Barack Obama's speech to Aipac – Sunday 4 March

• No explicit threat of military action against Iran
• Policy not 'containment' but to prevent a nuclear weapon
• 'Speak softly and carry a big stick'
President Obama with AIPAC President Lee Rosenberg
President Obama with AIPAC President Lee Rosenberg. Photograph: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

10.15am: Welcome to our live blog coverage of the president's speech to Aipac. Tom McCarthy here in New York – and here's a summary of where things stand:

The big question this morning is, What will President Obama say to address concerns about Iran's nuclear program – and will his words bring a potential military conflict with Iran closer, or seem to defer it? As my colleague Chris McGreal first reported, Israel wants the president to declare "red lines" beyond which America will take military action to demolish Iran's nuclear capability. So far the president has not laid out the situation so plainly.

What has Obama said? In his State of the Union address on Jan. 24, the president spoke of "our iron-clad commitment to Israel's security" and pointed to "the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history." In an interview last week with Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, the president said "I don't bluff" and "We've got Israel's back." Israel is looking for a more explicit statement of military intentions from the president. Now is Obama's moment to make such a statement – or not.

What is Aipac? The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is a lobbying group working to advance Israel's interests in Washington. An audience of more than 13,000 is attending its annual conference this weekend and through the beginning of next week. The most powerful political figures from Israel and the United States will address the conference. President Obama is scheduled to speak at 10.50am ET. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is scheduled to address the body tomorrow evening after a meeting at the White House with the president. The Republican presidential candidates will address the conference via satellite on Tuesday.

What about the American presidential election? The president's annual address to Aipac is always an occasion to handicap how the president is doing with Jewish voters. That goes doubly in an election year. The Jewish-American electorate of course is as heterogenous as any voting bloc – there's no one clear way for the president to speak to these voters on this issue. Inside Israel, a recent poll found that 34 percent oppose a strike on Iran no matter what. Forty-two percent would back a strike only if it had at least the support of the United States. Also of note in this context: President Obama already enjoys stronger support among Jewish voters than among the electorate at large (pace Rick Santorum, who in a December speech to the Jewish Republican Coalition said that "Jews all across this country are now understanding that the values of the Republican Party are in concert with theirs").

Big questions, looking for answers. How does the president perceive the threat from Iran's nuclear program? What is his willingness to act to eliminate that threat? How much does the administration's vision overlap with the Israeli vision? What about Israel's security? Hanging in the background are questions like the vulnerability of U.S. targets abroad, the American public's appetite for another war in the Middle East, nuclear proliferation and the future of the world and, last but not least, gas prices this summer.

10.28am: It is an understatement to say that the issues the president will address this morning give rise to strong feelings.

10.30am: My colleague Chris McGreal is at the conference. Here's some of what he's seeing:

Aipac is nothing if not slick. The main conference hall is an upper floor of Washington's convention centre. The long wall behind the speakers is fitted with vast screens flashing up pictures of Aipac leaders with Congressional leaders and quotes from Israel's supporters. Periodically that gives way to an American flag overlaid with a Star of David. Downstairs is the "Aipac village", billed as the "ultimate pro-Israel social network".

The "largest policy conference in Aipac's history" – with more than 13,000 delegates – opened with thumping speakers broadcasting Ronald Reagan, Golda Meir, Nathan Sharansky, Barack Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu and Martin Luther King all saying that the US and Israel share a common commitment to democracy.

Then came a statement from one of Aipac's members that sets the tone of the conference of Israel as besieged by threats and enemies: "Iran is marching towards the bomb, the Palestinians seem more interested in bringing the terrorist group Hamas in to power and the Arab Spring has turned to a cold winter".

10.35am: Here's Chris McGreal with some details from Liz Cheney's speech:

Ahead of the speeches there has been a foreign policy discussion panel. Among the speakers was Liz Cheney, a former State Department official and daughter of George W. Bush's vice president. There was widespread applause for her attacks on Barack Obama including when she said the president is more interested in "containing Israel" by discouraging it from attacking Iran than blocking Tehran from developing a nuclear bomb. There was also applause when she said there was no president who had done more to "undermine and delegitimise" Israel. There were loud cheers when she predicted that the next Aipac conference will be held under a new US president.

10.36am: Israeli President Shimon Peres just stepped to the podium.

He begins: "Thank you President Obama for being such a good friend."

10.46am: Peres speaks about the history of Israel, of conflict, of justice: "No day of war ever interrupted a day of democracy." Biggest applause line so far: "To make peace Israel must be strong. Let me assure you: Israel is strong." He mentions the dictator in Syria "killing his people, killing his children."

Now Peres presents his version of a two-state solution. "Dear friends, the Palestinians are our neighbors for life. Peace can and must be achieved with them. Peace based on a two-state solution. A Jewish state, Israel, and an Arab state, Palestine."

10.50am: Now Peres turns to Iran. His voice rises, his cadence strengthens. He is now on the attack. The applause swells in response.

Iran is an evil, corrupt regime. An affront to human dignity. The center... of world terror. Iran is a danger to the entire world. ... Iran's ambition is to control the Middle East so it can control a major part of the world economy. It must be stopped, and it will be stopped.

If we are forced to fight, trust me, we shall prevail. President Obama is implementing a complex policy [of sanctions]. ... President Obama made it clear that the United States will never permit Iran to become nuclear. ... As the president stated, "all options are on the table."

10.56am: Peres is winding toward the end of his speech. The change in his tone as he took on Iran, and the crowd's enthusiastic response to it, signals part of what the delegates here are looking for out of the American president's speech. Not only what he says – he's expected to have tough language for Iran, and language of solidarity with Israel. The exact language is important. But the force of feeling perceived to be behind it is just as important. David Frum, for one, hasn't been feeling this kind of forceful commitment or desire from Obama to confront Iran.

Peres wraps up. The orchestra playing him off sounds like the Oscars.

11.02am: The Twittersphere is picking up on this line from Peres:

11.07am: There appears to have been an attack on the Aipac web site earlier by the hacker group Anonymous. The site is currently working fine.

11.08am: Here comes the president.

11.13am: President Obama makes a basketball-related crack on Aipac president Lee "Rosy" Rosenberg, who introduced him. He is wading through the long stretch of thanks and acknowledgments that open his prepared remarks. He thanks Shimon Peres. There's polite clapping whenever he pauses. Nothing overwhelmingly warm from the audience, but nothing audibly chilly either.

11.16am: The president announces that he will award Peres with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The first real cheers from the crowd. The president pauses to clap for Peres himself. A standing ovation.

I am grateful for his life's work and his moral example, and I am proud to announce that later this Spring, I will invite Shimon Peres to the White House to present him with America's highest civilian honor – the presidential Medal of Freedom.

11.20am: Now the president is getting into the pledges of solidarity with Israel. He lets his voice raise. There's something personal about how he frames the pledge of solidarity. He says "my commitment" – not the U.S. commitment or our commitment.

Because of AIPAC's effectiveness in carrying out its mission, you can expect that over the next few days, you will hear many fine words from elected officials describing their commitment to the U.S.-Israel relationship. But as you examine my commitment, you don't just have to count on my words. You can look at my deeds. Because over the last three years, as President of the United States, I have kept my commitments to the state of Israel. At every crucial juncture – at every fork in the road – we have been there for Israel. Every single time.

11.23am: Obama is running through the recent history of U.S-Israeli relations. "We will always reject the notion that Zionism is racism."

And here is one key to the case the president is seeking to make:

When the chips are down, I have Israel's back. And remember that the U.S.-Israel relationship is simply too important to be distorted by partisan politics. America's national security is too important. Israel's security is too important.

11.26am: My colleague Chris McGreal, in the crowd at the conference, observes the defensive quality to Obama's speech so far.

Obama sounds unusually defensive for a US president in stating his support of Israel – a reflection not only of the attacks from Republicans accusing him of endangering Israel by not pressing Iran hard enough but also because of Obama's earlier pressure on Netanyahu to halt settlement construction in the occupied territories and to negotiate seriously with the Palestinians.

11.29am: And here is the meat of the president's speech, what everyone is listening for. He turns to Iran. He begins by describing the "profound" threat that a nuclear-armed Iran would present to Israel and the world.

Let's begin with a basic truth that you all understand: no Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map, and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel's destruction. And so I understand the profound historical obligation that weighs on the shoulders of Bibi Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, and all of Israel's leaders.

A nuclear-armed Iran is completely counter to Israel's security interests. But it is also counter to the national security interests of the United States. Indeed, the entire world has an interest in preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. A nuclear-armed Iran would thoroughly undermine the non-proliferation regime that we have done so much to build. There are risks that an Iranian nuclear weapon could fall into the hands of a terrorist organization.

11.33am: Now the president's approach to today's speech is becoming clear. The thrust is, I've already accomplished a lot, the current strategy of sanctions is working. And we're not done with diplomacy.

The president is not giving the hawks who support an invasion of Iran what they want. In no uncertain terms, he is saying let diplomacy work.

That is where we are today. Iran is isolated, its leadership divided and under pressure. And the Arab Spring has only increased these trends, as the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime is exposed, and its ally – the Assad regime – is crumbling.

Of course, so long as Iran fails to meet its obligations, this problem remains unsolved. The effective implementation of our policy is not enough – we must accomplish our objective.

In that effort, I firmly believe that an opportunity remains for diplomacy – backed by pressure – to succeed.

11.38am: The hall appears to have fallen uncomfortably silent. Have they realized that this president does not intend to advance his rhetoric on military action against Iran?

Or is he saving something – does he have a promise yet to make? Obama now is working his way through familiar rhetoric about "no options off the table" and a "military effort to be prepared for any contingency."

This is a little stronger, and draws applause:

Iran's leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I've made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.

11.42am: The president has just turned to a section of the speech that may be seized on as its lasting message: "Already, there is too much loose talk of war."

He quotes Teddy Roosevelt: "Speak softly, but carry a big stick."

To observers of the president's drone strike campaign against Al Qaeda militants, his killing of Osama bin Laden and his expansion of the war in Afghanistan, the phrase may resonate.

But it's the very opposite of what many in the crowd were hoping for, which was that he would speak loudly.

11.46am: The president has concluded his speech. The orchestra plays over applause. The applause is sustained but not, it seems, passionate.

So how, if at all, does the president's speech change the standoff with Iran?

Barack Obama  is welcomed by Aipac president Lee Rosenberg Barack Obama is welcomed by Aipac president Lee Rosenberg. Photograph: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

11.59am: Here's what wasn't in the president's speech: New, forceful rhetoric warning Iran of a military strike if it does not change its nuclear course. This is what Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu wants most from President Obama. It was what many in the Aipac audience hoped for: Some kind of declaration from the president that America would go to war if stated "red lines" were crossed.

Obama not only did not offer such rhetoric. He went out of his way, by quoting Teddy Roosevelt, to point out that he was not offering such rhetoric. What is the point of the Roosevelt quote here? Was it a kind of apology for not being more bellicose? Or was it a threat? Your answer to that question will depend on your observation of this president.

Two sections of the speech surfaced in particular.

Iran's leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

It's not an explicit threat of military action, but it is as firm a commitment to stopping the Islamic Republic from acquiring a nuke as the president has given. The military threat is implicit.

And then there was this:

Already, there is too much loose talk of war. Over the last few weeks, such talk has only benefited the Iranian government, by driving up the price of oil, which they depend upon to fund their nuclear program. For the sake of Israel's security, America's security, and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster; now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in, and to sustain the broad international coalition that we have built. Now is the time to heed that timeless advice from Teddy Roosevelt: speak softly, but carry a big stick.

Would President Obama invade Iran or contribute to an Israeli invasion to take out Israel's nuclear sites? Would he accept the risk to American lives and to American targets abroad, to Israel, to the world economy, to Middle Eastern and world stability?

He doesn't say that he would. He says that he wouldn't say if he would.

Chris McGreal

12.04pm: My colleague Chris McGreal, once again from the floor at Aipac, detects a lackluster response to the president's speech.

That is not what many delegates at Aipac hoped to hear from the president, although after Obama's interview with the Atlantic last week they won't have been surprised.

The Aipac crowd will be pleased with his restatement that he will not pursue a policy of trying to "contain" a nuclear Iran, a demand the pro-Israel lobby has been pressing through support of resolutions in Congress.

But Obama's firm insistence that using sanctions and diplomacy to persuade Tehran not to pursue nukes is the only long term solution – reinforcing his earlier statements that a military attack is only a short term measure – was largely met with silence in the hall. The president recognised how unpopular that position is with his repeated defence of his record in support of Israel.

Harriet Sherwood.

12.11pm: My colleague the Guardian's Middle East correspondent Harriet Sherwood detects a rebuke to Israel in the president's remarks.
Here's her reaction:

President Obama's warning against "too much loose talk of war" will be seen as a sharp rebuke to Israel, where current and former political, military and intelligence leaders have spoken, written and briefed on the issue of potential military action for the past four months.

Likewise, Obama's comment that "now is not the time for bluster" will be interpreted as a dig at Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and may bolster the view of some analysts that Israel is playing a dangerous game of trying to manoeuvre the US into a tougher stand.

In general, Israel will be pleased with Obama's pledge that he "will not hesitate to use force when necessary". But the president dwelt for far longer on the merits of diplomacy and sanctions, and that is likely dismay those hoping for a clearer indication of a shift in the US position.

12.19pm: The full text of President Obama's 2012 speech to Aipac is here.

Reactions to the speech are coming in. What rhetorical fat was attached to the president's remarks is not to the taste of some of the audience.

12.48pm: What's the reaction to the president's speech to Aipac? Reuters picks up on Obama's warning against "loose talk about war." Politico notices the president's "aggressive defense" of his record on Israel. Spencer Ackerman is surprised at how Obama tried to sell the audience on his own take on the Iran threat instead of "pandering" to their perceived take. Helene Cooper in the New York Times also notes the president's "forceful defense" of his administration's Israel policy. She picks up on the "no containment" line. Philip Klein in the Washington Examiner says the president pretended as if nothing has changed since 2007.

1.05pm: We're going to wrap up our live blog of President Obama's speech to the 2012 Aipac conference. To recap what we saw this morning:

The president did not roll out new, aggressive rhetoric in describing his willingness to use military force to stop Iran's nuclear program. He did say that the U.S. policy is not one of containment but of prevention: The United States will prevent Iran from getting the weapon. But the thrust of Obama's speech was that sanctions are working – and diplomacy still has time to work. He quoted Teddy Roosevelt: "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

President Obama mounted an aggressive defense of his record on Israel. He spoke of direct military aid. He spoke of blocking resolutions on the Human Rights Council, intervening on behalf of Israeli diplomats in Cairo, containing fallout from the flotilla incident. He said "We will always reject the notion that Zionism is racism."

The audience didn't love the speech. The president was met with respectful applause. But many Aipac delegates and supporters must now be hoping that Netanyahu can get more out of Obama when they meet at the White House tomorrow.

The full text of President Obama's 2012 speech to Aipac is here.

We'll have full live coverage of the Aipac proceedings tomorrow, including the prime minister's speech. See you then.

We have switched off comments on this old version of the site. To comment on crosswords, please switch over to the new version to comment. Read more...