Posted on 10/27/2010 9:35:00 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearworld.com ...
A man with no balls, once beaten, still has no balls.
I didn’t say I agree with the all the time, but most take them pretty seriously. Care to elaborate on your “lol”??
This is true for at least two reasons. First: traditionally, there has been far more unity between the parties on crucial matters of state than on domestic priorities. But also: in the past, our Presidents were required to have a decent grounding in foreign affairs as a means of achieving a minimum standard of electability.
Neither of these conditions currently exist in the America of 2010. The Democrat Party has increasingly signed on to a radicalized view of the world in which America is not even a potent but flawed force for good, but a international pariah guilty of multitudinous sins against the developing world, including colonialism, exploitation and racism.
And Barack Obama, for his own part, was nominated and elected to the most powerful office in the land and perhaps, still in the world without any demonstration of basic proficiency in international affairs, diplomacy or military doctrine. Instead, he displayed in the campaign (and continues to display, two years into his Presidency) a superficial and academic understanding of the world; one shot through with platitudes and left-wing shibboleths, but containing nothing that reveals either wisdom or the sort of instinct that might inform it.
This being the case, I find it doubtful that Obama would be willing to do anything of a military nature with regard to Iran except in the case of a direct attack on the United States, and even then - his visceral lack of comprehension when combined with ideological rigidity would almost certainly lead to paralysis. And do not think for a moment that our adversaries have not taken a measure of the man and, I would offer, come to similar conclusions.
Not a snowballs chance in hell in my opinion. This guy wouldn’t attack even if we were directly attacked. He’d apologize...
He is from the Chicago political machine - ALL he wants is to be re-elected.
We will have to agree to disagree then.
“Would a Beaten Obama Attack Iran?”
It’s far more likely that Iran would attack a Beaten Obama. What have they got to lose? Either The One does nothing—a big, big win for the global jihad—or he tries to hit back, and the ensuing chaos puts oil at $300/barrel. The entire left wing of his party rises up in open revolt against “the warmonger.” The newly elected conservative Republicans demand his impeachment, the RINOs and Blue Dogs cave, and there’s nowhere left to hide. He hands the desk drawer keys to Vice-President Bite Me, resigns, and returns to the golf course.
Oh dear Lord.
When I glanced at the headline, I saw this....
Would a Beaten Obama Attack Israel?
And I thought; Yeah. That could happen.
After the election, the much smaller surving Dem caucuses in Congress will be much more liberal, hard left, and anti-war..he’d be at war with his own party AND the GOP..
That’s what I think. See post 50.
” and the natural choice would be to go after Iran. “
In which case, we might be treated to the interesting spectacle of a Republican Congress voting *against* a war declaration or authorization - and, perhaps, even invoking the (Constitutionally suspect) War Powers Act....
It would be more subtle than that.
A surprise strike on Israel by Iran and the US would do NOTHING!!!
Obama wears mama-jeans... send a real man... send in the worms...:^)
I think he’s angling for Secretary General of the UN. His presidency is just his chance to show he’s qualified by proving he can run a world power like it’s a third world rat hole.
Iraq and Afghaniastn are going so well that with a little bit of ingenuity the US could open up a third front in the war to bankrupt the US.
doing so would wipe-out whatever support remains from his leftist base, and would not gain him support from our side on any other issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.