Obama's Iran TV Show Tour: More Diplomacy

** UPDATE BELOW **

Iran's state-run television reported this morning that the government had tested nine long- and medium-range missiles, including a new version of the Shahab-3 missile that has a range of 1,250 miles and is armed with a 1-ton conventional warhead.

Obama, who appeared on three morning shows, called for more diplomacy -- a stance McCain has pounced on before.

On NBC's Today, Obama demanded the U.S. "proceed aggressively with diplomacy" instead of "farming it out to the Europeans." He also called for divestment from Iran, pointing out that exports to the country increased under Bush.

[WATCH]

Story continues below

advertisement

Obama called Iran a "grave threat" on ABC's Good Morning America and suggested sanctions and diplomacy instead of "over the top rhetoric."

On CBS' Early Show he said, "We've been combining bellicose rhetoric with not very effective action. And that's one of the things I'd like to change when I'm president." He also defended himself on Iraq, saying, "I have been entirely consistent that we are going to end this war when I'm president."

During the primary, McCain said Obama's willingness to engage in diplomacy showed his "inexperience and reckless judgment." Bill Kristol recently said on Fox News that Bush might bomb Iran if he "thinks Obama is going to win."

UPDATE: The McCain and Obama campaigns have released statements on the Iran missile test:

From McCain:

"Iran's most recent missile tests demonstrate again the dangers it poses to its neighbors and to the wider region, especially Israel. Ballistic missile testing coupled with Iran's continued refusal to cease its nuclear activities should unite the international community in efforts to counter Iran's dangerous ambitions. Iran's missile tests also demonstrate the need for effective missile defense now and in the future, and this includes missile defense in Europe as is planned with the Czech Republic and Poland. Working with our European and regional allies is the best way to meet the threat posed by Iran, not unilateral concessions that undermine multilateral diplomacy."

From Obama:

"These missile tests demonstrate once again that we need to change our policy to deal aggressively with the threat posed by the Iranian regime. Through its nuclear program, missile capability, meddling in Iraq, support for terrorism, and threats against Israel, Iran now poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States in the region in a generation. Now is the time to work with our friends and allies, and to pursue direct and aggressive diplomacy with the Iranian regime backed by tougher unilateral and multilateral sanctions. It's time to offer the Iranians a clear choice between increased costs for continuing their troubling behavior, and concrete incentives that would come if they change course.

"As these tests have reaffirmed, the threat from Iran's nuclear program is real and it is grave. As President, I will do everything in my power to eliminate that threat, and that must begin with direct, aggressive, and sustained diplomacy."

Comments

[somekid1234]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/10collins.html?hp

[realtalk]

Didn't Russia just tell the USA that they will start war against the USA if it tries to set up any missile defense system in the Czech Republic, or in Poland. So what the hell is McCain talking about?!
It seems that John McCain does not watch the news, or read newspapers.

And wasn't it just a few days ago that a Top U.S Military official say that we do NOT have the soldiers or millitary ability to fight a war with Iran, that our military is already too stretched as it is with the two wars we are currently fighting. And didn't this Top Millitary man also say that starting any military actions with Iran, when our soldiers are currently next door in Iraq, and Afghanistan would be a disaster.

Maybe John McCain should watch t.v news., and read a newspaper once in a while, because it is obvious that he has NO clue what the hell he is talking about!!!

John McCain will be a disaster, and anyone who votes for John McCain will be ensuring that the USA will face a war against both Iran, and Russia, and better believe that the first Americans who will be attacked are the hundreds of thousands of US soldiers who are currently in Iraq, and Afghanistan.

[DonKrieger]

UnAmerican:

When asked this morning what he would do if told by Olmert that he was going to bomb Iran's Nuclear facilities, Tom Delay quickly said: "Go ahead." "Or maybe we would do it instead. Maybe that would be better."

He explained that we cannot trust Obama to do the right thing so Iran's Nuclear capabilities, if proven real, must be destroyed before President Bush leaves office.

I have heard speculation about this issue from many commentators. This is the first time I have heard it from a prominent and powerful person in politics.

As it stands now, Senator Obama is likely to be our next president. Those who oppose him now will become "The Loyal Opposition." The key word is "Loyal."

If the sentiment Tom Delay articulates carries the day with those who hold the real power, if our President forces action against Iran now because he believes that President Obama would fail to do so, then he is disloyal to the President, he is unAmerican, unpatriotic. That's a simple fact.

[Jahmekyah]

Funny how South Korea, very recently, did a similar missile test. Yet the US have since touted their DIPLOMATIC efforts with them, culminating in the destruction of that nuclear reactor on TV. Diplomacy worked for that AXIS OF EVIL country, why not for this one??

[holeybuybull]

Isn't it ironic that the US attacked Iraq, and continues to threaten countries in the Middle East to not only extend Israeli hegemony, but to also further the goals of the Redacted Sunni nation of the "9/11" reports - Saudi Arabia ?

[FilthyPerson]

Barry O'Bama in May 2008 - "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela? These countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose any serious threat to us,"

Barry O'Bama today.
"As these tests have reaffirmed, the threat from Iran's nuclear program is real and it is grave. "

Face it, THIS guy is a "serious threat to us". He is WAAAAAAY over his head with this stuff.

Between now and the election all these kinds of statements that demonstrate his incompetence are going to catch up to him despite the MSM efforts to portray them as some kind of nuance.

[cdub1991]

Read his statement. He said Iran was a strategic challenge to the US in the region. He did not say they were a direct threat to the US.

[chi]

I guess "nuance" is knowing the Iranians are Shia not Sunni, or the fact that Prime Minister Maliki agrees with Sen Obama about a timetable for a phased withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.Demoracy is a bit*h isn't it
By the way,the country comparison was in a discussion about diplomacy between enemies and in it's correct context the Senator was right ,unless you believe that the former Soviet Union was less of a threat to the US than Cuba,Iran and Venezuela.Besides when was the last time Iran attacked anybody,maybe back in the days of Cyrus the great.

[PTCruiser]

Our country and its allies conducts missile tests on a regular basis. Israel has between 100 to 200 nuclear weapons. Iran conducts a missile test, which it has every right to do, and the reaction among the political and foreign policy establishment, including the two leading presidential candidates and our national press , borders on hysteria. Obama calls for more aggressive diplomacy but fails to mention that Iran has every right to conduct missile tests. Every nation in the world that has missiles conducts missile tests. The sky is not falling.

[mcole]

honestly!! i thought the same thing! besides, with all the talk from israel, the iranians have every right to flex their muscle as well.

america and its allies do not rule the world.

[FilthyPerson]

Think of it this way.

You are the Scoutmaster for a Boy Scout Troop.
A registered pedophile is the Scoutmaster for a Boy Scout Troop.
(I sincerely hope there's a real difference)

Are you comfortable with that equivalence?

[PTCruiser]

Let me give a real world example.

I was a Boy Scout once; my final rank was Life Scout. My father was one of the Assistant Scoutmasters. One day a man who lived in the community volunteered to serve too as an Assistant Scoutmaster. For some reason that my father could never quite explain, perhaps because it was more intuitively-based than factual, he and the other men became suspicious of the new volunteer's motives for joining our troop.

They decided to keep an eye on this man and to make sure that he was never alone with any boy or boys for any reason. They did not confront or threaten him or draw us into their deliberations because they had absolutely no evidence the man was a pedophile. After six months or so, the man drifted away from our troop and none of us ever saw him again.

What I am comfortable with is Iran testing missiles because every country that has missiles will test those missiles. If the running of the world was left up to me no country would possess or test missiles. The reality is that the running of the world is not left up to me. So I live in a world where nations have armies and their armies have weapons. These weapons will be tested because the armies need to be assured that their weapons will work.

[RandyGaume]

Filthy

Think of it this way - Iran is a sovereign nation feeling threatened by a country that invaded its neighbor based on lies deceit - oh yea - that's right Filthy, you believe everything the Bush Monarchy has put out there - never mind, let's put it this way ...

ah heck Filthy ... there is no explaining things to you - your "equivalence" question is just too darn funny ...

I remember dealing with at least four situations of pedophiles in the church that my family was in. Somehow, I don't see the morally superior stance here - we lost any moral ground when we invaded Iraq on false pretenses. I see Bush as i see the pedophiles who were community leaders in our church - something sacred was stolen. Innocence lost - Filthy - the American public and the Iraqi people got raped by the deceit of King Bush and or his minions.

I never had an issue with us eventually going into Iraq - it was the way we did it that made us stoop down to the level that we accuse Iran and North Korea of being guilty of.

[Ale]

Wow, I was unaware there was a treaty that Iran was has signed that forbade testing of weapons.
I assume since the US and Israel are so upset that they themselves have not engaged in any weapons tests, as that would be provocative as well as hypocritical

[OliverTwist]

"As these tests have reaffirmed, the threat from Iran's nuclear program is real and it is grave. As President, I will do everything in my power to eliminate that threat, and that must begin with direct, aggressive, and sustained diplomacy."

What Obama proposes is basically a more perfect war than the one Bush is waging against Iran.

It is wrong to characterize Iran' s nuclear enrichment program as aimed at nuclear weapons and as a grave threat. Even if there was evidence that it was aimed at nuclear weapons I still would be less afraid of Iran than I am of Washington and the US Air Force - arguably a more religiously fanatic organization than Iran and certainly a more dangerous one.

Embargoing Iran would be an act of war. It would place America clearly as the violent enemy of the people of the Middle East.

If Obama proposes to "eliminate" people who won't do what he wants then he is just another "decider" and not the leader I'm looking for.

[mcole]

where did he say anything about eliminate? and how is an embargo an act of war?

you need to get your facts right.

[OliverTwist]

"As these tests have reaffirmed, the threat from Iran's nuclear program is real and it is grave. As President, I will do everything in my power to ------> eliminate

[GuyFawkes]

You took one word out of context to make a negative point. You must work for the MSM.

[meanguy]

oliver, didn't you get the memo? less than 100% devotion to every word, deed, utterance, belch, of fart from the obamessiah is prima facie evidence of 'repugism', 'neocon tendencies', and possile bigotry...not to mention 'bitterness'

[barackobama4prez]

I disagree that Sen. O won't be having the girls interview again. I'm not saying it should be regularly, but I think Americans want to see their president interact with his/her family.

[holeybuybull]

Flagged as off topic.

[Raymondf]

Sorry Mr O, I think deplomacy is over, when Iran is showing their mite, or lack there of

[holeybuybull]

Raymondf, are you a product of the oxymoronic education policy of "No Child Left Behind"?

[Raymondf]

Yes I can proudly say I am.

[kenbomc]

You don't even know how to spell diplomacy as well as understanding it. I bet the Bush administration is glad Obama's here to give them pointers on what to do.

[Nicolaus]

So we are dragged again to war - not to protect our national interest. This we kissed goodbye in the region since we were dragged into Iraq.

Those who still want to take us to war should be volunteering to serve in the armed forces of that of the US or of Israel. We invaded a country for its oil and to bolster Israel hegemony in the region. We cannot say we secured any oil - in fact the exact opposite, and we can hardly claim success in helping Israel dominate the Middle East... hopes for that finally crashed after the fiasco of the 2006 War with Lebanon - and now the Syrian President is a guest of honor at the French National Day Parade - with our friend.... Sarkozy.

You want war, volunteer and go for it. We have lost a lot so far from similar maniacal calls, including sliding into becoming a second-tier economic and military power.

If we fail diplomatically, so BE IT. We are a not the policeman of the world. Let those who use us to further their interest do it this time ON THEIR OWN - and suffer the inevitable and most likely very painful consequences. We are suffering our own in the price of food, gas, mortgages and rents, healthcare, medicine, THE LOT!

[Dunnage]

Betterh question: Are we rational? We are at war on two of Iran's borders. What would a rational country think? Defense. Pakistan has nukes, we say they are our allies. North Korea gets a nuke and we send the New York Symphony. Of course Iran we develop nuclear weapon capacity. You would. And by the way, you would be foolish that they have not prepared for air strikes against facilities. Send in the suits.

Do business with Iran and Venezuela and quit threatening the world.

[Raymondf]

If Iran can't refine their oil they have no hope. and as far as Venezuela, I haven't bought gas at a Citgo station ever.

[holeybuybull]

And the American Oil Cartel is grateful to you, but you don't get a discount on your gas.

[chi]

Well I guess Chavez is all broken up about it.

[mergina]

Unfortunately, the only diplomacy bush and israel are going to dish out is BOMB DIPLOMACY.

When the first INNOCENT Iraqi dies, you can kiss any and all diplomacy GOODBYE.

[kevenseven]

I think you mean Iranian.

[poco767b]

It seems McCain derives most of his policy after watching the die hard movies back to back, while shotgunning red bull.

[politicalgenius]

I'm hoping that the GOP will come out and "slam" Obama for pushing diplomacy and sanctions on Iran as being "naive" it would be completely hypocritical of them - which is part of the GOP platform. It was diplomacy and sanctions that got N. Korea to bring it's nuclear ambitions and uranium enrichment to a fall hault. But the GOP only talk WAR and behind closed doors they use diplomacy, yet they'll ridicule the Dems for pushing diplomacy and sanctions.