Democrats have wavered on that point (John Edwards has come down, at times, on both sides of the question), but given the antiwar stand of all the Democratic candidates, it isn’t clear how any of them can win primary votes while contemplating using force against Iran.
And that, like the rest of the rhetoric about fighting the war on Islamist terrorism, is the crux of both parties’ problems in coping with the Middle East.
It is easy for all of them to wave the flag of devotion for Israel. And it is just as easy for candidates of either party to criticize the conduct of the war in Iraq. But the crucial question facing the eventual winner is what to do about Iran. For now, they can all pray that the Europeans and Russia will unite around a tough sanctions protocol that will turn the tide in Tehran. They can also hope that internal divisions in Iran will convince the mullahs who hold the power behind Ahmadinejad that they must turn back from a policy of confrontation.
But if none of that works and some time in the next president’s term in office Iran will actually have nuclear capability, it is important to know what these would-be presidents would actually do.
Will any of them have the mettle to face up to the challenge and act to forestall catastrophe? Or will they sit back and wait for futile diplomacy to defuse a crisis that will already be out of control?
It is on that point – and not the usual pandering to pro-Israel sentiment – that friends of Israel should judge the candidates. Heaven help us all if we choose incorrectly.