As I have diaried before, Barack Obama has taken pains to portray himself as a sharp contrast to Hillary Clinton on Iran, particularly regarding the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. However, this is a recent development, and there is ample evidence to support the contention that the differences between Hillary's and Barack's positions on Iran are largely cosmetic and, as another diary of mine shows, of recent origin.
Let's look at some of the publicly available statements Barack Obama has made on Iran before he knew he was being compared to Hillary, and see what his actual position is. A careful review of the full record of Barack Obama's statements over the past few years can only lead one to the conclusion that people who are worried about Hillary "leading us into war with Iran" had better be worried about the charge of the Barack Brigade as well. Barack Obama has been discussing the merits of military attacks on Iran for years, using the same rationales other Iran war hawks.
Follow me for specifics...
Let's start with a Chicago Tribune article from September 2004. Barack Obama was talking to the editorial board of the paper when Iran and its growing nuclear program came up. At the time, Obama was running against Alan Keyes for his current Senate seat, and Iran had just announced that it had begun converting tons of uranium into gas, a crucial step in making fuel for a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb.
Obama said the United States must first address Iran's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said. But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran.
"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked.
Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said.
..."launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said."On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point." |
And Pakistan- what about Musharraf losing control and radical Islamic factions taking over there, including control of the nuclear weapons? Obama's response:
As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. Musharraf's troops are battling hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations. |
Then Obama talked about how Islamic extremists are a greater threat and a different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and how they must be treated differently.
"With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain," Obama said. "I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same calculations.
"... I think there are elements within Pakistan right now--if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don't think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks." |
As I discussed in a previous diary, in November 2006 Barack Obama proposed maintaining a military presence in Iraq to deter Syria and Iran:
A reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region...Make no mistake, if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening. |
And, a final source- Barack Obama's interview with Haaretz in May 2007. In contrast to the tempest here about the alleged differences between Hillary's "all options" and Barack's "military options", let's see what he said to Haaretz:
As expected, Obama is reluctant to discuss any measures other than diplomatic and economic pressure (he uses the no-options-taken-off-the-table formula, as usual). He won't take the gung-ho approach one could see in the Republican debate two weeks ago. Obama, mind you, is a Democrat. Is it absolutely crucial to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? "Yes." Using whatever measures that might be needed? "I will go back to what I said earlier" (the no-options-off-the-table reply). |
So, let's be consistent in our treatment of the candidates. If we're going to hold one candidate accountable for this sort of stuff, then we should hold them ALL accountable for it. No more double
standards! If Hillary's statements on war with Iran make you nervous, how much easier would you sleep if Barack Obama were elected president?
Pleasant dreams.