U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs....This position earned him the scorn of a writer at Antiwar.com in 2005. And Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, gave a February 2006 speech in which he talked very tough on defense issues -- and Iran :Obama said the United States must first address Iran's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.
But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.
"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?" Obama asked.
Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.
"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," he said.
"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."
Karl Rove says that the Republicans are going to win on the issue of defense. I submit to you that if the issue is defense, the Republicans will lose because this is the weakest Administration on defense that we've seen in many, many years. What I mean is this. For five years this President has been in the White House. For five years North Korea continues to possess nuclear weapons. For five years this Administration has been in the White House, Iran moves closer every day to producing nuclear weapons....In September 2006, Dean told Face the Nation: "The world is a much more dangerous place since 9/11 and America is in danger ... If the Republicans would listen to the military before we'd go on these adventures, rather than afterwards, then we'd have a better shot. But the truth is, Iran poses a greater danger, North Korea poses a greater danger, and the president has done very little about these things and I think that's going to be an issue. I think security is an issue that now finally works for the Democrats."under no circumstances will a Democratic Administration ever allow Iran to become a nuclear power.
Hillary Clinton has long been out of sync with Dean and Obama on the Iraq War, and, since 2005, Edwards's position on it has evolved more that hers. But all four of them have been tough talkers when it comes to Iran, and Dean seemed to be suggesting last fall that it would be politically advantageous for Democrats to attack Bush over his failure to properly handle the threat it poses. If he was right, and I don't know that he was or that Democrats followed his lead, that raises some rather disturbing questions about the extent to which Democrats have been pushing Bush and the Republicans into a confrontation with Iran (and they must know that Bush has long ruled out the high-level talks many Democrats support) for reasons of partisan gain. I started on this line of inquiry because it was clear to me that Clinton was not to the right of Bush on Iran. But that doesn't mean that what she and the other Democrats have been saying about the dangers it poses have not helped to inflame our national conversation about what to do next. Democrats may have found and may yet find political advantage in attacking the president about his failure to reign in Iran, but for the next two years he will still be directing the course of the American response to it, and I can't imagine his response to the problem they are loudly pointing to is going to go precisely as they might wish.
--Garance Franke-Ruta