Ross and Yglesias have gone back and forth over the degree of Obama’s hawkishness, and both of them almost have it right. Yglesias is correct that “the safe thing to assume on foreign policy is that we’ll keep seeing more of the same — a President who meant what he said when he was a presidential candidate,” but he carefully omits some of the things that Obama said as a presidential candidate that would show Obama’s Iran position to be very close to that of the current administration. When Obama said that all options remained “on the table” (how I hate that phrase) or when he told AIPAC he will do everything in his power to keep Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, these are the things his supporters very much want to believe were necessary electoral gimmicks and nothing more. When he says something encouraging about pursuing Israel-Palestine peace or taking the fight to Al Qaeda, well, that’s different. Ross makes sense when he says, “I have a sneaking suspicion that a President Obama will be slightly more likely to authorize airstrikes against Iran than a President McCain would have been,” but this isn’t just Ross’ sneaking suspicion–there is every reason to assume that Obama would launch such strikes if negotiations with Iran failed (because Obama has effectively said as much), and his perceived lack of “pro-Israel” and hawkish bona fides will probably make him less likely to resist pressure for military action.

This is why the emphasis on Obama’s willingness to enter into talks with “rogue” states was always misleading and its significance overblown: Obama did not and does not disagree about ends concerning Iran, and ultimately he does not rule out using the same means that McCain would also have been willing to use. Obama’s supporters will say, “Yes, but at least he thinks war should be a last resort.” Of course, Mr. Bush says that he believes war is a last resort, too, which doesn’t necessarily make it so.

Update: Jim Antle also joined the debate:

The most thoughtful of the Obamacons — that is to say, the ones who weren’t just voting for fancy book writin’ and against “You betcha!” — were realists or noninterventionists who opposed the Iraq war and any sequels its authors might be planning. If personnel is policy, the last few days of rumors and announcements suggest they are going to be disappointed.

This is right, but Jim’s point against the Obamacons is stronger than he allows here. Long before any of Obama’s likely personnel choices were known, there were many things, including his positions on Iran and NATO expansion, that should have made it clear to realists and noninterventionists that they would be disappointed in an Obama administration. Certainly, they could and did make the argument that he was still preferable to McCain, but their disappointment with such an ambitious interventionist was guaranteed more than a year before he became the Democratic nominee.