Edwards Supports War on Iran

Hat-tip to Lindsay: speaking to the Herzliya Conference yesterday, Edwards backed aggressive action against Iran. While he did not condone war explicitly, he used the exact same phrase Bush used when asked about the possibility of a nuclear strike against Iran: “All the options are on the table.”

[Link] All the options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon,” said Edwards, who is running for president for the second time. He also ran in the 2004 election both as a presidential and then as a vice presidential candidate.

In speaking via satellite to the conference from the US, he said Iran’s nuclear ambition represents the single greatest security threat not only to Israel but to the United States as well.

He added that his country had abdicated its responsibility and had not done enough to stop Iran.

Although my description of people who commit a crime, apologize, and then commit another crime was meant to apply to Clinton, Edwards fits the bill perfectly. He voted for the war on Iraq. Then he turned against the war, just as its approval rate sank below the bottom of the Mariana Trench. And now he’s already backing an even more destructive war.

At best, Edwards is just telling the Israel lobby what it wants to hear. But even in that case, it’s impossible to tell what he really thinks, save that he voted for the War on Iraq. I like world leaders who are not wildcards. Wildcards tend to do unpredictable things, like attack random defenseless countries.

At worst, Edwards either supports every war with a higher level of political support than revoking American independence or is a real hawk. In these cases, he’s not a wildcard, but someone who will predictably engage in destructive foreign policy.

I hate to break it to everyone, but labor is a low priority. Whatever Edwards could get Congress to pass would make the lives of about seven low-income Americans better. Any kind of movement that puts throwing Americans a few more dollars above not bombing hundreds of thousands of Iranian civilians deserves to be shown the door to the Republican Party, where that parochial xenophobia is considered a positive.

I might end up grudgingly supporting Obama. In the short run, he’s no more untrustworthy on abortion than Edwards and Clinton. In the long run he wants to build a bridge from the Dominionist movement to the Democratic Party, but that’s easier to reverse than a military strike against Iran.