Steve Clemons asked about Senator Barack Obama’s (D-Illinois) approach to preventing war with Iran.
Obama says he wants to differentiate himself from Hillary Clinton now — but he’s doing it in lukewarm, safe ways. He has my whole-hearted support in his views on reframing America’s Cuba policy — but he’s still sort of squishy on Iran. He believes in vigorous, aggressive engagement — but what about doing something real to preclude a war in the next year?
The Carpetbagger Report’s Steve Benen believes he may have found the answer, and is a bit puzzled that it has not received much attention.
I’m a little surprised Barack Obama’s policy pronouncement on Iran the other day isn’t a bigger deal. Especially among the netroots, I’ve noticed there’s been some fully-justified complaints that Obama has been afraid of taking bold policy positions, and has struggled to articulate new ideas that are both progressive and a break with political orthodoxy.
Obama’s new approach to Iran seems to fit the bill perfectly. It’s possible the senator burnt some blog bridges during the McClurkin flap a couple of weeks ago, and made matters worse by picking up Social Security to create a policy distinction with Hillary Clinton, but Obama’s Iran policy really deserves more credit than it’s received.
In fact, I’d go so far as to argue that this is the policy a lot of Dems have been waiting for. It not only sets Obama apart on a key, pressing foreign policy challenge, but it represents an entirely new way to dealing with an important adversary.
Benen provides this analysis from Scott MacLeod of TIME Magazine:
If Obama is trying to distinguish himself from other American leaders on the Middle East, he’s doing a great job. His published views [Friday] on Iran are smart, measured and statesmanlike, in contrast, for example, to Bush’s speech on terrorism last night, in which the president once again raised the specter of Muslim hoards crashing across our borders to destroy the American way of life. […]
Take notice: on Iran, at least, Obama is speaking a new kind of language for mainstream American politics. For nearly 30 years since the Iranian revolution kicked out a shah who had been installed by the CIA, American leaders have been too timid to engage in a constructive dialogue with Iran. That includes Hillary’s husband, whose curiosity was aroused by the moderate Khatami but failed to rise to the challenge of how to achieve a diplomatic opening for the good of both countries. Now Obama says he’s willing to go to Iran to talk without preconditions, reward Iran with positive changes in behavior and demonstrate that the U.S. is not hellbent on regime change. Contrast that with the Bush administration’s approach, which, by the way, is getting a loud echo in the campaign of Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani. […]
From Cairo, of course, I have scant insight as to whether Obama’s frank, realistic — and I would even say politically courageous — step toward Iran is in step with the mood of the American people. But certainly Americans now are getting a starker choice in the ways to approach the Middle East.