Cross-posted at OMS.
Some people are still laboring under the impression that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama share the same policy perspective on diplomacy and the potential use of force towards Iran.
This is simply not true. Sure, they have said some basic things that match up. But, you could say the same thing about any Democrat and Genghis Giuliani. The difference lies in, well, the differences.
Below are some of these differences.
- Difference #1: Assumptions matter.
This really should go without saying, but it doesn't. A person's assumptions about a certain approach or tactic can easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If I'm not confident that a low carbohydrate diet will help me lose weight, I won't be as dedicated to giving it an earnest effort as someone who's convinced it will work.
So, what are the basic assumptions about diplomacy towards Iran? They both say they're for diplomacy, but that's just an empty platitude--Bush said he was for diplomacy towards Iraq.
No, we need to look at their belief about how diplomacy would work. But, each has given statements in the past in a number of different forums and in front of different audiences--how do we avoid cherry-picking? One group in front of whom both appeared and both discussed their view of diplomacy towards Iran is that old DailyKos favorite, AIPAC. Assuming each candidate is being frank and honest, let us look at what each said about diplomacy and Iran.
Senator Obama:
To prevent this worst-case scenario, we need the United States to lead tough-minded diplomacy.
This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out in clear terms our principles and interests. Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage through stronger sanctions. It would mean more determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations. It would mean harnessing the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran's major trading partners. It would mean a cooperative strategy with Gulf States who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs. It would mean unifying those states to recognize the threat of Iran and increase pressure on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. It would mean full implementation of U.S. sanctions laws. And over the long term, it would mean a focused approach from us to finally end the tyranny of oil, and develop our own alternative sources of energy to drive the price of oil down.
Obama speech to AIPAC, March 2, 2007.
Obama views diplomacy and engagement as the solution. He speaks of a need to commit to this course of action.
Senator Clinton:
This is a worthy debate to have in our country today. There are many, including our President who rejects any kind of process of any sort of engagement with countries like Syria and Iran. I do believe that that is certainly a good faith position to take, but I am not sure it is the smartest strategy that will take us to the goals that we share.
And what do I mean by engagement or some kind of a process? Well I'm not sure anything positive would come out of it, I have no expectations whatsoever. But there are a number of factors that I think argue for some attempt to do what I am suggesting: number one I don't think we know enough about how Iranian society and their government really functions. I was struck by the rejection of the President's party in those recent elections. If we are having to pursue potential action against Iran beyond enforcing the toughest sanctions that we can and bringing the world community along as hard as it is, to recognize the danger to them as well as to us and to Israel then I want to know more about the adversary we face. I want to understand better what the leverage we can bring to bear on them will actually produce. I want to get a better sense of what the real power centers and influentials are. And I also want to send a message if we ever do have to take war, drastic action to the rest of the world that we exhausted all possibilities because we need friends and allies to stand with us as we stand with Israel in this long war against terrorism and extremism .
Clinton speech to AIPAC, February 1, 2007.
Clinton does not believe diplomacy and engagement are the solution. She says so plainly:
Well I'm not sure anything positive would come out of it, I have no expectations whatsoever.
Simply put, Senator Clinton is not committed to a diplomatic solution. Instead, she twice emphasizes how diplomacy and engagement may pave the way for war.
Does this sound familiar?
Well, it should.
Frank Rich refreshes our recollection.
In her Oct. 10, 2002, speech of support for the Iraq resolution on the Senate floor, Mrs. Clinton hedged by saying, "A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war."
In Tuesday’s debate Mrs. Clinton tried to play down her vote for Kyl-Lieberman again by incessantly repeating her belief in "vigorous diplomacy" as well as the same sound bite she used after her Iraq vote five years ago. "I am not in favor of this rush for war," she said, "but I’m also not in favor of doing nothing."
Apparently Senator Clinton thinks a slow shuffle to war makes sense. But she's not saying it should be done. But, she has no expectations that non-violent means will work. But, she's not endorsing it.
Ask yourself: Who is more likely to achieve a diplomatic solution--the candidate who believes in it is the solution or the candidate who does not believe it is the solution?
- What they have said and haven't said.
This recent New York Times piece sheds light on several differences between the two candidates.
A. What Obama has suggested/promised/spoken in favor of that Clinton has not.
Mr. Obama emphasized further that "changes in behavior" by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.
Senator Clinton has NOT put this on the table.
"We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith," he said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. "I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior.
Senator Clinton has NOT expressed a willingness to take regime change off the table.
Mrs. Clinton has said that after carrying out major troop withdrawals she would leave a residual force in Iraq to . . . deter Iranian intervention.
B. What Clinton would do that Obama would not do.
Mr. Obama . . . emphasized that the residual force would not have the mission of deterring Iranian involvement in Iraq.
In other words, Clinton would follow and Obama would reject this language from Kyl-Lieberman:
the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;
Of course, Clinton and Obama share some basic similarities. But, as we have learned, the devil is in the details. And, if you examine their records and policy statements, the two candidates have expressed VERY different views towards the use of diplomacy towards Iran.