Romney is noted for his “flip-flops” on issues depending on the audience. He is currently surrounding himself with neocon foreign policy advisors. But would he follow such a policy as president?
Mitt Romney, who in the past was considered a moderate Republican, has surrounded himself with neoconservative foreign policy advisors.
Romney’s chameleon approach to politics is to simply say, and sometimes do, whatever would appeal to his current audience. To win the governorship of Massachusetts, Romney had to be something of a liberal. To win the Republican presidential primaries, it was essential for Romney to place himself on the Right. In foreign policy this meant an appeal to the Christian Zionists and hard-line American nationalists who identify with the aggressive foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, which especially focused on the Middle East, with Iran now being the major target. And all the major Republican presidential candidates took this position with the exception of Ron Paul.
Romney has gone as far as to threaten military action to stop Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. This naturally appealed to supporters of Israel, Iran being Israel’s foremost enemy, and it paid off bountifully for Romney in June, when multi-billionaire Zionist Sheldon Adelson, who had single-handedly kept Newt Gingrich in the Republican presidential primary race, pledged to spend $100 million or more to help Romney defeat President Obama.
Romney’s foreign policy advisors include such neocon luminaries as Robert Kagan, a contributing editor of the neocon “Weekly Standard” and scholar at the Brookings Institution; Eliot Cohen, a Johns Hopkins University professor of strategic studies, who coined the term “World War IV” for the war against Islamic “terrorists” (i.e., essentially against Israel’s Middle East enemies); Dan Senor, former spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority under Paul Bremer in Iraq and a former intern for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC); Eric Edelman, an advisor to Vice President Cheney in George W. Bush’s first term and undersecretary of defense for policy in the second; and John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security and UN ambassador during the younger Bush’s administration.
Kagan, Edelman, and Senor have served as directors of the Foreign Policy Initiative (with “Weekly Standard” editor, Bill Kristol), which is considered a successor to the now-defunct Project for a New American Century (PNAC) that promoted the war on Iraq. Among its hawkish policies, the Foreign Policy Initiative has advocated a US military strike on Iran’s nuclear program along with support for regime change, and military intervention in Syria.
John Bolton especially stands out since his name has been mentioned for the position of Secretary of State. In a recent piece, “The Negotiation Delusion” in the “Weekly Standard,” Bolton asserts that neither negotiations, sanctions, computer virus attacks, targeted killings, nor anything short of an actual military attack will stop Iran from continuing its alleged “decades-long effort to build deliverable nuclear weapons.” Moreover, he goes so far as to state that Iran because of its alleged cheating does not have the right “even to ‘peaceful’ nuclear activities without fundamental regime change.” In short, the only option for the US to take is war. And he does not sugarcoat the ramifications of such a war as was done by the neocons in the build-up for the war on Iraq. For he holds that “Russia and China have a strategic national interest in preventing us from succeeding” because they see it as a “test case in limiting American power.” If Russian and Chinese strategic national interests are involved, it would seem unlikely that these countries would sit on the sidelines while the US bombarded Iran in order to achieve “regime change.”
As an aside, let me add that there are also old-line Republican realists/pragmatists (of the Brent Scowcroft-James Baker variety) listed among Romney’s advisors who reportedly are at loggerheads with the neocons. But official campaign pronouncements and Romney’s speeches indicate that the neocons are clearly dominant. In fact, Republican foreign policy stalwarts such as Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft have yet to endorse Romney. “I don’t think I’ve changed my views at all,” Scowcroft stated. “I think the party has moved.”
Given that Romney’s identification with the neocons and their hardline policies is likely motivated by opportunism rather than conviction, shouldn’t he now be expected to change to a more moderate position for the general election, which he would continue as President? Furthermore, should he become President, would he really want to harm his own popularity at home and abroad by launching a war that would be apt to devastate the economy just to placate the neoconservatives and other segments of the Israel lobby?
These factors must be considered, but Romney has gone so far in his involvement with the neocons that it would be very difficult for him to extricate himself from their war agenda without serious negative repercussions for himself. The neocons and their wealthy supporters expect him to pursue a policy in line with their thinking, at least in key areas such as Iran, Syria, and Israel. It must be remembered that the neocons are very influential in the conservative media, best represented by Fox News. Should they turn on him for deserting their Middle East agenda, their criticism of him would likely resonate with the Republican base, which was never too keen about him in the first place, and thus undermine his administration. Since it is doubtful that Romney would be able to attract substantial support from independents and Democrats by a more moderate foreign policy stance, his alienation of the neocons, with their power over the Republican base, could leave him with virtually no significant support. It would thus seem that Romney, out of personal self-interest, would need to keep his wagon tied to the neocons, trying to ameliorate some of their most extreme positions. This approach definitely would mean that much stronger measures would be taken against Iran than have been implemented so far, and if the United States did not actually initiate war over Iran’s nuclear program, it would engage in belligerent tactics that would inevitably lead to war.
Romney’s identification with the neoconservatives also helps to reveal something about Obama’s likely future Iran policy. It is an ominous sign that the Obama camp refrains from criticizing Romney’s choice of pro-war advisors who had pushed for the unpopular war on Iraq, while it is quite willing to make all kinds of extreme charges against him, including the inflammatory claim that he is a felon. Furthermore, Obama’s campaign website does not tout any effort on his part to resist the war hawks’ demand for war. Rather, it features more militant positions.
For example: “President Obama has been clear that he is determined to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Under President Obama’s leadership, the United States gained the support of China, Russia, and other nations to pass the most comprehensive international sanctions regime that Iran has ever faced.” Moreover it claims that “The President is working to address Israel’s security needs and ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people.” Added to this is Obama’s continuing mantra that “all options are on the table,” which implies that if the sanctions and other short-of-war measures that have been used so far don’t stop Iran’s alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, the United States would initiate a military attack. Since there is no valid evidence that such a program to build nuclear weapons exists, there can be no valid evidence that it has actually ceased. So sometime in his second administration the neocons and other war hawks, using Obama’s very words, could pressure him into launching an attack on the grounds that the alleged nuclear weapons program continues to operate despite the sanctions and all the other short-of-war measures that have been taken. And, of course, there is a good chance that his short-of-war measures could lead to an incident to bring about a full scale war.
Stephen J. Sniegoski, Ph.D. earned his doctorate in American history,with a focus on American foreign policy, at the University of Maryland. His focus on the neoconservative involvement in American foreign policy antedates September 11,and his first major work on the subject, “The War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel” was published February 10, 2003, more than a month before the American attack. He is the author of “The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel”.
Israel, the US Elections and the “Jewish Swing Vote”
Latest posts by Stephen Sniegoski (see all)
- Jeb Bush, James Baker, and the Pro-Israel Mega-Donors - May 23, 2015
- Iran: The Aggressor or the Aggressed Upon? - May 3, 2015
- The authoritarian utopia of Colonel Edward M. House - April 12, 2015
Posted by Stephen Sniegoski on July 17, 2012, With 0 Reads, Filed under Afghanistan War (2002-?), Libyan Civil War (2011-?), War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry