THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume XII, Issue # 22, February 2, 2010
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
HOW TO SAVE THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY: BOMB IRAN
By Dr. Daniel Pipes
A CLOSING WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY -- PRESIDENT OBAMA'S OPPORTUNITY TO SALVAGE HIS TOTTERING
ADMINISTRATION, CHANGING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC'S
PERCEPTION OF HIM AS A LIGHTWEIGHT, BUMBLING RADICAL FAR-LEFTIST IDEOLOGUE: HE CAN TAKE DRAMATIC
& DECISIVE ACTION IN AN ARENA WHERE THE STAKES ARE HIGH, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE VITAL AREA OF U.S. FOREIGN &
NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY. HE CAN ORDER THE U.S. MILITARY TO DESTROY IRAN'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS
CAPACITY.
FULL STORY:
I do not customarily offer advice to a president whose election I opposed, whose goals I fear, and whose policies I work
against. But here is an idea for Barack Hussein Obama to salvage his tottering administration by taking a step that protects
the United States of America and its allies.
If Obama's personality, identity, and celebrity captivated a majority of the American electorate in 2008, those qualities
proved ruefully deficient in 2009 for governing. He failed to deliver on employment and health care, he failed in foreign
policy forays small (e.g., landing the 2016 Olympics) and large (relations with China and Japan). His counterterrorism record
barely passes the laugh test.
This poor performance has caused an unprecedented collapse in the polls and the loss of three major by-elections,
culminating two weeks ago in an astonishing senatorial defeat in Massachusetts. Obama's attempts to "reset" his
Presidency will likely fail if he focuses on economics, where he is just one of many players.
He needs a dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him as a lightweight, bumbling ideologue, preferably in an
arena where the stakes are high, where he can take charge, and where he can trump expectations.
Such an opportunity does exist: Obama can give orders for the U.S. military to destroy the Iranian nuclear weapon capacity.
Circumstances are propitious. First, U.S. intelligence agencies have reversed their preposterous 2007 National Intelligence
Estimate, the one that claimed with "high confidence" that Tehran had "halted its nuclear weapons program," No one (other
than the Iranian rulers and their agents) denies that the regime is rushing headlong to build a large nuclear arsenal.
Second, if the apocalyptic-minded leaders in Tehran get the Bomb, they render the Middle East yet more volatile and
dangerous. They might deploy these weapons in the region, leading to massive death and destruction. Eventually, they
could launch an electro-magnetic pulse attack on the United States, utterly devastating the country. By eliminating the
Iranian nuclear threat, Obama protects the American homeland and sends a message to American's friends and enemies.
Third, polling shows longstanding American backing for an attack on the Iranian nuclear infrastructure.
Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg, January, 2006: 57 percent of Americans favor military intervention, if Tehran pursues a
program that could enable it to build nuclear arms.
Zogby International, October, 2007: 52 percent of likely voters support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a
nuclear weapon; 29 percent oppose such a step.
McLaughlin & Associates, May, 2009: asked whether they would support "Using the [U.S.] military to attack and destroy
the facilities in Iran which are necessary to produce a nuclear weapon," 58 percent of 600 likely voters supported the use of
force and 30 percent opposed it.
Fox News, September, 2009: asked "Do you support or oppose the United States taking military action to keep Iran from
getting nuclear weapons?" 61 percent of 900 registered voters supported military action and 28 opposed it.
Pew Research Center, October, 2009: asked which is more important, "To prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons,
even if it means taking military action" or "To avoid a military conflict with Iran, even if it means they may develop nuclear
weapons," 1,500 respondents favored the first reply -- 61 percent -- and 24 percent the second reply.
Not only does a strong majority – 57, 52, 58, 61, and 61 percent – already favor using force, but, after a strike, Americans will
presumably rally around the flag, jumping that number much higher.
Fourth, were the U.S. strike limited to taking out the Iranian nuclear facilities, and not aspire to regime change, it would
require few "boots on the ground" and entail relatively few casualties, making an attack politically more palatable.
Just as 9/11 caused voters to forget George W. Bush's meandering early months, a strike on Iranian facilities would dispatch
Obama's feckless first year down the memory hole and transform the domestic political scene. It would sideline health care,
prompt Republicans to work with Democrats, make Netroots squeal, Independents reconsider, and Conservatives swoon.
But the chance to do good and do well is fleeting. As the Iranians improve their defenses and approach weaponization, the
window of opportunity is closing. The time to act is now, or, on Obama's watch, the world will soon become a much more
dangerous place.
© Daniel Pipes 2010
Originally Published in National Review Online, February 2, 2010
Republished with the Permission of Daniel Pipes
Reprinted from the Daniel Pipes Mailing List,February 2, 2010
URL: http://www.danielpipes.org/7921/bomb-iran-save-obama-presidency
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
American Government & the U.S. Presidency:
Presidential Politics & National Leadership
The Middle East & the Problem of Iran
American Foreign Policy -- The Middle East
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
International Politics & World Disorder:
War, Peace, & Geopolitics in the Real World:
Foreign Affairs & U.S. National Security
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
U.S. National Security Strategy
Dr. Daniel Pipes, a Ph.D. in Islamic History (Harvard University, 1978), is Founder and Director of the Middle East Forum,
Founder of Campus Watch, Taube Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, a
signatory of the Project for the New American Century, a former board member of the U.S. Institute of Peace, a former
adjunct scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a Golden Circle supporter of the U.S. Committee for a Free
Lebanon, a former member of the U.S. Department of Defense Special Task Force on Terrorism and Technology, and a
former lecturer at the U.S. Naval War College, Harvard University, the University of Chicago, and the University of
Pennsylvania. Dr. Pipes was the Director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute from 1986 to 1993.
Author or co-author of eighteen books, Dr. Pipes is a regular columnist for Front Page Magazine, the New York
Sun, and the Jerusalem Post. His analyses of world trends and of forces and developments in the Middle East
have appeared in numerous North American newspapers, including the Washington Post, the New York Times,
and the Wall Street Journal. He frequently appears on American network television, as well as at universities and
think tanks, to discuss the Middle East, Islam, and the Islamist threat to the U.S.A. and the West. He also has appeared on
BBC and Al Jazeera, and has lectured in approximately twenty-five countries.
Dr. Pipes is a Polish-American Jew whose parents fled Poland in 1939, immigrated to the U.S.A., and assimilated well into
American society and culture. His father is Richard Pipes, an American historian specializing in Russian and Soviet history
and serving as Professor of History at Harvard University from 1950 until his retirement in 1996. During the Cold War, the
worldview of Richard Pipes was strongly anti-Soviet and anti-Communist.
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume XII, 2010
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity