as a last resort—but at the same time he cautioned others—presumably including Republican presidential candidates—that “bluster” about going to war soon was actually helping Iran by driving up oil prices and improving Iran’s revenues.
Obama discussed his approach to Iran in greater detail than he has in a long time in a speech Sunday to the annual convention of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a Jewish organization that strongly supports Israel.
Obama devoted one-third of the speech to Iran. It wasn’t a scholarly policy essay, as some of his addresses are, but was heavy on politicking with the goal of deflecting GOP criticisms of his Iran policy and drawing support from the American Jewish community. The frequent applause suggested he was making headway.
He made no grand shifts in policy. His main initiative was to take the sheath off the American sword. He repeated his mantra that he would “take no options off the table,” hollow rhetoric that everyone knows is meant to telegraph the military option but which literally includes abject surrender.
But after repeating the mantra, he unsheathed the sword and said baldly that it meant the use of military power.
“I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table. And I mean what I say. That includes … a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.”
There has been an intellectual debate in Israel and Washington in recent months about whether the United States should move militarily only if Iran moves to build a nuclear weapon or if the United States should move earlier, to prevent Iran from lining up all the components of a nuclear weapon. That debate hasn’t penetrated much beyond rarified policy circles.
Obama did not mention that debate but specifically talked about “preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” not preventing it from gathering the components of a nuclear weapon.
Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a congressional committee in oral testimony, “It is absolutely clear that the president’s policy is to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons capability.” That was instantly grabbed by many circles as a major policy shift. But State Department officials said she had just misstated the policy, which remained unchanged, and Obama underscored that in his speech. Jay Carney, the White House spokesman said last week “Our policy remains exactly what it was. We are committed, as Israel is, to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”
Obama’s reference to “preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon” also put paid to some allegations by Republicans that Obama plans to allow Iran to build nuclear weapons and will then seek to “contain” it as the US “contained” the Soviet Union through a half century of cold war.
In an interview with The Atlantic magazine a few days before the AIPAC speech, Obama was asked specifically if containment was an option. Obama said flatly it was not. “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,” he said, endorsing the supposition that Arab neighbors of Iran would build nuclear weapons if Iran was not stopped and thus containment could not work.
He rejected containment totally, he said, labeling such talk as “completely contrary” to his policy to halt nuclear proliferation once and for all.
In that interview, Obama also warned that a premature military attack on Iran would allow the Islamic Republic to “portray itself as a victim.”
Obama’s AIPAC speech emphasized the need to push ever tougher sanctions until the Islamic Republic feels the pinch and changes its nuclear policy. He pleaded at AIPAC for people to focus on sanctions and not on a resort to arms. “Already, there is too much loose talk of war,” he said. “Over the last few weeks, such talk has only benefited the Iranian government by driving up the price of oil, which they depend on to fund their nuclear program.… Now is not the time for bluster. Now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in.”
The war talk is coming partly from GOP presidential candidates. But it is originating mainly in the British media and in the blogosphere, where many articles assert falsely that US officials are openly talking about going to war soon.
Here is the full text of the portion of Obama’s AIPAC speech devoted to Iran with the indications of audience applause as reported by the White House.
Obama spoke of “the issue that is such a focus for all of us today: Iran’s nuclear program—a threat that has the potential to bring together the worst rhetoric about Israel’s destruction with the world’s most dangerous weapons.
“Let’s begin with a basic truth that you all understand: No Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map, and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel’s destruction. (Applause.) And so I understand the profound historical obligation that weighs on the shoulders of [Israeli Prime Minister] Bibi Netanyahu and [Defense Minister] Ehud Barak, and all of Israel’s leaders.
“A nuclear-armed Iran is completely counter to Israel’s security interests. But it is also counter to the national security interests of the United States. (Applause.)
“Indeed, the entire world has an interest in preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. A nuclear-armed Iran would thoroughly undermine the non-proliferation regime that we’ve done so much to build. There are risks that an Iranian nuclear weapon could fall into the hands of a terrorist organization.
“It is almost certain that others in the region would feel compelled to get their own nuclear weapon, triggering an arms race in one of the world’s most volatile regions. It would embolden a regime that has brutalized its own people, and it would embolden Iran’s proxies, who have carried out terrorist attacks from the Levant to southwest Asia.
“And that is why, four years ago, I made a commitment to the American people, and said that we would use all elements of American power to pressure Iran and prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon. And that is what we have done. (Applause.)
“When I took office, the efforts to apply pressure on Iran were in tatters. Iran had gone from zero centrifuges spinning to thousands, without facing broad pushback from the world. In the region, Iran was ascendant increasingly popular, and extending its reach. In other words, the Iranian leadership was united and on the move, and the international community was divided about how to go forward.
“And so from my very first months in office, we put forward a very clear choice to the Iranian regime: a path that would allow them to rejoin the community of nations if they meet their international obligations, or a path that leads to an escalating series of consequences if they don’t.
“In fact, our policy of engagement quickly rebuffed by the Iranian regime allowed us to rally the international community as never before, to expose Iran’s intransigence, and to apply pressure that goes far beyond anything that the United States could do on our own.
“Because of our efforts, Iran is under greater pressure than ever before. Some of you will recall, people predicted that Russia and China wouldn’t join us to move toward pressure. They did. And in 2010 the UN Security Council overwhelmingly supported a comprehensive sanctions effort. Few thought that sanctions could have an immediate bite on the Iranian regime. They have, slowing the Iranian nuclear program and virtually grinding the Iranian economy to a halt in 2011. Many questioned whether we could hold our coalition together as we moved against Iran’s Central Bank and oil exports. But our friends in Europe and Asia and elsewhere are joining us. And in 2012, the Iranian government faces the prospect of even more crippling sanctions.
“That is where we are today because of our work. Iran is isolated, its leadership divided and under pressure. And by the way, the Arab Spring has only increased these trends, as the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime is exposed, and its ally the Assad regime is crumbling.
“Of course, so long as Iran fails to meet its obligations, this problem remains unresolved. The effective implementation of our policy is not enough we must accomplish our objective. (Applause.) And in that effort, I firmly believe that an opportunity still remains for diplomacy backed by pressure to succeed.
“The United States and Israel both assess that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon, and we are exceedingly vigilant in monitoring their program. Now, the international community has a responsibility to use the time and space that exists. Sanctions are continuing to increase, and this July thanks to our diplomatic coordination a European ban on Iranian oil imports will take hold. (Applause.) Faced with these increasingly dire consequences, Iran’s leaders still have the opportunity to make the right decision. They can choose a path that brings them back into the community of nations, or they can continue down a dead end.
“And given their history, there are, of course, no guarantees that the Iranian regime will make the right choice. But both Israel and the United States have an interest in seeing this challenge resolved diplomatically. After all, the only way to truly solve this problem is for the Iranian government to make a decision to forsake nuclear weapons. That’s what history tells us.
“Moreover, as President and Commander-in-Chief, I have a deeply held preference for peace over war. (Applause.) I have sent men and women into harm’s way. I’ve seen the consequences of those decisions in the eyes of those I meet who’ve come back gravely wounded, and the absence of those who don’t make it home. Long after I leave this office, I will remember those moments as the most searing of my presidency.
“And for this reason, as part of my solemn obligation to the American people, I will only use force when the time and circumstances demand it. And I know that Israeli leaders also know all too well the costs and consequences of war, even as they recognize their obligation to defend their country.
“We all prefer to resolve this issue diplomatically. Having said that, Iran’s leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States (applause) just as they should not doubt Israel’s sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs. (Applause.)
“I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. (Applause.) That includes all elements of American power a political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency. (Applause.)
“Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. (Applause.) And as I have made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests. (Applause.)
“Moving forward, I would ask that we all remember the weightiness of these issues; the stakes involved for Israel, for America, and for the world. Already, there is too much loose talk of war. Over the last few weeks, such talk has only benefited the Iranian government, by driving up the price of oil, which they depend on to fund their nuclear program.
“For the sake of Israel’s security, America’s security, and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster. Now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in, and to sustain the broad international coalition we have built. Now is the time to heed the timeless advice from Teddy Roosevelt: Speak softly; carry a big stick. (Applause.) And as we do, rest assured that the Iranian government will know our resolve, and that our coordination with Israel will continue.”
