Posted on 09/21/2012 5:28:04 PM PDT by Peter ODonnell
What happens to the presidential election if Israel attacks Iran, and/or if Syria boils over into war between Syria and Israel?
Obama has signalled that he is at most cool to the idea of a pre-emptive strike on Iran before the election. Romney has indicated strong approval.
Here's how I think it plays out ... how about you?
If Israel concludes a successful strike and there is not very much immediate follow-up from Iran or surrogates, before election day, then I think it tends to have zero effect on the election outcome.
If the aftermath of an Israeli strike is chaotic, with major Iranian counter-attacks, some on U.S. targets, then Obama would look weak if he did not respond with greater force, but might be able to cash in on the opportunity if he does in fact permit major counter-strikes. So in that case, the effect on the election depends on Obama's response.
If on the other hand the aftermath is worse than chaotic, let's say another event on the scale of 9-11 or massive attacks on Israel, then the election could be plunged into chaose with the economy shoved off stage as the number one issue, and possibly even something like a state of emergency being declared.
Conspiracy theories would start to circulate about who did what and for what reason.
So, what is Netanyahu likely to be thinking? If I were him, I might be tempted to wait and see if Romney wins before launching this long-expected strike. The lateness in terms of good flying weather is a concern although much of this would be done entirely by high-tech systems not requiring visual sightings. The strategic balance is shifting with every month that Iran can use to develop its weapons, but two months might not be a fatal delay.
The big unknown is Syria. Netanyahu has to factor in how events would likely unfold in Syria if there were an attack on Iran. Would that prompt Iran to meddle more directly? Would there be an attack on a nation-state level or would it remain at the Hezbollah-Hamas level?
Both candidates for president must be nervous about this situation. It could help one and hurt the other. But it would introduce a new question not yet being asked very much, who would you rather have in the White House in this developing situation? I'm not an American resident but I get the sense that Obama's support on foreign policy is vulnerable after Libya and unrest in Egypt, and that apologizing on state media in Pakistan will only seem presidential to a few of his most ardent supporters.
I am very concerned for the safety of Israel in this growing climate of anarchy and unrest spreading around the region, and the image comes forth of Nero fiddling while Rome (or Damascus) burns. Add to that any sort of attack on Iran, and the uncertainty grows exponentially.
This is true. I think it would all depend on Obama’s reaction.
The problem for him would be that not supporting Israel would anger a large amount of Jews and really mobilize conservatives. If he did support them and went to war with Iran, his base might turn on him.
Here’s an interesting observation.
Obama is not the beneficiary of the blue-dog Democrats. He has marginalized them and expanded his far left base. I think we can all agree that there is a much higher percentage of far-left loons in the Democrat base than ever before. These are the anti-war, anti-Israel, pro-Islam nutjobs. If there was a war, this could really come back to bite him. They would see it as a betrayal of far left principles and would be bitter about voting for him, meanwhile, we conservatives are still pi$$ed because he’s a socialist usurper.
It may sound optimistic, but this might be a time when the “rally around the flag” effect doesn’t work. It didn’t work for Chamberlain (who, like Obama, caused conflict through appeasement). When the allies retreated from Norway, the politicians and the people of Britain abandoned him and lost faith in his leadership.
We already know Ambassador Stevens was a Muslim, and gay.
we know this how?
Or in this case, “don’t leave your horse’s ass in the middle of a stream”.
An EMP strike over several of Iran’s nuke production sites, Teheran and some key military bases would pretty much destroy both their nuke program and the regime at the same time. Even using nukes to do this, not one window would be broken, but the means exists to do it without nukes. It is the ultimate in assymetrical warfare, and is just far enough outside the box for it to be considered a realistic choice (especially given the do-or-die stakes for Israel).
I dont think anyone cares..
It will have been attacked on Obama’s watch. Period.
I have been pondering this for the past couple of weeks. Now, just my HO, but I don’t think Bibi will strike until the usurper is out of office.
He knows he will get NO support from the US if he does so, perhaps he knows barry will help those trying to destroy Israel.
Once we win this, and come January, when Romney is sworn in, the strike will happen....because Bibi knows Romney will have his back.
Again, just my HO....but Bibi and Mitt go way back. Pretty sure the plan is set.
That’s not going to happen. Read about the Basiji and how children were used to clear minefields and later used to stop the student revolution.
http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/ahmadinejads-world
If Romney wins the Israleis have the US as an allie.
If Obama wins the Israelis don’t have support.
So the Israelis will not strike before the election.
If the Israelis must strike it will be by stealth, using assets already in Iran to sabotage the nuclear facilities.
I hink you’re right on the money.
"Sponsor regime change and take over the country from the inside via surrogates.Kinda like Carter did with the Shah?
Or Obama did with Mubarak?
Or Hillary did with Qaddafi?
Point well made.
Israels hand is being forced by the progress that Iran has made in producing low enriched uranium. They already have over 200 kg of 20% UF6 and that's enough to disperse it to various locations making it much more difficult to destroy, while they finish enriching it to weapons grade.
Israel needs to attack soon, while it can be most effective and they can't count on US support from Obama. They either go now or risk Obama winning re-election or have to wait until next year if Romney wins. The waiting scenarios are not good, either way.
Attacking now offers the element of surprise, with Netanyahu scheduled to be in NY at the UN, Ahmadinejad out of the country and the Jewish holidays. A bonus would be that Ahmadinejad would immediately fly home, putting him in hostile air space at a time when the Israelis can predict where he'll be and make him a target.
Using a nuclear bomb detonated at high altitude over Iran would provide a crippling EMP (ElectroMagnetic Pulse) strike against Irans infrastructure without the negative stigma of the radiation effects of using nukes. Once the electric grid is down, and most of the Iranian defenses, taking out the nuclear development sites becomes much easier.
Israel can cripple the Iranian economy, set back their nuclear program by ten years and destroy most of their military capability and it can be accomplished in 2-3 days.
This is just my personal theory, based on open source knowledge and common sense. It goes without saying that it could be wrong. We'll know in a few days.
p.s. Obama loses more face in foreign policy
If and when Israel attacks things could get very sticky very fast. It depends on U.S. actions and how they're countered by Iranian nuclear-armed surrogates like Russia, Pakistan, North Korea and China.
If there's a big blow-up threatening Israel's existence I have no doubt Israel will go nuclear. What will it have to lose? But it'll be crisis time for the entire world. It's deja vu 1938. I feel the world is at a critical tipping-point.
Gas price, gas price, gas price.
Any conflict will shoot the gas price up, and that’s a tax on everyone who drives a vehicle, flies in planes, or buys things at stores. No matter who Obama tries to blame, people will pin it on him.
So any conflict will hurt Obama.
Gas price, gas price, gas price.
Any conflict will shoot the gas price up, and that’s a tax on everyone who drives a vehicle, flies in planes, or buys things at stores. No matter who Obama tries to blame, people will pin it on him.
So any conflict will hurt Obama.
So a war with Iran would provide short term buying/selling opportunities - say you have OIL and GOLD stocks at the onset of hostilities and you sell higher on fears, then go into commodities that have dropped and ride them up when everything returns to normal.
At that point, if you understand what you are investing in you could turn 50-60% profits (IRAs would be best).
Yes, I think you are correct on pretty much all of that. If Obama has some big “counterstrike” planned on the “terrorists” (or their baby formula factory) right before the election, we’ll pretty much have confirmation that he arranged this with his muslim buddies as political theatre.
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.