Candidates Split On How To Deal With Iran

Top Presidential Hopefuls Offering Markedly Different Ideas On How To Keep Iran From Getting Nukes

(AP)  The top presidential contenders are offering markedly different ideas on how they would keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons, suddenly a central issue in the 2008 campaign.

Republicans Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney have taken a hard line, speaking openly about a possible military strike in Iran, even as they say they support diplomatic measures to persuade the country to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

Democrats say they favor multinational diplomacy, combined with economic incentives as well as sanctions. They've repeatedly criticized President Bush for refusing to negotiate with Iran, and say they would consider military action only after exhausting other options.

Among themselves, they've turned the question into a proxy battle between front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton and her rivals over issues of foreign policy experience, judgment and leadership.

Rand Beers, who has worked as a national security adviser to both Republican and Democratic presidents, sees a subtext to all the rhetoric.

"For Republicans, Iran represents a much more comfortable foreign policy subject to talk about than Iraq. It's a hard-nosed, hawkish credentialing and branding issue," Beers said. "On the Democratic side, there is far less saber rattling. They are trying to distinguish themselves from Bush and promote a dialogue and find common ground with Iran, which there may not be."

There is little doubt that relations between Iran and the U.S. have reached a toxic and potentially dangerous level - a situation the next president is likely to inherit in some fashion.

Iran has refused to back down on its nuclear aspirations, saying it seeks electricity, not weapons. According to the U.S. government, it also has sponsored terrorism throughout the Middle East and continues to support Shiite militias in Iraq that have been involved in attacking American soldiers.

The Bush administration last week slapped tough new sanctions on Iran, and the president recently warned that a nuclear Iran could lead to World War III.

That kind of rhetoric has been echoed and amplified in the GOP presidential contest.

Former New York Mayor Giuliani, former Tennessee Sen. Thompson and former Massachusetts Gov. Romney have spoken of a willingness to take pre-emptive military action against Iran if necessary. Giuliani has been especially vocal, promising a strike if Iran develops a weapon during his presidency.

Romney last month proposed indicting Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on a charge of inciting genocide.

John McCain, the Arizona senator and Vietnam War hero, has been somewhat less bellicose. But he told The Associated Press that "there's only one thing worse than military action against Iran and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."

Clinton's vote in favor of a Senate measure designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group has made her a target of stinging criticism from several Democratic rivals. That vote is expected to be a major point of contention Tuesday when the candidates meet in a two-hour debate in Philadelphia.

Fellow Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina say Mr. Bush could interpret the measure as congressional approval for a military attack. Clinton has vigorously denied that would be the result and says she was voting for stepped-up diplomacy and economic sanctions.

For her part, Clinton contends that comments by Obama on personal diplomacy with countries like Iran are evidence that the Illinois senator is too inexperienced to lead in a dangerous world.

In a July debate, Obama was asked if he would be willing to meet, without precondition, the leaders of Iran and other unfriendly nations during the first year of his presidency. He replied, "I would."

Clinton said that showed Obama was "irresponsible" and "naive" on foreign policy matters. The former first lady, now a New York senator, has called for more direct diplomacy with Iran and countries such as North Korea, but has also said she would not commit to leader-to-leader meetings.

In New Hampshire on Monday, Giuliani mocked the Democrats' entire discussion of Iran, suggesting the top candidates are too eager to negotiate.

"This is the world we live in. It's not this happy, romantic-like world where we'll negotiate with this one, or we'll negotiate with that one and there will be no preconditions, and we'll invite Ahmadinejad to the White House, we'll invite Osama to the White House," Giuliani said.

"Hillary and Obama are kind of debating whether to invite them to the inauguration or the inaugural ball," he added.

Paul Pillar, a professor of security studies at Georgetown University, said candidates on both sides could do a better job speaking responsibly about the complex problem of Iran.

"The campaign rhetoric hasn't been particularly illuminating on this issue," Pillar said. "On the Democratic side, there has been too much silliness on the issue of engagement, and a candidate's particular choice of words for conditions for talking. The rhetoric on the Republican side ignores a bunch of important questions - the Iranian response, our standing in the region and around the world, and poisoning relations with Iran for generations to come."

[usaprophet]

I support Ron Paul and his non-interventionist foreign policy. Hitlery wants to continue our illegal police action in Iraq until at least 2013, and she does not rule out a preemptive (nuclear) first strike against Iran. Ron Paul voted against the the (undeclared) war in Iraq, which was sold to us with lies. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies--the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives and almost a trillion dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again. Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have 750 foreign bases and troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women. We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing our borders against illegal immigrants and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution. Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations. Too often, we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised.

[fibonacci_]

Do a couple more of your Ron Paul posts here, thefarrier. I don''t think people are getting your point.

[usaprophet]

Some people say, "a Republican? I''d never vote for a Republican." Let me remind you folks that Abraham Lincoln, who freed the slaves, and who won the war to preserve our Union, WAS himself a Republican. Would you have voted for Stephen A. Douglas, who was ardently pro slavery, against Lincoln simply because he was a Democrat. Of course you wouldn''t. It''s the man your voting for, and the ideas he represents, NOT the party. Paul represents a different Republican Party from the one that Iraq, deficits and corruption have soured the country on. The Republican party has "lost its way," he said recently during a GOP debate. Like the limited federal government principles espoused by Dwight D. Eisenhower, his school of Republicanism stands for a certain idea of the Constitution that much of the power asserted by modern Presidents has been usurped from Congress, and that much of the power asserted by Congress has been usurped from the States. Though Paul acknowledges flaws in both the Constitution (it included slavery) and the Bill of Rights (it doesn%u2019t go far enough), he still thinks a comprehensive array of positions can be drawn therefrom: against gun control; for the sovereignty of States; and against foreign-policy adventures like the ones currently being played-out in the Mid-East. After ten terms of service as a U.S. Congressman, Ron Paul has demonstarted a consistent track record of adherance to The Constitution which is unmatched by anyone in either party. Ron Paul has my vote!

[realpatriot1]

speakinup,

If terrorists vaporize Wiichita or any other American city it won''t be with a tactical nuke with a return address such as Tehran. It will be a portable suitcase nuke constructed here with materials from here.

If Iran or North Korea launched missles at the U.S. or Europe they would be vaporized by our submarine-based nuclear cruise missles before their missles made it out of their airspace. For all the attention-getting sabre-rattling by these tin pot dictators, they are fully aware of this and pose no serious threat to the U.S. mainland.

Producing a "suitcase nuke" is no easy task and would require cooperation from within our government. We learned during the sweeps of Times Square preceding recent New Years celebrations that we have highly sensitive sensors for detecting fissionable materials, so the probability of the necessary materials being smuggled in would fortunately be slim.

Thanks to the taking down of the CIA anti-WMD unit and the blind eye turned to the activities of Professor Khan by this White House, the bad guys already have vbeen given the opprtunity to obtain extensive know-how.

[taotxzen]

The song remains the same

[taotxzen]

Explosive charge blows up in US''''s face
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - When the United States military command accused the Iranian Quds Force in January of providing the armor-piercing EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) that were killing US troops, it knew that Iraqi machine shops had been producing their own EFPs for years, a review of the historical record of evidence on EFPs in Iraq shows.

The record also shows that the US command had considerable evidence that the Mahdi Army of Shi''''ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr had received the technology and the training on how to use it from Hezbollah, rather than Iran.

The command, operating under close White House supervision, chose to deny these facts in making the dramatic accusation that became the main rationale for the present aggressive US stance toward Iran. Although the George W Bush administration initially limited the accusation to the Quds Force, it has recently begun to assert that top officials of the Iranian regime are responsible for arms that are killing US troops.

[usaprophet]

I support Ron Paul and his non-interventionist foreign policy. Hitlery wants to continue our illegal police action in Iraq until at least 2013, and she does not rule out a preemptive (nuclear) first strike against Iran. Ron Paul voted against the the (undeclared) war in Iraq, which was sold to us with lies. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies--the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives and almost a trillion dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again. Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have 750 foreign bases and troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women. We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing our borders against illegal immigrants and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution. Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations. Too often, we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised.

[kansas1946]

and, if Wichita is vaporized by a terrorist nuke - how will you feel then kansas1946 ?
*************************
LOL. Well, I lived through this type of fear mongering in the fifties, I lived through it in the sixties, I lived through the BS domino theory in the late sixties and early seventies, and guess what, I am still here, and so is Wichita. That only thing that is endagering America right now, is residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

[speakinup]

and, if Wichita is vaporized by a terrorist nuke - how will you feel then kansas1946 ?

[kansas1946]

Republicans Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney have taken a hard line, speaking openly about a possible military strike in Iran, even as they say they support diplomatic measures to persuade the country to abandon its nuclear ambitions
******************************************
Are they effin'' INSANE. Good God, could we get these Repulbicans out of power before they destroy our country completely. What is WRONG with them. Did someone sneak in and give them lobotomies during the night. This is so crazy that if they weren''t so dangerous, it would be a Saturday Night Live skit.