There are 100 United States senators, but many regard Joseph Biden as being in a class by himself. The ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he is recognized as one of the nation’s most influential voices in foreign affairs, the fight against terrorism and nuclear proliferation. On the human side, he is the only senator known to take the train home from Washington (to Delaware) every night and is one of the few who has a son on active military duty.

Q. Some degree of democracy is showing itself in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Egypt. Is the world witnessing a genuine sea change?
A. That depends largely on how we in the United States handle this. Clearly there is a real [desire to] move away from the oppression of the oligarchs who have dominated the countries of this region, with the sole exception of Israel and, to a different degree, Turkey. We are at a historical crossroads. More democratization or a swing to Islamic radicalization depends on our perseverance and enlightened policies, plus a little luck.

Q. How do you see it playing out?
A. Freedom and democracy are two totally different concepts. What we see in Israel is democracy. What we see in many of the Arab countries is a yearning for freedom. Democracy means that you have to give up something, trade something, make bargains in the process. To maintain your freedom, you must make sure that the power doesn’t go to the most powerful denominator. You must build in a free press and market economy and civil society and independent judiciary. To achieve this, you need to yield some of your total freedoms. That is the complicated part, and it’s going to be difficult.

Q. Is peace between the Palestinians and Israelis more on track now with Yasser Arafat’s passing?
A. I see a bit of a drift in the Gaza disengagement plan. I don’t believe Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] has the knowledge or the game plan to keep the radical Palestinian factions from taking potshots at the Israelis as this process rolls out. Prime Minister [Ariel] Sharon is clearly taking significant political risks for this plan, and I’m sure he has to be having some second thoughts on whether it’s going to succeed as he looks to whether or not Abu Mazen is doing all he needs to do on the security front. I sense the plan is on track, but shaky.

Q. What role can the United States play to make it work?
A. I have been calling on our government for months now to pull in the Europeans to the process, so they won’t undercut us as they have in the past regarding Israel.

Q. Is the situation in 2005 different from past scenarios? 
A. Yes. This is the very first time that the leaders on both sides of the dispute genuinely believe the other is seeking to find a solution. That has simply never happened before. We have the good fortune that Arafat has passed from the scene, and more good fortune of having a potential partner in Abu Mazen. I do think it’s important for him to have something to deliver to his people to build a loyal constituency. When the Israelis pull out of Gaza, for example, he should be enabled to announce two days later, as he breaks earth with a spade, that he is going to build a $20 million hospital in Gaza, or a university. Otherwise, the risk is that Hamas might have a very successful day at the elections.

Q. You have given critical support to President Bush’s campaign for democracy and against terrorism. What have you felt most comfortable supporting him on, and what issue do you feel he just doesn’t get?
A. I have supported him on staying in Iraq, no matter what the cost, until we succeed. We must measure success by two criteria: establishment of a stable government in control of its borders and a situation where each of the major factions in the country believes it has a stake in the outcome and in the constitution that must be written. [Bush’s] biggest mistakes have been a failure to broaden the responsibility to make this happen, and failing until very recently to make a genuine, enlightened effort to train Iraqi forces and distribute the billions of dollars in reconstruction in a reasonable way that would show the Iraqi people there is hope for stability.

Q. How do we keep nuclear weapons out of Iran?
A. My greatest criticism of this administration’s foreign policy is that it has been ideologically driven and devoid of reality. As a consequence, important opportunities have been squandered. It has…[named] the ‘axis of evil’ without any game plan whatsoever to deal with it. That cost us opportunities to isolate the theocrats in the Mideast, particularly in Iran, and to encourage pro-democratic movements. With the whole world watching, the [Iranian] clerics smashed the budding democratic infrastructure. Then the Europeans turned up to advocate a diplomatic course. In truth, the Europeans usually do not [do] much more than diplomacy. But lately, we ourselves seem reluctant to pursue diplomacy and have focused more on enforcement. I have urged that the administration sit down with the… European countries that are engaging Iran and strike a Faustian bargain with them: We will put more carrots in our basket if they put more sticks in theirs. [I]n this second [Bush] administration, I assume as a result of Dr. [Condoleezza] Rice’s urging, the president came around to this approach.

Q. How will it work?
A. If Teheran does not negotiate in good faith about their nuclear and missile capabilities, then the Europeans will take them to the UN Security Council and they will be prepared to consider significant sanctions…. For our part, we will move forward with the [World Trade Organization] and add spare parts for their commercial airplanes into the basket. I have no great hope that the Iranian theocrats are going to actually make a deal. But I do know one thing: Without a united front we don’t have much of a chance at all, short of attempting to do what Israel did with Iraq—which is not realistic today since Iran’s entire capability is spread around the country.

Q. Conventional wisdom holds that centrist Democrats don’t get a fair shake in presidential elections because they need to ‘run to the left’ during primaries. Does a commonsense candidate have a solution?
A. If I can be a little bit of a wise guy: We’ll soon find out. The American public is looking for someone who holds firm convictions and is ready to stand or fall on those beliefs. I really think there is no possibility of a Democrat being elected president unless his or her bona fides are absolutely clear to the American people, who want an individual who can make them safe. This relates to everything—to perception, to character, to body language and, of course, to programs and policies.

If in order to get the nomination I have to change my central beliefs in any fundamental way—being for a strong U.S. defense capability and understanding that force might have to be used in circumstances where our interests pertain—well, if I had to yield on those principles, I don’t want to be president. I’ll be very blunt. I am more passionate about the issues facing my country today than when I was a freshly elected senator, but I am also a lot less ambitious to hear ‘Hail to the Chief’ played when I walk into a room.

Q. Do you recall a speech you gave some 20 years ago that focused on why ‘dual loyalty,’ a notion that chills many American Jews, was actually a good thing?
A. There is no reason for any American Jew to apologize for his or her commitment to Israel. If there were no Israel, the U.S. would have to invent one. Israel is in America’s national, practical, political, strategic and economic interests. Israel represents a commitment born out of a moral obligation that is felt by people like me, and my support starts in my gut, goes up to my stomach and then to my heart and then to my brain. If I were a Jew, I’d be a Zionist, and in fact I am…a Zionist. I really believe that the well-being of the Jewish people around the world depends on the existence of Israel, and Israel in turn is the beacon that allows guys like me to make the case to go into the Balkans to save Muslims from genocide.