Would a Beaten Obama Attack Iran?

10/26/10 By George Friedman

We are a week away from the 2010 U.S. midterm elections. The outcome is already locked in. Whether the Republicans take the House or the Senate is close to immaterial.

It is almost certain that the dynamics of American domestic politics will change. The large majority held by the Democrats will be gone, and party discipline will not be strong enough it never is to prevent some defections.Obama now has two options in terms of domestic strategy. The first is to continue to press his agenda, knowing that it will be voted down. If the domestic situation improves, he takes credit for it. If it doesn’t, he runs against Republican partisanship.

The second option is to abandon his agenda, cooperate with the Republicans and re-establish his image as a centrist. Both have political advantages and disadvantages and present an important strategic decision for Obama to make.

The Foreign Policy OptionObama also has a third option, which is to shift his focus from domestic policy to foreign policy. The founders created a system in which the president is inherently weak in domestic policy and able to take action only when his position in Congress is extremely strong. This was how the founders sought to avoid the tyranny of narrow majorities.

At the same time, they made the president quite powerful in foreign policy regardless of Congress, and the evolution of the presidency over the centuries has further strengthened this power.

Historically, when the president has been weak domestically, one option he has had is to appear powerful by focusing on foreign policy.

The Iranian OptionThis leaves the obvious choice: Iran. Iran is the one issue on which the president could galvanize public opinion.

Excerpt

Read more at realclearworld.com …

via Would a Beaten Obama Attack Iran?.

About these ads