AMERICAN.COM

So, David Sanger had a piece in the NYT last weekend wondering whether there’s a “Romney doctrine.” Of course, he wasn’t really wondering; he knew from the get go what he thought. And luckily for Sanger, he had plenty of Romney advisers to help along his theory. Romney has said that “[w]e should not negotiate with the Taliban. We should defeat the Taliban.” Apparently, this led to “a faction” of Romney’s “foreign policy advisers to shake their heads in wonderment.” I’ll bet it did.

Since the presidential campaign began in earnest 22 years ago (just feels like it), Romney’s team has been scooping up advisers left, right, and center. Literally. Dozens are among his many, multipart, compartmented working groups — my husband and many colleagues among them. They write papers, they do conference calls, they write more papers, they talk about the papers they’re writing. Few are actually certain that the governor is reading their papers (because, how could he?), but they labor away diligently, because they, like so many, are eager to do something, anything, to avert the disaster of a second Obama term. But not all these advisers agree with each other; rather, they are all united in the view that Governor Romney agrees with them, because otherwise, why would he have them?

And so, some lament when their putative leader says something that isn’t informed by their deep understanding of… whatever. And they like to lament in public, because they are, after all, public figures. Not, you know, with enough of the courage of their convictions to go on the record, but still, some. They are writing those “subtle position papers” that seem to have “little influence” on “Mr. Romney’s hawkish sounding pronouncements.” In fact, Romney sounds too much, apparently, like my AEI colleague John Bolton, who apparently leads the “Bolton faction” (who knew?) among Romney advisers. Where did Sanger get this tripe? Not from John Bolton, who was not honored with so much as a call from Sanger.

That bad ole’ Romney, he hasn’t roped in the greybeards of the foreign policy establishment… Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, et al. Indeed, he doesn’t even seem to be relying on what Sanger labels as another “nuanced” piece of work — the Eliot Cohen authored intro to Romney’s own foreign policy white paper. He seems to be… thinking for himself. How can that be? Perhaps, like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney has a world view. It doesn’t involve the United States being one of many exceptional nations (kinda like Greece); doesn’t involve religious obeisance to whatever the Council on Foreign Relations line of the day might be. And pace his many advisers, it is only informed in part by their deeply nuanced views.

After all that, we learn only one thing about Romney’s foreign policy: He ought to be more picky. There are only a few “nuanced” souls who would chat with Sanger in the first place. Most of us have a pretty clear idea who they are. And they should have the gumption to up and quit the campaign if they don’t like what their candidate is saying.

Former UN SecGen Kofi Annan just wrapped a breathtakingly cynical press conference in Turkey, insisting his peace plan for Syria is not dead despite new demands from the Assad regime and failure to withdraw from major city centers agreed to in the Annan plan. Doubling down on his touching faith in the Assad team of killers, Annan is sure he has not failed: “We still have time between now and the 12th (Thursday) to stop violence,” he said. “I appeal to all, the government in the first place …” Thursday was supposed to mark the ceasefire on the ground that followed today’s (theoretical) withdrawal of government troops and heavy weapons from urban centers. The opposition estimates that 1,000 have been killed in the one week walk-up to the Annan plan.

Meanwhile, back in Washington DC, the Obama administration continues to observe the Syrian massacre with equanimity. Why the harsh judgment? Because while Annan should be bowed with shame for his role in giving cover to Assad to shed more blood, we must recognize that he is fronting for a myriad group, some of which – Russia and China – would love to see Assad’s stained hands holding the reins for years to come.  But who are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton fronting for? What’s their reason to continue to support a plan they surely were aware would fail? What’s their reason to prolong the massacres? Is there a reason that they insist upon non-lethal aid to the Syrian opposition? And if they are willing to allow Saudi Arabia and Qatar to arm the opposition, why are they so enthused about subcontracting U.S. foreign policy to these Wahhabi dictatorships?

It’s been said many times already, but let’s say it again. What’s needed are:

• Safe corridors for Syrians to leave their country
• Safe cities for civilians in which they can shelter
• Arms for the Free Syrian Army, which is far better organized than many wish to admit.
• Overt support for the Syrian National Council, including assistance with a transition plan, reconciliation among parties, a new constitution and more
• NATO air support

Why do this? Because the devil we know is worse than the devil we don’t know. Because the devil we know is also Iran’s greatest ally.  Because it is wrong to watch the murder of thousands – so many children included – and sit on our hands. Because we have an interest in Assad’s fall. It’s just not that complicated.

There are more, but let’s face it, if the title were Top 246 reasons, who would look?

Let’s start here, courtesy of AEI’s own Maseh Zarif, our expert on the guts of the Iranian nuclear weapons program:

• The amount of 20% enriched uranium Iran has and is continuing to produce far exceeds any civilian requirement it needs for the Tehran research reactor (the ostensible reason for which the regime says it needs to produce such material). The growing stockpile of this material, in fact, is shortening the time required to “break out” and produce fuel for a bomb.

• Operating the Fordow enrichment facility outside Qom—built covertly inside a mountain on an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps base—that even at full capacity (~3000 centrifuges) is not suitable for producing fuel for a civilian nuclear program; it is however, large enough to produce fuel for nuclear weapons.

• Refusing the IAEA: access to certain facilities, personnel, and documents regarding the nuclear program; implementation of the Additional Protocol that would give the IAEA greater verification authority; transparent and timely notification of its activities (e.g. at Arak, site of a reactor that will be capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium).

• The IAEA dossier in November 2011 detailed work Iran conducted in the area of weaponization, running the gamut from acquiring a weapon design to explosives testing using fissile material substitutes to experimentation relevant to testing a nuclear weapon. The agency also cited indications that Iran conducted “modeling studies” as recent as 2009. The IAEA’s reaction? – “The application of such studies to anything other than a nuclear explosive is unclear to the Agency.”

• And finally, for those doubters that Iran is really interested in actual weapons research and design (yes, you, CIA), this tidbit from the November IAEA report:

“The Agency has other information from Member States which indicates that some activities previously carried out under the AMAD Plan were resumed later, and that Mr [Mohsen]Fakhrizadeh retained the principal organizational role, first under a new organization known as the Section for Advanced Development Applications and Technologies (SADAT), which continued to report to MODAFL, and later, in mid-2008, as the head of the Malek Ashtar University of Technology (MUT) in Tehran. The Agency has been advised by a Member State that, in February 2011, Mr Fakhrizadeh moved his seat of operations from MUT to an adjacent location known  as the Modjeh Site, and that he now leads the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research. The Agency is concerned because some of the activities undertaken after 2003 would be highly relevant to a nuclear weapon program me.”

Here’s Maseh’s latest on the Iranian Program, including timelines for breakout.  Expect an update on that report next week.

David Ignatius has yet another Iran leak from the White House. Here’s the gist: Obama told his close buddy Turkish PM Erdogan to tell his close buddy Ayatollah Khamenei that as long as Iran doesn’t seek nuclear weapons, Obama’s cool with them keeping their nuclear program. But …dun, dun, duuuuuhhhhn… time is running out. Message delivered.

Let’s break this one down into some Q&A:

Why leak this now?  (Remember, the last leak came from Panetta, who told Ignatius when he thought Israel would bomb Iran.)

Ostensible reason: Talks with Iran are scheduled for next week, but Tehran is now balking at the Istanbul venue, so the talks are up in the air. This puts the Iranians on notice that…dun, dun, duuuuuhhhhn… time is running out.

Probable reason: Obama wants to signal the shape of a deal to the Iranians so they can come to the table with an offer that stops the Israelis from bombing before the U.S. election.

Why promise the Iranians they can have a licit nuclear program given they’ve used it as cover for their illicit program for decades?

Ostensible reason: See above.

Probable reason: Obama isn’t overly exercised about Iranian cheating; just cheating before the November election.

Why pass the message to Erdogan, whom Ignatius describes as having a “close relationship” with Obama?

Reason: Because Erdogan, the very model of a modern Islamist leader, friend to the Muslim Brotherhood and all ’round anti-democrat, also has a “close relationship” with Khamenei.

Lesson: Let’s get this straight – Obama hates Netanyahu, hates Sarkozy, loves Medvedev, admires Putin, and is “close” to Erdogan.  Awesome taste.

Why signal to the Iranians that they can make a deal that allows them complete freedom under the very Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty they’ve serially abused?

Because apparently all Obama wants is a piece of paper; not a real end to the Iranian nuclear program.

What does “time is running out” mean?

Ostensible reason: The U.S. might strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Real reason: Israel might strike Iran’s nuclear facilities unless they’re persuaded there will be a real end to Iran’s weapons programs.

Next up:  The Top Five Things Iran is doing that reveal it has a nuclear weapons program.