Saturday, September 27, 2008

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.

1 comment:

Turan Kayaoglu said...

I think the debate yesterday crystallized some of their differences regarding Iran--the role of diplomacy and the conditions of diplomacy. Obama said a couple of times that the idea of "punishing them by refusing to talk to them" is flawed. It would be interesting to explore why the candidates have such different views what "communication" requires and implies in international politics. "Communications" clearly mean different things to them. The way I see it that for McCain communications is means to find a negotiated outcome among the actors that already know what their interests are. Obama offers a richer understanding of communication that it can change/transform/redefine actors' identities and interests (some social theorists use the term speech-act, communicative action to refer to this aspect of communications.)