Richardson!

The Candidate Who Wasn't There:

Saber-rattling is not a good way to get the Iranians to cooperate. But it is a good way to start a new war -- a war that would be a disaster for the Middle East, for the United States and for the world. A war that, furthermore, would destroy what little remains of U.S. credibility in the community of nations.

A better approach would be for the United States to engage directly with the Iranians and to lead a global diplomatic offensive to prevent them from building nuclear weapons. We need tough, direct negotiations, not just with Iran but also with our allies, especially Russia, to get them to support us in presenting Iran with credible carrots and sticks.

I don't know what kind of campaign strategy this is, but maybe he can be Secretary of State or some kind of special envoy.

Comments

Does anyone remember that legislator who gave that "you'll never work in this town again" speech after Richardson's problems at the DOE?

Posted by Gus | February 24, 2007 12:12 PM

I like Mr. Richardson. I think he will surprise some people when candidates make their first fundraising report. (april i think)

Posted by mike | February 24, 2007 1:21 PM

I like Richardson too and I think he'd make a better SoS than President, but in regards to the above paragraphs you quoted isn't that what every Democrat is saying?

Posted by Fred | February 24, 2007 1:37 PM

There was a pretty good op-ed in the NY Times yesterday by the head of the Iranian division of the Heritage Foundation (don't worry, it wasn't insane), that said basically that you need saber rattling to bring about good diplomacy. The Iranians have been moving towards moderation ever since we sent that second carrier group to the Gulf, and credible threats put some leverage behind negotiation. The problem, as this author pointed out, is that some in the Administration are crazy enough to actually go to war with Iran, which would do absolutely no good.

It seems to me that this would be a good position for Democratic candidates (or really any candidate) to take--yes, send in some more fire power, but do it with the competence and determination to negotiate with the Iranians, which you can't expect from Bush/Cheney. Just saying you're in favor of "tough, direct negotitation" doesn't really get any point across execpt that you don't want to use any effective threat of force to achieve the goal of a non-nuclear Iran.

Posted by Ben | February 24, 2007 2:04 PM

The problem is that Democrats are willing to keep a military threat "on the table" in order to lay the basis of "tough diplomacy", while the Administration keeps the possiblity of diplomacy "on the table" to cover a desire to use the military to overthrow the government of Iran.

Democrats must say that what's "on the table" depends on who is sitting in the chair. We should give no advance authority to THIS administration to use military forces against Iran. It would irresponsible to give them anything other than the shortest possible leash, given their record.

Posted by Tom | February 24, 2007 2:38 PM

We've been trying to get the Russians to see the light on this issue for a decade now.

They don't give a shit.

Posted by David | February 24, 2007 2:46 PM

I'd be more impressed, if Richardson did not buy into the Republican narrative, that says we have to pressure, bully, bribe Iran out of its nuclear ambitions.

I'd like to see Democrats say that non-proliferation is in the interests of all the great Powers, and that the U.S. could persuade Iran that it was in Iran's interest to avoid acquiring nuclear weapons.

Then, I'd like to see Democrats challenge Bush to negotiate nuclear disarmament with Pakistan and India. If Bush is serious about non-proliferation, that's what he'd be about: nuclear disarmament in South Asia.

If there is a greater risk to the U.S. from nuclear terror than Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, I don't know what it is. But, of course, Bush has made Pakistan a close and greedy ally of the U.S., even while Pakistan is offering safe haven to Al Quaeda. And, no Democrat says "boo!" about any of it.

Democrats need to leave the Bush Reality Distortion Field and start talking realistically about these issues. Instead, they choose their rhetoric, with fear of how their words and attitudes will be distorted by the wingnuts. It is no way to campaign or govern.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | February 24, 2007 2:55 PM

Why do you consider this a bad campaign strategy, Matt? After 6 years of a disastrous aggressive foreign policy which has put the country at greater risk, I think a lot of voters are hoping for a President who believes in diplomacy as the first course of action.

Posted by Mikef | February 24, 2007 2:56 PM

Democrats need to leave the Bush Reality Distortion Field and start talking realistically about these issues.

Democrats should certainly talk about foreign issues more and develop a clear voice about them, there are certain parts of the BRDF, as you put it, that can not be left. For instance, I don't think the next administration will be able to cut ties with Pakistan, nor convince them to give up nuclear weapons--partly because of the way Bush has handled Indian/Pakistani relations, and partly because of Pakistan's geographical relevance to the hot sectors of the War on Terror.

The next president will be inheriting a number of messes around the world, some of them of Bush's making, and some of them made by foreign states and actors. I'd love to see the Dems talk some sense about foreign policy, but some of that will entail facing the realities of the 2008 global scene.

Posted by Ben | February 24, 2007 3:51 PM

send in some more fire power, but do it with the competence and determination to negotiate with the Iranians,

No. No more aggressive wars, and no threatening aggressive wars either. A military attack against Iran can't benefit America. It can only make our problems worse. Even bluffing makes things worse. Besides the risk of provoking a disastrous war, our threats against Iran are antagonizing the entire world. Even Tony Blair says "it would be wrong." The whole world wants us to take our threats and our warplanes and just go away.

Posted by Gary Sugar | February 24, 2007 7:38 PM

I think he was trying to contrast himself against Obama and Clinton. The message is here is "While those two squabble over David Geffen, I am talking about actual policy." A cool head among hot-heads.

Posted by Dick | February 25, 2007 12:39 AM

The whole world wants us to take our threats and our warplanes and just go away.

Because it is only the US that cares about a nuclear Iran. All of Europe and the Middle East is cool with it.

If this were really true, I'd agree with you.

Posted by John S. | February 25, 2007 9:22 PM

"Why do you consider this a bad campaign strategy, Matt? After 6 years of a disastrous aggressive foreign policy which has put the country at greater risk, I think a lot of voters are hoping for a President who believes in diplomacy as the first course of action."

Mikef is right here, Matt. The public mood has completely changed, and most people are (thankfully) no longer swooned by bluster and flag-waving machismo. The right-wing loves to talk about Iran, because they think they have the Democrats pinned on that issue.

They are wrong - and the stakes are too high to let them believe otherwise.

Posted by Neal M | February 26, 2007 9:48 AM