John Kerry's position on

Iran: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been responsible for inspections of nuclear facilities in Iran. Over the summer of 2004 Iran has been delaying inspections of its nuclear facilities by the agency, and has announced its intentions to resume the processing of enriched uranium, which is a key component of a nuclear weapons program.

Candidate's position: A Kerry-Edwards administration would propose a major change in U.S. policy towards Iran. John Edwards spelled out the basis of this policy in an interview with the Washington Post, "A John F. Kerry administration would propose to Iran that the Islamic state be allowed to keep its nuclear power plants in exchange for giving up the right to retain the nuclear fuel that could be used for bomb-making." Aug. 30, 2004 (link) This is in sharp contrast to current U.S. policy which is to avoid all formal diplomatic relations wit the regime.

Quotation: "Iran also presents an obvious and especially difficult challenge. Our relations there are burdened by a generation of distrust, by the threat of nuclear proliferation and by reports of Al Qaeda forces in that country, including the leadership responsible for the May 13th bombings in Saudi Arabia. But the Bush administration stubbornly refuses to conduct a realistic, non-confrontational policy with Iran, even where it may be possible, as we witnessed most recently with the British-French-German initiative. As president, I will be prepared early on to explore areas of mutual interest with Iran, just as I was prepared to normalize relations with Vietnam a decade ago." Speech to Council on Foreign Relations, Dec. 3, 2004 (link)

Assessment of the Proposal:

Positive: Robert Nolan, of the Foreign Policy Association, supports the Kerry-Edwards policy of constructive engagement with Iran: "The new challenges emerging out of Iran, due largely to the changing geopolitical realities of the region, have prompted calls for a more comprehensive U.S. policy….Iranians and Americans who were involved in the dialogue of the past several years remain convinced that the only answer is a "grand bargain" that builds on the two countries' shared interests - and seeks to satisfy each country's security concerns." That sentiment was partially echoed in a Council on Foreign Relations report released this week, spearheaded by former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski and former Director of Central Intelligence Robert Gates. The report states that it "is in the interests of the United States to engage selectively with Iran to promote regional stability, dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, preserve reliable energy supplies, reduce the threat of terror, and address the democracy deficit that pervades the Middle East as a whole." (Foreign Policy Association)

Negative: For Aryo Pirouznia, who chairs the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran, Kerry's offer to negotiate with hard-liners in the regime smacks of lunacy. "America is incredibly popular with the Iranian masses, so this is a grave mistake for a short-term benefit," Pirouznia says. "To the regime, this sends a message that America is willing to make a deal despite the blood of Americans who were murdered in Dhahran [Saudi Arabia] and are being killed today in Iraq by so-called foreign elements. And to Iranians, it shows that the old establishment may be back in power, a return to the Carter era." "By sending such a message directly to the organs and the megaphones of the dictatorial Islamic regime, you have given them credibility, comfort and embraced this odious theocracy," Pirouznia says. "You have encouraged and emboldened a tyrannical regime to use this as propaganda and declare 'open season' on the freedom fighters in Iran." ("Kerry will Abandon War on Terrorism," Insight on The News, March 29, 2004, p.30) 

Comparison: Both candidates espouse the benefits of dialogue and multilateralism when it comes to Iran. The difference comes in the timing of this dialogue. A Kerry-Edwards administration favors a policy where the carrot comes before the stick. They would engage Iran in discussions about its nuclear weapons program and in the event that this policy fails, would resort to multilateral sanctions and possible military options. The Bush administration views Iran policy in the context of its National Security Strategy (NSS) and would act militarily in order to preempt a clear and present threat to U.S. security interests. This is coupled with a much stronger belief in the efficacy of unilateral sanctions as a means to control Iranian access to nuclear materials.

Sources

Kerry, John. (2004). Making America Secure Again: Setting the Right Course for Foreign Policy-Remarks to Council on Foreign Relations on December 3, 2003. Retrieved on September 27, 2004 link.

Kessler, Glenn., Wright, Robin. (2004). Edwards Says Kerry Plans to Confront Iran on Weapons. [Electronic Version]. Washington Post, August 30, 2004, p.A01. Retrieved on September 27, 2004 link.

Timmerman, Kenneth R. (2004) Kerry will Abandon War on Terrorism. [Electronic Version]. Insight on the News, March 29, 2004, p.30.

Nolan, Robert. (2004) The U.S. & Iran: Time for a New Policy?. Foreign Policy Association Newsletter, July 22, 2004. Retrieved from Foreign Policy Association Website September 27, 2004. link