The Iranian threat <i>is</i> tiny compared to the USSR
By Steve Benen Sunday May 18, 2008 6:00pmOver the weekend, responding to criticisms from Bush and McCain, Barack Obama explained his perspective on diplomacy.
This strikes me as the kind of sentiment that’s hard to disagree with, but John McCain spoke in Chicago this morning, and went after Obama for saying the potential threat posed by Iran is “tiny” compared to the USSR during the Cold War.
McCain said, “Obviously, Iran isn’t a superpower and doesn’t possess the military power the Soviet Union had. But that does not mean that the threat posed by Iran is insignificant.” McCain went on to argue that Iran is playing a destructive role in Iraq and is “intent on acquiring nuclear weapons.” McCain concluded, “They might not be a superpower, but the threat the government of Iran poses is anything but ‘tiny.’”
Does McCain really want to debate this?
First, Obama didn’t say the possible Iranian threat is “tiny.” He said it’s “tiny” when compared to the Soviet Union. As Josh Marshall explained, Russia was, after all, “the world’s greatest land military power, with a massive strategic nuclear capacity that carried on a multi-decade ideological struggle” with the United States. McCain thinks it reflects poor “judgment” to recognize the obvious difference between a nuclear superpower and Iran?
Second, there’s a bit of a contradiction here. Over the weekend, the McCain campaign said Obama was giving Iran too much credit, offering Iran “the status of a super power akin to the Soviets.” Today, the McCain campaign said Obama isn’t giving Iran enough credit. These guys should probably coordinate talking points among themselves before going on the attack.
And finally, on the substance, Obama is so obviously right about Iran it’s hard to believe this discussion is actually happening. As Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria explained a few months ago: “Iran has an economy the size of Finland’s and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century…. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?”
Ultimately, McCain seems to believe diplomacy just isn’t worth it. We could engage Iranians directly, but Iran might, as a result, get stronger, and our discussions may not stem the country’s ambitions.
Here’s the thing: thanks to the war in Iraq that McCain is so fond of, Iran is already getting stronger and more ambitious. So why keep pursuing an approach that isn’t producing the results we want?
Login or Register to post comments.
It's a trap - run, Johnny, run!!
the fucking reichwingneocon bastards want their
holocaust war and they intend on having it
by spreading lies and lies and more lies.
the gop has become total fascist criminals.
And then after Iran, there's Cuba, Syria, North Korea, Canada, Indonesia, Venezuela, the Vatican, and the Huffingtonpost.com. They are all to be feared as they too seek WMDs.
Blue,
"It's a trap!"
If I didn't think Admiral Akbar was so cool, I'd agree that there is a passing resemblance to McLame.
:)
Iran is a threat and determined to acquire nuclear weapons according to whom??? The US government??? You have to be kidding me. The US government is totally void of credibility.
The days of blindly accepting what the US says are long over. Even if they show me "proof," I won't buy anything they have to sell.
Guess that's what happens when you doctor evidence and invade another country.
Mc Same... More death.. more debt.. more deception.
This is very simple. Vote for McCain, and we will have continued war with Iraq and possible war with Iran. These so-called undecided voters either don't watch the news or are totally uniformed.
as americans and others are killed with russian weapons in afghanistan and Iraq and darfur and zimbabwe, mcAssJacket might want to rethink it. but his msm will be front and center with a host of false equivalencies and outright falacies to save their lying BFF, Johnny "cakes".
In other news.. i watched a bit of NBC Nightly tonight. Brian Williams was saying NBC received a strong rebuke from BushCo today about the way they portrayed Bush in interview with Richard Engle on weekend. I guess we weren't supposed to see the smarmy,arrogant,braindead,dipshit side of Bush again.Better luck next time.Its all hes got anyways.
Where's the proof that Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons?
Quit lying to us GOP!
And what's going to happen if we did bomb Iran and destabilize another source of the world's oil? How are other countries going to react to us for another unprovoked attack that impacts everyone?
And the Chimperor and imbeciles like yourself and douchebag Lieberman aren't , McSkidMark ?
Pffft. I think I am starting to get it:
See, on the slim chance that the GOP manage to steal this election and place this hand-puppet ver2.0 in power, Johnny Walnuts is setting the groundwork for "refusing" to engage the Iranians in diplomacy. His problem is he doesn't know what the HELL he is talking about and knows that even the Iranian Ambassador's chaffeur's assistant would hand him his lunch in direct talks, let alone any of Irans top dogs. Better to act the bully than to have to man-up and face another country's leaders one-on-one, I guess. Right, McCain?
The Truth Hurts @ 5:
An acute and wise observation. It should also be noted that while it is laudable that Obama is minimizing Iran's "threat", it should also be remembered that Obama, like Clinton, wishes to keep the nuclear option on the table vis a vis Iran. Not exactly the best way to win the hearts and minds of those countries in the Middle East [except, of course, for Israel]. One should always keep in mind that Obama will always keep the interests of Israel above those of the other countries that inhabit the Middle East.
As usual: Well said President Obama.
Was Mr. McCain able to discuss with the families when he would use diplomacy ?
Did he discuss former US officials or History?
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."
-- Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State (Source: New York Times, Oct. 28, 1973)
Did McCain address some of the other issues...
Many families, parents and teachers across the Country have had to explain
to their children and young adults what this administration has been involved with and has tried to legitimize;
torture, constitutional crimes, Blackwater mercinaries, the killing of innocent families, subpoenas, pre-emptive war, greed and corruption, bankruptcies, bank fraud
It's never been about the threat.
It's always been about the oil.
Blood for oil in bizarro bushworld.
They should wargame it. Obama gets to be the Soviets, McCain is the US. Then McCain is Iran, and Obama is the US. Who do you think could wreck more havoc? Does McCain really want to argue this? I really think having the capacity to end human life as we know it several times over trumps most of the threat of the Iranians.
We should have followed John McCain's advice and stayed for 100 years. In Vietnam.
Of course, then McCain would still be living in Hanoi, instead of divorcing his first wife and marrying the beer heiress.
Col Kilgore @ 9:
I don't believe a damn word from brian "shilliams". he's just trying to get some "cred" with liberals.
Col Kilgore, My, My, My, Poor George. He's seems to be getting it from all sides. The blantant partisanship with his statements in Israel to the 'giving up golf' bullshit, has the White House in panic mode. George can't help putting his foot in his mouth. Good, now the American people know him for the incompetant hack he is.
I learned today from a moron I work with that ; Nancy Pelosi is responsible for the loss of the value of the dollar, the democratic congress is responsible for the recession, Israel helped the U.S.A.win the Revolutionary war(I know the problems with this), and many more stupid Rush/Beck statements. This is who is running the show. Are we doomed or what.
I have been telling all the "war on terrorist" fear mongers about this very subject for years. We lived under the MAD philosophy with the USSR- that if ignited would have terminated whole states. This was a true fear we learned to live with. As a kid, after the Cuban Missle Crisis, living near an important naval station we wore dog tags like the GIs. We practiced as if nukes were coming, which was very different from the fire drills.
Mav_PreMed @ 10:
don't forget that Iran is also sponsoring terror all over the world, too.
the rest of the world just doesn't know it yet.
I think we need colon powell to show the world those fingerpaints again.
Finally, at long last, some real honesty from an American politician about the absurdly huge military power gap between the U S of A and everyone else. Never mind the little piss ants like pre-invasion Iraq or present day Iran.
Barrack was too conservative, the US outspends Iran 400 to 1 on military.
It is outrageous enough to have Senator McCain and Senator Clinton repeating the unsubstantiated claims about Iran sold to the American public by the right wing radicals who lied our nation into an unnecessary war. But when the talking heads do not challenge them when they repeat these claims about Iran the talking heads David Gregory, Chris Matthews and George Stephanapolous go ahead and repeat and embellish these unsubstantiated claims themselves.
Tonight on David Gregory's program "race for the White House", David Gregory repeated that Iranian President Ahmadinejad has been "proven to be supporting terrorist".
David have you ever thought let me repeat have you ever thought about asking for that proof? Then Gregory went onto say that the Iranian President should "back off of the nuclear program"
Hello David Gregory Iran has the right to enrich uranium under the Iaea.
The talking heads have been at again....well for the last four years they have allowed John Bolton, Bill Kristol, Douglas Feith and others to endlessly repeat these claims about Iran.
I HAVE YET TO WITNESS ONE TALKING HEAD CHALLENGE THESE CLAIMS. NOT ONCE!
Impeach cheney and bush @ 22:
in NYC, we did it from the late 50s through the 60s.
roo, do not despair. Hopefully the Amercan populice will stop watching American Idol and vote. How much more can we take? Gas prices, health-care crisis, if people vote Repug this time, we are doomed.
Watch how the Democrats and Republicans both eagerly start a war with Iran. Even Obama is repeating this garbage that Iran has something other than a reactor grade enrichment program. Facts are facts. Every Democratic politician is repeating this garbage and the media is ignoring the facts as usual.
Get ready to enlist all you dummies out there!!!
Here's the thing The Republicans need American's to believe that Iran is Big and if American's start to hear and believe the truth that in reallity Iran is not even a "Paper Tiger" then their "Fear Campaign" will collapse.
Rethuglicans don't like to hear anything called tiny because it reminds them of their pee-pee parts.
Kathleen @ 25:
they won't stop! they want to force that mem onto the democratic platform as well.
"Over the weekend, the McCain campaign said Obama was giving Iran too much credit, offering Iran “the status of a super power akin to the Soviets.” Today, the McCain campaign said Obama isn’t giving Iran enough credit."
But my friends, with the addition of a little Kool-Aid, my porridge, my friends, is juuust right...my friends.
In 2006, the Pentagon's list of its top 100 suppliers also included such well-known civilian firms as Tyson Foods ($335,239,095), Goodrich Corp. ($344,091,017), Procter & Gamble ($362,461,808), Kraft Foods ($500,799,104), Dell ($636,343,593), ExxonMobil ($1,176,354,936), FedEx ($1,303,032,027) and General Electric ($2,327,705,161). Also on the Pentagon's 2006 payroll were such often-ignored defense contractors as the animated mouse-house, the Walt Disney Co.; iPod-maker Apple; sunglasses purveyor Oakley; cocoa giant Nestle; ketchup producer Heinz; and chocolate bar maker Hershey.
These are, in fact, today's "typical defense contractors."
Holy shit! A presidential candidate with a foreign policy philosophy that actually makes sense.
maybe if rummy and chainey start lobbying for war with Iran will it get through to anyone that these scum are lying. we are already sponsoring terrorism against Iran.
The facts don't matter. McCain is simply promoting the old Bush/neocon scare tactics. It doesn't matter how weak Iran is to them, it is simply their new muslim target to scare Americans with. Ahmedinijad is all rhetoric but he has little power.
Obama is refreshing because he's willing to deal with the middle-east in a real-world, human to human way. That's the only way we're going to get anything done there. The Bush/McCain way is just for scaring Americans and to try and show that they're tough when dealing with scary brown people.
roo @ 21:
LOL
Israel?? Wow, that's a new kind of ignorance in a class all it's own. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Ok, that was disingenuous: I definitely LOLed.
Btw, I am going with "or what". There is evidence that the Universe tilts toward Good otherwise we'd be in even worse shape, if the GOP had its way. We can still pull this mess out of the fire.
Iran's 2005 defense budget was estimated to be $6 billion (USD) by London's International Institute for Strategic Studies.
USA 2007 defense budget $439.3 billion (USD). This does not include nuclear weapons R & D, Veteran's Affairs, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now why are they such a threat when the Iranian budget is 1.3% of the US spending. Yet another example of the facts having a liberal bias.
beltman713 @ 34:
You seem to forget we were pretty much considered a Friendly and Generous Nation to admire during Clintons 8 years. (With the exception of Kosovo which was a Nato operation with only ONE U.S. Casualty.)
He also didn't buy into the Neocons game.
Hans Blix forgets about the sharks here
This is real strength. This is the strength of intelligence, the strength of confidence, the strength of knowing who you are and who our adversaries are.
Bush and McCain have been terrorizing Americans for 8 years, telling us over and over and over again that we have to be afraid. That we are too weak to talk to our "enemies". That this nation, this huge, powerful nation, can't bear to talk to scary people.
Obama is bringing our strength, our confidence, and our intelligence back into favor.
Kathleen @ 25:
Kathleen
Very well put. Hardball could be considered one of the most egregious programs to allow these statements to go unchallenged, since they claim to ask those hardball questions that the other programs are seemingly too timid to ask. But you certainly are correct that these journalists are not doing their jobs, which is to allow the pronouncements given by the government to go unchallenged. It is seriously doubtful if those journalists in the UK would have allowed their administration to make similar statements without bothering to grill them about what they had said.
roo @ 21:
That's about like that chick on the view who said there was no history before Jesus.
Obama also didn't say the US doesn't have any enemies.
Time to put all reasonable talk through the Straight Talk slicer and dicer. Jerks.
The reason Republicans have been able to get away with this BS Iran rhetoric is by playing the Israel card. Every time someone tries to bring reality into the Iran situation, a Republican screams, "But Ahmedinijad said Israel is a stinking corpes/wiped off the map....!!! You're not anti-semitic are you???"
L.A. Confidential @ 39:
I forget nothing.
The Iranian threatis tiny compared to the USSR.
John McCain said, “Obviously, Iran isn’t a superpower and doesn’t possess the military power the Soviet Union had. But that does not mean that the threat posed by Iran is insignificant.”
this is a joke coming from someone who voted for the patriot act...after a small group called Al Quida? attacked us with boxcutters and a laptop from a cave in Afghanistan...
I mean surely ...if a small group of fanatics with boxcutters is enough of a threat to compel McCain to vote for an unconstitutional patriot act...
then surely a whole country with box cutters. laptop computers and (a few tanks?)
...is a big enough threat to warrant Marshall law immediately?....right?
beltman713 @ 46:
Let me guess. Your for Obama
Kathleen and Erroll,
You hit the nail on the head. That is the FIRST question I ask when presented with the "Iran threat".
"where is the proof that Iran has supplied weapons, supporting terrorists, firing upon Iraq?"
Of course, my wingnut just changes the argument, but it gets him off the Iran thing really quick!!
Erroll @ 13:
how would you know that obama will do? are you one of his neurons?
i don't think so. these are addled remarks from someone with no facts to
back up what you espouse.
L.A. Confidential @ 48:
Yes, I am.
Just 48 hours after jumping on the Bush appeasement bandwagon, John McCain is probably regretting his leap. First, it was revealed that the tough-talking Republican presidential nominee was for negotiating with the Hamas government in the Palestinian territories before he was against it. Then Americans learned that in 2003, Mr. Straight Talk favored engagement with the terror-sponsoring state of Syria. Now in his accusations against Democrat Barack Obama, John McCain conveniently forgot Ronald Reagan's dealings with Tehran during the Iran-Contra scandal. Given his defense of the Reagan administration at the time, McCain's selective amnesia comes as no surprise.
For the details, see:
"McCain Defended Reagan, North During Iran-Contra Scandal."
Guess he needed to clarify a bit so he didn't loose the fearful, paranoid, and make us safe votes.
Responding to McCain, Obama told a town hall rally later Monday in Billings, Mont., "Let me be absolutely clear: Iran is a grave threat." But the Soviet Union posed an added threat, he said.
Yes, let them debate talking instead of bombing.
beltman713 @ 51:
Well thats good I'm glad your happy we're inheriting a barrel of shit along with him so your going to have to figure out how to deal with it with the rest of us.
Bullies typically don't pick on someone ready, willing and able to fight back.
An Appeal to Admiral Fallon on Iran
from former CIA analyst Ray McGovern
Dear Admiral Fallon,
I have not been able to find out how to reach you directly, so I drafted this letter in the hope it will be brought to your attention.
First, thank you...
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/051908b.html
http://www.consortiumnews.com
L.A. Confidential @ 39:
I guess your infatuation for everything Clinton is pushing you to rewrite history. Do not confuse ambivalence with admiration.
McCain's brain is tiny. He doesn't want to talk to anyone, just declare war. I hope we have a draft so all these chickenhawks get a chance to see what war is all about.
This vet will never vote for a war mongerer like McBush.
getalife @ 54:
Let's start by getting some countries back on our side first.
'The United States needs a strategy that 'creates more partners and fewer terrorists,' former US president Bill Clinton said in an interview but no one noticed.
Tyler Durden @ 58:
It's not infatuation. It's knowing the facts. Sure he wasn't perfect by a long shot but if you prefer the past 8 years over Clinton's two terms there is something wrong with you.
L.A. Confidential @ 55:
Other than what seem perpetual temper tantrums, do Hillary supporters have *anything* to contribute to the national discourse.
So Hillary won't be inheriting the barrel of shit then?
this is how all repugs talk.
It's don't matter if their replies make sense, are offensive, or could kill people, who cares (repugs say) as long as they have the company of other idiots repugs.
Just because one was a POW doesn't make one a good candidate for prez. Plus mccain was an idiot before he was captured.
I didn't have health care while I was a POW. -- mccain (paraphrased) his answer to people should get the high quality health care that the Senate has.
Go Obama!
Go USA!
Go hillary! (no I really mean it, move the hell on hillary)
L.A. Confidential @ 55:
Dude, you vote for who you want to, and I'll vote for who I want to.
L.A. Confidential @ 61:
You have to do better than silly strawmen arguments....
US of A has 4800 nucs ready to be fired, and 5200 that could be ready in short time. Iran has zero, yes they want one , but what do you think would happen if they tried to use that "one". The republicans want you to be very scared, thats there whole sorry argument. Total BS.
I’m sorry, but the leaders of the US have ALWAYS been the biggest threat to the US public. The USSR might have been a threat ideologically, but they were nowhere near as active as the US in intervening in other countries and when they did, many times, they supported middle class moderate elements against the more radical elements in liberation movements. There were countless times the USSR supported movements and leaders who were no more to the left than the US government at the time while those leaders were persecuting communists in their countries. There were exceptions, not nearly as many as the propaganda apparatus would like you to believe.
The largest threat to the US is the fact that we have a government not controlled by the people, with policies drafted in secret and within an ideological foundation that hasn’t been changed or updated in decades. If the US wants Iran to change the answer is simple, support the democratic elements in Iran and accept what policies those elements create. If they create policies in a democratic fashion that benefits the country as a whole, while not necessarily elite US investors, the US will win support of Iranians. If the ideologically rigid and cut off US elites do more of the status quo, THEY are the biggest threat to us. The idea that the US elites, no matter what party they’re in or what label they give themselves, and the general public are in this “fight” together is an illusion.
beltman713 @ 64:
Interesting how many Hillary supporters have an approach similar to the GOP: FEARRRRR!
I guess once a Goldwater Girl, always a Goldwater Girl.... LOL
Tyler Durden @ 65:
Why don't you grow up and start treating people with respect for a change. Obama's not going to wave a magic wand and fix everything instantaneously. He's going to need all the friends and allies and help he can get.
Tyler Durden @ 68:
I don't get the argument anyway. Bill Clinton isn't running for president. Hillary has 0 experience running the country.
Tyler Durden @ 68:
Right and your mother birthed, fed, and diapered you also. Payed all your bills for 18 years or longer.
beltman713 @ 70:
You can't be taught thats the problem. Your idealism and ego is to heavily invested into the "image".
L.A. Confidential @ 69:
Projecting much?
If you were paying attention, you would have noticed how that point has been made countless times by Obama: the US needs to stop acting unilaterally.
Jesus tap dancing Christ. It is as if some people are proactively closing their eyes and ears and crying out "LALALALALALALA I can't hear you."
Give me one reason why I shouldn't question Obama? Either now or as President?
P.D. @ 7:
It will be worst than that. People here and around the world would labeled the US a whip bowl of white supremacy that's unstable and not with the world. Three time? We will lose even the smallest allies.
L.A. Confidential @ 69:
Nobody is going to be waving any magic wands, this country is seriously f****d up and it's going to take a lot of work to fix, if it can even BE fixed.
Dumb and dumber.
Does it get any more frightening than these two arguing the obvious, ad nauseum.
NO EVIDENCE that Iran has a nuclear 'weapons" program. Even though Cheney, Bolton, Micheal ledeen, Bill Kristol, etc keep repeating that they do. Even though the talking heads never fucking challenge anyone when they repeat these unsubstantiated claims.
Senator McCain and Senator Clinton Vice President Dick Cheney have repeated these claims and Chris Matthews, George Stephanpoulous Tim Russert and other talking heads just roll over and play dead and say things like "how can we stop them" Jesus Mary and Joseph.
Middle east analyst Flynt Leverett who "quit" the Bush administration just before the
illegal invasion of Iraq has written a great deal about Iran. The New America Foundation is a great website.
http://www.newamerica.net/pressroom/2007/pbs_interviews_flynt_leverett_on_iran_and_iraq
What we wanted to tell you about Iran.
Flynt Leverett
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/opinion/22precede.html
Iaea weapons inspector Scott Ritter is also a reliable source for information about Iran
Amy Goodman interviews Scott Ritter about Iran
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/10/16/scott_ritter_on_target_iran_the
ublished on Monday, June 20, 2005 by AlJazeera
The US War with Iran has Already Begun
by Scott Ritter
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm
Now most of our leaders (including Senator Clinton and Senator MCCain) do not listen to Iaea's director Mr. El Baradei about Iran..BUT WE SHOULD
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4761441.stm
beltman713 @ 76:
Okay we agree on something.
L.A. Confidential @ 72:
You don't know anything about me.
L.A. Confidential @ 74:
You can, as long as you wear the lapel pin....then take it off....then put it on again.
L.A. Confidential @ 74:
They all should be questioned.