Between Iran and a Hard Place

Forced to choose between high gas prices and a nuclear Iran, Barack Obama could very well remake himself into a war president.

BY GAL LUFT | MARCH 1, 2012

When U.S. President Barack Obama enters his White House meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on March 5 -- angling to dissuade Israel from attacking Iran's nuclear facilities -- there will be one seemingly mundane issue on his mind that he may be too uncomfortable to share with his guest: gasoline prices.

There is no gainsaying the corrosive political impact that high gasoline prices have on an incumbent president's chances of getting reelected. With prices projected to hit a national average of $4.25 a gallon by Memorial Day, and with a new poll finding that seven in 10 Americans find the gas price issue "deeply important," the president should be concerned. The tension with Iran has already pushed crude prices to their highest level since the onset of the Arab Spring, adding at least 30 cents to a gallon of regular gasoline. Investors, concerned about potential escalation in the Persian Gulf, are likely to push oil prices even higher. Other factors -- a decline in the dollar, tensions and supply disruptions in oil-producing nations such as Nigeria and Sudan, stocks building up in refineries in preparation for the summer driving season, and a sense that the American economy is improving, to name a few -- have also contributed to the upswing.

No one recognizes the political implications of high fuel prices during an election year more than Obama himself. During the summer of 2008, when he ran against Sen. John McCain, oil prices stood at a historical high of $147 a barrel and gasoline prices surpassed $5 a gallon in some parts of the country. The Republican response -- for the most part "gas-tax holiday" and "drill-baby-drill" sloganeering -- demonstrated the incumbent party's helplessness in the face of an out-of-control oil firestorm. At the time, the crisis worked in Obama's favor. Today, it's the GOP's turn to smell blood. Obama knows this. The problem is that Netanyahu, one of the savviest foreign leaders when it comes to American politics, knows this too.

Israel, meanwhile, is running out of patience with diplomatic responses to Iran's nuclear program, and the momentum for Israeli airstrikes is growing by the day. The economic sanctions against Iran may be biting, but they're not crippling. Iran is moving full steam ahead with its uranium-enrichment activities, and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who also visited Washington this week, says that Iran will shortly reach a "zone of immunity" in which military intervention by the outside world may no longer be feasible. The recent string of apparent Iranian attacks against Israeli diplomats in Bangkok, New Delhi, and Tbilisi have strengthened the perception among Israelis that the regime in Tehran is a loose cannon, while the shameful display of cynicism and apathy at the U.N. Security Council by China and Russia in the face of Bashar al-Assad's atrocities have reminded the Israelis of how unreliable the international community can be when it comes to their national security.

Fed up with the vague official U.S. line that "all options are on the table" when it comes to Iran, Netanyahu is reportedly going to ask Obama to harden the rhetoric against Tehran and make some unequivocal statements about the United States preparing for a military strike in the event that Iran crosses certain red lines. If Obama refuses to oblige, it would expose clear daylight between the two leaders just as they share the same podium at next week's annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It would also expose Obama to harsh GOP accusations that he is weak on Iran. Acquiescence, on the other hand, would elevate the temperature in the global oil market, driving prices to a higher level and deepening Obama's gas price predicament.

NICOLAS ASFOURI/AFP/Getty Images

 

Gal Luft is executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS) and senior advisor to the United States Energy Security Council.

REALREALIST

1:36 PM ET

March 1, 2012

in simple terms

in simple terms so all of the idiots on this site can understand;

dems like to use the drove the car into the dtich analogy to describe bush...and while to some extent that MAY or MAY not be true, the fact is, the economy obama inherited was horrific. However, instead of doing things that might have shortened the recovery, obama simply got into the drivers seat of the car in the ditch, and being a first time driver, unwisely gunned the motor(stimulus) and spun the wheels of the car deeper into the ditch.

Now, after he took money from wall street for his run, and after he bailed out the "fat cats" he loves to cynically admonish, and after pushing through health care even though most americans didnt want it and it was at the expense of fixing the economy, he NOW wants to sacrifice world stability and world security for the sake of lower gas prices? Shouldn't he have fixed the economy long before so that this didn't have to be a choice right now? Had he been a rational experienced president and not some laughable community organizer, he might have realized that opening up america's resources so that dependency on middle east oil would have been mitigated, and foreign policy could be conducted free of extortion, he might have been able to make the right choice vis a vis iran.

this man who ran in 08 is absolutely not the man you thought you voted for. He has and will place his own selfish political fortunes ahead of american national security interests and ahead of global security in general I call that a total absence of true leadership and presidential greatness.

have a great day!

 

DARRYN29

6:21 PM ET

March 1, 2012

perhaps a more complex situation!

Although thank you for your 'simple terms' I'm sure there's no real need to submit to name-calling, the American people voted in their president to do a tough job & it although it still remains to be seen whether he can steer us through an economic crisis I believe he is more than just talk and political street posters, this president is an advocate for change and an astute economist. These have been tough times but I'm sure Obama's choices re: Iran have not been wholly related to a 'chase' for oil. American lives are at stake overseas and this country did not send it's men and women to fight purely for financial gain. There is freedom and liberty at stake.

 

JKELLNER6504

1:58 AM ET

March 2, 2012

Speak for yourself

Obviously anyone who introduces their comments as 'for all the idiots on this site' has absolutely nothing intelligent or productive to contribute, so please, just go back in your basement and have another hot pocket by yourself.

 

ORMONDOTVOS

1:35 PM ET

March 2, 2012

Zionists aren't Israel, GOP isn't USA

We don't need another war, depression or lunatics.

 

MAURYSIS

4:16 AM ET

March 3, 2012

Between Iran and a Hard Place

Why is there only a false limit imposed for choices? It is not limited to conflict with Iran or high gasoline prices; if the President had the backbone to remove limits on offshore and ANWR exploration and production of crude oil, then this problem would disappear. Of course, he would have a terrible new problem at hand: explain this policy change to his environmental voter base. It would make eminent sense to everyone else, but he might have a serious problem with his 'Greens".

Sigh ....

 

REALREALIST

3:00 PM ET

March 1, 2012

redacted, FP is a left wing media cover for libs and obie

please, get some better sources, ok? and not the nytimes..they too are shills...same as freed and the crew at cnn...

come on...you have to do better if you want me to take you seriously.

every serious expert knows what iran is up to. just because they were wrong about iraq, doesn't mean you should now be wrong about iran. wow, are liberals morons....

 

JKLFAIRWIN

6:28 AM ET

March 2, 2012

Every serious expert

I believe there is no more serious expert than the multi-billion dollar US intelligence agencies. Their statement , recently raffirmed, is that there is no convincing evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Who are your mysterious "serious experts" who say the US intelligence agencies are wrong?

 

SIEGGY

10:08 AM ET

March 2, 2012

Wingnut Alert

Sorry, you just blew whatever shred of credibility you might have had. Take it over to Stormfront or HotAir where you'll find a more receptive audience. Grownups are trying to talk here.

 

FREETHINKER12

3:16 PM ET

March 1, 2012

hmmm

"Today, the risks of an Israeli attack for the international system are no smaller....it could just as easily unleash a chain of events that would bring the world to the brink of the Greater Depression"

i guess the whole "nation wrecker" stereotype is well worn by these zionists

 

WICKBAM

3:28 PM ET

March 1, 2012

Mr. Luft, I have a small quibble

Johnson's "yellow light" probably did not have to do with his decision not to run; After all the Six Day war was 1967 and Johnson decided not to run until after the fall out from the Tet Offensive and the 1968 domestic turmoil.

 

TARQUINIS

5:48 PM ET

March 1, 2012

Attack Iran, upset the whole world

L.A Times, "U.S. does not believe Iran is trying to build nuclear bomb", February 23, 2012:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-intel-20120224,0,6528507,print.story

"As U.S. and Israeli officials talk publicly about the prospect of a military strike against Iran's nuclear program, one fact is often overlooked: U.S. intelligence agencies don't believe Iran is actively trying to build an atomic bomb. A highly classified U.S. intelligence assessment circulated to policymakers early last year largely affirms that view, originally made in 2007".

"Both reports, known as national intelligence estimates, conclude that Tehran halted efforts to develop and build a nuclear warhead in 2003. The most recent report, which represents the consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, indicates that Iran is pursuing research that could put it in a position to build a weapon, but that it has not sought to do so. Although Iran continues to enrich uranium at low levels, U.S. officials say they have not seen evidence that has caused them to significantly revise that judgment. Senior U.S. officials say Israel does not dispute the basic intelligence or analysis..."

I ask all the Zionist posters to seriously consider the CONSEQUENCES of an Israeli attack.

A war initiated by Israel would spread to our interests in about half an hour. Iran would certainly hit back to the best their abilities. Prices for petroleum would certainly skyrocket to who knows what level, collapsing our fragile economy like a house of cards. Same for the whole world's economy for the same reasons. Mass chaos from Lebanon to Pakistan. Things quickly spiral out of control. Afghanistan explodes. Al-Qaeda claps its hands in glee in Yemen and Somalia. China and Russia get quite hostile. Radioactive clouds drift eastward over India. And of course in this event, Iran would conclude that it must quickly obtain a nuclear WMD capability. Achieving exactly what you claim you want to avoid.

Great! An Israeli attack slams the whole world into what? Choose your own apocalyptic metaphors. Just who else would the world blame?

 

FRANCISSTEVENS12

11:09 PM ET

March 1, 2012

Video 4 U

It would also expose Obama to harsh GOP accusations that he is weak on Iran. Acquiescence, on the other hand, would elevate the temperature in the global oil market, driving prices to a higher level and deepening Obama's gas price predicament. http://cartoonsonline.info/

 

REALREALIST

11:55 PM ET

March 1, 2012

Tarq- who else would the orld blame?

thats easy tarqboy....you blame the country who was developing nukes against the wishes of the whole world and the country who was threatening another sovereign nation by claiming to want to wipe them from the face of the map. The blame will be in fact on iran, and only jew haters will blame israel...but you do that for everything anyhow, so guess what? we dont care. We do what we have to do. So does every country. If there is any extra blame, you can blame yourself, the western media, the western countries for failing to stop iran when they could have. Its not like they didnt see this coming.

 

FREETHINKER12

1:09 AM ET

March 2, 2012

isreal shouldnt exist.

isreal shouldnt exist.

 

REALREALIST

10:54 AM ET

March 2, 2012

Free thinker is making the case for israel to strike iran

thanks freethinker..if I didnt know better, I might think you were iranian or some loony ayyyyyrab

:-)

israel DOES exist and israel will ALWAYS exist.

boo hoo fwee thinker......come to israel though, we'll be vewy hospitable to you.... :-)

 

WILINSKY

4:56 PM ET

March 7, 2012

AFAIK there is no country called "isreal"

People who comment using 'isreal' for Israel are morons or neo-Nazis, usually both.

 

NICOLAS19

10:34 AM ET

March 2, 2012

this aspect of the debate is simply deranged

Obama ha to "re-invent" himself as a war president for the sole purpose of being reelected? In other terms, you believe Obama's only chance to win re-election is to start another war? Given the incompetent GOP opposition, I highly doubt it, but that is not the point.

Te main question remains: which is more important - the well being of the country or the re-election of Obama? Starting another war at the other end of the world is clearly against the well being of the US, given the huge costs, harsh economic impact (gas prices), loss of lives and loss of credibility. These are the downsides, among else. What are the ups? Iran does not have the capacity to meaningfully hurt the US, as they have no ballistic missiles or other long-range weapons, so there is no threat to remove. Iran may be a threat to countries adjacent to Iran, but that is not America's problem.

By declaring re-election more important that the service of the country, one may ask why exactly should anyone vote for Obama.

The author wants Obama to become the next Roosevelt so bad, that he advocates to start WWIII to set up the perfect scene. This is lunacy.

 

SIDROCK23

12:42 PM ET

March 2, 2012

realrealist= real idiot

this guy is a coked up blood thirsty moron who wouldn't know Iran from an Ipod. the "west" is broke has been paper tiger now, everyone knows it but them. europe is a weak and pathetic poodle that is going broke and is about to walk back into medieval times when they slept and lived in their own crap and erine. the U.S just got kicked out of iraq, is currently getting their butts kicked in afghanistan. baby israel, is a overrated paper tiger who got its butt kicked with a rag tag bunch of street thugs back in 2006 by hezbolla. other than kiling women and babies in gaza its forces are soft and will probably be knocked down permanently in the next war with the lebanese resistance force. the only other people we have left are the hummus lickers from saudi arabia and UAE which if anyone knows anything about them are the weakest, laziest, and panziest people on earth. they definetly will never fight iran. turkey will stay outta this when it comes down to it. so real idiot, unless u r about to go and enlist in the armed forces, its best if you put the crack pipe down and come back down to earth.

 

MISS HOOLIGAN

6:38 PM ET

March 2, 2012

So a former lieutenant

So a former lieutenant colonel in the Israel Defense Forces is arguing that war with Iran is the solution to soaring gas prices? The inconvenient facts: the US does not import any Iranian oil and still enjoys free access to the Strait of Hormuz. Calling horseshit on this one, Israel is pulling on the US to do its heavy lifting (again).

 

NICHOLAS WIBBERLEY

7:03 PM ET

March 2, 2012

Most unwise

Comparisons with other US military adventures are unsound because they were all undertaken on US initiative, even though European and other trouser sniffers were persuaded to tag along. What we have here is an attempt to co-opt US support for a reckless Israeli initiative. Quite another matter. The other significant difference is that earlier US adventures have largely been self-contained, that is to say nations not directly involved were mostly unaffected and could just shrug a shoulder and let them get on with it, whereas an attack on Iran would have negative repercussions for most of the world already burdened with debt and contending with economic stagnation. Aside from the price of gas and its effect on the cost of everything, it would more than likely unite Islamic factions in a manner the perpetrators would come to regret. If Israel insists on attacking Iran, it would better to encourage Obama to leave them to do it on their own since it would be hard to persuade a bruised and blooded world that it was necessary to undertake something so foolhardy when even his own experts deem it unnecessary.

 

GARVAGH

7:04 PM ET

March 2, 2012

Iran offered to end 20% U

Why is so little attention given to the fact Ahmadinejad, obviously with approval from Khamenei, offered last year to stop enriching uranium to 20 percent? This clearly was an effort to engage in negotiations.

 

JOHNBOY4546

6:33 AM ET

March 6, 2012

There is a remarkable disconnect in the USA narrative

Obama insists that he *must* - simply *must* - lean on Iran to prevent it from building nukes.

Obama's own national intelligence agencies are unanimous in stating - time and time again - that they see no evidence whatsoever that Iran has decided to build nukes.

Obama's own Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Director of the CIA have all said that they agree with that National Intelligence Estimate i.e. that they agree that Iran has not decided to build nukes.

So why all this hullabaloo?

Is it, indeed, simply because Netanyahu Threatens To Go Off The Leash If You Don't Lean On Iran?

If it is then that's not much of an excuse for war, is it?

 

PULLER58

11:57 AM ET

March 6, 2012

The beginning of the end

Frank Lutz supposedly did a poll that showed GOPers were getting tired of Israel's "settlements." This is a sign that Israel's hold on politics here in the US is weakening. When the economy crashes due to an Israeli attack on Iran, AIPAC won't be able to buy a single Capitol Critter on the Hill. That's about the only positive that could come from all of this...

 

LECHEB

1:07 PM ET

March 18, 2012

Another Example of Ending Dependency on Oil

I know I'm pointing out the obvious, but all this could be solved with developing other energy alternatives to oil. The sooner the US economy is less dependent on the events in the Middle East, the better. In the short term, the US needs to maximize its own oil resources and work with Canada and its other friendly oil partners to increase their production. At the same time, more effort and government money needs to be spend on alternative energy resources. Now that the economy is doing better, according to this article and other that I have read on my iphone 5 2012, there is more opportunity to do this. This should be the US government's number one goal (no matter the administration in power) in order to reduce the impact of the Middle East on the economy.

 

ANDY POSSICK

3:57 AM ET

March 28, 2012

Gasoline price

I think so, The tension with Iran has already pushed crude prices to their highest level since the onset of the Arab Spring, adding at least 30 cents to a gallon of regular gasoline. Investors, concerned about potential escalation in the Persian Gulf, are likely to push oil prices even higher. I hope that, the gasoline price will decline next few month.