I've been out of the loop with my travels, and am eager to get back to US election news, since Obama has sewn up the nomination finally (limping over the finish line) and Hillary is set to make the big speech in a couple days dropping out.
It has been interesting talking to Israelis about the election during my stay. They pay a lot of attention to it. "It's more important for Israel than the election of the Prime Minister of Israel," was one comment. All the reports about Israeli views are correct, in my experience. They were rooting for Clinton. They are very wary of Obama. Why? Because he has an Islamic background, and he does not understand the situation the west faces against the threat of Radical Islamic terrorism. Israel is on the front-lines of that struggle, Europe is next, and the US is the rear guard. They were happy with Obama's speech to AIPAC. "He knows he has to flatter us to win." They would much have preferred Hillary. "I feel like this is a family reunion," said Hillary to AIPAC, which was played on Israeli radio.
The view is that the Iraq War was a wasted effort, because the real threat is Iran. Iran must be confronted militarily. That is the hardened position. Obama might not do this, which is worrisome. But the Iraq War was bad because it was a distraction from the real threat, Iran. If the US won't attack Iran, Israel certainly will.
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
12/17/07
Huckabee's rise
Huckabee is now in a dead heat with Romney and Giuliani in Florida. He's in a dead heat with Giuliani nationally. Romney is flailing away with attacks which smack of desperation, and more than likely won't change anyone's mind. Establishment Republicans are also desperate.
New York magazine compares the Huckster to Pat Buchanan:
In 1996, after all, the economy was in the midst of a historic boom, one that was on the verge of kicking into overdrive. Today, the situation is the reverse: Recession looms, the Dow sags, the housing and credit markets buckle. The economy has elbowed aside Iraq as the central locus of voter anxiety.
My prediction has always been that Super-Duper Tuesday is going to be about free media, not advertising, so I don't accept that last part.
Huckabee is starting to look like Buchanan in another area: foreign policy. He has written an article for Foreign Affairs magazine that's very interesting. In it he has strong criticisms of Bush's foreign policy and leadership style. Here's the highlights:
The Bush administration has never adequately explained the theology and ideology behind Islamic terrorism or convinced us of its ruthless fanaticism. The first rule of war is "know your enemy," and most Americans do not know theirs. To grasp the magnitude of the threat, we first have to understand what makes Islamic terrorists tick.
Although we cannot export democracy as if it were Coca-Cola or KFC, we can nurture moderate forces in places where al Qaeda is seeking to replace modern evil with medieval evil. Such moderation may not look or function like our system -- it may be a benevolent oligarchy or more tribal than individualistic -- but both for us and for the peoples of those countries, it will be better than the dictatorships they have now or the theocracy they would have under radical Islamists.
If I ever have to undertake a large invasion, I will follow the Powell Doctrine and use overwhelming force. The notion of an occupation with a "light footprint," which was our model for Iraq, is a contradiction in terms.
[On Iran:] Many Iranians are well disposed toward us. On 9/11, there was dancing in the streets in parts of the Muslim world but candlelit vigils and mourning in Tehran. When we invaded Afghanistan, Iran helped us, especially in our dealings with the Northern Alliance. Hoping for better bilateral relations, Tehran wanted to join us against al Qaeda. The CIA and the State Department supported this partnership, but some in the White House and the Pentagon did not. After President Bush included Iran in the "axis of evil," everything went downhill fast.
The conclusion:
Our history, from the snows of Valley Forge to the flames of 9/11, has been one of perseverance. I understand the threats we face today. When I am president, America will look this evil in the eye, confront it, defeat it, and emerge stronger than ever. It is easy to be a peace lover; the challenging part is being a peacemaker.
"The peacemaker" is the image the campaign would like to portray. Some strong rhetoric against Bush's policies from Huckabee, and it is earning him more denunciations from establishment Republicans. But it's precisely the establishment Republicans that messed up big-time in Iraq. Despite their declinations, that was precisely the reason for the 2006 result. After the primary race is over, whoever the Republican nominee is, he will have to start shifting on Iraq towards a better general election position. Huckabee is doing that right now. He could be playing towards Ron Paul supporters as well.
The rise of Huckabee should, in my opinion, help John Edwards. Huckabee is a dangerous commodity for Hillary to run against. The likability factor could be exploited against her. Huckabee's liberal-leaning positions would triangulate well against Hillary's liberalism. Edwards and Obama are another story. I think Huckabee might beat Hillary, would have less of a chance against Obama, but wouldn't beat Edwards. They are too much alike so that voters would just vote for the party (Democrats) that they want to control the White House. Edwards himself is now talking about his electability.
New York magazine compares the Huckster to Pat Buchanan:
In 1996, after all, the economy was in the midst of a historic boom, one that was on the verge of kicking into overdrive. Today, the situation is the reverse: Recession looms, the Dow sags, the housing and credit markets buckle. The economy has elbowed aside Iraq as the central locus of voter anxiety.
Hence the reason why the rise of Huckabee is causing so much consternation, even panic, among his fellow wannabe nominees. Though nobody sober believes that, even if he emerges triumphant in Iowa, Huckabee can win New Hampshire, his prospects in the next two contests (Michigan and South Carolina) are considerably better. Both are states whose industrial bases have been ravaged by foreign competition. Both have seen their property markets hammered by the credit crunch and the recent wave of foreclosures. And at least in South Carolina, the state that is often the sine qua non for securing the GOP nomination, the Evangelical vote is nearly as significant as it is in Iowa. If Huckabee wins there—and he currently leads—his momentum could prove unstoppable.
There are, naturally, a raft of reasons to doubt this scenario. Huckabee’s lack of money might trip him up on Tsunami Tuesday, February 5.My prediction has always been that Super-Duper Tuesday is going to be about free media, not advertising, so I don't accept that last part.
Huckabee is starting to look like Buchanan in another area: foreign policy. He has written an article for Foreign Affairs magazine that's very interesting. In it he has strong criticisms of Bush's foreign policy and leadership style. Here's the highlights:
The United States, as the world's only superpower, is less vulnerable to military defeat. But it is more vulnerable to the animosity of other countries. Much like a top high school student, if it is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved. But if it attempts to dominate others, it is despised.
American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States' main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists.The Bush administration has never adequately explained the theology and ideology behind Islamic terrorism or convinced us of its ruthless fanaticism. The first rule of war is "know your enemy," and most Americans do not know theirs. To grasp the magnitude of the threat, we first have to understand what makes Islamic terrorists tick.
Although we cannot export democracy as if it were Coca-Cola or KFC, we can nurture moderate forces in places where al Qaeda is seeking to replace modern evil with medieval evil. Such moderation may not look or function like our system -- it may be a benevolent oligarchy or more tribal than individualistic -- but both for us and for the peoples of those countries, it will be better than the dictatorships they have now or the theocracy they would have under radical Islamists.
If I ever have to undertake a large invasion, I will follow the Powell Doctrine and use overwhelming force. The notion of an occupation with a "light footprint," which was our model for Iraq, is a contradiction in terms.
[On Iran:] Many Iranians are well disposed toward us. On 9/11, there was dancing in the streets in parts of the Muslim world but candlelit vigils and mourning in Tehran. When we invaded Afghanistan, Iran helped us, especially in our dealings with the Northern Alliance. Hoping for better bilateral relations, Tehran wanted to join us against al Qaeda. The CIA and the State Department supported this partnership, but some in the White House and the Pentagon did not. After President Bush included Iran in the "axis of evil," everything went downhill fast.
The conclusion:
Our history, from the snows of Valley Forge to the flames of 9/11, has been one of perseverance. I understand the threats we face today. When I am president, America will look this evil in the eye, confront it, defeat it, and emerge stronger than ever. It is easy to be a peace lover; the challenging part is being a peacemaker.
"The peacemaker" is the image the campaign would like to portray. Some strong rhetoric against Bush's policies from Huckabee, and it is earning him more denunciations from establishment Republicans. But it's precisely the establishment Republicans that messed up big-time in Iraq. Despite their declinations, that was precisely the reason for the 2006 result. After the primary race is over, whoever the Republican nominee is, he will have to start shifting on Iraq towards a better general election position. Huckabee is doing that right now. He could be playing towards Ron Paul supporters as well.
The rise of Huckabee should, in my opinion, help John Edwards. Huckabee is a dangerous commodity for Hillary to run against. The likability factor could be exploited against her. Huckabee's liberal-leaning positions would triangulate well against Hillary's liberalism. Edwards and Obama are another story. I think Huckabee might beat Hillary, would have less of a chance against Obama, but wouldn't beat Edwards. They are too much alike so that voters would just vote for the party (Democrats) that they want to control the White House. Edwards himself is now talking about his electability.
10/24/07
Clinton, Obama and Iran
I've talked before about possible military action against Iran and the effect it would have on the presidential race. There's a very interesting post from Chris Cillizza today about the strategies of Hillary and Obama in Iowa on Iran. Hillary voted for a resolution calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Here's Cillizza:
Clinton was concerned enough about the hits she was taking from Obama and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) to send out a mailing seeking to put her vote in context. Obama, on the other hand, knows his Iran attack isn't an entirely clean blow (he skipped the vote, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, an Obama endorser, voted with Clinton) but sees it as an opening -- at long last -- to tie Clinton's vote in favor of the 2002 use of force resolution against Iraq to the future of American foreign policy.
Very interesting. This is definitely an opening for Obama in my opinion. Hillary has to be hawkish on military issues for the sake of the general election. Being a woman running for Commander in Chief, she absolutely cannot give ground on supporting the military. We could very well bomb Iran before the end of Bush's term, and the rally-around-the-flag effect could swing things in an unpredictable way. Hillary wants the option of supporting an Iran bombing if it comes to it. Hillary cannot look weak. She cannot be portrayed as an anti-military liberal. She really had no choice on the vote.
Clinton was concerned enough about the hits she was taking from Obama and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) to send out a mailing seeking to put her vote in context. Obama, on the other hand, knows his Iran attack isn't an entirely clean blow (he skipped the vote, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, an Obama endorser, voted with Clinton) but sees it as an opening -- at long last -- to tie Clinton's vote in favor of the 2002 use of force resolution against Iraq to the future of American foreign policy.
Very interesting. This is definitely an opening for Obama in my opinion. Hillary has to be hawkish on military issues for the sake of the general election. Being a woman running for Commander in Chief, she absolutely cannot give ground on supporting the military. We could very well bomb Iran before the end of Bush's term, and the rally-around-the-flag effect could swing things in an unpredictable way. Hillary wants the option of supporting an Iran bombing if it comes to it. Hillary cannot look weak. She cannot be portrayed as an anti-military liberal. She really had no choice on the vote.
9/24/07
Romney on Iran
Mitt Romney has a new radio ad out that's very anti-Iran. This is an interesting move considering that we seem to be coming closer and closer to war with Iran, according to a number of sources, even though the head of US central command says its not going to happen, and French President Sarkozy has backed off talk of war.
I've talked before about the effect air strikes on Iran would have on the general election. On the Republican primary field, it would be interesting. All the candidates save Ron Paul would have to support it. The rally-around-the-flag effect would be too strong, and there's too many Republican primary voters who would not support a candidate seen as supporting the Democrats on such a major issue. To get a sense of Republican sentiment, watch the first few minutes of Newt Gingrich talking about Iran. He's so inflammatory against Iran it would almost make one forget that there were thousands of people in Iran lighting candles in support of the US after 9/11, the only such show of support in the Middle East.
I've talked before about the effect air strikes on Iran would have on the general election. On the Republican primary field, it would be interesting. All the candidates save Ron Paul would have to support it. The rally-around-the-flag effect would be too strong, and there's too many Republican primary voters who would not support a candidate seen as supporting the Democrats on such a major issue. To get a sense of Republican sentiment, watch the first few minutes of Newt Gingrich talking about Iran. He's so inflammatory against Iran it would almost make one forget that there were thousands of people in Iran lighting candles in support of the US after 9/11, the only such show of support in the Middle East.
7/16/07
Iran and the General Election
Iran is an issue that might well come to the forefront in the general election...
In discussions with a friend recently we mused about the possibility of a US strike on Iran at the end of George W. Bush's term as president. It seems likely that this is being pushed by the Vice President's office right now, and the question is whether President Bush will decide to take action before his term expires. An invasion seems out of the question, with the strain Iraq is already putting on the armed forces. But air strikes are another matter. The temptation to escalate the conflict we are engaged in in the Middle East could be very great. The rally-around-the-flag effect would still be in operation, even with war fatigue. Americans still prefer their own country and its leadership to another country halfway around the world. Escalating would almost force those against the war to back the president and the military against their will. For a president with nothing to loose, and who really seems to believe in the necessity of "winning" in Iraq, the attraction to a very rash course of action is understandable.
The candidates should be planning for this now. As far as the Republicans go, their nominee would certainly support this action. Giuliani has pledged not to let Iran go nuclear, as has McCain. Fred Thompson, Brownback and Romney have taken a muscular posture. Joe Biden has criticized the latter for it, and as for the rest of the Democrats, they would face a tougher tightrope. Many liberals in their base would be appalled. Hillary and Richardson have said that they want more talks. But I'm not convinced that they wouldn't support the troops when the bombs start falling.
In discussions with a friend recently we mused about the possibility of a US strike on Iran at the end of George W. Bush's term as president. It seems likely that this is being pushed by the Vice President's office right now, and the question is whether President Bush will decide to take action before his term expires. An invasion seems out of the question, with the strain Iraq is already putting on the armed forces. But air strikes are another matter. The temptation to escalate the conflict we are engaged in in the Middle East could be very great. The rally-around-the-flag effect would still be in operation, even with war fatigue. Americans still prefer their own country and its leadership to another country halfway around the world. Escalating would almost force those against the war to back the president and the military against their will. For a president with nothing to loose, and who really seems to believe in the necessity of "winning" in Iraq, the attraction to a very rash course of action is understandable.
The candidates should be planning for this now. As far as the Republicans go, their nominee would certainly support this action. Giuliani has pledged not to let Iran go nuclear, as has McCain. Fred Thompson, Brownback and Romney have taken a muscular posture. Joe Biden has criticized the latter for it, and as for the rest of the Democrats, they would face a tougher tightrope. Many liberals in their base would be appalled. Hillary and Richardson have said that they want more talks. But I'm not convinced that they wouldn't support the troops when the bombs start falling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
