Skip to main content

"If I'm president of the United States," Mitt Romney declared during a recent GOP presidential debate, "My first foreign trip will be to Israel to show the world we care about that country and that region."  As it turns out, Romney's pledge isn't just his latest transparent ploy to win over Jewish voters.  Mitt's Israeli itinerary would give him a chance to personally thank the man to whom he has largely outsourced his Middle East policy.  After all, from his short-lived Iran disinvestment campaign and calls for the indictment of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on war crimes charges to his ultra hard-line on Tehran's nuclear program and more, Mitt Romney for years has been regurgitating talking points from his friend and Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Romney-Netanyahu relationship dates back to the 1980's, when the two were colleagues at the Boston Consulting Group.  But since Romney started his perpetual quest for the White House, he hasn't stopped mouthing Bibi's sound bites on borders and bombs, terrorism and Tehran.

It is Romney's role as Netahyahu's alter ego which explains Mitt's passing comment during the November 22nd CNN national security debate. When Romney said he wanted to "indict Ahmadinejad for violating the Geneva -- or the Genocide Convention," he was just awkwardly repeating an agenda Bibi has been pushing for years.

In January 2007, Romney joined Netanyahu among the speakers at the Herzliya Conference.  In his speech, he took a very hard line towards the regime in Tehran, announcing:

Diplomatic isolation should also include an indictment of Ahmadinejad for incitement to genocide under the Geneva Convention, excuse me the Genocide Convention...

Article III of the treaty establishes 'public incitement to commit genocide' is a punishable crime. Every signatory to this treaty shares an obligation to enforce it. So do human rights groups that care about international humanitarian law...

Former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton has been a forceful advocate for this effort, and he's joined by Alan Dershowitz. If these two can agree, there must be something to it.

In the fall of 2007, Romney took his case to the United Nations.  He not only demanded the General Secretary Ban-Ki-Moon "to revoke any invitation to President Ahmadinejad to address the General Assembly," but insisted that the UN prosecute the Iranian President for his 2006 boast that he would "wipe Israel off the map."  

"If president Ahmadinejad sets foot in the United States, he should be handed an indictment under the Genocide Convention."

As Mother Jones laid out last week, there are a host of legal barriers to Romney's gambit.  For starters, "U.S. policy has been to not honor the International Criminal Court; we are not a signatory to the Rome Treaty."  And as MoJo reported:

It's widely interpreted that a statement supposedly egging on genocide is not legally considered a tool of genocide, unless it can be taken into evidence as proving direct intent and premeditation. Furthermore, it would be unprecedented to indict a foreign leader for a genocide that hasn't even taken place yet.

That may explain why Romney's nearly five-old year quest to prosecute the Iranian president had fizzled out, at least until last week.  But that's more staying power than another of Mitt's Bibi-inspired crusades.

Consider the fate of Romney's 24 hour disinvestment campaign in early 2007, an effort cut short by revelations his own former employer had recent business dealings with Tehran.  Romney followed the lead of his one-time BCG colleague and then-former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was touring the U.S. calling for pension funds to unload any holdings in companies doing business with Iran.  Romney began his own grandstanding on Iranian disinvestment the next month by targeting the Democratic-controlled states of New York and Massachusetts. On February 22, Romney sent letters to New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton as well as state comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli urging a policy of "strategic disinvestment from companies linked to the Iranian regime." Romney's theatrics continued:

"With your new responsibilities overseeing one of America's largest pension funds, you have a unique opportunity to lead an effort to isolate Iran as it pursues nuclear armament. I request that you immediately launch a policy of strategic disinvestment from companies linked to the Iranian regime. Screening pension investments and divesting from companies providing financial support to the Iranian regime or linked to Iran's weapons programs and terrorist activities could have a powerful impact. New investments should be scrutinized as long as Iran's regime continues its current, dangerous course."

As it turns out, scrutiny begins at home. As the AP and others detailed, Romney's former employer and the company he founded had links to very recent Iranian business deals:

Romney joined Boston-based Bain & Co., a management consulting firm, in 1978 and worked there until 1984. He was CEO of Bain Capital, a venture capital firm, from 1984 to 1999, despite a two-year return as Bain & Co.'s chief executive officer from 1991 to 1992.

Bain & Co. Italy, described in company literature as "the Italian branch of Bain & Co.," received a $2.3 million contract from the National Iranian Oil Co., in September 2004. Its task was to develop a master plan so NIOC -- the state oil company of Iran -- could become one of the world's top oil companies, according to Iranian and U.S. news accounts of the deal.

Bain Capital, the venture capital firm that Romney started and made him a multimillionaire, teamed up with the Haier Group, a Chinese appliance maker that has a factory in Iran, in an unsuccessful 2005 buyout effort.

Caught flat-footed by his hypocrisy that took the AP less than a day to uncover, Romney feebly responded:

"This is something for now-forward. I wouldn't begin to say that people who, in the past, have been doing business with Iran, are subject to the same scrutiny as that which is going on from a prospective basis."

On Middle East matters large and small, Mitt Romney has time and again shown there is no such thing as American national interest, only Israeli national interest.  Or more accurately, Benjamin Netanyahu's version of it.  As Mitt explained in an interview with the Bibi-friendly Israel Hayom last month, President Romney would follow Israel's lead:

The actions that I will take will be actions recommended and supported by Israeli leaders. I don't seek to take actions independent of what our allies think is best, and if Israel's leaders thought that a move of that nature [the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem] would be helpful to their efforts, then that's something I'll be inclined to do. But again, that's a decision which I would look to the Israeli leadership to help guide. I don't think America should play the role of the leader of the peace process, instead we should stand by our ally. Again, my inclination is to follow the guidance of our ally Israel, as to where our facilities and embassies would exist.

While he has repeatedly attacked the President of the United States for "throwing Israel under the bus," Romney told PBS' Judy Woodruff in July he would never publicly criticize Israeli leaders about West Bank settlements - or anything else:

What I believe is that when you have an ally that shares your values, as does Israel, that if you disagree with them, you do so in private. You don't want to in any way encourage the adversaries of your ally to assume that perhaps they can get a better deal by going around Israel and negotiating with you directly. And so I think it is a mistake on the part of the president, as he did at - in his first address at the United Nations, to criticize Israel for building settlements and not mentioning that Hamas has launched thousands of rockets into Israel...

Again, I would tell you that the role of a person running for president or a person who is president, in my view, is to stand by our ally and if we disagree do so in private. If I were to tell you that I disagreed I'd violate my own rule. And in this - in this case I believe that my opinions on Israel's posture in negotiating with the Palestinians would be something I would keep to myself and to Bibi Netanyahu and leaders of the minority, Tzipi Livni, and others.

That's something I would not share with the public.

In that case, Romney should have checked with Tzipi Livni first.  While Prime Minister Netanyahu was in the United States lecturing President Obama in Congress and to his face, the opposition leader had a different view about who was throwing who under the bus:

Tzipi Livni, leader of Israel's opposition Kadima party, also backed Mr Obama's two-state solution and accused Mr Netanyahu of putting Israel at risk in order to save his right-wing coalition.

"The prime minister has violated relations between Israel and the United States," she said, speaking after Mr Obama's speech but before the Oval Office meeting. "He has endangered the security of Israel and its power of deterrence."

And when it comes to the security of Israel, Netanyahu's own defense minister Ehud Barak made clear, "I don't think that anyone can raise any question mark about the devotion of this president to the security of Israel."

But on the subject of Iran, Mitt Romney, Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak are on the same page.  For weeks, stories have been suggesting that Netanyahu and Barak are pushing for Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.  But while opposition within the Israeli Knesset and cabinet (most notably from the head of the Mossad) remains strong, Bibi Netanyahu can count on President Romney's support.

After all, many of Romney's advisers not only helped bring you the war in Iraq, but have been advocating an American attack on Iran "before it's too late."  

As for Romney, he outlined his own plan in a Wall Street Journal op-ed ("I Won't Let Iran Get Nukes") two weeks ago:

Si vis pacem, para bellum. That is a Latin phrase, but the ayatollahs will have no trouble understanding its meaning from a Romney administration: If you want peace, prepare for war...Only when the ayatollahs no longer have doubts about America's resolve will they abandon their nuclear ambitions.

After his five year quest for the White House, Americans can have no doubt about Mitt Romney's ambitions.  Hoping to cement his position for the New Hampshire primary, Romney trumpeted his endorsement by first term Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte.  Returning the favor, Romney then suggested Ayotte could be his running mate.

In one sense, there's no room left on the Romney ticket.  When it comes to Israel and the Middle East, Benjamin Netanyahu has been Romney's running mate for years.

* Crossposted at Perrspectives *

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Running mate? (0+ / 0-)

    The birthers will never stand for it!

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 10:22:48 AM PST

  •  I think this diary would be better without (4+ / 0-)

    the ZOG rhetoric:

    It is Romney's role as Netahyahu's hand-puppet

    Additionally, I think that vociferously opposing the evil Iranian regime and their quest for weapons of mass distruction does not make someone an Israel lackey.  It makes them someone with a reasonable foreign policy.

    •  A Couple of Points (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brecht, Florida Democrat

      I'm not suggesting at all that Mitt Romney is an Israeli lackey. What I am suggesting is that he not only is closely aligned with the positions of one party in Israel (Likud), but that he has adopted Benjamin Netanyahu's stands on disinvestment, war crimes and other issues that few in the U.S. have advocated.

      As for Iran, there is little disagreement on either side of the aisle that the regime in Tehran is a danger.  But there's plenty of disagreement in Washington and in Israel about whether a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear faciliaties is the way forward.  U.S. defense secretary Panetta and the Israeli head of Mossad are just some of the voices warning that a strike might only delay Tehran's nuclear ambitions by a couple of years, while triggering regional conflict.

      I'm not going to spend much time on your "ZOG" insult.  The hand-puppet wording may have been an unfortunate choice, but it reflects that Mitt Romney has largely repeated policies and positions Bibi adopted first.

      •  Shouldn't you have considered spending the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fizziks, Hoodoo Man

        time to say you are sorry for the ZOG reference instead of attempting to minimize it?

        "Stay close to the candles....the staircase can be treacherous" (-8.38,-8.51)

        by JNEREBEL on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 11:15:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No. The Choice of Words... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brecht

          ...was unfortunate because it prompted a commenter to baselessly insult me.  

          To suggest as I did that Mitt Romney repeated, regurgitated, repurposed, appropriated or otherwise adopted Benjamin Netanyahu's words - that is, to act like a hand-puppet - is backed by the record.  To say that Romney acted as Netanyahu's mouthpiece, megaphone, etc. simply reflects the well-documented history.

          For the earlier commenter to lob a charge of white supremacy, anti-semitism or worse is uncalled for and not remotely supported by anything in the text.

      •  hold on a second here (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kickemout, Hoodoo Man
        I'm not suggesting at all that Mitt Romney is an Israeli lackey.

        really?  With statements like:

        Meet Mitt Romney's Running Mate, Benjamin Netanyahu

        It is Romney's role as Netahyahu's hand-puppet

        Mitt's Israeli itinerary would give him a chance to personally thank the man to whom he has largely outsourced his Middle East policy

        So if you are not trying to imply that Mitt Romney is an Israeli lackey with those statements, what is the message you are trying to communicate with them?

        •  Saying That Romney is Carrying Bibi's Water... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brecht, Florida Democrat

          ...is a different thing than calling Romney an Israeli lackey.

          When Romney in 2007 first endorsed Netanyahu's positions on disinvestment and war crimes charges for Ahmadinejad, Netanyahu was not prime minister.  His views were not the policy of the Israeli government.  Again, Romney has been repeating Netanyahu's talking points, not the policy of the Israeli government.

          Consider the following example.  As Condoleezza Rice explained in hew recent book, former prime minister Olmert offered Palestinian president Abbas 94% of the West Bank in 2008.  Netanyahu was against this and certainly didn't repeat Olmert's offer when he took over.  (In fact, Olmert's Kadima successor Livni is said to have opposed it as well.)

    •  I just role my eyes now whenever you mention (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Florida Democrat

      ZOG rhetoric.  At this point you are a caricature of yourself fizziks.

      ZOG is your go-to-defense whenever people point out the obvious: our politicians are heavily influenced by the Israeli lobby.

      It has nothing to do with Judaism.  It has to do with the fact that the Israeli government is full of far right nut jobs.  The fact that they happen to be Jewish is incidental.

  •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poco, Brecht
    Si vis pacem, para bellum. That is a Latin phrase, but the ayatollahs will have no trouble understanding its meaning from a Romney administration: If you want peace, prepare for war...Only when the ayatollahs no longer have doubts about America's resolve will they abandon their nuclear ambitions.

    Does he have any clue how dumb he sounds to a sane audience?

    He's going to tell Iran that if they want peace, they should prepare for war?  Logically, the way for Iran to do so would be to develop their own nuclear weapons as fast as possible.

    Ask your barista what her degree is in.

    by happymisanthropy on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 11:07:03 AM PST

    •  Somebody's resolve is not in doubt. (0+ / 0-)

      A second substantial explosion has been reported in Iran. The first one a week or so ago took out among others a person working on their nuclear plan, in what was reported as a blast arising from transfer of missile parts or munitiions.

      Today, the Israeli newspapers are covering a story of a substantial blast reported in Isphahan, with one of them having a satellite picture of what is reported to be a missile base where the blast allegedly occurred. One wonders who will take credit for this one, if anyone.

      •  LOL Christy... The Iranian Military took credit (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fizziks

        Oh well... sorry to bust up a theory about the mystery blast but the Iranian military just took credit.

        Iran official: Blast near nuclear site caused by military mishap

        Speaking to an Iranian news website, the government of Isfahan said that the explosion occurred as a result of a military drill, denying reports that the blast was somehow related to the nearby nuclear facility.

        "There is no such thing, the blast was entirely from the military maneuver," the Iranian official said.

        Well one should say they took credit until the story broke in Israel and they they pulled it off the FARS website.

  •  Not sure what's the point of this diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fizziks, volleyboy1

    Republicans are hoping to win next November by trying to make Israel and Iran into wedge issues and seeking to pull some Jewish voters away from the Democratic party, particularly in swing states like Florida.  

    I think it's terrible that the Republicans are trying to do so.  

    I can't tell whether you're buying into the Republican strategy.  Obama and the Democrats have been about as supportive of Israel as you could ask them to be.  This support has been fully bipartisan.  

    The way to win in 2012 is to show that there's no difference in support for Israel between the Democratic and Republican nominees.  Now let's talk about all of the real issues that separate the Dems from the Repubs that make you crazy to vote for the Repubs.

    •  So you (and your upraters) suggest.... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brecht, poco, heathlander

      ...that all Democrats follow suit with Romney, to make sure "there is no daylight" between the parties' "support" for Israel?

      Thank you for being so clear about it.

      Now I know how to be a good, effective Progressive Democrat: Put forth "bipartisan" policies i.e., ones so far to the right that even today's Republicans are willing to sign on to.
      Then, when the Republicans express feigned outrage at our "lefty extremism", rationally and calmly explain to the world that there is really no daylight between your positions.

      As we all know from the recent decade on all fronts, especially from the Obama years, this strategy has worked so well for Democrats on all issues.

      It's a triple W (W for George W, I guess) on 1. Policy, 2. Winning the narrative, and 3. Energizing your base.

      Thank you again, Hoodoo Man. How enlightening.

      •  Well as one of the "upraters" I supported the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fizziks

        comment for this:

        I can't tell whether you're buying into the Republican strategy.  Obama and the Democrats have been about as supportive of Israel as you could ask them to be.  This support has been fully bipartisan.  

        The way to win in 2012 is to show that there's no difference in support for Israel between the Democratic and Republican nominees.  Now let's talk about all of the real issues that separate the Dems from the Repubs that make you crazy to vote for the Repubs.

        In other words I see President Obama as a friend to both the Jewish People and to Israel. In fact, I am taking that position in a public forum against Karmafish and a representative from Stand with Us regarding the President and Jewish people.

        Now, I could be mistaken but I don't see Hoodoo Man saying that the support for Israel should be for the same policies across party lines, just that it should be known that the Obama Administration is a good friend to Israel. I think President Obama has done a good job of that.

        And I agree that the Republicans are spreading a false meme about President Obama to peel off support.

      •  Sorry buddy (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fizziks, volleyboy1

        But I'd like the Democrats to win in 2012.  

        Perhaps you're right, but I suspect that your strategy will be less successful.  

        Just my opinion.

    •  So you want Democrats to act like Republicans? (0+ / 0-)

      you want the Democrats to coddle a government that borders on apartheid?

      I am all for being pragmatic and winning elections, but there is even a line that I won't cross.

  •  you may be joking, but... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hoodoo Man

    ...one of the most important priorities for the Republican nominee, whomever that is, will be to exploit to the max perceived rifts between the Jewish community and Democrats (and going way out of their way to create them).
    My guess is that Republicans are looking very closely at the NY-9 special election where the Republican, who was Catholic, actually carried the Jewish vote against the Democrat, who was Jewish. This kind of rift can make a dramatic enough of a difference in key swing states (i.e. PA, OH, FL, etc.)

  •  Yay! Tax hikes on the rich and corporations (0+ / 0-)

    must be on the table now.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site