Biden has been right on Iran for decades.

[Drunken Irishman]

1) Biden opposed the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment in 2007 that designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization. Many at the time thought it would be a precursor to War with Iran.

2) Biden was a strong advocate for the Iran Nuclear Deal while in the Obama administration.

3) Biden, in 2008, supported diplomacy with Iran - stating the following during the 2008 Vice Presidential Debate:

The fact of the matter is, it surprises me that Senator McCain doesn't realize that Ahmadinejad does not control the security apparatus in Iran. The theocracy controls the security apparatus, number one.

Number two, five secretaries of state did say we should talk with and sit down.

Now, John and Governor Palin now say they're all for -- they have a passion, I think the phrase was, a passion for diplomacy and that we have to bring our friends and allies along.

Our friends and allies have been saying, Gwen, "Sit down. Talk. Talk. Talk." Our friends and allies have been saying that, five secretaries of state, three of them Republicans.

And John McCain has said he would go along with an agreement, but he wouldn't sit down. Now, how do you do that when you don't have your administration sit down and talk with the adversary?

And look what President Bush did. After five years, he finally sent a high-ranking diplomat to meet with the highest-ranking diplomats in Iran, in Europe, to try to work out an arrangement.

Our allies are on that same page. And if we don't go the extra mile on diplomacy, what makes you think the allies are going to sit with us?

In Dec., 2007, during a Democratic Debate, Joe Biden scoffed at the idea that Iran was a nuclear threat:

With all due respect with anybody who thinks that pressure brought this about, let's get this straight. In 2003, they stopped their program.

You cannot trust this president. He is not trustworthy. He has undermined our security in the region. He has undermined our credibility in the world. He has made it more difficult to get cooperation from the rest of the world. He has caused oil to go up roughly $25 a barrel with a security premium because of his threat of war.

It is outrageous, intolerable, and it must stop. The president of the United States — it was like watching a rerun of his statement on Iraq five years earlier. This — Iran is not a nuclear threat to the United States of America. Iran should be dealt with directly with the rest of the world at our side, but we've made it more difficult now because who is going to trust us? Who in Europe, who in China, who in Russia? It's outrageous.

He also defended his opposition to the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment in that same debate:

As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I'm the only one at this table for the last four years who've been laying out concrete alternatives to the Bush administration's policy. The vote — what everybody misunderstands, in my humble opinion, is the vote to declare the Qods Force and the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization was not a view that could be established without question, number one.

Number two, it is self-defeating. The moment that declaration was made, oil prices jumped over $18 a barrel. The moment that declaration was made, every one of our friends, from Iraq to Pakistan, felt they had to distance themselves from us because it appears to be a war on Islam.

My — with all due respect to my colleagues, with the exception of Senator Dodd, they're not connecting the dots here. This matters, and there's no evidence — none, zero – that this declaration caused any change in action on the part of the Iranian government.

In response to a question about why Iran hates the US:

By the way, terminology matters. I'm a great admirer of Senator Clinton. It's not about not advocating a rush to war. I'm advocating no war. A rush to war means that war, taken slowly, going slowly, is possible. I'm advocating no war, no justification for war.

Number two, the reason why — the reason why we are disliked so much is because we are trusted so little. The reason why we are disliked so much, obviously — I'm not talking about al Qaeda. I'm talking about the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world who look at us and, when we say and do things as we're talking about now with Iran, conclude that this is a war on Islam.

I'll make one point. When we went into Afghanistan, the word was, the Arab street would rise up. We did it the right way. The Arab street knew that Arabs, the Muslims in al-Qaeda were bad guys. They supported us. When we do things that don't sound rational to them, it undercuts our legitimacy. We have no legitimacy.

Here is what Biden considers his Foreign Policy Doctrine:

Clarity. Prevention, not preemption. An absolute repudiation of this president's doctrine, which has only three legs in the stool: one, push the mute button, don't talk to anybody; two, preemption; and three, regime change. I would reject all three. We need a doctrine of prevention. The role of a great power is to prevent the crises. And we don't have to imagine any of the crises. We know what's going to happen on day one when you're president. You have Pakistan, Russia, China, the subcontinent of India. You have Afghanistan. You have Darfur. And it requires engagement — engagement and prevention. That does not rule out the use of force; it incorporates the notion of prevention — prevention.

Biden again on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment from a DNC debate held in July, 2007 - and whether it was a de facto deceleration of war:

I think it can be used as a fact -- a declaration.

But look, we have a -- we have aproblem in the Senate -- and I'm not just directing this at Hillary; all -- there were 75 otherpeople who voted with her, we're in a minority -- that there areconsequences for what we do. And it's not even about going towar.

Let's look at what happened from themoment that vote took place.

Oil prices went up to $90 a barrel. Who benefits fromthat? All this talk of war, all this talk of declaring people to be terrorists,drove up the price ofoil.

Secondly, we have emboldened Bush at aminimum. His talk of World War III, totally irresponsible talk. We've emboldenedhim, Tim, to be able to move if he chooses to move. They'reterrorists. The fact that they're terrorists on one side of the border or theother, we've just declared them terrorists. That gives him the colorof right to move againstthem.

Thirdly, this has incredible consequencesfor Afghanistan and Pakistan. Nobody talks about this. Do 75 of ourcolleagues not understand? We have now driven underground every moderate inPakistan and in Afghanistan. This literally -- literally -- putsKarzai, as well as Musharraf, injeopardy.

The notion here is it plays into thiswhole urban legend that America is on a crusade against Islam. This was bad -- ifnothing else happens, not another single thing, this was bad policy.

The president had the ability to do everything that thatamendment, that resolution called for without us talking to it. And allit has done is hurt us, even if not another single action is taken. Actions have consequences. Big nations can'tbluff.

On Iran's nuclear capabilities:

I would pledge to keep us safe. If you told me, Tim -- and this is not -- this is complicated stuff. We talk about this in isolation. The fact of the matter is the Iranians may get 2.6 kilograms of highly enriched uranium; the Pakistanis have hundreds, thousands of kilograms of highly enriched uranium.

If by attacking Iran to stop them from getting 2.6 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, the government in Pakistan falls, who has missiles already deployed, with nuclear weapons on them, that can already reach Israel, already reach India, then that's a bad bargain.

Presidents make wise decisions informed not by a vacuum in which they operate, by the situation they find themselves in the world. I will do all in my power to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but I will never take my eye off the ball.

What is the greatest threat to the United States of America: 2.6 kilograms of highly enriched uranium in Tehran or an out of control Pakistan? It's not close.

Biden gets flack, and rightfully so, for his Iraq War vote - but for over a decade, he's been absolutely, positively right on Iran.

That's reassuring as we enter a very turbulent period with their government.

[Cha]

1. Wow.. Thanks for this research!

[emmaverybo]

2. His knowledge of foreign affairs and direct experience in the field coupled with his ability to

speak fluently, convincingly, forcefully about complicated geo-political matters makes him, for me,
the POTUS for this perilous time we live in.
And I know Joe has been keeping up.
Thank for posting these passages.

[Skittles]

3. speak fluently?

[emmaverybo]

5. Yeah, fluent in a subject or field not fluent in a foreign language. I think about this he was. Nt

[Skittles]

6. oh, I thought you meant where it's not questioned what he means

[dalton99a]

10. It will be interpreted fluently

The gaffes will be ironed out

[BootinUp]

7. I laughed. Nt

[Cha]

4. Mahalo for your post, emmaverybo..

This is all very inspiring for what we need in a President.

[Scurrilous]

8. K&R

[stonecutter357]

9. K&R