US Presidential Politics to determine which hostile camp forces war on Iran

US presidential election’s impact on America’s ME policy, vice versa
3 July, 2012 – By Colin S. Cavell – PressTV

The presumed Republican presidential candidate William Mitt Romney is attempting to unseat President Barack Hussein Obama by embracing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hostile and aggressive policy towards Iran.”
How US actions in the Middle East will affect the upcoming US presidential election and vice versa will prove to be the standard calculation for both the Democratic and Republican parties from now until the polls close on the evening of November 6, 2012.

The presumed Republican presidential candidate William Mitt Romney is attempting to unseat President Barack Hussein Obama by embracing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hostile and aggressive policy towards Iran, declaring before the influential lobby group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in March of this year that “we must not allow Iran to have the bomb or the capacity to make a bomb.” The implied presumption in candidate Romney’s charge is that Iran is actively pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, a claim which, so far, has proven to be without substance and even denied by Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta in January of this year, though he acknowledges that Iran is seeking “nuclear capability” in order to generate peaceful energy, a fact which Iran has been quite open about.

Democratic incumbent Obama meanwhile is portraying himself as more reserved and less belligerent in his desire to foment war against Iran, though, he, too, avows to be the most stalwart friend of Israel and is imposing increasingly restrictive sanctions on Iran. Though his actual intentions are not known, it is the appearance of Obama’s relative patience that allows him to claim the mantle of statesman and defender of the peace as compared to his bellicose Republican rival to domestic audiences.

Jaded political pundits argue that it does not matter which political party’s nominee ultimately triumphs, as US policy will be the same regardless of who the ultimate victor is in November. And while this cynicism may at times prove true, it is often an oversimplification of the nuances of American politics and is short-sighted as to the nature of politics in general. Yes, the demands of the financial and corporate elite do drive US policy, both domestic and foreign, but which sections of the ruling class are rewarded influences ultimately how such policies are carried out or not.

Similarly, Israeli political leadership is not monolithically behind Prime Minister Netanyahu’s reckless policy towards Iran. As Inter Press Service reporter Gareth Porter writes, “By staking out a policy line on Iran reflecting the views of the Israeli national security leadership, Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz has undercut the Benjamin Netanyahu government’s carefully planned strategy to get U.S. President Barack Obama to threaten war against Iran if it doesn’t give up its nuclear program.” (Porter, “New Israeli Deputy PM Undercuts Strategy of Pressure on Obama,” July 1, 2012). …more