There has been much musing among the usual mainstream media pundits about why Bush and Cheney would so relentlessly pursue the NeoCon dream of a war of choice with Iran when the war of choice with Iraq is going so poorly---and is so unpopular with the American people. Some say that Bush is back on the sauce. Others say that he thinks he is on a mission from God. It is about the oil. It is about his orneriness. He is selling his party down the river. He does not care who wins the presidential election next fall.
Do not be fooled. It is true that the Pentagon has resisted every effort by the administration to launch an invasion or an attack on Iran. Therefore, most of what we hear coming out of the White House is pure bluster "full of sound and fury"
but it does not signify nothing. The Iran war talk, including W.'s mentions of WWIII and the threats to Israel have the potential to do harm to Democrat's presidential chances in 2008.
1.
Iran War talk deflects the national debate away from Iraq, where it should be. This is where it is most useful. If the dialog remained on the quagmire in Iraq and the way that Congressional Republicans have blocked Democratic efforts to end our involvement in the civil war, we would walk away from next fall's election with a 2/3 majority in both houses and the presidency regardless of who ran. By pretending that Iran is the real issue, as in "It isn't a civil war in Iraq, we are fighting an Iranian backed insurgency" the GOP clouds the issue.
2.
Iran nuclear talk, combined with mentions of WWIII frightens Americans. This brings "Terra", Karl Rove's favorite political campaign issue to the forefront once again. A recent poll showed 52% of Americans were willing to bomb Iran "just in case" to keep them from getting nukes. This is not rational thinking. This is fearful thinking. People who are scared do not vote in their self interest. They do not vote based upon real issues like social justice or health care or balancing the budget or protecting the earth's climate. They vote for immediate actions that they hope will alleviate their fear. Iran nuclear talk is designed to promote the candidacy of someone like a Rudi Giuliani who talks 9/11 from sun up to sun down.
Hillary Clinton, being a savy politician, has seen the writing on the wall, and anticipating that the GOP and the White House is not going to stop ratcheting up fear of Iran, she has pre-empted Rudi by declaring that she has the balls to deal with the great Satan Iran, positioning herself for the general election. However, that leads to another problem.
3.
Iran splits the Democratic base. The worst way that it does this is by dividing those who are staunch supporters of Israel, traditionally Jewish-Americans (along with some others), who have also long supported the Democratic Party from other Democrats. The Republican Party's favorite political tactic is "Divide and Conquer". They find some issue that can be used to drive a wedge between different key groups within the Democratic Party. Since the Democrats are a diverse group, this is often easy to do. For instance, immigration can divide labor and Hispanics.
Iran has a very troubled relationship with Israel and vice versa. American supporters of Israel are often hostile to Iran. American supporters of Israel are often Democrats, too. They may find themselves in shouting matches with other Democrats who believe that all of Bush's threats, warnings, sanctions are completely without merit. The Democratic Party explodes like Chicago 1968. Divide and conquer works once again.
4. On a related note, as
Democratic candidates, like Hillary Clinton seek to appease various factions of their base and of the general public, they
find themselves walking a tight rope with marksmen from a half dozen different directions sniping at them . "You are going to start a war with Iran!" one side screams. "You are not protecting Israel!" another shouts. Meanwhile, the Republicans sit back and laugh, smug in the knowledge that they are the ones framing the national debate and that they have set this up so that they can easily satisfy their own base, keeping the Republicans unified. When was the last time you heard Chris Matthews dissecting Fred Thompson's Iran policy?
5. Regardless of the outcome of W.'s bluster,
talking war against Iran raises oil prices and the oil industry is a big donor to the Republican Party and to Republican candidates. Oil will be working hard to complete the transformation of Louisiana to a red state that Rove began after Katrina. Oil will need money to begin construction of its drilling and refining operations in Iraq (so that the next president, possibly a Democrat, will be forced to keep soldiers there to protect vital American economic interests.) High oil prices will benefit Texas and all the best buddies of the Bush and Cheney families and the Carlyle Company which employs Papa Bush. Thanks to Bush's angry rhetoric and US refiners voluntary shut down of production, oil and gas is now near $100 a barrel and predicted to stay there---this without an actual war with Iran. What a windfall for Exxon and the Saudi Royals. Why on earth would Bush ever want to stop making threats towards Iran?
6.
Any Republican who acts against the threatened Iran War can redeem him or herself and his Party for perpetuating the Iraq War, at least in the eyes of disaffected Republicans and Independents---even if the Iran War is a sham. For instance, if Bush keeps blustering even though he knows that the Pentagon will not attack, expect Condi Rice to claim that she scored a diplomatic victory, and look for her to launch a political career based upon the fact that she "kept us out of a dangerous war with Iran". We could see Condi in the Senate one day.
Here is another example. Everyone knows that Obama is trying to make sure that W. can not unilaterally launch an attack on Iran. Today, George Will announced to faithful conservative readers that a
Republican in the Senate is attempting to keep Bush from attacking Iran.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201785.htmlYou see the irony here. Republicans have created the crisis and now Republicans want to claim credit for solving the crisis. In this way, they can go into the 2008 election as the peace and responsibility party without doing a damn thing about Iraq.
I would not be at all surprised if this talk about a war that may well never happen with Iran is part of Karl Rove's strategy for the 2008 elections. He likes to repeat himself, and this war talk with Iran parallels the war talk with Iraq from 2002. It involves Terra. It uses Divide and Conquer--and it is working, as it worked then. If you combine Democrats, Independents and disaffected Republicans, all of whom should be on our side at the moment, the base is splitting right down the middle. It diverts from dangerous issues. In 2002, it kept people from talking about Enron. Today, it keeps them off the subject of Iraq, the economy, health care and a whole lot more.
A successful Democratic response to this kind of political use of war talk must do several things.
1. First, Democrats need to reassure the public that Iranians are not three headed monsters who live only to kill us. For this, we need to educate the public. For example, Democratic or progressive social leaders and journalists should consider actually visiting Iran and talking to some of the clerical leaders and some of its people. A documentary that focuses on the day to day lives will show Americans that Iranians are more like us than they realize. In a Middle East in crisis---Iraq and Afghanistan at war with US, Saudi Arabia under the yoke of a brutal monarchy with its own internal rebellion brewing, Egypt with profound economic problems, Israel and Palestine at war, Lebanon still trying to rebuild, Syria at odds with Israel and only Jordon stable (except for all the Iraqi refugees), Pakistan without a Constitution or Supreme Court, Turkey ready to invade Iraq---Iran stands out as a relatively peaceful, prosperous country that could actually be an ally of the U.S. as we attempt to bring some semblance of order to that region of the world.
2. Congress needs to make it very clear that Bush does not have the power to attack or invade Iran without their approval. Get a Democrat (not a presidential candidate) and a Republican to create a bill. Also clarify that there is no funding for any military action against Iran. Nada. Zip. If W. wants to do it illegally, he pays for it out of his own pocket.
3.Stop infighting. There is a difference between difference of opinion and tearing your own house down, and I think we started living in a cardboard box in the gutter sometime last week.
4.Remind people that oil prices were not always this high and remind them
why they are this high, especially as we move into the winter. Ask them if they want another four years of these outrageous fuel costs and of global warming and foreign energy dependence.
5. Most important of all, every time Iran gets mentioned, bring the topic back to Iraq. Ask how will we ever get our troops home from that civil war if we attack the country next door? Suggest that the whole purpose of an Iran attack is to make it impossible for us to ever leave Iraq (since we will have to use the country as a staging point for military operations for many years to come).
For Hillary, stop assuming that you have won the primary and start campaigning like a
real Democrat. The nation wants a change. They want a democrat. The nation will not reject you in the general election because you ran in your own democratic primary as a democrat. On the other hand, if the nation can not tell the difference between you and Rudi, except that you are a woman and he just dresses as one, then you may find yourself where Gore was in 2000, with people saying "Hillary is the same as Rudi". That will lead to voter apathy, which will lead to reduced voter turn out, which will favor the Republican candidates all across the country. This is such an obvious fact, that I can not figure out why Bill has not told you this already. Are you not listening? Are you accepting political advice from some questionable source like Mr. Mary Maitlin? Rupert Murdoch? Or, worse yet, Karl Rove? Maybe you know that after the convention, the press will start mauling the Democratic candidate, so you want to get in your general election campaigning early, while they are still treating you kindly. If so, you need to rethink you general election strategy. The nation does not want Republican Lite.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
