Topics in the News: Iranian Nukes
Donald Trump on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Dec 1, 2020)
Implicitly approved Israel killing Iranian nuclear scientist
Israel assassinated Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, Iran's top nuclear scientist. The Israeli government has not claimed credit for the illegal killing. Trump implicitly praised the assassination, retweeting a comment by Israeli journalist and intelligence expert
Yossi Melman that the killing was a "major psychological and professional blow" to Iran. This was an "implicit approval if there ever was one," according to a senior research analyst at the National Iranian American Council.
In January, the Trump administration assassinated Iran's top general, Qassim Suleimani. Shortly before that assassination, Pompeo followed the same pattern
[as prior to the Mohsen Fakhrizadeh killing]--traveling and meetings with U.S. allies in the region.
Click for Donald Trump on other issues.
Source: Truthout blog on 2020 Trump Administration
Donald Trump on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Dec 1, 2020)
OpEd: Israel killed Iranian scientist & Trump approved
[Opinion]: Israel assassinated Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, Iran's top nuclear scientist. The Israeli government has not claimed credit for the illegal killing. Trump implicitly praised the assassination, retweeting a comment by Israeli journalist & intelligence
expert Yossi Melman that the killing was a "major psychological and professional blow" to Iran. This was an "implicit approval if there ever was one," according to Sina Toossi, a senior research analyst at the National Iranian American Council.
Click for Donald Trump on other issues.
Source: Truthout.org OpEd on Trump Administration Foreign Influences
Joe Biden on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Oct 15, 2020)
America First means America Alone
We're more isolated in the world than we ever have been. Our "America First" has made "America Alone." You have Iran closer to having enough nuclear material to build a bomb. North Korea has more bombs and missiles available to it.
We find ourselves where our NATO allies are publicly saying they can't count on us.We find ourselves, in the Western Pacific, where we're isolated as well. You have Japan and South Korea at odds with one another. China is making moves.
So I would say, we're find ourselves less secure than we've been. I do compliment the president on the deal with Israel recently. But if you take a look, we're not very well trusted around the world.
When 17 major nations in the world were asked who they trust more, who's a better leader, and the president came in behind both, the international survey, both behind Putin, as well as Xi. And look what Putin is doing.
Click for Joe Biden on other issues.
Source: Second 2020 Presidential Debate/ABC Town Hall Philadelphia
Howie Hawkins on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Jul 12, 2020)
Supports 2015 Iran nuclear deal
The Green Party supports the "joint comprehensive plan of action" signed in July, 2015 which confirms Iran's status as a zone free of nuclear weapons. The Green Party supports the swift elimination of economic sanctions on Iran and looks to
the normalization of relations between Iran and the United States. The Green Party also calls on Israel to dismantle its nuclear weapons program and sign on to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
Click for Howie Hawkins on other issues.
Source: Green Party Platform adopted by 2020 presidential hopeful
Mike Pence on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Feb 27, 2020)
The world knows this: America stands with Israel
If the world knows nothing else, the world knows this, America stands with Israel. This president has done more to support our most cherished allies than anyone could have imagined just three short years ago. We got out of the Iran nuclear deal.
He recognized Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and President Donald Trump moved the American embassy to Jerusalem, the capital of the state of Israel.
Click for Mike Pence on other issues.
Source: Remarks by V.P. Pence at the 2020 CPAC Conference
Tom Steyer on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Feb 8, 2020)
Obama got Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions
Steyer claimed that Obama got "Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions." This is a matter of dispute. Iran's intent is unknown, but the Iran nuclear agreement could also be viewed as curbing or delaying the country's ambition--not ending it.The Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, was implemented in 2016. Its aim was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. It attempts to do this by requiring Iran to reduce the number of operating centrifuges and its stockpile of uranium, while
allowing International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to monitor Iran's declared nuclear facilities. In exchange, Iran won relief from international sanctions and the ability to continue to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.
Under Trump, the
U.S. has withdrawn from the nuclear agreement and re-imposed sanctions on Iran. The president and other Republicans have criticized the deal for allowing Iran to continue to enrich uranium and giving it access to billions of dollars in frozen assets.
Click for Tom Steyer on other issues.
Source: FactCheck.org on 8th Democrat 2020 primary debate
Elizabeth Warren on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Feb 5, 2020)
Will follow Obama's policy on Iran, in a word, diplomacy
Iran is a bad actor. An Iran with nuclear weapons is a whole lot more dangerous than an Iran without nuclear weapons. President Obama realized this. The rest of the world realized this. So, President Obama worked with our allies and said, "Let's tell
Iran they need to stop their nuclear program. We're going to put economic pressure on them until they do it." It showed that you can make diplomacy work.
Click for Elizabeth Warren on other issues.
Source: CNN N. H. Town Hall on eve of 2020 N. H. primary
Joe Biden on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Jan 14, 2020)
Pull troops out of Mideast, except to patrol Gulf and ISIS
Q: In the wake of the Iran crisis, Iran has called for all U.S. troops to be pulled out of the Middle East. Yet when American troops last left Iraq, ISIS emerged.Sen. Bernie SANDERS: What we need to do is have an international coalition. The nuclear
deal with Iran was worked on with a number of our allies.
BIDEN: I was part of that deal to get the nuclear agreement with Iran. And it was working. It was being held tightly. There was no movement on the part of the Iranian government to get closer
to a nuclear weapon.
Q: So would you leave troops in the Middle East or would you pull them out?
BIDEN: I would leave troops in the Middle East in terms of patrolling the Gulf, where we have--where we are now, small numbers of troops, and I think
it's a mistake to pull out the small number of troops that are there now to deal with ISIS. And with regard to this idea that we can walk away and not have any troops anywhere, including special forces, there's no way you negotiate with terrorists.
Click for Joe Biden on other issues.
Source: 7th Democrat primary debate, on eve of Iowa caucus
Pete Buttigieg on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Jan 14, 2020)
No Iranian nukes, via reinstating joint nuclear deal
Q: President Trump said, "As long as I am president, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon." Would a President Buttigieg make that same promise?BUTTIGIEG: Ensuring that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons will, of course, be a
priority, because it's such an important part of keeping America safe. But unfortunately, President Trump has made it much harder for the next president to achieve that goal. By gutting the Iran nuclear deal--one that, by the way, the Trump
administration itself admitted was working, certified that it was preventing progress toward a nuclear Iran--by gutting that, they have made the region more dangerous & set off the chain of events that we are now dealing with as it escalates even closer
to the brink of outright war. We've got to work with our partners. The Iran nuclear deal, the technical term for it was the JCPOA. That first letter "J" stood for "Joint." We can't do this alone, even less so now after everything that has happened.
Click for Pete Buttigieg on other issues.
Source: 7th Democrat primary debate, on eve of Iowa caucus
Amy Klobuchar on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Jan 14, 2020)
Trump is taking us pell-mell into war with Iran
Sen. KLOBUCHAR: We should be talking about what is happening right no: Donald Trump is taking us pell-mell toward another war. We have a very important resolution. We just found out today that four Republicans are joining Democrats to go to him and say:
You must have an authorization of military force if you're going to go to war with Iran. That is so important, because we have a situation where he got us out of the Iranian nuclear agreement, something I worked on for a significant period of time.
As president, I will get us back into that agreement. V.P. Joe BIDEN: I was part of that deal to get the nuclear agreement with Iran, bringing together the rest of the world, including some of the folks who aren't friendly to us.
And it was working. It was being held tightly. There was no movement on the part of the Iranian government to get closer to a nuclear weapon.
Click for Amy Klobuchar on other issues.
Source: 7th Democrat primary debate, on eve of Iowa caucus
Amy Klobuchar on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Jan 14, 2020)
No Iranian nukes, via reinstating joint nuclear deal
Q: President Trump said, "As long as I am president, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon." Would you?Mayor Pete BUTTIGIEG: Ensuring that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons will be a priority,
KLOBUCHAR: I would not allow Iran to
have a nuclear weapon. I think there are changes you can make to the agreement, some changes to the inspections, but overall, that is what we should do.
Q: How would you prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon?
KLOBUCHAR: I would start negotiations again [on the JCPOA Iran nuclear deal]. Because of the actions of Donald Trump, we are in a situation where Iran is starting to enrich uranium again in violation of the original agreement. So what I would do is
negotiate. I would bring people together, just as President Obama did years ago, and I think that we can get this done. But you have to have a president that sees this as a number-one goal.
Click for Amy Klobuchar on other issues.
Source: 7th Democrat primary debate, on eve of Iowa caucus
Mike Bloomberg on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Dec 24, 2019)
Saudi Arabia's modernization is going in the right direction
Bloomberg's views on the Middle East have focused on his close ties to Israel, his ambivalence toward the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, and his support for Saudi Arabia's modernization efforts.Bloomberg hosted Saudi Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Salman in New York in 2018 and he has praised Saudi Arabia for its reform efforts, especially its expansion of women's rights, saying the country is going "in the right direction."
Click for Mike Bloomberg on other issues.
Source: Council on Foreign Relations on 2019 Democratic primary
Tom Steyer on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Dec 24, 2019)
Withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan
He promises to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan in his first year in office. He has identified space as an arena "in which we compete with adversaries" and promises to support air force efforts in space.He criticizes Trump's withdrawal from
the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, arguing that it is increasing tensions in the region and pulling the US deeper into a "proxy war" in Syria. He opposed Trump's 2019 buildup of US troop levels in the Persian Gulf in the wake of increased tensions with Ira
Click for Tom Steyer on other issues.
Source: Council on Foreign Relations on 2019 Democratic primary
Mike Bloomberg on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Dec 24, 2019)
Deep reservations that 2015 Iran nuclear deal wasn't enough
Bloomberg's views on the Middle East have focused on his ambivalence toward the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement. He expressed "deep reservations" about the
2015 Iran nuclear deal, saying that its restrictions on Tehran's nuclear program didn't go far enough and blaming the Obama administration for "smearing" the deal's critics.
Click for Mike Bloomberg on other issues.
Source: Council on Foreign Relations on 2019 Democratic primary
Susan Rice on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Nov 14, 2019)
Worked to bring allies together to address challenges
Q: What is the Obama foreign policy legacy?RICE: I think we effectively leveraged our alliances and partnerships to address key concerns. Whether it was working to negotiate the Paris Climate Agreement, or the Iran nuclear agreement, or the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the coalition to fight ISIS, or to fight the Ebola epidemic. We effectively brought allies and partners together to address those complex challenges and did so even as we had to confront many of them simultaneously.
Click for Susan Rice on other issues.
Source: Council on Foreign Relations on 2020 Veepstakes
Julian Castro on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Oct 15, 2019)
North Korea won't work with US after ditching Iran nuke deal
If you're Kim Jong Un why in the world would you believe anything that this President says to contain your nuclear weapons program when he tore up an Iran nuclear agreement that we just signed four years ago,
which was the strongest agreement to contain Iran's nuclear weapons program, and now he's abandoned the very people that we gave our word to?
Click for Julian Castro on other issues.
Source: October Democratic CNN/NYTimes Primary debate
Bill Weld on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Oct 3, 2019)
Withdrawing from Iran nuke deal was a colossal blunder
Q: Would you rejoin the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [JCPOA, the Iranian nuclear deal by 7 countries and the EU]? What changes would you require before agreeing to rejoin the accord?A: I thought that Mr. Trump's withdrawal from the 2015
JCPOA was a colossal blunder. We had a ten-year period during which Iran would not advance its nuclear weapons program, and they were in compliance. I would rejoin the JCPOA without changes to the written agreement.
Click for Bill Weld on other issues.
Source: Council on Foreign Relations on 2020 presidential hopefuls
Bill Weld on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Sep 24, 2019)
Supported the Obama administration's Iran nuclear deal
On foreign policy:- Weld opposes countries being allowed to develop nuclear without proper oversight, calling proliferation "the number one threat to the security of the world." He supported the Obama administration's Iran nuclear deal.
-
President Bill Clinton tapped Weld to serve as his ambassador to Mexico, but withdrew his nomination after complications in the Senate.
- Weld has since been critical of the Iraq War and other invasions, according to The New York Times.
Click for Bill Weld on other issues.
Source: Business Insider background for 2019 GOP presidential debate
Bill de Blasio on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Aug 12, 2019)
Rejoin the multilateral Iran nuclear deal
De Blasio [agrees with] the other Democratic candidates in having supported the Iran nuclear deal [Obama's Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, negotiated jointly with 6 countries and the E.U.] He has committed to rejoining the deal if he becomes
president. He has also said that he sees "a purposeful march to war that some are trying to engineer in the Republican Party" and he worries that "at some point, Donald Trump will see it as a helpful distraction."
Click for Bill de Blasio on other issues.
Source: Council on Foreign Relations on 2019 Democratic primary
Andrew Yang on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Aug 9, 2019)
Leaving Iran deal was a massive strategic mistake
Leaving the JCPOA was a massive strategic mistake, and one that only served to increase the likelihood of armed conflict in the country. The American people have no desire for armed conflict with Iran, which would lead to another multi-decade engagement
that would spread throughout the region and have no clear benefit for the American people. We need to get Iran back in compliance with the limitations placed on them under the agreement on nuclear materials and enrichment capabilities.
Click for Andrew Yang on other issues.
Source: Council on Foreign Relations on 2020 presidential primary
Pete Buttigieg on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Jul 30, 2019)
Rejoin Iran deal with 6 other countries
Walking away from the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action between Iran and 6 countries] was a strategic mistake. We didn't develop the deal as a favor to Iran; we did it because it was in our national security interest. I would revive P5+1
diplomacy and direct US-Iran dialogue to pursue follow-on agreements that extend the timeframe of certain nuclear restrictions, cover Iran's missile program, and address its role in regional conflicts, all in return for targeted sanctions relief.
Click for Pete Buttigieg on other issues.
Source: Council on Foreign Relations on 2020 presidential primary
Joe Sestak on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Jul 30, 2019)
Leaving Iran deal saps credibility in future negotiations
[Obama's Iran nuclear] deal was good enough to be supported by all of our European allies, along with Russia and China, and Iran itself. Iran was abiding by its terms. If the deal had been given the chance to hold for the full decade, it would have
created a reservoir of goodwill between Iran and the world that would be the basis for the next agreement. Our leaving not only destroyed a carefully crafted international agreement, it sapped our credibility in negotiations with other countries.
Click for Joe Sestak on other issues.
Source: Council on Foreign Relations on 2020 presidential primary
Seth Moulton on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Jul 30, 2019)
Rejoin Iran nuclear deal; strengthen and extend it
The best and most durable way to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear-armed is through a diplomatic agreement with verification and monitoring, which we had before President Trump unilaterally withdrew from it. Our goal should be rejoining the
Iran deal and strengthening it, focused on extending the timelines for the specific provisions that have sunset clauses. We should also conclude separate agreements addressing issues such as ballistic missiles.
The longer-term goal should be to move Iran towards less belligerent behavior in the region, where Iran is not threatening our allies or our interests. Neither of these goals can be achieved by simply backing Iran into a corner with no escape.
We need to use sanctions, open a direct dialogue with Iran, and give them a path forward that does not include outright war.
Click for Seth Moulton on other issues.
Source: Council on Foreign Relations on 2020 presidential primary
Joe Sestak on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Jul 9, 2019)
Rejoin Iran deal; strengthen trade with allies
Sestak calls for re-joining the Iranian nuclear deal, modernizing our military by focusing on cyberspace capabilities, and supporting our military servicemembers (including LGBTQ individuals). Sestak also advocates for "reestablishing" ties and
trade with allies "because countries that trade and do business with each other are much less likely to fight wars."
Click for Joe Sestak on other issues.
Source: Townhall.com on 2020 Democratic primary
Joe Sestak on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Jul 9, 2019)
Rejoin Iran nuclear deal; "reestablish" ties with allies
Sestak calls for re-joining the Iranian nuclear deal, modernizing our military by focusing on cyberspace capabilities, and supporting our military servicemembers (including LGBTQ individuals).
Sestak also advocates for "reestablishing" ties and trade with allies "because countries that trade and do business with each other are much less likely to fight wars."
Click for Joe Sestak on other issues.
Source: Townhall.com, 2019 interview series
Tulsi Gabbard on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Jun 26, 2019)
Trump's chicken-hawks push Iran war; go back to nuke deal
Q: You've said you would sign back on to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Would you insist, though, that it address Iran's support for Hezbollah?GABBARD: Let's deal with the situation where we are, where this president and his chickenhawk cabinet have led
us to the brink of war with Iran. It was an imperfect deal. There are issues, like their missile development, that needs to be addressed. We can do both simultaneously to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and preventing us from going to war.
Q: What would your red line be for military action against Iran?
GABBARD: Look, obviously, if there was an attack against our troops. But Donald Trump and his cabinet--Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, and others--are creating a situation
that just a spark would light off a war with Iran, which is incredibly dangerous. That's why we need to de-escalate tensions. Trump needs to get back into the Iran nuclear deal and swallow his pride, put the American people first.
Click for Tulsi Gabbard on other issues.
Source: June Democratic Primary debate (first night in Miami)
Joe Sestak on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Jun 24, 2019)
America broke its word with departure from Iran agreement
"America broke its word when he withdrew us from an accord with Iran where they kept theirs," he said, referring to the president [Trump] and his decision to scrap the 2015 nuclear agreement the Obama government brokered with Tehran and other
major world powers. Sestak said robust diplomatic engagement is the only way to permanently solve decades of geopolitical enmity. "Militaries might stop a problem, but they don't fix a problem," he said.
Click for Joe Sestak on other issues.
Source: CBS News on 2020 Democratic primary
Kamala Harris on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Jun 23, 2019)
Iran nuclear deal was being complied with by all parties
I believe that we need to get back into the Iran nuclear deal. I would strengthen it. I would include ballistic missile testing. I think that we can strengthen what we do in terms of monitoring and verification.
There's no question that a lot of negotiation with a great deal of depth took place over a long period of time to reach that agreement, and it was an agreement that was being complied with by all parties.
Click for Kamala Harris on other issues.
Source: CBS Face the Nation 2019 interview series
Cory Booker on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Jun 23, 2019)
Not working with allies on Iran makes us weaker
This is a president that does not have a strategy and, unfortunately, has made us weaker. We are the strongest nation on the planet earth, but our strength is magnified and multiplied when we stand in coalition with our allies, with other western
democracies. When there are strikes on tankers, we see our allies very skeptical to believe us. We are in a box, and in a corner, with an Iranian regime now racing back towards a nuclear weapon. This situation is getting more and more tense, not less.
Click for Cory Booker on other issues.
Source: ABC This Week 2019 interview
Donald Trump on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Jun 23, 2019)
Not looking for war, but Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon
Q: Do you want to do a separate deal with Iran? Or do you want to get everybody involved in the same deal? TRUMP: It doesn't matter to me. Here's what I want, anything that gets you to the result. They cannot have a nuclear weapon.
It's not about the straits. You know, a lot of people covered it incorrectly. They're never mentioned. They cannot have a nuclear weapon. They'd use it. And they're not going to have a nuclear weapon.
And it's not about the oil. I'm not looking for war and if there is, it'll be obliteration like you've never seen before. But I'm not looking to do that.
But you can't have a nuclear weapon. You want to talk? Good. Otherwise you can have a bad economy for the next three years.
Click for Donald Trump on other issues.
Source: Meet the Press 2019 interview series
Mike Pence on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Jun 23, 2019)
No nukes for Iran; support Iranians but not government
Iran has announced they're going to exceed the uranium enrichment limits within the Iran nuclear deal, one of the worst deals this country had ever entered into. The President's decision to refrain from a military strike when he learned it could cost
150 Iranian lives sends a message. It's time for Iran to recognize that America will never allow them to obtain a nuclear weapon. That would be a threat to our country, a threat to our cherished ally, Israel, and a threat to the world.
Click for Mike Pence on other issues.
Source: CBS Face the Nation 2019 interview
Mike Pence on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Jun 23, 2019)
We stand with the Iranian people against the Ayatollahs
Since the Green Revolution in 2009, the United States has made it clear that we are with the Iranian people. While we stand firmly against the Ayatollahs we have the highest hopes for the Iranian people. But it's time for Iran to recognize that the
United States of America will never allow them to obtain a nuclear weapon. Those days must come to an end, and America is going to continue to stand, resolved, with the people of Iran for a better future for them.
Click for Mike Pence on other issues.
Source: CBS Face the Nation 2019 interview series
Kamala Harris on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Jun 23, 2019)
We need to get back into Iran nuclear deal
I believe that we need to get back into the Iran nuclear deal. I would strengthen it. I would include ballistic missile testing. I think that we can strengthen what we do in terms of monitoring and verification. But there's no question that a lot of
negotiation with a great deal of depth took place over a long period of time to reach that agreement, and it was an agreement that was being complied with by all parties.
Click for Kamala Harris on other issues.
Source: CBS Face the Nation 2019 interview
Joe Sestak on Iranian Nukes:
(Homeland Security Jun 23, 2019)
More funding for veterans and for cyberspace
Priorities:- Re-join the Iranian nuclear deal to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
- Modernize our military by focusing on the capability of cyberspace and no longer measuring our prowess by force structure numbers alone.
-
Emphasize the importance of dominating cyberspace, in the realms of both cyber-security & cyber-warfare.
- Support all of our military servicemembers, including LGBT heroes.
- Provide better services and opportunities for our returning veterans..
Click for Joe Sestak on other issues.
Source: 2020 presidential campaign website JoeSestak.com
Mike Pence on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Jun 23, 2019)
Iran will not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons
The president's message to Iran is very clear, that we're not going to allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, and we're not going to stand by while
Iran continues to sow malign influence across the region. Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world.
Click for Mike Pence on other issues.
Source: CNN State of the Union 2019 interview
Joe Sestak on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Jun 23, 2019)
Immediately rejoin the Iran nuclear deal
One critical action we must undertake immediately is rejoining the Iran nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA). This hard-won agreement, signed by all of the world's major powers, had disarmed the nuclear threat of Iran--until
we abandoned it. Breaking America's word on the deal while Iran kept theirs is unforgivable. The recent ratcheting up of tensions with Iran is a potentially grave mistake. If we decide to launch missile strikes on Iran in an attempt to destroy deeply
buried nuclear infrastructure, they might instantaneous rain missiles on Israel and our regional bases, and close the Straits of Hormuz, cutting off 20% of the world's oil supply. Even if we manage to destroy their nuclear infrastructure, they can
rebuild it all again. We must heed that old lesson of our misguided invasion of Iraq: militaries might stop a problem, but militaries don't solve a problem. And the problem of Iran's nuclear capability can only be solved through diplomacy.
Click for Joe Sestak on other issues.
Source: 2020 presidential campaign website JoeSestak.com
Cory Booker on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Jun 23, 2019)
Would rejoin Iran nuclear deal & work with allies
Q: What would you do that's different if Iran is on a path to get the nuclear weapon?Booker: I would rejoin with our allies. I would work to renegotiate and get us back into a place where we
are standing together with our allies and have like we had before which was a 10 to 20-year runway and transparency and vision into their enrichment processes to make sure that they're abiding by an anti-nuclear deal.
Click for Cory Booker on other issues.
Source: ABC This Week 2019 interview
Pete Buttigieg on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Jun 16, 2019)
Restore Iran deal; work with allies in Europe and the region
If we want to see stability in the Middle East we should be engaging with our partners there as well as allies like our European partners who are such an important part of the Iran nuclear deal. Another thing I would never have done is to get us out of
the nuclear deal setting off a chain reaction that has destabilized the regional security framework and the politics of that area, and making it that much harder for any moderates that are still in the Iranian regime to get anywhere.
Click for Pete Buttigieg on other issues.
Source: CBS Face the Nation 2019 interview
Pete Buttigieg on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Jun 16, 2019)
Deal with Iran; consult with intelligence
When you look at the destabilizing chain reaction when this president withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, I'm concerned about the stability of the region. I would consult with the intelligence community, and not politicize their findings.
There's no question that the U.S. has an interest in maintaining security and freedom of movement in those shipping lanes. There's no question that we need to make sure that we're not contributing to a dynamic that could become more unstable.
Click for Pete Buttigieg on other issues.
Source: CNN State of the Union 2019 interview
Pete Buttigieg on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Jun 16, 2019)
Never should have left Iran deal, will do something new
Q: What would you do about Iran?BUTTIGIEG: First of all, engage our allies. We are not alone. At least we shouldn't be acting alone. Another thing I would never have done is to get us out of the nuclear deal setting off a chain reaction that has
destabilized the regional security framework and the politics of that area. We need to have a completely different approach. We're going to have to do something new. The point is that we never should have left it in the first place.
Click for Pete Buttigieg on other issues.
Source: CBS Face the Nation 2019 interview series
Pete Buttigieg on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Jun 16, 2019)
We've learned how hard it is to end a war
I think we have learned as a country in my lifetime just how hard it is to end a war. We'd better be working very hard to make sure we don't start one. When you look at the destabilizing chain reaction
that appears to have been initiated when this president withdrew us from the Iran nuclear deal, I'm very concerned about the stability of the region and the possibility that this is a dynamic that even the president won't be able to control.
Click for Pete Buttigieg on other issues.
Source: CNN "SOTU" 2019 interview series
Howie Hawkins on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace May 28, 2019)
Goal: complete global nuclear disarmament
We demand the US honor its treaty obligations and restore the Intermediate Nuclear Force treaty and the Iran nuclear deal, that the US take its nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert, adopt a No First Use policy, and unilaterally disarm to a minimum
credible nuclear deterrent. The US should then follow up with urgent negotiations for complete global nuclear disarmament as provided for in the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and demanded by the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Click for Howie Hawkins on other issues.
Source: Declaration of Candidacy for the Green Party Nomination
Tulsi Gabbard on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Mar 27, 2019)
No regime change in Iran; no war in Yemen
- She unequivocally states her opposition to U.S. "regime change" interventions, as well as the New Cold War and arms race with Russia, and supports rejoining the Iran nuclear deal. She was also an original cosponsor of Representative Khanna's
Yemen War Powers bill.
- Gabbard voted at least twice (in 2015 and 2016) not to repeal the much-abused 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, and she voted three times not to limit the use of Pentagon slush funds.
Click for Tulsi Gabbard on other issues.
Source: Truthout.org, "War and Peace," on 2020 presidential hopefuls
Cory Booker on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Mar 27, 2019)
End intervention in Yemen & Iran, but not Israel
- Booker was one of the first five cosponsors of Sanders's Yemen War Powers bill, and he has an 86 percent Peace Action voting record.
- He cosponsored the Senate bill condemning the UN Security Council resolution against Israeli settlements in
2016.
- He was an original cosponsor of a bill to impose new sanctions on Iran in December 2013, before eventually voting for the nuclear agreement in 2015.
Click for Cory Booker on other issues.
Source: Truthout.org, "War and Peace," on 2020 presidential hopefuls
Donald Trump on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Feb 5, 2019)
Iran is a terrorist regime, so withdrew from nuclear deal
My Administration has acted decisively to confront the world's leading state sponsor of terror: the radical regime in Iran. To ensure this corrupt dictatorship never acquires nuclear weapons, I withdrew the United States from
the disastrous Iran nuclear deal. And last fall, we put in place the toughest sanctions ever imposed on a country. We will not avert our eyes from a regime that chants death to America and threatens genocide against the Jewish people.
Click for Donald Trump on other issues.
Source: 2019 State of the Union address to United States Congress
Rand Paul on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Oct 21, 2018)
End support of Saudis and Iran won't need nukes
Q: President Trump says that we depend on Saudi Arabia as a potential counterweight to Iran and its ambitions in the Middle East.PAUL: This is a 1,000-year-old war in the Middle East between Sunni & Shia, and Saudi Arabia is pitted up against Iran.
The biggest thing that destabilize the Middle East--and I think the president agrees with me on this--was the Iraq war. There was much more of a balance in the Middle East at that time, but if you look at military spending right now, the Saudis and the
gulf sheikhdom that are their allies spend eight times more than Iran. And so, there is an arms race, but when we supply arms to Saudi Arabia, Iran responds. So when we complain about the Iranians having ballistic missiles that they are developing,
they are doing that in response to the arming of the Saudis. It's a bilateral arms race that goes on and on. And so, I wouldn't continue it, I don't think we need the Saudis.
Click for Rand Paul on other issues.
Source: Fox News Sunday 2018 interviews of 2020 hopefuls
Beto O`Rourke on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Oct 9, 2018)
Nuclear treaty was best path to prevent Iranian nukes
Q: Iran: Support Trump's withdrawal from treaty that limits Iran's nuclear capability in return for lifting economic sanctions?Ted Cruz (R): Yes. Applauded withdrawal, saying agreement didn't sufficiently rein in Iran's nuclear program.
Beto O'Rourke (D): No. Agreement, while imperfect, was "best path to keep Iran from having nuclear weapons."
Click for Beto O`Rourke on other issues.
Source: 2018 CampusElect.org Issue Guide on Texas Senate race
Ted Cruz on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Oct 9, 2018)
Nuke treaty didn't sufficiently rein in Iran's nuke program
Q: Iran: Support Trump's withdrawal from treaty that limits Iran's nuclear capability in return for lifting economic sanctions?Ted Cruz (R): Yes. Applauded withdrawal, saying agreement didn't sufficiently rein in Iran's nuclear program.
Beto O'Rourke (D): No. Agreement, while imperfect, was "best path to keep Iran from having nuclear weapons."
Click for Ted Cruz on other issues.
Source: 2018 CampusElect.org Issue Guide on Texas Senate race
Donald Trump on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Feb 23, 2018)
Treat foes of US worse than they could ever imagine
We declined to certify the terrible one-sided Iran nuclear deal. It was a horrible deal. Whoever heard you give $150 billion to a nation that has no respect for you whatsoever? They're saying death to America. If somebody said death to America, while
I'm signing an agreement, I say what's going on, folks? I'm not signing. People that treat us well, we treat them well. People that treat us badly, we treat them much worse than they could ever imagine. That's the way it has to be.
Click for Donald Trump on other issues.
Source: Vox.com blog, "Trump at CPAC 2018"
Joe Biden on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Oct 24, 2017)
2008: Pakistan is the world's most dangerous country
[The 2008 debate moderator] asked the candidates to name the most dangerous country in the world."Iran," said Obama.
"Iran," said Clinton.
Then it was Biden's turn. "Pakistan." The room did a double-take. As [Biden's long-time aide Ted] Kaufman
explains, "Well, if Iran is a real problem because they MAY have nuclear weapons, Pakistan is a problem because they ALREADY HAVE nuclear weapons."
Plenty of national security experts agreed with Biden. As recently as 2017, the former CIA station
chief of Islamabad said, "With a failing economy, rampant terrorism, the fastest growing nuclear arsenal, the sixth largest population, and one of the highest birthrates in the world, Pakistan is of grave concern. It probably is the most dangerous
country in the world."
Kaufman concluded, "I absolutely think that the reason why Obama picked him for vice president was because of watching him on the Foreign Relations Committee, and going through the debates with him."
Click for Joe Biden on other issues.
Source: The Book of Joe, by Jeff Wilser, p.123
Bernie Sanders on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Sep 21, 2017)
Protect Iranian nuke deal; without it, Iran is unlimited
For many years, leaders across the world had become increasingly concerned about the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon. What the Obama administration and our European allies were able to do was to get an agreement that froze and dismantled
large parts of that nuclear program, put it under the most intensive inspections regime in history, and removed the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon from the list of global threats. I call on my colleagues in the Congress, and all Americans:
We must protect this deal. President Trump has signaled his intention to walk away from it, regardless of the evidence that it is working. That would be a mistake.
This would potentially free Iran from the limits placed on its nuclear program.
If we are genuinely concerned with Iran's behavior in the region, as I am, the worst possible thing we could do is break the nuclear deal. It would make all of these other problems harder.
Click for Bernie Sanders on other issues.
Source: Westminster College speech in Where We Go From Here, p. 107
Bernie Sanders on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Sep 21, 2017)
Why would anyone trust US if we abrogated Iran nuke treaty?
President Trump has signaled his intention to walk away from the [multinational Iranian nuclear deal negotiated by Obama]. Not only would this potentially free Iran from the limits placed on its nuclear program, it would irreparably harm America's
ability to negotiate future nonproliferation agreements. Why would any country in the world sign such an agreement with the US if they knew that a reckless president and an irresponsible Congress might simply discard that agreement a few years later?
Click for Bernie Sanders on other issues.
Source: Westminster College speech in Where We Go From Here, p. 107
Mike Pence on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Feb 5, 2017)
All options are on the table for Iranian nukes
Q: Hasn't President Trump issued, in effect, his own red line on Iran? And if they continue with missile test, how far is the president willing to go to try to stop them? PENCE: Well, all options are on the table. The Iranians will do well to look at
the calendar and recognize that we've got a new president in the Oval Office. That disastrous nuclear deal that the last administration entered into with Iran should have encouraged better behavior by the Iranians.
But instead, what we see, they're flouting U.N. Security Council resolutions, banning ballistic missile test or whether it'd be the way they're arming of Houthis in
Yemen who just last week attacked a Saudi Arabian ship. What we're seeing here is hostile action, belligerent action being supported by or taken by the Iranians. And we're just not going to put up with it anymore.
Click for Mike Pence on other issues.
Source: Fox News Sunday 2017 interview by Chris Wallace
Donald Trump on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Oct 19, 2016)
Iran is taking over Iraq
TRUMP: Iran should write us a letter of thank you, the stupidest deal of all time, a deal that's going to give Iran absolutely nuclear weapons.
Iran should write us yet another letter saying thank you very much, because Iran, as I said many years ago, Iran is taking over Iraq, something they've wanted to do forever, but we've made it so easy for them.
Click for Donald Trump on other issues.
Source: Third 2016 Presidential Debate moderated by Fox News
Bill Weld on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Oct 4, 2016)
No alliances for intelligence: We have to do it ourselves!
[In response to Pence saying] "More taxes, more spending," under the Democrats, he is probably right about that.[In response to Kaine's comment on the Iran nuclear deal]: Kaine not convincing re "safer or more dangerous" question.
Trump's proposals are worse. (Nuclear weapons, Putin, abandon allies)
Kaine says the secret to intelligence work is "alliances." As a former federal prosecutor, I would disagree. We have to do it ourselves!
Click for Bill Weld on other issues.
Source: Twitter posts on 2016 Vice-Presidential Debate
Mike Pence on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Oct 4, 2016)
Iran deal delivered $400M as ransom to terrorist sponsor
PENCE: I fought hard on a bipartisan basis with Republican and Democrat members to move forward the toughest sanctions literally in the history of the United States, against Iran. We were bringing them to heel, but the goal was always that we would
only lift the sanctions if Iran permanently renounced their nuclear ambitions.They have not renounced their nuclear ambitions. And when the deal's period runs out, there's no limitation on them obtaining weapons. We delivered $400 million in cash as a
ransom payment for Americans held by the radical mullahs in Tehran.KAINE: Let me tell you what will really make the Middle East dangerous. Donald Trump's idea that more nations should get nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea.
Ronald Reagan said something about nuclear proliferation in the 1980s. He said the problem is that some fool or maniac could trigger a catastrophic event. I think that's who Governor Pence's running mate is, exactly who Governor Reagan warned us about.
Click for Mike Pence on other issues.
Source: 2016 Vice-Presidential Debate at Longwood University
Hillary Clinton on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Sep 26, 2016)
Glad the deal took nuclear off the table with Iran
Trump: [The Iran nuclear deal was] one of the great giveaways of all time, including $1.7 billion in cash. This is one of the worst deals ever made by any country in history. The deal with Iran will lead to nuclear problems. They don't have to do much.
Clinton: It's important that we look at the entire global situation. There's no doubt that we have other problems with Iran. I'd rather deal with the other problems having put that lid on their nuclear program.
Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.
Source: First 2016 Presidential Debate at Hofstra University
Hillary Clinton on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Sep 26, 2016)
Iran had centrifuges whirling away until we negotiated
TRUMP: You started the Iran deal, that's another beauty where you have a country that was ready to fall. They were doing so badly. They were choking on the sanctions. And now they're going to be a major power at some point pretty soon, the way they're
going.CLINTON: With respect to Iran, when I became secretary of state, Iran was weeks away from having enough nuclear material to form a bomb. They had mastered the nuclear fuel cycle under the Bush administration. They had built covert facilities.
They had stocked them with centrifuges that were whirling away. And we had sanctioned them. I voted for every sanction against Iran when I was in the Senate, but it wasn't enough. So I put together a coalition that included Russia and China to impose
the toughest sanctions on Iran. And we did drive them to the negotiating table. [The recent nuclear deal] put a lid on Iran's nuclear program without firing a single shot. That's diplomacy. That's coalition-building. That's working with other nations.
Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.
Source: First 2016 Presidential Debate at Hofstra University
Donald Trump on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Aug 3, 2016)
FactCheck: Yes, nuke deal sent planeloads of cash to Iran
Trump asserted that "Iran--we gave them $1.7 billion in cash. I mean, cash. Bundles of cash as big as this stage." Is that true? We dug up the facts from a CNN article:"The Obama administration secretly arranged a plane delivery of $400 million in
cash on the same day Iran released four American prisoners and formally implemented the nuclear deal. The money was flown into Iran on wooden pallets stacked with Swiss francs, euros and other currencies as the first installment of a $1.7 billion
settlement resolving claims at an international tribunal at The Hague over a failed arms deal under the time of the Shah.
The $400 million was Iran's to start with, placed into a US-based trust fund to support American military equipment
purchases in the 1970s. When the Shah was ousted by a 1979 popular uprising, the US froze the trust fund. Iran has been fighting for a return of the funds--plus $1.3 billion in interest--through international courts since 1981."
Click for Donald Trump on other issues.
Source: CNN Fact-Check coverage of 2016 presidential hopefuls
Mike Pence on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Apr 26, 2016)
Against agreement with Iran; keep all sanctions
Pence joined 14 other GOP governors in a letter to President Obama opposing the Iran nuclear deal: "I am opposed to this agreement because it will not make the US or our most cherished ally, Israel, safer. Instead, it promises Iran a lifting of US nuclea
related sanctions for an agreement on Iran's nuclear weapons program that will only halt its ambitions temporarily, rather than permanently dismantle its nuclear desires," Pence wrote.The letter asserted: "This agreement would lead to the lifting of
sanctions on Iran without any guarantee that Iran's drive toward obtaining a nuclear weapon will be halted or even slowed. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, and it should not be permitted any pathway toward obtaining a nuclear weapon, now or ever.
The lifting of federal sanctions that would only result in Iran having more money available to fund terrorist groups and attacks. We intend to ensure that the various state-level sanctions that are now in effect remain in effect.
Click for Mike Pence on other issues.
Source: Indianapolis Star on 2016 Indiana gubernatorial race
Donald Trump on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Feb 13, 2016)
Iran deal is one of the worst I've ever seen
Sen. Ted CRUZ: If you look at the threats facing this country, the single gravest threat, national security threat, is the threat of a nuclear Iran. That's why I've pledged on day one to rip to shreds this Iranian nuclear deal.
TRUMP: The Iran deal is one of the worst deals I have ever seen negotiated in my entire life. It's a disgrace that this country negotiated that deal.
Click for Donald Trump on other issues.
Source: 2016 CBS Republican primary debate in South Carolina
Hillary Clinton on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Feb 11, 2016)
We achieved a lot, but not yet normal relations with Iran
SANDERS: I recall when Secretary Clinton ran against then-Senator Obama, she was critical of him for suggesting that maybe you want to talk to Iran, that you want to talk to our enemies. Iran is sponsoring terrorism in many parts of the world,
destabilizing areas. Everybody knows that. But our goal is to try to deal with our enemies, not just ignore that reality. CLINTON: I think we have achieved a great deal with the Iranian nuclear agreement.
That has to be enforced absolutely with consequences for Iran at the slightest deviation from their requirements under the agreement. I do not think we should promise or even look toward normalizing relations because we have a lot of other
business to get done with Iran. Yes, they have to stop being the main state sponsor of terrorism. Yes, they have to stop trying to destabilize the Middle East, causing even more chaos.
Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.
Source: 2016 PBS Democratic debate in Wisconsin
Bernie Sanders on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Feb 11, 2016)
We should try and talk to enemies, even Iran
CLINTON: I think we have achieved a great deal with the Iranian nuclear agreement. That has to be enforced absolutely with consequences for Iran at the slightest deviation from their requirements under the agreement. I do not think we should promise or
even look toward normalizing relations because we have a lot of other business to get done with Iran. Yes, they have to stop being the main state sponsor of terrorism. Yes, they have to stop trying to destabilize the Middle East, causing even more chaos.
SANDERS: I recall when Secretary Clinton ran against then-Senator Obama, she was critical of him for suggesting that maybe you want to talk to Iran, that you want to talk to our enemies.
Iran is sponsoring terrorism in many parts of the world, destabilizing areas. Everybody knows that. But our goal is to try to deal with our enemies, not just ignore that reality.
Click for Bernie Sanders on other issues.
Source: 2016 PBS Democratic debate in Wisconsin
Hillary Clinton on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Jan 25, 2016)
Iranian nukes would have destabilized whole region
When I became secretary of state, Pres. Obama and I found that the Iranians were on their way to a nuclear weapons program. They had mastered the nuclear fuel cycle. They had built covert facilities. And they had stocked them with centrifuges that were
rapidly whirling along trying to create enough highly enriched uranium to have a weapon.Now our choices were, just fulminate about it, or turn our backs and just figure out that somebody else is going to do something, or try to get up a new strategy.
We chose the third. We said, "look, we've got to get the world behind us to force them to the negotiating table." So I spent 18 months putting together the coalition that imposed international sanctions on the Iranians that forced them, finally, to begin
negotiating with us to get an end to their nuclear weapons program, to put a lid on it.
[In 2008], Iran was on the way to a nuclear weapon, which would have destabilized the entire Middle East, created an arms race the likes of which we have never seen
Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.
Source: 2016 CNN Town Hall Democratic presidential primary debate
Bernie Sanders on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Jan 17, 2016)
Normalize relations with Iran even though we disagree
Q: The nuclear deal with Iran is now in force. Iran is getting its billions of dollars; several Americans who have been held are now going to be heading home. Should we open an embassy in Tehran?SANDERS: I think what we've got to do is move as
aggressively as we can to normalize relations with Iran. Understanding that Iran's behavior in so many ways is something that we disagree with: their support of terrorism; the anti-American rhetoric that we're hearing from of their leadership is
something that is not acceptable. On the other hand, the fact that we've managed to reach an agreement, that prevents Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and we did that without going to war. So if your question is, do I want to see that
relationship become more positive in the future? Yes. Can I tell that we should open an embassy in Tehran tomorrow? No, I don't think we should. But I think the goal has got to be to warm relations with a very powerful and important country.
Click for Bernie Sanders on other issues.
Source: 2016 NBC Democratic presidential primary debate
Hillary Clinton on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Jan 17, 2016)
Proud of Iran nuke deal; but carefully watch them
Sen. SANDERS: We've managed to reach an agreement--something that I've very strongly supported--that prevents Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and we did that without going to war. Can I tell that we should open an embassy in Tehran tomorrow? No,
I don't think we should.CLINTON: Well, I'm very proud of the Iran Nuclear Agreement. I was very pleased to be part of what the president put into action when he took office. I was responsible for getting those sanctions imposed which put the pressure
on Iran. It brought them to the negotiating table which resulted in this agreement. But I think we still have to carefully watch them. We've had one good day over 36 year and I think we need more good days before we move more rapidly toward any kind of
normalization. And we have to be sure that they are truly going to implement the agreement. And then, we have to go after them on a lot of their other bad behavior in the region which is causing enormous problems in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and elsewhere.
Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.
Source: 2016 NBC Democratic debate
Ted Cruz on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Nov 10, 2015)
Under Hillary's leadership, every region of world is worse
She's got a lot of experience, but her policies have proven disastrous. If you look at foreign policy, every region in the world has gotten worse. Under her leadership, we abandon the nation of Israel. Under her leadership, radical
Islamic terrorism has been on to the rise. Under her leadership, and Obama's leadership, Iran is getting $100 billion dollars, and on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon.
Click for Ted Cruz on other issues.
Source: Fox Business/WSJ Second Tier debate
Donald Trump on Iranian Nukes:
(Homeland Security Nov 10, 2015)
We worry about Iranian nukes but why not North Korean nukes?
It's not only Russia [that we're having trouble with]. We have problems with North Korea where they actually have nuclear weapons. You know, nobody talks about it, we talk about Iran, and that's one of the worst deals ever made. One of the worst
contracts ever signed, ever, in anything, and it's a disgrace. But, we have somebody over there, a madman, who already has nuclear weapons we don't talk about that.
Click for Donald Trump on other issues.
Source: Fox Business/WSJ First Tier debate
Bernie Sanders on Iranian Nukes:
(Energy & Oil Oct 13, 2015)
Address climate change so we can leave planet to our kids
Q [to all]: What is the greatest national security threat to the United States?CHAFEE: It's certainly the chaos in the Middle East. And it all started with the Iraq invasion.
O'MALLEY: I believe that nuclear Iran remains the biggest threat,
along with the threat of ISIL; climate change, of course, makes cascading threats.
CLINTON: I think it has to be continued threat from the spread of nuclear material that can fall into the wrong hands.
WEBB: Our greatest long-term strategic challenge is our relation with China.
Q: Senator Sanders, greatest national security threat?
SANDERS: The scientific community is telling us that if we do not address the
global crisis of climate change, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy, the planet that we're going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be habitable. That is a major crisis.
Click for Bernie Sanders on other issues.
Source: 2015 CNN Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas
Barack Obama on Iranian Nukes:
(Homeland Security Sep 28, 2015)
Iran sanctions not only to punish, but to get lasting deal
The goal of sanctions was not simply to punish Iran. Our objective was to test whether Iran could change course, accept constraints, and allow the world to verify that its nuclear program will be peaceful. The result is a lasting, comprehensive deal
that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, while allowing it to access peaceful energy. And if this deal is fully implemented, the prohibition on nuclear weapons is strengthened, a potential war is averted, our world is safer.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.
Source: Remarks by Pres.Obama to the United Nations General Assembly
Barack Obama on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Sep 28, 2015)
Iran sanctions not only to punish, but get to lasting deal
The goal of sanctions was not simply to punish Iran. Our objective was to test whether Iran could change course, accept constraints, and allow the world to verify that its nuclear program will be peaceful. The result is a lasting, comprehensive deal
that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, while allowing it to access peaceful energy. And if this deal is fully implemented, the prohibition on nuclear weapons is strengthened, a potential war is averted, our world is safer.
When a terrorist group beheads captives, slaughters the innocent and enslaves women, that's not a single nation's national security problem -- that is an assault on all humanity. There is no room for accommodating an apocalyptic cult like
ISIL, and the United States makes no apologies for using our military, as part of a broad coalition, to go after them. We do so with a determination that there will never be a safe haven for terrorists. We will not be outlasted by extremists.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.
Source: Remarks by Pres.Obama to the United Nations General Assembly
Michael Bennet on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Sep 22, 2015)
AdWatch: Supports Iranian nuclear deal
Children deliver the countdown and presumably Iran delivers the bomb in a TV ad. After the mushroom cloud flashes, a smoldering post-apocalyptic hellscape smolders in the background of the ad from a conservative group called Advancing Colorado. The ad
instructs viewers to call Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) and ask him about his controversial vote in favor of President Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran.Truth Test: CLAIM: "Senator Michael Bennet supports the Iran deal."
VERDICT: TRUE. Sen. Bennet
voted in favor of the deal.
CLAIM: "A nuclear Iran is a threat to the entire world" and "Michael Bennet is jeopardizing our safety."
VERDICT: OPINION. Both sides of the debate over the Iran deal have experts who'll argue the merits and detriments of
the deal.
THE POLITICS BEHIND THE AD: It's hard to avoid comparisons to the 1964 "daisy ad" from President Johnson's campaign. Both ads feature children, countdowns and nuclear explosions--and both ads were meant to evoke the same emotional response.
Click for Michael Bennet on other issues.
Source: KUSA 9 News AdWatch on 2016 Colorado Senate race
John Kasich on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Sep 20, 2015)
Constitution requires Congress' approval of Iran nuke deal
Q: During the debate you were talking about whether the nuclear deal with Iran could be ripped up one day, getting rid of it if the Iranians violate the deal--at this point do you think there's anything Congress can do, those who oppose the Iran deal?
A: Yes there is.I think they (Senate Republicans) ought to go to the nuclear option in the
United States Senate, that being that they should declare this a big constitutional issue and whether this agreement is put into effect or not, it ought to be decided by 51 votes, not by 60 votes or some filibuster.
When it comes to this treaty, one which I so strongly oppose, I think the Republicans in the senate ought to say that we are not going to permit this to be blocked because of a filibuster.
Click for John Kasich on other issues.
Source: CNN SOTU 2015 interview series: 2016 presidential hopefuls
Pope Francis on Iranian Nukes:
(Homeland Security Sep 19, 2015)
Vatican recognizes Palestinian statehood
Here are some of the major issues on which Pope Francis differs from most Republican politicians:- He recognizes Palestinian statehood.
The Vatican signed a May treaty that was widely criticized by Jewish leaders in both Israel and the U.S.
- He supports the Iran nuclear deal.
- He wants to open Cuba.
Click for Pope Francis on other issues.
Source: Washington Post coverage of Pope Francis' 2015 U.S. visit
Pope Francis on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Sep 19, 2015)
Supports the Iran nuclear deal
Here are some of the major issues on which Pope Francis differs from most Republican politicians:- He supports the Iran nuclear deal. Last week, at the International Atomic Energy Agency conference in Vienna, the Vatican's foreign minister praised
President Obama's agreement, saying that "the way to resolve disputes and difficulties should always be that of dialogue and negotiation."
- He recognizes Palestinian statehood.
- He wants to open Cuba.
Click for Pope Francis on other issues.
Source: Washington Post coverage of Pope Francis' 2015 U.S. visit
Donald Trump on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Sep 16, 2015)
We must deal with the maniac in North Korea with nukes
[With regards to the Iranian nuclear deal]: Nobody ever mentions North Korea where you have this maniac sitting there and he actually has nuclear weapons and somebody better start thinking about North Korea and perhaps a couple of other places.
You have somebody right now in North Korea who has got nuclear weapons and who is saying almost every other week, "I'm ready to use them." And we don't even mention it.
Click for Donald Trump on other issues.
Source: 2015 Republican two-tiered primary debate on CNN
John Kasich on Iranian Nukes:
(Homeland Security Sep 16, 2015)
Iran nuke deal makes us stronger; we could restart sanctions
Q: What about the Iranian nuclear deal?KASICH: Well, first of all, I think it's a bad agreement, I would never have done it. But, you know, a lot of our problems in the world today is that we don't have the relationship with our allies.
If we want to go everywhere alone, we will not have the strength as much as if we could rebuild with our allies. Now, this agreement, we don't know what's going to happen in 18 months. I served on the Defense Committee for 18 years.
And, if we find out that they may be developing a nuclear weapon, than the military option is on the table. We are stronger when we work with the Western civilization, our friends in Europe, and just doing it on our own I don't think is the right policy.
Click for John Kasich on other issues.
Source: 2015 Republican two-tiered primary debate on CNN
Rand Paul on Iranian Nukes:
(Homeland Security Sep 16, 2015)
Talk with Iran like we talked to Russians during Cold War
We continued to talk with the Russians throughout the Cold War. Should we continue to talk with Iran? Yes. Should we cut up the [Iranian nuclear inspection] agreement immediately? That's absurd. Wouldn't you want to know if they complied? Now, I'm going
to vote against the agreement because I don't think there's significant leverage, but it doesn't mean that I would immediately not look at the agreement, and cut it up without looking to see if whether or not Iran has complied.
Click for Rand Paul on other issues.
Source: 2015 Republican two-tiered primary debate on CNN
Ted Cruz on Iranian Nukes:
(Homeland Security Sep 16, 2015)
On day one, rip to shreds the Iranian nuclear deal
The next president will inherit President Obama's Iran deal. The single biggest national security threat right now is the threat of a nuclear Iran. This deal will send over $100 billion to the Ayatollah Khamenei, making the Obama administration
the world's leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism. This deal will accelerate Iran's acquiring nuclear weapons. If I am elected president, on the very first day in office, I will rip to shreds this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal.
Click for Ted Cruz on other issues.
Source: 2015 Republican two-tiered primary debate on CNN
John Kasich on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Sep 13, 2015)
Keep Iran accountable, WITHIN the existing Nuclear Deal
Q: A number of your rivals say they would rip up the Iran nuclear deal their first day in the White House. What do you mean when you say you "don't get that"?KASICH: We don't know what's going to happen in 18 months. I've been on the Defense
Committee for 18 years, and you got to be careful not to paint red lines that you can't keep. In addition to that, I think we ought to hold Iran totally accountable for what they do, if they break any part of this deal, if they fund the radicals like
Hamas and Hezbollah. In that kind of case, we've got to slap the sanctions back on. We would then have the high moral ground to talk to our allies and get them to go along with us. But in addition to that, if we get to the point where we think that
Iran may be developing a nuclear [bomb], well then I think military action would be warranted. But let's wait until we get there and let's stay calm because that's one of the most important things we need to do when it comes to foreign affairs.
Click for John Kasich on other issues.
Source: Fox News Sunday 2015 coverage of 2016 presidential hopefuls
Nikki Haley on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Sep 8, 2015)
Against nuclear deal with Iran; keep state sanctions
Fifteen Republican governors wrote a letter to President Obama opposing the Iran nuclear deal: "If implemented, this agreement would lead to the lifting of United States nuclear-related sanctions on Iran without any guarantee that Iran's drive toward
obtaining a nuclear weapon will be halted or even slowed. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, and it should not be permitted any pathway toward obtaining a nuclear weapon, now or ever. The lifting of federal sanctions that will result from this
We've been ranked as the second best state in the nation as a place to do business. But we aren't going to stop until we're first. We've announced $5 billion in foreign investment.And we've seen no less an authority than The Wall Street Journal say
that, "Anyone still thinking the U.S. has lost its manufacturing chops hasn't been to South Carolina."
South Carolina is truly becoming the "It" state when it comes to economic development and job creation--not just in the United States, but worldwide.
Click for Nikki Haley on other issues.
Source: 2013 State of the State address to S. C. Legislature
John Kasich on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Sep 8, 2015)
Against nuclear deal with Iran; keep state sanctions
Fifteen Republican governors wrote a letter to President Obama opposing the Iran nuclear deal: "If implemented, this agreement would lead to the lifting of United States nuclear-related sanctions on Iran without any guarantee that Iran's drive toward
obtaining a nuclear weapon will be halted or even slowed. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, and it should not be permitted any pathway toward obtaining a nuclear weapon, now or ever. The lifting of federal sanctions that will result from this
agreement will only result in Iran having more money available to fund terrorist groups and attacks. The people of our states will not be safer as a result of this agreement, much less citizens of countries like Israel which Iran has threatened to
destroy. "Many of our states have divestment policies as well as restrictions against state contractors doing business with the government of Iran. We intend to ensure that the various state-level sanctions that are now in effect remain in effect."
Click for John Kasich on other issues.
Source: Letter to Pres. Obama from 15 Governors on Iran nuclear deal
Bernie Sanders on Iranian Nukes:
(Homeland Security Sep 5, 2015)
Reduce nuclear budget by $100B; end proliferation worldwide
Bernie has stated unequivocally that we must limit nuclear proliferation and work towards a safer world free of nuclear weapons: "I strongly agree with President Obama's call for 'a world without nuclear weapons.' As has been made apparent by recent
provocative actions by North Korea and Iran, the threat of nuclear weapons is a present threat to the security of America and the world. We must limit nuclear proliferation, now and in the future. We must end the production of weapons-grade uranium.
And we must heed what President Obama has called our 'moral responsibility' to lead the way toward reducing, and eventually eliminating, nuclear weapons."It is with this vision in mind that Bernie supports the Iran nuclear pact. Similarly,
Bernie has been working to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles around the world. In 2015, Bernie co-sponsored the Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures Act, which would reduce the nuclear weapons budget by $100 billion over the next ten years.
Click for Bernie Sanders on other issues.
Source: 2016 grassroots campaign website FeelTheBern.org, "Issues"
Bernie Sanders on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Sep 5, 2015)
Iran nuke deal is victory for diplomacy over saber-rattling
Keeping the Iranian nuclear program in check with international observers is greatly preferable to the lack of oversight that has been the status quo. Without a nuclear deal, Iran can continue to rapidly develop its nuclear program.Bernie views a
nuclear-armed Iran as a threat and, therefore, supports the recent nuclear deal that will reduce Iran's nuclear capabilities. While the agreement needs to be looked over with careful scrutiny, Bernie has hailed the Iran nuclear deal as a victory "for
diplomacy over saber-rattling."
Bernie stands with the majority of Americans in supporting diplomacy as the best method to reach a solution to Iran's nuclear threat. He sees military action as the least favorable approach, noting it's "imperative that
we do everything we can to reach a diplomatic solution and avoid never-ending war in the Middle East." Even when dealing with hostile nations, diplomatic relations are important: at the height of the Cold War, the US signed treaties with the USSR.
Click for Bernie Sanders on other issues.
Source: 2016 grassroots campaign website FeelTheBern.org, "Issues"
Bernie Sanders on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Aug 9, 2015)
We have to negotiate with others, even Iran
Q: Do you support the Iranian nuclear deal?SANDERS: We have got to go through every possible effort in order to make sure that we achieve that goal of Iran not having a nuclear weapon without going to war.
Q: So, do you support the agreement?
SANDERS: Yes, I do. Look, I'm not going to tell that you this is a perfect agreement. And every agreement can be better.
Q: What about hard-liners chanting death to America in Iraq making common cause with the opponents of this deal?
SANDERS: I wouldn't frame it that way. But this is the way I would frame it. It's so easy to be critical of an agreement which is not perfect. But the US has to negotiate with other countries. We have to negotiate with Iran.
And the alternative, you know what it is? It's war. Do we really want another war, a war with Iran? I think we go as far as we possibly can in trying to give peace a chance, if you like, trying to see if this agreement will work. And I will support it.
Click for Bernie Sanders on other issues.
Source: CBS Face the Nation 2015 coverage:2016 presidential hopefuls
Ted Cruz on Iranian Nukes:
(Technology Aug 6, 2015)
Of course China & Russia have conducted cyberwarfare on US
Q: In your view, have Russia and China committed cyber war, and if you were president, what would you do about it?CRUZ: Well, of course they have, and over the last six and a half years we've seen the consequences of the Obama-Clinton foreign
policy. Leading from behind is a disaster. We have abandoned and alienated our friends and allies, and our enemies are stronger. Radical Islam is on the rise; Iran's on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon; China is waging cyber warfare against
America. General Soleimani, the Iranian general is the head of the al Quds forces and directly responsible for the murder of over 500 American servicemen in Iraq--part of this Iranian deal was lifting the international sanctions on General Soleimani.
The day General Soleimani flew back from Moscow to Iran was the day we believed that Russia used cyber warfare against the Joint Chiefs. We need a new commander in chief that will stand up to our enemies, and that will have credibility.
Click for Ted Cruz on other issues.
Source: Fox News/Facebook Top Ten First Tier debate transcript
Ted Cruz on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Jun 30, 2015)
Liberal credulity coddles and excuses extremism
Of all the national security threats facing America, none is greater than the continued efforts of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons capability. And yet, instead of acting resolutely to ensure that can happen, President Obama has relaxed sanctions and
entered extended negotiations that have dramatically increased the changes of a nuclear Iran.Obama has encouraged a "new beginning with Iran, where since 1979 Shiite mullahs have forged one of the world's most brutal, anti-American tyrannies.
But the president was convinced he could reverse three decades of Iranian hostility with conciliation, understanding and a perceived indifference to Iranian atrocities.
This is a na‹ve worldview--the same liberal credulity espoused by Jimmy Carter and others, until they are awakened to the folly of coddling and excusing extremism. Sadly, President Obama hasn't learned that lesson.
Click for Ted Cruz on other issues.
Source: A Time for Truth, by Ted Cruz, p.290-1
Donald Trump on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Jun 16, 2015)
More sanctions on Iran; more support of Israel
What does Donald Trump believe? Iran and Israel: Walk away from nuclear talks. Increase sanctions.Trump has said that the U.S. is mishandling current Iran negotiations and should have walked away from the table once Tehran reportedly rejected the idea
of sending enriched uranium to Russia. He would increase sanctions on Iran. Trump has been sharply critical of the Obama administration's handling of relations with Israel and has called for a closer alliance with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Click for Donald Trump on other issues.
Source: PBS News Hour "2016 Candidate Stands" series
Rand Paul on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace May 17, 2015)
Fight Iran with diplomacy and military strength, not war
I think that we always have to have the threat of military force behind diplomacy. But I would prefer diplomacy. I think we can still have negotiations. And the thing is-- is that we negotiated with the Soviets for 70 years and
we ended up coming to a peaceful outcome. I think, with Iran, we need to be steady and firm that they cannot have a nuclear weapons program.
There has to be the threat of military force. But my hope is really that negotiations continue. There are some in my party who say, "Oh, I don't want any negotiations." They're ready to be done with it.
But once you're done with negotiations, the choices are war, or they get a weapon, and I don't want to have just those two binary choices.
Click for Rand Paul on other issues.
Source: Meet the Press 2015 interviews of 2016 presidential hopefuls
John Kasich on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Apr 26, 2015)
Iran nuke deal: verify, verify, verify, without the trust
Q: if you were in Congress, would you vote to allow the Iran nuclear deal to occur?A: Knowing what I know now, no. Reagan used to say trust and verify. In regard to Iran, it should be verify, verify, verify, without the trust, because I don't trust
them.
Q: And you don't think the administration has done that or tried to do that?
A: I think they have fallen in love with this deal. I think a lot of it is about a legacy. I do not like this agreement, what I have read so far.
Click for John Kasich on other issues.
Source: CNN SOTU 2015 interview series: 2016 presidential hopefuls
Rand Paul on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Apr 12, 2015)
Keep on mind on Iran nukes but don't trust the ayatollahs
Q: This controversy about a U.S.-Iran nuclear development agreement--this seems totally bogged down in partisan politics. PAUL: Occasionally, I can be partisan, but, on this, I don't think I would jump to the conclusion that, all of a sudden, the
ayatollah of Iran is telling the truth, and my government is lying to us. Now, the biggest problem we have right now is that every time there is a hint of an agreement, the Iranian foreign minister tweets out in English that the agreement doesn't mean
what our government says it means. So I keep an open mind as to who is telling the truth. It is very, very damaging to the American public, and to the details of this agreement, if we can't trust the sincerity or the credibility of the Iranian government
Q: So, at this point, you have an open mind about this?
PAUL: Yes. I want peace. I want negotiations. I don't want another war. But I also want a good agreement.
Click for Rand Paul on other issues.
Source: CBS Face the Nation 2015 coverage:2016 presidential hopefuls
Ted Cruz on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Mar 23, 2015)
Toughen sanctions on Iran, to safeguard America
On Iran, Cruz would increase and toughen sanctions, and end current nuclear talks until Congress approves the outlines of a deal.
His approach is summed up in a bill the Texas Senator unveiled last week, the "Sanction Iran, Safeguard America Act."
Click for Ted Cruz on other issues.
Source: PBS News Hour "2016 Candidate Stands" series
Barack Obama on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Jan 20, 2015)
I will veto any new sanctions against Iran
With respect to Iran, where, for the first time in a decade, we've halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material. Between now and this spring, we have a chance to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that
prevents a nuclear-armed Iran; secures America and our allies--including Israel; while avoiding yet another Middle East conflict. There are no guarantees that negotiations will succeed, and I keep all options on the table to prevent a nuclear Iran.
But new sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails--alienating America from its allies; and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again. It doesn't make sense.
That is why I will veto any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo this progress. The American people expect us to only go to war as a last resort, and I intend to stay true to that wisdom.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.
Source: 2015 State of the Union address
Elizabeth Warren on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Nov 18, 2014)
Strong sanctions against Iranian nukes, with other countries
The United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
I support strong sanctions against Iran and believe that the United States must also continue to take a leadership role in pushing other countries to implement strong sanctions as well. Iran must not have an escape hatch.
Click for Elizabeth Warren on other issues.
Source: Quotable Elizabeth Warren, by Frank Marshall, p.150
Rand Paul on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Apr 15, 2014)
Maintain ambiguous policy on containing nuclear Iran
I am unequivocally not for containing Iran. I am also not for announcing that the US should never contain Iran. To be against a "we will never contain Iran" resolution is not the same as being for containment of a nuclear Iran. Rather, it means that
foreign policy is complicated.It is a dumb idea to announce to Iran that you would accept and contain that country if it were to become a nuclear power. But it is equally dumb, dangerous and foolhardy to announce in advance how we would react to any
nation that obtains nuclear weapons. If, after World War II, we had preemptively announced that containment of nuclear powers would never be considered, the US would have trapped itself into nuclear confrontations with Russia & China.
I believe all
options should be on the table to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, including the military option. I have voted repeatedly for sanctions against Iran and will continue to do so. But I will also continue to argue that war is a last resort.
Click for Rand Paul on other issues.
Source: Washington Post 2014 coverage of 2016 presidential hopefuls
Rand Paul on Iranian Nukes:
(Homeland Security Apr 13, 2014)
National defense is important, but no blank check
Q: You were against the resolution on Iran and nuclear weapons. On these issues you are more closely associated with the left.PAUL: I think that's an incorrect conclusion, you know. I would say my foreign policy is right there with what came out of
Ronald Reagan.
Q: But Reagan went through a huge defense buildup. One of the first things you did when you got elected was propose a nearly $50 billion cut to the Pentagon, bigger than the sequester.
PAUL: The sequester actually didn't cut spending;
the sequester cut the rate of growth of spending over 10 years.
Q: But the point is you proposed curbing defense spending more than the sequester.
PAUL: Even though I believe national defense is the most important thing we do, but it isn't a
blank check. Some conservatives think, oh, give them whatever they want and that everything is for our soldiers and they play up this patriotism that--oh, we don't have to control defense spending. We can't be a trillion dollars in the hole every year.
Click for Rand Paul on other issues.
Source: ABC This Week 2014 series of 2016 presidential hopefuls
Rand Paul on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Apr 13, 2014)
Keep all options on the table, but don't declare war on Iran
Q: You were against the 2012 resolution saying that the US should do anything possible to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.PAUL: I've repeatedly voted for sanctions against Iran. And I think all options should be on the table to prevent them
from having nuclear weapons. I'm a stickler on what the wording is, because I don't want to have voted for something that declared war without people thinking through this. They said containment will never, ever be our policy. We woke up one day and
Pakistan had nuclear weapons. If that would have been our policy towards Pakistan, we would be at war with Pakistan. The people who say, "by golly, we will never stand for that", they are voting for war.
Q: Could the US live with a nuclear armed Iran?
PAUL: It's not a good idea to announce that in advance. Should I announce to Iran, "well, we don't want you to, but we'll live with it." No, that's a dumb idea to say that you're going to live with it. However, the opposite is a dumb idea too.
Click for Rand Paul on other issues.
Source: ABC This Week 2014 series of 2016 presidential hopefuls
Ted Cruz on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Mar 4, 2014)
Appeasement historically leads to more violence
Vladimir Putin running rampant in Ukraine showcases how the Obama administration's abdication of global leadership is making the world a more dangerous place.Instead of providing clarity, the Obama administration offers tortured semantics. The interim
agreement over Iran's nuclear program is referred to as a display of "international unity." And now, the Russian invasion of Ukraine was euphemistically designated "an uncontested arrival."
This is the language of fools. Appeasement, historically,
leads to more and more violence. Bullies and tyrants are only encouraged when the US uses words that willfully ignore the reality of the threats the US and our allies face.
Ironically, this administration's effort to avoid conflict at all costs makes
conflict all the more likely. Putin knows there will be no serious reprisals for aggression from an American president who was only waiting for his re-election to give him the "flexibility" to make additional concessions at the negotiating table.
Click for Ted Cruz on other issues.
Source: Foreign Policy magazine article by Ted Cruz
Barack Obama on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Jan 28, 2014)
Negotiations with Iran don't rely on trust
American diplomacy, backed by pressure, has halted the progress of Iran's nuclear program--and rolled parts of that program back--for the very first time in a decade. Iran has begun to eliminate its stockpile of higher levels of enriched uranium.
It is not installing advanced centrifuges. And with our allies and partners, we're engaged in negotiations to see if we can peacefully achieve a goal we all share: preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.These negotiations will be difficult.
We are clear-eyed about Iran's support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah; and the mistrust between our nations cannot be wished away. But these negotiations do not rely on trust; any long-term deal we agree to must be based on verifiable
action that convinces us and the international community that Iran is not building a nuclear bomb. If JFK and Reagan could negotiate with the Soviet Union, then surely a strong and confident America can negotiate with less powerful adversaries today.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.
Source: 2014 State of the Union address
Cory Booker on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Nov 3, 2013)
All options on the table with Iran, including military
As a state sponsor of terrorism, Iran poses a threat to American security, a threat made worse by their pursuit of nuclear technology in defiance of the international community & their own treaty obligations. A nuclear-armed Iran is plainly unacceptable.
Iranians recently elected a new President who has taken a less confrontational tone and positioned himself as open to negotiation.
The president is right to keep all options, including military action, on the table while vigorously pursuing both
international sanctions and a negotiated settlement that prevents Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. Today, sanctions have imposed real and increasing harm on Iran's economy and isolated them from the international community.
Pursuing these diplomatic and economic actions must continue while there is time, because while all options should remain on the table, the cost of military action to end the Iranian nuclear program could be very high for us and our allies in the region.
Click for Cory Booker on other issues.
Source: 2013-2014 New Jersey Senate campaign web CoryBooker.com
Joe Biden on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Mar 4, 2013)
Prevent--not contain--Iranian nuclear weapon
We're mindful that pursuing a better future for Israel means helping Israel confront the myriads of threat it faces in the neighborhood. It's a tough neighborhood, and it starts with Iran. It is not only in Israel's interest that Iran does not acquire a
nuclear weapon, it's in the interest of the United States of America. It's simple. And, as a matter of fact, it's in the interest of the entire world.Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon not only would present an existential threat to Israel,
it would present a threat to our allies and our partners--and to the United States. And it would trigger an arms race--a nuclear arms race in the region, and make the world a whole lot less stable.
So we have a shared strategic commitment. Let me make clear what that commitment is: It is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Period. End of discussion. Prevent--not contain--prevent.
Click for Joe Biden on other issues.
Source: Speech at the AIPAC Policy Conference
Barack Obama on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Mar 4, 2013)
On Iranian nukes: Big nations can't bluff
We have a shared strategic commitment with Israel. Let me make clear what that commitment is: It is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Period. End of discussion. Prevent--not contain--prevent. The President has flatly stated that.
And he always says--he'll turn to other people and say, "as Joe would say, big nations can't bluff." Well, big nations can't bluff. And Presidents of the United States cannot and do not bluff. And President Obama is not bluffing. He is not bluffing.
We are not looking for war. We are looking to and ready to negotiate peacefully, but all options, including military force, are on the table. Our strong preference, the world's preference is for a diplomatic solution. So while that window is
closing, we believe there is still time and space to achieve the outcome. We are in constant dialogue, sharing information with the Israeli military & Israeli intelligence, and we're taking all the steps required to get there.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.
Source: Joe Biden speech at the AIPAC Policy Conference
Hillary Clinton on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Jan 29, 2013)
Policy of prevention, not containment, on Iranian nukes
Q: Your predecessor, Henry Kissinger, said that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, that it is a turning point in history.A: Our policy is prevention, not containment. And we have, through hard work with the international community, imposed the toughest
set of sanctions on any country. We know it's having an effect. We have to continue to keep them isolated, and keep Russia and China on board. [But] we've said from the very beginning, we're open to diplomacy. We are doing so in the so-called
P5-plus-1 format.
Q: What about military action against them?
A: Well, we've always said all options are on the table. The president has been very clear about that. [With regards to the] terrorism aspect of Iran's behavior, when I came into office,
there were too many countries that were turning a blind eye to it. We have worked very hard to get the international community to say these guys need to be stopped on the terrorism front. They cannot be permitted to go forward.
Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.
Source: Obama Cabinet:Fox News On the Record with Greta Van Susteren
Eric Swalwell on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Nov 6, 2012)
Don't let Iran get one step closer to nukes
The danger posed by Iran to the Mid-east region seems to escalate daily. My top priority on the issue of Iran is to ensure that the US does whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from having the capability to produce a nuclear weapon. Unfortunately,
today, Iran has already developed infrastructure that has only one purpose: to create nuclear weapons. We can't let them get one step closer to their stated goal. I support strong sanctions against Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran until they can
prove they are not developing nuclear weapons. We must also diligently identify and sanction any domestic or foreign company that assists Iran, in any way, in its effort to obtain and/or develop nuclear weapons.
We must more directly address countries that support Iran yet look the other way when it comes to Iran's flagrant violations of mandatory UN Security Council resolutions.
Click for Eric Swalwell on other issues.
Source: 2012 House campaign website, swalwellforcongress.com
Kirsten Gillibrand on Iranian Nukes:
(Homeland Security Oct 17, 2012)
No across-the-board budget cuts to anti-terrorism
Gillibrand used it to blast sequestration that would require across the board budget cuts to areas like federal anti-terror funding.
Referencing Wednesday's thwarted terrorist attack in New York City, Long said it's further evidence that the United States must stand with Israel in ensuring Iran does not have nuclear capabilities while
Click for Kirsten Gillibrand on other issues.
Source: New York Daily News on 2012 N. Y. Senate debate
Joe Biden on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Oct 12, 2012)
Iran has some fissile material, but no nuclear weapons
Relieved. That's how the Democrats must have felt watching Vice President Joe Biden debate Republican vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan. Time and time again the public saw why, in spite of a proclivity for putting his foot in his mouth, Biden
was put on the ticket in the first place. He talks the way real people talk. Right out of the box he told Ryan that his views on Iran's nuclear weapon were "a bunch of stuff." Iran may be making fissile material (the stuff that sustains nuclear
explosions) but "they don't have a weapon to put it in."His attack on Ryan's Medicare plan was one of the strongest points in the evening. Unlike his boss he brought up the infamous 47 percent remark [in which Mitt Romney asserted that 47% of the
American public accepted entitlements from the federal government in excess of their taxes] and pointed out that not only were his Mom and Dad in the 47%, so were the soldiers in Afghanistan (soldiers in combat don't pay income taxes.)
Click for Joe Biden on other issues.
Source: Kennedy School's E. Kamarck on 2012 Vice Presidential Debate
Joe Biden on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Oct 11, 2012)
Iran Sanctions are most crippling in history
Q: Last week former Defense Secretary Bob Gates said a strike on Iran's facilities would not work and "could prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations." How effective would a military strike against Iran be, to prevent nuclear development?
RYAN: We cannot allow Iran to gain a nuclear weapons capability. This administration watered down sanctions, delayed sanctions, tried to stop us from putting the tough sanctions in place. Now we have them in place because of Congress.
BIDEN: Incredible. These are the most crippling sanctions in the history of sanctions, period. Look, imagine had we let the Republican Congress work out the sanctions. You think there's any possibility the entire world would have joined us,
Russia and China, all of our allies? These are the most crippling sanctions in the history of sanctions, period, period. You're talking about doing more; are you going to go to war? Is that you want to do now?
RYAN: We want to prevent war!
Click for Joe Biden on other issues.
Source: 2012 Vice Presidential debate
Joe Biden on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Oct 11, 2012)
Iran is not close to nuclear weapons; stop the bluster
RYAN: When Barack Obama was elected, Iran had enough fissile material to make one bomb. Now they have enough for five. They're racing toward a nuclear weapon. They're four years closer toward a nuclear weapons capability.BIDEN: We feel quite confident
we could deal a serious blow to the Iranians. But #2, the Israelis and the US--our intelligence communities are absolutely the same exact place in terms of how close the Iranians are to getting a nuclear weapon. They are a good way away. When [Ryan]
talks about fissile material, they have to take this highly enriched uranium, get it from 20% up. Then they have to be able to have something to put it in. There is no weapon that the Iranians have at this point. Both the Israelis and we know we'll know
if they start the process of building a weapon. So all this bluster I keep hearing--Let's all calm down a little bit here. Iran is more isolated today than when we took office. It was on the ascendancy when we took office. It is totally isolated.
Click for Joe Biden on other issues.
Source: 2012 Vice Presidential debate
Elizabeth Warren on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Sep 21, 2012)
Take nothing off the table with Iran's nuclear weapon
Asked about the possibility that Iran could acquire a nuclear weapon, Brown criticized Warren for not adopting a tough enough response. "We cannot have a nuanced approach that Professor Warren wants," he said.
Warren said she also supports Israel and is opposed to allowing Iran to gain nuclear arms. She also praised Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Obama, saying he's "done a first-rate job. He's taking nothing off the table."
Click for Elizabeth Warren on other issues.
Source: North Adams Transcript on 2012 Mass. Senate debate
Barack Obama on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Jan 24, 2012)
Take no options off the table if Iran develops nukes
We will safeguard America's own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests. Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with
Iran's nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent.
Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.
But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.
Source: 2012 State of the Union speech
Donald Trump on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Dec 5, 2011)
Stop Iran's nuclear programs by any & all means necessary
America's primary goal with Iran must be to destroy its nuclear ambitions. Let me put them as plainly as I know how: Iran's nuclear program must be stopped--by any and all means necessary. Period. We cannot allow this radical regime to acquire a nuclear
weapon that they will either use or hand off to terrorists. Better now than later!Pres. Bush authorized a covert program to "undermine the electrical and computer systems" at Natanz, Iran's uranium enrichment facility. What came out of that initiative
was the Stuxnet cyber worm. It was unleashed against Iran's nuclear centrifuges and made them spin so fast they destroyed themselves. The operation was very successful and destroyed roughly 1/5 of Iran's centrifuges.
No one knows for sure how many months or years we put back on Iran's nuclear clock. Some analysts say 6 months, others 1 or 2 years, But that's the point: the clock is still ticking.
Click for Donald Trump on other issues.
Source: Time to Get Tough, by Donald Trump, p. 98
Elizabeth Warren on Iranian Nukes:
(Homeland Security Oct 14, 2011)
#1 responsibility: protect Americans from terrorism
U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren left the door open yesterday to military action against Iran in the face of that country's growing nuclear threat--bolstering her national security
credentials: "Our number one responsibility is to protect Americans from terrorism, that's our job, so being tough on terrorism is enormously important," said Warren yesterday at a campaign stop in Gloucester.
Click for Elizabeth Warren on other issues.
Source: Hillary Chabot in Boston Herald
Elizabeth Warren on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Oct 14, 2011)
Military action possible to stop Iranian nukes
U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren left the door open yesterday to military action against Iran in the face of that country's growing nuclear threat--bolstering her national security
credentials: "Our number one responsibility is to protect Americans from terrorism, that's our job, so being tough on terrorism is enormously important," said Warren yesterday at a campaign stop in Gloucester.
Click for Elizabeth Warren on other issues.
Source: Hillary Chabot in Boston Herald
Barack Obama on Iranian Nukes:
(Homeland Security Jun 1, 2010)
Strengthen NPT to have automatic sanctions on Iran
[On Iran, Obama called for tough diplomacy "to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior," namely pursuing a nuclear program and supporting terrorism. If Iran abandons its troubling behavior, the
US might move toward normal diplomatic and economic relations, Obama proposed, but "if Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation."Furthermore, Obama proceeded, he will strengthen the
NPT "so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions." He made no mention of the conclusion of US intelligence that Iran had not had a weapons program for five years, unlike
US allies in Israel, Pakistan, and India, the three countries that all maintain extensive nuclear weapons programs (with direct US support), all unmentioned as well.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.249
Barack Obama on Iranian Nukes:
(Homeland Security Mar 2, 2010)
OpEd: walked away from missile defense of Eastern Europe
Russia's burgeoning relationship with Venezuela has purpose beyond energy: anything that diminishes America pleases Putin, both because it weakens a competing power and because it gratifies his personal animus for the US. Russia's resistance to severe
sanctioning of North Korea and Iran as they have pursued their nuclear programs are a stick in the eye for the US. So, too, is Russia's insistence that the world replace the dollar as the reserve currency. Putin also bitterly opposes any development that
would strengthen the US such as missile defense, particularly in Eastern Europe, and admission of the former Soviet satellites into NATO. Pres. Obama's decision to walk way from our missile defense program in Poland and the Czech Republic was a huge
concession to Putin, as is the stalling on admission of Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO. Russia welcomes concessions, and these, like their predecessors, were not repaid in kind. Russia takes, Pres. Obama gives, and Russia demands more.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.
Source: No Apology, by Mitt Romney, p. 18
Rahm Emanuel on Iranian Nukes:
(Homeland Security Jan 5, 2009)
We cannot win the War on Terror without more troops
From Iran to North Korea to the Arab street, America can't stop the emergence of new nuclear states, contain loose nukes, or disrupt Al Qaeda all on its own.If we are to win the war that we have, we must rebuild the army we need. Our friend Paul
Begala's motto has become "It Takes a Battalion"--and he's right. We cannot fight and win a long war without more troops. When George Bush ran for president in 2000, he complained that the military had been hollowed out.
That wasn't true then, but it is true now. Under Donald Rumsfeld, the Pentagon engaged in a drawn-out debate about military transformation but gave short shrift to the basic needs of the soldiers, the heart and soul of our military might.
The army doesn't have enough troops, the National Guard and the Reserves are exhausted to the breaking point, and the soldiers we send into battle don't always get the equipment they need to survive.
Click for Rahm Emanuel on other issues.
Source: The Plan, by Rahm Emanuel, p.150
Barack Obama on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Oct 7, 2008)
Prevent Iran from attacking Israel, but keep military option
Q: If Iran attacks Israel, would you be willing to commit US troops in defense of Israel? Or would you wait on approval from the UN Security Council?McCAIN: We obviously would not wait for the United Nations Security Council. Both Russia and
China would probably pose significant obstacles.
OBAMA: 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. And so it’s unacceptable. And I will do everything that’s required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table. And it is
important that we don’t provide veto power to the UN or anyone else in acting in our interests. It is important, though, for us to use all the tools at our disposal to prevent the scenario where we’ve got to make those kinds of choices.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.
Source: 2008 second presidential debate against John McCain
Joe Biden on Iranian Nukes:
(Homeland Security Oct 2, 2008)
Greatest security threat is from al Qaeda in Pakistan
Q: What’s the greater threat, a nuclear Iran or an unstable Pakistan?BIDEN: Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be destabilizing, but they are not close to getting a nuclear weapon that’s able to be deployed.
John continues to tell us that the central war on terror is in Iraq. I promise you, if an attack comes in the homeland, it’s going to come from al Qaeda in the hills of Pakistan. We need to support that democracy by helping them with their economic
well-being.
PALIN: Both are extremely dangerous. And as for who coined that central war on terror being in Iraq, it was the Gen. Petraeus and al Qaeda, and it’s probably the only thing that they’re ever going to agree on. An armed, nuclear Iran is so
extremely dangerous. Israel is in jeopardy when we’re dealing with Iran. Others who are dangerous dictators are ones that Barack Obama has said he would be willing to meet with without preconditions. And that goes beyond naivete and poor judgment.
Click for Joe Biden on other issues.
Source: 2008 Vice Presidential debate against Sarah Palin
Barack Obama on Iranian Nukes:
(Foreign Policy Sep 26, 2008)
Must be tough on Iran, but talk to them too
Q: How big a threat is Iran to the US?A: Ironically, the single thing that has strengthened Iran over the last several years has been the war in Iraq. What we’ve seen over the last several years is Iran’s influence grow. They have funded
Hezbollah, they have funded Hamas, they have gone from zero centrifuges to 4,000 centrifuges to develop a nuclear weapon.
So our policy over the last eight years has not worked. We cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. Not only would it threaten
Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also set off an arms race in the Middle East.
We are going to have to engage in tough direct diplomacy with Iran and this is a major difference I have with Senator
McCain, this notion by not talking to people we are punishing them has not worked. It has not worked in Iran, it has not worked in North Korea. In each instance, our efforts of isolation have actually accelerated their efforts to get nuclear weapons.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.
Source: 2008 first presidential debate, Obama vs. McCain
Barack Obama on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Apr 16, 2008)
Take no options off the table if Iran attacks Israel
Q: Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option that poses a threat to Israel. Should it be US policy to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the US?OBAMA: Our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the
Iranians. I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons, &that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.
Q: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?
OBAMA:
It is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we would consider unacceptable, and the US would take appropriate action.
Q: Sen. Clinton, would you?
CLINTON: We should be
looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the US, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary
Hillary Clinton on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Apr 16, 2008)
Massive retaliation from US if Iran attacks Israel
Q: Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option that poses a threat to Israel. Should it be US policy to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the US?OBAMA: I will take no options off the table. It is very important that Iran
understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, and the US would take appropriate action.
CLINTON: I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel.
Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the US, but I would do the same with other countries in the region. We are at a very dangerous point with Iran. The Bush policy has failed.
Iran has not been deterred. #1, we’ve got to begin diplomatic engagement with Iran. #2, we’ve got to deter other countries from feeling that they have to acquire nuclear weapons. And finally, we cannot permit Iran to become a nuclear weapons power.
Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary
Barack Obama on Iranian Nukes:
(Homeland Security Mar 25, 2008)
2007: With Hagel, introduced nuclear nonproliferation bill
We must once again convince the world that America has the clear intention of fulfilling the nuclear disarmament commitments that we have made. Building a new global nuclear consensus is the only way to achieve lasting solutions to challenges such as
Iran's nuclear ambition.Last summer, Senator Barack Obama and I introduced comprehensive nuclear nonproliferation legislation. Among other things, our bill would provide funding for an international fuel bank that would be administered by the
International Atomic Energy Agency. This fuel bank has the potential to be a critical mechanism to help reduce the demand for sensitive nuclear technologies that could be used to produce nuclear weapons-grade uranium and plutonium. Our bill would also
provide funding to enable the United States to work with other countries to develop the technology to identify sources of nuclear material. If Iran's nuclear intentions prove to be peaceful, as its leaders claim, this bill can put that to the test.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.
Source: Our Next Chapter, by Chuck Hagel, p. 92-93
Hillary Clinton on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Dec 13, 2007)
Believed, with others, that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapon
Q: Are the Revolutionary Guards proliferators of mass destruction?A: Well, many of us believe that. Earlier this year, Senator Edwards told an audience in Israel that the nuclear threat from Iran was the greatest threat to our generation.
Back in 2004, Senator Obama told the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board that he would even consider nukes to take out Iran’s nuclear capacity. So there was a very broadly based belief that they were pursuing a nuclear weapon.
Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate
Joe Biden on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Dec 13, 2007)
Accept NIE conclusion that Iran stopped nukes in 2003
Q: Do you agree with the president’s assessment that Iran still poses a threat?A: [The NIE concludes that] in 2003, they stopped their nuclear program. This president is not trustworthy. He has undermined our security in the region. He has undermined
our credibility in the world. He has made it more difficult to get cooperation from the rest of the world. He has caused oil to go up roughly $25 a barrel--a security premium--because of his threat of war. It is outrageous, intolerable, & it must stop.
Click for Joe Biden on other issues.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate
Joe Biden on Iranian Nukes:
(Homeland Security Oct 30, 2007)
Talks about nations acquiring uranium are more complicated
Q: Would you pledge that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president?A: I would pledge to keep us safe. This is complicated stuff. We talk about this in isolation. The Iranians may get 2.6 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium. But the
Pakistanis have thousands of kilograms of highly-enriched uranium. If by attacking Iran to stop them from getting 2.6 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium, the government in Pakistan falls, who has missiles already deployed with nuclear weapons on them
that can already reach Israel, already reach India, then that’s a bad bargain. Presidents make wise decisions informed not by a vacuum in which they operate, by the situation they find themselves in the world. I will do all in my power to stop
Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, but I will never take my eye off the ball. What is the greatest threat to the US: 2.6 kilograms of highly enriched uranium in Tehran or an out-of-control Pakistan? It’s not close.
Click for Joe Biden on other issues.
Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University
Barack Obama on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Oct 30, 2007)
Committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons
Q: Would you pledge that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president?A: We are committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons. We have been governed by fear for the last 6 years. Bush has used the fear of terrorism to launch a war that
should have never been authorized. We are seeing the same pattern now. It is very important for us to draw a clear line and say, “We are not going to be governed by fear. We will take threats seriously and take action to make sure that the US is secure.”
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.
Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University
Barack Obama on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Oct 30, 2007)
Iran military resolution sends the region a wrong signal
That is a continuation of the kinds of foreign policy that rejects diplomacy and sees military action as the only tool available to us to influence the region. What we should be doing is reaching out aggressively to our allies, talking to our enemies and
focusing on those areas where we do not accept their actions, whether it be terrorism or developing nuclear weapons, and talking to Iran directly about the potential carrots that we can provide in terms of them being involved in the World Trade
Organization, or beginning to look at the possibilities of diplomatic relations being normalized. We have not made those serious attempts. This kind of resolution does not send the right signal to the region. It doesn’t send the right signal to our allie
or our enemies. As a consequence, over the long term, it weakens our capacity to influence Iran. There may come a point where those measures have been exhausted & Iran is on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon, where we have to consider other options
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.
Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University
Hillary Clinton on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Oct 30, 2007)
Pledge that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb
Q: Would you pledge to the American people that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president?
A: I have pledged that I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.
Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.
Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University
Hillary Clinton on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Oct 30, 2007)
Rushing to war with Iran vs. doing nothing is a false choice
Q: Why did you vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment which calls upon the president to structure our military forces in Iraq with regard to the capability of Iran?A: I am against a rush to war. I was the first person on this stage and one of the very
first in the Congress to go to the floor of the Senate back in February & say Bush had no authority to take any military action in Iran. Secondly, I am not in favor of this rush for war, but I’m also not in favor of doing nothing. Iran is seeking nuclear
weapons. And the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is in the forefront of that, as they are in the sponsorship of terrorism. So some may want a false choice between rushing to war, which is the way the Republicans sound--it’s not even a question of whether,
it’s a question of when and what weapons to use--and doing nothing. I prefer vigorous diplomacy. And I happen to think economic sanctions are part of vigorous diplomacy. We used them with respect to North Korea. We used them with respect to Libya.
Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.
Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University
Hillary Clinton on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Sep 6, 2007)
Prevent Iran from becoming nuclear power by diplomacy first
Q: [to Clinton]: Would the Israelis be justified in taking military action if they felt their security was threatened by a nuclear presence in Iran? CLINTON: I’m not going to answer that because it’s hypothetical.
There would need to be a high standard of proof.
Q: Rudy Giuliani said, “Iran is not going to be allowed to build a nuclear power. If they get to a point where they’re going to become a nuclear power, we will prevent them; we will set them back 8 to
10 years. That is not said as a threat; that should be said as a promise.“ Would you make that promise?
CLINTON: I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from becoming an nuclear power, including the use of diplomacy, the use of economic
sanctions, opening up direct talks. We haven’t even tried. That’s what is so discouraging about this. We need a concerted, comprehensive strategy to deal with Iran. We haven’t had it. We need it. And I will provide it.
Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College
Barack Obama on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Aug 19, 2007)
Deal with al Qaeda on Pakistan border, but not with nukes
Q: [to Clinton]: You criticized Sen. Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons against Al Qaida in Pakistan, yet you said the same against Bush’s use of tactical nuclear weapons in Iran, saying: “I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the
table.” What’s the difference there?CLINTON: I was asked specifically about the Bush-Cheney administration’s policy to drum up support for military action against Iran. Combine that with their continuing effort to try to get “bunker-buster” nuclear
bombs that could penetrate into the earth to go after deeply buried nuclear sites. This was not a hypothetical, this was a brushback against this administration which has been reckless and provocative.
Q: Do you accept that distinction?
OBAMA: There
was no difference. It is not hypothetical that Al Qaida has established base camps in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan. No military expert would advise that we use nuclear weapons to deal with them, but we do have to deal with that problem.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on “This Week”
Hillary Clinton on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Aug 19, 2007)
Rule out nukes against Iran
Q: You criticized Sen. Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons against Al Qaida in Pakistan, yet you said the same against Bush’s use of tactical nuclear weapons in Iran:Clinton on videotape:
“I would certainly take nuclear weapons
off the table. And this administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven’t seen since the dawn of the nuclear age. I think that’s a terrible mistake.”
Q: What’s the principal difference there?
CLINTON: I was asked specifically about the Bush-Cheney administration’s policy to drum up support for military action against Iran. Combine that with their continuing effort to try to get what are called bunker-buster bombs, nuclear bombs that could
penetrate into the earth to go after deeply buried nuclear sites. This was not a hypothetical, this was a brushback against this administration which has been reckless and provocative.
OBAMA: There’s no difference [in our policies].
Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on “This Week”
Mike Gravel on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Aug 9, 2007)
Bush can’t go into Iran today because I filibustered draft
The competition is a little weak, because they say they all want to lead. Well, what does a leader do? A leader stands up with a little bit of courage and does something. You know, I filibustered the end of the draft.
Bush can’t go into Iran today because he doesn’t have the boots on the ground because of what I did. I stopped the nuclear testing in the North Pacific. And I could go on.
Click for Mike Gravel on other issues.
Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues
Joe Biden on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Jun 3, 2007)
Do away with the policy of regime change for Iran
I would do away with the policy of regime change. What we’re saying to everybody in Iran is, “Look, by the way, give up the one thing that keeps us from attacking you, & after that we’re going to attack you. We’re going to take you down.” It’s a bizarre
notion, number one. Number two, understand how weak Iran is. They are not a year away or two years away. They’re a decade away from being able to weaponize exactly what the question was, if they put a nuclear weapon on top of a missile that can strike.
They’re far away from that. Number three, we’re going to - we have to understand how weak that government is. They import almost all of their refined oil. By 2014, they’re going to be importing their crude oil.
There’s much better ways, if we had to get to the point of being real sanctions, of doing economic sanctions on them forcefully that way. But at the end of the day, if they posed the missile, stuck it on a pad, I’d take it out.
Click for Joe Biden on other issues.
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College
Hillary Clinton on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Jun 3, 2007)
Iran having a nuclear weapon is absolutely unacceptable
I am very concerned about Iran, and we should have been using diplomacy for a number of years now. I am pleased that Bush is starting to talk to the Iranians, but it is way overdue. We have allowed the Iranians to begin their nuclear program, to imprison
Iranian Americans as they are now, to send weapons across their borders to be used against our young men and women, and we need a process of engagement. Bush’s policy has been, we don’t talk to people we don’t agree with or that we think are bad.
All during the Cold War, we always talked to the Soviet Union. They had missiles pointed at us. They had leaders who said they would bury us. They waged wars around the world. We never stopped talking. In my administration, patient, careful diplomacy, th
kind of diplomacy that really gets people to stay with it over time. Are you always going to get good results? No. But you’ve got to start the process. However, we still have to make it clear that Iran having a nuclear weapon is absolutely unacceptable.
Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College
Mike Gravel on Iranian Nukes:
(Homeland Security Apr 26, 2007)
Threatening nukes is immoral foreign policy
When you have mainline candidates that say that there’s nothing off the table with respect to Iran, that’s code for using nuclear devices. I got to tell you, when I’m president of the
United States, there will be no preemptive wars with nukes--nuclear devices. To my mind, it’s immoral, and it’s been immoral for the last 50 years as part of American foreign policy.
Click for Mike Gravel on other issues.
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC
Mike Gravel on Iranian Nukes:
(Homeland Security Apr 26, 2007)
US is the greatest violator of the non-proliferation treaty
OBAMA: I think it would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran. But, have no doubt, Iran possessing nuclear weapons will be a major threat to us and to the region. GRAVEL: With respect to Iran, we’ve sanctioned them for 26 years.
We scared the bejesus out of them when the president says, “They’re evil.” Well, you know something? These things don’t work. They don’t work. We need to recognize them. And you know something? Who is the greatest violator of the non-proliferation treaty
The United States of America. We signed a pledge that we would begin to disarm, and we’re not doing it. We’re expanding our nukes. Who the hell are we going to nuke? Tell me, Barack.
Barack, who do you want to nuke?
OBAMA: I’m not planning to nuke anybody right now, Mike, I promise.
GRAVEL: Good. Good. We’re safe then, for a while.
Click for Mike Gravel on other issues.
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC
Barack Obama on Iranian Nukes:
(War & Peace Apr 26, 2007)
Iran with nuclear weapons is a profound security threat
KUCINICH: You previously said that all options are on the table with respect to Iran. That means you’re setting the stage for another war. We’re in Iraq for oil. We’re looking at attacking Iran for oil. OBAMA: I think it would be a profound mistake
for us to initiate a war with Iran. But, have no doubt, Iran possessing nuclear weapons will be a major threat to us and to the region. They’re in the process of developing it. And I don’t think that’s disputed by any expert. They are the largest state
sponsor of terrorism, of Hezbollah and Hamas.
KUCINICH: It is disputed.
OBAMA: There is no contradiction between us taking seriously the need, as you do, to want to strengthen our alliances around the world--but I think it is important for
us to also recognize that if we have nuclear proliferators around the world that potentially can place a nuclear weapon into the hands of terrorists, that is a profound security threat for America and one that we have to take seriously.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC
Page last updated: Mar 01, 2022
Error processing SSI file