KEEPING THE OPTIONS OPEN. I'm very late to this debate, but since Ezra asked... I don't think that the argument that a Democratic presidential candidate needs to keep his/her options open regarding war against Iran holds much water. The logic behind this arguments seems to go like this; if Barack Obama or whoever else declares military action against Iran off limits, then one of his diplomatic tools is off the table when he finally needs to start dealing with Iran. The argument that the threat of force can grease the wheels of diplomacy isn't wholly unreasonable, although some have pointed out, correctly, that the threat of force can often limit diplomatic options. However, the assumption that a statement made during a campaign is binding once someone becomes president is simply absurd. Woodrow Wilson went to war in Europe only six months after winning election on a no war pledge. Richard Nixon kept the Vietnam War going for four years in spite of a pledge to end it in short order. Neither paid any significant domestic political price, nor did the pledges notably affect their international credibility. If President Obama wants to put military action back on the table after winning election all he needs to do is declare that Iranian interference in Iraq has become too much to bear, or that Iranian support for Hezbollah is now actionable, or whatever. So, I don't think that there's any cost at all to, right now, declaring war against Iran off limits. I'm unconvinced that there's much benefit, either, since I still don't believe that we're going to go to war against Iran. Even if we were, the statements of Democratic presidential candidates aren't going to have a meaningful effect either way, but I suppose that being on record in opposition to the war might be politically helpful in the wake of the inevitable disaster that such a conflict would produce.
--Robert Farley
