A Persuasive Argument That Obama is More Likely to Attack Iran Than Romney
This from Jeffrey Goldberg over at Salon, complimenting Obama on likely being more willing to attack Iran than Romney:
In Israel-Iran Conflict, Don’t Rely on Romney
Romney, by all accounts, is uninterested in inheriting the mantle of President George W. Bush, who invaded two Muslim countries and lost popularity and credibility as a result. Romney, despite his rhetoric, is more of a pragmatist than Bush, and far more cautious. An attack on Iran is an incautious act, one that even Bush rejected.
The unilateral use of force in the Middle East for a liberal Democrat like Obama is a credential; for a conservative Republican like Romney, it could be an albatross. I argued in a previous column that Romney is more likely than Obama to oversee a revitalized Middle East peace process. That’s because conservatives are better positioned to make peace; liberals are generally better positioned to launch preventive strikes at the nuclear programs of rogue nations. We know that U.S. voters, and world leaders, allow Obama extraordinary leeway when it comes to deadly drone strikes, precisely because of his politics, character and background. (We are talking about a man, after all, who won the Nobel Peace Prize while ordering the automated killing of suspected Muslim terrorists around the world.) Romney will get no comparative slack.
Democrats have the (undeserved) wimp badge hanging around their neck whereas Republicans have the gun-slinging Texan hanging around theirs. Obama may think he could earn his macho bona fides by going all the way against Iran whereas Romney probably feels he would look like another half-cocked Bush.
Makes scary sense to me.