A genuine existential threat to Obama's reelection

[hifiguy]

as analyzed in depth by Sully. This is freaking terrifying, and I could see it happening.

<snip>

I don't think you can understand the Republican strategy for this election without factoring in a key GOP player, Benjamin Netanyahu. He already has core members of the US Congress siding openly with him against the US president and the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman - like McCain, Lieberman and Butters. Netanyahu's war would be designed to rile up not only his own neo-fascist base, but also encourage American evangelical voters to turn out against Obama, the "anti-Christ", while other Greater Israel fanatics, like Sheldon Adelson, keep bankrolling as many Greater Israel GOP nominees as they can. A global war which polarizes America and the world is exactly what Netanyahu wants. And it is exactly what the GOP needs to cut through Obama's foreign policy advantage in this election. Because it is only through war, crisis and polarization that extremists can mobilize the emotions that keep them in power. They need war to win.

more at:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/02/obamas-most-dangerous-gop-opponent-netanyahu.html

[spanone]

1. k&r...

[frazzled]

2. American evangelical voters won't vote for Obama anyway

and never did. Andrew Sullivan is becoming unhinged again.

[hifiguy]

5. True, it isn't that they'd vote for Obama

but that they would be more riled up to vote AGAINST him by the nutbags who want the apocalypse to come ASAP. Some who might stay home if Mittens is the nominee might get all het up to see the imminent coming of WW III. And Netanyahoo is just cynical and crazy enough to do it.

[brooklynite]

11. Yes, but in their minds they won't be getting a Christian in either case...

Their concern with Mittens isn't that he hasn't said the right things about Israel; it's that the RW won't trust him anymore than they do on other issues.

[TheWraith]

26. That's not exactly true.

There are and always have been a certain number of them who vote Democratic. There's no such thing as a bloc which votes entirely one way or another. In 2008, I believe it was about 30% of white evangelicals who voted for Obama.

[lsewpershad]

3. The Prez should let him

know in no uncertain terms the consequences of any action that would jeopardise US-Israel realations.

[surfdog]

4. There will be no war

Israel would not be able to accomplish their mission , it would fail

And they won't take that chance

[Pirate Smile]

13. This is what just makes no sense to me - an attack wouldn't even really accomplish anything but it

destroys the economy and unleashes a massive war. Why would anyone sane want to do this? I don't get it. There is no way a temporary delay is worth the consequences that would result.

[GeorgeGist]

18. The operative word is sane ..

As in

Why would anyone sane want to do this?

[Pirate Smile]

20. I guess the problem Bibi, Republicans &some Dems have is that we DO have a SANE President right now

[gholtron]

6. After ten plus years of 2 wars

I think the American people has had enough. If Isreal wants to start a war, then they are on their own.

[Pirate Smile]

7. I posted a couple of articles on this issue last night:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002362732

Ha'aretz article says Netanyahu met group of US senators/reps & asked them to"pressure Obama"on Iran

Also LAT: "Obama likely to resist pressure to further toughen Iran stance" - article below.

Netanyahu will urge Obama to publicly back attack on Iran, sources say
Intensive preparations underway to ensure a successful meeting between the two leaders next week in Washington, despite lack of trust between two sides.

-snip-
Officials in both Jerusalem and Washington acknowledge a serious lack of trust between Israel and the United States with regard to the issue of a possible strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. A senior U.S. official who is involved in preparing Netanyahu's visit to the United States - and who asked to remain anonymous - said intensive preparations are underway to guarantee the success of the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama and to bridge this lack of trust.

-snip-
According to sources, the lack of trust between Israeli and U.S. officials appears to stem from, among other things, a mutual feeling that the other country is interfering in its own internal political affairs. Netanyahu suspects that the U.S. administration is attempting to turn Israeli public opinion against an attack on Iran, say sources.
Meanwhile, they say, the Obama administration suspects Netanyahu is using Congress and the Republican candidates in the presidential race to put pressure on Obama to support such a strike.

-snip-
The Obama administration's suspicions concerning Netanyahu were further fueled after Netanyahu and his advisers briefed a group of senators and senior congressmen during the past two weeks on the Iranian issue, and asked them to pressure Obama on the matter. Last week, Netanyahu met a group of five senior senators over lunch, headed by Sen. John McCain, who ran four years ago against Obama for president. Netanyahu reportedly told the senators he was not interfering in U.S. politics and expected U.S. officials not to interfere in Israeli politics either.

The topic quickly turned to Iran, according to reports. Netanyahu apparently complained bitterly about certain officials in the Obama administration who spoke out against an Israeli strike on Iran. But between the lines, some suggest that Netanyahu was speaking about Obama himself, as well as the other very senior officials in the administration. He reportedly told the senators that this kind of public discourse serves the Iranians.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-will-urge-obama-to-publicly-back-attack-on-iran-sources-say-1.415428?localLinksEnabled=false

Obama likely to resist pressure to further toughen Iran stance
The Israelis, along with GOP presidential hopefuls and senators and some hawkish Democrats, want Obama to keep Iran from potentially building a nuclear weapon.

By Paul Richter and Christi Parsons, Los Angeles Times

February 28, 2012, 6:06 p.m.

Reporting from Washington— The White House indicated Tuesday that President Obama would resist pressure for a tougher Iran policy coming from Israel and some U.S. lawmakers who argue that Tehran should not be allowed to acquire even the capability to eventually develop a nuclear weapon.

-snip-
The Israelis, along with Republican presidential hopefuls, GOP senators and some hawkish Democrats, want Obama to move toward that Israeli position. They all believe he is politically vulnerable to charges of being weak on Iran and have stepped up their pressure in recent days as Obama prepares for his meeting with Netanyahu and a speech he is scheduled to give Sunday to the country's largest pro-Israel lobbying group.

-snip-
The Senate sponsors "want to say clearly and resolutely to Iran: You have only two choices — peacefully negotiate to end your nuclear program or expect a military strike to end that program," Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), one of them, told a news conference. The Senate has not voted on the proposed resolution.

-snip-
As Obama campaigns for reelection, Republicans sense a potential issue in charges that he is weak on Iran and inattentive to a threat against Israel's existence. The four contenders for the GOP nomination all denounced Obama's Iran policy as dangerous during a debate Wednesday in Arizona.
"This is going to be the key foreign policy question of the election," said a senior Senate aide who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to comment. "With Iraq wound up and Obama's strong overall record on counter-terrorism, the only area where the Republicans have breathing room is Iran and Israel."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-us-iran-20120228,0,6892812.story

[The Doctor.]

8. Oh Beebee...

Even if there was a war, it would not be enough to oust Obama. Americans don't give a rat's ass until it hits home.

[jimlup]

9. Thanks - yes this has occured to me.

This will be a good read.

After thinking hard I don't think even Netanyahu can really change the expected course of the American election. I think that the American people would "rally behind the President" because of the apparent external threat and instability.

I think the Republicans would (will) try hard to make something of it but their efforts will fail and may even backfire.

(Haven't read the article yet so give me a chance to come up to speed ...)

[Enrique]

14. you would think the American people would rally behind the American president

but Congress is so dysfunctional when it comes to Israel. There's a good chance that both parties in Congress would side with Israel against Obama, in which case it could make the public see Obama as wrong. Then again, with their 8% approval rating maybe Obama could prevail.

The good thing is that sometimes Andrew Sullivan's analyses turn out to be off the mark. I'll wait to see who backs him up on this.

[Poll_Blind]

10. America's "special friend" wants nothing more than to see a GOP ruled house, senate, presidency.

Netanyahu is a scoundrel who is willing to abuse the relationship between Israel and America in order to remake a world favorable to his despicable government. A government which is fueled by fear. If he can destroy the Obama Presidency to benefit his own ends, he will. And his plans are already in motion.

I believe the majority of informed American Jews are overwhelmingly against such behavior but there, too, Netanyahu has them in a vice: "Support Israel or support it's destruction." The "with us or with the terrorists" of the Bush years, multiplied.

I do not believe that even Netanyahu necessarily believes in his own actions but believes those actions will keep him in power. He is the worst kind of politician and with very few exceptions, like Tzipi Livni, his government is equally loathsome and unrecognizable as representing the religion and society which he now willingly steers into disrepute.

PB

[jillan]

12. If Netanyahoo goes to war with Iran, I think it's time to rethink our policies with Israel.... and

I am a Jewish American saying this.

Their actions could cause too much harm to the US because of our close allegiance.
Not to mention another all out war.


They are getting to be like spoiled children (like Republicans) with their 'It's my way or the highway' mentality.

[zipplewrath]

15. I'm not a big Sullivan fan

I don't think he knows much about foreign policy at all.

It is true that the iranian situation has the ability to blow up in Obamas lap, and drag us into conflicts we don't want.

But I also know that there are vastly more players internationally that DON'T want that in any way, than do. Israel faces more resistance than just Obama, and I would bet some of it comes from inside his own country. There aren't alot of winning scenarios if they attack "unilaterally". They have to worry about the effects in Egypt, and how it will strength Hamas, not to mention how it could affect Syria, Iraq, and to some extent Turkey. They are already "at war" with Iran and it isn't exactly going their way.

Obama, to some extent via Clinton's fine work in her job, has a pretty good standing amongst the worlds leaders, and those that advise them. I'm not saying that things could't take a turn for the worse, but I also suspect that the White House has considered this for some time, and probably has already had discussions with foreign leaders about appropriate responses to various scenarios. And Israel is probably aware of what the reactions, and actions, would be. Obama has proven himself to be both a hard ass, and unafraid to assert himself militarily, when he chooses. I suspect no one is going to try to "take advantage" of him. If there is an actor in this situation that worries me, it is Iran itself, not Israel.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

28. I think he also over rates the religious right's ability to pay attention to foreign policy

I don't think it's going to motivate them one way or another whether they decide to show up on election day.

[sellitman]

16. Israel will attack Iran on it's own schedule if it does so at all

Why do Americans think the whole world revolves around them?

I'm not buying this for a second.

[Muskypundit]

22. Because when it comes to war and oil

We are the biggest player in the world hands down.

We being the U.S. I am not sure which nation you are from.

[unblock]

17. this is some of the silliest analysis i've seen in quite a while.

first, this incarnation of netanyahu is not nearly as powerful as the previous incarnation. a little saber-rattling always serves a leader well, but his coalition is fragile and i don't think he has the support for much in the way of adventures.


second, since when does a war (ceratainly the early stages) tend to make people want to switch commanders-in-chief?

it's really only the overly drawn-out wars that sometimes get presidents in trouble. saber-rattling and initial fighting is almost always good for an incumbent.



any military action against iran is quite likely to be limited to a single day or even hour, taking out whatever nuclear capacity they have, then flying home.

[Pirate Smile]

19. You think Israeli jets fly home and it's over?

Really?

I don't think so.

[unblock]

21. i have no doubt iran would retaliate one way or another.

i'm just saying it's not likely to be a lengthy, all-out ground war.

in any event, i certainly don't see it as anything so drawn-out and dramatically negative (politically) that obama loses re-election as a result.

[Muskypundit]

24. It would be in Irans interest to make it a drawn out ground war.

Israel is very much a nation whose defense strategy is based around fighting another week long war. They don't have a big enough country economically or population wise to win any war with attrition.

[unblock]

29. yes, well, that's where the u.s. comes in.

there's little doubt that isreal would have been "pushed into the sea" long ago were it not for u.s. support.

i highly doubt iran is eager to provide a justification for their version of an iraq war.

in any event, if a war did happen and become long enough and big enough u.s. news to threaten obama's re-election, do you really think he'd do nothing about it? and anyway, how does a long drawn out war even happen soon enough to affect u.s. elections this year?

i just really do not see a scenario where any of this translates into an obama defeat this november.

[treestar]

27. +1

[piratefish08]

23. read this as: "A genuine extraterrestrial threat to Obama's reelection"

i need a break from this election......

[treestar]

25. The not changing horses in midstream argument would work here

And besides, how would we let one other country determine our President? People are no one issue wonders. Nobody is going to go for any other war of this kind.

They don't need wars to win, they need wars after they are in to use as political capital. It would not help them win.

[libtodeath]

30. Beebee attacks

and the price of oil and gas will explode.
That will land it solely at the feet of the right wing warmongers where it belongs.
They are probably too stupid to realize it would be domestic political suicide.