John Edwards has addressed the Herzliya conference and laid out some of his positions on the ME. This portion of the transcript is his answer to a questioner:

>>Would you be prepared, if diplomacy failed, to take further action against Iran? I think there is cynicism about the ability of diplomacy to work in this situation. Secondly, you as grassroots person, who has an understanding of the American people, is there understanding of this threat across US?

A: My analysis of Iran is if you start with the President of Iran coming to the UN in New York denouncing America and his extraordinary and nasty statements about the Holocaust and goal of wiping Israel off map, married with his attempts to obtain nuclear weapons over a long period of time, they are buying time. They are the foremost state sponsors of terrorism. If they have nuclear weapons, other states in the area will want them, and this is unacceptable.

As to what to do, we should not take anything off the table. More serious sanctions need to be undertaken, which cannot happen unless Russia and China are seriously on board, which has not happened up until now. I would not want to say in advance what we would do, and what I would do as president, but there are other steps that need to be taken. Fore example, we need to support direct engagement with Iranians, we need to be tough. But I think it is a mistake strategically to avoid engagement with Iran.

As to the American people, this is a difficult question. The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.

http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223

I look forward to more of Edward's "educating" American voters to "come along" in overcoming our reticence in "going for Iran".

Dr. Wilson, you have answered your own jibe. The key at this point isn't the exact plan they have drafted up, it is how they approach these issues, the weight they give them and the way their responses reflect a worldview.

Bush's cocky nature and sheltered existence provided more insight than Condi's blathering neo-realist piece in Foreign Affairs. Indeed the moment when many foriegn policy types really understood him was when Jim Lehrer asked which actions he would support and he did it based on which party was in power at the time.

So I suppose the real challenge is for foreign policy analyst to size up these candidates based on their past experience and actions and look beyond whatever piece Holbrooke does on their behalf in Foreign Affairs next year.

Based on that, it seems to me that we do have a good sense of these people. Clinton has been much more muscular in her attitudes than one would have expected. Obama has been talking about global and transnational issues and thinks the U.S. can be a force for good when working with others. Edwards may be the most pandering of the lot, but he also seems to have grown in the last few years. And Richardson would certainly be a hands-on leader given his past adventures. None of them seem reckless in the positions they take. All of them show a serious interest in these issues. None of them could have emerged from the last 5 years without thinking about America's place in the world.

Bush wrought a giant self-inflicted wound. We must find a candidates who will be willing to reject his policies and re-egage the world. Our moral authority has been lost, our military power drained, our image tarnished. My sense is that all of the major dem candidates want to reverse these consequences so that the U.S. continues to play an active role in the world.

Instead of waiting for the position papers, which will mostly contain platitudes, why don't you take a stab at sizing up the big three. Their foreign policy views are no more opaque than their health care plans, tax plans or environmental positions. The difference is that there are big clues already out there.

President McCain is delighted with all you Israel-haters around here disparaging his potential rivals. Listen up, jerks: if your disgusting views reflected a majority of the electorate, Clinton wouldn't be addressing AIPAC next week, Edwards would not have addressed the Herzilyah conference,and Obama wouldn't have
stated that Israel had every right to defend herself aginast Hezbollah rockets last summer.

Of course, you can always hope that President Kucinich does your bidding on Israel. Maybe you should ask President Carter to run again--he's certainly eligible, but has a bit of an electability problem.

In addition, it's worth noting that one of the things Obama took an interest in while he was still running for Senator was Nunn-Lugar, the program for securing ex-Soviet nuclear materials and sites, and that he then worked on expanding it, with Lugar, to cover caches of conventional arms.

Working on Nunn-Lugar indicates to me an interest in getting serious about preventing proliferation, and doing so by getting into the wonky details of where exactly someone might acquire e.g. fissile material. Trying to expand it to conventional arms indicates to me an interest in doing something serious about the lethality of smaller conflicts around the world. And in both cases, a willingness to try to work through the details to ensure that we don't arrive at the point where we have to start taking sides in conflicts; that we deal with things, as much as possible, before they become big problems.

Moreover, he was one of the first people to get serious about avian flu, and he did so in part (according to him) because, having spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, he understood immediately what it meant in that part of the world to have a disease that might start spreading to humans at loose in the poultry running around in everyone's back yard.

"Israel-haters"...why is it that the pro-Israeli crowd always attributes "hatred" to their critics? Oh, I forgot - for the same reason that they insist only anti-Semites will criticize Israel. See, Israel always has to monopolize victim-status.

The reason why US politicians debase themselves in front of a foreign power which has often acted directly against US interests isn't because of the "electorate" - its because of the Israeli lobby.

Go read about it here:

[T]he thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.

And now they're pressing the US to send some more Americans to kill and die for Israel too:

More on the Israeli lobby activities that we're all not supposed to talk about:

When we asked [General Wesley Clark] what made him so sure the Bush administration was headed in this direction (bombing Iran), he replied: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/dc-notes-wes-clark-is-_b_37837.html

If you size them all up, I think you'll want to draft Al Gore or petition Chuck Hagel to join the Democratic Party. We need a grown up with the courage to challenge conventional wisdom and with the ability to see farther than the next opinion poll.

Well. Good for you, Sage. Somehow, your reference to President McCain muddied the waters a bit.

Is that your order of preference? The Forward thinks Edwards sounds like Joe Lieberman on Iran and mentions he ran to the right of Kerry on Israel and the ME during his nomination run in 2004.It also has an informative article about where Jewish campaign money is going. Hillary is the big winner and evidently "has personally proved herself to the Jewish community on Israel, on which she was once questioned.”
http://www.forward.com/articles/hillary-the-favorite-in-race-for-jewish-donations/

Actually, I don't think most voters care about Israel one way or another. Sorry if that disappoints you.

However, Edward's positions on Iran could cause him some uncomfortable moments as the American voters may not take to the notion that they need to be "educated" on why another pre-emptive war in the ME is a good idea.

Been there, done that already.

I'm not sure how this conversation became about Israel, but I would certainly not put a President's attitude towards Israel as the defining element of foreign policy.

I'm not sure how this conversation became about Israel, but I would certainly not put a President's attitude towards Israel as the defining element of foreign policy.

Interesting. Why not? What do you believe drives our ME foreign policy?  How many hundreds of billions of dollars in aide do you think we provide Israel vs. other countries in the ME and around the globe? How much of a human toll do you think it costs America when it comes to Israel,indeed, being a defining element of our foreign policy.

Ernest,

I would love for the country to be able to move on to a broader discussion of America's place in the world, in which Israel was treated as just one of 200 countries in the world, and the thorny issues of all those other countries were treated in proportion to their size and numbers. We have some of those discussions here, and it would be great to see the discussions really take off nationally and the level of campaign politics. But it seems to me that the "I" country issue sits like a huge anchor in the middle of the national discussion, and weighs down the discussion of so many issues that it becomes a determinant of almost everything else. No real movement or innovation or progress on Middle East affairs is possible because of the crushing burden of pressure groups and orthodoxy. So we drift along fatalistically from one national security mistake to another. It's a sick situation, but that's where we are.

Let's see if any candidate for president manages to stake out some novel view of the US role in the world that is based on something less than 200% support for Israel and its interests as conceived by it's government. Let me know if you spot a single major politician who responds during the primary season to a question about Israel-related issues with something like your statement that there are about 200 countries in the world, and each represents equally thorny political issues. That candidate would be taken to the woodshed faster than you can say "Howard Dean"! Our politicians and majort parties have all convinced themselves that the only path to success in American politics is base, humiliating, abject groveling toward Israel and it's most zealous and uncompromising American supporters. If we want the conversation to move, some politicians are going to have to figure out how to step out and move it.

Right now, the most important foreign policy and national security questions facing the US are clustered around the Middle East. And I already know enough about Hillary Clinton and her positions on Middle East affairs to know that her view about America's proper place and direction in the world are very, very different than mine. I could never trust her not to pursue the same radical, hard line, Israel-centric policies that have landed us in our current messes.

Our politicians and majort parties have all convinced themselves that the only path to success in American politics is base, humiliating, abject groveling toward Israel and it's most zealous and uncompromising American supporters. If we want the conversation to move, some politicians are going to have to figure out how to step out and move it.

OH yeah!  Yet, from what I heard tonight on Hardball, a shift in conversation is virtually impossible. They said that about 70% of political campaign funds comes from the state of California. I found that astonishing. But it certainly underscored why no politician will ever challenge the zealous and ardent pro-Israel supporters in America. The Hollywood big money industry and donors are primarily pro-Israel. It would be political suicide for a Democrat. Bush did not receive much funding from CA...only about 30%.

They invest 10s of millions in political campaign funds and America sends 100s of billions in aide to Israel in perpetuity.

"Actually, I don't think most voters care about Israel one way or another. Sorry if that disappoints you."--lally

You're right: most voters don't care. As long as the vast majority of D.C. decison makers do, that's fine with me.

Israel is treated as just one of hundreds of countries. However, it is more aligned with any other country in their region. Indeed the other countries in their region are responsible for the murder of Americans on a regular basis going back to the late 1960s.

Israel also provides a liason for the U.S. with Turkey and increasingly with India. As is evident by the U.S.'s effort to get Israel to buy Arrow missiels Israel
is also a big customer of the U.S.

Lastly, Israel is fully integrated into the world economy supplying drugs and technology among other things. This means Israel and the Arab World which supply oil and pretty much nothing else will not be treated the same.

Lastly, Israel without U.S. support is very likely to engage in policies that the U.S. really opposes. Because Israelis are going to not kill Arabs because it makes those on the far Left and far Right upset.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

You are citing some good examples, and I have never suggested that it is not in the US advantage to cooperate with Israel. I've worked with a number of colleagues there, both in networking and emergency medicine.

With the Arrow missile, it's probably a little more accurate to say the US financed the development of this indeed useful weapon to the tune of about $2 billion. While it was principally an Israeli development, there certainly was engineering advice from the US.

Much more of a joint development is the (Mobile) Tactical High Energy Laser (MTHEL) project. Where Arrow is more intended to intercept short (SCUD) and medium range (early Iranian Fajr and Shahab) ballistic missiles, MTHEL is a high-rate-of-fire, low-cost-per-shot system that can plausibly shoot down Katyusha, GRAD, and Qassam unguided rockets. It's a very tough technical challenge. Israel is working on another system, for point defense of things like airfields, based on 35mm Oerlikon (Swiss subsidiary of a German company) guns with Israeli electronics.

When last I looked, the US was blocking Israeli sales of the Arrow to India, so it's not clear what Israel adds to US-Indian relations. I will agree that Israeli-Turkish cooperation is a regional force for stability.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

According to this Haaretz article, two of the American presenters, (Gary Samore and Robert Einhorn) and at the Herzliya conference are being considered for senior positions in the next administration should it go to the Dems:

"Samore is a vice president at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, and his name has been mentioned recently as a candidate for a senior position in the next Democratic administration, if it comes to be."

snip

"Dr. Robert Einhorn, also has difficulty estimating when Iran will be able to produce nuclear weapons. Einhorn, like Samore, dealt with proliferation issues in the Clinton administration and early in the Bush administration. Samore was in the White House and Einhorn in the State Department, where he reached served as assistant to the secretary of state. Today he is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. He, too, is mentioned as a candidate for a senior post in the next administration if the Democrats win the presidential election in 2008."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=817030&contrassID=2&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

? Who is assembling a pool of candidates for senior administration positions if a Democrat wins in 2008 and what criteria are they using to vet them? How much independence do Democratic presidents have in assembling their teams? Was James Woolsey forced on Clinton?

Hear, hear.
I do not know what 2008 will deliver for our country or my man, Mr. Barack Obama, but
oh, that the vote may go to the keenest, bravest candidate in the running.
Courage!
I am sorry to dissappoint anaylsts and cynics who think that America is to be saved through tepid support of loud, albeit top-o-the-class, run-of-the-polls politicians like H.C, all the same if she is woman, man, or martian, who calculate "Politics" via "politics", rather than actions via genuine public-mindedness, keen foresight, and courage.
i am sorry to dissapoint conscientious voters who strive madly to vote "smart", that their vote may not be wasted upon someone young, among other things, and "unelectable".
I am sorry to dissappoint earnest "liberals" who read tpmcafe with the fervor of 10,000 (or at least a few bright) suns, (and perhaps i refer also to myself) who look at upcoming presidential campaigns through the lens of conglemerate sensitive public-perception dilemmas that could eventually bring otherwise brilliant statesmen to screeching halts against november skies .
The days of "calculated" votes are being replaced.
Namely, by a phenomenon we might call Reality.
In a day when America must either change drastically or change drastically,
the idea of searching for a "safe" man sounds a little like searching for a comfortable life vest for wallowing about in the pacific ocean. And I am no Nader-banner-carrying, revolution-waging, ex-communist like my mom.
I like to believe i am an independent who hopes the deeply-flawed democratic party might do somehow manage to do something really incredible in the coming years. And so,
I ask americans,
Why need We bow to the Public? We are the public, We are the flour and eggs of this scientifically-dissected public opinion batter.
We will not benefit from orderly, dialectic hedge-spying to see what Mrs. Jones across the street is jotting down in her candidate-ledger when the five-o-clock news comes on.
be mrs. jones. we are mrs. jones.
And at a time when one sometimes enjoys to refer to the state of multi-party politics in the U.S. as rule of the Demorepublicatians, I'd like to challenge the idea that "throwing one's vote away" on the major-party candidate of one's heart leads to some dark and terrible enemy candidate being elected into office by default.
Not that the latter don't get elected. But we all thought we were being clever in 2004 democratic primaries, am I right? And Kerry was our "electable" candidate, unless there is a big elephant sitting behind the coffee table over there....
Well, I believe in smart voting too. and i believe that starts with supporting someone who atleast had the insight, class, and balls to take a good hard look at towards Iraq in 2003 and say to himself,
Nope, there's definitely not enough sand in that dessert to bury all the lies spewing out of 1600 pennsyvania .
It doesn't take fifteen meetings with a team of perspiring advisors to call a rotten egg when you see one. it takes clear head and a stout heart.
81-year-old Katherine across the street from me called it. howard dean called it. Barack Obama called it...
and take it for what we will, I can't actually add any of our other current dem-pack candidates to this roll-call.

What are "Progressive values" that support "Progressive foreign policy"? I've never heard of that. Is this the Strobe Talbot view of the withering of the state?

If someone can answer that one with a coherent architecture based on unifying principles, not just "we are against blank" I would be fascinated.

On the subject at hand, what Hillary, et al think on the matter, Hillary is a "Parking lot hiker".

She is one of those people that goes to the stadium and no matter how many people park near the stadium, she parks all the way out by the edge, near the exit, and then hikes to the game. The idea being that its a little work now and you showed up early, but at the end, all the other poor shmucks will be stuck in a traffic jam and you will be quickly out and gone since you are placed strategically close to the exit.

Hillary knows she is the front runner. She knows that her current rivals must run to the antiwar position, because they can not withstand the heat to generate money and remain flexible. She is leaving herself as much wiggle room as possible. She can take the heat from the far left and remain in tact for the general election where she needs to appeal to the more conservative heartland. The Democrats have become competitive for the first time in years in places like the Mountain states and the plains states. Hillary wants to fight to win in all 50. She doesn't want to mock Red staters, she wants to convince them to vote for her.

She is remaining in a position where she can stand in front of an audience discussing foreign policy and argue that troop levels and intelligence and strategy all are issues that she is keeping an eye on. She wants to appear fully engaged in the war, so that if it begins to completely blow apart, she can be agile as to what to do, if heaven forbid, things begin to go well, she is the only one that appears to have been following the progress. If another 911, were to occur, she also would be the Democrat that appears to be most agile and flexible to changing events. A Democrat that says, "Redeploy now and focus on domestic issues" today will be completely ignored if a major foreign policy crisis occurs in the next 2 years.

She learned from Bill and will not allow her campaign to be steered by external forces.

The key thing for Hillary is she can afford to stand this close to the fire. It even adds suspense to her storyline. There is one lesson learned from Kerry and the OBL tape that came out 3 days before the election (Rove didn't do it, really) that she learned from her 8 years in the White House. Foreign Policy challenges provide a president with high stakes image enhancements and are not dependent on Congress to muck it up. Why are they high stakes? Because the whole rest of the world can muck it up for you. Hillary wants to keep her options open and when she sees the ball coming down, she is the only one able to run over and catch it.

If the far left is upset with her now, when the time is right she can move to their position and they will look at her as if she is "coming home", and she will say, I never left. It will be like that warm feeling you get when voting for Bill, but when you get close to her... a snuggle is just a snuggle.

SeeDee

A passe story, to be sure...but, sage, I respectfully suggest that paranoids like you pose the greatest danger to the best interests of Israel AND Jews...You do more to create and cultivate 'anti-Semitism' than anything else or anyone...period.

a smart guy once said that "States have neither permanent friends or permanent enemies. They have however permanent interests"
a self evident bit of wisdom that has long been plowed under in the "interest" of Israel.
The crisis with Iraq, like the one with Viet Nam, or Nicaragua, is manufactured tripe. It can as easily be unmanufactured by simply changing talking points, which will then be parroted by the Stenographic Press.
It would be amazing to watch how quickly West Bank settlements are withdrawn/removed when our blank check for arms & subsidies is removed.
And it would be amazing how fast World Suicide Jihad will fizzle when our occupation of Iraq, zombie like underwriting of everything Israeli, & end of military support for despotic Mideast thugocracies means they can sort thier own trash.
And since they cant eat sand, they STILL have to sell oil.
Thats a permanent interest.