|
Position on
Iran
By Bruce A. Slater,
Congressional Candidate
July 7, 2008
Nobody except our worst enemies
wants to see Iran build a nuclear arsenal. The real question is: what's the
best way to prevent it?
Since 9/11, the Bush
administration's policy, blindly supported by my opponent, Joe Pitts, has been
to demand regime change in Iran, repeatedly threaten military action, and
refuse to seriously talk to anyone there until Iran unilaterally meets a set of
US-dictated “pre-conditions.”
The results speak for themselves.
The most radical factions in Iran have been strengthened, and they are currently
doing everything in their power to defy the US and speed up their nuclear
program. The most recent Bush/Pitts responses continue to be more ineffective
saber-rattling. There has to be a better way.
Let's start by looking at the
facts. "Iran has stated publicly for some time that it is only pursuing a
nuclear program for what it terms 'peaceful purposes' such as nuclear energy.
We and our allies need to hold the Iranians to their earlier pledge to follow
the established international regimen of monitoring and inspections by the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Even though the US says its supports
such efforts, the Bush administration's simplistic approach to foreign
policy since 9/11 has mostly served to undermine them. This has to change.
Fortunately, even the Bush
administration's experts now agree that, despite the constant hostile statements
of Iran's President Ahmadinejad towards the US and particularly its key ally,
Israel, Iran currently poses no serious, immediate threat to the security of the
US or its allies.
Even under the most pessimistic
assumptions, Iran will not have the capability of effectively deploying a
nuclear weapon, much less a significant arsenal of such weapons, for some years
to come. Iran has serious internal problems which severely limit its ability to
seriously threaten us militarily or even economically without putting itself at
grave risk. Not everyone in Iran agrees with President Ahmadinejad's radical
policies. He now faces stiff opposition and declining public support, many
doubt his ability to deliver on his promises to improve his country's faltering
economy, or make any substantive progress in restoring its tarnished standing in
the international community. There are more moderate political factions in Iran
who would welcome the chance to ratchet down the rhetoric, end the
sanctions, and reach some broader accommodation with the US and the
international community.
I also believe a breakthrough on the
nuclear question could also serve as a pretext for expanding negotiations on
other outstanding issues with Iran, ultimately helping to stabilize the
situation in respect to Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, and Syria, where the current
Iranian administration has been causing problems. Progress in any of these
areas could further strengthen the hands of those in Iran who want to pursue a
more moderate and pragmatic policy of accommodation and engagement with the US
and the international community.
But the Bush
administration, as usual, continues to turn a deaf ear to any calls for a
substantive change in either tactics or overall direction in its dealings with
Iran. Meanwhile Joe Pitts continues to provide uncritical, knee-jerk support
for Bush's rigid, tone-deaf foreign policy. This definitely does not serve the
real interests of his constituents, or the rest of the American people.
Unlike my opponent, Joe Pitts,
George Bush, Dick Cheney, and John McCain, I believe that, given the current
situation, setting rigid and arbitrary pre-conditions for diplomatic discussions
with the Iranians remains counterproductive. This approach simply serves to put
off the possibility of constructive talks until an indefinite future over which
we have little control.
Of course we should only hold talks
that we believe have some opportunity to be successful. It just doesn't make
sense to continue to act in a way that only makes it increasingly harder to
get Iran to the table. I also believe that diplomacy works best when you are
operating from a position of strength. We won't accomplish this by continuing to
rattle our sabers at Iran - the main tactic of the Bush administration - but by
changing our current failed policies in the Middle East region.
Let's face it - our current quagmire
in Iraq does far more to undermine our strategic position in that region, and to
threaten our overall national security, than any specific threat currently
coming from Iran. And, as long as we are bogged down in Iraq, the worst
elements in Iran know that we don't have either the resources or international
credibility to effectively oppose them. That's exactly what is emboldening them
right now.
Therefore, we need to develop
a more realistic and effective set of policies in the Middle East that restores
our international credibility and simultaneously enables both our diplomats and
our military to pursue our true national interests in the region and around the
world. If you agree we need new and better approaches to Iran and the Middle
East, please send a strong message to Washington in November by supporting me
for Congressman from the 16th District of Pennsylvania.
View July 13th
press release...
|
