Politics & Policy

Tehran and Obama’s Reelection

The end of the Iraq war gives Iran a chance to affect the presidential election.

The formal end of the U.S. war in Iraq on December 15 enhances neighboring Iran as a major, unpredictable factor in the U.S. presidential election of 2012.

First, a look back: Iran’s mullahs already had one opportunity to affect American politics, in 1980. Their seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran for 444 days haunted Pres. Jimmy Carter’s reelection campaign and — thanks to such developments as yellow ribbons, a “Rose Garden” <a href="../AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary Internet Files/Content.Outlook/9CN22QXG/strategy, a failed rescue operation, and ABC’s America Held Hostage program — contributed to his defeat. Ayatollah Khomeini rebuffed Carter’s hopes for an “October surprise” release of the hostages and twisted the knife one final time by freeing them exactly as Ronald Reagan took the presidential oath.

#ad#Today, Iran has two potential roles in Obama’s reelection campaign: as disrupter in Iraq, or as the target of U.S. attacks. Let’s look at each of them:

Who lost Iraq? Although George W. Bush’s administration signed the status-of-forces agreement with the Iraqi government, stipulating that “all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011,” Obama’s decision against keeping a residual force in Iraq made the troop withdrawal his choice and his burden. This puts him at risk: Should things go badly in Iraq in 2012, he, not Bush, will take the blame. In other words, Iran’s supreme guide, Ali Khamenei, can make Obama’s life miserable.

Khamenei has many options. He can exert more control over those many Iraqi leaders who are Shiite Islamists with a pro-Iranian outlook, some of whom even lived in exile in Iran —  the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, for example. The Iranians can also influence Iraqi politics via the country’s intelligence services, which they have already substantially penetrated. Or they can move Iranian troops at will into Iraq, as tens of thousands of U.S. troops are now gone from Iraq’s eastern border, and engage in mischief of their choosing. Finally, they can support proxies such as Moqtada al-Sadr or dispatch terrorist agents.

In 1980, the Iranians manipulated the American political process with hostages. In 2012, Iraq is their plaything. Should Iran’s rulers decide to make trouble before November 6, the Republican candidate will blame Obama for “losing Iraq.” Given Obama’s long opposition to the war, that will sting.

(Alternatively, the Iranians can shift gears and make good on their threat to close the Straits of Hormuz to imperil the 17 percent of world oil that goes through that waterway, thereby creating global economic instability.)

#page#Mullahs chose to harm a weakened Democrat in 1980 and could do so again; or, they could decide that Obama is more to their liking and desist. The key point is, the troop withdrawal hands them extra options. Obama may well rue not having kept them there until after the elections, which would have allowed him plausibly to claim, “I did my best.”

Bomb Iranian nukes? Almost two years ago, when Obama still held a threadbare popular plurality among Americans of +3 percent, I suggested that a U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities “would dispatch Obama’s feckless first year down the memory hole and transform the domestic political scene” to his benefit. With one action, he could both protect the United States from a dangerous enemy and redraw the election contest. “It would sideline health care, prompt Republicans to work with Democrats, make netroots squeal, independents reconsider, and conservatives swoon.”

#ad#As Obama’s popularity has sunk to -4.4 percent and the elections loom less than a year away, his incentive to bomb Iran has substantially increased, a point publicly discussed by a colorful range of figures, both American (Sarah Palin, Pat Buchanan, Dick Cheney, Ron Paul, Elliott Abrams, George Friedman, David Broder, Donald Trump) and foreign (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro). Health care, employment, and the debt offer the president little solace, the Left is disappointed, and the independent vote is up for grabs. Current skirmishes over sanctions and drones could be mere distractions; an attack on Iranian facilities would presumably take place in the first half of 2012, not too self-evidently close to the U.S. elections.

In conclusion: Khamenei and Obama can each make trouble for the other. If they do, Iran and Iraq would play outsized parts in the presidential contest, continuing in their unique 30-year-plus role as the tar babies of American politics.

Daniel Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2011 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

Most Popular

Law & the Courts

The Second(-Class) Amendment

Editor’s Note: The following is the fourth in a series of articles in which Mr. Yoo and Mr. Phillips will lay out a course of constitutional restoration, pointing out areas where the Supreme Court has driven the Constitution off its rails and the ways the current Court can put it back on track. The first entry ... Read More
World

The Mad, Mad Meditations of Monsieur Macron

Almost everything French president Emmanuel Macron has said recently on the topic of foreign affairs, the United States, and nationalism and patriotism is silly. He implicitly rebukes Donald Trump for praising the idea of nationalism as a creed in which citizens of sovereign nations expect their leaders to put ... Read More
World

The Brexit Crisis

After what seem like years of a phony war, British and European Union negotiators finally agreed on the terms of Britain’s departure from the EU earlier this week, and Theresa May announced it in the House of Commons. The deal covers more than 500 pages of legal and bureaucratic prose, and few but the ... Read More