What to do about Iran
The blogosphere has been filled with discussions of how the Bush administration will probably use Iran as the lever to win the 2006 elections. The strategy begins with trotting out "experts" to discuss how a nuclear Iran will a) send suitcase bombs to New York and Chicago to destroy the US, b) ignite a nuclear armageddon in the Middle East, c) shut down all oil from the Middle East, etc., etc. Then, Bush begins the sabre rattling with talk of a) air strikes, b) invasion, etc. He paints the Democrats as weak, argues he needs enabling legislation to threaten Iran. The Democrats acquiesce but are still painted as weak. The Republicans make gains in both the House and the Senate in the 2006 elections.
Everyone says the Democrats need a strategy to combat this. I agree. But, what is it? No one seems to have offered anything up that makes sense to me. I've racked my own brain, and I don't have any easy answers. It isn't as though we haven't seen this before, but what can we do about it? I certainly don't think voting for more legislation to enable this president to walk all over us is the way to go.
It would be nice if we could change the subject and focus on the "culture of corruption," but I think the president will be able to control the venue of the debate. It would be nice to blame the problem on the president (which also happens to be true), but that doesn't solve the problem.
When the president and the press start raising the specter of Israel being destroyed, much less the specter of U.S. cities being wiped out, the Democrats are going to need to have a response, but what is it?
If I had some answers, I'd offer them up here, but I don't.
There are really two parts to this question. Part 1 is what should we (the US) do about Iran? Part 2 is what should the Democrats do to defuse the Republican threat derived from Iran?
On part 1, I'm inclined to think that a) there's not much the US can or should do, given that we're bogged down in Iraq. Obviously, we can't invade. Maybe we can try some air strikes, but with our troops in Iraq, Iran would have an easy reprisal target.
Frankly, I think the Iranian threat to the US is minimal. They're not likely to send the few bombs they might develop in the early years over here in suitcases. I'm pretty sure they'd keep them at home for their own self-defense.
If anything, the problem is really Israel's (and even then, I think the Iran threat is low), and we should probably leave it to Israel to take out Iran's nukes, just like they took out Saddam's back in the 1980s.
But, that still doesn't solve the problem of what the Democrats should do. Propounding the correct policy doesn't help here since we have no power to implement it. What we have to deal with is whatever half-assed policy Bush dreams up. I haven't got a good answer, but somebody had better come up with one fast, because the first stage of the Republican strategy described above has clearly begun. Just go read this post at the Washington Monthly.
Update: There's confirmation this is a real problem. The latest Zogby poll, despite showing that Bush's approval ratings have slipped back slightly below 40%, shows that 50% of Americans say they feel safer with Bush as president while only 38% feel less safe.
Everyone says the Democrats need a strategy to combat this. I agree. But, what is it? No one seems to have offered anything up that makes sense to me. I've racked my own brain, and I don't have any easy answers. It isn't as though we haven't seen this before, but what can we do about it? I certainly don't think voting for more legislation to enable this president to walk all over us is the way to go.
It would be nice if we could change the subject and focus on the "culture of corruption," but I think the president will be able to control the venue of the debate. It would be nice to blame the problem on the president (which also happens to be true), but that doesn't solve the problem.
When the president and the press start raising the specter of Israel being destroyed, much less the specter of U.S. cities being wiped out, the Democrats are going to need to have a response, but what is it?
If I had some answers, I'd offer them up here, but I don't.
There are really two parts to this question. Part 1 is what should we (the US) do about Iran? Part 2 is what should the Democrats do to defuse the Republican threat derived from Iran?
On part 1, I'm inclined to think that a) there's not much the US can or should do, given that we're bogged down in Iraq. Obviously, we can't invade. Maybe we can try some air strikes, but with our troops in Iraq, Iran would have an easy reprisal target.
Frankly, I think the Iranian threat to the US is minimal. They're not likely to send the few bombs they might develop in the early years over here in suitcases. I'm pretty sure they'd keep them at home for their own self-defense.
If anything, the problem is really Israel's (and even then, I think the Iran threat is low), and we should probably leave it to Israel to take out Iran's nukes, just like they took out Saddam's back in the 1980s.
But, that still doesn't solve the problem of what the Democrats should do. Propounding the correct policy doesn't help here since we have no power to implement it. What we have to deal with is whatever half-assed policy Bush dreams up. I haven't got a good answer, but somebody had better come up with one fast, because the first stage of the Republican strategy described above has clearly begun. Just go read this post at the Washington Monthly.
Update: There's confirmation this is a real problem. The latest Zogby poll, despite showing that Bush's approval ratings have slipped back slightly below 40%, shows that 50% of Americans say they feel safer with Bush as president while only 38% feel less safe.
posted by walldon | 9:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home