Romney has repeatedly said that “Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.” He often has emphasized that the option of attacking Tehran’s nuclear facilities is “on the table.” In that sense, his position is no different than Obama’s, who in his State of the Union speech said, “Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.”
Once again, don’t US national security realities indicate that, if Iran wants atomic weapons, we and our allies are powerless to do more than delay their development? Changing the regime would mean war and a long term commitment in the area. Americans will fight wars but tend to lose patience with long term commitments in other areas of the world. A war strategy would also require assessing how other countries in the Middle East would respond to our once more taking military action there. Those who can be influenced toward violence toward us and our allies would have another recruiting tool. Would even the most reasonable of Muslims in 2001 when we were attacked might, in the aftermath of Iraq, the continuation or aftermath of Afghanistan (depending on timing), see one more war initiative by the US as different from a “crusade syndrome?”
Isn’t the question whether any of the candidates promise national security strategies, policies that match national security realities?