McCain, Obama, Iran and Diplomacy
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Iran’s missile tests sparked a new foreign policy row in the US presidential race, with Republican John McCain demanding tougher sanctions and Democrat Barack Obama urging rugged diplomacy.
The presidential rivals sketched sharply different approaches after Iran’s Revolutionary Guard test-fired a missile capable of reaching Israel, provoking global condemnation.
“We have lines of communication with the Iranians and they are many,” McCain told reporters in Pennsylvania, saying Iran had already been offered a sheaf of incentives to change its ways.
“Their behavior has obviously not changed — the time has now come for effective sanctions on Iran,” McCain said.
Senator Obama argued for a carrot-and-stick policy of tightened sanctions and a more robust diplomatic effort by the United States to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program.
“Through its nuclear program, missile capability, meddling in Iraq, support for terrorism, and threats against Israel, Iran now poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States in the region in a generation,” he said in a statement.
“It’s time to offer the Iranians a clear choice between increased costs for continuing their troubling behavior, and concrete incentives that would come if they change course.
“The threat from Iran’s nuclear program is real and it is grave. As president, I will do everything in my power to eliminate that threat, and that must begin with direct, aggressive, and sustained diplomacy.”
McCain rebuked Obama for his failure to vote for a Senate measure last year that branded the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
“It’s my understanding that this missile test was conducted by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard,” McCain said.
“This is the same organization that I voted to condemn as a terrorist organization when an amendment was on the floor of the United States Senate. Senator Obama refused to vote, called it a provocative step,” he said.
Obama aides said he thought the Guard should be designated a terrorist group, but balked at “aggressive” language in the resolution which he warned could be used to justify the use of US forces in Iraq to strike Iran.
It also said McCain’s stance on Iran had been proven ineffective.
“With Iran now spinning 3,800 centrifuges, threatening Israel, meddling in Iraq, and funding terrorists, the current policy toward Iran that Senator McCain has fully supported is clearly failing,” said Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan.
The Illinois senator also drew fire from McCain for his offer to talk directly to the leaders of Iran and other US foes, but he countered that only sustained and forceful US engagement would work.
“Working with our European and regional allies is the best way to meet the threat posed by Iran, not unilateral concessions that undermine multilateral diplomacy,” McCain said in a written statement.
“Iran’s most recent missile tests demonstrate again the dangers it poses to its neighbors and to the wider region, especially Israel,” McCain said.
But Obama countered that the Iranian crisis was being exacerbated by a lack of active US diplomatic action.
The McCain campaign seemed to sense the dramatic missile tests could provide an opening to question Obama’s perceived inexperience.
“Senator Obama’s actions and his words don’t match,” said Republican Senator John Thune, a McCain supporter, on a conference call.
“This is where there is tremendous contrast with Senator McCain, who clearly understands the threat, who has demonstrated that over a long period of time, and who, I believe is ready to be commander-in-chief on day one.”
The long-range Shahab-3 with a conventional warhead was among a broadside of nine missiles fired off from an undisclosed location in the Iranian desert.
The firing comes at a time of growing tension over Tehran’s nuclear drive, which Iran insists is aimed solely at generating energy but the West fears could be aimed at making an atomic bomb.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:54 am
John McCain is a great man who has served our country with great sacrifice. I have tremendous respect for him. I hope if he wins, he will realize that without engaging Iran, there can only be more conflict. As Colin Powell remarks in his insightful article “The Craft of Diplomacy,” we have to leave our enemy an honorable path of retreat.
While diplomacy with Iran may have its challenges, it should be pursued at every length. Iran has a conscription army and nearly 10 million eligible males between the ages of 18 and 32 (Posen, 2003). Iran’s conventional military potential aside, US Intelligence assesses that Iran will likely have nuclear weapons capability within the decade (Select Committee on Intelligence, 2006).
“Je vois plus que jamais qu’il ne faut juger de rien sur sa grandeur apparente.” - Voltaire
We should be careful what we assume about Iran, or any country.
The United States needs to be very aware of Iran’s growing political influence in the international community as well. In a sermon commencing the month of Ramadan 2007, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused the Bush administration of war crimes in Iraq, and of attempting to undermine Islam in the Middle East. Amidst chants from worshipers: “Death to America,” Khamenei stated that he has a firm belief that one day this current US president and the American officials will be tried in a fair international court for the atrocities committed in Iraq.
American popularity worldwide has plummeted over the 2003 invasion of Iraq and Khameinei’s words are falling upon a rising number of sympathetic ears. Any inclination the Bush administration has toward regime change in Iran should be given very, very careful thought. Ultimately, the situation confronting the United States regarding Iran is identical in many respects to the threat of terrorism itself:
A clash of cultures, a stubborn battle of wills, two very different ways of looking at the same reality, a global game of chicken in which neither side wants to back down. This of course is a gross oversimplification of a very complex problem, but there are some basic truths to the argument.
The United States and Europe are largely divided on their views of Iran, as well as their views of how best to counter terrorism. One of the greatest challenges facing the United States in its efforts to counter terrorism, is learning to understand those who resort to its use, and developing a coherent construct within which to address terrorism.
The same can be said of Iran. And few can argue that there is no small amount of testosterone in the air, and this stubbornness can be seen on both sides of the standoff. Henry Kissinger has aptly stated that so long as Iran views itself as a crusade rather than a nation, a common interest will not emerge from negotiations. But this observation is equally applicable to the Bush administration as well.
Puor bien savoir les choses, il en faut savoir le detail, et comme il est presque infini, nos connaissances sont toujours superficielles et imparfaites.
Unfortunately, what we do know is that the Bush administration cannot be trusted to do what it says. Iraq taught us that lesson. Many experts have long been predicting that Bush would invade Iran before he leaves office. But of course, the Bush administration would never admit to such a thing.
On ne donne rien si liberalement que ses conseils.
But it is the man who follows his own counsel, he’s the one that should lead.