Both candidates assure them. Differences between them reflect tone and nuance, not substance. Romney talks tough. In late August, his campaign co-chair Governor Tim Pawlenty (R. MN) said diplomacy is running out on Iran. It's time to "start the clock ticking."
Options so far haven't worked, he said. He wants Congress to pass an authorization to use military force. Doing so assures it. Millions of potential deaths don't matter. Nor do rule of law principles about attacking a nonbelligerent country posing no threat.
Romney's policy is bombs away. So is Obama's. His softer tone conceals it better. It hides what he has in mind. Occasionally he makes overt threats. They reveal his real intentions.
Last March he said he won't "hesitate to use force" to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. He knows none exist or a program to develop them but won't say.
Instead he states "all options are on the table".That includes all elements of American power," isolating Iran, "a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure (close monitoring), an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions, and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."
"Rest assured," he added, "the Iranian government will know of our resolve." Days ago, he laid down "red lines." They're triggers for war. They likely advanced the timeline. Long ago it was planned.
Expect it post-election or perhaps sooner against Iran and Syria. Whether one precedes the other remains to be seen. Each nation is targeted for regime change. Both parties endorse it. Obama or Romney makes no difference. It's baked in the cake.
Not according to Nation magazine. Its editorial policy scorns truth. Since the 19th century, it turned reality on its head. Early on, it was unapologetic about slavery. It fell short of supporting labor, minorities, and women's rights.
It championed 19th century laissez faire. It attacked the Grangers, Populists, trade unions and socialists. It 1999, it called NATO's Serbia/Kosovo aggression "humanitarian intervention."