Does Mitt Romney Want A Third World War?

August 13, 2012 by Purav Patel in Middle Eastern Politics with 21 Comments

What is needed, and what Mitt Romney lacks, is pragmatism and the ability to negotiate: to realise that peace in the Middle-East is the most pressing problem in global affairs, one in which warfare should never be endorsed, and that a solution is only possible if the USA is not seen as such an unyielding ally of Israel.

Whilst it may be true that the result of the forthcoming US presidential election is determined more by the realms of domestic rather than foreign policy, the comments made by Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, during his visit to Israel prove one thing: the future of Middle Eastern (and world) peace lies very much in the hands of the citizens of the United States of America and their ability to elect the correct President.

In what can only be seen as an attempt to win the Jewish American vote, if not outright Zionism, Romney offended every Arab and every Middle Eastern peace activist by ignorantly suggesting that, firstly, the economic disparity between Israel and Palestine is the result of a superior Israeli culture and, secondly, that Jerusalem is the rightful capital, and property, of Israel. The implications of such statements, if uttered in the time of the last US election campaigns, would have been immense – such was the global significance of the Palestinian question. What is an unfortunate fact, however, is that the Israel-Palestine conflict has been, and will continue to be, pushed to the side as the issue of a nuclear Iran takes precedence.

Nonetheless, seemingly determined to ensure the complete instability of the Middle-East, Romney furthered his recklessness by announcing his intentions for US foreign policy regarding Iran. Clearly unsatisfied with the already capricious nature of the politics of the Middle-East, Romney suggested that his administration would fully support Israel in a pre-emptive strike on Iran, stating that the USA “should employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course”.

Yes, common sense dictates that Iran should not be allowed possession of nuclear weaponry but what is evident in Romney is a war-mongering potential president who seeks to employ the same neo-conservative hard-line stance of Ronald Reagan in the Cold War. Romney fails to understand the difference in situation; belligerent actions will do nothing but aggravate the ‘radical theocracy’ that is Iran. What is needed, and what Romney apparently lacks, is pragmatism and the ability to negotiate: to realise that peace in the Middle-East is the most pressing problem in global affairs, one in which warfare should never be endorsed, and that a solution is only possible if the USA is not seen as such an unyielding ally of Israel.

It would be easy for the Obama administration to adopt such a position on Iran, yet this current administration realise several reasons why warfare should not be advocated. The first and most obvious reason is the fact that action against Iran would not go unanswered. Iran itself would retort, but the greater fear of the US is that the peace of other countries cannot be guaranteed. Israel’s foes in the Middle-East have been happy to keep their peace for the time-being, but the reciprocal effect of an Israeli pre-emptive strike remains unknown. There is the very real chance that countries all over Africa and the Middle-East will rescind any peace settlements or détentes with Israel, not to mention the already hostile and nuclear North Korea and Pakistan rushing to the support of Iran. A Third World War is most definitely a tangible outcome of hostilities in the Middle-East.

In addition to this, the USA is aware that Israel’s own nuclear capabilities are a result of them choosing to opt out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. To protect non-proliferation of nuclear weaponry with such a hardened standpoint, as to support a belligerent attack, whilst actively allying with Israel, a state that ensures such opacity in its own nuclear programme, would not go down terribly well with the rest of the world. The Obama administration is acutely aware of this; Mitt Romney is, evidently, not.

In any case, if President Romney did manage to successfully put a lid on hostilities between Israel and Iran, what exactly would be his strategy in the Israel-Palestine conflict? During his visit to Israel in the last week, the Republican presidential candidate adopted what would be the most pro-Israel stance of any US President since the creation of the Jewish State in 1948. Having effectively alienated all Palestinian support, any attempts by Romney to be the mediator for negotiations would be academic.

The only plausible impact Romney could have upon the Palestinian question is to give Israel the go ahead to crush the Palestinians with their unparalleled military strength – something that nobody should put past the tactless Republican. If Romney is elected President, there will most likely be no positive development in the Israel-Palestine conflict for the duration of his incumbency and if there were to be, it would come without the help of the United States of America. If Romney is to be elected to the most powerful position in world politics, Israel and Palestine will be stuck in the retaliatory violence and attacks on one another that has defined their relationship in recent memory, and Palestinians will continue to be trapped within Gaza and the West Bank with no hope of development.

Please America, anyone but him.

Tagged Iran, Israel, Jerusalem, Nuclear Weapons, Obama, Palestine, Romney, Tehran, Third World War

Share this post

About Purav Patel

Purav is currently pursuing a BA in History at the University of Southampton. He hopes to develop his interest in international relations, particularly the Middle East and the role of the USA, into postgraduate study following the completion of his initial degree.

View all posts by Purav Patel →

Peter KellyAugust 13, 2012 at 8:55 pmReply

Although I agree with your interpretation of Romney and is complete inability to do anything with the Israel/Palestine question than either maintain the status quo or push Israel towards brutal repression, I’m not exactly sure what this has to do with a third world war? The Middle Eastern situation, especially regarding Israel, has seen several full-blown conflicts in the past, but none of these has been labelled a world war and rightly so.

Purav PatelAugust 14, 2012 at 2:35 pmReply

Peter Kelly: Given the nuclear capabilities of Israel, and the threat of a nuclear Iran, surely it cannot be argued that there is no threat of nuclear warfare in the Middle-East? And if, hypothetically, nuclear warfare were to break out then it seems extremely improbable that other states would not get involved. What makes the growing tensions between Iran and Israel more of a threat than any other Middle-Eastern conflict is the fact that both countries have, or are striving towards, nuclear weaponry.

Peter KellyAugust 14, 2012 at 4:25 pmReply

Purav Patel No threat? I agree, there is a threat, it is simply almost non-existent. A nuclear war in the middle east is no more likely than one between India and China, just because nuclear missiles (may) exist does not mean that they will ever be used (I doubt we’ll see the use of nuclear weapons by a nation ever again). You also make the fairly baseless assertion that other countries will join in should these weapons be used. If both country’s were nuking one another to hell surely the last thing anyone would want to do is join in, the same could be said of a conflict between India and Pakistan, which is actually significantly more likely. I can’t imagine any state would be willing to join in on a two-sided nuclear war, though should one use nuclear weapons unilaterally there could be a backlash.

Purav PatelAugust 14, 2012 at 4:55 pmReply

Peter Kelly: Apples and oranges. You can’t compare India’s relationship with China or Pakistan with that between Israel and Iran. In any case, India have enjoyed much more amicable relations with Pakistan since diplomatic links were resumed in February 2011. The threat of nuclear war in the conflict of Israel and Iran is only the case because of what the two countries are, and who they are led by. In Iran, you have a radical theocracy led by Ahmadinejad – a man who denies the Holocaust. I don’t think anyone would put it past him to use a nuclear weapon, especially given his comments regarding Israel already. Then, we have the Israelis – a country that has previously, and even currently, defied the rest of the world to carry out their own will: the occupation of Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank and the refusal to sign the NPT.

Peter KellyAugust 14, 2012 at 5:05 pmReply

Purav Patel Iran isn’t lead by Ahmadinejad, he is simply one of many power centres and certainly does not lead the theocracy, that power is held by Ali Khamenei, arguably a far more powerful individual than Ahmadinejad.I also would put it past him to use a nuclear weapon, rhetoric means very little if not backed by action, and in Iran aggressive rhetoric gains you a lot of support even if you never have to act on it.As for Israel, there is something very different about occupying Gaza and using a nuclear weapon. As you said, apples and oranges.You also didn’t answer my query on how, even if they did resort to nuclear weapons, you came to the assumption it would result in a world war.

JohnAugust 13, 2012 at 9:15 pmReply

This piece is speculative at best and irresponsible in its unwavering assertion that “Word War III” is just around the corner. Additionally the author’s contention that there is a ‘Jewish American vote’ demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the American electoral process, religious identity in America, and Jewish-American demographics. Jewish Americans, like every other group within America, cast their vote based on a variety of issues and have different and diverse views on the Middle East. But for the sake of argument let’s say that Mitt Romney captures every single Jewish American vote. Jews make up 2.1% of the United States and comprise no more than 8.4% in any given state (that state is NY where Romney will not win). Some swing states? OH 1.3%, VA 1.2%, PA 2.3%, MI 0.8%, FL 3.4%, NH 0.8%, NM 0.6%, CO, 1.8… I could go on, but my point is that the importance of the ‘Jewish American vote’ is somewhat overstated.Pieces like this fuel a dialogue overtaken by fear-mongering and cloud reasonable analysis.

Peter KellyAugust 13, 2012 at 10:35 pmReply

@John The pro-Israeli lobby is far more significant than simply the Jewish population of the US. Along with lobbies such as the Christian-right lobby and pro-guns lobby it is one of the strongest groups in the country, especially in the Republican vote. Romney made a calculated move to bolster his support in his core vote by showing such a pro-Israel stance.

JohnAugust 14, 2012 at 12:00 amReply

Peter Kelly: I understand the influence of the pro-Israeli lobby but that’s not what the author said, he used the term ‘Jewish American vote’. I’m not sure he knows the difference.

Peter KellyAugust 14, 2012 at 12:05 amReply

@John Possibly not, but I guess for many the two are seen as interchangeable (especially for the lobby itself), despite not all Jews even agreeing with the existence of Israel.

JohnAugust 14, 2012 at 12:20 amReply

Peter Kelly and I think that conflation is problematic. It implies that Jewish Americans vote as block and that fundamental misunderstanding can be read (or used) by extremists to further promote a culture war narrative. Also it doesn’t appreciate differences within the pro-Israeli lobby (AIPAC vs J Street) and assumes that each lobbying organization or Jewish American supports the most conservative approach.

Purav PatelAugust 14, 2012 at 2:40 pmReply

@John True, I conflated the pro-Israeli lobby with what I labelled the ‘Jewish-American vote’ – admittedly, this was a mistake on my part!But as Peter said, if the conflation were to be excused and the phrase ‘pro-Israeli lobby’ were to be used instead, the argument still stands as the pro-Israeli lobby make up a very influential part of the electorate. This could very easily have been Romeny’s attempt to secure votes by displaying a pro-Israel stance. The reference to religious demographics was a mistake on my part, but does not take away from the validity of the argument.

Matt WahnsiedlerAugust 13, 2012 at 9:15 pmReply

Romney’s position is similar to Obama’s. On Iran’s nuclear programme, the ‘all measures’ comment is consistently repeated by Obama and his administration. Obama also made clear his utter inability to negotiate Middle East peace. Also, both Clinton and GWB promised to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (a city that Obama told AIPAC must remain ‘undivided’, in reference to the Palestinians) and never did it.’The only plausible impact Romney could have upon the Palestinian
question is to give Israel the go ahead to crush the Palestinians with
their unparalleled military strength’This seems plausible to you? That the Israelis are just sitting around waiting to crush the Palestinians, and Romney will just give them a call on inauguration day to let ‘em know it’s cool with him?

Purav PatelAugust 14, 2012 at 2:45 pmReply

Matt Wahnsiedler The important word here is ‘could’. I did not assert that this would be the definite outcome if Romney were to be elected President. What I argued was that Romney, who has now annoyed the Palestinian leaders with his remarks, cannot hope to negotiate any peace-deal between the two. And given his pro-Israeli stance I would not put it past him to look the other way, should Israel decide to solve the Palestinian problem their own way.

Matt WahnsiedlerAugust 14, 2012 at 4:30 pmReply

Purav Patel So you don’t dispute my point that Obama and Romney have said very similar ‘pro-Israel’ things in the past, but continue to use Romney’s remarks as the basis for your plausible scenario?

Purav PatelAugust 14, 2012 at 4:45 pmReply

Matt Wahnsiedler I don’t dispute it at all! It’s common knowledge that Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of US foreign assistance since the Second World War. What I’m arguing is that what can be inferred from Romney’s remarks are that he, as a neo-con, promises a harder, tougher stance on Iran and this, combined with what we have so far seen of his reckless nature, suggests that he is not the person to sort out the hostilities of the Middle-East.

Matt WahnsiedlerAugust 14, 2012 at 4:55 pmReply

Purav Patel Wait. I’m not clear if you’re saying Romney’s views on Israel are the norm or something more radical. Because if you don’t dispute my point that Romney’s remarks are very similar to Obama’s, you’d have to agree it’s similarly plausible that Obama could also ‘give Israel the go ahead to crush the Palestinians’. Which seems unlikely.

Matt WahnsiedlerAugust 14, 2012 at 5:00 pmReply

Wait. I’m not clear if you’re saying Romney’s views on Israel are the
norm or something more radical. Because if you don’t dispute my point
that Romney’s remarks are very similar to Obama’s, you’d have to agree
it’s similarly plausible that Obama could also ‘give Israel the go ahead
to crush the Palestinians’. Which seems unlikely given he’s been in office four years and hasn’t done it.

Purav PatelAugust 14, 2012 at 5:30 pmReply

Matt Wahnsiedler The argument is Romney’s remarks have shown his reckless nature. His remarks also alienated and angered Palestinians – he suggested Israel had a superior culture to Palestine. Together, these two mean that, if elected President, he won’t be able to do anything in regards to the Palestinian question, except favour repressive measures. Effectively, he has made himself diplomatically immobile with regards to Palestine. Obama has never done this; although he may take a pro-Israel stance, he has never insulted Palestine.

Matt WahnsiedlerAugust 14, 2012 at 5:35 pmReply

Purav Patel Barack ‘Jerusalem must never be divided’ Obama never insulted Palestinians? I wouldn’t go that far. I’m fairly sure the PA will get over it. They’ve had far worse from the Israelis over the years than poor word choice, and that hasn’t prevented peace talks, agreements, withdrawals, etc.

Ludo HashemiAugust 14, 2012 at 12:05 amReply

On American politics, check this out.
http://www.smartasset.com/infographic/election

JelisavacGoranSeptember 1, 2012 at 2:36 pmReply

…if business profits….he’d go even for a fourth one…

21 Comments

Peter KellyAugust 13, 2012 at 8:55 pmReply

Although I agree with your interpretation of Romney and is complete inability to do anything with the Israel/Palestine question than either maintain the status quo or push Israel towards brutal repression, I’m not exactly sure what this has to do with a third world war? The Middle Eastern situation, especially regarding Israel, has seen several full-blown conflicts in the past, but none of these has been labelled a world war and rightly so.
- Purav PatelAugust 14, 2012 at 2:35 pmReply
  
  Peter Kelly: Given the nuclear capabilities of Israel, and the threat of a nuclear Iran, surely it cannot be argued that there is no threat of nuclear warfare in the Middle-East? And if, hypothetically, nuclear warfare were to break out then it seems extremely improbable that other states would not get involved. What makes the growing tensions between Iran and Israel more of a threat than any other Middle-Eastern conflict is the fact that both countries have, or are striving towards, nuclear weaponry.
  - Peter KellyAugust 14, 2012 at 4:25 pmReply
    
    Purav Patel No threat? I agree, there is a threat, it is simply almost non-existent. A nuclear war in the middle east is no more likely than one between India and China, just because nuclear missiles (may) exist does not mean that they will ever be used (I doubt we’ll see the use of nuclear weapons by a nation ever again). You also make the fairly baseless assertion that other countries will join in should these weapons be used. If both country’s were nuking one another to hell surely the last thing anyone would want to do is join in, the same could be said of a conflict between India and Pakistan, which is actually significantly more likely. I can’t imagine any state would be willing to join in on a two-sided nuclear war, though should one use nuclear weapons unilaterally there could be a backlash.
    - Purav PatelAugust 14, 2012 at 4:55 pmReply
      
      Peter Kelly: Apples and oranges. You can’t compare India’s relationship with China or Pakistan with that between Israel and Iran. In any case, India have enjoyed much more amicable relations with Pakistan since diplomatic links were resumed in February 2011. The threat of nuclear war in the conflict of Israel and Iran is only the case because of what the two countries are, and who they are led by. In Iran, you have a radical theocracy led by Ahmadinejad – a man who denies the Holocaust. I don’t think anyone would put it past him to use a nuclear weapon, especially given his comments regarding Israel already. Then, we have the Israelis – a country that has previously, and even currently, defied the rest of the world to carry out their own will: the occupation of Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank and the refusal to sign the NPT.
    - Peter KellyAugust 14, 2012 at 5:05 pmReply
      
      Purav Patel Iran isn’t lead by Ahmadinejad, he is simply one of many power centres and certainly does not lead the theocracy, that power is held by Ali Khamenei, arguably a far more powerful individual than Ahmadinejad.I also would put it past him to use a nuclear weapon, rhetoric means very little if not backed by action, and in Iran aggressive rhetoric gains you a lot of support even if you never have to act on it.As for Israel, there is something very different about occupying Gaza and using a nuclear weapon. As you said, apples and oranges.You also didn’t answer my query on how, even if they did resort to nuclear weapons, you came to the assumption it would result in a world war.
JohnAugust 13, 2012 at 9:15 pmReply

This piece is speculative at best and irresponsible in its unwavering assertion that “Word War III” is just around the corner. Additionally the author’s contention that there is a ‘Jewish American vote’ demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the American electoral process, religious identity in America, and Jewish-American demographics. Jewish Americans, like every other group within America, cast their vote based on a variety of issues and have different and diverse views on the Middle East. But for the sake of argument let’s say that Mitt Romney captures every single Jewish American vote. Jews make up 2.1% of the United States and comprise no more than 8.4% in any given state (that state is NY where Romney will not win). Some swing states? OH 1.3%, VA 1.2%, PA 2.3%, MI 0.8%, FL 3.4%, NH 0.8%, NM 0.6%, CO, 1.8… I could go on, but my point is that the importance of the ‘Jewish American vote’ is somewhat overstated.Pieces like this fuel a dialogue overtaken by fear-mongering and cloud reasonable analysis.
- Peter KellyAugust 13, 2012 at 10:35 pmReply
  
  @John The pro-Israeli lobby is far more significant than simply the Jewish population of the US. Along with lobbies such as the Christian-right lobby and pro-guns lobby it is one of the strongest groups in the country, especially in the Republican vote. Romney made a calculated move to bolster his support in his core vote by showing such a pro-Israel stance.
  - JohnAugust 14, 2012 at 12:00 amReply
    
    Peter Kelly: I understand the influence of the pro-Israeli lobby but that’s not what the author said, he used the term ‘Jewish American vote’. I’m not sure he knows the difference.
    - Peter KellyAugust 14, 2012 at 12:05 amReply
      
      @John Possibly not, but I guess for many the two are seen as interchangeable (especially for the lobby itself), despite not all Jews even agreeing with the existence of Israel.
    - JohnAugust 14, 2012 at 12:20 amReply
      
      Peter Kelly and I think that conflation is problematic. It implies that Jewish Americans vote as block and that fundamental misunderstanding can be read (or used) by extremists to further promote a culture war narrative. Also it doesn’t appreciate differences within the pro-Israeli lobby (AIPAC vs J Street) and assumes that each lobbying organization or Jewish American supports the most conservative approach.
    - Purav PatelAugust 14, 2012 at 2:40 pmReply
      
      @John True, I conflated the pro-Israeli lobby with what I labelled the ‘Jewish-American vote’ – admittedly, this was a mistake on my part!But as Peter said, if the conflation were to be excused and the phrase ‘pro-Israeli lobby’ were to be used instead, the argument still stands as the pro-Israeli lobby make up a very influential part of the electorate. This could very easily have been Romeny’s attempt to secure votes by displaying a pro-Israel stance. The reference to religious demographics was a mistake on my part, but does not take away from the validity of the argument.
Matt WahnsiedlerAugust 13, 2012 at 9:15 pmReply

Romney’s position is similar to Obama’s. On Iran’s nuclear programme, the ‘all measures’ comment is consistently repeated by Obama and his administration. Obama also made clear his utter inability to negotiate Middle East peace. Also, both Clinton and GWB promised to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (a city that Obama told AIPAC must remain ‘undivided’, in reference to the Palestinians) and never did it.’The only plausible impact Romney could have upon the Palestinian
question is to give Israel the go ahead to crush the Palestinians with
their unparalleled military strength’This seems plausible to you? That the Israelis are just sitting around waiting to crush the Palestinians, and Romney will just give them a call on inauguration day to let ‘em know it’s cool with him?
- Purav PatelAugust 14, 2012 at 2:45 pmReply
  
  Matt Wahnsiedler The important word here is ‘could’. I did not assert that this would be the definite outcome if Romney were to be elected President. What I argued was that Romney, who has now annoyed the Palestinian leaders with his remarks, cannot hope to negotiate any peace-deal between the two. And given his pro-Israeli stance I would not put it past him to look the other way, should Israel decide to solve the Palestinian problem their own way.
  - Matt WahnsiedlerAugust 14, 2012 at 4:30 pmReply
    
    Purav Patel So you don’t dispute my point that Obama and Romney have said very similar ‘pro-Israel’ things in the past, but continue to use Romney’s remarks as the basis for your plausible scenario?
    - Purav PatelAugust 14, 2012 at 4:45 pmReply
      
      Matt Wahnsiedler I don’t dispute it at all! It’s common knowledge that Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of US foreign assistance since the Second World War. What I’m arguing is that what can be inferred from Romney’s remarks are that he, as a neo-con, promises a harder, tougher stance on Iran and this, combined with what we have so far seen of his reckless nature, suggests that he is not the person to sort out the hostilities of the Middle-East.
    - Matt WahnsiedlerAugust 14, 2012 at 4:55 pmReply
      
      Purav Patel Wait. I’m not clear if you’re saying Romney’s views on Israel are the norm or something more radical. Because if you don’t dispute my point that Romney’s remarks are very similar to Obama’s, you’d have to agree it’s similarly plausible that Obama could also ‘give Israel the go ahead to crush the Palestinians’. Which seems unlikely.
    - Matt WahnsiedlerAugust 14, 2012 at 5:00 pmReply
      
      Wait. I’m not clear if you’re saying Romney’s views on Israel are the
      norm or something more radical. Because if you don’t dispute my point
      that Romney’s remarks are very similar to Obama’s, you’d have to agree
      it’s similarly plausible that Obama could also ‘give Israel the go ahead
      to crush the Palestinians’. Which seems unlikely given he’s been in office four years and hasn’t done it.
    - Purav PatelAugust 14, 2012 at 5:30 pmReply
      
      Matt Wahnsiedler The argument is Romney’s remarks have shown his reckless nature. His remarks also alienated and angered Palestinians – he suggested Israel had a superior culture to Palestine. Together, these two mean that, if elected President, he won’t be able to do anything in regards to the Palestinian question, except favour repressive measures. Effectively, he has made himself diplomatically immobile with regards to Palestine. Obama has never done this; although he may take a pro-Israel stance, he has never insulted Palestine.
    - Matt WahnsiedlerAugust 14, 2012 at 5:35 pmReply
      
      Purav Patel Barack ‘Jerusalem must never be divided’ Obama never insulted Palestinians? I wouldn’t go that far. I’m fairly sure the PA will get over it. They’ve had far worse from the Israelis over the years than poor word choice, and that hasn’t prevented peace talks, agreements, withdrawals, etc.
Ludo HashemiAugust 14, 2012 at 12:05 amReply

On American politics, check this out.
http://www.smartasset.com/infographic/election
JelisavacGoranSeptember 1, 2012 at 2:36 pmReply

…if business profits….he’d go even for a fourth one…

Comment & Analysis

Does Mitt Romney Want A Third World War?

Share this post

About Purav Patel

21 Comments

Leave a reply Cancel reply

Search

Sign up to our newsletter!

Social

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Latest

Pages