Ahmadinejad Threatens 'War Without Boundaries'

Read the comment policy

Showing 3 of 35 comments

There is a time when strategic ambiguity works. For example it was United States policy for decades, all standing policies that were bipartisan expired when Obama walked into the room, to "neither confirm nor deny" the presence of nuclear weapons on any warship or military installation. Similarly John Foster Dulles assured the world that we would respond "at places and with means of our own choosing" to any Soviet attack on the US or an ally. There are times when ambiguity does not work or the effort at clarity sends the wrong signal. Dean Acheson at the National Press Club was to ambiguous about America's interests and gave the impression that we would not fight for Korea. There is a time when clarity is called for. In the cases of the Cuban Missile crisis and the Berlin crisis and the threat to Israel in 1973 the Presidents made sure that there was no doubt where our red lines were and that we would excalate, even to the use of nuclear weapons, if those lines were crossed. Those times certainty saved millions of lives. In the case of Iran it would probably be best if the President personally laid out exactly what our plans are and how we will irreparably destroy Iran, not just as the seat of their current government. as a nation for the foreseeable future if they use weapons of mass destruction against either the United States or our allies, including Israel. That threat should be clear, it should be credible, and it should not be subject to the restraint or approval of any outside agency. If the grandees of the United Nations or the Islamic Conference or any other group do not like that then we should tell them that when in our opinion they have earned the level of credibility and civilization and decency that merit our entrusting their opinions with that level of control over our sovereignty then we shall let them know.

August 13, 2005 - President Bush, in Jerusalem, when asked what would happen if diplomacy failed to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program, replied, "All options are on the table." Feb. 2007, Vice-President Dick Cheney confirms, "all options are on the table." August 14, 2005, John McCain - "I think the president's comment that we won't take anything off the table was entirely appropriate." H.R.Clinton, speaking to AIPAC, Feb. 2, 2007, stated that, "in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table." Unlike crazy Mr. A, we don’t say things out right, like “Iran will be wiped off the map.” (which of course he never said about Israel, but that's another story). We just say, “all options are on the table.” Which of course translates into Persian as “We reserve the right to nuke you if you don’t obey our commands.” But it sounds so much better our way, doesn’t it? Use a euphemism, rather than facing a public discussion of first strike nuclear war. "I've been very clear that I don't take any options off the table with respect to Iran." - President Barack Obama

We should strap a parachute to his back and drop him back in Iran.What an arrogant fuck.