Thomas Friedman talks to the President: The Obama Doctrine and Iran(video)

[cal04]

In September 1996, I visited Iran. One of my most enduring memories of that trip was that in my hotel lobby there was a sign above the door proclaiming “Down With USA.” But it wasn’t a banner or graffiti. It was tiled and plastered into the wall. I thought to myself: “Wow — that’s tiled in there! That won’t come out easily.” Nearly 20 years later, in the wake of a draft deal between the Obama administration and Iran, we have what may be the best chance to begin to pry that sign loose, to ease the U.S.-Iran cold/hot war that has roiled the region for 36 years. But it is a chance fraught with real risks to America, Israel and our Sunni Arab allies: that Iran could eventually become a nuclear-armed state.

President Obama invited me to the Oval Office Saturday afternoon to lay out exactly how he was trying to balance these risks and opportunities in the framework accord reached with Iran last week in Switzerland. What struck me most was what I’d call an “Obama doctrine” embedded in the president’s remarks. It emerged when I asked if there was a common denominator to his decisions to break free from longstanding United States policies isolating Burma, Cuba and now Iran. Obama said his view was that “engagement,” combined with meeting core strategic needs, could serve American interests vis-à-vis these three countries far better than endless sanctions and isolation. He added that America, with its overwhelming power, needs to have the self-confidence to take some calculated risks to open important new possibilities — like trying to forge a diplomatic deal with Iran that, while permitting it to keep some of its nuclear infrastructure, forestalls its ability to build a nuclear bomb for at least a decade, if not longer.


(snip)
He added: “What I would say to the Israeli people is ... that there is no formula, there is no option, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon that will be more effective than the diplomatic initiative and framework that we put forward — and that’s demonstrable.”

The president gave voice, though — in a more emotional and personal way than I’ve ever heard — to his distress at being depicted in Israel and among American Jews as somehow anti-Israel, when his views on peace are shared by many center-left Israelis and his administration has been acknowledged by Israeli officials to have been as vigorous as any in maintaining Israel’s strategic edge.


videos at link
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/opinion/thomas-friedman-the-obama-doctrine-and-iran-interview.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

MUST watch this!
Great interview with President Obama
Great Job Sir!
At 34 min, he talked about the letter to Iran and how boundaries have been crossed
Inappropriate. What if they did that to Bush

[still_one]

1. Sorry Freidman, most American Jews do not view Obama as anti-Jewish. Unless, you consider

Sheldon Adelson, and such as representative of Jews in America. Funny you don't mention Feinstein, Franken, Sanders who were actually elected and supportive of the deal

You wonderful insight as usual talks out of both sides of the mouth, and is absolutely meaningless, just as your support of the U.S. attack on Iraq, until history showed what a disaster it was, and you suddenly developed amnesia. However, your interview on Charlie Rose in 2003 is part of the record

It is not surprising that the American media this weekend is full of pompous asses repeating republican talking points, and pushing the idea that this is a risky deal

Let me tell you what is risky

Starting another war in the Middle East

You make a trip to the Middle East, and suddenly you appoint yourself as an expert

You are a clown. Why don't you join Judy miller who works for Murdock? Hell, Murdock wanted to buy the NY times like he did the WSJ, so maybe you don't have to