Can Israel Determine the Next US President?

[TonySinclair]

I realize it will be impossible for some to see this as anything but anti-Semitic, but IMO this is a straightforward question about a unique set of circumstances in current politics:

My premises:
1) Obama wants to get re-elected
2) Obama's poll numbers go up and down with the economy
2a) Corollary: if the economy continues to improve, Obama will win; if the economy worsens to a significant degree, he will lose
3) If Israel attacks Iran, world oil prices will skyrocket, US gas prices will skyrocket, the economy will tank, and Obama will lose

My conclusion: Barring some unforeseen development (and I know that they happen all the time), Israel can determine the outcome of this year's US presidential election, by attacking Iran or not. As there is reason to believe that there is a sizable faction in Israeli politics that favors an attack on its own merits, even a private message to Obama that they are making plans to do so would be perceived as credible, and (depending on how cynical and/or corrupt you think Obama is) might win unprecedented concessions from him, in return for not following through with those plans, or at least delaying them until after the election.

For what it's worth, I would expect any country to act in its own self-interest, and to push whatever advantages it has in a negotiation with the US government.

Are my premises fair? Is my conclusion logical? Is this actually a problem? If so, is there a solution?

[XT]

In the same way that Iran can determine the next president....or Saudi Arabia....or Russia, China or North Korea, etc etc etc. Potentially, any of them, acting either in their own perceived self interest or, less likely with an eye towards influencing our election, could create a situation that could potentially discredit or otherwise put the current president into disfavor enough to effect his chances of reelection. That's always a possibility.

I don't think that this equates to Israel (or any of the other countries I mentioned) DETERMINING the next president, however.

-XT

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by XT

In the same way that Iran can determine the next president....or Saudi Arabia....or Russia, China or North Korea, etc etc etc. Potentially, any of them, acting either in their own perceived self interest or, less likely with an eye towards influencing our election, could create a situation that could potentially discredit or otherwise put the current president into disfavor enough to effect his chances of reelection. That's always a possibility.

I agree it's always a possibility. My assertion is that in this case, it's almost a certainty.

I honestly think that Israel attacks = Obama loses. I don't think it's anywhere nearly as clear what would happen if Russia or China or Saudi Arabia attacked Israel, and Obama lept to its defense. The economy would still tank, but Americans would have someone to blame besides Obama.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

....
3) If Israel attacks Iran, world oil prices will skyrocket, US gas prices will skyrocket, the economy will tank, and Obama will lose....

I don't think this particular premise follows because there is no reason to believe the cause-and-effect relationship. For example:

Why will world oil prices skyrocket more than they already have or will from sanctions on Iranian oil?

Why will the attack necessarily affect US gas prices?

I also really doubt Israel will attack Iran.

[XT]

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

I agree it's always a possibility. My assertion is that in this case, it's almost a certainty.

No, I don't think it's anything like a certainty. It would depend on how things played out, the exact circumstances, what Iran's reaction was...all sorts of things that would be completely beyond Israel's ability to control. As would the US voters reactions.

I honestly think that Israel attacks = Obama loses. I don't think it's anywhere nearly as clear what would happen if Russia or China or Saudi Arabia attacked Israel, and Obama lept to its defense. The economy would still tank, but Americans would have someone to blame besides Obama.

I can think of things both Russia and China that would have equally potential impacts. Certainly Saudi could have similar impacts. And Iran is in the same boat wrt this question as Israel.

I don't believe that Americans would automatically blame Obama for an attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear weapons programs. Again, it would depend on exactly how things transpired, and what our reaction was...and what Iran's reaction would be. And what Europe's reaction would be. And what China's reaction would be. There are too many variables for Israel to be doing this with an eye towards influencing our election process, if that's what you are getting at.

If Israel attacks Iran it will be because they have made their own calculations concerning the threat Iran poses to them wrt their nuclear weapons program, balanced against the reaction of allies or neutral or even hostile foreign powers and interests.

-XT

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by Inbred Mm domesticus

Why will world oil prices skyrocket more than they already have or will from sanctions on Iranian oil?

Because Iran has said that they would close the Strait of Hormuz in response to an attack. Whether they actually do it or not, I expect that the heightened threat would cause a big rise in prices.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Inbred Mm domesticus

Why will the attack necessarily affect US gas prices?

If it escalated into a shooting war then it certainly would have a negative effect on gas prices due to both the disruption of one of the worlds major trade routes, as well as the disruption in a large percentage of the route used to keep the supply of oil moving to western countries. Even if it didn't it most likely would disrupt markets and oil futures commodities trading.

Whether that would have the effect the OP posits on Obama's reelection chances is, to me, more problematic. It would hinge on a lot of things, but the most fickle IMHO is whether the American public that WOULD have voted for Obama would blame him for the shooting war, or whether they would blame Israel...or even Iran. I'm not seeing that as a certainty any way you slice it...the US public's reaction to any given set of events is chaotic at best, and it might lead to an Obama landslide victory.

Look what 9/11 did for GW after all.

-XT

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by XT

I don't believe that Americans would automatically blame Obama for an attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear weapons programs.

I didn't mean to imply they would. I meant that they would be less likely to see Israel as the bad guy, and so would have no one to deflect their anger at Obama for the tanking economy.

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by XT

Whether that would have the effect the OP posits on Obama's reelection chances is, to me, more problematic. It would hinge on a lot of things, but the most fickle IMHO is whether the American public that WOULD have voted for Obama would blame him for the shooting war, or whether they would blame Israel...or even Iran.
-XT

I don't think it would hurt Obama very much in his base, but by all accounts it's the independents who will determine the winner, and I assume that independents are just as likely to vote based on the economy, without giving a lot of thought to geopolitical considerations, as anyone else.

[XT]

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

I didn't mean to imply they would. I meant that they would be less likely to see Israel as the bad guy, and so would have no one to deflect their anger at Obama for the tanking economy.

Why would they be less likely to see Israel as the bad guy...or Iran for that matter? Why would they necessarily blame Obama for something like this? The America people certainly can be nearly as dense as a neutron star, but they aren't completely stupid or devoid of the ability to connect the dots or see cause and effect. If Israel DOES attack Iran and this causes gas prices to rise (something that seems likely to me), their reaction would be...unknown. Anyone telling you that they can predict how Americans will reaction to ANYTHING is either lying or deluded. It will depend on how the story plays out, and the various reactions and counter reactions on the world stage...and what sort of traction any or all of that gets with the American public.

My WAG, based on what I think would be the most likely scenario (in what I believe a highly UNLIKELY event) is that it would have only a marginal effect on the election, even if gas prices went up substantially. I doubt Obama et al would back Israel's play, though I have no idea to what extent the condemnation would be. If Iran tried to drag us in, my WAG is that it would depend how they did it as to what the US public's reaction would be. Fuck it up and it will be songs about booting ass and eagles flying again, and Obama will cruise into his second term without any perspiration.

-XT

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by XT

Why would they be less likely to see Israel as the bad guy...or Iran for that matter? Why would they necessarily blame Obama for something like this? The America people certainly can be nearly as dense as a neutron star, but they aren't completely stupid or devoid of the ability to connect the dots or see cause and effect. If Israel DOES attack Iran and this causes gas prices to rise (something that seems likely to me), their reaction would be...unknown. Anyone telling you that they can predict how Americans will reaction to ANYTHING is either lying or deluded. It will depend on how the story plays out, and the various reactions and counter reactions on the world stage...and what sort of traction any or all of that gets with the American public.

I would really like to believe that, but the last ten years convinced me that it is absolutely impossible to underestimate the ease of manipulation of the American electorate. Karl Rove's group would be blanketing the media with commercials about how everything is Obama's fault, and millions of people just don't have time to stay informed, so that is all they would see. It's just so much easier to make 30-second sound bites out of "Gas Prices have Tripled Under Obama" than to explain the geopolitical realities.

[Ravenman]

But I think it is pretty clear that if Israel attacks, Romney will try to be to the right of Obama in supporting the raid. That means that Romney would be probably more strident than Obama in that higher oil prices are worth the cost of guaranteeing Israel's security. If Romney supports war between Israel and Iran, and Obama is seen as the one who had counseled caution, given the war-weariness of most people, I would say the issue is a wash. I don't think any candidate would be a sure winner or loser if Israel attacked Iran.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

But I think it is pretty clear that if Israel attacks, Romney will try to be to the right of Obama in supporting the raid. That means that Romney would be probably more strident than Obama in that higher oil prices are worth the cost of guaranteeing Israel's security. If Romney supports war between Israel and Iran, and Obama is seen as the one who had counseled caution, given the war-weariness of most people, I would say the issue is a wash. I don't think any candidate would be a sure winner or loser if Israel attacked Iran.

Exactly.

-XT

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

But I think it is pretty clear that if Israel attacks, Romney will try to be to the right of Obama in supporting the raid.

I totally agree.

That means that Romney would be probably more strident than Obama in that higher oil prices are worth the cost of guaranteeing Israel's security.

I totally disagree. Until fairly recently, I thought Romney was just an airhead who wanted everybody to like him, so he would say whatever he thought they wanted to hear. But IMO it's become obvious that he will deliberately lie through his teeth to get elected, and so I can't imagine him helping Obama in that way. Romney is perfectly capable of blaming Obama's health care plan for high gas prices, while simultaneously claiming Obama is on Iran's side in the conflict. And that Karl Rove is, too, goes without saying.

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

Because Iran has said that they would close the Strait of Hormuz in response to an attack. Whether they actually do it or not, I expect that the heightened threat would cause a big rise in prices.

The current price of petroleum has already somewhat priced-in this possibility. Sure, if Israel attacked Iran, the price would still go up, but I don't think it would be as dramatic a price-shift as you seem to expect.

Besides, Iran's willingness and ability to do the things it has threatened to do are almost certainly overstated. And in the long run, (which is what the market is most concerned with) the market may actually come to favor any action that breaks the status quo of brinksmanship.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

But I think it is pretty clear that if Israel attacks, Romney will try to be to the right of Obama in supporting the raid. That means that Romney would be probably more strident than Obama in that higher oil prices are worth the cost of guaranteeing Israel's security. If Romney supports war between Israel and Iran, and Obama is seen as the one who had counseled caution, given the war-weariness of most people, I would say the issue is a wash. I don't think any candidate would be a sure winner or loser if Israel attacked Iran.

You're being too logical. It's more like: OMG, it's really bad right now. Must vote for someone different!!

[XT]

Oh...and here I thought it was something like 'Romney, as a good solid Mormon, would be a much better choice in President that SOME BLECK MON! Send in the fighters and nuke Iran from orbit. What could go wrong??'

-XT

[Lantern]

I have been wondering about this myself. There was a NYTimes article the other day about Netanyahu's relationship with Romney which goes back to their Bain days. There is no question he would vastly prefer Romney to Obama.

Would he attack Iran before the election partly to ensure Obama's defeat? Possible but it would be hugely risky. I don't think anyone knows how it would play out in electoral terms. There could be a short-term rally-around-the-flag effect which could swamp any negative economic effect. The election is only 7 months away after all. Needless to say, if Obama is re-elected he is going to be even more hostile towards Netanyahu. I also think an Israeli attack in the middle of an election will be widely viewed as an attempt to influence the US election and will increase hostility towards Israel in the national security establishment: the military, the CIA and the State Department. Politicians come and go but these institutions shape US policy in the long run.

Personally I think if Israel wanted to attack Iran they would have done it by now. But who knows? I don't have an overly high opinion of Netanyahu's judgement.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

Because Iran has said that they would close the Strait of Hormuz in response to an attack. Whether they actually do it or not, I expect that the heightened threat would cause a big rise in prices.

Originally Posted by XT

If it escalated into a shooting war then it certainly would have a negative effect on gas prices due to both the disruption of one of the worlds major trade routes, as well as the disruption in a large percentage of the route used to keep the supply of oil moving to western countries. Even if it didn't it most likely would disrupt markets and oil futures commodities trading.

TonySinclair and XT: I didn't think of warfare in the Strait of Hormuz because I do not take Iran's military threats seriously. They do not seem capable of doing overt, offensive action against a strong military. I would include blocking the Strait of Hormuz as such an act. So I doubt they would even attempt it with any decent American naval presence in the region. If they did then yeah it would affect gas prices for as long as it was unresolved.

Originally Posted by XT

Whether that would have the effect the OP posits on Obama's reelection chances is, to me, more problematic. It would hinge on a lot of things, but the most fickle IMHO is whether the American public that WOULD have voted for Obama would blame him for the shooting war, or whether they would blame Israel...or even Iran. I'm not seeing that as a certainty any way you slice it...the US public's reaction to any given set of events is chaotic at best, and it might lead to an Obama landslide victory.

Look what 9/11 did for GW after all.

-XT

I think the politicians and public would blame Iran and race to support Israel's bombing of Iran if there was no American military involvement at all, before, during or after the bombing. It wouldn't affect Obama or Romney.

If American involvement included some bombings here and there and some clear naval victories, again, same response from the public and same cost/benefit to Obama and Romney.

If it became a short-term war for America, Romney would go right as I think Ravenman supposed. Obama would benefit from the war weariness and attempts to end the conflict.

[C K Dexter Haven]

It would all depend, in large part, on timing. The US voting population, in general, has very short term memory. The issue of war would be a bigger question than the price of oil, assuming that it took several months before gasoline pumps reflected the increase (my understanding is that there's a several month lag, because oil prices are set for many months in advance.) So, that delay would be a huge influence: gasoline pump prices might not rise until after the election.

I've always thought that a sitting president could "rig" an election by starting a war (or major military action) a month or so before the election. It wouldn't be hard for a president to convince the public that Iran (or whomever) was supporting a nuclear terrorist attack and that a pre-emptive strike was required; and, of course, in a war-time scenario, few voters would want to unseat an incumbent.

And, similarly, without the need for Israel to attack Iran: the oil companies could conspire to see to it that there's a huge increase in gasoline price in the month or so before the election. That could help unseat an incumbent. OK, a few years after the election, the Justice Dept might get them on anti-trust issues, but that would be too late.

So, my take on the question is much broader: there are lots of interests that could be responsible for (or arrange or fake) an "October Surprise" that could have significant impact on the eleciton.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Inbred Mm domesticus

TonySinclair and XT: I didn't think of warfare in the Strait of Hormuz because I do not take Iran's military threats seriously. They do not seem capable of doing overt, offensive action against a strong military. I would include blocking the Strait of Hormuz as such an act. So I doubt they would even attempt it with any decent American naval presence in the region. If they did then yeah it would affect gas prices for as long as it was unresolved.

Well, I don't agree with you that they aren't a serious threat to trade in the Straits, let alone couldn't pose some kind of threat to US Naval forces operating in the region. I don't think they are a huge existential threat, but they certainly have both mines and surface to surface missiles that are quite capable of hitting and damaging or sinking a ship....certainly an unarmed freighter or oil tanker.

Whether they WOULD do those things is certainly debatable, but they may feel like they have to do something, given their own rhetoric and the way public disquiet. They wouldn't be the first country that got into a shooting war with a more powerful nation because they backed themselves into a corner at home and had no choice, from their perspective.

I think the politicians and public would blame Iran and race to support Israel's bombing of Iran if there was no American military involvement at all, before, during or after the bombing. It wouldn't affect Obama or Romney.

It could play out that way. Or it could play out that it helps Obama and hurts Romney. Or vice versa. Or the pain could fall on one party or the other. It's impossible to predict exactly what the American people could or would do in such a situation, since we don't know how the situation will play out. Even if we had all the details, the American people and their reaction to events like this aren't exactly easy to predict.

If American involvement included some bombings here and there and some clear naval victories, again, same response from the public and same cost/benefit to Obama and Romney.

Maybe so....maybe no.

If it became a short-term war for America, Romney would go right as I think Ravenman supposed. Obama would benefit from the war weariness and attempts to end the conflict.

Romney might do that (I think he would), or he might not depending on the circumstances that lead up to the conflict and the various reactions to it. Either way, I don't think it's possible to predict exactly what the American people would do in any of these situations, or what effect it would have on the election.

-XT

[SpoilerVirgin]

I think the biggest impact on the election would come not from gas prices or from the economy, but from Obama's reaction to the situation. If people felt that the situation was out of control, and that Obama was unable to do anything about it, that would be a serious negative for him. But if he was able to intercede in an effective way, then it would be an enormous positive.

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by C K Dexter Haven

The issue of war would be a bigger question than the price of oil, assuming that it took several months before gasoline pumps reflected the increase (my understanding is that there's a several month lag, because oil prices are set for many months in advance.)

I would be very interested to see reliable data that supports that. My perception is that there is a considerable lag for prices to return to normal when a crisis is over, but that price increases are very responsive to world events.

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by C K Dexter Haven
And, similarly, without the need for Israel to attack Iran: the oil companies could conspire to see to it that there's a huge increase in gasoline price in the month or so before the election. That could help unseat an incumbent. OK, a few years after the election, the Justice Dept might get them on anti-trust issues, but that would be too late.

I completely agree with that, as well as large corporations simply dragging their feet on hiring and expansion until after the election, but that could happen for any election. I guess a Middle Eastern conflict is a fairly constant danger as well, but given the leaders (Netanyahu and Ahmadinejad) and circumstances, it seems especially likely this year.

[ralph124c]

I think the Iranians are using this manufactured "crisis" to boost the price of their oil. They can make all the bellicose speeches they want, but they would never be so foolish as to provoke a war.
As for the other muslim countries: the sunnis of the Persian Gulf (Quatar, Bahrein, Kuwait), and the Saudis would be more than happy to see Iran cut down to size-sure, there would be the usual yammering in the UN (about "zionist imperialism"), but everybody would be secretly happy about an Iran beat-down. The only thing: this war has to be carefully run, so as to avoid the appearance of US-Israeli cooperation-it has to be an Israeli-only affair, and duly "protested" by the US and Europe. It also has to result in a pro-Western government emerging in Iran (that might be hard to pull off).

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by John Mace

You're being too logical. It's more like: OMG, it's really bad right now. Must vote for someone different!!

There's an active thread right now, called "To all Obama apologists on the economy. You need to go fuck yourself today" which is based on the following facts:

1) Some guy just got laid off
2) Obama is President

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

I think the Iranians are using this manufactured "crisis" to boost the price of their oil. They can make all the bellicose speeches they want, but they would never be so foolish as to provoke a war.

I guess you don't remember Bush's speech about how, although war was the last thing he wanted, Hussein was forcing his hand by refusing to admit he had WMD's.

I tend to agree that Iran would not be so foolish as to actually attack Israel directly, but provoking is in the eye of the provokee. Many people, in the US as well as Israel, think that Iran's support of Hezbollah is more than sufficient provocation.