A search on DKOS "Iran" was not very helpful. Perhaps there are many diaries on the subject without the "tag" line. I lack expertise in foreign policy. I also realized that Republicans face the same dilemma. Other than a campaign based on stoking conservative hate of the other, and economic fears, what can Mittens bring to the table?
Please feel free to link your own diaries on the topic.
President Obama’s administration has a remarkable track record handling the most delicate of international security missions. We can be confident we have a capable leader with a firm and steady grasp on the helm. This is not a President who will repeat the mantra, in a drum beat rush to conflict, which is desired by both Republicans and Democrats who seek profit from the war industry.
If President Obama was not delivering on my minimal need for security, I would consider alternative leaders. Considering only the facts, without the emotional drag of politics, it would be fool hardy to change leadership in midstream. These are dangerous times; we need to present a united front to the world. This includes removing the uncertainty of a change in leadership.
The international angst, precipitated by a year long bitter US election process, is of great concern. We need to send a clear and early message, that the US is united behind the leadership of our current Commander in Chief. Sending signals of a change in Presidential leadership weakens our prospects to influence world economic and political decline.
It is my opinion that there is no end game in Iran if the goal is a form of democracy that glorifies Wall Street greed, or any theocracy. Both are flawed philosophies made from the same cloth.