Iran attack would backfire

By Trudy Rubin

Sarah Palin has suggested that President Obama could improve his re-election prospects by declaring war on Iran.

Never mind what this says about the level of Palin's foreign-policy smarts. Does anyone really think it would help America's security - or Obama's re-election chances - to embroil the country in another Middle East war? Bizarrely, the answer is “yes.”

As the source of her idea, Palin cited a column by Pat Buchanan. In fact, Buchanan's column opposed a military strike against Iran. However, he also claimed that a war strategy would boost Obama's standing at home.

Hawkish columnist Daniel Pipes claimed credit for Palin's remarks, citing his National Review column “How to save the Obama presidency: Bomb Iran.” Pipes referred to an October Pew Research Center poll that said 61 percent of Americans would favor taking military action if it's necessary to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

This poll result is driven by a real problem: Tehran's failure to respond to Obama's policy of engagement, and suspicions that Iran is developing the capacity to make nuclear weapons. However, those who heedlessly urge a U.S. (or Israeli) attack on Iran revive nightmares of the heedless rush into Iraq.

Such an attack would harm U.S. security interests, while failing to stop Iran's nuclear program - and it would sink Obama's election prospects. It would also doom the best hope of changing Iran's nuclear policy from within.

Iran is going through its most dramatic internal political upheaval since 1979. It's unclear whether Iran is yet on the verge of another revolution. However, a process has started that will be hard for the regime to reverse, and the United States should not do anything that would shut it down.

Israel, the target of vicious Iranian rhetoric and threats, may want to attack Iran if we don't. But Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has said that any strike on Iran's nuclear program, much of which is dispersed and underground, would not destroy it, but only cause a delay.

Moreover, a military strike could lead to Iranian retaliation against U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Such a strike would also spur Iranian retaliation in the Persian Gulf, sending oil prices soaring as the world struggles to emerge from a deep recession. And it would enrage the publics of Muslim countries such as Pakistan, where the presence of jihadis plus nuclear weapons presents the most potent threat to the United States.

Equally destructive would be such a strike's impact on the Iranian opposition. As Gen. David Petraeus has noted, it could benefit the regime by inflaming nationalist sentiment, pushing the opposition to unite with the regime against Iran's attackers.

Abbas Milani, an Iran expert at Stanford University, put it well: “Almost nothing can save this regime. But there is one thing that I think will save it, and that would be an Israeli attack.” (I would add: Ditto for a U.S. strike.)

So let's let Iran's political drama take its course. Internal change offers the best hope for ensuring that Tehran's nuclear program will be peaceful.

n Contact the writer at

trubinphillynews.com.