Posted on 07/22/2010 7:23:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Many years ago, I was privileged to attend a dinner with James Rowe, one of the passion-for-anonymity young aides to Franklin Roosevelt, original author of the winning strategy for Harry Truman’s 1948 campaign, and close confidant of Lyndon Johnson.
Rowe described how Johnson tested insider opinion. He would call an ideologically wide range of acquaintances and ask their views on an issue of the day. Most responded as he expected. But when one or two said something he hadn’t expected, he would take notice. Maybe things weren’t going as he thought.
That memory returned as I read three recent articles saying there’s an increasing chance that the United States — or Israel — might bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. One was by Time’s Joe Klein, who has been a harsh critic of George W. Bush’s military policies and a skeptic about action against Iran. Another was by self-described centrist Walter Russell Mead in his fascinating American Interest blog.
Former CIA agent Reuel Marc Gerecht argues cogently in The Weekly Standard that an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would not lead to all the negative consequences widely feared and could shatter Iran’s theocratic regime. This is not out of line with his views over the years.
Gerecht assumes that the United States will not launch an attack. Klein, contrary to his past views, disagrees. He cites American diplomats who feel that Iran’s spurning of a reasonable deal justifies military action and American military officers who say they know more about potential targets than they did two years ago. Also, he says the Gulf-Arab states favor a strike, as evidenced by the United Arab Emirates ambassador’s statement on July 6, saying that one would be preferable to a nuclear Iran.
Klein thinks Barack Obama is still dead-set against bombing Iran. Mead is not so sure. He thinks Obama is motivated by a Wilsonian desire for “the construction of a liberal and orderly world.” Or “the European Union built up to a global scale.” A successful Iranian nuclear-weapons program, in Mead’s view, would be “the complete, utter and historic destruction” of Obama’s long-term goals of a non-nuclear world and a cooperative international order.
This may sound far-fetched. But recall that Woodrow Wilson was reelected in 1916 on the slogan “He kept us out of war.” Then, in 1917, he went to war and quickly built the most stringent wartime state — with private businesses nationalized and political dissenters jailed — in modern American history. A Wilsonian desire for international order is not inconsistent with aggressive military action. Sometimes the two are compatible.
It would be ironic if the professorial Barack Obama launches a military attack when his supposedly cowboy predecessor declined to do so. I remember attending meetings of conservative columnists with Bush in which his words and body language convinced me he would not order the bombing of Iran.
Others were not so sure. The December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate was clearly a bureaucratic attempt to prevent Bush from attacking in his last 13 months in office. It declared on its first page that “in fall 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program,” while conceding in a footnote that “uranium conversion and enrichment,” the most difficult part of a nuclear bomb project, was continuing.
The fact is that Iran has been at war with the United States since 1979, when it seized and held our diplomats for 444 days — an act of war under settled principles of international law. Few in the United States then wanted to regard it as such (though Sen. Pat Moynihan said we should “bring fire and brimstone to the gates of Tehran”).
Later, Iran’s theocratic regime sponsored the 1983 attack on our Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon and recent attacks on our soldiers in Iraq — more acts of war. Six presidents have chosen not to retaliate for reasons of prudence that have much to commend them. War with Iran would be a terrible thing. But one can also believe, as the UAE ambassador incautiously said, that a nuclear-armed Iran would be even worse.
Joe Klein may be right that “this low-level saber-rattling” he describes may be “simply a message that the U.S. is trying to send the Iranians: It’s time to deal.” Walter Russell Mead may be right in saying “there’s a possibility that [Obama] will flinch.” But I take it seriously when these two non-hawks say Obama might bomb Iran. LBJ would have taken it seriously, too.
— Michael Barone is senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner
October surprise?
If “Ears” does it, it will be to save his Presidency and will be just throwing Islam under the bus with everyone else.
If he does go after Iran, it will be because he is forced into it. At that point he will go hide in a closet. He’s afraid of his own shadow.............and his wife.
If he bombs Megan Kelly it's CWII.
Increasingly, I begin to wonder whether Barone is suffering from mental exhaustion.
He is likely to do anything. Who knows? This is the great thrill of handing the most advanced country over to a man who has absolutely no known achievement or accomplishment. Ain’t America great?
If the Demagogues were not heading for disaster at the polls in Nov. I’d say no way will the Obamanation take down Iran.
However, given their desperate need for an attempted “game changer” and given their fervent belief in their Obamessiah, I will no longer be surprised if this happens before Nov.
Note that I am speaking solely in terms of WH domestic political calculations b/c that is all that people like Axelrod and Jarret and Rahm Emanuel really understand and respond to.
If they do decide to do it then of course it will be dressed up in Wilsonian terms, which the Obamanators will have no trouble embracing on a temporary warlike basis, now that their “anyone but Bush” movement has dealt with some political and international realities for 18 months.
If they
Nothing like a good old fashion bombing to take American’s minds off of losing their liberty and country.
Obama?? Bomb Iran?? Right or wrong, making the decision to do that would require gumption. Obama’s got none of that. Now, perhaps, if there were someone he could throw under the bus....
If he bombs Megan Kelly it's CWII.
Someone in his administration has got to be smart enough to be afraid of her.
Probably what Bill Clinton told him. It helped get Monica off the front pages.
if he tries it he can expect the liberal media to work tirelessly to undermine him just like they did to Bush
The tail will wag the dog.
As far as "Bombing Iran" goes, the military considerations are huge. (1)Iran is as big as all of Western Europe. Has vast mountain ranges, deserts, etc. In short: a million nooks and crannies we really don't know much about. (2)No power on Earth, nuclear or not, is going to take out all of Iran's capability in a single raid, or in a month of raids. While we are turning this hellhole into a sheet of radioactive glass, rest assured a few of their missiles will find their way to Tel Aviv.
Want to take out Iran? OK. Reinstitute the draft, raise a 5 million man army, a 600-ship Navy, double the airforce, get the USCG new topsiders, and go for it. In the meantime, The Iranians will be infiltrating suicide bombers over the Mexican Border at a greater rate than now.
Boy o Boy, Kid Kenya is going to just love his new war time powers, and so will every commie czar on his team! Patriotism. The last refuge of a scoundrel.
“If he does go after Iran, it will be because he is forced into it.”
It seems that “O” is impervious to ‘force’ as typically understood. Since he answers to NO ONE, and is accountable to NO ONE, I don’t know where anyone could drive a wedge into his armor.
I don’t even know if the US is in a position to act independently in the ME. After all … Liberals for decades have held up all and any direct remedies with their perpetual demand for all inclusive ‘diplomacy’, such as it is. Their standard policy is to play NO favorites where Israel is concerned. The “O” administration has carried this ME policy prerequisite to its ultimately asinine and dangerous conclusion. (I HOPE this last foolhardiness is the limit of Liberal ME blundering)
• How could the US carry out a strike on Iran with our record of arguing against force and even while YET warning Israel off the game?
• Would “O” have any better, more reliable or less grudging cooperation from other Muslim countries than previous administrations did when the US deployed in the Gulf?
• If “O” receives support for this from OTHER Muslim nations, WHAT will it cost us?
That would be Bibi. Israel should stay away from action on Iran. Let Egypt or some other middle east country do it. They want it but don't have the nads to hit their muzzie friends.
And WH goofball would not get the military on his side. Oh maybe Gates. And if it failed, obeeee would be under the bus by the lefties and most Americans.
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.