Mitt Romney reminds us that there are no substantive differencs between administration policy on Iran and his own:
And if I am president, I will begin by imposing a new round of far tougher economic sanctions on Iran. I will do this together with the world if we can, unilaterally if we must. I will speak out forcefully on behalf of Iranian dissidents. I will back up American diplomacy with a very real and very credible military option. I will restore the regular presence of aircraft carrier groups in the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region simultaneously. I will increase military assistance to Israel and coordination with all of our allies in the region.
If you run through this list of proposals, there is nothing that the administration has not already done or proposed doing, except perhaps for the all-important difference of “speaking out forcefully.” Increased military assistance to Israel and Arab allies has been forthcoming. Unfortunately, there is an only too-credible military option behind current Iran policy, as we have all been discussing for the last week. The administation has hardly shied away from imposing unilateral sanctions on Iran.
Three-quarters of Romney’s op-ed is made up of recycled complaints that he and other hawks have been making for the last two and a half years, and the amazing thing is that all of these complaints are extremely weak and have been answered already. I won’t rehearse why scrapping the pointless missile defense plan for Poland and the Czech Republic didn’t matter, and the advantages to the U.S. of keeping track of the Russian nuclear arsenal with inspections are obvious. There is no point in going over yet again that the Green movement didn’t want foreign help. There was nothing practical that the U.S. could have done that it didn’t do to help them, but such is Romney’s famous “pragmatism” that he doesn’t care.
tbraton 
Jim Dooley 
Skipjack 
While I know you like to single out Romney, I pointed out yesterday that his views on Iran do not differ much from the views of the other Republican candidates for President, with the notable exception of Ron Paul. It is a sad reflection on the state of today’s modern Republican Party that Paul’s foreign policy views have not gained more traction within the party, especially after the expensive disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan. And let’s not let the Democrats off the hook. I think it’s safe to say that the irrational exuberance over a military confrontation with Iran is truly a bipartisan affair, much like the housing bubble and internet/dot.com bubble.
“tbraton, on November 9th, 2011 at 11:23 am Said:
From my earlier post: “Thirdly, virtually all the potential Republican opponents (with the exception of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson) have expressed the need to be more confrontational with Iran so there is small chance that any decision by Obama to attack Iran shortly before the election would be met by political opposition. Large bi-partisan majorities in Congress have consistently signed on to punitive legislation against Iran.”
From Simon Tisdall’s piece in the Guardian: “Republican hopefuls in the 2012 Presidential election are beating the war drums too, sensing that Iran is a bunker-buster issue that could penetrate Obama’s strong record on national security. Governor Rick Perry of Texas, a leading candidate, is saying he would fully support a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear installations. Another aspiring commander-in-chief, former senator Rick Santorum, describes Iran as the “enemy”. It is campaign-trail nonsense, but it is dangerous nonsense – and it ramps up the pressure on Obama.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-elections-2012“