I was shocked to see David Broder appear to argue that Obama should use war with Iranto improve his political standing earlier this week. It turns out, he isn't alone in that sentiment. From George Friedman's latest column in STRATFOR:
If Obama were to use foreign policy to enhance his political standing through decisive action, and achieve some positive results in relations with foreign governments, the one place he could do it would be Iran. The issue is what he might have to do and what the risks would be. Nothing could, after all, hurt him more than an aggressive stance against Iran that failed to achieve its goals or turned into a military disaster for the United States... Obama has avoided overt military action against Iran, so a confrontation with Iran would require a deliberate shift in the U.S. stance, which would require a justification.
The most obvious justification would be to claim that Iran is about to construct a nuclear device. Whether or not this is true would be immaterial. First, no one would be in a position to challenge the claim, and, second, Obama’s credibility in making the assertion would be much greater than George W. Bush’s, given that Obama does not have the 2003 weapons-of-mass-destruction debacle to deal with and has the advantage of not having made such a claim before. Coming from Obama, the claim would confirm the views of the Republicans, while the Democrats would be hard-pressed to challenge him. In the face of this assertion, Obama would be forced to take action. He could appear reluctant to his base, decisive to the rest. The Republicans could not easily attack him. Nor would the claim be a lie. Defining what it means to almost possess nuclear weapons is nearly a metaphysical discussion. It requires merely a shift in definitions and assumptions. This is a cynical scenario, but it can be aligned with reasonable concerns...
I am not claiming that Obama will decide to do this based on politics, although no U.S. president has ever engaged in foreign involvement without political considerations, nor should he. I am saying that, at this moment in history, given the domestic gridlock that appears to be in the offing, a shift to a foreign policy emphasis makes sense, Obama needs to be seen as an effective commander in chief and Iran is the logical target.
Simply put, Friedman's argument is despicable, perverse, and wildly cynical. Broken down into its component parts, Friedman expressly argues: (1) Obama needs foreign policy "wins" to do better politically; (2) Obama should target Iran as his best bet to get a "win;" (3) targeting Iran requires justification; (4) Obama can invent any justification he wants because nobody can challenge him on it and people still trust him; and (5) once he has given his justification, he should kill Iranians and sacrifice the lives of US soldiers for a bump of a few points in the polls which may or may not be enough to win reelection in 2012.
Friedman's argument basically mirrors Broder's argument on points 1, 2, 3 and 5 above, but he adds in a point #4 for that extra dose of evil that Broder neglected to include: invent a reason to attack Iran and lie about it to the American people to induce them into war. Friedman shouldn't have a job after printing such nonsense.
Friedman actually argues that Obama could get away with a statement that Iran was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction because he hasn't made that claim before. Is Friedman under the impression that each President gets one "Weapon of Mass Destruction" card to play at will? Friedman recognizes Bush's use of that card as a "debacle" but has no problem lobbying for Obama to follow suit. Friedman, more than most, is well aware of the likely consequences of an attack on Iran (he actually details many of them in his article), and that makes his argument all the more outrageous. The conduct he advocates is criminal, not political.
After going so far as to argue that Obama can invent knowingly false arguments to justify a war with Iran, Friedman again parrots Broder and says he isn't arguing that Obama should decide to invade Iran based on politics. Actually, Friedman, that's exactly what you argued. You dedicated multiple paragraphs to that very point. A one sentence disclaimer doesn't change that fact.
As I mentioned in response to Broder's column, it may well be that Obama decides attacking Iran (or any other country) is necessary. There could be a scenario where it is justified and necessary. But if Obama, or any president, begins the analysis by asking, "would waging war improve my political standing," that person isn't fit to be president. And if any person lobbies for the president to wage war to improve his political standing, that person forfeits the right to be taken seriously.
Check us out at http://www.thefourthrbanch.com