This op-ed was just published in the Wall Street Journal, and it’s more good news for those of us who were unsure about Gov. Romney’s positions on issues important to us and our staunchest ally, Israel.
Maybe Romney should call Bibi and tell him to wait until after the election, like Dear Leader did to Medvedev and Putin, when the traitorous POS promised to give our missile-defense technology to the Russians.
Barack Obama is leading us toward a cascade of proliferation in the Middle East.
By MITT ROMNEY
The International Atomic Energy Agency’s latest report this week makes clear what I and others have been warning about for too long: Iran is making rapid headway toward its goal of obtaining nuclear weapons.
Successive American presidents, including Barack Obama, have declared such an outcome to be unacceptable. But under the Obama administration, rhetoric and policy have been sharply at odds, and we’re hurtling toward a major crisis involving nuclear weapons in one of the most politically volatile and economically significant regions of the world.
Things did not have to be this way. To understand how best to proceed from here, we need to review the administration’s extraordinary record of failure.
As a candidate for the presidency in 2007, Barack Obama put forward “engagement” with Tehran as a way to solve the nuclear problem, declaring he would meet with Iran’s leaders “without preconditions.” Whether this approach was rooted in naïveté or in realistic expectations can be debated; I believe it was the former. But whatever calculation lay behind the proposed diplomatic opening, it was predictably rebuffed by the Iranian regime.
After that repudiation, a serious U.S. strategy to block Iran’s nuclear ambitions became an urgent necessity. But that is precisely what the administration never provided. Instead, we’ve been offered a case study in botched diplomacy and its potentially horrific costs.
In his “reset” of relations with Russia, President Obama caved in to Moscow’s demands by reneging on a missile-defense agreement with Eastern European allies and agreeing to a New Start Treaty to reduce strategic nuclear weapons while getting virtually nothing in return. If there ever was a possibility of gaining the Kremlin’s support for tougher action against Tehran, that unilateral giveaway was the moment. President Obama foreclosed it.
Another key juncture came with the emergence of Iran’s Green Revolution after the stolen election of 2009. Here—more than a year before the eruption of the Arab Spring—was a spontaneous popular revolt against a regime that has been destabilizing the region, supporting terrorism around the world, killing American soldiers in Iraq, and attacking the U.S. for three decades. Yet President Obama, evidently fearful of jeopardizing any further hope of engagement, proclaimed his intention not to “meddle” as the ayatollahs unleashed a wave of terror against their own society. A proper American policy might or might not have altered the outcome; we will never know. But thanks to this shameful abdication of moral authority, any hope of toppling a vicious regime was lost, perhaps for generations.
In 2010, the administration did finally impose another round of sanctions, which President Obama hailed as a strike “at the heart” of Iran’s ability to fund its nuclear programs. But here again we can see a gulf between words and deeds. As the IAEA report makes plain, the heart that we supposedly struck is still pumping just fine. Sanctions clearly failed in their purpose. Iran is on the threshold of becoming a nuclear power.
Recent events have brought White House fecklessness to another low. When Iran was discovered plotting to kill Saudi Arabia’s ambassador by setting off a bomb in downtown Washington, the administration responded with nothing more than tough talk and an indictment against two low-level Iranian operatives, as if this were merely a common criminal offense rather than an act of international aggression. Demonstrating further irresolution, the administration then floated the idea of sanctioning Iran’s central bank, only to quietly withdraw that proposal.
Barack Obama has shredded his own credibility on Iran, conveyed an image of American weakness, and increased the prospect of a cascade of nuclear proliferation in the unstable Middle East.
The United States needs a very different policy.
Si vis pacem, para bellum. That is a Latin phrase, but the ayatollahs will have no trouble understanding its meaning from a Romney administration: If you want peace, prepare for war.
I want peace. And if I am president, I will begin by imposing a new round of far tougher economic sanctions on Iran. I will do this together with the world if we can, unilaterally if we must. I will speak out forcefully on behalf of Iranian dissidents. I will back up American diplomacy with a very real and very credible military option. I will restore the regular presence of aircraft carrier groups in the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region simultaneously. I will increase military assistance to Israel and coordination with all of our allies in the region. These actions will send an unequivocal signal to Iran that the United States, acting in concert with allies, will never permit Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.
Only when the ayatollahs no longer have doubts about America’s resolve will they abandon their nuclear ambitions.
Mr. Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, is seeking the Republican presidential nomination.
as they say the proof is
in the pudding…we will see
So far, it’s encouraging. Watch for the sh#tstorm from the Democrats and the Enemedia. It will be….epic.
BHO could not show photos of the dead Bin Laden,
because “It could incite the Muslim World & endanger
our troops.”
Now on the one year anniversary, he is doing a touchdown
dance.
Nothing to do with reelection./
RIX wrote:
Yeah, but that Time mag article and hand-written letter to then-CIA director Leon Panetta showed that it was actually Admiral William McRaven who made the call to take out bin Laden. The Marxist POS occupying the White house as nothing but an observer, but of course, the dirtbag will try to take credit.
Bob in Breckenridge wrote:
There was a story in the local paper yesterday, I think, that said the Obama administration would back off on Iran’s enriching uranium to the 9% purity level, on the condition that they allowed full and open inspection of their facilities. Of course, all Iran would have to do is allow inspections for a couple years, then shut them off and do as they want. Kinda like the Soviets did back during the cold war.
Bob in Breckenridge wrote:
No, It actually shows that Leon Panetta made the call, and then handed off responsibility to Admiral William McRaven execute the mission.
@ doriangrey:
The letter says “The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands.”
So the admiral made the call.
Bob in Breckenridge wrote:
That is exactly my point, the actual decision is Go/No go. Once the Go decision was made, operation control is handed off to McRaven. The US Military operates under a very strict set of rules. They are permitted to return fire whenever they are attacked. But they cannot instigate any hostile action without being authorized to do so.
McRaven could not act on his own, he had to receive authorization first. The question is not, did Admiral McRaven order his Seal Team to strike, because he did, nor is it could Admiral McRaven have stopped the strike at any time prior to the Seals actually engaging bin Laden, yes he could have.
The question is, who specifically ordered Admiral McRaven to send his Seal Teams in. Like I said, in a case like this, UMJC strictly forbids Admiral McRaven from taking action without authorization. It’s a chain of command thing.
doriangrey wrote:
I’m aware of how the military works, since I served in the military. And it’s the UCMJ. The letter was from Panetta to the admiral giving full authority over the entire operation as to what time, when, and where to strike.
@ mfhorn:
The Iranians could drag things out for decades with talks alone.
They’re willing to talk but ooops! They won’t talk about the nukes or anything. Then, they’re willing to talk again but oooops! They won’t give up their nukes or anything.
The Europeans say ‘OMG! We got the feeling that the Iranians might possibly be willing to engage us in conversation at some point someday’ (which they call progress in the talks).
It goes on and on while the Iranians risk veins exploding in their heads from laughing so hard.
Bob in Breckenridge wrote:
Again, my point exactly. Panetta authorized the strike, Admiral McRaven was the lucky soul given permission to whack Bin Laden. And no, I am not in any way shape or form diminishing Admiral McRaven’s role, nor the role his Seal Team played, they are the hero’s in my book.
I am just trying to make sure nobody get’s the wrong impression and thinks that Admiral McRaven is some kind of maverick who acted unilaterally on his own without authorization. Admiral McRaven deserves the full respect of his actions without any shadow being cast on it that his actions might have been unauthorized.
@ Bob in Breckenridge:
I don’t know if this is true, but the Media was reporting
right after that Obama got the call from Paneta while he
was golfing.
The story further said that he finished his round before
assembleing everybody & getting things done.
But we all know that Romney would be too terrified to order Bin Laden shot…….oh wait. Any idiot would make that call. These liberals are delusional.
And more important, why did our President essentially order the hit on Zimmerman?
three words. John Bolton
@ 6 mfhorn: There will never be full cooperation from the Iranians unless we totally own them. They have a culture that makes them think they are the center of the universe. And a culture that incorporates lies as an honest mechanism to talk to people.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
For now, my money is on the Mad Mullahs making good on their threats…