Because diplomacy and harsh sanctions against Iran have run their course without the desired results, insiders are forecasting that Iran will be bombed sometime later this Spring or Summer. With or without the United States' permission or support, Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities before they reach the "immunity zone," wherein no bunker-busting bomb can penetrate, in the name of self-preservation. It is unacceptable to the Israelis that Iran acquires nuclear weapons, seeing that Iran's leaders have repeatedly referred to Israel as the "cancer" of the Middle East that needs to be "wiped off the map."
These are certainly some perilous times across the globe, to say the least. Whether we like it or not, this imminent conflict in the Middle East will affect us in profound ways given our historic support of Israel, our presence in the region, and our obvious dependence on foreign oil imports. So I guess I just wanted your insight about some of the following questions regarding this issue:
1) How do you see this impacting the 2012 U.S Presidential election?
2) Given how war-weary this country already is, is there any way we could help our Israeli allies with the Iranian attack without it turning into a multi-year occupation of yet another foreign nation?
3) Are you guys cool with Iran getting a nuke? In other words, should we even be helping Israel at all?
4) How (if at all) does President Obama's recent decision to shut down the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline play into all of this? If we opened up our markets to Canadian oil for refining via Keystone, would there be less of a dependency on Middle Eastern oil? What are the national security implications at play here?
Of course, any other thoughts you might have about the impending Israel-Iran showdown would be welcome as well. Looking forward to hearing what everyone has to say.
I must admit I am no expert in foreign policy. But I will try my best here.
ReplyDelete1. What a mess. It depends on what happens between now and November 2012. If Israel attacks then things could get complicated. I see the GOP as stronger allies to Israel but I really wonder how most Americans feel about getting into another war. I think holding back would be more favorable for Obama with the GOP likely calling for the kitchen sink in case of conflict. If Israel strikes and Iran retaliates, we are in it for the long haul. However, I think this will be a war through the air.
2. Other that increasing sanctions I don't know what else we could do if we didn't want to send troops and military support over. More drone strikes perhaps? I think the sanctions are working, as Iran has said they are willing to come back to the negotiating table. Conditions in Iran are becoming more dire with all the sanctions employed, and hopefully the Iranian people realize that economic stability is more important that gaining a nuclear weapon.
3. Definitely not cool with Iran having a nuke. Actually not super cool with anyone having nukes, including us. A nuclear free world would be a better one in my opinion. But I agree with Ron Paul when he says, if we go to war again then congress should be the one declaring war. At the end of the day, there's no way that Israel lets Iran come even close to them developing a nuke without striking, and then by treaty we are in it if Iran strikes back.
4. I really don't know how much oil we would have gotten out the Keystone pipeline deal. I've tried to find sources but haven't been able to. Most sources are pretty biased one way or the other. Some of the environmental concerns I have read about were legitimate. Some articles I read said estimates of job creation were a bit too generous. One of the concerns was that if the pipeline broke, it could contaminate an aquifer used by 3 million people in the midwest. So in this case I supported Obama in shutting it down, the GOP shouldn't have, in my opinion, given him some arbitrary deadline to decide on it before all the facts came in.
As for Iran, there was a really good unbiased article by NPR that was helpful for me in understanding this debacle.
http://www.npr.org/2012/02/18/147100526/on-the-table-options-for-ending-the-iran-standoff
Life and diplomacy are far more difficult in the age of nuclear weapons. Threats by a country with nuclear weapons must be taken more seriously, making it easier for such a country to provoke preemptive military action simply by talking tough. How can it have escaped Iran's notice that North Korea "gets away" with nuclear sabre-rattling? So while it is important to look at the particulars of each case, it is vital that U.S. foreign policy have some integrity and consistency to it, and not reverse course with each change of administration.
ReplyDeleteI think this is going to be a huge test for Obama. He's already going to have to account for the weak economic recovery, and a whiff on the Israel-Iran situation could be similar to Jimmy Carter's bungling of the Iranian hostage situation, which many credit to helping Reagan get elected (plus the stagflation, of course).
ReplyDeleteI think Bibi Netanyahu (Irael's Prime Minister) would disagree with your assessment of whether the sanctions are "working." I'm pretty sure Leon Panetta, Obama's Sec. of Defense, has also said that the sanctions haven't produced the desired results, which is why an Israeli strike looks imminent.
We live in a nuclear world. It would be nice if we didn't, but I just don't see that changing. No country is going to unilaterally disarm.
And on Keystone XL, the State Department has been gathering the facts and environmental impact studies for over 3.5 years. If never been faced with a deadline, who knows if or when the administration would have EVER made a decision. We fought and won WWII in less time than it has taken for all the "facts to come in." So let's call this dithering punt for what it really is - a political move demonstrating that Obama was not willing to risk upsetting his environmentalist base right before the election. However, I think this will ultimately hurt him with independents than help him with the green crowd, who probably would have voted for him anyway. Regardless of how the numbers may have been inflated by some outlets, there is no denying that it would have created MANY jobs, and the pipeline would have transferred MANY barrels of crude to U.S. refineries. Independents, I think, would have really appreciated it if Obama put the well-being of an economically hurting country as a whole above petty politics. Such a move, I think, would have bought him more net votes than pandering to the greenies.
Opinions vary widely on the Keystone pipeline depending on what source you look at. Based upon the small amount of information I was able to gather, I would have done the same thing that Obama did.
ReplyDeleteDo we really want to get into another war with a country in the middle east? This reminds me of the cold war with Russia, we didn't want them to have nuclear capability, and what happened with that? Nothing. Are we so sure Iran will nuke Israel once they have the capability? I'm not so sure they will. I hear the anti-Israel rhetoric coming out of Iran, but not so sure that will translate into action. I say before we commit more money and American lives to another war in the middle east, let's pull all the diplomatic strings possible. I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice my life over this, so how could I expect any of my fellow Americans to do the same? The last time we invaded a country because we thought they had weapons of mass destruction that they would use at any time ended pretty badly. I say we try to learn from history and not repeat it.
Looks like your boy Bill Clinton wants to 'embrace' the Keystone pipeline:
Deletehttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73445.html
Do we want to go to war with another country? No. I don't, anyway. Israel doesn't want to either. It would be nice if everyone could just get along, right? However, I can't see Israel wanting to call Iran's bluff. Given that Iran has done everything in its power to aid other sworn enemies of Isreal (Hamas) to carry out attacks by way of funding and supplying missles, weapons, etc., Israel has no reason to think Iran is bluffing in its rhetoric. So for Israel, it seems they have two simple options: attack or be attacked. It is a matter of self-preservation, as it always has been for Israel. For our part, we honestly can't afford another foreign war. However, seeing as we have so many interests tied up in that region, any conflict over there will negatively impact us (think sky-rocketing gas prices, for instance) too. It's also interesting to think about what the global ripple effect will be if our other allies watch us hang Israel out to dry with Iran. There are costs there too. To put it simply, it's a complicated situation.
ReplyDeleteAnd in regards to the Cold War, Russia already had nukes, as did we. The Cold War was all about which country, if any, was going to hit the red button first. This is different because Iran doesn't have nukes, but are dangerously close to getting them.
Related:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cc98c9ee-5964-11e1-9153-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1myUSyABX
Tried to read the article posted but it is only available to subscribers.
ReplyDeleteI will concede that rising gas prices (maybe over $5 a gallon?) will hurt the economy and thus Obama. I think Romney can defeat Obama in that case, but I don't think there is a scenario where Santorum can beat Obama. Santorum is way too conservative, and I don't think he has a chance at getting very many women to vote for him. The media is going to eat this guy up. People may not like how much of a flip-flopper Romney is, but at least he could have the very conservative vote (anti-Obama voters) and then pull in independents who think he can bring his experience to the American economy. Santorum will probably only get the conservative side of the nation to vote for him and just get pummeled in the general election.
There is no way I would ever vote for Santorum. Or Gingrich.
I agree. The economy and our fiscal situation are going to take center stage during this election, as they should. Romney has more to bring to the table relating to those issues than Santorum, who places much more emphasis on very conservative social issues. There is a huge gender gap for Gingrich too, given how many wives he's cheated on the moment they get diagnosed with serious illnesses. I think Romney could attract far more women voters and independents to at least be competitive with Obama than either Gingrich or Santorum.
Delete