Does a Romney Administration Mean War with Iran?


Does a Romney Administration Mean War with Iran?
by Mohammad Alireza

This article is specifically written for Iranian-Americans that consistently vote Republican.

To generalize, but safe to say, most of this group of Iranians are diehard Royalists, rich, and generally politically retarded. Please excuse the use of the word "retarded" but anybody that listens to Rush Limbaugh can't be described in any other way. One of my best friends listens to Rush – and falls into the above category -- and I hate to say this, but he is without a doubt, politically retarded; yes, we make allowances for him.

But back to Romney and War with Iran, which is really what this article is about.

First of all Romney is just a front as was Bush. What is alarming is that the same crowd with the same mindset stands behind Romney as stood behind Bush when it comes to foreign policy.

Who are these people? Essentially they are neoconservatives who prescribe to the marching orders set out by the Project for the New American Century think tank, or to be blunt in the interest of clarity, they are greedy bloodthirsty warmongering imperialists. You can find more on PNAC at the two links below:



Below are links and excerpts from recent writings by Prof. Juan Cole, Prof. Muhammad Sahimi, and Justin Raimondo, who all raise this very issue; Does a Romney Administration mean war with Iran?

Now if the answer is yes, then it does not matter if you are a Republican, a Royalists, or listen to Rush Limbaugh, but you must NOT vote for Romney in November. I am not saying vote for Obama, because he has been an utter disaster on so many fronts, but whatever you do, don't vote for Romney, because as things are shaping up, a vote for Romeny means a vote for war with Iran.

"Mitt Romneys Coming War on Iran"
by Prof. Juan Cole.


"The American Republican Party Convention in Tampa ironically coincides with the Non-Aligned Movement meeting in Tehran, Iran. Were nominee Mitt Romney to win, he has signaled a willingness to take military action against Iran's civilian nuclear enrichment facilities, which the Iranians say are for the production of electricity via nuclear reactors, but which Romney claims are intended to produce a nuclear warhead. Romney is also open to sending US troops into Iran-backed Syria. The two conventions, one of white American millionaires and their hangers-on, and the other of global South countries unwilling to subordinate themselves to the American corporate establishment, are harbingers of a new global conflict that could have a dire impact on oil prices and the American and world economy."

"Romney's Foreign Policy Team and Iran"
by Prof. Muhammad Sahimi


"Last October, the Romney campaign officially announced its team of 24 "special advisers" on foreign policy and national security, two thirds of whom served under President George W. Bush, who led one of the most hawkish administrations in memory. In 1998, three of those advisers (Paula Dobriansky, Robert Kagan, and Vin Weber) signed the infamous letter sent by the neoconservative Project for the New American Century that urged President Bill Clinton to make toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein official U.S. policy, a wish eventually fulfilled with the invasion of Iraq in 2003. A total of 40 foreign policy advisers to Romney have now been identified -- including unofficial ones such as former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, and James Baker -- over 70 percent of whom served under Bush. These simple statistics alone provide important clues to what a Romney administration's foreign policy would look like."

"Foreign Policy Night in Tampa: A Horror Movie"
by Justin Raimondo.


"War with Iran is an enormously unpopular idea – unless you’re a crazed born-again Christian of the sort who believes America is Babylon, the end times are imminent, and loyalty to Israel is God’s will. These deluded doomsday dispensationalists are the bedrock of the GOP’s southern and Midwestern activist base, and revving these people up is what the festivities in Tampa are all about. The question is: how many normal Americans are repulsed by this kind of rhetoric?"

And in case you have been watching the Republican Convention and need to rinse out that flag waving propaganda out of your brain cells and want to know just how huge a sleazy bastard Romney is I suggest reading "Greed and Debt", a brilliant article by Matt Taibbi, which I've provided the link for plus an excerpt.

"Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital"
by Matt Taibbi.


"By making debt the centerpiece of his campaign, Romney was making a calculated bluff of historic dimensions – placing a massive all-in bet on the rank incompetence of the American press corps. The result has been a brilliant comedy: A man makes a $250 million fortune loading up companies with debt and then extracting million-dollar fees from those same companies, in exchange for the generous service of telling them who needs to be fired in order to finance the debt payments he saddled them with in the first place. That same man then runs for president riding an image of children roasting on flames of debt, choosing as his running mate perhaps the only politician in America more pompous and self-righteous on the subject of the evils of borrowed money than the candidate himself. If Romney pulls off this whopper, you'll have to tip your hat to him: No one in history has ever successfully run for president riding this big of a lie. It's almost enough to make you think he really is qualified for the White House."

"The unlikeliness of Romney's gambit isn't simply a reflection of his own artlessly unapologetic mindset – it stands as an emblem for the resiliency of the entire sociopathic Wall Street set he represents. Four years ago, the Mitt Romneys of the world nearly destroyed the global economy with their greed, shortsightedness and – most notably – wildly irresponsible use of debt in pursuit of personal profit. The sight was so disgusting that people everywhere were ready to drop an H-bomb on Lower Manhattan and bayonet the survivors. But today that same insane greed ethos, that same belief in the lunatic pursuit of instant borrowed millions – it's dusted itself off, it's had a shave and a shoeshine, and it's back out there running for president."


Recently by Mohammad AlirezaCommentsDate
"We are children!"
Nov 12, 2012
Did You Know You Are Not Anonymous on
Nov 04, 2012
Either you want war, or you want peace
Oct 26, 2012
more from Mohammad Alireza
Mohammad Alireza

Fred Your Needle is Stuck

by Mohammad Alireza on

Anybody that still uses the term "lefty" most likely has an undiagnosed condition related to Pinkocommitis, which was last detected back in the fifties.

The islands are disputed, as in not agreeing on their ownership, with the parties in dispute being Iran vs the Emirates and other Gulf nations. I don't dispute that Iran owns them and has always owned them.

Once again the shallow always manage to misunderstand the difference between defending Iran vs defending IRI.


Give Iranian soil to Chinese & Russian military to use as base?

by Reality-Bites on

And apparently the Iranian islands are now "disputed" too.

I can only shake my head at what I'm reading here!


Righty nationalism a la the 1970s

by Frashogar on

Would only cede the same Islands to the USA. So what's the difference here?


Lefty nationalism

by Fred on

Iranian nationalism a la anti-American Islamist Rapist leaning lefty:

“Personally I think Iran should offer long-term military bases to China and Russia on the disputed islands in the Persian Gulf. Now that would balance things out nicely.”


Two points:

1-Islands are only disputed in the minds of the newly created fiefdoms; the islands have been, are and will remain Iranian.

2-Offering “long-term military bases” is something which the Islamist Rapists will do to stay in power and continue pillaging, raping and murdering Iranians.

Thanks to the Islamist Rapists and their lefties, Russia and China already own Iran economically, now the lefties want them to solidify their ownership with military bases.

Ain’t gonna happen, dream on!

Mohammad Alireza

Russia is not reliable

by Mohammad Alireza on

Supposedly Putin met with Khamenie a couple years ago and said something along the lines of "An attack on Iran is an attack on Russia".

But I think Russia will only show support for Syria and Iran only so far and will back down if a full scale Western response takes place. Russia did zilch to protect Iraq.

Personally I think Iran should offer long-term military bases to China and Russia on the disputed islands in the Persian Gulf. Now that would balance things out nicely.


Agree 100%

by Frashogar on

Especially "What we have instead is hidden power centers within the American Establishment". But at the moment, despite the rhetoric, I just don't see this imminent possibility of either Israel or the US attacking Iran in the near future. Instead I hear lots of dissenting voices about this course of action from the highest ranking uniformed members of the establishment.

To some degree an attack on Iran does hinge on what happens ultimately in Syria. 19 months have passed and the Assad regime is nowhere near being toppled despite all the misinformation and disinformation in the Western corporate media about his imminent fall. Russia is solidly standing behind Assad and daily they are making their intentions more clear: they will not stand for Western intervention in Syria or any attempts to topple him. This is a clear threat to America and its NATO allies by Russia that any further escalation or attempts to overthrow Assad by America's FSA Islamist shock-troops may be met by a direct and massive Russian involvement in Syria and other theatres. Since the Russians are going out of their way where Syria is concerned, you can imagine what their response to any Israeli or US attack on Iran may be. For starters, none of the US puppet regimes in the Caucuses, like those in Georgia or Azerbaijan, will be safe because the very next day after a US/Israeli attack on Iran Russian troops will be occupying Tblisi and Baku, which means Russia will also then have total power and control over the Trans-Caspian pipeliness. Whatever saber-rattling is going on at the moment, neither the US, the EU or their allies want this scenario.

Mohammad Alireza

To Frashogar:

by Mohammad Alireza on

I am almost in agreement with you but what you outline depends on sanity amongst the decision makers.

What we have instead is hidden power centers within the American Establishment that benefit from war and are eager to keep the war machine operating profitably -- which any shrink would tell you is sociopathic behavior.

Here is one case you may be interested in:

"Plot to Provoke war with Iran thwarted by Navy analyst"


"Why was a Navy adviser stripped of her career?"




by Frashogar on

It makes no difference which party is in power in the US or who the personalities are because effective war-policies are not set by the president or his party but by the military industrial complex.  They are also on record now saying they don't want war with Iran while attempting to sway Israel in the same direction; that is, against any preemptive strikes. Note the level of dissent in Israel itself within the military establishment against war with Iran. A Romney administration's Iran policy will ultimately be no different than Obama's. In fact these four year election cycles are completely meaningless where such policies are concerned. With or without Romney; with or without Obama; expect the same for the next four years as the last four.


Some good points in your article, minus

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

conspiracy and minus sterotyping all else was healthy discourse. 

I agree with your thesis of don't vote obama & don't vote romney.  Ron Paul May not win, but if he did, the USA woud exit from its dominaton of the middle east region for good and the IRI and other dictatorships and extremists it has strong armed into power would come to an end very quickly afterwards.

First Amendment


by First Amendment on

Our nuclear technology is a done deal, regardless of which clown would take the Oval's only a matter of time, before they learn how to live with it...................

iraj khan


by iraj khan on

if he gets elected

there will be a war with Iran.



by MRX on

It's election time and there is a lot of hot air out there. Community organizer is probably still ahead so you can relax now.


First since '52: No talk of war in GOP speech

by Zendanian on

First since '52: No talk of war in GOP speech


And also don't forget the words of previous Secretary of Defense (who was also the head of CIA, before that); "If an American president says we need a new war in Middle East, his head should be examined."

Meanwhile they'll continue to sabber rattle and confuse the bejesus out of all of us with these "War Propagandas," so the price of oil will keep going up, and all the other theft they need to do, while we're confused and clueless about the "possibility of yet another War!"

First Amendment

Of statistics and probability

by First Amendment on

On the subject of which party has started the most wars, excluding the Indian wars, Democrats beat Republicans 16 to 10........