Washington Post columnist Walter Pincus continues to provides incisive analysis to the debate over Iran’s controversial nuclear program. Following are a few of his suggested questions for the presidential candidates’ foreign policy debate on Monday.

What are the candidates willing to do to ensure their “red lines” on [...]]]> via Lobe Log

Washington Post columnist Walter Pincus continues to provides incisive analysis to the debate over Iran’s controversial nuclear program. Following are a few of his suggested questions for the presidential candidates’ foreign policy debate on Monday.

What are the candidates willing to do to ensure their “red lines” on Iran’s nuclear program aren’t violated and how much will Israeli concerns affect the ultimate outcome?

The president has said he would prevent Iran from “having a nuclear weapon” and has offered assurances that U.S. intelligence would be able to determine when building one had begun.

In his June “Face the Nation” appearance, Romney said he would be willing to use military force, but he did not define what that meant. Recently, he has said he would prevent Iran from having “a nuclear weapons capability,” but what does that mean?

Though the current policy of the United States and its allies rests on a U.N. Security Council resolution that calls for Iran to suspend its activities related to reprocessing uranium, Iran has produced uranium enriched to 20 percent. Enrichment up to 90 percent is considered weapons grade. Most of the enrichment has been up to 6 percent, usable as fuel in electric power reactors.

What solution is required by each candidate for this situation? Do they believe any deal with Tehran requires Israeli approval?

Does Romney or Obama believe they could attack Iran’s nuclear program without congressional authorization — as was the case with Libya — and without agreement from the United Nations or support from NATO or a group of other allies, including some countries in the region?

On March 21, 2011, Obama sent Congress a two-page letter saying that as commander in chief he had constitutional authority to authorize the military operations to prevent a humanitarian disaster. He said it would be limited in duration and noted that the U.N. Security Council had authorized a no-fly zone over Libya, and that the undertaking was done with British, French and Persian Gulf allies. Nineteen days after the strikes began, NATO took over command of the air operations from the U.S. Africa Command.

Does Obama or Romney believe that any military action against Iran would be as limited as the one in Libya? Does either believe that U.S. ground forces could be drawn into battle should Iran or its allies respond with attacks against Israel or other countries?

Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign studiously avoids calls for war with the Islamic Republic. While some advisers have been hawkish on Iran in the past, only John Bolton has called for an attack since the campaign got underway. Instead, on a recent press call, Romney adviser Dan Senor went out [...]]]> via Think Progress

Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign studiously avoids calls for war with the Islamic Republic. While some advisers have been hawkish on Iran in the past, only John Bolton has called for an attack since the campaign got underway. Instead, on a recent press call, Romney adviser Dan Senor went out of his way to twice state that he was “not suggesting the military option should be used” (even as he admonished the Obama administration for openly discussing potential consequences of an attack).

In an interview with journalist Barbara Slavin published yesterday on Al-Monitor, another top Romney adviser made abundantly clear that there are very few differences between Romney’s Iran policy and President Obama’s.

Ambassador Richard Williamson told Slavin that “President Romney will seek a negotiated settlement,” which incidentally the Obama administration also considers the “best and most permanent way” to end the crisis over Iran’s nuclear program. Williamson even commented on the possible costs and consequences of attacking Iran, noting, as myriad others have, that an attack would only delay — not stop — a potential Iranian nuclear weapon:

SLAVIN: You’ve talked about a credible threat of military force yet much, if not all, of Israel’s intelligence and defense establishment oppose a strike, saying that would push Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

WILLIAMSON: You can degrade their quest for nuclear breakout. It would be expensive, it would be costly; it’s something we should avoid if possible but it’s not something we should take off the table. If you do, then you will have no chance to get a negotiated settlement.

Because he views a potential Iranian nuclear weapon as a threat to the security of the U.S., its allies in the region and the nuclear non-proliferation regime, Obama’s vowed again and again to keep all options “on the table.”

That leaves Williamson’s endorsement of a “zero enrichment” policy — lining up with hawkish Member of Congress declaring that Iran cannot be allowed to maintain any domestic uranium enrichment — as the main difference. Officially, that’s U.S. policy under the Obama administration, though officials have hinted a compromise might be possible to strike a deal. Perhaps that’s because domestic enrichment, as reiterated yesterday, is the firmest of Iranian demands in negotiations.

The hardest of the hard-line neoconservatives ramped up a campaign for war with Iran today, putting them at odds with not just Obama but Romney as well. Perhaps that’s why Romney tends to avoid focusing on foreign policy issues. As Vice President Joe Biden recently said, “Governor Romney has called for what he calls a ‘very different policy’ on Iran. But for the life of me it’s hard to understand what the governor means by a very different policy.”

Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and his family are unafraid of using their money in politics. They purportedly gave $20 million to Newt Gingrich’s failed run for the Republican presidential nomination — and reportedly weighed an astounding $100 million donation. But with Gingrich dispatched, Adelson is now turning his attention [...]]]> via Think Progress

Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and his family are unafraid of using their money in politics. They purportedly gave $20 million to Newt Gingrich’s failed run for the Republican presidential nomination — and reportedly weighed an astounding $100 million donation. But with Gingrich dispatched, Adelson is now turning his attention to presumptive nominee Mitt Romney. It’s not clear if Adelson has yet poured millions of dollars into SuperPACs associated with the Romney campaign, and we may never know: Adelson vowed this winter to keep most of his election giving secret.

We do know that Adelson was slated to meet today in his Las Vegas office with Romney, according to a CBS report citing people close to the billionaire.

So who is Adelson? Here’s a reminder of some of the priorities and far right-wing views held by the owner of Las Vegas Sands Corporation and its Venetian hotel:

In February, Adelson and his wife reportedly joined up with the Koch brothers for the first time in their twice-yearly gathering of major right-wing donors largely obsessed with ending regulation on business. Reports suggested that the Adelsons would contribute to American Crossroads, an attack-dog Super PAC run by Karl Rove.

One of the reasons Adelson wants to keep his political giving private is that his gambling empire and, relatedly, close relationship with the Chinese government awkwardly juxtapose with Christian conservative views (Adelson’s been denounced) and Republican antipathy on China (including from Romney). Adelson allegedly helped crush a congressional measure by House Republicans opposing Beijing’s Olympic bid. “The bill will never see the light day, Mr. Mayor. Don’t worry about it,” he reportedly told Beijing’s mayor in 2001 after phoning then House GOP Majority Whip Tom DeLay (TX). Adelson went on to get a lucrative gambling license from China to build a casino in Macau.

Part of Adelson’s Chinese dealings, which came under federal scrutiny in 2011, went through a non-profit called the Adelson Center for U.S.-China Enterprise.According to a WikiLeaks cable flagged by Salon, the association, which was meant to facilitate business between the U.S. and China, was shut down by the Chinese government after some “missteps” with “funds transfer mechanisms” used by Las Vegas Sands. Unlike competitors, the cable said, Las Vegas Sands lobbied Beijing directly instead of going through Macau authorities.

Gingrich told NBC News that Adelson puts a priority on far-right policies on Israel. Adelson opposed the American Israeli Affairs Committee — threatening to withdraw financial support — when the group backed a Bush administration-led peace process in 2007. Adelson has since said, “There won’t be a two-state solution; there won’t be a one-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He has, in the past, suggested the two-state solution was “suicide” for Israel

Adelson’s right-wing views on Israel have, at times, descended into bigotry against Palestinians, who he thinks do not have legitimate aspirations to a state of their own. When Newt Gingrich said Palestinians are an “invented” people — a talking point the New Yorker’s David Remnick said was “propaganda” — Adelson backed him up. “Read the history of those who call themselves Palestinians,” he told a group of young American Jews visiting Israel late last year, “and you will hear why Gingrich said recently that the Palestinians are an invented people.”

While Mitt Romney claims to support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and advocates for a tough foreign policy on China, the man he was slated to meet with today in Las Vegas has espoused a nearly opposite set of policy views. He’s also shown no timidity in throwing around his money to pursue those political interests in the U.S., China and Israel.