According to the Jerusalem Post, The Israel Project has received letters from the leading Democratic presidential contenders about the Iranian nuclear threat and what to do about. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards all professed concern about the prospect of a nuclear Iran.
Here’s Clinton, who as usual phrases things in terms of what we “must not” do:
We cannot permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. We also must not let go unanswered its state sponsorship of terrorism. We must not stand silent in the face of brutal repression of women and minorities. And we must not tolerate threats to the existence of Israel.
Here’s Edwards:
Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons could also set off a regional nuclear arms race in one of the [most] unstable regions in the world, which directly threaten US interests.
And finally Obama states that allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons is “a risk we cannot take.”
So what should we do to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons?
Here’s Obama’s prescription:
We need a comprehensive diplomatic strategy, including stronger action by the United Nations, to bring pressure to bear to reverse course.
“Comprehensive.” You can’t beat that.
And Edwards promises to “take aggressive steps to resolve the situation and to protect the United States and our allies,” including a program of engagement, increased sanctions, incentives and working directly with Russia and China, which have been reluctant to take as strong action as the US on the issue.” Begging the Russians and Chinese to protect our interests and those of Israel. Now there’s an aggressive, winning approach.
Nanny Clinton apparently confined herself to dictating what we must not stand for.
Neither Clinton, Obama, nor Edwards mentioned the possibility of using force to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
UPDATE: The Israel Project also asked three Republican presidential candidates about Iran. In contrast to their Democratic counterparts, two of the three Republicans responded that the military option should remain on the table. Unfortunately, the JPost story doesn’t identify the candidates who did (or did not) say this.
To comment on this post, go here.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.