2008 Presidential Candidates’ Views on the Middle East
John McCain
For John McCain’s bio, please click HERE.
Radical Islam:
The success of Hamas and Hizbullah in the region is not only a danger for Israel, but also a threat to US national interests, US Republican presidential candidate John McCain said. (The Jerusalem Post, March 19, 2008).
“If Hamas/Hizbullah succeeds here, they are going to succeed everywhere, not only in the Middle East, but everywhere. Israel isn’t the only enemy,” Arizona Sen. McCain said. (The Jerusalem Post, March 19, 2008).
“They are dedicated to the extinction of everything that the US, Israel and the West believe and stand for. So America does have an interest in what happens here, far above and beyond our alliance with the State of Israel.”
“All of the conflicts in the Middle East are connected, they are all part of the rise of Islamic extremism,” said McCain. “If we succeed in Iraq, other countries will be more inclined to help us and this will take the pressure off Israel.” (Discussion with Jewish leaders, October 30, 2007).
“The transforming struggle of the 21st century is our struggle against radical Islamic extremism.” (Republican Jewish Coalition presidential forum, October 16, 2007 reported by JTA)
Iranian Threat:
Asked if he thinks the Iraq War has strenghtened Iran in the region, McCain responded, “I think that our failures for nearly four years obviously did it. But I believe that that is being reversed as the surge succeeds, and I think that the Iranians are very possibly going to step up their assistance to the Jihadists, because they don’t want us to success in Iraq...Osama bin Laden has said that the central front in the battleground is Iraq, and their Palestinian brothers are next. So what are the implications to the State of Israel if they prevail on Iraq? I think they’re obvious.” (JTA, April 9, 2008)
Asked whether negotiations with Iran might help improve relations, McCain said, unequivocally, “no,” and rejected the recommendation of the Baker-Hamilton Commission. On the other hand, he did not rule out speaking with Iranians other than their president. (JTA, April 9, 2008)
“I think Iran is a threat to the region,” McCain said, adding that not only were the Iranians “obviously pursuing nuclear weapons,” they were also arming and training extremists to send into Iraq, supporting Hizbullah and influencing Syria. (The Jerusalem Post, March 19, 2008).
“At the end of the day, we can still not afford to have Iran with nuclear weapons,” he said. “We know they have ambitions that are not just aimed at the State of Israel.” These ambitions included “destabilization of the entire region upon which the United States’ national security interests rest,” he said. (The Jerusalem Post, March 19, 2008).
McCain said when it came to Iran, “the United Nations Security Council will not be effective.” He was speaking of efforts to sanction the Islamic Republic unless it met international demands to halt the enrichment of uranium. McCain proposed an intensified sanctions regime led by the U.S. and its allies. (Jerusalem Post, October 18, 2007)
“McCain also implied another sharp rebuke to Bush, saying he did not trust Russian President Vladimir Putin when it came to seeking international assistance in isolating Iran until it ends its suspected nuclear weapons program.” (Republican Jewish Coalition presidential forum, October 16, 2007 reported by JTA)
“There can be little doubt that failure in Iraq would leave Iran in a far stronger position to exert regional hegemony, pursue its nuclear weapons program and support extremist elements throughout the Middle East. The best course in Iraq is to allow the new strategy to have a chance to succeed under General Petraeus and his team. The fifth and final brigade has just arrived in Iraq. We are paying the price for many past mistakes, most notably too few troops in the past. The course ahead will be very difficult but it is strategically irresponsible to declare the “surge” a failure before it has even been fully implemented.
We should have no illusions - Iran is engaged in a proxy struggle against the United States. Iran is gravely complicating our efforts to secure Iraq by arming Sunni and Shia extremists with sophisticated weapons that are used to kill American soldiers. Iran's president has perversely doubted the Holocaust and threatened Israel's right to exist. The Iranian danger goes far beyond rhetoric. Iran is providing financial, material and political support for the most violent enemies of Israel on three fronts: Hamas in Gaza; Hezbollah in Lebanon; and Syria. In Afghanistan, Iran has sent arms to the Taliban fighting NATO forces. ran continues to harbor known al Qaeda members.
To date, Iran has not paid a price for its behavior and, unsurprisingly, continues to subvert American efforts to stabilize Iraq and support violent extremists dedicated to the destruction of Israel. The Iranian theocracy, however, has significant political and economic vulnerabilities. It seems clear that the vast majority of the Iranian people do not support the course their government has chosen of confrontation with the world. Ethnic minorities regularly demand greater autonomy. Nearly a quarter of Iran’s people are under the age of 15, and this youthful population sees economic and political power concentrated in the hands of a corrupt and out-of-touch elite.
Economically, Iran is dependent on foreign investment in its energy sector and relies on heavily subsidized refined gasoline imports to avoid social unrest. Inflation has increased the cost of basic goods such as food, housing and medical care while unemployment is in the double digits. A concerted effort to isolate the Iranian regime economically and politically will increase internal pressures and, quite possibly, lead to a change in behavior if not a change in government. If Tehran’s protectors in the United Nations Security Council continue to thwart meaningful sanctions, we should work with like-minded countries in Europe, in the Gulf and beyond to further isolate Iran.
Finally, we must make clear to the Iranian regime that continuing to train and equip forces that are attacking and killing Americans in Iraq will not be tolerated.” (The Jerusalem Post, June 21, 2007)
“The world's chief state sponsor of international terrorism, Iran defines itself by hostility to Israel and the United States. It is simply tragic that millennia of proud Persian history have culminated in a government today that cannot be counted among those of the world's civilized nations.
When the president of Iran calls for Israel to be wiped off of the map, or asks for a world without Zionism, or suggests that Israel’s Jewish population return to Europe, or calls the Holocaust a myth, it is clear that we are dealing with an evil man and a very dangerous regime.
Teheran’s continued pursuit of nuclear weapons clearly poses an unacceptable risk. Protected by a nuclear arsenal, Iran would feel unconstrained to sponsor terrorist attacks against any perceived enemy. Its flouting of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty would render that agreement obsolete, and could induce Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others to reassess their defense posture.
Moderate Gulf states would have to accommodate the new reality, and the world would live, indefinitely, with the possibility that Teheran might pass nuclear materials or weapons to one of its allied terrorist networks. Coupled with its ballistic missile arsenal, an Iranian nuclear capability would pose an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel.
UN Security Council action is required to impose progressively tougher political and economic sanctions.
Should the Security Council continue to drag its feet, the US must lead a group of like-minded countries in imposing multilateral sanctions outside the UN framework. The opposition of Russia and China to effective sanctions on Iran - and on issues ranging from Myanmar to Darfur to North Korea - is why I proposed the creation of a league of Democracies in which Israel would be welcomed. When democracies are united in addressing threats like Iran, we cannot afford to allow autocracies to thwart action.
There are many ways to increase pressure on Iran. Financial sanctions have had an initial effect. Iran’s need to import refined gasoline, to cite one example, suggests an important vulnerability. And countries such as China and Malaysia, which have signed deals to develop Iranian gas fields, and Russia, which provides weapons systems to Teheran, should know that Iran would be a critical element in American’s bilateral relations with each nation. In the meantime, the US should immediately investigate whether any of these deals violate the terms of last year's Iran Freedom Support Act.
The US should also privatize the sanctions effort by launching a divestment campaign. By persuading individuals, pension funds, and financial institutions to divest from companies doing business with Iran, we can isolate and delegitimize a hostile government. We will also, as we did with the South Africa divestment campaign, increase the debate inside the country about whether the present course serves the interests of the Iranian people or merely those of a misguided elite.
Americans and all proponents of freedom need to reassure the millions of Iranians who aspire to self-determination that we support their longing for freedom and democracy. There is much more we can and should do to translate such support into concrete action.
Every option must remain on the table. Military action isn’t our preference. It remains, as it always must, the last option. We have some way to go diplomatically before we need to contemplate other measures. But it is a simple observation of reality that there is only one thing worse than a military solution, and that is a nuclear-armed Iran. The regime must understand that it cannot win a showdown with the world.” (Jerusalem Post, June 7, 2007)
“I would work to further isolate the enemies of Israel such as Syria, Hamas and Hizbullah and I would never pressure Israel to make concessions to states or movements committed to its destruction.
Finally, Teheran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons plainly poses an unacceptable risk to the international community, and Israel above all others.
Recently, it was reported that the Iranian regime has begun enriching uranium at an accelerated pace, which means we are that much closer to seeing Israel’s security being placed in grave jeopardy.
As President, I will pursue every option at my disposal to neutralize that threat. We cannot and must not allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons. I will make sure the American people understand that if we are to defeat the extremists that threaten our way of life, Israel's security cannot be compromised.” (Jerusalem Post, May 24, 2007)
“You withdraw to the borders and watch genocide take place inside Baghdad. You watch the destabilization of Jordan. You see further jeopardy of Israel because of the threats of Hezbollah and Iranian hegemony in the region.” (June 4, 2007)
“We haven't taken the military option off the table [for Iran], but we should make it clear that is the very last option, only if we become convinced that they are about to acquire those weapons to use against Israel...I think that if they are capable with their repeatedly stated intention, that doesn’t mean I would go to war even then. That means we have to exhaust every possible option. Going to the United Nations, working with our European allies. If we were going to impose sanctions, I would wait and see whether those sanctions were effective or not. I did not mean it as a declaration of war the day they acquired weapons.” (Interview in The New Republic, October 16, 2006)
“I think the Israeli people would agree that we can't wait for rogue regimes like Iran, Iraq, and Syria to develop the weapons that would seriously challenge Israel’s defenses, and our own. I think Israelis would agree that a posture of robust deterrence against aggression is no longer enough in this age of weapons of mass destruction.” (Speech to American Jewish Committee, May 2002)
“Of course, we don’t want to see the House of Saud taken over by Islamic extremists and go the way of Iran with the fall of the Shah. But we also have to understand that, unless there is progress in Saudi Arabia, sooner or later they will fall.” (September 11, 2006)
Hamas and the situation in Gaza:
On a recent trip to Israel where he visited the southern town of Sderot, a town dealing with near-daily rocket barrages launched from the Gaza Strip, McCain stated, “When I was there I stated unequivocally that every nation has the right to defend itself against attack.” (JTA, April 9, 2008)
Asked whether Israel was using the right tactics in trying to quell the rocket fire on Sderot and the western Negev, McCain praised Defense Minister Ehud Barak - terming him “one of the great military people” he has met - and added, “I can’t give you a good answer as to how you respond to these rocket attacks.” But, he then said, “I can tell you that I believe that if rocket attacks came across the border of the United States of America, that the American people would probably demand pretty vigorous actions in response. I think I know my constituency in the state of Arizona, and they would be pretty exercised if rockets came across our southern border.” (The Jerusalem Post, March 19, 2008).
McCain said that while he would never tell Israel not to speak with Hamas, he was personally against it. “Someone is going to have to answer me the question of how you are going to negotiate with an organization that is dedicated to your extinction,” McCain said. (The Jerusalem Post, March 19, 2008).
“The United States should oppose any U.N. statement or resolution that fails to condemn vociferously the terrorist tactics employed by Hamas, including its rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. For the Security Council to address the humanitarian situation in Gaza without reference to the Israeli security situation would constitute a failure of responsibility.” (Letter to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, January 23, 2008)
“The unfortunate outcome in Gaza will lead to more suffering for its people as the terrorist Hamas has assumed control of the territory through force of arms. It also faces Israel with the threat of continued terrorist attack from Gaza, something no sovereign state would or should be expected to ignore. There can be no ‘engagement’ with Hamas. No one should expect Israel to engage movements committed to its destruction.
For Hamas and their ilk, the issue is not the borders resulting from the 1967 war, it is about the borders resulting from the 1948 War of Independence. Hamas, and its Iranian sponsors, do not want peace, they want the destruction of Israel. We must contain Hamas, and support Israel in its legitimate efforts to ensure Hamas control of Gaza does not further threaten Israeli security....We should also work to make Iran pay a price for support of Hamas, Hizbullah and other terrorist groups. Finally, we should support Israel in its necessary and just efforts to defend itself from the dangers posed by Hamas.” (Jerusalem Post, July 5, 2007)
“In the wake of yesterday’s Palestinian elections, Hamas must change itself fundamentally - renounce violence, abandon its goal of eradicating Israel and accept the two-state solution. These elections are evidence that democracy is indeed spreading in the Middle East, but Hamas is not a partner for peace so long as they advocate the overthrow of Israel.” (Statement released the day after Hamas won the Palestinian elections, January 26, 2006)
Peace with the Palestinians:
Asked in an interview when would he get involved in the peace process if he were to become President, McCain responded, “Immediately. And, as I said, I don’t know how many trips I’ve made to Israel. I know all of the leadership well. I know the parameters that they’re operating under, and I feel fully qualified to hit the ground running.” (JTA, April 9, 2008)
“I believe that President Abbas wants to get this process started,” McCain said. “I believe he does not support the kind of activity that is taking place in Gaza. I know that the US government is fully committed to try and stop this violence, this cross-border violence that is taking place.” (The Jerusalem Post, March 19, 2008)
“An all-encompassing process was tried by Clinton, and was very hard,” said McCain. The process, he said should entail “confidence building.” Ground rules should be established, and leaders should lay out what is and isn't negotiable. “I'm a bit reluctant to say what should happen, first, second and third, because then it becomes a target of intransigence.”
Asked his thoughts about a Palestinian state, McCain said it should be the “ultimate end,” but first there needed to be “peace,” which he later explained as security and an end to terror. “The long-elusive quest for peace between Israel and the Palestinians must remain a priority,” McCain wrote in Foreign Affairs. “But the goal must be genuine peace, and so Hamas must be isolated even as the United States intensifies its commitment to finding an enduring settlement.” (Discussion with Jewish leaders, October 30, 2007).
“While Israel and its supporters have little choice other than attempting to support the government of Mahmoud Abbas, we should have no illusions. Abbas has not been a strong leader, has not been able to control Palestinian terrorism, and has not been effective in asserting control.
Assistance to Abbas must be given with the understanding that his control is less than total. The U.S. should also work to ensure Hamas is isolated for its terrorism - within the region and in Europe.” (The Jerusalem Post, July 5, 2007)
“There can be no comprehensive peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians until the Palestinians recognize Israel, forswear forever the use of violence, recognize their previous agreements, and reform their internal institutions.” (May 2006)
“The Oslo accord failed because it was based on the premise that the Palestinian and Israeli peoples could live peacefully together. The security fence will test whether they can live peacefully apart. There will be further negotiations on the exact geographic location of the fence that can be agreed upon by both parties. The United States is happy to consult and advise, but the people that determine the security of the state of Israel is the Government of Israel.” (Press Conference with Silvan Shalom, August 19, 2003)
“Terrorism is terrorism, whether in the form of professional killers who crash civilian aircraft into buildings or amateur murderers undistinguished by anything other than their willingness to take innocent lives. A political solution to the conflict with the Palestinians is the best answer to Israeli insecurity, of course. But no moral nation--neither Israel nor America--can allow terrorists to chart the political course of its people. No freedom-loving nation can tolerate a terrorist state on its border. And no great nation can abandon the obligations of moral clarity for the convenience of situational ethics. If we are serious about the values we in America and Israel live by, and the opportunities we would like all people in the Middle East to enjoy, we can allow terrorists no role in the political process.” (Speech delivered at the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, April 2002)
Negotiations with Syria and Lebanon:
“To achieve lasting peace, sooner or later, one way or another, Hizbullah must be disarmed and its patron in Damascus confronted.”
“We should be deeply concerned by the ongoing subversion of Lebanese sovereignty by Syria and strongly support efforts to move forward on the investigation of the assassination of Lebanon’s former prime minister. The international community must also do more to hold Syria accountable for its past and current actions in Lebanon - including its support for Hizbullah which seeks Israel's destruction. Lasting peace and security in Lebanon must include a democratic government that has a monopoly on authority within Lebanon's borders. That means no independent militias, no Hizbullah fighters, no weapons and equipment flowing to Hizbullah across Lebanon’s borders. That means no independent militias, no Hizbullah fighters, no weapons and equipment flowing to Hizbullah across Lebanon’s borders. So long as that is not the case, Hizbullah is likely to further regroup, reconstitute, and rearm.” (August 8, 2007)
The United States-Israel Relationship:
“I really think that we should understand that the US and Israel are partners. Israel is not a client of the United States,” he said. “If you are partners, then you don’t dictate what you think the terms of the survival of a nation should be.” (The Jerusalem Post, March 19, 2008).
“I strongly support increased US assistance, to include providing needed military equipment and technology, for our democratic ally Israel in order to maintain its qualitative military edge relative to its regional adversaries as they acquire and seek more potent military capabilities - often from outside suppliers, such as Russia in the case of Syria and Iran...Israel's enemies are too numerous, its margin of error too small, and our shared interests and values too great for any other position...Expanding economic opportunity and promoting democratic institutions, grounded in, among other things, a functioning and impartial judiciary, a free press, a robust political opposition, and respect for women's and minority rights, are vital elements to an enduring peace in the region.” (The Jerusalem Post, August 22, 2007)
“Late last year, I had the opportunity to visit with the families of two Israeli soldiers - Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser - who were captured last summer by Hizbullah during a cross-border raid.
My visit with the loved ones of these brave and noble young men reminded me of the great sacrifices the Israeli people have made to defend their sacred soil and win their rightful status as a beacon of freedom and faith. To this day, Eldad and Ehud continue to be held captive.
Indeed, Israel has never had the opportunity to take a holiday from history, for it has been tested more, in less time, than any nation on Earth. The tests continue today in the form of suicide bombers and rocket fire and in the existential threats issued routinely by the Iranian president.
Long considered a dear friend to America, today Israel is our natural ally in what is a titanic struggle against Islamic extremists - an enemy whose sinister nature I need not explain to the people of Israel.
If elected President of the United States, I will strengthen America’s bedrock commitment to the security of the State of Israel.
First and foremost, we must continue to provide Israel with whatever military equipment and technology required to retain Israel's qualitative military advantage and to defend itself.
Just as important is the strengthening of our diplomatic ties. As President, I will invite Israel to play a leading role in the League of Democracies that I have proposed - an organization of like-minded nations working together in the cause of peace.” (Jerusalem Post, May 24, 2007)
“In addition to her moral commitment to Israel’s security, America must provide Israel with whatever military equipment and technology she requires to defend herself, above and beyond what we supply today if necessary. Our support for Israel must intensify, as threats to Israeli security have intensified.” (AIPAC conference, June 2001)
Foreign Policy Advisers
In addition to each candidate’s personal views, another important aspect in evaluating candidates and their foreign policy agendas is to take a look at each candidate’s team of foreign policy and national security advisers. Below is a list of Senator McCain’s foreign policy team:
Richard Lee Armitage, President George W. Bush’s deputy secretary of state and an international business consultant and lobbyist, informal foreign policy adviser
Bernard Aronson, former assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs and now a managing partner of private equity investment company ACON Investments, informal foreign policy adviser
William L. Ball III, secretary of the Navy during President Reagan’s administration and managing director of lobbying firm the Loeffler Group, informal national security adviser
Stephen E. Biegun, former national security aide to then-Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and now Ford Motors vice president of international government affairs, informal national security adviser
Max Boot, Council on Foreign Relations editor and former Wall Street Journal editorial editor, foreign policy adviser
Brig. Gen. Tom Bruner, Iowa veterans advisory committee
Lorne W. Craner, International Republican Institute president, informal foreign policy adviser
Lawrence S. Eagleburger, President George H.W. Bush’s secretary of state and a senior public policy adviser with law firm Baker Donelson, endorsed McCain April 10
Brig. Gen. Russ Eggers, Iowa veterans advisory committee
Maj. Gen. Merrill Evans, Iowa veterans advisory committee
Niall Ferguson, Harvard historian and Hoover Institution senior fellow, informal foreign policy adviser
Michael J. Green, former Asia adviser to President George W. Bush and now Japan chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Asia policy adviser
Gen. Alexander M. Haig, Jr., President Reagan’s secretary of state, endorsed McCain April 10
Maj. Gen. Evan “Curly” Hultman, Iowa veterans advisory committee
Robert Kagan, senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington Post columnist and former speechwriter for then-secretary of state George P. Shultz, informal foreign policy adviser
Brig. Gen. Robert Michael Kimmitt, current deputy Treasury secretary, informal national security adviser
Henry A. Kissinger, President Nixon and President Ford’s secretary of state who met McCain in Vietnam and is now a consultant, informal adviser
Col. Andrew F. Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, briefed McCain as well as Sen. Hillary Clinton and Gov. Bill Richardson
William Kristol, The Weekly Standard editor, informal foreign policy adviser
Adm. Charles Larson, former superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy and now chairman of consulting firm ViaGlobal Group, informal national security adviser
Robert “Bud” McFarlane, President Reagan’s national security adviser and now a principal with Energy & Communications Solutions, energy and national security adviser
Brig. Gen. Warren “Bud” Nelson, Iowa veterans advisory committee
Brig. Gen. Eddie Newman, Iowa veterans advisory committee
Maj. Gen. John Peppers, Iowa veterans advisory committee
Maj. Ralph Peters, writer and retired Army officer, informal national security adviser
Brig. Gen. Maurice Phillips, Iowa veterans advisory committee
Gen. Colin L. Powell, President George W. Bush’s secretary of state, informal foreign policy adviser
James R. Schlesinger, President Nixon and President Ford’s secretary of defense, energy and national security adviser
Randy Scheunemann, national security aide to then-Senate Majority Leaders Bob Dole and Trent Lott and now a lobbyist, defense and foreign policy coordinator (for this cycle and 2000)
Gary Schmitt, former staff director of the Senate Intelligence Committee and now an American Enterprise Institute scholar, foreign policy adviser
Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush and founder of business consultancy the Scowcroft Group, adviser
George P. Shultz, President Reagan’s secretary of state and a Hoover Institution Fellow, endorsed McCain April 10
Brig. Gen. W.L. “Bill” Wallace, Iowa veterans advisory committee
Maj. Gen. Gary Wattnem, Iowa veterans advisory committee
R. James Woolsey, former CIA director and now a vice president at consulting company Booz Allen Hamilton, energy and national security adviser
(List published in the Washington Post, October 2, 2007)
Sources: Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, JTA |
