Chad Herman of TWM commented about how Obama’s answer in the debate about Iranian nuclear weapons was so much less satisfying than Clinton’s. I think it was Washington Week in Review that picked up on this same answer, albeit from Mrs. Clinton. They noted, as did Mr. Hermann, that Mrs. Clinton’s answer indicated an expansion of US policy in the Middle East. They went on to say what a bad idea that would be. Mrs. Clinton was talking about intervening in conflicts between Iran and anyone else. Presumably that would also include conflicts between other players in the region, such as if Libya and Egypt have a dustup. The problem is that the Middle East has seen what happens when we get involved in the area. Under Bush we brought just enough firepower to further wreck Afghanistan and Iraq, but not enough resources to fix either country. Granted, we did bring enough resources to make corrupt officials fabulously wealthy, but we better skip over that.
On this particular point of distinction, I would say Obama gave a reasoned response about how he wouldn’t let Iran get nukes in the first place, but if they did he would deal with the situation at the time based on the circumstances. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, was talking about expanding the US’s role in the region at a time when our popularity is at an all time low. I don’t see how that could be good for us, at least not until we take steps to re-establish our credibility.