Dems on Iran

DEMS ON IRAN….Garance Franke-Ruta thinks Hillary Clinton is being unfairly trashed for allegedly having more hawkish views on Iran than either John Edwards or Barack Obama:

I’ve looked very carefully at what Obama, Clinton, and Edwards have said about Iran of late and there is no substantive difference between their positions. All support direct engagement with Iran. And all three, including Obama, have said that “all options [are] on the table,” which is code for not ruling out military intervention. And not one of them, alas, has yet made it a campaign or leadership priority to prevent the expansion of America’s war in Iraq into Iran.

Hmmm. There are differences of tone and emphasis that suggest to me that Obama has been better on this subject than either Clinton or Edwards, but Garance has a point when she reminds us that Clinton’s comments about negotiating with Iran came at an AIPAC dinner, which certainly counts for something.

In any case, it may be that trying to parse political language on Iran too finely is a mug’s game. After all, even George Bush claims that he’s open to talks and has no plans for a military strike. What’s more important by far is trying to get a sense of a candidate’s foreign policy judgment, and on that score I’m still agnostic. Leaning toward Obama, though.

Washington Monthly - Donate today and your gift will be doubled!

Support Nonprofit Journalism

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really works—and how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, I’ll make a donation