel is the country that secretly developed nuclear weapons (based on technology stolen from the US) and Israel runs an apartheid regime with world’s biggest open-air concentration camp called “Gaza.” … “Israel” is a “country” created on top of another people without their consent. Has Israel ever submitted itself to 1 (one) nuclear inspection? No. The Israelis have simply deliberately misinterpreted a quote from the President of Iran (who has no military say-so) where he says the ‘Apartheid regime of Israel should be removed” (so the people can live side-by-side). Iran said the same thing about the apartheid regime of South Africa at a time when BOTH Israel and the U.S. supported Apartheid South Africa.

Feb 05, 2012 10:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Life1 wrote:

@intriped: nah, you start wars based on ‘supposed’ facts.

Feb 05, 2012 11:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
beachjustice wrote:

Iran feels threatened because many of its people have been assassinated and the US regularly penetrates Iranian territorial water and airspace with craft and drones for surveillance.
The Secretary of State of the US also says the US reserves the right to pre-emptively nuke Iran.
Not even the supreme leader has threatened a preemptive attack on the US or EU or Israel so there are no grounds to claim he is an extremist any more than any other leader who has threatened Iran. I would like anyone who disagrees to source me a single comment to the contrary, anything on par with the claims made about preemptively bombing Iran (potentially with tactical nukes) made by Hillary or the Israeli government.

This is why I believe, given Iran’s precarious position and that it has not attacked anyone in the US or EU in their own lands or flown drones, that Iran is in a better position to deserve a nuclear
Iranians are people too and whatever their internal affairs, they wish to have safety and security, so if other nations get to have a nuclear deterrent so should they. The US should remember they provided Saddam with munitions and weaponry in his attempted invasion of Iran after Iran was weakened by the revolution, so it is not as though there has been no aggression on the part of the US even before Iran because a target of the US as its axis of Evil.

This is fair, and I will post this comment elsewhere because I don’t think I or my family should be bombed because I have not bombed another country myself or threatened to or even thought about doing so.

Feb 05, 2012 11:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
GeomanPA wrote:

Take out Iran and the Russian naval base in Syria at the same time.

Feb 05, 2012 11:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlexZ83 wrote:

@goldenrules1 – That “wiping of the face of the earth” business is what got you (Iran) in this mess in the first place. When your lunatic president openly questions the holocaust and makes statements that Israel is an abomination of a country and “should be wiped of the map”, and then goes off and starts enriching uranium, can you really blame Israel and the US for wanting to stop him. I sure don’t.

Feb 05, 2012 11:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
txgadfly wrote:

US foreign policy must the in the interests of America, not necessarily in the interests of Israel. If they strike, using our dollars, our weapons, and some sort of presumed “shield” from the US, we should cut them off. No more money, contracts, or financial transfers.

It is time to stop writing foreigners blank checks and shorting our own people. And it is time to slash military spending and to reign in our militarists. We do not want an empire. We means the American people. Of course there are Americans ready to sacrifice all of their countrymen who disagree with them about world domination. The vast majority does not care. We want decent jobs, the freedom to travel without “travel documents” and without body cavity searches, and truly free elections. We will not have those again until the militarists are out of power for good.

Feb 06, 2012 12:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
WJL wrote:

Sam_22

Petrol price in Australia is A$1.40 per litre or U$5.425 per USgal. What is the problem with America? Our economy is doing great trading with China. China wants your high tech and your refusal is the main reason for your deficit.

Leave Iran alone. I do not want to see A$2.00 per litre petrol.

Feb 06, 2012 12:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
MahaloManX wrote:

Contrary to your reporting, President Obama did not end “the U.S. war in Iraq.” The so called end you speak of was actually negotiated and agreed to by Iraq and the Bush administration in December of 2008, before Obama took office. The date for the complete withdrawal of U.S. combat troops in that agreement was Dec. 31, 2011. Obama had absolutley nothing to do with ending the Iraq War. Journalism 101…Get Your Facts Right.

Feb 06, 2012 1:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

WJL..your post and specifically your comment regarding China makes little sense. And you might want to look to your own government regarding petrol prices. Australian taxes accounts for about 27% of the cost of petrol in your country. In the U.S. taxes account for only about 5% of the cost. Oil and gasoline pricing is one of my favorite subjects. While I won’t go into a full disclosure of what my research has found…oil is currently at least 30% over priced. Thanks mostly to speculation. There is no shortage of oil anywhere in the world. The truth is that the world is awash in oil. The 20% of middle eastern oil that Australia imports doesn’t come from Iran. So there are no worries there. This is a much more complex subject than any conflict with Iran.

Feb 06, 2012 1:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
cp61 wrote:

the middle east wants the Iranians gone.
it’s just a question on how to sell it to the American people.
Obama is a very good salesman.

Feb 06, 2012 3:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
JamesChirico wrote:

The writers missed the biggest message from the president’s answers.
“intentions or capabilities” to attack the United States, playing down the threats from Tehran and saying he wanted a diplomatic end to the nuclear standoff. Any kind of additional military activity inside the Gulf is disruptive and has a big effect on us. It could have a big effect on oil prices. We’ve still got troops in Afghanistan, which borders Iran.”

Playing down their capabilities, then in effect putting them on notice any attack will be met by “troops in Afghanistan, which borders Iran.”

Feb 06, 2012 6:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
kenradke11 wrote:

Iran is a toothless tiger and the more they strike back the more they teeth they will lose. They would be very foolish to try any kind of retaliation. Give it up Tehran. And rise up people of Iran and change your regime government to a democracy !!!

Feb 06, 2012 8:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
Logical123 wrote:

Obama is complete liar. He has NEVER tried a diplomatic overture towards Iran. He lied when he said he would negotiate with “our adversaries” during the election. And, he lied when he pretended to negotiate with Iran after the election. His only goal is to support Israel’s plan for dominance in the Middle East. His foreign policy is defined in Israel. So, all this talk about a “diplomatic” solution is pure garbage. Let him remove all sanctions against Iran, then Iran will talk. Until then, there is need for Iran to negotiate with the bully of the international scene.

Feb 06, 2012 10:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
rgbviews wrote:

Iran is no threat to either Israel or the US. The Iranian leadership is not stupid. Iran is not going to attack Israel, much less use nuclear weapons offensively. Contrary to current propaganda Iranians are smart and have no wish to self-distruct their ancient heritage.

The confrontation is about US-Western hegemony in the region which, of course, would not exist if the ME was not full of oil. Imagine a ME without oil and the West could care less about any in-fighting in the region. This is a last-ditch effort by the US-West to maintain control in the ME, and likely to be a colossal waste of human lives and money.

Feb 06, 2012 1:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.