Talk Elections

OK, those of you who have been following the news from the Orient recently know that Iran is a.) harshly autocratic b.) highly unstable and c.) seeking vey hard to acquire WMD, especially nukes. What if (and I think there is a realistic possibility) Bush decides to try to launch an Osirak-style strike against Iranian nuclear installatins in Bushehr, Natanz, and Arak? What if this escalates into a full scale war? Such a war would probably mean the speedy remilitarization of Iraq at the expense of reconstruction. While air and sea combat will be decisive and favors us, there could be nasty ground fighting. It would not be entirely clear in this situation who started the war- Bush for hitting the nukes, or the ayatollahs for launching a full-scale war. What would happen in this case? Would Bush maintain popularity like FDR, or would there be a spike in approval and then a drop, like with his previous wars? What if the Iranian regime collapsed behind the lines? I assume Dean is playing this up as a new Vietnam, does that take?

BTW I am considering posting other possible foreign policy crisis scenarioes if this one is popular. Good idea or bad idea?

I tend to believe that the impact on Bush's popularity would depend on the circumstances leading up to the war.

If Bush were to launch a first strike war then I would expect his popularity to take a huge dip.  Naturally he would retain many 'hawks' but I think the center would abandon him.

If Iran launched an invasion of Iraq or attacked America then I would expect that most Americans would support a war.  Of course there will always be an element opposed to war, but the majority would rally behind Bush.

I'm saying Buh hits the reactors then Iran (possibly backed by Syria- I know that's strategially moronic but the Syrians have done some stupid things under Bashar NixonNow) invades Iraq. So it's not really clear who started the war, both sides can claim the other did. But then the fighting gets nasty. So how does this effect the presidential race?

In a situation like that I think Bush is hurt in the polls.  The guy who would actually benefit would be Clark.  I think most Americans would be displeased with Bush but realize they needed a strong foreign policy (and preferably military) mind calling the shots.  Enter Clark ...

Could be. What if Dean is already the nominee when the strike occurs?

Iran agreed to some inspections today, so may be moot for a bit.  

However, the country always rallies around the President in times of war.  However is 2-3 times the size of Iraq and would be a lot tougher militarily.

Plus unless they do something we are busy enough in Iraq.

But they should be watched closely.

According to http://www.debka.com , "DEBKAfile notes that many months will go by before the initialed document is ratified by Iran’s parliament, its Guardians Council and finally strongman Ayatollah Khamenei ". And trust me, debka is never, ever wrong. So they're stalling. If they're stalling they're building. And Bush (much less Sharon) will not let them get away with completing a weapon.

Is it ever possible to denounce a nominee once he/she has the nomination? What laws or rules guide that scenario? Has there ever been such a scenario in U.S. History?

I'm not too crazy about taking on Iran until Iraq is up and running.  They are not slaughtering their own people like Saddam was, and there's hope that the gov't will crack in the next few years.  I know they are probably next on the axis of evil, but each country needs a different approach.   Other crisis?  How about France banning all religious symbols in schools (and they have what % unemployed?  10% 11%? Cracking down on 12 yr old girls is all they can manage!)

The Bush Doctrine, the Pre-Emptive Doctrine is quite clear that if we even suspect an enemy or other country of malicious intent against the United States, we'd Strike and ask questions later. We should follow our own Doctrines.

Why didn't Carter go in full force and attack during the Iranian Hostage Crisis of the late 70's? Why did we choose to negotiate with Terrorists? Bush Sr. had a good policy of never negotiating with Terroritsts. I think we should always follow that policy. It's never worth it when we make compromises.

I know that the party rules on nominees are not law, but you have to abide by all the ballot laws - so you can't dump Dean on Oct 1 and put Hillary on the ticket - except in New Jersey.  But I don't think anything will happen w/ Iran for 2 years.

I agree it would be vastly preferable to wait for the Iranian regime to fall on its own, which it will given time. But the ayatollahs with a nuke would not, I think, show the same rationality as Brezhnev. Rasfajani said recently something like "we could fight a nuke war with Israel, because we could wipe them out but they would only hurt us". It would clearly be a terrible errr to let Teheran acquire the bomb. So the idea here is they're closer then we realize and we launch a first strike to prevent them from going nuclear. Then they invade Iraq.

On Greta Van Sustren on FOX news, a commentator said that recent reports as early as late October of this year, state that there have been eye reports of Osama bin Laden. Many people also believe that the top 5 leaders of Al Qaeda are in Iran as well. If we find hard evidence that Osama bin Laden is indeed in Iran, should we invade Iran, or try to work out to insure his capture diplomatically?

Only if they don't want anything in return. The United States should never make deals with Terrorists.

While the prospect of Iran having nuclear weapons is a scary one indeed, the diplomatic options have not yet been exhausted. We're not dealing with the Taliban here - as long as moderates like Khatami are part of the Iranian government then they're willing to listen. We shouldn't be hasty and talk of military options rightaway.


You're right, it definitely will fall. I compare the current situation in Iran to eastern Europe in the mid-1980s. More and more people are demonstrating against the regime; there is a growing undercurrent of change. Give it a few years and Iran will be a fully respected member of the world community. Well, hopefully.

I don't know about Bin Laden, who I think is, if still alive, in the Hindu Kush mountains on the border between Afghanistan and Paki's Northwest Frontirer Province. But I have heard evidence that Ayman al-Zuwahri, head of Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Bin Laden's 2nd in command, Mohammed Zarqawi, Al-Qaeda's chem weapons expert, and at least one of Bin Laden's son's may be in Iran. They may have planned the infamous Riyadh and Casablanca bombings earlier this year from Iran. That could provide part of a rationale for war.

Much more disturbing is the Iranian pursuance of a nuclear warhead. Some reports think they could have it by next spring. It may happen that the Bush administration decides they just can't wait for the Iraq situation to stabilize and the presidential campaign to finish up to act if they don't want half the Levant to turn into radioactive slag. Aside from Iran using weapons themselves, there is the horrific possibility of them handing 'em on to a group like Hezbollah. I just pray that Bush will have the fortitude to, if necessary, do whatever it takes to avoid Armageddon in the Fertile Crescent.

Incidentally, if Iran were on the verge of developing a warhead, knowing that their Shahab-3 (based on an N. Korean missile w/ similar range) can reach Moscow or Paris, could this convince the Euros and Russkis to hop on board a potential war? I think it is a possibility. This would enhance the war's credibility in some (by no means all) wars at home. I am tempted to think Dean would disapprove of the war anyway, but I have no way of really knowing; what do you folks think?

I agree with you, Michael Zeigerman, it is much like E. Europe in the 80s, a post-revolutionary society with discontent young generation nearing collapse. The problem is Khatami has no control over foreign affairs, military, terrorism, or (I would assume) nuclear development. I think it might be similar to the Reichstag of the 19teens, while it has considerable omestic powers, the Hohenzollerns (read ayatollahs) dominate the areas that matter most for Western (and others) security.

Heaven help us all if Dean gets elected. I hope that if Bush goes down in the polls and Wesley Clark becomes the DEM nominee, that he would win the presidency. Although, I am pretty comfortable with G.W. at the Helm. He has proven himself on the foreign front. I just hope he does more on the domestic issues. Otherwise, he'll end up like his Dad, very successful foreign policies/weak on the Domestic front/one Term Presidency.

CM, America would be a better country if more Democrats were as reasonable and thoughtful as you are.  My party would be smaller cause we wouldn't have as many lefty whackos to point to, but still the nation would be better off.

I agree with CM too.  You sound like a moderate/centrist Dem.  Not out of line Liberal.

Well typically if a President has 2 terms he has more time to balance his role of foriegn policy and domestic.  GHWB was starting to refocus on domestic after success in Panama, Berlin Wall falling and Gulf War and the economy was improving but Clinton did a good job of playing the economy was so bad, when in fact it was already coming back.

At least this time around the economy is already coming back!

The US should definately NOT attack Iran, with any luck the regime will fall apart by itself (as it appears to be doing). Most Iranians are sick and tired of the Authoritarian Religious leaders and there is a powerful momentum for change. I can see that happening in 2004. Any military action against Iran would only boost the appeal of Islamic theocratic parties in Iran and elsewhere. Not to mention creating yet more terrorists!

Well I don't see a war with Iran.

Now Bush gets another big plus by having Libya turn over WMDs and reduce the threat of them handing them over to terrorists.  Definately making the world safer.

Well, Thank You!

I don't have any doubts that Bush is re-electible. It would be a traumatic twist of fate on History, when the Son of a President gets re-elected to a second term!

Yeah the story lines of the President's son are always interesting.

Also it does look like the Presidential curse has been lifted.  heard that mentioned the other day with Hinkley's release.

Reelect George, then Jeb's turn!

So, everyone, is North Korea no longer a threat to us, Did the Bush Administration take care of that threat? I haven't heard much about Norh Korea lately, so fill me in, please. Sometimes I am not on this planet, so I lose out on progress here and there.

Kim Jong-Il worries me more than Saddam ever did. His regime is truly psychotic.

Btw, Japan announces plans to install its own missile defense shield:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3333117.stm

We did tell China to get NK under control or we would arm Japan and neither of them wants that.  

Not surprising, especially after a few years ago shooting a missle into the sea near Japan as a "test" tehy say.

What does btw mean. Others have used that abbreviation and I am clueless.
I worry about Kim Jong Il, if he wakes up and has a bad 'hair day.'

From one centered guy to another, THANKS!

Btw, could I, as a stupid and ignorant foreigner, ask about another abbreviation (sorry Ryan, but there is no "stupid questions" thread, and if there wereno one else would bother, so what can I do?)?

GOP? I see it is synonomous with the republican party, but I can't make sense out of it. What does the letters stand for?

Ah, so it didn't makre sense then, that's pretty much what I suspected. But thanks a lot!