Romney's Latest Failure In Judgment
After kicking off his first quasi-official trip as a presidential candidate by pissing off a major US ally, Little Mitt headed off to Israel determined to do better. And well . . . he didn't. He miraculously managed to not get anyone peeved at him, but by making such harsh and unequivocal statements about his feelings on Iran's nuclear program, he's shown once again that he's a complete amateur when it comes to foreign policy.
I'm not saying that I completely disagree with Romney's viewpoint. I'm unsettled (to say the least) at the thought of Iran's fundamentalist and terrorist-supporting ayatollahs having their own atomic bomb. I also understand that the prospect of such a thing scares the hell out of Israel and for good reason. There's been no shortage of Iranian politicians who've made clear that they would welcome an opportunity to finish what Adolf Hitler started. Iran's current president -- whose last name is fittingly pronounced similar to 'I'm-a-nut-job' -- is so out of touch with reality that he has hosted "academic conferences" of Holocaust deniers.
However, as frustrating as political double-talk can be to ordinary citizens, there's some very good reasons that political leaders are usually more circumspect when it comes to what they say about foreign affairs. At its core, diplomacy is about wheeling and dealing and by taking such a firm position, Romney has severely limited his options if he does become president -- something he should have considered ahead of time. What Romney has done boils down to the diplomatic equivalent of opening a negotiation to buy something by stating the very highest price you are willing to pay.
Romney failed to fully consider the complexities of politics in the Middle East, which can be a political minefield in the best of times. There are new democratic governments in the Arab world with whom the US has an opportunity to build a more positive relationship. The populations of these countries are now empowered at the ballot box and these people don't have the same warm and fuzzy feelings toward Israel as the evangelical Republican base. This is also true of Arab governments that are still untouched by the Arab Spring, such as the Saudis. Hell, it's even true of some of our important European allies.
In the real world, a president can't frame everything in terms of his own personal ideology. He has to deal with countries that see things very differently than Americans. Many of these countries may be wary of the US or even downright hostile. Most of the rest of the world, particularly the Arab world, is already well-aware that the US supports Israel and that US policy in the Middle East is shaped just as much in Tel Aviv as it is in Washington. They don't need to have these facts thrown in their face by a foreign policy novice with no sense of how to be discreet or sensitive to the views of others.
Of course, Romney's comments were more about painting himself as a strong friend of Israel to evangelical voters at home. From my own point of view, I would disagree that being a friend to Israel means blind support of anything that any Israeli government says and does, but that's not really the point here. The point is foreign affairs is not like domestic politics and to confuse the two is dangerous.
A president cannot be overly ideological when it comes to conducting foreign policy. He has to be pragmatic and he has to carefully calculate how his words will play in different parts of the world. It's extremely complicated political calculus, but if Romney wants to be president, this is a huge part of what the job entails.
If this trip is to be considered an audition for how Romney is equipped to handle one of the most important functions of the job he's running for, he's done nothing more than demonstrate once again that he's nothing but an amateur.
I'm not saying that I completely disagree with Romney's viewpoint. I'm unsettled (to say the least) at the thought of Iran's fundamentalist and terrorist-supporting ayatollahs having their own atomic bomb. I also understand that the prospect of such a thing scares the hell out of Israel and for good reason. There's been no shortage of Iranian politicians who've made clear that they would welcome an opportunity to finish what Adolf Hitler started. Iran's current president -- whose last name is fittingly pronounced similar to 'I'm-a-nut-job' -- is so out of touch with reality that he has hosted "academic conferences" of Holocaust deniers.
However, as frustrating as political double-talk can be to ordinary citizens, there's some very good reasons that political leaders are usually more circumspect when it comes to what they say about foreign affairs. At its core, diplomacy is about wheeling and dealing and by taking such a firm position, Romney has severely limited his options if he does become president -- something he should have considered ahead of time. What Romney has done boils down to the diplomatic equivalent of opening a negotiation to buy something by stating the very highest price you are willing to pay.
Romney failed to fully consider the complexities of politics in the Middle East, which can be a political minefield in the best of times. There are new democratic governments in the Arab world with whom the US has an opportunity to build a more positive relationship. The populations of these countries are now empowered at the ballot box and these people don't have the same warm and fuzzy feelings toward Israel as the evangelical Republican base. This is also true of Arab governments that are still untouched by the Arab Spring, such as the Saudis. Hell, it's even true of some of our important European allies.
In the real world, a president can't frame everything in terms of his own personal ideology. He has to deal with countries that see things very differently than Americans. Many of these countries may be wary of the US or even downright hostile. Most of the rest of the world, particularly the Arab world, is already well-aware that the US supports Israel and that US policy in the Middle East is shaped just as much in Tel Aviv as it is in Washington. They don't need to have these facts thrown in their face by a foreign policy novice with no sense of how to be discreet or sensitive to the views of others.
Of course, Romney's comments were more about painting himself as a strong friend of Israel to evangelical voters at home. From my own point of view, I would disagree that being a friend to Israel means blind support of anything that any Israeli government says and does, but that's not really the point here. The point is foreign affairs is not like domestic politics and to confuse the two is dangerous.
A president cannot be overly ideological when it comes to conducting foreign policy. He has to be pragmatic and he has to carefully calculate how his words will play in different parts of the world. It's extremely complicated political calculus, but if Romney wants to be president, this is a huge part of what the job entails.
If this trip is to be considered an audition for how Romney is equipped to handle one of the most important functions of the job he's running for, he's done nothing more than demonstrate once again that he's nothing but an amateur.