Democratic Candidates on Iran: Hawks and Doves

1. Al Gore (Agence France Presse, February 12, 2006)

Former US vice president and defeated presidential hopeful Al Gore on Sunday lashed out at Iran's clerical regime, denouncing it as a threat "for the future of the world".

"Iran is ruled by corrupt politicians and clerics," the Democrat said in an address to the Jeddah Economic Forum in Saudi Arabia.

He said the "corrupt leadership" combined with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's anti-Israeli outbursts should raise alarm bells all over the world, including the Arab world and the Gulf region.

"There should be more voices in the region saying this leadership is dangerous for the future of the world," said Gore, who was President George W. Bush's rival in the 2000 presidential election.

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...I have advocated engagement with our enemies and Israel's enemies because I want to understand better what we can do to defeat those who are aiming their hatred, their extremism, their weapons at us.

3. Barack Obama (Source)

The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?  In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in.  On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.

4. John Edwards (Source)

Here's my view about what we ought to be doing in Iran.

Number one, you have a radical leader, Ahmadinejad, who is politically unstable in his own country. The political elite have begun to leave him, the religious leaders have begun to leave him, the people aren't happy with him...So, I think we have an opportunity here that we need to be taking advantage of.

First, America should be negotiating directly with Iran, which Bush won't do. Second, we need to get our European friends, not just the banking system, but the governments themselves, to help us do two things -- put a group, a system of carrots and sticks on the table. The carrots are, we'll make nuclear fuel available to you, we'll control the cycle, but you can use it for any civilian purpose. Second, an economic package, which I don't think has been seriously proposed up until now. Because their economy is already struggling, and it would be very attractive to them. And then on the flip side, the stick side, to say if you don't do that, there are going to be more serious economic sanctions than you've seen up until now. Now of course we need the Europeans for this, cause they're the ones with the economic relationship with Iran, but the whole purpose of this is number one, to get an agreement. Number two, to isolate this radical leader so that the moderates and those within the country who want to see Iran succeed economically, can take advantage of it.

Now that's on the one hand, the flip side of this is what happens if America were to militarily strike Iran? Well you take this unstable, radical leader, and you make him a hero -- that's the first thing that'll happen. The Iranian people will rally around him. The second thing that will happen is they will retaliate. And they have certainly some potential for retaliating here in the United States through some of these terrorist organizations they're close to, but we've got over a hundred thousand people right next door. And most people believe that they have an infrastructure for retaliation inside Iraq. So, that's the second thing that'll happen. And the third thing is there are a lot of analysts who believe that an air strike or a missile strike is not enough to be successful. To be successful we'd actually have to have troops on the ground, and where in the world would they come from? So, to me, this is the path.

Ezra Klein: So, I just want to get it very clear, you think that attacking Iran would be a bad idea?

I think it would have very bad consequences.

Ezra Klein: So when you said that all options are on the table?

It would be foolish for any American president to ever take any option off the table.

5. Wes Clark (Source)

...actions on Iran are urgent. We should join now - right now - in opening a new round of talks with Iran, in which we ourselves participate, before pressing for UN action or moving toward the military option.  No one should be mistaken:  there is a military option.  We can strike hard enough to set back Iran's nuclear quest by many years, and take out much of their military capacity in the process. And we can at the same time protect most of the oil flow from Iran and deny their capacity to block transit through the Straits of Hormuz.  But we also must recognize the possible consequences of this action: an embittered, vengeful Iran, seeking further destabilization of the region. Far better to pursue dialogue now, whatever the precedents, and save the military option for truly last resort. Understand: unlike others you may hear, I know when and how to determine our course with Iran.

6. Joe Biden (Source)

I made it clear when Secretary (of State) Rice was before us: if the president has plans to go to war with Iran he has no - emphasize no - constitutional authority to do that without the consent of the American people.  Were he to do that, it would generate a constitutional crisis and we've been absolutely crystal clear with him on that...I just look at the recklessness of what our administration is doing and I'm so afraid that either they will attack Iran or they're going to encourage Israel to attack Iran and create a catastrophe.

7. Chris Dodd ("Imus in the Morning," Feb. 10, 2005)

I mean, the Iranians, I think there's an opportunity to get something done, but they ought to be working with the Europeans.

The idea that we're not going to do anything at all, "Europe, you're on your own," I think was a wrong message. We ought to be saying, "Look, we're standing behind you. We'll work with you, if you can begin to get Iran to move in a different direction."

It's been said before by others, even if the moderates took over Iran tomorrow and these mullahs were gone and there was a democratic country in Iran, I promise you, Imus, the moderates would insist upon having a nuclear capability, no different, basically, than what these mullahs want.

And so the idea somehow that you're going to change all of this without negotiating or working closely with these people is wrong.

8. Bill Richardson (April 29, 2006, NBC News: Saturday Today)

Gov. RICHARDSON: Well, that's what he's betting, but the United States and others can go outside the Security Council and push for international boycotts of some kind. Diplomacy clearly is the only option, I believe. And what I believe the US should do at the same time in this track is deal directly with Iran. I think it's likely that the Security Council will get bogged down, just like the International Atomic Energy has been bogged down. So direct talks with Iran, I believe, to talk about Iraq, to talk about oil prices, talk about nuclear weapons is in store, the US should...

[LESTER] HOLT: Yeah. But what carrot--what carrot does the US have, though, in talks with a country that thus far has been so defiant?

Gov. RICHARDSON: Well, the first thing we have to do is build international support for our position. Our leverage is not as strong as other nations, but the reality is that the oil weapon is leverage over Iran because 50 percent of Iran's revenue comes from oil. They're the second-largest supplier of OPEC to the world behind Saudi Arabia. So I don't think in the end Iran wants that oil exports cut off, which could happen. Now, again, Iran probably has the advantage right now, diplomatically, but our objective should be to build international support to convince Russia and China to look for a compromise, let Iran proceed with civilian nuclear power...

HOLT: Right.

Gov. RICHARDSON: ...outside of Iran. That deal was sort of in the works in the past. But we should not rely on saber-rattling. This talk in the Pentagon and the UN about military options, about using tactical nuclear weapons, is totally the wrong approach. And this is why I would go, deal directly with a special envoy to Iran. The US and Iran, the main players.

HOLT: Right.

Gov. RICHARDSON: Try to reduce this huge tension...

HOLT: But--but--but...

Gov. RICHARDSON: ...which is a big reason for the high oil prices, Lester.

HOLT: But, Governor, nonetheless, the--the military option is on the table and certainly an option that the US leaves in its arsenal. But let me ask you how much Iraq might complicate that? Clearly, Iran and Iraq share a border. We know that the US has been fearful of an Iranian influence in Iraq. So how much is that--that--that complicate efforts for the United States if it wants to have a military option?

Gov. RICHARDSON: Well, what I believe is that Iran wants a stable Iraq. Iran doesn't want an unstable Iraq because they're right on each other's borders. They've been in wars before for--so what Iran wants is for basically, I believe, stability in Iraq to happen. This is in our interest. This is why we should talk to Iran about ways that Iran can stop their terrorist activity there. This is diplomacy. And, yes, it may complicate things, but Iran is a huge player when it comes to oil prices. It's a huge player when it comes to nuclear weapons. We can't tolerate nuclear weapons in that area, and then Iran is a big player on Iraq. So it makes sense in my judgment.

Yes, the Security Council, we should pursue that, but to talk to them directly and see if we can come up with a global solution on these three issues.

9. Dennis Kucinich (US Fed News, January 26, 2007)

The White House is up to its old tricks again: Providing information by anonymous sources and portraying Iran as an aggressor in Iraq," Kucinich said.

The President is mischaracterizing U.S. action vis +á vis Iran. In fact, the U.S. is already engaged in offensive and provocative acts against Iran. The President's strategy, by portraying our involvement as only being on the defensive, is laying out the groundwork for him to attack Iran and bypass authorization by Congress...The White House spin machine is at it again: this time providing justification for a new war -- a war against Iran...The Washington Post is quoting strategically placed Administration sources who are providing justification for an attack against Iran. This new twist on Iran, a country this Administration refuses to have free and open diplomatic talks with, is stating the Administration's case for war.

The degree to which this President continues to take steps to go to war against Iran without consulting with the full Congress is the degree to which he is increasingly putting himself in jeopardy of an impeachment proceeding.

Focuses mainly on the Bush Administration's actions, raising the threat of impeachment.  Doesn't really talk about his own position on what he'd do vis-a-vis Iran if he were President.  Based on Kucinich's foreign policy views more generally, however, we can assume that he would be totally against the use of force against Iran.

Comments