Q&A
Aaron David Miller, Karim Sadjadpour, Robin Wright
{
"authors": [
"Karim Sadjadpour"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe",
"Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "MEP",
"programs": [
"Middle East"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"Middle East",
"Iran",
"Gulf"
],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Foreign Policy",
"Nuclear Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Attacking Iran: The Last Thing the U.S. Administration Wants to Do
Aside from the improbability and imprudence of a U.S. attack on Iran, it would also be a major political misstep for the Obama administration.
Published on Aug 17, 2010
Source: The Atlantic
In a few days, I'm slated to offer a longer riposte to Jeffrey Goldberg's story addressing the probability and prudence of an Israeli strike on Iran (sneak peak: I think it unlikely and highly imprudent). In the meantime, I am tasked with responding to Elliott Abrams's more narrowly framed argument that a U.S. military attack against Iran would benefit Obama domestically, and that a failure to act accordingly could cost him the 2012 presidential election.
If I were to look at Iran policy solely through the eyes of a David Plouffe or a David Axelrod -- i.e., in a way driven by domestic political expediency -- I would mull over the following data points: In a Gallup poll from last week, 65 percent of Americans cited the economy as their top concern, while less than 1 percent listed Iran's nuclear program.
Put another way (according to a recent Pew poll), three times as many Americans followed the news that a Dutch man suspected in the 2005 disappearance of Alabama teen Natalee Holloway confessed to having killed a woman in Peru, as followed the latest news about sanctions and Iran's nuclear program.
On the basis of this information, I would conclude that, whereas Iran now has a seemingly negligible impact on daily American life, an attack on Iran -- which would cause oil prices to skyrocket to unprecedented levels (perhaps $200 barrel) -- would have a significantly adverse impact on the daily lives of Americans.
At a time when the unemployment rate is above 10 percent and economic recovery is tenuous, I can't image that $5-per-gallon gasoline would auger well for Obama and the Democrats.
If I were Plouffe or Axelrod, my sense of urgency about taking action against Iran would be further tempered by the facts that: a) the centerpiece of Obama's foreign policy has been an effort to stabilize Afghanistan and draw down troops in Iraq, and bombing Iran would make both tasks doubly difficult; b) one of the reasons why Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in the primaries was his opposition to, and her support for, the Iraq war, and bombing Iran would alienate, rather than energize, the Democratic base; and c) by all accounts, Iran does not have the wherewithal to develop and test a nuclear bomb before November 2012 (assuming that it wants to).
Given all these factors, I think that Plouffe or Axelrod would swiftly reach precisely the opposite conclusion from Elliott Abrams's. I.e., they would conclude that a military attack on Iran, and the myriad long-term repercussions of such an attack (which I will address later), could well sabotage Obama's chance at re-election. As a longtime student of the cynical, Machiavellian world of Middle Eastern politics, I suspect that's why Elliott offered such advice in the first place.
About the Author
Karim Sadjadpour
Senior Fellow, Middle East Program
Karim Sadjadpour is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he focuses on Iran and U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East.
- What’s Keeping the Iranian Regime in Power—for Now
- How Washington and Tehran Are Assessing Their Next StepsQ&A
Aaron David Miller, David Petraeus, Karim Sadjadpour
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- India Signs the Pax Silica—A Counter to Pax Sinica?Commentary
On the last day of the India AI Impact Summit, India signed Pax Silica, a U.S.-led declaration seemingly focused on semiconductors. While India’s accession to the same was not entirely unforeseen, becoming a signatory nation this quickly was not on the cards either.
Konark Bhandari
- What We Know About Drone Use in the Iran WarCommentary
Two experts discuss how drone technology is shaping yet another conflict and what the United States can learn from Ukraine.
Steve Feldstein, Dara Massicot
- Beijing Doesn’t Think Like Washington—and the Iran Conflict Shows WhyCommentary
Arguing that Chinese policy is hung on alliances—with imputations of obligation—misses the point.
Evan A. Feigenbaum
- Axis of Resistance or Suicide?Commentary
As Iran defends its interests in the region and its regime’s survival, it may push Hezbollah into the abyss.
Michael Young
- How Far Can Russian Arms Help Iran?Commentary
Arms supplies from Russia to Iran will not only continue, but could grow significantly if Russia gets the opportunity.
Nikita Smagin
