This website is no longer actively maintained
Some material and features may be unavailable

May 25, 2009
Obama’s policy toward Iran may be more of the same

President Barack Obama meets with his senior advisors in the Oval Office. Photo: Pete Souza/White House

About two weeks before President Obama took office, I received a call from a friend of mine who said in an ominous tone, “Well, 17 days to do what we have to do.”

“What would that be?” I asked.

“Bombing Iran, while we still can,” replied my friend, a pilot recently retired from government service. He assumed that an Obama administration would never do so.

“Regime change” in Iran has been a fixation in some quarters for years, notably among neo-conservatives who saw “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq as a stepping stone toward toppling the Iranian government and being greeted as liberators.

Their ranks include former Defense Department officials, such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perl and many others who filtered into top civilian jobs at the Pentagon during the tenure of former Defense Secretary Donald P. Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld, in turn, is the mentor of former Vice President Richard B. Cheney, who is of a like mind, and boisterous these days on criticizing Obama.

While still vice president, Cheney said:

The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences…We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

The New York Times reported Cheney’s remarks on Oct. 21, 2007 at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank that is home for a number of neo-conservatives. The story included a comment by Dennis Ross, a scholar at the Institute, a former aide to Wolfowitz, and now President Obama’s envoy to Iran and its environs:

Cheney’s “language on Iran is quite significant,” Ross said. It “does have implications.”

Two years later, how different is Bush-Cheney policy from that of President Obama? We don’t know yet, but there are hints.

Two prominent Middle East analysts, Flint Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, former staffers at the National Security Council, question Ross’ role in the Obama administration. In a New York Times opinion piece on May 24, 2009, they warn that President Obama may be going down the wrong road; public declarations to the contrary, they say Obama is neglecting important diplomatic opportunities to engage with Iran and truly work on better relations, including negotiations about nuclear issues.

The Leveretts criticize Obama’s choice of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, and the designation of Ross to such a key role. They note that Clinton once said she would “‘totally obliterate’ Iran if it attacked Israel.” They describe a conversation they had with Ross, in which he, like Clinton, said he doubted talks with Iran would be fruitful.

…he told us, if Iran continued to expand its nuclear fuel program, at some point in the next couple of years President Bush’s successor would need to order military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets. Citing past ‘diplomacy’ would be necessary for that president to claim any military action was legitimate.

If we take this point of view at face value, my friend who had been worried about NOT bombing Iran may be feeling appeased.

– Peter Eisner




I am not an American citizen but coming with a Persian background as a researcher active in science, I humbly like to give my services to those in need for fighting terrorism.
So please find the following letter relevant to those people suffering under tyranny in Iran, I as a concerned person asking on their behalf:
We hereby declare that we are in favor of strong words upon the current crisis in Iran against the very-illegitimate regime of I. R. Iran.
We must add and question that, those who kill the innocent based on strong media images and confirmed reports, how must they be judged and treated by the global community? …
Thinking about just the nuclear issue is not the remedy for global peace announced by the democrats and the respectable US president, B. H. Obama…
What is the current US position on Iran?… The current US policy is too soft indeed… To be marginally silent at this very moment not aiding people seeking for democracy, calling for peace in Iran, just for the sake of US national interest, is truly illogical!…
This is a rightful claim from the Human Rights constitution which originally came from the first Persian King “Cyrus the Great”, in form of a cylinder held at UN headquarters, Ref.
One must separate the peaceful Iranian community from the Taliban-i Type Dictators i.e. the totalitarian regime of Tehran employing monsters from other middle eastern countries, Chechnya with an unequivocal support from former communist states to beat and kill defenseless people in Iran: “the innocent crying for peace and basic human rights, defying the regime itself”… How does President Obama respects the sovereignty of I. R. Regime boarders whilst this regime considers Israel to be wiped off the map and triggers events in Iraq to rule Middle East based on barbaric fanaticism…!?
We must prevent terrorism and those unfolded events that are being spread across the Middle East region, mostly fueled and advocated by the Ayatollahs in Tehran including the Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei himself (current events occurring in Iraq).
We must not let the cry for democracy rest in Iran. The momentum must continue its course and “US must represent democracy and not just follow it” until the corrupt fanatics are brought into justice. Killing an innocent defenseless human is simply a crime against humanity.
One last thing, does the world want to be conquered by the insane elements of the regime integrated within the I. R. Fanatic regime’s body (they always want to implement this according to their Friday prayers’ speeches since the last 30 years of their reign)?


so long as iran is part of the equation there can be no solution to Pa israel problem


The USA does not have much too offer with our bad history of the pre-shah and post-shah days. Also, our failing to look out for the Palestinians pretty well ends out ability to be taken seriously. Luckily, the folks who rule Iran are from Mars. That helps a little. Not to speak of the fact that the population is young and don’t want to be just “another brick in the wall”.


Carthago delenda est!


Crucial ongoing Carthaginian aspects
in the perspectives involving ancient Carthage as well as modern Iran.

If you debate this:
Be Pleased To Re-read…

Roman History.

Peter Eisner is an editorial consultant with Worldfocus and a 30-year veteran of international news. He has been an editor and foreign correspondent at The Washington Post, Newsday and The Associated Press. He co-authored “The Italian Letter,” which details fraudulent intelligence leading up to the Iraq War. He was founder and president of Newscom, an international online news service, and speaks Spanish and Portuguese.

Facebook Twitter YouTube

Produced by Creative News Group LLC     ©2021 WNET.ORG     All rights reserved

Distributed by American Public Television