Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Wall Street Journal
May 19, 2007
Pg. 2
By Gerald F. Seib
Note to 2008 presidential contenders: It isn't just Iraq any longer. Iran is about to move in as a significant headache for all presidential wannabes.
Iran will reach this status next week, when the International Atomic Energy Agency issues a report on the country's nuclear capabilities. That report is expected to declare that a recent inspection showed Iran making faster progress than previously thought toward enriching uranium on a large scale.
That will prompt a rethinking of how much closer Iran is toward having the capability to produce nuclear warheads. Experts will continue to disagree over exactly how close it may be. But, for the presidential candidates, this still will produce a special kind of quandary -- and an especially acute one for Democratic contenders.
The trick for all candidates will be to sound tough enough on Iran to show they take the nuclear problem seriously, without setting off alarm bells among voters weary of one war in Iraq and leery of a second one in Iran. Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) already got into a bit of hot water on that front when he flippantly answered a voter's question about Iran by riffing on the old Beach Boys tune, "Barbara Ann," substituting the words, "Bomb Iran."
The balance most Republicans will try to strike was summarized by former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore at the Republican debate in South Carolina a few days ago. He said the U.S. should work with other countries to impose "serious mandatory sanctions" against Iran, but then raised the prospect of a military attack: "I think the American people have to at some point come to a real serious conclusion about the tough decision that has to be made when we may have to in fact strike."
The balance is trickier for Democrats because they are playing to a party base that has become increasingly antiwar because of the conflict in Iraq. Moreover, the top candidates are operating in a field where fringe candidates are disparaging any suggestion that military action against Iran is an option. Thus, the formula that might work for Republicans such as Mr. Gilmore -- a call for economic sanctions that leaves open the prospect of military action -- is tougher to pull off for a Democrat.
The difficulty was illustrated at the first Democratic debate last month, when Illinois Sen. Barack Obama was thrown on the defensive on Iran. In a recent, extensive national-security speech, he had declared "we must never take the military option off the table" in trying to stop the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea.
That brought attacks from the left, from both former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who virtually accused Sen. Obama of war-mongering. He responded by saying Iran's possession of nuclear weapons would be a "major threat," but also felt compelled to add: "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran." The balancing act, for him and others, isn't going to get any easier in the days ahead.
May 19, 2007
Pg. 2
By Gerald F. Seib
Note to 2008 presidential contenders: It isn't just Iraq any longer. Iran is about to move in as a significant headache for all presidential wannabes.
Iran will reach this status next week, when the International Atomic Energy Agency issues a report on the country's nuclear capabilities. That report is expected to declare that a recent inspection showed Iran making faster progress than previously thought toward enriching uranium on a large scale.
That will prompt a rethinking of how much closer Iran is toward having the capability to produce nuclear warheads. Experts will continue to disagree over exactly how close it may be. But, for the presidential candidates, this still will produce a special kind of quandary -- and an especially acute one for Democratic contenders.
The trick for all candidates will be to sound tough enough on Iran to show they take the nuclear problem seriously, without setting off alarm bells among voters weary of one war in Iraq and leery of a second one in Iran. Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) already got into a bit of hot water on that front when he flippantly answered a voter's question about Iran by riffing on the old Beach Boys tune, "Barbara Ann," substituting the words, "Bomb Iran."
The balance most Republicans will try to strike was summarized by former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore at the Republican debate in South Carolina a few days ago. He said the U.S. should work with other countries to impose "serious mandatory sanctions" against Iran, but then raised the prospect of a military attack: "I think the American people have to at some point come to a real serious conclusion about the tough decision that has to be made when we may have to in fact strike."
The balance is trickier for Democrats because they are playing to a party base that has become increasingly antiwar because of the conflict in Iraq. Moreover, the top candidates are operating in a field where fringe candidates are disparaging any suggestion that military action against Iran is an option. Thus, the formula that might work for Republicans such as Mr. Gilmore -- a call for economic sanctions that leaves open the prospect of military action -- is tougher to pull off for a Democrat.
The difficulty was illustrated at the first Democratic debate last month, when Illinois Sen. Barack Obama was thrown on the defensive on Iran. In a recent, extensive national-security speech, he had declared "we must never take the military option off the table" in trying to stop the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea.
That brought attacks from the left, from both former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who virtually accused Sen. Obama of war-mongering. He responded by saying Iran's possession of nuclear weapons would be a "major threat," but also felt compelled to add: "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran." The balancing act, for him and others, isn't going to get any easier in the days ahead.