[lbo-talk] The Note on Obama @ AIPAC

[C. G. Estabrook]

In the election of 2000 the candidate who said he favored a "humble foreign 
policy" and condemned Clinton-Gore interventionism became president, and we got 
the attack on Iraq.  In 2008, will the candidate who says he was "against the 
[Iraq] war from the beginning" become president -- and bring us the attack on 
Iran, which he's been in favor of from the beginning of his run for the Senate?

(On 25 September 2004, the Chicago Tribune wrote, "...the United States should 
not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama 
said ... 'having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is 
worse [than] us launching some missile strikes into Iran...'")

I don't think we can simply ignore Obama's announced intentions.  Nor can we 
assume that the conditions won't obtain.  One of Israel’s leading historians, 
Martin van Creveld, wrote recently in the International Herald Tribune that he 
didn’t know if Iran is developing nuclear weapons but if they’re not, they’re 
crazy -- given the differences in the way the US has treated Iraq and North Korea.

The US wars of the 20th century were all started by Democrats.  Will Obama 
reassert that great tradition, over against this recent Republican interregnum? 
--CGE

Max B. Sawicky wrote:
> 	[...]
> (I'm not terribly optimistic about a BHO ME policy, but the probability of
> Gabby Hayes attacking Iran seems much higher than that of his opponent.)