Mitt Romney’s Advisors Propose to Change Approach to Syria, Iran and Missile Defense
Published in Itar-Tass
(Russia) on 8 August 2012
by Ivan Lebedev (link to original)
In the case of a victory in November’s elections, Republican Mitt Romney intends to lead a tougher course in foreign politics and rely more on force to advance American interests abroad, compared to current U.S. President Barack Obama. A number of recent interviews that were given by key advisors to the former governor of Massachusetts and soon-to-be Republican presidential candidate testify to this.
According to them, with Romney in the White House, changes in the country’s foreign political policy could affect acute problems, like the crisis in Syria, the situation surrounding Iran, peace in the Middle East and the missile-defense program, which is causing disagreement with Russia.
First of all, Romney considers that it is necessary to increase American support for the Syrian opposition and provide direct action. He would not only to bypass the divided UN Security Council, but also would be independent from the amorphous and unwieldy “Friends of Syria Group.” “Obama has been saying for almost a year that Syrian President Bashar Assad must go, and it’s hasn’t happened. It makes America look impotent,” stated Republican campaign staffer Dan Senor.
Secondly, Romney wants to significantly toughen the U.S. position on Iran to force the country to renounce its nuclear ambitions. “We don’t believe that Iran should have any enrichment capability whatsoever,” stated former American diplomat Mitchell Reiss, also working on Romney’s team. In his opinion, the group of five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany should correct its approach to negotiations with Tehran. “Can we change our allies’ position? I think we can,” said Reiss.
Besides, Romney “is not going to make the mistake of Obama and publicly discourage Israel” from attacking Iranian nuclear sites if sanctions and negotiations don’t work, stated Republican consultant on foreign and legal policy, Alex Wong.
Romney thinks that the U.S. should overhaul its approach to the situation in the Middle East and again take up the role of Israel’s ally, not that of a neutral middleman in the peace process. Romney “will not stand in the way and throw up more conditions” for Arab-Israeli negotiations, said Wong. He thinks that such an approach will be more effective, insofar as Israel was more willing to make concessions to the Palestinians before, when it was sure of unconditional support from its main ally.
Finally, Romney may reverse current plans to install a missile-defense system in Europe and return to plans from the Bush administration, which were rejected by Obama. In his speeches, the Republican candidate has repeatedly mentioned that the U.S. wrongly abandoned the idea to locate radar detection in the Czech Republic and 10 silo-launched interceptor missiles in Poland.
In fact, today’s version of the U.S. European missile-defense system is not inferior in any way, but is superior to the old one in many respects. Also, Turkey is now the chosen location for the radar detection system instead of the Czech Republic. The anti-missile shield in Poland will still become operational by 2018, although it won’t be silo-based, but instead will use mobile SM-3. By 2015, such missiles will be based in Romania. In any case, just as before, these plans cause serious tension between Washington and Moscow; attempts to expand them may complicate already complicated bilateral relations.
A series of interviews with the Republican candidate’s foreign policy advisors appeared after his trip abroad, which was generally thought to be more than just unlucky. During a visit to Great Britain, Israel and Poland, Romney should have shown that he is suited to the role of governmental actor and commander-in-chief of the world’s most powerful military. Instead, he appeared to be an inexperienced politician without any kind of foreign policy agenda. He managed to offend the British, clumsily talking about London’s preparedness for the Olympics, and insult Palestinians by talking about their “cultural differences” compared to the Israelis.
British newspapers openly made fun of him, calling him “son of Bush” and “nowhere man,” borrowing from Prime Minister David Cameron’s comments. Echoes in the American press were also humiliating. They immediately starting talking about how Romney essentially has no concept of foreign politics and national security, and all of his speeches on these matters simply try to criticize Obama. And really, the former governor questions practically every single one of his opponent’s actions, only agreeing with him about the necessity of a relentless fight against terrorism. In one interview, Romney had to admit, entirely reluctantly, that the killing of Al-Qaida’s chief, Osama bin Laden, is a credit to the work of the current administration.
Against this background, Obama, even with all his idealism, appears to be a much greater pragmatist who possesses a sufficiently clear and consistent understanding of international issues.
Many experts explain Romney’s inability to offer voters a distinct foreign policy agenda by citing the lack of unity within his team, which is made up of different kinds of people. Yet, it is well known that the retinue makes the king. For example, the former governor’s arsenal includes former U.S. ambassador to the UN John Bolton, who has a reputation as a hawk even within conservative circles and is considered to be one of the staunchest American neocons. It isn’t surprising that a number of other Romney advisors, according to the Washington Post, were displeased when their boss said Russia was America’s “number one geopolitical foe” and called into question exit plans for American troops from Afghanistan.
Foreign policy issues will be included in the Republican electoral agenda, which will be formally approved with Romney’s candidacy at the national convention in Tampa, Florida at the end of August. They will also come up during the traditional televised debates between Romney and Obama. Now the rivals are finishing the last 100 meters in the presidential race. Only 90 days remain until the elections on Nov. 6. The Republican team still has time to develop and show voters a more or less coherent foreign policy agenda — but they haven’t done it yet. The only thing that can comfort the GOP’s campaign headquarters is that domestic problems will play a decisive role in the outcome of the elections. According to opinion polls, the state of the economy and taxes worry American voters much more than the situation in Syria and talks with Iran.
According to them, with Romney in the White House, changes in the country’s foreign political policy could affect acute problems, like the crisis in Syria, the situation surrounding Iran, peace in the Middle East and the missile-defense program, which is causing disagreement with Russia.
First of all, Romney considers that it is necessary to increase American support for the Syrian opposition and provide direct action. He would not only to bypass the divided UN Security Council, but also would be independent from the amorphous and unwieldy “Friends of Syria Group.” “Obama has been saying for almost a year that Syrian President Bashar Assad must go, and it’s hasn’t happened. It makes America look impotent,” stated Republican campaign staffer Dan Senor.
Secondly, Romney wants to significantly toughen the U.S. position on Iran to force the country to renounce its nuclear ambitions. “We don’t believe that Iran should have any enrichment capability whatsoever,” stated former American diplomat Mitchell Reiss, also working on Romney’s team. In his opinion, the group of five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany should correct its approach to negotiations with Tehran. “Can we change our allies’ position? I think we can,” said Reiss.
Besides, Romney “is not going to make the mistake of Obama and publicly discourage Israel” from attacking Iranian nuclear sites if sanctions and negotiations don’t work, stated Republican consultant on foreign and legal policy, Alex Wong.
Romney thinks that the U.S. should overhaul its approach to the situation in the Middle East and again take up the role of Israel’s ally, not that of a neutral middleman in the peace process. Romney “will not stand in the way and throw up more conditions” for Arab-Israeli negotiations, said Wong. He thinks that such an approach will be more effective, insofar as Israel was more willing to make concessions to the Palestinians before, when it was sure of unconditional support from its main ally.
Finally, Romney may reverse current plans to install a missile-defense system in Europe and return to plans from the Bush administration, which were rejected by Obama. In his speeches, the Republican candidate has repeatedly mentioned that the U.S. wrongly abandoned the idea to locate radar detection in the Czech Republic and 10 silo-launched interceptor missiles in Poland.
In fact, today’s version of the U.S. European missile-defense system is not inferior in any way, but is superior to the old one in many respects. Also, Turkey is now the chosen location for the radar detection system instead of the Czech Republic. The anti-missile shield in Poland will still become operational by 2018, although it won’t be silo-based, but instead will use mobile SM-3. By 2015, such missiles will be based in Romania. In any case, just as before, these plans cause serious tension between Washington and Moscow; attempts to expand them may complicate already complicated bilateral relations.
A series of interviews with the Republican candidate’s foreign policy advisors appeared after his trip abroad, which was generally thought to be more than just unlucky. During a visit to Great Britain, Israel and Poland, Romney should have shown that he is suited to the role of governmental actor and commander-in-chief of the world’s most powerful military. Instead, he appeared to be an inexperienced politician without any kind of foreign policy agenda. He managed to offend the British, clumsily talking about London’s preparedness for the Olympics, and insult Palestinians by talking about their “cultural differences” compared to the Israelis.
British newspapers openly made fun of him, calling him “son of Bush” and “nowhere man,” borrowing from Prime Minister David Cameron’s comments. Echoes in the American press were also humiliating. They immediately starting talking about how Romney essentially has no concept of foreign politics and national security, and all of his speeches on these matters simply try to criticize Obama. And really, the former governor questions practically every single one of his opponent’s actions, only agreeing with him about the necessity of a relentless fight against terrorism. In one interview, Romney had to admit, entirely reluctantly, that the killing of Al-Qaida’s chief, Osama bin Laden, is a credit to the work of the current administration.
Against this background, Obama, even with all his idealism, appears to be a much greater pragmatist who possesses a sufficiently clear and consistent understanding of international issues.
Many experts explain Romney’s inability to offer voters a distinct foreign policy agenda by citing the lack of unity within his team, which is made up of different kinds of people. Yet, it is well known that the retinue makes the king. For example, the former governor’s arsenal includes former U.S. ambassador to the UN John Bolton, who has a reputation as a hawk even within conservative circles and is considered to be one of the staunchest American neocons. It isn’t surprising that a number of other Romney advisors, according to the Washington Post, were displeased when their boss said Russia was America’s “number one geopolitical foe” and called into question exit plans for American troops from Afghanistan.
Foreign policy issues will be included in the Republican electoral agenda, which will be formally approved with Romney’s candidacy at the national convention in Tampa, Florida at the end of August. They will also come up during the traditional televised debates between Romney and Obama. Now the rivals are finishing the last 100 meters in the presidential race. Only 90 days remain until the elections on Nov. 6. The Republican team still has time to develop and show voters a more or less coherent foreign policy agenda — but they haven’t done it yet. The only thing that can comfort the GOP’s campaign headquarters is that domestic problems will play a decisive role in the outcome of the elections. According to opinion polls, the state of the economy and taxes worry American voters much more than the situation in Syria and talks with Iran.