Mitt Romney campaign co-chair and former Wisconsin governor Tim Pawlenty told Foreign Policy Magazine that he would support Congress authorizing war with Iran. Elliot Abrams, a former Bush administration official and now top foreign policy adviser to GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, floated this idea last week and Pawlenty said it might be “a good idea.” “I don’t know that it would be dispositive, but it couldn’t hurt and it probably would help,” he said.

While Pawlenty did say that he wasn’t sure an attack on Iran would have great success, it’s worth noting perhaps where Abrams is coming from. Back in 2009, he took a “they’ll greet us as liberators” approach to an American attack on Iran:

We are not talking about the Americans killing civilians, bombing cities, destroying mosques, hospitals, schools. No, no, no – weʹre talking about nuclear facilities which most Iranians know very little about, have not seen, will not see, some quite well hidden.

So they wake up in the morning and find out that the United States if attacking those facilities and, presumably with some good messaging about why weʹre doing it and why we are not against the people of Iran.

Itʹs not clear to me that the reaction letʹs go to war with the Americans, but rather, perhaps, how did we get into this mess? Why did those guys, the very unpopular ayatollahs in a country 70 percent of whose population is under the age of 30, why did those old guys get us into this mess.

So Abrams thinks that if the U.S. attacks Iran, ordinary Iranians will rally around the Americans. As Matt Yglesias observed at the time: “If Iranian agents were to blow up an American military base, I don’t think the American public would just say ‘well, fair enough.’” Indeed, as former top American and Israeli officials have said, an attack on Iran is likely to “galvanize Iranian society behind the leadership and create unity around the nuclear issue” and “guarantee that which we are trying to prevent — an Iran that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon.”

A Romney adviser recently told the National Journal that the campaign isn’t having many conversations about a diplomatic approach to the Iranian nuclear crisis. And in his interview with Foreign Policy, Pawlenty seemed to reinforce that thinking. “Options would include concluding the negotiations are not working, that the Iranians aren’t taking them seriously, bringing them to a temporary or permanent end, and start the clock ticking on other alternatives and letting the Iranians know that,” Pawlenty said.

As for the Obama administration, it is aware, not only of the threat an Iranian nuclear weapon poses, but also the potential negative consequences of a military attack on Iran. And that, coupled with U.N., U.S. and Israeli assessments that Iran has not yet decided on whether to build a nuclear weapon, leads the administration to pursue a diplomatic solution with Iran, a track the it deems the “best and most permanent way” to solve the nuclear crisis.

The International Atomic Energy Agency released a report on Iran’s nuclear activities today which finds that the Islamic Republic doubled its capacity to produce enriched uranium at the Fordo nuclear facility buried deep underground. However, less than half of those centrifuges are in operation.

The IAEA also said that Iranian authorities continue a pattern of non-cooperation on its nuclear program and thus, the report states, “the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.”

The IAEA also expressed concern about Iran’s Parchin site, reporting that after the IAEA notified Iran that it suspected nuclear weapons related activity there, satellite imagery showed “extensive activities”:

Satellite imagery available to the Agency for the period from February 2005 to January 2012 shows virtually no activity at or near the building housing the [large explosives containment vessel in which to conduct hydrodynamic experiments]. However, since the Agency’s first request for access to this location, satellite imagery shows that extensive activities and resultant changes have taken place at this location. [...]

In light of these extensive activities, the Agency’s ability to verify the information on which its concerns are based has been adversely affected and, when the Agency gains access to the location, its ability to conduct effective verification will have been significantly hampered.

The Institute for Science and International Security has said that it suspects the Iranians have been engaged in an extensive clean up operation at Parchin.

The U.N. announced yesterday a special Task Force to investigate Iran’s nuclear program.

TAMPA, Florida — Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R), a top surrogate for Mitt Romney, laid into those in the Republican Party who wanted to get rid of foreign aid funding, calling the idea “directionally not correct.”

The only problem? At a Republican primary debate in November last year, Romney joined the call for eliminating U.S. foreign aid commitments. “[O]ne of the things we have to do with our foreign aid commitments, the ongoing foreign aid commitments, I agree with Governor Perry,” said Romney. “You start everything at zero.”

Speaking at The Tampa Club with Bill Kristol, Pawlenty criticized the “isolationist wing” of his party that is “very hostile towards foreign aid and development monies.” Noting the modest amount that America actually spends on foreign aid — it makes up less than one percent of the federal budget — Pawlenty broke with his party’s presidential candidate, calling it “important to preserve and maintain that commitment.”

PAWLENTY: First of all, my party has a wing or a portion of it that is trending towards isolationism and is trending towards being very hostile towards foreign aid and development monies. I think my personal view of that is that is directionally not correct. For the modest amount of money that is on the table — doesn’t mean it can’t be reformed and we can’t scrutinize it — but for the modest amount of money we’re talking about and the important role that it plays in terms of America’s position and role in the world, I think it’s important to preserve and maintain that commitment.

Watch it:

Others in the Republican Party are also pushing back against the call to eliminate foreign aid as well. In a speech earlier this year, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) ridiculed the proposition, calling it “outrightly foolish” and “un-Christian.”