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 senator Thompson, and
former Massachusetts governor Romney have spoken of a
willingness to take preemptive 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 senator
Barack Obama of Illinois and former senator John Edwards
of North Carolina say 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.
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.'' (Beth Fouhy, AP)
