Here are the paragraphs
that stuck in my mind after reading Mitt Romney’s interview in Ha’aretz:
Because we are on
foreign soil, I will refrain in this interview from being critical of the
president or open[ing] up new avenues of foreign policy that might be seen to
be in contradiction to that of the current government
“I don’t want to make any comment about the president.”
“I am afraid that any discussion of settlements would
lead me into waters of showing a distance between me and the president. That
will not be appropriate for me to do while on foreign soil.”
Mitt Romney believes
that while on foreign soil he cannot say anything against the policies of the
Obama administration whose appeasement of Iran has put Israel and America in
the most dangerous situation in history. Since Obama’s absurd policies, both
domestic and foreign, are the crux on which Mitt Romney should win, he should
have refused to be interviewed outside the United States where he cannot
elaborate on them.
We need the American presidential candidate to articulate the dangers of living in the world where the Mahdi seeking mullahs who cannot be deterred may set the world ablaze.
We need the American presidential candidate to articulate the dangers of living in the world where the Mahdi seeking mullahs who cannot be deterred may set the world ablaze.
Does he have what it takes?
On the eve of his visit to Israel, in
an exclusive interview with Haaretz, presumptive Republican presidential
candidate Mitt Romney asserts that Iran is the biggest threat to the world,
reaffirms Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and reiterates his respect
for Benjamin Netanyahu.
By Ari Shavit | Jul.27, 2012 | 12:31 AM
LONDON – The man sitting on the other side of
the table may be the president of the United States next year. According to the
most recent public opinion polls, his chances are almost 50-50. But in the
midst of the major campaign for Ohio, Florida and Virginia, Mitt Romney
abandoned everything in order to spend a few days in England, Poland and
Israel. That’s why he is now sitting in a steamy room in one of the historic
buildings in the Tower of London compound. That’s why he is devoting half an
hour of his time to me, removing his jacket and shaking my hand, and giving me
a big smile. He says a few words about the surprising heat in England, asks
what’s going on in Israel. He radiates old-fashioned American warmth.
But when the recording device is turned on, the presumptive
Republican presidential candidate immediately becomes tense. He is careful not
to say anything superfluous. He refrains from making any commitments. Like a
diligent student at an oral exam, he carefully weighs every word he is about to
utter. But the interviewee is even more focused on what he is not allowed to
say than on what he is about to say.
He is not allowed to say how he loathes U.S. President Barack
Obama. He is not allowed to say that he thinks Obama has pulled America down
into the depths. He is not allowed to express his concern over what he sees as
America’s domination by un-American ideas.
Although Romney sees himself as the next Ronald Reagan, who has
come to save his homeland from the hands of a failed Jimmy Carter, he lacks
Reagan’s passion. Nor does he have Reagan’s maturity and sense of mission. The
former governor of Massachusetts is an intelligent, professional and
good-hearted businessman, but he lacks charisma. If a fire is burning in his
bones, he hides it well.
Big drama. This time the debate is over the decline of America and
the battle is over America’s identity. For old America, the 2012 elections may
be the last chance to reclaim the hegemony; for liberal America, the 2012
elections constitute an attempt by benighted forces to run a vapid candidate
against the progress represented by Obama. The former regard the latter as
Americans who have deviated from the path, and the latter regard the former as
fanatics and racists who want to turn back the clock. Because the two forces
are colliding with intensity and violence, the election campaign is expensive
and polluted. The two Americas wrestling in the arena are beating each other to
a pulp.
The man sitting opposite me is a very surprising candidate for the
role of the Great White Hope. For most Republican voters, he is too rich, too
liberal and too reserved. He is also a Mormon. So what Mitt Romney has to do
now is to ensure that the elections won’t be about him, but about Obama. That
the elections will be a national referendum about the economy and about Obama’s
worldview. Only by being anti-Obama does the elitist from Boston have a chance
to win the votes of conservative Southern Evangelists who don’t really like
him. Will he succeed? Does he have what it takes?
When I observe the tall, handsome man who is answering my
questions so cautiously, I have a feeling that the drama surrounding him is
even bigger than he is.
Governor Romney, President Obama gave
his formative foreign policy speech in Cairo in June 2009. It was basically
about appeasing Islam. Should you be elected president, where will you hold
your formative speech and what would it say? What would be the fundamental
values and principles of Romney’s America in the international arena and how
will they differ from Obama’s?
“I don’t have a current plan for where my first address related to
foreign policy might be, if I am lucky enough to be elected president. But my
objective will be to describe a foreign policy that shows confidence in our
cause, clarity in our purpose and resolve in the application of our might. I
believe that over the centuries this nation wisely had a great deal of
confidence that our cause was just and that the endeavors we undertook were for
good purposes. The clarity of our purpose was described to our citizens and
people around the world. When we applied our military might, it was with
resolve to be successful and to fulfill a mission. I hope that I will be able
to maintain that tradition and that these principles can be applied in today’s
world.
“Because we are on foreign soil, I will refrain in this interview
from being critical of the president or open[ing] up new avenues of foreign
policy that might be seen to be in contradiction to that of the current
government. That being said, I have spoken many times about my view that this
coming century must remain an American century. By that I mean that America
should maintain the moral, economic and military leadership that will allow it
to remain the leader of the free world and insure that the free world remains
the leader of the entire world.”
Throughout the world and in the Middle
East as well, America’s allies feel that the U.S. is not as strong as it was
and that it does not stand by its friends as it used to. Do you share this
notion and how are you going to address it?
“I can tell you that it is my firm belief that it is a benefit to
my country and the world to show our friends and allies that it’s better to be
a friend than a foe. To stand by our friends at all times and particularly when
a friend is in great peril. Secure commitments to values and allies formed our
sphere of influence over the past years, and so it should be in the future.”
Governor Romney, when you arrive in our
region, you will find that what is on everybody’s minds − Saudis, Egyptians,
Jordanians, Turks, Israelis − is the fear of Iran going nuclear. As president,
would you prevent Iran from becoming nuclear, whatever it takes?
“I have said in the past and I can reiterate now that it is
essential that Iran does not become nuclear. A nuclear Iran represents the
greatest threat to the world, to the United States and to the very existence of
Israel. A nuclear Iran would mean that Hezbollah or other actors would
potentially someday be able to secure fissile materials which would threaten
the world. Five years ago I spoke at the Herzliya Conference and I laid out
seven steps that I felt were necessary to keep Iran from becoming nuclear.
These included crippling sanctions, indicting [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad
for incitement to genocide, standing for voices of dissent within Iran, and
developing reliable military options were they the last resort that had to be
exercised. I continue to believe that these principles are vital, and are
perhaps more urgent today.”
Would you support regime change in
Iran? If the Iranians should rise against Ahmadinejad as they did in June 2009
− would you stand by them?
“America is wise to stand by people seeking freedom − particularly
in nations that regularly chant ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel.’”
We are wise to listen to the words
people say because, frightful as these words may be, history proves
thatsometimes they are carried out.
“If there are voices for change and hearts yearning for freedom,
America will stand by them.”
But time is running out. Engagement
failed, sanctions have not yet worked, regime change has not yet occurred.
Therefore we find ourselves in a dramatic situation: Iran has enriched uranium
for five to six bombs, and is only a year away from the ability to produce a
first bomb. It might be that by now the only option is the military one. Should
it be considered and employed?
“I think I made it clear in my address in Herzliya [in January
2007] that a military option is by far the least attractive option, but it
should not be ruled out. The military option should be evaluated and available
if no other course is successful.”
Senator John McCain said some time ago
that there is one thing worse than a military attack on Iran and that’s a
nuclear Iran. Do you agree?
“President Obama has said that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. I
feel a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. The term ‘unacceptable’ continues to have
a meaning: It suggests that all options will be employed to prevent that
outcome.
“I am personally committed to take every step necessary to prevent
Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capablity.”
Some fear that America has lost it.
After the traumas of Afghanistan and Iraq and the financial crisis, it does not
have the stamina needed to deal with the Iranian challenge. When faced with the
ultimate dilemma, it will choose containment. It will live with a nuclear Iran
just as it lives with a nuclear North Korea.
“I think there is recognition in America that a nuclear Iran is
different than North Korea. Both are very dangerous and destructive. We know
North Korea has been … providing nuclear technology to Syria. That being said,
a nuclear Iran will certainly usher in a period of nuclearization throughout
the region. Given the fact that Iran is the leading sponsor of terror and has
various surrogates such as Hezbollah … one is concerned that fissile material
may fall into the hands of a group like Hezbollah, which is now on the ground
in Latin America. That could affect not only our friends around the world but
actually our own country. We are weary of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the
majority of the American people recognize that Iran is of a different
character.”
In the past you said there is some
truth in the statement that President Obama − unintentionally − is pushing
Israel to war because it feels so desperate. Is this still true?
“I don’t want to make any comment about the president.”
‘Butcher in Damascus’
So let me ask you about your friend
Benjamin Netanyahu. He feels it’s 1938 all over again. Like in the 1930s, the
West fails to rise to a historic challenge. Like in the 1930s, the Jewish
people are in jeopardy. The combination of an unconventional regime with
unconventional weapons is disastrous. Hence, Netanyahu might feel he must
strike. Were this to happen, what should be the American reaction?
“I cannot speak for the president and for the nation. But as
allies and nations that share profound values, we will work very closely
together to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear. We will employ every means
short of military power. We recognize that if all means are exhausted and fail,
a military option will have to be considered.”
As you are so close, would you say to
the prime minister: Bibi, relax, you can trust America. America will eventually
deal with Iran. Don’t do anything hasty.
“Prime Minister Netanyahu always has to do what he feels is in the
best interests of his own nation. I know that our nation will always feel the
same about ours.”
Iran is the important regional issue,
but Syria is the more urgent one. If chemical weapons fall into the hands of
Hezbollah or jihadist organizations, should America intervene and take military
action?
“I think it is important for the responsible nations of the world
to seek to understand which forces in Syria represent real change, rather than
the kind of destruction that might occur if Al-Qaida were to seize the
development of chaos and assert leadership in some significant way in Syria. I
would hope that nations like Turkey and Saudi Arabia and others would identify
responsible voices of dissent within Syria, provide them with the arms they
might need to protect themselves and further their cause. We must do our best to
prevent the most radical Al-Qaida or Al-Qaida-like Jihadists from trying to
secure a role in the reshaping of a new Syria.”
Are you not appalled by the fact that
the international community is so impotent in dealing with Syrian President
Bashar Assad’s atrocities? Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is actually
supporting and arming a war criminal who’s butchering his own people − and gets
away with it.
“I was very disappointed with the vote of condemnation at the
United Nations being vetoed by Russia and China. I was appalled at the decision
by Russia as reported in the media to provide attack helicopters and other
armaments to the ‘Butcher in Damascus.’ The world looks with horror at the
devastation being caused by Assad.”
Coming closer to the country you are
about to visit: Are Israel’s settlements legal or illegal? Should Israel build
more of them or dismantle them?
“I am afraid that any discussion of settlements would lead me into
waters of showing a distance between me and the president. That will not be
appropriate for me to do while on foreign soil.”
Do you support the two-state solution?
Do you think that a Palestinian state should be established?
“I believe in a two-state solution which suggests there will be
two states, including a Jewish state. I respect Israel’s right to remain a
Jewish state. The question is not whether the people of the region believe that
there should be a Palestinian state. The question is if they believe there
should be an Israeli state, a Jewish state.”
‘Time of turmoil’
Facing Putin’s aggressive policies,
China’s rise and radical Islamic threats − did President Obama really lead from
behind?
“I have got no comment on President Obama.”
Obviously, you will not repeat now what
you said not long ago − that the president ‘threw Israel under the bus.’ But
would you say in a positive manner that Israel should not be thrown under the
bus?
“In a time of turmoil and peril in Israel’s neighborhood, it is
important that the security of America’s commitments to Israel will be as clear
as humanly possible. When Israel feels less secure in the neighborhood, it
should feel more secure of the commitment of the United States to its defense.”
Isn’t it in everybody’s interest that
there be some daylight and distance between the two countries?
“I believe that with regards to our allies, we are always wiser to
lock arms and to stand as one for the world to see. There will be, of course,
times of disagreement and disparity in our respective interests − but those we
are best in keeping to ourselves, in private.
“If I will be president, there will be no confrontations between
our nations before international institutions.there will be no public
denouncing of Israel by the U.S. in the UN. Israel’s friendly and unfriendly
neighbors will know we stand with you. I believe that is the real way to
achieve peace-by working with Israel, not creating distance between Israel
and America.”
Why Israel? Why now? What is the
statement you are making in this critical time by traveling specifically to the
U.K., Poland and Israel?
“The purpose of my trip is to listen and to learn. I do want to
hear from individuals who are in places of strategic significance, who share
our values and who have perspectives of significance relating to the tumultuous
events throughout the world.”
Governor Romney, you’ll be arriving in
Jerusalem on Saturday night, on the eve of the day on which we commemorate the
destruction of the First and Second Temples. Many Israelis feel that the fate
of the ‘Third Temple’ relies on its strong bond with a strong America. Can you
assure them that should you be president, you will reverse the trend of
American decline? Can you guarantee that both America, and Israel’s bond with
America, will be strong once again?
“American strength is an ally for peace, unparalleled in world
history. We must strengthen America through strong values, a stronger economy
and a military that is second to none. I believe that our friends and allies
support our strength by linking with us. We in turn reinforce them as they face
various foes that seek to weaken them.”
Apart from the question of America and
Israel, there is the question of Mitt Romney and Benjamin Netanyahu. Is the
special friendship between the two of you a political asset or a political
liability?
If I may ask, Mr. Governor, does the
Holy Land, to which you’re heading now, evoke religious feelings in you?
“As I run for political office, my policies are not shaped by my
religious feelings. That being said, I have grown up in the Judeo-Christian
tradition. I have read and studied what my faith refers to as the Old and New
Testaments. I’ve been on a boat in the Sea of Galilee. I’ve been to the Garden
Tomb and other sites which I deem as having religious significance. Yes, for me
Jerusalem and Israel are places of divine significance.”
One small question as we end this
interview. Will you win on November 6? Will Mitt Romney be America’s 45th
president?
“I certainly hope so.”
