Friday, January 25, 2013

Kerry Warns Iran as Senate Schedules Confirmation Vote

By Nicole Gaouette - Jan 24, 2013 8:06 PM MT

U.S. Senator John Kerry stressed the need to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons as he described the “immediate, dangerous challenges” for the nation that he will deal with if confirmed as secretary of state.

“The president has made it definitive -- we will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Kerry said in testimony yesterday to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “And I repeat here today: our policy is not containment. It is prevention, and the clock is ticking on our efforts to secure responsible compliance.”

Enlarge image

Senator John Kerry said, “The president has made it definitive - we will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” Photographer: Scott Eells/Bloomberg

Obama Nominates John Kerry to Head State Department

6:52

Dec. 21 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama named Massachusetts Senator John Kerry as his choice to become the next U.S. secretary of state during a news conference in Washington. The nomination of Kerry, 69, a Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is subject to Senate confirmation. (Source: Bloomberg)

Kerry appeared before the Senate panel he has headed as chairman since 2009. Republican colleagues predicted before the hearing that he would easily win Senate confirmation to succeed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The chamber is scheduled to vote on his nomination on Jan. 29, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said late yesterday.

Kerry was introduced at the hearing by Clinton, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona and Democratic SenatorElizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Clinton described Kerry as the “right choice” for the job she is leaving after four years, and McCain offered support “without reservation” for his fellowVietnam War veteran.

During a largely friendly four-hour hearing, Kerry was asked about the challenges that will likely consume much of his tenure should he be confirmed. The committee hasn’t announced the date for a vote on his nomination which, if approved, would advance to the full Senate for confirmation.

Policy Challenges

The Massachusetts Democrat discussed the prospects for stability in Afghanistan and the scheduled 2014 withdrawal of American troops, greater U.S. involvement in Syria’s civil war, and the fallout from the Libyan revolution, as arms from that conflict fall into the hands of North African terrorist groups.

Several senators raised questions about the U.S. relationship with Russia, both in terms of cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation and on resolving the Syrian conflict. Others probed for Kerry’s views on China as an economic competitor as well as an increasing military presence in the Pacific region.

In the wake of Israeli elections that gave centrists a boost, Kerry told Arizona Republican Senator Jeff Flake that his “prayer is that this could be a moment” when it’s possible to restart peace talks.

“President Obama is deeply committed to a two-state solution,” Kerry told the committee, linking the conflict to many other U.S. goals in the Middle East.

“We need to find a way forward,” Kerry said. If that doesn’t happen “the results would be disastrous in my judgment.”

‘Prove It’

On Iran, Kerry said the administration hopes for a “diplomatic solution.” In response to a question from Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who ran the hearing, Kerry said that Iran can do what many countries do to comply with international nonproliferation accords.

“If their program is peaceful, they can prove it,” Kerry said, adding that the U.S. is willing to hold bilateral talks with Iran as well as the current six-power negotiations.

Kerry said the legitimacy of Afghan elections in early 2014 will be crucial to U.S. plans to pull most troops from the country next year.

“If it doesn’t have legitimacy, if we don’t succeed in that effort, it’s going to be very, very difficult to convince the American people” and U.S. allies to stay engaged, Kerry said.

‘Reap the Whirlwind’

Kerry had met in the past with Syrian President Bashar al- Assad in an effort to encourage an opening by the Syrian regime toward the West. Now, Kerry said, Assad has made “reprehensible” decisions and he predicted Assad is “not long for remaining” as Syria’s leader.

McCain said the U.S. failure to get more deeply involved in the Syrian conflict will have serious repercussions.

“We are sowing the wind in Syria and we’re going to reap the whirlwind,” he said, referring to Islamic radical groups involved in the fighting there.

Kerry said relations with Russia have “slid backward a little bit in the last couple of years,” citing Russia’s halt to U.S. adoptions as one example. Still, he said Russia is cooperating on a number of issues such as Iran and nuclear arms reductions.

On China, Kerry highlighted the competition for resources. “China is all over Africa -- I mean, all over Africa -- and they’re buying up long-term contracts on minerals,” he said. “And there’re some places where we’re not in the game, folks.”

‘Economic Statecraft’

Throughout, Kerry spoke about the need to focus on the “economic statecraft” that Clinton emphasized during her tenure, promoting U.S. business.

In his opening remarks, Kerry urged lawmakers to address domestic economic issues such as the deficit, saying a strong economy undergirds strength overseas. Kerry said the U.S. is seeking, as President Barack Obama said in his inaugural address, to move beyond the decade of war.

“President Obama and every one of us here knows that American foreign policy is not defined by drones and deployments alone,” Kerry said. “We cannot allow the extraordinary good we do to save and change lives to be eclipsed entirely by the role we have had to play since September 11th, a role that was thrust upon us.”

American foreign policy is also defined by food security and energy security, humanitarian assistance, the fight against disease and the push for development “as much as it is by any single counterterrorism initiative,” he said.

World Traveler

From Afghanistan and Pakistan to Sudan and China, Kerry, 69, has made at least 30 trips abroad over the past four years, often serving as an unofficial special envoy for the Obama administration.

On foreign policy, Kerry shares Obama’s preference for working through multinational alliances and for avoiding open- ended engagement, such as the Iraq war they both opposed. Kerry’s approach to U.S. intervention abroad has been reflected by his comments on the war in Syria, in which he has shared Obama’s reluctance about direct military involvement.

Kerry and Obama have political bonds dating to 2004, when the senator gave Obama his breakthrough opportunity as the keynote speaker at the Democratic convention that nominated Kerry for president. The speech turned Obama, a state senator from Illinois running for the U.S. Senate, into a national political star.

In 2008, Kerry backed Obama over front-runner Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primaries, only to see Obama choose Clinton as his first-term secretary of state.

Vietnam Legacy

After graduating from Yale University, Kerry volunteered for the Navy. In two tours of duty in Vietnam, he rose to the rank of lieutenant and served on a Swift Boat that traveled treacherous river deltas. He was decorated with a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts.

Kerry came to see the war he fought as futile, and on his return to the U.S. he became a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Kerry made an unsuccessful bid for a House seat from Massachusetts the following year, then worked as a prosecutor before being elected lieutenant governor in 1982 and senator in 1984.

Largely because of the wealth of his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, Kerry is one of the richest members of Congress. His net worth was at least $181.5 million in 2011, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington.

To contact the reporter on this story: Nicole Gaouette in Washington atngaouette@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: John Walcott at jwalcott9@bloomberg.net

More News:

by Taboola

Videos You May Like

A Giant Floating Airship Could Be Future of Flight

How Do Airlines Finance Their Aircraft?

Fortress Davos: Inside the Armed Secret Tunnels

President Obama as the Ultimate Product Placement

by Taboola

From Around the Web

Billionaire Predicts Downgrade For US, Financial RuinMoneynews

Top 20 NBA Players Of All TimeRant Sports

The Top Ten Luxury ResortsAway.com

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Syria — Uprising and Civil War

Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Overview

The wave of Arab unrest that began with the Tunisian revolution reached Syria on March 15, 2011, when residents of a small southern city took to the streets to protest the torture of students who had put up anti-government graffiti. The government responded with heavy-handed force, and demonstrations quickly spread across much of the country.

President Bashar al-Assad, a British-trained doctor who inherited Syria’s harsh dictatorship from his father, Hafez al-Assad, at first wavered between force and hints of reform. But in April 2011, just days after lifting the country’s decades-old state of emergency, he set off the first of what became a series of withering crackdowns, sending tanks into restive cities as security forces opened fire on demonstrators. In retrospect, the attacks appeared calculated to turn peaceful protests violent, to justify an escalation of force.

In the summer of 2011, as the crackdown dragged on, thousands of soldiers defected and began launching attacks against the government, bringing the country to what the United Nations in December called the verge of civil war. An opposition government in exile was formed, the Syrian National Council, but the council’s internal divisions kept Western and Arab governments from recognizing it as such.

Syrian opposition factions signed an agreement in November 2012 to create a unified umbrella organization with the hope of attracting international diplomatic recognition as well as more financing and improved military aid from foreign capitals. The coalition, known as the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, was recognized by Britain, France, Turkey and several Gulf Arab countries. However, several extremist Islamist groups fighting in Syria said they reject the coalition.

One of the biggest obstacles to increasing Western support for the rebellion is the fear that money and arms could flow to a jihadi group that could further destabilize Syria and harm Western interests. On the diplomatic front, Russia has steadily blocked attempts by the Obama administration and Arab countries to win United Nations authorization for strong action against the Syrian government, its longtime ally.

By the end of 2012, Syria was many months into what the United Nations called an “overtly sectarian” conflict that was pulling fighters from across the Middle East and North Africa into the fray. The sharpest split is between the Alawite sect, a Shiite Muslim minority from which President Bashar al-Assad’s most senior political and military associates are drawn, and the country’s Sunni Muslim majority, mostly aligned with the opposition, a U.N. panel noted. But it said the conflict had drawn in other minorities, including Armenians, Christians, Druze, Palestinians, Kurds and Turkmen.

By the start of 2013, more than 60,000 people, mostly civilians, were thought to have died and tens of thousands of others had been arrested. More than 400,000 Syrian refugees had registered in neighboring countries, with tens of thousands not registered. In addition, about 2.5 million Syrians needed aid inside the country, with more than 1.2 million displaced domestically, according to the United Nations.

Highlights From the Archives

Rubble and Despair of War Redefine

Isn't it fitting that, as a final order of business in President Obama's first term, the United States would haggle with France over the federal equivalent of a $2.15 check?

Last week, the Journal reported that the administration was asking the French to pay for the limited logistical support—mainly cargo flights and aerial refueling—that the U.S. had agreed to provide the French mission to Mali.

"French officials said they were particularly 'perplexed' last week when the U.S. . . . insisted on getting reimbursed for the costs," the Journal's Adam Entous and David Gauthier-Villars reported Sunday. "Other countries including Canada have offered to transport French military equipment and troops to Mali free of charge, according to French, European and Canadian officials. As a result, France is considering not using the U.S."

By week's end, however, the administration had agreed to cover the costs, estimated at around $600,000 a flight for 30 flights. Considering that the federal government spends just over $10 billion a day, or $115,000 a second, we're talking about less than three minutes' worth of the government's time.

Is the effort worth it? "France expects the U.S. to do more to fight militants who have vowed to hit at Western interests and conducted an attack in Algeria that left at least 23 hostages dead, including at least one American citizen," French officials told the Journal. Considering that, before France's intervention, the local branch of al Qaeda was on the verge of overrunning a country larger than Texas and California combined, one might think the French had a point.

Enlarge Image

Associated Press

George McGovern, who called in 1972 for America to "Come Home."

In fact, the latest death toll from Algeria is 37 hostages killed, including three Americans. But don't expect the administration to do more than what it did in reaction to the attacks that killed four Americans in Benghazi, which was nothing. The current administration excuse for its nonfeasance is that any assistance might help the government of Mali, which (horrors) seized power in March in a military coup. From scruples such as these did Jimmy Carter allow the shah of Iran to fall.

Then again, at least Mr. Carter's scruples were sincere. Not so for Mr. Obama, for whom "engagement" has become a code word for avoidance. Thus we "engage" Iran diplomatically to avoid harder choices about its nuclear ambitions, just as we engage the U.N. to avoid doing anything about Syria. Meanwhile, the message to U.S. allies that gets louder by the year is that it's a you're-on-your-own world as far as this administration is concerned. Good night, good luck, buena suerte, viel Glück, hazz sa'eed and bonne chance.

That is the meaning behind the administration's refusal to lift a finger against the Assad regime. Or its perfect indifference to Iraq detaching itself from America's orbit and entering Iran's. Or its endless indulgence of Iran's nuclear bids. Or its haste to make a full exit from Afghanistan. Or, now, its reluctance to acknowledge, much less respond to, al Qaeda's new reach in Africa.

It is also the meaning of Chuck Hagel's nomination to be secretary of defense. His veteran's credentials and nominal GOP affiliation provide cover for a president who, as somebody once said, wants America to Come Home "from military spending so wasteful that it weakens our nation." That wasn't Dwight Eisenhower speaking, by the way.

Given how often U.S. forces have come to grief in faraway and forlorn countries like Mali, Americans will probably shrug off the thought that we aren't doing enough to help our French friends. Aren't we sick of always jumping to their aid when they don't always exactly jump to ours? And why have they so neglected their defenses that they can't even deploy a few thousand troops to a country that, to them, isn't all that far away? If life were a debate society, the argument would be a good one. As a matter of politics, the administration's resistance to any kind of military action is probably smart, at least for the short term.

But Americans need to think carefully about what the retreat from Pax Americana will mean in the long term.

The last time Americans made that choice, in the 1920s and '30s, U.S. foreign policy consisted of promoting feckless disarmament treaties, slashing defense spending, dishing out high-toned disdain for the wicked ways of the world and trying to fix what ailed us at home. What followed was a long season of global disorder, when bandit states understood that the major democratic powers had neither the will nor the means to check their ambitions, and the smaller states feared that, in the event of crisis, they were on their own. As it turned out, they were.

We're not yet there today. But when an American president thinks he can declare that "a decade of war is now ending," as he said in the inaugural address, and as if the choice were his to make, it means we're getting closer. France has now discovered that the United States doesn't have its back. It is a realization that will dawn soon, if it hasn't already, on other free nations who have relied—perhaps for too long—on their faith that, in the face of terror, they would always have America by their side.

Write to bstephens@wsj.com

JOIN THE DISCUSSION163 Comments, add yours MORE INOpinion »

Sunday, October 21, 2012

By AFP
PARIS

Middle Eastern oil and gas companies have been targeted in massive attacks on their computer networks in an increasingly open cyber war where a new virus was discovered just this past week.

The United States and Israel, believed to behind the first cyber sabotage campaign that targeted Iran's nuclear program, are now worried about becoming targeted themselves.

"There have been increasing efforts to carry out cyber attacks on Israel's computer infrastructure," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said earlier this month, without giving details.

Netanyahu spoke just days after Washington issued a veiled warning to Iran over digital attacks and outlined a new digital warfare doctrine.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta also referred publicly for the first time about the "Shamoon" virus that hit Saudi Arabia's state oil company Aramco in August, disabling more than 300,000 computers.

The virus also hit Rasgas, a joint venture between US oil firm Exxon Mobil Corp and state-controlled Qatar Petroleum.

Panetta called the sophisticated virus "the most destructive attack that the private sector has seen to date."

It took Aramco, the world's biggest oil company, two weeks after the August 15 attack to restore its main internal network, but the group said that oil production had not been disrupted.

However the threat that digital attacks could cripple vital infrastructure is real, with Panetta warning of the possibility of a "cyber-Pearl Harbor" to justify a policy of moving aggressively against threats.

A disruption to Saudi Arabia's oil exports could cause oil prices to spike from their already elevated prices and tip the fragile global economy into recession.

In what was interpreted as a veiled threat against Iran, Panetta said the U.S. military "has developed the capability to conduct effective operations to counter (cyber) threats to our national interests."

A senior U.S. administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told AFP the cyber-attack on the Gulf oil giants was believed to be carried out by a "state actor" and acknowledged that Iran would be a prime suspect.

U.S. officials have "more than a suspicion" that Iran was to blame for the August attacks, said James Lewis, who has worked for the State Department and other government agencies on national security and cyber issues and who is now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank.

He said the U.S. authorities were used to cyber espionage from Russia and China, but were surprised by the swift rise in Iran's digital warfare capability.

"A lot of people didn't think it would develop this quickly," he said.

However it is unsurprising that Iran would seek a cyber-warfare capability after having hundreds of centrifuges used to enrich uranium ruined by the Stuxnet virus in 2010.

Stuxnet marked a transformation for computer viruses, which had previously been used for spying or by organized crime, into a tool for sabotage.

It is widely suspected to have been the work of the United States and Israel, which believe Iran's nuclear program aims to produce a bomb.

Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful uses only. Iran has been victim of other digital attacks as well.

In April it was forced to unplug computers at its Kharg oil terminal from the Internet after they came under cyber-attack, and in November last year an explosion at a missile terminal was attributed by U.S. media to a computer virus.

Only 'scratched the surface' of cyber warfare in Middle East

Kaspersky Labs, which detected the "Flame" and "Gauss" viruses believed behind those attacks, announced Monday it had found a new cyber espionage weapon it dubbed "miniFlame.”

It described the virus as "a high precision, surgical attack tool ... designed to steal data and control infected systems during targeted cyber espionage operations."

Kaspersky said "we have only just scratched the surface of the massive cyber espionage operations ongoing in the Middle East. Their full purpose remains obscure and the identity of the victims and the attackers remains unknown."

Christian Harbulot, the head of the Economic Warfare School in Paris, warned that "it is extremely difficult to undo the knot" in what is also a propaganda war.

He said Iran could be behind the "Shamoon" virus, but that "it could be an additional pretext to weaken Iran" which is already under international embargo over its nuclear program.

For Nicolas Arpagian at France's National Institute of Advanced Security and Justice Studies, the latest attacks "show that arsenal of digital weapons is getting bigger, and that when you have such an arsenal the use of cyber weapons is bound to become more commonplace."

Thursday, October 4, 2012

After years of a close alliance during which the pair almost exclusively directed Israel’s campaign against Iran’s nuclear program, Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Barak have been trading the kind of barbs that would appear, at least for now, to mean an end to that kind of intimate cooperation.

Rift Between Israeli Leaders: From New York Times

Underlying the argument is a competition over who can best steer Israel’s Iran policy and other national security mainstays like the Palestinian issue. Those differences, while not new, are coming to the forefront now because Mr. Netanyahu may soon call for early elections, perhaps scheduling a vote for February.
Israelis are prepared — or not —for an Iran attack
Just weeks after Mr. Netanyahu was perceived by critics as having meddled in America’s presidential election by criticizing President Obama’s approach to Iran, the Israeli leader’s strained relations with Washington are emerging as a hot electoral issue in Israel. Israelis are anxious about the prospect of an attack on Iran without close American coordination, and they generally view strong ties with the United States as crucial, framing Mr. Netanyahu’s clash with the White House as a rare political weakness.

“Barak understands that elections are on the horizon,” said Shmuel Sandler, a politics and foreign policy expert at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University. “He wants to separate himself from Netanyahu. What is his claim to fame? That he has good relations with Washington.”
On Wednesday, Mr. Netanyahu’s loyalists accused the defense minister of using his recent trip to the United States to differentiate himself from the prime minister and move away from the recent friction with the Obama administration.
“As far as I know, yes, he distanced himself in an attempt to make political gains,” Yisrael Katz, the minister of transportation, told Israel Radio.
More international coverage from NBC News
Mr. Katz was echoing remarks attributed to Mr. Netanyahu from a closed meeting on Tuesday. Mr. Netanyahu was quoted in the Israeli news media as saying that Mr. Barak had deliberately exacerbated the tensions between the prime minister and Washington in an attempt to make himself look like the moderate who can repair relations.

In response, Mr. Barak’s office issued a statement saying that the defense minister “works to strengthen relations with the United States and at their heart, the security relationship.”
“The importance of the special security and intelligence relations built up over the past five years during which Barak has served as the minister of defense should not be forgotten,” the statement added. “Those special relations contribute directly to the security and interests of Israel.”
Reuters sources: Azerbaijan explores aiding Israel against Iran
Critics said that Mr. Netanyahu and his supporters were trying to deflect blame for the bad blood between the prime minister and Mr. Obama.
“Barak was trying to calm the waters while Netanyahu was making statements that raised the temperature,” said Shlomo Avineri, a professor of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The prime minister has grown “uncomfortable,” he said, with the image of Mr. Barak as “the responsible adult.”
Pugnacious Iran president rips Israel, US ahead of final UN speech
'Only politics'Israeli general elections are scheduled for October 2013, but Mr. Netanyahu has made it known that if he cannot reach agreement with his coalition partners on what he calls a “responsible” budget within 10 days, he will call an early vote.

Image: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton meets with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak

Louis Lanzano / AP

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton meets with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak in New York during the 67th United Nations General Assembly, Sunday, Sept. 23, 2012.

Nahum Barnea, a columnist at the newspaper Yediot Aharonot, wrote Wednesday that the budget has a shortfall of nearly $4 billion and that the only way to cover it is by a significant cut in the defense budget, since alternatives like raising taxes or cutting services cannot be done in an election year.

“There is nothing personal in Netanyahu’s offending statements against Barak,” Mr. Barnea wrote, adding that the background to the dispute was “only politics.”
Mr. Netanyahu leads the conservative-leaning Likud Party while Mr. Barak, a former Labor Party leader long unpopular with the electorate, leads the tiny, centrist Independence faction. Recent polls indicate that Mr. Netanyahu remains unrivaled as a contender for the post of prime minister, while Mr. Barak’s party is struggling to cross the electoral threshold for a seat in Parliament.
Interactive: Israel's border (on this page)But in the Israeli multiparty political system, leadership also depends on the art of coalition building.
According to political experts here, Mr. Barak had wanted a guarantee from Mr. Netanyahu that he would continue to serve as defense minister in the next government, but there was strong opposition from within Mr. Netanyahu’s party.
Instead, Mr. Barak has been trying to carve out an agenda of his own to appeal to voters. With the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations long stalled, he recently proposed a unilateral plan for creating a separate Palestinian state that would have Israel annexing parts of the West Bank and withdrawing from others.
Netanyahu: Draw 'clear red line' to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons

Most pointedly, though, he has been accentuating his relationship with the Americans. He has praised American preparedness for dealing with Iran and, after Mr. Netanyahu infuriated the Obama administration by demanding that it set so-called red lines on Iran, Mr. Barak issued a statement saying that differences between Israel and the United States on such a critical issue should be worked through “behind closed doors.”
Underscoring their shared security interests, the two countries are scheduled to hold a joint military exercise next month to practice the defense of Israel against long-range missile attack.
Video: U.S.-Israel relationship a ‘very powerful bond’ (on this page)When Mr. Netanyahu was voted in, part of his appeal was his familiarity with the workings of Washington and his ability, as some here say, to “speak American.”
But when it comes to the Israeli electorate and relations with the United States, Mr. Avineri of the Hebrew University said, “There is a complexity.”
“On one hand, Israelis like leaders who stand up to the Americans, but on issues of national consensus within Israel,” he said. “On the other hand, they do not like a leader manufacturing a crisis on an issue where there is probably no reason to create a crisis.”
This story, "Rift Grows Between Israeli Leaders Over Relations With U.S.", originally appeared in The New York Times.
Copyright © 2012 The New York Times

Link |

Discuss:

Discussion comments

Advertise | AdChoices

Most popular on msnbc.com

Most popular
Trending	Views
Popular stories currently unavailable

Monday, September 17, 2012

September 14, 2012, 12:16 pm125 Comments

Romney Statement on Iran at Odds With His Foreign Policy Advisers’

By ASHLEY PARKER

11:06 p.m. | Updated An updated version of this post can be found here.
1:22 p.m. | Updated As the turmoil in the Middle East thrust foreign policy to the forefront of the presidential campaign, Mitt Romney found himself at odds with his own foreign policy advisers. While two of his advisers in interviews said that Mr. Romney had a different “red line” on Iran from President Obama, Mr. Romney told ABC News that his red line is the same as that of the president.
“My red line is Iran may not have a nuclear weapon,” Mr. Romney said, in an interview that was broadcast on Friday with George Stephanopoulos on “Good Morning America.” “It is inappropriate for them to have the capacity to terrorize the world.”
Though Mr. Romney has repeatedly said that he would have put in place “crippling sanctions” with Iran far before Mr. Obama did, the president has now also implemented sanctions, and Mr. Obama similarly draws his administration’s red line at preventing Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon.
When Mr. Stephanopoulos pointed out that Mr. Romney’s red line was the same as the president’s, Mr. Romney replied, “Yeah, and I laid out what I would do to keep Iran from reaching that red line.”

Meanwhile, however, two of Mr. Romney’s most senior foreign policy advisers, Eliot Cohen and Richard Williamson, were offering a far more muscular stance on Iran. Asked specifically how Mr. Romney’s foreign policy differs from that of the Obama administration, Mr. Romney’s advisers said that he would have already told Iran that he would not allow it to come close to building a bomb.
Mr. Romney, said Mr. Cohen, “would not be content with an Iran one screwdriver’s turn away from a nuclear weapon.” Though he did not say exactly where, in the development of nuclear capacity, Mr. Romney would draw his own red line, Mr. Cohen said that it would be far before Mr. Obama’s own line — at the point of actual weaponization — and that it could be in a different place that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel draws it.
“Once they get a weapon, or on the verge of getting it, it’s too late,” Mr. Cohen said.
The Romney campaign said Friday that there is no change in policy and pointed to the portion of the ABC News interview where he says that Iran should not have “the capacity to terrorize the world.”
“As he said this morning, Gov. Romney’s red line is Iran having a nuclear weapons capacity,” said Andrea Saul, a spokeswoman for the campaign.
The campaign also claims that Mr. Stephanopoulous inadvertently mischaracterized Mr. Obama’s position, saying it was the same as Mr. Romney’s stance; that, they maintain, is the only reason Mr. Romney agreed that he had the same red line as the president. However, Mr. Stephanopoulos twice confirmed with Mr. Romney that he had the same red line as Mr. Obama, and twice Mr. Romney agreed.
“But your red line going forward is the same?” Mr. Stephanopoulos asked, a second time.
“Yes,” came Mr. Romney’s reply.

Follow Ashley Parker on Twitter at @AshleyRParker.