Republicans' Having-and-Eating-Cake Iran Policy Critique [updated] Posted by David Shorr

With all due respect to my friend Rich Williamson, the Romney foreign policy surrogate who gave the below quote to Helene Cooper for her NYTimes piece yesterday on foreign policy surrogates:

“The world is better off because Osama bin Laden is dead. The world is better off because Muammar Qaddafi is dead,” Mr. Williamson said in an interview. “But two deaths do not a foreign policy make.”

To which the obvious response is that pithy quotes don't make for much of a foreign policy either. Plus, I think there was a little more policy behind those "two deaths" than Williamson's glibness suggests.

Whichever side of the political divide they fall, all self-respecting national security experts presumably believe in the same policy wonk creed that political rhetoric should hew as close to practical policy as possible. It isn't always easy, but the campaign platform should bear a reasonable relation to how an administration would govern. Lately I've been wondering whether our Republican friends are even trying.

Let's take the debate over Iran, particularly two either/or choices that Republicans have dodged for their own convenience. For all their professed concern about the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, they need to make some decisions. First, sanctioning Iranian oil exports -- not to mention rattling the sabers of a near-term attack -- raises the price of oil. Those who are loud proponents of sanctions should have the guts to say that higher prices at the pump are worth it.

Also, please stop whining about President Obama's reset of US-Russian relations. The clearest payoff of the reset was a boost in Russian help in pressuring Iran. If keeping up pressure on Iran is important, then so was the reset. Oh, and the supposedly unforgiveable shift of missile defense away from Poland and the Czech Republic? Yup, that was done in order to orient the system toward Iranian missiles rather than Russian. If Republicans weren't peddling such a version of the story, they'd have to justify prioritizing our Cold War foe instead of Iran. 

Actually the link between US-Russia relations and Iran policy has already been highlighted for Gov. Romney and his foreign policy team in a recent open letter from advisers to President Obama's reelection campaign. (I was one of the signatories.) Aside from asking what Gov. Romney would do differently on Iran -- we suspect not much -- the letter focused on the connection to Russia:

Why did you call Russia "without question our number one geopolitical foe," especially when strategic cooperation with Russia is essential for countering the Iranian nuclear threat? What do you think is gained by casting Russia in this role?

Finally there's a dilemma that is gradually emerging, but I have highlighted as extremely important. Many Republicans have drawn a redline against letting Iran continue any uranium enrichment program. With all the talk of military action against Iran, this begs a vital question: are you willing to go to war in order to stop Iran from spinning centrifuges to even low levels of enrichment? 

UPDATED: This post was revised to include the issue of the Obama administration's shift in missile defense plans.

Image: Markov Family Blog