In what often feels like a bad case of the movie Groundhog Day, the issue of Iran has taken a prime spot in the 2008 campaign. From seeking weapons of mass destruction to support of terrorism, charges that the Bush administration offers against Iran sound familiar to those proffered against Iraq in 2002. This crop of presidential candidates are taking stands on sanctions, use of military force, and work with international organizations like the U.N. However, the situation could change drastically before the new president is sworn in. A lame duck president with a last chance for a legacy could be a reckless combination….


What’s the Issue?

At the heart of the issue is Iran’s uranium enrichment program, which has fallen afoul of the U.N. While Iran says that it is enriching uranium only for domestic energy production, the United Nations Security Council has disagreed, slapping sanctions on Iran at the end of 2006 and beginning of 2007 for failing to halt the program.

Many nations in the world are world are uneasy about Iran becoming a nuclear armed state. Israel has been the recipient of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s ire, and other countries in the neighborhood fear not only the prospect of nuclear weapons in their region, but also the ignition of a nuclear arms race.

While some people agree that a nuclear-armed Iran is a threat, they disagree as to whether Iran’s current nuclear enrichment program would get them to a weapon any time soon. The difference between enrichment for power plants and enrichment for nuclear weapons is the percentage of U-235 in the highly enriched uranium. For power plants, the percentage is about 3.5%. For nuclear weapons, it is 90%. To get from power-plant level U-235 to nuclear-weapon level U-235 takes about five years. The real question is where is Iran in this process? Which leads to intelligence. After botched or misleading intelligence led to the ongoing adventure in Iraq, the Bush “boy who cried wolf” Administration will need to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the intelligence it has is indeed accurate.  The release of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate Report on Iran's nuclear program seemed to back down on the 2005 report's more dire stance.  However, the report indicates that Iran could have enough fissile material for a weapon by 2009, though 2010-2015 seems more likely. 

There are a few other issues at play as well, including Iranian sponsorship of terrorism, primarily in Iraq but elsewhere as well. Cross-border attacks by Iranians supporting their fellow Shi’ites in Iraq could prove harmful enough, or enough of a justification, to prompt a counter-attack. Should the administration want to use military force in Iran, one could expect that sponsorship of terrorism, as well as nuclear ambitions, will be justification.

Why Should I Care?
Both domestic and global security could be at stake should Iran gain a nuclear weapon, regardless if it chooses to use it. If it does choose to use it, the world will likely have a very nasty conflict. But even if Iran develops a weapon and doesn’t use it, the act of acquiring such a weapon will likely fuel a nuclear arms race within the region as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt could be possible contenders for joining the club.

Secondly, any action taken against Iran by the U.S. would stretch the currently overly engaged troops even more. With Iraq not going well, and Afghanistan taking a turn for the worse, troops are likely to be engaged in those countries for some time. The U.S. is currently dependent on an all-volunteer army. While it seems unlikely that the government would instate the draft, it is a possibility worth considering.

What Are the Candidates Saying?

 

Joe Biden
Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden favors engagement, hard-headed diplomacy, and sanctions as a means of dealing with Iran. He has been adamant that military options granted to Iraq do not apply to Iran and should President Bush take military action he would be in violation of the constitution. Biden voted against a resolution that would declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, and has criticized colleague Hillary Clinton for voting yes, a vote that Biden says is tantamount to authorizing war with Iran.

Hillary Clinton
Castigated by the rest of her party for voting for the non-binding Kyl-Lieberman amendment that declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, Clinton has held her ground. Clinton justified her vote by saying that the non-binding resolution gives “teeth” to all the “talk about dealing with Iran” and might facilitate the application of diplomatic and economic sanctions. Overall, Clinton has been reluctant to eliminate any strategy of dealing with Iran. While she cites diplomacy as the first step, she will not take the use of force off the table. However, Clinton was also one of only a few cosponsors of S. 759, a resolution prohibiting the use of funds for military action in Iran without express congressional authorization. That bill has yet to be voted on as of Nov. 11, 2007.


Chris Dodd
Christopher Dodd has been outspoken in his criticism of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and has said that he does not believe in engaging with Iran. Preparing for the worst-case scenario, Dodd has said that he could see the President taking military action on Iran without congressional authorization under extreme circumstances. He was one of 68 co-sponsors (along with Clinton, McCain and Obama) on the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act (S. 970) that aims to tighten sanctions against Iran. The bill also includes a clause that designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. The bill has yet to be voted on as of Nov. 11, 2007.

John Edwards
Edwards favors a diplomatic approach to Iran’s potential nuclear program, though he has not taken a military option off the table. He has suggested signing a non-aggression pact with Iran if they agree to give up nuclear ambitions. His website outlines a program focused on diplomacy and incentives, though in his section on “marginalizing extremists” by exposing moderate young Iranians to democratic ideals, he fails to provide concrete examples of how he would do this and does not address how to deal with a crackdown similar to the one that Bush’s civil society promotion caused. Though he favors sanctions, he feels they have limited effect and prefers the use of targeted sanctions.


Giuliani does not believe in talking for the sake of talking.  In his article “Towards a Realistic Peace” in Foreign Affairs  he admits to taking inspiration from Reagan’s dealings with Gorbachev in 1986, where he was open to talking but very willing to walk away if talking was unproductive.  This seems to be Giuliani’s stance on Iran.  He sees a nuclear armed Iran as more dangerous than war with Iran.  Yet, he also says that the U.S. military is underfunded and understaffed (and plans to correct that if in office).   How that shortcoming would affect calculations for military action seems rather important to explore.  His campaign advisors tend to be more hawkish on the war with Iran, leading many to believe that Giuliani would take their position should circumstance warrant.

Mike Gravel
Best known for helping to end the draft in Vietnam, Mike Gravel is, unsurprisingly, completely opposed to any military action in Iran.  He admonished Hillary Clinton for voting for the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding resolution that declared Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, and believes that AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee) is behind the resolution.  In a unique gesture, Gravel has said that allowing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit Ground Zero would be a positive diplomatic move.


Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee doesn’t mention Iran on the issues portion of his website where he talks about the War on Terror (which he likens to a world war).  He does however, spend considerable time talking about Pakistan and Musharraf’s flip-flopping.  He also embraces the Powell Doctrine that advocates use of decisive force.  In an unusually specific statement for a presidential candidate, Huckabee says that he would have never marginalized General Shinseki, who insisted on a large-scale operation in Iraq.  So where does that leave Huckabee on Iran?  While the military option is always on the table, Huckabee is careful about hypotheticals, acknowledging that incrementally different circumstances could call for far different solutions.  Huckabee believes that securing Iraq is the first-step to “containing” Iran.  Diplomacy would be a second step.

Duncan Hunter
Hunter’s generally hawkish views carry over to his stance on Iran.  Stating that Iran cannot be allowed to achieve nuclear weapons capability, Hunter has endorsed the use of preemptive strikes to prevent such a scenario.  He believes that sanctions are ineffective and has not mentioned diplomacy.  He has, however, stressed the need to build up the U.S. missile defense program.  Hunter has also introduced a bill that would stop federal funding of Columbia University in response to their allowing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak on campus. 

Steve Kubby applies his policy of non-intervention to the situation in Iran.  Even if troop-withdrawal from Iraq triggers the break-up of Iraq and the melding of Shi'ite Iraq with Iran, Kubby would continue the policy of non-intervention.   Other than that, Kubby says little about potential policy toward Iran.

Though unavoidably delayed for the vote on H.R. 140o, Representative Kucinich made a formal statement of his opposition to that bill which would declare, among other things, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.  Kucinich has also mockingly questioned President Bush's mental health regarding Bush's hawkish stance on Iran.  Kucinich seems more concerned over the build-up towards violent conflict with Iran than the potential for nuclear weapons. 

Though John McCain's ditty of "Bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann" garnered much media attention, John McCain's stance on Iran has always been military option as a very last resort.  McCain has even used the word "Armageddon" to describe his thoughts on the result of a military confrontation with Iran.  On his website McCain mentions missile defense as a means of dealing with states such as North Korea and Iran.  And while McCain favors sanctions and diplomacy, he has said that the only thing worse than US military action against Iran is a nuclear armed Iran.  What we'd like to know is at what point McCain would consider Iran nuclear-armed...

Tom Friedman of the New York Time cast Obama as the "good cop" when it comes to dealing with Iran-- he wants to engage directly with Iran, and fully use the diplomatic route.  However, like many other candidates, Obama is not willing to take the military option off the table.  And like other candidates, he has also thrown his own piece of legislation into the ring.  The Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007 is designed to staunch the flow of money to Iran's energy sector.  The bill has yet to make it to a vote (as of 11/24/07).  
 
Obama also often mentions the destabilizing effect of the Iraq war and how it has strengthened Iran's position in the region--being one of the candidates who was not able to vote on the Iraq war, Obama is in a prime position to criticize the foreign policy mistakes of his competitors while underscoring the potential threat Iran poses.

Ron Paul unequivocally opposes military action in Iran as well as sanctions, saying that both accomplish little (look at Iraq and Cuba respectively).  He 
has spoken in the House several times to this effect.  Ron Paul cites lack of evidence that Iranians are either building nuclear weapons or killing US soldiers in Iraq as one reason not to attack and blames neocons in the Bush administration for strengthening this line of reasoning.  Yet, Ron Paul has not mentioned what he would do were he to be proved wrong.
 
A big fan of the carrot and stick approach, Governor Richardson favors intense sanctions if Iran develops nuclear weapons as well as incentives to stop developing weapons such as security guarantees and nuclear fuel from abroad.   Richardson cites the eventual success at engaging North Korea diplomatically as a model for what can be done with Iran.  He believes that the Bush administration is trying to back the American public into supporting an unnecessary war with Iran.  Yet, like Ron Paul, he says little (aside from sanctions) about what he as President would do should Iran develop nuclear weapons.

In a splendid use of illiteration and a bizarre conflation of jihad, terrorism, and Iran, Mitt Romney sets out his principle of defeating "this radical and violent faction of Islam" through a combination of efforts including, "the rejection of violence by moderate, modern, mainstream Muslims."  Like the letter M much, Mitt?  The rest of the "defeating the jihadist" portion of his website is devoted to Iran.  No mention of insurgents in Iraq nor the Taliban in Afghanistan.  This sounds rather similar to Bush's linking of Iraq and al-Qaeda in 2002... Those details aside, Romney's strategy is unequivocal.  Under no condition must Iran be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.   Sanctions and diplomatic isolation are tools for dealing with what he terms a "suicidal" and "genocidal" nation.  He also explicitly states that the military option remains on the table.  Part of Romney's strategy is to increase the military by 100,000.  We at Know Your Vote are curious as to how he would accomplish that.
 
Taking neither the military option, nor the regime change option off the table, Fred Thompson is talking tough on Iran, "islamofascists," and the Palestinians.   In an article in the National Review, Thompson likens the Palestinian attacks on Israel to a hypothetical situation of the Mexican army or Canada launching missile attacks on San Diego or Buffalo respectively.  At the end of the article he mentions Iran, and how their potential development of nuclear weapons would threaten Israel's existence.  Other than expounding on the threat of "islamofascists," Thompson has shed little light on how he would actually deal with Iran.