What effect will an attack on Iran have on the 2006 midterms?

[welshTerrier2]

Thus far, Democrats have been relatively invisible on a possible attack on Iran ... While a few elected Dems have made comments about Iran's nuclear facilities and Iran "meddling" in Iraq, there has been no concerted effort for the Party to be clearly identified with either supporting or opposing an attack on Iran ...

Without getting into the critically important discussion of exactly what the best interests of the US are regarding Iran, I've been wondering what effect a bush attack on Iran would have on the upcoming 2006 midterms ... consider the national mood if bush were to "engineer another pre-war drama" and then launch the attack just a few weeks before the actual elections ...

So, the question is, what effect would a "politically-timed" attack on Iran have on the midterms and what, speaking strictly on the politics, could the Democrats do for maximum political effectiveness on this issue?

source: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0815-33.htm

In private his (WH) officials deride EU and UN diplomacy with Iran. US officials have been preparing pre-emptive war since Bush marked Iran out as a member of the "axis of evil" back in 2002. Once again, this war is likely to have British support.

A plausible spin could be that America and Britain must act where the international community has failed, and that their action is the responsible alternative to an Israeli attack. The conventional wisdom is that, even if diplomacy fails, the US is so bogged down in Iraq that it could not take on Iran. However, this misunderstands the capabilities and intentions of the Bush administration.

A US attack is unlikely to be confined to the suspected WMD locations or to involve a ground invasion to occupy the country. The strikes would probably be intended to destroy military, political and (oil excepted) economic infrastructure. A disabled Iran could be further paralysed by civil war. Tehran alleges US support for separatists in the large Azeri population of the north-west, and fighting is increasing in Iranian Kurdistan.

The possible negative consequences of an attack on Iran are well known: an increase in terrorism; a Shia rising in Iraq; Hizbullah and Iranian attacks on Israel; attacks on oil facilities along the Gulf and a recession caused by rising oil prices. Advocates of war argue that if Iran is allowed to go nuclear then each of these threats to US and Israeli interests becomes far greater. In this logic, any negative consequence becomes a further reason to attack now - with Iran disabled all these threats can, it is argued, be reduced.

Iraq is proving an electoral liability. This is a threat to the Bush team's intention to retain power for the next decade - perhaps, as the author Bob Woodward says, with President Cheney at the helm. War with Iran next spring can enable them to win the mid-term elections and retain control of the Republican party, now in partial rebellion over Iraq.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Lots n lots of folks will vote Dem, but the Repubs will "win"

[Telly Savalas]

15. It's a bit trickier to "win" when you're behind in the polls by 40 points

than when it's a pretty close race.

[GreenPartyVoter]

24. And yet they pulled it off this past November. Everything on the ground

told us it would be Kerry, and yet it wasn't him.

[longship]

2. If they use nukes

like they plan to use, there might not be anybody alive to vote.

[welshTerrier2]

4. "like they plan to"

my understanding is that Cheney ordered the formation of "a" plan to nuke Iran ... that doesn't mean it's the only plan ...

[longship]

10. I'm sorry. Your assurances are not very comforting.

I don't care if it isn't the only plan.

Bush clearly has a policy that tactical nukes can be used in a "conventional" war; he has as much as said so. If he drops even a single nuke, the worldwide outrage will be immediate and severe. What's a very big concern is that there will be a nuke retaliation. Then, where do we stand? Do you really trust CuckooBananas to keep things in control?

Iran is upwind of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Which one of those countries would you rather get ultra pissed off as the fallout drifts eastward?

I can find no justification for this. I find no defense for this extremely unsettling annoucement, especially at this time. These guys are stark, raving mad.

[rzemanfl]

3. This would require a crash readjustment of all voting machine

software and moving election precincts to centrally located, easy to protect and hard to reach locations.

[despairing optimist]

5. Maybe the administration will try another 9/11 attack

to stir up support. It worked the last time.

[punpirate]

6. The Bushies are nothing if not predictable...

... and they may think that a new round of war hysteria and flag-waving will energize their base.

It's going to depend on how they run the build-up to an attack. If they try to do it in as formulaic fashion as did Poppy Bush and their first attempt, people might be suspicious.

In order to make it stick, they're going to have to fabricate new evidence on Iran, but if they hint at nuclear weapons and then say, outright, that the Iranians have missiles (and leave it that vague), it might resonate with the dumbest portion of the public. Iran doesn't have any missiles capable of hitting the US, not by a long, long shot, but if they avoid that fact, they can turn a small truth into a big lie, just as they did with Iraq.

But, my own feeling is that they'll have to create some propaganda indicating an "imminent threat," since that's the only way they act independently through the War Powers Act without first asking Congress for a resolution; the Dems in Congress would hopefully be a lot more suspicious this time around. The Repugs could force a vote and get it through, but, then, it would be entirely on their shoulders--with virtually no one else to blame.

That said, Iran is part of the program. The "axis of evil" is three years old, but that doesn't mean the Bushies have forgotten it. Afghanistan is still a failed state, Iraq is rapidly approaching that status, so keeping with the program diverts public attention from past and present failures.

Expect big air attacks, not an invasion. If the neo-cons prevail, expect the use of two or three nuclear weapons just to scare the bejesus out of the rest of the Arab world.

But, one way or another, I think some sort of attack is on track.

[welshTerrier2]

9. Iran justifications ...

they've already been peddling the mantra that the 20 troops from Ohio were killed by much more deadly weapons than have been used so far and that those weapons were brought in through Iran ... couple that with allegations of excessive meddling in Iraqi politics and causing the Iraq "war" to be prolonged because of their state-sponsored terrorism and the WH may not need to reference missiles or WMD of any kind ...

[punpirate]

11. Yeah, I know...

... I've read of it. But, they can't act independently under the War Powers Act unless they can justify imminent threat to US security.

Yes, they can ignore that and claim that the 2002 defense posture position paper gives them the authority to act pre-emptively. But, they would know that's a bald-faced lie--they're still bound by the War Powers Act, and Congress knows that.

If Congress were to ignore that transgression by the White House, then we have a de facto dictatorship and all bets are off on the future.

Cheers.

[welshTerrier2]

12. i don't think they would try to bypass Congress ...

i think they're pretty confident no one would stand in their way ...

imagine an "Iran War Resolution" where bush asks for the same powers he got in Iraq ... and imagine the justification given was that Iran is "exporting terrorism" and "deadly terrorist weapons" to the insurgents in Iraq and it is resulting in the deaths of brave, young American freedom fighters and preventing Iraqi from obtaining a stable democracy ...

could we really expect some of the big name Dems, e.g. Hillary, Biden, Kerry, Bayh to stand up and say no to protecting our troops in Iraq? I just don't see the Democrats having any interest in engaging the republicans with an anti-war theme ... the Party is so busy proving how macho it is, they wouldn't dare take the political risk of saying "no" in an election year ...

[punpirate]

14. That would be the way to do it...

... if they were planning an invasion. But, I don't think they are. They don't have the manpower.

If it happens, it will be a massive air attack, and going to Congress would broadcast that intent to Iran, which would then have its air defenses on continuous alert.

An attack on Iran would not be the same as the invasion of Iraq--Iraq was militarily helpless--not a single plane or ground-to-air missile was used against US forces during the war or in the several years prior. Iran is not helpless--they've been buying communications and air defense equipment from Russia and China as quickly as they can.

I think it will have to be a sneak air attack, prefaced by some belligerent talk by the White House to be effective. An invasion is out of the question.

Cheers.

[welshTerrier2]

16. all good points ...

i read an article a couple of days ago talking about China's economic ties to Iran ... maybe we could drop a few nukes on them as well ... actually, as long as we're in the neighborhood, why not swing by N. Korea ...

[punpirate]

18. Ummm... that, I think...

... would commence the WWIII nuclear exchange that none of us want to contemplate right now. *sigh*

[Imagevision]

7. Iraq and Cindy will have serious impact on 06 elections

The Republicans are already in disagreement with Bush but Bush has proved himself as an incompetant leader with each passing week/month!

[BillZBubb]

8. If the Repugs "roll out the war" like Iraq, they'll win in 2006

Start the war on the eve of the elections. No one can criticize the CIC or the military while troops are in active combat. The sheeple rally around the flag--and the Repugs. Sheeple power.

If they start it too early and infantry engagements are over, but an insurgency starts, then the Repugs get clobbered in 2006.

[welshTerrier2]

13. maybe a few weeks earlier ...

it's never good politics to get caught playing politics with a war ... attacking the night before an election would be a bit too transparent ... also, by attacking several weeks before the election give them more time to milk the situation for political gain ...

you need a little time for your advertising to kick in ... running your ads "the night before Xmas" does not provide enough time to boost sales ... get the "product" to market at the perfect time and then advertise, advertise, advertise ...

[Telly Savalas]

17. So the majority of Americans who are fed up with the situation in Iraq...

will magically have a change of heart and support another, even bigger war? If you believe things are truly that hopeless, why do you even follow politics?

[BillZBubb]

23. I've never seen the public immediately against any war just begun.

There is always a surge in patriotic fervor and a reluctance, no an abhorance, for dissent. So, short term I have no doubt that the Repugs would benefit from an invasion of Iraq.

But, as I said in my prior post, the initial support won't last long. Sense will return to a majority, but it takes time.

So, I don't think I said things were truly hopeless. I said it's a matter of timing. If they attack too early, they'll lose. But, if they time it right they'll get people in the follow the leader mode and win.

I follow politics for the comic relief.

[zulchzulu]

19. None. Key elections in 2006 will BE STOLEN AGAIN by Repugs

Nothing going on here. Pay no mind. Move along.

Look! It's....it'...it's a........

...kidnapped Cute White Girl!!!

Paging Wolf Blitzer! Call Fox! Damn, she's cute!

[Vinnie From Indy]

31. So tragically hilarious it makes my head spin.

Paging Leslie Blitzer....

[mmonk]

20. I don't know,

I won't be here if that happens.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. It ain't gonna happen

First rule of the Bush administration: Politics come first

A war with Iran would sink their approval ratings even further and guarantee that the Dems retake congress.

[Oerdin]

22. Agreed, it won't happen.

First for political reasons already stated and secondly because the army already has 9 out of ten divisions either in Iraq/Afghanistan, set to go to Iraq/Afghanistan, or on their downtown following deployment to Iraq/Afghanistan. The Marines are tapped, the National Guard is tapped, and they're out of Reserve forces to activate. Reserve/National Guard make up 50% of the troops in Iraq and unless federal law is changed by next summer most of them will have reached their 2 year out of 5 active duty limit. That fact alone will force a draw down in Iraq by next summer.

In fact MSNBC and NPR have stated that's the main reason (followed by Republicans in Congress sweating about the 2006 elections) that there will be a draw down no matter what the facts are like on the ground in Iraq. Expect Bush and company to declare victory and pull 50% of the troops out even as the situation in Iraq continues to get worse.

[OneBlueSky]

25. funny . . . I said EXACTLY the same thing before the Iraq invasion . .n/t

.

[Hippo_Tron]

28. Bush's approval ratings were in the 60's/70's before Iraq...

And most of the country supported the invasion. Bush's approval ratings are in the low 40's right now. If an invasion of Iran involves sending troops, Americans won't support it.

Under any likely circumstances, this won't happen. However, as I said, you never know with Commander Cuckoo Bananas.

[Imagevision]

29. Totally wrong, Bush's approval ratings in August of 2001 were 42%

that's a fact Jack!

[Hippo_Tron]

30. I said before Iraq, not before 9/11

[wishlist]

26. If media and Dem politicans don't raise doubts, it will help Repubs win

So far the media is going right along with the Administration's spin about Iran and Dems are afraid to stick their necks out. Again the Repubs will paint anyone who questions or opposes attacking Iran as unpatriotic and weak in the war on terror and national security.

There has yet to be any open widespread media coverage of the deliberate deceipt that got us into Iraq and the deceptions that Repubs continue to use. Bush is still getting away with statements like the one he made in Crawford last week about invading Iraq to make us more secure.

Defense Dept has nerve to plan a 9/11 memorial event linked with a concert supporting the war in Iraq, when there is no question that 9/11 should never have been used as a reason to go to war with Iraq. As long as media doesn't call them on that and Bush & Co continue getting a pass to say and do anything with Iran despite evidence to the contrary, the march to attack Iran will gain steam and help the Repubs next year.

[mrgorth]

27. It would rally people to the right

Americans have hated Iran since the hostages and they would figure it was about time. It ill not rally people to the anti-war left.