Romney on Iran
By streiff Posted in 2008 — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Yesterday former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney issues what was portrayed here as “Governor Romney's Five Step Plan of Action to Prevent a Nuclear Iran,” though a Google search fails to find that title. The full audio/video are available at ”My Man Mitt”.
Because he is a candidate, his plan is owed a serious examination.
Read on.
[UPDATE] I've been contacted by the Romney campaign online commumications director who posts on RedState as 'nashvegas' and accused by him of "cherrypicking" and "misleading" because I neglected to list all of Romney's foreign policy advisors. The list is provided, in toto, at the end of the story and the reader is free to decide for themself if any of the men on this list would recommend economic sanctions against Iran or asking Arab countries to settle their differences with Israel to keep Iran from acquiring a nuke.
Step One
"First, we must continue tighten economic sanctions. Our model should be at least as severe to the sanctions imposed on Apartheid South Africa. We should demand no less from the international community today….
"We must also be imaginative in the way we pressure Iran economically - an issue I have been looking into. In my meetings this week in Israel, I have become aware of the potential of U.S. pension funds to further isolate the Iranian economy. We should explore a selective disinvestment policy. After a series of briefings here, I have contacted the Treasurer of my own state of Massachusetts and Governors of other states to begin this process by meeting today with senior Israeli leaders in Boston.
We’ve had a regime of economic sanctions in place against Iran since 1979. I would submit that it has not been an overwhelming success and given the painful nature of ongoing negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program I would further submit that getting any substantial number of other nations to go along will be a fool’s errand.
We could arguably begin to require pension funds to divest themselves of investments in companies that do business with Iran but clearly that is going to cause a great deal of friction within NATO (see Step Five for why that may not be the best idea). And it is going to have negligible effect on the two nations most prone to parlay US moral indignation into business opportunities: Russia and China.
When one looks a the history of economic sanctions on is struck by their utter ineffectualness. Cuba has been under sanctions for 40 years. Iraq was under sanctions for a dozen. Sanctions worked, to a certain extent, in South Africa because of the unique demographics of that nation. South Africa, unfortunately for them, did not have oil.
Step Two
"Second, we must impose diplomatic isolation of Iran's Government. Ahmadinejad should not be provided the trappings, respect, and recognition of a responsible head of state as he travels. In fact, when former Iranian President Khatami traveled to Boston last year to lecture at Harvard University, I denied him state police security for his visit. The real question is: why was he invited in the first place? Ahmadinejad is even more strident than Khatami. He should neither be invited to foreign capitals nor feted by foreign leaders. This would have important symbolic significance, not just to Ahmadinejad, but to the people of Iran.
"Diplomatic isolation should also include an indictment of Ahmadinejad for incitement to genocide under the Genocide Convention. The United States should lead this effort.
"The full title of the Genocide Convention is the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Remember that word: Prevention. ."Article III of that treaty establishes that 'public incitement to commit genocide' is a punishable crime. Every signatory to this treaty, including the U.S. and most European countries, shares an obligation to enforce it. So do human rights groups that care about international humanitarian law.
"Nobel Prize Winner Elie Wiesel, and human rights advocate and former Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler have spoken out on this issue.
"In addition, former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton has been a forceful advocate for this effort, and is joined by Alan Dershowitz. If these two can agree, they must be on to something.
He’s right about Khatami, of course, and the State Department should have forbidden his entry into the US. Not only did he speak at Harvard, he was permitted to give a lecture at the National Cathedral. And this shall be to the Bush Administration’s everlasting shame.
But when you consider that the number of Iranian leaders who have asked to visit the US since 1979 apparently equals one, I fail to see how preventing a single trip every thirty years constitutes a real step forward. It is also very doubtful that we will have much company in this endeavor.
The idea of indicting Ahmadinejad for “incitement to commit genocide” when he ‘s really guilt of “incitement to eradicate Israel” strikes me a stretch of an already nebulous principle and one that begs the question of how what Ahmadinejad has said differs from what is spoken in muslim parliaments around the world every day.
Step Three
"Third, Arab states must join this effort to prevent a nuclear Iran. These states can do much more than wring their hands and urge America to act. They should support Iraq's nascent government, They can help America focus on Iran by quickly turning down the temperature of the Arab-Israeli conflict - stopping the financial and weapons flows to Hamas and Hizbullah…thawing relations with Israel…and telling the Palestinians they must drop terrorism and recognize Israel's right to exist.
True, the Arab states can and must do more. The question is how do we motivate them to stick their necks out when their take on our position in the region is that we are rapidly looking for a way out. Iran will be regional power for the foreseeable future and if we leave it will be THE regional power. The Gulf States, in particular, know this and are hedging their bets.
But I have to ask, how does making peace with Israel or stopping arms shipments to Hamas and Hizbullah further this goal? It doesn’t and it would weaken the domestic position of many Arab governments were they to publicly do so.
Step Four
"Fourth, we must make it clear that while nuclearization may be a source of pride, it can also be a source of peril. The military option remains on the table. And further, nuclear material that falls into the hands of terrorists would surely provoke a devastating response from the civilized world.
No problems here.
Step Five
"Fifth, our strategy should be integrated into a broader approach to the broader Muslim world. I agree with our friend, former Prime Minister Aznar of Spain, that a central purpose of NATO should be to defeat radical Islam. I believe this has two critical dimensions. The first is an unquestionably capable military. This will mean a greater investment by the United States as well as other nations. The second is a global partnership which includes NATO and other allies. Its mission would be to support progressive Muslim communities and leaders in every nation where radical Islam is battling modernity and moderation. This Partnership for Prosperity should help provide the tools and funding necessary for moderates to win the debate in their own societies. They need secular public schools, micro credit and banking, the rule of law, adequate healthcare, human rights, and competitive economic policies. In the final analysis, only Muslims will be able to permanently defeat radical Islam. And we can help."
Great in principle but it assumes away any number of problems.
First and foremost, the military establishments of our European allies is rotten to very core. It was never robust, not even during the height of the Cold War, and now it approaches moribund. The manifest difficulties in raising and sustaining a NATO force in Afghanistan demonstrates that NATO’s military capacity is laughable.
Most European nations will have their hands full in helping “moderates” win the debate in their own countries. The slaughter of Theo Van Gogh, the cravenness of European papers over the Muhammad cartoon kerfuffle, the ongoing insurgency in France all point to a moribund alliance on the defensive. Hardly a reliable partner for taking the fight to the enemy.
At best this is a C effort and given that both Anthony Zinni and Dennis Ross have been touted as Romney’s foreign policy advisors this is surprising in both quality and tenor.
Last point. How many times is Israel mentioned this proposal? How much sense do you think it makes to advertise that you are getting your ideas on sanctions from a meeting in Israel and that you want Arab states to make peace with Israel to prevent Iran from getting nukes?
Romney Foreign Policy Advisors
Frederick W. Kagan, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
William Kristol, Editor, The Weekly Standard
Thomas Donnelly, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
General Joseph W. Ralston (ret.), former Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, NATO
Brigadier General James "Spider" Marks (ret.)
Eliot Cohen, Robert E. Osgood Professor of Strategic Studies, Johns Hopkins University
General Barry R. McCaffrey (ret.)
General Anthony Zinni, USMC (ret.)
Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, former Administrator, Coalition Provisional Authority, Iraq
Victor Davis Hanson, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
Henry A. Kissinger, Former Secretary of State
Dan Senor, Former Advisor to the U.S. Presidential Envoy in Iraq
Ambassador Dennis Ross, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | They All Suck — Comments (194) »
Romney on Iran 23 Comments (0 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
sanctions are a profoundly stupid and ineffectual foreign policy tool. They alienate your friends, punish your citizens, and the target usually ends up laughing at you.
We should have swamped Castro under the sheer weight of several million US tourists each year.
As someone smarter than me has written, all cultural and travel sanctions do is prop up regimes like North Korea, Iran, Cuba, etc. because those rulers want to limit cultural contacts between their people and the West.
So, Alex, yes, I am really Dick Durbin, writing under a pseudonym.
You think the alternatives are with Iran? Cuba wasn't going to independently develop nuclear weapons and I think that the only way we're going to prevent Iran from doing so, and deploying them, and using them.
I could be naive, but if the West was to demonstrate economically, with the help of our friends in the Middle East (the ones that still exist) that sanctions could help the moderates in Iran I think we should pursue that first.
Otherwise, what is your option? Do we begin drawing up plans for the bombing of Tehran and the subsequent invasion? I'm being a little glib here, but I think Mahmoud's power is beginning to wane among the sane people in his own country. It seems to me that mostly what Mahmoud A. has done is try to dissolve the collective will of the West to follow through on a comprehensive sanctions regime. What else do we do except apply a blockade?
It seems to me that we have two options: we can push this guy out of power by gradually bringing the West on board to stop his crazy proliferation, or we can decide right now to go to war with him, blockade his ports, and shut him down completely.
The IAEA knows they have a nuclear program. The U.N. knows they have a nuclear program, the Russians know they have a nuclear program, and so do the North Koreans. And most importantly of all, we know that they have a nuclear program. What we don't know is how far Mahmoud is willing to go to prove that he has one.
Look, Streiff, I'll sign on to the preemption doctrine here but if we're going to do so, I want to see us FIGHT THE WAR. I'm not going to sit back and watch us lose this one to the international press, too. I think that attacking Iran would lead to an accelleration of everyone's plans in the middle east to develop atomic weapons. Jordan wants atomic power for "peaceful purposes" and Jordan is basically our best friend in the Middle East. So you tell me what you think will happen if we attack Iran?
And with regard to sanctions, when it's a nation like Iran or North Korea, which already sees itself as being in opposition to the nation which imposes the sanctions (which, like the oil-for-food program, hurt the population far more than they hurt the government), the effect is rarely the one intended by the enforcing agency; to the contrary, sanctions can all too often serve as a boon of sorts to the government of that nation, as the people become more galvanized against the enforcing nations and agencies, and can make them more - rather than less - supportive of their own government.
is our willingness to stick it out in the Gulf. If we don't, getting the people who live there to take risks to help us, let's remember a lot of our "friends" would gladly nuke Tel Aviv if they could.
I don't see how inflicting general economic hardship on the very people we want to help us out, the alleged moderates in Iran, and making Ahmadinejad a nationalist martyr in the process helps us out.
I think that's reality. And I'll tell you right now that there is *no* Presidential candidate in this country who is going to advocate going to war with Iran right now. So you can call Romney all the names you want, but none of our illustrious field are going to suggest that. Not a single one of them.
Israel will take care of Iran, sooner rather than later, whether we like it or not.
Step Three, the last part, is too little, too late. The weapons to Iran's proxies are already resupplied. So, really any solution that relies upon the support of Arab states ignores that any movement against Iran will send Hamas and Hizballah against Israel and, as the Arabs revert to their primal Jewish blood thirst, any Arab support for action against Iran will evaporate.
to physically destroy Iran's, Syria's and North Korea's military, political and nuclear establishments. No one running for office will do this. The liberals of the world will squeal and Bush may be impeached. However, he will have saved this Country, Israel and most of the Western World from the otherwise certainty of nuclear attacks from Muslim states for hopefully enough years that the West will find the will to contain and eventually eradicate radical muslim influence within Islam.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
You know, Zinni and Ross are advisers. You are under no obligation to put out the whole stinking list. They need to suck it up if they think you are cherry picking.
It's like saying water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen and the hydrogen screams out demanding that you point out there are two of them.
Maybe he's sensitive to including Zinni, with all the controversy surrounding him?
"I think the fence is least effective. But I'll build the god--d fence if they want it."--McCain
"I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected" --McCain
streiff, I really didn’t mean to imply that you were intentionally misleading your readers … just that your characterization didn’t provide a full picture of those with whom Governor Romney has consulted on foreign policy issues. And I appreciate the fact that you published the full list.
Stephen
would you care to explain how I was supposed to provide a "full picture" as the Rommey campaign has not seen fit to make the complete list available?
Don't you think criticizing someone for failing to provide information even the candidate's campaign hasn't seen fit to post is a bit of a high standard?
Your aim was to provide further background and information on Romney's Iran plan (as well as your own commentary). You seem to be over-reacting a bit to this "new information" (I've seen most of those names listed in news blubs over the past several months . . . never compiled as a list though) Stephen provided of Romney's foreign policy advisors. To trash Stephen for not magically hand-delivering this list while you were writing your piece comes off as strange.
You wrote your opinion (a good piece I might add), Stephen added to the dialogue, and we're all further enlightened. I wouldn't take so personally.
Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).
Stephen sent me a email accusing me of "cherry picking" the names and being "misleading" he asked me to update the post and provided me with a list of advisors.
I added the update, above.
When I asked Stephen for a link to that list I was told that there is no link to the list.
So I was ragged on for cherry picking advisors when the Romney campaign juggernaut had not seen fit to make the list available to the public.
Before moving on, I want to address the underlying facts here.
1. I was accused of cherry picking advisors presumably to make some debating point. That was not true. Had I had the list I certainly would have included Henry Kissinger, Barry McCaffrey, and Eliot Cohen as they make my case stronger. I obtained the names of four of the advisors froma newspaper article based on my own research, two Victor David Hanson and General Ralston aren't noted for their expertise on the Middle East.
2. I was accused being misleading by only including those two names. It is not misleading when you are not privy to information that a campaign has chosen, or neglected, to make public.
I don't believe Stephen is dishonest. By reputation he's a good guy and he's been nicer to me in emails about my Romney coverage than I had any reason to expect. I don't believe he knew there was no list online, ergo I could not possibly have cherry picked from said list, and persisted with this call for a clarification counting on me never asking the obvious question.
I think Stephen was punked by the incompetence of his own campaign. He assumed there was a list online and now has found there wasn't one but for whatever reason can't bring himself to acknowldege that he made a complaint without doing anything approaching due diligence. The first part I understand, it has happened to just about everyone who's done media relations work, the second part, not so much.
Regardless, this episode has demonstrated that it is difficult to deal with the Romney campaign on the basis of good faith.
When asked for an update to the story I did as Stephen requested. I provided that update even though my post was accurate to the best of my ability to use Mr. Google and even though the information Stephen provided did nothing to change the point I was making. In fact, right now the only place on the internet that you can find a list Romney's foreign policy advisors is on RedState. In short, I went, in my view, the extra mile to accomodate the Romney campaign when I could have, with a very clean conscience, told them to go pee up a rope. I kept my word.
As it turns out this demand for clarification and update was made without ever checking the facts. And Stephen did promise in the email exchange that he would, in his comment, make it clear that the list did not exist online. I searched his comment in vain for some acknowledgement of any error on his part.
I only get thin skinned when someone tries to play me for a chump or reneges on their word. So right now, yes, I am thin skinned.
The military option remains on the table. And further, nuclear material that falls into the hands of terrorists would surely provoke a devastating response from the civilized world.
Well no, I don't think so. Nothing about Romney suggests to me that he actually means this. In particular, the substance and wording of the other four steps make me think that the "devastating response" would take the form of a stinging rebuke in the UN General Assembly, and pressure on Washington's A-list hostesses to snub known terror sponsors at this season's dinner parties.
I would have preferred a statement like:
"And further, the state of Iran and its leaders will be held responsible for any acts of terrorism involving nuclear materials perpetrated anywhere in the world by any party. The consequences of such acts will be immediate and dire."
I don't enjoy the prospect of quarreling with Streiff on military and security matters because I realize that most of the time I'm going to be overmatched. But just to close out my rebuttals in this thread until it comes up again, last point first:
Last point. How many times is Israel mentioned this proposal? How much sense do you think it makes to advertise that you are getting your ideas on sanctions from a meeting in Israel.
Perhaps you can characterize this as a rhetorical misstep, but as far as I know this was the same meeting that Newt Gingrich attended and was quoted as addressing in Y|Net and featured on the Drudge Report throughout the entire day yesterday. I'm quite sure that the fact that both Gingrich and Romney attended the Herzliya Conference was common knowledge to our enemies and to Israel's enemies. Granted, Gingrich has not yet declared as a candidate, but the idea that somehow Romney's attendence there was a secret or in any way kept quiet is strained at best.
Finally, as far as sanctions are concerned, both you and Jeff make some sobering points. I don't see how we could impose sanctions without running the risk that it would cause some of the moderates currently opposing Ahmadinejad to change their minds and rally to his side. On the other hand, I think we can make a very good case to the rest of the world and to our friends (such as they are) in the region that supporting his regime isn't in their best interest. Ahmadinejad is one of those dictators who just cannot stop himself from showing the world how insane he actually is, and at least rhetorically that works to our advantage.
That said, after a night of sleeping on it, I agree that the Romney campaign needs to do two things, immediately, if they're going to continue to get my support. First of all, I was contacted by Stephen (nashvegas) last night at what I can only guess was around the same time you were, and I declined to reply immediately, because I wanted to see if he was going to send the same list to you. That only seemed fair.
But more importantly, the Romney campaign is going to have to toughen up and I think become more organized and on-message. I know that Streiff does his homework and if he says he couldn't find that list online before he wrote this piece, I believe him.
To the Romney campaign: I'm excited about the Governor's candidacy I want to give him the benefit of the doubt and be someone I can support without (too much) reservation. I think a positive next step would be to have him consider some of Streiff's criticisms carefully. I realize there's a "learning curve" that he's ascending right now, both in terms of policy and in terms of campaigning, but my advice would be to take Streiff's criticisms as constructive. As the former governor of Massachusetts he's got an uphill battle on many fronts, as I'm sure you realize -- so when Streiff takes the time to criticize your statements, I would hope you pay him some heed. I don't mind Streiff knocking me down because he knows more than I do and has a far sight more experience here than I do -- I'm just a 2-year neophyte blogger. But don't let him knock your candidate down because you didn't take his criticism seriously.
I didn't realize the list wasn't publicly available on our website until after I sent my first email to streiff ... it was widely reported on in the media, but the full list was apparently distributed more selectively than as a national press release. I'm not sure this amounts to "incompetence" but, as kowalski points out, there certainly is a learning curve to ascend. In any case, I do hope that we can talk to each other on a good faith basis in the future ... we've got a long road ahead of us :)
Last point. How many times is Israel mentioned this proposal? How much sense do you think it makes to advertise that you are getting your ideas on sanctions from a meeting in Israel and that you want Arab states to make peace with Israel to prevent Iran from getting nukes?
Are you suggesting Romney might have been pandering to his audience? Shocking!
When one looks a the history of economic sanctions on is struck by their utter ineffectualness. Cuba has been under sanctions for 40 years. Iraq was under sanctions for a dozen.
I remember sitting in Illinois a few years ago listening to Durbin espouse how the Cuban sanctions were cruel and unnecessary, and counterproductive. I don't understand why lifting sanctions on Iran would be beneficial. After all, it's really the only tool we have aside from the military option.
And then we have this:
But when you consider that the number of Iranian leaders who have asked to visit the US since 1979 apparently equals one, I fail to see how preventing a single trip every thirty years constitutes a real step forward. It is also very doubtful that we will have much company in this endeavor.
There is a vibrant opposition movement in Iran, and it actually achieved a lot of notable gains in the last election there, principally I think because of the growing consensus that Iran's fanatic leadership should be isolated both economically and ideologically. Those people have the real courage, because they're the ones who would like to get rid of Mahmoud A. and move on to someone more civil, but we don't talk about them very much here in the United States. Including Romney.
More later...