Iranian War effect on 2012 and beyond

[redcommander]

Obama would lose. Remember the opportunity he had to support Iranian dissidents back in 2009? I hardly think Republicans would let him get away from it.

[seanobr]

Without more information about the nature, scope, and duration of a hypothetical conflict, it's impossible for any of us to render a conclusive judgment on its electoral impact.  In general, my impression has been that acting prudently would be more detrimental to Obama than the alternative, because demagoguery is often more compelling than the nuanced explanation our response -- or absence of one -- might require.  However, there are two things to bear in mind: the American public may be supportive of military action, either by Israel unilaterally or with our consent, to eliminate Iran's nuclear program, but when they find out what that might entail, including the fact that aerial bombardment alone may not be successful, their enthusiasm for the venture could wane.  Secondly, we shouldn't underestimate the institutional resistance that has been evidenced in America and Israel to the prospect of any type of intervention against Iran, which has led some to question the administration's commitment to resorting to force if that is the only barrier remaining to Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon.  Given the excessive deference that each remaining Republican presidential candidate has pledged to the military, if Obama could portray his response as being largely congruent with the Pentagon's perspective, that would insulate him from the most potent criticism and allow him to formulate policy unimpeded.

What I find notable about the latest round of speculation regarding Israel's calculus is that, fundamentally, the argument for action has not changed; Ronen Bergman's article is indistinguishable substantively from Jeffrey Goldberg's similar piece two years ago that ended on the same baleful note, and no revelation in the interim has enhanced the need for immediacy, because Iran has been a year away from a nuclear weapon for some time now.  The most pronounced aspect of Bergman's account was his depiction of the Israeli leadership, their almost pathological desire to be in control of a country on the verge of extermination, and the natural conclusion that Israel can only rely on itself if the international community is going to dither.  Whether that was intentional deception on their part to unsettle Iran or an accurate retelling by Bergman, I sincerely hope their conceit doesn't become a self-fulling prophecy, because such a view is never amenable to the conduct of foreign policy.