• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israeli officials: Obama too soft on Iran

T

toomuchtime_

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
798
Reaction score
169
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Top government officials laud France, UK, but tell Ynet White House policy with regards to Iranian nuclear program 'hesitant'


Senior Israeli officials expressed their disappointment with US President Barack Obama's policy on Iran.
"The administration is still not acting in full force to impose significant sanctions against Tehran," one of the officials told Ynet Sunday night.

On the other hand, officials in Jerusalem lauded French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron. "France and the UK have begun to act determinedly, while Obama's administration has yet to formulate a policy that is sufficiently severe," another official said.


"While the House of Representatives and the Senate are promoting (anti-Iran) legislation, the White House is operating according to an ideology which could be defined as 'hesitant.' The Iranian issue calls for a clear stance, but the administration has yet to take the necessary measures to significantly hurt the ayatollahs' regime."
Click to expand...

Israeli officials: Obama too soft on Iran - Israel News, Ynetnews


 
Red_Dave said:
hesitantancy in attacking a country the West has already given one of the 20th centuries worst dictators and a poisin gas attack courtesty of Saddam Hussein is highly advisable IMO.
Click to expand...

Apparently you didn't understand the article. The criticism is that Obama is hesitant about issuing strong sanctions against Iran while Sarkozy and Cameron are not.
 
I wonder if it isn't this hesitancy that is fueling Iran's saber rattling. They maybe think they have the West on the ropes. If true, they would be making a terribly wrong assumption. Obama may be expecting diplomacy to win out (which it won't), thus giving the appearance of indecision. I don't believe he's that indecisive, just hopeful for a peaceful resolution. Iran's rope is running out and I don't think they know it.
 
I think for Obama it's a political election year decision. He already didn't keep his original campaign promises to close Gitmo and end the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, so another conflict in this region involving more defense funds won't poll well with his voter base.
 
grip said:
I think for Obama it's a political election year decision. He already didn't keep his original campaign promises to close Gitmo and end the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, so another conflict in this region involving more defense funds won't poll well with his voter base.
Click to expand...

The purpose of strong sanctions is to try to avoid the need for armed conflict with Iran. I think of Obama as a successful politician and a failed political leader, so I'd be inclined to agree with your theory about election politics, but both parties in both houses of Congress are about to pass legislation calling for extremely strong sanctions, and they wouldn't be doing that unless there were strong support for strong sanctions among voters across the political spectrum. I would ascribe Obama's hesitancy to enact strong sanctions against Iran as just another example of the bluster, blunder and confusion that has characterized his foreign policy in general.
 
Iran officials:

"Obama too soft on Israel (and GWB caused 9/11)"
 
toomuchtime_ said:
The purpose of strong sanctions is to try to avoid the need for armed conflict with Iran. I think of Obama as a successful politician and a failed political leader, so I'd be inclined to agree with your theory about election politics, but both parties in both houses of Congress are about to pass legislation calling for extremely strong sanctions, and they wouldn't be doing that unless there were strong support for strong sanctions among voters across the political spectrum. I would ascribe Obama's hesitancy to enact strong sanctions against Iran as just another example of the bluster, blunder and confusion that has characterized his foreign policy in general.
Click to expand...

Strong sanctions don't make your enemy happy and in Iran's case not very scared. It's the same kind of thing that led up to the Iraqi mess.

Nah,, as you say Congress is about to pass legislation anyway to sanction Iran, so if a conflict does erupt with them Obama can say "I didn't push for aggressive actions against them, it wasn't me who started this new War it was the Republicans". He's being a slicky as usual getting a nuclear Iran problem resolved but taking responsibility for it only if it goes well ;)
 
grip said:
Strong sanctions don't make your enemy happy and in Iran's case not very scared. It's the same kind of thing that led up to the Iraqi mess.

Nah,, as you say Congress is about to pass legislation anyway to sanction Iran, so if a conflict does erupt with them Obama can say "I didn't push for aggressive actions against them, it wasn't me who started this new War it was the Republicans". He's being a slicky as usual getting a nuclear Iran problem resolved but taking responsibility for it only if it goes well ;)
Click to expand...

Sanctions are an alternative to military action against Iran, but to be effective, they must be crippling. If sanctions fail to deter Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons because Obama refused to support strong enough sanctions, there is no way he can avoid responsibility for the military action that will come next.

The Congressional bills would in effect say to both countries and companies, if you do business with Iran's oil, defense or banking industry, you are cut off from US markets and from the US financial system. The bills have enough support in Congress to override an Obama veto.
 
toomuchtime_ said:
Sanctions are an alternative to military action against Iran, but to be effective, they must be crippling. If sanctions fail to deter Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons because Obama refused to support strong enough sanctions, there is no way he can avoid responsibility for the military action that will come next.

The Congressional bills would in effect say to both countries and companies, if you do business with Iran's oil, defense or banking industry, you are cut off from US markets and from the US financial system. The bills have enough support in Congress to override an Obama veto.
Click to expand...

We're not going to overly cripple anyone with sanctions because too many people and businesses will conduct activity behind the scenes. And we're not in a financial position to threaten any of our business partners too much. Besides this still doesn't resolve the nuclear Iran problem, which is what's leading to conflict. He may not avoid responsibility for military action but he'll deny he pursued that option.
 
It's weird when somebody is saying, "France has balls. Your move, America."
 
translation: israel is upset that the tail is no longer able to wag the dog
 
grip said:
We're not going to overly cripple anyone with sanctions because too many people and businesses will conduct activity behind the scenes. And we're not in a financial position to threaten any of our business partners too much. Besides this still doesn't resolve the nuclear Iran problem, which is what's leading to conflict. He may not avoid responsibility for military action but he'll deny he pursued that option.
Click to expand...

The WH in fact has argued that the sanctions in the Congressional bills will hurt the US economy in unspecified ways but without providing any facts or logic to back up the statement. However, let's assume it's true, the choice is would we rather have some economic repercussions from strong sanctions, or would we rather have nuclear armed Iranian missiles targeting Boston, Philadelphia, New York and Washington. There is strong bipartisan support in Congress for risking some economic and diplomatic blow back from enacting strong sanctions rather than rather than having to deal with an Iran that is targeting our major east coast population centers with nuclear weapons.
 
The problem I have with economic sanctions is they could take years before the bull-headed government of Iran gives in to it. This is time they'll use to continue working on nukes. That's time I don't want then to have. Better to just go in now and cut to the chase. We'll have to take military eventually anyway. And limited strikes against just the nuke facilities should demonstrate the appropriate amount of restraint.
 
EagleAye said:
The problem I have with economic sanctions is they could take years before the bull-headed government of Iran gives in to it. This is time they'll use to continue working on nukes. That's time I don't want then to have. Better to just go in now and cut to the chase. We'll have to take military eventually anyway. And limited strikes against just the nuke facilities should demonstrate the appropriate amount of restraint.
Click to expand...

It may well be too late for sanctions to deter Iran from acquiring nukes, but neither the US nor Israel will attack Iran until the US withdrawal from Iraq is complete. There are six thousand US troops to go, so while we wait for the to leave, it makes diplomatic sense to enact strong sanctions and use Iran's contemptuous response to them as the as conclusive evidence that nothing but a military attack will work.
 
toomuchtime_ said:
The WH in fact has argued that the sanctions in the Congressional bills will hurt the US economy in unspecified ways but without providing any facts or logic to back up the statement. However, let's assume it's true, the choice is would we rather have some economic repercussions from strong sanctions, or would we rather have nuclear armed Iranian missiles targeting Boston, Philadelphia, New York and Washington. There is strong bipartisan support in Congress for risking some economic and diplomatic blow back from enacting strong sanctions rather than rather than having to deal with an Iran that is targeting our major east coast population centers with nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

Because much of business on that level begins to become hypothetical. Who would or wouldn't break sanction lines for profit? Is there enough elasticity or production capacity in the oil markets. IF they ever get missiles with that range they'll face what every nuclear power does, absolute obliteration if used. But make no mistakes though an Iranian confrontation is coming. Israel will strike unilaterally if necessary but they'll never trust Iran with nukes. The only problem is does Iran do what they've did in the past and let it go at that or do they escalate?
 
EagleAye said:
The problem I have with economic sanctions is they could take years before the bull-headed government of Iran gives in to it.
Click to expand...

The problem I have with sanctions is that they are ineffective, can cause blowback, and increase the odds of war. A significant motivation behind 9/11 was our economic sanctions on Iraq that lead to the death a half million of children.

As for the article, the Israel government should learn a little gratitude. We give them a lot, but it doesn't seem that they appreciate it.
 
Antiderivative said:
The problem I have with sanctions is that they are ineffective, can cause blowback...A significant motivation behind 9/11 was our economic sanctions on Iraq that lead to the death a half million of children.
Click to expand...
Totally agree there. And we see what happens to the populace when you're dealing with a despot and you apply sanctions. Only the populace suffers, not the despot. The sanctions were never intended to harm children. If Hussein had truly cared about his people, the deaths of Iraqi children would have forced him to back down. Sanctions work on a reasonable person, but fail completely against an un-reasonable one. I bear no ill-will against the Iranian people. I fear sanctions will only harm them and not the Khomeinis.

Antiderivative said:
As for the article, the Israel government should learn a little gratitude. We give them a lot, but it doesn't seem that they appreciate it.
Click to expand...

I feel Israel does appreciate it. I have no definitive proof of that, but I think the US is able to apply diplomatic pressure to Israel using US assistance as leverage. Israel would carry out more strikes and more offensives if it wasn't for US insistence that they settle down. Iran's nuclear facilities would already be a smoking ruin with out US pressure. I don't mean to say Israel has no sense of restraint, they do, but without US help they cannot afford it. Violent neighbors create a tendency towards violence. The fact that they listen at all demonstrates gratitude for US offers of help.
 
Last edited:
Do you wanna pay $5 per gallon for your gas?
 
RDS said:
Do you wanna pay $5 per gallon for your gas?
Click to expand...

can't speak for RDS, but do recall when we were hit by our first OPEC oil embargo, for re-supplying israel during the yom kippur war
changed a lot about our nation
gas would no longer be cheap (price of oil quadrupled)
cars would become smaller
that oil was our achilles' heel became apparent
... and we went to self serve gas pumps over nite (such a tragedy [/s])
so, if we align ourselves too tightly with israel, and since we have allowed ourselves to remain energy dependent, $5 per gallon would not seem an unrealistic price to pay for our misguided affiliation with the present israeli government
 
justabubba said:
can't speak for RDS, but do recall when we were hit by our first OPEC oil embargo, for re-supplying israel during the yom kippur war
changed a lot about our nation
gas would no longer be cheap (price of oil quadrupled)
cars would become smaller
that oil was our achilles' heel became apparent
... and we went to self serve gas pumps over nite (such a tragedy [/s])
so, if we align ourselves too tightly with israel, and since we have allowed ourselves to remain energy dependent, $5 per gallon would not seem an unrealistic price to pay for our misguided affiliation with the present israeli government
Click to expand...

That's kinda where I thought he was going but I wanted to hear more. For now, I'll reply to you.

If the US destroyed Iran's nuclear facilities, I don't believe we would see an increase in the cost of oil. The Saudis are our primary oil supplier (we don't get oil from Iran), and the Saudis have begged us to disable Iran's nuclear ambitions. They're more likely to thank us than anything. If we limit our attacks to nuclear plants only we're more likely to get the thanks of several ME nations rather than their ire. A nuclear Iran is dangerous to far more than just Israel; it's dangerous to many nations in the ME and the West. Attacking Iran's nuclear problem is in the USA's self-interest. It isn't only a defense of Israel. I think the cooler heads in the ME are aware of that.
 
EagleAye said:
That's kinda where I thought he was going but I wanted to hear more. For now, I'll reply to you.

If the US destroyed Iran's nuclear facilities, I don't believe we would see an increase in the cost of oil. The Saudis are our primary oil supplier (we don't get oil from Iran), and the Saudis have begged us to disable Iran's nuclear ambitions. They're more likely to thank us than anything. If we limit our attacks to nuclear plants only we're more likely to get the thanks of several ME nations rather than their ire. A nuclear Iran is dangerous to far more than just Israel; it's dangerous to many nations in the ME and the West. Attacking Iran's nuclear problem is in the USA's self-interest. It isn't only a defense of Israel. I think the cooler heads in the ME are aware of that.
Click to expand...

Umm, we *can't* destroy Irans nuclear facilities. At least not all of them. They're underground.
 
sangha said:
Umm, we *can't* destroy Irans nuclear facilities. At least not all of them. They're underground.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You don't think we can destroy undergraound stuff? And what about the ways to get in there. If no one can get in the facility, it's kinda destroyed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom