Obama Doesn't Bluff On Iran..Except to American CitizensSubmitted by McWilly on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 15:57
President Obama has been topping news reports repeatedly recently with his various statements regarding Iran, Israel and the possibility of Iran becoming a nuclear power. Most recently Obama met with Israeli PM, Benjamin Netanyahu, and in a widely quoted statement informed him that the U.S. "had Israel's back." This comes in the wake of Netanyahu claiming that Israel would “reserve the right to defend itself,” with the potential for a military strike against Iran's nuclear sites a strong possibility.
Obama also said in an interview with The Atlantic that, "as president of the United States, I don't bluff," regarding his support of Israel vs. Iran in this nuclear showdown. While President Obama may not bluff in his support of Israel, which has a massive and powerful lobby that he needs if he hopes to get reelected in November, he's been bluffing on Iran's status as a potential nuclear threat to the American people for years and it's time we called him on it.
For the past 8 years, dating back to 2004 and even earlier, every U.S. intelligence agency has agreed that Iran is not a threat to build a nuclear weapon. In a widely covered report, all of the 16 American intelligence groups concurred that while Iran may be enriching uranium, they had all but given up on its nuclear weapons program, which was halted in 2003. The agencies issued a report in 2007 with this assessment and again in 2010. And in a recent report, Iran's lack of modern technology has hampered even their basest efforts at enriching nuclear materials.
Despite this overwhelming evidence that Iran is simply a paper tiger, we are under a constant barrage of media coverage and hyperbole from all sides about "what is to be done about Iran." At current, Obama has said that "All options are on the table," in regards to U.S. action against Iran, basically saying that we'll be more than happy to invade, bomb and sanction them at the slightest provocation, despite their being years away from even testing a weapon if they pursued it. The ramped up and ongoing discussions, plus strong posturing by both the U.S. and Israel, seem to indicate that war could be on the near horizon, which would make sense for the Obama Administration, as he would then be seen as a "Wartime President."
Throughout our country's history, being in office during wartime has assured reelection. The irony of Obama's case is that he was partly elected the first time based on hollow promises to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, when he has only expanded the efforts in those countries in addition to waging campaigns in other nations. It would only make sense for him to take the U.S. into war against Iran - the big nuclear threat - to bolster his polling position and carry him through to a second term. Even staunch anti-war proponents on both sides have been fooled into believing that Iran must be stopped at all costs from having a bomb, thus making Iran an easily sold engagement.