Will Israel Attack Iran in 2012?

[Parihaka]

Another example of deterrence at work and how Iran can be rational.

Wood for trees. A seemingly rational act within the context of an irrational strategy doesn't make the player rational.

[JAD_333]

Wood for trees. A seemingly rational act within the context of an irrational strategy doesn't make the player rational.

One wonders to what extent Iran's leaders have become mired in their own pride. Or, are they rationally playing out a strategy beginning from a false premise, which is sort of what you are suggesting.

What exactly could that premise be, if indeed their actions go beyond pride? National security is a leading premise among nations. Could it be that? If so, how does their national security benefit from toughing it out on the nuclear question?

A lot of people say Iran wants nukes to deter an attack against it. Attacks by whom? France, Britain, the US, India, China, Russia, Pakistan, Israel? All except perhaps Israel, could level Iran without much fear of a retaliatory attack on its homeland, at least given the current state of Iran's delivery vehicles. And a nuke retaliation against a conventional military attack makes no sense, since you would be bombing yourself.

So, what is in their minds, security or pride, or could it be something entirely different? The answer may lie in Iran's almost seeming willingness to invite a preemptive attack. Do they anticipate that a post-attack ME would be more hostile to the US to the point that the US might be forced to shrink its presence in the region?

Getting into the mindset of the Iranian leadership is a challenge. Of course, there's always the obvious, but that is not Iran's way.

[Zinja]

JAD,

I think Iran's ambitions are not as complicated as we are making it out to be, I don't think they are that much of an enigma. They have ambitions of domineering the region and nukes will give them just that. Nukes will give them that licence to push around people with near impunity, and of cause, cause as much mayhem as is possible for Israel if not total demise of the state. They know that if they can make Israel insecure enough, Israel will start to lose human capital thus weaken the country.

Do they seek to provoke a strike on themselves so that they can vilify the US? I don't think so. Despite all we are being told of the ME turning into flames if Iran is attacked, I don't believe that Iran has that capability. Iran has less friends in the region than we are made to think, especially now that Iran has been on the wrong side of the population in Syria. I would contend that they are probably loathed more than Sadam in the first gulf war. So i don't think that a confrontation would be in their best interest. They are playing for time trying to push the boundaries to see how far they can get away with it. I think if a credible threat with clear deadlines is drawn on the sand with a comply or else ultimatum, Iran would back down. My 2 cents.

[Double Edge]

Wood for trees. A seemingly rational act within the context of an irrational strategy doesn't make the player rational.

Can you explain the bolded bit ?

Where has it been established that Iran is irrational. All i've read are assertions.

[Parihaka]

Can you explain the bolded bit ?

Where has it been established that Iran is irrational. All i've read are assertions.

They have a rich and sophisticated culture, a well educated populace and natural resources that are the envy of any nation. With their capacity and wealth, if they wished to dominate the region they could without recourse to nuclear weapons, if indeed acquiring such is their wish. They could walk upon the world stage as a rational and powerful player.
Instead they play a game of constant obfuscation and brinkmanship. Seizing British sailors, hiding nuclear facilities, acquiring illegal nuclear technology, sponsoring guerilla and terrorist groups, refusing all offers of open, legal nuclear programmes and facilities.
The only result of their game strategy thus far is ever increasing isolation and now full-on embargo and sanctions.
Their strategy isn't complex, it can only be aimed at weakening and attacking Israel. There is no other 'rational' reason for it.

Instead of becoming a powerful player on the world stage they drive their people into isolation and have become an international pariah. Such a strategy is not rational......

[Parihaka]

One wonders to what extent Iran's leaders have become mired in their own pride. Or, are they rationally playing out a strategy beginning from a false premise, which is sort of what you are suggesting.

What exactly could that premise be, if indeed their actions go beyond pride? National security is a leading premise among nations. Could it be that? If so, how does their national security benefit from toughing it out on the nuclear question?

A lot of people say Iran wants nukes to deter an attack against it. Attacks by whom? France, Britain, the US, India, China, Russia, Pakistan, Israel? All except perhaps Israel, could level Iran without much fear of a retaliatory attack on its homeland, at least given the current state of Iran's delivery vehicles. And a nuke retaliation against a conventional military attack makes no sense, since you would be bombing yourself.

So, what is in their minds, security or pride, or could it be something entirely different? The answer may lie in Iran's almost seeming willingness to invite a preemptive attack. Do they anticipate that a post-attack ME would be more hostile to the US to the point that the US might be forced to shrink its presence in the region?

Getting into the mindset of the Iranian leadership is a challenge. Of course, there's always the obvious, but that is not Iran's way.

My personal opinion is that their strategy is altogether more facile. They will burn all their capabilities, potential and assets of their people and nation simply to weaken and attack Israel. Israel is an affront to their religion, it's 'occupation' of their holy places an insult. The core of the theocratic rulers is their religion. They have structured every part of their nation to reflect this, and their ideological obsession means every other consideration is viewed through this lense. There can be no other rational explanation for their consistent, long term behavior.

[snapper]

Seems like a version of "X was obligated to attack Y because of his culture and religion". By the same precedent should I be a Satanist I am 'obligated' (a word I loathe) to sacrifice children. IF Iran were indeed obliged to wipe Israel from the map by their relgion why is this not the case for ALL Moslems, even the ones who are Israeli citizens? Who is forcing them...? God? Then he's NOT forcing all of them. Is total balderdash. Iran has to grow up or face the consequences.

[Double Edge]

What exactly could that premise be, if indeed their actions go beyond pride? National security is a leading premise among nations. Could it be that? If so, how does their national security benefit from toughing it out on the nuclear question?

Iran would not be dependent on anybody else for nuclear fuel. As early as the 70s during the Shah, Iran expressed an interest in nuclear energy.

A lot of people say Iran wants nukes to deter an attack against it. Attacks by whom? France, Britain, the US, India, China, Russia, Pakistan, Israel? All except perhaps Israel, could level Iran without much fear of a retaliatory attack on its homeland, at least given the current state of Iran's delivery vehicles. And a nuke retaliation against a conventional military attack makes no sense, since you would be bombing yourself.

Right

So, what is in their minds, security or pride, or could it be something entirely different? The answer may lie in Iran's almost seeming willingness to invite a preemptive attack. Do they anticipate that a post-attack ME would be more hostile to the US to the point that the US might be forced to shrink its presence in the region?

I don't think that Iran is willing to invite a preemptive attack for the simple reason they would not be able to control it.

I'd don't think post attack would affect US presence in the region. So long as that region ships oil there will always be the need for a traffic cop. The GCC are all US allies they're not going to ask the US to leave.

[Double Edge]

They have a rich and sophisticated culture, a well educated populace and natural resources that are the envy of any nation. With their capacity and wealth, if they wished to dominate the region they could without recourse to nuclear weapons, if indeed acquiring such is their wish. They could walk upon the world stage as a rational and powerful player.

I put this down to the sidelining of the reformists by the IRGC backed if not led by the ayatollah starting from 2004. So much was said about the way the 2009 elections were held but its really in 2004 when the blocking began. Wholesale disqualification of reformist candidates enabled the conservatives to win in 2005. This changed the hue of the regime signfiicantly. The progressives were reduced to a minority. The same pattern was followed in the 2009 elections.

Sometimes i wonder whether things would be a lot better if the ayatollah just kicked the bucket. But he has vested interests backing him.

Instead they play a game of constant obfuscation and brinkmanship. Seizing British sailors, hiding nuclear facilities, acquiring illegal nuclear technology, sponsoring guerilla and terrorist groups, refusing all offers of open, legal nuclear programmes and facilities.

Agree with the partial exception of the bolded bit which i'm beginning to question as a result of this article.

Iran's not-so-hidden enrichment program | Iran Affairs | Dec 13 2007

You're pretty good at spotting BS, do you see any in that article. This is about the hidden side of things. Given they pulled out of the additional protocols of the NPT, without ratification, am beginning to think the charge of hidden isn't as strong. They only have to inform the IAEA 6 months after the plant is in operation, as opposed to at the planning stage.

The point here is i believe the IAEA will be given access to Fordow as its been just a month since it went into operation.

Because they pulled out of the additional protocols the charges of non-compliance have risen that too only post 2006.

About acquiring illegal nuclear technology, they have acquired designs from Khans network as far as weapons are concerned but have yet to act on that knowledge ie building & testing weapons. The charge is often made that they want to build nukes but the evidence of this is circumstantial upto now. They have designs but no working prototypes. There is no smoking gun as yet.

The enriichment aspect to me is less clear. It seems like a contractual dispute. Pre revolution, ENR ok, but not post revolution. As early as '83 the US blocked them. NPT does not distinguish between regimes but clearly its a political decision whether or not to trade with Iran.

And this is where the refusing bit comes in, the offers to date have been to stop all & any ENR and depend on foreign supplies because its been determined that Iran cannot be trusted with any ENR. Cannot make any fuel even if its for civilian purposes. Thats what Iran is opposing.

All along they've not violated the NPT treaty. They've been very careful about where the lines are drawn.

The only result of their game strategy thus far is ever increasing isolation and now full-on embargo and sanctions.

Am hoping that the sanctions will drive home this message to the Iranian public. Its going to take some time though. A few years but no gurantees.

Their strategy isn't complex, it can only be aimed at weakening and attacking Israel. There is no other 'rational' reason for it.

How does their behaviour weaken Israel.
How does their behaviour enable Iran to better attack Israel.

They will continue to threaten Israel as they've always had with conventional and assymetric tactics. Regarding statements made by Iran of late, specifically your LA TImes article, are they any different to those made in the past regarding not being friends with Israel. Have they become more belligerent or threatening recently because this forms the basis for the existential threat Israel is facing.

Instead of becoming a powerful player on the world stage they drive their people into isolation and have become an international pariah. Such a strategy is not rational......

Depends on what their goals are.

When you say no ENR, post revolution, thats an unequivical message that the present regime must go. Its a political statement. You are challenging their legitimacy and have been doing so right from the start. From this pov resisting that message would be essential to their survival. Is it irrational for them to do so ?

How to seperate out the domestic political compulsions from the strategic decisions. Seizing british sailors and trashing the british embassy seems like domestic politics to me, playing to the public's prejudices.

We want Iran to become a better world citizen but they insist on following their current non-cooperative, unfriendly path because for them to not do so means defeat. So its a strategic choice.

They are in a jam, they've been charged with wanting to develop weapons and its very difficult for them to show otherwise. What is the out here. Is there one presently. My guess is Iran will continue along this path until that happens. This to me was always the bigger stakes challenge than whether to attack Iran or not.

[astralis]

Obama to Iran and Israel: 'As President of the United States, I Don't Bluff' - Atlantic Mobile

Obama to Iran and Israel: 'As President of the United States, I Don't Bluff'
Jeffrey Goldberg | 7:00 AM ET
Dismissing a strategy of "containment" as unworkable, the president tells me it's "unacceptable" for the Islamic Republic of Iran to have a nuclear weapon.


At the White House on Monday, President Obama will seek to persuade the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to postpone whatever plans he may have to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities in the coming months. Obama will argue that under his leadership, the United States "has Israel's back," and that he will order the U.S. military to destroy Iran's nuclear program if economic sanctions fail to compel Tehran to shelve its nuclear ambitions.

In the most extensive interview he has given about the looming Iran crisis, Obama told me earlier this week that both Iran and Israel should take seriously the possibility of American action against Iran's nuclear facilities. "I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff." He went on, "I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."

The 45-minute Oval Office conversation took place less than a week before the president was scheduled to address the annual convention of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group, and then meet, the next day, with Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White House. In the interview, Obama stated specifically that "all options are on the table," and that the final option is the "military component." But the president also said that sanctions organized by his administration have put Iran in a "world of hurt," and that economic duress might soon force the regime in Tehran to rethink its efforts to pursue a nuclear-weapons program.

"Without in any way being under an illusion about Iranian intentions, without in any way being naive about the nature of that regime, they are self-interested," Obama said. "It is possible for them to make a strategic calculation that, at minimum, pushes much further to the right whatever potential breakout capacity they may have, and that may turn out to to be the best decision for Israel's security."

The president also said that Tehran's nuclear program would represent a "profound" national-security threat to the United States even if Israel were not a target of Iran's violent rhetoric, and he dismissed the argument that the United States could successfully contain a nuclear Iran.

"You're talking about the most volatile region in the world," he said. "It will not be tolerable to a number of states in that region for Iran to have a nuclear weapon and them not to have a nuclear weapon. Iran is known to sponsor terrorist organizations, so the threat of proliferation becomes that much more severe." He went on to say, "The dangers of an Iran getting nuclear weapons that then leads to a free-for-all in the Middle East is something that I think would be very dangerous for the world."

The president was most animated when talking about the chaotic arms race he fears would break out if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, and he seemed most frustrated when talking about what he sees as a deliberate campaign by Republicans to convince American Jews that he is anti-Israel. "Every single commitment I have made to the state of Israel and its security, I have kept," he told me. "Why is it that despite me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that they've had over the last three years, that there are still questions about that?"

Though he struck a consistently pro-Israel posture during the interview, Obama went to great lengths to caution Israel that a premature strike might inadvertently help Iran: "At a time when there is not a lot of sympathy for Iran and its only real ally, [Syria,] is on the ropes, do we want a distraction in which suddenly Iran can portray itself as a victim?"

He also said he would try to convince Netanyahu that the only way to bring about a permanent end to a country's nuclear program is to convince the country in question that nuclear weapons are not in its best interest. "Our argument is going to be that it is important for us to see if we can solve this thing permanently, as opposed to temporarily," he said, "and the only way historically that a country has ultimately decided not to get nuclear weapons without constant military intervention has been when they themselves take [nuclear weapons] off the table. That's what happened in Libya, that's what happened in South Africa."

And though broadly sympathetic to Netanyahu's often-stated fear that Iran's nuclear program represents a Holocaust-scale threat to the Jewish state, and the Jewish people, Obama suggested strongly that historical fears cannot be the sole basis for precipitous action: "The prime minister is head of a modern state that is mindful of the profound costs of any military action, and in our consultations with the Israeli government, I think they take those costs, and potential unintended consequences, very seriously."

But when I asked the president if he thought Israel could damage its reputation among Americans with an attack on Iran -- an attack that could provoke Iranian retaliation against American targets, and could cause massive economic disruption -- he said, "I think we in the United States instinctively sympathize with Israel." President Obama also shared fascinating insights about his sometimes tension-filled relationship with Netanyahu -- and spoke at length about Syria -- but for that, you'll have to read the entire interview. Here is a transcript of our conversation:

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: From what we understand, Prime Minister Netanyahu is going to ask you for some specific enunciations of red lines, for specific promises related to the Iranian nuclear program. What is your message to the prime minister going to be? What do you want to get across to him?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: First of all, it's important to say that I don't know exactly what the prime minister is going to be coming with. We haven't gotten any indication that there is some sharp "ask" that is going to be presented. Both the United States and Israel have been in constant consultation about a very difficult issue, and that is the prospect of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. This is something that has been one of my top five foreign-policy concerns since I came into office.

We, immediately upon taking over, mapped out a strategy that said we are going to mobilize the international community around this issue and isolate Iran to send a clear message to them that there is a path they can follow that allows them to rejoin the community of nations, but if they refused to follow that path, that there would be an escalating series of consequences.

Three years later, we can look back and say we have been successful beyond most people's expectations. When we came in, Iran was united and on the move, and the world was divided about how to address this issue. Today, the world is as united as we've ever seen it around the need for Iran to take a different path on its nuclear program, and Iran is isolated and feeling the severe effects of the multiple sanctions that have been placed on it.

At the same time, we understand that the bottom line is: Does the problem get solved? And I think that Israel, understandably, has a profound interest not just in good intentions but in actual results. And in the conversations I've had over the course of three years, and over the course of the last three months and three weeks, what I've emphasized is that preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon isn't just in the interest of Israel, it is profoundly in the security interests of the United States, and that when I say we're not taking any option off the table, we mean it. We are going to continue to apply pressure until Iran takes a different course.

GOLDBERG: Go back to this language, 'All options on the table.' You've probably said it 50 or 100 times. And a lot of people believe it, but the two main intended audiences, the supreme leader of Iran and the prime minister of Israel, you could argue, don't entirely trust this. The impression we get is that the Israeli government thinks this is a vague expression that's been used for so many years. Is there some ramping-up of the rhetoric you're going to give them?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think the Israeli people understand it, I think the American people understand it, and I think the Iranians understand it. It means a political component that involves isolating Iran; it means an economic component that involves unprecedented and crippling sanctions; it means a diplomatic component in which we have been able to strengthen the coalition that presents Iran with various options through the P-5 plus 1 and ensures that the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] is robust in evaluating Iran's military program; and it includes a military component. And I think people understand that.

I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff. I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say. Let describe very specifically why this is important to us.

In addition to the profound threat that it poses to Israel, one of our strongest allies in the world; in addition to the outrageous language that has been directed toward Israel by the leaders of the Iranian government -- if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, this would run completely contrary to my policies of nonproliferation. The risks of an Iranian nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorist organizations are profound. It is almost certain that other players in the region would feel it necessary to get their own nuclear weapons. So now you have the prospect of a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world, one that is rife with unstable governments and sectarian tensions. And it would also provide Iran the additional capability to sponsor and protect its proxies in carrying out terrorist attacks, because they are less fearful of retaliation.

GOLDBERG: What would your position be if Israel weren't in this picture?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: It would still be a profound national-security interest of the United States to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

GOLDBERG: Why, then, is this issue so often seen as binary, always defined as Israel versus Iran?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think it has to do with a legitimate concern on the part of Israel that they are a small country in a tough neighborhood, and as a consequence, even though the U.S. and Israel very much share assessments of how quickly Iran could obtain breakout capacity, and even though there is constant consultation and intelligence coordination around that question, Israel feels more vulnerable. And I think the prime minister and the defense minister, [Ehud Barak,] feel a profound, historic obligation not to put Israel in a position where it cannot act decisively and unilaterally to protect the state of Israel. I understand those concerns, and as a consequence, I think it's not surprising that the way it gets framed, at least in this country, where the vast majority of people are profoundly sympathetic to Israel's plight and potential vulnerabilities -- that articles and stories get framed in terms of Israel's potential vulnerability.

But I want to make clear that when we travel around the world and make presentations about this issue, that's not how we frame it. We frame it as: this is something in the national-security interests of the United States and in the interests of the world community. And I assure you that Europe would not have gone forward with sanctions on Iranian oil imports -- which are very difficult for them to carry out, because they get a lot of oil from Iran -- had it not been for their understanding that it is in the world's interest, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. China would not have abided by the existing sanctions coming out of the National Security Council, and other countries around the world would not have unified around those sanctions, had it not been for us making the presentation about why this was important for everyone, not just one country.

GOLDBERG: Is it possible that the prime minister of Israel has over-learned the lessons of the Holocaust?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think the prime minister has a profound responsibility to protect the Israeli people in a hostile neighborhood, and I am certain that the history of the Holocaust and of anti-Semitism and brutality directed against the Jewish people for more than a millennium weighs on him when he thinks about these questions.

I think it's important to recognize, though, that the prime minister is also head of a modern state that is mindful of the profound costs of any military action, and in our consultations with the Israeli government, I think they take those costs, and potential unintended consequences, very seriously.

GOLDBERG: Do you think Israel could cause damage to itself in America by preempting the Iranian nuclear program militarily?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I don't know how it plays in America. I think we in the United States instinctively sympathize with Israel, and I think political support for Israel is bipartisan and powerful.

In my discussions with Israel, the key question that I ask is: How does this impact their own security environment? I've said it publicly and I say it privately: ultimately, the Israeli prime minister and the defense minister and others in the government have to make their decisions about what they think is best for Israel's security, and I don't presume to tell them what is best for them.

But as Israel's closest friend and ally, and as one that has devoted the last three years to making sure that Israel has additional security capabilities, and has worked to manage a series of difficult problems and questions over the past three years, I do point out to them that we have a sanctions architecture that is far more effective than anybody anticipated; that we have a world that is about as united as you get behind the sanctions; that our assessment, which is shared by the Israelis, is that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon and is not yet in a position to obtain a nuclear weapon without us having a pretty long lead time in which we will know that they are making that attempt.

In that context, our argument is going to be that it is important for us to see if we can solve this thing permanently, as opposed to temporarily. And the only way, historically, that a country has ultimately decided not to get nuclear weapons without constant military intervention has been when they themselves take [nuclear weapons] off the table. That's what happened in Libya, that's what happened in South Africa. And we think that, without in any way being under an illusion about Iranian intentions, without in any way being naive about the nature of that regime, they are self-interested. They recognize that they are in a bad, bad place right now. It is possible for them to make a strategic calculation that, at minimum, pushes much further to the right whatever potential breakout capacity they may have, and that may turn out to be the best decision for Israel's security.

These are difficult questions, and again, if I were the prime minister of Israel, I'd be wrestling with them. As president of the United States, I wrestle with them as well.

GOLDBERG: Could you shed some light on your relationship with the prime minister? You've met with him more than with any other world leader. It's assumed that you have a dysfunctional relationship. What is it like?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I actually think the relationship is very functional, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The fact of the matter is, we've gotten a lot of business done with Israel over the last three years. I think the prime minister -- and certainly the defense minister -- would acknowledge that we've never had closer military and intelligence cooperation. When you look at what I've done with respect to security for Israel, from joint training and joint exercises that outstrip anything that's been done in the past, to helping finance and construct the Iron Dome program to make sure that Israeli families are less vulnerable to missile strikes, to ensuring that Israel maintains its qualitative military edge, to fighting back against delegitimization of Israel, whether at the [UN] Human Rights Council, or in front of the UN General Assembly, or during the Goldstone Report, or after the flare-up involving the flotilla -- the truth of the matter is that the relationship has functioned very well.

GOLDBERG: Are you friends? Do you talk about things other than business?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, the truth of the matter is, both of us have so much on our plates that there's not always a lot of time to have discussions beyond business. Having said that, what I think is absolutely true is that the prime minister and I come out of different political traditions. This is one of the few times in the history of U.S.-Israeli relations where you have a government from the right in Israel at the same time you have a center-left government in the United States, and so I think what happens then is that a lot of political interpretations of our relationship get projected onto this.

But one thing that I have found in working with Prime Minister Netanyahu is that we can be very frank with each other, very blunt with each other, very honest with each other. For the most part, when we have differences, they are tactical and not strategic. Our objectives are a secure United States, a secure Israel, peace, the capacity for our kids to grow up in safety and security and not have to worry about bombs going off, and being able to promote business and economic growth and commerce. We have a common vision about where we want to go. At any given moment -- as is true, frankly, with my relationship with every other foreign leader -- there's not going to be perfect alignment of how we achieve these objectives.

GOLDBERG: In an interview three years ago, right before he became prime minister, Netanyahu told me that he believes Iran is being run by a "messianic apocalyptic cult." Last week, General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. referred to the Iranian leadership as "rational." Where do you fall on this continuum? Do you feel that the leaders of Iran might be so irrational that they will not act in what we would understand to be their self-interest?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think you're right to describe it as a continuum. There is no doubt they are isolated. They have a very ingrown political system. They are founded and fueled on hostility towards the United States, Israel, and to some degree the West. And they have shown themselves willing to go outside international norms and international rules to achieve their objectives. All of this makes them dangerous. They've also been willing to crush opposition in their own country in brutal and bloody ways.

GOLDBERG: Do you think they are messianic?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think it's entirely legitimate to say that this is a regime that does not share our worldview or our values. I do think, and this is what General Dempsey was probably referring to, that as we look at how they operate and the decisions they've made over the past three decades, that they care about the regime's survival. They're sensitive to the opinions of the people and they are troubled by the isolation that they're experiencing. They know, for example, that when these kinds of sanctions are applied, it puts a world of hurt on them. They are able to make decisions based on trying to avoid bad outcomes from their perspective. So if they're presented with options that lead to either a lot of pain from their perspective, or potentially a better path, then there's no guarantee that they can't make a better decision.

GOLDBERG: It seems unlikely that a regime built on anti-Americanism would want to appear to succumb to an American-led sanctions effort.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think the question here is going to be: What exactly are their genuine interests? Now, what we've seen, what we've heard directly from them over the last couple of weeks is that nuclear weapons are sinful and un-Islamic. And those are formal speeches from the supreme leader and their foreign minister.

GOLDBERG: Do you believe their sincerity?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: My point here is not that I believe the sincerity of the statements coming out of the regime. The point is that for them to prove to the international community that their intentions are peaceful and that they are, in fact, not pursuing weapons, is not inconsistent with what they've said. So it doesn't require them to knuckle under to us. What it does require is for them to actually show to the world that there is consistency between their actions and their statements. And that's something they should be able to do without losing face.

GOLDBERG: Let me flip this entirely around and ask: Why is containment not your policy? In the sense that we contained the Soviet Union, North Korea --

PRESIDENT OBAMA: It's for the reason I described -- because you're talking about the most volatile region in the world. It will not be tolerable to a number of states in that region for Iran to have a nuclear weapon and them not to have a nuclear weapon. Iran is known to sponsor terrorist organizations, so the threat of proliferation becomes that much more severe.

The only analogous situation is North Korea. We have applied a lot of pressure on North Korea as well and, in fact, today found them willing to suspend some of their nuclear activities and missile testing and come back to the table. But North Korea is even more isolated, and certainly less capable of shaping the environment [around it] than Iran is. And so the dangers of an Iran getting nuclear weapons that then leads to a free-for-all in the Middle East is something that I think would be very dangerous for the world.

GOLDBERG: Do you see accidental nuclear escalation as an issue?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Absolutely. Look, the fact is, I don't think any of it would be accidental. I think it would be very intentional. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, I won't name the countries, but there are probably four or five countries in the Middle East who say, "We are going to start a program, and we will have nuclear weapons." And at that point, the prospect for miscalculation in a region that has that many tensions and fissures is profound. You essentially then duplicate the challenges of India and Pakistan fivefold or tenfold.

GOLDBERG: With everybody pointing at everybody else.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: With everybody pointing at everybody else.

GOLDBERG: What I'm getting at specifically is, let's assume there's a Hezbollah attack on Israel. Israel responds into Lebanon. Iran goes on some kind of a nuclear alert, and then one-two-three --

PRESIDENT OBAMA: The potential for escalation in those circumstances is profoundly dangerous, and in addition to just the potential human costs of a nuclear escalation like that in the Middle East, just imagine what would happen in terms of the world economy. The possibilities of the sort of energy disruptions that we've never seen before occurring, and the world economy basically coming to a halt, would be pretty profound. So when I say this is in the U.S. interest, I'm not saying this is something we'd like to solve. I'm saying this is something we have to solve.

GOLDBERG: One of the aspects of this is the question of whether it's plausible that Barack Obama would ever use military power to stop Iran. The Republicans are trying to make this an issue -- and not only the Republicans -- saying that this man, by his disposition, by his character, by his party, by his center-left outlook, is not going to do that.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Look, if people want to say about me that I have a profound preference for peace over war, that every time I order young men and women into a combat theater and then see the consequences on some of them, if they're lucky enough to come back, that this weighs on me -- I make no apologies for that. Because anybody who is sitting in my chair who isn't mindful of the costs of war shouldn't be here, because it's serious business. These aren't video games that we're playing here.

Now, having said that, I think it's fair to say that the last three years, I've shown myself pretty clearly willing, when I believe it is in the core national interest of the United States, to direct military actions, even when they entail enormous risks. And obviously, the bin Laden operation is the most dramatic, but al-Qaeda was on its [knees] well before we took out bin Laden because of our activities and my direction.

In Afghanistan, we've made very tough decisions because we felt it was very important, in order for an effective transition out of Afghanistan to take place, for us to be pushing back against the Taliban's momentum.

So aside from the usual politics, I don't think this is an argument that has a lot of legs. And by the way, it's not an argument that the American people buy. They may have complaints about high unemployment still, and that the recovery needs to move faster, but you don't hear a lot of them arguing somehow that I hesitate to make decisions as commander in chief when necessary.

GOLDBERG: Can you just talk about Syria as a strategic issue? Talk about it as a humanitarian issue, as well. But it would seem to me that one way to weaken and further isolate Iran is to remove or help remove Iran's only Arab ally.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Absolutely.

GOLDBERG: And so the question is: What else can this administration be doing?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, look, there's no doubt that Iran is much weaker now than it was a year ago, two years ago, three years ago. The Arab Spring, as bumpy as it has been, represents a strategic defeat for Iran, because what people in the region have seen is that all the impulses towards freedom and self-determination and free speech and freedom of assembly have been constantly violated by Iran. [The Iranian leadership is] no friend of that movement toward human rights and political freedom. But more directly, it is now engulfing Syria, and Syria is basically their only true ally in the region.

And it is our estimation that [President Bashar al-Assad's] days are numbered. It's a matter not of if, but when. Now, can we accelerate that? We're working with the world community to try to do that. It is complicated by the fact that Syria is a much bigger, more sophisticated, and more complicated country than Libya, for example -- the opposition is hugely splintered -- that although there's unanimity within the Arab world at this point, internationally, countries like Russia are still blocking potential UN mandates or action. And so what we're trying to do -- and the secretary of state just came back from helping to lead the Friends of Syria group in Tunisia -- is to try to come up with a series of strategies that can provide humanitarian relief. But they can also accelerate a transition to a peaceful and stable and representative Syrian government. If that happens, that will be a profound loss for Iran.

GOLDBERG: Is there anything you could do to move it faster?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, nothing that I can tell you, because your classified clearance isn't good enough. (Laughter.)

This is part of, by the way, the context in which we have to examine our approach toward Iran, because at a time when there is not a lot of sympathy for Iran and its only real ally is on the ropes, do we want a distraction in which suddenly Iran can portray itself as a victim, and deflect attention from what has to be the core issue, which is their potential pursuit of nuclear weapons?

That's an example of factors that -- when we are in consultation with all our allies, including the Israelis, we raise these factors, because this is an issue of many dimensions here, and we've got to factor all of them in to achieve the outcome that hopefully we all want.

GOLDBERG: Do the Israelis understand that? There have been disagreements between Israel and the U.S. before, but this is coming to a head about what the Israelis see as an existential issue. The question is: In your mind, have you brought arguments to Netanyahu that have so far worked out well?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think that in the end, Israel's leaders will make determinations based on what they believe is best for the security of Israel, and that is entirely appropriate.

When we present our views and our strategy approach, we try to put all our cards on the table, to describe how we are thinking about these issues. We try to back those up with facts and evidence. We compare their assessments with ours, and where there are gaps, we try to narrow those gaps. And what I also try to do is to underscore the seriousness with which the United States takes this issue. And I think that Ehud Barak understands it. I think that Prime Minister Netanyahu, hopefully when he sees me next week, will understand it.

And one of the things that I like to remind them of is that every single commitment I have made to the state of Israel and its security, I have kept. I mean, part of your -- not to put words in your mouth -- but part of the underlying question is: Why is it that despite me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that they've had over the last three years, that there are still questions about that?

GOLDBERG: That's a good way to phrase it.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: And my answer is: there is no good reason to doubt me on these issues.

Some of it has to do with the fact that in this country and in our media, this gets wrapped up with politics. And I don't think that's any secret. And if you have a set of political actors who want to see if they can drive a wedge not between the United States and Israel, but between Barack Obama and a Jewish American vote that has historically been very supportive of his candidacy, then it's good to try to fan doubts and raise questions.

But when you look at the record, there's no "there" there. And my job is to try to make sure that those political factors are washed away on an issue that is of such great strategic and security importance to our two countries. And so when I'm talking to the prime minister, or my team is talking to the Israeli government, what I want is a hardheaded, clear-eyed assessment of how do we achieve our goals.

And our goals are in sync. And historically, one of the reasons that the U.S.-Israeli relationship has survived so well and thrived is shared values, shared history, the links between our peoples. But it's also been because it has been a profoundly bipartisan commitment to the state of Israel. And the flip side of it is that, in terms of Israeli politics, there's been a view that regardless of whether it's a Democratic or Republican administration, the working assumption is: we've got Israel's back. And that's something that I constantly try to reinforce and remind people of.

GOLDBERG: Wait, in four words, is that your message to the prime minister -- we've got Israel's back?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: That is not just my message to the prime minister, that's been my message to the Israeli people, and to the pro-Israel community in this country, since I came into office. It's hard for me to be clearer than I was in front of the UN General Assembly, when I made a more full-throated defense of Israel and its legitimate security concerns than any president in history -- not, by the way, in front of an audience that was particularly warm to the message. So that actually won't be my message. My message will be much more specific, about how do we solve this problem.

[JAD_333]

I think Obama has a good grasp of the problem. I am one of those Republicans who believe all Americans regardless of party should support the president in times of foreign peril. That is not to say we can't raise legitimate concerns, but taking political potshots at the president over Iran policy at this time could divide the nation when it most needs to be united.

Execution of the ultimatum is another matter, but we are not there yet. I particularly agree with the approach of seeking a peaceful resolution to the problem. But of course one has to watch that it does not go too far. Obama will be judged on both counts.

[astralis]

JAD,

you are part of a diminishing crowd of Republicans whom think that, i fear.

reading obama's assessment of the situation, i am actually fairly impressed on his attention to detail and breadth of knowledge on the subject. he compares very well indeed in an objective comparison with (W) bush's and clinton's interviews on previous foreign policy matters. he's made some missteps in terms of foreign policy, but for the most part i feel that he's got a good grip on it-- surprising consider his largely domestic policy focus during the election.

[JAD_333]

My personal opinion is that their strategy is altogether more facile. They will burn all their capabilities, potential and assets of their people and nation simply to weaken and attack Israel. Israel is an affront to their religion, it's 'occupation' of their holy places an insult. The core of the theocratic rulers is their religion. They have structured every part of their nation to reflect this, and their ideological obsession means every other consideration is viewed through this lense. There can be no other rational explanation for their consistent, long term behavior.

That word 'rational' again.:) You could be right that defeating Israel is the locus of the Iranian regime's hostility to all and sundry. After all to succeed where Egypt, Syria, Jordan and other ME nations failed to do in several attempts since 1948 would presumably be a feather in its cap and make it a venerated nation among Muslims. But the presumption, if true, may be a figment of the Grand Ayatollah's mind.

I believe eliminating Israel only takes up a fraction of Iran's thinking. Its main struggle has something to do with its own existential vision. It clearly has an image of itself as a cut above other ME countries and probably above a lot of other nations worldwide. So, in their minds it's an affront to their imagined status in the world to prevent them from refining their own nuclear fuel as other great nations do. That's the psychological side.

The reality is that they strut around belligerently, doling out threats and rationalizations at the same time as they are working diligently to develop a nuclear capacity that could be used to produce nukes. That's a toxic mix no matter whether they intend to build nukes or not. You and others here have said that the world cannot discount what Iran's leaders say vis a vis Israel, the US and its allies. They may not mean it, but we have to act as if they do.

Also, the very existence of the NPT is at stake here. That is, if regard
proliferation as not the numbers of weapons in existence, but rather the number of countries that possess them. If Iran gets a pass, it's likely other countries will follow either out of necessity or simply because they can.

So, while I agree that eliminating Israel is one of Iran's goal, I believe her greater goal is to be in the first rank of great powers. The story comes to mind of the flea floating down the river on its back with an erection, yelling "raise the drawbridge."

[JAD_333]

JAD,

you are part of a diminishing crowd of Republicans whom think that, i fear.

I blame the dems for that. They put Bush through the wringer on Iraq for political gain. Now we see what that does to national unity.

I think the parties will get back to being more circumspect in criticizing foreign policy. Give it a few years.

reading obama's assessment of the situation, i am actually fairly impressed on his attention to detail and breadth of knowledge on the subject.

What impressed me was the way he seemed to be summarizing the consensus coming out
of his NSC meetings. I wouldn't say he's rehearsed, but he has clearly absorbed the vernacular of his foreign policy advisers.

[Stitch]

I think the parties will get back to being more circumspect in criticizing foreign policy. Give it a few years.

It might be too late by then . . . .