John McCain's lunacy on Iran.

The Election of 2008 will provide a clear contrast between the two candidates. On the one hand, John McCain has promoted a lunatic policy that would involve starting a war with Iran. That would require him to call a draft, since we currently do not have the men to launch an attack with. Militarily, it could not be done without tipping our hand to the Iranians, making John McCain's contemplated war with Iran that much more difficult to achieve. Militarily, it could not be done without putting our troops in Iraq at an even greater risk than they are now. Economically, it would be suicidal, since Iran could block the Straights of Hormuz and skyrocket the oil prices to astronomical levels.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, is simply following the same kinds of policies that have been followed by Presidents of both parties when dealing with our enemies -- a combination of diplomacy and statesmanship. Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, John Kennedy, and Jimmy Carter talked to the Russians to reduce the worldwide threat of nuclear war. Carter talked to the Iranians to get the hostages released. Bill Clinton and George Bush I talked to the Palestinians and Yasser Arafat to get the talks between Israel and Palestine going. Eisenhower talked to the Chinese to end the Korean War. Nixon talked to the Vietnamese to end our involvement in Vietnam. Nixon also made a personal trip to China to restore diplomatic relations with that country after a 25-year break. You can read more about Obama's policies toward Iran here.

We all agree that much of Iran's conduct has been unacceptable.  Barack Obama already has a proposal on the table that would have designated the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organ, prohibited trade with Iran, frozen Iranian officials' assets, and combated their financing of Hezbollah. But we also have to recognize that Iran is not doing anything that any other country hasn't done. Any government that has come to power through revolution will try to develop their spheres of influence and demand respect as a regional power. For instance, the Monroe Doctrine did just that when the US warned European powers to stay out of their sphere of influence in the Americas. In return, the US did not interfere in European affairs. Iran is acting very similarly -- as soon as they see that we have no more military interests in the region, as evidenced by Obama's troop withdrawals from Iraq, they will have less incentive to finance these organizations.

But the fact of the matter is that the Republicans are playing politics with Iran -- instead of supporting Obama's proposals, they oppose it -- Richard Shelby, for instance, has placed a hold on Obama's bill.

What Obama opposes is the kind of saber-rattling that brought us to the brink of war with Iran. There is no just cause for such a war; the war is not winnable, it does not have the support of the international community, there is no clear and present danger from Iran, and our presence in Iraq only strengthens Iran. What Obama would work for with Iran is a verifiable agreement that would allow Iran to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. This is the same sort of agreement that we negotiated with the Russians several times, including under Presidents Reagan and Nixon. If we were to withdraw from Iraq, then the various Iraqi political factions would have no use for Iran; there are memories there of the eight-year war with the Iranians that cost many lives.

Here is the reading of the Kyl/Lieberman passage:

"(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate-- (1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy; (3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies; (4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies." [SA 3017 to SA 2011, 110th Congress, Introduced 9/26/07]

The difference between Bush/McCain and Obama is that Kyl/Lieberman gives the President a blank check to attack Iran -- something that John McCain would likely seek to take advantage of to start a war. But this is totally unconstitutional -- Barack Obama would consult with Congress and our allies and work within the system of international alliances that we have built up over the last 60 years. McCain, on the other hand, would seek to start a war without consultation of Congress in violation of the Constitutional mandate of Congressional power of declaration of war. To work outside the UN, the IAEA, NATO, Congress, and other such international organizations would create long-term damage to this country's security because foreign nations like Russia and China would then seek to create international alliances against us.

And what Obama would talk about these problems with the Iranians. It could well be that this is a misunderstanding, and that the US and Iran can work together on stabilizing the Middle East. It could be that this "threat" is blown out of proportion by a Bush administration seeking to turn back the clock to 2003 again. But assuming that these problems are legitimate, it is still a necessity to talk with the Iranians because otherwise, there would be no just cause because all diplomatic options would not have been exhausted. It is not psychologically healthy to sweep problems like these under the rug and pretend that they never happened; it is necessary to address these issues -- personally -- in order to clear up misunderstandings. The very ability of the two sides to put a human face on each other will in and of itself help to ease tensions between the two countries.

Another problem that Obama had with Kyl/Lieberman is that it is being used by the Bush administration to justify the McCain Doctrine of Perpetual Warfare. In other words, we cannot withdraw from Iraq because the Iranians are too strong. But a withdrawal from Iraq would have the effect of easing tensions between the two countries. Iran would be convinced that the US had peaceful intentions and would be willing to resolve matters as diplomatically as possible.

There are those who would say that Iran has nuclear weapons or is in the process of developing them. What Obama would do is ensure that people would not invest in Iran's energy policy until all the outstanding issues about their nuclear program are resolved. The fact of the matter is that Iran has still not developed a nuclear weapon, and that they can still be contained even if they did, similar to North Korea. Therefore, prevention is the key to stopping them -- not saber-rattling and laying the groundwork for an invasion, similar to what John McCain is doing. Even if Iran is in the process of developing such weapons, they still do not pose a clear and present danger to this country. Israel has their own nuclear weapons that they could use on Iran in the event of a nuclear attack by Iran; therefore, Iran does not pose a clear and present danger to Israel either.

There is widespread support for divesting from Iran and other such countries; however, investors are reluctant to move dollars out of companies that invest in Iran for fear of lawsuits. Therefore, Obama would protect these investors against lawsuits related to their moving dollars out of companies that invest in Iran. This could be applied to other countries as well, such as Burma. What an Obama administration would do is raise awareness at the grassroots level of the problems with Iran's behavior, such as their use of billions of dollars in oil and gas to fund enemies of Israel.

Another thing that Obama would do is work with other countries. The international community, for instance, is not totally convinced of the kind of unacceptable behavior that Iran engages in; therefore; an Obama administration would first marshall the international community behind efforts to contain Iran. This, again, is something that presidents of both parties have done to combat our enemies. Truman did it with the Soviet Union when we formed NATO; Bush I did it when he formed an international coalition to drive Saddam out of Kuwait with the backing of the UN. But John McCain would not do that; instead, he would rather pander to the Black Helicopter Crowd and talk about getting rid of the UN and replacing it with something else. For Obama, any effort to attack a country is totally out of the question unless we have the complete support of the international community.

One of the excuses that the Bush administration makes for opposing Obama's efforts to combat Iran is that it would somehow undermine their efforts to create what they call a "multilateral actions against Iran." But if the Bush administration is actively undermining Obama's efforts to do just that, then that tells me that they are simply laying the groundwork to create a new sham "coalition of the willing" that would be a token force and that would accomplish nothing. That, I suggest, is what they really mean by "multilateral efforts."