Posted on 10/27/2010 9:35:00 AM PDT by jhpigott
10/26/10 By George Friedman We are a week away from the 2010 U.S. midterm elections. The outcome is already locked in. Whether the Republicans take the House or the Senate is close to immaterial. It is almost certain that the dynamics of American domestic politics will change. The large majority held by the Democrats will be gone, and party discipline will not be strong enough (it never is) to prevent some defections.
Obama now has two options in terms of domestic strategy. The first is to continue to press his agenda, knowing that it will be voted down. If the domestic situation improves, he takes credit for it. If it doesn't, he runs against Republican partisanship. The second option is to abandon his agenda, cooperate with the Republicans and re-establish his image as a centrist. Both have political advantages and disadvantages and present an important strategic decision for Obama to make.
The Foreign Policy Option
Obama also has a third option, which is to shift his focus from domestic policy to foreign policy. The founders created a system in which the president is inherently weak in domestic policy and able to take action only when his position in Congress is extremely strong. This was how the founders sought to avoid the tyranny of narrow majorities. At the same time, they made the president quite powerful in foreign policy regardless of Congress, and the evolution of the presidency over the centuries has further strengthened this power. Historically, when the president has been weak domestically, one option he has had is to appear powerful by focusing on foreign policy.
The Iranian Option
This leaves the obvious choice: Iran. Iran is the one issue on which the president could galvanize public opinion.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearworld.com ...
ping
The cynical in me says yes he just might (for the election). The realistic in me says no way...
This is idiotic; he loves Islam more than America - very plain and simple.
The Saudis would probably be pretty happy if he did attack Iran.
Would Owe-bama attack Iran? (roaring with laughter)
He’s more likely to attack ARIZONA.
Again.
The idiot thinks Iran is what a bridge is made of.
Attack Iran? Obama’s “enemy” is the GOP.
I think he’d attack Arizona before he attacks Iran.
Obama won’t attack Iran.
Iran is not his enemy.
He’ll crash the US economy by executive fiats(cap-n-trade) and dare the spineless GOP to impeach him. Obama wants chaos in the US because that’s what community organizers are trained.
I can’t imagine that surrender monkey could morph into a strong foreign policy president. It’s not in his genes.
He might attack Israel.
Normally, I would agree with you guys. But Friedman makes a convincing agrument that this election is going to change the rules of the game. Stratfor/Freidman are very well respected as geopolitical analysts. Read the whole article, he makes some good points.
This coward won’t lift a hand to protect this country.
I believe he’s more likely to again betray Israel then to attack Iran
See where Obama’s wrath is headed after midterms
President holding back, believes acting now could harm Democrats
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=220457
In his heart Obama wants to bomb Tel Aviv, not Terran. The White House is now as much a member of the "Axis of Evil" as Hugo Chavez or the Mullahs.
I daren’t reply.
Doesn’t have the stones.
Right now, I’m still in the camp of Dinesh D’Souza, who argues that Obama can be explained in terms of anti-colonialism, which was the true “dream of his father” (and grandfather). This logic states that Obama is driven by his pure focused thought that American domestic and foreign policy has been simply “white people exploiting people of color” Personally, I have seen no substantive instances that would argue otherwise, but always willing to listen to cogent arguments to the contrary. If this path remains true, then he will never attack Iran because he would rather Iran destroy Israel (the closest thing we have to a friend in that area of the globe [setting aside the attack on USS Libery, which Obama would see as serving us right]).
I doubt this. Is Osama’s base gonna stand for him starting another war before finishing this one? I don't think so Tim.
Yes, the Saudis are not only worried about Iran but they just might also attempt to go nuclear themselves - not a great prospect. Other Middle East countries would also be affected and the rush to catch up will be a real problem.
I could see the grande jihadist who has been attacking America since day one using a war such as this to rally and mount Americas enemies against America.
To me? Entirely possible.
Lol.
You are, of course, absolutely right. If the mid-terms ago as badly as we all hope and pray, there is a far greater chance that Obama will help empower Iran to attack Israel than launch a US attack on Iran.
The author of the piece is still operating under the illusion that you can judge Obama’s actions and reactions as you would any other US president. But, the fact is, Barack Obama is not like any other US president. As bad as some have been, they still shared a basic love for this nation and commonality of spirit with the American people.
Barack Obama is a Black Muslim Marxist who hates America to the core. He sees America as a colonialist power and a racist nation. And above all, he wants revenge to the depths of his sick, embittered soul.
That’s why he has forced Marxism on the American people. That’s why he has openly ridiculed the American people and is even now planting the very obvious seeds for the race war he hopes to trigger that will ensconce him in power for the rest of his life.
In the Mid East, he has aligned himself with Amadinejad and intends to hand him both Iraq and Afghanistan. And in the end, he — like his Muslim brothers in that horrifying region of hell — full intend to see the Mediterranean red with Jewish blood.
He’s more apt to attack Great Britain.
I agree.
He would only attack Iran if he could ensure that it would be a fiasco that would weaken America further, and although he would love that end, the political price he would pay would be too dear.
Otherwise, the role of CIC is not one that fits his temperament at all. Victory is not something he thinks of in terms of military actions, only in terms of politics.
Based on your reasoning (which is persuasive) what he might attempt which would be a typically weak and half baked solution, would be to resume his “lightworker” costume.
Some monstrously expensive and irrelevant commitments to do-gooder efforts in the Third World, like the genital washing boondoggle in Africa. Congress would not fund it, than he would use that ‘meanness’ to beat on Congress.
It wouldn’t work, but it would be consistent and typical. Some sort of agitation like Jimmy Carter, while still in office.
“This coward won’t lift a hand to protect this country.”
Protect this country? Well, why would a President and Commander-in-Chief do a foolhardy thing like that??
A cornered ‘Rat is capable of doing anything.
Don’t wanna attack Iran.
ESPECIALLY not under Obama.
We don’t seem to be able wage real war anymore. Our troops are amazing, but there are so d@mn many moronic rules that seem to be directed at preventing a real victory.
Until we ditch this PC crap and maybe even the entire “Geneva Conventions” (our enemies don’t abide by ‘em anyway, why should we?) we aren’t going to win or even make a lot of headway.
No. The obvious choice is nothing. There is no remaining issue of any consequence to a majority of Americans that "the great divider" could galvanize public opinion on. None.
He should plan on spending the next two years playing golf and designing his Presidential library.
This is all based on the fact that Obama actually cares about or wants to be re-elected — he rather be a “good one term president”, he wants to be the folk hero to progressives in the history books.
“The Saudis would probably be pretty happy if he did attack Iran.”
No one has ever claimed that Obama is a Shiite, after all.
Fogitaboudit. Obama isn't going to run. And the guy who goes after Iran will end up with Bush's 25% approval rating. The problem the country has is jobs, not Iran.
On the contrary. He is more likely to have a sit down with Imadamnutjob.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Hell no he wouldn’t. Those are his brothers.
A man with no balls, once beaten, still has no balls.
I didn’t say I agree with the all the time, but most take them pretty seriously. Care to elaborate on your “lol”??
This is true for at least two reasons. First: traditionally, there has been far more unity between the parties on crucial matters of state than on domestic priorities. But also: in the past, our Presidents were required to have a decent grounding in foreign affairs as a means of achieving a minimum standard of electability.
Neither of these conditions currently exist in the America of 2010. The Democrat Party has increasingly signed on to a radicalized view of the world in which America is not even a potent but flawed force for good, but a international pariah guilty of multitudinous sins against the developing world, including colonialism, exploitation and racism.
And Barack Obama, for his own part, was nominated and elected to the most powerful office in the land and perhaps, still in the world without any demonstration of basic proficiency in international affairs, diplomacy or military doctrine. Instead, he displayed in the campaign (and continues to display, two years into his Presidency) a superficial and academic understanding of the world; one shot through with platitudes and left-wing shibboleths, but containing nothing that reveals either wisdom or the sort of instinct that might inform it.
This being the case, I find it doubtful that Obama would be willing to do anything of a military nature with regard to Iran except in the case of a direct attack on the United States, and even then - his visceral lack of comprehension when combined with ideological rigidity would almost certainly lead to paralysis. And do not think for a moment that our adversaries have not taken a measure of the man and, I would offer, come to similar conclusions.
Not a snowballs chance in hell in my opinion. This guy wouldn’t attack even if we were directly attacked. He’d apologize...
He is from the Chicago political machine - ALL he wants is to be re-elected.
We will have to agree to disagree then.
“Would a Beaten Obama Attack Iran?”
It’s far more likely that Iran would attack a Beaten Obama. What have they got to lose? Either The One does nothing—a big, big win for the global jihad—or he tries to hit back, and the ensuing chaos puts oil at $300/barrel. The entire left wing of his party rises up in open revolt against “the warmonger.” The newly elected conservative Republicans demand his impeachment, the RINOs and Blue Dogs cave, and there’s nowhere left to hide. He hands the desk drawer keys to Vice-President Bite Me, resigns, and returns to the golf course.
Oh dear Lord.
When I glanced at the headline, I saw this....
Would a Beaten Obama Attack Israel?
And I thought; Yeah. That could happen.
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.