Barack Obama - Iran

Last Updated: Mar 23, 2011

Summary

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Senator Obama stated that the comments made by President Achmadinejad represented a threat to everyone and echoed tragedies of the past. He stated that the world must work to stop Iran from achieving it's goal of obtaining nuclear weapons. When asked on numerous occasions, Senator Obama stated that no option, including a military option should be off the table. He expressed support for economic sanctions and backed that up by sponsoring legislation to sanction those that assisted the Iranian regime as well.

Senator Obama stated early in the campaign that he would meet with the leaders of countries such as Iran and North Korea with no preconditions. This statement created some controversy for him and when asked about it on numerous occasions, the President noted that preparation and preconditions were two different things and that no country would be willing to have discussions with the US if we required them to meet all our conditions ahead of time.

As President, Obama was criticized for failing to endorse the protestors against the Iranian elections more quickly and for the discovery of a secret facility at Qom. In June and July of 2010, President Obama supported a UN resolution condemning Iran for not being willing to prove it's nuclear program was peaceful. He signed the Iran Sanctions Act into law a short time later.

AIPAC Policy Forum

In March of 2007, Senator Obama spoke at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Forum. In that speech, he spoke about the Iranian regime and it's threat to Israel.

U.S. Failure in Iraq Has Strenghtened Iran
In addition, we will redeploy our troops to other locations in the region, reassuring our allies that we will stay engaged in the Middle East.
And my plan includes a robust regional diplomatic strategy that includes talking to Syria and Iran – something this Administration has finally embraced.
The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. Our troops have done all that we have asked them to do and more.
But a consequence of the Administration’s failed strategy in Iraq has been to strengthen Iran’s strategic position; reduce U.S. credibility and influence in the region; and place Israel and other nations friendly to the United States in greater peril. These are not the signs of a well-paved road. It is time for profound change.
As the U.S. redeploys from Iraq, we can recapture lost influence in the Middle East. We can refocus our efforts to critical, yet neglected priorities, such as combating international terrorism and winning the war in Afghanistan.
And we can, then, more effectively deal with one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace: Iran.
Iran’s President Is a Threat to All of Us
Iran’s President Ahmadinejad’s regime is a threat to all of us. His words contain a chilling echo of some of the world’s most tragic history.
Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself. President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth.
But we know the Holocaust was as real as the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to Dachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz. We have seen the pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington and Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60 years, it is time to deny the deniers.
In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But that is exactly what he has done.
Neither Israel nor the United States has the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric.
Iranian Nuclear Weapons
The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy.
And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.
Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a new arms race. Some nations in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, could fall away from restraint and rush into a nuclear contest that could fuel greater instability in the region—that’s not just bad for the Middle East, but bad for the world, making it a vastly more dangerous and unpredictable place.
Other nations would feel great pressure to accommodate Iranian demands. Terrorist groups with Iran’s backing would feel emboldened to act even more brazenly under an Iranian nuclear umbrella. And as the A.Q. Kahn network in Pakistan demonstrated, Iran could spread this technology around the world.
U.S. Must Engage in Tough-Minded Diplomacy with Iran
To prevent this worst-case scenario, we need the United States to lead tough-minded diplomacy.
This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out in clear terms our principles and interests. Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage through stronger sanctions.
It would mean more determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations.
It would mean harnessing the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran’s major trading partners.
It would mean a cooperative strategy with Gulf States who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs.
It would mean unifying those states to recognize the threat of Iran and increase pressure on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment.
It would mean full implementation of U.S. sanctions laws.
And over the long term, it would mean a focused approach from us to finally end the tyranny of oil, and develop our own alternative sources of energy to drive the price of oil down.
We must also persuade other nations such as Saudi Arabia to recognize common interests with Israel in dealing with Iran.
We should stress to the Egyptians that they help the Iranians and do themselves no favors by failing to adequately prevent the smuggling of weapons and cash by Iran into Gaza. The United States’ leverage is strengthened when we have many nations with us.
Economic Sanctions on Iran?
It puts us in a place where sanctions could actually have a profound impact on Iran’s economy. Iran is highly dependent on imports and foreign investment, credit and technology. And an environment where our allies see that these types of investments in Iran are not in the world’s best interests, could help bring Iran to the table.
We have no quarrel with the Iranian people. They know that President Ahamadinejad is reckless, irresponsible, and inattentive to their day-to-day needs which is why they sent him a rebuke at the ballot box this fall.
And we hope more of them will speak out. There is great hope in their ability to see his hatred for what it is: hatred and a threat to peace in the region.
At the same time, we must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs.
This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza.

Meet the Press

In November of 2007, Senator Obama appeared on Meet the Press and was interviewed about the topic of Iran at great length. When asked about a September 2007 vote to designate the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist group, Senator Obama stated that his view on Iraq differed from Senator Clinton's in that he did not view Iraq as a means to control Iran. He stated that he would meet directly with Iran and Senator Clinton would not.

President Obama was also asked about a previous statement to meet with leaders of countries such as Cuba, Iran, and North Korea without preconditions. He stated that he would do so, but that meeting without preconditions was not the same as meeting without preparation.

Boston Globe Interview

In December of 2007, Senator Obama was interviewed by the Boston Globe and stated that the President did not have the authority to invade Iran because it did not represent an imminent threat to the US.

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Indianapolis Star Interview

In April of 2008, Senator Obama was interviewed by the Indianapolis Star and asked about Iran. Senator Obama noted that Hamas and other entities were not states, but rather terrorist organizations. He stated that he would meet directly with the leaders of states like Syria and Iran without preconditions.

The Need for More Credibility

In a google interview in December of 2007, Senator Obama stated that Iran's nuclear program was indeed a threat as it may lead to an arms race in that area in the world. He stated that the best thing for America is to be "more liked" throughout the world, and that this would give us more clout throughout the world. He stated that being more liked would give us greater credibility if we attempted to avoid genocide in Sudan and other countries would not see us as invading a muslim nation.

Meet with Iran Without Preconditions

During the 2008 Presidential debates, Senator Obama stated that he would meet with any country without any preconditions. Senator Obama stated that Presdient Achmadenijad may not be the most powerful person in Iran and may not be the person to meet with. He stated that there was a difference between preparation and preconditions. He stated that Iran was a rogue regime and communication may not work.

The Iranian National Guard

Senator Obama missed a vote which attempted to list the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist force. This was the same vote discussed on Meet the Press in November of 2007. He was asked how he would have voted on that bill and stated that he would have voted against that measure because of the language. He states that it could have been used as a blank check, which President Bush had cashed in the past.

When asked if he agreed with the Bush administration that Iranians were involved in killing Americans in Iraq, he stated that Iran had been a beneficiary of the war in Iraq and that there were indeed supplying militias in Iraq. He states that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is a threat to the US.

Strong Countries Talk to Their Adversaries

During the 2008 Presidential elections, Senator Obama stated that "Strong countries and strong leaders talk to their adversaries." He stated that this was what Reagan did with Russia and Nixon did with Mao. He stated that countries the size of Iran do not pose a serious threat to the United States.

Tough Diplomacy the Best Route

In a June 3, 2009 interview with the BBC, President Obama stated that Iran must abandon it's nuclear ambitions and that tough diplomacy may be the best route to bring about that change.

My personal view is that the Islamic state of Iran has the potential to be an extraordinarily prosperous and powerful country. They are more likely to achieve that in the absence of nuclear weapons that could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region ... not just responses from Israel by the way but potentially other states in the region ... and that if what's preventing them from seeing that reality is 30 years of loggerheads between Iran and the United States, then this may be an opportunity for us to open the door and see if they walk through.

Cairo Address

On June 4, 2009 President Obama gave an address in Cairo where he proposed to allow peaceful nuclear energy development in any nation, including Iran, if they complied with their responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation - including Iran - should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it.

Iran with Nuclear Weapons is Dangerous

On June 6, 2009 President Obama met with President Sarkozy of France and in a joint press conference, called on Iran not to develop nuclear weapons. He stated that a nuclear Iran was dangerous because their acquisition of nuclear weapons would cause the surrounding area to join a rush for nuclear weapons.

Response to Election Protests

In response to what they believed to be a fraudulent election, the Iranian people began to protest. When the Iranian government began to clamp down on those protesters with violence, President Obama condemned the actions, called on Iran to abide by rules for treating it's citizens humanely, and stated that the violence would not stop the desire for democracy.

On June 19, 2009 President Obama was interviewed by CBS and stated that the protests were not a reaction to the west. In response to criticism that he had not been vocal enough in support of the Iranian people, he stated that he did not want the Iranian government to use the idea of American interference as a scapegoat for the use of violence.

Days later, President Obama gave an address in response to video showing what appeared to be Iranians being killed in the protests and accusations of CIA involvement. He stated that accusations that the US was involved were untrue, and that these allegations only reinforced his belief that the US should remain uninvolved to avoid being used as a scapegoat. He used strong language to condemn the actions of the Iranian government.

UN Address

On September 23, 2009 President Obama spoke at the UN and stated that it had not met it's obligations as a member of the international community. He stated that Iran must confirm to the world that their nuclear intentions were peaceful.

Secret Facility at Qom

On September 25, 2009 President Obama stated at a press conference that the Iranians were building a secret nuclear weapons facility at Qom, a facility that Iran had recently admitted existed. He stated that Iran was in violation of laws that all nations must abide by.

On October 1, 2009, President Obama gave a press conference in which he stated that Iran had 2 weeks to comply with UN regulations and allow inspectors into the newly disclosed facility.

Response to UN Resolution

On June 9, 2010, President Obama reacted to a UN vote to sanction Iran for it's unwillingness to prove it's nuclear power program was peaceful. He stated that Iran had ignored UN requests, and failed to meet commitments as a member of the IAEA.

Iran Sanctions Act

In July of 2010, President Obama signed the Iran Sanctions Act. He stated that for years, Iran had supported terrorist activities and failed to achieve it's international duties to allow the UN to ensure that it's nuclear program was for peaceful purposes.

Voting Record

Designating Revolutionary Guard as Terrorists

In September of 2007, the Senate voted on a resolution that expressed the sense of the Senate on six items. These items were that:

that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East
that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq
that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran
to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies
that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224
that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.

Critics of the measure called it saber rattling even though it passed by a wide margin. Barack Obama cast a "No Vote"

References

[1] Website: About.com Article: Barack Obama on Israel, Iran and Iraq Author: NA Accessed on: 03/08/2011

[2] Website: The New York Times Article: Obama Envisions New Iran Approach Author: MICHAEL R. GORDON and JEFF ZELENY Accessed on: 03/08/2011

[3] Website: Boston Globe Article: Barack Obama's Q&A Author: Charlie Savage Accessed on: 03/23/2011