But Obama vowed in his annual State of the Union speech that he would "take no options off the table," including the military option, in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
The world community has overcome its divisions and was now united on how to check Iran's nuclear ambitions, Obama told lawmakers from both chambers of the US Congress, in remarks prepared for delivery.
"The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent," Obama said.
"Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal," the president declared.
"But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible," he said.
The United States and the European Union have stepped up sanctions targeting Iran's oil and banking sector as part of efforts to force Iran to stop uranium enrichment, which they fear masks a drive to produce an atomic bomb.
Iran insists its enrichment program is purely peaceful.
Iran's leaders have warned they could close the Strait of Hormuz -- a key transit route for global oil supplies -- if increased Western sanctions over Tehran's suspect nuclear program halt Iranian oil exports.
COMMENTS (3)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1730464033-0/BeFunky-collage-(12)1730464033-0-165x106.webp "article")
1732445375-0/Untitled-design-(9)1732445375-0-270x192.webp "sinkhole shuts victoria s great alpine road")
1732428810-0/Copy-of-Untitled-(3)1732428810-0-270x192.webp "philippine vp sara duterte warns of assassination plot against president if she is killed")
1732425487-0/BeFunk_§_]__-(42)1732425487-0.jpg "us senator lindsey graham warns uk over netanyahu arrest")
Who the hell US is to prevent Ian from acquiring nuclear arms. If they are so concerned, why don't they disarm themselves first and set a good precedence for the world.
I am surprised where all the intellectuals and thinkers gone, nobody asks US, France, Britain, Russia to disarm first.
Isn't it unfair that I keep all kind of weapons for my defence and safety but does not allow my neighbour to keep anything for his safety. Is this justice, is it rational. If US feels the need to keep nuclear arm for her safety, then every nation in the world has the right to keep nuclear arms for her safety. Why don't super power set a good precedence by destroying their nuclear arms first before stopping others from acquiring the same weapons.
If US and other super powers don't do this, then Iran and every country in the world has the right to develop her nuclear weapons.
@j. von hettlingen
This is a common statement but no one ever explains what the West is doing differently post "nukes" or how the N Korean's have benefited from having "nukes". The West wasn't threatening military confrontation with N Korea pre nuke and the West has not been reluctant to impose embargoes, search N Korean ships or do anything they would have done before N Korea had nukes. I would argue that N Korea provides an excellent example of how worthless nukes are rather than an example of why someone should go out and obtain them.
Obama shouldn't be too optimistic that a peace outcome on Iran were still possible. No doubt Iran will suffer under political isolation and the international embargo. Unfortunately the civilians have to bear the grunt. But the nuclear program is a matter of national pride and ultimate security. The theocratic regime knows the vitalness of going nuclear, seeing the West is powerless vis-à-vis North Korea. So it is willing to absorb the economic pain to pursue its nuclear goal.