This week's Israel Factor question doesn't need much analysis. We sent our panelists a Q&A session from the last Democratic debate, and asked them to rate the candidates and the parties on their positions vis-a-vis Iran.
First, the debate. Some quotes are here, but for the full extract we presented to the panel, click here.
Tim Russert (moderator): Senator Clinton, in 1981 the Israelis took out a nuclear reactor in Iraq. On September 6th, to the best of our information, Israel attacked Syria because there was suspicion that perhaps North Korea had put some nuclear materials in Syria.
If Israel concluded that Iran's nuclear capability threatened Israel's security, would Israel be justified in launching an attack on Iran?
Clinton: Tim, I think that's one of those hypotheticals that is better not addressed at this time. What is real life is what apparently happened in Syria, so let's take that one step at a time. What we think we know is that with North Korean help, both financial and technical and material, the Syrians apparently were putting together, and perhaps over some period of years, a nuclear facility, and the Israelis took it out. I strongly support that.
Russert: You will all be running against a Republican opponent, perhaps Rudy Giuliani. This is what he said. "Iran is not going to be allowed to build a nuclear power. If they get to a point where they're going to become a nuclear power, we will prevent them; we will set them back eight to 10 years. That is not said as a threat; that should be said as a promise."
Would you make a promise as a potential commander in chief that you will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power and will use any means to stop it?
Clinton: Well, what I have said is that I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, including the use of diplomacy, the use of economic sanctions, opening up direct talks. We haven't even tried.
Russert: Senator Obama, would Israel be justified in launching an attack on Iran if they felt their security was jeopardized?
Obama: I make an absolute commitment that we will do everything we need to do to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. One of the things we have to try, though, is to talk directly to Iran, something that we have not been doing.
Russert: Senator Edwards, would the Israelis be justified in launching an attack if they felt their security was threatened by a nuclear presence in Iran?
Edwards: Well, let me say first of all, I think there's a clear, responsible course for America with respect to Iran, and that responsible course is to recognize that Ahmadinejad is unpopular in his own country. And if we work with our friends in Europe and the European banking system, we can put a clear proposal on the table for the Iranian people, sticks and carrots - the carrots being we will help you with your economy if in fact you give up your nuclear ambitions, the flip side being there will be severe economic sanctions if you don't.
Russert: Governor Richardson, would you make a solemn commitment to the American people that Iran will not become a nuclear power?
Richardson: Yes. And this is what I would do. I would approach it through diplomacy. A fundamental goal of our foreign policy should be not to permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Another cornerstone of our foreign policy should be the strength and the security of Israel. So you cannot deny a nation the right to legitimately defend itself.
So the question put to the panel was: How impressed were you with the positions presented by the candidates? As you can see, Clinton is the definite favorite of the session. Seven out of eight panelists gave her a 4 or a 5 (out of 5).
But there's not only a leading candidate in this table, there's also a clear loser. We asked the panel to indetify what seemed worrisome in this part of the debate, and five of the responses contained merely one word: "Edwards." Only two of the panelists gave him a score greater than 3 for his response.
A couple on months ago, I wrote that, "For the leading candidates from both parties, the Iran question isn't a policy debate; it's a beauty contest. It's not about what the candidates say they want; it's about who you believe really means what they say. It's not about engagement versus the military option; it's about voters' - and the Iranians' - perception of the candidate's character. Do you believe Romney would dare do what Clinton would not? Do you think that Giuliani is more likely to go all the way than John Edwards?"
One panelist wrote this week about "Edwards and his desire for dialogue with Iran". But no one felt the same problem with Richardson's desire for dialogue. So it is not necessarily the dialogue, but more the way Edwards was framing his position in this debate that did not give credibility to his previous assertions. ("Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons... We need to keep all options on the table. Let me reiterate - all options must remain on the table.")
The second question we asked is more problematic. Is there a clear difference between Democrats and Republicans on Iran? Quite a while ago we concluded that "Good on Iran is good for Israel." We wrote that, "The three candidates 'best for Israel' - Giuliani, Gingrich and McCain - are the only ones who got more than 6 on the question of force against Iran. Those who ranked less than 4 on the 'linkage' question are those who generally fared well with the panel as a whole (McCain is the exception here - he got 4.25 on the linkage question)."
But this time we asked not about candidates but rather about parties. The most obvious response is the one dealing with the chances that a president will use military power to curb Iran's nuclear program. The Republican war-talk - and the experience with the Bush administration - convinced that panel that a Republican is more likely to attack. However, on the question of the "right policy" the outcome is more complicated than what can be seen from the table: Only half of the panelists actually prefer the Republican policy over the one suggested by Democrats. The others prefer the Democratic ideas, or think they are basically the same.
Haaretz.com, the online edition of Haaretz Newspaper in Israel, offers real-time breaking news, opinions and analysis from Israel and the Middle East. Haaretz.com provides extensive and in-depth coverage of Israel, the Jewish World and the Middle East, including defense, diplomacy, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the peace process, Israeli politics, Jerusalem affairs, international relations, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Israeli business world and Jewish life in Israel and the Diaspora.
