Iran tells Obama he must 'accept' the Iranian nuke program

Rick Moran
If I lived in the Middle East, I would be building a bomb shelter.

A spokesman for the Iranian regime has stated that if the US wants better relations with Iran (and if not, why bother talking to them?) then the United States must accept Iran's nuclear program - among other impossibilities:

On some issues – such as the removal of US troops from Iraq and stabilising Afghanistan – Iran and the US can find common ground.

Others, particularly Iran’s claim that its nuclear programme is peaceful in nature and so advanced that it has become a fact on the ground, could prove the two sides’ differences are irreconcilable.

“If [US] policies change the two nations will get closer to each other, the two governments will get closer to each other and the chances for dialogue and co-operation will succeed,” said Mr Samareh.

“The policy of [George W.] Bush was to use this [the nuclear issue] as an excuse to stand up against the Iranian nation.

“For there to be change, this policy has to change.” In Afghanistan, he said, Iran was expecting a more robust effort to fight opium production.

Another big concern for Tehran were US attempts to negotiate with elements of the Taliban, the radical Sunni group ousted from power and seen by Tehran as a security threat.

“When the US goes into Afghanistan under the pretext of fighting illegal groups how can it enter into negotiations with them?” said Mr Samareh.

He also pointed to the Bush administration’s support for Israel during conflicts such as the offensive in Gaza against Hamas, which is supported by Iran, and the 2006 Israeli war against Hizbollah, another Iran-backed group.

In both cases the US sought to delay the passing of a UN ceasefire resolution.

“Is the new US administration going to continue these policies? If it does, then nothing will change,” he said.

It is the curse of our times that at the very moment in history where the world must say no to Iran and its nuclear ambitions, we have someone in the White House so enamored of his own ability to be a peacemaker that the chances are very good Iran will realize its nuclear ambitions while the US does not lift a finger to stop them.

Would Obama go so far as to acknowledge this reality and "accept" it?

Why not? If it advances his goal of reforming our relations with Iran, then such a small matter as a nuclear weapon shouldn't stand in our way to peace.

This does not take place in a vacuum. Smaller countries in the region who were looking to the US for protection from an Iranian bomb must now realize that they are on their own and should plan accordingly. No one believes Obama when he says an Iranian nuke is unacceptable - largely because the president insists on pushing talks with Iran forward - even if it means we must acknowledge the legitimacy of the Iranian nuclear program.






If I lived in the Middle East, I would be building a bomb shelter.

A spokesman for the Iranian regime has stated that if the US wants better relations with Iran (and if not, why bother talking to them?) then the United States must accept Iran's nuclear program - among other impossibilities:

On some issues – such as the removal of US troops from Iraq and stabilising Afghanistan – Iran and the US can find common ground.

Others, particularly Iran’s claim that its nuclear programme is peaceful in nature and so advanced that it has become a fact on the ground, could prove the two sides’ differences are irreconcilable.

“If [US] policies change the two nations will get closer to each other, the two governments will get closer to each other and the chances for dialogue and co-operation will succeed,” said Mr Samareh.

“The policy of [George W.] Bush was to use this [the nuclear issue] as an excuse to stand up against the Iranian nation.

“For there to be change, this policy has to change.” In Afghanistan, he said, Iran was expecting a more robust effort to fight opium production.

Another big concern for Tehran were US attempts to negotiate with elements of the Taliban, the radical Sunni group ousted from power and seen by Tehran as a security threat.

“When the US goes into Afghanistan under the pretext of fighting illegal groups how can it enter into negotiations with them?” said Mr Samareh.

He also pointed to the Bush administration’s support for Israel during conflicts such as the offensive in Gaza against Hamas, which is supported by Iran, and the 2006 Israeli war against Hizbollah, another Iran-backed group.

In both cases the US sought to delay the passing of a UN ceasefire resolution.

“Is the new US administration going to continue these policies? If it does, then nothing will change,” he said.

It is the curse of our times that at the very moment in history where the world must say no to Iran and its nuclear ambitions, we have someone in the White House so enamored of his own ability to be a peacemaker that the chances are very good Iran will realize its nuclear ambitions while the US does not lift a finger to stop them.

Would Obama go so far as to acknowledge this reality and "accept" it?

Why not? If it advances his goal of reforming our relations with Iran, then such a small matter as a nuclear weapon shouldn't stand in our way to peace.

This does not take place in a vacuum. Smaller countries in the region who were looking to the US for protection from an Iranian bomb must now realize that they are on their own and should plan accordingly. No one believes Obama when he says an Iranian nuke is unacceptable - largely because the president insists on pushing talks with Iran forward - even if it means we must acknowledge the legitimacy of the Iranian nuclear program.