In An Exclusive Interview With The New York Times President Obama Defends The Iranian Nuclear Agreement

New York Times: Obama Strongly Defends Iran Nuclear Deal

President Obama strongly defended last week’s preliminary agreement with Iran as a “once in a lifetime opportunity” to curb the spread of nuclear weapons in a dangerous region while reassuring critics that he would keep all options available if Tehran ultimately cheated.

As he sought to sell the tentative deal to skeptics accusing him of giving away too much, Mr. Obama emphasized to Israel that “we’ve got their backs” in the face of Iranian hostility. And he suggested that he could accept some sort of vote in Congress if it did not block his ability to carry out the agreement.

“This is our best bet by far to make sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with Thomas L. Friedman, an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times, on Saturday. “What we will be doing even as we enter into this deal is sending a very clear message to the Iranians and to the entire region that if anybody messes with Israel, America will be there.”

More News On President Obama Defending The Iranian Nuclear Agreement

The Obama Doctrine and Iran -- Thomas Friedman, NYT
Obama on Iran Nuclear Deal: 'They Cannot Fight Us' -- NBC
In An Interview With The New York Times -- New York Daily News
President Obama Says Diplomacy With Iran Is The Best Option And ‘A Good Deal’ -- Inquisitr
Obama to Israelis: If anybody messes with Israel, America will be there -- Haaretz
Obama defends Iran deal, tells Israelis if anybody messes with you US will be there -- Jerusalem Post

Obama Defends Israel But Says Military Strike on Iran Nukes Would be Difficult

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., tells ABC News' Charlie Gibson that he prefers "tough sanctions" against Iran to thwart their nuclear ambitions but that a military option -- by the U.S. or Israel -- is not "off the table".

From ABC News:
Sen. Barack Obama claims that a "history of weak sanctions" on countries like North Korea and Iran has created "this slow drift towards nuclear weapons becoming a fact of life."

Obama, D-Ill., told ABC News' Charlie Gibson that as president he would "sound the alarm" about the danger of Iran's nuclear ambitions.

"If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it triggers a potential arms race, a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, that is not only life-threatening to Israel but it is a profound, a game-changing shift when it comes to our national security," he told Gibson.

Read more ....

My Comment: He states that the military option is not off the table, but in the next sentence he states on how difficult it would be to do a military strike Iran. As a Presidential candidate Sen. Obama should not publicly voice the difficulty of striking Iran directly over its nuclear program. By stating these concerns he is now acknowledging to the Iranians that as President he would most likely not sanction an attack since it would probably not be successful. He is tipping his hand .... a no no when it comes to policy in this region.

In addition, his concerns about a nuclear Iran and why sanctions should be made stronger ignores what has been the history of sanctions with Iran. The world is too dependent on their oil, and everyone is now doing business with the country. Short of implementing a blockade .... which is an act of war .... there is nothing that can be done on this level.

Diplomatic, military, and economic pressures should all be applied. This is what Sen. Obama should talk about. Even though these goals are not reachable now ... he must talk that he will use the office of the Presidency to make it so. The one thing that I have learned about in history .... is that a leader must give a direction .... a goal .... a purpose .... and to then define how we are going to get there. He must not state that it would be difficult .... and then leave everyone hanging there.

If Sen. Obama cannot overcome this sense of inertia in his campaign ..... he will not get the keys to the White House.