HOSTAGE TO UNCONTROLLABLE EVENTS

Could we see a Democratic House after this November's election? According to Jonathan V. Last in the Weekly Standard, the polls tell a mixed story.

IN SEPTEMBER of 1984, an ABC/Washington Post poll asked registered voters whether they preferred a Democrat or a Republican to represent their congressional districts. By a 15-point margin, respondents favored Democrats. On Election Day 1984, Democrats lost 14 seats in the House. In 1996, a similar question produced a 14-point edge for Democrats; in that election they gained 9 House seats. The lesson is that polls are important tools for understanding politics. Except when they're not.

Washington is buzzing with 2006 poll numbers, many of which are self-contradictory. For example, according to a Time magazine poll in March, 49 percent of respondents disapprove of the job Congress is doing, but 63 percent approve of their own representative. When asked which party they would like to see control Congress, respondents gave Democrats an 11-point edge, but when they were asked about the job the parties are doing in Congress, Democrats and Republicans had nearly identical ratings: 39 percent approval and about 50 percent disapproval.

But if you sift through the data, some numbers not only make sense but also look a touch familiar. Could 2006 be 1994, all over again?

The bottom line for Last is the same one I have mentioned many times...

And then there are events. By this point in 1994, the two features we most associate with that election--Hillary Clinton's health-care collapse and the introduction of the Contract With America--had not yet appeared. The events most likely to impose themselves between now and November--immigration and the stare-down with Iran--could be more momentous.

Which leads me to this piece from Arnaud de Borchgrave in the Washington Times. De Borchgrave, who has many contacts in the international diplomatic and security communities, relates this interesting conversation.

At Israel's National Day reception in Washington last week, an Israeli official, speaking privately and not for attribution said he believed Israel would strike first in the next "month or two or three" and that fighter bombers would not be involved as they were to take out Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor before it went critical in 1981. For Osirak, Israel used 14 F-15s and F-16s. This time, the Israeli said, it will be missiles. Cruise missiles?, we inquired. No, he replied, with a gesture of his hand that went up and down again.

What about pinpointing tunnel entrances to widely scattered Iranian nuclear facilities? The Israeli responded Israel has its own geo-stationary spy-in-the-sky satellite taking constant pictures of Iran with a resolution down to 70 centimeters: "We know far more than anyone realizes." Israel has developed some 100 Jericho-II medium-range ballistic missiles (which entered service in 1989). Jericho II's range varies from 1,500 to 3,500 kilometers, depending on payload weight. They are deployed in underground caves and silos.

Israel has several satellites in orbit -- Ofeq-1 through Ofeq-5 -- that were launched by Shavit space launch vehicles (SLV). The first two stages of the Shavit were Jericho II missiles. There are unconfirmed reports of an upgraded Jericho-3 missile with a range of over 3,000 kilometers.

So, the Israelis may take matters into their own hands within a matter of months. As I have written many times on this blog, the Israelis are the wild card. Such a strike, without needing to get overt American permission to cross through Iraqi airspace, would create a political firestorm. The strike, and all the unknowable consequences, would be the deciding factor in the November election, and we won't know which way it will go right up to the actual vote itself. Of course, the result of the election may be the least of our worries at that point.