US Edition Seeking to salvage his pre-election world tour after a series of gaffes during his visit to London, the Republican presidential challenger indicated that he would not stand in Israel's way were it to launch an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
He even compared the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran to that of the Holocaust, warning that it was at best naive to dismiss Iran’s ambitions as an “excess of rhetoric”. “The threat it would pose to Israel, the region and the world is incomparable and unacceptable,” he said.
In a speech on foreign policy last night, Mr Romney added that the US had “a solemn duty and a moral imperative to deny Iran’s leaders the means to follow through on their malevolent intentions”.
He also came close to breaching the convention not to criticise US presidential policy abroad by suggesting that President Barack Obama’s criticism of Jewish settlement-building in the West Bank played into the hands of Israel’s enemies. “Diplomatic distance that is public and critical emboldens Israel’s adversaries,” he said.
He courted further controversy by proclaiming Jerusalem to be “the capital of Israel”, a status not recognised by the United States or any foreign power because the eastern part of the city is also claimed by the Palestinians. A senior Palestinian official said that the endorsement was “harmful” to US interests in the Middle East.
Mr Romney left it to aides to ram home the message that he would pursue a foreign policy more closely aligned to the Jewish state’s interests.
“If Israel has to take action on its own, in order to stop Iran from developing the capability, the governor would respect that decision,”said Dan Señor, Mr Romney’s senior national security aide.
Mr Romney deftly suggested that Mr Obama was naive in his handling of the Iranian nuclear threat. “When Iran’s leaders deny the Holocaust or speak of wiping this nation off the map, only the naive – or worse – will dismiss it as an excess of rhetoric,” he said.
“Make no mistake: the ayatollahs in Tehran are testing our moral defences. They want to know who will object and who will look the other way. My message to the people of Israel and the leaders of Iran is one and the same: I will not look away, and neither will my country.”
Although Mr Romney has frequently criticised Mr Obama’s approach to both Israel and Iran, his proposed foreign policy has so far differed more by degree than substance.
But his support for Israel’s self-proclaimed right to defend itself amounted to a significant point of departure with the president that was guaranteed to please Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s hawkish prime minister, who told Mr Romney it was important to have a credible military threat because sanctions and diplomacy “so far have not set back the Iranian programme by one iota”.
Mr Obama has urged restraint and cautioned against “loose talk of war”, urging Mr Netanyahu to give diplomacy and sanctions a chance to work.
Reeling from a hostile reception in London, prompted by his criticism of preparations for the Olympics, Mr Romney flew into Jerusalem assured of a far warmer welcome on the the second leg of his three-nation tour, which takes him to Poland today. He and Mr Netanyahu have been acquaintances for decades: they were colleagues at a Boston management consultancy. Meanwhile, Mr Obama’s campaign team intensified its criticism of Mr Romney for his errors in London.
“To go overseas, stand in the country of our strongest ally – and the Olympics that they’ve been preparing years for – and question whether or not they’re ready, does make you wonder whether or not he’s ready to be commander in chief,” Robert Gibbs, a former White House press secretary, told ABC.