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
The progressive bureaucracy was the worst problem Bush was unwilling or unable to address. There is no sign that Obama is in disagreement with his State or CIA allies. He is getting ready to hand Afghanistan to the Taliban through negotiations. Why would he bomb Iran?
Not in a million years will he attack a Muslim nation.
Bombing Iran would give 0bamao a bounce in the polls.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Come October, the dems and Bambi will be madly desparate for SOMETHING-ANYTHING to shake the nation’s attention away from the election of GOP candidates. He either bombs Iran or announces on live television that the United States has been in contact with an alien civilization.
THAT’S how desparate they will be.
These two “non-hawks” are “cogently” talking out their collective arses........=.=
IF The One attacks Iran, it can’t go on very long before either the Iranians throw in the towel and the air strikes end, or they don’t and it spins totally out of control, including the closure of the Straits of Hormuz to ALL the oil tankers heading out to the rest of the world. Oil prices skyrocket, and those few Americans who still have jobs are forced to bicycle to work.
If it ends quickly, the Dems will rally round The One. If it doesn’t, he’ll shut down the internet and “postpone” the election “during this time of great national emergency.” either way, it’s all about Him.
Shutting down the straights of Hormuz won’t directly affect us. We get very little of our oil from the gulf.
Unfortunatley, I believe we get a large amount of our oil from Venezuela. Chavez would cut off our supply. We would have to attack Venezuela in that case.
Will we stop at 4 wars or will we need to have more?
The guess here is that Bam & Co. are planning an Oct. surprise to surgically eliminate Iran’s nuke capability or support an Israeli attack. His hatred of Israel won’t matter as power here at home is more important. He’ll get the Jewish support he needs to offset Pubbie gains. Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are very nervous about the Iran buildup and will support such a strike. It’s all about power!!
We may not get a lot of OUR oil via that route, but many of our allies do, including the Japanese. The uncertainty of supply is what will drive up the price...that, and the manipulation of the market by speculators, as happened two years ago.
As to Venezuela, IIRC we get more of our oil from Canada than from Chavez — and his oil has a high sulphur content, which means it’s more expensive to refine. What we should be doing is converting more of our usage to natural gas...of which it appears we have a sizable domestic supply.
So Obama, like Clinton before him, wants to prove to us that he’s a ‘real man’, by lobbing a few missiles?
If Bambi bombs Iran watch all the Soros-paid sleepers, double agent trolls, Stockholm Syndrome pantywaist conservatives and do-gooder pray-for-your-enemy types here bow down to the Kenyan usurper. It’s like Clinton covering his ass during the Lewinski scandal by bombing Serbia. Wag the dog: it’s an instant ticket out of the negative ratings territory for Obomba.
In spite of all that it would almost be worth it to see the evil ayatollah scum get whats coming to them for the last thirty years. Bomb Bambi, Bomb!
Obama wouldn’t dare risk an a$$ kicking from china and Russia.
You got that right. And he would use a nuke on Fox...
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.