Another relevant race: Israel v. Iran?

Now, this is just one liberal blogger’s speculation, mostly, but I thought the basic issues were worth musing on:

There’s a lot of discussion within the post itself and in the commentary over whether any of this speculation is valid, who’d it’d benefit in the election if so (with many acknowledgments that such speculation is a little gauche given the inevitable human toll), and so on.

Thoughts?

An international crisis (of any kind or in any place) would benefit the incumbent in the election as he would be seen, being more experienced, as better able to handle the crisis. Also, if the crisis were seen as of some duration, there would be the question of the true authority of a defeated, lame-duck President–thus providing an impetus for the country to keep the status quo.

I don’t know just how much of a factor this would be, but my guess would be “relatively small.” Though, perceived leadership qualities in a crisis sank Jimmy Carter in the 1980 election (even though he was the incumbent).

Most Americans are tired of war. I’m not sure how good it will look for Romney if his backer (Adelson) coordinates the kick off of some sort of war. I think ‘pre-emptive’ strikes of any kind will be a hard sell after Bush’s WMD fiasco. Also, if they manage to get NATO interested in conducting a strike, there’s nothing to stop the US from having a “no boots on the ground” role in the engagement.

Personally, I wouldn’t put it past them to be spinning all this up just to drive up oil prices. Hey, and since Romney owns an Iranian oil company, he makes a nice profit on the side.

If you’re not kidding… Romney owns an Iranian oil company in much the same way that Obama is a Muslim.

The context behind that, for anyone who’s curious, Romney at one point owned stock in three companies, one Russian (Lukoil), and two Chinese (Cnoor and Sinopec), that both did business in Iran. He didn’t own them.

Doesn’t being a stock owner mean that he was a co-owner of those companies? Or do I have the wrong idea of how stock works, what a shareholder is, and why many people say that the sole responsibility a company has is to make money for the shareholders because they are the people who own the company?

I guess, in the sense that I do business with Iran because I own a few shares of stock in Royal Dutch Shell, which buys Iranian oil. But he never had any operational control over the companies or enough stock that he could set policy.

Yea, that’s pretty silly. I own shares of coke, which is sold in Iran. I don’t “own an Iranian soda company”.

Partial owner would probably be more accurate, but co-owner isn’t wrong. And you’d have to use the past tense, since Romney no longer owns those shares. And none of those companies is “an Iranian oil company”. Other than that, the assertion is true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asGvjbfIASA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFvtVKWfk1g

I dont think it really matters who the POTUS is.

Well, I did use the past tense, Mr Stinky Feet. :smiley:

I was referring to the OP, Mr.Cheese Bottom! :cool:

Uh, I think you mean Enkel, not me? :stuck_out_tongue:

Enkel, Schmenkel. Whoever!

Well, if past is prologue, this article is relevant and interesting.

ETA: Oh yeah, article is behind paywall, but free signup (ten articles a month) is fast, easy, and unobtrusive. If you’d rather not, here’s Google’s cache of the article.