Monday, March 26, 2012
Obama cautions Israel against "loose talk of war"
From The Hindu
With an eye on his re-election campaign, U.S. President Barack Obama in a speech to arguably the most powerful pro-Israel lobby sought to carefully balance his commitment to Israeli foreign policy interests with a stern note of caution to stem “too much loose talk of war” with Iran and his intention to continue pursuing diplomatic solutions with the Ahmedinejad regime.
Repeated references to his record of unwavering commitment to Israel's security got Mr. Obama applause every time from the 13000-strong crowd of delegates attending the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference.
However Mr. Obama's remarks that “We all prefer to resolve [the Iran nuclear] issue diplomatically,” and that loose talk of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities “has only benefited the Iranian government by driving up the price of oil,” were greeted with a cold silence from the delegates.
His speech comes a day before he is scheduled to meet with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, where they will discuss a range of strategic issues of mutual concern, according to an official statement. Mr. Netanyahu will also meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other administration leaders in Washington.
Reacting to Mr. Obama's speech Mr. Netanyahu was said to have welcomed in particular the American President's statement on Israel's right to defend itself by itself against any threat. “I appreciate all of these statements and expect to discuss them tomorrow with President Obama,” Mr. Netanyahu was quoted as saying.
Mr. Obama's speech, which was littered with allusions to the U.S.' “unbreakable” bond with Israel including terms such as “sacrosanct,” “non-negotiable,” “unprecedented,” however reiterated his administration's belief in the two-state solution to the Palestine question.
He said, “I make no apologies for pursuing peace. Israel's own leaders understand the necessity of peace. Prime Minister Netanyahu, Defence Minister [Ehud] Barak, President [Shimon] Peres — each of them have [sic] called for two states, a secure Israel that lives side by side with an independent Palestinian state.”
That the President had the November elections in his mind became obvious when he hit back at Republican nominee candidates' past comments questioning Mr. Obama's commitment to Israel's security interests.
Mr. Obama said, “If during this political season... you hear some questions regarding my administration's support for Israel, remember that it's not backed up by the facts... Remember that the U.S.-Israel relationship is simply too important to be distorted by partisan politics.”
With an eye on his re-election campaign, U.S. President Barack Obama in a speech to arguably the most powerful pro-Israel lobby sought to carefully balance his commitment to Israeli foreign policy interests with a stern note of caution to stem “too much loose talk of war” with Iran and his intention to continue pursuing diplomatic solutions with the Ahmedinejad regime.
Repeated references to his record of unwavering commitment to Israel's security got Mr. Obama applause every time from the 13000-strong crowd of delegates attending the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference.
However Mr. Obama's remarks that “We all prefer to resolve [the Iran nuclear] issue diplomatically,” and that loose talk of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities “has only benefited the Iranian government by driving up the price of oil,” were greeted with a cold silence from the delegates.
His speech comes a day before he is scheduled to meet with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, where they will discuss a range of strategic issues of mutual concern, according to an official statement. Mr. Netanyahu will also meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other administration leaders in Washington.
Reacting to Mr. Obama's speech Mr. Netanyahu was said to have welcomed in particular the American President's statement on Israel's right to defend itself by itself against any threat. “I appreciate all of these statements and expect to discuss them tomorrow with President Obama,” Mr. Netanyahu was quoted as saying.
Mr. Obama's speech, which was littered with allusions to the U.S.' “unbreakable” bond with Israel including terms such as “sacrosanct,” “non-negotiable,” “unprecedented,” however reiterated his administration's belief in the two-state solution to the Palestine question.
He said, “I make no apologies for pursuing peace. Israel's own leaders understand the necessity of peace. Prime Minister Netanyahu, Defence Minister [Ehud] Barak, President [Shimon] Peres — each of them have [sic] called for two states, a secure Israel that lives side by side with an independent Palestinian state.”
That the President had the November elections in his mind became obvious when he hit back at Republican nominee candidates' past comments questioning Mr. Obama's commitment to Israel's security interests.
Mr. Obama said, “If during this political season... you hear some questions regarding my administration's support for Israel, remember that it's not backed up by the facts... Remember that the U.S.-Israel relationship is simply too important to be distorted by partisan politics.”
Labels: Barack Obama, Iran nuclear programme, U.S.-Iran relations
Friday, June 11, 2010
U.S. insists Iran sanctions not “double standard”
From The Hindu
In a media blitz that closely followed the announcement of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sanctions against Iran for its alleged nuclear programme, President Barack Obama and his administration sought to dispel any notion that they were using a “double standard” in not giving the diplomatic channels for resolving the dispute a fair chance.
In a statement Mr. Obama said, “There is no double standard at play here. We have made it clear, time and again, that we respect Iran’s right, like all countries, to access peaceful nuclear energy. That is a right embedded in the Non Proliferation Treaty.”
He also praised the UNSC for imposing “the toughest sanctions ever faced by the Iranian government”, noting that they sent an “unmistakable message about the international community’s commitment to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons”.
Commenting that these were also “the most comprehensive sanctions that the Iranian government has faced,” Mr. Obama noted that they would impose restrictions not only on Iran’s nuclear activities and its ballistic missile program but also on its conventional military, on Iranian banks and financial transactions, individuals, entities, and institutions associated with the Revolutionary Guard.
Arguing that sanctions had not been inevitable, Mr. Obama emphasised his government’s two-track approach: “We made clear from the beginning of my administration that the U.S. was prepared to pursue diplomatic solutions to address the concerns over Iranian nuclear programmes… Together with the United Kingdom, with Russia, China, and Germany… we offered the Iranian government the prospect of a better future for its people, if and only if it lives up to its international obligations.”
Dual-track strategy
In highlighting the dual-track strategy in negotiations, Mr. Obama sought to pre-empt the charge that the sanctions, given their timing, potentially undermined the recent move by Iran to extend its cooperation through the fuel-swap deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil. Last month, Iran announced that it would be willing to move low-enriched uranium off its soil in return for 20 per cent enriched uranium that could be used in the Tehran Research Reactor for medical isotopes.
Although the White House initially greeted the fuel-swap deal as a “positive step”, it subsequently criticised the proposal for not addressing the question of uranium enrichment that Iran said it would continue. Further, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had noted at the time, Iran had not agreed, as it did in October, to hold detailed discussions with the P-5+1 group of nuclear powers nor agreed to provide unfettered access to its nuclear facilities in areas such as Qom.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echoed the same emphasis on the dual-track approach, arguing that the adoption of the UNSC Resolution 1929 on Iran went “well beyond the pre-existing sanctions on Iran. That said, we have worked hard to minimise their impact on the Iranian people”. She further noted that the adoption of Resolution 1929 kept the door open for continued engagement between the P5+1 and Iran and the U.S. “is committed to a diplomatic solution to the challenge posed by Iran's nuclear program”.
Susan Rice, U.S. representative to the UN, commented on why the P5+1 group had chosen to disregard any positive implications of the fuel-swap deal. She said, “Turkey and Brazil have worked hard to make progress on the Tehran Research Reactor proposal — efforts that reflect their leaders’ good intentions to address the Iranian people’s humanitarian needs while building more international confidence about the nature of Iran’s nuclear program.” Neither Turkey nor Brazil voted in favour of imposing the sanctions on Iran.
However, she noted, “The Tehran Research Reactor proposal — then and now — does not respond to the fundamental, well-founded, and unanswered concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. This resolution does,” she said, adding that the U.S. would continue to discuss the Iranian-revised proposal and their concerns about it, “as appropriate”.
Not directed at Iranian people
Another key thrust of the messages that the administration has put out to the media since the announcement of sanctions has been the emphasis that the sanctions would not negatively impact the people of Iran but would only target specific parts of the Iranian state that were involved in supporting the country’s alleged nuclear programme in one way or another. For example, President Obama and Ms. Rice said, “These sanctions are not directed at the Iranian people.”
However, responding to questions from media, Under Secretary for Political Affairs William Burns cast such assertions in doubt as he said, “I’ll be honest with you, there is no perfect assurance that you can give with regard to a sanctions regime or a new sanctions resolution and its impact on a country and a society.” He went on to state, “We have tried… to minimise the impact on the Iranian people and maximise the impact on that calculation of the Iranian leadership. Is that a perfect solution? No, I would not pretend that.”
Additionally, Mr. Burns defended the sanctions’ targeting of the Iranian Central Bank, saying, “Focus, not only on the Central Bank but on the Iranian banking system and ways in which the international financial system can be manipulated, is an important new development and a significant step forward in this resolution.”
Labels: Iran nuclear programme, Iran sanctions, U.S.-Iran relations, UNSC
Subscribe to Comments [Atom]
