That Iran is a campaign issue at all this year - with U.S. troops fighting next door in Iraq and U.S. voters focused on $4 gasoline
- is a measure of the spreading influence and deadly potential of the main U.S. rival in the Mideast.
The debate so far has mostly concerned a false choice: whether or not to talk to Tehran. The political exchanges have obscured what is probably the next president's largest foreign policy challenge, other than the next step in Iraq.
Somehow, some way, the next U.S. president is going to have to confront Iran. Unless there is war, that will almost certainly mean some kind of talking. It may not be face-to-face, as Obama would entertain, but the Republican and Democratic candidates both say diplomacy is the preferred path.
The candidates define their Iran policy partly by their differing positions on the unpopular Iraq war, and partly by a tactical difference on when or how to negotiate with Tehran.
Obama argues that McCain is advocating the same Iran policy as President Bush and that the hands-off approach has failed and only expanded Iran's sway. McCain argues that Obama is naive to think he can talk Iran into better behavior.
"We hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before," McCain said Monday at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Two days later, Obama told the same audience:
"Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing if, and only if, it can advance the interests of the United States."
Obama has said strong presidents talk to their enemies, including the Soviet Union which posed a greater threat to the United States than Iran.
Obama points out that Iran's influence and ambitions expanded during the Bush administration. U.S.-led invasions toppled regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq that were hostile to the West but also had served as counterweights to Iran.
Both McCain and Obama talk primarily of Iran as a threat, although neither rules out that narrowing a three-decade rift could serve U.S. interests.
Both say Iran is a danger to U.S. forces in Iraq and must be deterred. Both say Iran represents a wider threat to the region, particularly U.S. ally Israel, and perhaps beyond. They say Iran must not be permitted to develop nuclear weapons, and accuse Tehran of seeding and funding terrorism.
That's the basic assessment held by the Bush administration and much of the rest of the world, so it's no surprise McCain and Obama share it.
It's more surprising they would use such a similar mix of diplomacy, pressure tactics and the implied threat of American military might to keep the mullahs in check.
Both men would tinker with the basic carrot-and-stick policy that Bush settled on fairly late in his tenure, and which has so far failed to move Iran off a presumed ambition for nuclear weapons.