uring Saturday night's GOP debate, the top-tier Republican presidential candidates criticized President Obama's Iran policies, saying they'd be willing to go to war to keep Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Mitt Romney said that if "crippling sanctions" don't work, we should attack. Newt Gingrich said we should start by covertly "taking out their scientists" and sabotaging Iran's nuclear installations. Obama maintains that his administration is making progress isolating Iran, and that anyone who thinks the task is easy is "either politicking or doesn't know what they're talking about." Would a GOP White House be tougher on Iran than Obama has been?
Yes. A Republican wouldn't back down: Obama's failure to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program provides an opportunity for the GOP, says Jamie M. Fly at National Review. Almost all of the Republican candidates support military action if that's what it takes to prevent Tehran from acquiring the bomb. That's clearly a stronger position than Obama's willing to take. One thing's for sure: As Romney put it, the status quo is "unacceptable."
"A better debate than expected, but needed more talk on defense spending"
Romney & Co. are just posturing: This is "ridiculous," says Paul Abrams at The Huffington Post. Obama has been far more effective than his neocon predecessors in getting Russia and China to back sanctions against Iran. And the president is "incredibly tough when required (e.g., getting bin Laden)." Romney, on the other hand, escaped the Vietnam War because his father got him an exception as a Mormon missionary. The hollowness of the "macho-Mitt" act proves once again that Romney is a complete "phony." "The mullahs must be cowering."
"Biggest joke from Republican debate: Romney threatening Iran"
And war with Iran won't even work: Romney "declared stoutly that if Barack Obama is re-elected, Iran will get nuclear weapons, and if he is elected, Iran will not get nuclear weapons," says Barbara O'Brien at The Mahablog. He must be counting on "the disarmament fairy" to make his dream come true. Because "all kinds of military experts warn that neither a ground invasion nor a bombing campaign against Iran would likely succeed" in preventing Iran from going nuclear. Plus, can we even afford a war in Iran?
"Mittens and Newt would invade Iran"
THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER
- 7 ways to be the most interesting person in any room
- What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?
- Sorry Belle Knox, porn still oppresses women
- Who are the real gay marriage bigots?
- Colorado’s new ‘drive high, get a DUI’ commercials are actually pretty clever
- Why is American internet so slow?
- What the collapse of the Ming Dynasty can tell us about American decline
- Watch The Daily Show mock Fox News' confused man-crush on Vladimir Putin
- Religious liberty should be a liberal value, too
- Why states should stop limiting the alcohol content in your beer
Subscribe to the Week