The debate highlight I commented on here has become a major bone of contention between the Obama and Clinton campaigns. To recap quickly: The question concerned whether the candidates would be willing to meet with leaders of hostile countries without condition, in the first year of a new presidency. Obama said yes. HRC said no, and she’s now on the attack against Obama, calling his answer “irresponsible and frankly naïve.”
As I’ve said, I didn’t like Obama’s answer. On reflection, I think the answer was lacking precisely because Obama is not naïve. For proof, let’s go back to the April 26 debate, and this exchange between Obama and Dennis Kucinich:
Kucinich: My good friend, Senator Obama, that’s a very provocative statement. You previously said that all options are on the table with respect to Iran.
And I think that it’s important for people to reflect on the real meaning of that, that you’re setting the stage for another war. […]
Obama: I just got some time and I wanted to respond to this.
I think it would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran.
But, have no doubt, Iran possessing nuclear weapons will be a major threat to us and to the region.
Kucinich: (OFF-MIKE)
Obama: I understand that, but they’re in the process of developing it. And I don’t think that’s disputed by any expert.
They are the largest state sponsor of terrorism…
Kucinich: It is disputed by…
Obama: … Hezbollah and Hamas.
Kucinich: It is disputed.
Obama: And there is no contradiction, Dennis, between…
Kucinich: It is disputed.
Obama: Let me finish.
There is no contradiction between us taking seriously the need, as you do, to want to strengthen our alliances around the world — but I think it is important for us to also recognize that if we have nuclear proliferators around the world that potentially can place a nuclear weapon into the hands of terrorists, that is a profound security threat for America and one that we have to take seriously.
Obama trounced Kucinich, and truth be told, it was one of the things that made me eager to endorse Obama’s candidacy.
Kucinich was referencing this 60 Minutes interview, in particular this exchange:
STEVE KROFT: Would you advocate the use of military force to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?
OBAMA: I think we should keep all options on the table, but I think that our first step should be a much more aggressive approach to diplomacy than we’ve displayed thus far. […]
Granted, “all options on the table” is rather Cheney-esque — not what you’d expect from someone now hitting at HRC from the left. But in context it’s clear that Obama considers military action an extremely remote possibility. In the April debate he seemed to remove the ambiguity by declaring, quite correctly, that it would be “a profound mistake.”
But his main point, on 60 Minutes and in the debate, was that Iran’s pursuit of nukes is not disputed, and that it is a problem. Kucinich’s repeated refrain — “it is disputed” — was badly undermined about two weeks later by an IAEA report, summed up in the NY Times on May 15 [$] under the headline “Inspectors Cite Big Gain By Iran In Nuclear Fuel.”
So in short, Obama is strong on national security but equally strong on the need for cautious diplomacy. Pretty much like Clinton. The current tussle is not so much about a huge policy difference; it’s more about the rhetorical trap of the question that was posed.
In the 60 Minutes interview, Steve Kroft asked Obama, “Would you talk to Iran and Syria?” Obama said something that should sound familiar:
Yes. I think that the notion that this administration has — that not talking to our enemies is effective punishment — is wrong. It flies in the face of our experiences during the Cold War. Ronald Reagan understood that it may be an evil empire, but it’s worthwhile for us to periodically meet to see are there areas of common interest.
What Obama did, in the heat of debate, was to graft that answer onto a different question: “…would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?” Obama basically ignored the clauses between the words “separately” and “with,” whereas HRC seized on them. It was a brilliant move on her part, and a rookie mistake on his.
I’ll conclude by saying I reject the notion that taking a tough line on Iran, as Obama and Clinton have both done, is merely to echo the Bush administration. My reader DJA made the following point in the comments and I want to respond:
Like Obama said, we negotiated with the Soviet Union. And since we apparently have no problems with direct negotiations with the leaders of countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, it seems pretty clear that the administration’s reluctance to engage seriously with Iran and Syria has nothing to do with a principled anti-authoritarian stance.
Absolutely, Bush’s stance is not principled anti-authoritarianism, not at all. But let’s say we’re fortunate enough to have a Democratic president in ’08. What will principled anti-authoritarianism look like then? That’s what is being raised in these debates, and that’s what every candidate is going to have to answer. Bush and Cheney are wrong, but that doesn’t mean the polar opposite is necessarily right.
You’ll note that on this blog I am displaying a banner in support of Haleh Esfandiari, the Iranian-American academic now being held hostage in Evin Prison by the Iranian regime. True, Bush and Cheney are saber-rattling against Iran. True, this is dangerous. Should it stop liberals from speaking out against that regime when it jails scholars, journalists, trade unionists, feminists, dissenters of every stripe? I don’t believe so. Like Obama said, there’s no contradiction.
Comments are closed.