Iran Shapes Up As Big Democratic And Republican Campaign Issue

In a sense, this is the political day everyone knew would finally dawn: the powder-keg issue of the Iraq War is now being joined by another powder-keg issue.

The issue: what the United States should do, shouldn’t do and might do with the thorny issue of Iran — a nation intent on getting nukes and headed by a tolerance-challenged President:

When it comes to presidential politics, Iran appears to be the next Iraq.

It’s an issue precisely because some fear it could become the next Iraq. CNN continues:

While it hasn’t pushed aside the war in Iraq, the debate over sanctions against Iran and the possibility of military action against Tehran is gathering steam on the campaign trail.

Democratic candidates expressed concern Thursday about the Bush administration’s extensive sanctions against Iran, arguing that the measures were likely precursors to war.

The new sanctions target Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, its Quds force and a number of Iranian banks and people the U.S. accuses of backing nuclear proliferation and terror-related activities.

“It is important to have tough sanctions on Iran, particularly on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which supports terrorism,” Barack Obama said. “But these sanctions must not be linked to any attempt to keep our troops in Iraq, or to take military action against Iran.

The senator from Illinois added that “unfortunately, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment made the case for President Bush that we need to use our military presence in Iraq to counter Iran — a case that has nothing to do with sanctioning the Revolutionary Guard.”

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment passed 76-22 in the Senate last month. It calls, in part, for the Revolutionary Guard to be designated a terrorist organization. While Obama opposes the legislation, he was campaigning when the full Senate took up the bill and missed the vote.

The issue has become a major flashpoint between Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton:

While Hillary Clinton is celebrating her 60th birthday tonight, another milestone is taking place off stage: Her campaign is publicly turning its guns on Barack Obama.

The campaign sent out an e-mail tonight, using some of the strongest language it has used in public against Mr. Obama, who has been raising a ruckus over her vote to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

“Stagnant in the polls and struggling to revive his once-buoyant campaign, Senator Obama has abandoned the politics of hope and embarked on a journey in search of a campaign issue to use against Senator Clinton,” the e-mail said.

“Nevermind that he made the very argument he is now criticizing back in November 2006,” it adds. “Nevermind that he he co-sponsored a bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a global terrorist group back in April.”

Meanwhile, the Republicans are debating less about the wisdom of military action than how firm the military response should be:

The escalation of tensions between the United States and Iran has brought the issue to the fore in the presidential campaign, with Republican candidates talking of military action if Iran gets close to building a nuclear weapon and Democrats cautioning against a march to another war.

As the Bush administration announced sanctions yesterday on a unit of the Iranian military, former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, in perhaps the broadest warning yet among the Republican candidates, told voters in New Hampshire that he would advocate a military blockade or “bombardment of some kind” if Iran did not yield to diplomatic and economic pressure to give up its nuclear program.

Mr. Romney’s statement came as Democrats warned against military action but also skirmished among themselves, particularly over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s vote last month calling on the administration to declare Iran’s 125,000-member Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization.

Such a designation, backed by 75 senators including Mrs. Clinton, would have gone beyond the measures taken yesterday by the administration, which imposed more narrowly drawn sanctions on the guard corps and its elite Quds division.

None of the other Democratic presidential candidates supported the Senate resolution, and Mrs. Clinton’s two leading opponents, Senator Barack Obama and John Edwards, have said the vote provided cover for President Bush to move the country toward war, an interpretation Mrs. Clinton disputes.

How will all of this play politically?

Despite what talking heads, newspaper columnists and all-knowing bloggers (including us here) may try to lead you to believe, much will depend on future events and the international and political contexts these events create. A lot of the predictions about what’s going to happen may not happen.

If, close to the election, the U.S. seems poised to react militarily in a preemptive action not widely perceived as justified, the issue could play to the detriment of GOPers and any Democrats who seem to be supporting the administration, since those Americans concerned about Iraq and distrustful of Bush administration officials such as Vice President Dick Cheney would vote to prevent a candidate leaning for a more aggressive response. Some voters would vote to temper American foreign policy.

But if the Iranian government fans the flames of existing tensions between it and the United States up to election day, candidates who are downplaying the need for a firm response could suffer. If Iran is perceived as a real threat — and the administration’s assertions will be aggressively challenged more on Iran now due to the fact that many of its assertions in the run up to the Iraq war were proven to be fallacious and manipulative — there could be a strong-enough coalition of voters to nix candidates who seem to be taking a soft line.

Much of what happens politically here with this issue will be determined by what is determined in Tehran. Which means all candidates debating the issue now are, in a sense, walking a political tightrope.