The perils of a core belief in positioning

Linda Feldman:

...

In her first response at the debate, Clinton portrayed herself as an opponent of Mr. Bush's policies on Iran. "The Republicans are waving their sabers and talking about going after Iran," she said. "I want to prevent a rush to war."

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, the sharpest critic of Clinton all evening, jumped on that statement.

"She says she'll stand up to President Bush on Iran; she just said it again," Mr. Edwards said. "And in fact, she voted to give George Bush the first step in moving militarily on Iran, and he's taken it. Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney have taken it. They've now declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction. I think we have to stand up to this president."

At the time of the vote, Clinton said she supported the resolution as a boost to diplomatic efforts to deny Iran access to nuclear materials. But analysts also saw her position – like her vote on Iraq five years ago – as a move to boost her image as tough on defense. As a woman and as a member of a party that has fought for decades to restore its image on defense, she may feel it is particularly important to carve out a centrist position, analysts say.

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."

...

What is becoming clear from this debate is that none of the Democrats are willing to do anything beyond talk to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions. If I am Iran and listening to this I want these guys to win because I know that the most I will have to deal with is hollow bluffs. One way Iran can tell this is that they are falling all over themselves to make the President's challenge to Iran hollow. The message to Iran from the Democrat debate is that none of those candidates will stop their nuclear ambitions. Hillary only sounds a little tougher, but it is all bluff and no substance. Her pledge "... to do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb," does not say what she would do if that effort fails. The answer at this point is nothing.

Timothy Garten Ash says the Europeans are no better on dealing with Iran. His solution though is just as unrealistic as the Democrats.