John McCain Responds to Obama’s Iran Foolishness
May 20th, 2008 at 09:11am Mark Noonan
Loud and clear, as usual:
Before I begin my prepared remarks, I want to respond briefly to a comment Senator Obama made yesterday about the threat posed to the United States by the Government of Iran. Senator Obama claimed that the threat Iran poses to our security is ‘tiny’ compared to the threat once posed by the former Soviet Union. Obviously, Iran isn’t a superpower and doesn’t possess the military power the Soviet Union had. But that does not mean that the threat posed by Iran is insignificant. On the contrary, right now Iran provides some of the deadliest explosive devices used in Iraq to kill our soldiers. They are the chief sponsor of Shia extremists in Iraq, and terrorist organizations in the Middle East. And their President, who has called Israel a ’stinking corpse,’ has repeatedly made clear his government’s commitment to Israel’s destruction. Most worrying, Iran is intent on acquiring nuclear weapons. The biggest national security challenge the United States cur rently faces is keeping nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists. Should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, that danger would become very dire, indeed. They might not be a superpower, but the threat the Government of Iran poses is anything but ‘tiny’.
Senator Obama has declared, and repeatedly reaffirmed his intention to meet the President of Iran without any preconditions, likening it to meetings between former American Presidents and the leaders of the Soviet Union. Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment. Those are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess. An ill conceived meeting between the President of the United States and the President of Iran, and the massive world media coverage it would attract, would increase the prestige of an implacable foe of the United States, and reinforce his confidence that Iran’s dedication to acquiring nuclear weapons, supporting terrorists and destroying the State of Israel had succeeded in winning concessions from the most powerful nation on earth. And he is unlikely to abandon the dangerous ambitions that will have given him a prominent role on the world stage.
This is not to suggest that the United States should not communicate with Iran our concerns about their behavior. Those communications have already occurred at an appropriate level, which the Iranians recently suspended. But a summit meeting with the President of the United States, which is what Senator Obama proposes, is the most prestigious card we have to play in international diplomacy. It is not a card to be played lightly. Summit meetings must be much more than personal get-acquainted sessions. They must be designed to advance American interests. An unconditional summit meeting with the next American president would confer both international legitimacy on the Iranian president and could strengthen him domestically when he is unpopular among the Iranian people. It is likely such a meeting would not only fail to persuade him to abandon Iran’s nuclear ambitions; its support of terrorists and commitment to Israel’s extinction, it could very well convince him that those policies are succeeding in strengthening his hold on power, and embolden him to continue his very dangerous behavior. The next President ought to understand such basic realities of international relations.
Obama by his statement of willingness to meet with Iranian leaders without pre-conditions immediately disqualified himself in the minds of all thinking Americans from the Presidency of the United States. Never has a major Presidential candidate made such an obtuse statement - a statement so at odds with facts, logic and the way affairs between States are governed that one questions whether Obama has ever entertained a serious thought about foreign affairs. Obama, installed in the White House, would be a mere tool in the hands of whatever liberal extremists wind up in charge of foreign policy - unable to tell when he’s being conned in foreign affairs, Obama would fall into trap after trap, to the detriment of American prestige, and to the risk of the peace and liberty of the world.
The sort of policy idiocy we can expect from an Obama Administration is best illustrated by a preposterous opinion piece I read in the local paper today (unable to find a link), which figures its ok for Iran to have nukes, because the US could promise Israel to exterminate Iran if Iran ever exterminated Israel…as if the death of tens of millions is something a civilized person really contemplates; as if the Israelis will be happy, once dead, as long as they know that tens of millions of innocent Iranians are murdered, too; as if Iran’s leaders are like Russia’s leaders, possessed of a desire to lay wrapped in wealth and power, rather than a messianic desire to remake the Caliphate and usher in the end of the world…
We must have people in power who understand that some of the differences in the world aren’t the result of misunderstandings or hurt feelings - some times the differences stem from the fact that the two sides are antagonistic to each other and can’t get along while one side remains as it is. Iran’s government is cruel, inhuman and evil - it has no redeeming qualities, and there is no evidence that there are enough “moderates” in it to prevent the radicals from doing whatever they please. We can, perhaps, work out some livable arrangement between ourselves and the government of Iran - but not at the cost of an Iranian nulcear force, not at the risk of another Holocaust and not while Iran and its agents are killing Americans in Iraq. Period. End of story.
McCain understands this. Obama doesn’t. And that, really, is all we need to know for November.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Republicans, War on Terror
51 Comments
1. OhioOrrin | May 20th, 2008 at 9:52 am
If Iranians fire a missle at an oil tanker, the price of crude would skyrocket even if it misses or the (dummy?) warhead doesn’t explode.
Lloyds would significantly increase, or cancel altogether, tanker insurance.
better than a nuke considering how ez & the increase in the resulting Iranian oil profits.
2. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 20th, 2008 at 10:01 am
1. OhioOrrin | May 20th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Such an incident I am told would cause a need to CLOSE the NYMEX and SUSPEND trading for the day ebcause the shock to the DOW would be virtually nuclear. An actual sinking using a Sunburn missile could send the commodity up over 50 dollars per barrel in a single session. Such a hit today to the futures market when profits are being maximized via demand pressure placed by OPEC could have the price of Light Sweet Crude topping 180 dollars a barrel. That is over 4,25/gallon for raw crude, easily 4,50 for raw petrol per gallon and well over 5 dollars a gallon at the pump national average. This would push diesel past 6,50 per gallon making it nearly impossible for trucking companies to maintain their margins. No trucks no food. No food, no America. That breaks the US economy far quicker than any nuclear capability the IR of Iran has.
3. neocon | May 20th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Cav,
I remember when you and other liberals were delighting in Al Sadrs victory over the ISF a month or so ago. The following is another example of his decisive victory:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080520/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
Care to respond?
4. Rich | May 20th, 2008 at 10:24 am
The libs were also gloating over the increased U.S. casualties during the heavy fighting. This months casualties are now trending to be the lightest of the year. Knock on wood but thigs are looking pretty good right now. Basra and Sadr city calming down, a major action in Mosul. Lest hope they can keep the momentum moving. The sooner we win this thing the better.
5. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 20th, 2008 at 10:30 am
3. neocon | May 20th, 2008 at 10:06 am
I hardly recall delighting over the victory of Moqtada al Sadr, but sure I am delighted to respond to any serious desire to engage in political discourse.
This is a very positive development because it add strength to the 11 may agreement between the Medhi Army and the al Maliki government. I would, since the deployment is in its infancy reserve judgement on its success or failure for at least one week. If the iraqis are goaded into trying to “destroy” the Medhi as a political power by force they will find themselves in another situation akin to Fallujah.
If this can hold and a sense of normalcy can be brought back to Sadr City this will be one more thing that can be pointed to that will allow the American forces to leave Iraqi soil.
6. Horse Trader | May 20th, 2008 at 10:33 am
If McCain believes this what he says he should denounce President Bush for sending Senator Biden to negotiate an end to Libya’s nuclear research? Libya a rogue state held responsible for the deaths of many U.S citizens. Again McCain is such a flip flopper in what he believes he is more or less becoming a joke.
This is Obama’s actual statement.
“Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet, we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, ‘We’re going to wipe you off the planet.’ ”
Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and Reagan were all willing to have a dialogue with a country, the Soviet Union, where their dictator pounded his shoe on the podium of the UN to denounce the U.S and point nuclear warheads at major cities.
But today’s Cons with their cowboy diplomacy are not willing to have a dialogue with Iran, a country that currently does not posses any known nuclear warheads.
7. neocon | May 20th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Cav,
So you see this as just one more opportunity for our troops to leave?
Why aren’t you happy for the decent, peaceful Iraqis who are fighting for peace and liberty? Why aren’t you proud of their efforts and even more encouraged to help them?
I thought you embraced human rights? I thought you cared about our global neighbors?
8. neocon | May 20th, 2008 at 10:39 am
“This is Obama’s actual statement.
“Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us….” - Horse Trader
And then in Montana, Obama said:
“Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel’s existence. It denies the Holocaust,” he said.
Care to respond Horse Trader?
And incidentally, the US has had on-going low level dialogue with the Iranians all along.
Just FYI.
9. Horse Trader | May 20th, 2008 at 10:40 am
4. Rich | May 20th, 2008 at 10:24 am
The libs were also gloating over the increased U.S. casualties during the heavy fighting
I will probably be deleted, but you are sick!
10. Horse Trader | May 20th, 2008 at 10:46 am
8. neocon | May 20th, 2008 at 10:39 am
“This is Obama’s actual statement.
“Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us….” - Horse Trader
I give you the actual quote and with your swift-boat mentality you again cut and paste pieces. Let me once again finish it for you.
…the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet, we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, ‘We’re going to wipe you off the planet.’ ”
11. neocon | May 20th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Horse boy,
Obama specifically said:
“They don’t pose a serious threat to us”
And then a day later he said:
“Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program”
I laughed my ass off at your “swift boat” reference.
Those were Obamas word, IN CONTEXT. And you must have missed the low level meetings the US has been conducting with Iran. But then again, you miss a lot of things.
12. neocon | May 20th, 2008 at 10:54 am
“They don’t pose a serious threat!” - Obama
And then ONE DAY later:
“Iran is a grave threat!” - Obama
Horse boy, spin that for me!
13. Pain | May 20th, 2008 at 10:54 am
7. neocon | May 20th, 2008 at 10:35 am
I would choose not to be hasty in pulling out the troops in Iraq, the American troops until their was a measure of stability. However, I would point out to the Iraqi government that American patience is not perpetual or infinite. Can you declare victory with 60 000 US troops still in Iraq? I do not think so. Can you declare victory with 20 000 in Kuwait? I think this is feasible and better yet rational.
From a Human Rights standpoint I think the rights of Iraqi people would be better served with no American presence there once stability is achieved by the Iraqis for themselves.
14. Pain | May 20th, 2008 at 10:56 am
7. neocon | May 20th, 2008 at 10:35 am
All quotes from Our boss many months ago . . .
15. neocon | May 20th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Pain,
What’s your point?
16. Horse Trader | May 20th, 2008 at 11:08 am
11. neocon | May 20th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Horse boy,
Obama specifically said:
“They don’t pose a serious threat to us”
Don’t know why I bother. I’ll type slowly. He did not say Iran was not a threat. He said the obvious that the current threat posed by Iran is not as serious as the treat we faced by the Soviet Union with their nuclear weapons pointed at US. Yet Reagan talked to the Soviet Union’s dictators. If you think a country with nuclear weapons is less of a threat than one that does not, there is no point in debating this issue.
17. Pain | May 20th, 2008 at 11:15 am
16. Horse Trader | May 20th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Just more proof Obama needs to bring back Samantha Power to the campaign.
18. yekepyt | May 20th, 2008 at 11:23 am
neocon apparently does not know what “in context” means. In his post, he quotes Obama as having said, “They [Iran] don’t pose a serious threat to us” and then using ALL CAPS to make sure that we all understood that he presented the Senator’s quote IN CONTEXT.
However, what Obama actually said was, “they [Iran] don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. ”
Quoting only half of Obama’s sentence is the very DEFINITION of taking his quote OUT of context Not only did neocon take a single sentence out of the context of Obama’s entire paragraph, he even went so far as to chop off one half of that single sentence, thereby removing whatever shred of context remained, and utterly distorting the meaning of the senator’s words.
Further, in the original post, the author makes quite a leap: he suggests that by acknowledging the pro’s and con’s of a Mutually Assured Destruction strategy in the context of a nuclear standoff, we can conclude that strategists are uncivilized, because “the death of tens of millions is something a civilized person really contemplates.”
News flash: this exact scenario was contemplated by MANY civilized people, including Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Carter, and Kennedy.
In the real world, Mutually Assured Destruction is a strategy that MUST be considered (among others) as enemies develop nuclear arsenals. In fact, MAD is the only strategy that has ever been proven successful in a serious nuclear showdown.
To insist that it not even be “contemplated” by “civilized persons” shows both an ignorance of history and a pathetic level of naiveté.
19. neocon | May 20th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I love the smell of liberal spin in the morning.
I need to call Obama and find out how much I can eat today and what my thermostat should be set at. Anybody got his cell #?
20. Percy Beezer | May 20th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Wasn’t Reagan in his fourth year before he met with Gorby after a series of lower level meetings and agreements, like preconditions? Didn’t Khrushchev decide that Kennedy was weak precipitating an escalation of the cold war and predicating the Cuban Missile crises? Wasn’t Carter surprised by Soviet aggression and met with the Soviets after a series of lower level meetings and agreements, like Cyrus Vance negotiating the SALT treaty; ie preconditions?
Didn’t Obama learn anything from history?
21. neocon | May 20th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
“Didn’t Obama learn anything from history?” - Percy
um…………not actual history. They only learn from their revised versions, as currently taught in the corridors of higher education.
22. InDaVa | May 20th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
As early as 2 weeks ago, Condi Rice and Gates said we should sit down and talk with Iran.
23. neocon | May 20th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
And yet we have had on going low level conversations for some time now. With great results I might add.
Just a question for liberals. Why would you think that these regimes who sponsor terrorism, oppress their people (specifically the women), and steal the countries treasure for themselves, would be truthful and transparent in their negotiations?
Do you think they might lie to you? ie: Half-bright and NK.
24. Percy Beezer | May 20th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
And Condi and Gates are Presidents? Wow, musta missed that election.
They’re not the President? Then that must mean preconditions to a presidental meeting! Not what Obama is suggesting;
Obama is running on CHANGE (his mind … whatever)!
25. revsaln | May 20th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Neo-Cons want to see freedom spread; Mao-Coms want to see freedom curtailed.
McCain represents the former, Obama the latter:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2018148/posts
*
26. InDaVa | May 20th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
An Obama was correct in saying that compared to the USSR, the threat from Iran is tiny.
27. OhioOrrin | May 20th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Condi 4 VP
double trump!
28. InDaVa | May 20th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
“And Condi and Gates are Presidents?”
No but they represent the current administration do they not? There will be preconditions if Obama met with the wackos in Iran, don’t be so obtuse.
Our military would crush them if it came down to it.
29. Percy Beezer | May 20th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
From Obama’s website 5-20-08. Was he lying then or is he lying now?
30. Danish Artist | May 20th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
“…would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues…”
offer economic inducements?
not seek regime change?
in exchange for cooperation on terrorism and nuclear issues and cease meddling in Iraq?
We are going to pay Iran protection monies and leave them alone…….Can anyone say appeasement?
31. Danish Artist | May 20th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
“There will be preconditions if Obama met with the wackos in Iran, don’t be so obtuse.”
Indava, stop lying. Obama himself said he would meet Iran without preconditions.
Apparently, you did not get the talking points memo.
32. InDaVa | May 20th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I stand corrected….
33. InDaVa | May 20th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
From Obama’s Site….
“Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.”
34. Richard of Oregon | May 20th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
It seems awfully easy to get Barak on defense. All you have to do is question one of his statements. He apparently isn’t used to that. He then tells us that he was “misunderstod”, or he was “misquoted” or the person was using “sound bites”. He then goes on to attack the person saying these horrible things. He ends up sounding more like a whinner than a world leader. The only situation where I see him looking eloquant and in charge is where he is center stage and the teleprompter is working. He would have been a much more awesome candidate in four or eight years.
35. Pajamas Media » Cli&hellip | May 20th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
[…] McCain Responds to Obama’s Iran ‘Foolishness’ (Blogs for Victo(R)y) […]
36. phnx | May 20th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
“Can you declare victory with 60 000 US troops still in Iraq? I do not think so.” Pain
By your measure the 68,000 troops in Germany, over 60 years after cessation of hostilities in Europe, would indicate we are still in a state of war there today.
37. Pain | May 20th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
36. phnx | May 20th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Different circumstances. In the FRG post 1949 you were in a nation that was being rebuilt after an enemy was utterly destroyed and fearful of the new enemy on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
In Iraq the enemy is hidden, nearly invisible and not defeated and chooses when it fights and when it does not. The forces in Germany rebuilt and then defended against another war in Europe. The troops in Iraq were said to only be there “until the iraqis can stand up” and they are doing so.
38. FmrMarine | May 20th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
in da;
>>>the threat from Iran is tiny.<<<
Maybe to the US mainland it is.
Consider this, the state its self is as a man with a sack of C4 tied to its back. The state of Isreal is the wedding party to which this man plans to attend.
A threat to those at the party….YOU BET.
Now both of these countries have nukes, one vows to use them as soon as possible, the other would respond with a terrible nuclear reprisal.
Would a nuclear exchange between an islamic country and Isreal light the whold world ablaze…YOU BET = VERY VERY DANGEROUS!
39. Freedom1 | May 20th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
And the radiation clouds from the nuclear explosions might sweep over Europe. Of course, the radiation clouds would be nothing compared to the devastation of the detonation of a nuclear weapon inside Europe, smuggled in by a Hizbollah, Al-Qaeda, or some other Islamic terrorist given to the terrorist by a nuclear Iran.
40. Tom Thumb | May 20th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
McCain is a liar. Everything he has said has already been proven untrue.
1. Ahmadinejad never expressed a desire to wipe Israel off the map.
What did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi:
“Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.”
The full quote translated directly to English:
“The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”.
Word by word translation:
Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).
Ahmadiejad used the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad.
2. The National Intelligence Estimate, a report created by 16 US intelligence agencies clear states Iran gave up its nuclear ambitions five years ago.
“We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program,” reads a declassified version of the National Intelligence Estimate key findings.
“We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a weapon is late 2009.”
3. There is absolutely no proof that Iran or al-Quds is helping the resistance movement in Iraq.
US military officials in Baghdad said that al-Quds Force, an Iranian para-military organisation, was sending arms into Iraq. Weapons that they said were “coming from the highest level of the Iranian Government” included bombs that shot molten metal jets through the armour of American tanks, which had been responsible for killing 170 US troops and wounding more than 600. Last night a new Iraqi security crackdown was announced, which included closing the border with Iran. General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he did not know if Iranian-made material used to assemble roadside bombs in Iraq had been supplied on Tehran’s orders.
“That does not translate that the Iranian Government, for sure, is directly involved in doing this,” he said on a visit to Jakarta, the Indonesian capital. “What it does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers.”
Do you want to put another liar in the White House?
41. Freedom1 | May 20th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Tom Thumb is a liar. Barack HUSSEIN Obama is also a world-class liar.
1) Tom Thumb: “McCain is a liar. Everything he has said has already been proven untrue. 1. Ahmadinejad never expressed a desire to wipe Israel off the map.”
False. Yes, he has repeatedly. Reuters Editor: Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be “wiped off the map”
Other statements by Ahmadinejad on Israel:
2) Ahmadinejad: Israel is a ‘Filthy Bacteria’ - Jerusalem Post (Feb 20, 2008)
3) “Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihiliation,” Ahmadinejad said. “The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm,” he said. - Jerusalem Post (Apr 14, 2006)
4) Ahmadinejad, “The Zionists are the true manifestation of Satan.” - Haaretz.com (Mar 1, 2007)
5) Ahmadinejad, “Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out.” - Reuters (Dec 12, 2006)
6) Ahmadinejad, “The real cure for the conflict is elimination of the Zionist regime…” - AFP (Aug 3, 2006)
______________________________________
2) Tom Thumb: “The National Intelligence Estimate, a report created by 16 US intelligence agencies clear states Iran gave up its nuclear ambitions five years ago.”
In Montana, Obama said:
Is Obama lying?
3) Tom Thumb: “There is absolutely no proof that Iran or al-Quds is helping the resistance movement in Iraq.”
This statement is just stupid beyond words. See Obama’s quote in #2.
42. neocon | May 20th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
“1. Ahmadinejad never expressed a desire to wipe Israel off the map.” - Tom Thumb
Illicit Nuke Program - $3 Billion
Delivery Systems - $1 Billion
Liberal Ignorance - Priceless
43. phnx | May 20th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
“Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. ” B.Hussein Obama onhis ‘tough’ personal diplomacy.
So what does he plan to do embargo them…that’s been in effect since the Clinton Administration. No he’s gonna put Iran on double secret probation…that’ll show them.
44. Tractatus | May 20th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
So…do you guys believe that Ahmadinejad calls the shots in Iran?
45. ViralNexus | May 20th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Deleted - off topic.
46. bagni | May 21st, 2008 at 12:26 am
marknejad
neptunian nukes aside
ollie north talked to the iranians…alot
how come obama can’t?
again….we’re blackhole bewildered……
47. Freedom1 | May 21st, 2008 at 2:36 am
Tractatus, “So…do you guys believe that Ahmadinejad calls the shots in Iran?”
So…do you believe Ahmadinejad would be President of Iran if the Iranian mullahs didn’t want him to be?
48. Freedom1 | May 21st, 2008 at 4:45 am
Iran’s Nuke Program Spurs Middle East Nuclear Arms Race - Jerusalem Post
Jerusalem Post: At least 13 Middle Eastern countries either announced new plans to explore atomic energy or revived pre-existing nuclear programs between February 2006 and January 2007, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, or IISS, said in a report.
While the flurry of interest in nuclear power is still tentative, the report said countries such as Saudi Arabia, Algeria or Egypt could soon feel the need to match Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
“If Teheran’s nuclear program is unchecked, there is reason for concern that it could in time prompt a regional cascade of proliferation among Iran’s neighbors,” it said.
…”Over time, Iran’s program could become a powerful proliferation driver, building on regional rivalry, security concerns and one-upmanship,” the report said.
______________________________________
If President Bush and/or Israel do not militarily wipe out Iran’s nuclear facilities, or if Barack HUSSEIN Obama gets elected President in 2008, the Middle East will soon be engulfed in an unimaginable nuclear fire. These Islamic theocratic hellholes can’t even properly handle sticks and stones. What they will do if they all (or almost all) get nuclear weapons programs will be absolutely devastating to the whole world. The prelude to Armageddon here we come.
49. test » Blog Archive&hellip | May 21st, 2008 at 1:26 pm
[…] Jeff wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptNever has a major Presidential candidate made such an obtuse statement - a statement so at odds with facts, logic and the way affairs between States are governed that one questions whether Obama has ever entertained a serious thought … Read the rest of this great post here […]
50. My new WordPress MU Site &hellip | May 21st, 2008 at 4:39 pm
[…] ecthompson wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptNever has a major Presidential candidate made such an obtuse statement - a statement so at odds with facts, logic and the way affairs between States are governed that one questions whether Obama has ever entertained a serious thought … […]
51. phnx | May 21st, 2008 at 5:23 pm
“So…do you guys believe that Ahmadinejad calls the shots in Iran?” tractus
No, the Mullahs pull the strings. So why is B.Hussein so eager to talk to the puppet???