Today’s Times features an article by David Sanger discussing the two campaigns’ claim that the candidates have “sharply different views about the proper use of American power.” Sanger tallies the ledger and finds “contradictions that do not fit the neat hawk‐and‐dove images promoted by each campaign.”
Much of what Sanger covers, and his general conclusion, appeared in my Policy Analysis published earlier this month, “Two Kinds of Change: Comparing the Candidates on Foreign Policy.” But Sanger points to an interesting contradiction within the McCain camp on Iran. Sanger writes:
Questions to both campaigns in the past few weeks have yielded another example of role reversal. While Mr. McCain seems willing to consider that Iran might someday be trusted to produce its own nuclear fuel, Mr. Obama does not. The director of foreign policy for the McCain campaign, Randy Scheunemann, said that if Iran was in compliance with United Nations resolutions, “it would be appropriate to consider” letting it produce uranium under inspection, which Iran has said is its right.
This is interesting. As I wrote in my paper,
In response to a two‐question questionnaire sent to the candidates by the Institute for Science and International Security, McCain indicated that “there can be no such thing as an adequately controlled nuclear fuel cycle in Iran.”He went on to propose that Iran rely on foreign sources of fuel, and claimed that “There is no circumstance under which the international community could be confident that uranium enrichment or plutonium production activities undertaken by the current government of Iran are purely for peaceful purposes.”
Here (.pdf) is the ISIS report in question. I’m not fond of the “flip flop” gotcha game, but this appears to be an interesting shift on the part of the McCain camp. Something an enterprising journalist might want to follow up on.