In yesterday’s post on the Boumediene decision, there was a bit of a side discussion on the likelihood of McCain’s bombing Iran. It seems to me, though, that we may have gotten ahead of ourselves on this. According to Intrade, there is about a 33% chance of McCain’s being elected President. Meanwhile, there is a 25-30% chance that the U.S. and/or Israel will execute air strikes against Israel prior to December 31, 2008.
The possibility that President Bush would engage in a “lame duck bombing” is one that has concerned me for a while now. It seems to me that he wouldn’t want to strike prior to the election, as doing so could cause, shall we say, inconveniences for the Republican candidate. But if Obama were to win the election, and Bush firmly believed both that Iran’s getting nukes was an unacceptable threat and that an Obama administration would do nothing to stop it, he might very well decide that an attack in December or early January was the only way, in his view, to keep America safe.
Exactly what the fall out from such an attack would be is impossible to say. Certainly it wouldn’t make him very popular either at home or abroad. The question is whether people would see the problem specifically as resting with Bush (in which case Obama’s quick succession afterwards would blunt the negative consequences of the attack), or not, in which case the incoming Obama administration would have quite the mess on their hands. It’s not a situation I care to contemplate all that much, but that doesn’t mean the possibility isn’t real.
Has President Bush been one to consider the consequences of his acts of war? I wouldn’t put bombing Iran past him.
Well before you get too far down this imaginative line of thinking, remember that Obama, when it was politically expedient for him, to a jewish audience said that he would take on Iran as well. I don’t think he meant with marshmallows. Oh, and Hillary did as well. I think she said that she would, and I quote “obliterate them”.
So get off the bash Bush train for a moment and listen to what your candidate is really saying, that is if you can keep of with the pandering.
Kyle,
Many are fearful that Bush will more deeply entrench the US in the Middle East quagmire by bombing Iran. It would be one way to swing an election and insure a continuity of Bush’s policy.
Senator Biden has warned Bush directly that attacking Iran without congressional approval would lead to an immediate introduction of articles of impeachment. This indicates a high level of concern among senior congressional leaders.
What is at stake for Bush is his legacy. He knows he cannot succeed in Iraq during the life of his administration. Thus he needs to bind future administrations to his policy. All of which means he is committed to historical success and might well do whatever he thinks will insure that success.
Watch for the movement of ships and air traffic!
Dan,
Obama has never indicated he would bomb Iran. To a rational person, there is more than one way to resolve a dispute.
Dan,
Obama is not my candidate. He has made a number of ill-advised statements (e.g. suggesting we invade Pakistan to find Bin Laden), but I don’t think as president he would actually do what he says. The statements seem, to me at least, to be clear cases of a candidate overcompensating for a perceived weakness.
It’s possible that Obama may be more likely than McCain to get us into war. Yes, that is counter to what he says but he has made some serious misconceptions about US history that could lead to inadvertently getting us into war. A statesman who makes clear where the lines are that must not be crossed can prevent conflict better than one who appears as if there are no limits.
For one example, Obama was 180 degrees wrong about Kennedy’s meeting with Khruschev in Vienna being an example of a successful meeting without preconditions. It did not resolve the Cuban missile crisis as he intimated, it precipitated it. Read the history.
This is a difficult judgment call but I do not feel secure that Obama is a better anti-war candidate than McCain. Theodore Roosevelt said, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” to which I would add “and let potential enemies know what will not be tolerated.”
If Iran gets the NUclear bomb expect troops in some form to stay Iraq fro many many many years
I for one find it very unikely that Bush will bomb the nuclear production sites because it seems almost impossible to gauge success of such a action. It appears to me they have them so spread out and sites harden that it would not produce much. From at least what I have can glem from the news coverage
The President of Iran is a figurehead for the rule of a group of clerics who are cool and rational thinkers–as well as very, very shrewd ones. There is absolutely no evidence for the neo-conservative myth that they are any different from any other past enemy whom we were able to “contain” through a combination of diplomacy and military strength. They are absolutely NOT “madmen” intent on jihadist armageddon or a holocaust of Israel.
On the other hand, of course, they DO want to dominate the region from a geo-political standpoint, and it makes good sense that they would, considering which superpowers hem their region in. This aspiration of theirs can also be managed through compromise, so long as the United States makes some show of giving them what they want–which is the assurance of a Shiah-dominated government in Baghdad that is independent of Washington.
If Bush orders a strike on Iran in his declining days as chief executive, an impeachment procedure against him would be useless. Instead, I hope the military refuses to obey, appeals to Congress and Congress orders him to be arrested. True sovereignty in the American systems rests with Congress, although this has never needed to be tested before. Maybe it will now, because Bush and Cheney ARE ideology-crazed fanatics.
Dig – YES.
Let me state this up front–I do *not* support an attack on Iran. I think it would be very bad idea. As bad an idea as the nuclear technology agreement the Administration made with Saudi Arabia, as grubby a bit of balance of power politics we’ve seen in some time.
But.
Actually, we have no such certitudes about the alleged cool-headedness of the clerics in Iran. Rather like the hidden world of Kremlin infighting, which despite a cold war of two generations and determined espionage remained opaque to the end, we have very little feel for the inner workings and battles of the Islamic Republic. Especially the relationship between the clerics and factions like the Revolutionary Guard. And we have plenty of evidence that the regime is willing to engage in proxy battles and terrorist brinksmanship when it suits them (Hezbollah).
I would also note that the Europeans reflexively celebrated here are very, very concerned about the nuclear program in Iran. More so than our last NIE.
I think in a couple of years we are going to find out whether deterrence will work.
Blackadder,
I’m not a fan of Bush’s foreign policy either, but, you must be smoking some really good crack. Is this blog run by a bunch of teenagers? I feel like I’m watching “Channel One” in my high school home class again. These are luny predictions. Is this a really bad joke? Or are you guys serious. This is one of the craziest blogs I’ve ever seen.
Counter-headline:
“Will Obama Get the Chance to Eat the Heads Off of Even More Fetus’?”
Not very nice is it… sheesh… dissenter Catholics are all alike.
Joseph
There is a difference. No one has yet said Obama eats children. Many people — like Pat Buchanan — have said if McCain is elected, we WILL enter into a way with Iran.
Karlson,
For a second there I thought you had a college education and could figure out what I meant. Obviously I don’t believe that Obama has plans to eat the heads of children. Since my attempt to illustrate the calumnious charges levelled on this blog went over your head, allow me to make an adjustment that you may be able to understand (possibly, I wouldn’t count on it though).
“Will Obama Get the Chance to Kill Even More American and International Fetus’ With His Actual Proposed Policies Than the Amount of Iranians McCain Can Kill Even If He Wanted To Bomb Iran?”
I’m not a Republican or a Democrat, lest that is the next charge out of your mouth. I am Catholic. Remember, you are Catholic before you are Democrat, and there is objective vs. subjective evil. If you can’t understand the difference between the two, then at least make your decision based on the number of innocents each candidate proposes to kill. Obama clearly proposes to kill more human beings at this point in time. Crap, I just caught myself trying to reason with someone on Vox Nova.
Joseph
You said you wanted it as a headline. The difference is that the discussion of McCain is a valid one; yours is to try to act as if it is as silly as saying….Obama will eat babies. The problem is, one is a valid point of discussion, since McCain has raised it in his rhetoric and others note it.
Secondly, I am not Democrat. You would do well to stop proclaiming things about VN and the people here.
Thanks for (not) acknowledging my last comment.
Obama clearly proposes to kill more human beings at this point in time.
I am 100% against Obama’s positions on abortion. But can we PLEASE recognize that claiming that Obama wants to actively kill children (or eat them) is brutally dishonest?
McCain, on the other hand, DOES want to bomb Iran, actively.
[...] Stops War It looks like my previous worries on the subject may prove to be groundless: Israel gave serious thought this spring to launching a military strike [...]
[...] Stops War It looks like my previous worries on the subject may prove to be groundless: Israel gave serious thought this spring to launching a military strike [...]