Since 2009 Barack Obama has said that an Iranian nuclear weapon is “unacceptable”, that negotiations are not “open ended” and that we are in “lock step” with Israel.
Since 2009 Iran has been moving closer to having a nuclear weapon, negotiations have been very open ended and we have sent very mixed messages to Israel – including one directly from the VP in which he stated that even if Iran had the fissile material they “have nothing to put it in”. Another leading from behind moment – completely forgetting that in the missile market there are a number of likely suitors and shipping containers are readily available on the open market.
During the VP debates the moderator came to the ultimate conclusion that the Republican strategy under Romney/Ryan was either a nuclear Iran or “War”.
Initial question – MS. RADDATZ: “Last week former Defense Secretary Bob Gates said a strike on Iran’s facilities would not work and, quote, could prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations.” and later in the same line of questioning, to Mr. Ryan (only): “Can you tell the American people what’s worse” – ” another war in the Middle East or” – “…let me ask you what’s worse: war in the Middle East, another war in the Middle East, or a nuclear-armed Iran?”
Should this not be the essential question posed to both the sitting Vice President and President of these United States?
What would their responses be?
If they are not willing to consider direct or indirect military intervention (or support of intervention) their 3 pillars are shown to be false.
- While “unacceptable” Iran having nuclear weapons is “more acceptable” than the possibility of War in the middle east.
It would also appear to be “more acceptable” than the existential threat to our National security.
- Negotiations are indeed open ended until the question is closed by Iran, once it has nuclear capabilities.
- Israel views Iranian nuclear weapons as an existential threat and an actionable event.
Our passivity is the clearest indication of our lack of being in step with Israel.
If one of the options not on the table is direct or indirect military action with Iran it should clearly be stated by this Administration if for no other reason to be ‘transparent’ as well as to abstain from the direct brinksmanship and ‘meddling’ that this Administration has avoided in the past – consistency and clarity of Policy (one could call it “principle”) being ever so important.
If both sides are “the same” with regards to Iran?
Then the Economy and American freedom and liberty again become elevated at which time the clear and stark differences between these two candidates become even more illuminated.
The American people should know and understand these important facts prior to the November 6th election.
While the ‘moderators’ were interested in asking, but never achieving that level of clarity the People should know.
They should have this information in order to decide for themselves whether there is “no” discernible difference between the candidates and the or there is a clear and decisive one – and how that shapes their decision in November.
The current Administration wants to have it both ways – tough talk (marketing, publicity) with no action (passive/aggressive, leading from behind).
Their track record – let History come to them at it’s pace, of it’s own initiative.
What History has show of this Administration is that they are unwilling to act.
This is the greatest commentary and proof on what will ultimately come to pass with regards to Iran under Obama.
Nothing could highlight the differences more clearly between challenger and incumbent – a history of passivity and platitude versus one of leadership and problem solving.