First Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu still holds that a pre-emptive strike is the only way to prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons that might, at some point be used against his country.
Up to now he has been held back. Skeptics in his own military worry that Israel alone does not have the capacity to destroy the underground bunkers in which Iran is thought to be assembling a nuclear arsenal.
Meanwhile, U.S. President Barack Obama — whose military does have that capacity — has signaled a reluctance to get involved in yet another Middle East war. But things are changing in the U.S.
Obama faces a stiff election fight this November. The American economy is not recovering fast enough to convince voters that they should give him a second term. Polls done for the New York Times suggest that Obama is still unable to attract enough blue-collar industrial workers in the swing states necessary for his re-election.
Would a war on Iran help the incumbent? In a rational world, the answer is no. The U.S. has just extricated itself from Iraq and is desperate to get out of Afghanistan.
But the world of politics is not always rational. A joint U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran would win Obama praise from those firmly committed to the Jewish state — and that could be enough to give his Democrats the edge in, for instance, the key battleground of Florida.
More important, Americans in general have a habit of uniting behind their president at times of war — at least in the short run.
An American attack on the hated ayatollahs in, say, mid-October could swing so-called hard-hat voters in states like Ohio and Michigan come voting day, Nov. 6. By the time the American public sickened of any new war, the election would be long over and Obama’s second term assured.
Would Obama engage in such a crass electoral ploy? The short answer is yes. Behind the uplifting rhetoric, he is a seasoned and ruthless Chicago politician.
The long answer is that he might believe, or convince himself to believe, that war is justified. A popular war could allow his Democrats to capture enough seats in the House and Senate to end Congressional gridlock and produce a serious economic recovery package.
Some liberal Democrats might complain. But few would be upset enough to deny Obama their votes and thereby risk the chance of Republican Mitt Romney becoming president.
In any case, even liberals might come on side thanks to Iran’s decision to support Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.
For Iran’s hard-liners, the crisis in Syria provides incontrovertible evidence of the need for nuclear weapons.
The West may see Assad as a cruel tyrant battling virtuous freedom fighters. Iran views him as crucial, if feckless, ally who, after foolishly letting Israel destroy his nuclear capacity five years ago, is now on the ropes — facing a devastating civil war fanned by enemies like the U.S. that are able to defy him with impunity.
To Iran, the lessons of history are clear. Iraq’s Saddam Hussein gave up his nuclear program and was unseated by the West. Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi made the same mistake and paid the same price.
When the Iranian leadership says, as it did this week, that it will never abandon Assad and the “axis of resistance,” it is drawing a line in the sand.
Which, of course, only makes it easier for those who would provoke war. The American (and Canadian) public might find it odd to go to war over a theoretical nuclear threat that has not yet materialized.
They will find it easier to attack a nation that is now openly siding with the bloody, Syrian dictatorship.
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Thomas Walkom
No comments:
Post a Comment