Q: Support Trump withdrawal from treaty limiting Iran nuclear capability in return for lifting economic sanctions?
Josh Hawley (R): Yes.
Claire McCaskill (D): Supported original treaty. "Concerned about what comes next" and effect on the relationship with allies.
Source: 2018 CampusElect.org Issue Guide on Missouri Senate race
, Oct 9, 2018
Economic sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program
Claire supports a more active role for our nation in stopping Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran’s efforts to develop atomic arms pose grave risks to US interests in the Middle East, threatening international peace and security. We need to hold
Iran’s current leadership accountable for its threatening behavior. Claire favors the Iran Freedom Support Act, which would tighten sanctions on foreign companies that invest in Iran’s energy sector, and aid Iran’s pro-democracy forces.
The greatest threats to our safety are weapons of mass destruction. Iran may now be close to producing a nuclear bomb. Iran’s nuclear capability can still be prevented.
Unchecked, it will create a domino effect that will be felt throughout the Middle East. An immediate and complete moratorium on their enrichment processes is needed. And it must be non-negotiable.
The spread of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons must be stopped. Claire says there must be no uncertainty about that goal. North Korea has been stockpiling nuclear weapons without so much as a glance from the current administration.
We cannot allow them to go any further. We must talk to the North Koreans if we are ever to get them to renounce their weapons and allow a verification system to assure their compliance.
Source: New York Times Election Profiles for 2006 election
, Oct 8, 2006
Need to change course in Iraq
Iraq is a mess. We can either stay the course or we can change course. Obviously, even the leader of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Warner, probably the most respected Republican on the Iraq war in Washington, has now come back from Iraq & said, “You
know what? This is a mess and we need to re-examine what we’re doing here.” This is Truman’s Senate seat. When he was in the Senate, during the war, he asked questions about war profiteering and he was called brave. In this climate right now, they would
war, where we are losing lives every day and innocent Iraqi lives; and then our effort worldwide to begin to be effective against terror. Terrorist cells are popping up. We’re creating more terrorists around the world with this failed policy in Iraq.
Redeploy our troops in Iraq to Afghanistan to find bin Laden
As a daughter of rural Missouri, we have a saying, “If you’re in a hole, you need to quit digging.” We have now trained 300,000 Iraqi troops. We have a civil war. This idea that we’re creating a democracy that’s going to be our ally in the war on terror?
We have a government that’s reinstituted Saddam Hussein’s laws to put journalists in prison. We need to listen to our military, and over a two-year framework, give or take, time period that they say, we need to move-Afghanistan, we need troops in
of dependence; we are not breeding a democracy. The elected leaders of Iraq have come out in favor of Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that invaded our ally. I know that the NATO command would take our troops in Afghanistan. They need more.
Define a plan for success in Iraq with a clear exit strategy
I am deeply concerned that this Administration doesn’t seem to have a plan for success in Iraq. President Bush said it might be up to other ‘Presidents’ to deal with Iraq, which makes me believe he thinks we could be there another ten years.
I will push the Administration to be more honest with the American people and demand a clear exit strategy. The sooner we train Iraqi troops to defend their nation’s security, the sooner we will can bring home our young men and women.
Voted NO on redeploying non-essential US troops out of Iraq in 9 months.
Vote to transition the missions of US Forces in Iraq to a more limited set of missions as specified by the President on September 13, 2007: S.AMDT.3875 amends S.AMDT.3874 and underlying bill H.R.2764:
The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of members of the US Armed Forces from Iraq who are not essential to the [new limited mission].
Such redeployment shall begin not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
No funds under any provision of law may be expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the US Armed Forces after 9 months.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. LEVIN: "The amendment requires redeployment be completed within 9 months. At that point, funding for the war would be ended, with four narrow exceptions:"
Security for US Government personnel and infrastructure
Training Iraqi security forces
Equipment to US service men and women to ensure their safety
Targeted operations against members of al-Qaida.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. McCAIN: "This year, after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war, our military has made significant gains under the so-called surge. Overall violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level since . Improvised explosive device blasts now occur at a rate lower than at any point since September 2004.
"Al-Qaida's leadership knows which side is winning in Iraq. It may not be known in some parts of America and in this body, but al-Qaida knows. We are succeeding under the new strategy.
"Given these realities, some proponents of precipitous withdrawal from Iraq have shifted their focus. While conceding, finally, that there have been dramatic security gains, they have begun seizing on the lackluster performance of the Iraqi Government to insist that we should abandon the successful strategy and withdraw U.S. forces. This would be a terrible mistake."
Voted NO on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists.
Vote on a "Sense of the Senate" amendment, S.Amdt. 3017, to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act), that finds:
that it is a vital US national interest to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force;
that it should be US policy to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of Iran;
to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy;
that the US should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. LIEBERMAN: Some of our colleagues thought the Sense of the Senate may have opened the door to some kind of military action against Iran [so we removed some text].
That is not our intention. In fact, our intention is to increase the economic pressure on Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps so that we will never have to consider the use of the military to stop them from what they are doing to kill our soldiers.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. BIDEN. I will oppose the Kyl-Lieberman amendment for one simple reason: this administration cannot be trusted. I am very concerned about the evidence that suggests that Iran is engaged in destabilizing activities inside Iraq. Arguably, if we had a different President who abided by the meaning and intent of laws we pass, I might support this amendment. I fear, however, that this President might use the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity as a pretext to use force against Iran as he sees fit. [The same was done with the Senate resolution on Iraq in 2002]. Given this President's actions and misuse of authority, I cannot support the amendment.
Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008.
Begins the phased redeployment of US forces from Iraq within 120 days of enactment of this joint resolution with the goal of redeploying by March 31, 2008, all US combat forces from Iraq, except for a limited number essential for protecting US and coalition personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations. Such redeployment shall be implemented as part of a diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community in order to bring stability to Iraq.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
Our troops are caught in the midst of a civil war. The administration has begun to escalate this war with 21,000 more troops. This idea is not a new one. During this war, four previous surges have all failed. It is time for a different direction. It is time for a drawdown of our troops.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
This resolution calls for imposing an artificial timeline to withdraw our troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions on the ground or the consequences of defeat; a defeat that will surely be added to what is unfortunately a growing list of American humiliations. This legislation would hobble American commanders in the field and substantially endanger America's strategic objective of a unified federal democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself and be an ally in the war against Islamic fascism. The unintended consequence of this resolution is to bring to reality Osama bin Laden's vision for Iraq; that after 4 years of fighting in Iraq the US Congress loses its will to fight. If we leave Iraq before the job is done, as surely as night follows day, the terrorists will follow us home. Osama bin Laden has openly said: America does not have the stomach to stay in the fight. He is a fanatic. He is an Islamic fascist. He is determined to destroy us and our way of life.
Reference: US Policy in Iraq Resolution;
; vote number 2007-075
on Mar 15, 2007
No troop surge: no military escalation in Iraq.
McCaskill co-sponsored opposing troop surge: no military escalation in Iraq
Sponsor's introductory remarks: Sen. BIDEN: This bipartisan resolution opposes the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. This resolution says what we and many of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, are against: deepening America's military involvement in Iraq by escalating our troop presence. Just as important, it says what we and many of our colleagues are for: a strategy that can produce a political settlement in Iraq. That's the only way to stop Shiites and Sunnis from killing each other and allow our troops to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.
Excertps from resolution:
Whereas the US strategy and presence on the ground in Iraq can only be sustained with the support of the American people and bipartisan support from Congress;
Whereas maximizing chances of success in Iraq should be our goal, and the best chance of success requires a change in current strategy;
Whereas the situation in Iraq is damaging the standing,
influence, and interests of the US in Iraq, the Middle East, and around the world;
Whereas more than 3,000 US military personnel have already lost their lives in Iraq, and more than 22,500 have been wounded in Iraq;
Whereas on January 10, 2007, Pres. Bush announced his plan to deepen the US military involvement in Iraq by deploying approximately 21,000 additional US combat forces to Iraq;
Whereas an open-ended commitment of US forces in Iraq is unsustainable and a deterrent to the Iraqis making the political compromises that are needed for violence to end and for stability and security to be achieved in Iraq;
Resolved: That it is the sense of Congress that it is not in the national interest of the US to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the US military force presence in Iraq;
the United States should engage nations in the Middle East to develop a regional, internationally-sponsored peace and reconciliation process for Iraq.
Source: Bipartisan Resolution on Iraq (S.CON.RES.2 ) 07-SCR2 on Jan 17, 2007
Iranian nuclear weapons: prevention instead of containment.
McCaskill co-sponsored Resolution on Iran's nuclear program
Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the nuclear program of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Whereas, since at least the late 1980s, Iran has engaged in a sustained pattern of illicit and deceptive activities to acquire nuclear capability;
Whereas the UN Security Council has adopted multiple resolutions since 2006 demanding the full suspension of all uranium enrichment-related activities by Iran, particularly possible military dimensions;
Whereas, in Nov. 2011, the IAEA issued an extensive report that documents "serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme";
Whereas top leaders of Iran have repeatedly threatened the existence of the State of Israel;
Whereas the Department of State has designated Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984;
Whereas Iran has provided weapons, training, & funding to terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Shiite militias in Iraq;
Whereas Iran had forged a "secret deal" with al Qaeda to facilitate the movement of al Qaeda fighters and funding through Iranian territory;
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives, that Congress--
Reaffirms that the US Government has a vital interest in working together to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
warns that time is limited to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
urges continued and increasing economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran until a full and sustained suspension of all uranium enrichment-related activities;
expresses that the window for diplomacy is closing;
expresses support for the universal rights and democratic aspirations of the people of Iran;
strongly supports US policy to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
rejects any US policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.
Iran must accept long-term intrusive nuke inspection.
McCaskill signed demanding that Iran accept intrusive nuclear inspection
Excerpts from Letter from 85 Senators to President Obama We all hope that nuclear negotiations succeed in preventing Iran from ever developing a nuclear weapons capability. For diplomacy to succeed, however, we must couple our willingness to negotiate with a united and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime. We urge you to insist on the realization of these core principles with Iran:
Iran has no inherent right to enrichment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Any agreement must dismantle Iran's nuclear weapons program and prevent it from ever having a path to a nuclear bomb.
Iran has no reason to have an enrichment facility like Fordow, and that the regime must give up its heavy water reactor at Arak.
Iran must submit to a long-term and intrusive inspection and verification regime.
Iran must not be allowed during these negotiations to circumvent sanctions.
Iran must clearly understand the consequences of failing to reach an acceptable final agreement. We must signal unequivocally to Iran that rejecting negotiations and continuing its nuclear weapon program will lead to much more dramatic sanctions, including further limitations on Iran's oil exports.
Opposing argument: (Cato Institute, "Enforcing Iran Nuke Deal," Jan. 25, 2017): More than anything else, the Iran nuclear deal must be kept because the alternative is a return to ever-heightening tensions and clamoring by hawks in both countries. From 2003 to 2014, years of unrelenting U.S. sanctions and confrontation, Iran went from 164 centrifuges to 19,000. The hostile approach generates a more expansive, less transparent Iranian nuclear program and increases the chances for another disastrous U.S. war in the Middle East. Let's hope the Trump administration chooses not to go that route.
Source: Iran Nukes Letter 14LTR-NUKE on Mar 18, 2014