Eye On the Prize

Every expert cited believes the chances of President Obama bombing Iran to stop their nuclear program is as close to nothing as you can get. I don't agree with that.

So President Obama won't bomb Iran?

One, war with Iran isn't just our decision. We clashed with Iran late in the First Gulf War because Iran made the decision to attack our Navy. I've noted that if our sanctions get effective enough to really hurt Iran, Iran is more likely to take them as an effective act of war and respond with their own acts of war than Iran is likely to give in to our pressure and verify a halt to nuclear programs. So Iran could strike first.

Two, my view of President Obama's foreign policy is that it is made with an eye to how it affects his domestic policy, which is his real priority. If war keeps his political opponents from hammering the president and undermining that domestic agenda, then war it is. If war is inconvenient to that agenda, the war ends--whether the enemy agrees or not.

So I think that a decision to strike Iran or not will hinge on whether letting Iran go nuclear will so damage the president's credibility that he cannot make further progress on domestic issues. This consideration will drop to perhaps near zero after the 2014 Congressional elections and opening months of the 2015 Congressional session. So I think that the president could very well launch a strike sometime in the next couple years. After that? The chance of striking might very well approach nil if President Obama judges he can hand off the baton to his successor even barely.

Consider that unlike President Bush (who I thought would strike Iran before he left office--and perhaps the likelihood of impeachment for that defense of American after Pelosi became Speaker of the House in 2007 stayed his hand), who will really take action against him if he strikes Iran? Glenn Greenwald will be about the limit of outraged commentary, with everyone else on the left willing to hold their tongue if the president fights to keep abortion free and legal. And Ron Paul and CATO on the right.

The president, if you'll remember, has unleashed the NSA and drones, kept Guantanamo Bay open, escalated the war in Afghanistan (for as long as it took to keep his domestic agenda safe), and waged an undeclared war on Libya (not even admitting it was a war at all!), actions which would have gotten President Bush impeached or brought up on war crimes charges in Brussels, or something.

With all that indicating the great latitude that President Obama has to do whatever he wants, do you really think that President Obama couldn't get away with a campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities? When he already has a Nobel-freaking Peace Prize for his potential for nuclear disarmament? His sycophants in the press corps (forgive me for repeating myself) would simply insist this was a muscular nuclear disarmament move! My only question is whether Eleanor Clift or E.J. Dionne would be first out of the gate with the most obsequious defense of slagging Tehran.

So please. President Obama is perfectly capable of ordering our military to take down as much of Iran's nuclear infrastructure as we can reach--and go on Leno that very night (or maybe a fundraising dinner).

Good grief, President Obama would get another prize from Oslo and use them as cuff links.