Romney Says Obama Prefers Letting Iran Have Nukes to Letting Israel Attack
print
tell a friend
Mitt Romney in front of his campaign bus.
Photo Credit: Campaign image
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Saturday revved up his attacks on President Obama’s Mid East policy, suggesting the president fears that Israel might attack Iran more than he fears that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Earlier this year, Romney said during a Republican debate on ABC: “If we reelect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if we elect Mitt Romney, they will not have a nuclear weapon…”
Speaking to members of the evangelical Christian political organization Faith and Freedom Coalition, Romney responded with ridicule when asked what he would do, as president, to strengthen U.S.-Israel relations.
“I think, by and large, you can just look at the things the president has done and do the opposite,” Romney said, to laughter and applause from his audience. “You look at his policies with regards to Iran, he’s almost sounded like he’s more frightened that Israel might take military action than he’s concerned that Iran might become nuclear.”
His audience of 250 in the ballroom of a Washington hotel responded with extended applause and cheering.
Romney’s stump speech on Iran seeks to position that country’s nuclear aspirations as marking Obama’s greatest foreign policy failure:
“What he should have done is speak out when dissidents took to the streets and say America is with you and work on a covert basis to encourage the dissidents. Number two, he should have put in place crippling sanctions against Iran. But instead of getting Russia, for instance, to agree to those crippling sanctions, he gave Russia what they wanted, their number one foreign policy objective, and got nothing in return…
“… Finally, the president should have built a credible threat of military action and made it very clear that the United States of America is willing, in the final analysis, if necessary, to take military action to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.”
Romney spoke over a video link from an outdoor site in Pennsylvania, against the background of his campaign bus. This was his second day of a six-state swing.
Romney said he plans to “forge a strong working relationship with the leadership in Israel. I would make it very clear that for us, as well as for them, it is unacceptable for Iran to become a nuclear nation and that we’re prepared to take any and all action to keep that from happening.” Once again, prolonged applause followed his words.
Romney said he would encourage countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia to arm “the insurgents” in Syria.
“But perhaps overarching is this: I would not want to show a dime’s worth of distance between ourselves and our allies like Israel. If we have disagreements, you know, we can talk about them behind closed doors. But to the world, you show that we’re locked arm-in-arm,” he said.
tell a friendAbout the Author:
You might also be interested in:
You must log in to post a comment.
One Response to “Romney Says Obama Prefers Letting Iran Have Nukes to Letting Israel Attack”
2
Loading ...
I think the question of what the President of the US will do when Iran gets the nuclear bomb is?#1 for me in this election. President Obama has promised to do so. But he also promised a united Jerusalem under Israel. Then he changed US policy about 242. Israel should go back to the 67 lines when starting negotiations. That means Israel should give up the Western Wall and the Temple Mount, the City of David, Mount of Olives, all the Jerusalem suburbs, and the Old City as a beginning point. This was not how 242 was understood in 1967 by the US.
Romney has also promised to attack Iran's nuclear infrastructure when it gets nuclear. So who should be believed?
US foreign policy is set by the State Dept., no matter who the president is at the time. There will be no Jerusalem embassy under Romney, but there will also not be a Palestinian state. Works for me.
Romney is too stupid to understand that Israel does not have the capability to attack Iran. In fact, if Israel is crazy enough to attack Iran, it might be the end of Israel. Does he understand how large Iran is and how far from Israel it is situated? A war with Iran will not be a few days or months long. It will last for years and Israel simply does not have the stomach for it.
Armen — you are obviously correct if we are to use the Iran-Iraq war model. During that war the entire Iranian population was supporting the war effort, which brought the average age of males in Iran to something like 17.
But I'm not sure that the Iranians today are as supportive of the regime. Despite its size, which is, indeed, enormous, a US-Israeli attack could devastate Iran's military capability in ways the Iraqis just couldn't. Israel going it alone will not be successful, but US repeated bombing missions, coupled with civilian uprisings from within would do the job in short order.
It's unfortunate that the only remedy to the idiotic Bush attack on Iraq — which built up Iran's power in the region — is a similar attack on Iran. There will never be peace or spring in the region as long as the Ayatollahs set the agenda in Iran.
Peres himself said a couple of days ago, “Only America Can Manage the Iran Situation.” So, it is foolhardy for Israel to attempt something on its own.