Hillary Clinton. (Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images North America)
Asked in an
interview this week about her presidential ambitions,
Hillary Clinton gave an answer that qualified as a howler even by Clinton standards: "I'm not thinking about it."
Clinton is widely considered the presumptive Democratic nominee for
president in 2016. Given the atavistic chaos that afflicts the
Republicans, many view her as the virtual president-elect. Time magazine
ran a cover story this month headlined "
Can Anyone Stop Hillary?" The
New York Times Magazine followed with
a cover story of its own, the latest in a stream of media coverage of the juggernaut that is Clinton's unannounced presidential campaign.
One of the surest signs that Clinton is running for the presidency is
her refusal to take a position on the greatest geopolitical question
now facing the United States. President Obama and Secretary of State
John Kerry are engaged in a high-stakes effort to end 35 years of hostility between the United States and
Iran.
Debate about this initiative is intense in Washington. No one, however,
knows the opinion of the woman who was Kerry's immediate predecessor
and is evidently seeking to govern the United States beginning in 2017.
Kerry has asserted that negotiations with Iran are "
one of those hinge points in history,"
and argued that they give the United States "a chance to address
peacefully one of the most pressing national security concerns that the
world faces." Senator Dianne Feinstein, who heads the Senate Committee
on Intelligence, has warned that those who seek to block reconciliation
are on a "
march toward war."
Sentiments are just as strong on the other side. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of
Israel has denounced negotiation with Iran as a "
historic mistake"
that is making the world "a more dangerous place". His partners in
Washington vigorously echo that view. One of them, Senator Mark Kirk,
has
accused Obama
of behaving "like Neville Chamberlain" and charged that he is setting
the stage for "a large and bloody conflict in the Middle East involving
Iranian
nuclear weapons".
This is the most far-reaching foreign policy debate that has broken
out in Washington in more than a generation. The stakes for the United
States, Iran, the Middle East and the world are huge. American
politicians are falling over one another to press their views. Clinton
is the glaring exception.
Throughout her career, Clinton has stayed well within the Washington
paradigm on foreign policy issues. Like many American politicians who
came of age during the Cold War, she takes an us-versus-them view of the
world. She has never dissented from the Washington chorus that portrays
Iran as an irredeemable font of evil. Had she remained on the job as
secretary of state rather than resigning and paving the way for Kerry,
the United States would certainly not have made an effort to engage
Iran.
Now that a
preliminary agreement has been struck and
international inspectors
are monitoring Iran's retreat from its nuclear program, it is
reasonable for Americans to expect their leaders to say whether they
favor or oppose this process. That is especially true of Clinton, who
until a year ago was the global face of US foreign policy. Yet her
silence has been deafening.
Clinton has a habit of not taking any position until it is clear
which position will be most politically beneficial. "No doubt we will
find out HRC's true convictions just as soon as her focus groups report
in or her major donors tell her what to think,"
Stephen Walt wrote in his Foreign Policy blog.
Here lies the dilemma. A strong statement by Clinton in favor of
reconciliation would be a game-changer in Washington. She would be
giving a centrist, establishment endorsement of her former boss's most
important foreign policy initiative. That would provide political cover
for moderate
Democrats terrified of antagonizing the Netanyahu government and the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which is leading the anti-reconciliation campaign in Washington.
Such a statement, however, would risk outraging pro-Netanyahu groups
and individuals who have been among Clinton's key supporters since her
days as a Senator from New York. Having spent years painstakingly laying
the ground for a presidential campaign, she does not want to risk a
misstep that would alienate major campaign contributors.
Clinton's choice is clear. If she opposes détente with Iran, she will
look like a warmonger who prefers confrontation to diplomacy. If she
supports it, she will alienate a vital part of the base she is relying
on to finance her presidential campaign. With this in mind, she has
chosen to remain silent on the central foreign policy issue of the age.
It is a classic act of political cowardice – the kind that often leads
to victory at the polls.
Copyright 2014 The Guardian
No comments:
Post a Comment