Wed, Oct 31, 2007 News Editorials 499872032 visits
 Photo News
 More World News
 More IELTS
 Johnny Neihu
  • Back Issue

  •   << >>   Full List

  • TaipeiTimes
  •   Subscribe
  •   Advertise
  •   Employment
  •   FAQ
  •   About Us
  •   Contact Us
  •   Copyright
  • Search Most Read Story Most Viewed Photo
     Print
     Mail
     wiki links

    Iran becomes talking point for US candidates


    AP, NEW YORK
    Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007, Page 7

    "There's only one thing worse than military action against Iran and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."

    John McCain, Arizona senator and US presidential candidate

    US presidential contenders are offering markedly different ideas on how they would keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons, suddenly a central issue in the campaign for next year's election.

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

    Democrats say they favor multinational diplomacy, combined with economic incentives as well as sanctions.

    They have repeatedly criticized US President George W. Bush for refusing to negotiate with Iran, and say they would consider military action only after exhausting other options.

    Among themselves, they have turned the question into a battle between front-runner Senator 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 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 US have reached a toxic and potentially dangerous level -- a situation the next president is likely to inherit.

    Iran has refused to back down on its nuclear aspirations, saying it seeks electricity, not weapons.

    According to the US government, Tehran also has sponsored terrorism throughout the Middle East and continues to support Shiite militias in Iraq that have been involved in attacking US 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 Republican presidential contest.

    Former New York mayor Giuliani, former Tennessee Senator Thompson and former Massachusetts governor Romney have spoken of a willingness to take pre-emptive military action against Iran if necessary.

    Giuliani has been notably vocal, vowing to strike if Iran develops a weapon during his presidency. Romney last month proposed indicting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on a charge of inciting genocide.

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

    Clinton's vote for a Senate measure designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group has made her a target of stinging criticism from several rivals.

    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.

    "I would," he said.

    Clinton said that showed Obama was "irresponsible" and "naive" on foreign policy matters. She 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.
    This story has been viewed 655 times.

  • Advertising