Jump to content
Washington DC Message Boards

Obama has embraced Bush's Position on Iran

Guest Scott McLarty

Recommended Posts

Green Party leaders and candidates expressed alarm that presumed Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has joined President Bush in threatening a US attack on Iran


In a speech last week before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Sen. Obama said, "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything." The speech confirmed Sen. Obama's earlier claim that the Iranian government is "a threat to all of us" and "we should take no option, including military action, off the table."


"Barack Obama's language implies that, instead of repudiating the neo-con doctrine of 'preemptive' invasion, he may be ready to endorse a US attack on Iran for the same reason the Bush White House is making such threats," said Candace Caveny, Michigan Green Party candidate for Congress (10th District).


"It also shows that Sen. Obama has swallowed the Bush-Cheney line about Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, when Iran has said over and over it seeks nuclear power solely for peaceful purposes. President Bush -- and Sen. Obama, apparently -- are ignoring the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program, and have concocted a scenario in which Iran is about to manufacture nuclear bombs and drop them on Israel. The irony is that Israel -- not Iran -- possesses a nuclear arsenal," said Ms. Caveny.


Greens noted that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who also spoke before AIPAC last week, seeks US support in preparing for an assault on Iran. Mr. Olmert called not only for sanctions but for "more drastic and robust measures" against Iran.


Green leaders, preparing for the party's National Convention in Chicago July 10-13 (http://www.greenparty2008.org), are urging antiwar voters to vote Green on Election Day 2008 in light of Sen. Obama's positions on Iran and Israel and his vague and contradictory promise to end the Iraq occupation while keeping US military personnel and contractors in Iraq and surrounding nations. Jesse Johnson, Cynthia McKinney, Kent Mesplay, and Kat Swift are seeking the Green Party's presidential nomination.


"The deceptions now being used to justify an attack on Iran recall the fraudulent claims of WMDs and a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy that got us into the current war. The rest of the world -- especially Middle Eastern nations -- understands that the real goals are US domination in the region, control over the Middle East oil spigot, and aid for Israel's strategic military objectives," said Rodger Jennings, Green candidate for US Congress in Illinois' 12th District (http://www.rodgerjennings.org).


"Americans should be concerned that, despite his emphasis on diplomacy, Barack Obama's Iran posture shows that he might be as ready as George W. Bush to initiate World War III. We cannot leave the future of the world to two powerful US political parties, both of which endorse military aggression in the name of preemption," added Mr. Jennings.


Greens said that even if the current threats from President Bush, Sen. Obama, and Republican presidential candidate John McCain are just hawkish bluster to convince Iran to abandon uranium enrichment, the effect will be encouragement for Iran and other countries in the region to gain nuclear weapons as a deterrence against an attack by the US or Israel.


"The only resolution to growing Middle and Near East tensions is multilateral nuclear disarmament, combined with a complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and pressure on Israel to observe human rights and UN directives to end the occupation of Palestinian territories," said Jason Wallace, Green candidate for Illinois (11th District) (http://www.electwallace.us). "Unfortunately, Barack Obama's speech before AIPAC signals that his administration would make no such demands on Israel, and he has shown disregard for international law and for UN Security Council resolutions stating that the acquisition of territory by force is illegitimate."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Obama has embraced in attacking our allies while kissing Iran, all the time Iran is increasing its economic might as well as its access to nuclear tech.





A re-evaluation of this Administrations policy "Barack Obamas" must be reviewed.


This Administrations expectations ARE UNREALISTIC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sanctions that this administration wants to impose on Iran wont work.





TEHRAN, March 19 (UPI) -- As Iran braces for another broadside of economic sanctions over its nuclear program, Tehran moves closer to opening up a new lifeline -- a natural gas pipeline to Pakistan and possibly India and China as well.


If everything goes as planned, this much-delayed, controversial project could wreck U.S. efforts to check Iran's expansionist ambitions.


U.S. energy analyst Gal Luft said the pipeline could also "have profound implications for the geopolitics of energy in the 21st century and for the future of South Asia."


Iran and Pakistan signed an agreement for the construction of the 560-mile, $7.5 billion pipeline from the huge offshore South Pars gas field in the Gulf through Pakistan's unruly Balochistan province to Sindh province.


The project is crucial for Pakistan's growing energy requirements. Iran will supply 750 million-1 billion cubic feet of gas per day by mid-2015.


The project was first mooted in 1994. It was intended to carry gas through Pakistan to India in a 1,724-mile pipeline. But India, under intense pressure from the United States, withdrew in 2009, citing disputes over prices and transit fees. There was also deep misgivings in New Delhi about dealing with its longtime foe Pakistan.


India has invested instead in nuclear power to meet its ever-rising demand for energy in its burgeoning economy. It signed a landmark deal with the United States in 2008 for nuclear equipment.


There has been no official explanation about why the Americans would allow Pakistan to go ahead and sign a pipeline agreement with Iran at a time when Washington is striving to isolate the Islamic Republic and paralyze its economy.


But the Americans cannot afford to antagonize Pakistan at a time when Washington needs Islamabad's support to fight al-Qaida and the Taliban. Pakistan is already suffering serious energy shortages with an electricity shortfall of 3,000 megawatts. These cause politically troublesome long and frequent blackouts.


The United States had been pressing for a pipeline to South Asia from gas-rich Turkmenistan in Central Asia via Afghanistan that would bypass Iran. But the security situation in Afghanistan made such a project unlikely.


India hasn't closed all doors to the project and may still rejoin. It is expected to require 146 billion cubic meters of gas per year by 2025 and its options are limited.


China, ever hungry for energy to fuel its mushrooming economy, has indicated that it might sign on and run an extension of the pipeline from Pakistan.


It may provide financial assistance to Islamabad for the project, which would provide an overland energy corridor less vulnerable to interference by the United States -- or others -- than the long tanker route from the Gulf across the Indian Ocean to the Pacific.


China is the main obstacle preventing the United States mustering the U.N. Security Council behind new sanctions on Iran. Sanctions would cut 10-12 percent of China's oil imports and jeopardize oil contracts worth hundreds of billions of dollars.


Iran desperately needs this project. Its potential in the energy sector is enormous. It has the second largest gas reserves in the world after Russia, roughly 15 percent of the world's gas supply.


But U.S.-led sanctions have prevented it from exploiting this through high-volume exports. The pipeline to Pakistan, and possibly the massive markets in India and China as well, could change all that and immunize Tehran from U.S. pressure.


The geopolitical implications of the Iran-Pakistan pipeline going through are immense. If the Americans relent, they may secure concessions from Iran and would certainly win influence in Pakistan by helping it out of a worsening energy crisis.


"By connecting itself with the world's second largest gas reserves, Pakistan would guarantee reliable supply for decades to come," says Luft, director of Washington's Institute for Analysis of Global Security, which focuses on energy security.


"If the pipeline were to be extended to India it could also be an instrument of stability in often tense Pakistan-India relations as well as a source of revenue for Islamabad through transit fees." One estimate puts that at around $600 million a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, all the signals that this administration has been sending out have been against Israel.


Israel can't count on the United States to even passively support a strike.



Plus with the geo-economic strategy of Iran; Economic sanctions simply will not work.


The United States can't be against Pakistan over the gas pipeline because that hurts our efforts in Afghanistan.




Isreal is going to take care of business soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...