The Iran Nuclear Issue

Last week I participated in a forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto with fellow candidates Anna Eshoo and Dave Chapman. During the question phase of this forum a question was asked about what one might do regarding Iran's potential for nuclear weapon development.

I felt I gave an inadequate response to this questions as I hadn't focused on foreign policy with so much going on here on the domestic front regarding economic problems, taxation, spending, government expansion and intrusion and other matters.

So I'm going to attempt to put forward a more complete answer here, although my opponent, Anna Eshoo mentioned during her response that as she was a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and chaired the Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management she had access to classified information which if we knew about it would change many of our viewpoints and we would all advocate a much stronger action on terrorism activities.

I don't know if that was an effort to make her less expendable as our representative by putting a little fear out there or whether she had facts which she couldn't share which might make my answer completely uninformed. Although if there are reasons out there to be more fearful I would think the government should have the responsibility to bring it further to light.

Okay, to lay out the facts as I understand them.

  1. The US government and some other world governments (yes, I will always separate government from the people the portend to serve) believe that Iran is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons.
  2. Iran is feeding back that it isn't developing weapons, but developing nuclear power for its growing energy needs.
  3. The US government wishes to take a lead position in implementing sanctions, along with UN nation support, until Iran proves it isn't developing nuclear weapons and wants Iran to stop anything nuclear.
  4. Seeing as Iran would appear to be ideal for becoming either one giant solar energy field or could use it's large oil reserves to feed traditional electrical generation it would seem likely that in this case the US Government is correct.

With the above assumptions, again predicated on the possibility that the government is holding something back from us according to Ms. Eshoo, I would suggest that the US government has no or very little role in taking action toward Iran either via direct lead or via UN endorsement.

The US should maintain as close a neutral policy politically with the exception of banning any trade or technology that has no other use than trade unless one of our allies comes under direct assault and asks for aid.

The United States is not under direct threat from an Iranian nuclear bomb as Iran does not posses ICBM technology to reach any part of the USA.

If we wish to call the Iranian government on their need for power for growth we should offer free of charge all the solar technology necessary to power their county and see what their response is.

Other nations more local to Iran are welcome to take whatever action they deem necessary to protect themselves from a perceived threat as long as their actions do not adversely affect their neighbors unless their actions are taken jointly.

This may seem a naive course to academic politicos, but until our government feels fit to come forward with all the facts concerning this matter, as alluded to by my opponent, Ms. Eshoo, I believe this to be the only conclusion one might arrive.

Whether good intentions or not it is not the USA governments place to be the global police force or global bully, take it as you like it. Our government should act as a member of the global community, not evangelizing around the world.

I believe in a strong defense, not offense. The United States government should draw down its permanent foreign bases and turn control back to those countries in where such bases exist. Our nation building policies have caused more suffering and violence along with loss of American lives than is acceptable.