Obama for America

Fact Check: Clinton's False Claim that Obama Shifted on Iran

Clinton camp claimed Obama shifted on Iran

But Obama Has Answered This Question Before

RUSSERT: "I want to talk about Iran, because there's been a discussion about a vote she cast that you mentioned earlier. Back in March there was a resolution in the Senate, and here's what it said: 'The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.' And you voted for that. Now, The Washington Post analyzed your position and Senator Clinton's, and this is what they editorialized: 'So is there any real difference between Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton on Iran? Mr. Obama contends that one distinction lies in Ms. Clinton's acceptance of language in the September 26, '07' 'resolution that 'it is'' 'critical national interest of the United States' to stop Iran from creating a Hezbollah-like force in Iraq. Mr. Obama claims that such language is 'saber-rattling' that could be used by the Bush administration to justify an attack on Iran. This is hard to fathom. Not only is there no mention of the use of U.S. forces 'in the resolution, but last year Mr. Obama gave a speech in which he said it "is in our national interest to prevent" Iran or Syrian from using Iraq as 'a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries." So if you have the same concern about using--Iran using that as a staging area, you would have a position very similar to Senator Clinton's.

OBAMA: Well, the, the previous quote was directed specifically at the issue of Israel, and I make no apologies for making sure that we are thinking about our security interests in Israel. The primary difference between myself and Senator Clinton is that she believes that our force structure inside Iraq should, in part, depend on how we can prevent Iran from having influence inside of Iraq. And I think that is a mistake, particularly at a time when we know this administration has been itching to escalate the tensions between Iran and the United States.

Look, there's a broader issue at stake here, and that is how do we approach Iran? I have said, unlike Senator Clinton, that I would meet directly with the leadership in Iran. I believe that we have not exhausted the diplomatic efforts that could be required to resolve some of these problems--them developing nuclear weapons, them supporting terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. That does not mean that we take other options off the table, but it means that we move forward aggressively with a dialogue with them about not only the sticks that we're willing to apply, but also the carrots. Are there inducements that we can put on the table--joining the World Trade Organization, over time normalizing diplomatic relations--giving them some sense that if they make the right decisions, if they change their behavior, then we will be willing to work with them as we would any other nation in a way that is mutually beneficial. That has not been tried. Not only has it not been tried, but reports indicate that it has been explicitly rejected by the Bush administration. That is a policy that I intend to change as president of the United States." [Meet the Press, 11/11/07]

And Has Remained Consistent on Iran

New York Sun: "Contrary To The Suggestion From Mrs. Clinton's Camp, Mr. Obama's Proposal Was Not Exactly The Same As That Of The New York Senator" On Iran. The New York Sun reported, "Contrary to the suggestion from Mrs. Clinton's camp, Mr. Obama's proposal was not exactly the same as that of the New York senator. He made clear in his remarks a year ago that the residual American force that might counterbalance Iran would operate only at the invitation of an Iraqi government making progress on resolving the country's internal strife. Mrs. Clinton's use of the term 'vital national security interest' suggested she would seek to thwart Iran even if the Iraqis fail to get their house in order." [New York Sun, 11/12/07]

Obama Recognized That As The US Drew Down From Iraq, It Was In The US National Interest To Engage With Iran And Syria. "Finally, we have to realize that the entire Middle East has an enormous stake in the outcome in Iraq and we must engage neighboring countries in finding a solution. This includes opening a dialogue with both Syria and Iran, an idea supported by both James Baker and the incoming secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. We understand that these countries, Iran and Syria, want us to fail. And we should remain steadfast in our opposition to their support of terrorism and Iran's nuclear ambitions. But neither Iran nor Syria want to see a security vacuum in Iraq filled with chaos -- terrorism, refugees and violence -- as it could have a destabilizing affect on the entire region and within Iran and Syria themselves. And so I firmly believe that we should convene a regional conference with the Iraqis, Saudis, Iranians, Syrians, the Turks, the Jordanians, the British and anyone else who's got a stake in this outcome. The goal of this conference should be to get foreign fighters out of Iraq, prevent a further descent into civil war, and push the various Iraqi factions towards a political solution. Now make no mistake, if the Iranians and the Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan, or a staging area from which to attack Israel and other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent anything of the sort from happening. We should also make clear that even after we begin to draw down forces, we will still work with our vital allies in the region to combat international terrorism and prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. It is simply not productive, however, for us not to engage in discussions with Iran and Syria on an issue of such fundamental importance to all these countries." [Speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, 11/20/06]