Obama sounds like a certain George Bush at times- he's the new unilateratist cowboy, threatening to invade Pakistan, advocating wars that aren't of self-defence ("We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability"), and now advocating military action against Iran.
Asked about concerns that the Iranians would abuse his stated readiness for "tough diplomacy" to play for time and keep moving ahead toward the bomb, Obama said that his "willingness to negotiate" had "very clear and direct goals" and "a sense of urgency." So "if the Iranians fail to respond, we've stripped away whatever excuses they may have, [and] whatever rationales may exist in the international community for not ratcheting up sanctions and taking serious action."
So does this mean that Obama agrees that the time for tough sanctions and- if they fail to materialise in the toothless UN- direct action is now? After all, Bush sent diplomats to engage in direct negotiations with Iran and the result was-
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted on Wednesday that Tehran would not “retreat one iota” from its atomic work.
This would suggest, by Obama's own stated position that if tough sanctions aren't possible from the UN, then it's time to stop talking endlessly with Iran while they carry on regardless and actually do something about their project.
I wonder if all those "No war with Iran" crowd we've seen around will begin to protest Obama and this war-like talk. You know, from people like Bill Richardson? Oh wait, no, threatening military action against Iran is bad when George Bush does it, but good when Barack Obama does it. Right?
Obama supporters- do you actually know what your candidate of choice stands for?