Lee Smith argues that Mitt Romney is no more likely than Barack Obama to stage a preemptive strike against Iran. Romney, Smith contends, will not want further to burden our economy by destabilizing the Middle East and sending oil prices skyrocketing, nor will he want to be tagged as a war-mongering Republican who bombed Iran. Thus, Romney will persuade himself that Iran can be deterred from using its nukes by the threat of retaliation, a not altogether implausible thing for an American president to persuade himself of, especially if Iranian usage of nukes would be directed at Israel, not the United States.
I agree that Romney would not likely attack Iran. But that doesn’t mean he isn’t better than President Obama on the issue of ending of limiting the Iranian nuclear threat.
Smith says that “the most Israeli leaders can expect is for the White House to provide them with certain weapons and military hardware that might make the operation easier, and in the aftermath to provide plenty of diplomatic support.” But I doubt that Israel reasonably can hope for that much from Barack Obama. With Mitt Romney in the White House, the prospects for such support are substantially better.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.