Guest Author -- The Middle East And The Upcoming U.S. Election
Today we present an article written by one of ChrisWeigant.com's most prolific commenters, "Michale." When I called for article submissions for this month, I said I would not limit the point of view presented, so (to put it mildly) this is not exactly an article I would have written myself. But it is indeed the type of article I'd write (from a very different viewpoint, of course) -- an analysis of the upcoming election and how outside events might change it, for better or worse. So, without further ado, I will turn the CW.com soapbox over to Michale for today.
-- Chris Weigant
The Middle East And The Upcoming U.S. Election
I have been reading a lot that some Israeli leaders are concerned that an attack on Iran might actually strengthen Obama's re-election chances.
If this were true, I would imagine y'all would be hoping and praying for an Israeli attack on Iran. [Editorial note: "smiley" omitted here...]
But seriously, I don't see that happening. While it's true that some Independents and NPAs ("No Party Affiliation") would rally behind Obama if he jumps to Israel's defense (which is by NO means assured) I don't think the number would be large. Reason being that Obama has burned too many bridges with Independents and NPAs for us to switch our vote based on one incident.
Furthermore, if Obama did set this country on another course for war, it would likely dampen his support amongst Democrats considerably. The Left vote would likely be so depressed by Obama's "war mongering" that they would just stay home, muttering "How could we have been so wrong?"
The result? Landslide: Romney
But, as I hinted above, Obama coming to Israel's side is by NO means assured. If THAT happens (which I think is extremely possible) then Obama can count on American Jews deserting him en masse and voting for Romney. Which again, would result in a landslide victory for Romney.
So, it seems to me that an Israeli attack on Iran would all but guarantee a Romney victory.
The other wild card in the Middle East is Syria. If Assad has ANY kind of decent intelligence agency, he knows that Obama is desperate to be re-elected and, by extension, desperate to stay out of ANY kind of action in the Middle East.
This will likely embolden Assad to take more drastic measures in the run-up to the U.S. elections. Assad knows that, short of detonating a nuclear bomb, Obama's administration will be unlikely to take action, regardless of any horror that Assad would unleash on his own people. While there are reports that Obama has stated that use or movement of Syria's chemical weapons would constitute a "red line," it has also been reported that this red line has been breached. Assad has been systematically moving and consolidating his chemical weapons arsenal, perhaps in anticipation of deployment.
Contrary to what Americans (including yours truly) believed in 2008 when they elected Obama, a new era of peace and tranquility has not descended upon the Earth. Things are MORE dangerous now than ever before. Time will tell how this all plays out, but it can be all but assured that the upcoming U.S. Elections will have a profound impact on the stability (or lack thereof) of the Middle East. And, conversely, the stability (or lack thereof) of the Middle East will have a profound impact on the U.S. Elections.
-- Michale
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
So, it seems to me that an Israeli attack on Iran would all but guarantee a Romney victory.
or, like every other thing that was supposed to make a difference in this election, it could have no impact whatsoever. i tend to agree that such an event would not help obama, but i'm decidedly unconvinced that it would make a difference in the other direction either.
Michale,
It's exciting to finally see a piece written by you here at CW.com!
I just have time right now to congratulate you and to say that your analysis proves that irony knows no bounds. Because, it is true that many Israelis believe that Romney is far more pro-Israeli than Obama and that Obama is pro-Palestinian.
It has been my contention, for a period of time that long pre-dates the Obama administration, that many Israelis and many of their leaders fail to grasp what is in their best interests.
Also, it is the height of irony, if also a fact, to suggest that an acute flare-up of one Middle East crisis or another would benefit the election of Romney/Ryan and the Republican cult of foreign policy disaster.
That was a lot to digest and I'll have more later ...
Michale -
Just to show you how wacky the world truly is, I have a friend who is an ULTRA Lefty, and she keeps saying "If Israel attacks Iran, it would guarantee Obama's reelection!" I think she's wrong, but it just goes to show you the full range of opinion on the future. She would be counting on the "rally 'round the president" effect, or perhaps the "don't change horses in mid-stream" thing.
I didn't really have a point to make, just that the range of political opinions never fails to astonish me.
:-)
-CW
Michale
Nice article. I have one issue:
Obama coming to Israel's side is by NO means assured.
Could you explain more your reasons for believing this? As far as I can tell Obama has passed the toughest sanctions ever seen on Iran and his team have been actively hunting down people aiding them (even British banks i.e. Standard Chartered, RBS).
This is a comment I see from right-wing media all the time: Obama has deserted Israel. Like many Obama comments, it is usually rhetoric that sounds good but unsubstantiated by facts - so I'd like to hear your opinions on this...
CW
"rally 'round the president" effect
This is what I believe regarding an Israel/Iran. Of course, I am going to bring things round to facts and statistics where possible ;)
I am sure there is some statistical research out there (if someone would like to look, I don't have enough time just now) that would support a +X% point increase in support for a President during a war/attack. I know, for one anecdotal example, that Thatcher was re-elected in the UK in 1983 just because of the Falklands war. I am sure this effect would trump any disappointed far-left-anti-war parts of his base...
Joshua,
or, like every other thing that was supposed to make a difference in this election, it could have no impact whatsoever. i tend to agree that such an event would not help obama, but i'm decidedly unconvinced that it would make a difference in the other direction either.
Like everything, the devil is in the details.
It probably sounds obvious. but the attack itself would not be any big deal, it would be Obama's reaction to the attack, the aftermath that will determine the election..
To be honest, I can't see ANY way that Obama could come out on top. An Iran attack would crystallize Obama's entire problem to perfect clarity.
If he pleases the Center, he loses the Left. If he caters to the Left, he loses the Center.
I don't even mention the Right because it is unlikely Obama could do ANYTHING (short of disappearing) that would please the Right.
He simply CAN'T win the election without both the Center and the Left. And the Center is the key.
“Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity”
-William Butler Yeats
Especially apropos....
Liz,
It's exciting to finally see a piece written by you here at CW.com!
Yea, me too.. It actually started out as just a comment to one of your comments in the last FTP. Then it occurred to me, with a little fleshing out, it might make a good commentary..
Ya know we don't agree vis a vis who is the better friend to Israel. However, it is undeniable that Romney has the better personal relationship with Netanyahu. They are already friends from way back.. Obama has made his feelings about Binnie very clear...
CW,
I think she's wrong, but it just goes to show you the full range of opinion on the future. She would be counting on the "rally 'round the president" effect, or perhaps the "don't change horses in mid-stream" thing.
If it were any other time, I would be with your friend on that.
But I honestly believe that the well has been poisoned beyond redemption. I don't even think another 9/11 would result in any coming together.. It would simply intensify the finger pointing and the blame game.
How did we sink so low from the heights of the promise in just 4 short years??
It's sad. It really is sad..
Michale.....
mitchy,
Nice article.
Thanx, mitchy. Appreciated.. :D
Could you explain more your reasons for believing this? As far as I can tell Obama has passed the toughest sanctions ever seen on Iran and his team have been actively hunting down people aiding them (even British banks i.e. Standard Chartered, RBS).
I'll admit that Obama has been tougher against Iran then most (myself included) has given him credit for. I am not talking about the overt stuff.. Sanctions and all that. They won't work. Not against such a psychotic government as Iran..
But Obama HAS been very aggressive on the covert stuff. You can bet that the US had a lot more involvement in the assassinations of Iranian scientists than is known by the general public. And the cyber-attacks were a thing of beauty, no matter WHAT your politics are...
But, as we have seen with the leaks coming out of the White House, re-election is Obama's overriding concern, to the exclusion of all else..
If Obama is convinced that hanging Israel out to dry is the path to re-election, then he would throw Israel under the bus quicker than you could say, "SCHOOLS OUT".
It wouldn't matter if that was the reality or not. If Obama BELIEVES that, then Israel is truly on her own...
That's why I say that Obama's support of Israel is by no means automatic or assured.
I am sure there is some statistical research out there (if someone would like to look, I don't have enough time just now) that would support a +X% point increase in support for a President during a war/attack. I know, for one anecdotal example, that Thatcher was re-elected in the UK in 1983 just because of the Falklands war. I am sure this effect would trump any disappointed far-left-anti-war parts of his base...
As I said above, if this were any other time, I would agree that the "rally around" effect would figure prominently.
I just think that, in the here and now, things are too bad, too far gone to make any kind of rally effect possible..
What is more likely to happen is the Right would go apoplectic, pointing fingers at the Left and saying "SEE!!! THIS is what happens when you coddle terrorists!!! When you give them rights!! When you legitimize their attacks!!"
And the Left would respond with "Coddle terrorists my ass!!! We have been more successful in taking out terrorists than Bush EVER was!!!
Funny thing is, they would BOTH be right...
But yea.. Call my cynical, but I don't see any "rally around" effect happening...
Short of a truly earth-shattering event (giant asteroid hitting the planet, First Contact or Godzilla destroying Tokyo) I don't think ANYTHING will bring the two Partys together..
I wish I was wrong about that, but I don't think I am...
Michale.....
What is more likely to happen is the Right would go apoplectic, pointing fingers at the Left and saying "SEE!!! THIS is what happens when you coddle terrorists!!! When you give them rights!! When you legitimize their attacks!!"
And the Left would respond with "Coddle terrorists my ass!!! We have been more successful in taking out terrorists than Bush EVER was!!!
I kinda got my wires crossed and was thinking along the lines of another 9/11 I mentioned in the previous comment, rather than the response to an attack on Iran...
Mea Culpa...
But the result would be the same. More partisan bickering and less (much less) coming together on common ground..
Michale.....
Terrific article, Michale. Personally, I think this country is so polarized that it wouldn't swing the needle for anyone other than the Jewish bloc — maybe. O carried about 78% of Jewish voters in 2008. But they're so loyal to the Dem party that I think they'd stick with him regardless of how he handled the situation (much the way liberals appear to be sticking with O, despite the many times he's pulled the rug out from under them). Just my hunch.
But they're so loyal to the Dem party that I think they'd stick with him regardless of how he handled the situation (much the way liberals appear to be sticking with O, despite the many times he's pulled the rug out from under them). Just my hunch.
I see where you are coming from.. But I believe that SOME things transcend politics..
I really can't see the Jewish people sticking with Obama if he deserts Israel..
Hell, I even have faith that, for the most part, the Left would not betray their principles if Obama starts another Mid East war..
How about it, people??
If Obama jumps into a war with Iran, would that change your opinion?? Your vote???
Michale.....
An article from two days ago, re: O's Jewish support in Florida:
http://articles.boston.com/2012-08-20/nation/33273210_1_jewish-voters-president-obama-mitt-romney
An article from two days ago, re: O's Jewish support in Florida:
The article brings up a good point.
Obama's refusal to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital indicates that he doesn't have Israel's best interests in mind...
Michale.....
An article from two days ago, re: O's Jewish support in Florida:
The article brings up a good point.
Obama's refusal to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital indicates that he doesn't have Israel's best interests in mind...
i think the article (and many other conservatives) are missing the point entirely. i submit that obama's erosion of support among american jews probably has very little to do with his support of israel, or any other foreign policy for that matter. over half of US jews have university degrees, and over a quarter have graduate degrees. we ARE the "professional left" about which he has complained so much. despite all the bluster in both directions, i think jews as a group tend to see his accomplishments and his faults a lot more clearly than he'd like us to.
we are aware of the challenges he faced in office, both from the situation he inherited and the partisan opposition he has faced ever since. he HAS done SOME good, and has appeared well-intentioned. but even taking these things into account, the president has not shown even a glimmer of the leadership we hoped he would. on the economy, the environment, business, education, he has governed like a banker. at every important juncture it seems he has put the power of organized money before the interests of his constituents.
would romney be any better? probably not, but i can understand some people being so disappointed that they switch sides just for the chance at something different.
CW,
But it is indeed the type of article I'd write
A higher praise I can not imagine.. :D Thanx CW
Michale.....
Joshua,
that they switch sides just for the chance at something different.
And that's been my point all along..
Many on the Left try to paint Romney as the same old same old from what happened prior to Obama..
But they just don't get how Joe SixPack thinks.
To your average American voter, this election is a choice between Obama's FAILED policies and a change to different policies..
It doesn't matter to the average voter that Romney *might* return us to all the mistakes of previous GOP presidents.
All that matters to most Americans is that Romney represents a CHANGE from the failed policies of Obama...
On that basis, Obama will lose...
Ironically enough, the GOP's argument is exactly the same as Obama's argument in 2008...
"Vote for the other guy if you think the country is on the correct path. Vote for us if you want to change"
I have a feeling that the GOP will be as successful with that message in 2012 as Obama was in 2008..
Michale.....
Hay CW,
Can you check the SPAM filter?? I think a comment I just made was whisked to N.N.L.
Michale.....
[Editor's note: Fixed. If ANYONE sees this sort of problem, please point it out to me and I'll take care of it as soon as possible. I don't know why the spam filter seems to be getting picky at times...]
michale,
another interesting thing that your article has accomplished is making me think of the episode of star trek: the next generation, which most epitomizes the obama presidency. the episode is called tapestry, and it's about picard going back in time and trying to change the mistakes he had made. picard, in trying to make his young self more cautious and "responsible," transforms himself from a great captain into a mediocre junior officer. obama has transformed himself from a great candidate into a mediocre president, in essentially the same manner.
Well, let's see... You've managed to get slapped by one woman, a drink thrown in your face by another and alienate your two best friends. Doing pretty well so far.
~Q
joshua, (and CW, too, for that matter)
The "professional left" is not you!
Not unless you think that Obama/Biden = Bush/Cheney. It was Robert Gibbs who first coined the term when talking about those lefty pundits and bloggers and the like who constantly compare Obama/Biden with Bush/Cheney and see no discernable difference.
I would hope that neither you nor CW would count yourselves among those who suffer from Obama derangement syndrome, the main symptom of which is the belief that Obama is Bush, in every way that counts.
Michale,
[this piece] actually started out as just a comment to one of your comments in the last FTP. Then it occurred to me, with a little fleshing out, it might make a good commentary..
You mean, I was your inspiration! :)
Yes, Romney and Netanyahu as friends and colleagues go way back. But, when it comes to the game of politics, Romney isn't in the same league - or universe, for that matter - as the wily Israeli leader. And, that's how Netanyahu likes his American friends - low maintenance and easy to manage.
Joshua,
another interesting thing that your article has accomplished is making me think of the episode of star trek: the next generation, which most epitomizes the obama presidency. the episode is called tapestry, and it's about picard going back in time and trying to change the mistakes he had made. picard, in trying to make his young self more cautious and "responsible," transforms himself from a great captain into a mediocre junior officer. obama has transformed himself from a great candidate into a mediocre president, in essentially the same manner
That was one of my favorite TNG episodes. Any Trek with Q in it is always fun, but that one was especially awesome..
And you're right. I definitely see the analogy...
"I totally see it. Burns as G'ouald."
-Joe The Barber, STARTGATE SG1, Citizen Joe
:D
Michale.....
Liz,
You mean, I was your inspiration! :)
Credit where credit is due. You were indeed.. :D
Yes, Romney and Netanyahu as friends and colleagues go way back. But, when it comes to the game of politics, Romney isn't in the same league - or universe, for that matter - as the wily Israeli leader. And, that's how Netanyahu likes his American friends - low maintenance and easy to manage.
I can't argue with the possibility... If true, hopefully Netanyahu has the integrity to look out for US interests in the same manner that Romney will likely look out for Israeli interests..
Michale.....
Michale,
I'm not convinced that Netanyahu is prepared to do what is in Israel's best interests, if he even knows how to define 'best'.
I am convinced that a Romney administration, influenced by the seemingly unshakable neocons, would not understand what Israel's best interests are or how to defend them if they did.
And, for once, I'd like to hear what the foolishly hawkish Romney (nothing wrong with being a hawk, you understand) has to say about what a war with Iran would entail for the US and its citizens. Because, let's be clear about one thing - if there is war with Iran, the US will not be watching from the sidelines.
Finally, I would just say that if Obama is to be criticized on the foreign policy front, then the criticism should be very appropriately directed to his policy in Afghanistan ... which is currently in tatters, falling apart at the seams.
Of course, he can't admit that the policy there has been an abject failure because, in view of the toxic and dysfunctional political and media culture he must work within, such an admission and dramatic change of course would be disastrous for his re-election campaign.
In Afghanistan, I think Obama's problem was that he relied too heavily on his military advisors and not enough on the sage advice offered by the vice president.
Michale [11] -
Seeing as how no US president has agreed to this -- Republican or Democratic -- I think Obama's in pretty good company with leaving the embassy in Tel Aviv.
Michale [13] -
Well, the point of view was... um... different than mine (to be polite), but when I thought about it, it was indeed the type of thing I like. Take a "what if" and then try to lay out the repercussions.
I think two things about it, that you may agree with. Well, maybe more than two.
* I think the timing would matter. I think it would play differently if it happened next week rather than the week before the election. Not sure exactly how it'd be different, but it has something to do with what you said about how Obama would react.
* I think Romney would be in the same pickle. Say Obama reacts by doing X. Well, of course Romney's going to say "X is the wrong thing to do" but then he'd have to come up with another plan and say "Y is what we should be doing." He's not known for his ability to think this fast on his feet (at least, from the campaign so far), so this might make him look unpresidential to the public. Remember McCain "flying back to Washington to fix the bank problems"? Didn't work out too well for him.
Crises are always unknowns.
LizM [17] -
What is ironic, to me, is that Obama is now in a "base election" (if you believe the conventional wisdom) meaning his turnout will hinge on how he excites Lefties. Since he spent his first 2 years in office disdaining them, this might be heavier lifting than he thinks.
Michale [20] -
Here's a tough question for you. What happens if an Israeli leader does something that an American president thinks is not in America's best intersts? What exactly would you have him (or her) do at that point? Just curious.
-CW
Seeing as how no US president has agreed to this -- Republican or Democratic -- I think Obama's in pretty good company with leaving the embassy in Tel Aviv.
I disagree. All US Presidents before Obama were just as wrong as Obama is now.
If the Israelis say that Jerusalem is their capital then the US and the rest of the world has to accept it..
Postulate a scenario on how we would feel when we moved the capital of the United States from Philadelphia to Washington DC and the rest of the world refused to accept it because the area once belonged to native americans.
Same concept..
* I think the timing would matter. I think it would play differently if it happened next week rather than the week before the election. Not sure exactly how it'd be different, but it has something to do with what you said about how Obama would react
Agreed. There are so many details that could make an Israeli attack go one way or another. As you say, right before the election vs a month or two before the election. Whether Israel knocks down Iran with a single blow or whether it's a long protracted affair.. This is one of those things where the devil is truly in the details..
* I think Romney would be in the same pickle. Say Obama reacts by doing X. Well, of course Romney's going to say "X is the wrong thing to do" but then he'd have to come up with another plan and say "Y is what we should be doing."
Again, agreed. Hopefully, Camp Romney is smart enough to realize that an Israeli attack on Iran IS likely and that they need an alternative to whatever Obama does...
Here's a tough question for you. What happens if an Israeli leader does something that an American president thinks is not in America's best intersts? What exactly would you have him (or her) do at that point? Just curious.
I guess it would depend on whether or not Israel's actions really ARE against America's best interests.
For example, an Israeli attack on Iran *IS* in America's best interests, just not in the best interests of Obama's re-election campaign.. In that, I honestly believe that, like so many other actions, Obama is putting self-interest before the country's interests...
On the flip side, if Israel decides to attack Jordan, then THAT wouldn't be in America's best interests and I would expect our President to oppose those actions...
Plus the King Of Jordan is a fellow Trekker so I would be personally peeved as well. :D
Michale.....
Seeing as how no US president has agreed to this -- Republican or Democratic -- I think Obama's in pretty good company with leaving the embassy in Tel Aviv.
I disagree. All US Presidents before Obama were just as wrong as Obama is now.
If the Israelis say that Jerusalem is their capital then the US and the rest of the world has to accept it..
Postulate a scenario on how we would feel when we moved the capital of the United States from Philadelphia to Washington DC and the rest of the world refused to accept it because the area once belonged to native americans.
Same concept..
Having said that, I see where you are coming from.
Not acknowledging Jerusalem as Israel's capital is not, in and of itself, "proof" that any given POTUS doesn't support Israel..
In Obama's case, however, it's simply one of many indicators..
Michale.....
And, for once, I'd like to hear what the foolishly hawkish Romney (nothing wrong with being a hawk, you understand) has to say about what a war with Iran would entail for the US and its citizens. Because, let's be clear about one thing - if there is war with Iran, the US will not be watching from the sidelines.
We have heard ad nasuem from the Left what a war with Iran would entail.. And, surprisingly enough, some of it is even accurate...
But what we HAVEN'T heard much about is what a nuclear-armed Iran would entail..
THAT scares any rational person much MUCH more than any ramifications of a war with Iran..
Imagine Hitler with a nuclear arsenal and you will approach the possibilities..
"With the A-bomb, and with their V2 rockets to carry them, Germany captured the world."
-Spock, STAR TREK, City On The Edge Of Forever
Michale.....
Chris,
Do you consider yourself a member of the "professional left", a group Robert Gibbs referred to when he coined the term?
Before you answer that, you would do well to remember how Gibbs defined "professional left" ... he was, by no means, referring to you or anyone like you.
How has Obama disdained the left. If you ask me, it's the other way around. And, if he loses, I don't know how they will look themselves in the mirror. Oh, wait ...
Barack Obama asks eurozone to keep Greece in until after election day
US officials are worried that if Greece exits the eurozone, it will damage President's election hopes
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/barack-obama-asks-eurozone-to-keep-greece-in-until-after-election-day-8076852.html
More evidence that Obama puts self-interests above all else...
Imagine the outcry from the Left if Bush had done things like this...
Michale.....
Michale,
I think you may be missing a possible and, frankly, quite obvious explanation here ...
Maybe Obama believes that his re-election is in the best interests of the country. And, he would be right on the money in that belief.
Incidentally, the re-election of Bush was decidedly and demonstrably bad for the country.
Maybe Obama believes that his re-election is in the best interests of the country.
Oh, I am sure there is no maybe about it. Obama is narcissistic to the point of it being scary.
I am sure he believes 1000% that he is god's gift to this country..
And, he would be right on the money in that belief.
Well, that's two of you who believe that. :D
But I think ya'all will have a hard time convincing the majority of American voters.. :D
Incidentally, the re-election of Bush was decidedly and demonstrably bad for the country.
Perhaps...
But President Kerry would have been decidedly and demonstrably much MUCH worse...
Michale.....
But President Kerry would have been decidedly and demonstrably much MUCH worse...
well if we're playing this game, why not president Gore? no 9/11, no iraq or afghan wars, perhaps even no housing or economic crisis.
well if we're playing this game, why not president Gore? no 9/11, no iraq or afghan wars, perhaps even no housing or economic crisis.
There is no evidence to suggest that there wouldn't have been a 9/11 under Gore..
Chances are good, we would STILL be fighting in court over it..
So you're right that there wouldn't have been any Iraq or Afghan wars..
Of course, once the terrorists saw they could hit us with absolutely NO repercussions, it would have likely resulted in a 9/11 every other month...
Michale....
Of course, once the terrorists saw they could hit us with absolutely NO repercussions, it would have likely resulted in a 9/11 every other month...
assuming that somehow 9/11 did happen under a president gore (which is not exactly a foregone conclusion), do you honestly think that he wouldn't take steps to catch the people who did it? perhaps instead of attacking the entire country with conventional forces, much less invading iraq, gore would focus solely on capturing bin laden, and accomplish the feat before the end of his first term.
my point being, it's really all just speculation.