By Palash R. Ghosh: Subscribe to Palash's RSS feed
January 19, 2012 7:38 AM EST
Tensions between the U.S. and Iran have ratcheted up over the past few months over a number of issues, including Iran's apparent nuclear weapons program; Iran's threat to close off the Strait of Hormuz, a key crude oil transit hub, in retaliation for western sanctions; and warnings that Israel may consider a military strike on Iran to destroy its atomic ambitions.
Indeed, relations between Washington and Teheran have been bad for the past three decades, but it seems like we are now on the brink of something deadly and long-lasting. The possibility of a war against Iran is no longer in the realm of fantasy.
In the U.S., meanwhile, a presidential election looms.
Given that the American economy remains fragile with high joblessness, the country's foreign policy with respect to Iran may not dominate voters' minds yet... but that could change if the situation in the Persian Gulf continues to deteriorate.
International Business Times spoke with an expert on U.S. political affairs and foreign policy to discuss how Iran may impact the elections.
Follow us
Jamie Chandler is a professor of political science at Hunter College in New York City.
IB TIMES: As the rhetoric between Iran and the West escalates, do you think the nuclear threat posed by Iran will become the dominant the issue of the 2012 U.S. Presidential election, superseding the economy?
CHANDLER: Most likely not, unless the situation escalates to a more significant conflict, such as Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz.
IB TIMES: From a purely self-serving political perspective, would "talking tough" against Iran boost President Obama's popularity and help him regain the White House?
CHANDLER: The public isn't paying as much attention to foreign policy as it is the economy policy; it still views Iran as an existential threat. President Obama's approval rating (and re-election) campaign is likely to get a marginal boost based on his handling of this situation, but he has been polling well in this category for some time.
IB TIMES: Would Obama be wiser to focus on foreign policy during the election in order to have less attention on the still-shaky economy?
CHANDLER: If this were a wartime presidency, like President George W. Bush's, then the President could effectively frame his campaign around foreign policy. But it's about the economy, and the majority of his campaign rhetoric has to respond to that.
IB TIMES: Assuming tensions with Iran continue to increase, the Republicans will obviously take a hawkish stance against Teheran. (Mitt Romney has already advocated military action against Iran to cancel out its nuclear program). But could such rhetoric harm the GOP since Obama is already taking a tough stand on Iran?
CHANDLER: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have not articulated a consistent and compelling foreign policy argument yet. All are predominantly following an establishment view of the U.S.' role in global affairs but have made inconsistent statements on this.
Romney in particular has changed his position on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars three times since December and has also made some contradictory statements on defense spending.
The Most Dangerous US States to Drive In 2012 [SLIDESHOW]
After Greece Exits The Euro, What's Next? An Illustrated Guide To 5 Possible Scenarios
Spain's Bankia Suspends Shares On Bailout Rumors
Searching For The American Dream, In A Chinese RV
After 24 Years In Myanmar, New Doors Open For Aung San Suu KyiWe value your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.
