This text has been edited modestly to eliminate duplications and enhance clarity. Six of the eight Republican candidates were asked about Iran. Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Gov. Jon Huntsman were not.
———————
Question: Mr. Cain, this week, a UN nuclear watchdog agency provided additional credible evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. If you were president right now, what would you do specifically that this administration is not doing to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon?
Herman Cain: The first thing that I would do is to assist the opposition movement in Iran that’s trying to overthrow the regime. Our enemies are not the people of Iran, it’s the regime. And a regime change is what they are trying to achieve.
Secondly, we need to put economic pressure on Iran, by way of our own energy independence strategy. By having our own energy independence strategy, we will impact the price of oil in the world markets, because Iran uses oil not only as a currency, but as a weapon. One of the reasons that they are able to afford that nuclear weapons program is because of oil.
Secondly [sic], we would then work to increase sanctions on Iran, along with our friends and our allies.
They are closer to having nuclear weapon; the only we can stop them is 
through economic means.
Question: A quick follow up, Mr. Cain. You say assisting the opposition, would you entertain military assistance and opposition?
Herman Cain: I would not entertain military opposition. I’m talking about to help the opposition movement within the country. And then there’s one other thing that we could do. We could deploy our ballistic missile defense capable warships strategically in that part of the world. We have the biggest fleet of those warships in the world. And we could use them strategically in the event that they [Iran] were able to fire a ballistic missile.
Question: Governor Romney, would it be worth going to war to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon?
Mitt Romney: Well, let’s start back from there and let’s talk about where we are. This is, of course, President Obama’s greatest failing, from a foreign policy standpoint, which is he recognized the gravest threat that America and the world faced was a nuclear Iran and he did not do what was necessary to get Iran to be dissuaded from their nuclear folly. What he should have done is speak out when dissidents took the streets and say, “America is with you.” And work on a covert basis to encourage the dissidents.
Number two, he should have put in place crippling sanctions against Iran. But instead of getting Russia to stand with those crippling sanctions, he gave Russia what they wanted [a withdrawal of a US ballistic missile system from Europe], their number one foreign policy objective, and got nothing in return.
Finally, the president should have built a credible threat of military action, and made it very clear that the United States of America is willing, in the final analysis, if necessary, to take military action to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Look, one thing you can know is if we reelect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if we elect Mitt Romney, if you’d like me as the next president, they will not have a nuclear weapon.
Question: You just described where we are today, and that’s what you’re going to have to deal with if you become president. How do you prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon? Is it worth going to war to prevent that?
Romney: Well, it’s worth putting in place crippling sanctions. It’s worth working with the insurgents to encourage regime change in the country. And if all else fails, if after all of the work we’ve done, there’s nothing else we can do beside take military action, then, of course, you take military action. It is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. This term “unacceptable” has been applied by several presidents over history, and our current president has made it very clear that he’s not willing to do those things necessary to get Iran to be dissuaded from their nuclear folly. I will take a different course. I will make sure that the sanctions, diplomatic pressure, economic pressure, and support of insurgents within the country help them become dissuaded to get away from their nuclear ambition. And finally, we have to have military presence there.
Question: Mr. Speaker, is this the right way to look at this question, war or not war? Or do you see other options, diplomatically, or other non-war means that the United States has in its possession to deal with Iran that it has not employed?
Newt Gingrich: Well, let me start and say that both the answers you just got are superior to the current administration. And, you know, there are a number of ways to be smart about Iran and relatively few ways to be dumb. And the administration skipped all the ways to be smart.
First of all, use maximum covert operations to block and disrupt the Iranian program, including taking out their scientists, including breaking up their systems. All of it covertly, all of it deniable.
Second, maximum coordination with the Israelis in a way which allows them to maximize their impact in Iran.
Third, absolute strategic program comparable to what President Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and Margaret Thatcher did in the Soviet Union, of every possible aspect short of war of breaking the regime and bringing it down.
And I agree entirely with Governor Romney, if, in the end, despite all of those things the dictatorship persists, you have to take whatever steps are necessary to break its capacity to have a nuclear weapon.
Question: Congressman Paul, let me follow up with you for just 30 seconds. Is it worth going to war to prevent a nuclear weapon in Iran?
Ron Paul: No, it isn’t worthwhile. The only way you would do that is you would have to go through Congress. We, as commander-in-chief, aren’t making the decision to go to war. You know, the old-fashioned way, the Constitution, you go to the Congress and find out if our national security is threatened. And I’m afraid what’s going on right now is similar to the war propaganda that went on against Iraq.
And, you know, they [Iraq] didn’t have weapons of mass destruction. So no, it’s not worthwhile going to war. If you do, you get a declaration of war and you fight it and you win it and get it over with.
Question: Thank you, Congressman. Governor Perry, what’s your appraisal of the combat situation on the ground in Afghanistan today and what would you change?
Rick Perry: Let me answer the previous question very quickly. The issue that has not been raised is that this country can sanction the Iranian Central Bank right now and shut down that country’s economy. And that’s what this president needs to do and the American people need to stand up and force him to make that stand today.
Question: Senator Santorum, I know you want to jump in on Iran.
Rick Santorum: This is the most important national security issue that we’re going to be dealing with here this year. And that’s the issue of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. I think everyone should have the opportunity to answer that question. Particularly me. I’ve been working on Iran since back in 2004. And I proposed exactly the things that Herman and Mitt Romney suggested, which was to give money to the rebel forces there to help the pro-democracy movement and to put tough sanctions in place.
I was opposed by President Bush. And yet, we were able to overcome that and pass the Iran Freedom and Support Act. I was able to get that done. And then President Bush didn’t provide money for the pro-democracy movement. And President Obama cut that money. What we have [now is] a situation that’s different. I disagree with Newt. More sanctions and providing, you know, more support for the pro-democracy movement isn’t going to be enough, in time. Read the IAEA report.
My final comment is we should be working with Israel right now to do what they did in Syria, what they did in Iraq, which is take out that nuclear capability before the next explosion we hear in Iran is a nuclear one and then the world changes.
