Mr. Obama has worked hard to convince Israel that diplomacy (and diplomacy鈥檚 coercive instrument, sanctions) has not yet played out. Mr. Romney sounds like Obama in calling for tougher sanctions, but he employs a more aggressive vocabulary toward Iran.
And where Obama has tried to convince Israel that Iran鈥檚 nuclear progress is still not at a point that requires an imminent decision on bombing, Romney suggests that as president he would give Israel the benefit of the doubt in deciding if and when to bomb Iran.
On a high-profile visit to Israel in July, Romney called Iran a 鈥渞adical theocracy鈥� that is the 鈥渕ost destabilizing nation in the world,鈥� and he said the US has 鈥渁 solemn duty and a moral imperative to deny Iran鈥檚 leaders the means to follow through on their malevolent intentions.鈥�
The former Massachusetts governor鈥檚 chief national security adviser, Dan Senor, said the US under a President Romney would support Israel if it decided to take unilateral military action against Iran. 鈥淚f Israel has to take action on its own,鈥� he said during the Israel trip, 鈥渢he governor would respect that decision.鈥�
On Iran, one key policy difference does stand out between Obama and Romney: While Obama continues to insist that he would not accept Iran鈥檚 development and possession of a nuclear weapon, Romney has differentiated himself by saying he would not accept Iran developing a 鈥渘uclear weapons capability鈥� 鈥� language employed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the US Congress that suggests a lower threshold for attacking Iran.
