Obama stokes War Drums for Iran

[Michael]

For anyone who thinks US foreign policy might change under the new Administration, here's a 'reality-check'.

Iran must be kept from developing nukes: Obama

CHICAGO (Reuters) - An international effort must be made to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, U.S. President-elect Barack Obama said on Friday.

"Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe is unacceptable," he said at a news conference in Chicago. "Iran's support of terrorist organizations, I think is something that has to cease," he said.

Obama said he would be reviewing a letter from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, congratulating him on his election, and would "respond appropriately." But he said the U.S. approach to Iran could not be done in a "knee-jerk" fashion. "I think we've got to think it through," he said.

Reuters (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-36393720081108)

Queue up the "bomb-bomb-bomb Iran" chorus... :rolleyes:

This is a very ugly way to initiate the new Administration - just like the old Administration.

US warmongering over Iran is the real issue here. In my opinion, the US poses a far greater threat to world peace than Iran does.

And for those who are curious, here's a link to the latest US NIE that asserts that Iran doesn't actually have a nuclear weapons program.

NIE on Iranian Nukes (http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf)

We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons
program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop
nuclear weapons.
• We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently
have a nuclear weapon.
• Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined
to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment
that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure
suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged
previously.

As always, it is US domestic politics that seems to drive US foreign policy - facts be damned.

[Americano]

On the other hand, 'Obama denies Poland missile vow':

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7717669.stm

"US President-elect Barack Obama has not given a commitment to go ahead with plans to build part of a US missile defence system in Poland, an aide says."

That missile shield to supposedly protect Poland/Europe from Iranian missiles is such BS and a prime example of neocon aggression that if Obama does approve it then he's no different than misguided current US administration.

[Michael]

On the other hand, 'Obama denies Poland missile vow':

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7717669.stm

"US President-elect Barack Obama has not given a commitment to go ahead with plans to build part of a US missile defence system in Poland, an aide says."

That missile shield to supposedly protect Poland/Europe from Iranian missiles is such BS and a prime example of neocon aggression that if Obama does approve it then he's no different than misguided current US administration.




Nothing in the world would make a better statement about a 'benign' US foreign policy than the killing of this insane 'anti-missile-missile system'.

Even though it doesn't work and is mostly just 'welfare' for the MIC, the theoretical application of this program is massively destabilizing of the MAD principle. This program can and likely will encourage a missile arms race.

Seeking to violate MAD is the act of a militarily aggressive nation.

[Americano]

Nothing in the world would make a better statement about a 'benign' US foreign policy than the killing of this insane 'anti-missile-missile system'.

Even though it doesn't work and is mostly just 'welfare' for the MIC, the theoretical application of this program is massively destabilizing of the MAD principle. This program can and likely will encourage a missile arms race.

Which neither Russia, with disintegrating oil/gas prices, or the badly crippled US can afford. Tax revenues are already plummeting in most US states, including Alaska, who has a state budget break even point of $70/barrel oil.

Seeking to violate MAD is the act of a militarily aggressive nation.

If Obama doesn't have plans to shift a large portion of US military spending over to domestic programs he's already in failure mode.
I'd imagine Putin is already talking to Iran about the potential of stationing Russian missiles in Iran. Obama says no nukes for Iran and that's an easy way to get around it.

[Michael]

Which neither Russia, with disintegrating oil/gas prices, or the badly crippled US can afford. Tax revenues are already plummeting in most US states, including Alaska, who has a state budget break even point of $70/barrel oil.
I don't think it is reasonable to expect oil prices to stay at this level for long. The short, medium and longterm trend for oil is "up".

But yes, a temporary drop in oil revenues must put a limit upon Russian troublemaking for sure. I'd imagine Chavez feels that pinch even sharper.

If Obama doesn't have plans to shift a large portion of US military spending over to domestic programs he's already in failure mode.
I'd imagine Putin is already talking to Iran about the potential of stationing Russian missiles in Iran. Obama says no nukes for Iran and that's an easy way to get around it.
That would be very 'ballsy' and brilliant move on Putin's part. But I don't think its very likely. Putin is smooth and usually works his 'subversions' from the background - he's never jumped out in front of anything like that.

From my 'realpolitique' approach, that would be just brilliant and beautiful if he did something like that. That would actually improve overall regional security for everyone except the aggressive parties who lose latitude to do aggressive acts.

As for the US budget situation, for Obama to go after the MIC for budget-cutting it will be a major fight. It was never part of his 'election platform' and thus, no mandate or coalition is in place for moving that issue. Clinton had a mandate to cut defense spending (the so-called 'peace dividend') but it still hurt him politically when he did a very little bit of reductions.

[Americano]

I don't think it is reasonable to expect oil prices to stay at this level for long. The short, medium and longterm trend for oil is "up".

But yes, a temporary drop in oil revenues must put a limit upon Russian troublemaking for sure. I'd imagine Chavez feels that pinch even sharper.


That would be very 'ballsy' and brilliant move on Putin's part. But I don't think its very likely. Putin is smooth and usually works his 'subversions' from the background - he's never jumped out in front of anything like that.

From my 'realpolitique' approach, that would be just brilliant and beautiful if he did something like that. That would actually improve overall regional security for everyone except the aggressive parties who lose latitude to do aggressive acts.

As for the US budget situation, for Obama to go after the MIC for budget-cutting it will be a major fight. It was never part of his 'election platform' and thus, no mandate or coalition is in place for moving that issue. Clinton had a mandate to cut defense spending (the so-called 'peace dividend') but it still hurt him politically when he did a very little bit of reductions.

It'll take a smooth operator bypassing direct confrontation by going directly to the public. And before that avenue can be approached he'll have to have programs ready to go that would absorb that portion of reduced military spending and produce economic growth - jobs.

One of his major problems in even touching military expenditures is the blanket of fear current administration used to govern the US. They raised the word terrorist to a level of ingrained public siege mentality.

[Michael]

It'll take a smooth operator bypassing direct confrontation by going directly to the public. And before that avenue can be approached he'll have to have programs ready to go that would absorb that portion of reduced military spending and produce economic growth - jobs.
Well Obama does look like a smooth operator type, but this is serious business especially in recessionary times. The MIC is a huge part of the US economy. It is the primary system for public financing of private R&D in the US. It is essentially, large-scale 'industrial policy'. That's a lot of high-paying jobs. Definitely a tough issue for domestic political obstacles.

One of his major problems in even touching military expenditures is the blanket of fear current administration used to govern the US. They raised the word terrorist to a level of ingrained public siege mentality.
The MIC had to didn't they? Clinton cut the budget and they didn't like that and we got the 'neocon-backlash' because of Clinton's cuts.

[Americano]

Well Obama does look like a smooth operator type, but this is serious business especially in recessionary times. The MIC is a huge part of the US economy. It is the primary system for public financing of private R&D in the US. It is essentially, large-scale 'industrial policy'. That's a lot of high-paying jobs. Definitely a tough issue for domestic political obstacles.


The MIC had to didn't they? Clinton cut the budget and they didn't like that and we got the 'neocon-backlash' because of Clinton's cuts.

And now represent such a large portion of federal spending and GDP in a declining economy it has to be replaced, not eliminated. Military spending is concealed in other agency budgets to an extent that there probably aren't enough bean counters alive to unravel it in any reasonable period of time.