To Pull or Not to Pull: MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Runs Clip of Sen. McCain Saying Its Time We Pulled the Trigger on Iran
I just caught the You Tube video of Sen. John McCain saying that it was time to pull the trigger on Iran. From the context, of course, McCain is merely saying that we need to impose strict sanctions on Iran – not that it is time to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran.
Nevertheless, from the point of view of the U.S. political cycle and the risks we face in Iran, I’m thinking that now is probably a good time for Israel to “pull the trigger.” Among Republicans, I’m pretty sure they will be cheered by the Israeli strike and pleased to see that force is used to put down the Iranians who obviously wish us ill.
In fact, a large majority of us – conservatives and independents – would applaud this action. For example, a recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll of 900 registered voters on April 6-7, 2010 shows 61% support in response to the question worded: “Do you support or oppose the United States taking military action to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?”
Among prominent Democrats, however, I think we can safely predict that “pulling the trigger” will not be a popular option. As far as I can tell, liberal Democrats are always against war and it does not matter who the bad guys are or what kind of weapons they have on the launch pad.
Ironically, even foreign wars have a way of dividing us up along partisan lines. Given this context, the natural question would be when is the right time to “pull the trigger?” For example, from the standpoint of U.S. politics, is the time to pull the trigger now, just prior to November, after November, or in the Spring (or later) of 2011?
If Israel pulled the trigger now, I think it is safe to say that this action would energize Republicans and independents, while – at the same time – it would stoke a heated debate about whether or not Israel did the right thing. Such a debate, in my view, would assist Republicans in contrasting themselves with the Democrats who would be busy attacking Israel for making a pre-emptive strike.
Consequently, the debate would provide Republicans with a nationalized public issue that broke in their favor.
Ironically, if Israel waited to “pull the trigger” just prior to November, then it would create a temporary rally-around-the-flag effect for President Obama that might impact the mid-term elections. Obama’s popularity would rise temporarily as he took normal actions to insure that the conflict between Iran and Israel did not escalate into World War III.
Right now, we have a lot of military strength in Afghanistan, right near Iran, so it would be difficult for Russia or China to do much to defend Iran – if that was their objective.
If Israel attacks just prior to the November elections, then it would strengthen the military image of Obama, and – perhaps – give him an excuse — if he wishes to 
temporarily gain support by demonstrating a modest level of allied defense for Israel’s actions. I do not see how Obama could do anything to harm Israel under this timing scenario without making things worse for his Democrat party.
If Israel pulls the trigger right after November, then Obama will have almost total freedom – electorally speaking – to do whatever he wants included issuing a strong attack on Israel and potentially supporting sanctions against Israel as part of a larger effort to distract people from the poor U.S. economy. This would be the best option for Obama because he would build his ties to his base, long before he needed to pretend to be a centrist again in time for the 2012 Presidential election. From the point of view of Israel, this looks like the worst time to pull the trigger to me.
If Israel attacks in the Spring of 2011, the issue will not have too much of a partisan electoral impact within the U.S. Israel would be facing a less conservative Congress, and would still be in the doghouse with President Obama. This analysis would be particularly poignant if, as Defense Secretary Gates suggests, Iran could expedite matters and have a nuke by the Spring of 2011. So, my conclusion is that the sooner Israel pulls the trigger, the better it will be for her in ending an existential threat from Iran and for assisting her true and loyal friends in the United States.
Shortlink:
23 Responses to To Pull or Not to Pull: MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Runs Clip of Sen. McCain Saying Its Time We Pulled the Trigger on Iran
Leave a Response
Translator
I’ll just say that I’m very involved with the Tea Party, and there will be no wrenches thrown into the election. Inner circles within the Tea Party have made it clear that candidates must not run on third party tickets in the general election. There is a strong understanding among our voters that we stick to the Republican vote in November.
And what an assumption to say that Obama doesn’t care about the mid-terms. Any president would have great concern in losing control of Congress. It’s critical to passing any legislation he tries to moved forward and will force him to the center with his Supreme Court nominee.
As far as going for a final and full peace settlement between the Palestinians and Israelis, I’m rolling my eyes. He’ll never force the issue and he’s already managed to push Israel a significant distance from the table. His lack of experience in the uproar over settlements in east Jerusalem was glaring.
No one said that November will be a cakewalk. You said that. What I’m saying is that November will belong to the Republicans at the end of the day, and it will be a big problem for Obama.
Shepherding the economy? Another eye roll. Any leader can shepherd and economy by printing a trillion dollars. And that’s exactly what this administration did. The economy still has serious problems.
And, as far as re-election goes in 2012, all I can say is that Obama better be prepared to take on Petraeus. However, I think it’s likely he’ll sink his own ship no matter the challenger because the vast majority of Americans don’t think like you.
John Drew,
OK, I accept you hate Persia, the real history, the people, and you want to see them all die so you can sleep at night without looking under your bed for the dreaded jihadis.
I accept that you argue Iran has no legitimate interests in the region and therefor must be destroyed.
I accept you are nuts.
I accept that you have no clue as to a bedrock principle fully adopted after WWII, that ‘territory seized by war is inadmissible’.
There is no “…Israel won its current territory fair and square” – Israel is subject to the Geneva Conventions and customary international law. See Serbia.
And Drew, if you want to make this about US Democrats, and I am not one, be my guest. The majority of American Jews, mostly Democrats, support Obama’s current stance on Israel.
Face it, the United States is not going to attack Iran. Period.
Israel is not going to attack Iran because we told our Client State repeatedly: NO!
Case closed. Israel is stuck with making a full and fair peace agreement in the region, because that is the only path left forward for survival. Period.
Cool huh? We finally got a strong US President who does not care about reelection, he cares about a viable future for the planet.
And preventing Israel from causing WWIII over its illegal occupations.
Lane.
Well all right. You made a decent analysis and offering of your stance.
Good luck in the mid terms.
But I have to take issue with you on the Palestinian issue. President Obama is on very firm ground. Israel signed onto the Road Map, you know, the one by former President George W. Bush?
Look it up and read Phase One. All settlements must stop.
Please note the year, the timeline, the time sensitive deadlines.
President Obama did not dream this stuff up, It already existed. It is not a “new” demand by Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), it is an agreement that Israel entered into and broke.
Like the ceasefire with Hamas on the eve of the US general election when President Obama won.
You are seriously backing the wrong horse. I suggest you take a deeper look.
President Obama does not care about the outcome of fall elections so much as doing the right thing for American National Security.
My wife and I could not be happier with him.
New polling data shows American Jews are willing to vote for someone else (besides) Obama in 2012. He has lost support among this voting group by not sticking to his promises to be a strong ally of Israel. You are starting to sound like an out of touch with reality “Baghdad Bob” type of poster. My Armenian relatives failed to take seriously the hostility expressed against Christians in the Koran. I think it is a big mistake for those of us lucky to be alive today to make a similar mistake. It is up to the Iranian leaders to quit their oppression of their own people and to give up threatening the rest of the world with their crazy ideology, wimpy and unmanly bluster, and general disregard for the rights of women, children and non-Islamic adherents. You comments show a dangerous level of naive attitudes toward radical Islam. I would think the blood of Iranian protestors in the street would wake you up to that fact that Obama would be silly to side with the Iranian regime. Ironically, I’ve see Palestinians attack Iranians for being Shia. In the weak culture of Islam, self-destruction is the natural result of a religious ideology which teachs a lack of respect for leaders and a general tolerance for the weaknesses and imperfection of others.
BBS-
I’m not backing any horse regarding the peace plan. I’ve read up on the blueprint that’s been in effect. And I never said Obama dreamed anything up. What I said is that President Obama’s inexperience is glaring with his latest moves. He’s assuming he can force the plan in a manner of speaking. If Livni had been the PM his plans might work, but we all know Livni is not in charge and a majority of Israelis back conservative parties.
A peace plan is never going to move forward as long as Hezbollah and Hamas remain strong. And their strength is derived, as we all know, from Iran and Syria. The weapons and cash flow has to be almost completely severed. And this is exactly why it was so uninformed of you to suggest Iran is no threat to Israel. It’s been at war with Israel for years through its proxies. They took the first shot years ago and continue to do so.
NATO and the UN better wake to the reality that if they really want peace the hammer must be dropped on Syria and Iran for these crimes. I’m not optimistic that these organizations will do what it takes, and Israel will continue to be left on the defensive against Hamas and Hezbollah. That is precisely why the Israelis are adamantly opposed to the Iranians having nuclear weapons.
A peace plan is going to take much more than Israeli concessions.
John Drew,
You really live in your own alternate reality don’t you?
No matter, the world sees SA Zionists preventing Richard Goldman from attending his grandson’s Bar Mitzvah.
Islam does not have a lock on internal religious intolerance. I learned more about antisemitism in talkbacks like these from reading Jew on Jew antisemitism than I have ever seen on Web sites across the world with a more Muslim readership.
Lane,
It’s very simple. The Syrians will make peace with Israel just as soon as Israel returns the stolen Golan Heights. We know it is stolen because Moshe Dayan said so on tape in a lengthy interview a long time ago. It was stolen because some Israeli Kibbutz farmers coveted it and that was that.
Hezbollah has a multitude of real grievances with Israel dating back decades. Israel could remove the main bone of contention there tomorrow by returning the stolen Shebaa Farms and north Ghajjar.
Iran uses these points, yes that is true.
But by Israel simply following the rule of law, and ending all of its illegal occupations and land and resource grabs and going back to within its own borders, Iran would have not a bit of leverage to wield in the conflict because the Israeli created conflict would be OVER.
The biggest problem of all is Iran has a very valid point, and this makes it extremely easy to keep recruiting militants to fight against the “Zionist occupation”.
It’s just that simple, thankfully the Obama administration is well aware of this. What you call naive is actually a very well thought out strategy using the rule of law to incrementally bring the root causes of the conflict to a fair and full end.
The obvious by-product that Israel would garner by for the first time in it’s history since 1948 would be true recognition by the entire Arab bloc – simply by following the rule of law.
It is fascinating to me that you don’t want to deal with the internal conflicts within Iran and the fact that by encouraging Irsael to stop Iran’s nuke program we are helping all the 100,000s of young people and moderates who are fighting the unjustice, undemocratic, dictatorial Iranian regime. I’ve seen the YouTube videos of Iranian authorities beating their own citizens. I’ve seen the YouTube video of the young Iranian protestor who was shot…a young woman who died in the streets. It is silly to suggest that we abandon Israel to the agenda of a country like Iran that is so backward and dysfunctional that it does not command the loyalty of its own people.