Week 5 pt 2 by Ryan Hanson

Today in class we had a presentation about how Europe sees the new presidential candidates and what their opinions are on them. Well today I found an article posted by the Washington Post about how Europe fears Obama might undercut process with Iran. They think that is Senator Obama meets unconditionally with Iran leaders, it could ruin ties between Europe and the United States.
“European officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said they are wary of giving up a demand that has been so enshrined in U.N. resolutions, particularly without any corresponding concessions by Iran. Although European officials are eager to welcome a U.S. president promising renewed diplomacy and multilateralism after years of tensions with the Bush administration, they feel strongly about continuing on the current path.”
So even though Europe would like to see a new president come in and change up some things, they want the current international relations to stay the same. Europe states that it was the ones who tried talking negotiations with Iran’s leaders and they did not work, so why would it be any different if the United States tried it.
Threats of sanctions have been to Iran and still, they don’t listen. So it seems like Europe is glad to have another person in the White House but they just don’t seem to agree with his stand on Iran.

Week 5 pt 1 by Ryan Hanson

As a follow up to the last blog about Biden and his comments about Israel having to deal with a nuclear Iran, I looked up another article that had another side of the story. Apparently to this article published in September apparently these comments were made three years ago. Biden and his press secretary have both denied these comments and they both say Biden supports Israel against Iran.
"This is a lie peddled by partisan opponents of Senators Obama and Biden and we will not tolerate anyone questioning Senator Biden's 35-year record of standing up for the security of Israel," Biden's press secretary, David Wade, said in a statement.”
This just goes to show how the media still has a huge influence on how the elections can go. Even though this comment was apparently said three year ago, the media still brought it back up to try and dampen the name of Obama.
The fact that the topics that was brought up was and issue with Iran made it all the more serious. Iran is going to be a serious threat in the future if they get their hands on nuclear material and they are a threat to Israel, one of Americas strongest allies in the Middle East.

Week 4, Item 2

Sarah Palin on Iran
By Jared Behrend

"Senator McCain has made a solemn commitment that I strongly endorse: Never again will we risk another Holocaust. And this is not a wish, a request, or a plea to Israel's enemies. This is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, against any enemy who cares to test us. It is John McCain's promise and it is my promise."

This statement from a recent address by Governor Palin outlines her stance on Iran, and potentially sets up a hard-line approach to dealing with a state seeking nuclear weapons. Stating essentially that the U.S. will not allow a nuclear Iran to exist is along the same lines as the arguments used to coax the country into Iraq in 2003. If the UN does not support U.S.-led sanctions on Iran, and broad-based economic sanctions are not organized, will a McCain-Palin administration use military force in order to asssert its "promise" to Israel? In this same speech, Palin discribes the state of women's rights in Iran, clearly an attempt to exploit emotions from western peoples and further establish an "Us vs. Them" dichotomy, extending the assumed intentions of U.S. sanctions and halting of nuclear development to cultural differences and assumed superiority. Is this the sort of conflict we need to be heavily involved in with two other wars to fight?

The full text of the speech is available at:
http://www.nysun.com/opinion/palin-on-ahmadinejad-he-must-be-stopped/86311/

Week 4 pt 2 By Ryan Hanson

As of late, vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden has made some interesting statements in the media. He is Obama’s running mate and everyone would think that he would mostly agree with what Obama has to say. But recently he made a comment about Obama’s problems he will face if he wins the election, and he also commented on the Iran and Israel issue.
Apparently Biden was quoted saying “Israel would have to ‘reconcile’ itself with a nuclear Iran” That got huge attention in the media and of course a spokesman for Biden denied that he ever said that. Someone in the Israeli foreign ministry said that wouldn’t sound like a comment Biden would make, so I thought that was a very controversial incident.
On top of all of that Biden also mentioned that Obama could have some tough times right away if he gets into office. The news of this first broke on ABC about a week or two ago. Biden was quoted saying “Barack Obama will be tested by a major international crisis in the first potential six months of his presidency.” That fueled McCain’s argument and he asked if America should elect someone that invites testing from other countries. Could it be Iran that does that testing? Biden seems to be saying things he might end up regretting in the future.

Obama week 4 pt 1 by Ryan Hanson

The country of Israel is a very touchy subject because it relates to Iran. Israel obviously has their own issues going on with the Palestinians but if Iran ends up building nuclear devices it becomes a threat to Israel, which is one of the United States only allies in the Middle East. So with Iran as a possible threat to ‘blow Israel off the face of the earth,’ that eventually means the U.S. will have to step in at some point, but how will we intervene?
Senator Obama agrees that Israel is one of our strongest allies and we shouldn’t let anybody jeopardize their safety. He mentioned that President Ahmadinejad wanted to try to have another holocaust. Israel is a fellow democracy and we have learned in class the usually democracies do not fight with each other so it is important to have an ally in that part of the world.
Obama said “President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth.” Having a president that even mentions the word holocaust is never a good thing. Obama’s plan is to obviously sanction Iran, but also to try and talk with them, maybe settle this in a peaceful way so no innocent people have to die. Whomever wins the election will have to realize that Iran is possible threat and this situation will be a hot topic in the administration.

Week 3 pt 2 by Ryan Hanson

Unlike Obama’s running mate, he has kept the option on the table to meet with Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This blog is going to be about how the two candidates feel about this man. Everyone knows that McCain doesn’t even want to talk to the president because he thinks that anyone he threatens to blow Israel off the map shouldn’t be tolerated with. In my opinion I don’t think that is the right thing to do because it could make the hatred between these two countries even worse and therefore make the tension increase.
Obama on the other hand has kept the option on the table to meet with him. Obama says that Iran has been acting irresponsible by supporting militant groups in Iraq.
“"We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith," he said."I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hell bent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior.” Obviously he still thinks their needs to at least be a change in attitude there, but he isn’t going to go all ‘Bush’ on Iran and force a regime change. In my opinion I think that’s the right idea and talking never hurt anyone, plus it make our allies look at us in a different, more respectful view.

Week 4, Item 1

by Jared Behrend
Sarah Palin and the Media

Sarah Palin has routinely made it a habit to claim the biased "filter" which the media represents. In a recent campaign speech she spoke of her desire to explain herself "without the filter of the media." Palin's repeated claims of the "unfairness" of the media, and its supposed bias hearkens back to President Bush's statements that the history will regard this period of time as successful, no matter what the current approval ratings and general state of dissaray show. If Palin is to become Vice President and have the possibility of being President with an aging McCain, do we as a country want another prominent politician that sees others, including well-educated members of the media, as merely biased, crass, misinformed, unfaithful traitors. Imagine a scenario with Iran that involves scores of members of the media reporting national as well as international thoughts on how best to handle a country like Iran and their nuclear proliferation, and Gov. Palin shunning those thoughts for her own inner circle of ideologues. This is dangerous, and Iran is in a delicate situation right now that requires diplomacy and exploration of many avenues, as is the case with many aspects of national and foreign policy. For Palin to turn her back on the media now reveals a fear of those who present a differing view of what is best for country and each citizen, and it is the necessity of these different views which keeps a democracy running.

here is a video of her recent reaction to the media's "outing" of her wardrobe costs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xoKfee4MpQ

Week 3, Item 3

By Jared Behrend

An article in today's New York Times, titled "Rivals Split on U.S. Power, but Ideas Defy Labels," McCain's and Obama's views on Iran's attempts at enriching uranium are outlined. John McCain's position is bolstered by his experience with war, his interest in war, and certain jokes he has made about war, "bomb bomb bomb Iran," as the article reports. The preponderance toward war, as well as McCain's support of Bush's Iraq War and the statements that the war "was easy" and that we were "greeted as liberators" show a mistaken idea of what war is and when the U.S. should become involved in it. In the case of Iran, a conflict over nuclear proliferation could ultimately lead to military action in a McCain led government it appears. This is not the right direction for our country.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/us/politics/23policy.html?hp

Week 3, Post 1 by Ryan Hanson

A big decision topic dealing with Iran is if, or when we should sanction them. McCain is hard pressed to sanction Iran and basically cut them off from dealing with our country and other U.N. countries. Obama on the other hand, seems to have a different out look on the sanctioning process.
He agrees with wanting to sanction Iran but he seems to be looking at it in a bigger picture. What McCain fails to realize is that if we cut Iran off they will probably just end up looking to deal with other countries, countries that may not be the best of allies with the United States. For example, countries like China and Russia may be prime options for Iran to deal with. The huge fact in this is that Russia as a lot of nuclear material that Iran could get their hands on.
Obama wants to make sure the ties between the U.S. and these two countries are strong and reliable. Russia is a huge country and could be a power threat, and China’s economy is growing rapidly. These are concerns to the United States and I think that Obama will try to make a connection with them.
Although Obama and McCain seem to have the right idea on what to do with Iran, they still seem to have different outlooks and Obama seems to be looking at the situation in a more reasonable way than McCain.

Week 2 Post 2 by Ryan Hanson

On October 7th the second presidential debate took place. The questions were asked by audience members and although it seemed like the questions were geared more towards issues in our own country, until there was a question about protecting Israel. That then opened up the option of talking about Iran.
McCain answered his “his friend’s” question by being very stern on how they should go about protecting Israel. Mentioning that he wouldn’t wait for the U.N. to help, he thinks that China and Russia will be a problem. He was basically looking at it in a realist’s perspective.
Obama on the other hand seemed to look at it in a more liberal way. “We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. When President Bush decided we’re not going to talk to Iran, we’re not going to talk to North Korea, you know what happened? Iran went from zero centrifuges to develop nuclear weapons to 4,000.”
He points out that the republicans way of dealing with this international issue hasn’t seemed to be working so far, so how would McCain’s point of view be any different. Obviously we need to take a different direction on this topic and it seems like Obama is the man for that job. He is open for talking with other countries, and maybe that will make other countries look at the United States in a different, yet better way.

Week 3, Item 2

McCain Links Iran to Al-Qaeda

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aynz02_UWyw


In making claims to the danger of a nuclear threat in Iran as well as a threat in general to peace in the Middle East, John McCain has made links between Al-Qaeda and Iran that have been proven false. In these attempts, McCain has misused information in order to try to link Iran directly in Al-Qaeda, directly in opposition to facts that there is no "significant evidence" of this link, or any Iranian financial or other support of Al-Qaeda's operations. By tying Al-Qaeda's actions and goal to Iran's, it appears Senator McCain attepts to make Iran's goals to be part of the same extremist identity that Al-Qaeda subscribes to, and in turn makes the claim that Iran is making actions that go beyond its state boundaries by supporting terrorist groups. Seeing a war on Iran as an extension of the so-called "War on Terror," Senator McCain may feel compelled to act in military offense toward Iran, though there is no evidence that this is supported by a great majority of officials in Washington. McCain's view of Iran's ties do not show any grounding in reality, and therefore should be very carefully examined. Identifying a country as a terrorist supporter is no small statement.

Week 3, Post 1

By Jared Behrend

McCain's Identity Divisions - U.S. vs. "Arabs"

At a recent rally, John McCain faced questions regarding the safety of Barack Obama's potential presidency. At this rally he faced questions that revealed a certain identity he has credited with "Arabs" and the Middle East in general.

"Last week in Ohio, a woman at a rally expressed fear of Obama and called him "an Arab," McCain shook his head gravely and said "no, ma'am" and again defended Obama's character: "He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with."
-Newsday http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/opinion/viewsday/2008/10/the_decent_arab.html

In McCain's refutation of Obama's "Arab" background, he states Obama's "decent, family man" nature. Setting up this dichotomy of the "decent" Americans and therefore Indecent Arabs is the first step to completely discrediting a whole population of people, and in turn potentially discouraging any type of discussion between the nations. This surely is part of McCain's approach to Iran. Seeing them as non-democratic, indecent people, McCain's view of their legitimacy is greatly lessened, and therefore results in a completely black-and-white, us-versus-them identity conflict. Through building up negative attributes of the "enemy," Arab countries are separated from the U.S., and chances of any diplomatic gains are lessened. Each side then has more reason to disagree with the other side and both sides in turn are further from each other's identities. In addition, the message McCain sends to Americans is that Arabs are less than human, unfit for our western ideals. As some have said, with McCain's help, those of Middle Eastern descent have become the new ethnic group misunderstood and hated for their identity, showing an America moving in the wrong direction.

Week 2, Item 2

By Jared Behrend

The Second Presidential Debate this week once again brought up foreign policy questions, including a question from an audience member regarding Iran and their seeking of nuclear arms, and how this relates to our ally Israel.

The question: "If, despite your best diplomatic efforts, Iran attacks Israel, would you be willing to commit U.S. troops in support and defense of Israel? Or would you wait on approval from the U.N. Security Council?"

McCain's answer:

"Let -- let -- let me say that we obviously would not wait for the United Nations Security Council. I think the realities are that both Russia and China would probably pose significant obstacles."

McCain again states his intentions to act outside of the international community's established forum of the UN Security Council, asserting his assumption that in such an extreme case of actual Iranian aggression on Israel that Russia or China would not support U.S. or coalition involvement. McCain's view, as well as Obama's view is that we cannot provide ultimate veto power to the UN Security Council. This is an obvious and not surprising view for the candidates, as each country's sovereignty is important to maintain. Later in McCain's response, he again mentions the key part of his policy on Iran, which creates a "league of democracies." It is here that McCain reveals his realist perspective, maintaining that a rising nuclear power in Iran will upset the region and balance of power in the world, stating "It's a threat to the stability of the entire Middle East." By depriving Iran of economic means of survival as a country, McCain hopes Iran's aims of nuclear proliferation will be discouraged. With Israel the one real democracy in the Middle East, its existence surrounded by non-democratic nations is seen by realists as a force of change and potential "game-changer" in the region.

Week 2, Item 1

By Jared Behrend

Vice Presidential Debate: Sarah Palin's Policy on Iran

The recent Vice Presidential debate on Thursday the 2nd presented an opportunity for Sen. John McCain's running mate, Alaska Governer Sarah Palin to bolster her delegation's stance on important issues, including our nation's view of our relationship with Iran. In many ways she reiterated McCain's official view on Iran, when she stated "An armed, nuclear armed especially Iran is so extremely dangerous to consider. They cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons period." She discusses the inherent threat to Israel this will create, aligning the United States' interests again with Israel's. Palin in this instance draws a distinction of identities between the U.S. and Iran, which is used to show that Iran is not a nation which believes in the Western ideals of democracy, as she relates President Ahmadinejad to dictators such as Fidel Castro and Kim Jong Il. She also alludes to the disruption of a balance of power between democratic nations and theocratic nations and dictatorships. The realist ideals of McCain's form of Republicanism shine through in Palin's descriptions of the necessity of foreign policy, characterized by her discounting of Obama's plan to meet diplomatically with nations such as Iran, albeit by mischaracterizing Obama's statement by stating that he would meet without any lower-level diplomatic preparations. She stated that Obama's ideas on Iran go "beyond naivete" and "beyond poor judgment" including her ideas of their "downright dangerous" nature. It seems that Palin has twisted this issue to make political gains for herself and her running mate, discounting the options available for dealing with the rise of a nuclear Iran.

Full transcript of the Vice Presidential Debate can be found at:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=84382

Week 2, post 1 By Ryan Hanson

This week’s vice presidential debate was interesting to say the least. I was really looking forward to hear what the candidates had to say about their opinions and views on certain topics. When Iran was brought up, I could tell that they both had there own opinions on the matter. When both candidates were asked if Iran or Pakistan was the greater problem, neither of them happened to say Iran. Sarah Palin said Iraq was their main problem, while Senator Biden said that Pakistan was more important than Iran.
Biden mentioned that Pakistan was more of a serious threat than Iran because Pakistan has a huge amount of Al Qaeda members, could be hiding Osama Bin Laden, and harboring terrorist activities. Both candidates did mention about sitting down and talking the Iran’s president and both candidates supported their running mates views. Palin backed up McCain and said there would be no sitting down and talking with president Ahmaddinejad, while Biden agreed with Obama and said that there needs to be some sort of talking going on with Iran. Biden also mentioned that our allies have wanted us to talk with Iran and we should listen to them if we want them to back us up on our decisions. Another interesting point Biden made was, McCain wouldn’t even sit down and meet with the president of Spain. Spain happens to be one of our allied countries too.
So I believe both candidates did well in the debate and I enjoyed hearing their opinions. This was the only debate that the two will have so from now on America will just be hearing from the presidential nominees.

By Ryan Hanson

Last Fridays presidential debate touched a lot on foreign policies, but the one specific topic was how the United States are going to deal with Iran and their nuclear proliferation, which just happens to be our group topic. Throughout the debate Senator McCain and Senator Obama shared a lot of similar views, until it came down to discussing Iran. Obama seemed to have more of a liberalist perspective compared to McCain’s more realist ideas. One interesting point that Obama made was that Iraq was one of Iran’s biggest enemies and the Bush Administration took Iraq out. So that means we just gave Iran more confidence to build up on their nuclear weapons.
Where the two candidates disagreed the most was on meeting with Iran to talk about their nuclear plans. McCain wouldn’t want to sit down with President Ahmadinejad at all, Obama said he would sit down and talk with him because he mentioned that the ‘no talking’ idea with North Korea doesn’t seem to be working right now, so why would the United States continue that plan with Iran. McCain said that we should team up with ONLY democratic states to impose sanctions on Iran. I have to agree with Obama on this topic because Obama said we need more countries then just the democratic ones. We need China and Russia because if we went on without those countries then Iran can just work with them, and who knows if Iran wouldn’t be able to get a hold of more nuclear supplies through Russia.
It was a very interesting debate and both candidates made their points made. Senator Obama did a great job and we will have to see how his vice presidential candidate does Thursday night on his debate.

Week 1, Item 2

By Jared Behrend

McCain foreign policy points at September 26 Presidential Debate

In outlining his ideas of the American role in Iran, Senator McCain invokes the Holocaust to warn of the possibility of this occurring again if a nuclear weapon-equipped Iran rises in the Middle East. He insists that a UN Security Council resolution is difficult because of Russia’s presence in that forum, and sees the solution being a “League of Democracies” in which “a group of countries that share common interests, common values, common ideals, they also control a lot of the world's economic power… impose significant meaningful, painful sanctions on the Iranians that I think could have a beneficial effect.” An important question to raise is whether there is significant support from other democracies. Some countries he names as potentially being part of the League, “with the French, with the British, with the Germans” have shown much hesitance, mainly the French and Germans, in American goals and aggressions in the Middle East and throughout the world. Assuming that democracies share common ideas on foreign policy is flat-out wrong and the “League of Democracies” would just become another “Coalition of the Willing” as the American-led invasion of Iraq was billed. That is, it would mainly be the United States’ own coalition. What McCain’s plan leaves out is the potential multinational support the U.S. might receive if McCain’s plan reached out to non-democratic countries in support of economic sanctions on Iran. As raised in class, an important question to ask is what countries the U.S. sees as being “Democratic” and in what way do they judge the “democraticness” of a state.

Full transcript of September 26th's debate available at
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=78691

by Ryan Hanson

The following are quotes from Barack Obama delivered the following remarks on Israel, Iran, Iraq and the Middle East to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Forum held on March 2, 2007:

“And my plan includes a robust regional diplomatic strategy that includes talking to Syria and Iran – something this Administration has finally embraced.”

“And we can, then, more effectively deal with one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace: Iran.”

“Iran’s President Ahmadinejad’s regime is a threat to all of us. His words contain a chilling echo of some of the world’s most tragic history.”

“Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself. President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth.”

“In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But that is exactly what he has done.”

“The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy.”

“And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.”

“Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a new arms race. Some nations in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, could fall away from restraint and rush into a nuclear contest that could fuel greater instability in the region—that’s not just bad for the Middle East, but bad for the world, making it a vastly more dangerous and unpredictable place.”

“To prevent this worst-case scenario, we need the United States to lead tough-minded diplomacy.”

“This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out in clear terms our principles and interests. Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage through stronger sanctions.”

Barack Obama spoke at this same committee that John McCain did. Even though Obama did it a whole year earlier, they still seem to share similar ideas on Iran and their nuclear improvements. Obama touches on Iran’s president, Iran’s threat on Israel, and Iran’s continuation of nuclear technology. In McCain’s speech he mentions that he does not plan on meeting with President Ahmadinejad in person to negotiate these issues, however, Obama says in one of the quotes that America needs to take action of some sort. Whether it is military action or using the UN to figure out a solution, something needs to be done.
Obama goes on to say that the U.S. needs to have direct engagement with Iran. He compared this situation to the Cold War with the Soviets. McCain seems like he wouldn’t even be willing to do that with President Ahmadinejad. Although they both have the same point of view, they have different outlooks on how to go about it. I think that since this situation is going to be important in the near future, both candidates need to set their ideas and plans for this topic because it will be important for the new generation of voters. The voters that find this to be important will vote for the candidate that makes them feel the safest.

Week 1, Item 1

by Jared Behrend

Remarks By John McCain at AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee),

June 2, 2008

John McCain Spoke to the AIPAC in June about the stance the U.S. should have regarding Iran. Here is a key excerpt from that speech:

“Foremost in all our minds is the threat posed by the regime in Tehran. The Iranian president has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and suggested that Israel's Jewish population should return to Europe. He calls Israel a "stinking corpse" that is "on its way to annihilation." But the Iranian leadership does far more than issue vile insults. It acts in ways directly detrimental to the security of Israel and the United States.

A sponsor of both Hamas and Hezbollah, the leadership of Iran has repeatedly used violence to undermine Israel and the Middle East peace process. It has trained, financed, and equipped extremists in Iraq who have killed American soldiers fighting to bring freedom to that country. It remains the world's chief sponsor of terrorism and threatens to destabilize the entire Middle East, from Basra to Beirut.

Tehran's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons poses an unacceptable risk, a danger we cannot allow. Emboldened by nuclear weapons, Iran would feel free to sponsor terrorist attacks against any perceived enemy. Its flouting of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty would render that agreement obsolete and could induce Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others to join a nuclear arms race. The world would have to live, indefinitely, with the possibility that Tehran might pass nuclear materials or weapons to one of its allied terrorist networks. Armed as well with its ballistic missile arsenal, an Iranian nuclear bomb would pose an existential threat to the people of Israel.

European negotiators have proposed a peaceful endgame for Tehran, should it abandon its nuclear ambitions and comply with UN Security Council resolutions. The plan offers far-reaching economic incentives, external support for a civilian nuclear energy program, and integration into the international community. But Tehran has said no.

The Iranians have spent years working toward a nuclear program. And the idea that they now seek nuclear weapons because we refuse to engage in presidential-level talks is a serious misreading of history. In reality, a series of administrations have tried to talk to Iran, and none tried harder than the Clinton administration. In 1998, the secretary of state made a public overture to the Iranians, laid out a roadmap to normal relations, and for two years tried to engage. The Clinton administration even lifted some sanctions, and Secretary Albright apologized for American actions going back to the 1950s. But even under President Khatami – a man by all accounts less radical than the current president – Iran rejected these overtures.

Even so, we hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before. Yet it's hard to see what such a summit with President Ahmadinejad would actually gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants, and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds about starting another. Such a spectacle would harm Iranian moderates and dissidents, as the radicals and hardliners strengthen their position and suddenly acquire the appearance of respectability.

Rather than sitting down unconditionally with the Iranian president or supreme leader in the hope that we can talk sense into them, we must create the real-world pressures that will peacefully but decisively change the path they are on. Essential to this strategy is the UN Security Council, which should impose progressively tougher political and economic sanctions. Should the Security Council continue to delay in this responsibility, the United States must lead like-minded countries in imposing multilateral sanctions outside the UN framework. I am proud to have been a leader on these issues for years, having coauthored the 1992 Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act. Over a year ago I proposed applying sanctions to restrict Iran's ability to import refined petroleum products, on which it is highly dependent, and the time has come for an international campaign to do just that. A severe limit on Iranian imports of gasoline would create immediate pressure on Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to change course, and to cease in the pursuit of nuclear weapons.

At the same time, we need the support of those in the region who are most concerned about Iran, and of our European partners as well. They can help by imposing targeted sanctions that will impose a heavy cost on the regime's leaders, including the denial of visas and freezing of assets.

As a further measure to contain and deter Iran, the United States should impose financial sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran, which aids in Iran's terrorism and weapons proliferation. We must apply the full force of law to prevent business dealings with Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. I was pleased to join Senators Lieberman and Kyl in backing an amendment calling for the designation of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization responsible for killing American troops in Iraq. Over three quarters of the Senate supported this obvious step, but not Senator Obama. He opposed this resolution because its support for countering Iranian influence in Iraq was, he said, a "wrong message not only to the world, but also to the region." But here, too, he is mistaken. Holding Iran's influence in check, and holding a terrorist organization accountable, sends exactly the right message – to Iran, to the region and to the world.

We should privatize the sanctions against Iran by launching a worldwide divestment campaign. As more people, businesses, pension funds, and financial institutions across the world divest from companies doing business with Iran, the radical elite who run that country will become even more unpopular than they are already. Years ago, the moral clarity and conviction of civilized nations came together in a divestment campaign against South Africa, helping to rid that nation of the evil of apartheid. In our day, we must use that same power and moral conviction against the regime in Iran, and help to safeguard the people of Israel and the peace of the world.”

John McCain, as part of his larger foreign policy, has stressed his unwillingness to meet with world leaders whom he feels would not honestly engage in discussions beneficial to either side. In the case of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, McCain states in his speech to the AIPAC that he will not meet with Ahmadinejad, but rather use the international community, such as the UN Security Council in order to pressure Iran to disengage in nuclear proliferation. Beyond this, McCain stated the potential need for U.S. and allied direct involvement if U.S. expectations were not met. Senator McCain hailed divestment in Iran’s economy as a necessary move, tying this type of sanction with the ending of apartheid in South Africa. A struggling economy could pressure a nuclear Iran into backing down from bolstering its arsenal, the option which McCain sees as most effective. It must be noted that the setting for this speech, being held at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is a deliberately selected venue for a speech detailing the McCain stance on Iran’s nuclear developments. Included in these remarks was a phrasing of Senator Barack Obama’s statement that he would meet “unconditionally” with foreign leaders, to which McCain offered his opposing plans.