Former US President Carter Cautions Against Threatening Iran

[masuki bance]

NOW

Ex-US President Carter cautions against threatening Iran
Updated: Thursday, October 01, 2009
14:28GMT—10:28PM/EST


Washington, 1 October (WashingtonTV)—Former US President Jimmy Carter said on Thursday that the United States and other world powers should not threaten Iran over its suspect nuclear program, warning that such threats may persuade Tehran to acquire nuclear arms to defend itself.

Carter told CNN in an interview this morning that he did not believe Iran had yet made up its mind on pushing forward with a military nuclear program.

“If Iran is on the borderline, the constant threats that we or the Israelis are going to attack Iran is the best thing to force them to say, ‘Let’s defend ourselves’,” he said.

Carter said that the best thing the international community could do was to engage Iran and “stop making these idle threats.”

...

Carter noted that Iran has a right to enrich uranium to use for nuclear power.

...

http://televisionwashington.com/floater_article1.aspx?lang=en&t=3&id=14511


===========================================================================

THEN



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3662419
Ex-Advisers Warn Against Threatening to Attack Iran

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 23, 2008; Page A11



The Bush administration should stop talking about a military attack as an option if negotiations do not immediately halt Iran's uranium reprocessing program, two former national security advisers said yesterday.

"Don't talk about 'do we bomb them now or later?' " said Brent Scowcroft, adviser to presidents Gerald R. Ford and George H.W. Bush, during a discussion at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the negotiations between the United States and Iran.

Scowcroft added that by mentioning that threat, "we legitimize the use of force . . . and may tempt the Israelis" to carry out such a mission. He said he thinks that negotiations must continue and that sanctions have had an effect on Tehran, noting that even with elevated oil prices, Iran, alone among oil producers, is having a difficult time economically.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, adviser to President Jimmy Carter, described the Bush administration's policy of maintaining the option of military action as "counterproductive."

"I don't want the public to believe a preemptive attack can be justified," he said. Repeating the possibility "convinces Iran it is being threatened . . . and maybe it ought to have a {nuclear} weapon."

He added that a U.S. attack on Iran would be a "disaster," suggesting it could result in the U.S. fighting "for at least two decades" on four fronts -- Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/22/AR2008072202698.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Still true.


*edit OP headline

[SDuderstadt]

1. Minor point....

Presidents who served out their full terms are properly referred to as "former Presidents". The only ones who are referred to as "ex-presidents" would be those forced out or who resigned prior to the end of their term, like Richard Nixon.

Like I said, minor point.

[masuki bance]

2. Good point, changed in OP title. nt

[masuki bance]

3. kick

[jeanpalmer]

4. In Cairo Obama owned up to the part

the US played in overthrowing Iran's government in 1953. No apology though. Also didn't mention how the US maintained the Shah and trained his Savak that the Iranians had to contend with for 20 years. Also didn't mention the support the US gave to Saddma in his war on Iran.

Seems like all of that requires more than an apology. Maybe reparations. But lacking that, how about cutting them some slack on the nuclear issue and quit threatening them. Maybe offering them a security guarantee.

[Vidar]

5. Jimmy's right again.