Thursday, February 22, 2007
The geopolitical significance of John Edwards' Israel gaff
I'm about 36 hours late in the rumble over what John Edwards might have said about Israel at a Hollywood fundraiser:
There are other emerging fissures, as well. The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word — Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.
The Edwards campaign has denied that he said this (link via Glenn), claiming instead that he meant to say that Iran's development of a nuclear weapon was the greatest threat to world peace.
This back-and-forth has touched off the usual storm between lefty and righty blogs. If you were wondering what a "kerfuffle" is, well, this is a kerfuffle.
Now here's the fun part. Apart from its domestic political implications -- which are probably ephemeral -- Edwards' gaff has geopolitical value for the United States. First, the most dovish of the leading American presidential candidates conveyed the strong impression that he actually is worried that Israel will strike Iran's nuclear facilities. That has to concern the mullahs. Sure, you and I might think that Edwards is a fool, but to the government of Iran he is an extremely prestigious American political figure, just a few votes short of the Vice Presidency and very possibly the next President. To the extent that Israel's implicit threat to bomb Iran is not credible in Tehran, it is a bit more so after Edwards' gaff. The greater the credibility of Israel's implicit threat, the better our leverage.
Second, Edwards immediately backpedaled under pressure. He is facing a primary campaign that will turn on his appeal to the activist left of the Democratic party, and still he groveled when called to account for a heresay remark about Israel that, in the end, was pretty tame (even if also lame). If you were an enemy of Israel and you were biding your time in the hope that America's support for the Jewish state would diminish with a Democratic victory in 2008, that hope died a little this week.
There you have it. John Edwards is an accidental geopolitical genius.
7 Comments:
By 
Cardinalpark, at
Thu Feb 22, 11:52:00 AM:
John Edwards is a walking, talking, political liability. 20,000SF house with gym? 2 Americas? Israel versus Iran as bad guy?
He is a MORON.
By David M, at
Thu Feb 22, 01:00:00 PM:
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 02/22/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
By 
, at
Thu Feb 22, 02:30:00 PM:
That's what people need to wrap their minds around. Active tolerated dissent makes our nation the best. If the dissent dies, the country dies. It's in the best interests of the USA to have a group of people like Kerry, Harkin, Murtha and the like gain entre into the halls of the enemy's government. I look at these public clowns as more than likely double agents working with our security people to get info on our adversaries and enemies. I really believe it's all a good cop bad cop act. At least with people like Kerry who I think was most likely on the CIA's payroll. Re Vietnam, the CIA and the highest levels of government might have wanted and needed Kerry's antics to help pave the way for disengagement. We had done our best/worst for the region and it was time to let it settle to it's own depth. I guarantee the people of Vietnam know of America and probably like us. It's like the Stockholm Syndrome in a way. Even if we pull out of Iraq, there will always be that residue of freedom and such that will make it all worth while long term. And conversely if our experience there makes the region more radical it just sets the stage for what will ultimately be their undoing. We don't have too many tribal barbaric regions left in the world. This is probably the biggest final piece.
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Feb 22, 02:33:00 PM:
SJ - well at least we agreed that Edwards is a Moron.
By , at
Thu Feb 22, 11:40:00 PM:
JOHN EDWARDS OPEN MOUTH INSERT FOOT AND TASTE THE TOE JAM
By Gary Rosen, at
Fri Feb 23, 03:19:00 AM:
Yeah, SJ, that really screwed things up when Israel bombed Saddams's reactor. God forbid Jews should try to defend themselves from annihilation.
By Georg Felis, at
Fri Feb 23, 02:00:00 PM:
Taking SJ's point a bit farther.
You must remember, this statement was from a Democrat, attempting to cozy up to other Democrats, and from their worldview it makes perfect sense. Should Israel attack the nuclear ambitions of Iran, it would stir the whole Muddle East up like a hornet’s nest being whacked with a stick. Much better to send waves of Diplomats in precision strike missions against their buffet tables.
But when you look at it from Israel’s point of view, they see a neighbor who has a long history of hating them, has financed and helped with terrorist attacks within their country, and has pledged their total destruction. And this neighbor is building nuclear bombs. And Israel doesn’t want to be their test site. When (not if) Israel loses faith with the international community’s forlorn efforts to stop Iran’s quest for nukes, they will act, as they have before.
So I hate to say it. But Edwards has it about half-right. The greatest threat to short-term peace in the Middle East is a successful Iranian nuclear weapons program that Israel will be forced to destroy before it is used against them.
