During yesterday's news conference President Obama contrasted the Republicans' muscular policy prescriptions on Iran to his own more measured more collaborative approach to Iran acting as part of a international coalition.
Romney said in his speech to AIPAC that as president he would make Israel his first foreign trip, on Iran Mitt had this to say:
At AIPAC, Republicans lash Obama on Iran, Israel
By EMILY SCHULTHEIS | 3/6/12
Romney said it’s a mistake to believe that Iranian leaders think the same way Americans do.
“It is profoundly irrational to suggest that the ayatollahs think the way we do or share our values,” he added. “They do not.”
And of course we can't expect different values to be equal to good old American values, like patrolling from the sky with lethal drones piloted from the other side of the globe.
“In a Romney administration, there will be no gap between our administration, and there will be no gap between our leaders,” he said.
Rick Santorum went even farther promising to "tear down' Iran's robustly defended and widely dispersed nuclear installations, if the Iranians didn't "get rid" of them voluntarily.
But the strongest language of the day came from Santorum, who said, to a standing ovation, that the United States would eliminate Iran’s nuclear facilities if the country’s leaders would not do so themselves.
“If Iran doesn’t get rid of nuclear facilities, we will tear down them ourselves,” he said.
“Under a Santorum administration, we would find no gap between Israel and the United States because our interests are united,” Santorum vowed.
Obama's sobriety and prudence contrasted starkly with the leading Republicans hubris so reminiscent of the Bush Administration's rhetoric about Iraq in 2002.
Press Conference by the President
Mike Viqueira: On the Middle East and as it relates to American politics, a little less than a year ago Moammar Qaddafi gave a speech, and he said he was going to send his forces to Benghazi, he was going to rout opponents from their bedrooms and he was going to shoot them. You frequently cited that speech as a justification for NATO, the no-fly zone and military action against Libya. In Syria, Bashar al Assad is killing people. There's a massacre underway. And your critics here in the United States, including, most notably, John McCain, said you should start air strikes now.
And on Iran, Mitt Romney, on Sunday, went so far as to say that if you are re-elected, Iran will get a bomb and the world will change. How do you respond to those criticisms?
President Obama: All right, Mike, you've asked a couple of questions there, so let me -- let’s start with the Iran situation since that’s been the topic in the news for the last few days...
Now, what’s said on the campaign trail -- those folks don’t have a lot of responsibilities. They’re not Commander-in-Chief. And when I see the casualness with which some of these folks talk about war, I’m reminded of the costs involved in war. I’m reminded that the decision that I have to make in terms of sending our young men and women into battle, and the impacts that has on their lives, the impact it has on our national security, the impact it has on our economy.
Jake Tapper: Thank you, Mr. President. What kind of assurances did you give Prime Minister Netanyahu about the role that the U.S. would play if the diplomacy and economic sanctions fail to work to convince Iran’s leaders to change their behavior and Israel goes ahead and prepares to strike their nuclear facilities? What kind of assurances did you tell him? And shouldn’t we — I recognize the difference between debate and bluster, but shouldn’t we be having in this country a vigorous debate about what could happen in the case of a Middle East war in a way that, sadly, we did not do before going into Iraq?”
President Obama: “I think there’s no doubt that those who are suggesting or proposing or beating the drums of war should explain clearly to the American people what they think the costs and benefits would be. I’m not one of those people. Because what I’ve said is, is that we have a window through which we can resolve this issue peacefully. We have put forward an international framework that is applying unprecedented pressure. The Iranians just stated that they are willing to return to the negotiating table. And we’ve got the opportunity, even as we maintain that pressure, to see how it plays out.
It’s also not just an issue of consequences for Israel if action is taken prematurely; there are consequences to the United States as well. And so I do think that any time we consider military action that the American people understand that there is going to be a price to pay. Sometime it’s necessary. But we don’t do it casually. When I visit Walter Reed; when I sign letters to families that haven’t, uh, whose loved ones who’ve not come home. I’m reminded that there is a cost. Sometimes we bear that cost but we think it through. We don’t play politics with it. When we have in the past, when we haven’t thought it through and it gets wrapped up in politics we make mistakes and typically it’s not the folks who are, uh, popping off who pay the price it’s these incredible men and women in uniform and their families who pay the price. and as a consequence,
Romney and Santorum rattling sabers may sway some Republican votes, but their's is not a balanced or responsible way to advance America's goals in the world. Americans deserve leaders who weigh the consequences of their actions, not ones who make rash precipitous choices without any consideration of the long term costs as George W. Bush did in his reckless invasion of Iraq. An invasion that Americans will have to bear the psychical, psychological, societal, and financial costs for decades to come.