Back in May, LiberalOasis sketched out how Democratic leaders can, and should, be frontally challenging the conservative worldview, to best crystallize the choice the people have for our foreign policy direction.

Otherwise, Republicans, despite their massive unpopularity, will continue to dictate the terms of the debate.

Barack Obama's recent foreign policy address was a move in the right direction. As recommended here, Obama challenged the main false premise of conservatism:

The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda's war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq -- which didn't exist before our invasion -- and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan. He lumps together groups with very different goals: al Qaeda and Iran, Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. He confuses our mission.

In doing so, he is able to reframe the terms of the debate and make the case for a fundamentally different foreign policy:

And worse -- he is fighting the war the terrorists want us to fight. Bin Ladin and his allies know they cannot defeat us on the field of battle or in a genuine battle of ideas. But they can provoke the reaction we've seen in Iraq: a misguided invasion of a Muslim country that sparks new insurgencies, ties down our military, busts our budgets, increases the pool of terrorist recruits, alienates America, gives democracy a bad name, and prompts the American people to question our engagement in the world.

By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

It is time to turn the page.

That's a good start, though it needs to be more than a speech and be the basis of a consistent challenge to current foreign policy. That's the only way the ideas in the speech will have a meaningful impact in shaping the debate.

And the current foreign policy is moving.

Today, both the NY Times and W. Post report the White House is planning to amp up the saber-rattling with Iran, by labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization.

No one can say for sure if Bush will launch a military strike in Iran before he leaves office, but it's quite obvious what direction Bush's policy points toward.

Further, the NYT refers to "administration hawks who are pushing for possible military action," so we know it's on the table.

Right now, all the Dem presidential candidates speak of diplomacy with Iran. That's nice.

We know that if Bush doesn't pull the trigger, any Dem successor will engage Iran and avoid sparking a regional war.

But with every Bush move in the direction of confrontation, Dems will be asked if they support that move.

Of course, any such "sanction" could be part of sound policy, if it was believed that we were not hell-bent on regime change, if it was coupled with good-faith negotiation, if there was a carrot to go along with the stick.

But none of those ifs are in effect.

Yet without having a clearly understood foreign policy alternative, without challenging the White House's false foreign policy premises, candidates will have no solid footing with which oppose these incremental steps.

It's not orthodox for presidential candidates to get ahead of an issue they can't control. Why stick your neck out when you don't know what's going to happen?

But all of the Dem candidates, especially the non-Clinton candidates, should have no hesitation to address Iran head on.

Clinton, as the front-runner, is highly unlikely to deviate from her basic script. Anyone wanting to beat her needs to create an opening to show why they would be a superior nominee.

By leading on Iran -- not merely saying what you would do in theory, but using your approach to directly challenge Bush every step of the way -- would show primary voters that you have what it takes to deal with whichever World War IV-monger wins the GOP primary.