Pat Dollard | Young Americans

The chief strategists of the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sparred on NBC’s “Meet the Press” this morning over NAFTA, negative campaigning ties to special interest groups–and, especially, when a losing candidate becomes a spoiler.

But Clinton chief stategist Geoff Garin was unable to give a clear response when moderator Tim Russert pressed him on an answer Clinton gave in last Wednesday’s debate that appears to commit her administration to a military strike against Iran if that country strikes Israel or even another Arab country in the Middle East.

Garin said that the Clinton campaign would continue through the last primary–and possibly beyond.

“We’ll go through to June 3,” Garin said, referring to the day of the last primary.

“I think at that point, it will be a very, very close election. Neither candidate’s gonna have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination,” Garin added.

Garin also suggested that the Clinton’s are preparing for a struggle to win the nomination through the votes of superdelegates, even if the former first lady does not prevail among pledged delegates.

“There is more to this process,” Garin said. “The superdelegates, as they are called. This is not about a backroom deal. These are people who are elected officials. They are elected party representatives. In the clear light of day, both candidates I think will make a case to them about why they are the best choice for the party and the country.”

Obama chief strategist David Axelrod said he does not dispute Clinton’s determination to remain in the contest as long as she has “a reasonable chance.”

But, Axelrod added, “If the strategy ultimately becomes ‘We can’t win the delegate count. We really can’t win the nomination on the legit. So we’re going to apply the kitchen-sink strategy and tear down Senator Obama and see if we can destroy him in order to advance our own candidacy,’ that is damaging, that is bad for the party.

Garin was unable to answer when Russert pressed him on the possibility that Clinton intended in a debate answer she gave to commit the U.S. to a military campaign against Iran if it made a military strike against Arab countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Jordan.

Russert quoted Clinton’s answer in the debate, “I think we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course, I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States. But I would do the same with other countries in the region.”

“To my ear,” Russert continued, “that’s suggesting that if Iran invaded or attacked Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Senator Clinton would use U.S. troops and U.S. military power against Iran.

Garin said that Clinton would “take the appropriate steps” against Iran if the country attacked a Middle Eastern state.

“At the moment, I believe that Senator Clinton believes–and many other experts–that Iran is the greatest threat to the stability of the Middle East,” Garin responded.

But, when pressed, Garin begged off on a definitive answer, even as he suggested that Russert’s interpretation was correct.

“Tim, I want to be totally honest here,” Garin said. “I am helping Senator Clinton with her message. I am not her policy adviser. But I think what she is saying is that Iran is a threat. Iran has to know that we take it seriously as a threat. And we’re not going to sit by idly as it gains nuclear strength and gains power in part because of the failures of this administration. And we’re not going to sit idly by and let them attack other countries militarily.”

(The Swamp)