Iran: We’ll stop the flow of Gulf oil if sanctions are imposed

posted at 8:15 pm on December 27, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Iran today threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz if the United Nations imposes sanctions on Iranian oil as a response to Iran’s sketchy uranium enrichment program, according to a report from Reuters.

Iran has defiantly expanded nuclear activity despite four rounds of U.N. sanctions meted out since 2006 over its refusal to suspend sensitive uranium enrichment and open up to U.N. nuclear inspectors and investigators.

Many diplomats and analysts believe only sanctions targeting Iran’s lifeblood oil sector might be painful enough to make it change course, but Russia and China - big trade partners of Tehran – have blocked such a move at the United Nations.

Iran’s warning on Tuesday came three weeks after EU foreign ministers decided to tighten sanctions over the U.N. watchdog report and laid out plans for a possible embargo of oil from the world’s No. 5 crude exporter.

“If they (the West) impose sanctions on Iran’s oil exports, then even one drop of oil cannot flow from the Strait of Hormuz,” the official Iranian news agency IRNA quoted Iran’s First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi as saying.

State Department officials suspect the threat could be an empty one — closing the Strait would, after all, hurt Iran almost as much or more as it would hurt importers of Iranian oil — but industry experts are divided about whether Saudi Arabia and other oil exporters would be able to supply the demand gap.

Meantime, the threat — empty or not — underscores the persistent need for the United States to assume energy independence. As a reminder, energy independence has become less a question of capability than of policy. According to a report from the Institute for Energy Research, the United States has 1.4 trillion barrels of recoverable reserves of oil — or more than the entire world has used in 150 years. That’s enough to fuel the United States for the next 250 years. Natural gas and coal resources are in even greater abundance. Energy independence could really and truly be as easy as 1-2-3. A sensible policy would (1) unlock more federal lands, (2) develop shale resources and (3) eliminate excessive regulation. But energy independence is not only a clear-cut proposition, it’s also a one-two punch: It’s a positive from a foreign policy perspective and it’s a positive from an employment perspective. According to the same IER report, taking basic steps toward energy self-sufficiency could create up to 1 million jobs. It really does seem like a no-brainer to me.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

But I have ZERO confidence that the Commander-in-Chief would do what was in the best interest of our nation at a time of emergency.

In fact, I fully expect him to give aid and comfort to the enemy, all the while giving us that cute little middle finger thing that he does…

While golfing.

turfmann on December 27, 2011 at 10:11 PM

That’s pretty much it.

Iran would be absolutely insane to do this — if the United States were willing to act.

Since I don’t believe they are insane, the only option left is that they do not think the US will act.

And they’re probably right.

northdallasthirty on December 27, 2011 at 10:23 PM

But that really isn’t the point. If they truly wanted to attack the carrier group with small boats, they could take their chances with faster speedboats – although the term “Gattling gun” comes to mind.

turfmann on December 27, 2011 at 10:11 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

unclesmrgol on December 27, 2011 at 10:24 PM

Let them try it.

OxyCon on December 27, 2011 at 10:30 PM

“It really does seem like a no-brainer to me.”

It is a no-brainer Tina…

… and the fact that we are still talking about this after the 1970′s is insanity and treasonous.

Seven Percent Solution on December 27, 2011 at 10:34 PM

The biggest reason to drill for our own oil – so we don’t need the camel jockeys in Iran, or indeed anywhere ELSE in the Middle East!

MelonCollie on December 27, 2011 at 10:39 PM

But that really isn’t the point. If they truly wanted to attack the carrier group with small boats, they could take their chances with faster speedboats – although the term “Gattling gun” comes to mind.

turfmann on December 27, 2011 at 10:11 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

unclesmrgol on December 27, 2011 at 10:24 PM

Exactly, the price of hubris is potential defeat. We cannot assume asymmetric tactics will fail because we might believe them to be unlikely.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on December 27, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Good thing I’m getting that extra $40 in my paycheck next week. On another note, the AP is saying consumer confidence is picking up steam. Guess this could put a wallop on consumer spending pulling the economy out of the doldrums of 2011.

HoosierStateofMind on December 27, 2011 at 10:44 PM

We tend to forget that we’ve been at war with Iran since 1979 when the rabble took over our embassy.

I suspect that as soon as there is an attempt to close the straits, that we’ll take out all the naval bases in the vicinity. That will not sit will with the regime; then, we just have to wait and see what the populace does.

Closing the straits might also open the door to bombing the nuclear sites.

We live in interesting times.

Special Forces Grunt on December 27, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Why are we still doing business with them when there is plenty of oil here in Canada (as well as in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, etc.)?

Johnny 100 Pesos on December 27, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Why are we still doing business with them when there is plenty of oil here in Canada (as well as in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, etc.)?

Johnny 100 Pesos on December 27, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Idiots who think the environmental damage is worse than the permawars that spend our money and our soldiers needlessly.

I think at this point a case could be made that getting our oil is a matter of national security, start drilling all over, and toss out any lawsuits on that basis.

Not that President Present would ever consider that…

MelonCollie on December 27, 2011 at 11:11 PM

turfmann on December 27, 2011 at 10:11 PM

35 knots, if I remember correctly. And 35 knots is not too terribly comfortable in a skiff or whatever the Iranians were taunting the Navy ships in the Straits during the Bush administration.

Close enough for discussions here. I think the “Official” wording is 30+ knots. The carriers won’t be anywhere near the straits of Hormuz. They’ll be way the hell off somewhere with a bunch of stuff in between them and the target area.

But that really isn’t the point. If they truly wanted to attack the carrier group with small boats, they could take their chances with faster speedboats – although the term “Gattling gun” comes to mind.

Yeah, but those speed boats would never make it into engagement range of the carriers. I know from personal experience what happens to fast little boats that try to get within range. OF course my experience is pretty much out of date but then defenses have been updated considerably too.

But if they did get a missile off and it was successful in taking 1,500 odd Sailors and a couple billion in hardware to the bottom of the Gulf, we could turn the entirety of Iran into glass in a matter of minutes, never to be trod upon by human beings again.

1500? Try over 5000 including the air wings. I’m not sure we’d go nuclear if they sunk a carrier but it would be pretty close. I wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of that stick.

But I have ZERO confidence that the Commander-in-Chief would do what was in the best interest of our nation at a time of emergency.

In fact, I fully expect him to give aid and comfort to the enemy, all the while giving us that cute little middle finger thing that he does…

While golfing.

Nothing to say there I don’t think he’s up for that phone call either.

Oldnuke on December 27, 2011 at 11:15 PM

I see this as a win-win. Either Obama will man up and send the Iranian fleet to the bottom or he will wuss out like Carter did and we will all have to tie black ribbons around trees for the Oil hostage crisis and he will lose the 2012 election in a landslide.

Either way it works out good for me…

William Eaton on December 27, 2011 at 11:44 PM

If Iran does this then the Navy needs to go in there with “sink on sight” orders for Iranian ships.

wildcat72 on December 27, 2011 at 11:51 PM

Who are these loudmouth dimwits trying to fool??
The Iranians could no more close the Strait of Hormuz than they could flap their arms and fly to the moon! The most they could do is lob some ordinance into the channel or send a few motorboats out to buzz around and be annoying for a while. They don’t have what it takes to control the water more than 10 feet from shore.
And to make the case even sillier, no American Task Force Commander is ever going to put a Carrier Group into the restricted waters of anything even approaching that little bottleneck. Carrier Groups are deep water and big ocean weapons. They’re power rests in their ability to maneuver and cover vast areas of ocean with their air group and not to get plugged up like a ferry boat in some little backwater drainage ditch.
The very most any Commander would put in that strait would be a few destroyers and a frigate or two, and then he’d cover them like a blanket with air power 24/7. And don’t forget, we’ve got basing capacity all over that region so we really wouldn’t need to depend on forces afloat by themselves.
No, this is just another gas attack from too much bad hummus or something. Keep your eyes on these bozos, but don’t get all sweaty over this one!

Lew on December 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM

Iran will not close Hormuz, solely on strategic grounds. A closure of Hormuz is set up to be a trigger mechanism to a direct attack on US interests and vessels. If Iran wants to knowingly engages the US, it has several other options through which it can do so and cause way more damage while not isolating Gulf security and trade architecture as well as big institutional supporters such as Pakistan, Russia, China, et al.

Closing Hormuz will make everyone depending on that particular oil flow track get involved. At that point it becomes a multilateral regime change mission as opposed to a US-Iran war. Such a war is always avoided by a totalitarian (in Iran’s case theocratic as well) regime, mainly because regime survival is and has always been the name of the game (for Clausewitzians this is known as a “center of gravity”). Without the regime there is no revolution, without a revolution there is no Islamic Republic. I am in favor of engaging Iran but they will not close or attempt to close Hormuz on their own volition in a threatening capacity. The most such a threat can do is cause modest giration in a few graphs at a few investment funds but even funds that deal with the issue don’t respond to naive threats like that.

idab on December 27, 2011 at 11:58 PM

Nothing to say there I don’t think he’s up for that phone call either.

Oldnuke on December 27, 2011 at 11:15 PM

Were Iran to sink a US Carrier by the time Zero got the call that it had happened Iran would already be well into the very worst day in Iran’s history. All Zero would be able to do by that time, is try to call the dogs of war off. Tehran would be little more than a smoking hole in the ground before they could even get Zero awake.

SWalker on December 28, 2011 at 1:10 AM

But I have ZERO confidence that the Commander-in-Chief would do what was in the best interest of our nation at a time of emergency.

In fact, I fully expect him to give aid and comfort to the enemy, all the while giving us that cute little middle finger thing that he does…

While golfing.

turfmann on December 27, 2011 at 10:11 PM

You hit the nail on the head. If Iran imposes a blockade on the Straights of Hormuz, which is an Act of War against all the other countries that sit on the Persian Gulf, Obozo and the Greasy Pillow Headed Sec State will more than likely prostrate himself before the Mullah’s and beg their Mercy.

The Mayans predicted the End of the World in 2012….if the Iranians close the straights, the Economic and Political upheaval that would result….as they say, this could the the Beginning of the End….

glcinpdx on December 28, 2011 at 1:35 AM

We block their flow of gas, there’s a chance they detonate a nuke. I bet they have at least one squirreled away. Just because Ron Paul doesn’t think they have a nuke, doesn’t mean they haven’t bought one on the black market from North Korea or Pakistan or even Russia.

cane_loader on December 27, 2011 at 9:24 PM

After Libya no one in thier right mind with one would keep quite least we decide this is the day to remove them from power via flying circus. If Assad had one he’d be showing it off cause it’s starting to look like he’s in for the next airshow and you can be damn sure that Iran who we hate much more than Syria would be waving one around also. If Iran had one they would get the same pass as Pakistan and North Korea does and that little Hitler wannabe would be a bigger pain in ass than Kim Jong Il. They dont have one.

Their navy isnt much of a threat, their air farce for the most part doesnt exist. Only real threat is all the anti-ship missles they have stationed around the strait. They kill a few tankers then it becomes a game of wackamole (not all are at fixed sites) and if we cant get them all not alot of insurance companies are going to want assume the risk of running tankers there, much less the ship owners or crews.

Sultanofsham on December 28, 2011 at 4:57 AM

Not bluster. Emboldened. Irano-nukes are about here. Hijabs in the US military. Gay weddings. Anti-American dunderhead Commander-in-Chief. You would think less of them if they didn’t leverage the next year to establish dominance in the region.

curved space on December 28, 2011 at 5:47 AM

Interesting!!
=============

Will a U.S. attack on Iran become Obama’s ‘October Surprise’?
Published 14:46 27.12.11 Latest update 14:46 27.12.11
******************************************************

Israelis and many Americans are convinced that President Obama will ultimately back away from attacking Iran. They may be wrong.
*****************************************************************

1. “When American officials declare that all options are on the table, most Israelis do not believe them. They have concluded, rather, that when the crunch comes (and everyone thinks it will), the United States will shy away from military force and reconfigure its policy to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.”

This was the bottom line of “What Israelis Hear When Obama Officials Talk About Iran”, an article written by William Galston, a senior research fellow at Brookings, after he canvassed the Israeli participants in the recent Saban Forum held in Washington in early December.
(More…..)
============

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/will-a-u-s-attack-on-iran-become-obama-s-october-surprise-1.403898

canopfor on December 28, 2011 at 6:40 AM

Rational people would agree that America has fallen so far behind in becoming energy independent that it will take decades to catch up.
We have a Navy. If Iran has any thoughts of interfering with America’s security, well, I say it’s time we took it to them.
With extreme prejudice.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on December 28, 2011 at 6:41 AM

turfmann on December 27, 2011 at 10:11 PM

+1

cmsinaz on December 28, 2011 at 6:47 AM

canopfor on December 28, 2011 at 6:40 AM

i’m one of those who thinks dear leader would back down…

cmsinaz on December 28, 2011 at 6:48 AM

Ya know,I think theres a bigger picture here,than
Iranian Nuke KaBlewys,like a perspective of a little
too much water under the damn so to speak.
Oh,I realize these examples represent,probably only
2% what the Jihadys has inflicted upon Lady-Liberty!
****************************************************

Iran hostage crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis#
=================================================

U.S. Embassy Bombing in Beirut 1983

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P8ZD3dA7H4
==========================================

Ronald Reagan Airstrike Libya

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5fOq9PYp8A&feature=related
===========================================================

Lockerbie Bombing – BBC 2 Newsflash

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bev7y9b-D-s
==========================================

USS Cole Attacked in Yemen October 12, 2000 Breaking News

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIdzbttOLF0
==========================================

Attack in Gulf ups stakes for USUS navy ordered to hit back after Exocet kills 28Iraqis apologise for ‘international’ incident
The Guardian, Tuesday 19 May 1987 12.13 BST

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1987/may/19/iraq.davidhirst
===========================================================

canopfor on December 28, 2011 at 6:51 AM

canopfor on December 28, 2011 at 6:40 AM
i’m one of those who thinks dear leader would back down…

cmsinaz on December 28, 2011 at 6:48 AM

cmsinaz:I think your right,and with zero US Military experience,
Obama might be playing a dangerous game!:)

canopfor on December 28, 2011 at 6:56 AM

Yeah, just try it. It won’t just be the United States who will get pissed off.

SC.Charlie on December 28, 2011 at 6:59 AM

canopfor on December 28, 2011 at 6:56 AM

indeed

cmsinaz on December 28, 2011 at 7:15 AM

I was a kid in the ’50′s when Ike was President, so I like to ask what would Eisenhower do if he was President now and Iran closed the Strait and cut off oil.

Nuke ‘em.

The term “Marianna’s Turkey Shoot” from WWII comes to mind.

Horace on December 28, 2011 at 7:16 AM

The Persians do not pose a significant threat to the US Navy. The main threat is if they use one of their few Kilo-class subs or midget subs and start sinking super-tankers in the straits. The term “choke point” is often used but the strait is actually 34 miles wide at its narrowist point and the actual shipping lanes are roughly dead center and are about 12-13 miles wide. Also, the shipping lanes are like 98% on the Oman side and the entire transit area is under UN treaty, so if the Persian’s get stupid they would be whizzing on Oman, the UN (for what it’s worth) and more importantly every nation conducting business in the region…I think the spanking would be delivered swiftly and decisively and with broad support. As usual I think the Persian’s are just squaking noise and are more nervous about impending action on thier nuke program than anything happening in the straits.

insidiator on December 28, 2011 at 8:01 AM

Four or five decades of religious “earth is god” (pantheistic/communism))catechism classes have created a faith in Mother Earth as being fragile/unusable/untouchable/sacred for itself-to be kept forever in a glass sarcophecus and mourned over -never to be touched again.

Man, not being part of nature, therefore is her enemy. Even Nature’s obviously flawed side(evil anyone?)-earthquakes, storms, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis,droughts, plagues, viruses etc – are now to blamed on man (Just read those propaganda sheets from the AGW crowd)

You have to give the communists credit for one thing -they know the weaknesses of fools.

Don L on December 28, 2011 at 8:18 AM

insidiator on December 28, 2011 at 8:01 AM

Agreed, the Iranians will never get close to US Navy vessels…has anyone seen what CIWS does to anything incoming? And their surface fleet is miniscule and old. They do have 3 Kilo class submarines and around 20+ mini subs they’ve developed themselves. The shipping lanes in the Strait are actually only 6 miles wide (2-mile wide Northbound channel, 2 mile-wide buffer zone, 2-mile wide Southbound channel). If they got their Kilos and minisubs in the shipping lanes would our SSN’s and other ASW assets take them out before they started torpedoing tankers? I’d like to think so, but have my doubts with this C-in-C.

Trafalgar on December 28, 2011 at 8:25 AM

insidiator on December 28, 2011 at 8:01 AM

I don’t think the people calling the shots in Iran can be viewed as rational in any sense of the word. I think that as a whole they are cunning, vicious and dedicated to making themselves into the dominant power in the region and then the world. They are more than a little crazy and filled with religious zealotry and hatred. Any government that would use it’s people’s children as human mine detectors would not hesitate to use a nuclear weapon in it’s quest to achieve it’s goal. After all God is on their side and they will prevail. Losing half their population is merely a step toward eradicating Israel and bringing down The Great Satan.

Oldnuke on December 28, 2011 at 8:35 AM

Hmmm…. two responses come to mind:

“We’ll increase the flow of water in your ships if you do…”

“How about we help you to get to paradise…..”

ProfShadow on December 28, 2011 at 8:36 AM

i’m one of those who thinks dear leader would back down…

cmsinaz on December 28, 2011 at 6:48 AM

Aw Come on, he’d never take a position controversial enough that he’d ever have to back down -unless it was against his own people and nation -and then he’d never back down.

Don L on December 28, 2011 at 8:43 AM

Trafalgar, thanks for the correction, been many moons since I’ve transited the straits, and I agree, the present CiC fills me with doubts too, but the screaming from other oil dependent nations I think would be loud enough to even get the POSOTUS to act.

Oldnuke, I agree the PTBs in Iran are mostly unsane, and it means it is even more important to keep them in their sandbox and let nature (the Israeli’s) take care of that nuke problem. The Saudi’s will let them fly over and no doubt help convince Jordan to do likewise. It is the reason the Iranians are making noise about the straits…they are being weakened from within in preparation of the big hammer drop.

insidiator on December 28, 2011 at 8:46 AM

This fight is inevitable, delaying it only suits the Iranians.

FineasFinn on December 28, 2011 at 8:49 AM

My response would be “Hey, we can help you with that blockade. Don’t worry about the oil — we’ll cover everyone for you…”

affenhauer on December 28, 2011 at 9:23 AM

According to a report from the Institute for Energy Research, the United States has 1.4 trillion barrels of recoverable reserves of oil — or more than the entire world has used in 150 years. That’s enough to fuel the United States for the next 250 years. Natural gas and coal resources are in even greater abundance.

Someone should whisper into the ear of the dumbest President in history and tell him that he could then go to the stupid, and do that presidential pose, while claiming credit for the Canadian like boom that would, exploiting our own resources.

MNHawk on December 28, 2011 at 9:26 AM

Trafalgar, thanks for the correction, been many moons since I’ve transited the straits, and I agree, the present CiC fills me with doubts too, but the screaming from other oil dependent nations I think would be loud enough to even get the POSOTUS to act. – insidiator on December 28, 2011 at 8:46 AM

I would think that the rich Gulf states would have ample assets to keep the straits open just by themselves.

SC.Charlie on December 28, 2011 at 9:33 AM

and the fact that we are still talking about this after the 1970′s is insanity and treasonous. Seven Percent Solution on December 27, 2011 at 10:34 PM

Well then stop talking about it!

/

Akzed on December 28, 2011 at 9:48 AM

Someone should whisper into the ear of the dumbest President in history and tell him that he could then go to the stupid, and do that presidential pose, while claiming credit for the Canadian like boom that would, exploiting our own resources. – MNHawk on December 28, 2011 at 9:26 AM

I agree we have a dumb@ss president, but blocking ofthis choke point would result in an increase in the price of oil world-wide and adversely effect the entire world economy.

SC.Charlie on December 28, 2011 at 10:12 AM

I’d love to see a news person ask Ron Paul what he would do about this situation, if he were President.

Norky on December 28, 2011 at 10:32 AM

I’d love to see a news person ask Ron Paul what he would do about this situation, if he were President. – Norky on December 28, 2011 at 10:32 AM

I would too. I would suppose that he would say that, “ah, we deserve it.” The man is a kook.

SC.Charlie on December 28, 2011 at 10:59 AM

I think a nice radioactive glow from the Iranian side would make a nice nightlight for ships passing through…..
But, that is really not likely to happen. I just hope our current WH occupant (when he’s not golfing) has the cojones to do something if they push to far or start shooting.

And I too would like to hear what our isolationist candidate would do.

dentarthurdent on December 28, 2011 at 11:14 AM

I don’t think we should ever underestimate the fanatic regime in Tehran. They truly believe in the coming caliphate and that they are the point of spear. That’s a formula for martyrdom.

Obama & H Clinton really blew it when we had a chance to support the election unrest and help topple the regime from within. Foolish.

jb34461 on December 28, 2011 at 11:57 AM

These enviro-wackos out there have once again defeated themselves in their pursuit of eliminating our technology back to the stone age, if these idiots had their way, our cars would cease to exist, and we would have no power from electric companies, but with this current scenario in Iran, what happens when they nuke isreal or the Strait of Hormuz just to spite us, would there be any environmental consequences? Of course there would. For all their blathering about global warming and pollution, we are facing down an even bigger threat that all the regulation on the planet would not help.

D.Mockracy on December 28, 2011 at 12:10 PM

It’s easy for this retired sailor to say don’t worry, the U.S. Navy can keep that strait open without a second thought. But I am worried that the Resident would order a withdrawal of the Gulf waterways, so as to not offend someone or other. At what point should it become obvious to even the most enthralled progs that the Resident simply doesn’t have this nation’s best interests as a priority?

At what point do all the anti-U.S. actions and decisions coming from 1600 Pennsylvania add up to a guarantee that he cannot be re-elected?

Focusing on the other side of the aisle, the media and the various factions on the Right have done a good job of making NONE of the current crop of Presidential contenders seem electable. Well then, if you think you’re going to go down, you might as well go down fighting. It’s time to start waging a recruiting campaign for Gov. Palin.

Freelancer on December 28, 2011 at 12:45 PM

I RAN says closing the Straight of Hormuz would be as easy as drinking a glass of water. Go ahead then and close it, do it now. Opening it back up will be as easy as pouring a glass of water on you. The water will be more like MOLTEN LAVA, running down your spine. That should make all Iranians feel so proud of their STEWPID leader. We’ll put a boot in your arse, it’s the American way……………….

j bo on December 28, 2011 at 2:25 PM

I’m guessing and I’m just spit balling now but I think the U.S. Navy isn’t going to allow anyone to block anything. The U.S. 5th Fleet has a response to the Iranians.

Dr Evil on December 28, 2011 at 2:36 PM

I’m guessing again, but if The U.S. 5th Fleet calls for back up they will probably get it. I believe the Saudis have some air assets too. I believe this would give their pilots some live fire training :)

Heh let’s do this thang GRIN.

Dr Evil on December 28, 2011 at 2:38 PM

I’m sure Iran will reconsider after one of Obama’s celebrated apologies.

Hey, it’s worked well so far! (/sarc)

Kingfisher on December 28, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Opening it back up will be as easy as pouring a glass of water on you. The water will be more like MOLTEN LAVA, running down your spine. That should make all Iranians feel so proud of their STEWPID leader. We’ll put a boot in your arse, it’s the American way

If this was anybody but Obama I would agree with you. The trouble is, Obama needs his base if he has any chance to win a second term so starting a fight is not in his political best interests.

On the other hand, Obama is a democrat and the left always looks the other way when democrats start fights.

Kingfisher on December 28, 2011 at 2:50 PM

On the other hand, Obama is a democrat and the left always looks the other way when democrats start fights.

Kingfisher on December 28, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Exactly. What better wag the dog distraction than a full-out war with Iran? Not because BO believes in anything. Nope. But because he needs the country to rally around him and hiding behind the flag is the best way for him to do it. The man is dangerous when underestimated.

totherightofthem on December 28, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 2