The decisive issue in this election is about war and peace, between Barack Obama's proposed diplomacy with Iran to end the war in Iraq, and the hawkish stance of his two rivals, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, who favor an escalating the tensions with Tehran even to the point of war.
The mainstream media, and some of the blogosphere, continue to miss the danger of an escalated war as they blog and dabble over race, gender and numbers of pledged delegates.
The anti-war movement and most Democrats have been fairly silent about these differences as well.
The facts, however, are simple, as follows:
The Bush administration, many neo-conservatives, and Israeli officials have busily built the case that Iran is an "existential threat," and that the coming months represent a "now or never" moment to attack Iran before a new president takes office.
With sufficient US political and military backing, the Israelis seem set to go.
Clinton has voted to identify Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist organization." The White House and Gen. Petraeus have asserted that Iran is directly and indirectly responsible for killing American soldiers in Iraq. Those two elements are a sufficient cause to go to war.
Clinton has said the US could "obliterate" Iran if they attacked Israel, and threatens "massive retaliation" to protect Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates against Iran. There has been virtually no media discussion of this NATO-like proposal for the Middle East.
Both Clinton and McCain deride Obama's offer to open unconditional talks with Iran. Obama himself appears to be adjusting, or backing away, from his original straightforward proposal. He needs to stiffen, realize this is what the election is about, and fight back, with allies at his side.
Instead of stumbling over the nature of direct diplomacy [with whom, where, with what preparations], Obama should rely on his strongest arguments.
The bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Study Group proposed US-Iran negotiations as essential to finding a political solution in Iraq. Former CIA chief John Deutch says the same thing. Iraq needs a non-aggression agreement and trade with the US; in return, the US needs Iran's acceptance of an orderly withdrawal from Iraq without the country falling into greater civil war. The issue of nuclear power needs to be negotiated on a separate track, according to Baker-Hamilton.
Barack should not seem to over-promise the results of diplomacy, which could provoke more attacks on his resolve and experience. But he can easily remain assertive against the failed and obviously hypocritical notion of never talking to our adversaries.
It's more simple than he says.
John Kennedy talked with Nikita Khrushchev, and nuclear war was averted.
Richard Nixon talked with Mao tse-Tung, and commercial competition replaced a military confrontation.
Look where non-talking gets us. We refuse to talk to Cuba, leaving us diplomatically and commercially isolated from the continent and world.
As for rank hypocrisy, the Bush administration is already talking with North Korea and, in a limited way, with Iran.
The possibility of avoiding a broader war may rest on whether Obama wins this debate.
Loading comments… 
If it weren't jaudicing, where would we be?
"Obama missed a vote on a resolution that declared the Iranian Revolution
It's easy to criticize votes on bills that you dodge, like Barack Obama has been doing his whole political career. I mean, he's broadcast his opinion about the vote for war against Iraq enough, even though he was a state senator at the time and completely unqualifie
Can any Obama supporter explain why a skipped vote is better than a vote against a resolution like this? I mean, doesn't this demonstrat
And keep in mind, this whole situation is part of our lopsided alliance with Israel in which we have to defend them from everyone who's eye they spit in all day long. No one's talking about attacking Iran without cause. Most instances involve the phrase "if Israel is attacked by Iran..." and other conditiona
And it isn't just that war is the top issue in the sense that the other issues aren't "top" also with voters (like the economy). I think the point here is that debating gender and race can obscure that we may be faced with ANOTHER WAR, folks!
Obama does need to win this debate, and the American people need to learn from the debate. We need to learn the truth about what McCain/Bus
Hillary is old news, but it is important to "out" her on her positions on Iran. She is still a senator, after all. At least for a while! (I can't imagine her keeping her seat in NY after what we now know about her.)
I would like to read more analysis that puts the history of that area in regards to diplomacy into a readable, easy to understand format. I don't have a clear picture of what the "norm' is for diplomacy. Not enough to feel like I could talk to others about it.
Share and be nice.
Makes for Keith Moon.
Unprepared
I still want to name a son Steven Max. But I went back to school when I recieved a TBI from a pickup v bicycle accident a few months into the latest invasion. It was good having it arrive, for I am bereaving and hard. People often ask how I can't snap being under the various hegenomy. I say my anti-depre
I hope you know that there are students of a democratic society because of you guys. This one is auto-dicte
The distortion
Isn't Obama wanting to send in more troops to Afganistan (sp?) in order to focus on de-escalat
anyone can make up some bizarre theory of ulterior motives. how many new recruits would it take to replace the private contracts currently in use? how hard did you look for others that support an increase that large? it's time for everyone to start being a little more rational.
In this election cycle, the right wing spin-meist
Obama's ability to break this psychologi
Another issue is that we are not simply talking about Iran, but also about Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, and all without preconditi
This isn’t a red herring. He made a mistake. In fact, he made several mistakes when responding to this question, which demonstrat
This isn’t a red herring. He made a mistake. In fact, he made several mistakes when responding to this question, which demonstrat
Carol
The fact of the matter is that Obama's foreign policy views involve something other than dropping bombs on people in other countries. Call it "new" or "old" or whatever you like, but please call it here "soon".
However, I would not use Kennedy meeting with Khrushchev as a positive. Kennedy caused many problems from this meeting, because Khrushchev saw Kennedy as weak, inexperien
noneIn2008
You can criticize Kennedy for making mistakes all you want - and I have no doubt there were many - but JFK did the most important thing of them all: He protected the US and got us through it all without entering World War III. He made errors in judgment, but he made successes, too. ( You seem to have omitted the times, like the Cuban Missile Crisis, when Khruschev "blinked" and Kennedy was strong. But then again, using selective informatio
We need a new version of "Swords into Plowshares
We are on a disastrous course that was started under the late Clinton administra
Are people waiting for the bank to tell us Uncle Sam's check bounced? What exactly are we getting in return for this gigantic military network throughout the world? I'll be damned if I can figure it out. It certainly isn't cheap oil. It certainly isn't a strong currency. That dollar in your pocket is getting more worthless every day. Keeping us safe? I never heard of a country staying safe by invading every country on the planet. in fact the reverse is true. Countries who engage in such activity end up being invaded themselves
But their position on the Iraq war does separate them. All Hillary had to do was admit it was a mistake but she would not. Obama also has advocated dialogue with Iran; Clinton has not.
Look what happened when we stopped bombing the crap out of the Vietnamese and started a dialogue. We found out they were not monsters but a rather nice and peaceful people. Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda took a lot of grief for going to Hanoi, but who was right? And so much for the Domino Theory, the underpinni
And the only time Vietnam went out of their country is when they chased the genocidal regime of Pol Pot out of Cambodia. They they returned home and haven't done anything to anyone since.
Israel spoke to Sadat and there has been peace. Israel spoke to Jordan and there has been peace.
When you don't engage your enemies, you don't have peace. And isn't peace what we should be pursuing? 58,000 died in Vietnam, over 4000 in Iraq......