Iran: Bush's Last Gasp Before Obama? Not Likely
I agree with Bernie's latest piece re:Obama's foreign policy options and needs. In his words,
There will soon be three head-to-head debates. To win the election Obama must convincingly win the foreign policy piece; and to do that he must change the terms of debate. He must redefine the world's challenges in a way that demands what he is uniquely equipped to become: a president with, not just the power to deter, but the power to attract. He must, that is, show how terrorism is but a piece of a larger, complex challenge; that in the face of this challenge, we need the ability to 1) build out a system of collective security with other countries, 2) develop regional alliances in all parts of the world based on the common interest of regional players, Middle East, Asia, and Africa, 3) build global institutions for a patently global economy, and 4) win the hearts and minds of young people from Rio to Jakarta.
I've never heard the case for Obama as commander-in-chief, not just for military but for strategic options, put more succinctly. I hope that someone on the Obama team is reading TPM Cafe and its blog sheet!
Alas, I suspect that they also are reading contrary views, and the one that surfaces out here with chilling frequency echoes from Scott Ritter. Scott is astute about diagnosing how wrong Bush-Cheney et al. have been in trying to exaggerate the WMD issue, and also in convincing, or being convinced by, Israeli interlocutors that Iran is the next
nation (after Iraq) to face both the USA and Israel with WMD.
If only Scott stopped there, but he goes on to say that precedent suggests Bush may well elect to bomb Iran IF Obama is elected President in early Nov. The logic? In his own words, "the last executive order of a lame-duck president named George W. Bush might be for the military to launch a limited airstrike against Iran. Then Barack Obama will find himself boxed in with limited maneuver room having to view Iran as a threat and having to deal with the consequences, etc."
I have never believed in conspiratorial theories, from whichever side, under whatever ideological banner, they are proposed, but this one sounds appallingly plausible, and in the face of it, not much about the debates between Obama and McCain will matter. Obama may win the debates and the election, only to find himself pursuing a foreign policy of GWB's doing that will benefit neither America nor Israel nor any other party in the ME.
So is it not likely, as your title says, or likely, as your last paragraph seems to suggest?
And whether Bush does what you consider or not, what makes the suggestion that he will bomb Iran a "conspiratorial theory?" Given all the rhetoric of the past couple of years, surely nobody could claim to be shocked if he actually does go ahead and bomb Iran.
My question is this: If he has decided that he wants to bomb Iran before leaving office, would he choose to bomb before the election or after the election.
September 12, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If McCain gets elected GWB's desire to bomb Iran will be realized. I'm certain McCain will invade Iran if elected. If Obama gets elected then the only way for Bush to get his 'bomb Iran' on is to do it himself. I think it is totally plausible that he may attempt it.
September 12, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce,
regarding your highlighted comment;
That route will certainly entice the intellectual and politically sophisticated voter, but most of the voters are a mile wide and an inch deep. They like their politics simple, black and white, ye'r either with us or agin us. Bumper sticker slogans sell. Mindless banalities are the order of the day.
If Obama gets too deep into the intellectual, just as Gore and Kerry did, he'll lose the election, just as Gore and Kerry did.
Look at the McCain/Obama meeting with that Evangelical pastor a while back. Both were asked what they would do about evil. McCain's answer; "Kill it!" and it brought thunderous applauds. Obama's answer was much better, describing different faces of evil, his reception was tepid.
Obama can't go overboard with nuance.
September 12, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our government isn't going to strike Iran. The strike may very well come from Saudi Arabia who just withdrew from OPEC this week after Iran and Venezuela kept insisting on lowering oil production. Venezuela has now kicked out Ambassador out and we have ordered Venezuela's Ambassador out and froze the assets of two of their diplomats. The Russians have landed two backfire bombers in Venezuela as a sign of solidarity but it of no consequence. It is believed that the bombers have been targeted by SF personnel in country. The battle is now.
September 12, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
OldSarg,
Saudi Arabia attacks Iran? That's the nuttiest thing I ever heard.
September 12, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. We know McCain will do it. But I'm thinking Bush may have gotten enough sense in him not to do it. It all depends on how much power the Cheney faction retains.
September 12, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
If only Scott stopped there, but he goes on to say that precedent suggests Bush may well elect to bomb Iran IF Obama is elected President in early Nov.
I have held that opinion since late spring. I felt that Bush would wait until after the election so not to upset McCain's election chances. If McCain wins, Bush can rest assured that McCain will attack Iran. But if Obama wins, Bush would attack Iran before leaving office.
If Bush attacks Iran Congress should IMMEDIATELY impeach him. I don't care if there are 24-hours left before Obama is sworn in. Start the process so that all of Bush's dirt can be forced to light (no executive privilege protection), and so that his Presidential legacy includes his having been impeached.
September 12, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's conspiritorial about believing that Bush would, once again, attempt to present his successor with a fait accomplis by bombing Iran after the election thus setting up the confrontation he wants but exiting quickly so it becomes the next guy's albatross? Woodward's latest book clearly details how bush's entire war policy in Iraq the past couple of years has been designed to give the next President little or no manuevering room in Iraq and indeed, to bakc he next President into a corner he can't get out of (or withdraw from so to speak). bush is a horrible, stupid, malevolent presence on the world stage.
September 13, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's entirely remarkable that anyone at this stage of the campaign, which has been tilted drastically by the insertion of the purely symbolic Palin, would step forward and see the route to victory emerging from facing a "larger, more complex challenge" with a four part plan that appears to be written in Latin (or at least English so latinate that most citizens will have never uttered any of its key words).
The debates will be "won" by whoever the press declares to be the "winner." This judgment will be based on a phrase or gesture that flicks by in a second but is repeated endlessly on the TV screens, front pages, and in the op-ed columns. After that, the serious business will resume: admiring and reviling Ms. Palin.
September 14, 2008 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey OldSarg, no more Jack Daniels before noon. OK?
September 14, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink