If Israel attacks Iran, what effect on election 2012?

self published, exclusive to FR | September 21, 2012 | Peter O'Donnell

[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.

[Pearls Before Swine]

I’ll suggest there’s one possibility you hadn’t considered: Active betrayal and interference by the US military, directed by Obama. This is less likely before the election (Jews would go nuts) than after, when there is more “flexibility.”

I’m not saying it’s the highest probability prospect. I just wanted to toss it onto your menu.

[American Constitutionalist]

( If Israel attacks Iran, what effect on election 2012? )


Realistically, after what happened last week in Egypt and Libya the spotlight will be on how Obama's, the State Department's foreign policy is a utter chaotic failure ( cluster flop )...
They won't be able to cause this utter failure to be sweep under the carpet.
Israel attacking Iran would once again show how much they are incompetent, that's why they want Israel to wait until after the election to strike Iran.

[plain talk]

There won’t be an attack nor should there be. Neither attack or do nothing are acceptable options. Newt Gingrich has had the right idea all along. Sponsor regime change and take over the country from the inside via surrogates.

[Gay State Conservative]

Although I'm no expert on such matters I can't help but think that an attack before the election would help Osama Obama by giving him the opportunity to play the role of “Wartime Commander In Chief”.If,by chance,I'm correct my hunch is it would cause Israel to hold off until after 11/6 because their government knows that Osama Obama is *not* their friend.

[yarddog]

A crisis usually helps the incumbent sort of like “don’t swap horses in the middle of a stream.

I am not sure if it would work that way this time tho.

[Boogieman]

If they hit Iran, and there was no big mess, then Romney could make a few points by going out and saying he supported their move, and making Obama look foolish, but yeah probably not a big effect. Obama would only really get a boost if we got pulled into a war situation where people were less willing to hand the reins over to a new president.

The thing for Netanyahu is, he doesn’t lose much by waiting a couple months to see what happens over here, but if Romney wins, he potentially gains a huge ally to back his play. Unless he absolutely has to pull the trigger, he is not going to do it before the election, with so much to gain.

[RitchieAprile]

no attack could succeed at taking down the industrial base
without US heavy strategic assets. even a successful attack
would result in chaos in the gold and oil markets.

best option is what mr newt suggested combined with asymmetric activities.

but best it happen soon.

[Puppage]

Pretty much what the left has been doing in our own country.

[American Constitutionalist]

Before what happened last week in the middle east, I would say, yes, it would, might have helped Obama's re-election chances, but now ? all bets are off.....
People, even traditional Democrats ( not his hard core supporters ) in their sub-conscience know that they would rather have Romney at the helm than Obama in a major crises at this point in the game.

[Navy Patriot]

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?

[RaceBannon]

Obama will declare martial law, suspend the elections, and shut off the internet in the ‘threat’ of terrorist activities online directed at the usa

[plain talk]

uh ... no

[Uncle Slayton]

It’s wag the dog with Obama attacking Iran with Israel to create an international crisis increasing his popularity and declaring martial law.

[American Constitutionalist]

Yeah, but Obama could use a excuse or create a Gulf of Tonkin incident to push us into a war with Iran if he see’s a opportunity to improve his polls numbers if he see’s Benjamen Netanyahu taking no action against Iran until AFTER the election.

[plain talk]

It has to be done from the inside. actually there is no other way. The facilities are miles underground beneath mountains of rock. You can’t take them out without nukes and even then how would you know what you took out without sending in teams to see what remains? Plus Iran would just restart the program later.

[SkyPilot]

Unless he absolutely has to pull the trigger, he is not going to do it before the election, with so much to gain.

That may be precisely why Obama asks the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood to start a war before the election. I don't think for a second that Obama would not do this.

We are in surreal territory here. The situation our nation finds itself in today would be utterly unthinkable five, ten, twenty, or thirty years ago. Because of Obama, our nation is on the side of the villains of this world against God and Israel.

Here are some ugly points that the media will never, ever, never acknowledge:

1. Obama hates Israel with a passion - and I believe his hatred is Satanic in nature

2. Obama owes his Harvard education to the Saudis. They got him in (even though he probably didn't have an undergraduate degree) and the Saudis rewarded Harvard with a $20,000,000 "gift." Obama owes them, and it shows.

3. Obama is in collusion with the Muslim Brotherhood. We already know Ambassador Stevens was a Muslim, and gay. Why would Obama appoint a gay Muslim to such a sensitive position? Because all signs point to Obama being a gay Muslim himself.

4. Rep Bachman hit pay dirt in her criticism of Huma Abedin, and her ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. That is why the Democrats, RINOs, and media went ape crazy.

[American Constitutionalist]

" Obama will declare martial law, suspend the elections, and shut off the internet in the ‘threat’ of terrorist activities online directed at the usa "

Yes, he could, but after looking at what happened last week in the middle east ?

In the process of implementing this ? once again they would flubb it up big time and for sure lose the election.

[marron]

I don’t believe a pin-point strike can solve this problem.

A pin-point strike would be a trigger for a very large and bloody conflict that has an unpredictable outcome.

As post 4 says, the only workable outcome is the overthrow of the Iranian regime from the inside. This is bigger than popping a few mullahs, though, so even this is a major undertaking. But doing it from the inside is the least bad solution with the best outcome. Take them down by force and its a generation-long war unless we are prepared to fight the way our grandfathers did.

If these sites are to be attacked by air, we are the only ones with the forces, and the basing, to sustain the kind of air campaign it would take to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, and take down their shore missile batteries, and keep the Straits of Hormuz open to non-Iranian traffic.

This is not something Israel can do. If military force is used, its our baby. Its understandable to hope Israel does the dirty work but I don’t believe a handful of planes operating a thousand miles from home can do this job. We’re the ones with air bases on all four sides of Iran. And a fleet in the Gulf. But even after a strike, its game on, a real shooting war that won’t be over until the regime is removed and rebuilt. That won’t be as easy as removing Saddam, and that cost us 9 years.

Better an “Iranian Spring” and a few hit squads in the shadows.

[Cicero]

We don’t know any of this for sure. But there is reason to believe:

1. That Obama has warned Israel not to attack before the election.

2. That Israel lacks the ability to pull off a completely succcessful attack on Iran’s Nuclear facilities without U.S. help.

That would seem to make a pre-election attack unlikely, unless Israel has solid evidence that Iran plans to stage a nuclear attack on them in the next couple of months.