fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

The Lunacy of a War Against Iran

At the end of another bad column, Bret Stephens writes this: A final thought: What would a strike on Iran do for President Obama’s re-election chances? Improve them, I should think. At least it would be one inarguable accomplishment on which to run. Yes, Stephens would think this, because he thinks starting another unnecessary, unjustified […]

At the end of another bad column, Bret Stephens writes this:

A final thought: What would a strike on Iran do for President Obama’s re-election chances? Improve them, I should think. At least it would be one inarguable accomplishment on which to run.

Yes, Stephens would think this, because he thinks starting another unnecessary, unjustified war is an accomplishment rather than a massive policy failure. It is almost certain that the U.S. would suffer significant costs in the aftermath of an attack on Iran, and the damage to the global economy would probably be enough to guarantee defeat for the incumbent next year. Attacking Iran would worsen all of the negative factors working against Obama’s re-election. More to the point, it wouldn’t accomplish anything, except to kill many Iranians and precipitate a conflict that would kill many Americans and Israelis. What would Obama be running on exactly? That he blundered into an avoidable war? I can just imagine Obama’s campaign pitch if he made the horrible mistake of launching the attack: “I embarked on a war that had no chance of achieving its objectives, and which will guarantee an accelerated Iranian drive for a nuclear arsenal. Despite no immediate or real threat to the United States or our allies, I have committed U.S. forces to yet another war. In doing so, I have exposed American soldiers and sailors and many allied states to retaliation that will drag the entire region into a larger conflict.”

Sounds like a winning message!

Update: Robert Farley doesn’t think Obama would benefit very much politically from ordering an attack:

Third, while Rothkopf seems to think that Obama will enjoy a significant domestic bump from the attack, I’m not at all certain. It’s true that Presidents tend to get a temporary bump during foreign policy crises, but it’s just as well known that this bump fades. In this case, I suspect that Obama would enjoy temporary support from “independents” while permanently losing a small but crucial portion of his base. I also doubt that the international uncertainty surrounding an attack will have any benefits for the US economy. It is by no means clear, however, that Obama and his advisors share this view of the domestic consequences of an attack.

Like Rothkopf, I have thought that Obama might be willing to follow through on his Iran rhetoric. He has always held a completely conventional position on Iran’s nuclear program, and he has trapped himself by insisting repeatedly that an Iranian bomb would be “unacceptable.” In this case, we have to hope that he is not as foolish as his policy statements to date would suggest.

Second Update: As part of his discussion of the IAEA report and Iran’s nuclear program, Richard Weitz explains why airstrikes on Iranian facilities will not succeed:

Due to the configuration of the Iranian program, a surgical airstrike is no longer a viable option for stopping Iran’s nuclear progress. The only way to accomplish that would be for the United States to repeat the strategy it misapplied against Iraq in 2003: invade the country, establish a pliant government, and spend months if not years identifying and destroying all possible nuclear weapons sites. And Iran today is a much more powerful adversary than Iraq was in 2003.

This should drive home just how crazy the idea of starting a war with Iran is.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here