Edwards gets hawkish on Iran, says Israel should join NATO.

[Clarkie1]

In a speech at a conference in Herzliya, Israel, former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) took aim at Iran, warning that the "world won't back down." The 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, who recently launched a new presidential campaign, also said that Israel should be allowed to join NATO.

Although Edwards has criticized the war in Iraq, and has urged bringing the troops home, the former senator firmly declared that "all options must remain on the table," in regards to dealing with Iran, whose nuclear ambition "threatens the security of Israel and the entire world."

"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons," Edwards said. "For years, the US hasn't done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse."

Edwards continued, "To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. The Iranian president's statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats."

"Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel's neighborhood much more volatile," Edwards said.

Edwards added, "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."

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/1/24/133737/037
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=5400

This rhetoric is distrurbing. Why should Israel be part of NATO? Why is Edwards reiterating the military option in his rhetoric, while Clark, Kerry, and many others are stressing the need for talking to Iran and Syria? What is going on here? It makes me question Edwards judgement; he seems to be making the same mistake in his rhetoric with Iran that he did with his rhetoric before the IWR vote. Hasn't he learned anything? The mistake in Iraq was the focus on Saddam as the only voice in Iraq, and now Edwards and others are making the same mistake in Iran by becoming obsessed with the rhetoric of Ahmedinejad. Here is a contrasting view, from Wes Clark after the State of the Union yesterday. True, Clark says the military option must be on the table too, but he knows it's a horrible option...listen to the difference in tone and emphsis:


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I do believe that the United States, as the most powerful country in the world, should always talk to adversaries. I’m not saying take the military option off the table – it’s an option, but it’s a lot better for everybody in the region if we don’t have to use the military option.

Sean Hannity: But do you…I agree with that, but do you really believe there’s even a smidgen of hope that the Holocaust denier, that the guy that threatens the US and Israel, do you really believe this madman is somebody that ultimately can be persuaded?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: Well I don’t think he’s the only…Sean, he’s not the only guy in Iran. I mean there are a lot of people in Iran who are…who really want to see a change in the situation in the region. We’ve got to reach around Ahmedinejad one way or another. We’ve got to show a different vision for the region. We’ve got to help those in Iran who want a different vision in the region come forward. That’s our obligation as the most powerful country in the world.

Sean Hannity: I think the single best security we will have against Iran is to have the biggest, strongest, toughest military and the means to back it up. Let me ask you this, sir. You said, you said…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well you know the military is the last resort.

Sean Hannity: I agree. You said

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: If we could change people’s mind without using the military, we’ll all be a lot more secure.

Sean Hannity: I don’t believe you can change the mind of a madman like Ahmedinejad. I think that’s false hope.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I don’t think he’s the only guy in charge, Sean.

Sean Hannity: Well I think it’s false hope and naïve.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think you’re making the same mistake we made with Saddam. I think you’re trying to personalize a country around a single person.

Sean Hannity: I’m not. I’m not, but he’s their leader.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: and that was the mistake in Iraq.

Sean Hannity: He’s their voice.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: He is one voice in Iran. That’s all.

Sean Hannity: If we could do anything, we ought to be working very hard with alternative voices in Iran and hope that the emerging, shifting, changing demographics and the desire…the…the inclination of the human soul takes over

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sure.

Sean Hannity: and foster the freedom movement there. I think it would be a far better plan than

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: but to do that, you have to talk to Iran.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2163