for Democrats: how will Democrats deal with Iran problem if they come to power?

Question

Republicans, led by Bush want to war on Iran. because, they believe Iran is big danger for the middle east and it must be destroyed.
what about Democrats?

Answer 1

You will have to wait and see that one. It's called the Waiting Game. They all say one thing until they get elected, then it's another story. History proves it.

Answer 2

It's worth keeping in mind that this question can be broken into two parts:

(1) What is the best way to deal with Iran that serves both its national interest and common interests shared by the region and the broader international community?

(2) What are Democrats likely to do politically?

Unfortunately far too many Americans don't think about Iran as anything except as a place where a lot of oil is and the place where American hostages were taken. Thus they don't have any knowledge or historical perspective to counterbalance Bush Administration saber rattling.

This ignores the fact that denying technology to Iran only really works if they're far from achieving it. Facts are that they have the scientific know-how and they've basically proved they have the refinement capability, which put the lie to that notion. For Iran it's just a matter of building the physical plant, get the centrifuges spinning and buying the fuel. Too many people want to put the cork back on the bottle when the genie has long since left.

Also, not many people consider that Iran's economy is completely dependent on oil, and they don't even use that money particularly well at that. As supplies shall inevitably tighten, it's impossible to see how to avoid serious problems for Iran when that revenue stream starts running dry. If Iran falls apart it will inevitably spill into the broader region.

Too many ignorant Americans see nuclear bombs when the issue of Iran nuclear technology comes up, while selectively ignoring the need of every sovereign nation to ensure a supply of energy for its populace. Denying all nuclear technology to Iran simply encourages another A.Q. Khan (anyone remember him?) to come along and sell them the technology on an illicit network free to be used also by any well-financed lunatic wanting to make dirty bombs.

A good clean nuclear fuel cycle will offer Iran a way to get past petroleum dependence, make the country more energy secure, and by supporting peaceful use while discouraging weapon building won't give Israeli hard-liners the means to make more political ammunition from Ahmadenijad's statements about wanting to wipe Israel off the map (does he still want to do that? I don't recall ever hearing that statement retracted)

If we could find some way to support a proposal in the style of the E.U. wanting to provide a safe supply of fuel to Iran for peaceful purposes, and an exchange program that ensures a secure supply for energy uses while providing some transparency to ensure none of that fuel is going for weapon building, everyone would be better off.

That leaves the other part, what are democrats going to do with it.

Personally, I'm worried that Hillary Clinton likes to flirt with hard-line neocon and hawkish positions too much to support anything other than a hard-line stance against any further development of Iranian nuclear technology. That's basically a continuation of Bush stupidity if she gets in office.

Obama's a nice guy, but his stated interest in supporting the option of missile strikes on Iran also seems to lean much in the same direction.

I've yet to hear what any of the other guys have to say.

Unfortunately, it seems that the Democrats aren't going to be any better than the Republicans on this matter.

Answer 3

Republicans don't want war with anyone and Iran IS a great danger for the entire world.

To address your question:
The leading Democrats have attempted to answer this very question in past debates. Here it is in three easy steps:

1)Lots of talk.
2)very little action
3)blame it on Bush somehow.

Answer 4

Bill O-reilly mad e a point that I actually agreed with yesterday, which is rare...he said that we should never put troops on the ground in the Middle East again, as we cannot trust the populace to aid us even if we are trying to overthrow a dictator...any attacks in the Middle east will have to come through the air or the use of missiles. I agree with Bill for once.

Answer 5

Iran is akin to a 2 year old throwing a tantrum; it's all to get attention.

Treat it accordingly; give it a time out for bad behavior.


If they want nuclear power for peaceful means so damn bad, why don't the U.S., China, and Europe each build them a reactor and install them as a gesture of good faith?

That way, they get their peaceful nuclear power, and we get peace of mind that the reactors can't be tinkered with without destroying it in the process.

Answer 6

I am neither Dem or Rep, I am a Proletariat and I hope that they exhaust all non-military options before another "pre-emptive" strike.


But last I checked, Iran was completely compliant and not a threat in any way....why should we go to war at this point?

Answer 7

Appeasement

Edit. Washington I "Iran is in full compliance"? Except for training and arming soldiers and militias to kill American troops. Iran has begun acts of war against American troops, and the Dems are too weak to protect our own troops.

Edit #2. Outcrop: The french have already offered Iran a reactor that would not be capible of producing weapon grade materials, but Iran refused. They want to become a nuclear power to either use it as a weapon, or force more appeasement from us.

Answer 8

You know, if the Iranians want a nuclear power facility so damned badly, we should go over and help them build one.

In this way, we can help insure that it would be geared towards peaceful purposes (plus we could also sneak in surveillance equipment)

The fact is, they WILL get this technology one way or another. It would beneficial to 1) diffuse tensions and 2) have some input in the matter.

Answer 9

Iran does not want peace. They want influence and power, so your plans to offer them a reactor will never work, and our leaders will never be allowed to have any say in their matters. They are hardliners who hate America.

Now will any Liberal please answer the question with a realistic solution instead of simply blasting away?

Answer 10

The elites have split the parties into two parts. The action wing, Republicans who do the war, and Democrats, who pretend to be against it. This way, it gives the facade of disagreement and non collusion in the government. BAAAHH bleat the sheeple.

Answer 11

They will do nothing to address the threat imposed by Iran on Israel, the US and our interests in the middle east. They only react when it is too late.