Analyzing the Role Domestic Politics May Play in Barack Obama’s Handling of Iran Through the Election

There is growing speculation about the potential for a U.S. military strike against Iran sometime later this year. The talk about a potential military strike against Iran comes at an important time in American politics. The year 2012 is a presidential election year in the U.S., which means that Barack Obama must work to persuade American voters to grant him a second term.

Today I want to discuss how domestic political pressures might influence Barack Obama’s handling of the Iran situation through November's election.

I analyzed the role that domestic politics may have on the way democratic leaders conduct wars for my Political Science senior honors thesis. More specifically, I analyzed whether the proximity of an election has an impact on a democrat leader’s war termination decision. Here is the abstract or summary of my senior honors thesis:

A decision a democratic leader inevitably faces during a war is whether to end it. I argue that a democratic leader’s foreign policy decision, specifically her war termination decision, is affected by electoral pressures. I unveil a model identifying several factors that democratic leaders may consider when they make foreign policy decisions and hypothesize that these factors vary in importance at different points in a country’s election cycle. To test these hypotheses, I apply chi-square and population-average regression to a new data set covering several wars that democracies have participated in from 1950-2006. I find that electoral pressures during the campaign season do not affect a leader’s propensity to move towards or away from terminating a war, but does affect what factors a leader looks at when they make foreign policy decisions. I also find that a democratic leader is more likely to deescalate a war and a newly elected democratic leader is more likely to terminate a war in the few months following an election.

In other words, domestic politics sometimes matters when a democratic leader attempts to decide what to do next in a conflict. For instance, public opinion on a war and the opposition political party(s)’s stance on a war are irrelevant to a democratic leader when formulating wartime policy decisions if the next election is a long ways away and a lot of time has passed since the last election.

Although my thesis was aimed at explaining how electoral pressures may impact war termination decisions, the model I developed for my thesis is capable of accounting for how electoral pressures may impact conflict escalation decisions.

• We are close enough to November’s presidential election that Barack Obama may be now considering domestic political factors when assessing how to handle the Iran situation. According to my thesis’s findings, a shift in a democratic leader’s own position regarding conflict, a change in public opinion regarding conflict, and a shift in the opposition party’s position regarding conflict are relevant factors in the leader’s decision to deescalate, maintain, or escalate the level of their country’s involvement in a conflict during election time.

I will next apply my thesis findings to the U.S.’s situation with Iran.

Barack Obama’s Position on Iran
Obama currently prefers to avoid using the military option (although he does not rule out the military option) when dealing with Iran. Obama said the following to summarize his position on Iran:

"We're not taking any options off the table…Our preferred solution is diplomatic, we're going to keep on pushing on that front ... [but] I've been very clear that we're going to do everything we can to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and creating an arms race, a nuclear arms race, in a volatile region."

Assuming the Republican Party’s position regarding Iran and public opinion regarding Iran stay the same (it’s the change in position/opinion which matters more than the actual position/opinion to a leader), Obama is unlikely going to resort to military action against Iran unless his own position on Iran changes.

• Obama may be very reluctant to resort to military action against Iran as military action carries a lot or risk. For instance, Iran may respond to an attack by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, which could lead to an oil shock if a closure is prolonged. An oil shock is the last thing Obama needs with Americans already concerned about the state of the economy.

The Opposition’s Position on Iran
Mitt Romney is currently leading the delegate count in the Republican Party presidential nomination process. Therefore, I assume Romney’s stance on Iran as the policy stance that is relevant to Barack Obama.

Like Obama, Romney also appears willing to apply sanctions to Iran and have an military option open. Romney’s position on Iran is presented in the following passage:

I want peace. And if I am president, I will begin by imposing a new round of far tougher economic sanctions on Iran. I will do this together with the world if we can, unilaterally if we must. I will speak out forcefully on behalf of Iranian dissidents. I will back up American diplomacy with a very real and very credible military option. I will restore the regular presence of aircraft carrier groups in the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region simultaneously. I will increase military assistance to Israel and coordination with all of our allies in the region. These actions will send an unequivocal signal to Iran that the United States, acting in concert with allies, will never permit Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.

One important distinction between Obama and Romney is that Romney would increase the U.S.’s Navy’s regular presence in the Persian Gulf if he becomes President of the United States. An increase in the U.S.’s regular presence in the Persian Gulf represents an escalation in U.S. military’s involvement vis-à-vis Iran.

• Therefore, Romney’s position regarding Iran represents an escalation from the status quo in terms of military involvement.

Barack Obama’s handling of Iran is unlikely going to be affected by Romney’s position regarding Iran unless Romney begins to advocate a de-escalation policy (conversely, Romney's position would still represent "escalate" if he began to call for the bombing of Iran). Since Romney is vying to win Republican voters, who tend to support a tough stance on Iran, it is highly unlikely that Romney will adopt a more dovish position than his current one in the near future.

Public Support
A recent United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll asked respondents which policy option they would currently choose to deal with Iran from a list of policy options. The poll found that:

• 47% favor imposing economic sanctions on Iran.
• 13% favor taking covert action against Iran, including assassination and sabotage.
• 17% favor military action against Iran, including taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities.

I interpret these numbers to imply that more American voters would rather see the U.S. pursue economic sanctions to deal with Iran at this moment than to take military action against Iran.

• This does not mean that the American public ultimately would not support military action if it was taken. In fact, a recent poll from The Hill suggests that more Americans would support military action against Iran than would oppose. [1] Again, the United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll results suggest that more voters would prefer to try out economic sanctions now to see if they work than to bomb Iran without trying out sanctions.

Assuming the Republican Party’s position regarding Iran remains the same and his position towards Iran remains the same, Obama is unlikely going to resort to escalating the U.S.’s military’s involvement vis-à-vis Iran if public opinion remains as it is now. However, Obama may consider escalating the U.S.’s military’s involvement in Iran if the public opinion begins to favor military action over sanctions.

The interesting thing is that there is a potential for the U.S. public opinion to swing to the point where taking military action is preferred above all other policy options. One potential event that could cause this swing is an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

• A recent poll from Poll Position suggests that a majority of American voters feel the U.S. should support Israel if Israel takes military action against Iran. More importantly, the poll suggests that more than 50% of Independent voters, the type of voters that Republicans and Democrats try hardest to sway, feel the U.S. should support Israel if Israel takes military action against Iran (and only 21.1% feel the U.S. should not).

Given the close proximity of November’s election, Barack Obama could be compelled to approve military action against Iran even he prefers to continue applying sanctions on Iran if public opinion swings to pro-military action following an Israeli attack of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Obama would be compelled to consider approving military action so he does not risk alienating the large number of voters who want military action (if he alienates these voters they could turn to the Republican candidate who likely would support taking military action).  In addition, Obama may be compelled to consider approving military action as a way to minimize the political damage inflicted by critics who say he does not stand with Israel (the criticism that Obama does not stand with Israel would really resonate with many voters if Obama does not act to support Israel following an Israeli military strike on Iran).

In total, it is unlikely that Barack Obama will order U.S. military action against Iran unless his position on Iran becomes more hawkish and/or U.S. public opinion begins to favor military action over economic sanctions. However, an Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities may increase the likelihood that Obama opts to escalate U.S. military involvement vis-à-vis Iran, especially if a majority of the public is in support of military action.

• I intend to write an article in the near future about whether domestic political pressures will play a role in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to launch a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Note of Caution: Democratic leaders consider more than just domestic political factors when formulating foreign policy decisions. The degree to which domestic political factors play a role in impacting a democratic leader's decision-making compared to a factor like geopolitics is unknown. However, domestic political factors seem to have some relevancy during election time, which is the time period that the U.S. is currently in.

End Note
[1] The Hill Poll suggests that 49% of Americans support taking military action against Iran while 31% of Americans oppose taking military action. The reason I’ve decided to use the United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll over The Hill Poll is that the United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll provided respondents a variety of policy options to choose from instead of a “yes/no” choice for just one policy option.