...Randy Scheunemann, foreign policy director for the McCain-Palin campaign, said in an e-mail that Palin "stated Sen. McCain's and her position accurately" when she said Iran should also not have access to nuclear energy."There is no circumstance under which the international community could be confident that uranium enrichment or plutonium production activities undertaken by the current government of Iran are purely for peaceful purposes," Scheunemann said. "Given the Iranian regime's history of deception with regard to its nuclear program, its continuing lack of cooperation with the IAEA, its still unacknowledged work on weaponization, its defiance of international norms with regard to support for terrorism and threats toward Israel, and the lack of any serious economic justification for the program in the first place, Iran has forfeited any plausible claim to be pursuing a 'peaceful' nuclear energy program."
As the Washington Post article states, "Scheunemann's comments seem to place McCain and Palin to the right of current Bush policy," which is - as Secretary of State Rice has said - that "Iran can have civil nuclear energy, if that's what they want." In a McCain-Palin administration, it apparently would be U.S. policy to ensure that Iran does NOT have "civil nuclear energy."
How could the United States stop Iran from acquiring nuclear energy for peaceful purposes? There aren't many good options, if there are any. One, of course, would be large-scale military action. For the life of me, I can't think of any others that would plausibly prevent a determined Iran from acquiring "civil nuclear energy" capability. I don't know, but it sure sounds like a McCain-Palin administration would almost inexorably place the United States on a path to war with Iran. What am I missing here?