What kind of evidence would you need to support the claim that Obama would strike Iran if necessary? A crystal ball? A psychic?
:shrug: it's a subjective call. Everything in his rhetoric and past actions leads me to conclude that he will not. Syria 2007 was under a different President. With regards to Iran, the president's natural sympathies will be with those who think a nuclear Iran can be "contained".
that is true.
He understands using military action is an expense, something our previous president (im not going to name names... but his middle initial was W.) failed to understand which lead to our current economic recession
fascinating. so now you reject the notion of keynesian stimulus? I ask because, according to the same set of economic assumptions which argue that the "Stimulus" package would create jobs, war spending is a strong net-plus for an economy. You may recall the "WWII Got Us Out Of The Depression" crap they sell in schools these days?
There are plenty of ways to attack a country without using military action, such as sanctions.
that is true. unfortunately, if they want to have a nuclear program more than (say) they want to sell oil to you rather than china, your sanctions will not actually achieve the effect you are having. Iran's leadership thinks that it has the
right to nuclear weapons, that having nuclear weapons will allow it to achieve it's
rightful dominant position in the Ummah, and they probably believe that using those nuclear weapons against Israel will jump-start Heaven on Earth.
Obama's foreign policy is his strong attribute
no. it's not. Foreign policy is an annoying distraction, which is why he does not spend his time trying to support his
own surge in Afghanistan, why he gives no major addresses on foreign policy, why he is not campaigning in 2012 on his foreign policy, etc so on and so forth. Under this administration we have insulted and pissed off every major ally I can think of with the exception of Australia. We gave up a missile defense shield that would have provided protection from missiles coming from (guess where?) Iran because the Russians wanted us to, and they promised us they would speak to the Iranians about giving up their nukes if we did (not for nothing did Putin laughingly call our President an idiot). When the Obama Administration called Saudi Arabia to tell them not to intervene in Bahrain, the Saudi's didn't even bother to
call us back before they sent in the tanks. Even our
client states think that this administration is weak and ineffectual. Hilariously, the only parts of "foreign policy" that Obama can claim as "strong parts" are the portions where he has largely held to Bush Administration policies.
and I really don't think war will emerge with this iran situation. Iran's leader is not crazy, he just wants his country to be recognized as an emerging power.
not "an emerging power". The Regional Hegemon. Which means he needs nukes, and the demonstrated willingness to use them on Israel. Have ya'll
really run the math on what regional incentive structure Iranian leadership faces if they develop nuclear weapons
and then do not use them on Israel? Hint: it is very bad for them. Like, they face regional pariah status at best and overthrow and execution at worst. The only reason regimes in that area of the world are able to justify
not being at war with Israel right now is their surety of failure
at current. Once Iran has nukes, their ability to forestall disappears.
Obama is the President of the United States, he will strike if necessary. I have no idea how you could draw the conclusion otherwise unless you are using "feelings" about our president instead of facts to base your decisions.
I can't see where you have objective evidence that he would. It's all predictive and intuitive at this point - and frankly I'd love to be wrong.