Here’s the Financial Times’s Gideon Rachman on high-level Israeli officials, American hawks, and John Edwards getting together at the shop and here’s his take on the Israeli view of things: “they clearly think that it is most likely that Israel and the United States will soon be faced by the decision over whether to take military action. They hope the US will do it. But the strong implication is that Israel will take action alone if necessary. But they are far from sanguine about the potential regional consequences, in terms of a wider war, terrorism and so on.” Well, I’m not sanguine either, which seems like one of several good reasons not to do it.
Here’s what John Edwards told the audience. It’s not quite as bad a talk as I was initially led to believe. That said, with the United States and Israel drifting in the direction of a disastrous Iran policy Edwards is rather clearly choosing not to push against the drift. How much of this is political expediency and how much is convictions?
UPDATE: Stoller is harsh but fair: “The issue for John Edwards has always been credibility. Why should we trust a man who sold us out on the war vote? His answer is that he’s changed. But has he?” I agree. I understand the political realities here, but I’d be much more inclined to give Edwards slack on this had he shown better judgment in the past.