What did Romney say?
Joel C. Rosenberg
(Washington, D.C., October 23, 2012) -- Discussion over the real and looming threat of a major war in the Tel Aviv-to-Tehran corridor dominated the final presidential debate last night. Iran, Israel and the disaster in Syria were mentioned more than any other countries -- more than China, far more than Russia. Canada and Mexico were never mentioned last night.
Indeed, the sharpest and most impassioned confrontations between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney came over the Iran nuclear threat, the prospect of Israel launching a full-scale war against Iran, and whether the U.S. will stand with Israel as a faithful ally.
However, one of the most disturbing moments for me personally came when moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS News asked: "Would either of you be willing to declare that an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States, which of course is the same promise that we give to our close allies like Japan? And if you made such a declaration, would not that deter Iran? It's certainly deterred the Soviet Union for a long, long time when we made that - when we made that promise to our allies."
This was a flawed question. The far more important question is: If diplomacy and sanctions and covert operations don't stop Iran from getting the Bomb, would you fully support Israel if Prime Minister Netanyahu feels he has no choice but to order preemptive military strikes on Iran.
Nevertheless, President Obama accepted the premise of the question and replied, "I will stand with Israel if they are attacked." Mr. Obama tried to portray himself as a strong ally of Israel throughout the rest of that answer and the entirety of the evening. But consider his answer more carefully. The President did not say unequivocally that he would stand with Israel in a preemptive strike on Iran, if that were the last option available. Rather, Mr. Obama insisted he would help Israel after Iran attacks the Jewish state. But if Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons, it would be too late for American military assistance to do much good. Indeed, it is immoral for an American president to vow to defend Israel only after she has been attacked with nuclear weapons. Yet this is the President's position.
True, President Obama noted that "as long as I'm president of the United States, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon." But as I explain in detail in my new book, Israel At War: Inside The Nuclear Showdown With Iran, Israeli leaders aren't convinced they can trust Mr. Obama to prevent Iran from getting the Bomb. The see time passing. The Israelis see the Obama administration interested in never-ending diplomacy with Iranian leaders who have shown no serious interest in making a deal despite years of attempts. The Israelis see Iran getting closer to the Bomb, and they see the White House constantly undermining the Israeli military option, and signaling that when the U.S. says "all options are on the table" that the President and his advisors don't really mean they are seriously considering military options.
Advantage Romney? Perhaps, but it wasn't so clear....
[To read the rest of this article, including a detailed analysis of what Gov. Romney said at the debate -- and/or to read an excerpt from the new e-book, ISRAEL AT WAR, or to find links to the latest news and analysis of events and trends in the U.S., Israel, North Africa, Russia, and the Middle East -- please go to: http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/.]
