President Barack Obama (R) and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney at the end of the first presidential debate in Denver (Reuters/Jim Urquhart)
War With Iran: More Likely From Obama Or Romney? -- Jonathan Bernstein, Washington Post
Which candidate, Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, would be more likely to go to war against Iran if he wins the presidency in November?
That’s a fair question, and there are at least three good ways of answering it. But first . . . even thinking about the question this way assumes that war (or peace) will be determined not by larger circumstances that any administration would respond to in similar ways. In this case, that may be a fair assumption, but in others it may not be. However, assuming it hinges on the election:
One way of answering is simply to look at the positions each candidate has taken. Presidential commitments made during a campaign tend to constrain presidents once they’re in office, but as Jeffrey Goldberg argues, in this case, the positions are quite similar: Both consider an Iranian nuclear weapon unacceptable. Since both candidates claim to have a hard line against Iran (but, on the other hand, neither is willing to actually commit to war), it’s hard to see much of a difference on that score.
Read more ....
My Comment: Jonathan Bernstein is of the opinion that war with Iran is more likely under a Romney administration than an Obama one. What's my take .... I have mixed opinions. I never thought that President Obama would put a troop surge in Afghanistan, escalate drone strikes in Pakistan, and become involved in numerous covert wars and military conflicts. But I was wrong .... and the reason why was that I thought that President Obama would focus more on national issues (the debt/financial crisis/etc.) than on international ones. When I look at Mitt Romney .... I see a candidate .... like I did at Barack Obama in 2008 .... whose focus will on national issues and not on international ones. But then again .... I have been wrong before.
No comments:
Post a Comment