The first McCain - Obama debate helped clarify the distinctions between the candidates on U.S. - Iran relations in the immediate future. As in other areas related to foreign policy, the two candidates' approaches reflect their distinctive world views.
Basic Difference: International System of States vs. Globalized World of Competing Interests
McCain and Obama differ fundamentally in their world views. To a degree, this difference is generational. McCain was born in 1936; he came of age when the idea that states are the key actors in international affairs gained maturity. He tends to express his views in terms of cooperative and uncooperative states, and to seek resolution to problems by seeking alliance with other states perceived as good.
Obama, who was born in 1961, belongs to the generation who came of age with the end of a bipolar world, and the beginning of a more fragmented, multi-polar one. His views suggest he has an easier time than McCain grasping how trade and media globalization have further leveled the playing field. His solutions to problems tacitly recognize that there are many sources of strength and also threat in a decentralizing world, and that it is difficult for the U.S. to achieve moral authority in this fragmented arena.
Sanctioning Iran: McCain's View
Both candidates agree that Iran's continued pursuit of nuclear capability merits sanctioning. They differ in their approach. McCain wants to create a "league of democracies" which would include France, Germany and Great Britain. The combined force of this league, according to McCain, could create such crushing economic pressure on Iran as to force its hand. The idea of a league, or pact, joined by mutual ideals is reminiscent of the pacts of the 20th century that joined European states.
McCain also recommends that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) be declared a terrorist organization. The IRGC is a part of the state apparatus. This move is another way of pushing to sanction the state, since the "terrorist" designation triggers sanctions.
Obama on sanctioning Iran
Obama agrees with McCain that Iran's build-up of its nuclear capacity is a threat. His recommendations do not, however, highlight the image of a world divided between "good" Western democracies and "bad" states, like Iran. So, while Obama presses for collective sanctioning of Iran, he wants to include all of the stakeholders in Iran's future, including its undemocratic trading partners, like Russia. He is more utilitarian in his approach.
Obama and McCain on talking to Iran
Obama and McCain differ sharply on whether the United States should engage in direct talks with Iran. McCain is against it; Obama is for it. The difference, again, comes down to worldview.
McCain's view is rooted in the idea that talking to a rogue nation will give it more credibility. In his view, Iran does not deserve to be dealt with diplomatically because it has not obeyed the international rules. He hopes that like-minded states can, through collective censure, shut down Iran's ability to reach out beyond its borders to trade and communicate. Above all, the image McCain paints is of polite states leveraging their collective power to send misbehaving states to the corner for such a punishing "time out" that they won't even think about buying fissile material.
Obama's stance is again more utilitarian and less concerned with asserting moral high ground than McCain's. He has acknowledged that Iran behaves unacceptably on the world stage. But he appears to care little about the finger shaking, or the image of a respectable and parental state punishing another. He appears to think it is worth talking to Iran because not talking to it won't actually shut down its ability to communicate and act on its intentions.
Who is Right on Iran?
Both candidates have reasonable, informed views of where to begin confronting Iran without resorting to the threat of military force. And they share some views; both want sanctions, for example.
My own position is that Obama's vision of next steps is better because it is grounded in a more accurate understanding of how a globalized world functions, and how the United States can continue to thrive in it.
McCain's view that the U.S. should not engage Ahmedinejad is appealing because it contains an image of a good America that holds moral high ground. I can understand the appeal of wanting to present our best face to the world. The problem is that it is fast becoming a fiction that the United States has the moral authority, or technical capacity (through military, economic or other hard means) to make such a stance effective.
In other words, an appeal to old-fashioned morality simply doesn't matter in a world where there are multiple, competing claims to moral authority, and the whole hooked-in, online world has the option to choose to heed the authority they like best. Neither the United States alone, nor a group of like-minded democracies, have the authority to shut out rogue nations by turning away and demanding they "talk to the hand."
Iran will find other platforms, and other allies, and other audiences. Iran can make Venezuela a trading partner and sponsor an English language news channel (Press TV) whose reports will show up on Google News searches, intermingled with CNN, Fox (and About.com). Ahmedinejad can find audiences at places like Columbia University, and his pariah status is belied by his spoofing on programs like Saturday Night Live.
There is a parallel point to be made in the 'democratization' of trade. It is extremely difficult to control Iran's ability to purchase nuclear material from Russia and China, and these countries cannot simply be squeezed out of trade. In this arena too, direct engagement and negotiation with Iran's trading partners looks like the more realistic choice.
This is a painful point, and an ironic one. After all, it is American wealth and technological innovation that helped create an interconnected world capable of talking, and striking, back. And yet, here it is. Thriving in such an environment requires engaging it--and therein lies the basis for 21st century morality.