President Barack Obama sat down for an interview with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman over the weekend and explained the "doctrine" underlying his decisions to thaw relations with countries like Iran and Cuba.
The "Obama doctrine," which focuses on engagement and diplomacy, came up in the interview when Friedman asked the president whether there was a "common denominator" to his decisions to "break free from longstanding United States policies isolating Burma, Cuba and now Iran."
Friedman writes:
Obama said his view was that 'engagement,' combined with meeting core strategic needs, could serve American interests vis-à-vis these three countries far better than endless sanctions and isolation. He added that America, with its overwhelming power, needs to have the self-confidence to take some calculated risks to open important new possibilities — like trying to forge a diplomatic deal with Iran that, while permitting it to keep some of its nuclear infrastructure, forestalls its ability to build a nuclear bomb for at least a decade, if not longer.
Obama insisted that these new policies of diplomacy don't put the US at risk.
He said: "The truth of the matter is: Iran’s defense budget is $30 billion. Our defense budget is closer to $600 billion. Iran understands that they cannot fight us. ... You asked about an Obama doctrine. The doctrine is: We will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities."
Obama does not believe that Iran is "undeterrable" and suggests that it won't hurt to try negotiating with the country.
"If in fact we can resolve these issues diplomatically, we are more likely to be safe, more likely to be secure, in a better position to protect our allies, and who knows? Iran may change," Obama said. "If it doesn’t, our deterrence capabilities, our military superiority stays in place. ... We’re not relinquishing our capacity to defend ourselves or our allies. In that situation, why wouldn’t we test it? "
More
2 comments:
I'll admit I haven't read or fully understand the Iran deal. But there are similarities reported over the weekend that reminded me of the Iraq deal in the 1990s, most notably that there will be UN Inspectors going into Iran to look at their nuclear facilities and uranium stockpiles.
You can just imagine how this will play out over the next ten years: The UN inspectors will eventually be prevented from actually doing an inspection. The UN will pass about 50 resolutions saying Iran is in violation of their agreements. Something will happen where a UN force, led by the US of course, will march into Iran, and the nuclear facilities and uranium will have vanished like a fart in the wind.
Kind of looks like a replay of Iraq and the WMDs.
Let's just pray this doesn't end with Iran launching a nuclear weapon at another country.
404, You are exactly right except for the last part.
As inspections are prevented and the "shell game" is played, the moment the 10 years is up, the missiles will be armed and launched.
Post a Comment