That certainly appears to be what she's saying in Foreign Affairs this month:
Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies, and Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The Bush administration refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it. Meanwhile, Iran has enhanced its nuclear-enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah, and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to hurt its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.
As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.
On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives. This will let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them but with their government and show the world that the United States is prepared to pursue every diplomatic option.
There's not much ambiguity in this policy prescription. Serious diplomatic efforts will be undertaken to convince Iran to cease development of nuclear weapons. But Iran "must not" be allowed to have nuclear weapons, and so if our diplomatic efforts fail, force will be used.
Is there another way to read this that I'm not understanding? If not, shouldn't some other candidate, either a top tier contender like Edwards or Obama, or a second tier voice like Richardson or Dodd, actually take issue with this idea that America's response to a weaponized Iran should be war rather than deterrence?
