The President is coming into the election against a head wind. Unemployment is high, his signature legislative win is unpopular, and getting more so, and he’s facing some stiff foreign relationship issues.
He’s up against it pretty tough. The relevant conversations of the day aren’t going his way. So, I don’t blame him for trying to change the national dialogue. For trying to pivot from issues he can’t manage well to issue that have proven to be traditional democrat strong suits.
I get the contraception pivot.
But it ain’t working.
Right now, the President of the United States of America is meeting with Israel’s Binyamin Netanyahu. These two world leaders are going to discuss how they will act and react to Iran’s growing nuclear threat.
Here are some thoughts on what Obama should say:
Our nation has been involved in 2 wars for the better part of 10 tears. We entered Iraq and Afghanistan with clear, measurable and smart goals; disrupt the Taliban in Afghan and topple Saddam in Iraq. In both cases I supported the action and in both cases we achieved our goal. Sadly, in both cases we failed to win the “after.”
And the horror of losing the after is a nightmare.
In Iran there is no such easy goal, rather some nebulous idea or gut reaction to an idea. Iran getting nuclear technology.
It is my feeling that if we bomb them or if we don’t, the day will dawn with a nuclear Tehran. The only thing that we can control is if we’ll endure another “after” or not.
Given that Iran will obtain the technology and the ability, the nations of the world must work to put calm, reasonable and stable nations in a position to influence a post-nuclear nation of Iran. If this is done through technology sharing, better trade relations, sanctions or defensive military negotiations, so be it.
What we’ll know after the meeting and reporters report is more of what Obama DIDN’T say. He will not commit to a strike. Neither will he commit to supporting Israel if they strike. Lastly, the President will not rule out military action.
This is a game of nerves based on posturing, threats and non-threats. And in games like that, firm commitments are a dangerous play.