David Corn: Why McCain Needs Iran

[babylonsister]

Why McCain Needs Iran

By David Corn | July 10, 2008 11:03 AM


Will John McCain soon move to an all-Iran-all-the-time campaign?

Consider this: as I've noted previously, Iraq may be fizzling out as a campaign issue for McCain. One of his strongest arguments against Barack Obama is national security. And he has used Iraq as a battering ram, claiming that Obama is a defeatist who would let the terrorists win in Iraq. Though the war is quite unpopular, McCain and his strategists apparently believe that voters don't want to lose the war and that voters can be frightened into supporting the candidate who promises triumphant victory not tail-between-the-legs extrication. At least, McCain can tout his Iraq stance as evidence that he is tough enough to take on the evildoers and protect the homeland. George W. Bush sort of pulled this off in 2004. Much of the public by then had turned against the war, but Bush and Karl Rove pointed to the war as proof that Bush was willing to everything necessary to defend the United States. The argument was something like this: Bush is so committed to protecting the United States he'll even invade the wrong country. And it worked.

Can McCain's variant--championing an unpopular war to display cajones--succeed? His problem is that the Iraqis may not cooperate. The other day Prime Minister Nouri al-Malki said that there should be a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. And the negotiations between Baghdad and the Bush administration over the agreement governing U.S. forces in Iraq has bogged down because of the Iraqi demand for a timetable and for stripping immunity from U.S. troops and contractors. A source who recently spoke to the Iraqi foreign minister tells me that the foreign minister was insistent that this agreement contain some sort of timetable.

So if the Iraqis end up endorsing a timetable or asking the U.S. to leave, McCain won't be able to use Iraq as an issue. (And, of course, if the ground reality in Iraq becomes worse, McCain's case will also be weakened.) So what's a hawk to do? Thankfully for McCain, there's Iran. He can bang that drum from now until Election Day. Hype the threat. Promise clear and decisive action--and confrontation, if need be. A warrior candidate needs a war (or near-war). Expect more Iran-slamming from the fellow who has had lots of trouble telling apart Sunni from Shia.

more...

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/2008/07/why-mccain-needs-iran.html

[Island Blue]

1. Republicans always need a "devil" don't they?

The only way they can get votes is by scarring people. Pathetic.

[Prefer]

2. Iran is already a dead end

Opec can't up its output with oil they don't have.

This means that if Iran goes offline as a result of US/Israeli aggression, oil prices SKYROCKET via natural market dynamics. There is no one to blame for this but the aggressors who take Iran offline.

So if we attack Iran or even let Israel do it, we cut our own throats, economically.

The neocons have painted themselves into a corner. Check Mate.

[JaneQPublic]

3. The only reason McCain wants to be president is to be commander in chief.

The only issue he cares about is national security; obviously, he talks about the economy and other domestic issues only because he has to for the sake of his campaign.

No, his only interest in being president is to lead the military. And what's the point of doing that unless you get to declare war?

If there wasn't an Iran, he'd be looking around the globe for some other country to bomb.

[Supersedeas]

4. have the Neo-Cons ever hesitated to use War as a tool of political manipulation?