As United Nations inspectors prepare to unveil a new report on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, some Republican presidential candidates have taken increasingly forceful tones on the issue, saying they would sanction or consider supporting an attack on Iran’s nuclear programby either Israel or the United States.The party’s hawkishness was evident last week as five major Republican rivals campaigned in Iowa. In an interview outside Des Moines, Gov.Rick Perry of Texas was asked whether he would back a pre-emptive Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program, and he then told CNN he would support Israeli efforts “up to and including military action.”
Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, described Iran as an “enemy” on Friday night in Des Moines at a dinner of almost 1,000 of the state’s most important Republican activists. In an interview, Mr. Santorum said that he would “stand shoulder to shoulder” in support of Israel if it launched a pre-emptive attack and that he would also back direct American military support if requested by Israel.
The issue holds particular resonance now amid numerous reports that United Nations inspectors will state this week that Iran has moved closer to being capable of building a nuclear weapon, and as Israel has been debating a more confrontational posture toward Iran.
Broadly within the party, the focus reflects not only competition to be regarded as the strongest ally of Israel, but also a sense that projecting toughness on Iran may offer one of the few political openings on foreign policy that Republicans can use to attack President Obama. Republicans assert that he has been weak and too solicitous of the Iranian government, while administration officials believe they have orchestrated an array of sanctions and other efforts that have put great pressure on Iran.
One candidate, Representative Ron Paul of Texas, flatly rejects a pre-emptive strike by American forces, absent “credible evidence” that Iran was planning an imminent attack on the United States, which Mr. Paul says would be highly unlikely. He says that the Iranian threat to the Middle East has also been overstated and that he favors better relations with that country.
His spokesman, Jesse Benton, added that Mr. Paul “refused to condemn Israel’s attacks against Iraq’s nuclear facilities in the early 1980s and would not try to push Israel or tell them what to do.”
Two other candidates — Representative Michele Bachmannof Minnesota and Herman Cain — have in past interviews declined to state explicitly whether they could support a strike by the United States. But both have used strong words: Mr. Cain has suggested that he would equate an attack on Israel with an attack on the United States.
And after a campaign appearance at Iowa State University on Thursday, Mrs. Bachmann warned, “Iran has stated once they gain a nuclear weapon they will use it to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.”
In a similar vein, when Mr. Perry was asked if he would approve a pre-emptive Israeli strike “even if it started a war in the region,” he responded, “We cannot allow that madman to get his hands on a nuclear weapon, because we know what he will do with it.”
The comments by both candidates have their roots at least in part in a statement by the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, six years ago that was translated as his saying Israel “should be wiped off the map.”
He did not say anything about using nuclear weapons, and Iran has denied seeking nuclear weaponry. The nature and meaning of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statement has been hotly disputed ever since. Some officials say it shows that Iran’s leadership wants to annihilate Israel, but other analysts say he was not calling for an attack or military action but for the collapse someday of Israel.
Like the Obama administration, Mitt Romney, who leads the Republican field in many polls, would keep a military option “on the table” and use diplomatic and economic pressure. Mr. Romney also says he would order the “regular presence” of an aircraft carrier task force in the eastern Mediterranean and Persian Gulf.
A spokesman added that Mr. Romney would seek “increased military coordination with and assistance to Israel in order to make clear to Iran that the military option is very much on the table, and increased Israeli preparation for a strike advances that policy.”
In response to a question four years ago, Mr. Romney said that if any military action were taken against Iran, “I don’t anticipate that the kind of strategy we would pursue would be a ground-intensive, change-the-regime, change-the-government type of effort. I think it’s more likely that other military actions would be in the nature of blockade or a bombardment or surgical strikes of one kind or another.”
In a recent foreign policy speech, former Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr. of Utah said he would consider using American force to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. And former Speaker Newt Gingrich said last Friday that while he would not “green-light” a pre-emptive Israeli strike — favoring instead efforts to replace the Iranian leadership — he also would not try to talk the Israelis down from such an attack.
“I wouldn’t,” Mr. Gingrich said on CNN. “I mean, if the prime minister of Israel comes to the conclusion that the survival of his country’s at stake, the idea that an American president’s going to second guess him — you know, two nuclear weapons is a second holocaust.”
No comments:
Post a Comment