The issue of Iran
Some fun excerpts from the New York Times, On the Issues: The Presidential Candidates on Iran. Here is an apt looking glass into how our future president will handle one of the most tumultuous foreign policy issues existing today. The biggest concerns are: will the president engage or meet with Ahmadinejad in the name of diplomacy? Will the president act militarily, and will it be with the consent of Congress? How will the president curb nuclear proliferation? What sort of rhetoric towards Iran has the candidate adopted recently?
Joe Biden denounces any military action and voted against the Senate resolution calling on the administration to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization
If anybody thinks you're going to be able to stop Iran because you're going to invade them or you're going to instigate an air war with them, they're crazy. All that will do was solidify any single Iranian -- and they're divided right now with their leadership -- to be united in their opposition to us and to the West. It will get every single solitary Islamic state in the world further enraged about our activity. It will generate more danger and loss for American lives in Iraq.
- ABC News, Oct. 21, 2007
Hillary Clinton refuses to meet with Ahmadinejad, would consider military action (but with the consent of Congress), and voted for the Senate resolution calling on the administration to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization
I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be."
- Democratic debate, July 24, 2007
Dennis Kucinich, seeking to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney in November 2007, said
despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran.
Barack Obama would meet with Ahmadinejad without any preconditions, would consider military action, but introduced a Senate resolution in November 2007, saying President Bush does not have authority to use military force against Iran.
I would [be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of my administration ... with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea]. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.
- Democratic debate, July 23, 2007
Rudy Giuliani would consider military action without consent of Congress
Iran is a greater danger than Iraq. Iraq cannot be seen in a vacuum. And we have to be willing to use a military option to stop Iran from becoming nuclear. If we're willing to do it, we have a much better chance at having sanctions work.
- Republican debate, Oct. 9, 2007
It really depends on exigency of the circumstances and how legitimate it is that it really is an exigent circumstance. It's desirable. It's safer to go to Congress, get approval from Congress. If you're really dealing with exigent circumstance, then the president has to act in the best interests of the country.
- Republican debate, Oct. 9, 2007
In addition, every other Republican candidate mirrored Giuliani's willingness to consider military action without the consent of Congress. Except, of course, for...
Ron Paul would engage immediately and extensively in direct diplomacy...
We should be talking to Iran right now. We shouldn't be looking for the opportunity to attack them. They are at the present time, according to the [International Atomic Energy Agency], cooperating, and by the end of the year they're supposed to be willing to reveal all that they are doing. So instead of looking for this scenario where it is inevitable that we have to attack, I think we ought to be talking about how do you get along with some people that are deadly like the Soviets and the Chinese and the many others.
-- Republican debate, Sept. 5, 2007
...says sanctions aren't working...
We talked to the Russians, so why can't we talk to the Iranians? It makes a lot of sense to me that we should talk to them if we talk to these other regimes. It's this attitude that we should isolate ourselves from the world and just be belligerent and threaten them and put on sanctions. Right now the more sanctions we put on, the more harm we do to the dissidents that are in Iran. So I would say that always backfires.
-- MSNBC, July 17, 2007
...believes Iran has a right to nuclear technology...
If Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India, and North Korea having one? Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon than these other countries? If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody -- which would guarantee her own annihilation -- are zero. And the same goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a non-state terrorist group.
-- In the House, April 5, 2006
..would not consider military action...
[If Iran had nuclear weapons] I wouldn't do that much about it. I wouldn't bomb them. They are a third rate nation. They are not going to attack us; they are incapable of even attacking their neighbors.
-- CNN, Nov. 2, 2007
...asserts that Congressional approval is required for war
You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war. Now, as far as fleeting enemies go, yes, if there's an imminent attack on us, we'd never had that happen in 220 years. The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the United States is preposterous.
-- Republican debate, Oct. 9, 2007
I don't agree with some of Paul's issues, and I'm apprehensive about his indifference to Iran's nuclear ambitions. Nuclear Iran is such a horribly bad idea. It would further destabilize an already very unstable region, and Saudi Arabia would surely react with their own nuclear ambitions. A similar scenario has already happened: the Saudis are looking to exert their own Sunni influence in Iraq as a direct response to Iran's growing influence with the Iraqi Shiite population. In addition, there is the possibility that Iran's nuclear technology will get in the hands of terrorist organizations and used against us -- the scariest possibility of a nuclear Iran.
However, how is it our right and obligation to tell a sovereign nation that they aren't allowed to have a nuclear program? The Iranians assert it's for energy purposes. Whether this is believable or not is not the point. The Israelis already have nuclear technology, and they probably got it from us.
There are high risks in the existence of a nuclear Iran. But in the end, Paul is absolutely right. The president of the United States is sworn in to protect the Constitution, and thus the liberties of the American people. He is not sworn in to ensure our safety and certainly not to ensure the safety of the people of the Middle East. The President derives his power and limitations from the Constitution, and nowhere in it is he given the right to intervene in the sovereign affairs of other nations.
Joe Biden denounces any military action and voted against the Senate resolution calling on the administration to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization
If anybody thinks you're going to be able to stop Iran because you're going to invade them or you're going to instigate an air war with them, they're crazy. All that will do was solidify any single Iranian -- and they're divided right now with their leadership -- to be united in their opposition to us and to the West. It will get every single solitary Islamic state in the world further enraged about our activity. It will generate more danger and loss for American lives in Iraq.
- ABC News, Oct. 21, 2007
Hillary Clinton refuses to meet with Ahmadinejad, would consider military action (but with the consent of Congress), and voted for the Senate resolution calling on the administration to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization
I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be."
- Democratic debate, July 24, 2007
Dennis Kucinich, seeking to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney in November 2007, said
despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran.
Barack Obama would meet with Ahmadinejad without any preconditions, would consider military action, but introduced a Senate resolution in November 2007, saying President Bush does not have authority to use military force against Iran.
I would [be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of my administration ... with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea]. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.
- Democratic debate, July 23, 2007
Rudy Giuliani would consider military action without consent of Congress
Iran is a greater danger than Iraq. Iraq cannot be seen in a vacuum. And we have to be willing to use a military option to stop Iran from becoming nuclear. If we're willing to do it, we have a much better chance at having sanctions work.
- Republican debate, Oct. 9, 2007
It really depends on exigency of the circumstances and how legitimate it is that it really is an exigent circumstance. It's desirable. It's safer to go to Congress, get approval from Congress. If you're really dealing with exigent circumstance, then the president has to act in the best interests of the country.
- Republican debate, Oct. 9, 2007
In addition, every other Republican candidate mirrored Giuliani's willingness to consider military action without the consent of Congress. Except, of course, for...
Ron Paul would engage immediately and extensively in direct diplomacy...
We should be talking to Iran right now. We shouldn't be looking for the opportunity to attack them. They are at the present time, according to the [International Atomic Energy Agency], cooperating, and by the end of the year they're supposed to be willing to reveal all that they are doing. So instead of looking for this scenario where it is inevitable that we have to attack, I think we ought to be talking about how do you get along with some people that are deadly like the Soviets and the Chinese and the many others.
-- Republican debate, Sept. 5, 2007
...says sanctions aren't working...
We talked to the Russians, so why can't we talk to the Iranians? It makes a lot of sense to me that we should talk to them if we talk to these other regimes. It's this attitude that we should isolate ourselves from the world and just be belligerent and threaten them and put on sanctions. Right now the more sanctions we put on, the more harm we do to the dissidents that are in Iran. So I would say that always backfires.
-- MSNBC, July 17, 2007
...believes Iran has a right to nuclear technology...
If Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India, and North Korea having one? Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon than these other countries? If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody -- which would guarantee her own annihilation -- are zero. And the same goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a non-state terrorist group.
-- In the House, April 5, 2006
..would not consider military action...
[If Iran had nuclear weapons] I wouldn't do that much about it. I wouldn't bomb them. They are a third rate nation. They are not going to attack us; they are incapable of even attacking their neighbors.
-- CNN, Nov. 2, 2007
...asserts that Congressional approval is required for war
You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war. Now, as far as fleeting enemies go, yes, if there's an imminent attack on us, we'd never had that happen in 220 years. The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the United States is preposterous.
-- Republican debate, Oct. 9, 2007
I don't agree with some of Paul's issues, and I'm apprehensive about his indifference to Iran's nuclear ambitions. Nuclear Iran is such a horribly bad idea. It would further destabilize an already very unstable region, and Saudi Arabia would surely react with their own nuclear ambitions. A similar scenario has already happened: the Saudis are looking to exert their own Sunni influence in Iraq as a direct response to Iran's growing influence with the Iraqi Shiite population. In addition, there is the possibility that Iran's nuclear technology will get in the hands of terrorist organizations and used against us -- the scariest possibility of a nuclear Iran.
However, how is it our right and obligation to tell a sovereign nation that they aren't allowed to have a nuclear program? The Iranians assert it's for energy purposes. Whether this is believable or not is not the point. The Israelis already have nuclear technology, and they probably got it from us.
There are high risks in the existence of a nuclear Iran. But in the end, Paul is absolutely right. The president of the United States is sworn in to protect the Constitution, and thus the liberties of the American people. He is not sworn in to ensure our safety and certainly not to ensure the safety of the people of the Middle East. The President derives his power and limitations from the Constitution, and nowhere in it is he given the right to intervene in the sovereign affairs of other nations.