Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign studiously avoids calls for war with the Islamic Republic. While some advisers have been hawkish on Iran in the past, only John Bolton has called for an attack since the campaign got underway. Instead, on a recent press call, Romney adviser Dan Senor went out of his way to twice state that he was “not suggesting the military option should be used” (even as he admonished the Obama administration for openly discussing potential consequences of an attack).

In an interview with journalist Barbara Slavin published yesterday on Al-Monitor, another top Romney adviser made abundantly clear that there are very few differences between Romney’s Iran policy and President Obama’s.

Ambassador Richard Williamson told Slavin that “President Romney will seek a negotiated settlement,” which incidentally the Obama administration also considers the “best and most permanent way” to end the crisis over Iran’s nuclear program. Williamson even commented on the possible costs and consequences of attacking Iran, noting, as myriad others have, that an attack would only delay — not stop — a potential Iranian nuclear weapon:

SLAVIN: You’ve talked about a credible threat of military force yet much, if not all, of Israel’s intelligence and defense establishment oppose a strike, saying that would push Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

WILLIAMSON: You can degrade their quest for nuclear breakout. It would be expensive, it would be costly; it’s something we should avoid if possible but it’s not something we should take off the table. If you do, then you will have no chance to get a negotiated settlement.

Because he views a potential Iranian nuclear weapon as a threat to the security of the U.S., its allies in the region and the nuclear non-proliferation regime, Obama’s vowed again and again to keep all options “on the table.”

That leaves Williamson’s endorsement of a “zero enrichment” policy — lining up with hawkish Member of Congress declaring that Iran cannot be allowed to maintain any domestic uranium enrichment — as the main difference. Officially, that’s U.S. policy under the Obama administration, though officials have hinted a compromise might be possible to strike a deal. Perhaps that’s because domestic enrichment, as reiterated yesterday, is the firmest of Iranian demands in negotiations.

The hardest of the hard-line neoconservatives ramped up a campaign for war with Iran today, putting them at odds with not just Obama but Romney as well. Perhaps that’s why Romney tends to avoid focusing on foreign policy issues. As Vice President Joe Biden recently said, “Governor Romney has called for what he calls a ‘very different policy’ on Iran. But for the life of me it’s hard to understand what the governor means by a very different policy.”

By Sarah Margon

Earlier today, President Obama unveiled his Strategy for Sub-Saharan Africa (PDF), a blueprint for how the administration plans to do business on the continent. Coming somewhat late in the game with only six months left in his term and possibly released to combat today’s Washington Post exposé about the special operations shadow war in Africa, the strategy commits the administration to engage more actively with African partners by setting forth four objectives for U.S. engagement. These pillars include strengthening democratic institutions, spurring economic growth, trade, and investment, advancing peace and security and promoting opportunity and development. The strategy builds on the president’s 2009 speech in Ghana and highlights many of the administration’s accomplishments.

Notably, a closer read underscores the absence of many new policies. The revived focus on Africa – and the ability to take stock what’s been accomplished – is important, but the main policy agenda closely mirrors the one Assistant Secretary Johnnie Carson articulated many times over the last three and a half years. That’s probably a good thing, as it shows a commitment to consistency and will helpfully showcase the importance of the region – at least for a few days.

There is, however, one new initiative worth flagging: a commitment to help U.S. companies to trade with and invest in Africa. The administration will develop a “Doing Business in Africa Campaign” to assist U.S. businesses in identifying investment and engagement opportunities in sub-Saharan Africa. This goes beyond the mandate of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which creates concrete incentives for African countries to implement economic and commercial reform policies, and tangentially benefits the private sector.

With seven out of ten of the world’s fastest growing economies in Africa and the Commerce Department scaling back its presence there, such an initiative could make a welcome contribution to strengthening economic growth over the long term – particularly if the private sector invests and engages with an eye toward strengthening regulatory regimes, enabling fair labor practices, and strengthening the rule of law. There’s been a troubling gap in this area for quite some time, so much so that in late March, Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chris Coons (D-DE) and John Boozman (R-AR) sought to pick up some of the slack in this area by introducing legislation that would, among other things, strengthen opportunities to for U.S. investment throughout the continent.

Democratic investment, engagement with young leaders, conflict prevention, greater regional security cooperation, and security sector reform are also highlighted as cornerstone issues. Unfortunately there is only a small – but still important – nod to strengthening civilian capacity in the security realm, a vital component for progress in many African countries where undisciplined and unaccountable militaries still tend to be more the rule than exception. Finally, Obama’s vision reiterates a commitment to smart, sustainable development models by linking to the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development and recommitting to a new and more effective operational model for doing business.

All in all, the President’s strategy makes for a welcome summary of status quo policy priorities in the region. If only it had come a few years prior.

The Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI) released a new ad today suggesting that the U.S. should immediately bomb Iran. Among those behind the ECI and its ad are the same people who pushed the U.S. into the Iraq war.

The ad from ECI, a group which aims to push pro-Israel voters away from President Obama and is headed up by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, tells viewers in its new commercial that Obama is insufficiently committed to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and concludes, “Now it’s time to act,” followed by an explosion. Watch it:

ECI’s reflexive hawkishness stems from its hard-right neoconservative disposition. The organization was even born in the same Washington office as the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI), a short-lived right-wing pressure group that pushed for an Iraq invasion. A major player in the Iraq war push, Kristol, for his part, already called for a war with Iran last October.

ECI, whose board members and director have a history of exhorting acts of violence, ignores U.S., U.N., and Israeli intelligence findings in their efforts for yet another U.S. war in the Middle East — this time with Iran.

In Israel, meanwhile, a growing consensus has emerged among former top security officials that a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be counterproductive to Israeli interests. And a report last month suggests that the consensus opposing an Israeli attack on Iran extends all the way to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s defense chiefs.
Read more

The former head of Israel’s vaunted Mossad spy agency told the Atlantic magazine that an attack on Iran would not spur the Iranian people to rise up against the regime and could cause the international sanctions regime imposed against Iran to crumble.

In the interview, Meir Dagan said that, contrary the contention made by of many Iran hawks, should Israel attack Iran, the population may well rally behind the regime. He went on to say, in his interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, that the U.S.-led international sanctions regimen imposed on Iran would crumble in the face of an attack, making pursuit of a nuclear weapon easier for the Islamic Republic. Goldberg writes:

Some senior Israeli officials have argued to me that a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities might actually trigger the eventual downfall of the regime. Dagan predicts the opposite: “Judging by the war Iran fought against Iraq, even people who supported the Shah, even the Communists, joined hands with (Ayatollah) Khomeini to fight Saddam,” he said, adding, “In case of an attack, political pressure on the regime will disappear. If Israel will attack, there is no doubt in my mind that this will also provide them with the justification to go ahead and move quickly to nuclear weapons.” He also predicted that the sanctions program engineered principally by President Obama may collapse as a result of an Israeli strike, which would make it easier for Iran to obtain the material necessary for it to cross the nuclear threshold.

Dagan’s previously said that an attack could “ignite… a regional war” and “could accelerate the procurement of the bomb” by Iran because it would “provide them with the legitimacy to achieve nuclear capabilities for military purposes.” That puts him in line with the former head of Israel’s internal security service, and the former head of Israel’s military intelligence service. Perhaps taking their cues from predecessors, a majority of Israel’s current security chiefs reportedly oppose an attack on Iran.

A potential Iranian nuclear weapon is widely considered a threat to both the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region, as well as the nuclear non-proliferation regime. U.S., U.N. and Israeli intelligence estimates give the West time to pursue a dual-track approach of pressure and diplomacy to resolve the crisis. Questions about the efficacy and potential consequences of a strike have led U.S. officials to declare that diplomacy is the “best and most permanent way” to resolve the crisis.