Ahmadinejad calls Obama’s bluff. Again!

Obama's "end of year deadline" for Tehran's abandonment of its nuclear enrichment program has now come and gone.

12/23:
White House prods Iran over nuclear deadline
See the NPR take on the story:
topics.npr.org...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House is warning Iran's leader to take seriously a year-end deadline over its nuclear program, responding sternly to defiant language by the Iranian president.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday dismissed a looming deadline from the Obama administration and its allies for Tehran to accept a U.N.-drafted deal to swap enriched uranium for nuclear fuel. President Barack Obama wants Iran to respond to an offer of dialogue and show it will allay fears of weapons development.

Otherwise, Washington and its allies are warning of new, tougher sanctions on Iran.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Ahmadinejad may not recognize the deadline but ''it is a very real deadline for the international community.''

The third direct snub of Obama's appeasement game plan. And Tehran with dead opposition in the streets and 1,200 tons of smuggled uranium.

What do we have so far from Ahmadinejad this month?
Murdering his people in the streets. 1,200 tons of smuggled fuel for his enrichment centrifuges.
An agreement to trans-ship his uranium for Russian processing? No.

So, what can we expect from Barack Obama? Another line in the sand?

Someone will ask, "What do you want, just go bomb 'em?"
That's truly stupid. But I didn't set the "deadline." Obama did.

Of course, this is the second one, anyway. Recall the prior deadline that got laughed off the table?

5/19: Obama Gives Iran Deadline on Nuclear Program

President Obama said Friday that Iran faces a September deadline to show good-faith efforts to halt its nuclear weapons program, and said the statement issued by the world's leading industrial nations meeting here this week means the international community is ready to act.

Time magazine questioned whether the statements Obama made in Italy were true, and noted that it put the reciprocal deadline on Obama:

9/3: A Nuclear Deadline Looms for Iran -- and for Obama

President Barack Obama took office promising to pursue a diplomatic solution to the standoff over Iran's nuclear program, but so far, he's gotten little out of Tehran. So little, in fact, that the President has given Iran a Sept. 15 deadline to respond positively to his offer of negotiations, or face a heightening of sanctions. As U.S. officials huddled with their European, Russian and Chinese counterparts in Germany on Sept. 2 to review the issue, Iran signaled that it will indeed respond — by offering its own package of proposals to achieve a diplomatic resolution to the standoff. Western leaders at the meeting in Germany urged Iran to agree to a meeting with Russia, China, the key European nations and the U.S. before Sept. 23. But nobody is expecting Iran's proposals to come close to meeting Western demands, and that could leave Obama facing the unenviable choice of being painted as feckless or having to move down a road of escalation that puts a diplomatic solution further beyond reach.

Of course all THIS comes on the heels of Obama's pledge/promise not to engage in unconditional negotiations with Iran. Made while he WAS engaged in unconditional talks with Iran and Syria.
1/31:Obama's Secret Iran Talks; Iran Says Shows US Failure

Unconditional talks with Iran began even before BHO faced the voters in our recent elections!
Would Americans have voted for a man who proclaimed to require "conditions," yet was already meeting with Iranian and Syrian diplomats?
Despite his protestations otherwise, Obama used back channels to assure Iran AND Syria that he would be willing to open up discussions once he was elected!
Did this give Iran and Syria the "Green Light," through Hamas, to step up the pressure on Israel?
US President Barack Obama has already used experts within the last few months to hold high-level but discreet talks with both Iran and Syria, organizers of the meetings told AFP.

AFP Report: news.yahoo.com...

US President Barack Obama's offer to talk to Iran shows that America's policy of "domination" has failed, the government spokesman said on Saturday.
"This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed," Gholam Hossein Elham was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency.
"Negotiation is secondary, the main issue is that there is no way but for (the United States) to change," he added.

AFP/Breitbart Report: "Iran Says Obama's Offer To Talk Shows US Failure!"

Officially, Obama's overtures toward both Tehran and Damascus have remained limited. In reality, these discussions began, even as he denied it, while Obama was still campaigning!

Even before winning the November 4 election, Obama had already begun negotiations with Iran, and used what experts call "track two" discussions to approach America's two foes, Syria and Iran, in the region.

After nearly three decades of severed ties, Obama said shortly after taking office this month that he is willing to extend a diplomatic hand to Tehran if the Islamic republic is ready to "unclench its fist".
In response, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a fresh tirade against the United States, demanding an apology for its "crimes" against Iran and saying he expected "deep and fundamental" change from Obama.

Former US president George W. Bush refused to hold talks with the Islamic republic -- which he dubbed part of an "axis of evil" -- unless it suspended uranium enrichment, and never took a military option to thwart Tehran's atomic drive off the table.

As things stand now, the foreign and US press are already calling Obama "out" on it.

Al Jazeera:english.aljazeera.net...

Washington Post:Obama’s Day of Reckoning

So what to expect from the spineless wonder?

Why he'll blame GW Bush and crack down on American citizens, of course.

Deny ignorance.

jw

A lot of this depends on just how real the reports of possible rebellion in Iran are and how the U.S government believes any imposed sanctions may effect the growing sense of discontent with its people against its government .

I for one am tired of hearing about weapons of mass destruction / nuclear weapons all together. If I was leader of a country and another country or countries tried to tell me what I could or could not do in my own country I would also defy them. I say leave them alone. I do not feel threatened by Iran in any way, nor do I care what they do in their country. Lets put some sanctions on hunger and poverty right here at home.

[edit on 1-1-2010 by Aaron_Justin]

reply to post by Max_TO

A lot of this depends on just how real the reports of possible rebellion in Iran are and how the U.S government believes any imposed sanctions may effect the growing sense of discontent with its people against its government .

I sometimes wonder if this rebellion is being sponsored by the government in an effort to give the US false hope.

As long as the US continues to see protesters, they are less likely to do anything. This buys time for Iran.

reply to post by Max_TO

The nuclear enrichment "deadlines" were "set" by Obama when his overtures for talks were rebuffed in the spring.

The rebellion didn't first take to the streets until after the July elections. Then again after the death of the Ayatollah.

The two are unrelated.

Iran was never going tolive up to them anyway.

But, I can see Obama using the uprisings as an excuse on Ahmadinejad's behalf to put off any action.

That would be so ludicrous! The man who set the deadlines comes up with an excuse for their defiance?

Deny ignorance.

jw

reply to post by jam321


You know thats a very very interesting point of view !

But seeing how Israel is handing out gas masks to all of its citizens within the next two months something will have to give one way or the other .

reply to post by Aaron_Justin
On this, I have to agree.

Leave them alone and make it clear that we are doing so. Then Israel or Russia or France will be forced to do something. Let them have at it.

BUT, Obama set the deadlines and terms. He should just give up and walk away.

But he won't.

jw

reply to post by jam321
The lasr thing Tehran wants to do is give the US "false hope." They've already told Obama to 'get lost' twice.

I don't believe they care what we or the UN or anybody else says. They believe they have the right to do what they want on their own soil, and they probably do. On their own soil.

But when they test 2,000km-range missiles, that's not their "own soil" is it?

jw

reply to post by Aaron_Justin

I do not feel threatened by Iran in any way, nor do I care what they do in their country.

There's a post out there where I said the US should tell Iran that we will leave them alone but if they ever tried to attack us we would wipe them off the map.

Upon leaving the meeting, we turn to the Europeans and tell them

"It's your problem now."

The way I see it, we get the rap for being mean to the Iranians, while the EU is sitting back playing Monday Morning quarterback.

Let them sweat it out for awhile. At the moment, Iran is more of a threat to them than us.

reply to post by jam321


If oil wasn't involved then there might be a chance of that happening .

But yes I like your line of thought , only if it were possible

Of course, this is the second one, anyway. Recall the prior deadline that got laughed off the table?

I know, Obama himself set the Sept. deadline, and then changed it to December. It's laughable really for him to have set an unfeasible deadline.

I think the news on Iran in 2010 will be less on the nuclear issue and more a revolution with bloody massacres leading to regime change.

For me the protests were always the bigger news since June 09.

With the regime's new armoured vehicles delivered from China, if the protests get squashed, then the west will call for regime change with or without the existance of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

[edit on 1-1-2010 by john124]

reply to post by jdub297
co

I just wonder when will Obama actually sit down and meet face to face with the U.S. "enemies", and give talks a chance? He DID say such a thing while he was campaigning for the position of POTUS.

Has he met with Ahmadinejahd or one of the Castro brothers or, my favorite, Hugo Chavez? Nope.

Still, as the crap that is the U.S. foreign policy continues, my dear sister still insists, "But I voted for him because he talks so GOOD!"

That's gotts mean something, right?



Meh. Vote for a dullard, or vote for the other guy who has a great command of the language and says what you want to hear, versus, either one being POTUS and telling you to bend over. Of course the majority of people choose the sweet talk.

Meanwhile, uh, where's my reach around?!!
Where's the lubricant?

I like all of the comments here. It makes me think that the whole world situation with the UN and the US acting in cohorts as good cop/bad cop routine.

The UN acts as the peacekeeper/good cop and the US acts like the aggressor/bad cop.

The US is targeted as the bad cop with all of the terrorist attacks and can be blamed around the world as the aggressor/bad cop.

Hence the incoming world order can be instilled as the good cop.

I wonder if anyone has broached this scenario?

reply to post by kyred

I just wonder when will Obama actually sit down and meet face to face with the U.S. "enemies", and give talks a chance?

And I suppose bow down to every silly demand that is made of them.

Has he met with Ahmadinejahd

Is that a joke?! The regime officials take the piss every time there's a meeting. It's a waste of time. Obama gave it a go at talking where Bush or McCain would not have, and it's been shown to the world that Bush was right about the regime - at least in the sense that they are extremists who sponsor terrorism even in their own country against their own people.

Obama has even set deadlines beyond his original deadlines, and after the meetings that got nowhere he still had hopes for a deal by the end of December even only last week or so.

Obama has to toughen up, wise-up or the republicans will have so much ammunition against him for the next elections that he won't stand a chance. (which is probably a good thing!)

[edit on 1-1-2010 by john124]

Sorry jw, as for the OP.

Obama and his infantile style of foreign diplomacy can KMA.

Get the frell out of all of these situations. Then, tell the world if one attack against a US interest can be traced back to any government of the world, there will be hell to pay.

I am so sick of our interventionistic attitudes toward other countries and than to complain about how things are not going the way we had hoped. Hell, I think 90% of what we seeing going down everywhere, is what our government wants to happen. To instill are aggressionistic and obstructionistic policies around the world.

Maybe I am just blathering.

reply to post by jam321
All BHO has to do is make it clear that he's done.

Leave it to Israel or France or Russia to do something to protect themselves from the 2,000km-range missiles.

We might need to beef up the Iraq border, though, to handle the refugee flow when Ahmadinejad cracks down hard.

This isn't our problem any more than the EU or UK or Eurasia's.

Let them take the heat for it.

Obama needs to just quit the empty rhetoric, but he CAN'T because he loves to hear himself talk and to sound strong.

jw

Originally posted by endisnighe
...
Get the frell out of all of these situations. Then, tell the world if one attack against a US interest can be traced back to any government of the world, there will be hell to pay.

I am so sick of our interventionistic attitudes toward other countries and than to complain about how things are not going the way we had hoped. Hell, I think 90% of what we seeing going down everywhere, is what our government wants to happen. To instill are aggressionistic and obstructionistic policies around the world.

Maybe I am just blathering.

Do you mean an "axis of evil" isolationist approach?
"Go it alone?" The Bush doctrine?

That's precisely what got Obama elected, isn't it? He WANTS to be interventionist, just not with guns.

Fail.

jw

I say its not our business, Obama should be quite and let the other folk deal with it.
Israel has a boner to nuke Iran, if that psycho retard in Iran wants to get crispy
thats his biz... Not ours, time to take off the police man get up.

reply to post by jdub297


No, not the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive but maybe more the Teddy Roosevelt theory of kick ass and take no prisoners.

Their is something we are not seeing in this whole mid-east situation.

I wish secrecy was not the standard in today's government.

I feel we need to step back from being the world police for awhile and reassess the situation.

If we are to be at war, we need to use both 12 gauge barrels, not the bb gun we are using now.

To hell with only 30k troops, how about 2 million. If we are going to be at war, let us settle it NOW. Not 8 years later and to hell with pussy footing around.

In with the whole kit and kabootle or not in at all.

That is kind of my position. I would have to reassess the whole war doctrine and foreign affairs situation if a couple of little secrets that are not being released were given to me.

There is something we are just not seeing.

Why has the US government spent over the last 30 years, more money than can even be imagined. I feel the Trillions we have gleaned is just the tip of an iceberg that would dwarf the one that sank the Titanic.

Sometimes I just do not know. A little wine has fogged my normal attitude this evening.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by jdub297

 

No, not the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive but maybe more the Teddy Roosevelt theory of kick ass and take no prisoners.

Their is something we are not seeing in this whole mid-east situation.

I wish secrecy was not the standard in today's government.

I feel we need to step back from being the world police for awhile and reassess the situation.

If we are to be at war, we need to use both 12 gauge barrels, not the bb gun we are using now.

To hell with only 30k troops, how about 2 million. If we are going to be at war, let us settle it NOW. Not 8 years later and to hell with pussy footing around.

In with the whole kit and kabootle or not in at all.

That is kind of my position. I would have to reassess the whole war doctrine and foreign affairs situation if a couple of little secrets that are not being released were given to me.

There is something we are just not seeing.

Why has the US government spent over the last 30 years, more money than can even be imagined. I feel the Trillions we have gleaned is just the tip of an iceberg that would dwarf the one that sank the Titanic.

Sometimes I just do not know. A little wine has fogged my normal attitude this evening.

I think the "secret" we do not see is simply the need/want/desire to remain top dog.
We might benefit from this much more than we know, for all we know.

The old saying, you have to spend money to get money -