Obama: Will use 'whatever means are necessary' to keep Iran from a nuclear bomb
Source: CNN
To counter nail-biting on Capitol Hill over the Iran nuclear deal, particularly nerves frayed over Israel's security, President Barack Obama delivered a message this week: All options are still on the table.
In a way, it was a repeat message. But this time, it was also a strategic blow to the chisel chipping at resistance against the deal within his own party.
The President directed it at Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York,in an open letter with Wednesday's date. But it addressed many questions on the minds of many legislators in one written piece. A day earlier, Obama also penned an editorial backing up his arguments and distributed it to news organizations.
<snip>
"As I have repeatedly emphasized, my Administration will take whatever means are necessary to achieve that goal, including military means," he wrote to Nadler.
This goes for "the life of the deal and beyond," the letter read. The President dedicated paragraphs to avowing the financial and strategic muscle his administration has put behind Israel's defense.
<snip>
Read more: http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/What-the-secret-agreement-between-Iran-and-the-UN-6456048.php
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)candelista
(1,986 posts)Anyone else you want to use "whatever means are necessary" on?
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)
candelista
(1,986 posts)I never did like Belgium much. 
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)When did this happen?
candelista
(1,986 posts)Which of our allies were they "threatening"?
Even in the First Iraq War (Gulf War), we sent 750,000 troops even though we had no defense treaty with Kuwait.
http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/Iraq3.pdf
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)was going to go after SA also.
And we do have a defense treaty with S. Korea, should we just ignore it and abandon our ally in the event of all out aggression by the Norks?
candelista
(1,986 posts)Not a war legally mandated by a defense treaty.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)there was great concern that Sadaam was going to cross the border into SA and attempt to take the oil fields also, I commanded a squadron of attack helos during the Gulf War and we were worried sick that his Army was going to invade before we were ready to take him on.
we should use whatever means necessary to defend S. Korea against N. Korean aggression.
We do have a mutual defense treaty with S. Korea and we will honor it.
candelista
(1,986 posts)Chemical warfare?
Some of these are war crimes.
Are you advocating war crimes?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Should we ignore it?
candelista
(1,986 posts)"Any means necessary" is a big tent that includes horrific criminal acts. I don't think you mean to endorse such things, do you?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)but it would not come to that, China would take them out because they don't want their largest Asian trading partner in ruins and the region thrown into instability due to that asshat in NK.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)and until China decides not to fund and support them, all is pissing in the wind.
The mark of a superpower is to have a client state that can insult everyone it wants to. We have Israel, Russia has Serbia, China has North Korea, and like any parent, they know the brats are making a mess, and they do not care.
PFunk1
(185 posts)If it doesn't already covertly.
Bottom line is IF Iran wants a nuke it can get/create one. The only thing the US can do with disastrous results is slow it down by a few years. Better to just get use to it happening and work to get them working along side, not against the US. Even if it means PO'ing Israel.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Those who are against it are a lost cause. Let Congress vote to disapprove and then he can veto it.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)having a nuclear weapon.....no other explanation makes sense if you look at all the evidence and the the fact World Jury verdict on the Iran deal is unanimous...except for one holdout gumming up the works.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)They want it to appear as though Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weaponry, so that they can keep up the nonsense that Iran is somehow a military threat to Israel, or, simply, to serve as an all-purpose bogeyman to justify all sorts of garbage that would be difficult to achieve in the absence of military bogeyman.
It is otherwise obscenely absurd that our government is committed to vigorous action to prevent one country from developing a nuclear weapon that it has never actually sought to develop on behalf of another country that has quite a lot of nuclear weapons, in part by stealing knowledge from us. Especially since the country that has the nuclear weapons is a 'rogue state' with respect the the world's main nuclear weapon safeguard mechanism, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the country without any nuclear weapons is a signatory and has demonstrated complete compliance with its terms.
That brings us very close to pure evil.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)We need to put that evil under a public microscope that it has long squirmed away from.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)If you and I had, oh, a couple of billion dollars to commit to a heavy-duty information campaign on our relationship with Israel and its absurdities, we might make a dent.
Otherwise the mass media (financed by the same interests that benefit from the sustenance of 'bogeymen'), will spin the story entirely to the advantage of those who tell it to.
The most impressive thing that the 'mass media' does is transform hard facts into things that 'some believe.' Once that message is bought into, facts become irrelevant...
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)Seriously. Nuclear power is (if done incorrectly) rather shockingly dangerous and VERY expensive. And Iran has no great native source of nuclear fuel, which makes it doubly expensive.
Iran is, however, sitting on the largest supply of natural gas in the world, with little ability to get it to market. (Gas generally has to be piped or liquified.) See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_reserves_in_Iran
And natural gas generation of electricity is exceptionally clean (for a fossil fuel), cheap, and safe.
There is no logical reason for Iran to have a "nuclear program" except to make a weapon.
What IS up for debate is whether this deal is a good deal to slow/halt acquisition of a weapon.
Reasonable minds can differ in this regard without being "evil"
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)I'm not Israeli.
But nice dog whistle to distract from the fact Iran has no reason to have a nuclear program, except to build a bomb.
This has actually been going on since 1974, when the Shah decided he wanted a a nuke to be a real player in the world arena.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)the world's judgment on the Iran peace deal.
Israel stands alone as a nation as back up for your "argument".
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)I don't see how Israel has anything to do with this, unless you argument is Iran should have nuclear weapons because Israel has nuclear weapons.
I guess Egypt, Turkey, Saudi, and UAE should now all go get nukes, too.
Pretty much what we wanted to avoid.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)You'll no doubt vigorously disagree, but that's to be expected - you obviously don't have a clue.
The statement that 'there is no logical reason for Iran to have a "nuclear program" except to make a weapon' is presumptuous and absurd. Have you ever developed and implemented energy policy for a country? A state? How about a county or city? Of course not.
Japan has 55 (well, probably right now 54) operating nuclear power plants. How many nuclear bombs does it have?
The United States has 103 operating nuclear power plants (by far, the most in the world). We already have enough highly enriched nuclear material to maintain at least 100,000 nuclear warheads for thousands of years. We also have tremendous 'clean, cheap and safe' (according to you) gas deposits. Why on earth are we operating all of those 'shockingly dangerous and VERY expensive' nuclear power plants?
How about South Korea, Canada, Germany, Ukraine, Sweden, Spain, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Taiwan, Slovakia, Switzerland, Finland, Hungary, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, South Africa, The Netherlands, Lithuania, Romania, Armenia, and Slovenia? Sorry if I left anyone out, but every single country I just listed has at least one active nuclear energy plant. (Most have several or lots - the total is at least 195 active electricity-generating nuclear power plants in countries without the bomb) Do you know how many of these are generating electricity in violation of international treaties? I'll tell you - 0. And, finally, one in Iran. The use of which is not in violation of any international treaties. Can you guess which country set up their nuclear energy infrastructure? It's not hard, if you actually want to know...
You know who doesn't have a single active nuclear energy plant? Israel. But they have the bomb. Quite a lot of the bomb.
Although nuclear energy generation is definitely very dangerous under various circumstances, and the thousands of years secure storage required for the waste material is highly problematic, vastly more deaths and injuries worldwide have occurred as a result of the procurement, delivery and use of 'safe' natural gas. That's because, well, the thing about 'natural gas', the thing that makes it useful as an energy source, is that it's highly flammable. It's actually a 'shockingly' dangerous fuel to use - all it takes is a small leak or a little bit of carelessness to result in a major fire or explosion. And these fires and explosions happen all of the time. It's really, really hard to design a long-term gas infrastructure that is immune to these problems.
Natural gas is NOT 'clean' from a global warming perspective. Its use doesn't cause as much carbon emissions as coal, but coal is extraordinarily dirty. Also, procurement of natural gas results in the release of a LOT of methane directly into the atmosphere. There is no 'clean' fossil fuel. They are all hydrocarbons and if we keep using them, we're toast. Quite possibly literally.
Finally, think about this: The United States was working with the Shah on a plan to build 23 nuclear energy plants during his reign (which was the result of a CIA coup, deposing a genuinely democratically elected government - they were getting a bit too friendly with the USSR). In 1974, the Shah said: "Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn," and "We envision producing, as soon as possible, 23,000 megawatts of electricity using nuclear plants." Here's an excerpt from the Ford Administration's 1976 'strategy paper' regarding assisting Iran to build a plant: "Introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."
Then the hated Shah was deposed. Now, the United States, purely at the behest of Israel and Saudi Arabia, says 'you can't have nuclear energy, because, although we know you're not building a nuclear bomb, we will say that you are.' Even though the infrastructure was established by us (and France). How, do you suppose, a sovereign nation might respond to that?
In all probability, the nuclear energy program in Iran is carried on because of our disapproval of it. And the fact that the infrastructure has been in place for many years, laid down by the US and France, mainly.
Finally, do you know that the Supreme Leader (and he really is) of Iran has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons? When the Supreme Leader of a strict theocracy issues a fatwa, it's basically death for anyone who acts in contravention of it. There is also a fatwa against chemical weapon development - Iran suffered terribly under the (provided by the 'West') chemical weapons of Saddam Hussein during the long war resulting from the Iraqi invasion.
Well, you can stick with your contorted logic, as I expect you will, because you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Have fun with that - be vocal enough about it and you might be able to land a job with the GOP or AIPAC.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)So various counties, without Iran's advantage of sitting on multiple massive NG fields, use nuclear power because in their circumstance nuclear power makes sense. So what.
Holland uses a lot of hydroelectric power. So does much of Canada. Dosen't mean Iran should be building dams all over the desert. You go with your strengths. And Iran's strengths are: (1) NG and (2) sunshine.
It's terribly weak in fissionable materials, being generally reliant on imports.
Ergo, Iran's only logical goal is (and has been since 1974, when the Shah said it publically) to build a bomb.
Now, your other questions: (1) Israel has a bomb, shouldn't Iran?; (2) who are we to pick on a sovereign nation, etc are all interesting and potentially valid points. I'm not here to quibble with them.
But to pretend Iran is doing something peaceful that makes no economic or strategic sense (except to make a bomb) is dishonest.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)So -
There is no such thing as a nuclear power plant. Only weapons research centers.
Japan once had a vast stockpile of nuclear weapons. There can be no other explanation for the 50+ facilities (built in cooperation with the United States) in which highly radioactive material was kept in a continuously fissile state for many years. Of course, their bombs simply vanished recently when a tsunami caused massive damage to one of their nuclear weapons research facilities, causing a lot of problems, so they shut them all down. And if you don't have a functioning nuclear weapons research facility, you can't have any nuclear weapons.
Israel has no nuclear bombs. It cannot have any nuclear research centers (e.g., what were once naively believed to be nuclear-powered plants generating electricity), so it can't have any nuclear bombs.
99% of electricity in the world is generated using solar, wind, and hydroelectric technologies. This is obvious because the cost of generating this electricity is lower in most places than generation by burning hydrocarbons. The transformation took place overnight, since all parties that were previously involved in development of electricity generation facilities immediately recognized the value of terminating those projects and implementing solar, wind and hydro instantly. No other considerations were involved, not the revenue from the thousands of facilities that had been generating and selling electricity for years and years, not investments already made in projects that were incomplete at the time, not the revenues of all of those companies that extracted and/or delivered all of the fossil fuels to their destinations, not the careers of hundreds of thousands of people who were employed by those companies.
Also, since all nations are engaged a free and open electricity marketplace, and since electricity can be transmitted very long distances with perfect efficiency, all of the places that could be used for the best generation of electricity by means of solar, wind, or hydroelectric technology, wherever they were in the world, were immediately placed into service for their best purpose. Places like northern Canada and northern Russia, where solar energy generation is impractical, wind energy won't work because of the extreme cold, and water is mainly in the form of ice all of the time, receive as much of a share of the global renewable energy system's production as does sub-Saharan Africa, from which 35% of the world's solar-generated electricity originates.
Since all decision makers at every level of leadership throughout the world became instantly infallible (meaning, of course, that egos, personal interest, greed, nationalism, mistrust among people of different ethnic groups, formerly routine border issues between neighboring countries, and the former madness of wars all either ceased to exist or played no further role in the affairs of the world, at any level) and every leader, everywhere, had access to precisely the same information about everything, all decisions were made perfectly. No leader, anywhere, decides to do something different than any other because of differing economic, cultural, historical, personal, geographic, religious, or ethnic perspectives. No one wants power over anyone else, and decisions are never driven by that extinct, archaic motive, and all people are sad when they learn that their forbears did so many terrible things to each other because of it.
The large country of Iran, whose former theocratic government, all members of whom resigned from their offices when they knew that there would never again be... it's hard to even imagine it... conflict over the supply of now-inconsequential so-called 'fossil fuels,' instantly dismantled the vestiges of the nuclear weapons research facilities (of course, once thought of, naively, as nuclear energy generators) which were established during the (now inconceivable) time of the 'Shah,' and built by American and French companies, with their governments' assistance. The former theocratic leaders could not understand why they would have wanted to complete these facilities and use them, as though the fact that they were largely built already when they came to... power (ugh) made it somewhat obvious that they should complete and use them. They realized with shame that it was just senseless to even continue to operate the one complete facility for one more day when it was discovered that there was lots of the particular fossil fuel known as 'natural gas' to extract just a couple of thousand meters below them. After all, at the time, they could have built and implemented the means to extract, store, transport and use the stuff instantaneously! How mad they were. But now, it was all better, and the new leaders of the small country Israel, having deposed the former mad regime, which did many horrible things in the process of forcibly accumulating land in order to satisfy its voracious appetite for more and more space for 'their' country, had perfectly amiable relations with all nations of the world, as did everyone else.
And, nowhere on the planet Earth are there people who reach conclusions other than those of the prophet MosheFeingold on any subject, because the prophet has been universally accepted to have been the very first person to possess perfect information about everything and to be unable to interpret that information in any other way than with perfect logic, in all things.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)Signifying nothing.
Seriously, you think mullahs of Iran, whose entire economy is based on fossil fuels, care about climate change? And that's why they are spinning centrifuges to enrich uranium to weapon levels?
And they are going run giant conduction lines from these massive nuke plants to their friends in . . . where exactly? Afghanistan? Gee, I wonder how much that would cost? And how ISIS, Kurds, Afghanistan would treat power lines? Probably about as well as they treat statues of Buddha.
LOL
I am assuming you are playing intentionally dense. If you are at all serious, there is a pretty good article on "Vox" I found about the topic and why Iran wants a bomb.
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/9002905/why-iran-nuclear-program
Not sure about the agenda of Vox, as I've never read it until your most recent post, but the article is sound.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)However, your Shakespeare quite is impressive. How many times have you used it to describe the views of those who differ from your own?
I seldom quote Shakespeare in writing, as I find his works are best experienced when spoken and heard.
However, I do not find the same to be true with Plato. (at least, stuff attributed to this guy named Plato)
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because they have to say something."
I've got nothing more to say.
bananas
(27,509 posts)MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)I don't know what "Vox" is. They seem to be a pretty down-the-middle/progressive mag, but I've only been reading them for a couple hours.
If I was more aware of agenda of the source, I'd have posted it as a stand-alone on the topic and not a reply.
Darb
(2,807 posts)it ain't up to you to decide whether or not Iran has any "reason" to have nuclear energy. Goddamn what an arrogant post. Who the fuck do you think you are?
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)The part I actually disagree with is "sale of gas."
To sell gas one needs pipelines to get where they want it or, alternatively, massive liquification facilities to put on tankers, and decent enough price for the gas to pay for the trillion dollars or so it would take to build such facilities.
For Iran to build pipelines (say, to India, the most likely customer) they would be among the longest pipelines in the world and pass through lots of territories where people would blow them up. And with oil at $39.94 today, the price is just not there. People just burn diesel.
But regarding "'it up to you to decide whether or not Iran has any "reason" to have nuclear energy. Goddamn what an arrogant post. Who the fuck do you think you are?" I tend to agree.
I am not attempting to decide whether Iran can have nuclear energy, nor is such my place. I'm just an old retired government lawyer whose best days were spent in France during WWII. I don't pretend to have authority to dictate to Iran, nor would I want it.
I can, however, discern their true agenda through basic economics and common sense, as can you, and that helps me be informed of world events.
Knowing Iran has no economic or strategic reason for nuclear power other than a bomb is important information. Whether we want someone to do something about it -- well, that's a horse of a different color.
++++
And, when, exactly did my fellow liberals get so rude and full of hate? We are the smart party. You all sound like right-wing rednecks with your profanity-laced posts. Have some decorum.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)The guy either lives to bask in the radiant waves of ignorance or he's a troll.
In either case, he's absolutely, unequivocally right about everything, and he works very hard to scrounge up evidence of it once he's decided what he's going to be right about at any given time. And he damn sure wants you to know it .
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)The only arrogance here is your post.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)If it was, this deal would be fully settled already. It's the Democrats who seem to place the interests of the hard-right government of Israel ahead of things such as how respected (or hated) we are throughout the world, the value of the lives of those who serve in the American armed services, and the vast expenses associated with attempting to 'guarantee' the safety of loose-cannon, formally racist state like Israel.
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)is the only answer to nuclear proliferation.
It is folly to imagine that an international system that consecrates some nations
as mature and worthy of possessing nukes, while others are consigned permanently
so a second class status, can persist. It cannot.
The only choice is proliferation or abolition.
Veterans For Peace
bananas
(27,509 posts)Obama promises to keep military options open in Iran nuclear deal
US would not rule out military option if Iran breaches deal, says president in letter to New York Democrat Jerrold Nadler, in bid to shore up Congress support
Friday 21 August 2015 00.56 EDT
President Barack Obama is promising Democratic lawmakers that the US will continue to keep economic pressure on Iran – and keep military options open – if a nuclear deal with Tehran goes ahead.
Obama, in a letter addressed to New York Democratic representative Jerrold Nadler, said that if Iran rushes to build a nuclear weapon, “all of the options available to the United States – including the military option – will remain available”.
In the letter, which has been seen by the Guardian and was first published by the New York Times, the president also says the US will uphold sanctions targeting Iran’s non-nuclear activities, such as its support for Lebanon’s Hezbollah group and what Obama calls Iran’s “destabilising role in Yemen”.
<snip>
Obama wrote the letter, dated 19 August, from Martha’s Vineyard, where he is in the midst of a two-week vacation. While the president has made no public appearances during his vacation, he has been privately reaching out to Democratic lawmakers in a bid to boost support for the Iran deal.
<snip>
harun
(11,348 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Will all the others still sitting on the fence between duty to their religion and duty to their elected Office and constituents make the progressive choice?
candelista
(1,986 posts)"Any means necessary."
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)It makes no sense at all. If Iran builds nuclear weapons, we can get international support to isolate them.
Iran presents no immediate danger to the United States even with nuclear weapons. Another idiotic war in the middle east is the last thing we need.
I can't believe Democrats have bought into the "at all costs" nonsense. The republicans would love another war, as would the MIC. Are there any sane people left?
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)commit an atrocity on American soil, spurred on by a handful of religious extremists living in Afghanistan? It makes no sense at all. The United States borders two countries, Canada and Mexico. Neither are the slightest military threat to us. This is not good for the business of war. It's a mega-multi-trillion dollar business. If your biggest customer has no obvious enemies, and you're in the business of war, you'd better work damn hard creating some or you'll be out of business.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
?w=490
Truprogressive85
(900 posts)does that include killing scientists ?
