The insipid Iran threat debate

Are the presidential candidates actually going to have a debate about whether the threat posed by Iran is comparable to the previous threat posed by the USSR?

Republican John McCain accused Democrat Barack Obama of inexperience and reckless judgment for saying Iran does not pose the same serious threat to the United States as the Soviet Union did in its day.

McCain made the attack Monday in Chicago, Obama's home turf.

"Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment. These are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess," McCain said in an appearance at the restaurant industry's annual meeting.

He was referring to comments Obama made Sunday in Pendleton, Ore.: "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela - these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, 'We're going to wipe you off the planet.'"

A video clip of Obama making the comments was distributed Monday by McCain's campaign.

McCain listed the dangers he sees from Iran: It provides deadly explosive devices used to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq, sponsors terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East and is committed to the destruction of Israel.

"The threat the government of Iran poses is anything but tiny," McCain said.

This strikes me as a classic Washington gaffe. What Obama said is indisputably true -- Iran does not "pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us" -- but McCain is using Obama's comments to suggest that the presumptive Democratic nominee doesn't take the Iranian threat seriously.

Note also how McCain falsely implies that Obama said that the threat posed by Iran is "tiny" (he actually said Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela "are tiny compared to the Soviet Union"). This is similar to the way McCain distorted an Obama joke about Hillary Clinton to suggest that Obama thinks people hunt ducks with revolvers (as documented by Jonathan Chait). Not exactly straight talk, is it?

Comments

[David]

I agree with Brendan that if taken literally, Obama's comment was true. I cannot agree with Obama's reasoning, however. IMHO a judgment of whether the Presidnt should conduct talks with Ahmadinjad without preconditions should be based on an understanding of Iran's situation, not by analogy to some very different past threat.

McCain responded as if Obama's comment about comparative magnitudes was meant to imply that the threat of Iran was small in absolute terms. I don't think that's completely unfair, because IMHO many listeners will hear Obama's comment that way.

Furthermore, other comments Obama has made (or not made) are consistent with the idea that he doesn't see Iran as a major threat. E.g.:

-- His naive suggestion to reverse current US policy that direct talks with Ahmadinajad can only be held if certain conditions were met.

-- His failure to offer a policy to convince Iran to end its nuclear development.

-- His lack of focus on Iran's Qud Forces' continuing military involvement against us and against the elected government in Iraq.

(P.S. I haven't followed all of Obama's speeches. I would invite other commenters to correct me if he has taken strong stands regarding Iran's nukes or the Quds.)

[Rob]

I would have thought that Brendan would welcome a debate about how great a threat is posed by Iran and what our approach should be to Iran. Apparently Brendan is fine with a debate on issues that Obama prefers to stress, but not so much on issues that McCain wishes to address. That seems a little one-sided to the casual observer.

[Brendan Nyhan]

Rob, that's silly. Nothing above says that I'm opposed to a debate about the threat posed by Iran. That's a perfectly valid issue.

[Jinchi]

I would have thought that Brendan would welcome a debate about how great a threat is posed by Iran and what our approach should be to Iran.

This is the debate, Rob.

Obama argues that a nation with a tiny military budget, no long range delivery capability and no actual weapons is a tiny threat compared to a nation that could have destroyed every city on the planet 20 minutes after giving the order to strike (it still can, BTW).

McCain disagrees.

[Rob]

Sorry, Brendan. When you wrote, "Are the presidential candidates actually going to have a debate about whether the threat posed by Iran is comparable to the previous threat posed by the USSR?" I took that to be an indication of your belief that such a debate was foolish. Perhaps it was the term "actually" that led me in that direction. If you think it's fine to have such a debate, we're in agreement.

[David]

Actually, Jinchi, Obama and McCain are arguing past each other. Obama said Iran is a small threat compared to the USSR. McCain siad Iran is a significant threat on an absolute scale. I think they're both correct.

[MSS]

Yes, we should have a debate regarding "whether the threat posed by Iran is comparable to the previous threat posed by the USSR."

So, let me help with this comparison:

Threat posed by USSR: Very large (albeit exaggerated for domestic purposes in its day).

Threat posed by Iran: Tiny (albeit exaggerated for domestic political purposes today).

There, they are indeed quite comparable.