When politics and policy collide

PHILADELPHIA - With 368 days before the elections and 62 days before the Iowa caucus, the U.S. presidential candidates have one hot topic - what to do about Iran.

The debate has two elements running side-by-side. On the one hand, Tehran's nuclear aspirations dominate the political agenda, but on the other, political considerations feature heavily in the debate. The issue of Iran is no longer just a question of international policy, but also of internal politics.

This week's debate between the Democratic presidential candidates is a case in point, given that it was a coordinated no-holds-barred attack on the party's leading candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton, by her two main rivals, Illinois Senator Barack Obama and former senator John Edwards.

The senator from New York is ahead in the national polls by a comfortable margin, although she has a much smaller lead in Iowa, the first state to vote on the presidential candidates. In New Hampshire, however, the second state to vote, Clinton has a strong lead.

Over the past few days, the aides of the other candidates have reached an understanding that they won't be able to quash her candidacy if they don't step up the attacks. This is especially pertinent now, as the last quarter showed that Clinton has managed for the first time to raise more money than them.

The deadliest weapon against Clinton has become Iran and her support of the Lieberman-Kyl law, which calls for the United States government to define the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. The government passed the law last week.

During the debate, Edwards accused Clinton of voting in favor of the bill to facilitate a possible attack on Iran by President George W. Bush.

"Instead of blocking George Bush's new march to war, Senator Clinton and others are enabling him once again," said Edwards.

New Mexico governor Bill Richardson called her support "the wrong vote."

Clinton's rivals believe that the "yes" vote will allow Bush to escalate the crisis with Iran. And Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Senator Joe Biden all view any escalation as dangerous.

"We've emboldened him," Biden declared. Bush's warning of a possible World War III was, in Biden's words, "totally irresponsible."

Iran was the focus of the first half of the debate, shunting aside Iraq (a real war that is still going on, not a virtual one) and overshadowing every other subject.

And here were the Democratic candidates once again cautioning against the threat, not of Iran, but of the Bush administration. Iran needs to be dealt with, they all agreed, although they did so in varying degrees of urgency.

Everyone preached the need for a diplomatic dialogue, a negotiated solution. Yet their main worry was reserved for the president, who is leading a "policy of preemption, of saber rattling, of leaking out potential targets in Iran," as Richardson put it.

The political tactic was clear for all to see - paint Clinton, who voted for the Iraq war and today says she made a mistake, as once again repeating that mistake vis-a-vis Iran. The other Democratic candidates are looking to scare voters away from her in hope of stopping the Clinton runaway train as it speeds toward the party's nomination. In the coming days, the polls will show whether her rivals' strategy has succeeded.

A Zogby poll released two days ago showed a majority of Americans (52 percent) are in favor of a military strike on Iran. In addition, 53 percent say they believe such a strike is forthcoming. Yet, among Democrats, the numbers show a discrepancy. While 71 percent of Republican supporters would back an attack on Iran, only 40 percent of Democrats agree.

Clinton did her best to defend her position in the face of the criticism by her rivals. "We shouldn't be doing nothing," she said. It is necessary to talk to the Iranians, but to do so from a position of strength, with stick in hand. Sanctions are what will yield a negotiated solution rather than prevent one, she reasoned.

Nonetheless, after being attacked in recent weeks by her rivals over Iran, Clinton decided to support an additional piece of legislation, this one authored by Virginia Senator (D) Jim Webb.

Webb is one of the administration's harshest critics on the war, and the bill he put forward specifically states that Bush has no authority to launch a military campaign against Iran.

The proposal is designed to prevent Bush from abusing the limited mandate he received from lawmakers in the form of the "Revolutionary Guards" bill.

As such, the real argument over policy has created a fault line dividing two competing approaches. One camp, which counts among its proponents most of the Republican candidates, is convinced that a harsher, tougher tone will scare the Iranians into seeking a way to save face without entering into military conflict.

The second camp, to which most Democrats belong, is of the belief that tougher talk only heightens the risk of war.

Yet these serious policy differences are but a sideshow to the real political battle - Iran is a tool to serve the candidates.

As is always the case with multi-candidate debates, only a few of the presidential wannabes managed to present the Iranian problem in its complexity. In particular, Biden stands out on this score.

"This is complicated stuff," he said. "The fact of the matter is, the Iranians may get 2.6 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. But the Pakistanis have hundreds - thousands - of kilograms of highly enriched uranium."

If an attack on Iran destabilizes the regime in Pakistan, Biden explained, it may not be the most prudent course of action. Military measures against Iran must not be viewed as if they would occur in a vacuum. Rather, a wider regional context must be taken into account.

The NBC news personalities who moderated the debate asked the candidates to draw their red lines and state under what circumstances they would support an attack on Iran. Could they promise the voters that a Democratic administration would prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons? The candidates did their best to avoid giving a straight answer.

"I will do everything I can," Clinton said.

"Everything we can to avoid this problem," said Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd.

Edwards vowed to take "the responsible steps."

"All of us are committed," Obama told the moderator, before leveling more criticism at his favorite targets: Hillary Clinton and the Bush administration.

Today on Rosner's Domain:

What To Read:
Public growing more hawkish on Iran

Previous blog:
Annapolis - The summit of all fears

Rosner's Guest:
Michael Makovsky: Churchill and Zionism

Updated The Israel Factor:
McCain: Where is the emotional connection?

Updated The Iran Time Saver:
Features, opinion, interviews, studies