Here is an opinion:
President Obama could bomb Iran in late October to try and ensure that it does not develop nuclear weapons. A devastating strike would create an upsurge of patriotism in America and fully neutralize Mitt Romney’s contention that Obama is a foreign-policy wimp. It could allow Obama to sweep to victory in November.
And here is a different one:
Obama certainly could do this, but there shouldn’t be any illusions that it would give him a significant advantage in the election. There probably would be a surge in support for Obama at first, since this seems to happen at the beginning of almost every military engagement, but it wouldn’t last. I suspect a very war-weary public would sour on the war very quickly once it became apparent that attacking Iran involved more than a few days of casualty-free airstrikes.
Note that both commenters agree that bombing Iran would create a surge of support for the President. They only differ on how permanent this surge would be. This analysis sounds completely off to me. Do you believe that the American people would really rally around a president (whether for a short while or not) who gets the country into yet another resource-devouring quagmire in the midst of stagnating economy?
I don’t vote, of course, but if Obama does this, I won’t want to hear about him ever again. If he continues Bush Jr.’s strategy of invading everything he can in search for elusive WMDs, what’s the point of keeping him around?
Do you agree that any military action against Iran will be a horrible mistake that might have tragic consequences for the entire planet? Or will you feel “an upsurge of patriotism” and support a president who orders a strike on Iran?
Recently, I quoted a scandalous article that asked “Is Romney a Wimp?” I hate it when this sexist terminology seeps into political discourse, but I have to ask, for how long will Obama be wimping out under the pressure from the Pentagon?
Clarissa's Blog 
You could vote, though, if you wanted. 🙂
I agree entirely. I think few people would actually want it.
LikeLike
I’m not a citizen, I’m a permanent resident. We don’t get to vote.
LikeLike
Really? That’s no fun. 😦 I thought part of the green card was being naturalized, but I was wrong.
LikeLike
People I interact with day-to-day would certainly have a strong negative reaction, but I cannot speak for all the other people in the country. Look at the Congress they elected in 2010.
LikeLike
The congressional elections of 2010 really scared me. Their results made no sense on any level whatsoever. Once you have elected a Democratic president, doesn’t it make sense to let him do whatever it was you elected him to do without crippling him with a deeply Republican congress?
LikeLike
Any U.S. strike on Iran or elsewhere timed for the incumbent’s domestic political advantage would be worse than scandalous. Any failure to do it for domestic political advantage would be equally scandalous. As in any area of foreign affairs, the considerations should be (1) what’s in the best interests of the United States and (2) what’s in the best interests of her close allies. (1) trumps (2) but if consistent they are cumulative.
As to whether the U.S. should eliminate Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities, I tend to credit Israeli military and intelligence sources more than those of the U.S. Israel is a, if not the, principal target for an Iranian nuclear device and wiping Israel off the face of the Earth is Iran’s stated objective. Elimination of Israel is, by definition, an existential issue for Israel, rather less so for the U.S.
Years ago, when the nuclear powers were rationally self-interested, the doctrine of mutually assured destruction was a pretty good deterrent. As nuclear devices come into the hands of rogue nations and groups, not so much.
To the limited extent that news reports are credible, it now appears increasingly that if Israel decides to eliminate Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities she will use a single high altitude EMP blast.
The author seems to draw a distinction between nuking Iran and using an EMT device. The former would result in great loss of life, the latter would not.
LikeLike
I’m not sure about an EMP attack on Iran… to get an EMP big enough to do significant damage to Iran, they would have to use a nuclear weapon. And this would explicitly violate its policy of deliberate ambiguity with regards to whether it will “introduce” (ie use, as its possession is an open secret that has no serious doubters) to the Middle East. One could draw a distinction between nuking someone (like Hiroshima) or merely using a nuke to create an EMP. Either way a nuclear weapon is used, so I see it as perhaps a meaningless, purely pedantic distinction. I truly have no idea whether any other country draws this distinction.
Also, I’m not sure an attack would allow the opposition there to rise up. Historically, whenever one country attacks another, the attacked country is united. An Israeli attack would more likely weaken the Iranian opposition, at least in the short term.
LikeLike
You say that a distinction between an Hiroshima type nuclear attack and a high level EMP attack is “perhaps a meaningless, purely pedantic distinction.” I disagree. One kills many people and destroys everything in the way, from toads to goats to buildings to humans. The other does not. The distinction seems far from meaningless and pedantic. Burning down a hospital with gasoline and driving an automobile with gasoline strike me as rather different and the differences don’t seem at all pedantic or meaningless.
LikeLike
In both cases it is using a nuclear weapon. Either one renders irrelevant Israel’s policy of deliberate ambiguity, and both use nuclear weapons for military purposes.
LikeLike
Rob F, In re your reply to my reply — It seems to be general knowledge that Israel has nuclear weapons and Israel has not denied that she has them. Were she to do so, few would credit her denial. I can think of no valid reason why Israel should avoid making obvious what is already widely assumed when the alternative could be her own destruction.
As to the thesis that nuclear weapons used for military purposes are nuclear weapons used for military purposes, they indeed are. So? It seems to me that the human consequences of usage are of greater significance than the labels. Labels are often useful shorthand for expressing ideas; when they interfere with or even obviate substantive discussion, they are less useful.
LikeLike
I am against attacking Iran, period. It would not change my attitude about Obama, though, as he is already a foreign policy disaster and very hawkish.
I do not know that it would be a popular course of action. But somehow I suspect it will be more pleasing to the public if it comes from Romney rather than Obama.
Ceding to pressure from the Pentagon and other entities, all US Presidents will — in the current situation you have to to get elected and to stay in power and to get anything done at all.
LikeLike
*I mean, will cede to some degree. It is all a question of degrees, will they have enough principle and backbone not to cede more than they absolutely have to.
LikeLike
I think it would cost him pretty much all of his credibility with the people who elected him. “Preemptive” military action was exactly what pissed people off about president Bush.
Also, a lot of innocent Iranians would be dead and I just can’t see the situation turning out well from any viewpoint.
LikeLike