Between Tehran and Des Moines

WASHINGTON - The State of Iowa is about one-fourth the size of Iran. Its population is less than one-20th of Iran's, at 3 million, compared with 70 million for Iran. In approximately two months, tens of thousands of Iowans will go to the polls to select their candidates for the next president of the United States.

Tomorrow night, in Las Vegas, Democratic candidates will face off again in a televised debate. The closer the primaries get, the more interesting and tense the debates become. The first part of the last debate focused on future U.S. policy toward Iran. It's safe to assume the topic will not be absent from tomorrow's debate either, even if it is overshadowed by Pakistan.

Anyone who has followed in amazement the shifting tones in the debate over Iran would be wise to approach the issue with cautious skepticism. After all, it's not Iran, or the international community, or their allies or rivals in the Middle East, or even the overall American electorate, at whom the candidates are directing their remarks. The presidential candidates, particularly the Democrats, are talking to the man on the tractor - the one rumbling through Iowa's infinite fields in the growing November chill.

The three leading Democratic candidates are trapped in a battle of the titans in this state, the first to pick its presidential candidates. According to the latest polls, Hillary Clinton, the clear frontrunner in the national numbers, is very close to rivals John Edwards and Barack Obama in Iowa. For them, only victory - or near-victory - in Iowa will insure their viability as candidates in the face of Clinton's speeding train.

Neither Obama nor Edwards can afford to lose, while Clinton cannot afford a defeat. Like them, the candidate who initially led the field in 2004, Howard Dean, also went into the primaries as a sure bet, and his embarrassing failure in Iowa quickly crushed his campaign.

When the candidates talk about Tehran, they are thinking about Des Moines, about the high school gyms and church basements where their most loyal friends will gather on a freezing night in early January for a strange ritual: the caucus. They will argue a little and then split up into groups, each for a different candidate. Afterward, they will count the groups, and some will change alliances, until a decision is made. That's how it's done in Iowa.

Recent polls seem to reflect a rightward shift where Iran is concerned, but the figures are a little confusing: In addition to the surveys showing majority support for a military attack (Zogby), or near-majority support (Gallup), others say an enormous majority is opposed (CNN). It all depends on how the question is formulated: aerial versus ground assault, now versus later, whether the words "nuclear" or "diplomacy" appear in the question.

Either way, it's clear that Democratic voters - especially those who will be voting in the primaries - are in the camp that fears any hint of another confrontation in the Middle East. That is exactly the case for the Democratic voters of Iowa, too.

That may explain the huge gap between the tough tone taken by Edwards when he spoke about Iran at the Herzliya Conference in Israel and the conciliatory tone he used two weeks ago in the last debate. It could also explain the gaps found by an American columnist between what Obama told Haaretz a few months ago and what he now says about making overtures to Iran. It's not necessarily the stance of the candidates that has changed, but rather their political standing. That will become increasingly common as the Iowa caucus approaches.