Obama on Iran(March 2, 2007) We should take no option, including military action, off the table

Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a new arms race. Some nations in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, could fall away from restraint and rush into a nuclear contest that could fuel greater instability in the region-that's not just bad for the Middle East, but bad for the world, making it a vastly more dangerous and unpredictable place. Other nations would feel great pressure to accommodate Iranian demands. Terrorist groups with Iran's backing would feel emboldened to act even more brazenly under an Iranian nuclear umbrella. And as the A.Q. Kahn network in Pakistan demonstrated, Iran could spread this technology around the world.

To prevent this worst-case scenario, we need the United States to lead tough-minded diplomacy.

This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out in clear terms our principles and interests. Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage through stronger sanctions. It would mean more determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations. It would mean harnessing the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran's major trading partners. It would mean a cooperative strategy with Gulf States who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs. It would mean unifying those states to recognize the threat of Iran and increase pressure on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. It would mean full implementation of U.S. sanctions laws. And over the long term, it would mean a focused approach from us to finally end the tyranny of oil, and develop our own alternative sources of energy to drive the price of oil down

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4328955

--------------

The problem is that the US policy today, wont allow nuclear energy technology to be used in Iran.
----------------------

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml

ElBaradei Calls for Timeout on Iran Nuclear Program
CNN Interview with Mohamed ElBaradei
DAVOS, Switzerland, 27 January 2007
------------------------------------

International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohammed ElBaradei said Friday he was calling for a timeout regarding the Iranian nuclear issue, hoping that talks on the matter can resume.

ElBaradei told CNN International that the timeout would mean Iran would freeze its nuclear program, while the United Nations would temporarily suspend the sanctions package against Iran that took effect last month.

"The key to the Iranian issue is a direct engagement between Iran and the U.S., similar to North Korea," ElBaradei told CNN International´s Becky Anderson.

"North Korea is a good example. For years, things were not moving. Only when the U.S. talked directly with the North Koreans, we had a positive report. If we are able to talk to the North Koreans, we ought to be able to talk to the Iranians."

According to a report last fall by Iran´s semi-official ISNA news agency, Iran had been conducting a small-scale research enrichment program using 164 centrifuges at its Natanz facility. ISNA said the country´s centrifuges are projected to number 3,000 by March.

IAEA inspectors in Iran have reported that the Iranians will begin building a centrifuge facility at Natanz next month, an IAEA official told CNN on Friday. And the official said that the further down the nuclear path Iran goes, the harder it could be to get them to halt production.

An Iranian official at the United Nations told CNN that he was not sure of the number of centrifuges, but that the degree of enrichment would only be high enough for civilian energy purposes. Tehran has maintained its nuclear program is aimed only at energy, while the United States and other Western countries are concerned it is trying to build nuclear weapons.
--------------------------------------------

Most of these

Former U.N. nuclear inspector David Albright, however, said that 3,000 centrifuges would produce enough enriched uranium for one nuclear bomb. But, Albright predicted it would take Iran a year to get the centrifuges in place and another year to make the highly enriched uranium.

Iran has banned 38 IAEA inspectors from entering the country. An Iranian diplomat told IRNA, the nation´s official state-run news agency, that inspectors whose countries voted for a U.N. Security Council resolution regarding sanctions on Iraq would be banned. ISNA did not name the diplomat, saying he spoke on condition of anonymity.

ElBaradei told CNN that Iran was not banning inspectors, but attempting to reduce their number.

"This reduced somewhat the flexibility we have, but I should say we have over 100 inspectors in Tehran, so we have enough people to do the job," he said. "It is in the interest of Iran for us to be able to do our work and to be able to show that they are transparent and they are proactive."

The IAEA official said ElBaradei has not heard back from Iran on the timeout proposal. He must report back to the United Nations on the matter by Feb. 21.

"I would like to report that we are back on the right track, and the right track is negotiation, dialogue and understanding where everyone is coming from," he said. "If I report negatively, and we have escalation and counter-escalation, we are on the wrong track."

-------------

Weird.

It's the one situation where nuclear is an obvious choice for Iran.

Nor should we actively pursue war with Iran. Carry a big stick so that you don't have to use a stick.

1. he is for Palestine
2. he is for Isreal
3. he wont put pressure on the US fouding of Isreal, the only "stick" on Isreal
4. he is for withdrawing forces from Iraq, and critizising Hillary for the Iraq vote
5. he voted for founding the war
6. he didnt take the Sentate floor arguing for a Iraq widraw until after 12 months in the Senate
7. he is for a permanent US military precense in Iraq..
8. he is for fighting Iran
9. he is against the Iran vote that labeled the Iranian guard terrorists when knowing they kill US soldiers in Iraq
10. he didnt vote in the Senate when the Iran resolution were debated
11. he was for nomralization of US/Cuba relations
12. he flipp flopped and are now against US/Cuba relations
13. he is for eliminating nuclear weapons world wide
14. He wants military ranks increased by 100,000
15. he is for taling with dictatorships like Pakistan and Iran but against talking with
Hezbollah, the Taliban or al-Qaeda
16. he decries Darfur but doesn’t say what he’d do about it?
17. he wants to give nations like Brazil, India and Nigeria- Nigeria, one of the most corrupt, violent, repressive, U.S.-supported nations on the planet-”a stake in upholding the international order” without explaining what he means

just saying, but why would that matter to anybody :sarcasm:

Behind the rhetoric, and "yes we can" slogans, there are just an ordinary politician triangulating his views. (just like Clinton some might say)

And those left/progressive readers of DU falls right into this :-)

22 democratic senators, Obama, and many other Americans got it right, Clinton got it wrong. Face the truth. I can trust Obama has good Judgment to go for peace when possible.

You can debate the fact that Obama was not a senator all you want, at least he was right when the majority of Americans were wrong. 22 Democratic Senators got it right and there is nothing out there that shows Obama would have gotten it wrong knowing what he knew then. Read it, Link

You would have a better luck convincing my that he owns a crystal ball then you could convincing me that he would have voted for that bill.

The people who marched in Washington D.C., before and after that vote, knew it was BS and everybody knew what "authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." was all about. We were going to go to war, end of story. She, along with 27 other Democratic Senators failed us that day.

Not only that, but she always says "knowing what i know know, i would never vote for such a thing." THIS MEANS NOTHING!!! If Obama was in her position today (he never would be) he would say "knowing what i know then, i would vote no on that bill today." Because it's not the Bush supplied info that was full of spin, what matters is her judgment and knowing that info was BS. If right now it was October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM SHE WOULD VOTE YEA. She has said nothing to contradict that.

Do you know how stupid it is to say your candidate sits in shit, but mine sits in more so vote for mine.

Obama supports direct talks in order to set up the groundwork for negotiations. Hillary refuses to talk until Iran agrees to our preset conditions, which as we've seen with Iraq, are always moving because we don't really want peace, we want oil.

If you talk to professors on Iran issues they will tell you the folowing;

1. Iran needs nuclear tech to provide electicity for their people
2. Iran feels intimidated by a nuclear Isreal, and the only way to counter that threat is by giving an impression that Iran can withstand an israely attack.
3. They are furstraded by the double standard of policy that the US have. Its ok for Isreal to have nuclear tech, but not for Iran
............

But Obama says:
............

In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But that is exactly what he has done. Neither Israel nor the United States has the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric.

The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a new arms race. Some nations in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, could fall away from restraint and rush into a nuclear contest that could fuel greater instability in the region-that's not just bad for the Middle East, but bad for the world, making it a vastly more dangerous and unpredictable place. Other nations would feel great pressure to accommodate Iranian demands. Terrorist groups with Iran's backing would feel emboldened to act even more brazenly under an Iranian nuclear umbrella. And as the A.Q. Kahn network in Pakistan demonstrated, Iran could spread this technology around the world.

To prevent this worst-case scenario, we need the United States to lead tough-minded diplomacy.

This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out in clear terms our principles and interests. Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage through stronger sanctions. It would mean more determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations. It would mean harnessing the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran's major trading partners. It would mean a cooperative strategy with Gulf States who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs. It would mean unifying those states to recognize the threat of Iran and increase pressure on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. It would mean full implementation of U.S. sanctions laws. And over the long term, it would mean a focused approach from us to finally end the tyranny of oil, and develop our own alternative sources of energy to drive the price of oil down.

We must also persuade other nations such as Saudi Arabia to recognize common interests with Israel in dealing with Iran. We should stress to the Egyptians that they help the Iranians and do themselves no favors by failing to adequately prevent the smuggling of weapons and cash by Iran into Gaza.

The United States' leverage is strengthened when we have many nations with us. It puts us in a place where sanctions could actually have a profound impact on Iran's economy. Iran is highly dependent on imports and foreign investment, credit and technology. And an environment where our allies see that these types of investments in Iran are not in the world's best interests, could help bring Iran to the table.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4328955

-----------------

No nuclear technology?? I don't know what you're talking about.

I see nothing wrong with what he said.