Israel, Iran, DPRK And Election 2008

John Edwards is busy retracing his wording following a Variety.com report claiming he said an Israeli air-strike against Iranian nuclear installations were "Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace." Such rhetoric plays well with the college crowds, but America is not about to stop supporting Israel (and with good reason). Let's not forget that this young upstart came on strong enough in 2004 to warrant a VP nod, but Mr. Edwards just is starting to relive his tendency for missteps and is not going to be his party's nominee in 2008.

As far as I know, all major candidates have said a nuclear Iran is 'unacceptable.' Most Democrats (but most recently John Edwards) are calling for direct bilateral negotiations instead of working through the UN (incidentally, tomorrow is the UN-mandated date for Iran to halt enrichment).

They call for the same direct talks in North Korea even though six-party talks have made recent headway. The real question (which Dems, with the exception of their melodramatic 6 For 06, have avoided in spades) is what course of action is to be taken next. In the North's case, right-wing hardliners have chided a deal made by the State Department's Christopher Hill, likening it to President Clinton's 1994 accord and willfully ignoring that the agreement has been made with all the North's important regional neighbors (Japan, Russia, South Korea and especially China).

As for Iran, here's my prediction: the US will continue to ratchet up hard and soft pressure while pressing the UN to stand firm in its commitments. If the UN fails to stop the Iranian nuclear program, the United States may go as far as providing covert reconnaissance, but expect any air-strikes to be Israeli.