As President Obama’s relationship with Israel continues to deteriorate and the administration races toward a nuclear deal with Iran, Hillary Clinton faces a dilemma.
On the one hand, as the former secretary of state prepares to seek the Democratic nomination, she doesn’t want to seem disloyal to her former boss at a sensitive time for his foreign policy. But at the same time, it isn’t necessarily in her long-term political interests to associate herself with Obama’s increasingly tense relationship with Israel and the growing concessions that the administration is making to the Iranian regime in nuclear talks.
To this point, Clinton has mostly steered clear of taking a firm stand on these foreign policy matters. But the White House has now made a quiet approach more difficult for her by implying to the Wall Street Journal that a Clinton administration would share the same attitude toward Israel that Obama has.
In a story in which the White House accused Israel of spying on nuclear negotiations with Iran and providing the details to members of the U.S. Congress, somebody identified as a “senior administration official” is quoted as saying, “People feel personally sold out” and adding, “That’s where the Israelis really better be careful because a lot of these people will not only be around for this administration but possibly the next one as well.”
The clear suggestion is that there would be a lot of continuity among foreign policy hands from the Obama administration to a possible Clinton administration, and that any lingering animosity toward Israel would carry over. Is Clinton comfortable with that suggestion? Does she want to associate herself with the administration’s vow to reassess U.S.-Israel relationship, particularly when it comes to the traditional American support for Israel at the U.N.?
Where does Clinton stand on the diplomatic negotiations with Iran, in which the administration is discussing providing Iran with sanctions relief and allowing them to maintain around 6,000 nuclear centrifuges? This remains unclear.
Back in 2007, when they were rivals for the Democratic nomination, Clinton pounced on Obama when, during a debate, he called for meeting with Iran without preconditions.
“I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive,” candidate Clinton said in July 2007 of his vow, portraying it as indicative of his lack of foreign policy experience.
But Clinton has avoided any sort of similar language in reference to the current talks. In a press conference earlier this month that mainly focused on her use of a private email server as secretary of state, Clinton took a safe approach. She described the negotiations as aiming to “close off Iran’s pathways to a nuclear bomb and give us unprecedented access and insight into Iran’s nuclear program.” She said, “reasonable people can disagree about what exactly it will take to accomplish this objective, and we all must judge any final agreement on its merits.”
But then she moved on to criticizing an open letter that Republican Senators sent to Iranian leadership putting Iranians on notice that any deal Obama negotiates may not survive his presidency because it won’t have the support of Congress. She also slammed the GOP letter on Twitter, writing, “GOP letter to Iranian clerics undermines American leadership. No one considering running for commander-in-chief should be signing on.”
Focusing on Republicans allowed her to remain loyal to Obama without having to weigh in on the specifics of the pending deal with Iran, but this strategy of avoidance isn’t sustainable. If she remains silent during a time when her criticisms could potentially make a difference, any criticism of the deal she mounts down the road will appear shallow and opportunistic.
Clinton wants to be able to thread the needle of using her experience as secretary of state during the Obama years as evidence of her experience without associating herself with any politically problematic foreign policy positions. That task is looking increasingly difficult.
