opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Patrick Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
22 Apr 2014
Nationalism, Not NATO, Is Our Great Ally

With Vladimir Putin having bloodlessly annexed Crimea and hinting that his army might cross the border to … Read More.

18 Apr 2014
NED's Chickens Come Home to Roost

When Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Empire an "evil empire," the phrase reflected his conviction that while … Read More.

15 Apr 2014
The End of Ideology?

On our TV talk shows and op-ed pages, and in our think tanks here, there is rising alarm over events abroad. … Read More.

Is the GOP Becoming a War Party?


Denouncing Republican "bluster" about war with Iran, President Obama went on the offensive Tuesday:

"Those who are ... beating the drums of war should explain clearly to the American people what they think the costs and benefits would be."

The president had in mind such remarks as those Newt Gingrich delivered to the Israeli lobby AIPAC that same day: "The red line is now ... because the Iranians are deepening their commitment to nuclear weapons" — an assertion the Joint Chiefs and U.S. intelligence agencies say is blatantly false.

They insist: Iran has not made the decision to build a bomb.

Perhaps the president was referring to Mitt Romney's pledge to that same cheering throng to "station multiple carriers and warships at Iran's door" and deny Tehran even "the capacity to make a bomb."

But if "the capacity to make a bomb" means knowledge of how to build one and an ability to enrich uranium to bomb-grade, should they decide to do so, Iran already has that.

Does Mitt want war now?

Perhaps the president had in mind John McCain's call for U.S. air strikes on Syria, an act of war rejected even by GOP Speaker John Boehner as "premature," since the "situation in Syria is pretty complicated."

Have the Republican uber-hawks learned nothing from the war for which they beat the drums 10 years ago?

Then they told us Saddam Hussein was implicated in 9/11, that he had chemical weapons, that if we didn't invade his country we could expect anthrax attacks by Iraqi crop-dusters up and down our East Coast.

Those who asked for proof Saddam was a mortal threat were dismissed by Condi Rice: "There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

The price of our heeding that bluster? Some 4,500 American dead, 35,000 wounded, $1 trillion sunk, 100,000 Iraqi dead, half a million widows and orphans.

The fruits of our victory? A Shia-dominated Iraq descending into sectarian and civil war.

The GOP's political reward for marching us up to Baghdad?

Loss of both houses of Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008, when the antiwar Obama crushed the war hawk McCain.

Today's GOP front-runners — Newt, Mitt and Rick Santorum — all clearly believe that a warlike stance toward Iran will appeal to the evangelical base and to Jewish voters who went for Obama by 57 points in 2008.

But they are rolling the dice with a war-weary America.

Ron Paul, whose youth vote the party needs and who receives the largest number of contributions from the military, has split with them on Iran.

The president, says Paul, is "closer to my position than the other candidates, because what the other Republicans are saying is reckless."

Most Republicans seem to be lining up with Newt, Mitt and Rick on a more hawkish stance.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell wants Congress to vote the president a blank check for war now. And the president is aware of and alarmed by the Republican stampede to war:

"The notion that the way to solve every one of these problems is to deploy our military — that hasn't been true in the past and it won't be true now. ... Sometimes, it's necessary, but we don't do it casually. ... We think it through. We don't play politics with it."

When rash decisions are made about war, said the president, mistakes are made, and "typically it's not the folks who are popping off who pay the price."

What to do about Iran — and whom to trust to deal with Iran — seems fated to be the foreign policy issue of 2012.

And the battle lines are drawn.

Bibi Netanyahu, the Israeli lobby and its allies in Congress will be demanding ever harsher sanctions and military action before November. For they assume, rightly, that the president does not want war and, if he wins, there will be no war with Iran.

The Republicans will portray Obama as dithering, vacillating and weak, no true friend of Israel, though the U.S. military and intelligence community are behind Obama in his belief that a war now on Iran would be unnecessary, unwise and potentially calamitous.

Nervous Democrats, facing Sheldon Adelson super PAC ads in the Jewish communities of every swing state, all accusing Obama of "throwing Israel under the bus," will be pressuring the president to get tougher.

And Obama surely knows that an October confrontation with Iran, with war a possibility, or a reality, will mean the nation rallies around him and he wins a second term.

Will Iranian intransigence provide him a casus belli? Or will Iran negotiate seriously and agree to more intrusive inspections to prove its nuclear program is not aimed at a bomb?

Whether there is a U.S. war on Iran seems up to the ayatollah now. Will he play into the hands of Israeli and American hawks who are salivating over a war with his regime and his country?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?" To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at



3 Comments | Post Comment
Yup, this will be a real test of Obama's statesmanship. If he chooses a path other than war, and his Repe challenger, amoral, opportunity scavenging, war mongering vulture that he is, decides to take the full opportunity offered by the low road, be sure to support your president, Pat.

It will be the right thing to do. And if you do, you will be called a traitor, wimp, Godless, etc. Ready?
Comment: #1
Posted by: Masako
Thu Mar 8, 2012 7:12 PM
It sure is the war party. Eisenhower is vomiting in his grave by what these sorry psuedo conservsatives call foreign policy. I for one rather stay home helping my son gown up then to risk myself in another sorry worhtless mooching country like Iraq again. Screw the rest of the world . How many amputees does the Swiss military hospitals have? The war platform is not going to help in elections either. Thats why Ron Paul's support grows every year.
Comment: #2
Posted by: SCOTT
Thu Mar 8, 2012 11:58 PM
This is stragegically a bad move for republicans. Its anti-war sentiments that will be a boone in the election. Thats how Obama got support in 08. Instead of calling him weak, the republicans should be trying to make him look more pro-war. They have plenty of ammo to use. Obama will win this next election based on the sheer stupidity of the republican party. Its the only way he can win.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Fri Mar 9, 2012 9:11 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Pat Buchanan
Apr. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
30 31 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Ben Carson
Ben CarsonUpdated 23 Apr 2014
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 23 Apr 2014
Betsy McCaughey
Betsy McCaugheyUpdated 23 Apr 2014

19 Apr 2011 Are We Allied to a Corpse?

9 Jan 2007 Who is Planning Our Next War?

3 Jul 2007 In Defeat, a Bush Opportunity