TPaw: Time to start clock ticking on Iran
In an interview on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention, Romney campaign co-chair and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty tells Foreign Policy's Josh Rogin that
it's time to start the clock ticking on Iran.
Neither the Iranians nor the Israelis see as credible Barack Obama' statements that containment of a nuclear Iran is not an option and that the president would use force to prevent that from happening, Pawlenty told The Cable in an exclusive interview on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention. A Mitt Romney administration would employ various new tactics to increase U.S. leverage over the Iranians and bolster the credibility of the threat of military action, he said.
"Options would include concluding the negotiations are not working, that the Iranians aren't taking them seriously, bringing them to a temporary or permanent end, and start the clock ticking on other alternatives and letting the Iranians know that," Pawlenty said.
...
He also warned that Iran may have spread its nuclear research and production facilities into heavily populated civilian areas, which would make a military effort to eliminate Iran's nuclear capabilities much more expansive.
"A lot of the public discourse around how and whether and when there might be military action on Iran focuses on bunker-busting bombs and installations under mountains. That may not only be the only locations where they have those capabilities," said Pawlenty. "Imagine that it's not limited to mountains and rural areas. Imagine that they have created some redundant capabilities and placed them in tunnels under cities. If you want to identify and eliminate those capabilities, it takes on additional challenges."
Pawlenty said the Obama administration resisted imposing crippling sanctions over the last three years and that sanctions even now don't seem to be changing the Iranian regime's calculus.
"We don't know yet, but measured by the Iranians' posture and position, it's fair to say it hasn't yet worked," he said.
Pawlenty endorsed the idea floated by Romney advisor Elliott Abrams last week that now is the time for Congress to pass an authorization of the use of military force against Iran.
Actually, and unfortunately, Pawlenty's prescriptions are kind of meaningless. Unless it is clear by early October that Romney will win the election and will take action, Israel is going to be left with no choice but to attack. Otherwise, if Obama is God forbid reelected, we would be looking at very weak 'containment' of a nuclear Iran (if that), the possibility of blackmail from a second term Obama administration ('go back to the '67 lines or we won't defend you against Iran') and an Israeli inability to act on our own. There is no choice. Iran must be attacked before the election unless it is 100% clear that Romney is going to win.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Campaign 2012, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli attack on Iran, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty
The most serious candidate on foreign policy?
The posts are spread out a bit more than usual this morning because I need to go to Tel Aviv for work.
Jonathan Tobin has declared Tim Pawlenty the '
most serious candidate' for 2012 on foreign policy.
While most of his competitors in the GOP field have confined their remarks on foreign policy to sniping at the Libyan intervention or waffling on the U.S. commitment to the war in Afghanistan, Pawlenty is also taking on the president for his abysmal handling of the Middle East. In particular, he calls Obama to account for not only a “timid” approach to the movement for democracy in the Arab world but also for the administration’s increasingly hostile attitude toward Israel. He also lambasted Obama for wasting the first year of his presidency attempting to “engage” the ayatollahs of Iran.
...
Though he has spent his political career in Minnesota rather than in Washington, Pawlenty brings to the race the most coherent approach to security and defense issues of any of the major contenders. Pawlenty seems to have a firm grasp of not only America’s place in the world but the need for a strong foreign policy that will strengthen U.S. allies and discomfit its foes.
Rather than running to the left of the president as Jon Huntsman has done with his call for a speedier bug out of Afghanistan or waffling on major foreign policy issues as Romney has done, Pawlenty has brought forth a consistent and informed approach. Other Republican candidates are acting as if their party’s voters no longer support a strong defense or a policy of bringing the fight to our foes rather than sitting back and waiting for the next disaster. By contrast, Pawlenty is striking an aggressive note that ought to resonate with GOP voters.
The economy will be the main point of contention in 2012, but it is not the only one. By prioritizing support for Israel (and to oppose Obama’s pressure on the Jewish state) as well as by his focus on Iran, Pawlenty is staking out a position as the most serious candidate on foreign policy. That alone won’t save a campaign that has so far failed to catch fire. But his stance on security issues does provide Pawlenty with a solid rationale for his presidential ambitions and a platform from which he can begin his comeback.
Well, yeah, I like Pawlenty and would almost certainly vote for him if he were the Republican candidate. But Michele Bachmann and John Bolton are both strong on foreign policy. Bolton, especially, has a lot more experience with the foreign policy establishment. And Bachmann, for now at least, is well ahead of everyone but Romney in the polls.
But keep your eyes on Pawlenty - he seems like a good candidate.
Labels: John Bolton, Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, US foreign policy
Tim Pawlenty on the Middle East
Here's former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations about the Middle East. Much of this video (although not all of it) is relevant to Israel. The key passage is between about 19:00 and 23:30.
Let's go to the videotape.
Despite the fact that some of the Republican candidates have trended toward isolationism, I suspect that we're going to hear most Republican candidates in 2012 come out strongly in favor of Israel, and I expect to see most of the Republican candidates use Israel as a club against Barack Hussein Obama. Many of the statements being made by the Republican candidates are even more pro-Israel than statements made by George W. Bush during the heyday of his support of Israel (2002-04).
But will they win? And if they win, will it last? Only if Israel's supporters remain vigilant in holding the Republican candidates to their word.
Labels: Campaign 2012, Middle East, Tim Pawlenty
Rubio says he won't run in 2012
On the one hand, this is sensible. After all, he's a first-term Senator. On the other hand, I don't see anyone else exciting Republicans as much as Marco Rubio other than Allen West, who is also in his first term. (Yes, I know, Huckabee and Pawlenty and Palin and Romney, but they all seem like they've been around for a long time). And on the other hand, the current occupant of the White House was... a first-term Senator when he ran and was elected. So is Marco Rubio
giving up his chance at glory? I hope not.
This, from the man automatically at the top of any short list, is pretty Shermanesque and a bit surprising: MARCO RUBIO: "No, I'm not going to be on a ticket in 2012."
DAVID GREGORY: "Under no circumstances?"
RUBIO: "Under no circumstances."
Of course, Obama ruled out a run, too, and paid no price for flipping.
Hmmm.
Labels: Allen West, Barack Obama, Campaign 2012, Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty
A pro-Israel Republican Presidential candidate
Here's a name that ought to be coming up more often when we think about pro-Israel Republican candidates for 2012:
Tim Pawlenty.
Gov. Pawlenty made a comment not too long ago that if people thought he was pro-Israel, they should meet his wife, Mary. I read his book and found several examples that show his own personal support for the America-Israel relationship. But I was curious to delve a bit further into the issue, especially because of his reference to his wife. Pawlenty has been early among possible GOP contenders in expressing strong criticism of Barack Obama's approach towards Israel. There are reasons this may be so that do not involve politicking.
Mary Pawlenty is an evangelical Christian and her husband joined her church in the mid-1980s when they married. The evangelical Christian community are strong supporters of the America-Israel relationship for a wide variety of reasons (having nothing to do with end-time scenarios).
But the church they attend, Wooddale Church, is not your just-down the road church. Wooddale is an influential evangelical mega church. The Pawlentys were married by Leith Anderson, a senior pastor at the church since 1977. However, Anderson is far more than a senior pastor. He is also the long-time president of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), an organization that represents more than 30 million American evangelicals.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Campaign 2012, Tim Pawlenty
Pawlenty blasts Obama's UN gambit
Republican Presidential contender Tim Pawlenty (Minn) has blasted the Obama administration's
11th hour gambit to turn a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel into a 'Presidential statement' condemning Israel. Fortunately, the 'Palestinians' have apparently once again taken the opportunity to miss an opportunity by declining the American offer, and the US may yet veto the resolution. But Pawlenty still recognizes that
Obama is wrong.
Pawlenty said in an emailed statement: The Obama administration has shown an astonishing unwillingness to stand by Israel at the United Nations, an organization with a long history of blaming Israel for just about every problem in the Middle East. It’s time for our UN ambassador to finally show some leadership, draw a line in the sand, and defend our historic ally. Global stability depends more than ever on a respected America that is loyal to our allies and realistic about the malice of our adversaries.
Lazy Susan show leadership? You've got to be kidding....
Jennifer Rubin
adds:
Pawlenty is exactly right. Because this administration does not want to do what its predecessors did -- exercise the Security Council veto to shield Israel from one-sided resolutions seeking to isolate the Jewish state in the international community -- it instead has offered to join the pack of jackals that seek, at best, to extract concessions and impose a deal on Israel and, at worst, delegitimize Israel.
An A.P. report echoing the whimpering of the administration contends that since the offer of "compromise" was rejected the administration is in "difficult position." Only this administration would consider it difficult to stand with its ally and rebuff Palestinian efforts to advance their position without concessions or even participation in the "peace process."
As of now, the State Department isn't talking. But after belatedly promising to veto an anti-Israel resolution, it is hard to see this as anything other than a bait-and-switch by the administration. So far, there has been not a peep out of AIPAC or other mainstream American Jewish organizations that have again and again excused the administration's efforts to distance the U.S. from Israel.
The U.S. and Israel were saved, in some sense, by the obtuseness and maximalist demands of Israel's foes who declined the "compromise." (And why should they do any differently? Why stop at just a "compromise," when there is so much more they might gain from their friends in the White House?) But the damage is done. Once again, Israel's foes, most especially Iran, can see the daylight between the administration and Israel. How would Israel's opponents not be emboldened by the administration's behavior?
Indeed. The silence from the Jewish organizations is deafening. I guess they're afraid of being seen as supporting the 'settlements.' Get used to it guys. There isn't going to be peace here in your lifetime or mine. The 'Palestinians' won't compromise. And we won't commit suicide by giving up those 'settlements.'
There is one Democrat who got it right:
Anthony Weiner (NY).
This is too clever by half. Instead of doing the correct and principled thing and vetoing an inappropriate and wrong resolution, they now have opened the door to more and more anti-Israeli efforts coming to the floor of the U.N. The correct venue for discussions about settlements and the other aspects of a peace plan is at the negotiating table. Period.
John Tabin
adds (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
This is a moment of uncertainty in the Middle East, with a wave of protest movements threatening the stability of autocrats across the region. If this leads to the opening of Arab societies, that's a good thing in the long term (tyranny has bred radicalism; freedom is likely to breed moderation). But in the short term, a more democratic Arab world could be enormously destabilizating; people who have been fed decades of propaganda laden with Jew-hatred will be tempted to embrace a politics of confrontation with Israel. Maintaining Israel's ability to project strength is the best bet for maintaining peace -- Israel must be able to credibly say things like "You don't like Camp David? We'll be taking the Sinai back, then." This is no time to be shy about reminding the world the the US has Israel's back.
Indeed.
Labels: Anthony Weiner, Barack Obama, East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria construction, Susan Rice, Tim Pawlenty, UN Security Council
In an interview on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention, Romney campaign co-chair and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty tells Foreign Policy's Josh Rogin that it's time to start the clock ticking on Iran. 
