Obama vs. Romney 101: 3 ways they differ on Iran

For his pursuit of diplomacy with Iran, President Obama has reaped a sputtering international diplomatic effort to curtail Tehran’s nuclear program. Rival MItt Romney says a weak Iran policy gave Tehran 3-1/2 years to progress toward “nuclear weapons capability,” but his specifics often don't sound different from Obama's. Here are three areas on Iran where the two do differ.

2. Iran, terrorism, and support for Assad

Thomas Peter/Reuters
Protesters near the US Embassy in Berlin wear masks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (l.) and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during an Aug. 16 protest denouncing Iran's support for Assad's regime.

Iran is making it clear that it sees Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s survival as crucial to its regional designs – and that is adding a new dimension to Iran’s place in the presidential campaign. Romney says a nuclear Iran would constitute “the greatest threat to the world” in part because it would embolden Tehran to pursue its regional aims. Obama recently seemed to shut the door tighter on dialogue with Iran when the US rejected a proposal to include Iran in international talks on Syria. The Obama administration says Iran’s participation in Syria diplomacy is a “red line” because of Tehran’s support for pro-Assad militias and “terrorists” in the region.

Romney has been critical of Obama for not leading against Assad. In May, he called for the US to “arm the opposition so they can defend themselves” – a move the White House said would lead to more “chaos and carnage.” Since then, there have been unconfirmed reports that Obama signed a secret order earlier this year that broadly permits the CIA and other US agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad. This support stops short of supplying weapons, Reuters reported on Aug. 1. The State Department, also on Aug. 1, announced  that the US is providing $25 million for “non-lethal” assistance to the Syrian rebels.

Romney has not endorsed the idea of a no-fly zone inside Syria, along the lines proposed by Sens. John McCain (R) of Arizona, Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina, and Joseph Lieberman (I) of Connecticut. The Obama administration only goes so far as to say it is considering and studying the idea.

2 of 3

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.