Iran and the Neo Cons

An interesting article in the UK Guardian by Francis Fukuyama on his view that Neo Cons have learnt nothing from the War in Iraq, as they want to take strong action against Iran. Fukuyama argues the following:

• Weak states are further under threat due to Modern technology, Terrorist groups can move across borders and thus the threat from al-Qaida in these weak states.
• The Terrorist hides in the Crowd, so a massive Army is not much help, need to get local people to support moderates.
• The use of Force before an attack has failed in Iraq, and thus placed the USA in a weak place in the international community. If Iran goes Nuclear less chance of American Action.
• The Every day failure in Iraq and the lack of central control.

The above arguments are interesting but we live in post 9/11 world, thus the above views can be argued with the following views:

1. The need for Democracy is failed states, a great economic development by the West, the development of a civic structure that at its foundation can create an economic middle class that feeds down to different groups within society, thus more action by the USA, UK in political, economic and military field.
2. We need a large force but also local good relationships within the community, Large and Target military order to counter Large and small threats.
3. IF all else fails might be the time to act on Iran, If news reports are true, the President has lost support of the Religious leaders in Iran, a hard air raid on nuclear development with the threat of more action might make the President fall. Politics is about doing the right thing at the right time but when you want to act on a policy matter.
4. The Surge is the last chance, if this fails all bets are off, always have a plan b, plan b could be IRAN.

Fukuyama writes the following, ' None of these considerations, nor the debacle in Iraq, has prevented certain neoconservatives from advocating military action against Iran. Some insist that Iran poses an even greater threat than Iraq, avoiding the fact that their zealous advocacy of the Iraq invasion is what has destroyed America's credibility and undercut its ability to take strong measures against Iran. ' In war plans go wrong, but if you falter the other side wins, so IF the UN fails and International politics can not find a way out of the problem the West will have to take action, or else Israel will take action, that would cause more problems in the Middle East. Sometimes you have to hang tough and grit your teeth and take action that the Guardian will never support but is still the right action, weakness is never respected, been and acting tough gets you respect in International Politics. If news reports are true expect to hear a lot more about Iran.

Iran

Since the revolution in Iran in 1979, Iran lets be very blunt has been a pain in backside and its getting worse, a nuclear armed Iran is something Israel and the USA can and will not let happen. Here are some interesting articles on the Subject:

Bush in Warning to Iran, The President stated he would protect the Iraq and American Troops there from the threat of Iran. Iran of late gets a lot of attention from the Bush White House, with his polls in the tank, the President could argue that he has nothing to lose and Iran has to be stopped from going nuclear. A hard quick strike on their nuclear development would save Israel from taking action. The Democrats would keep quiet, Israel security is one thing even liberal Democrats cant be seen to be placing in threat.

Europe Slow Again , the slow pace of European reaction to the demand from the USA to cut economic ties with Iran shows how slow Europe reacts to a threat, so slow one has to ask if it has learnt anything from the 1930s period. The NYT states the following, " European officials argue that beyond the political and business interests in Europe are legal problems, because European governments lack the tools used by the Treasury Department under various American statutes to freeze assets or block transactions based on secret intelligence information. " The slow reaction could lead to military action, well will Europe learn.

New Hampshire

If and this is a capital IF, Clinton lost in Iowa it would come down to New Hampshire, this would be make or break time, here is a Poll from the cbs4boston.com

On the Democratic Side:

Clinton 40 %

Obama 25 %

Edwards 23 %

If Edwards could win Iowa and Obama come in second, Hillary would have a tough fight in New Hampshire. As said it is a very very Big IF.

On the Republican Side:

Giuliani 33 %

McCain 32 %

Romney 21 %

The Republican Race for political geeks might just be the better race to cover, the points are so close, more of a horse race.

2008 Election Polls

The Latest Presidential Polls, Quinnipiac University Poll: Ohio

Senator Hillary Clinton leads her Democratic rivals, here are the figures: Democratic Voters:

Clinton 38 %
Obama 13 %
Edwards 11 %
Gore 6 %

It should be noted we are year out, as Harold Wilson once said and it is always true of Politics, A WEEK IS A LONG TIME IN POLITICS.

On the Republican side we have the following Results:

Giuliani 30 %
McCain 22 %
Gingrich 11 %
Romney 4 %

Views has this feeling that the fight could really be between Romney who try and appeal to the Republican base and McCain who needs to work on the base for them to trust him. Giuliani might a heroic figure after 9/11 might just have to much personal baggage and his politics could be to much in the centre for the Republican base.

The General Election Match Up: Views found these polls interesting, even with Iraq, Hillary Clinton leads all her Republican opponents but not by much. Here are the Figures:

Clinton 46% - McCain 42%
46% - Giuliani 43%
52 - Romney 31% ( Romney at early stages here )

If Clinton cant get over 50% with McCain or Giuliani she cant win the White House, and she is way behind the field in Iowa, Edwards seem to have moved there since 2004, Senator Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton, if she cant win Iowa she might be finished before we get to NH.

On the Republican side the only winning combination is as follows:

McCain 41 % - 38 % Obama. Views sees Obama as another John Edwards from 2004, he needs a few more years in the Senate.

Iraq and the Senate

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee had its sound bite in opposing the War, but all fury and no teeth, they might be right but what if they are wrong. The Vote was passed by 12 - 9.

CNN on the Senate Foreign Relations Commitee vote and implications for the future. In essence the road ahead will be a real battle between politics and military reality.

The Speech and the Press

An Interesting and fun article by the Washington Post on the Speech, and more important fair, not something you find in the elite Media. The different views from the Republicans and Democrats is best described by the article at the end, " Cheney and Pelosi stood side by side, looking forward, not knowing quite what to say. " It was fun watching the Vice President and the Speaker standing when they agreed with something and not, staying put in their Seat when the other got up.

As you would expect of the New York Times, it was Iraq and Iraq, NYT managed to say something nice , " For a man who finds himself struggling to maintain public and political support, Mr. Bush delivered the speech in a confident tone, with easy and relaxed smiles. " But it but the boot in at the end, " But the Democrats have been in control only a few weeks, and polls indicate that for now the public is more likely to side with them in a fight. And it is not clear that Mr. BushÂ’s new proposals would do anything to reverse the political balance of power. " In other words the President will fail and the Democrats have the whip hand.

In Newsweek, the President former Speech writer saw the speech as a plus for Bush and a negative for the Democrats, as if he would say anything else.

The Boston Globe states the following on the Speech, " On domestic policy, the president's words were conciliatory. But he is still going it alone in Iraq, losing even many in his own party. " As we are talking of the state that has Ted Kennedy and John F. Kerry as their Senators no great news here.

The Elite Media was never going to give Bush a fair hearing, but on the whole the Speech was good, the President is no Ronald Reagan, but then few Presidents are, it will be interesting to see how the great public of the USA react to the Speech.

Quick Review of State of Union Speech

The Speech in the first half was a basket list of good ideas on the domestic front, this might play well with the American People, Bill Clinton pulled a similar trick when he was in trouble and it worked, we shall se what the elite Media think over the next few hours and days. On the International Front, the President Stood Tall, the Gipper would be proud of him, we shall see if it works.

As mentioned the speech should be seen within the context of speech of previous Presidents in their Seventh year, links down below to Reagan, Clinton and to todays Speech by President George W. Bush.

The State of the Union 2007

The State of the Union 1998 and 1999 ( The Period covered by Monica Lewinsky Scandal )

The State of the Union 1987