By Kristina Wong

Nov 29, 2009 3:09pm

White House: Iran Continuing to Isolate Itself

Further setting the stage for a larger confrontation in December, the White House reacted Sunday afternoon to reports from Iranian media that the government in Tehran had ordered the construction of ten new nuclear sites.

"If true, this would be yet another serious violation of Iran's clear obligations under multiple UN security council resolutions, and another example of Iran choosing to isolate itself," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said. "The international community has made clear that Iran has rights, but with those rights come responsibilities."

Gibbs referred to the 25-3 vote of the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors on Friday to censure Iran for hiding the existence of a uranium enrichment facility near Qom. Every member of the United Nations Security Council — including China and Russia, which have been reluctant in the past to rebuke Iran — voted for censure, an act the White House said reflected President leadership and ability to build international consensus.

"As the overwhelming IAEA board of governors vote made clear, time is running out for Iran to address the international community's growing concerns about its nuclear program," Gibbs said today.

Iran's official government news agency IRNA reported earlier today that Iranian cabinet ministers, in a meeting chaired by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told Iran's Atomic Energy Organization to begin building ten new nuclear sites to produce fuel for power plants to generate 20,000 megawatts of electricity. The IAEO was directed to begin construction on five sites and to make preparations for the other five within the next two months.

“We need some 500,000 centrifuges to produce fuel for the power plants under construction to generate 20,000 megawatts of electricity for domestic use," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying. ”We should be able to produce 250 – 300 tons of fuel per hour and to attain the goal we need more new modern centrifuges with higher speed."

As for the IAEA, Ahmadinejad said, "We welcome friendly ties with the world, in the meantime, we never let them violate the legitimate rights of Iranian nation as little as a needle-head."

IAEA director-general Mohamed ElBaradei last week sounded quite skeptical about efforts to convince Iran to end its uranium enrichment program, which could produce the materials necessary to construct a nuclear bomb. Iran is ignoring five United Nations Security Council resolutions calling upon the rogue nation to do so.

"There has been no movement on remaining issues of concern which need to be clarified for the agency to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program," ElBaradei told the IAEA board of governors last week. "It is now well over a year since the agency was last able to engage Iran in discussions about these outstanding issues. We have effectively reached a dead end."

Iran's chief delegate to the atomic agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, had told the IAEA that "neither resolutions of the board of governors nor those of the United Nations Security Council, neither sanctions nor the threat of military attacks, can interrupt peaceful nuclear activities in Iran, even a second."

Iran's ability to carry out Ahmadinejad's orders are in question. Since 2000, Iran has constructed fewer than 9,000 centrifuges, experts say, making Ahmadinejad's call for 500,000 new ones quite a tall order.

After the IAEA censure, Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani threatened to stop cooperating at all with the international community, calling for his nation to "form a new type of relationship with the West….If the West continues to pressure us, then parliament can review Iran's cooperation level with the IAEA."

-jpt

User Comments

Maybe Obama could apologize for having an American Embassy sully their sacred land in the first place.

Posted by: spoutinghorn | November 29, 2009, 3:21 pm 3:21 pm

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hmmmm White House continueing to isolate itself on the HOAX

Posted by: mickey maoist | November 29, 2009, 3:25 pm 3:25 pm

oh no.. if iran kees this up,w e might even threaten them with MORE multination talks. am sure they are just quaking in their boots. cant wait to see how BO wins them over with that much ballyhooed oratorial skill of his

Posted by: realman1963 | November 29, 2009, 3:29 pm 3:29 pm

Great foreign policy there, Obama.

Posted by: Huh? | November 29, 2009, 3:31 pm 3:31 pm

If you ask me we are the ones with our policies over the last 60 years post Mosaddeq that have been isolating ourselves. Sure we have got some nations to go along with us because we were rich and powerful via reserve currency and innovations, but what happens as we enter the fiscal doldrums?

Posted by: Huh | November 29, 2009, 3:34 pm 3:34 pm

Is there anyone who thinks diplomacy can stop me from going to the bathroom? Do you believe the great think tank Obama has will make Iran Stop what they are doing?….the whole of Iran and its people are focused on one thing..starting the next World War.

Posted by: gasyusblast | November 29, 2009, 3:48 pm 3:48 pm

Makes me miss W. BO is inept. Maybe an Iran summit is the solution, on the swing set of the WH.
Bozo

Posted by: mjishernameo | November 29, 2009, 4:02 pm 4:02 pm

gasyusblast – Silly comment. Iran is well aware if they attack us they can be destroyed in minutes. They are developing the technology not only as a possible deterrent, but, more importantly, as a nationalistic accomplishment. Remember the US attacks someone new every other year or so, not Iran. As much as I despise their form of government and I would not like to live under it, they are entitled to accomplish what they will within their own borsers if they are not prohibited by some treaty. They signed a treaty forbidding the pursuit of NW, but not nuclear power.

Posted by: Huh | November 29, 2009, 4:03 pm 4:03 pm

Iran has no fear or respect for the United States and is functioning like a rogue elephant on a rampage. Our once great Republic has no effective leadership and is becoming a joke to the rest of the free world.

Posted by: rplat | November 29, 2009, 4:11 pm 4:11 pm

Mr. Obama has said that he will sit down personally with the Iranian leader for a heart-to-heart talk for world peace, regardless of preconditions.

Posted by: young_voter | November 29, 2009, 4:19 pm 4:19 pm

Is Obama trying to earn a merit badge?

Posted by: mickey maoist | November 29, 2009, 4:21 pm 4:21 pm

Iran is a Signatory to the NPT. Although Rouge nations such as Israel did not sign the NPT and have undeclared numbers of nuclear bombs, they never were inspected by the IAEA and as the matter of fact we gave them what they needed. So, why should all the Islamic countries of the Middle East be living under this threat from them? They get invaded for all sorts of reasons! Is that why Israel can commit atrocities in the Gaza and UN writes reports such as the “Goldstome”, but they never get censured or reported to the security counsel or boycotted by the west and us?!
Then if the NPT DOES NOT worth the paper it is written on, Iran should follow the the example of the Zionists state and do away with the NPT and kick the IAEA out and have undeclared number of A-bombs, so no one be able to touch it either! Then NPT is toast and gone! Happy?

Posted by: Esther Haman | November 29, 2009, 4:29 pm 4:29 pm

Iran is a Signatory to the NPT. Although Rouge nations such as Israel did not sign the NPT and have undeclared numbers of nuclear bombs, they never were inspected by the IAEA and as the matter of fact we gave them what they needed. So, why should all the Islamic countries of the Middle East be living under this threat from them? They get invaded for all sorts of reasons! Is that why Israel can commit atrocities in the Gaza and UN writes reports such as the “Goldstome”, but they never get censured or reported to the security counsel or boycotted by the west and us?!
Then if the NPT DOES NOT worth the paper it is written on, Iran should follow the the example of the Zionists state and do away with the NPT and kick the IAEA out and have undeclared number of A-bombs, so no one be able to touch it either! Then NPT is toast and gone! Happy?

Posted by: Esther Haman | November 29, 2009, 4:29 pm 4:29 pm

If Iran attacked us , the Achmeinuts and the Moolahs of that country would find themselves being prosecuted in absentia in New York , or D.C. They just better not ,unless they want that kind of bad P.R.

Posted by: nat turner | November 29, 2009, 4:34 pm 4:34 pm

Now if GWB was around, then any actions the US took would have been seen as exaggerated. But as Obama is seen as a balanced and fair man, the mullahs will be blamed, and the world can get out of this log jam. Obama can now say to the world that these mullahs are seriously involved on some crazy project based on dogma and that there are much smarter and more capable people in Iran that can manage the country and the nuclear program more intelligently. But maybe I can be cynical and think that Obama does not say that and lets this regime be an excuse to crush Iranians and not grow to their full potential and eventually be isolated as a pariah state like N Korea. Afterall we Iranians have unbelievable resources in the gas and oil, with a very young vibrant population, as well as being located in one of the best real estates in the world, at the cross roads of all nations. Left to modernize to its full potential the whole of Western Asia would be serious competition to the West much more than East Asia ever was.

Posted by: Ali Mostofi | November 29, 2009, 4:36 pm 4:36 pm

Maybe the title should be:
Iran Continuing to Arm Itself

Posted by: Barry Christmas | November 29, 2009, 4:43 pm 4:43 pm

Uh oh, looks like Obama is going to have to put little Ahmad in time out. He’s not playing nice with the other kids.
I hope our great leader doesn’t want to “talk” to Iran too much. Listening to him without a teleprompter could surely be put on the same level as waterboarding.

Posted by: Shoe | November 29, 2009, 4:50 pm 4:50 pm

“Let me be perfectly clear, the only way to have unprecedented Christmas sales is to pass healthcare. The American shoppers are acting stupidly.”
Mmm, mmm, mmm…
Ten new uranium enrichment plants…

Posted by: Krakatoa | November 29, 2009, 4:52 pm 4:52 pm

Iran realizes oil wont last forever, and we are the ones living in the past, with out nuclear facilities, but Iran can’t have them? Close our facilities first, send them a message! Oil good, electricity bad! Send another message and get rid of all our nuclear bombs! I wish GW Bush was out of office so we could have a president who doesn’t listen to all the “BIG OIL” men. Get ready for another war, not over oil, but over not using oil! Send more messages, electric vehicles bad, burn oil, have more children, so we can send them off to war! Who did kill the electric car? Same people who are going to start a war with Iran over thier right to produce electricity. The media didn’t call us a rouge nation when we started producing nuclear energy, why is Iran? And we actually used nuclear bombs!

Posted by: f16bmathis | November 29, 2009, 5:17 pm 5:17 pm

Esther Haman: Your comment is so full of doubletalk I don’t even know where to begin with it. Israel doesn’t question Iran’s or any other nation’s right to exist or threaten them with destruction. Israel has had nuclear weapons for over forty years. Have they ever used them? No. Why do they have them? One word – deterrence. As long as a country does not have hostile intentions toward Israel, it has nothing to fear. Concerning Israel’s “atrocities” in Gaza, what did Israel do that any other country in its situation wouldn’t have done. In World War II, over a million German and Japanese civilians were killed, often deliberatly, by the United States and Britain. It was war. Did anyone ever accuse us of war crimes or atrocities?
If anyone should be accused of war crimes, it is Hamas for firing over eight thousand rockets into Israel, forcing Israel to retaliate to protect its own citizens, and then placing themselves in the middle of civilian populations in the hope that their own people would be killed so they could launch their propaganda war against Israel.

Posted by: wpqr99 | November 29, 2009, 5:19 pm 5:19 pm

when GWB was in power he gave strict orders to the Zionists and the US air force not let them cross the line. What he knew about Iran was passed on to B. Obama after the inauguration.
So, if Iran fought a war with the battle experience Iraqi forces for 8 years during her revolution under embargo, sanctions, when we gave Sadam all the poison gas and ammunition and satellite intelligence he could use to see the Iranian Army movement and still they kicked Sadam’s behind, you should be careful what you are asking for.

Posted by: Esther Haman | November 29, 2009, 5:19 pm 5:19 pm

Careful Iran, you might make the Man Child in the Oval Office mad !!!

Posted by: thgirbla | November 29, 2009, 5:21 pm 5:21 pm

Well if the U.S. does attack Iran, get ready for a draft and higher taxes. No more free wars on the backs of the poor and future generations. The rich will need to pay and fight for these wars.

Posted by: Paul | November 29, 2009, 5:24 pm 5:24 pm

Well….duh?

Posted by: Ken | November 29, 2009, 5:36 pm 5:36 pm

wpqr99; Is this an argument? “..Have they ever used them? No..”, Should we for it?!
Again you argue “..One word – deterrence..”. That would work if the other side had them as well. At this point Iran has declared they don’t have plan and it is not in their defense structure. It might change later, but they don’t have one yet. So, ther eis no “deterrence” as you say.
Again you argue “..As long as a country does not have hostile intentions toward Israel, it has nothing to fear..”. Well with the Zionists short and violent history, invasion of each and every neighboring country, the latest “Goldstone” report by the UN, “Sabra and Shatila massacres” in Lebanon etc. etc. It seems the “hostile intentions” is from them. They can’t stop threatening Iran with bombing!! I don’t think anyone would take them serious when they keep taking the Palestinian lands and expand in the occupied territories. So, when it comes to peace and tranquility in that region no one trust them. They are not Middle Easterner, they are considered European migrant.

Posted by: Esther Haman | November 29, 2009, 5:44 pm 5:44 pm

Esther Fagan: I’ll try this again. Name me one country in the Middle East Israel has ever said does not have a right to exist. Since 1973, no Arab country has launched a major war against Israel, certainly because they know how Israel can retaliate. This is what is meant by deterrence.
The Zionists “short and violent history”? When Israel declared its independence in 1948, it was invaded by the armies of five Arab countries whose stated goal was to destroy Israel and annihilate its entire Jewish population.
They conspired to again launch a war of destruction in 1967 and attacked Israel again in 1973. In short, if the Arab world had accepted Israel existence, Israel would never have been forced to ttake the kinds of actions it has

Posted by: wpqr99 | November 29, 2009, 6:08 pm 6:08 pm

wpqr99… How can you accept a country’s existence if it just occupied your land illegally and with brutal force?

Posted by: Dabbas | November 29, 2009, 6:48 pm 6:48 pm

no way, you mean Iran has actually opposed our UN? gee that has to be the first……….. first dibs on the parts of thier rocket , after it lands on the US soil.
on a side note, I sure am glad that the liberal diplomacy is working out…

Posted by: lou1970 | November 29, 2009, 7:24 pm 7:24 pm

Dabbas: are you talking about the United States? Was it legal for Europeans to come to America, wage war against its native inhabitants and steal an entire continent? Is anyone today questioning the United States’ right to exist? Why the double standard?

Posted by: wpqr99 | November 29, 2009, 7:24 pm 7:24 pm

“No more free wars on the backs of the poor”
This is such a crock! Our volunteer army is made up of rich and poor alike. Our taxes are being paid overwhelmingly by the “rich” already. Why do liberals always want to play poor against rich, black against white, christian against non-christian and young against old? You have become what you espouse to hate…

Posted by: Mohandas | November 29, 2009, 7:29 pm 7:29 pm

Mohandas – The military is overwhelmingly lower income folks. Sure there are always exceptions, but don’t kid yourself. The poor have always shouldered the burden in such endeavors.

Posted by: Huh | November 29, 2009, 7:44 pm 7:44 pm

I thought our President said all he had to do was talk to them?
Gee, I guess he failed.
Now, we have wasted a year with his immaturity for the job.

Posted by: donbl1 | November 29, 2009, 8:39 pm 8:39 pm

This is of, course, leading up to the inevitable.

Posted by: DeepThinker | November 29, 2009, 8:41 pm 8:41 pm

August 2008 report:
Members of the all-volunteer military are sig­nificantly more likely to come from high-income neighborhoods than from low-income neighborhoods.
Only 11 percent of enlisted recruits in 2007 came from the poorest one-fifth (quintile) of neighborhoods, while 25 per­cent came from the wealthiest quintile.
These trends are even more pronounced in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) pro­gram, in which 40 percent of enrollees come from the wealthiest neighborhoods — a number that has increased substantially over the past four years.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, minorities are not overrepresented in military service.
New recruits are also disproportionately likely to come from the South, which is in line with the history of South­ern military tradition.

Posted by: Mohandas | November 29, 2009, 8:49 pm 8:49 pm

The MSM continuing to isolate itself from the Global Warming conspiracy revealed in ClimateGate.

Posted by: WhereWasThePress? | November 29, 2009, 8:52 pm 8:52 pm

Mohandas – Sounds like fishy stats. I find this very hard to believe regardless of its source.

Posted by: Huh | November 29, 2009, 8:56 pm 8:56 pm

As long as China needs Irans oil, they can build the nuclear equipment without fear from the U.S. since it is now beholden to do what China wants or have its I.O.U.’s called and then go into bankruptcy. Hope and change you can believe in? How about debt and servitude you can pay for, thanks Obama for turning our great nation into a debtor pauper.

Posted by: jim 234 | November 29, 2009, 9:19 pm 9:19 pm

I think the US is afraid of IRAN. ALL THE PROVOCATION, DECEPTION, LIES ETC. and the WEST still tolerate IRAN’s actions. What kind of face are we showing the ARAB world. If IRAN is allowed to mouth off and have it’s nuclear ambitions, the world as we know it will be no more.

Posted by: Ed | November 29, 2009, 9:26 pm 9:26 pm

Ed stated “I think the US is afraid of IRAN.”_________I could not agree with you more. About 3 or 4 years ago, GW was mouthing off about Iran would NOT be allowed to go nuclear. What happened to that??

Posted by: DeepThinker | November 29, 2009, 9:38 pm 9:38 pm

“Times running out for Iran….” said the White House.
And in 2012 they wil really, really, really mean it!

Posted by: Paula | November 29, 2009, 9:43 pm 9:43 pm

What happened to the new way of working with the hard questions and the hard countries that the previous administration were just arrogant with. Well, so much for on the job training. With Obama, Axelrod and Emanuel in charge maybe we can just give Iran more money and they will do what we arrogant American want them to do. Change is just a six letter word nothing else.

Posted by: Pablo | November 29, 2009, 9:55 pm 9:55 pm

Ed, yup, America is in debt up to its eyeballs and we need to do something about it. But you can’t blame a year of Obama for the trillions that the American government owes. It’s been the bad policies of Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 leading to this. And Clinton actually got the government to run a surplus for a couple of years.
Our debt is a problem decades in the making.

Posted by: matyra | November 29, 2009, 10:00 pm 10:00 pm

This secret facility in Iran was developed on George Bush’s watch and exposed by the Obama administration.
Interesting – the North Koreans’ also produced and tested nuclear weapons on Bush’s watch.
At least now, Obama has gathered a large consensus against Iran, the parameters have been laid out for Iran – and Iran has been given their chance to co-operate.

Posted by: tierra | November 29, 2009, 10:02 pm 10:02 pm

If I were a nutjob like Ahmadinejhad, I would pick a fight with the U.S. and the West. Growing discontent at home, means he has to rally his people around hatred of the U.S. and Israel. The U.S. is already spread thin by Bush’s bogus wars, and the Carter/Brzezinski moral morons are calling for U.S. shootdown of Israeli jets. He’s got nothing to lose. We can’t be lured into doing something stupid but at the same time, we have to put the squeeze on this little freak.

Posted by: hopesprings52 | November 29, 2009, 10:03 pm 10:03 pm

matyra – You are absolutely correct. This has been in the works since the Carter Doctrine. Can you believe peace-loving Jimmy Carter set us one this militant path of belligerence and arrogance. After all it is our oil. God just made the mistake of putting it uder their sand. Not to mention Operation Ajax creating 60 years of hell with Iran.

Posted by: Huh | November 29, 2009, 10:16 pm 10:16 pm

Iran won. Face the facts. The so-called International Community and the UN is nothing buy toothless hot air. Who cares if they pass another resolution? The last time the UN passed a resolution with any consequences was almost 20 years ago, and the only other time, was 40 years before that one.

Posted by: Tyrone | November 29, 2009, 10:21 pm 10:21 pm

Let’s bomb them. No troops, no invasion, just bomb their nuke sites.

Posted by: Ken | November 29, 2009, 10:37 pm 10:37 pm

Looks like Obama is being called out by the Iranians. Lets see how he handles this conflict. My worry is by the time he can make decision both Saudi Arabia and isreal will be under his control.

Posted by: Jerry | November 29, 2009, 10:50 pm 10:50 pm

The so-called International Community and the UN is nothing buy toothless hot air.
__________________________________
Not really, they pretty much choked Iraq to death with sanctions after the Desert Storn slaughter. And the UN inspectors were right – they had accurately assessed there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Posted by: tierra | November 29, 2009, 10:58 pm 10:58 pm

But…but…our Schmoozer-in-Chief hasn’t yet begun to shower them with
love and dialogue that is his signature
of the new way to do things in his
New World. From little ACORNS do big
oaks grow.

Posted by: grizzlybare | November 29, 2009, 11:23 pm 11:23 pm

Posted by: grizzlybare | Nov 29, 2009 11:23:01 PM
People can really be blinded by their own ignorance; there has been a strong international coalition put together to attempt to work Iran into a suitable agreement, impose sanctions . . . and take whatever further steps necessary.
Are you really foolish enough to think bombing is the right first step?
Did you know North Korea developed and tested its first nuclear weapon on George Bush’s shift?
Did you know the secret nuclear facility in Iran was developed on Bush’s shift, and uncovered during the Obama administration?

Posted by: tierra | November 29, 2009, 11:40 pm 11:40 pm

It is silly for us to be telling Iran what to do when we ourselves are armed to the teeth.
Why don’t we worry about our own affairs, and let the world deal with themselves?

Posted by: Sparky | November 30, 2009, 2:44 am 2:44 am

Not really, they pretty much choked Iraq to death with sanctions after the Desert Storn slaughter. And the UN inspectors were right – they had accurately assessed there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Posted by: malcat | November 30, 2009, 6:18 am 6:18 am

Did you know North Korea developed and tested its first nuclear weapon on George Bush’s shift?
Did you know the secret nuclear facility in Iran was developed on Bush’s shift, and uncovered during the Obama administration?
———
So what? Really, did you expect President Bush to start another war without cause? You liberals would have really loved him for that.
If you want to blame President Bush for those things, then whatever happens anywhere in the world while President Obama is in office will have to be his fault.
Those 10 extra facilities Iran is getting ready to build will be President Obama’s fault. I will be waiting to hear you rage against President Obama for those or any other thing that is bad for the US. But I won’t hold my breath.
You need to think before blaming one president you hate unless you’re ready for the president you love to be condemned as well.
Precedents will bite you in the butt!

Posted by: malcat | November 30, 2009, 6:25 am 6:25 am

Actually, tierra, Saddam didn’t care a bit about the sanctions.
______________________________
Nonsense. Iraq was largely impoverished. When Bush attacked, Iraq couldn’t even get a plane into the air. It was not a war, it was a slaughter.
And the Saddam’s had no weapons of mass destruction; the sanctions and the UN restrictions and inspections damaged Iraq.

Posted by: tierra | November 30, 2009, 6:50 am 6:50 am

Did you know North Korea developed and tested its first nuclear weapon on George Bush’s shift?
Did you know the secret nuclear facility in Iran was developed on Bush’s shift, and uncovered during the Obama administration?
———
So what?
You need to think before blaming one president you hate unless you’re ready for the president you love to be condemned as well.
Posted by: malcat | Nov 30, 2009 6:25:22 AM
________________________________
People already heap abuse on Obama for his ‘weaknesses’ in ‘securing’ the nation. You see it on this blog repeatedly.
The information about Korea and Iran under Bush is to provide a context and a comparison with the current President.
Under Bush, Korea developed and tested its first nuclear weapon. Under Bush, Iran developed the secret nuclear facility, exposed under the Obama administration.
It’s well worth pointing out. And its important to point out.
B

Posted by: tierra | November 30, 2009, 6:57 am 6:57 am

tierra, i don’t like bush or obama and attempting to show that one was more effective or less so than the other vis a vis iran is foolish. no one has been able to do anything with iran. ahmadenijad couldn’t care less about who tells him what. this all does make obama look quite foolish, however, considering his naive promises during the campaign to open a dialogue with iran. and it’s also a little bit of egg on the faces of the blithering idiots in the media who interviewed ahmadenijad during the bush administration and attempted to portray him as some kind of decent and reasonable person. i’m not sure there’s anything that can be done about iran’s nuclear facilities short of military action, and i’m not sure the repercussions from that would be any less severe than an iran with nuclear weapons. that said, there are certain areas of foreign policy where trying to parse bush v. obama makes little sense, and this is clearly one of them.

Posted by: davidfrat21 | November 30, 2009, 7:28 am 7:28 am

attempting to show that one was more effective or less so than the other vis a vis iran is foolish.
__________________________________
I completely disagree; Obama is persistently attacked for a perceived ‘weakness’ on Iran, North Korea and so on.
It is essential to understand how far off base this is given where things went under the Bush administration – Korea’s first nuclear weapons tested; secret nuclear facilities developed in Iran.
And I also disagree with your assessment the media looks foolish for interviewing Ahmadenijad or attempting to understand the political situation in Iran. Ignorance of a political foe is not a strength.

Posted by: tierra | November 30, 2009, 8:20 am 8:20 am

500,000 centrifuges…

Posted by: WhereWasThePress? | November 30, 2009, 8:31 am 8:31 am

Oh no! Isolation !
That’ll fix them.

Posted by: mjishernameo | November 30, 2009, 12:56 pm 12:56 pm

With the conversation going back and forth on what happened on which President’s watch…it’s sort of silly. If you want to really play the blame game…I could be wrong but wasn’t it under Clinton that we “let” Bin Laden walk away, at one point our CIA even trained him…start with that administration Tierra, and go from there. Lastly, the worst mistake Bush made was taking Saddam out of power. With all of his brutal tactics that he used, we now see those tactics were very effective (and at some times necessary) to control these animals over there. These militants and certain tribal fighters (against the allies), are complete animals and since they cannot behave, they need harsh tactics to scare them and put them in their place. I do not support what Saddam did, but I do now see why he acted that way…I am not sure if these individuals will ever be able to behave. As long as they belive their God wants war, they will fight. Parking lot time…end this.

Posted by: JennyB | November 30, 2009, 1:25 pm 1:25 pm

LOL. That’s so amusing I am ROTFL.
There is a continuing march towards WW III by Iran, and the rest of the Islamic world is supporting it. It is only a matter of time, because the free world is too “politically correct” to take the real actions necessary. Soooooo…..they continue to talk sanctions and act stupidly, while the bombs are being created. Then when the bombs get used, then they will say “we need to take action”. Well……yeah!!!!

Posted by: Rick McDaniel | November 30, 2009, 1:45 pm 1:45 pm

tierra, don’t distort my words. i said the media looked foolish because they gushed over the man like he was some kind of deep-thinking man of ideas. it’s fine to interview someone with an aim of understanding, but to accept his absurd prepared statements in light of the years of actions and statements to the contrary is foolish. and yes, obama looks naive and always will for being such a dupe as to believe he could have a dialogue with ahmadenijad for the same reasons the media looked foolish. either that, or obama is so self-absorbed that be believes his own press about the wonderful transcendence of his personality being able to break down every barrier no matter how difficult. NO ONE (including his own vice-president) believed that campaign-trail blather. so, yes, the media ended up looking like fools and obama looks naive. obama’s two biggest foibles are his ego, and his followers, which feed on one another. he’s like the child whose parents never allow to fail…even if not failing means blaming the teachers, the refs, god and everyone else. accordingly, he views himself as invincible and his followers praise him like a deity. grow up, admit he’s not perfect, stop blaming someone else for everthing that goes wrong on his watch.

Posted by: davidfrat21 | November 30, 2009, 2:11 pm 2:11 pm

I could be wrong but wasn’t it under Clinton that we “let” Bin Laden walk away
___________________________________
November 29, 2009
“Osama Bin Laden was within military reach when the Bush administration allowed him to disappear into the mountains of Afghanistan rather than pursue him with a massive military force, a new Senate report says.
“The report asserts that the failure to get the terrorist leader when he was at his most vulnerable in December 2001 – three months after the 9/11 attacks – led to today’s reinvigorated insurgency in Afghanistan.”
Source: NYDN

Posted by: tierra | November 30, 2009, 2:37 pm 2:37 pm

Talk,Talk,Talk,We should have elected a special position for a talking campaigner,seems like that is all Obama does.Other than Spend, Tax, and borrow money we do not have.

Posted by: lightningF | November 30, 2009, 4:08 pm 4:08 pm

And Iran shudders at the mean words coming from the White House.
NOT

Posted by: Obozo | November 30, 2009, 8:11 pm 8:11 pm

And we don’t have to hit them all. You can still stop a car by shooting the fuel pump. You don’t need to shoot the entire car.

Posted by: Silent 3 | December 4, 2009, 12:55 pm 12:55 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.