| Take Action on Iran |
|---|
|
Take Action for Proactive Diplomacy with Iran |
| Iran: The Next President On Iran |
|
|
|
The 2008 presidential race is already heating up, and the candidates are starting to formulate their positions on key foreign policy issues. With Congress engaged in a showdown with the Bush administration over the war in Iraq, much of the focus has been on how the next president will reverse four years of a disastrous war policy. While this debate is critical, we also need to know that the next president will not lead us into another unnecessary war, and has a vision for constructive diplomacy with other countries. Thus far, the Bush administration’s policy toward Iran has been ineffective and dangerous. Saber-rattling and refusals to negotiate damage the cause of moderates in Iran and move us away from a sensible diplomatic solution to the conflict. With your help, Peace Action West will be working to show the candidates that Americans want a more responsible, strategic, and just foreign policy, including diplomatic engagement with Iran. Click here to read more candidate statements at voter4peace.org Senator Hillary Clinton (D) "Well, I am very concerned about Iran, and I believe that we should have been using diplomacy for a number of years now. I am I guess pleased that the administration is starting to talk to the Iranians, but it is way overdue. We have allowed the Iranians to begin their nuclear program, to imprison Iranian Americans as they are now, to send weapons across their borders to be used against our young men and women, and we need a process of engagement... In my administration, diplomacy -- patient, careful diplomacy, the kind of diplomacy that Bill Richardson did for my husband, that really gets people to stay with it over time. Are you always going to get good results? No. But you've got to start the process. However, we still have to make it clear that Iran having a nuclear weapon is absolutely unacceptable. We have to try to prevent that at all costs. (Applause.) But we need to start with diplomacy in order to see what we can accomplish." “Such comments add greater urgency to the necessity to doing everything we can to deny nuclear weapons to Iran. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric only underscores the urgency of our response to the threat we face. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table.” Senator Barack Obama (D) "The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons." Former Senator John Edwards (D) "There is an extraordinary opportunity available to us on Iran, and there's a very clear path, from my perspective. They have a president who is politically unpopular. The people are in a different place. He hasn't done what he promised to do, Ahmadinejad, when he was elected president. We don't have economic leverage over the Iranians, but the Europeans do, the European banking system does. We should put two options on the table. One, carrots; we'll make the nuclear fuel available to you, the international community, but we'll control it, you can't nuclearize -- you can't weaponize it. Second, we're going to put a clear set of economic incentives on the table. And the Iranian people need to hear this. It needs to be not behind closed doors. And then the alternative, the stick, is if they don't do that, there are going to be serious economic sanctions. We need to drive a wedge between the Iranian people and this radical leader." “Iran must know that the world won’t back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table.” Senator Christopher Dodd (D) “Unfortunately, until very recently the Bush Administration sat on the side lines and did nothing to engage Iran in any meaningful dialogue to press Iran to change course. The United States must exhaust all avenues – robust diplomacy and direct negotiations coupled with economic pressures on Iran’s financial and energy sectors. While the United States should never take any option off the table to advance our national security interests, it is critical that all options be carefully analyzed and the implications of their use fully understood. Based on the Administration’s track record I have no faith that it will behave judiciously.” Senator Joseph Biden (D) "Well, first of all, I would do away with the policy of regime change. What we're saying to everybody in Iran is, "Look, by the way, give up the one thing that keeps us from attacking you, and after that we're going to attack you. We're going to take you down." It's a bizarre notion, number one. Number two, understand how weak Iran is. They are not a year away or two years away. They're a decade away from being able to weaponize exactly what the question was, if they put a nuclear weapon on top of a missile that can strike. They're far away from that. Number three, in fact, we're going to -- we have to understand how weak that government is. They import almost all of their refined oil. By 2014, they're going to be importing their crude oil. There's much better ways, if we had to get to the point of being real sanctions, of doing economic sanctions on them forcefully that way. But at the end of the day, if they posed the missile, stuck it on a pad, I'd take it out." Democratic Presidential Debate, June 3, 2007 "Now we need to focus on the other serious issues with Iran, including their nuclear program and Iraq. Tensions with Iran contribute to a regional tinderbox that could ignite with one wrong move. The only thing worse than a poorly planned, intentional war is an unplanned, unintentional war. We have to put a premium on hard-headed diplomacy with Iran, which is the best way to achieve our objectives. Some of Iran's leaders may choose confrontation over cooperation. The Iranian people must know that we are not the ones standing in the way of peaceful co-existence." Governor Bill Richardson (D) “Saber-rattling is not a good way to get the Iranians to cooperate. But it is a good way to start a new war -- a war that would be a disaster for the Middle East, for the United States and for the world. A war that, furthermore, would destroy what little remains of U.S. credibility in the community of nations. “Several signs indicate that the Bush administration is moving towards a military confrontation with Iran and Syria; the deployment of a ‘major strike group’ of ships to the Persian Gulf, the detaining of six Iranian officials of a consular office flying the Iranian flag, pointed accusations that both nations are fueling the insurgency in Iraq and the President’s remarks that the U.S. would disrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria to those insurgents. The threat of war against another sovereign nation while wars continue to rage in Iraq, the Palestinian Authority and Afghanistan, only serves to further threaten global stability.” Representative Dennis Kucinich (D) “Time and time again, Iran has offered to enter into dialogue with the United States, including an offer to resolve tension with the state of Israel. But this Administration has shut the door to dialogue and put the United States on a track toward a military conflict with Iran. Instead of sending a second aircraft carrier toward the Persian Gulf, the United States should be focused on promoting diplomatic talks. The news of the Iranian release of British captives proves that we can talk to Iran to solve our differences, and we should.” Senator John McCain (R) McCain recently joked about bombing Iran at a campaign event in South Carolina. The Iranians encouraged Hezbollah to attack Israel from Lebanon recent. Iran poses one of the greatest threats to the security of the world, and in the Middle East. I believe the Iranians have got -- we have got to bring greater pressures, diplomatic, economic, political, join with our European allies who still fear greatly the effort of the cutoff of oil from -- into Europe. We have to work together. If the Russians and the Chinese are not helpful to us, then we had better figure out a way to put additional pressures, encouraging democracy and freedom without Iraq, which is a very cultured -- within Iran, which is a very cultured society. At the end of the day we cannot allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons... My greatest fear is the Iranians acquire a nuclear weapon and give it to a terrorist organization. And there is a real threat of them doing that. The trip wire is that if they acquire these weapons -- and our intelligence tells us that this is a real threat to the state of Israel, to other states in the region. But I want to emphasize, Chris, there's lots of additional efforts that can be made and must be made before we consider that option. There's lots of things we can do. That is the, ultimately, final option. And I don't think we can exercise it at this time." Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R) “There are a lot of issues and rather than just say they had a nuclear weapon, is it one that they'd have to throw at us or is it one that they have a missile capability to launch and get our shores? A lot of it would depend on - is this a threat to the U.S. or is it a threat to our allies - and if it's a threat to our shores, then that ups the ante. If it's a threat to our allies, I think we need to say to them, you know, "We're going to survive this attack if they do it -- you won't. Now you tell us you're going to sit back and let it happen." "Part of the premise of talking to Iran has to be that they have to know very clearly that it is unacceptable to the United States that they have nuclear power. I think it could be done with conventional weapons, but you can’t rule out anything and you shouldn’t take any option off the table. And during the debate the other night, the Democrats seemed to be back in the 1990s. They don’t seem to have gotten beyond the Cold War. Iran is a threat, a nuclear threat, not just because they can deliver a nuclear warhead with missiles. They’re a nuclear threat because they are the biggest state sponsor of terrorism and they can hand nuclear materials to terrorists. And we saw just last week in New York an attempt by Islamic terrorists to attack JFK Airport; three weeks ago, an attempt to attack Fort Dix." “I think we should proceed with diplomacy. I think we should proceed with sanctions. We should up the sanctions, and we should proceed with disinvestment. It's had some success. We don't know if it's going to be long-term success in North Korea. I believe it can have success in Iran. Former Governor Mitt Romney (R) "First, we must continue tighten economic sanctions. Second, we must impose diplomatic isolation of Iran's Government. Third, Arab states must join this effort to prevent a nuclear Iran. Fourth, we must make it clear that while nuclearization may be a source of pride, it can also be a source of peril. The military option remains on the table. Fifth, our strategy should be integrated into a broader approach to the broader Muslim world.” Senator Sam Brownback (R) "We didn’t open up formal diplomatic relations, and we shouldn’t. Iran is the lead sponsor of terrorism. Ahmadinejad just this past week called for the destruction of Israel, continues to call for attacking of the United States. On Iraq, I think we need to talk with him. I think we have to confront them aggressively for what they are, which is the lead sponsor of terrorism in the world. I think we need to push the sanctions forward more aggressively. I think we need to more equip the labor union movement that’s developing inside of Iran; they had a bus driver strike that recently took place. And I think we have to show that purpose and resolve — that we’re going to confront these guys, and we’re going to stand with our allies like Israel, we’re going to stand against them oppressing and pushing us and trying to fund terrorists against us." "Congress must take aggressive action against the dangerous regime in Tehran. The mullahs in Iran pose a serious threat to global security: they seek nuclear weapons, threaten genocide against Israel, and have called for the destruction of the United States." Representative Ron Paul (R) “I am encouraged by recent news that the Administration has offered to put an end to our 26 year old policy of refusing to speak with the Iranians. While this is a positive move, I am still concerned about the pre-conditions set by the administration before it will agree to begin talks. Unfortunately, the main U.S. pre-condition is that the Iranians abandon their uranium enrichment program. But this is exactly what the negotiations are meant to discuss! How can a meaningful dialogue take place when one side demands that the other side abandon its position before talks can begin? Is this offer designed to fail so as to clear the way for military action while being able to claim that diplomacy was attempted? If the administration wishes to avoid this perception, it would be wiser to abandon pre-conditions and simply agree to talk to Iran. By demanding that Iran give up its uranium enrichment program, the United States is unilaterally changing the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. We must remember that Iran has never been found in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. UN inspectors have been in Iran for years, and International Atomic Energy Agency Director ElBaradei has repeatedly reported that he can find no indication of diversion of source or special nuclear materials to a military purpose.” Representative Duncan Hunter (R)
Secondly, they’ve got about a thousand centrifuges now working, enriching the materials that can make at some point a nuclear device. The United States reserves the right to preempt, and we may have to preempt that nuclear weapons program. We cannot allow them to have a nuclear device. With those two caveats, talk to your enemies... I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges. When the Osirak reactor that was hit `86, when the six F-18s came over the horizon and knocked that out, they didn’t need anything but conventional weapons. Probably it’s going to take a little more than that. I don’t think it’s going to take tactical nukes." "You know, right now, right now, Iran is moving equipment into Iraq that is being used to kill Americans. Iran has crossed the line, and the United States has absolute license at this point to take whatever actions are necessary to stop those deadly instruments from being moved across the line, being used in explosives, roadside bombs, inside Iraq. And lastly, you know, we don't -- we should not get to the edge of the cliff on this enrichment of uranium. And plutonium to be used for a nuclear weapon in Iran -- the United States needs to move very quickly..." Former Governor Jim Gilmore (R) "One of the central problems of the Middle East is the desire for Iran to dominate that portion of the world because of what they are doing. And that is why I believe that they are seeking this kind of nuclear capacity. That is one of the reasons why we are, in fact, in Iraq. And that’s why our soldiers, when they fight and die there, are, in fact, serving the interests of the United States. Nobody ought to have any doubt about that. With respect to Iran, the policy I would follow would be dual. Number one, we need to work with our European allies in order to put in appropriate sanctions. We need to communicate directly with the Iranians that we are going to offer them an opportunity to work with us. But we’re also going to say that having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. They need to understand it. And all options are on the table by the United States in that instance." |
