Romney: Defining Moment re Iran

In a column on NRO today, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney outlines his foreign policy strategy regarding Iran. He has been the most hawkish on this issue of the major candidates in either party. His five pillar strategy is:

1. Diplomatic isolation
2. Economic sanctions
3. Cooperation of Arab states
4. Nuclear threats
5. Expansive engagement with the Muslim world

Compared to Giuliani and Thompson, Romney’s odds of nomination have been trending smoothly upwards since early 2006, according to contracts on the InTrade market, and we think he’s one of the best schooled candidates in real world economics. However, as of this morning, the 23% probability placed on his nomination trails Thompson’s 25% and Giuliani’s 34%. It will be interesting to see how much of an effect today’s column has on his chances, if any. Our take on his pillars follows.

1. On diplomatic isolation, Romney writes, "Rather than invite its leaders to address world forums, they should be treated like a pariah. Indicting Ahmandinejad under the Genocide Convention should be a first step…" This is a mistake in our opinion, and one need only to have watched any of the interviews given by Ahmandinejad yesterday. If a political rival wants to shoot themselves in the foot, or in both feet, why stop them? Going further, why not encourage it, and aim to have as many spectators as possible? We glean some lessons from history that can be applied to this pillar: public humiliation, especially of the self-imposed sort, is a potent and cost effective way to separate a leader from popular support, while heavier handed tactics like extralegal indictments or military attacks tend to have an opposite effect.
2. We have two caveats regarding economic sanctions. First, while they can be effective, history shows that they are also extremely blunt and tend to have their most horrific impact on those with the least political capital–this can have the perverse effect of enriching and entrenching those in power, especially in less open economies. Second, in an increasingly global economy, direct control of economic activity by the U.S. in any given region is most likely shrinking. We agree that actions should be taken to prevent financial assets from being used to support violence against the U.S. whenever possible. However, winning economic disengagement from non-U.S. parties will take more than cajoling–it will also take bribes and other concessions to have any chance of being effective.
3. On this pillar Romney writes, "Arab states must join this effort to address the Iranian threat. These states can help by supporting Iraq’s democratically-elected government, turning down the temperature of the Arab-Israeli conflict, stopping the financial and weapons flows to Hamas and Hezbollah, thawing relations with Israel, and telling the Palestinians they must drop terror and recognize Israel’s right to exist." Nothing new there. We wish him luck.
4. On this pillar: "Iranians must understand that if any of the nuclear material their nation develops falls into the hands of terrorists and is used, the response from the world would be directed not only at the terrorists, but also at the nation that supplied the fissile material. And the response would be devastating." Bluster and threats can certainly be effective in politics. And if nuclear terrorism were to occur, "devastating" options deserve consideration. But this position is somewhat troubling, because it doesn’t comport well with the idea that Iran is a tyrannical state where the people do not have sufficient control over their government. ‘Desert glass’ resonates with a minority of the U.S. electorate, but Romney will need to tread carefully and thoughtfully on this one. 
5. Finally, he writes that "…our allies and friends must support progressive Muslim communities and leaders battling radical jihadists…I have called for the creation of a Partnership for Prosperity and Progress…We must also strengthen public diplomacy through both government and independent foundations…Only Muslims will be able to permanently defeat the radical jihadist threat. We should help them any way we can." First, we’d counsel patience. Winning hearts and minds over to a competing cultural worldview is messy stuff that may take generations to unfold. And second, in communities towards which these efforts are directed, it might smack of paternalism or misguided samaritanism, and deluded expectations. For example, have we ever said "Only Ulster Protestants /  Irish Catholics / renegade Mormons / anti-abortionists / displaced Baathists / alienated youth / racial separatists or supremacists / disenchanted landowners / radical Old World immigrants / etc [history is replete with possibilities] can permanently subdue the terrorist elements in their midst"? Of course not. So why do we find it so easy to say about Muslims? Yes, subcultures matter, but in the end, this is carrot and stick stuff, i.e., it’s about the political, economic, and social incentives that lead individual choices to reach a tipping point that steers a society towards a greater or lesser incidence of terrorism. As for any permanent eradication, as we say in Philly, fuggedaboutit. Political conflict is inevitable, and will at times sometimes lead to violence. It’s also well documented that, although its incidence varies widely across time and societies, terrorism is a persistent feature of diverse and open societies; it is still preferable to the civil wars that are a hallmark of closed political systems. Terrorism can be managed by effective civilian vigilance, law enforcement, and keeping real or perceived alienation from the political process to a minimum. Eradication strikes us as a utopian ideal, and utopian ideals pose their own unique dangers to a political system.

In a global world, managing real or perceived political alienation is a far more challenging objective–if the programs outlined in Romney’s fifth pillar can impact the Muslim world on that count, so much the better. But in our view, an Aikido-like approach to diplomacy will be more effective than a full frontal assault. At the margin, providing someone like Ahmedinejad with public forums as happened yesterday can have potentially beneficial effects. First, if might dampen the political alienation felt by some in the Middle East and the Muslim world, and second, it simultaneously exposes his domestic and international political capital to some serious credibility testing.