Iran Takes Center Stage on the Trail

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 8:36 AM on May 5, 2008.

I have to admit, watching the race for the Democratic presidential nomination the past several days has been slightly less annoying. It’s been far from perfect, of course, but Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been talking more about actual policy differences, and less about nonsense (take your pick: flag pins, Wright, Ayers, bitter, etc.) and process (electability, polls, etc.).

We’ve certainly seen that with the debate over gas-tax policy, and over the weekend, we saw it again with a debate over Iran and deterrence.

This began in earnest a couple of weeks ago, with a question in ABC’s notorious debate, when, in response to a hypothetical question from George Stephanopoulos, Clinton said, “I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States.” Because “massive retaliation” is a Truman-era phrase relating to a nuclear strike, Clinton’s remarks raised a few eyebrows.

She expanded a bit on her remarks a week later, adding, “In the next ten years, during which [Iranians] might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.” (Observers weren’t quite sure what to think when Clinton’s chief spokesperson said neither talk of total obliteration nor her talk about “massive retaliation” should be considered a threat to use nuclear weapons.)

Yesterday, Obama pushed back against the perceived “saber rattling.”

Barack Obama scolded Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday for saying that U.S. would “totally obliterate” Iran if it attacks Israel, and likened her to President Bush. Ms. Clinton stood by her comment. […]

On Wednesday, Iran strongly condemned Mrs. Clinton for her remarks. Iran’s deputy U.N. ambassador, Mehdi Danesh-Yazdi, called her comment “provocative, unwarranted and irresponsible” and “a flagrant violation” of the U.N. Charter.

On “Meet the Press,” Mr. Obama said: “It’s not the language we need right now, and I think it’s language reflective of George Bush. We have had a foreign policy of bluster and saber rattling and tough talk and in the meantime have made a series strategic decisions that have actually strengthened Iran.”

For her part, Clinton did not back down at all.

On ABC’s “This Week,” Clinton asked rhetorically, “Why would I have any regrets?”

“I’m asked a question about what I would do if Iran attacked our ally, a country that many of us have a great deal of, you know, connection with and feeling for, for all kinds of reasons,” she said.

“And yes, we would have massive retaliation against Iran,” Clinton added, though she said, “I don’t think they will do that, but I sure want to make it abundantly clear to them that they would face a tremendous cost if they did such a thing.”

Obama added:

“[Y]ou know, the irony is, of course, Senator Clinton, during the course of this campaign, has at times said, ‘We shouldn’t speculate about Iran.’ You know, ‘We’ve got to be cautious when we’re running for president.’ She scolded me on a couple of occasions about this issue, and yet, a few days before an election, she’s willing to use that language. […]

“Israel is a ally of ours. It is the most important ally we have in the region, and there’s no doubt that we would act forcefully and appropriately on any attack against Iran, nuclear or otherwise. So — but it is important that we use language that sends a signal to the world community that we’re shifting from the sort of cowboy diplomacy, or lack of diplomacy, that we’ve seen out of George Bush. And this kind of language is not helpful. When Iran is able to go to the United Nations complaining about the statements made and get some sympathy, that’s a sign that we are taking the wrong approach.”

In terms of policy analysis, Mark Kleiman makes the case that Clinton’s aggressive tone may inadvertently help Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Anything that strengthens Ahmadi-Nejad against the less bomb-happy fundamentalists, and anything that strengthens the fundamentalists against the democratic forces, is very bad for the world. A threat from a major American politician to obliterate Iran, which is sure to be repeated endlessly in the state-controlled mass media there, is a gift to the bad guys.

Even during the Cold War, no American President ever explicitly threatened to “obliterate” the Soviet Union.

And in terms of political analysis, Greg Sargent added a good point:

[T]he Obama campaign has, in general, been a bit reductive with its suggestions that Hillary basically represents a continuation of Bush on foreign policy (though Hillary’s tough Iran talk certainly does make it easier to simplify matters in this fashion).

Either way, Obama’s willingness to condemn Hillary’s “obliterate Iran” talk in these terms reminds us yet again of his larger political project here. Obama is trying to redefine “tough” — he’s trying to change the way foreign policy is talked about in this country, in a way that Hillary isn’t.

It’s hard to say how voters might respond to all of this; it’s possible Americans will like talk of “obliterating” Iran. Either way, though, it’s nice to be able to explore substantive differences between the candidates in ways that have nothing to do with gaffes or guilt by association.