Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Would a Beaten Obama Attack Iran?
Real Clear World ^

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 ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: airstrikes; china; democrats; egypt; energy; france; germany; iran; israel; lebanon; obama; oil; opec; saudiarabia; syria; turkey; unitedkingdom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-81 next last
I have always enjoyed Friedman's work at Stratfor. This is an excellent piece that postulates that this mid-term election cycle is basically going to kill Obama's domestic agenda and that his best chance of getting re-elected would be for him to turn into a "foreign-policy president" and the natural choice would be to go after Iran.
1 posted on 10/27/2010 9:35:01 AM PDT by jhpigott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan; ctdonath2; LibertyRocks; GonzoGOP; b4its2late; bert; maquiladora; hennie pennie; ...

ping


2 posted on 10/27/2010 9:35:54 AM PDT by jhpigott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott

The cynical in me says yes he just might (for the election). The realistic in me says no way...


3 posted on 10/27/2010 9:36:26 AM PDT by Deagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott

This is idiotic; he loves Islam more than America - very plain and simple.


4 posted on 10/27/2010 9:36:51 AM PDT by ErnBatavia (It's not the Obama Administration....it's the "Obama Regime".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deagle

The Saudis would probably be pretty happy if he did attack Iran.


5 posted on 10/27/2010 9:38:13 AM PDT by Psalm 144
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott

Would Owe-bama attack Iran? (roaring with laughter)

He’s more likely to attack ARIZONA.

Again.


6 posted on 10/27/2010 9:38:15 AM PDT by Badeye (I can see NOVEMBER from My HOUSE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott
The headline does not make sense, barry loves islamic fascists.
7 posted on 10/27/2010 9:38:55 AM PDT by svcw (Legalism is enforced revelation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott
Not only would he not, 0bama has pretty much told Iran that he would not give Israel warning if we knew ahead of time that Iran was launching a “first strike” attack on Israel!

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=49735

8 posted on 10/27/2010 9:39:03 AM PDT by airborne (Why is it we won't allow the Bible in school, but we will in prison? Think about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Badeye

The idiot thinks Iran is what a bridge is made of.


9 posted on 10/27/2010 9:39:55 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott

Attack Iran? Obama’s “enemy” is the GOP.


10 posted on 10/27/2010 9:40:16 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott

I think he’d attack Arizona before he attacks Iran.


11 posted on 10/27/2010 9:40:53 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott

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.


12 posted on 10/27/2010 9:41:27 AM PDT by Le Chien Rouge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott

I can’t imagine that surrender monkey could morph into a strong foreign policy president. It’s not in his genes.


13 posted on 10/27/2010 9:41:48 AM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott

He might attack Israel.


14 posted on 10/27/2010 9:42:36 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErnBatavia; airborne; svcw; Badeye

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.


15 posted on 10/27/2010 9:42:48 AM PDT by jhpigott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Deagle

This coward won’t lift a hand to protect this country.


16 posted on 10/27/2010 9:43:00 AM PDT by boomop1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott
This is an interesting scenario, but I don't think it holds for Obama. I can't imagine him, under any circumstances (other than a direct attack on the US - when he would be compelled to respond) launching a military action against Iran. He's too much of a leftist, he's too much a creature of his base, he despises both Israel and the armed forces of the US, and frankly, he wouldn't want to be responsible. His idea of the presidency is non-stop campaigning, tv appearances and lots of vacations. Attacking another country would require him to actually serve in his office, and that he won't do.
17 posted on 10/27/2010 9:43:45 AM PDT by mojito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErnBatavia

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


18 posted on 10/27/2010 9:44:03 AM PDT by FromLori (FromLori)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott
The only way Obama would take any aggressive military action is for cynical "wag the dog" reasons. He's chomping at the bit to bolt from Afghanistan and throw Israel to the wolves. He believes America is the problem in the world and will only use our power against our interests.

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.

19 posted on 10/27/2010 9:44:42 AM PDT by Mad_as_heck (The MSM - America's (domestic) public enemy #1.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott

I daren’t reply.


20 posted on 10/27/2010 9:45:08 AM PDT by FourPeas (Pester not the geek, for the electrons are his friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott

Doesn’t have the stones.


21 posted on 10/27/2010 9:45:20 AM PDT by DGHoodini
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott

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]).


22 posted on 10/27/2010 9:45:21 AM PDT by Pecos (Liberty and Honor will not die on my watch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott
... Iran is the one issue on which the president could galvanize public opinion.

I doubt this. Is Osama’s base gonna stand for him starting another war before finishing this one? I don't think so Tim.

23 posted on 10/27/2010 9:45:42 AM PDT by McGruff (A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

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.


24 posted on 10/27/2010 9:47:14 AM PDT by Deagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott

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.


25 posted on 10/27/2010 9:49:57 AM PDT by himno hero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott
Stratfor/Freidman are very well respected as geopolitical analysts

Lol.

26 posted on 10/27/2010 9:51:24 AM PDT by Hardraade (I want gigaton warheads now!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ErnBatavia

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.


27 posted on 10/27/2010 9:51:35 AM PDT by hampdenkid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pecos

He’s more apt to attack Great Britain.


28 posted on 10/27/2010 9:51:47 AM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 644 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Le Chien Rouge

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.


29 posted on 10/27/2010 9:52:43 AM PDT by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Pecos

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.


30 posted on 10/27/2010 9:53:36 AM PDT by Psalm 144
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: boomop1

“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??


31 posted on 10/27/2010 9:53:40 AM PDT by MichaelCorleone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott

A cornered ‘Rat is capable of doing anything.


32 posted on 10/27/2010 9:54:45 AM PDT by crosshairs (Guns have two enemies: Rust and Politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott

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.


33 posted on 10/27/2010 9:55:40 AM PDT by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Heading, with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGruff
This leaves the obvious choice: Iran. Iran is the one issue on which the president could galvanize public opinion.

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.

34 posted on 10/27/2010 9:56:26 AM PDT by Sooth2222 ("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott

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.


35 posted on 10/27/2010 9:57:08 AM PDT by PMAS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

“The Saudis would probably be pretty happy if he did attack Iran.”

No one has ever claimed that Obama is a Shiite, after all.


36 posted on 10/27/2010 9:57:12 AM PDT by headsonpikes (Genocide is the highest sacrament of socialism - "Who-whom?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott
"his best chance of getting re-elected would be for him to turn into a "foreign-policy president" and the natural choice would be to go after Iran. "

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.

37 posted on 10/27/2010 9:58:04 AM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all things, truth beareth away the victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott

On the contrary. He is more likely to have a sit down with Imadamnutjob.


38 posted on 10/27/2010 9:58:14 AM PDT by Carley (VOTE AS IF YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT, BECAUSE IT DOES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott
As Beck says, the next two years could be the most dangerous in our nation's history. There's no telling what a soon-to-be lame duck impostor Communist president who's lost his congressional majority could do. We've got to be on our toes until January 2013, when the true conservative president that we've hopefully elected takes the oath of office. Then we need to stay on our toes to make sure the conservative president and Congress don't repeat the mistakes of the past.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

39 posted on 10/27/2010 9:59:03 AM PDT by wku man (Steel yourselves, patriots, and be ready. Won't be long now....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott

Hell no he wouldn’t. Those are his brothers.


40 posted on 10/27/2010 9:59:33 AM PDT by mojitojoe (Caractacus..or Bob if a boy & Boudicca if a girl....such hard decisions for dearie Snidely)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott

A man with no balls, once beaten, still has no balls.


41 posted on 10/27/2010 10:02:07 AM PDT by Mariner (USS Tarawa, VQ3, USS Benjamin Stoddert, NAVCAMS WestPac, 7th Fleet, Navcommsta Puget Sound)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hardraade

I didn’t say I agree with the all the time, but most take them pretty seriously. Care to elaborate on your “lol”??


42 posted on 10/27/2010 10:03:34 AM PDT by jhpigott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott
In the past, it would be reasonable, if not entirely predictable to expect an American president who was floundering in domestic matters to move to "change the subject" to foreign affairs.

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.

43 posted on 10/27/2010 10:04:08 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh (America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott

Not a snowballs chance in hell in my opinion. This guy wouldn’t attack even if we were directly attacked. He’d apologize...


44 posted on 10/27/2010 10:05:52 AM PDT by b4its2late (Ignorance allows liberalism to prosper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott
It is more likely that Iran will attack us than Obama which will be tied up in all sorts of investigations and suits.
45 posted on 10/27/2010 10:06:00 AM PDT by mountainlion (concerned conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PMAS

He is from the Chicago political machine - ALL he wants is to be re-elected.


46 posted on 10/27/2010 10:06:31 AM PDT by jhpigott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott

We will have to agree to disagree then.


47 posted on 10/27/2010 10:09:10 AM PDT by airborne (Why is it we won't allow the Bible in school, but we will in prison? Think about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Carley

“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.


48 posted on 10/27/2010 10:11:18 AM PDT by Clioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
President Obama would have to be VERY DESPARATE IN THE EXTREME to go against his natural tendency to bow, submit, appease, whine, beg, give in, crawl, roll over and play dead to any nation that seeks the US harm. He would, literally have to completely change who and what he is in order to launch a strike and then, what would he do with his Nobel Peace prize? No, he could never live with himself if he did the right thing, (attack Iran now).
49 posted on 10/27/2010 10:11:18 AM PDT by Netz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jhpigott

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.


50 posted on 10/27/2010 10:11:40 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (Yes, as a matter of fact, what you do in your bedroom IS my business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-81 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson