[Fresh Ink] How to Save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran

[Richard Menec]

[This is NOT a parody, but directly from the right-wing (some would say 
fascist) "National Review Online"]

http://article.nationalreview.com/423580/how-to-save-the-obama-presidency-bomb-iran/daniel-pipes?page=1

National Review Online                    February 2, 2010

How to Save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran

Circumstances are propitious, and the American people would support it.

By Daniel Pipes

I do not customarily offer advice to a president whose election I opposed, 
whose goals I fear, and whose policies I work against. But here is an idea 
for Barack Obama to salvage his tottering administration by taking a step 
that protects the United States and its allies.

If Obama's personality, identity, and celebrity captivated a majority of the 
American electorate in 2008, those qualities proved ruefully deficient for 
governing in 2009. He failed to deliver on employment and health care, he 
failed in foreign-policy forays small (e.g., landing the 2016 Olympics) and 
large (relations with China and Japan). His counterterrorism record barely 
passes the laugh test.

This poor performance has caused an unprecedented collapse in the polls and 
the loss of three major by-elections, culminating two weeks ago in an 
astonishing senatorial defeat in Massachusetts. Obama's attempts to "reset" 
his presidency will likely fail if he focuses on economics, where he is just 
one of many players.

He needs a dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him as a 
light-weight, bumbling ideologue, preferably in an arena where the stakes 
are high, where he can take charge, and where he can trump expectations.

Such an opportunity does exist: Obama can give orders for the U.S. military 
to destroy Iran's nuclear-weapon capacity.

Circumstances are propitious. First, U.S. intelligence agencies have 
reversed their preposterous 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, the one 
that claimed with "high confidence" that Tehran had "halted its nuclear 
weapons program." No one other than the Iranian rulers and their agents 
denies that the regime is rushing headlong to build a large nuclear arsenal.

Second, if the apocalyptic-minded leaders in Tehran get the Bomb, they 
render the Middle East yet more volatile and dangerous. They might deploy 
these weapons in the region, leading to massive death and destruction. 
Eventually, they could launch an electromagnetic pulse attack on the United 
States, utterly devastating the country. By eliminating the Iranian nuclear 
threat, Obama protects the homeland and sends a message to American's 
friends and enemies.

Third, polling shows longstanding American support for an attack on the 
Iranian nuclear infrastructure:

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg, January 2006: 57 percent of Americans favor 
military intervention if Tehran pursues a program that could enable it to 
build nuclear arms.

Zogby International, October 2007: 52 percent of likely voters support a 
U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon; 29 
percent oppose such a step.

McLaughlin & Associates, May 2009: When asked whether they would support 
"using the [U.S.] military to attack and destroy the facilities in Iran 
which are necessary to produce a nuclear weapon," 58 percent of 600 likely 
voters supported the use of force and 30 percent opposed it.

Fox News, September 2009: When asked "Do you support or oppose the United 
States taking military action to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?" 61 
percent of 900 registered voters supported military action and 28 opposed 
it.

Pew Research Center, October 2009: When asked which is more important, "to 
prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking 
military action," or "to avoid a military conflict with Iran, even if it 
means they may develop nuclear weapons," 61 percent of 1,500 respondents 
favored the first reply and 24 percent the second.

Not only does a strong majority - 57, 52, 58, 61, and 61 percent in these 
five polls - already favor using force, but after a strike Americans will 
presumably rally around the flag, sending that number much higher.

Fourth, if the U.S.limited its strike to taking out Iran's nuclear 
facilities and did not attempt any regime change, it would require few 
"boots on the ground" and entail relatively few casualties, making an attack 
more politically palatable.

Just as 9/11 caused voters to forget George W. Bush's meandering early 
months, a strike on Iranian facilities would dispatch Obama's feckless first 
year down the memory hole and transform the domestic political scene. It 
would sideline health care, prompt Republicans to work with Democrats, and 
make the netroots squeal, independents reconsider, and conservatives swoon.

But the chance to do good and do well is fleeting. As the Iranians improve 
their defenses and approach weaponization, the window of opportunity is 
closing. The time to act is now, or, on Obama's watch, the world will soon 
become a much more dangerous place.

- Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished 
visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

===============================
Support the alternative online news service FreshInk.
Forward this article and subscribe link below to a friend.
To view previous postings or to subscribe:
http://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshink
===============================