Governor Romney has taken a hard line stance on the relationship with Iran. He supports strong economic sanctions, possible diplomatic isolation of Iran, and ensuring that Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons.
In an appearance on "This Week" in February of 2007, Governor Romney stated that Iran was involved with attacks on US soldiers in Iraq, and that attempts to engage in talks with Iran were timidity. He called for tighter sanctions, and referred to Iran as a suicidal nation.
Throughout the remainder of 2007, Governor Romney granted interviews, made TV appearances, and gave speeches in which he touted a 5 part plan for dealing with Iran. This plan consisted of tighter economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, communicating to the Iranian people about the dangers of a nuclear Iran, engaging the moderate Muslim states in the neighborhood, and putting together a much broader comprehensive strategy to defeat radical jihad in the world of Islam.
In October of 2009, Governor Romney reacted to statements made by President Obama that Iran could be talked with by saying that a charm offensive will not talk the Iranians out of their pursuit of nuclear weapons, and that agreements, unenforceable and unverifiable, will have no greater impact here than they did in North Korea.
Later in that same month, Governor Romney stated that the Iranian leadership is the greatest immediate threat to the world since the fall of the Soviet Union, and before that, Nazi Germany. He also stated that the military option must remain on the table -- and that threat needs to be credible.
ABC This Week
On February 16, 2007 Governor Romney was interviewed by George Stephanopoulis and discussed the ability of Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and the role of the US in stopping an Iranian attack.
George Stephanopoulos: Sen. Clinton took to the Senate floor earlier this week and said the president does not have the authority he needs to take military action against Iran.
Do you agree?
Former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.: I don't know about the constitutional definition that Sen. Clinton is referring to. I think the president has whatever authority is necessary to protect this country and protect our troops.
I think [the] Iranian military has been involved in the conflict in Iraq. Iranians have supported the attack on our soldiers.
But I don't think for a minute that this president is intent on attacking Iran. That's not where we're aiming. That's not going to happen. We have no interest in going into Iran.
But we do have interest in making sure that they do not develop additional nuclear technology and, in my view, that's where Sen. Clinton has gone off the right track.
She's suggesting engaging with Iran. That's a timidity that's not right. This is a time to tighten our sanctions, economic, because they're having an impact, and to increase our diplomatic isolation of Iran and communicate to the Iranian people, as well as to its religious leadership that there is a downside to having fissile material in your country and, that is, if that material falls in the hands of terrorists who use it, that the world community is not going to just respond to the terrorists, it's going to respond to who provided that material.
So we've got some education to do and we've got some tightening to do, but negotiation and engaging with the Iranians at this point is not the way to go and neither is invading them.
Stephanopoulos: But to be clear, if you were president, would you use military action to stop the Iranians from building a nuclear weapon?
Romney: Well, not now. But, of course, the military option has to be on the table. Anyone who's considering being president hopefully will say that military options are always on the table when you consider a nation, which is a genocidal nation, a suicidal nation, in some respects, coming from Ahmadinejad, you say to yourself this is a setting where, of course, you have to consider the possibility of military action, but we're not there.
Stephanopoulos: Suicidal, what do you mean by that?
Romney: Well, it's a nation where people participate in suicide bombing and that kind of a suggestion, I think it was former President Rafsanjani who talked about Israel being a one-bomb nation, meaning they could not survive one bomb, but they, Iran, could survive one bomb.
It's like, 'Are you kidding? Are you suggesting that you'd be willing to take a bomb in order to eliminate another people?' This is a nation where the genocidal inclination is really frightening and having a nation of this nature develop nuclear weaponry is unacceptable to this country and to the Middle East.
And that's why I believe we should not be sitting down having a nice chat with the Iranians, but instead communicating to the religious leadership and the people that the consequences of going nuclear are very unattractive.
That's a message we should be sending throughout the world.
Real Clear Politics Interview
In February of 2007, Governor Romney was interviewed by Real Clear Politics. The interviewed covered a number of subjects, and Iran was one of those subjects.
RCP: On a related subject: Iran. You made some comment yesterday about Iran. If Iran hasn't acquired nuclear weapons by January 2009 when President Romney takes office, would they acquire them under a Romney administration?
ROMNEY: I think it's unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Unacceptable to our interests and to the interest of the civilized world. For that reason I think we should exert every source of our world pressure to keep Iran from pursuing that course. And, of course, the military option must be left on the table
In my view, at this stage, we should be doing as the Bush administration has begun, which is tightening economic sanctions, as well as tightening diplomatic isolation, we should be communicating to the Iranian people the downsides of becoming a nuclear power, we should be engaging the moderate Muslim states in the neighborhood to help put pressure as well on Iran and to help us by taking pressure off of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Finally, in my view, we should be putting together a much broader comprehensive strategy to defeat radical jihad in the world of Islam.
RCP: So, just to phrase it a different way, it's your view that the national security risk to the United States of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon outweighs -
ROMNEY: Is extreme...
RCP: and outweighs any sort of adverse effect or fallout that might come from attacking them either with airstrikes and/or some sort of ground force.
ROMNEY: You know I won't describe precisely what action should be taken or how it would be taken, but clearly the consequences of a nuclear Iraq - excuse me, a nuclear Iran - for the world and for America are so severe that military options have to remain on the table. Those options I have not discussed in great depth with the US military, so I'm not going to describe what particular path would be considered, but I can say that given the fact that we would never want to pursue a military option unless we had pursued every other reasonable option, I want to make sure we are aggressively pursuing those other options. And those other options relate to tightening economic sanctions so that Ahmadinejad is increasingly unpopular in his own country, so that religious leaders like Khamenei, as well as the public at large, are dissatisfied with him and ultimately sweep him from power, or cause him to withdraw his nuclear ambition. And that's why it's so important for us -
RCP: Do you think that's probable?
ROMNEY: Yeah, I think that - in fact the Bush administration's restrictions on credit and banking are already having an impact. Ahmadinejad did fall behind in the most recent elections. Our intelligence in Iran is somewhat limited, as it is throughout the Middle East, but there is indication among some observers that Ahmadinejad is on a bit of thin ice and that if we were to continue to exert extensive pressure on his economy and the diplomatic reception that he and his fellow Iranians receive around the world that that could have the desired effect of either causing him to retreat to a certain degree or to be replaced by a leader that had more moderate views.
Fox News Appearance
In March of 2007, Governor Romney appeared on Fox News and spoke about Iran. He stated that the US should tighten sanctions, and that diplomatic isolation should be the rule of the day. He also called for companies to move their pensions funds away from companies that do business with Iran.
Yeshiva University Remarks
On April 26, 2007 Governor Romney spoke at Yeshiva University about Israel and Iran. On the topic of Iran, Governor Romney stated that the US and Israel's other allies need to ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. To address the Iranian threat, Governor Romney put forth a 5 point plan which included tighter sanctions, diplomatic isolation, coordination with Arab allies, threat of a military response if Iran goes nuclear, and a global campaign against “radical Islam.”
And fifth, we have to keep Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. Their ambition to develop nuclear weaponry is clear: they have a virtually inexhaustible supply of clean natural gas for energy, they have refused Russia's offer to supply nuclear fuel for their power. Obviously, their nuclear ambition has nothing to do with clean energy.
Ahmadinejad has gone beyond the boundary of outrage, beginning with his calculated desecration of history. His purpose is not only to deny the Holocaust; it is to deny Israel. He is doing what another evil man did before him: conditioning minds to acquiesce to the elimination of a people.
In January I was at the Herzliya conference and I discussed the threat of Iran. Since then, Iran continues to operate its nuclear program in defiance of the UN Security Council. It's expanded its centrifuge operations in Natanz. It's issued a new banknote that features a red nuclear symbol superimposed on the map of Iran.
Earlier this month, Iran boasted the production of nuclear fuel on an 'industrial level' with a goal of installing 50,000 centrifuges. On April 9th, Iran marked a new national holiday - 'Nuclear Day.' Just look at the extent of their activity. These show the nuclear sites in Iran. This is not a little narrow project. Does the world understand what's going on here? Do they recognize the threat which is posed by this nuclear-developing nation?
Some people, of course, think that it's possible to live with a nuclear Iran. That thinking is based on the theory that Iran , once it's granted the privilege of becoming a member of the nuclear club, that it will be a responsible actor.
Neither their words nor their actions justify that kind of thinking.
Others believe that frankly back in the logic of deterrence, which served us through the Cold War - that that will protect us. But for all of the Soviet Union's deep flaws, they were never suicidal. A Soviet commitment to national survival was never in question. And that assumption simply can't be made about an irrational regime that celebrates martyrdom like Iran.
It's time to take Ahmadinejad at his word and act accordingly. We are going to continue to work, we'll work with the UN, we'll encourage China and Russia to work with us at the UN Security Council.
But the U.S.and Europe can't afford to wait.
I have proposed a strategy to combat Iran's nuclear ambition. Let me describe just a few of the elements.
First, we should severely tighten economic sanctions. I think the Bush Administration deserves a lot of recognition for restricting access to our banking and credit services, because financial, and credit and monetary penalties are some of the most effective sanctions there are. And we must get other nations to act now to follow our lead.
In my meetings in Israel in January it became clear to me that pension funds, such as the one here in New York City, have invested in companies like the French oil giant, Total. After New York State named its Comptroller, I wrote him, and I also wrote to Governor Spitzer, and Senators Schumer and Clinton and urged them to disinvest from companies that have significant operations in collaboration with Iranian regimes.
Second, I think it's important for us to isolate Iran diplomatically. Their leaders should be made to feel exactly like those of Apartheid South Africa, or worse. That's why I ordered the state police of Massachusetts to refuse security details for former Iranian President Khatami when he came to Harvard.
Of course, we can communicate and talk with Iran and I support the upcoming efforts to discuss security in Iraq with Iraq's leaders and their neighbors in the region. But until there are indications that high level engagement would do anything other than reward bad behavior, I don't believe that we should be engaging Iran in direct, bilateral negotiations over their nuclear weapons program. Iran's nuclear intransigence is repulsive to the entire world and we shouldn't let Iran try to position it as an Iran vs. a US thing.
Now there is one place of course where I'd welcome Ahmadinejad with open arms: and that's in a court where he would stand trial for incitement to genocide, under the terms of the Genocide Convention.
There's a third effort. Arab states need to join this effort to prevent a nuclear Iran. These states can do a lot more than just wring their hands and urge America to do all the work. They should support Iraq's nascent government; they can help America's focus on Iran quickly by turning down the temperature on the Arab-Israeli conflict; they can stop the financial and weapons flows to Hamas and Hezbollah; and they must tell their Palestinian friends to drop their campaign of terror and recognize Israel's right to exist.
This one's a little sensitive. Listen carefully. Fourth, we have to make it clear to the Iranian people that while nuclear capabilities may be the source of pride, they can also be a source of peril. If nuclear material from Iran falls into the hands of terrorists and is used, it would provoke a devastating response from the entire civilized world to the very nation that supplied it.
There is yet another source of Jihadist nuclear danger, beyond Iran. It's the pursuit by Jihadists of acquiring what are commonly known as 'loose nukes.' The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, which was launched last year, was a good start, but we need to accelerate and expand it.
Reaction to Ahmadinejad Speech
In September of 2007, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at the United Nations General Assembly. Governor Romney stated that he should not be allowed to make that speech, but rather President Ahmadinejad should be indicted under the Geneva Convention.
The Iranian regime under President Ahmadinejad has spoken openly about wiping Israel off the map, has fueled Hezbollah's terror campaign in the region and around the world and defied the world community in its pursuit of nuclear weapons -- capabilities that make these threats even more ominous.
... I think the invitation should be withdrawn. I think instead, Ahmadinejad should be indicted under the Genocide Convention.
This Week Appearance
On June 14, 2009 Governor Romney appeared on ABC's This Week and was asked about the recent uprising in Iran in response to flawed election results.
MSNBC Appearance
In July of 2009 Governor Romney appeared on Morning Joe on MSNBC and discussed recent long range missile launches by Iran and the broader US relationship with Iran.
AIPAC Speech
In October of 2009, Governor Romney spoke at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in San Diego and criticized President Obama's view that Iran should be talked with instead of acted against.
Stop thinking that a charm offensive will talk the Iranians out of their pursuit of nuclear weapons. It will not. And agreements, unenforceable and unverifiable, will have no greater impact here than they did in North Korea.
Once an outstretched hand is met with a clenched fist, it becomes a symbol of weakness and impotence.
Unfortunately, for reasons that are unfathomable to me, our government has signaled that the military option is effectively off the table. How can that be countenanced when an ally of the United States faces an existential threat?
Op-Ed - Iran Biggest Threat Since Soviet Union
In October of 2009, Governor Romney wrote an op-ed discussing the threat posed by Iran in relation to the US's history with the Soviet Union.
Iran: Biggest Threat Since Soviets by Mitt Romney 10/22/2009
The Iranian leadership is the greatest immediate threat to the world since the fall of the Soviet Union, and before that, Nazi Germany.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has gone well beyond the boundary of outrage -- beginning with his calculated desecration of history. When he denies the Holocaust, he could care less about history. His point is about the present and the future. His purpose is not merely to deny the Holocaust, but also to deny Israel. He is testing the waters. He wants to know who will object. And how they will register their objection.
That’s why it was so shocking last month when the United Nations gave a platform to a Holocaust-denier who has pledged over and over again that he will wipe out Israel. It was a grotesque moment and another stain on the reputation of the U.N. And congratulations to Prime Minister Netanyahu for having the moral courage to say what needed to be said to those members of the United Nations who stayed to listen to Ahmadinejad -- "Have you no shame!”
I will happily agree that the U.N. has done some good in its history. But I will also insist that it has also done terrible damage to the causes it claims to uphold. And on no issue has it been more irresponsible and morally reckless than when considering the fate of Israel.
The Iranian regime threatens not only Israel, but also every other nation in the region, and ultimately the world. It is a repressive regime… an intractable enemy of liberty and human rights… the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and subversive war. The threat it poses to the world would take on an entirely new dimension if Iran were allowed to become a nuclear power.
Earlier this month, senior staff members of the U.N. nuclear agency concluded in a confidential analysis that Iran has acquired “sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable” atom bomb. We also learned of a previously secret, illegal uranium enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom.
A nuclear Iran would be a tipping point in the proliferation of nuclear regimes, and yet America still has not taken critical steps to immediately dissuade Iran from its nuclear folly.
At this late stage, I would simply say that it is long past time for America to recognize the nature of the regime we are dealing with. The Iranian regime is unalloyed evil, run by people who are at once ruthless and fanatical. We should stop thinking that a charm offensive will talk the Iranians out of their pursuit of nuclear weapons. It will not. And agreements, unenforceable and unverifiable, will have no greater impact here than they did in North Korea. Once an outstretched hand is met with a clenched fist, it becomes a symbol of weakness and impotence. President Eisenhower said it well: “The care of freedom is not long entrusted to the weak and timid.”
The President of the United States can employ his admiration and good will to actually accomplish something meaningful and real in Iran -- comprehensive, withering sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and international support for the forces of freedom within Iran.The people of Iran represent a major source of strength. By and large, they have not been radicalized by their government and clerics; in fact, the regime’s effort to crush the uprising against it has only alienated the people of Iran. They fear economic stagnation and they hate political repression. Most are not seeking a military confrontation with the West. Indeed, most want greater engagement with the West.
And the military option must remain on the table -- and that threat needs to be credible. Unfortunately -- for reasons that are unfathomable to me -- our government has signaled that the military option is effectively off the table. How can that be countenanced when an ally of the United States faces an existential threat?
I don’t pretend for a moment that the course of action to take with Iran is easy or obvious; there are costs to anything we do, but there are even greater costs if we do nothing at all. If we allow Iran under the rule of the mullahs to get a nuclear weapon, it will make the problems America faces today look like a walk in the park.
The clock is ticking, with no real progress to show for the precious time that has already lapsed.
CBS Foreign Policy Debate
On November 11, 2011 Governor Romney participated in the CBS foreign policy debate. He was asked there about Iran and he states that he will not allow Iran to achieve a nuclear weapon. He supports sanctions and regime change.
Scott Pelley: Governor Romney, would it be worth goin' to war to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon?
Mitt Romney: Well, let's-- let's start back from there and let's talk about where we are. This is, of course, President Obama's greatest failing, from a foreign policy standpoint, which is he recognized the gravest threat that America and the world faces-- and faced was a nuclear Iran and he did not do what was necessary to get Iran to be dissuaded from their nuclear folly. What he should have done is speak out when dissidents took the streets and say, "America is with you." And work on a covert basis to encourage the dissidents.
Number two, he should have put-- put in place crippling sanctions against Iran. But instead of getting Russia, for instance, to-- what-- what he gave in our-- our missile defense system to agree to-- to stand with those crippling sanctions, he gave Russia what they wanted, their number one foreign policy objective, and got nothing in return.
(CBS News) Scott Pelley: Governor, on the question. We're gonna adherer to time, very quickly. But let me-- Mitt Romney: I get 60 seconds.
Scott Pelley: Yes, sir, and that was--
Mitt Romney: That was 30.
Scott Pelley: The-- the 60--
Mitt Romney: Sorry, it started at yellow, so I-- I have much more time to go.
Scott Pelley: You-- you know what, Governor? I stand corrected. You are right. Please continue.
Mitt Romney: Fin-- finally, the president should have built credible-- threat of military action, and made it very clear that the United States of America is willing, in the final analysis, if necessary, to take military action to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Look, one thing you can know-- and that is if we reelect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if we elect Mitt Romney, if you'd like me as the next president, they will not have a nuclear weapon.
Scott Pelley: But sir, let me-- you just described where we are today, and that's what you're going to have to deal with if you become president. How do you prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon? Is it worth going to war to prevent that?
Mitt Romney: Well, it's worth putting in place crippling sanctions. It's worth working with the insurgents in the company to encourage regime change in the country. And if all else fails, if after all of the work we've done, there's nothing else we can do beside mil-- take military action, then of course you take military action. It is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. This term "unacceptable" has been applied by several presidents over history, and our current president has made it very clear that he's not willing to do those things necessary to get Iran to be dissuaded from their nuclear folly. I will take a different course. I will make sure that the sanctions, diplomatic pressure, economic pressure, and support of insurgents within the country help them become dissuaded to get away from their nuclear ambition. And finally--
Scott Pelley: This time, it is time.
Mitt Romney: Yeah, and finally, have to-- have to have military presence there.
CNN National Security Debate
On November 22, 2011 Governor Romney participated in the national security debate on CNN. He calls for "crippling sanctions" on Iran.
ROMNEY: OK. Let's just talk about what they're cutting with the first $350 billion, not the next 600 which is coming down the road. The first $350 billion, what do they cut? They stopped the F-22. They delayed aircraft carriers. They stopped the Navy cruiser system. They said long range Air Force bombers aren't going to be built. They're trying to cut our troops by 50,000. The list goes on.
They're cutting programs that are cutting the capacity of America to defend itself. Look, let's stand back for a moment, because we've been talking about Israel and Iran. What we're talking about here is a failure on the part of the president to lead with strength.
And that's why we have discussions about whether Israel should have to step in to stop the nuclear program, whether Iran is going to become nuclear. We have a president who pursued an agenda of saying we're going to be friendly to our foes and we're going to be disrespectful to our friends.
The right course in America is to stand up to Iran with crippling sanctions, indict Ahmadinejad for violating the Geneva -- or the Genocide Convention, put in place the kind of crippling sanctions that stop their economy. I know it's going to make gasoline more expensive. There's no price which is worth an Iranian nuclear weapon.
And the right course for Israel is to show that we care about Israel, that they are our friend, we'll stick with them. If I'm president of the United States, my first trip -- my first foreign trip will be to Israel to show the world we care about that country and that region.
Mitt Romney believes that it is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon. Should Iran achieve its nuclear objective, the entire geostrategic landscape of the Middle East would tilt in favor of the ayatollahs. A nuclear Iran will pose an existential threat to Israel, whose security is a vital U.S. national interest. As Iran’s ballistic missile capacity improves, it will endanger Europe and eventually the continental United States. It will provoke an arms race in which the Arab nations themselves forge ahead with nuclear programs of their own. The result will be a nightmarish cascade of nuclear tensions in the worst’s most volatile region. Iran’s sponsorship of international terrorism would take on a new and terrifying dimension.
As president, Mitt Romney’s strategy will be to end Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon, eliminate the threat of Iranian nuclear terrorism against the United States and our allies, and prevent nuclear proliferation across the Middle East. U.S. policy toward Iran must begin with an understanding on Iran’s part that a military option to deal with their nuclear program remains on the table. This message should not only be delivered through words, but through actions. The United States should restore the regular presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region simultaneously. The United States should repair relations with Israel, increase military coordination and assistance, and enhance intelligence sharing to ensure that our allied capabilities are robust and ready to deal with Iran. The United States should also increase military coordination with our Arab allies in the region and conduct more naval exercises as a demonstration of strength and resolve. Only if Iran understands that the United States is utterly determined when we say that their nuclear-weapons program is unacceptable is there a possibility that they will give up their nuclear aspirations peacefully.
Implement a Fifth Round of Tougher Sanctions: Sanctions are not ends in themselves. They are intended to persuade Iran to change course and abandon its nuclear program. President Obama deserves credit for pushing for a fourth round of international sanctions on Iran early in his term, just as before him President Bush deserved credit for the three previous rounds. But time has shown that existing sanctions have not led the ayatollahs to abandon their nuclear aspirations. We therefore need to ratchet up our pressure on Iran with a fifth round of sanctions targeted at the financial resources that underpin the Iranian regime and its Revolutionary Guard Corps, focusing on restrictions on the Central Bank of Iran, as well as other financial institutions. We should place sanctions on all business activities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which include much of Iran’s petroleum industry. To stanch the flow of the petroleum commerce that supports the Iranian regime, we should pursue sanctions on firms that transport such products to and from Iran.
Ideally, these sanctions would be implemented through the U.N. Security Council, but persuading Russia and China to go along might prove impossible. In the absence of a U.N. imprimatur, the United States should be ready to take action in conjunction with as many willing governments as possible. And if necessary, we should be prepared to act on our own. To that end, Mitt Romney will step up enforcement of existing U.S. laws that bar commerce with Iran, such as the exportation of refined petroleum products to Iran.
Romney will also push for greater diplomatic isolation of Iran. The United States should make it plain that it is a disgrace to provide Iran’s Holocaust-denying president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the trappings and respect offered to responsible heads of state. He should not be invited to foreign capitals or feted by foreign leaders. Quite the opposite. Given his calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, Ahmadinejad should be indicted for incitement to genocide under Article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Support the Iranian Opposition: In 2009, President Obama refrained from supporting the nascent Green Movement as it was facing a violent crackdown by the Iranian regime. As protestors demonstrating against a stolen election were shot down in the streets, President Obama stated he did not want to “meddle” in Iranian affairs, fearing that his unconditional outreach to the Iranian regime would be endangered if he did so. This was a disgraceful abdication of American moral authority.
Mitt Romney would make plain that the United States supports the emergence of a democratic alternative to the current repressive and reckless regime in Tehran. He would work to improve the flow of information to the Iranian population about its own government’s repressive activities. He would recognize the strong national interest we have in the success of the Arab Spring in Syria and the removal of the Bashar al-Assad regime, Iran’s closest ally. And Romney will not stand silent while the Iranian regime ruthlessly terrorizes its own people.
Commit to the On-Time Completion of a Fully Capable Missile Defense System: The united States and our European and Middle Eastern allies have a vital interest in establishing a fully operational and effective missile defense system in Eastern Europe to create a protective umbrella against Iranian nuclear weapons. Under pressure from Russia, President Obama early in his term scrapped President Bush’s plan to deploy ground-based interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic. He instead favored a plan that featured a longer development timeline based upon technologies that have not yet been developed. He has since partially reversed course to reassure our allies who were alarmed by his abrupt about-face and subsequently clarified that his new program will also feature interceptors in Poland along with interceptors in Romania and a radar system in Turkey, all to be built in stages through 2020. As president, Mitt Romney is willing to commit to deploying missile defenses in Europe along that timeline, but he will do so with the following two qualifications.
First, Romney would reserve the option of reverting to President Bush's original plan of deploying proven interceptor technology in Poland if it becomes clear that Iran is making faster progress on developing long range missiles than the Obama plan assumes or if the new technologies on which the plan relies fail to materialize in a timely fashion. If Iran is going to deploy intercontinental missiles sooner than 2020, the United States should retain the option of defending against them.
Second, Romney would make clear that while he is willing to cooperate with Russia on missile defense in ways that will enhance the overall effectiveness of the missile-defense system, he will not compromise the capability of the system or yield operational control of it. Russia must abandon any backdoor scheme to constrain our missile defenses. The United States should never give Russia a veto over our security and that of our allies.
