"Under Absolutely No Circumstances Can the U.S. Allow Iran to Acquire Nuclear Weapons"

[Tom Rinaldo]

There are many angles for discussion here but the polling question is black and white. The question is NOT whether Iran is or isn't trying to acquire nuclear weapons. The question is NOT should the U.S. try to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. Nor is it whether the U.S. has any right to try to stop Iran from getting them. Nor is it whether or not Iran poses a serious threat to the U.S., Israel, or the world either with or without nuclear weapons. And the question isn't whether or not Iran has either a legitimate right and/or need to acquire nuclear weapons.

We can discuss what if anything the U.S. should or shouldn't do about Iran's nuclear program, whatever you think that program might be. But the question for this poll is an absolute one. Vote "Yes" ONLY if you are convinced that, at the end of the day, the United States must do whatever it has to do to prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons.

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. Bear in mind that an affirmative answer is consistent...

...with current stated United States policy.

[struggle4progress]

98. IAEA: No proof of secret Iran plan (September 2004)

From CNN State Department Correspondent Andrea Koppel
Thursday, September 2, 2004 Posted: 12:03 AM EDT (0403 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.N. atomic watchdog agency says weapons inspectors have not uncovered evidence to support accusations that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program.

However, a U.S. State Department official said the Bush administration still intends to work toward referring the matter to the U.N. Security Council for possible punitive action.

A report by the International Atomic Energy Agency accepts that Iran may not have produced HEU (highly enriched uranium), a key ingredient needed to produce nuclear weapons. HEU contamination had been found at the Kalaye Electric Company and at the Natanz sites in Iran.

"It appears plausible that the HEU contamination found at those locations may not have resulted from enrichment of uranium by Iran," the report said. ~snip~

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/01/iran.nuclear/

<edit:typo>

[struggle4progress]

100. No Proof Found of Iran Arms Program (August 2005)

Uranium Traced to Pakistani Equipment

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 23, 2005; A01

Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, a group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists has determined.

"The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waving is now eliminated with these conclusions," said a senior official who discussed the still-confidential findings on the condition of anonymity.

Scientists from the United States, France, Japan, Britain and Russia met in secret during the past nine months to pore over data collected by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, according to U.S. and foreign officials. Recently, the group, whose existence had not been previously reported, definitively matched samples of the highly enriched uranium -- a key ingredient for a nuclear weapon -- with centrifuge equipment turned over by the government of Pakistan.

Iran has long contended that the uranium traces were the result of contaminated equipment bought years ago from Pakistan. But the Bush administration had pointed to the material as evidence that Iran was making bomb-grade ingredients. ~snip~

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201447_pf.html

[struggle4progress]

101. IAEA blasts U.S. intelligence report on Iran (September 2006)

POSTED: 8:12 p.m. EDT, September 14, 2006

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has written a scathing letter to a congressional committee saying part of its case against Iran is "outrageous and dishonest." ~snip~

The International Atomic Energy Agency wrote the leadership of the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday, lambasting it for claiming that the Islamic republic "is currently enriching uranium to weapons grade."

Iran is far from that capability, the IAEA said. ~snip~

The IAEA has been down this road before, when it entered the fray over Iraq's weapons program before the 2003 U.S. invasion. During that tussle, the Bush administration criticized the agency for being too cautious and opposed the reappointment of agency chief Mohammed El-Baradei. ~snip~

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/14/iran.nukes/

<edit: typo>

[MasonJar]

2. No country should have nuclear weapons, but that applies double for

a country like the US which allows crooks and liars to inhabit the highest offices of the land. If we lived in a country that Bush and Cheney had labeled An Axis of Evil country, we would want to protect ourselves, n'est pas? These two are nuts.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. If you are currently supporting a Democratic candidate for President

Do you know how that candidate would answer this poll question if it were asked of them? If not, is it important to you to find out how they would answer it, or is this simply a matter of low priority to you?

I would love it if people could share what they know about how the current position taken by each of our currently announced Democratic candidates lines up with the pretty simple and straight forward question of this poll.

If you have a favored candidate, and you know that that person has stated a position on Iran regarding this that differs with how you answer this question, how much, if at all, is that of concern to you?

[CreekDog]

58. I would hope our candidates don't feel safe with the prospect of a nuclear Iran

[Tom Rinaldo]

62. And I hope no one feels overly smug about the prospect of a painless war with Iran

It is pure fiction to think that a few fighter bombers can take out Iran's nuclear program now the way Israel once did with Iraq's one nuclear reactor decades ago. Iran's research facilities are numerous and widely disperced, many are located deep under ground in highly fortified placements. Iran's air defences are robust also. The effort to decisively set back Iran's nuclear program would likely take over a week, perhaps several weeks. It would not be a permanent set back, especialy if there were no follow up invasion of Iran. Estimates are that Iran might be set back 5 to 8 years, assuming that Iran did not then receive direct nuclear assistance from radical elements in Pakistan.

Pakistan would explode in riots if the U.S. attacked Iran. Pakistan has a large extremist element with ties to it's internal security forces. The Taliban in Afghanistan were once considered by Pakistan to be allies. Pakistan's current military government maintains an uneasy control over radical islamic elements inside Pakistan, but it is getting weaker of late. Pakistan could well fall to a radical islamic coup if enough rage is set off by another American military attack on an Islamic nation, i.e. Iran. And of course Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and the knoweledge needed to spread them. Iran could receive nuclear assistance and even nuclear weapons directly from Pakistan to restore their nuclear program after a U.S. or Israel attack.

Meanwhile Iran's people have a long negative history with the United States. Our CIA overthrew their popular government in the early 50's and installed the Shah. Later when the Arab who Americans were taught to so hate, Saddam Hussein, launched an unprovoked invasion of Iran, using poison gas against the Iranian defenders, the U.S. shared classified technical intelligence information with Hussein for use against Iran. Currently the U.S. government is funding a resistance movement inside Iran to destabalize that nation as part of our rather open policy of seeking regime change in Iran. Iran's strict religous leaders are not universally loved by Iranians, most of whom are rather young and rather westernized, with an extremely high rate of literacy. But nationalist feelings run strong in Iran, and virtually all progressive leaders inside Iran have warned the U.S. to not interfere inside Iran, for that will cause all Iranians, themselves included, to unite behind their government for nationalistic reasons.

Now factor in that Iran sits directly across a narrow straight of water from the Gulf States including Saudi Arabia and Dubai, and that huge amounts of oil are regularly exported through that narrow straight that can easily be blocked by sunken ships. Factor in also that Iran is in easy missile range of all U.S. military bases inside Iraq, not to mention Israel. Iran is a much larger nation than Iraq with a much larger population. Iran, unlike Iraq after the first gulf war and the imposition of sanctions against it, has a strong industrial infra structure and a thriving economy. But it is not just the hatred of America that will take firm root inside Iran's population, not just it's religious leaders, that America will have to deal with should we attack. All of America's current Arab allies will risk destabalization and overthrow from militant islamics and nationalists enraged by yet another American military attack in the region. Recruitment of terrorists to attack American interests internationally will soar, and the risk inside our own borders will soar also. A limited strike on Iran will leave it's technological base and government virtually intact and highly vengeful.

So the aftermath of an American attack on Iran may include the destabalization of Pakistan and the loss of control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons directly to Al Qaeda sympathizers. It may include a world wide depression set off by extreme oil price shocks as a result of a combination of war fare induced shortages and oil embargoes angainst the West. It may mean the targetting of all American forces in Iraq by agents of Iran and their allies as well as by Iran's armed forces. It may reshuffle Arab states in the region with a dramatic rise of influence of extremist elements inside several of them up to and including sucessful revolutions wiping away traditional American friends in the region. It may include new concerted and coordinated terror attacks on America's domestic infra structure, directed and financed this time by a modern and sophisticated nation state rather than a loose network of several hundred stateless radicals that pulled off 9/11. Israel undoubtedly would see a sharp rise in attacks against it's citizens also, and possibly acts of war against it as well, almost certainly it would come under rocket attack from Iran.

I'm not so sure that our candidates should feel safe with the prospect of all of that either.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. So far over a quarter of responders agree with current U.S. policy on this matter

It's still early in the polling though...

[TwilightGardener]

5. I agree. They don't seem especially trustworthy, frankly--I'd hate to

see Israel get nuked. Not saying that I want to take military action--that would be a last resort.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. The significance of your concern and this question is a timeline

If no one or nothing budges it seems we are headed into a new armed conflict in the Middle East, most likely sooner rather than later. If the U.S. government determins, either through valid or flawed intelligence, that Iran's nuclear program is approaching the point where they will have solved the key technical problems that must be overcome in order to build nuclear weapons, current U.S. policy indicates that we will attack Iran rather than let them cross that that technical threshold. In other words the U.S. is unlikely to wait until after Iran tests a nuclear device for final confirmation of our fears.

As long as the U.S. believes Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons dispite what their government says to the contrary, and if the U.S. policy I outlined above doesn't change, the point where armed conflict with Iran will be initiated is approaching faster than many people realize, by some people's estimates possibly within the next 9 to 12 months. Others say that decision can safely be put off longer, possibly far longer than that, but as it stands now Bush is still "the decider" for when the risk becomes too great to put off attacking Iran.

So your last resort may arrive as soon as early next year, unless our government backs off on insisting that Iran can not be allowed to acquire nukes, or unless Iran agrees to take steps that are sufficient to assure the American government that they will not develope nukes.

[TwilightGardener]

9. You are right--I've heard different estimates from different sources

in terms of when they'll have capability, but it is an issue that will only become more urgent unless diplomacy, international pressure and/or more sanctions start to work pretty damn soon to dissuade them. I take comfort, actually, in knowing that our leading candidates won't take the military option off the table. To say publicly that it's off the table at this point would be irresponsible--it would take the teeth out of negotiations, and tell the Iranians they have nothing to fear from continuing to disregard the international community. I also think it would really kill us in the general election. Our candidates are smart enough to realize this.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. As it now stands I think the odds favor it being a moot question

before the next President ever takes office. The die likely will already be cast. Do you think the Bush administration is conducting the type of diplomacy it would take to find some way out of the current impasse to prevent another war? If not, do you think leading Democrats are making a sufficient effort to pressure the Bush Administration to change it's diplomatic course? Are they adaquately informing the public of the likely consequences should nothing happen to alter the current status quo?

[TwilightGardener]

13. Actually, since we've started "talking" with them at least a little bit

(concerning Iraq), I take that as a promising sign. Also, Condi and Gates don't want war with Iran (along with some generals), and are ignoring Cheney, so that's hopeful too. And we won't be "going it alone" in trying to stop them--the international community is probably pretty nervous about this. So all that is positive. I do think the leading Dems are putting pressure on Chimpy to use more diplomacy--I've heard many of them express the desire to reopen direct talks with Iran (as well as Syria). However, it's unpopular among the Dem base for our candidates to appear even SLIGHTLY willing to use force in this matter--look at your poll results. Look at all the trashing of Hillary as a "pro-Iran-war" hawk. I don't think people want to hear about Iran during our Iraq disaster, but unfortunately the issue is extremely serious and it isn't going away, and we will have to deal proactively with their nuke plans in some form--hopefully not as another inherited war in 2008.

[Radical Activist]

87. I think its a false dichotomy

to suggest that the only way to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons is war. I think its an attempt to paint anti-war candidates as pro-war unfairly.

[John Q. Citizen]

71. Given that Israel has a bunch of it's own nuclear weapons, I don't see what

would be the point of Iran, if they ever got a nuke, of using it on Israel in a first strike.

It would only result in massive retaliation against Iran.

I can see why Iran might want a nuke to prevent an Israeli first strike though.

[TwilightGardener]

75. That's the danger--mutually assured destruction may work to deter

most nations from pressing the button first, BUT--we don't always know that the leaders we're dealing with (like Ahmadinejad) are rational. How do we know that he isn't crazy enough to say "what the hell, the 72 virgins are waiting for me" and just nuke the shit out of Israel first--just to rid the world of them, consequences be damned? The suicide-bomber mentality unfortunately seems to be a primarily radical-Muslim phenomenon--I don't know if Iran's president is that radical or nuts (aren't they beheading porn stars now?), but why take a chance?

[Tom Rinaldo]

76. First off Ahmadinejad is not Iran's leader

he gained his position running for President (not the supreme leader in Iran) by running as a right wing economic populist promising to uplift the poor. He was Tehran's former mayor. In Iran's most recent elections his party suffered significant losses in the voting for Parlimentary seats. He can't deliver the economic goods his support base wanted, so he positions himself as a firery nationalist leader railing against Iran's enemies including the U.S. This is nothing new in the world. What is helping him get away with spewing his rhetoric is the continuing hostile stand that the United States takes toward Iran which plays right into his hands (and I am not talking about the current Iran/U.S. impasse over Iran's nuclear program - think "Axis of Evil" and take it from there).

To call Ahmadinejad powerful now is a supreme irony and self serving for anti-Iran hard liners, because the man who held Iran's Presidency immediately before him, Mohammad Khatami, was dismised as a mere figure head by them when he held the office and tried to promote better relations with the United States which the Bush Administration rebuffed.

Here is an interesting story to help give you the flavor:

"Ex-Iranian leader blames Bush policies for terrorism"
POSTED: 9:41 p.m. EDT, September 4, 2006

CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- U.S. foreign policy is furthering terrorism in the Muslim world, and negotiations are the only way to resolve the impasse over Iran's nuclear ambitions, former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami told CNN while on a two-week visit to the United States.

The reformist leader is widely viewed as moderate compared with new President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As president, Khatami favored stronger U.S. ties.

In an interview Sunday with CNN, Khatami said American policies have "only increased, and will only increase, extremism in our region." (Watch Khatami tie Bush's policies in the Mideast to a rise in terrorism -- 2:39)

In the interview, he also broke with his hard-line successor by saying he does not call for Israel's destruction..." (I should point out that this is an editorial comment by the writer who summarizes Ahmadinejad's policy as calling for Israel's destruction, not an acknowledgement by Khatami that this is the current President's policy. Rather Khatami stated his own view here regarding Israel)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/04/iran.khatami/index.html

The United States effectively undermined Khatami in Iran by not following up on his efforts to thaw chilly Iranian U.S. relations. Consistently U.S. policy toward Iran under Bush has strengthened Iran's more hard line elements. Iran's Supreme leader now is the same guy who was Iran's Supreme leader during Khatami's Presidency, that has not changed. In fact those who follow Iran's internal power dynamics report that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is Iran's supreme leader, moved to provide a counter balence on Ahmadinejad's influence by appointing a relatively centrist former Iranian Presdient, Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, to positoins of great importance inside Iran's governing structure.

Here is an interesting commentary on Rafsanjani's current positioning:

Payvand's Iran News ...

3/13/07
Iran: Ex-President Rafsanjani Becomes Leading Government Critic
By Vahid Sepehri

March 13, 2007 (RFE/RL) -- Some Iranian commentators have observed a realignment of political forces in recent months, provoked by intense rhetoric from President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's government. The result could be an opposition comprising forces variously described as centrists or pragmatists, on the one hand, and radicals associated with the president on the other.

The realignment comes as reformists -- effectively excluded from power since late 2005 -- try to raise their profile as government critics.

The maneuvering could provide them an opportunity to regroup -- with a somewhat diluted or evolved agenda -- alongside centrist forces hovering around Expediency Council Chairman Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani. Rafsanjani is an ex-president with a penchant for liberal economics. Rafsanjani has in fact begun to do what reformers have been threatening, criticizing the government in earnest."
http://www.payvand.com/news/07/mar/1180.html


Iran has always been cautious about not crossing any heavy red lines in it's dealings with the west ever since the end of the hostage crisis. Modern Iran has no history of militarily attacking any of its neighbors. The use of suicide bombers primarily emerged out of Sunni Arab Islamic radical ranks, such as Al Qaeda, not Iran. Iran can not now be desribed as friendly to the United States, but it's government has a much more solid track record of avoiding extreme provocations, such as missile launches over Japan, than North Korea for one obvious example.

[ProudDad]

90. Israel isn't going to get "nuked"

Those assholes have 400 nuclear weapons and the systems to deliver them.

They're part of the problem not a victim...

[IA_Seth]

6. Disappointed with the lack of responses here...

For all of the endless talking we do about Iraq and the mistakes that led us there, we are noticeably silent regarding the growing potential for a much more devastating war with Iran.

Our current leaders (and many of our guys aspiring to be such) may keep silent in the MSM about the threat of war with Iran, but don't let that fool you. There are real and serious steps being taken to 'legitimize' any use of force against Iran, which would suredly be met an escalating response.

Those of you who are decided upon your candidate (I am not), I'd really appreciate a good informational post with links laying out your candidate's views on Iran. Of course I could go to each of their websites, but I prefer their ideas quoted in articles, interviews and such as opposed to the thoroughly edited/sanitized versions their websites provide.

Thanks!

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. By a very conservative count there are at least 16 front page threads

right now in this forum dealing with Democratic candidates for President. So I have to assume that either supporters of our current candidates aren't interested enough in the topic of this poll to even open up the thread, or they are unwilling or unable (or both) to discuss the position of the candidate whom they support vis a vis the poll question asked here.

I really have tried not to make this a flame thread. Somehow I think this is a matter that we should be talking about, since we obvioulsy find lots of things to say AFTER a military conflict involving the United States has begun.

[Bucky]

25. This thread would get more feedback if it mentioned Paris Hilton

The goal here is quantity, not quality, right?

[Mass]

8. Why?

[calteacherguy]

12. Absolutely not. We need to look at the negatives and the positives of every possible outcome

in an evolving world dynamic. We need to think about how we would work with a nuclear Iran in order to understand what measures it would be worthwhile to take to discourage Iran from aquiring such weapons.

[Phredicles]

14. Many countries have nuclear weapons but only one has actually used them;

A biblical verse about motes and beams and eyes leaps to mind here...

[TwilightGardener]

15. Sorry, ending WW2 is not something I think we as a nation need apologize for--

it's been one hell of a deterrent ever since. Plus, we have been pretty trustworthy, even given Chimpy and his nutty admin. This is one area where I refuse to America-bash.

[Phredicles]

16. But the fact remains, we've used them and no one else has.

Besides, other unsavory governments have acquired the things and been deterred from using the them even once. And Iran knows the consequences of using them.

We have a hell of a lot of nerve demanding other countries adhere to a standard we won't even try to meet.

[TwilightGardener]

18. It's unfair that we have them, and then tell other countries not to get them--

but that's the way it works when you're a superpower. I wouldn't trade that status for anything--I'd just rather we be a little more benign/humble than how we've been acting lately. And again, to use them to end WW2 is not something I feel bad for--especially since Japan wasn't, er, all that nice to us. And haven't we gotten along swell ever since?

[CreekDog]

59. Agreed Weinerdoggie

Being a nuclear power is a responsibility and it's one I feel safer having Americans rather than Iranians control --as flawed as our American government and current administration are.

[ProudDad]

91. Ah, that BIG LIE surfaces again

Truman dropped the 2 big ones while the Japanese were suing for peace in order to show Stalin what he had.

A couple hundred thousand Japanese civilians died so the biggest (new) bully on the block could flex his muscles.

[OldschoolDem]

17. Nothing good can come from a nuclear Iran

but war should be the very last option and I believe it will not come down to that. War is not necessary at this point because Iran is still years away from nuclear weapons despite what Foxnews tells you.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. It doesn't matter what most experts think

While he is in office it more matters what the experts that Bush chooses to listen to thinks. Most experts thought Hussein was still years away from any nuclear weapons capacity when Bush invaded Iraq citing that risk strongly. And of course there is also the question of whether this Administration wants an excuse to attack Iran while it remains in office, and if they do, would they simply "find" experts who they want to listen to.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. This poll question is a much stronger position to take than keeping all options on the table

Keeping all options on the table simply states that we do not rule out the use of force against Iran if we find it essential to our national interests to use force against Iran over their nuclear program. The statement in the poll question goes much further. It literally defines the trip wire that will cause the United States to attack Iran, regardless of whether our overall relations with Iran are otherwise improving or not. This is current U.S. policy. Had a similar policy been in effect during Ike's Presidency we would have attacked China in the 1950's. After all they were our enemy, having just fought us in the bloody Korean War which killed many magnitudes more U.S. soldiers than the IED's alleged to be shipped into Iraq by Iran now do.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

21. I agree. a nuclear Iran would give them added leverage and make them impervious

It would increase their bargaining power. Duh.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. But that is simply an argument for why we would rather prevent that from happening.

There are many things in the world that would be desirable to prevent, but the question becomes at what cost? At what cost does the method that would be needed to eliminate an undesirable scenario itself bring about sufficiently serious undesirable consequences that it isn't worth the price to implement?

This poll question, if answered in the affirmative, assumes that there is no need for further consideration of whether the aftermath of attacking Iran would be more dangerous to the U.S. and/or Israel (to name an important elephant in the room) than would any attempt to co-exist with an Iran that had nukes. It also may assume that attacking Iran could rid ourselves of the problem of radical islamics getting their hands on nukes. For how long? And how would that effect our relations with other muslim nations in the intervening period?

The same question, about the supposed complete non-viability of co-existance, could be asked about Pakistan or North Korea in a way I suppose. We co-exist with a nuclear armed Pakistan and North Korea without armed conflict between our nations. Is that because they are such stable and friendly nations?

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

34. Our ally ISRAEL would have a counterweight, and the Gulf states will feel threatened

Why would anyone tolerate an enemy of our allies to have a nuclear weapon? This is absolutely mind-boggling. No serious candidate for higher office would turn a blind eye to this.

Do I believe threatening Iran is the correct way? No. I don't. I believe in dialogue.

[IA_Seth]

41. And if dialogue fails?

Look, it's obvious none of us here WANT Iran to have nuclear capabilities, but the question is whether or not it is true that under NO circumstances should the US allow the Iranians to have them.

I would hope anyone with a D believes in dialogue (although some seem less inclined than others).

What if dialogue fails to stop the Iranians from gaining nuclear capabilities? What if, as you put it, an 'enemy of our allies' does have a nuclear weapon. What then? Do we attack? Learn to live? Cold War Redux?

Did we 'tolerate' the Russians, or was it something else?

[Bucky]

61. If dialogue fails, we nuke 'em. Nuke the shit out of 'em. Nuke 'em and eat their children.

Sow salt into their farmlands, set fire to their museums, poop on their coffee tables, and pee into their coffee pots.

And then convert 'em into Christianity.

</republican mode>
.

[IA_Seth]

68. Sadly I think that is among their plans!

Only it looks like they'll skip the dialogue altogether..

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

77. If dialogue fails, then we collaborate with our allies to do something about it

If you approach the table saying, "There are certain circumstances by which we'll allow Iran to have nuclear weapons," you undercut your leverage.

[Tom Rinaldo]

78. But you don't have to approach the table saying that

There are phrasings that the United States could use that do not promote and potentially lock us into a potential monumental policy error without giving up any bargaining leverage. It happens all the time.

Statements like "Allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons would constitute a significant threat to the security of the United States, our allies, and the entire Middle East which quite frankly is unacceptable and the United States will respond appropriately if Iran insists on pursuing this path further" When asked if that means the U.S. will definately attack Iran if Iran attemps to build nukes the answer could be "It would not be appropriate to comment further with specifics at this time, other than to say that the United States reserves a right to pursue any and all options available to us in the face of serious security threats."

But that is not what leading Democrats have all been saying, let alone the Bush Administration. While pandering to look tough to constituencies they want to appeal to, or in an attempt to prove to the public that they can be just as hard nosed as any Republican when it comes to protecting America, some of our candidates choose to leave no abiguity in asserting that Iran will not be allowed to acquire nukes, period.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

79. Speak softly and carry a big stick

Leave all options on the table, and don't proclaim there to be circumstances where they'll be allowed nukes.

They have a choice to either play ball or run their country into annihilation. It's their choice. Bush is an idiot for making threats, but we should not undercut our leverage either.

[Tom Rinaldo]

80. A big stick has a role, certainly, so does a juicy carrot

U.S. policy toward Iran under Bush has consistently followed the PNAC blueprint which ends with toppling the current Iranian regime. That intention has been broadcast to the world through numerous non subtle ways and means. It is the consistent thread that unifies both the policy initiatives that the U.S. takes toward Iran, and the ones that we do not take. Essentially it is the same foreign policy the U.S. pursued toward Iraq prior to the invasion of Iraq by American forces. "Don't want to be attacked, then roll over and capitulate to all of our demands, to our satisfaction - we'll be the judge, and when you are through abandon all power and we might arrange safe passage for you to go some place else to die naturally."

U.S. policy toward Iran under Bush has been "Regime change". How much if any violence might be required to achieve it has been the only variable. There has been little if any incentive for Iran's current government to cooperate in any way with the U.S. under Bush so long as that is the understood policy of the United States toward Iran. Unless you believe that Bush can scare that government into compliance with his agenda for Iran. I don't.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

81. I agree with you n/t

[Bucky]

27. Not literally "impervious."

Nation states have interestes; they have leverage points. Iran with a bomb would have more counterleverage. But the current policy does nothing to given them incentives not to develop a bomb and damn good reasons to proceed with their plans.

The question is a fun hypothetical, but the real world offers us a lot more dimensions for building relations, stability, and peace than just "Give me yout bomb-making stuff or I start nuking your bases."

In the real world, you need the flexibility of a statement like "all options are on the table," which ultimatly means "I got nuthin', but I hate you."

[IA_Seth]

43. Nice translation!

"all options are on the table," which ultimatly means "I got nuthin', but I hate you."

That's it in a nutshell, isn't it!

It's sad when political campaigns are more about dumbing it down and oversimplifying for the layman and less about explaining nuances. It says a lot about the state of the nation.

[ProudDad]

93. You've got that right!

"all options are on the table," which ultimatly means "I got nuthin', but I hate you."

[ProudDad]

92. They already are "impervious"

They've actually GOT a military.

They've got the oil.

What the fuck is the toothless U.S. of A. gonna do?

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. I think this topic represents a second inconvenient truth

Not just for the larger public, but sometimes it seems that even most democratic activists, hell, even most democratic anti-war activists, would rather have their eye teeth pulled out than seriously confront the implications of this poll question and current U.S. policy toward Iran.

It sure seems like candidate supporters, who are willing to talk about their candidates stands on virtually every other issue, sudenly have fallen silent when confronted with this one.

Do people really not know how the person you support for President would answer this question? Do you really not care? Or do you just really not want to talk about it?

I suspect almost all of our candidates would answer Yes to this question. Does anyone want to dispute that contention?

[Sparkly]

28. This sure is interesting...

Great poll question, Tom.

[Bucky]

29. (meekly raises hand)

I sorta answer that a couple of posts down from here. You need the flexibility of the bluff "all options on the table." No smart candidate would accept the simple binary premise. But the question does raise the issue (which, again, I respond to below) about why we need immediate dialog with Iran.

If you really want a harsh question, focus it more. If Iran announces it will have a working nuke within six months, and assuming there was no other way to prevent them from completing the project, would you attack them?

Sure it's dumbed down. For instance we don't know if they're lying. We don't know where all the bomb making stuff is located. We don't know what else is going on in the region. We don't know how many civiliians would die in the scanario. We don't konw what other leverage and engagements we'll have developed with Iran between now and the point in the future when we face this choice. One option that's on the table is just fucking deal with it and depend on deterrence and containment like we did with Russia.

Honestly, if we start from ceteris parabis, that last one is probably a better option than bombing the shit out of several sites ano not knowing if we'll even accomplish the goal.
.

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. You put your finger on a sore point for me

"One option that's on the table is just fucking deal with it and depend on deterrence and containment like we did with Russia."

I never see that option on the table, never. Maybe it's a card held up someone's sleeve to be played if your elaborate bluff scenario fails to work, but that is the option no one seems willing to talk about. And I think it is a very dangerous game indeed if our political leaders continually fear bait the public about the nuclear threat that Iran poses the United States while secretly accepting that deterrence/containment/and hopefully detante might end up being the best policy to pursue if it comes to it. Too often in history, once an enemy is pin pointed and subjected to constant villification, events start taking on a momentum of their own, a dynamic of conflict gets locked into place and sooner or later something, sometimes something very minor, pushs it over the cliff into war.

[Bucky]

36. You ever see that episode of MASH where Henry put Hawkeye in charge of the camp?

Once he had the responsibility, the big lead goofball turned into a bigger stick in the mud than Frank. Well, I see Condolleezza Rice doing the same thing.

She was one of the big Vulcan dummies. In fact, the name Vulcan actually comes from her and her home town. Once she replaced the old nanny as the new Secretary of State, she--walla--started acting like a grown up. If Bush had put Wolfowitz or Armitage or really anyone of those goobers beside Cheney (he really is the monster we imagine) in as SecState, they would be playing nanny instead and Rice would go on being one of the Hawkeyes and Trapper Johns rattling the sabre for war--knowing there was a grown up around, a good cop to play against their childish bad cop routine, shaped by the job and the circumstances to restrain their idiocy.

The situation shapes the person's actions far more often than we think. Republicans, being an uninventive reactive lot, don't understand this, but they fall into the same traps more often than not. It's all part of the moronic game of chicken Republicans play with themselves. There's upper limits to how far they can let things devolve, of course. But before things got too far, we saw democracy correct itself.

I'm not suggesting we do nothing. I'm just suggesting that we all do our part diligently and have a little more faith that things will work out in the end.

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. Part of doing our part dilligently is not having too much faith that things will work out in the end

The self correcting mechanism that you describe exists, but sometimes it malfunctions none the less. World War One was a great example of that, but more to the current point, so was the massive strategic blunder we know of as the invasion of Iraq, and the role Democrats, not just Republicans, played in enabling that tragic bloody costly mistake. And so was the blundered aftermath of the invasion of Iraq for that matter. Whatever self correcting mechanisms there were/are that kicked in, they kicked in after the horse had already left the barn.

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. Self delete (posted in wrong place) n/t

[IndianaGreen]

32. If Iran were to acquire nukes, which is not, it shouldn't concern us!

We learned two lessons from the Cold War:

First, the Cold War with its underlying Soviet "threat," was a sham and a scam perpetrated on the American people by the military-industrial complex with the complicity of those that wanted to subvert the Constitution by maintaining a permanent national security establishment.

Second, possession of nuclear weapons are a deterrent to aggression.

America and Israel want to maintain a monopoly on WMD, not to protect themselves, but to add muscle to imperialistic and criminal policies they both pursue (Israel to a far lesser degree than the US). Iraq would not have been attacked by the US had it had nuclear weapons to defend its soil against the foreign invader. The same can be said about Iran, or any other country that Bush has threatened to attack, e.g., Venezuela and Cuba. Nuclear weapons technology, which can be obtained through the black market, can fall in the hands of terrorists, but equally true it can also end in the hands of governments determined to see their people protected from the same fate that has befallen Iraq.

If we are worried about first use of atomic weapons, which we all should, we should begin with George W. Bush who has a policy in place to strike first at anyone that crosses him, with nuclear weapons if necessary.

[some guy]

47. I don't know

how Dennis Kucinich would answer this specific question, though I do know he is very vocal about trying to find diplomatic means to dissuade Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And also vocal about trying to prevent the US from initiating a war of aggression against Iran.

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. I am pretty confident about Kucinich, though he may not absolutely rule out

needing to attack Iran under some dire scenarios, I do not believe he would take any position that mandated attacking Iran because it acquired nukes without weighing all of the circumstances in play at that time, including the negative consequences an attack on Iran would trigger, as well as all of the options available to him at that point. Maybe I'm making an asumption here, but I think it's an informed one.

To be honest, and speaking for myself obviously, I would not expect any Presidential candidate to be able to swear to God that there could never be any circumstance under which they might authorize the use of preemptive military force. That is a very different statement though than the polling question here.

[some guy]

50. yes

which is only one among so many reasons it's easy for me to support Mr Kucinich.

I'm comfortable with the idea that he would very reluctantly resort to military force, and would seek other options first.

[Radical Activist]

89. But that's exactly the position Kucinich is taking.

Kucinich asked Obama to completely rule out war with Iran under any circumstances. This is when Kucinich's campaign tactic of making everyone else look more conservative so Dennis can be the ONE TRUE LIBERAL becomes ridiculous.
When Obama took the same position you are now taking people unfairly accused him of wanting war with Iran. I don't take those people seriously. Your position that you just stated in Obama's position and I agree with it as well.

[ProudDad]

95. That would be the ULTIMATE international failure

and the final proof (if any is needed) of the failure of the species homo-sapien.

"authorize the use of preemptive (nuclear?) military force"

I'm pretty sure my guy Dennis wouldn't. He'd not let the situation deteriorate to that point 'cause he's a human being and not a political robot being programmed by the amoral corporate establishment.

[CreekDog]

60. I don't know about them, but I answered yes

But I would avoid war as much as possible --and not just say that I am

[Radical Activist]

88. Yes, I know

I agree with the statement and so does my candidate of choice, Barack Obama. I don't want a President to sit around and sing pete seeger songs while Iran gets the bomb. That's idiotic.
Obama has made it clear that he is genuine about avoiding war and there are ways other than war to prevent Iran from getting nukes, which he will pursue.

[Bucky]

24. I don't think Iran should have the bomb. But if they get one, it's not worth war.

I agree with issuing statements like "under no circumstances can Iran have..." but if they announce they're six months from producing a bomb at one of their scatter sites, I would not favor bombing the shit out of them.

So I guess I'm in favor of bluffing, and thus in favor of lying about our intentions. And thus I'm in favor a politicians lying to me about it.

Economic sanctions could and should be looked at, of course, but I think carrots will work better than sticks with Iran. The problem is how do you build trust with them when after the last six years of diplomacy by scowls and bluster alone?

Dialogue cannot wait until the next presidency. We should pressure Bush and Rice to start engagement with the Iranians now. They need to believe that both American parties will support sane policies. They don't have to close a deal; they don't have to agree to anything. If the Bushies can just get talks started, it will make a difference and will be better than starting from scratch 18 months from now.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. I agree with a lot of what you say here

And your position about "bluffing" and accepting the resultant consequence about being lied to as part of that process is refreshingly candid. That might be easier for me to swallow, as distateful as it inherently is, if I did not fear that there are too many true believers in both parties who are not bluffing when they take that position. I don't think those who express such sentiments inside Israel are bluffing (unless their hawks are amazingly better poker players than virtually all Americans - they sure would have me fooled in that case) and I doubt that their supporters here in the U.S. are bluffing either. Cheney I am sure is not bluffing. The PNAC agenda has been fixed for a decade.

Meanwhile I strongly agree with your statement regarding diplomacy and the positive funciton that pushing the Bush Administration into even a half assed effort now would serve. And yes we have been woefully short of carrots throughout the Bush Administation, and over supplied with sticks.

[Hippo_Tron]

44. We got out of the Cuban Missile Crisis because Kennedy played chicken

It is definitely a tool that is needed sometimes.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. Yes, but it can also be a very dangerous tool

One small miscalculation, or maybe a missed message or simple misunderstanding, or even an unexpected and unintended incident, and it can blow up in your face. Kennedy was not at all confident that his game of chicken would turn out favorably and that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were not about to plunge into an all out nuclear war. Even when there is only one bullet in the chamber, meaning the odds are five to one in your favor, Russian roulette in never a safe game to play, and neither is chicken. Unlike Russian roulette, a better argument can be made for playing chicken sometimes, but playing chicken with war hanging in the balence is a high stakes high risk game indeed.

[Monk06]

26. Other disagree because the US has 10,000 thermonuclear warheads and

and is determined to blackmail the world with them.

[BootinUp]

33. This is really up to more countries than just

the U.S. As the Iranian nuclear crisis increases, there will be more action by a group of world powers against them which will tend to keep them in check. If they don't want to be invaded or bombed they will have to play the game carefully to keep such a coalition of like mindedness from forming.

I believe that Iran having the bomb is a real bad thing but that does not mean its the end of the world. It could be the end of Iran if they were foolish enough to ever use one though. In the final analysis I do not believe the U.S. alone can prevent them from acquiring a small number of devices.

[Catchawave]

35. I voted "Other" Tom, as N. Korea concerns me also....

I would support pre-emptive measures to avoid the destruction caused by any fanatical leader's intentions.

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. Under some circumstances, I might also

but those who answer Yes to this poll have predetermined that there are absolutely no circumstances under which the United States should NOT take military action if necessary to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In a way that is a type of absolute prejudgement that, unlike all of the other nations that currently have nukes, the United States simply can't co-exist with an Iran that had them also, even if the act needed to stop them from gaining nukes (an act of war against Iran) could set off a larger middle eastern war with a cocurrent risk of dramatic further spread of terrorism and massive economic upheavals caused by disruptions in the worlds oil supplies.

What you described was a need to take pre-emptive measures to avoid destruction caused by the intentions of fanatical leaders. To apply that logic to Iran now presupposes that fantical leaders in Iran will cuase that type of destruction if they gain nukes, and in so doing it justifies attacking Iran without any further need of evidence that failing to do so will result in that destruction. That is a standard for justifying initiating an act of war that the United States may never have asserted before in our history. Certainly it is at complete odds with how the United States dealt with the Soviet Union and China during the sometimes heated phases of the Cold war, including during the Korean War.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. And no one claims to know how any of our candidates would answer this poll

If you don't even pretend to know what they believe about a fundemental looming question of war and peace like this, how can you confidently support them? Aren't you at least curious?

[Hippo_Tron]

42. The current US Policy is also to not not have diplomatic talks with Iran...

Which is a major difference between the Democrats and Republicans. I don't sit up at night worrying about President Clinton or President Obama bombing Iran as a last resort because I am extremely confident that diplomacy will work.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. Do you worry at all about making it to January 2009 without a new war?

Do you believe those Democratic leaders are doing enough to dampen the swelling drum beat to bomb Iran? Leading democrats might not have acted to depose Saddam Hussein themselves in 2003, but they offered little or no resistance to the effort to demonize him in 2002 that created an atmosphere conducive to the Iraq invasion that followed.

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. So far a third of responders here at Democratic Underground

agree with the statement: "Under Absolutely No Circumstances Can the U.S. Allow Iran to Acquire Nuclear Weapons". DU is not your average cross section of Democratic Voters, let alone voters in general. It certainly skews heavier toward an anti-war perspective than most groups of people.

So I would suggest to everyone then, those who voted yes and those who voted no, that war with Iran is likely if something isn't done to improve relations between Iran and the United States soon in the diplomatic arena, so that Iran has more incentive to cooperate with our wishes in this regard and less incentive to feel that, like North Korea, the only way to get the United States to back off on attempts to undermine/overthrow their government is by having a nuclear deterrent of their own.

[ProudDad]

96. Not any more it appears

DU "certainly skews heavier toward an anti-war perspective than most groups of people."

[slipslidingaway]

51. Hillary Clinton....

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/01/18/news/14289.shtml

"But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not — must not — permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons."

[slipslidingaway]

52. Barack Obama....

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p10/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

"Throughout the Middle East, we must harness American power to reinvigorate American diplomacy. Tough-minded diplomacy, backed by the whole range of instruments of American power -- political, economic, and military -- could bring success even when dealing with long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria. Our policy of issuing threats and relying on intermediaries to curb Iran's nuclear program, sponsorship of terrorism, and regional aggression is failing. Although we must not rule out using military force, we should not hesitate to talk directly to Iran. Our diplomacy should aim to raise the cost for Iran of continuing its nuclear program by applying tougher sanctions and increasing pressure from its key trading partners. 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. At the same time, we must show Iran -- and especially the Iranian people -- what could be gained from fundamental change: economic engagement, security assurances, and diplomatic relations. Diplomacy combined with pressure could also reorient Syria away from its radical agenda to a more moderate stance -- which could, in turn, help stabilize Iraq, isolate Iran, free Lebanon from Damascus' grip, and better secure Israel."

[slipslidingaway]

53. More Obama...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story

"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."

[slipslidingaway]

54. John Edwards...

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

"In a speech at a conference in Herzliya, Israel, former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) took aim at Iran, warning that the "world won't back down."

To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."

[slipslidingaway]

55. Glenn Greenwald "A new excerpt from the book's Iran chapter --

regarding the various factions which have worked together to push the President towards Middle East militarism generally, and a confrontation with Iran specifically -- is available today here."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/26/tragic_legacy/index.html



---The excerpt does not appear on Salon, only at the link below.---

A Confederation of War-Seeking Factions

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/greenwald.php?articleid=11193

by Glenn Greenwald

"This is an excerpt from Chapter 4 of A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency, released today.

Why would the president, in the midst of substantial and growing cooperation with the Iranians, suddenly decree Iran in 2002 to be part of an axis of evil, and all but declare Iran an enemy on whom war must inevitably be waged? Numerous and disparate factions surrounding the president each desired, albeit for different reasons and with different motives, hostility and conflict with Iran. Those factions perceive that belligerence toward Iran, rather than a negotiated peace, would promote their respective agendas. And each was able to depict Iran in the Manichean terms that would ensure that the president would see Iran as an implacable foe he was duty-bound to defeat."

[CreekDog]

56. If not US, then perhaps Israel can take care of it like they did last time

And I don't have any problem saying this considering the president of Iran has both called for the elimination of Israel and is an avid Holocaust denier. Perhaps he would wipe out Israel then start a rumor that it never happened.

[ProudDad]

97. Oh, Great!

Give those fascist Zionists more power.

Great idea! :sarcasm:

It's worked so well allowing them carte blanche in their brutal occupation of the Palestinian people.

[Tom Rinaldo]

57. Wes Clark

Speaking at a meeting with supporters in Iowa while campaigning there in May of 2006, taken from a transcript of a podcast made from this session. The question concerns the open letter that the President of Iran had just sent to President Bush:

Panelist #3: What's your opinion? The President of Iran sent an eighteen-page letter to President Bush. I've not seen a full transcript of that, and I don't think-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Neither have I.

Panelist #3: -probably we ever will. Right. What would be your idea of, of a correct response to that letter. Do you see that as, as a good opening?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Everything in diplomacy is intended to advance the interest of one party at the expense of another. I mean, diplomacy is, it's another form of struggle. This was a measured strategy on the part of Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad's been no friend. On the other hand, my experience is need to talk to people, especially before you bomb them, you should talk to them. And so, I've been pressing the United States to have- open a dialog with Iran for some time. I'm not sure if the dialog will talk them out of going for a nuclear option, but I think the dialog is the right place to start. I think it's still possible to start with a dialog to propose some regional security measures that could raise the sense of security of nations and people throughout the region that might be productive. And you might be able, you might be able to avoid what seems to be an almost certain showdown coming with Iran.

I've said the military option has to remain on the table, but in truth the United States government should be planning for three options. It should be planning for first, how to dissuade Iran from getting, from wanting to have a nuclear weapon. That's the first option. Second option is how to live with an Iran if they get a nuclear weapon. And I'm not saying you could ever solve that option, but you should be looking at it. I'm not saying that it's an acceptable option, but you should be asking yourself, 'What would it take for us to be able to accept an Iranian nuclear weapon?' What would it take? A change of government? A disarmament? An international presence? What would it take? We should be asking that question, because it's only when you've asked that question that you can then go to the third line of analysis, which said, well, what if you can't dissuade them, and you can't live with it? Then what are your military options? There are clearly two set's of military options. One set is a very narrow option that goes after the nuclear production facilities themselves, and another is a much broader military option that says, not only are we going to take out your nukes, but we're going to make sure that you have no means to retaliate against us after, after you do so. So, we're taking action against Iranian interests throughout the Gulf. We're going to go after Iranian interests in Lebanon or wherever you might be, and that includes, you know, Hezbollah worldwide. We're going to arrest you wherever you are. It's, it's a huge, big option, and I don't know how feasible it is, and I don't know how you get out of it once you launch into it. But again, these three lines of analysis, they're the responsibilities of the government, and if we're not doing that, then shame on us. We should be. If they were serious, they'd be talking to the Iranians as a first step. And they're not.

http://securingamerica.com/printready/clarkcast51306.htm

For a once comprehensive but now slightly outdated compilation (from February) of Wes Clark's ongoing efforts to head off American military conflict with Iran, please visit this DU thread:

"What has WES CLARK Done? IRAN: A Work in Progress"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3124002&mesg_id=3124002

[ArkySue]

63. K & R

:kick:

[Poll_Blind]

64. 12-10-06: India and Israel: Nuclear Non-Proliferation myopia and U.S. Foreign Policy.

India and Israel: Nuclear Non-Proliferation myopia and U.S. Foreign Policy.

Related.

PB

[Tom Rinaldo]

66. Very much related. Thank you. Very interesting also...

Posting just one small section of it here as a teaser:

"...So Gates' reference complicates U.S. foreign policy a bit in terms of Israel, but only to the extent that such recognition of Israel's nuclear capabilities are recognized in the future. But it could be the beginning of the adoption of the India Model, which openly disregards the Nuclear Arms Proliferation Treaty for favored nations (even those who admit nuclear weapons programs) while sanctioning adversarial nations in the extreme, including the possibility of attack.

In the mean time, the rest of the world is head-scratching about why we say one thing and do another thing entirely, even when it's fairly obvious that we're aware (vis a vis Gates' reference and the India deal) that the rest of the world sees us as "putting on a show" when it comes to Nuclear Non-Proliferation."

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. It's clear to me why most of our candidates spend little time discussing Iran

They might get in trouble with someone if they do. It is easier to simply avoid the subject or, failing that, have a standard short answer prepared that tries to cover all of the bases. The correct ( i.e. politically safest) formula is easy to construct:

Reaffirm that Iran poses a threat and that all options must remain on the table to deal with that threat (but avoid any real discussion about those options). Reaffirm our support for our ally Israel. Project steely resolve that you are tough enough to do whatever needs to be done. State that the U.S. should be willing to talk with Iran directly (but avoid any real discussion about the issues that need to be discussed other than our desire for Iran to abandon its nuclear program and stop causing trouble in Iraq). Avoid any mention of how U.S. policy might contribute to Iran's current stance other than the afore mentioned (limited) point that we should be willing to talk with Iran directly. (On edit I am adding a point that I should have initailly included): Favor imposing harsher U.N. sanctions on Iran until they come into compliance with our demands regarding their nuclear program.

Going beyond those talking points clearly runs the risk of alienating some key base of support.

But the best political course of action is to avoid Iran as an issue all together unless you are speaking to a group that requires you to address it.

Why would anyone here expect it to be different? Currently there are about 10 threads on the first page of this discussion board with presidential preference polls as their main subject. Most threads on this forum are started by DU members who openly back one Democratic candidate or another for President, giving reasons why one should support their person and/or oppose a different candidate for President. Their stance on Iran and possible war with it is never one of the reasons cited in support of a candidate. In fact, so far only one poster has used this thread to talk about the position that an announced candidate for President who they support is taking regarding U.S. policy toward Iran and the possibility of war with that nation.

That's why I say that the approaching possible war with Iran is a second inconvenient truth.

[GeorgeGist]

67. I'd raise your ...

canard and vote NO because "YES" is not on your muddied list of choices.

[Tom Rinaldo]

70. Actually your reply is muddy to me also but

it is true that the poll choices really are either I agree with the statement made or I do not agree with the statement made, not "Yes" or "No", even though I did refer to voting "Yes" as an option in my expanded text. Yes and No are shorthand for agreeing or disagreeing with the literal statement that is the title of the OP.

But I am not even sure if this is what you are talking about. Muddy is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

69. Disagree.

We need to mind our own damn business and quit sticking our nose in that of other countries.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

72. The U.S. really doesn't have any choice.

:shrug:

[SergeyDovlatov]

73. Strongly disagree

First, even though nuclear proliferation increases risk of some nuclear conflict in the future, it lowers the likelihood of conventional warfare.

If you think of it, US firebombing of japan killed 10 times as many people as nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Second, answering yes to this question implies that we can and must use all the means necessary to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, I guess, including preemptive war, using tactical nukes and such. I strongly resent that concept.

Third, how come containment worked with Russia and China (much more technologically advanced countries compared to Iran)? Why should we act differently with respect to Iran?

[Tom Rinaldo]

74. Some must think Iran poses a greater threat with a handfull of nukes

against tens of thousand of nukes collectively held by Iran's adversaries than either China or the Soviet Union posed the United States with their bristling armeries. Maybe that's because both China and the Soviet Union had a demonstrated track record of a willingness to send large numbers of their troops swarming into neighboring nations in actual combat, whereas Iran has no modern record of so behaving. That could be it I suppose.

[ProudDad]

99. How about Iran has a legitimate fear

of Israel's 400 nukes especially since Israel has shown that they're not embarrassed at all about bombing any country they deem a "threat" to their interests?

The REAL BASIC problem in the so-called "Middle East" is the (U.S. supported and abetted) Israeli/Arab question. Until that one is addressed you're pissing in the wind in that region.

[chaska]

82. If they can slip their premises by you, they've got you. Bogus question...

This isn't about nukes. It's about the fact that if the US doesn't attack and defeat Iran, then Iran will invade or otherwise control not just Iraq (and its oil) but pretty much the whole region.

Heck of a job, Bushy. Nice plan you had for the war and its aftermath.

[Tom Rinaldo]

83. Does anyone else find it interesting that DU's self described Independents

...disagree with the statement in the poll by a much higher proportion than any other group? The number of people who responded who describe themselves as Independents is fairly small, but I think not so small as to be a meaningless sample given the significantly different results for that group compared to all the others.

I don't have an explanation handy to explain it.

However I will admit that reporting "left of Democrats" agreeing with the statement by a two to one margin would be a real stretch with only 3 votes counted, lol.

[Socal31]

84. Isreal needs to handle this, not us.

I dont get why we get dragged into this. We gave them a good enough airforce to take care of thier own defense.

[LibertyorDeath]

85. If Iran was truly shit hot to get it's hands on Nukes

It would just call up North Korea and buy some......

Who's going to stop them

Commander bunny pants and the retard brigade.

Who's going to know..

They may have them already...

It's about OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL............

[Stinky The Clown]

86. "I disagree and I am a Democrat"

To anticipate your question ...... on this issue, I disagree with the (potential) candidate I currently favor.

[ProudDad]

94. OK, Here's what my candidate thinks about this subject

"The United States must take the following steps to promote world peace:

"Lead the way toward the complete elimination of nuclear weapons from the earth. Our goal should be a steady movement toward complete nuclear disarmament.

"Renounce first-strike policy. We must set aside the Bush Administration's Nuclear Posture Review, which is a strategy for nuclear proliferation. We must assure the world community that the United States will not be the first to use nuclear weapons.

"Cancel all U.S. nuclear weapons programs. We must work to put an end to the development of any new nuclear weapons, to the manufacture of any nuclear weapons, and to any plans to test nuclear weapons."

<split>

"Meet all requirements of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We must work to ensure that the United States leads the world again in fulfilling all requirements of the treaty. This means the United States must negotiate the complete elimination of its nuclear arsenal."

More here: http://kucinich.us/issues/nuclear_weapons.php


On Edit: In other words, Do as I DO not just as I say you must...

[struggle4progress]

102. UN Calls US Data on Iran's Nuclear Aims Unreliable (February 2007)

Published on Sunday, February 25, 2007 by the Los Angeles Times

Tips about supposed secret weapons sites and documents with missile designs haven't panned out, diplomats say

by Bob Drogin and Kim Murphy

VIENNA — Although international concern is growing about Iran's nuclear program and its regional ambitions, diplomats here say most U.S. intelligence shared with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has proved inaccurate and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran.

The officials said the CIA and other Western spy services had provided sensitive information to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency at least since 2002, when Iran's long-secret nuclear program was exposed. But none of the tips about supposed secret weapons sites provided clear evidence that the Islamic Republic was developing illicit weapons.

"Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong," a senior diplomat at the IAEA said. Another official here described the agency's intelligence stream as "very cold now" because "so little panned out."

The reliability of U.S. information and assessments on Iran is increasingly at issue as the Bush administration confronts the emerging regional power on several fronts: its expanding nuclear effort, its alleged support for insurgents in Iraq and its backing of Middle East militant groups. ~snip~

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0225-04.htm