Iran's Clerics Lean Towards Kerry to Ease Pressure

By Paul Hughes TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian officials like to portray U.S. presidential elections as a choice between bad and worse but there is little doubt they would prefer Democratic challenger John Kerry to win next week.

Since President Bush took office the Islamic state has been dubbed an "axis of evil" member, seen U.S. forces mass on its borders in Iraq and Afghanistan and faced concerted U.S. accusations that it has a covert atomic arms program.

Kerry is unlikely to ease the pressure on Iran, which will remain a key U.S. foreign policy challenge whoever wins the Nov. 2 vote.

But the Massachusetts senator's emphasis on a multilateral foreign policy approach and hints he would negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program appeal to the country's bazaar-rooted instincts to bargain its way out of a crisis.

"Logically speaking, everything points to Iran supporting Kerry," said Tehran-based political analyst Mahmoud Alinejad.

"If Bush is re-elected it will be on a platform of a radical strategy to democratize the Middle East, if necessary by force. At least what Kerry has hinted at provides the possibility for Iran to get out of this deadlock, to buy some more time."

Conservative strategist Amir Mohebian, who advises some of Iran's top policymakers, agreed.

"We prefer Kerry because he favors diplomatic methods rather than pressure. Iran is better off if he wins," he told Reuters...

(from 'John Kerry's Foreign Policy')
http://www.neoperspectives.com/johnkerry.htm

North Korea and Iran

North Korea is another brutal communist regime. In the past decade or so over 3 million or 12% of the total population has died from preventable famine. Subhuman gulags and death camps dot the land. Millions more have either fled or been imprisoned, tortured, and/or executed. In 1994 Madeline Albright traveled to North Korea and shook the dictator's hand. The Clinton Administration reached an agreement with Kim Jung Ill. The agreement called for the freezing and eventual dismantling of the North Korean nuclear weapons program, in exchange for two 1,000-megawatt pressurized light-water reactors. In the interim, about 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil was to be supplied to North Korea. The Korean dictator never honored his agreement, accepted the free US aid, continued to starve his people, and built a nuclear weapon right under Clinton's nose. When some of the early troubles began, and indications emerged that the North Koreans might not be following the agreement, Clinton canceled a planned visit to the Communist state. No one knows exactly when the nuclear weapons were made, but on January 10, 2003, the rogue nation withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

After North Korea admitted they had nuclear weapons, the Bush administration refused to negotiate with them and instead attempted to bring China, Japan, Russia and South Korea into six party talks to attempt to further isolate the North Koreans and bring pressures to bear.

Kerry's line of reasoning is completely ridiculous. He blamed the Bush administration for "letting a nuclear nightmare develop." (26) and said, "That happened on this president's watch." (16)

In the first presidential debate Kerry said he would open direct talks and continue the bilateral talks. As President Bush said, "The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind. That's exactly what Kim Jong Il wants." (16)

On October 20th The World Tribune reported:

North Korea has put off further negotiations on its nuclear program with five other nations until after the Nov. 2 U.S. presidential elections, intelligence officials say.

The North Koreans believe they will have an easier time negotiating with a new administration headed by Sen. John F. Kerry, who has said publicly he would begin direct U.S.-North Korea talks if elected president. The Bush administration has rejected bilateral talks with Pyongyang, based on North Korea's violation of the 1994 Agreed Framework, which was a product of similar one-on-one talks.

There are concerns that North Korean may conduct a missile flight test or some type of military activity to try to affect the outcome of the elections. (53)

I was unable to find any of Kerry's comments or quotations from 1994 but, judging by his past record and current proposals, we can infer he supported the Clinton deal. It is amazing that he is so willing to try something again that has already failed so miserably and then to spin and distort Bush's record. Kerry has also said he is against the redeployment of US troops from South Korea and Germany. It is unclear why he is against it; the troops are stationed in archaic Cold War formations.

Even more incredulous is Kerry's statement about Iran, which is judged by many parties to be pursuing nuclear weapons. In the first presidential debate Kerry said:

I think the United States should have offered [Iran] the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing. (16)

There already are US sanctions on Iran. Kerry has basically said that he would pursue the exact same policy that failed in North Korea. Al-Jazeera reported on October 22nd:

Analysts have said Iran will wait until after the US elections to respond to a European offer to avoid possible UN sanctions by indefinitely suspending uranium enrichment.

Samore said he thought the Iranians were "waiting for the US elections" on 2 November, with different calculations depending on whether incumbent President George Bush or his challenger John Kerry wins.

The Iranians might try to take advantage of a Kerry victory by agreeing to a three-month full extension from November until when Kerry takes office in January.

"I think if Kerry wins, Iran would strike a compromise that would essentially delay the issue until early next year," Samore said. (58)

In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected, Iran immediately released American hostages it had been holding for 444 days. Could something opposite happen with a Kerry election? And should we elect a leader on whom Iran and North Korea are pinning their hopes?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.