I can assure you if I’m President, the Iranians will have no question but that I would be willing to take military action, if necessary, to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world…I understand that some in the Senate, for instance, have written letters to the President indicating you should know that — that a — a containment strategy is unacceptable. We cannot survive a — a course of action which would include a nuclear Iran, and we must be willing to take any and all action, they must all — all those actions must be on the table.
He just doesn't have a clue. I'm dying for someone to ask him to explain something like this. At this point I might pay to hear him try to explain it because he is glossing over the Cold War during which the Soviet Union had nukes. And notice, as I've said before, he doesn't explain his thinking. He just makes the statement without providing any facts or any logic explanation and moves on to assuring conservatives he will bomb them.
I think it's beyond pathetic and tragic that this moron probably won't be pressed on comments like these. The guy is running for the highest office in the gov't, which is given more power over foreign policy than any other issue, and he doesn't have to display any sort of understanding of any foreign policy issues.
What's worse is that he also said that as president he would be able to act without Congress if he decided to bomb Iran. That in and of itself isn't worse than what Obama did as it pertains to things like Libya and drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan. But as I've tried to make clear, at least Obama seems to have more of a clue than Romney. Jonathan says that's not as big a deal as some are making, that Congress can stop such actions if they chose. But at this point I think it has to tell us something important that Congress consistently doesn't chose to act and just either let's the president do what it wants or explicitly gives it said power. Plus, the fact that Congress has the power to act shouldn't keep us from hammering the president and candidates for doing something they probably shouldn't.
Update: Nice timing from Kenneth Waltz arguing that a nuclear Iran would be good for stability in the middle east:
Although it is impossible to be certain of Iranian intentions, it is far more likely that if Iran desires nuclear weapons, it is for the purpose of enhancing its own security, not to improve its offensive capabilities. Iran could be intransigent when negotiating and defiant in the face of sanctions, but it still acts to secure its own preservation.
Nevertheless, even some observers and policymakers who accept that the Iranian regime is rational still worry that a nuclear weapon would embolden it, providing Tehran with a shield that would allow it to act more aggressively and increase its support for terrorism. The problem with these concerns is that they contradict the record of almost every other nuclear weapons state dating to 1945. History shows that when countries acquire the bomb, they feel increasingly vulnerable and become acutely aware that their nuclear weapons make them a potential target in the eyes of major powers. This awareness discourages nuclear states from bold and aggressive action. Maoist China, for example, became much less bellicose after acquiring nuclear weapons in 1964, and India and Pakistan have both become more cautious since going nuclear.