God takes care of drunks, small children and the United States of America

Spengler, the ubiquitous anonymous columnist for the Asia Times, predicts a Bush October surprise.

Yet I believe that Bush will stage the strongest political comeback of any US politician since Abraham Lincoln won re-election in 1864 in the midst of the American Civil War.

And how, pray tell, will the besieged president, he of the Nixonesque poll numbers, stage this remarkable political reanimation in time for the November, 2006 mid-terms? Spengler says,

Americans rally around a wartime commander-in-chief, and Bush will have bombed Iranian nuclear installations by October.

Make no mistake, Spengler is not suggesting that Bush would bomb Iran just to save his administration and salvage the election.

Still, Bush has the opportunity to shift the subject away from the unpopular campaign to improve the politics of the Middle East, and back to the extremely popular subject of killing terrorists. He believes (and I am long since on record agreeing) that Washington will have to put paid to Ahmadinejad before very long, and there is no reason not to look for a political benefit as well.

And why does Spengler believe that Americans will overwhelmingly support an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities?

Americans are a misunderstood people. Only one in five owns a passport, and a tiny fraction of non-immigrant Americans learns a foreign language. US apathy regarding what might plague the rest of the world is matched only by US bloodlust when attacked.

Spengler points out that a slight majority of Americans opposes military action against Iran but that this opinion should be viewed as "not yet". Spengler also states that Bush won overwhelming support for the invasion of Iraq but is having to search for an occasional friendly face when it comes to investing American blood and money to rebuld the country and install a democratic form of government. According to Spengler, who is, of course, quite correct, Americans care little for the problems facing those in other lands but will overwhelmingly support the unleashing of the fires of hell upon those who hurt or threaten to hurt them here at home.

Spengler's opinion reminds me of Australian Prime Minister John Howard's reply when asked what he thought we would do in the aftermath of 9/11 (and I paraphrase, being too lazy to actually look up and source the actual quote),

"I am sure that the American response will be appropriately lethal."

Spengler points out that Iran's Mahmud Ahmadinejad is the popinjay villain right out of central casting that Americans would support seeing planted, or, at the very least, would chortle as his vaunted invisible submarines and 10,000mph rocket torpedoes, or whatever, are blown out of the water.

Spengler, and I am no big fan of much of what he has written, is firmly on record as believing that the Iranian threat must be met with overwhelming military force. In this day and age, overwhelming military force can only mean US military force.

As for the loyal opposition, Spengler gives them short shrift:

The Democrats already have begun to game the responses to a US attack on Iran before the election, as Last reports, which is to say that the Republicans have begun to game the Democratic response.

Spengler, whomever he is, is a serious journalist who calls 'em as he sees 'em, which is to say that he frequently pisses me off, but he has been and continues to be all over this Iranian business. As for President Bush's long term prospects as well of those of the American people, Spengler says,

God takes care of drunks, small children and the United States of America. Improbably, destiny has a surprise in store for George W Bush.

TAGS: George W. Bush, Iran, Mahmud Ahmadinejad