Further Reactions to My "Bomb Iran" Argument

Sarah Palin recently came out in support of my "bomb Iran" idea – namely, that Barack Obama could serve the country and his flailing presidency by taking out the Iranian nuclear installations. This weblog entry notes some other notable responses to my idea.

Dick Cheney was shown the above video clip of Sarah Palin and asked his opinion. Cheney replied:

I don't think a president can make a judgment like that on the basis of politics. The stakes are too high, the consequences too significant to be treating those as simple political calculations. When you begin to talk about war, talk about crossing international borders, you talk about committing American men and women to combat -- that takes place on a plane clear above any political consideration.

Of course, this is not what I proposed. Stopping the Iranian bomb is the priority; that it's good politics makes it easier to do. ( February 15, 2010)

Ron Paul did not exactly endorse my idea - but neither did he understand it, thinking that I suggested bombing Iranian nuclear installations as a means to improve the U.S. economy (!). Here is the Q&A on an internet radio show yesterday called Southern Avenger (the segment concerning me begins at 8:06 and ends at 9:40):

Jack Hunter: You mentioned bombing Iran and we're talking about the economy, and no doubt the state of the economy is the primary reason Obama is unpopular right now. His poll numbers continue to plummet, that's always what gets people upset the most, and rightfully so. Daniel Pipes, neoconservative writer for the National Review, who I'm sure you're familiar with, wrote an article for National Review Online last week called "How to Save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran." ... What do you think about that kind of politics? ...

Ron Paul: Well first, it's very, very stupid economics. And it's probably one of the most evil ideas conceivable - that people think that going to war is morally justified because it might help our economy. People say this all the time: that the depression ended with going into World War II, and there was no end of the depression in World War II, I remember World War II and things were every bit as bad if not slightly worse during World War II. "Yeah but everybody was employed." Everybody was employed because everybody was in the military getting shot and killed, but the country didn't get out of the depression until afterwards, so it's very, very bad economics and morally reprehensible to think you can justify going to war to try to improve your economy.

Comment: As computer progammers put it, garbage in, garbage out. ( February 16, 2010)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not respond to my analysis but he did offer its precise reverse today, arguing that Obama can only succeed if he decides "to accept and respect Iran and enter into cooperation."

Mr Obama has only one chance [to succeed] and that is Iran. This is not emotional talk but scientific. He has but one place to say that "I made a change and I turned over the world equation," and that is Iran. He has but one chance to stay as head of the state and succeed. Obama cannot do anything in Palestine. He has no chance. What can he do in Iraq? Nothing. And Afghanistan is too complicated. The best way for him is to accept and respect Iran and enter into cooperation. Many new opportunities will be created for him.

(April 13, 2010)

Fidel Castro seems to agree with my analysis, asking rhetorically but not answering:

Could Obama enjoy the emotions of a second presidential election without having the Pentagon or the State of Israel, whose conduct does not in the least obey the decisions of the United States, use nuclear weapons against Iran?"

(June 2, 2010)

Related Topics:  Iran, US policy receive the latest by email: subscribe to daniel pipes' free mailing list This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.