As John Schwenkler notes, Bill Kristol affirms that McCain and Obama have essentially the same view on Iran and broader foreign policy except for Iraq, and Sullivan highlights this with an award (!) without noting that the claim that Obama and McCain are very close in their foreign policy views besides Iraq fundamentally undermines everything Obama purports to represent in foreign policy.  In the one area of policy that is truly screaming out the most for bold and dramatic breaks with the past, Obama largely embraces the failed Washington foreign policy consensus, as some of us have been saying for nearly a year.  While it is somewhat refreshing to hear someone else acknowledge the reality that Obama is utterly conventional in his views on Near East and Israel policies, contrary to the excited warnings of negotiations with Hamas, pressuring Israel over settlements and other red herrings, this is exactly the aspect of Obama’s record and his platform that should give his antiwar supporters pause and make them think about what, if anything, Obama is really likely to change should he be elected. 

Perhaps antiwar voters will decide that they still prefer Obama solely because of his position on Iraq, but there should never be any illusions that he proposes sweeping changes in how the United States acts in the world.

Filed under: foreign policy, politics