Iran nuclear standoff roils U.S. campaign

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran's nuclear program and its role in Iraq are roiling the U.S. presidential campaign with Democrats squabbling over tactics and Republicans warning of the possibility of military force.

All the major candidates from both parties have said an Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable and have pointedly kept the military option on the table out of concern for Israel's security and to prevent a regional war.

And they are all insisting that diplomacy be exhausted and sanctions pursued before any military strikes are considered. The difference lies in emphasis.

Republicans trying to appeal to conservative voters are far more aggressive on the possibility of military action to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state.

"They are not going to be allowed to become a nuclear power -- it's just not going to happen," said Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani said.

Democrats are more open to direct talks with Tehran, which President George W. Bush has refused.

"No one has an incentive to be perceived as being soft on Iran," said Will Dobson, managing editor of Foreign Policy magazine. "But you see in the Democratic camp at least an attempt to distinguish themselves from President Bush."

The Democratic front-runner, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, is being accused by rivals Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and John Edwards of giving Bush cover to launch a pre-emptive strike by voting for a Senate resolution that recommends the State Department declare Iran's Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization.

The United States says Iran's Revolutionary Guard is supplying Iraqi militants with explosive devices that are killing American and Iraqi troops.

ANOTHER WAR?

"Why is this amendment so dangerous?" Obama said in an e-mailed "postcard" sent out to supporters in the early voting state of Iowa.

"Because George Bush and Dick Cheney could use this language to justify keeping our troops in Iraq as long as they can point to a threat from Iran. And because they could use this language to justify an attack on Iran as part of the ongoing war in Iraq," he said.

Clinton, trying to prevent the issue from becoming a point of contention with liberal Democrats concerned she would lead the United States into another war, issued her own statement to supporters in Iowa seeking to assure them her vote should not be seen as giving Bush authority for war on Iran.

"I believe we should work to resolve our differences with Iran through vigorous diplomacy based on a series of carrots and sticks," she wrote. "I oppose any rush to war but also believe doing nothing is not acceptable -- diplomacy is the right path."

She and Obama both have said if elected in November 2008 they would open direct diplomatic channels with Iran.