VP Debate: Should the US preemptively bomb Iran?

After nearly 12 months of war in Gaza, more than 40,0000 dead – mostly civilians – a spiraling humanitarian crisis, hostages dead or still in captivity, Hezbollah and Hamas leaders assassinated, a new war in Lebanon where 1 million people may be displaced, charges of genocide, and a ceasefire endlessly elusive, the big foreign policy question of the vice presidential debate?

Should the U.S. launch a preemptive strike against Iran?

Wait. What?

If the CBS moderators wanted to avoid talking frankly about the aforementioned issues which might mean — here it comes — raising criticism of Israel, this was the way to do it. Make it all about Iran.

Question from Margaret Brennan:

“Thanks to joint U.S. and Israeli defensive action, President Biden has deployed more than 40,000 U.S. military personnel and assets to that region over the past year to try to prevent a regional war. Iran is weakened, but the U.S. still considers it the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and it has drastically reduced the time it would take to develop a nuclear weapon. It is down now to one or two weeks time. Governor Walz, if you are the final voice in the Situation Room, would you support or oppose a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran? You have two minutes. Thank you."

Not surprisingly what proceeds from both Democrat candidate Gov. Tim Walz and Republican candidate Sen. J.D. Vance is a brief series of parry and ripostes over who was worse on the Iran issue, a comfort zone during presidential cycles because frankly, no one likes Iran (especially Israel), and everyone would prefer sparring over hypotheticals rather than get their hands dirty with real third rail issues.

Walz comes out a bit weakly on the first question:

“Israel's ability to be able to defend itself is absolutely fundamental. Getting its hostages back, fundamental, and ending the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. But the expansion of Israel (I think he meant Iran here) and its proxies is an absolute fundamental necessity for the United States to have the steady leadership there. You saw that experience today, where, along with our Israeli partners and our coalition, (we're) able to stop the incoming attack. But what's fundamental here is that steady leadership is going to matter.”

At that point he went into a lengthier character assessment of Trump as a fickle supporter of flattering dictators. “Both of his secretaries of defense and national security advisors said he should be nowhere near the White House.”

Then he ends, remembering there was a question: “And as the Vice President said today is we will protect our forces and our allied forces, and there will be consequences.”

Vance’s turn:

"We have to remember that as much as governor Walz just accused Donald Trump of being an agent of chaos, Donald Trump actually delivered stability in the world, and he did it by establishing effective deterrence. People were afraid of stepping out of line. Iran, which launched this attack, has received over $100 billion in unfrozen assets thanks to the Kamala Harris administration. What do they use that money for? They use it to buy weapons that they're now launching against our allies and, God forbid, potentially launching against the United States as well. Donald Trump recognized that for people to fear the United States, you needed peace through strength. …. Now you asked about a preemptive strike, Margaret, and I want to answer the question. Look, it is up to Israel, what they think they need to do to keep their country safe, and we should support our allies wherever they are when they're fighting the bad guys. I think that's the right approach to take with the Israel question."

Walz respons, rightly, that the Obama administration had pulled together a coalition of nations to restrain Iran's nuclear program within the framework of the JCPOA and Trump tore it up once in office. "Now Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than they were before because of Donald Trump's fickle leadership," he charged.

Moderator Brennan asks Vance if Trump made a mistake when he left the deal. Vance’s avoids the question (and doesn't mention that Biden had three years to get back into it) and just says, “diplomacy is not a dirty word.”

He instead puts the onus on the breakdown in wider Middle East security on the Biden-Harris administration. “Iran is as close to a nuclear weapon today as they have ever been. And Governor waltz, you blame Donald Trump. Who has been the vice president for the last three and a half years? And the answer is, your running mate, not mine. Donald Trump consistently made the world more secure. Now we talk about the sequence of events that led us to where we are right now, and you can't ignore October the 7th, which I appreciate Governor Walz bringing up. But when did Iran and Hamas and their proxies attack Israel? It was during the administration of Kamala Harris.”

Interestingly, Vance does not lean back into the Iran preemptive strike question or attempt to outgun his candidate on the issue of its obliteration, much like his Republican colleagues like Nikki Haley surely would have done in his place. Instead he raises the issue of major conflicts writ large as a matter of national security for Americans.

“Ask yourself at home, when was the last time — I'm 40 years old — when was the last time that an American president didn't have a major conflict breakout? The only answer is during the four years that Donald Trump was president.”

Critics will parse this of course but nothing comes close to the major conflicts that the U.S. are helping to fuel today in Israel and Ukraine. The latter got zero air time last night, the former was transformed into an “Iran” issue, meaning no greater insight into how either candidate would deal with the Middle East if Trump or Harris won in November.