Is An Attack on Iran Syria Coming Soon

President-elect Barack Obama may have just given (without possibly realizing it as he may have not meant it) his approval to an attack on Syria and Iran. In his first press conference, we went against Iran and essentially took the same position as the current administration.

To understand the significance consider the opposite, which is if he did not make his posture known before taking office in January. If he did not make such a posture in a press conference (with his chief of staff), it would have been hard for the current administation to justify an attack on Iran. Now it is easy for the current administration to justify it, as Obama has put himself inline with its views on Iran, and did it voluntarily and before taking office. You would hear an argument such as if he did not mean it, he would not have or should not have spoken out!

Here are the other elements that are well aligned for an attack on Iran and/Or Syria before the new administration takes office:

1. Oil price is now low. Therefore an attack, while it would raise oil price, oil will not cause a problem, as oil's peak is behind us. Oil companies would even welcome the attack as it is good for business.

2. Stock market has stablized.

3. Obama cannot protest as an attack would be in line with his declared posture with respect to Iran and Syria.

4. Stock market has stabilized.

5. If there is an attack, Iran may not relaliate as it would wait for the official beginning of a new administration. In this sense, Obama's administration will not use the stick (as it would have already have been used).

6. Oil exporting countries would also like the attack as it would raise the price of oil.

7. Current administration would have not left without having hit its enemy Iran.

8. Even Iran's leadership may want the attack as the would say that their posture was well justified.

9. Israel would love it! They know they do not have the courage and capability to fight Iran, so anyone who can do the work on their behalf is their best friend.

10. The friends of Iran would also like the attack as they would use it to justify their militancy.

The only party who would oppose this are the peace loving people, which includes a large majority of those who voted Obama.

7 comments

  1. Lysander  

    November 8, 2008 at 4:07 PM

    I wouldn't say the stock market has stabilized. 10% down in two days isn't stability.

    The thing holding this administration back from attacking Iran isn't lack of permission from Obama. Both he and Hillary have said the same thing WRT Iran several times. Rather, it is Iran's means to retaliate that has kept them in check. In this current economic climate of 6.5% nominal unemployment and rising, even a spike back to 100$ oil could toss the global economy over a cliff.

    While many would welcome an attack on Iran, there are also those who would hate it: Russia, China and the U.S. military. The last can easily drag their feet for another 2 months.

  2. Anonymous  

    November 9, 2008 at 4:15 PM

    You draw the wrong conclusion from this statement from Obama.

    If Obama had not taken this position, we would be in a situation where Israel would know that they had only two more months with support for US for an attack on Iran. This is why Obamas statement reduces the risk of an attack on Iran from Israel.

    The current US administration will not launch such an attack without priort consultation (and implicit approval) with Obama. No President with two months left - from a party that lost the election - will ever make such dramatic decision. The reasoning in this blog is just plain wrong.

  3. thelogicgirl  

    November 9, 2008 at 8:18 PM

    If Israel had the means and the ability to attack Iran they would have done it a long time ago.

    Israel is looking for someone else to do the work for them. The leaving administration is their last hope to see Iran hit (or at least Syria, hyzbollah) by the US or with the help of the US.

    Israel also might do some nasty things to proxies (hamas, bizollah, etc) in the next few weeks, because it would be easier for them to do it now than to do it when Obama is officially in office.

    w/ respect to oil, I agree that one should go long oil at this point even if nothing happens later on.

  4. Anonymous  

    November 9, 2008 at 9:09 PM

    Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is an observant Jew. It's not that far-fetched to acknowldege the possibility of an attack on Iran either just before or after Obama takes office. Such an attack would serve multiple purpose - 1) establish Obama's credibility on being a tough leader 2) show that Obama's administration will continue the US support for Israel.

  5. LogicGirl  

    November 9, 2008 at 9:29 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.
  6. LogicGirl  

    November 9, 2008 at 9:31 PM

    Btw, I am already disappointed with Obama. He ran his campaign under the slogan of 'change', and people voted him in thinking that his victory will bring about a new approach to US foreign policy; to have the world regard the US government favorably again. I even clearly recall his debate against Clinton where he said he was not opposed to opening a dialogue with Iran (and North Korea for that matter), and he received much flak for it by the establishment then. But clearly voters desired change more than anything. The question is, will there really be change, or has he been just talk?

    The early evidence is worrying. To see him, spout the same old line as the previous administration AFTER Iran made the first positive move is inexcusable. Did he even accept the congratulations from the Iranian President? I didn't see any report that indicated so. How rude of him.

  7. Anonymous  

    November 9, 2008 at 11:19 PM

    That was a total BS line Obama. Show us the evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has stated that there is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons, much less have the capacity to create a weapon tomorrow. Further, the IAEA has also said in the past that US leaders are merely adding "fuel to the fire". You ask yourselves why. And remember that Iraq had NO chemical weapons that the world insisted it did. Ask yourself if you want a repeat of the bloody mess that lies such as the ones perpetuated by the US leaders have given the world........

Recent Entries

Recent Comments