A.B. Stoddard: Clinton cornered on Iran

Backed into a corner by the historic nuclear arms deal with Iran, Hillary Clinton couldn’t exactly create daylight between herself and the president with whom she helped start the controversial agreement. So she settled for a small pocket of breathing room instead.

Paying lip service to critics of the deal, namely the Israelis, the former secretary of State said that she appreciates the concerns they have, acknowledged the “grave threat” to Israel that Iran represents and said the regime’s “bad behavior is something we have to address.” 

{mosads}Her statement was couched, of course, by the caveat that she was still studying the details. That idea is ludicrous — we all know she had access to the most likely terms days, if not weeks, ago. And, with her reputation as a diligent student, she probably read it twice.

Still, Clinton is on board, stating that the deal is “an important step in putting a lid on Iran’s nuclear program” — quite the opposite description from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said the agreement opened two paths to the bomb for Iran. Simply put, he called it a “historic mistake” that will make the world a “much more dangerous place.”

Not surprisingly, nearly the entire Republican presidential field strongly opposes the deal, setting up the inevitable clash between Clinton, who is the Democratic front-runner, and the GOP nominee over Iran in 2016. It will grow more inevitable should something happen between now and then, such as the Israelis bombing Iranian nuclear facilities or a discovery that the Iranians flouted the agreement even earlier than expected.

In order to leave a proverbial door open, Clinton used a conditional description of the deal to indicate it may not reach its goals. 

“With vigorous enforcement, unyielding verification, and swift consequences for any violations, this agreement can make the United States, Israel and our Arab partners safer,” she said, adding that the United States would “always ensure its Qualitative Military Edge in the region and its capacity to defend itself.”

Yet even while attempting to distance herself from any adverse outcome, Clinton also took credit for helping to launch the direct talks with Tehran in 2013, something she had characterized in her primary campaign in 2008 against then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama as “irresponsible and frankly naive.” The fraught politics of the Iran deal have kept her quiet on the issue for months. She has also dodged positions on other issues she worked on while serving as secretary of State, such as approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline and the trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

While backing President Obama on the Iran deal was critical to her standing in a Democratic primary in which Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) continues to gain surprising support, Clinton will also need the support of Jewish donors and voters increasingly worried not only about Israel’s security but about the fundamental shift in the U.S.-Israel relationship that has occurred in Obama’s presidency. That group of voters is far more hawkish on Iran than the Democratic Party is in general, and Republicans are working hard to win them over. So far, important pro-Israel Democrats — including the likely next Democratic leader of the Senate, New York Sen. Charles Schumer, and Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.), a member of the House Democratic leadership — are skeptical of the deal and vowing to take more time to review it.

Clinton knows well that Jewish support for Democrats has dropped sharply under the administration she worked for. According to Gallup, the percentage of Jewish Democrats went from 71 percent in 2008 to 61 percent in 2012. Republicans know it too, and on the Iran deal they hope to leave her gasping for air.

Stoddard is an associate editor of The Hill.