Congrats to Mitt Romney, whose victory in Florida’s primary was hard earned. To me, it seems pretty clear that, for Republicans, Romney is the sensible choice. The man has been successful at virtually everything he has ever touched, and both this country and this world need a problem solver now more than ever.

When I heard Romney speak at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s candidates’ forum in Washington DC last month, I was struck by how much more passionate and personable he comes across in person (as opposed to on TV). Meeting him (albeit very briefly) at another forum last March, I had the impression that the smooth quality that at times makes him seem - at least on TV - a tad plastic is actually an extreme, authentic, and sincere clean-cut wholesomeness.

In some ways Romney seems like a throwback to the 1950’s. He’s a faithful husband and devoted father, a company man, a churchgoer, and a patriot.

Of course,  these days it is popular to dismiss the 1950’s as an aberration, a decade in which familial and societal dysfunction as well as racial, religious and ethnic diversity and identity were suppressed in deference to a white bread culture of soul-crushing conformity. I don’t doubt that, like all tropes, that one expresses some truth about some people’s experience. On the other hand, it seems like an oversimplification and a distortion. Surely lots of people were happy in the 1950’s. A more clean cut and more prosperous time, is it possible perhaps that in some ways, our society was indeed healthier then? Or, more probably, is the truth that the 1950’s were better in some ways, worse in others, depending on who one was and what circumstances were?

Life may have been more stifling for anyone who was “different” (at least that’s what I’ve heard). And one can’t put a value on society’s evolution to be more open and accepting of individual rights, and respectful of differences–in many ways the legacy of the 1960’s and the 1970’s - and a great one at that.

But institutions–whether the family, schools, or government–seemed to function more harmoniously, efficiently, and better in the 1950’s. That’s what I hear anyway (I wasn’t around till the 70’s but I have my sources). For instance, my mother recalls that when I was born, my father paid the doctor a few hundred bucks to deliver me. He just paid cash. No elaborate forms to fill out, no mountains of paperwork, no exorbitant insurance policies. Exchanges were more direct, bureaucracy less overwhelming. I have a forceps mark, a slight indentation on the left cheekbone, to show from the induced labor and delivery. I guess if that happened now, there might be talk of a lawsuit, but in those days, human error and, sometimes, no fault error (as opposed to gross negligence) was understood to be a part of life. Ironically, it seems that greater acceptance of life’s imperfections, its inequities, and its variability allowed for more efficiency and control in the management of those things that individuals and groups can manage. Government did less and did it better. Teachers were paid less, but test scores were higher. No one had health insurance, but the cost of medical care was lower. Social programs were fewer, but crime was lower. People were accustomed to less assistance from government, and they did a better job of helping themselves and each other through tighter communities and ties of kinship. And so on.

If Ralph Waldo Emerson lamented in the 19th century that “Our lives are frittered away by detail” and urged simplicity, what would he make of our modern existence, so cluttered with paperwork, taxes, and insurance in all its forms? On the one hand, technology has liberated us from much drudgery. On the other hand, we’ve traded it in for other forms of drudgery. If liberals justifiably fear the soul-crushing effects of cultural conformity, conservatives fear the soul-crushing effects of bureaucracy and too much government. It seems to me, though, that many conservatives–or at least some–have come a ways toward understanding and valuing more racial, religious, and lifestyle diversity. If only liberals could better understand what conservatives justifiably fear about a system that would reduce initiative and, in the name of equality, reduce freedom, efficiency, and autonomy, weakening the institutions that best nurture individuality: the family, the church, the voluntary organization. To paraphrase former RNC head Michael Steele, who said, when quoting his mother, once you rely on the government to help you raise your children financially, you must expect they will try to “help” you raise your children in other ways. His Mom, who worked as a laundress, perceived over-dependency on government as character-weakening. Maybe we could all due with a return to simplicity.

Romney’s clean-cut wholesomeness should not be held against him. Nor should, in my opinion, the fact that Newt, for instance, has been twice divorced. As even conservative commentator Dennis Prager has pointed out, romantic relationships are far too intensely individual and complicated an arena for success or failure at them to be a clear-cut indicator of character (unless, of course, someone does something criminal or deeply dishonorable, which some say Newt has. But if his second wife’s TV interview was an indicator, she’s no picnic in relationships either).

On the other hand, the fact that Mitt Romney has a long-term marriage that is seemingly successful, despite his wife’s illness and the stresses of public life, does suggest something positive about his character.

In editorials, on blogs and in conversation, left-leaning American Jews are arguing that the perception that President Obama is not pro-Israel is incorrect and even paranoid, or that it stems from some emotional prejudice rather than logical assessment. The president’s boosters are defending Obama for his criticism of construction of East Jerusalem “settlements” and his suggestion that Israel return to the “pre-1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” with the Palestinians, or quoting Israeli leaders who speak glowingly of their relationship with the American President despite Obama’s reported snubbing of Netanyahu, or unpacking speeches to point out that when the President criticized Israelis he also criticized Palestinians.

These arguments are on target in only one respect: they suggest that speeches and second hand accounts of the President’s behavior don’t necessarily amount to much. But, these arguments sidestep and ignore the real, undeniable issue.

Obama’s behavior toward Iran–the most urgent issue to the security of Israel and the rest of the world– suggests there is no logical reason to assume that, were an Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities to become necessary, this President would help Israel or would guard the Jewish state from international isolation - at least not in the face of competing priorities.

How can I be certain? No one knows the future, or the mind of another. But if past and present behaviors are any indicators of future ones, in a worst case scenario, not only would Barack Obama not help Israel directly, he would very possibly not even lend Israel military or diplomatic support. I base this assessment on behaviors of omission rather than commission on the part of this President.

President Obama has not led the way, as leader of the free world, in imposing tough sanctions on Iran. Rather, it was left to the U.S. Congress to press him into signing a weakened version (weakened at the behest of his administration, which delayed the sanctions’ passage by sending the Democrats back to the drawing board). This administration, despite much rhetoric about the need to impose tough sanctions, was obstructionist to the timely passage of the toughest version of sanctions.

If this administration was weak on even passing sanctions that penalize other countries for dealing with the Central Bank of Iran, on what basis should voters assume that, if Israeli leaders were faced with no option but a military one to insure the Jewish state’s survival, Obama would help or support Israel?

Am I saying the man hates Israel? No. Am I asserting he is not a “friend of Israel?” (whatever that means). Not necessarily. Do I think he wants Iran to get a nuclear weapon? Probably not. But do I think he would–when other, competing considerations press in upon him–prioritize Israel’s security, even if it meant standing with Israel in the face of world condemnation? No. Because he isn’t doing so now. In terms of facing Iran, he’s weak. Again, he fought to avoid passing tough sanctions and needed to be embarrassed into passing a weakened version.

The President’s Jewish-American boosters can talk about his “friendship” with Israel (just words), the White House Chanukah party (not substantive), and even quote Israeli leaders praising him - which is either naive or disingenuous. Israel’s leaders, in a precarious position, can’t necessarily speak freely on this point (although the Israeli public can). After all, if Americans re-elect Obama, then Israel’s leaders will be stuck with him - and Israel will need to hope for the best from him as it faces a terrible choice.

Actions speak louder than words. Again, on sanctions, a far less controversial strategy than military action, this President has been so weak he has incurred the dismay of even some Democratic leaders.

If American Jews and others re-elect this president, they will demonstrate plainly that Israel’s security is not a top priority for them, any more than it is for Obama. And they shouldn’t think that Israelis alone will be made more vulnerable if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. Iran’s minister of defense, Ahmad Vahidi, is wanted by Interpol for the 1994 terrorist bombing of the Argentine Israeli Mutual Association building in Buenos Aires, which killed 85 people and wounded hundreds. If Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, the security of Jews worldwide will suffer, perhaps dramatically.

Iran has been exporting terrorism around the world for decades. What makes anyone think that, armed with a nuclear weapon, Iranian terrorism would not increase? There is every reason to expect that, whether or not the regime used a nuclear weapon (and it certainly could), it would step up its terrorist attacks against Israelis, against other Jews and Christians around the world, against Americans, against moderate Muslims, and against anyone else who does not share the dream of an Islamic Caliphate. How do I know this? Again, the most reliable indicator of future behavior is past behavior, and exporting terrorism has been Iran’s specialty for decades.

In possession of a nuclear weapon and militarily untouchable (without accepting the eventuality of nuclear counter-strike), Iran’s regime would be free to ratchet up the terrorism that is their stock-in-trade. Then the balance of power in the world would change, and Israelis, Americans, as well as Jews, Christians, and moderate Muslims around the world, would find themselves on defense.

Bottom line: if the Jewish state’s security was not an extremely high priority for this President during his first term, there is no reason to think it would be during a second term. In fact, not needing to worry about the Jewish vote, Israel’s security would be likely to be a far lower priority during a second Obama term. Counting on Obama to confront a fascist regime intent on terrorizing the world or even to support Israel’s right to do so would be, in the words of one columnist “to hold blindly on to the hand of the U.S. president” in the face of a mortal threat.

Haven’t Jews had enough of trusting that the worst case scenario is simply too far-fetched to ever come to pass?

In terms of covert action to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the Stuxnet computer worm and the assassination of several Iranian nuclear scientists have been whispered about in recent months. It is tempting to hope the Obama administration is either helping behind the scenes or respecting Israel’s right to address its own urgent security needs. But given the Obama administration’s foot-dragging on even passing economic sanctions, and the administration’s warning of Israel not to attempt a strike in self-defense, I am dubious that the administration under Obama is helping Israel in any way.

It is possible that more is going on than we realize. But by all appearances, this administration is doing worse than zero to help an ally facing a potentially existential threat: it is warning that ally to not dare attempt a preventive strike.

I believe that Israeli leaders would only contemplate a military operation against Iran if they felt it were the only option to ensure Israel’s survival (a last resort). To me, then, for this administration to be warning them about “dire consequences” (as the WSJ reported) if they strike, is tantamount to threatening with “dire consequences” a friend who is under siege and doing his best to deal with the situation nonviolently, but who may be forced to act in self-defense.

I think as a matter of conscience, it is vital that voters realize Israel is in a terrible situation, and re-electing this president at this precarious time is, at best, an unknown and therefore an extreme risk for the security of Israel and of the world as a whole  (and that is giving every benefit of the doubt), at worst, an irresponsibly blind and Israel-undermining move at a time when Israel stands alone.

From The Huffington Post
by HEATHER ROBINSON

So, as this primary election season goes on and on, I still haven’t found The One. Seasons have changed, I’ve switched to a new therapist and while I have no problem attracting candidates for the position, the search continues. My mother always told me he would come along, and that when I knew, I’d just know.

But no matter how many times I see Mitt, Newt, Ron, and Rick, I still can’t make up my mind.

My life coach tells me that expectations are everything. If I were a peasant girl in the fifteenth century looking forward to a lifetime of sweeping dirt floors and carding wool and there was only one young man in the village with a functioning set of teeth, I would fall madly in love with him. But what does that have to do with me as a big city career woman with options?

Yes, I know primary season is moving along and I should make up my mind already. My mother says Mitt is the one for me. And on paper, he is perfect (not that there’s any such thing, as I’ve finally internalized after years of psychodynamic therapy).

Mitt is handsome and tall; he has an MBA from Harvard and a gorgeous, much discussed head of hair; and despite the perfect 10 on the looks and success scale, he is, disarmingly, a sweetheart. He likes babies, is extremely family-oriented and is not a commitment-phobe. Sometimes single women are accused of having impossible standards, but I think I am plenty flexible. For instance, I don’t mind that he is noncommittal about releasing his multiple tax returns. I mean, so what if the man has some alleged secret offshore accounts in the Caymans. I have my secrets, too — Spanx, anyone?

Mitt has been pursuing something serious with me since 2008 — for so many years that to be honest, I’m surprised he hasn’t given up. I mean, hasn’t this been going on a bit too long already? But I do admire his persistence.

The awful thing is, something’s still missing. Just when I start to admire his masterful competence in answering a question, just when I’m starting to feel some warmth, Newt comes out swinging and it makes me realize — I hate to say it but — I’m not in love with Mitt.

Newt is such a bad boy, I shouldn’t be attracted to him. But he has this way of stating things just as he sees them, and damn what anyone else thinks. So what if he’s a little jowly? At the most random times, like when I’m doing yoga, I hear him say, in that crisp, irritated tone, “Elect me, and your kids will be able to move out because they’ll have work!” And I start picturing a future.

I know, I know, it’s unrealistic. The man’s had three wives and left two of them on their sickbeds. If I choose Newt, it will not be a stable union. My therapist thinks I’m being self-destructive, but it’s like there’s this wild chemistry, especially when he speaks of himself as a “transformational figure” and says things like, “I’d be quite happy to have a three-hour Lincoln Douglas style debate with Barack Obama. I’ll let him use the teleprompter, I’ll rely on knowledge, and I’ll be fine.” That confidence makes me wild. I can’t stop thinking about the irritated look Newt gets when someone asks a question like John King did in the Charleston debate, and he puts them in their place with that bulldog ‘tude. And he’s so intriguing. There’s angry Newt, then brilliant Newt, and just when he starts to sound pedantic, funny Newt.

Mitt is no wimp — but he doesn’t have Newt’s boldness. If only I could infuse a little bit of one into the other!

Then there’s Rick Santorum. Santy’s got this church-boy-next-door-in-the-sleeveless-vest appeal. In my post-college years, I wouldn’t have even looked at him. But that was before Barack and Slick Willie (don’t remind me). Santy’s solid; he hasn’t shifted his positions on anything, ever.

I’d never have to worry about Santy being unfaithful. He even does his own taxes. When I’m drinking coffee in the morning, I imagine a future with him.

To further complicate matters, Ron Paul is in the picture. He’s the kind of guy I imagine could fix my computer and hang shelves for me — while giving me tough love about spending too much money on spa treatments and clothes. He’d have me eating Ramen Noodles and thinking about the Federal Reserve and balancing my checkbook regularly.

But when he starts railing about how the U.S. should cut all foreign aid, including to Israel, it’s awkward. Israel’s security is a core value for me.

I’m starting to think that if I can’t totally fall in love and be comfortable with any of these men in time, then maybe I’ll just become an independent. That would mean giving up voting in the primary, but parties are useless if you never meet anyone who fits. I’ll still vote in the general election, but I’m not putting my heart on the line unless he’s worth it. In 2012, a woman doesn’t settle.

It’s become a cliche to say that our nation needs a unifier. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. On this Martin Luther King day, I’ve been thinking about Dr. King’s legacy as a unifier.

How easy it is, in this era of identity politics, and class warfare, to feel that it’s all about competition - and not the healthy kind.

The world will never be entirely fair. Inequities will always exist. That does not relieve us of the responsibility to try to minimize institutionalized inequities and injustices, however. What wisdom leaders, including in government, must have, to undertake what they can and should, and refrain from stirring the pot of fruitless resentment and fractious, unproductive divisiveness.

Dr. King had this wisdom, which today is so lacking. It’s unpopular to acknowledge in some quarters, but I believe a part of what enabled him to be such a great leader–in addition to his goodness as a man–was God.

Because it is only under God that we are all equal, and only with a belief in the sanctity of life that each life can truly hold equal value. In a world of competing interests and divergent values, a world of individuals striving to argue the merits of their own philosophies, there must be a higher value. Otherwise, the individual differences among us, rather than being a source of beauty, pride, excitement, and interest, can easily bring out the lower aspects of our nature.

If you believe we are of equal value under God, and every life is sacrosanct, the petty divisions and distinctions do not bother you as much. If you have a sense of your innate value as a human being made in the image of God, it does not bother you so much if someone else is wealthier, more successful, taller, or prettier, etc. Nor do you feel as desperately the need to be “right” about everything (an insecurity that perhaps drives doctrinaire believers to attempt to convert others, including forcibly).

It’s sort of like being a child of parents who truly love you, sacrifice for you, and cherish you: with this early conditioning, you go forth into the world predisposed to find acceptance, because the security you project leaves you less vulnerable to feelings of inferiority that can be easily tapped into by demagogues.

How blessed we were, how blessed we are, that  Dr. King, as a beautiful child of God, projected that love onto us. He saw the better angels of our nature, and in doing so, he brought forth the best in us.

From The Huffington Post
by HEATHER ROBINSON

Ah, the eternal question: What do women really want? (Hint: It’s not a vacuum cleaner or thigh master.) Here are twelve things we actually do care about. Feel free to take notes!

1. Henry Kissinger had it wrong — power can be sexy, but the greatest aphrodisiac is attentiveness.

2. Women notice the way men treat their mothers. Is there a basic respect in the way you relate to her, or do you trivialize her existence and point of view? We automatically feel a certain sympathy for this woman who has loved you through thick and thin, especially since if we wind up together, we too may have to change your diapers someday.

3. “Cute” is for babies and bunnies. Tell us we are beautiful like you mean it — and good things will follow.

4. We’re constantly listening to our friends and our own internal dialogue on the tiresome subjects of calories, dieting and self-improvement. We love that you seem to recognize curves are curves, not fat.

5. “Would you like to have dinner Saturday?” is sexier than, “We should hang out some time.” Ask us out on a proper date and show us you are capable of commitment — if only to a meal.

6. Regardless of how we scream in protest, we enjoy it when you lift us up in your arms, or over your shoulder, and carry us off to bed. Assuming we know and really like you, that is. (Note: if you try this at home, be sure you can handle our weight. Hernias aren’t sexy.)

7. Hell hath no fury like a woman compared unfavorably to another. The correct answer is, “Oh, I find you much prettier than Angelina Jolie.”

8. We all want to have a wonderful story for our kids someday about how mommy and daddy met (’online’ just doesn’t have the romance of ‘in a coffee shop on Lexington Avenue one rainy afternoon’). Confidence is a quality we admire. So go ahead and approach us at the bakery, the bowling alley, or the bookstore. As long as you recognize the difference between a ‘yes’ and a ‘no,’ we won’t fault you for trying.

9. On some level, your woman believes that you are her prince, she is your princess, and there are no other significant characters in this beautiful love story. So quit staring at the waitress in the leather miniskirt.

10. Some of us don’t like the idea of huge weddings, either.

11. Cry if you need to. We realize that Superman only exists in movies and comics. And even he cried in that scene where he turned back time to save Lois Lane.

12. Guys from Freud to Woody Allen have asked what we want. Granted, we can be complicated. Many of us really love our freedom. But sometimes nothing beats the feeling of your arms around us. (And we sure don’t want to hang those shelves by ourselves.)

Today, the Pittsburgh Steelers face off against the Denver Broncos. And yes, I know Tebow plays for Denver.

Normally this is a political blog, and I was all set to write about the Republican candidates’ debate earlier tonight, when a friend alerted me to this article about my hometown, Pittsburgh, Pa., and I started to ponder what it is about the town that inspires so much loyalty. Is it the fine cuisine?

The beautiful language?

Since there were no big surprises in the debate anyway (”Romney has the support of about 25 percent of RepublicansZzzzzzzzzzzzz”), I decided to write about the terrible internal conflict I will face later when rooting for my team, the black-and-gold emissaries of a city where people may say “yunz” and “dahntahn” but at least are not pretentious bores.

Of course, some Pittsburghers are snooty, in certain enclaves like the private girls’ school where I did hard time as a child. But they usually don’t get away with that for long. After all, Pittsburgh and snob or hip or trendy are not words that really belong in the same sentence, and that is part of what makes it a great hometown. Being any of those aforementioned things takes a lot of energy which is better spent on trying to find true fulfillment, have authentic (as opposed to stylized) fun, and act like a decent person.

Which brings me to my present conflict. Later today, the Steelers will go head to head with the Denver Broncos. The Steelers’ quarterback, “Big Ben” Roethlisberger, the proverbial “bad boy,” will square off against Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow, the ultimate “good boy.”

Roethlisberger is the only Steeler I’m not wild about, and Tebow has my respect for his unashamed statement about saving himself for marriage.

It’s not that I think Tebow’s stance necessarily makes him better than anyone else, but I respect anyone from Harvey Milk to Thomas Sowell who does not live to be accepted by others or make his most intimate decisions and beliefs–whether about politics, spirituality, sex, marriage, relationships, etc.–ride on conventional standards or the perceived opinions of others. Such a man or woman is living authentically.

In a world where every other popular film or song celebrates the individual fighting the system, standing up to the crowd, etc., and yet the vast majority of people will generally never stand up and say much less do anything that will subject them to the scorn, criticism, or potential ridicule of others  (whether in the general culture or their subcultures), it is inspiring to see someone be himself and say something brave. (I know his virginity is not against the grain of his own Christian subculture, but still. It took as much guts for him to be ‘out and proud’ about being a virgin in the NFL as it does –possibly more–for any gay activist to be out and proud these days, and that’s not to minimize the courage it takes to come out).

Plus I just think it’s sweet. Let’s watch the video again.

Fortunately for this goody two-shoes, the Steelers have Troy Polamalu, my favorite Steeler.

With Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney neck-in-neck in the wee hours on Wednesday, looks like the Iowa caucus is up for grabs. At the moment, 18 votes separate these men. Can’t wait to see what’s being reported later this morning.

It’s popular to assert that Iowa, the presidential race’s first caucus, doesn’t necessarily matter. Well, if you believe that, ask Rudy Giuliani, whose candidacy was obliterated in 2008 after he was (mis) advised to skip the caucus and its follow-along-at-the-heels little brother, New Hampshire.

Figuring he could better leverage his energy and resources into Florida four years ago, Rudy skipped the first two contests. He went overnight from being a lead Republican contender to being the September 11 hero who was irrelevant to the presidential contest.

On the one hand, not every Iowa caucus winner has gone on to secure his party’s nomination - far from it. A glance at Wikipedia’s entry on the Iowa caucuses shows that, indeed, sometimes Iowa caucus winners do not go on to become their party’s standard bearers. In 1992, for instance, the democratic winner was Tom Harkin (who?) and in 1988, it was Dick Gephardt.

On the Republican side, it was Mike Huckabee in 2008 - but the nomination, of course, went to John McCain. Also,  in 1988 the Iowa caucus winner was Bob Dole, and that year he did not get his party’s nomination (on the other hand, he also won the Iowa caucus in 1996, the year he did get the nod).

However, a close examination of the history of the Iowa caucus suggests that, in recent decades, the Iowa caucus has become a stronger indicator as to who becomes the nominee: in the last ten presidential contests, both republicans and democrats chose the winner of the Iowa caucus to be their party’s standard bearer  six out of ten times. Within the past five races, the ratio increased slightly, with both sides choosing the Iowa caucus winner four times out of five. That means that the trend over the past couple of decades is toward the winner of the Iowa caucus becoming a slightly stronger indicator of who the nominee will be.

Here, in my humble opinion, is the reason for the trend: five races ago, in the early 90’s, cable news’ 24-hour a day cycle really started taking off and the nature of coverage changed. In other words, around the time media started to exponentially proliferate, the early caucuses and primaries started becoming a bigger deal. It is no wonder: when the campaigns started getting heavier coverage earlier and earlier, and there were more stations and networks reporting - and repeating - the results around the clock, these early contests started becoming more determinative. To paraphrase Orwell: repeat anything (such as, “So-and-so is the winner” over and over again, and it becomes truth. Or at least is likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy).

In terms of each party picking its nominee, Iowa and New Hampshire really matter. Whether that’s a good or bad thing is another discussion. On the one hand, residents of small states get to have a disproportionate influence. On the other hand, the grassroots nature of the contests in these states allows for the theoretical (and in this case, actual) possibility of a dark horse candidate coming center stage, even if he or she lacks a lot of money. In the case of Santorum, what he lacked in funding he reportedly made up for in sweat: he logged more time in Iowa than any other candidate, visiting all 99 counties. So despite his comparative lack of money, his hard work paid off.

If history is an indicator, this caucus will matter. And either way, this was a great night for two good men. Romney is, in the eyes of this commentator, the far more electable candidate in the general election. In the words of former Republican Jewish Coalition head Sam Fox, Romney is a solid supporter of Israel who is “a success at everything he has ever touched.”  Santorum is also a great supporter of Israel with a tremendous grasp of middle east issues, especially regarding Israel and Iran. Either, in my opinion, would make a fine President.

From Jewish World Review
by HEATHER ROBINSON

Last week, as many Americans took to the skies and roads to visit with family and friends for the New Year’s holiday, the Islamic Republic of Iran unleashed a torrent of threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, a shipping channel vital to transporting one third of the world’s crude oil.

On Tuesday, Iranian Vice President Mohamed Reza Rahimi warned that “not a drop of oil will pass through the Strait of Hormuz” if the West imposed new sanctions against the country’s oil sector. Wednesday brought a boast from Iran’s navy chief, who said that the Islamic Republic could close the Strait, adding that doing so would be very easy for his country’s forces. Thursday, a commander of the Revolutionary Guard continued to raise the specter of disrupting the Strait, declaring, “The U.S. is not in a position” to tell Iran what to do and adding, “Iran does not ask permission to implement its own defensive strategies.”

As I wrote last week, most oil analysts agree that, in the words of one, “shutting down the Strait is the last bullet Iran has” short of attaining nuclear weapons and that “therefore we have to express some doubt that they would do this” at this juncture. With oil prices actually declining slightly mid-week despite the Iranian threats, the smart money said the Iranians would not make good on them. And sure enough, they haven’t: on Saturday, Tehran seemed to back off, with a Revolutionary Guard commander suddenly suggesting such discussion is passe and “belongs to five years ago.”

What the heck is going on here? Some argue the Islamic Republic is simply acting irrationally in the face of international pressure. And many assume Iran’s latest challenge was simply intended to dissuade Obama from signing ratcheted-up sanctions against Iran’s oil sector or to bully the EU out of its planned boycott of Iranian oil. Perhaps. But if so, it predictably fell flat (over the weekend Obama at last signed a defense bill that penalizes foreign financial firms that do business with Iran’s central bank).

Unless, that is, Iran’s threat to close the Strait reflects a more patient strategy. The Islamic Republic’s overriding goal is to attain nuclear capability. Is it possible that the Iranians could be calculating that backing down from an empty threat to close the Strait will enhance Obama in the eyes of the U.S. electorate?

If President Obama calls Iran’s bluff he gets to look strong for the moment and his chances of re-election are enhanced.

“The extremists [in the region] view Obama as weak,” according to Iraqi politician Mithal al-Alusi, a Sunni Muslim who was elected to Iraq’s Parliament in 2005 on a platform that advocated free markets, free speech, rule of law, and normalized relations between Iraq and Israel. Alusi, who has long warned of the Iranian nuclear threat and Iranian influence in Iraq’s government, says that Iranian leaders follow the U.S. election process closely - and they have their preferences.

To understand what they want in a U.S. leader, Alusi says one must “remember how they reacted to Carter, and then to Reagan.”

During Jimmy Carter’s presidency, the Iranians held 52 American hostages for 444 days, abused and paraded them blindfolded in a spectacle designed to humiliate the U.S. They freed them the day of Reagan’s inauguration.

In threatening to close the Strait, then, the Islamic Republic’s leaders could be engaged in a sleight of hand. If their goal is to attain nuclear capability so as to dominate the region, continue to export terrorism, destroy Israel, and establish a global caliphate, Iran’s leaders do not want an American president who will stop them.

Perhaps fearing the election of a Republican U.S. president, the Iranians are trying to create a pretext of imminent threat to oil transport via the Strait from which to back off in response to strong statements from the U.S., such as Wednesday’s remarks by representatives of the U.S. Navy and the Pentagon that any blockage of the Strait “will not be tolerated.”

If Iran makes idle threats and backs off, it will strengthen Obama’s image at home in advance of the next election. The Iranians want Americans to elect as President someone they believe will not stop them from attaining nuclear capability.

On the brink of going nuclear, Iran’s leaders view the next four years as pivotal.

So should we.

Most oil analysts agree that, in the words of one, “shutting down the Strait is the last bullet Iran has” short of attaining nuclear weapons and that “therefore we have to express some doubt that they would do this” at this juncture. With oil prices actually declining slightly mid-week despite this news, the smart money is saying Iran won’t make good on its threat.

Supposing then that Iran’s threat to close the Strait is idle, why would they be making it?

Many assume that Iran’s latest challenge is simply intended to dissuade Obama from signing ratcheted-up sanctions against Iran’s oil sector or to bully the EU out of its planned boycott of Iranian oil. Perhaps.

Unless, that is, Iran’s threat to close the Strait reflects a more patient strategy. The Islamic Republic’s overriding goal is to attain nuclear capability. Is it possible that the Iranians could be calculating that backing down from an empty threat to close the Strait will enhance Obama in the eyes of the U.S. electorate? 

If President Obama calls Iran’s bluff he gets to look strong for the moment and his chances of re-election are enhanced.

“The extremists [in the region] view Obama as weak,” according to Iraqi politician Mithal al-Alusi, a Sunni Muslim who was elected to Iraq’s Parliament in 2005 on a platform that advocated free markets, free speech, rule of law, and normalized relations between Iraq and Israel. Alusi, who has long warned of the Iranian nuclear threat and Iranian influence in Iraq’s government, says that Iranian leaders follow the U.S. election process closely – and they have their preferences.

To understand what they want in a U.S. leader, Alusi says one must “remember how they reacted to Carter, and then to Reagan.”

During Jimmy Carter’s presidency, the Iranians held 52 American hostages for 444 days, abused and paraded them blindfolded in a spectacle designed to humiliate the U.S.  They freed them the day of Reagan’s inauguration.

In threatening to close the Strait, then, the Islamic Republic’s leaders could be engaged in a sleight of hand. If their goal is to attain nuclear capability so as to dominate the region, continue to export terrorism, destroy Israel, and establish a global caliphate, Iran’s leaders do not want an American president who will stop them.

Perhaps fearing the election of a Republican U.S. president, the Iranians are trying to create a pretext of imminent threat to oil transport via the Strait from which to back off in response to strong statements from the U.S., such as Wednesday’s remarks by representatives of the U.S. Navy and the Pentagon that any blockage of the Strait “will not be tolerated.” 

If the Iranians back off, it will strengthen Obama’s image at home in advance of the next election.My prediction is they won’t do jack in the short-term, just threaten and back down, making Obama look stronger than he is probably prepared to be in actuality. They want him re-elected, and they are setting him up for victory.

On the brink of attaining nuclear capability, Iran’s leaders view the next four years as pivotal.

So must we.