From Josh Rogin on Foreign Policy‘s blog The Cable:
On a conference call with American rabbis Thursday evening, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney altered his position on what “red lines” he would set for Iran before deciding military action was necessary.
“Your good friend Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu says that the international community needs to draw a red line for Iran. Do you agree that a red line needs to be drawn, and where would you draw it?,” Rabbi Efrem Goldberg asked on the call, a recording of which was provided to The Cable.
“With regards to the red line, I would image Prime Minister Netanyahu is referring to a red line over which if Iran crossed it would take military action. And for me, it is unacceptable or Iran to have the capability of building a nuclear weapon, which they could use in the Middle East or elsewhere,” Romney said. “So for me, the red line is nuclear capability. We do not want them to have the capacity of building a bomb that threatens ourselves, our friends, and the world.”
“Exactly where those red lines [should be drawn] is something which, I guess, I wouldn’t want to get into in great detail, but you understand they are defined by the Iranian capability to have not only fissile material, but bomb making capability and rocketry,” Romney said.
Romney’s remark that the United States should take military action if Iran develops nuclear weapons “capability” matches what many GOP leaders and pro-Israel groups have publicly stated, but it stands in contrast to the “red line” Romney set out in a Sept. 14 interview with ABC News.
“My red line is Iran may not have a nuclear weapon,” Romney told network host George Stephanopoulos. “It is inappropriate for them to have the capacity to terrorize the world. Iran with a nuclear weapon or with fissile material that can be given to Hezbollah or Hamas or others has the potential of not just destabilizing the Middle East. But it could be brought here.”
Asked if his red line was the same as President Obama’s, Romney told ABC, “Yes.”
Romney also said it would be okay for Iran to have single payer health insurance before one of the rabbis upbraided him, upon which he said that the red line would be no health insurance PERIOD and that sick Iranians living under tyranny would have to die in the street just like all the sick uninsured Americans who live in FREEDOM.
He’s been betting the farm on the Likudnik donor class.
This is his last attempt. Post-47% debacle, he needs that extra cash and to do that, he has to grovel more than ever before to Adelson.
Romney is quickly transforming himself into another Gingrich.
Mitt has been chosen (no pun intended) to let Obama get another term in office. The poor patsy.
Frankly, Obama is a bit disgusting on ME, but Romney convinced me to make a modest donation. This spectacle of groveling to Israeli politicians, rabbis and Jewish fat cats is disconcerting. Importantly, it is becoming disconcerting for elites in many countries including USA, although strangely, Canada seems to be trending in opposite direction.
However, there is some kind of pendulum effect at work. In USA, the high point for the Israeli lobby was the humiliation of Obama on the issues of settlement frieze and negotiations with Palestinians. However, the nature of the beast is that the lobby must be paranoid: they do it for living. Hence they are always in plus ultra mode (yet more). Today settlements, tomorrow Tehran. But the world was never so unipolar that Washington could deliver Tehran. And now, with economic crises, the Washington abilities are waning, something that Republicans did not notice yet, but the general population is already aware of.
Concerning Romney personality, it reminds me of “Zelig”.
Seems to me Bibi knows what he’s doing, step by step. Now add the fact The US Senate this Saturday just passed by a 90-1 vote Joe-Lieberman’s non-binding resolution insisting that the US prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and ruling out any containment strategy aimed at dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran.
The only senator to vote against the resolution was Rand Paul, who argued that it was a de-facto declaration of war (even though it said it was not), “an excuse for war.”
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=285853