Speaking on the CNN Sunday show GPS with Fareed Zakaria, GOP presidential hopeful and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman was asked about Iran’s nuclear program. In response to a direct question about using an attack to impede Iran’s progress — something he’s raised before as an [...]]]> Reposted by arrangement with Think Progress

Speaking on the CNN Sunday show GPS with Fareed Zakaria, GOP presidential hopeful and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman was asked about Iran’s nuclear program. In response to a direct question about using an attack to impede Iran’s progress — something he’s raised before as an example of when to use military force — Huntsman dodged and instead gave his assessment of Iranian nuclear ambitions:

HUNTSMAN: I think the regime in Tehran, I think they’ve already decided for themselves that they want nuclear status. I think they’ve looked at North Korea — you mentioned North Korea — and they have said, North Korea, nobody’s touching North Korea. They have, you know, a few crude devices. And compare and contrast it with Libya, and say Libya had a program. They gave it up for friendship internationally.

And I think they’ve decided they want whatever credibility comes with — with nuclear status.

Watch the video:

Huntsman did discuss real issues that could be informing an Iranian decision on building weapons of mass destruction, such as the “credibility” issue to deter attacks. And he, declaring himself “not optimistic,” raised important considerations and policy questions about the fallout were Iran to produce a usable nuke, such as potential regional proliferation and whether a containment strategy could work against a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic.

But his assertion that Iran has “already decided” to build a bomb — and that seems to be, with the subsequent comparison to North Korea, what he means by “nuclear status” — is out of step with the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and U.S. intelligence estimates.

The latest still-classified National Intelligence Estimate, a consensus opinion of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, reportedly concludes that there is no unified Iranian nuclear weapons program. The Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, in testimony on Capitol HIll this year, responded affirmatively when asked if his assessment was that “Iran has not made a decision as of this point to restart its nuclear weapons program.”

That said, a recent IAEA report raised “serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme.” But both a White House official speaking after the IAEA report was released (“The IAEA does not assert that Iran has resumed a full scale nuclear weapons program.”) and, over this past weekend, the newsroom and ombudsman of the Washington Post decided that this wasn’t enough to declare, as Huntsman believes, that Iran had resumed a full-scale weapons program.

Jon Huntsman laid out his foreign policy views on Monday, but, while showing a strong grasp of U.S.-Asia policy and calling for a scaling back of U.S. military deployments, his vision of the U.S. role in brokering an end to the Israeli-Palestinian bordered on incoherent.

Early [...]]]> Reposted by arrangement with Think Progress

Jon Huntsman laid out his foreign policy views on Monday, but, while showing a strong grasp of U.S.-Asia policy and calling for a scaling back of U.S. military deployments, his vision of the U.S. role in brokering an end to the Israeli-Palestinian bordered on incoherent.

Early in his remarks, Huntsman commented that “we saw the Palestinians make an end-run around the American led peace process because they lost confidence in it and in our ability to lead.” Indeed the Palestinian attempt to seek statehood through the U.N. was widely interpreted as a vote of no confidence in both the U.S.’ led peace process and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s sincerity as a negotiating partner.

But 25 minutes later, in a response to a question about Israeli settlement expansion, Huntsman offered a very different vision of the U.S. role in the region, saying:

I think we must recognize that in a region of change, now might not be the time for negotiations. We have to listen, I think, very carefully to what leadership in Israel has to say about the timing issue.

And, if now is not the time, I don’t think we can force the process, but what we can do during this time of uncertainty is to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel and remind the world what it means to be a friend and ally of the United States. This we have not done in a very long time and, so long as there is not any blue sky between United States and Israel, it doesn’t matter what plays out in the region.

Watch it:

How, exactly, Huntsman envisions regaining Palestinian confidence while declaring that “now might not be the time for negotiations” is an important question and one with no obvious answer. Huntsman’s expertise, both professionally and as a diplomat, have focused on East Asia but his lack of urgency in resolving the Middle East conflict flies in the face of positions taken by senior military leadership and the State Department. While establishing credentials as a “pro-Israel” politician has become more important than ever, Huntsman’s deference to “what leadership in Israel has to say about the timing issue” could come at the expense of U.S. national security interests and further tarnish the respect for U.S. leadership which Huntsman aims to restore.