Quote:
Originally Posted by cacophony
what i'm having a hard time resolving in the argument is that you guys are saying it seems likely obama will be the next president.
|
For my part, I talked about "the possibility of an Obama victory". I don't personally yet deem it 'probable' or more likely than a McCain victory. Others may disagree. Either way though, with the two neck and neck, we're not exactly talking much less than a 50% chance, so it's still what I would call a very realistic prospect. I see it as quite realistic to think that considerations and contingencies will be made from that kind of chance. I don't see it as America-centric to expect that kind of risk assessment, given the role American foreign policy plays in the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cacophony
and that in spite of the fact he's been wishy-washy on his policy towards israel, it doesn't seem likely he'd be the pillar of support that previous presidents have been.
|
That's not my judgment, because I'm the same as you, I'm seeing statements that would suggest a new approach to Middle East relations, and other statements that suggest more of the same unwavering support. But the point is, plenty of people have been questioning whether he'd be the same "pillar of support" for Israel that previous presidents have been. I think we can certainly say at this point that an unwavering pillar of support and/or hawkish approach is not as guaranteed as it might be under McCain, or has been under Bush, or might have been under many of the other candidates the parties put up. Obama is making certain people nervous in that sense, and some may see it as prudent to prepare for the worst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cacophony
so if that's the conclusion, then wouldn't it make it LESS likely that they'd strike against iran? meaning, if they were making plans with america's future leadership in mind, and it seems like that future leadership won't support them, why would that make a strike against iran MORE likely?
|
Well if we go with that conclusion, then my point is that it would make sense for them to strike Iran before the election, not after. Strike before and they still have the Bush/Cheney administration in the White House, there's zero chance of negotiation with Iran.
After the election, with a ~50% chance of a President Obama, and given what he's said about a different approach to foreign policy, possibly engaging in negotiation with Iran, well a strike during that time would completely isolate Israel. Politically it would be a disaster.
That's why I've been wondering, with the prospect of an Obama presidency and what that might entail, and with the recent 'rehearsals' last week, whether we might see an Israeli strike on Iran this year. If they're going to do it (and they're a lot closer to Iran than any of us, the threat will feel much greater to them), it would be the lesser of evils to do it before the election.