David Gregory:
Netanyahu was wise and tempered, but still insisting on "red lines." The phrase "red lines" seems to have a specific meaning for Netanyahu. I think his ultimate goal is to tempt Iran over the "red line" in order to justify an attack. If a "red line" is drawn, it seems that Iran's first mission will be to cross it. Seems like a foolish tactic if the ultimate goal is to NOT start a war. * Watch Wesley Clark explain why no US president would establish a "red line."
Bill Clinton says Netanyahu backed out of the peace process. Everyone knows that Netanyahu is similar to our neocons, right? The way they view the world, war is always a very good option.
Obama's stated many times that containing a nuclear Iran is NOT an option. The Obama administration policy is to prevent Iran from having nukes in the first place. Via AIPAC:
President Barack Obama says he means it when he insists it’s unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, the Associated Press reported Friday, March 2. “I don’t bluff,” Obama said in an interview published Friday, adding that “a military component” is one of a mix of many options for dealing with Iran, along with sanctions and diplomacy. He also said that Tehran’s nuclear program would represent a “profound” national-security threat to the United States even if Israel were not a target of Iran’s violent rhetoric, and he dismissed the argument that the United States could successfully contain a nuclear Iran. “You’re talking about the most volatile region in the world,” he said. “It will not be tolerable to a number of states in that region for Iran to have a nuclear weapon and them not to have a nuclear weapon. Iran is known to sponsor terrorist organizations, so the threat of proliferation becomes that much more severe.” He also pointed to economic turmoil in Iran and reiterated that sanctions against the Iranian regime are starting to bite.For anyone who missed Obama's AIPAC speech this year:
