Obama sharply criticized Republican presidential candidates today, saying:

They are not commander in chief. When I see the casualness with which those folks talk about war, I am reminded of the costs involved in war.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-blasts-gop-hopefuls-over-comments-on-war-with-iran/2012/03/06/gIQAYiL7uR_story.html

Anything that signals to Iran a reluctance on the part of the president to attack Iran increases the chance that they will continue to march toward developing nuclear weapons (or the capability to do so at any time), and thus costs America, as well as Israel and other nations — potentially costing many, many thousands of lives someday, in effect.

I want to bend over backwards to be fair, so I’ll include a scenario in which the above is arguably excusable with regard to his intent in making that statement.

The excusable scenario is this: Obama wants to discourage the Israelis from striking before we want Iran struck, so he wants to signal a reluctance to go to war. When I say “excusable” I’m speaking only to his intent, not the wisdom, and if that is his intent, it’s possible that his intent is not unpresidential.

That said, I think the more likely that his intent was to improve his chances at re-election. If that is the case, I cannot state strongly enough how irresponsible and selfish and unworthy of a president such a statement is.

Obama has never seemed to me to be particularly good at what game theorists call “signalling” or negotiation. But I have to assume that even he is aware of the importance of how his statements affect the decision-making of our enemies, and he must know this with regard to the Iranian regime. So I can’t attribute this statement to some innocent obliviousness.

If my suspicion regarding his intent is correct, his making that statement is outrageously counterproductive vis a vis our need to maximize the chances of Iran backing away from its efforts to develop nuclear weapons or such capability.