Reply #12: Richardson wrote an Editorial on Iran in Feb followed by a policy speech in June.

[seasat]

Here's some excerpts from his Washington Post editorial:

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.

No nation has ever been forced to renounce nuclear weapons, but many have chosen to do so. The Iranians will not end their nuclear program because we threaten them and call them names. They will renounce nukes because we convince them that they will be safer and more prosperous if they do that than if they don’t. This feat will take more than threats and insults. It will take skillful American diplomatic leadership.

Diplomacy is more than just talking to people. It requires speaking credibly from a position of strength. As the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, as energy secretary, as a member of Congress and as a diplomatic envoy, I have always believed in and worked to achieve tough, credible and direct negotiations with adversaries. To be tough, you need strong alliances and a strong military. And to be credible, you need a record of meaning what you say. By alienating our allies, overextending our military, making idle threats and antagonizing just about everyone, the Bush administration has undermined our diplomatic leverage.

He then detailed on how he would negotiate with them in June. He denounces the call for war against Iran and calls for peace talks with no preconditions. I was very impressed that he acknowledged the US errors in overthrowing their government, supporting the Shah, and supporting Saddam in the war against them. Few politicians would be that honest in giving a policy speech.

But I also believe that peace comes to those who have the courage to learn from their own errors. We should recognize that US support for the Shah's repressive regime, and then for Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s -- and the US government's silence when Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran -- were wrong. These and other mistakes on our part -- like the many mistakes Iranians have made -- have left wounds that are still deeply felt in both societies. Both we and the Iranians need to acknowledge this difficult shared history, and work to get beyond it.
...
Our message to Iran must always have two components:

1. We must respect their legitimate right to peaceful nuclear energy, and we must let them know that gestures toward peace and reconciliation will be reciprocated with meaningful economic benefits and security guarantees;
2. We must stand absolutely firm with our international partners in letting the Iranians know that we will never allow them to acquire nuclear weapons, and that they will pay a high price if they continue to support international terrorists.
...
Most experts believe that Iran is still several years away from being capable of building nuclear weapons. We should use that time constructively to build peace, rather than rushing toward another catastrophic war.