Romney's position on attacking Iran? better ask his lawyers

1.

The Republican debate of this afternoon drew the attention of the media because it was the first one for candidate Fred Thompson to attend. You can read about his performance all over the place. Most of the debate was focused on economic issues. This also something I'm not going to deal with. My short analysis will focus on other things, of no less importance, namely, Iran, Syria, terror, Israel.

2.

The most important statement regarding Iran came from Senator John McCain. It is not the first time for him to say so, but considering his vast experience, knowledge and connections, I'd listen carefully to his warning that an American attack on Iran might be more imminent than one might think ("a possibility maybe closer to reality").

3.

The debate over the need for Congressional approval for any military action against Iran was the part of the debate I was waiting for. On the way the candidates were handling it I can say this:

Mitt Romney botched it: saying that you need to consult with your lawyers as to make a decision related to national Security in not a good choice. It reminded me of a Democratic debate I wrote about in which Barack Obama responded to a question about terror by talking about first responders, then about intelligence, and was quite vague on the need to counter attack, defining it as "take potentially some action to dismantle that network".

In all fairness to Romney, he did use very strong words as to convey his contempt toward the Iranian regime. He was calling President Ahmadinejad "a rouge and buffoon", going after Columbia University for inviting him, and concluding that a President should "take the action necessary" to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons. For this, apparently, one does not need to consult his lawyers.

4.

Last week, the Factor panel reacted to a Democratic debate dealing with Iran. Today, Rudy Giuliani went after Clinton, saying she did not commit herself to military action, if necessary, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. Was he right?

The panel liked Clinton?s answer, but reading it carefully one can argue that Giuliani is right in the sense that she really didn't promise action: "I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, including the use of diplomacy, the use of economic sanctions, opening up direct talks. We haven't even tried".

Now, let the debate begin: Is it necessary to make such commitment publicly? Giuliani thinks it is. "Iran is a greater danger from Iraq", he said (well, that kind of goes without saying), and added that he will use the military option, sort of ("We have to be willing to use a military option"). This, of course, does not mean that he will act and Clinton will not. It only means that he is ready to promise an action.

5.

On consulting with Congress before acting against Iran the response was pretty much the same, but with nuances: a President is better advised to do it, unless time is of such essence that it will make it impossible to react to a looming threat in an apt manner. Thompson: "John's [McCain] got it about right. ... In any close call you go to Congress because you're going to need the support of the American people."

Governor Huckabee was the one taking the most dismissive position on the issue. The President, he said, has an obligation to protect the American people. Congress, in his response, sounded more like an option than as a necessity.

6.

The Israel Factor panel ranked Thompson on Iran and the Palestinians a couple of weeks ago. We also dealt with his candidacy earlier, saying that "the question of Thompson and the Israel Factor is identical to the one of Thompson and the race in general: If running, will he be able to change the game? After the eighth survey, the first one in which his name appears, this question remains unresolved". In the time that has past since this assessment, the panel updated his general ranking upward. Thompson started with 6, was 6.13 in the second time, 7 in the third, and now is at 7.25 (out of 10). Will the debate today give him more credibility with the Israel Factor panel?

Looking at his statement from today I'm not sure what the answer will be. He rehearsed some familiar statements like "We have to come to terms with the threat", "Islamo-fascism" etc. He was also positively referring to the Israeli attack on Iraqi nuclear reactor back in 1981.

Not much to chew on.

Today on Rosner's Domain:

What To Read: Ross to Rice: Let's hope you know when to back off

Previous blog: Understanding the Israeli Attack on Syria

Updated The Israel Factor:
The weakest Democratic candidate on Iran

Updated The Iran Time Saver:
Features, opinion, interviews, studies