Romney’s Strike Four on Foreign Policy

Romney’s Strike Four on Foreign Policy

Romney’s Strike Four on Foreign Policy

His leaked remarks on Israel and Iran are more than mistakes—they prove Mitt Romney knows nothing about foreign policy. 

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

It’s nearly time for postseason baseball, when, as the song goes: “And it’s one, two, three strikes you’re out.” But when it comes to foreign policy, Romney now has strike four.

Strike one was his ridiculous comment that Russia is America’s “No. I geopolitical foe.” Strike two was his much-derided trip to Britain, Israel and Poland, where he piled mistake on mistake. Strike Three—“Yerrr out!”—was his outrageous comment that President Obama “sympathizes” with armed Islamists who attacked the consulate in Benghazi.

Now, thanks to Mother Jones, we’ve seen Romney whiff at strike four, namely, his comments that the Palestinians don’t want peace and that Iran is run by “crazy people.” I’d say, You can’t make this stuff up, but apparently Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel does make it up and then feed it to Mitt Romney, who swallows it whole.

These aren’t just gaffes. These are the mumblings of a candidate so clueless about the world outside America’s borders that it’s impossible to imagine him sitting in the Oval Office. Sometimes politicians misspeak or make mistakes, but Romney’s foreign policy bungling is far more extreme than that. Outside of Switzerland and the Cayman Islands, it’s unclear that he knows anything at all about Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America.

His comments about Iran—that it’s run by “crazy people”—contradict the views of many top US officials, experts and intelligence specialists and even Meir Dagan, the former head of Mossad, as Joe Cirincione catalogs in Foreign Policy. Here’s Mitt:

If I were Iran, if I were Iran—a crazed fanatic, I’d say let’s get a little fissile material to Hezbollah, have them carry it to Chicago or some other place, and then if anything goes wrong, or America starts acting up, we’ll just say, “Guess what? Unless you stand down, why, we’re going to let off a dirty bomb.” I mean this is where we have—where America could be held up and blackmailed by Iran, by the mullahs, by crazy people. So we really don’t have any option but to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

Leave aside that President Obama, too, says that his policy is “to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.” Cirincione points out that a “dirty bomb” doesn’t use uranium but requires more deadly and more highly radioactive materials—meaning that if Ayatollah Khamenei does plant a dirty bomb in the United States he is indeed a “crazy person,” since it won’t work.

More devastatingly, Romney says that he got a call from a former secretary of state suggesting that it was possible to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflicts. Romney’s self-confessed response? “I didn’t delve into it.” He called it “wishful thinking.” And why? He said:

I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there’s just no way. And so what you do is you say you move things along the best way you can. You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that it’s going to remain an unsolved problem. I mean, we look at that in China and Taiwan. All right, we have a potentially volatile situation, but we sort of live with it. And we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve.

That’s straight from the Israeli-Netanyahu playbook: the Palestinians are “not wanting to see peace.” And, according to Romney, “I have to tell ya, the idea of pushing on the Israelis?—to give something up, to get the Palestinians to act, is the worst idea in the world.”

Strike four.

Mitt Romney packs a lot of offensive remarks into his forty-nine minute fundraiser speech. Check out Ilyse Hogue’s take on the now-infamous “47 percent.”

Support The Nation’s June Fundraising Campaign

With the midterm elections now firmly upon us, the question is whether Democratic candidates will do more than merely occupy ballot lines as mild alternatives to the red-hot crisis that is Donald Trump.

As Trump spends over $1 billion a day on a globally destabilizing war on Iran and admits that he doesn’t “think about Americans’ financial situation,” millions across the country are struggling with the surging costs of essentials. Democrats must seize this moment and advance bold, small-“d” populist ideas—not settle for cynical caution that once again snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

The Nation elevates progressive ideas, movements, and elected officials achieving real change across the country into the national conversation. At the same time, our journalists are exposing how crypto and AI-funded super PACs are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to knock out candidates they oppose, reporting on the devastating impact of the Supreme Court’s evisceration of the Voting Rights Act, and sounding the alarm on attempts by red states to quickly redraw electoral maps, disenfranchising Southern Black voters.

We can play this critical role because of support from readers like you. This June, we’re raising $20,000 to power The Nation’s independent journalism in the run-up to November’s immensely consequential elections.

It’s in our power to build a more just society, and your support at this critical moment brings us closer to that bold vision. I hope you’ll donate today.

Onward,

Katrina vanden Heuvel
Editor and Publisher, The Nation

Ad Policy
x