Would a Beaten Obama Attack Iran?

Real Clear World ^

[jhpigott]

10/26/10 By George Friedman We are a week away from the 2010 U.S. midterm elections. The outcome is already locked in. Whether the Republicans take the House or the Senate is close to immaterial. It is almost certain that the dynamics of American domestic politics will change. The large majority held by the Democrats will be gone, and party discipline will not be strong enough (it never is) to prevent some defections.

Obama now has two options in terms of domestic strategy. The first is to continue to press his agenda, knowing that it will be voted down. If the domestic situation improves, he takes credit for it. If it doesn't, he runs against Republican partisanship. The second option is to abandon his agenda, cooperate with the Republicans and re-establish his image as a centrist. Both have political advantages and disadvantages and present an important strategic decision for Obama to make.

The Foreign Policy Option

Obama also has a third option, which is to shift his focus from domestic policy to foreign policy. The founders created a system in which the president is inherently weak in domestic policy and able to take action only when his position in Congress is extremely strong. This was how the founders sought to avoid the tyranny of narrow majorities. At the same time, they made the president quite powerful in foreign policy regardless of Congress, and the evolution of the presidency over the centuries has further strengthened this power. Historically, when the president has been weak domestically, one option he has had is to appear powerful by focusing on foreign policy.

The Iranian Option

This leaves the obvious choice: Iran. Iran is the one issue on which the president could galvanize public opinion.

[jhpigott]

I have always enjoyed Friedman's work at Stratfor. This is an excellent piece that postulates that this mid-term election cycle is basically going to kill Obama's domestic agenda and that his best chance of getting re-elected would be for him to turn into a "foreign-policy president" and the natural choice would be to go after Iran.

[jhpigott]

ping

[Deagle]

The cynical in me says yes he just might (for the election). The realistic in me says no way...

[ErnBatavia]

This is idiotic; he loves Islam more than America - very plain and simple.

[Psalm 144]

The Saudis would probably be pretty happy if he did attack Iran.

[Badeye]

Would Owe-bama attack Iran? (roaring with laughter)

He’s more likely to attack ARIZONA.

Again.

[svcw]

The headline does not make sense, barry loves islamic fascists.

[airborne]

Not only would he not, 0bama has pretty much told Iran that he would not give Israel warning if we knew ahead of time that Iran was launching a “first strike” attack on Israel!

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=49735

[Vaduz]

The idiot thinks Iran is what a bridge is made of.

[rhombus]

Attack Iran? Obama’s “enemy” is the GOP.

[Secret Agent Man]

I think he’d attack Arizona before he attacks Iran.

[Le Chien Rouge]

Obama won’t attack Iran.

Iran is not his enemy.

He’ll crash the US economy by executive fiats(cap-n-trade) and dare the spineless GOP to impeach him. Obama wants chaos in the US because that’s what community organizers are trained.

[colorado tanker]

I can’t imagine that surrender monkey could morph into a strong foreign policy president. It’s not in his genes.

[Cicero]

He might attack Israel.

[jhpigott]

Normally, I would agree with you guys. But Friedman makes a convincing agrument that this election is going to change the rules of the game. Stratfor/Freidman are very well respected as geopolitical analysts. Read the whole article, he makes some good points.

[boomop1]

This coward won’t lift a hand to protect this country.

[mojito]

This is an interesting scenario, but I don't think it holds for Obama. I can't imagine him, under any circumstances (other than a direct attack on the US - when he would be compelled to respond) launching a military action against Iran. He's too much of a leftist, he's too much a creature of his base, he despises both Israel and the armed forces of the US, and frankly, he wouldn't want to be responsible. His idea of the presidency is non-stop campaigning, tv appearances and lots of vacations. Attacking another country would require him to actually serve in his office, and that he won't do.

[FromLori]

I believe he’s more likely to again betray Israel then to attack Iran

See where Obama’s wrath is headed after midterms
President holding back, believes acting now could harm Democrats

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=220457

[Mad_as_heck]

The only way Obama would take any aggressive military action is for cynical "wag the dog" reasons. He's chomping at the bit to bolt from Afghanistan and throw Israel to the wolves. He believes America is the problem in the world and will only use our power against our interests.

In his heart Obama wants to bomb Tel Aviv, not Terran. The White House is now as much a member of the "Axis of Evil" as Hugo Chavez or the Mullahs.

[FourPeas]

I daren’t reply.