Begin Constructive Moves with Iran, Barr Urges

“After emphasizing confrontation and thinly-veiled threats of war for many months, the Bush administration apparently may now be considering initiating some form of diplomatic relationship with Iran. Such a step is long overdue,” notes Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee. “An American diplomat attended talks recently between the European Union and Iran in Geneva. The U.S. should move forward and initiate direct discussions with Tehran. As famed British Prime Minister Winston Churchill told us, ‘it is always better to ‘jaw-jaw than to war-war,’” noted Barr.

“There is no easy answer to the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon, which would be enormously destabilizing,” explains Barr. But U.S. intelligence doubts the existence of an active Iranian nuclear weapons program, let alone imminent development of a nuclear military device. “We have time to use diplomacy and work with allied nations to dissuade Tehran from taking this provocative step.”

“It is imperative to find a peaceful answer, since war with Iran would be disastrous for all concerned,” emphasizes Barr. “American troops in Iraq would be at risk. U.S. citizens would be targeted for terrorist acts. Tehran could retaliate against Israel. Oil shipments would be disrupted, causing energy prices to soar even higher. Allied states in the Persian Gulf would be vulnerable to attack. Chances for democratic change in Iran would be set back.”

“Military forces is sometimes necessary, but it always should be a last resort and based on true defensive necessity. Our best chance to avoid finding ourselves with no constructive options is to pursue a multi-pronged strategy that includes communication with other governments, including those of our adversaries,” noted Barr, who formerly worked for the CIA and had actually lived in Iran. Barr also notes that such a constructive and multi-faceted strategy is appropriate, since “many times, today’s adversaries wind up being tomorrow’s allies.”

“The U.S. government has an obligation to the American people to make every attempt to find peaceful solutions to even the most serious geopolitical problems,” the Libertarian Party nominee concluded.

"Obama's Evolving Position On Talking To Iran"

"But now Obama has put a major condition on his willingness to meet with Iran: he will meet only if such a meeting advances the interests of the U.S. That is not much different from the Bush Administration's position on negotiations with Iran." -- ABC News

Obama's Evolving Position On Talking To Iran
By Jonathan Karl
ABC News
June 4, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama's position on talking to Iran has been evolving since last year's CNN/Youtube debate, when he said he would be willing to meet "without precondition" with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea during the first year of his administration.

During a speech before a pro-Israel group on Wednesday, however, Obama, D-Ill., who clinched the delegates necessary to claim the Democratic nomination on Tuesday, presented an entirely different position:

"Contrary to the claims to some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States. That is my position. I want to be absolutely clear."

Compare that with what Obama said during the CNN/Youtube debate:

QUESTION: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?

OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this: the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when he called them an evil empire. He understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them."

But now Obama has put a major condition on his willingness to meet with Iran: he will meet only if such a meeting advances the interests of the U.S.

That is not much different from the Bush Administration's position on negotiations with Iran.

Secretary Rice has said repeatedly that she would meet with Iran if it agreed to suspend its enrichment program. As she says often, "The question is not why won't the U.S meet with Iran. The question is why won't Iran meet with the U.S."

Read The ABC News Article

Bill Richardson Speaks with Pakistani Opposition Leader Regarding Crisis in Pakistan

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif called New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson earlier today and thanked him for supporting immediate democracy in Pakistan.
Prime Minister Sharif and Governor Richardson discussed the modalities of an immediate transition to democracy in Pakistan and the steps necessary to guarantee free and fair elections.
"I think our national security is enhanced, not threatened, when we are true to our principles as Americans," Richardson said. "We supported the Shah of Iran until the bitter end and now our greatest national security threat is Iran. We supported the apartheid regime in South Africa, greatly harming our interests in the entire third world. And we supported numerous dictatorships in South America, making us pariahs in our own Hemisphere.

"You need a long-term strategic vision to protect our national security, not more foreign policy myopia."