Maybe there's more to this interview that Matt Stoller conducted with Wes Clark, but I'd really like to see the follow-up to Clark's (somewhat surprising) contention that we can't live with a nuclear Iran. Most are in agreement that, all things considered, it would be better to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that public diplomacy and direct engagement are the optimal methods of keeping them from weapons. The question is what if diplomacy fails? It may well, after all. Given America's apparent desire to overthrow Iran -- down to Bush having a prominent bomb Iran maniac over for tea in the Oval Office -- it's not crazy for Tehran to decide their regime's survival is only assured by nuclear capabilities. And in that situation, the question is simple: Is this worth going to war over?
The Democratic campaigns, particularly Hillary's, keep rhetorically implying that it is worth war with the "all options on the table" formulation. Simultaneously, they're relying on liberal activists to either know or assume that they don't really mean that and are simply trying to look tough. But this is one of the most dangerous foreign policy eventualities on the next president's plate, and it's crazy that voters are being asked to cast a ballot without any firm information on what the candidates think.
