John Edwards on Iran, Iraq, and Israel (setting the record straight)

[JohnLocke]

John Edwards in an interview with Ezra Klein of the American Prospect:
----
John Edwards: Do you mind me taking just a minute to lay out where I am on Iran and then you can just ask anything you want? Here’s my view about what we ought to be doing in Iran.
Number one, you have a radical leader, Ahmadinejad, who is politically unstable in his own country. The political elite have begun to leave him, the religious leaders have begun to leave him, the people aren’t happy with him, for at least two reasons: One, they don’t like his sort of bellicose rhetoric, and second, he was elected on a platform of economic reform and helping the poor and the middle class, and he hasn’t done anything. In fact, while he was traveling, the leaders of the legislature sent him a letter saying, ‘when are you gonna pay attention to the economic problems of our country.’ So, I think we have an opportunity here that we need to be taking advantage of.
First, America should be negotiating directly with Iran, which Bush won’t do. Second, we need to get our European friends, not just the banking system, but the governments themselves, to help us do two things -- put a group, a system of carrots and sticks on the table. The carrots are, we’ll make nuclear fuel available to you, we’ll control the cycle, but you can use it for any civilian purpose. Second, an economic package, which I don’t think has been seriously proposed up until now. Because their economy is already struggling, and it would be very attractive to them. And then on the flip side, the stick side, to say if you don’t do that, there are going to be more serious economic sanctions than you’ve seen up until now. Now of course we need the Europeans for this, cause they’re the ones with the economic relationship with Iran, but the whole purpose of this is number one, to get an agreement. Number two, to isolate this radical leader so that the moderates and those within the country who want to see Iran succeed economically, can take advantage of it.
Now that’s on the one hand, the flip side of this is what happens if America were to militarily strike Iran? Well, you take this unstable, radical leader, and you make him a hero -- that’s the first thing that’ll happen. The Iranian people will rally around him. The second thing that will happen is they will retaliate. And they have certainly some potential for retaliating here in the United States through some of these terrorist organizations they’re close to, but we’ve got over a hundred thousand people right next door. And most people believe that they have an infrastructure for retaliation inside Iraq. So, that’s the second thing that’ll happen. And the third thing is there are a lot of analysts who believe that an air strike or a missile strike is not enough to be successful. To be successful we’d actually have to have troops on the ground, and where in the world would they come from? So, to me, this is the path.

Ezra Klein: So, I just want to get it very clear, you think that attacking Iran would be a bad idea?
I think it would have very bad consequences.

So when you said that all options are on the table?
It would be foolish for any American president to ever take any option off the table.

Can we live with a nuclear Iran?
I’m not ready to cross that bridge yet. I think that we have lots of opportunities that we’ve … We’re not negotiating with them directly, what I just proposed has not been done. We’re not being smart about how we engage with them. But I’m not ready to cross that bridge yet. And I think the reason people react the way they do -- I understand it, because, when George Bush uses this kind of language, it means something very different for most people. I mean when he uses this kind of language “options are on the table,” he does it in a very threatening kind of way -- with a country that he’s not engaging with or making any serious diplomatic proposals to. I mean I think that he’s just dead wrong about that.

So we should, first step, talk to Iran, try to open up negotiations?
Correct.

Do it, if necessary, bilaterally?
Absolutely.
(...)
I was actually, I had left Jerusalem by the time the bombing happened, but I’d woke up there that morning and then I’d been gone just a few hours when that happened. So that felt personally, fairly close to me personally. And I think that it is very important for America to be engaged in this peace process. Because at the end of the day, what we should have is very difficult to achieve, I understand that -- it’s certainly hard to achieve when Hamas is running the Palestinian Authority -- but there’s so many things we could be doing, like humanitarian help, more serious humanitarian help for the Palestinian people that would help strengthen the capacity of a more moderate element within Palestine. So, what we want is two countries living side by side, two states living side by side, with security and in peace.

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=19423

[benny05]

1. This is as plain as it can be

Thanks for posting this as a thread. Many people have been fixiated on the piece that jumped started rumors that JRE was a saber-rattler and I knew it just couldn't be true.

[saltpoint]

14. Agreed. Hi, benny05. I have listened several times now to

John Edwards' address before the DNC winter meeting yesterday.

I stay in touch with a lot of Democrats from all over the place, and in several states. They are sending me links to the speech via emails -- more than any other speech in a long, long time.

The man sounded pretty darned presidential to me.

[dk2]

2. Thanks for posting about this issue

It is amazing how this all can get distorted, and many try to smear the subject. Sometimes in an interview the remarks are cut off, and the real answer is hidden from the viewer.

[Mass]

3. So, why is he so different when he speaks to AJC or AIPAC?

Which is the true Edwards?

[PFunk]

5. My thoughts exactly.

Looks like he's read the blogs and found that they didn't like his AIPAC speech so his shited to full 'cover you ass' mode now. Meaning what's posted above is probally show.

[Texas_Kat]

8. That really is what it sounds like

Though I can maybe forgive John his vote on the IWR, it doesn't mean he gets a pass on the bad judgment it shows.

I think its clear from the Israeli vidconference that he says what audiences want to hear. One thing for the "bomb Iran" crowd and another for those of us worried about a potential war with Iran.

Even if I give him the benefit of the doubt, his track record is very troubling.

[Digit]

4. Thanks for clarifying

People need to see this.

[More Than A Feeling]

6. This is consistent with what I have heard from him in person.

Which was before the infamous conference speech.

[MrPrax]

7. What is this...a comedy act?

Edwards wants to talk about another President who is unpopular and isn't paying attention to the economy...with a straight face?

So when you said that all options are on the table?
It would be foolish for any American president to ever take any option off the table.

Oh like Pelosi did with impeachment? Take the ONLY real power the Founding Fathers gave to the American people to remove a corrupt and tyrannical government and take that OPTION off the table.

But he wants to talk to them and tell them they can't manufacture nuclear fuel ... needed to run nuclear plants. If that's your position, John, then why bother to talk to them. They disagree and have made that abundantly clear to everyone -- I guess John missed that day.

Great leadership...

[FarCenter]

9. Ahmadinejad is second in command in Iran

Number one, you have a radical leader, Ahmadinejad, who is politically unstable in his own country.

To be clear, President Ahmadinejad is the number two guy in Iran.

The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has more power than President Ahmadinejad, is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, controls Iran's intelligence and security operations, and is the "decider" when it comes to declaring war or peace.

[Chulanowa]

41. Incorrect

Ahmedinejad controls domestic affairs and affairs of state. The ruling Clerics, with Ali Khamenei as "first among equals" decides how, when, where, and if the military so much as buys a roll of toilet paper.

[Lone_Wolf]

50. These are The Supreme Ruler of Iran's Powers and duties:

From Wikipedia

1. Delineation of the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran after consultation with the Nation's Expediency Discernment Council.
2. Supervision over the proper execution of the general policies of the system.
3. Issuing decrees for national referenda.

5. Declaration of war and peace, and the mobilization of the armed forces.
6. Appointment, dismissal, and acceptance of resignation of:
1. the fuqaha' on the Guardian Council.
2. the supreme judicial authority of the country.
3. the head of the radio and television network of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
4. the chief of the joint staff.
5. the chief commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.
6. the supreme commanders of the armed forces.
7. Resolving differences between the three wings of the armed forces and regulation of their relations.
8. Resolving the problems, which cannot be solved by conventional methods, through the Nation's Exigency Council.
9. Signing the decree formalizing the elections in Iran for the President of the Republic by the people.
10. Dismissal of the President of the Republic, with due regard for the interests of the country, after the Supreme Court holds him guilty of the violation of his constitutional duties, or after a vote of the Islamic Consultative Assembly (The Majlis of Iran) testifying to his incompetence on the basis of Article 89 of the Constitution.
11. Pardoning or reducing the sentences of convicts, within the framework of Islamic criteria, on a recommendation (to that effect) from the head of the Judiciary. The Leader may delegate part of his duties and powers to another person.

[Lone_Wolf]

49. It worries me that Edwards doesn't know this. He needs to do his homework.

The real power is vested with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei while President Ahmadinejad is kind of a ceremonial figurehead of sorts. In fact, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the stockpiling of nuclear weapons.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-12-27T235722Z_01_HAF725157_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-NUCLEAR-PARLIAMENT.xml&pageNumber=2&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2">Iran MPs oblige government to revise IAEA cooperation

Khamenei is a deeply religious person whose words closely correlate with his actions, so this fatwa is probably genuine.


I notice the media conveniently ignores Khamenei, and instead focuses on Ahmadinejad and his rhetoric. The media was complicit in getting the public's support for an attack on Iraq, so they'll do the same thing against Iran.

[FarCenter]

54. The War Party deliberately overstates Ahmadinejad's importance

Democratic candidates for the Presidential nomination should not follow this propaganda initiative.

[Lone_Wolf]

66. Exactly...

He and his rhetoric make a good villain. An easy scapegoat that the Repukes and the media will cite as reasons needed to go to war.

[Gloria]

60. He knows exctly who's in charge. He said today that Ahmadinejad

had slipped in favor, that he had done nothing toward delivering on his promises of economic changes, that he was traveling he world talking about himself, while at home his influence was under the gun. He also said that an attack on Iran would strengthen his hand again.

Edwards knows more than you think he knows.

[Lone_Wolf]

65. In all respect...

The Bush and the media that acts as his megaphone are beating the drums for war against Iran. Ahmadinejad's name is cited because he is an easy scapegoate and his rhetoric WILL incite the American public into favoring a war with Iran. Edwards is smart enough to know that this is 100% propaganda, so why play is he playing into this?

Ali Khamenei is Iran's leader. Everything has to be approved by him. This is from Wikipedia:

Electing an Islamic leader superior to all national and lawful organs is called Velayat e Faqih, first stated by Ayatollah Naraqi and expanded and revised by Ayatollah Khomeini. In this kind of leadership every decision is lawful only after approval of the supreme leader (Vali e Faqih, ولی فقیه in Persian). According to this theory, even democratic acts like national election of presidents (which happens every four years in Iran) are lawful only when the Supreme Leader signs his approval.

That said, Edwards remains the candidate I am most likely to vote for in the primaries, and I agree his conclusions about an attack on Iran would rally support Muslim for Ahmadinejad.

[Clark2008]

57. Welcome to DU, FarCenter.

And thank you for pointing out what so many Americans seem not to understand!!

:hi:

[Catchawave]

10. So glad to see the Ezra Klein piece here on DU.....

Thanks :hi:

[saltpoint]

19. Hey there, Catchawave. 'Was doing some musing on the

2008 Congressional races and wondered if John Warner was beatable.

Since he's no longer Chair, and since the GOP's chances are not super-good nationwide to recapture the Senate, which would leave him less to do than he's used to doing, is there a Virginia Democrat who might be interested in challenging him?

Since you were so very active in dumping George Allen, I hope you will also be involved in getting rid of Warner. A lot of us contributed cash to Webb from afar. I bet a Democratic challenger to Warner would have similar support.

On Edwards: Two of my closest pals are second-generation Democratic party operatives, and they both emailed me, unprompted, on John Edwards' address at the DNC winter meeting. They were slobbering and howling with enthusiasm. There is another close party woman in the Cincinnati area and she weighed in a couple hours later, just as wild for Edwards' address.

I'm getting links to the speech from Democrats I don't even KNOW.

I think the address is having very strong ripple effects.

[chimpymustgo]

59. Maybe it will ripple into DU. The hateration here is inexplicable.

Vicous, unrelenting, often specious - and inexplicable.

[Skwmom]

11. Can we say damage control.

His handlers must be freaking considering he says: Do you mind me taking just a minute to lay out where I am on Iran and then you can just ask anything you want? Here’s my view about what we ought to be doing in Iran........

Of course, after the following I can understand why:

EDWARDS IN HIS OWN WORDS.

"As to the American people, this is a difficult question. The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran."


Wait a minute - Isn't Edwards supposed to be the authentic candidate. Of course every time he says that it reminds me of religious people that always need to keep reminding you of what good Christians they are (and somehow they always turn out to be anything but).

[citizen snips]

12. Edwards is consolidating his stance on Iran

but people will still pick and choose comments they want to hear.

[Texas_Kat]

13. More like spin control

Not buying it

[citizen snips]

15. Do you agree or disagree

with some of those comments he made in that interview?

[Texas_Kat]

16. I don't believe that HE believes them

that's the problem

[citizen snips]

20. ?

How is anyone to know a person's true feelings or beliefs without personally knowing them?

[Texas_Kat]

22. I have no way of knowing what's in his 'heart'

and frankly I don't care. He is reckless and undereducated about global affairs. He panders to AIPAC (for $$$) then says 'that's not what I meant" when challenged.

I don't need to know what his 'true beliefs' are. It's evident from his actions that he'll pick a different stance depending on the audience.

So he is either 1) confused about his own beliefs or 2) doesn't have any on this issue.

Either way he isn't qualified to be the man that sends our children to war.

[citizen snips]

29. As a young person I trust that

Edwards will not send us to war. But if you think that Edwards will not take the common sense route to dealing with Iran then there is not much I can say to change you mind.

[Texas_Kat]

31. Yes,

Perhaps the draft made people like me (who were young when it was in force) much more careful in understanding the agendas behind the parsed words relating to war.

Edwards and I are the same age. He should know better.

[citizen snips]

32. I understand your point

the war seems far from me (with the absence of the draft) but for my parents who lived during that time it seems so close.

[Clarkie1]

42. "I trust that Edwards will not send us to war."

That's a foolish trust. Edwards has made clear by his recent statements he believes war with Iran is likely unavoidable. If the President (whoever the future President may be) believes that, then it's likely to be a self-fulfilling prophesy no matter what the talk of diplomacy, engagement, etc.

It's not just about saying the right things, it's about having the skill, experience, and knowledge to effectively do the right things. And it's about starting from the correct premise that war with Iran is not only the least desireable outcome, but can also be the least probable outcome. I believe there will likely be peace...but only with the right people in charge here at home.

[JohnLocke]

53. Complete, utter bullcrap.

Edwards has made clear by his recent statements he believes war with Iran is likely unavoidable.

He has never said that, or anything close to that. Try reading the OP.

[citizen snips]

55. From what I just read

I beleive that Edwards will not send my generation to war.

[Clark2008]

58. As the mother of a young boy, I don't share that trust.

I think Edwards is too easily swayed by whomever has his ear at any particular moment: it's a track record I've witnessed since 2002. Therefore, I don't know that he would or wouldn't and I can't trust him to tell me the truth.

So, I'll have to disagree with you.

[motocicleta]

17. That could be the lamest excuse I have ever heard

Just say he doesn't know yet what his stance is. Don't blame his problems on us.

[citizen snips]

18. see post 15

[motocicleta]

23. So the interview is how he really, really, really feels?

Not the conference speech?

Are you sure he won't change his mind again tomorrow?

[citizen snips]

27. I believe this is the common sense approach

I don't believe Edwards will retract those comments from the interview.

[motocicleta]

52. You are entitled to your opinion.

Please exercise a little more restraint when considering disparaging fellow DUers over your opinion - see post #12. You don't have to accuse anyone of being irrational to support your guy, and in fact it cheapens your argument, and your support for your guy.

[citizen snips]

56. my apologies

but what I want people to realize is take all of Edwards positions and statments into consideration before saying that he will go to war with Iran.

[motocicleta]

64. No need to apologize to me,

I just think we should all be careful about attacking each other over our candidate's positions.

Peace

[Gloria]

61. How does Clark REALLY REALLY feel about the war on Lebanon??

After it was over, in Oct. 2006, he was "against it" but while it was going on, he was on FOX sounding pretty hawkish about Israel's right to defend itself. And I NEVER heard a word about the destruction of the country and the loses of Lebanese life.

The whole Lebanon incident made me really start reconsidering my strong support of Clark.

[motocicleta]

63. Sounds good.

I am advocating here for a skeptical attitude towards all candidates, and a welcoming attitude towards all DUers. I don't trust any of the candidates, and I dislike anonymous online strife.

Thank you for the information about Clark. We need to hold them all accountable for their hawkish behavior.

[saltpoint]

21. Hi, MATTMAN. Just wanted to butt in here for a moment and

make a comment on Edwards' large steps in recent months in foreign policy.

I'm speaking not in the context of Edwards as a Democratic contender for our nomination, but because the context for leadership and citizenship (in my view anyway) has shifted since the George W. Bush administration.

Language is not Bush's pal. He likely distrusts it. He certainly torments and butchers it in public at every opportunity. Even when he has to deliver a key address, he refuses to hire speech writers to assist, or, the ones he does hire have their fluid words chopped up like kitchen vegetables by Rove or Card or whoever it is who does the chopping. And the final speech sounds like a pastiche instead of coherent language.

And it would be language the Bush administration would have to take into negotiations in the Middle East or with North Korea. The hallmark of their foreign policy is violence against nearly-helpless nations, very likely for oil or some other regional advantage, precipitated by the glaring absence in the belief in or need for negotiation. "Trust us -- Saddam has WPMs -- we have to bomb his ass right now." That kind of positioning.

Edwards -- and other Democrats too -- sounded at that winter meeting like they would have no problem at all with language, and therefore no qualms about sitting down at a table with Syria or Iran.

And that's what's needed, and that's why I think the address Edwards gave goes such a long way toward inspiring faith in that old idea of sitting down and talking things over. Diplomats on all sides know how to do this if they're given half a chance. It begins with language, and Edwards' address yesterday rang true and resonant.

Just my 2-cents' worth.

[The Count]

24. resonant as in "deja vu"? second excuse for second warmongering?

It's good that some of you are willing to accept anything from him....or is it?
Also Edwards words:

"Iran must know that the world won’t back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."

[saltpoint]

26. Count, good evening. Resonant in its echoing sense, a sound or

message which generally is struck deep and carries over distance or time.

For me Stanley Kunitz's words during the Iran-Contra era under Reagan have the resonance I mean here. He believed that power should not be given over to people who "are not spiritually great." He meant a lower-case 's' in spiritual, not a theological eminence.

My claim has to do with my belief that language is in that spiritual toolkit, that it can be used by pucli officials to exalt or to divide or condemn. In our Democrats' various address at the winter meeting, I heard not a line-up of wannabes but a team of true blue hearts trying to inspire listeners to elevate their involvement in the process of choosing the next president. I'm aware that politicians are politicians, but inside that context I'll take any of our people over anyone the GOP can scrape off the bottom of the septic tank for their ticket.

The response to Edwards' address in particular was visibly positive. The contrast I draw between his use of language and Dubya's butchering of language, for me at least, is the distance between vacuous assholes like George W. Bush and the more spiritually (small 's' again) evolved Democrats I heard and watched at that convention.

I vote blue accordingly.

[The Count]

45. Not being */not being GOP - not enough. Not starting wars on bad judgment

not enabling W's preemption doctrine are other requirements I have for my candidate. No matter the party, no votes to warmongers.

[saltpoint]

48. One key hinge is the public perception of what public service entails.

The person who excels at not being Dubya, by the way, is Dubya. Born in Connecticut to astonishing wealth and pedigree, Ivy League education (at least on paper!), and the son of a refrigerator-temperature super-WASP and his foul-mouthed wife, a lineal descendant of Franklin Pierce.

The pseudo-Cowboy personna is wildly disingenius and the man's inability to use language suggests to me that he must surely have paid someone to do his papers at Yale. The people I've known from Yale appear to be worthy of Yale's admissions process and appear also to have learned something while they spent time in classes there.

Not so Dubya.

All our Democrats are the non-Dubya, and it is a hinge. Again, for me a key hinge. "The ability to think for one's self depends on one's mastery of language," Joan Didion wrote. The consequences of a public servant unable to think for himself -- or think much at all -- has been disastrous. It is therefore the hinge. All the Democrats I heard speak at the convention this week exhibited the range and depth necessary for the top job, for any number of good reasons, not the least of which was their sure-footedness, manifest in their use of language. Any ONE of our people is more qualified than the job evidently requires. That's very hopeful fuel.

You get to vote for whomever you wish in the primary. Edwards' address was a knockout. I'm not alone in that view. The C-Span camera doesn't lie. Democrats there in that audience were hardcore, hard-to-please, white-knuckled, kick-ass career Dems, and they visibly were impressed.

[citizen snips]

25. whats up Old Crusoe

I am only now getting the chance to watch the candidates speeches at the winter meeting. But I believe all of our candidates and prospective candidates will be able to handle the middle east situation better then Bush and your post explains that perfectly.

[saltpoint]

28. Well, I predict you will like what you hear, just as Jim Dobson --

if he bothers to pay attention as you are -- probably won't like it one bit. He'll become sullen and gloomy because he knows that any of our people are going to bury any of his people alive.

2008 is going to be real blue for as far as the eye can see.

It might be best if the Republicans just disbanded. Cuz we're gonna kick their fannies.

[citizen snips]

30. we are close to dealing the knock out punch.

[saltpoint]

47. Yep. This Plame trial is starting to really heat things up for a certain

Vice President.

[Clarkie1]

34. In other words, he's in the process of figuring out what the hell he's talking about. nt

[citizen snips]

35. Nope

he is in process of laying out a plan.

[Clarkie1]

36. LOL. Good spin. nt

[citizen snips]

37. I will ask you the same question I have

been asking everyone else do agree or disagree with what he said in the article?

[Clarkie1]

38. He's learned what he's supposed to say.

Parroting words is easy, that does not make the measure of the man.

[citizen snips]

39. parroting or not

do you agree or disagree? I think what Edwards said is true with anyone who has common sense that diplomacy should be the first priority.

[Clarkie1]

40. Diplomacy should be the first priority.

Obviously someone got to Edwards and explained that to him this week after the AiPac meeting.

I am more concerned with Edwards apparent belief that diplomacy is not likely to work...based on his words at the AiPac meeting.

Obviously, now he is being careful to say the right words so that it looks like he believes diplomacy has a chance...but does he really believe that? I don't know.

At least with Clark I know what he believes.

[citizen snips]

43. I will have to catch up to Wes Clark

I have not yet watched his DNC winter meeting speech.

[Clarkie1]

44. It was somber in tone, but stubbornly hopeful.

Much like Obama's in that regard, though quite different in other respects. He spent a lot of time focusing on what is closest to his heart.

My "top tier" candidates (or potential ones) are Clark, Obama, and Gore. I might add Richardson to the list, but I'm not sure yet.

[Clarkie1]

33. So which John Edwards am I to believe?

The AiPac John Edwards, or this one?

Clearly, Edwards is doing damage control...I just wish I knew what he really believed. He's obviously good at learning quickly what are the politically correct things to say to his base.

Over the past few days, he's either read up on what to say, had advisors tell him what to say, or both.

I'm not impressed.

[razors edge]

46. You gotta talk one way to money

and another way to the voters. In the end, after you get the votes, you take care of money.

Same shit, different sphincter.

[Gloria]

62. Like Clark did damage control after he offended those Jewish groups

when he talked about NY money....

[Luckyduck]

51. It's all bullshit- Iran is not a threat- Bush is creating the propaganda

...in pursuit of the PNAC agenda. Iran is a threat to no one-not even Israel. And they can protect themselves,remember they just accidentally admitted that they have nukes. So who is the real threat Iran? or the US and Israel?

If Edwards wants to make up for his mistakes on Iraq, he should start doing some reading on the real intelligence on Iran which shows they are 10+ years away from being a threat.

Stop enabling Bush in his propaganda.