by Mark Silva
Sen. Barack Obama, asked today about his response to Iran's test-firing of a missile reportedly capable of reaching Israel, maintained that the demonstration calls out for stepped up, direct U.S. diplomacy with Iran.
"There is no doubt that we're seeing rising tensions in the area,'' Obama said in an interview from Capitol Hill with the NBC Today Show's Matt Lauer. "It's part of the reason why it's so important for us to have a coherent policy with respect to Iran.... It has to combine much tougher threats of economic sanctions with direct diplomacy, opening up channels of communication, so that we avoid provocation but we give the Iranians strong incentives to change their behavior.''
Republican rival John McCain has criticized Obama's support for direct negotiations with a regime that the Bush administration has labeled part of the "Axis of Evil,'' maintaining that tough international sanctions will prevent Iran from posing a greater threat to the region. Others have criticized Obama's call for diplomacy with intractable adversaries as naïve.
But the threat demonstrated by Iran today is nothing new, Obama maintained, asked what he would tell Israel in the aftermath of the newest Iranian test.
"They've had this kind of long-range capability for some time,'' he told Lauer. "It's part of the reason why we've got to proceed aggressively with diplomacy in the region as a whole... We've basically been farming out diplomatic activity to the Europeans... Part of what we have to do is get the Europeans, the Chinese, the Russians to recognize that it is in nobody's interests, including Iran's, I believe, to have a nuclear weapon that could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's something that I intend to make a No. 1 priority when I'm in the White House.''
Iran said it had test-fired a missile capable of reaching Israel early this morning, as part of war games that escalate the sabre-rattling between the Islamic Republic and the West. The new version of the Shahab-3 missile was one of nine medium and long-range missiles launched from the desert during wider war gaming in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway off the south of the country through which passes about 40 per cent of the world's oil.
The aim of the test was to "to demonstrate our resolve and might against enemies who in recent weeks have threatened Iran with harsh language," said the air force commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard, General Hoseyn Salami. Two other types of missile with shorter ranges were also tested, and state television reported a total of nine launches, showing footage of three missiles firing simultaneously.
Obama also was asked about critics contending that he is veering to the center, and perhaps even the right, now that he has clinched the Democratic Party's presidential nomination - and if he has veered course on U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
He said that he has long supported such measures as faith-based initiatives, something the Bush administration has supported in its financial backing of charities run by churches, and has supported the death penalty in limited instances.
But his policy on Iraq is unchanged, he insisted.
"I would obviously be listening to commanders,'' Obama said. "I have not changed in my position that we can have our troops out at a pace of one to two brigades per month, which adds up to 16 months... What I'm also going to be taking into account is the prime minister of Iraq... saying that we should have a timetable for withdrawal... (and) the American people believe we need a timetable.''
Wire services contributed to this report.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
It seems the iran wants the israel to attack it.
VJ Machiavelli
http://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com
Posted by: VJ Machiavelli | July 9, 2008 10:21 AM
What? Was Barack lying to us when he said "Iran is just a small country" and is no threat to the United States?
Posted by: Jeff | July 9, 2008 10:21 AM
It is interesting to note that the Bush Adminstration is provoking a new arms race with Russia by placing a missile defense system (which isn't actually proven to work) in Poland and the Czech Republic. They claim this is to defend against Iran, yet as this report shows, the longest range missile the Iranians have can barely reach Israel.
It's just another example of the counter productive Bush/McCain "tough guy" foreign policy which leaves us with larger threats and no additional security.
Posted by: JT | July 9, 2008 10:22 AM
Ronald Reagan would never talk to enemies bent on destroying our capitalist way of life.....wait.
Posted by: stupid Republican | July 9, 2008 10:38 AM
That's right, Barry. "Aggressive diplomacy." "Threats" of "economic sanctions". Lots of talky-talk. That'll scare the mullahs!
Change You Can Believe In.
Posted by: Bruce | July 9, 2008 11:00 AM
Remember, Iran is "just a small country," after all.
Posted by: Jeff | July 9, 2008 11:07 AM
Wasn't Chamberlin's answer to the threats of Germany made against it's neighbors was diplomacy? Why wait for Iran to do what it's stated it WILL do? Act now and save lives.
Posted by: Michael Bingamon | July 9, 2008 11:10 AM
Can an American explain why Jeff is talking up the Iranian military? They are just a piece of trash country in a piece of trash neighborhood that should be made into a parking lot in my opinion. Why is he giving them so much credit?
Posted by: james patterson | July 9, 2008 11:16 AM
Big deal, egotistical politician named Obama takes for granted the people who put him where he is.
Posted by: Jeff | July 9, 2008 9:26 AM
Maybe Obama can pen a Campaign Finance Reform Bill and Jeff can forgive him. Just like Jeff forgave John McCain's GRAFT and CORRUPTION as a charter member of the KEATING FIVE.
Posted by: jackson | July 9, 2008 11:23 AM
Yes Jeff, Iran is just a small country. Their missiles are no direct threat to the US.
Quit being such a scaredy cat, terriffied of non-existent threats. OR if you really think Iran needs to be taken care of, go enlist so that you can be the first hero over the border.
Posted by: JT | July 9, 2008 11:32 AM
Now I'm "talking up" the Iranian military because I'm quoting Obama's ridiculously stupid statements about Iran? I don't care if it's a "piece of trash country" or the Soviet Union, if an enemy of our state has nuclear weapons it's a threat to the safety of the united states. This is why you liberals didn't understand that a bunch of guys willing to die for their cause with box cutters on an airplane were just as big a threat to 2,752 innocent americans as a bomb dropped from the sky. Amazing how easily you people will shove your heads into the sand.
Posted by: Jeff | July 9, 2008 11:33 AM
stupid Republican, I can't tell if you are being ironic, or if you really are stupid. Ronald Reagan traded arms for hostages with Iran.
Posted by: Quippy | July 9, 2008 11:43 AM
Posted by: Michael Bingamon | July 9, 2008 11:10 AM
No!! Diplomacy was and should always be preferred. If someone hands Israel over to Iran (see: Austria c 1938), then you can bring up Chamberlain.
Posted by: David J | July 9, 2008 11:53 AM
So Jeff, should we have bombed the Soviet Union?
How about China, should we refuse to negotiate with them since they are an enemy with actual nukes, and a weapons system that can actually reach us? Would Iran be justified in attacking Israel's nukes, since they are an enemy of Iran?
How tough is your tough talk? Or is it just little countries with oil you're interested in attacking?
Posted by: Michael | July 9, 2008 12:05 PM
May be the right wingers who control the govt in Iran are inviting an attack. To consolidate their power. It worked for Bush.
Sooner or later there will be an exchange of missles with our dear close ally bestest friend in the world Israel.
I just don't want to be down wind.
Posted by: ornery | July 9, 2008 12:17 PM
Wait Jeff,
Iran was involved in 9/11? Go back to school.
PS it wasn't a "bunch of guys". It was 19, many of which your Republican government were tracking but not communicating intel between agencies.
Posted by: james patterson | July 9, 2008 12:22 PM
Obama: "It has to combine much tougher threats of economic sanctions with direct diplomacy, opening up channels of communication, so that we avoid provocation but we give the Iranians strong incentives to change their behavior."
I think the US needs strong incentives to change their behavior.
I mean, exactly how many carrier groups are stationed in the Persian Gulf threatening Iran and anyone in the region who doesn't agree with US hegemonic policies right now?
2?
3?
Threatening our satrap state Israel seems like a strong incentive .
FYI, the USS Lincoln's group just set sail to avoid having ALL of our groups in the region trapped if JUST ONE TANKER were sunk in the strait of Hormuz.
Ready for war with a country that has a fully operational military and the ability to absolutely destroy the global oil supply from the Persian Gulf and indeed almost the WHOLE Middle East, America?
Posted by: Da' Buffalo Amongst Wolves | July 9, 2008 12:40 PM
James, your beliefs are clearly defined by your political positions so it's obviously useless to argue with you, but I need to point out to you that 19 is a bunch of guys. I'm still looking for the part of my post where I said Iran was a part of 9/11, but I can see how a liberal would believe that them not being involved in it would make it okay for them to have nuclear weapons.. even though the 9/11 Commission report details how Al Qaeda trained in camps in Iran during the '90s. I'll keep looking.You people need to get over ourselves. You don't have all the answers and I never claimed I did. But I do know that saying Iran is "just a small country" and not a threat is the height of naivete.
Posted by: Jeff | July 9, 2008 12:53 PM
Sounds like Obama famous word-
"CHANGE"
What a joke-
Posted by: George | July 9, 2008 2:08 PM
Jeff,
Bob Barr 2008! Mccain is the liberal you're voting for, Jeff. He believes in global warming, and remember Mccain-Feingold? ha
You hypocritical piece of shit
Posted by: Joseph Marzullo | July 10, 2008 9:22 AM