Obama Warns Against ‘Loose Talk of War’ With Iran

Doug Mills/The New York Times

President Obama said he views diplomacy and sanctions as the West’s best hope for getting Iran to stop short of pursuing a nuclear weapon.

 

WASHINGTON — As Republicans on the campaign trail ramped up their support for Israel in a possible military strike on Iran, President Obama used a speech before a pro-Israel lobbying group on Sunday to warn against the “loose talk of war” that could serve to speed Iran toward a nuclear weapon.

In a forceful address to the group, the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Mr. Obama declared that he would not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran and would act — with military force, if necessary — to prevent that from happening.

But he made clear that he did not believe that a strike on Iran would serve the interests of either the United States or Israel. And he chided his Republican critics for, as he described it, putting politics ahead of American national security interests.

“Already, there is too much loose talk of war,” Mr. Obama said. “Over the last few weeks such talk has only benefited the Iranian government by driving up the price of oil, which they depend on to fund their nuclear program.

“For the sake of Israel’s security, America’s security and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster.”

And as he often does, Mr. Obama quoted President Theodore Roosevelt: “Speak softly. Carry a big stick.”

For Mr. Obama, the speech, before some of Israel’s loudest and staunchest supporters in the United States, was a political high-wire act, an effort to demonstrate his commitment to Israel’s security without signaling American support for a pre-emptive strike against Iran. And it was an effort to confront the Republican presidential candidates who have turned the Iranian nuclear issue into the top item in their litmus test for demonstrating support for Israel.

Even as Mr. Obama was giving his keynote address to the Aipac conference, Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, was questioning the president’s Iran strategy on the Sunday talk shows. “We’re being played for fools,” Mr. Gingrich said on “State of the Union” on CNN. “Israel is such a small country; it is so compact that two or three nuclear weapons would be equivalent to a second Holocaust.”

After Mr. Obama’s speech, Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, said at a campaign stop near Atlanta, “If Barack Obama gets re-elected, Iran will have a nuclear weapon, and the world will change if that’s the case.” Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Romney and Rick Santorum are also scheduled to address Aipac this week.

Mr. Obama, who has often lamented the United States’ invasion of Iraq in 2003, made reference to European and American intelligence assessments that have found no evidence that Iran has decided to pursue a nuclear weapon. Recent assessments by American spy agencies have also reaffirmed intelligence findings in 2007 and 2010 that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program.

“The United States and Israel both assess that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon,” Mr. Obama said. He also promised vigilance to make sure that Iran’s civilian nuclear agenda did not turn into a weapons program.

A European official closely involved in the diplomatic efforts on Iran said on Sunday that “while the intentions of the Iranian regime remain opaque, we don’t believe they have made the decision to weaponize.”

“There are a lot of moving parts,” the official said, speaking on grounds of anonymity. “Meanwhile, the war drumbeat is beating louder in Washington.”

Mr. Obama made clear that he considers diplomacy, and the policy of sanctions set in motion by the United States and Europe, as the best hopes for getting Iran to stop pursuing a nuclear weapon.

It was at times a defensive speech, delivered by a president who was initially criticized for pushing Israel too hard to make concessions for peace with the Palestinians. Over three years, Mr. Obama’s relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has deteriorated as Mr. Netanyahu balked at American demands. Mr. Obama has retreated, largely putting aside the Palestinian issue for the rest of this term.

But at the same time, a far more vigorous sanctions policy against Iran’s nuclear program has gone into effect on Mr. Obama’s watch, with Europe agreeing to impose an oil embargo on Iran, a step that was unthinkable as recently as four years ago.

Mr. Obama has nonetheless been dogged by Republican criticism that he has not backed Israel strongly enough, with Iran’s nuclear ambitions now front and center in that debate.

Mr. Obama is to meet with Mr. Netanyahu on Monday at the White House, where the prime minister is expected to continue to pressure the United States to take a harder line on Iran. Specifically, Mr. Netanyahu wants Mr. Obama to be more explicit about the circumstances under which the United States would carry out a strike.

Israeli officials are demanding that Iran agree to halt its uranium enrichment, and that the suspension be verified by United Nations inspectors, before the West resumes negotiations with Tehran on its nuclear program. The White House has rejected that demand, arguing that Iran would never agree to a blanket ban upfront.

Last month, Iran abandoned preconditions for resuming international negotiations over its nuclear programs that the West had considered unacceptable. The United States and other countries involved in the negotiations — Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia — are now considering their response to an Iranian letter that for the first time in more than a year appeared to open the door for resuming talks.

Diplomats involved in the negotiations, wary that the Iranians might be trying to stall, are now discussing how to present a concrete set of demands that Iran must first meet. American officials have said that the Iranians’ letter shows that the steadily tightening diplomatic and economic sanctions might force Tehran to change course.

In many ways, Mr. Obama’s speech was meant to demonstrate that he will use military options as a last resort.

“I do not have a policy of containment,” Mr. Obama said, to applause from the huge crowd at the Washington convention center. “I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I’ve made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.”

At the same time, he seemed to indicate that he would not be pushed into military action.

“As president and commander in chief, I have a deeply held preference for peace over war,” Mr. Obama said. “I have sent men and women into harm’s way. I have seen the consequences of those decisions in the eyes of those I meet who have come back gravely wounded, and the absence of those who don’t make it home.” He called the image of wounded American soldiers “the most searing of my presidency.”

“For this reason,” he said, “as part of my solemn obligation to the American people, I only use force when the time and circumstances demand it. And I know that Israeli leaders also know all too well the costs and consequences of war, even as they recognize their obligation to defend their country.”

Aipac leaders praised Mr. Obama for saying that he would not tolerate a nuclear Iran, and for explicitly ruling out a strategy of containment similar to the one used against the Soviet Union.

“The president said some welcome things today on Iran,” said Josh Block, a former Aipac spokesman, “including making clear that he has a policy of prevention, not containment, explicitly pointing to a military option, delivering an extended explanation of why it is in America’s interest to stop Iran, and in particular making explicitly clear that Israel has a sovereign right to defend themselves as they see fit.”

There was a sharply different reaction at J Street, a prominent pro-Israel lobbying group that is less hawkish. Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, said Mr. Obama “gave the domestic and mainstream Israeli audiences what they wanted without giving Bibi what he wanted,” referring to Mr. Netanyahu’s nickname. “He refused to lie down for Bibi.”