Jim Antle makes the understatement of the week:
And by seeming open to preventive war in Iran, Huntsman may not be the ideal candidate for foreign policy restraint.
Worse than that, it undermines the main argument for why Huntsman should be taken seriously as a candidate: his reputation for greater foreign policy experience and understanding. In a mostly hawkish field that ranges from the ridiculously alarmist (Santorum) to the irresponsibly alarmist (Romney), Huntsman is supposed to possess the sobriety and sanity that other “mainstream” candidates lack. His “I can’t live with a nuclear-armed Iran” line may be nothing more than lip service, but the fact that he is willing to indulge one of the most dangerous ideas in current foreign policy debate badly weakens the one thing that distinguishes him from the other candidates.
As Heather Hurlburt points out, Huntsman’s position on Iran is simply an ill-informed one:
The Iran attack call is interesting because, contrary to what you might think, the U.S. military and many nonpartisan and bipartisan national security figures think such an attack would be a disaster for our security, for our economy and for our ally Israel.
Huntsman’s willingness to consider starting a war with Iran is all the more striking when he brings it up in the middle of an otherwise reasonable speech.
Daniel, I share your puzzlement over Huntsman’s twists and turns in foreign policy. Every time he says something smart, he turns around and says something stupid. It’s very hard to figure out where he actually stands, but then he is not alone, with the exceptions of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.
BTW let’s not forget what the current occupant of the Oval Office said in an interview with the Chicago Tribune back in 2004 just two months before his election to the U.S. Senate:
“Obama said the United States must first address Iran’s attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.
But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.
“The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?” Obama asked.
Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.
“In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in,” he said.
“On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.”
As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. Musharraf’s troops are battling hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations.
Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.
“With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don’t want to be blown up, we don’t want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain,” Obama said. “I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don’t make those same calculations.
“… I think there are elements within Pakistan right now–if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don’t think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks.”
A last resort
Obama’s willingness to consider additional military action in the Middle East comes despite his early and vocal opposition to the Iraq war. Obama, however, also has stressed that he is not averse to using military action as a last resort, although he believes that President Bush did not make that case for the Iraq invasion… ”
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-was-for-hitting-iran-against-gay-marriage
So this madness about Iran is present in both parties. I can even recall the female Democratic candidate for Senate in 2004 against the eventual winner Mel Martinez expressing similar hawish views concerning the need to take military action against Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons