Within Democratic field, Iran is the new Iraq

During Tuesday's debate, '08 contenders pounded Clinton for her recent vote on Iran resolution.

from the November 1, 2007 edition

Page 2 of 2

Page 1 | 2

But the move also appeared to signal that she was feeling comfortable with her position atop national polls for the Democratic nomination and was already looking ahead to the general election, another point Edwards hammered her on.

Lost in the shuffle is a key point about the Iran resolution. Unlike the 2002 Iraq resolution, which explicitly authorized the president to "use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate," the nonbinding Iran measure contained no such language. In fact, the bill had originally stated that the US should "combat, contain, and roll back" Iranian involvement in Iraq, but that language was dropped in the final version.

In a charged political debate, however, that does not come up. Instead, Edwards added fuel to the common view of Democratic voters that Bush will take any opening he can find to launch a war with Iran. "What I worry about is if Bush invades Iran six months from now, I mean, are we going to hear, 'If I only had known then what I know now?' " he said, referring to Clinton's justification for her 2002 vote on the Iraq war. "Well, we know enough now to know we have to stand up to this president."

On the Republican side, the escalating tensions with Iran present an opportunity to talk tough without the messy reality that Iraq represents. Among the top four Republican candidates, only Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona has been holding back lately in his rhetoric about possible military action against Iran.

"I can say that we cannot allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon," Senator McCain said Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "But I do believe that to start talking about specifics, a bombardment or something like that, I think would be a terrible mistake."

The other top GOP candidates, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, and former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, have all stated a willingness to take action against Iran to prevent it from attaining nuclear weapons. In the last Republican debate, Oct. 22, Mr. Giuliani asserted that a nuclear-armed Iran would be more dangerous than going to war with Iran, though he also suggested that his tough stance was partly tactical. If the US is clear that "we would take action to stop them from becoming nuclear," he said, then he thinks "sanctions … would work much more effectively."

Last Thursday, the Bush administration announced economic sanctions against the elite Quds division of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Among the eight Republican presidential candidates, only Rep. Ron Paul (R) of Texas has carved out a distinctly different stance on foreign policy. He favors a position that he calls "noninterventionism." Mr. Paul has predicted that the United States will launch a military attack against Iran before the end of the Bush presidency.

Bush has kept the rhetorical heat on Iran lately, warning that Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons could result in World War III.

1 | Page 2