Iran -- the October Surprise?

For many years, politicians and the media have worried about the so called "October Surprise", and event which temporarily shifts political loyalties that gets unleashed during the October before a close election. The hysteria about the October surprise began with the 1980 election when Democrats falsely accused Ronald Reagan of somehow getting the Iranians to agree not to release American hostages so as to deprive Jimmy Carter of his own surprise. Every four years like clockwork we hear from the media about the October surprise being planned by the Republicans; it seems that the chatter is designed to inoculate the Democrats against anything that the GOP might do. Of course, as anyone paying attention would realize, there have been no October surprises during all that time. It is true that there have been events which shifted the political fortunes of the candidates. In 2008, McCain's campaign fell behind and never recovered when the Lehman bankruptcy in late September pushed the economy over the edge. Events like that, however, do not qualify as a true October surprise since they do not help the party in power and their timing was not contrived for political purposes. It is looking more and more like 2012 will be different; we may actually see such a surprise.

The most likely October surprise this year would be an armed attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Picture it this way: it is early October and the Republican presidential candidate is ahead or the election is close but in doubt. Obama needs something that can shift opinion in his favor. He decides to give the go ahead for an attack on Iran. On October 20, the attack proceeds. American planes fly thousands of sorties and take out the main part of Iran's nuclear facilities. Iranian anti-ship missiles attack both navy and civilian shipping in the strait of Hormuz and close that body of water. This begins an intense series of attacks by American forces to reopen the straits. Meanwhile, Iran unleashes its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas to begin heavy missile attacks on Israel just as Iran also launches such attacks. Israeli forces respond by entering Gaza and southern Lebanon to root out the missile sites. Iran also has its terrorist allies around the globe hitting American and Israeli targets in places like Buenos Aires, Manilla and London. Iran even sets off attacks on soft targets in the USA by sleeper cells. As of election day, the fighting is still heavy and continuing; the straits of Hormuz are open but dangerous; the terror groups have been rounded up, but more may be out there; and the Israeli forces have inflicted big losses on Hamas and Hezbollah, but the fighting continues there as well.

What is the cost and effect of all this? In the Obama calculus, the key is that public opinion in America shifts strongly towards supporting the commander in chief. Obama rides a surge of patriotism to re-election. But what else happens? There is a huge spike in oil prices which drives the world economy into another recession. Millions lose their jobs. Tens of thousands of people die in the fighting; most are Iranian but all sides take losses.

This all sounds like a conspiracy theory. After all, there is a reason why, despite hysteria every four years, there has never actually been an October Surprise. No president has ever put the election ahead of the well being of the country. There are signs, however, that this year may be different. For example, this morning there is a news article discussing the view of unnamed "White House insiders" who are saying that sanctions against Iran are not working and the the "sweet spot" for taking action against Iran's nuclear program is in September or October. Is this a coincidence? I doubt it, particularly when one reads the rest of the article. According to these White House insiders, Obama will be pushed to attack Iran by Israel and he will not be able to say not due to the upcoming election. So, we get the leak that not only will there be an attack, but it won't be Obama's fault so he should get no blame if it fails.

The Obama White House, more than any in memory, operates by leaking things to the press to test reactions. Is this article in the Guardian just the rambling of a crazy reporter, or is it a means to prepare the field for later action? We shall see.