Nuclear concerns still weigh heavy on US
WASHINGTON — Behind President Barack Obama's toughened but modulated response to the Iranian election crisis is a calculation that when the dust settles, the United States will still face an unpredictable adversary that gets closer every day to producing nuclear weapons.
No one can say whether the unrest following disputed presidential elections will yield an Iran more willing to cut a deal over its disputed nuclear program. But as Obama sees it, the United States must be ready to talk no matter who sits on the other side of the table.
"My position coming into this office has been that the United States has core national security interests in making sure that Iran doesn't possess a nuclear weapon and it stops exporting terrorism outside of its borders," Obama told reporters Tuesday.
The new president has tried not to poison chances for negotiations over those threats, although that gave Republican critics room to call him timid.
His unspoken strategy aimed at defusing Iran's nuclear threat has been coupled with public messages that seek to avoid giving Iran's rulers any ammunition to claim that the United States is meddling.
"My role has been to say the United States is not going to be a foil for the Iranian government to try to blame what's happening on the streets of Tehran on the CIA or on the White House," Obama said during a news conference, "that this is an issue that is led by and given voice to the frustrations of the Iranian people."
Days of deadly tumult and then quiet defiance on Tehran's streets mark the greatest challenge to Iran's ruling structure since the 1979 Islamic revolution.
They also present a huge wild card for the new U.S. administration, which came to office pledging a fresh start with Iran after three decades of mutual suspicion and hostility.
The budding outreach to Iran could be smothered in the cradle, as Obama acknowledged.
"We have provided a path whereby Iran can reach out," he said. "It is up to them to make a decision."
That's the same thing Obama said before the disputed June 12 election, and it's also the same thing President George W. Bush said during his last two years in office.
The stakes are higher for Obama, in no small part because Iran's nuclear machinery is still chugging toward the ability to produce nuclear weapons if the regime chooses to do so. Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has used the program as a nationalist rallying cry.
Ahmadinejad claimed a landslide re-election despite obvious questions about the size and distribution of his support, and the results were endorsed by Iran's senior cleric, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Ahmadinejad's main challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, claims the vote was fixed, and the heavy-handed government response has given Iran's largely disorganized resistance a new organizing principle.
The election results could mean greater internal pressure on Ahmadinejad to improve relations with the West and bargain over the nuclear program, as Obama hoped out loud on Tuesday.
"The fact that they are now in the midst of an extraordinary debate taking place in Iran, you know, may end up coloring how they respond," Obama said.
Leaders of Britain, France and Germany were quicker than Obama to weigh in on the Iranian upheaval or, in the case of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, to call for a recount. Those three countries would be part of any new negotiations with Iran, along with the United States, Russia and China.
Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, won crucial backing from other nations that would take part in talks. Russia said it respects the declared election result and said disputes about the vote are "exclusively an internal matter."
Senior Obama advisers say Obama is keeping his options open, and that it's too soon to tell where the situation is leading. They acknowledge that so far Iran's response suggests a period during which the regime will be focused mostly on itself.
Suzanne Maloney, a former top State Department expert on Iran, said it is more likely that an empowered Ahmadinejad will be an obstruction to talks and the regime will rebuff international condemnation or pressure to come to the table.
"They are willing to ride out an ugly period at home, so what makes us think they can't ride out increased economic pressure and sanctions" from abroad? Maloney asked.
Jun 25, 2009 at 2:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oh, I thought the copy and paste was from a legitimate source, like maybe a scientist or somebody that knows what they're talking about.
Jun 25, 2009 at 11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Or you can look here for the other 2,650 places it has been; http://tinyurl.com/mu3a4y
Jun 25, 2009 at 10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
I haven't read the content but the copy paste is from here.
Jun 25, 2009 at 10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.americanintelligence.us/News/...
That took 22 seconds to find.....
Jun 25, 2009 at 10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
kettleblack, incredibly sad is posting others words with little or no concern of expressing credit for the source.
Jun 25, 2009 at 10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
In the case of Iran - their leader dropped a note down a well so the lost Imam could be informed of their new capability.
.
Of course in our country our last president took advice from someone that said the hurricane that hit New Orleans was because god was angry about gay marriage.
.
These delusion lovers have access to nuclear weopons. And still we offer tax breaks for churches, amazing.
Jun 25, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
kettleblack, I'm curious as to what your source is. I don't disagree that there's a real threat, but to say that 1-3 nuclear weapons would result in 90 percent of all Americans dying is absurd.
Jun 25, 2009 at 9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Your only concern is whether I cut and paste this piece? WHAT ABOUT THE CONTENT?..... I guess you have no problem with this very real threat... but hey, if someone should cut and paste, well then, THAT really grabs your attention and gets your hackles up. Wow, freakin amazing and incredibly sad.
Jun 25, 2009 at 12:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Wow. Are any of these your words or did you cut and paste it all?
Jun 24, 2009 at 8:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
The world is different today. Intercontinental range missiles
tipped with nuclear weapons in the hands of leaders driven by
fanaticism, leaders that support global terrorism, leaders that have
made repeated threats that they will seek our annihilation . . . can now
at last achieve that dream in a matter of minutes. Those who claim that
there is little to fear from Iran or North Korea because “at best” they
will have only one or two nuclear weapons ignore the catastrophic level
of threat we now face from just “a couple” of nuclear weapons. Again:
One to three missiles tipped with nuclear weapons and armed to detonate
at a high altitude — to achieve the strongest EMP over the greatest area
of the United States — would create an EMP “overlay” that triggers a
continent-wide collapse of our entire electrical, transportation, and
communications infrastructure. Within weeks after such an attack, tens
of millions of Americans would perish. The impact has been likened to a
nationwide Hurricane Katrina. Some studies estimate that 90 percent of
all Americans might very well die in the year after such an attack as
our transportation, food distribution, communications, public safety,
law enforcement, and medical infrastructures collapse. We most likely
would never recover from the blow. Two things need to be done now and
without delay: Make clear in the strongest of terms that, if either Iran
or North Korea launches a rocket on a trajectory headed toward the
territory of the United States, we will shoot it down. The risk of not
doing so is beyond acceptable. And if they construe this as an act of
war, so be it, for they fired the first shot. The risk of sitting back
for 30 minutes and praying it is not an EMP strike is beyond acceptable,
beyond rational on our part. Funding for EMP defense must be a top
national priority. To downgrade or halt our missile defense program,
which at last is becoming viable after 25 years of research, would be an
action of criminal negligence. Surely, with such a threat confronting
us, a fair and open debate, with full public access and the setting
aside of partisan politics, is in order. In the meantime, a policy must
be stated today that we will indeed shoot down any missile aimed towards
the United States that is fired by Iran or North Korea. America’s
survival, your survival, and your family’s survival might very well
depend on it.
Jun 24, 2009 at 8:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
For your consideration:
A sword of Damocles hangs over our heads. It is a real threat that has
been all but ignored. On Feb. 3, Iran launched a “communications
satellite” into orbit. At this very moment, North Korea is threatening
to do the same. The ability to launch an alleged communications
satellite belies a far more frightening truth. A rocket that can carry a
satellite into orbit also can drop a nuclear warhead over any location
on the planet in less than 45 minutes. Far too many timid or uninformed
sources maintain that a single launch of a missile poses no true threat
to the United States, given our retaliatory power. A reality check is in
order and must be discussed in response to such an absurd claim: In
fact, one small nuclear weapon, delivered by an ICBM can destroy the
United States by maximizing the effect of the resultant electromagnetic
pulse upon detonation. An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a byproduct of
detonating an atomic bomb above the Earth’s atmosphere. When a nuclear
weapon is detonated in space, the gamma rays emitted trigger a massive
electrical disturbance in the upper atmosphere. Moving at the speed of
light, this overload will short out all electrical equipment, power
grids and delicate electronics on the Earth’s surface. In fact, it would
take only one to three weapons exploding above the continental United
States to wipe out our entire grid and transportation network. It might
take years to recover from, if ever. This is not science fiction. If you
doubt this, spend a short amount of time skimming the Report of the
Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from
Electromagnetic Pulse Attack from April 2008. You will come away
sobered. Even as the new administration plans to spend trillions on
economic bailouts, it has announced plans to reduce funding and
downgrade efforts for missile defense. Furthermore, the United States’
reluctance to invest in a modern and credible traditional nuclear
deterrent is a serious concern. What good will a bailout be if there is
no longer a nation to bail out? Fifty years ago, it was not Sputnik
itself that sent a dire chill of warning around the world; it was the
capability of the rocket that launched Sputnik. The rocket that lofted
Sputnik into orbit also could have served as an ICBM. Yet for all its
rhetoric, the Soviet Union was essentially a rational power that
recognized the threat of mutual destruction and thus never stepped to
the edge.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.