Helena Cobban at Just World News comments on Obama’s recent speech where he declared:
“A nuclear Iran would be a game-changing situation not just in the Middle East but around the world.”
.. [H]e was left to defend a proposal he made a year ago to negotiate with Iran. He said he would “take no options off the table” to persuade that country’s leaders not to develop nuclear weapons.
“My whole goal,” he said, “in terms of having tough, serious direct diplomacy is not because I’m naïve about the nature of any of these regimes. I’m not. It is because if we show ourselves willing to talk and to offer carrots and sticks in order to deal with these pressing problems — and if Iran then rejects any overtures of that sort — it puts us in a stronger position to mobilize the international community to ratchet up pressure on Iran.”
As I’ve noted numerous times, the “taking no options off the table” (or, “leaving all the options on the table”) rhetoric is militaristic and escalatory.
Since Obama is not the US president, no position he expresses about options and tables has any operational force at all, anyway. So rather than engaging in empty chest-thumping,wouldn’t it be much better for him simply sto tate that Iran’s nuclear program is a cause for strong concern, and that he will seek– or even, “aggressively” seek– a resolution to the impasse with Iran that ensures that these concerns can be allayed and the important principles of the NPT upheld while avoiding any actions that would undermine the security of the US and its friends and allies around the world?
Irancove @ July 25, 2008