The fact that the Democratic Party’s base is firmly against the Iraq war has put its leading presidential candidate in a tough spot on Iran. Will Senator Clinton continue to embrace a hawkish position on Iran or adopt a softer line? She voted for the Iraq war but, unlike Kerry and Edwards, hasn’t abandoned (so far, at least) her position in support of the war — support that has brought her withering criticism from the Left. Will she defy the anti-war base again on Iran? Last September, the senator stated, “a nuclear-armed Iran would shake the foundations of global security to its very core.” But she hasn’t said much since, except to say that Bush should take the nuclear option “off the table” in reaction to Seymour Hersh’s over-the-top New Yorker piece. Presumably she stands by her September position and would support the use of force should it be necessary to prevent a “nuclear-armed Iran” that would “shake the foundations of global security to its very core.” But it’s extremely doubtful that Democrats who oppose the Iraq war agree with Hillary’s current position on Iran. They’d support sanctions but would rather live with a nuclear-armed Iran than with what they believe would be the consequences of an attack. This is probably why Hillary Clinton has been so quiet on Iran lately. Since her election, Hillary has positioned herself as a Scoop Jackson Democrat on many national security issues. But Scoop didn’t win the Democratic presidential nomination in 1972; McGovern did. It’s not clear today that Democratic activists have learned the lesson of McGovern, which is why Sen. Clinton faces a dilemma on Iran and why her road to the Democratic nomination won’t be smooth sailing.
