Democrats Splitting

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable.

Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable, new House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told The Jerusalem Post hours after entering the party leadership position.

The Maryland Democrat said the view is shared by his party, rejecting assertions that the Democrats would be weaker than the Republicans on Iran.

He also said that the use of force against Teheran remained an option.

Hoyer, second only in the hierarchy of the House of Representatives to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is charged with articulating and strategizing on party policy.

This is coming as a real tail twisting surprise for the anti-war wing of the party. Joshua Frank at Press Action says:

...the new House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told the Jerusalem Post that Democrats wouldn’t rule out using force on Iran to block Tehran’s nuclear aspirations. In the past, similar remarks had been made by Democratic leaders Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, along with presidential hopeful John Edwards and Sen. Hillary Clinton. Even superman Barack Obama won’t challenge the Bush administration’s erroneous Iran approach.

As Obama told the Chicago Tribune in September of 2004, “[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action? ... [L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in” given the ongoing war in Iraq. “On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.”

Some other Democrats seem to have come to their senses, and many plan on objecting to Bush’s push for more troops in Iraq, a commonsense position that we should hardly congratulate them for taking. Sen. Harry Reid had initially supported such a surge, but later back-peddled after realizing he’d see repercussions from the antiwar wing of his party.

There you see the dilema of the Democrats. Do what is right, prevent the partition of Irq among Iran, Syria, and Turkey, avoid a genocide, or cave to the anti-war wing of the party.

The same goes double for Iran. If Iran gets the bomb the probability of a nuclear war in the Middle east rises to at least a 70% probability. Possibly as high as 95%. Them is bad odds. It is looking like the Dem leaders who are now in the loop can see the train wreck coming. Do they do the right thing to help America prevail and give the Arab world hope for a more prosperous future (Iraq GDP rose 4% last year)? Or do they cut and run, leaving a worse mess just in time for the '08 elections?

We really are at the point of no good options. I think the Democrats are finding it difficult to be in a very similar position. What ever they do probably means the end of their coalition. I had a little squib about this after the election. They are trying to ride into the future with a team of horses that are pulling in opposite directions. It is going to be tough.

In addition they are in a difficult position with the UN which says we can't leave Iraq until the Iraqis can defend themselves. Democrats in favor of defying the UN? The world has turned upside down for sure if that happens.

Cross Posted at Classical Values