In an interview with The New York Times, a day before his scheduled departure for Moscow on Sunday, Mr. Obama said he had “grave concern” about the arrests and intimidation of Iran’s opposition leaders, but insisted, as he has throughout the Iranian crisis, that the repression would not close the door on negotiations with the Iranian government.
“We’ve got some fixed national security interests in Iran not developing nuclear weapons, in not exporting terrorism, and we have offered a pathway for Iran to rejoining the international community,” Mr. Obama said.
Mr. Biden echoed the same themes in an interview conducted in Iraq and broadcast Sunday on the ABC News program “This Week.” But in a rare foray into one of the most sensitive issues in the Middle East, the vice president argued that the United States “cannot dictate” Israel’s decisions about whether to strike the plants at the heart of Iran’s nuclear program. He said only Israelis could determine “that they’re existentially threatened” by the prospect that Iran would gain nuclear weapons capability.
The emphasis was different in a separate appearance by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, who warned that any military strike on Iran “could be very destabilizing.” Asked to choose between military action and permitting Iran to gain nuclear weapons capability, he said both would be “really, really bad outcomes.”
end of excerpt
Source: The New York Times
Do you feel the U.S. should still engage Iran?
-
- groups:
- News, Current Tonight, US Politics
-
- tags:
- News, US Politics, Iran, Current Tonight, 1 more + add
-
-
-
-
- current89
- added this
-
I like that Biden essentially said Iran's development of nuclear weapons is Israel's problem.
Ahmadinejad is a pariah and the US should not seriously engage him until Iran gets itself sorted.
-
"would not deter them from seeking to engage the country’s top leadership in direct negotiations."
Good! Closing our door to a country in a time of turmoil could only deepen the cavern between us.
-
If you ask me its simple. Look at history. Look at what Reagan did for Poland. Why can Obama not directly stand up against the tyrannical leadership of Iran's government for its people and democracy. Not direct combat or anything of that nature, but simple support for its suppressed peoples. It seems to me that Obama sides with the suppressers more than with the suppressed. Look at who he at first supported in the Honduras incident, Manuel Zelaya.
-
Because it won't work. The Polish people never really accepted their imposed soviet government and considered american poles their allies. the U.S. still had a positive rep internationally and amongst the polish people at the time.
That isn't even vaguely close to the situation in modern Iran. They actually have anti-U.S. museums over there and clerics shout "death to America" as a standard call and response in worship service. Blaming America of involvement even flimsily has been the dominant administration's most effective propaganda tool to date. They don't like Obama, they merely think it's possible he's not the insane monster that they think Bush was.
-
-
-
-
- bombastinator
- 5 months ago
-
-
Brit50 - I like your thinking. The reasons Obama won't stand up to MadJob are the same he extends his hands to Chavez, Castro, etc. It's because he is an impostor - an anti-American Kenyan born, muslim educated, illegally occupying the presidential chair traitor. His allegiance is to the Saudi king, as he had numerously displayed. He makes friends with our outspoken enemies, supports regimes that opress their own people, refuses to give any respect to the true historical friends and allies - in other words - we've got ourselves a real mole here. It's a matter of time before the shit catches up to him. The leftard Americans are still enamored with their messiah, while most others have already or are starting to realize what kind of shit they have gotten themselves into... This is going to be interesting and ugly...
-
How well do you really know your history? Who are the historical friends of the US? Obviously, supporting the overthrow of Chavez didn't work and tactics with Cuba haven't worked either so why not try a different strategy? Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
The U.S. has been supporting dictatorships for decades so I'm not sure what you mean about that and you never gave any examples.
The fact is you never fully trust a politician whose personal interests may be contradictory to the people they represent.
-
Here's a brief history on the US's role in other countries.
