Surprise, surprise. The presidential and vice presidential debates of recent weeks have once again brought vilification of Iran to the forefront of the 2008 election campaign. And it cannot be denied that all four candidates were complicit, to varying degrees. In what follows, I attempt to give grades to each based on their own words from their respective debates, with an “A” corresponding to a sound, circumspect approach to dealing with foreign policy concerns surrounding Iran (its nuclear program, alleged support for Iraqi terrorists, etc.), and an “F” to a rash, bellicose, and fear-mongering stance toward the Islamic Republic.

Keep in mind that my grading scheme is inherently subjective, which is both a result of my own personal, political prejudices, as well sheer retribution for the grades received from some of the graduate student instructors that I have had the privilege of having over the past three years.

Sen. John McCain C

Although he stated the obvious by noting that Iran would gain much influence in Iraq if we lost, and may be correct in his prediction of a wide-scale nuclear arms race in the Middle East if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, McCain’s entire argument is premised on the shaky assumption that Tehran is in fact pursuing nuclear weapons: “Have no doubt that the Iranians continue on the path to the acquisition of a nuclear weapon as we speak tonight.” Hmmm… doesn’t this sound similar to the pre-Iraq war debate over Baghdad’s WMDs?…

Further, does McCain really need to affirm that “we cannot allow a second Holocaust”? Is Iran, or anyone who is against America’s aggressive posturing towards Iran, really pro-Holocaust? McCain’s grade in my book took a nosedive after I heard this cheap attempt to score votes with AIPAC supporters…

McCain also proposed a “a league of democracies” to get around Russia and China’s refusal to take further punitive steps against Iran in the U.N. Security Council. This body of industrialized nations would, apparently, be more apt to levy further “painful” sanctions against Iran. But where is the talk of ensuring that the sanctions wouldn’t be overly harsh on the Iranian people, since the previous U.N. sanctions against Saddam’s Iraq had dire humanitarian costs?

But on the other hand, McCain’s position of not talking to Ahmadinejad without preconditions may be a wise one, as a face-to-face meeting could certainly legitimize the Iranian president and give him an easy public relations victory. I definitely think that McCain delivered the best line of the debate when he stated: “So let me get this right. We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, ‘We’re going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth,’ and we say, ‘No, you’re not’? Oh, please.”

Sen. Barack Obama B-

Obama also was quick to stress Iran’s increased influence in the Middle East as a result of our invasion of Iraq and its subsequent instability, as well as the threat of a Middle Eastern arms race. But he also takes as fact the claim (thus far without evidence) that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon: “They have gone from zero centrifuges to 4,000 centrifuges to develop a nuclear weapon.” It seems that providing evidence to that effect is not necessary for a cogent argument nowadays…

Moreover, Obama also favors tougher sanctions on Tehran, but believes cooperation (and implicitly, compromising) with Russia and China is necessary in order to do so. But in addition to sanctions, Obama diverges a bit from McCain’s position and favors more direct diplomatic efforts with Iran. He correctly observed that “this notion [that] by not talking to people we are punishing them has not worked,” and cited North Korea as a prime example of a country which actually increased its nuclear weapon arsenal after the U.S. attempted to isolate the country.

Obama did seem to be arguing semantics when he insisted that meeting with heads of state like Ahmadinejad without precondition was not tantamount to meeting them without preparations. But I must at least give him props for recognizing that Ahmadinejad “is not the most powerful person in Iran.” This cannot be emphasized enough, especially as bashing Ahmadinejad becomes more and more the norm in our nation’s media.

Gov. Sarah Palin D+

To begin with, Palin echoed the aggressive words of the other candidates when it came to Iran, and was particularly quick to defend Israel from the “threat” of Ahmadinejad, which she did several times: “Israel is in jeopardy of course when we’re dealing with Ahmadinejad as a leader of Iran.” It apparently doesn’t matter anymore that the Iranian President’s words were taken a bit out of context, and that he recently indicated that he hopes for the peaceful demise of Israel, without any violence. I’m definitely no Ahmadinejad apologist, and I’m of the opinion that a large amount of his speech ranges from foolish to despicable. But my sole point is that if you’re going to talk about Iran’s tough rhetoric on Israel, then you should do the same when Israel talks the same way about Iran.

Palin also sounded the popular McCain refrain of “leaders like Ahmadinejad … should not be met with without preconditions and diplomatic efforts being undertaken first.” Whether or not this accurately represents Obama and Biden’s stance, she does have a point that doing so would be “poor judgment.”

But Palin goes a step further. She repeatedly makes the assertion that “dictators” like Ahmadinejad (let’s ignore the authoritarian manner in which King Abdullah, America’s close ally, runs Saudia Arabia) “hate America and hate what we stand for, with our freedoms, our democracy, our tolerance, our respect for women’s rights.” While this is an excellent way to score points with WASP voters, it definitely runs contrary to the very words of top government officials in Tehran, who have continually stressed their solidarity with the American people. In fact, Ahmadinejad even went so far as to describe Americans as “God-fearing, truth-loving, and justice-seeking.”

Sen. Joe Biden B-

Biden took the relatively radical stance (compared to the other three candidates) of asserting that Iran is “not close to getting a nuclear weapon that’s able to be deployed.” More truthful details like these are necessary for the public to adequately comprehend the current Iran “crisis,” rather than succumb to irrational impulses based on fear, not fact. Moreover, Biden consistently emphasized that the U.S. should focus on defeating al-Qaeda in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region, implicitly downgrading the usefulness of a foreign policy that is fully concentrated on Iran.

Furthermore, Biden extols the virtues of Obama’s position of more direct diplomatic engagement with Iran. He observed that even the Bush administration recently had a change of heart and “finally sent a high-ranking diplomat to meet with the highest-ranking diplomats in Iran, in Europe, to try to work out an arrangement,” lending credence to Obama’s “naïve” position.

However, my praise ends there, as shortly afterwards in the debate, Biden struck home the point that “the only thing on the march is Iran. It’s closer to a bomb. Its proxies now have a major stake in Lebanon, as well as in the Gaza Strip with Hamas.” Although the latter claim is true, Biden again falls into the same trap of assuming that Iran’s main goal is to pursue a nuclear weapons program, and working up the audience’s panic for political points.

If you disagree with my appraisal of the candidates, check out the transcripts of the Presidential and VP debates, and subsequently let me know where you believe I erred.

Sadly, one can only expect more of the same on Tuesday evening when McCain and Obama go head-to-head for a second time. Are the days of a coherent American foreign policy gone? Or have those days ever even existed?

-Kevin