Sunday, October 22nd | 2 Heshvan 5778

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
September 25, 2012 11:03 am

Obama to UN: ‘Time is Not Unlimited’ on Iran

avatar by JNS.org

Email a copy of "Obama to UN: ‘Time is Not Unlimited’ on Iran" to a friend

President Obama at the United Nations. Photo: wiki commons.

In his speech at the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, U.S. President Barack Obama focused heavily on the wide range of issues afflicting the Middle East, including the anti-American protests, the Iranian nuclear threat and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The president said a nuclear-armed Iran “is not a challenge that can be contained” and that “it would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy.”

Obama began his address by remembering U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and condemning the attackers. He emphasized to the crowd of world leaders that Stevens’s assassination was an attack on all nations, not just the U.S.

“[The Middle East protests] are also an assault on the very ideals upon which the United Nations was founded,” he said.

Related coverage

October 22, 2017 9:51 am
0

Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe Wins Strong Mandate in General Election

Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe, has secured a strong mandate for his hard line against North Korea and room to push...

Obama spoke out against the incitement and hatred of the region, specifically stressing the importance of condemning slander against Christians and Jews.

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” Obama said. “Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied.”

Obama also said he is committed to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. While still voicing support for diplomacy, he said, “time is not unlimited.”

The president’s remarks come amid controversy surrounding the issue of setting “red lines” on Iran’s nuclear program. Obama has resisted calls to establish an official U.S. red line, which has led to a rift with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who favors tougher language and sanctions.

When pressed on red lines during an interview that aired on the CBS program “60 Minutes” on Sunday, Obama said he would “block out any noise that’s out there” on Iran. He said “any pressure that I feel is simply to do what’s right for the American people.” Obama is not meeting with any foreign leaders on his UN trip, and reportedly turned down a meeting with Netanyahu in Washington (though the White House denied that report).

On the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Obama’s remarks were brief. He spoke out against “those who reject the right of Israel to exist” and called for “a secure, Jewish state of Israel; and an independent, prosperous Palestine.”

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney also spoke on the Iranian threat Tuesday during the Clinton Global Initiative conference.

“We should not forget—and cannot forget—that not far from here, a voice of unspeakable evil and hatred has spoken out, threatening Israel and the civilized world,” Romney said of Iran.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Emeka

    I am disappointed on the comment of Mr Obama, that there should be no red line on nuclear activities in Iran.I that the Republican are the one in power.But one thing is sure that the same God of Abraham,Isaac and Jacob is still alive to protect his divine people.

  • MarkNYC

    It is clear that the U.S. is not prepared to set “red lines” for Iran in regard to their development of nuclear weapons. But what I realy would like to know is if the U.S. has already set red lines for Israel in regard to the possibility of its launching a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Has the U.S. privately threatened Israel that it would stop or limit such a strike against Iran, using force if need be? Is that what general Dempsey meant when he said the U.S. would not be complicit (or accused of being complicit) in any such Israeli attack? Was Netanyahu’s comment that the U.S. was putting up “red lights” in front of Israel his desperate way of letting the American public know that their government was hamstringing Israel’s ability to save itself from nuclear annihilation? Given that we’re in the midst of a Presidential election, that Bibi must have known his comments would infuriate Obama, and that he is a seasoned politician, would Bibi have taken such political risks with his chief ally were the situation not so desperate for Israel? Roger Cohen of the NY Times published a nasty column today attacking Netanyahu, and it is interesting how few readers (only a couple, including yours truly) were prepared to take him on about this. The overwhelming majority of the Times respondees, which I’m sure include many Jews, are apparently more than happy than to chime along with this criticism of Israel despite their being in such a precarious state. Given also that Jews are being subjected to attacks throughout the rest of the world, we need to use this opportunity on Yom Kippur to pray for divine assistance from Hashem.

Algemeiner.com