New White House WMD Czar Wants Immediate Talks with Iran, to ‘Manage’ North Korea Until it Collapses
Email"The discussion today is on the Greater Middle East," Council on Foreign Relations official Gary Samore (suh-MORE-ay) said last week, "and I’ve always wondered what’s so great about it."
The crowd laughed.
"It seems to me it’s a part of the world where most of the fanaticism and violence and conflict and tension somehow seems to have become concentrated. So the president doesn’t have so much of an inbox as he has a Pandora’s Box to deal with."
Samore’s view: The Obama administration should meet as soon as possible with a representative of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to see if they can begin a dialogue.
And that Pandora’s Box is now Samore’s to deal with as well.
As first reported by Foreign Policy’s The Cable blog, Samore has been tapped to serve as President Obama’s point person on weapons of mass destruction in the National Security Council — or "WMD Czar" in media shorthand.
Samore served as Special Assistant to President Bill Clinton and Senior Director for Nonproliferation and Export Controls on the National Security Council from 1996-2001 and has been focused on non-proliferation issues throughout his career. He recently served as editor of three International Institute for Strategic Studies "dossiers" on weapons programs in Iraq, North Korea, and Iran.
He’s been very vocal about his views.
In a recent panel discussion about the challenges facing President Obama, Samore said "the Obama administration may have a stronger bargaining position than President Bush did, in part because of the collapse in oil prices, in part because of the relative stability in Iraq, in part because President Obama may be in a better position to appeal to the Europeans and the Russians and Chinese to support stronger sanctions if Iran rejects a reasonable U.S. offer, and finally in part because the Obama administration I think is going to be less conflicted than the Bush administration was about directly engaging Iran without conditions, starting a broad dialogue, and offering to improve bilateral relations as part of a nuclear deal."
You can listen to that panel HERE.
Samore said that since Iran is only one or two years away from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability "it’s going to be very hard to persuade them to stop working on their enrichment program. And it’s very clear how the diplomacy is going to shape up: … the obvious Iranian position is ‘We’re happy to talk to you, and while we’re talking about all these many complicated issues — nuclear and Iraq and Afghanistan and Arab-Israeli and so forth — we’re going to keep building our centrifuge machines and expanding our enrichment capacity.’"
So early on, Samore said, "the Obama administration is going to need to propose to Iran that both sides suspend their hostile actions as a way to create space for a truly comprehensive effort to resolve issues, and in that kind of double suspension, the U.S. would suspend sanctions which the Bush administration has already put in place, and the Iranians would suspend enrichment activities, and however long that double suspension lasted, there would be a true negotiation to see if these many difficult issues could be resolved. So I think we’ll actually find out pretty soon whether or not the Iranians are prepared to accept that offer. I think within this year that will become apparent…
"I don’t think we can afford to wait," Samore continued. "I think Iran is moving ahead so quickly that we should at least try to find a way to engage Iran without helping Ahmadinejad take credit for bringing the Americans to the bargaining table. And I guess the way to do that is to try to make a direct approach to the Supreme Leader, who is, after all, the most important figure in terms of making decisions on foreign and defense policy. So I think, just tactically, it would make sense to try to have a representative of President Obama meet with a representative of the Supreme Leader and see if they could begin a dialogue. But however we do it, as I say, I think very early on it’s going to become apparent whether Iran is prepared to stop working on their nuclear program as a basis for having a real negotiation, or whether they’re intent on basically delaying while they acquire a nuclear weapons capability."
Samore also spoke at great length about North Korea last December (Listen to it HERE).
His basic view: "We’ve got many more urgent and difficult problems to deal with, especially in the Middle East. And so for me, managing the North Korea problem, if it means capping it and not necessarily making progress toward disarmament is better than trying to force the issue and dealing with the potential consequences, which could be war."
Samore says "at some point, I think, the North Korean regime is likely to fade and collapse. So our game is to sort of manage this process until it eventually disappears."
"The Obama administration will inherit a mixed hand," Samore said. "On the positive side, the Bush administration has established a diplomatic mechanism, both direct talks with North Korea and the six-party process, which has been successful in constraining North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs and, in particular, further production of plutonium. n the other hand, North Korea has acquired a small nuclear arsenal and very unlikely to give it up in the near future. So I think the first challenge for the Obama administration will be to reassure countries in Asia that the U.S. has not given up on its ultimate objective of achieving nuclear disarmament. The abrupt change in the Bush administration’s policy after the North Korea nuclear test and then the subsequent concessions that the Bush administration has made to keep the process going has really created doubt in Japan and South Korea and China that the U.S. is serious about achieving disarmament."
Thus, regarding North Korea, "the first immediate step for President Obama when he comes in is through statements and speeches to reassure the Asian countries and to warn the North Koreans that the U.S. is not going to fully normalize relations with North Korea, sign a peace treaty with North Korea until it gives up its nuclear weapons."
Samore said that he anticipated the "North Koreans will allow sampling to verify their plutonium declaration because I think they probably are not worried about having the fact that they’ve got 39 to 40, you know, kilograms of plutonium being verified. From their standpoint, that’s not a bad thing. They want us to know that they have a nuclear deterrent. So it will be a question of haggling over the price and not setting a precedent that would allow us to go searching around the rest of the country, you know, looking in every bunker and cave. So I think at the end of the day, they will allow their declaration of plutonium to be verified, and that will include access to a number of sites at the Yongbyon nuclear facility."
The new WMD czar said he’s "less optimistic on enrichment because the only way we’re ever going to have even a small degree of confidence that we have a handle on that program is if the North Koreans come forward and tell us about the magnitude of the program, location and so forth. And I don’t see any evidence so far that they’re prepared to do that."
Samore also said the U.S. government is "never going to be able to verify, through cooperative measures, that they’re not providing assistance to somebody else" in terms of another government or terrorist group. "Whatever assurances the North Koreans give us are worthless."
As for further nuclear tests, Dr. Samore quipped, "from one standpoint, the more they test, the better. You know, use up their plutonium."
Samore said the Bush administration failed in establishing a "coherent and a cohesive interagency team" to deal with the North Korean problem. "And the result has been sometimes dysfunctional decision-making and a lot of personal animosity. So putting the right team together, getting the right person, you know, to lead the negotiations and making sure that all the agencies — Defense, State, NSC, DOE and so forth, CIA — are all really lined up together, working for the same objective. I think that would tremendously improve our performance in terms of, you know, our ability to negotiate with the North Koreans."
Good luck, Dr. Samore!
– jpt
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Before anyone jumps in gushing “OH WOW NOW THIS REALLY IS CHANGE. Squee!” there have been 30 rounds of talks with Iran during the Bush administration.
One constant is that every President since Carter has gone apologizing and scraping to Iran and the relationship needle hovers between Bad and Worse.
“finally in part because the Obama administration I think is going to be less conflicted than the Bush administration was about directly engaging Iran without conditions, starting a broad dialogue, and offering to improve bilateral relations as part of a nuclear deal.”
The Iranians need nothing that badly. They will simply wait another year, develop nuclear weapons and weaponize them on mid-range missiles. The West will then drop all the sanctions as a carrot for something else- it would be pointless to keep them in place since their purpose has already expired.
“Samore said “the Obama administration may have a stronger bargaining position than President Bush did,…in part because President Obama may be in a better position to appeal to the Europeans and the Russians and Chinese”
Yeah, good luck with that. If the Europeans didnt see a value in preventing a nut from having nuclear missiles, I doubt that their value equation will change after a smarm offensive.
Posted by: BertieW | January 29, 2009, 10:22 am 10:22 am
Are we sure this isn’t really Al Franken doing some schtick while waiting to become Senator?
We’re going to be better negotiators because “we’re good enough, we’re smart enough, and doggone it, people like us”
Now after criticism of Bush and Cheney having strident and arrogant rhetoric in comments, isn’t this a variation on that same theme? Shouldn’t it play just as badly on the stage of world opinion to hear flippant remarks about what’s so great about the Middle East, go ahead and use up all your plutonium in tests, etc , etc.
Are we trying to match the “nuts” in NK and Iran with our own wacky comedy routine? That being said, I wish for America’s sake that this new approach works, a new mind game on rogue leaders and he forms very happy interagency teams without personality conflicts or self esteem problems
Posted by: robert b | January 29, 2009, 11:46 am 11:46 am
Although I am a firm believer that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons, the hostile posture taken by the US, the EU and Israel might eventually push Iran strategists to actually build those weapons. I don’t think any nation would sit ideally by watching its system of government being endangered by great powers and not use all the elements of power at its disposal. Therefore, I feel Iran should never respond to any letter that is not directly addressed to Mr. AhmadiNejad; he is the president of Iran and as per Iranian constitution he is the head of the executive branch. Iran should, under no uncertain terms, accept any sort of suspension of its enrichment activities as Iran is not breaking any international law as per its obligation under NPT rules. Iran can show a lot of good faith towards America by reducing its rhetoric and make it very clear to the Obama team that it is willing to negotiate, in good faith, on wide spectrum of issues as long as its rights are respected. The great areas of cooperation with the US are such that any failure in those negotiations should never be accepted as an eventual outcome by both sides.
I, personally, don’t believe that those negotiations will produce any meaningful outcome unless it is done within a framework of secretive great bargain. A bargain that should never touch the issue of enrichment as Iran will need to produce its own fuel for its upcoming 20 nuclear reactors.
Posted by: Abbas Khalil | January 29, 2009, 11:47 am 11:47 am
Khalil is correct. We have to acknowledge publicly that we are asking Iran to give up a legal right. We are asking very much of them, and if we don’t so so honestly and respectfully, it will not bear fruit.
Posted by: Rich | January 29, 2009, 12:25 pm 12:25 pm
BertieW has it right. This is mostly wishful thinking on the part of Samore. At least it is not Cumbaya naiveté, though.
The only thing that is different here (from Bush) is that Obama is going to put all his chips on the table with direct negotiations and offers to lift sanctions. He will either be kicked in the teeth by the Iranians quickly or he will be deceived with apparent acceptance (only to be kicked in the teeth a year or two from now when it turns out that that they cheated on their promise to suspend – by maintaining in operation other facilities that are not under observation). My guess is that it will be the latter.
It is a win-win for Obama and the Iranians. He will get a year or two of headlines about a great diplomatic breakthrough (the Clinton North Korean Framework agreement anyone?) before it is revealed that Iran was cheating an now has nukes. He will the be able to throw-up his hands and say – well, I did all I could but they just could not be stopped. The adoring media will not confront him with the fact that he should have expected them to cheat. Iran will get their nukes and be freed from sanctions (at least for a time). This suits Obama just fine because he is unwilling to do what must be done to stop Iran’s development of the Bomb: attack Iran.
Posted by: Brian | January 29, 2009, 12:37 pm 12:37 pm
I thank the “firm believers” in Iran’s good intentions for their own good intentions. However it must be said that though Mr. AhmadiNejad is the executive, that is the very problem, and that leaders of the Supreme Council should make clear that his time there grows short, and that at the very least he should not stand for re-election. Though no-one should be under naïve assumptions that Iran is anything but a theocratic authoritarian state, that would go a long way to be able to negotiate with a fresh or at least recycled leader given an inclination and a leash by those theocrats to step back from confrontation. Even given Shia Islamists own measurements of accomplishments, Mr. AhmadiNejad has failed miserably against the obvious difficulties of America and Israel to accomplish its aims both domestic (stupid economic policies, almost as bad as our own) and foreign – Moqtada’s Mahdi Army, Hezbollah, and Hamas have all paid dearly for the privilege of being Iran’s pawns and their tokens of outrage, from missiles to shoes, have boomeranged to very counterproductive results. Sadr’s influence is zilch, Hezbollah is going in another direction under the tutelage of the more shall we say nuanced (oh heck Machavellian) approach of Baby Assad of Syria, and Hamas – what can you say about a movement whose sole claim to moral authority is that its errant rocket attacks are so ineffective in killing anybody except themselves and that their incompetence to provide for their people greatly exceeds the cash flow and supplies coming thru the tunnels.
But to return to the nuclear argument. Perhaps it would be more persuasive if Iran were actually building any power plants and grid system, instead of just the present factories for enrichment for its own sake, which guess what, has only one other use. It might even help Obama to change his mind to make similar construction a priority in our own energy and economic stimulus plans. The next step is Iran’s – stop the mouthing off of an apocalyptic, holocaust denying nutcase and negotiate an end to misadventures which Iran can afford much less than the Great Satan can.
Posted by: robert b | January 29, 2009, 12:55 pm 12:55 pm
“It is a win-win for Obama and the Iranians. He will get a year or two of headlines about a great diplomatic breakthrough (the Clinton North Korean Framework agreement anyone?) before it is revealed that Iran was cheating an now has nukes. He will the be able to throw-up his hands and say – well, I did all I could but they just could not be stopped. ”
The third possibility is that the Israelis lose confidence that International deterrence is having any effect at all and take unilateral action.
Reset the Middle East peace process meter to 0.
Posted by: BertieW | January 29, 2009, 1:09 pm 1:09 pm
Iran has every right to develop nuclear weapons. They are not as crazy as the Western media claims. They are no different than any other government who has experienced 30 years of injustice by superpowers, including US/UK deliberate support for Saddom that attacked Iran in 1980. This entire situation is yet another screw up of Superpower bullying, interference, double-standards, and hypocracy. And most of all, all I see is RACISM towards Iran in US. Racism, Racism, and Racism.
Posted by: Sean | January 29, 2009, 1:59 pm 1:59 pm
“A bargain that should never touch the issue of enrichment as Iran will need to produce its own fuel for its upcoming 20 nuclear reactors.”
The problem is that there are different types of nuclear reactors. Light water reactors, though less powerful, do not use weapons grade radiological materials. Light water plants have been offered to Iran, literally for free by Russia, the US, and a couple of European countries. All of which, systematically denied.
That leave heavy water nuclear power plants that use weapons grade plutonium. These require much more enrichment than light water reactors. Thus, they are duel use. Once you have it that material, the day is done so to speak.
So lets say they get a nuclear weapon. Iran is a Shia state. The Saudis, Jordanians, and Syrians are largely Sunni states. This creates a shift in the balance of power and thus, will create a nuclear arms race in the middle east. Saudi, with their enormous wealth, will probably be the first to acquire nukes. Next likely Jordan as they have close ties with the west. Syria will likely get theirs from Russia. Add in Israel already with nukes and we got one heck of a party in a region that is known for trigger happy dictators.
Now that is a Middle East situation we can all be proud of. So much for non-proliferation.
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 2:14 pm 2:14 pm
“Now that is a Middle East situation we can all be proud of. So much for non-proliferation. ”
But it is change, you cant deny that….
Posted by: BertieW | January 29, 2009, 2:53 pm 2:53 pm
“”New White House WMD Czar Wants Immediate Talks with Iran, to ‘Manage’ North Korea Until it Collapses”"
SO many ‘child-like’ fantasies at work.
Posted by: Da Truth | January 29, 2009, 2:55 pm 2:55 pm
How big is that white flag??????????????
Posted by: Lizzie | January 29, 2009, 3:15 pm 3:15 pm
Finally, a WMD Czar is named. The Bush administration was supposed to have established one in 2007 from a mandate based on the the 9/11 committee recommendations. They designated WMD’s as a reason for war in 2003, but then did nothing on the mandate for well over a year. In a glaring contrast, the Obama administration established the czar within a week.
Posted by: kathy | January 29, 2009, 3:23 pm 3:23 pm
“Reset the Middle East peace process meter to 0.”
Oh, and we’re resetting it from where 0.00024?
Posted by: pefros | January 29, 2009, 3:51 pm 3:51 pm
“Finally, a WMD Czar is named.” To repeat, we all have to HOPE this will do the trick in combatting the many strands of the war on terror by having an interagency team that doesn’t have personality issues.
Certainly he has to at least as well as the accomplishments of the last 8 years on this score:
1) Discovery and dismantling of the AQ Khan Pakistani proliferation ring
2) Libya surrendering WMD
3) The Duelfer report did conclude that Saddam’s Iraq had intent, plans and nearly immediate capacity to produce chemical and biological weapons
4) 2 rounds of UN sanctions and more intense EU and US sanctions on Iran. These should not be “given away” easily as bargaining chips – dont blow it Obama and Samore
5) 6 power talks – even as we continue talking to the mad Dear Leader and he lies to us – in the midst of the intransigence he has shut down his reactor and coughed up info on proliferation (see above #1 and below #6). In addition of course, any managing of the downfall of NK – would be the prepositioned arrangements of regional “partners” – strange bedfellows of China, Russia, US, S Korea and China in controlled chaos. A tad more difficult than getting the right feng shui for the interagency conference room but it’s in place. Don’t blow it Obama and Samore
6) Syria finds a hole in the ground last year. How odd! Even odder that it didn’t yelp (well not much) about it even though it was obviously an Israeli mission based on Western intel. Not checkmate, but definitely a check on junior members of the axis of evil.
Posted by: robert b | January 29, 2009, 4:27 pm 4:27 pm
Finally, a WMD Czar is named.”
There are already several government organizations that involve WMD and proliferation. I guess adding a “Czar” was all it needed for them to get to work.
Wonder how many other “Czar” we can create for problem sets in the world. Hey, wheres the fight against hunger “Czar”, or the Aids “Czar”. This could go on forever.
Counter WMD operations I know have been going on in the DOD and intel communities for years. Their operations fell under the normal chain of command, i.e. Joint Staff, Office of Secretary of Defense, and ultimately National Security Council. I wonder if this new “Czar” takes control of these organizations and circumvents the current chain of command?
Oh well, at I guess it sends a message. We can create a new high paying job for just about anything.
Posted by: KR | January 29, 2009, 6:12 pm 6:12 pm
This may add up to be a first test of the “Team of Rivals” applied to national security crises.
His ideas may have much worth, even though phrased rather snarkily especially for international consumption. But these comments seem to set not only the stage but the furniture on how things play out not only with the 2 “problem” rogue states but how the countries presently engaged should hencefore hew to the new diplomacy.
Therefore State, Defense and CIA prerogatives have already been pre-empted. Various agency existing priorities doing important groundwork on WMD are upset, and so are both domestic and foreign clients involved with them.
Perhaps Dr. Samore takes “czar” too literally, Putin’s got the present incarnation covered, the position is really “coordinator”
Posted by: robert b | January 29, 2009, 7:03 pm 7:03 pm
“Managing North Korea to its destruction”… doesn’t seem to be a big problem for our government (both sides). See how well they managed the USA.
Posted by: LaughingCynic | January 29, 2009, 7:18 pm 7:18 pm
Oh so funny cynic.
Millions of starving people, total disconnect with any norms of freedom making China look like Sweden, but the real chance that desperate unhinged autocrats will unleash a gigantic swarm of soldiers will jump the DMZ against our 30,000 GIs serving “tripwire” duty after shelling the thriving millions of Seoul to oblivion.
Oh so funny
Posted by: robert b | January 29, 2009, 7:25 pm 7:25 pm
robert b,
It’s the constant “OH MY GOD THESE PEOPLE ARE A THREAT” bs that’s funny.
It’s the arrogance in asserting that our government is going to “manage” another country into “oblivion” that’s funny.
It’s the fact that there are a lot of unhinged governments out there that are free of this “management” because…
well…they’re “our friends and allies” or they don’t have something “we” want that’s funny.
The world is a funny, funny place.
Posted by: LaughingCynic | January 29, 2009, 8:17 pm 8:17 pm
ummm last time we talked with Iran, they took Hostages for over a year, and some say the current leader of Iran was one of the kidnappers!!
Those that dont learn from history are bound to repeat.
Posted by: spock | January 29, 2009, 8:19 pm 8:19 pm
lol a nuke iran not an option it would be a game changer who said that huh he is a real dud-how he said things someone should hang the press for helping him to get elected
Posted by: david reyes | January 29, 2009, 10:04 pm 10:04 pm
Lol, Obama wants N. Korea to fail!
Posted by: BertieW | January 29, 2009, 11:04 pm 11:04 pm
Oh well, at I guess it sends a message. We can create a new high paying job for just about anything.
*************************************************
KR- When Bush signed the congressional mandate for a WMD czar, he hailed it as another act of his administration’s commitment to fighting terror. Yet, one wasn’t established for the remaining year and a half of his administration.
The gist of your Bush apologist slant appeared to be that a Czar wasn’t needed, while at the same time bringing up dire and unresolved situations in the Middle East that need attention and action. Overall, it was a major double message similar to the Bush administration’s.
In that vein, whenever the families of the 9/11 commission called the WH weekly over the year and a half period of inaction, they were told “we are working on it.” It may have had to do with the fact that the WMD Czar position comes with congressional oversight and accountability. The Bush administration was never one for sunshine of any sorts.
Posted by: kathy | January 30, 2009, 3:59 am 3:59 am
No where is Israel mentioned..Does Mr Samore really think the Israelis will sit back while Obama fiddles, negotiates, plays nice, plays mean, all the while the Mullahs in Tehran aquire nuclear weapons???? I don’t think so..Better to advise the president how to react once the bombs from Tel Aviv answer the murderous Persian regiem.
Posted by: Reddog53 | January 30, 2009, 7:49 am 7:49 am
“When Bush signed the congressional mandate for a WMD czar, he hailed it as another act of his administration’s commitment to fighting terror. Yet, one wasn’t established for the remaining year and a half of his administration.”
WMD proliferation and terror are not the same thing. They can be linked, but WMD proliferation goes way beyond terror. A terrorist with WMD is certainly a scary prospect, but so is a rogue state. I happen to work a little in this field and WMD proliferation is 99% focused on state actors. For a terrorist to get a WMD, it would almost certainly have to come from a state actor already having WMD. Make sense? And in the chemical area, its not the material that makes it a WMD, its the weapon used to deploy it, again coming from a state actor.
“The gist of your Bush apologist slant appeared to be that a Czar wasn’t needed.”
I’m not sure it is, regardless of the President in charge. WMD proliferation isn’t exactly a fast moving, constantly changing environment. It’s closely watched by many nations.
“while at the same time bringing up dire and unresolved situations in the Middle East that need attention and action.”
Nukes in Iran is a dire situation. It will destabilize the entire Middle East. I’m not sure what a WMD Czar is going to do. Do yo have any idea? There are many WMD proliferation gears working all over government that started even before Clinton.
“Overall, it was a major double message similar to the Bush administration’s.”
I honestly just don’t know what a WMD Czar would do or change. Maybe that’s why the Bush administration never filled it? WMD proliferation is a National Security problem that rests on the shoulders of our highest leadership. IMO, the WMD Czar is the President and Secretary of State.
On second thought, maybe a WMD Czar is a good idea.
Posted by: KR | January 30, 2009, 7:52 am 7:52 am
WMD proliferation and terror are not the same thing. They can be linked, but WMD proliferation goes way beyond terror. A terrorist with WMD is certainly a scary prospect, but so is a rogue state.
*****************************************
I thought WMD proliferation went beyond the state. Especially when you take into consider the amount of unaccounted nuclear and chemical agents not only in the former Soviet Union, but also in the US, and for that matter, on a global scale as well. Besides, WMDs can come in a variety of primitive forms, like “dirty bombs”. Unfortunately, in the last eight years, terrorism has become diffuse with cells operating globally and increasingly disconnected from the state. I think Pakistan is a major example of cells operating independently from the state. Sorry, but I find your definition of WMD proliferation a narrow one that minimizes real world implications.
Posted by: kathy | January 30, 2009, 1:15 pm 1:15 pm
Samore should take note of a quote by Robert Mitchum “I kept the same suit for six years and the same dialogue. They just changed the title of the picture and the leading lady.” For the safety of the country, Obama’s administration needs to keep it realistic..unless of course he is willing to meet Iran’s demands for talks, an apology, pull all troops out of the middle east and of course, renounce the Zionists….otherwise it’s just the same dialogue and suit with a different leading lady….
Posted by: Parallax View | January 30, 2009, 1:23 pm 1:23 pm
Open talks with Iran! These vermin who are shooting their mouths off talking about wiping Israel off the map. Should be vaporized in short order. A multiple rentry vehicle would shut them up until their beards grow back. What is their to talk about with 9th century barbarians.
Posted by: James Villa | January 30, 2009, 10:40 pm 10:40 pm
An Iranian government spokesman said today (1/31) that Obama’s statement on Al Arabiya Wednesday concerning a willingness to talk to Iran “means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed.”
But, but, but I thought that once Obama was anointed, all the world would love us! Wars would cease, rainbows would spring up spontaneously, and rivers of chocolate would flow.
This has to be Bush’s fault!
Posted by: Justin | January 31, 2009, 7:49 pm 7:49 pm
lol…. Hey Justin loved the way you put it! Mind you, a portrait of Obama was also burnt by some folks demonstrating in Iran. They were few but don’t tell me democracy won’t tolerate that!? Or actually it wouldn’t, but then again that would be Bush’s fault.
I only hope that Obama won’t appoint an Israeli as his envoy for Iran’s negotiation coz if he does that would be the end of this whole rapprochement thing. I am keeping my fingers crossed!
Posted by: Abbas Khalil | January 31, 2009, 8:06 pm 8:06 pm
The only reason North Korea has been willing to talk is because Bush showed them that it would be better than not talking – and they couldn’t afford to wait for OBie. But Iran knows that OBie is an empty-headed fool who can be strung along for however long they want.
Posted by: Neo Politicus | February 3, 2009, 5:12 pm 5:12 pm
It’s time to apologize to Iran for the crap that we pulled on them in 1953. If we didn’t worry about Israel getting the bomb, why should we worry about Iran?
Posted by: loveliberty1972 | February 7, 2009, 8:30 am 8:30 am
For you youngsters that make posts about Iran has so much pressure they will develope Nuclear Weapons for protection……
I was in the Navy in the 70′s & 80′s around Iranian’s….they hate your guts, they were raised that way, they will cut your throat the first chance they get.
The only U.S.President they were afraid of was Regan.
You better wake up around these people before it is too late, once they get to where they can send a Nuclear Payload to the U.S. they will, even though they know we will level them they will still do it..from Hell’s heart they will stab at us.
Posted by: gatornation1957 | February 8, 2009, 6:55 pm 6:55 pm