The Context
In 2015, the Obama administration signed a deal with Iran that lifted sanctions in exchange for significant limits on Iran’s nuclear program. Many Republicans fiercely objected to the deal, saying it was not tough enough, and in 2018, President Trump abandoned it and reinstated sanctions. But Iran kept up its end of the agreement until last month, when Mr. Trump ordered the killing of a top Iranian general, Qassim Suleimani. The killing of General Suleimani brought the United States to the brink of war with Iran, which retaliated by attacking two military bases that American forces were using in Iraq.
What would you do with the now-abandoned Iranian nuclear deal, as negotiated in 2015?
I would re-enter the deal with no new preconditions.
The recent killing of Quds Force commander Qassim Suleimani takes a dangerous actor off the board, but also raises the prospect of an ever-escalating cycle of violence in the region, and has prompted Tehran to jettison the nuclear limits established under the Iran deal. Tehran must return to strict compliance with the deal. But if they do so, I would rejoin the agreement and use our renewed commitment to diplomacy to work with our allies to strengthen and extend it, while more effectively pushing back against Iran’s other destabilizing activities.
Senator Klobuchar has made one of her major foreign policy priorities returning to the Iran nuclear agreement while working with the other parties, the U.N. and the I.A.E.A. to strengthen the terms and conditions. As an example, she would push to extend the sunset provisions for caps on Iran’s enrichment levels and capabilities.
I would seek a “grand bargain” to resolve nuclear, missile and counterterrorism disagreements.
Bernie would re-enter the deal with no new preconditions, provided Iran is also meeting its commitments. He would then pursue wider talks to resolve issues of ballistic missiles, support for terrorist groups, and human rights.
As of January 9, 2020, I would re-enter the deal with no preconditions. However, because this is a rapidly evolving situation, I would reconsider given geopolitical developments.
I would seek a “grand bargain” to resolve nuclear, missile and counterterrorism disagreements.
Do you believe President Trump acted within his legal authority in giving the order to kill Qassim Suleimani? Was the killing justifiable? Was it wise?
To decide the lawfulness of the strike would require a full legal analysis based on a coherent justification, which we have not seen thus far. The most important question is whether it was a wise policy decision. Based on the reasons articulated by the president and his administration for the strike, this was a reckless decision and has not made Americans safer or addressed the underlying security threats that persist.
Mr. Biden did not answer this question.
Was it legal? Yes. Was it justifiable? Yes, provided we had intelligence on an imminent threat to Americans. Suleimani oversaw the murder of hundreds of Americans, and tens of thousands of Iraqis and Syrians. Was it wise?That will depend on whether it ultimately furthers America’s three vital interests regarding Iran: stopping the country from obtaining nuclear weapons, preventing attacks on Americans and other destabilizing activities, and preventing a wider war. All that remains unclear.
Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign referred The Times to the statement he released after the killing of General Suleimani: The top priority of a commander in chief must be to protect Americans and our national security interests. There is no question that Qassim Suleimani was a threat to that safety and security, and that he masterminded threats and attacks on Americans and our allies, leading to hundreds of deaths. But there are serious questions about how this decision was made and whether we are prepared for the consequences.
The president does not have authorization to start a war with Iran. Qassim Suleimani was responsible for directing Iran’s destabilizing actions in Iraq, Syria and throughout the Middle East, including attacks against U.S. troops. However, the timing, provocative manner and consequences of the administration’s actions raise serious concerns about an escalating conflict.
Qassim Suleimani was a menace to the world and to peace-loving people everywhere. He was responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, including Americans, and his death will not be mourned by me. At the same time, a difficult situation has become more dangerous because of the president’s actions.
Read full answer
No. The U.S. is not at war with Iran, and Congress has not authorized any military action against Iran. Clearly there is evidence that Suleimani was involved in acts of terror. He also supported attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. But the right question isn’t “was this a bad guy,” but rather “does assassinating him make Americans safer?” The answer is clearly no.
Read full answer
Was it legal? Congress was not consulted about this action, and the American public does not want war with Iran. Was it justifiable? Despite what the Trump administration has suggested, they have not provided evidence that an Iranian attack was imminent, nor have they produced any compelling evidence that killing Suleimani would have prevented such an attack. Was it wise? Absolutely not. Donald Trump appears to have no foreign policy strategy or process. His withdrawal from the Obama-led Iranian nuclear agreement began a direct confrontation which has escalated to the killing of Gen. Qassim Suleimani. His reckless behavior overseas puts American lives in danger without the necessary support from our allies or any apparent strategy for long-term success.
No. The president’s reckless decision has brought us to the brink of another war in the Middle East. His administration has produced no evidence of imminent threat and made no meaningful attempt at a legal justification. There was no prior consultation with Congress, and no serious thought put into the potential consequences for our troops and our country — or even for the president’s own stated strategies in the region. President Trump’s dangerous escalation has made Americans less safe.
I believe that the assassination of Suleimani was a mistake. War with Iran is the last thing we need and is not the will of the American people. The Trump administration’s failed foreign policy has led to the unnecessary escalation of tensions in the Middle East. This started when Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal, and it continued with a misguided maximum pressure strategy that has led to where we are today.
Read full answer
Regarding possible future military action against Iran, is there any type of response that is off the table for you?
No. All options must be considered.
Mr. Biden did not answer this question.
No option is off the table if core U.S. interests and the safety of Americans are at stake. Mike is resolute that the United States must address Iran’s destabilizing actions across the greater Middle East. The way to do this is not through bluster and vacillation, but through a patient and consistent policy that combines targeted sanctions, military deterrence and support for our regional allies. The U.S. should make clear that until Tehran ends its support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas — both dedicated to Israel’s destruction — then Iran will not be able to join the community of nations.
Mr. Buttigieg did not answer this question.
As commander in chief, Senator Klobuchar will do what is necessary to protect the American people. She believes our focus should be on working with our allies to de-escalate the situation while ensuring the security of Americans in the region. She is also a cosponsor of Senator Kaine’s resolution that requires congressional authorization for any hostilities with Iran.
America reserves the right to protect our interests around the world. That right has to be bound by international norms, by law and by forethought. I would consider applying military force in self-defense, to preempt a genuine, imminent attack, or in retaliation for an attack against U.S. interests. Any U.S. military response against Iran or its proxies should be proportionate, appropriately limited, and the product of careful strategic deliberation.
Read full answer
Bernie would work with our European allies to de-escalate tensions with Iran and engage in aggressive diplomacy that would safeguard the security of the U.S. and our partners while preventing a disastrous war with Iran.
The use of nuclear weapons is off the table.
I want to end America’s wars in the Middle East, not start a new one with Iran. The litmus test I will use for any military action against Iran is the same that I will use as I consider any military action anywhere in the world. I will not send our troops into harm’s way unless there is a vital national security interest at risk, a strategy with clear and achievable objectives, and an understanding and acceptance of the long-term costs. We will hold ourselves to this by recommitting to a simple idea: the constitutional requirement that Congress play a primary role in deciding to engage militarily.
All options are on the table to ensure American national security. However, the goal should be to immediately de-escalate diplomatically and engage regional partners to come to a serious and swift resolution.
What would your military strategy to deter Iran be? What would your diplomatic strategy be?
I disagreed with President Trump’s decision to abandon the deal on Iran’s nuclear program. It is my hope that, in the future, parties can reach an agreement on enduring restrictions on Iran’s ability to obtain a nuclear weapon. I have always had concerns about what the shape of Iran’s nuclear program could look like in 10 or 15 years, and I have long said that the United States must think about a post-J.C.P.O.A. world.
Read full answer
What Iran is doing is dangerous, but still reversible. If Iran moves back into compliance with its nuclear obligations, a Biden administration would re-enter the J.C.P.O.A. as a starting point to work alongside our allies in Europe and other world powers to extend the deal’s nuclear constraints. Doing so would provide a critical down payment to re-establish U.S. credibility, signaling to the world that America’s word and international commitments once again mean something. My administration would also leverage renewed international consensus around America’s Iran policy — and a redoubled commitment to diplomacy — to more effectively push back against Tehran’s other malign behavior in the region.
Read full answer
Mike believes that the U.S. needs a coherent strategy to counter Iran. That includes reviving and strengthening the U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement; maintaining current sanctions against Tehran until it changes its behavior; working within the U.N. Security Council to constrain Iran’s missile development; and reinforcing relations with our Arab partners to resist Iran’s hegemonic ambitions. Mike deplores the Iranian regime’s violent crackdown on unarmed protesters. Mike believes the Iranian regime needs to change its behavior, at home and abroad, but it’s up to the Iranian people, not the United States, to determine their country’s political future.
Read full answer
Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign referred The Times to his response to a similar question in a Council on Foreign Relations survey: We should have no illusions about the reality that Iran poses challenges to U.S. interests beyond its nuclear program: its ballistic missile program, malign behavior in the region, threats to our ally Israel, and human rights abuses. But having the J.C.P.O.A. in place created a foundation from which we could begin addressing those concerns, all of which will be even more intractable if we lack a mechanism to verifiably and permanently prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. If Iran resumes implementing its commitments, then I would rejoin. But I would take the agreement as a floor, not a ceiling.
Read full answer
Senator Klobuchar has made one of her major foreign policy priorities returning to the Iran nuclear agreement while working with the other parties, the U.N. and the I.A.E.A. to strengthen the terms and conditions. As an example, she would push to extend the sunset provisions for caps on Iran’s enrichment levels and capabilities.
The regime in control of Iran is a threat to the security of Israel, the region and beyond. Iran’s nuclear capability must be checked and can be contained without regime change. The right way to do so is as part of a coalition with our allies and others in the region and beyond. I remain convinced that there is a diplomatic solution to our disagreements with Iran. De-escalating the current crisis means bringing the Iranian regime back to the negotiating table and making real progress to address both the nuclear program and Iranian support for terrorist proxies in the region.
Read full answer
Bernie would work with our European allies to de-escalate tensions with Iran and engage in aggressive diplomacy that would safeguard the security of the U.S. and our partners while preventing a disastrous war with Iran.
Mr. Trump has blundered his way into a potentially long-lasting conflict with Iran. Since he announced the United States’ withdrawal from the J.C.P.O.A., Iran has grown bolder. I recognize the seriousness of Iran as an adversary and the need to work with our allies to bring Iran back to the table and away from the brink of war. While the J.C.P.O.A. did not solve all problems with the Iranian regime, it did reduce the threat of a nuclear Iran. A more long-term and responsible approach to Iran would be the diplomatic route taken by the Obama administration, including re-entering the J.C.P.O.A.
The first thing we need to do is de-escalate and reopen channels of communication with Iran, using the P5+1 and other interlocutors. The best way to do that is to start by negotiating the re-entry of the United States and Iran into the J.C.P.O.A. if that is still possible. If the crisis and conflict President Trump has chosen to create make re-entry into the J.C.P.O.A. impossible, we can still lead with diplomacy and pursue interim confidence-building agreements that focus on our most pressing strategic priority in the region: constraining Iran’s nuclear program.
The approach is to de-escalate and engage with Iran diplomatically, whether bilaterally or multilaterally with regional partners.
No comments:
Post a Comment