Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have maintained heavy fire on the Obama administration’s policies toward Israel. Mr. Romney said Obama has "distanced itself from Israel and visibly warmed to the Palestinian cause” and is “convinced that they can do better at the UN - and better with America - than they can at the bargaining table with Israel."
Mr. Santorum has called for tighter sanctions on Iran and Syria. and stated that Obama has failed to take Iran's threat to develop nuclear weapons seriously.
The Obama administration and other foreign observers cite Israeli and U.S. intelligence which states that Iran disbanded its nuclear program in 2003. Obama also takes credit for thwarting Palestinian president Mahmoud Abba’s attempt to gain U.N. membership last fall.
Which presidential candidate do you side with on Israel? Find out with our 2012 presidential candidate match quiz.
See our breakdown of Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney on Foreign Policy issues of the 2012 presidential election.
I side with President Obabma I think Isreal will fall into the hands of Iran and then we will have a nuclear threat who ever wins the elections should work on world peace semms that has been put on the table to rest. We have to think of the American People our economy and our growth and young children and the pople who have been out of work for awhile and have lost there homes where to we stand as citizens of the United States of America.
Barbara Lamb
It's amazing that with the allegations about Iran, almost all of the threats and belligerence spewed forth on these matters comes from the United States and Israel. Invariably Iran's comments are in response to threats and allegations against them, almost all of them unproven. Ever since the CIA overthrew the government of Iran and installed its own dictator proxy in the person of the Shah, the United States has been threatening Iran. It is also ironic but seldom mentioned that the world's biggest nuclear arsenal is in the hands of the USA, while Israel stole nuclear technology from the US and has probably several hundred nuclear bombs, maybe more. Yet all the threats arise from the prospects of Iran getting just one to balance out the equation. "You nuke us, we can nuke you back." Doesn't that sound like a familiar rationale for nuclear weapons (think USA/Russia)? Forget for a moment that the USA has painted Iran as the hobgoblin of all evil and ask yourself, ïf you were Iran, beset on all sides by threats of nuclear annihilation, what would you do to protect your children?
Record Kirby
You speak as tho Iran is a rational country with humanitarian semblances...
Linda Reis
And Linda, you speak as if Israel and the United States are rational countries with humanitarian "semblances?".[You shouldn't use big words you don't understand].. So let me ask you..which of the three countries --US, Israel and Iran--has initiated a war most recently that killed millions of people including children? Which of the these countries has threatened the use of nuclear weapons against others, and which country is the ONLY country to have dropped a nuclear bomb on another civilian population. It wasn't a "semblance," but the real thing! I don't think we come off too well when it comes to "rational and humanitarian" when you look at actual behavior. The war against Iraq cost our country more than 5,000 young men and women, cost Iraq well over a million in total lost souls, most of them children, and bankrupted the country for years to come. Sound rational and humanitarian? How many wars has Iran started during this same time period? And we are still engaged in a war we are losing just like we lost the one against Iraq. We can win all the battles and still lose the war because other people will fight to the very end against someone who has invaded their soil. (You understandthat WE were the invaders in Iraq and Afghanistan don't you?) but we will only fight till the American people see that the war is futile and pull the plug on the political madmen (in this case, George W Bush) that got us into the conflict from the beginning. And you want to talk about rational and humanitarian--let's say "values," because I'd rather they be real? Find a single aggressive statement from Iran against the United States that was not a direct response to a threat against its sovereignty? And yet we are spending a lot of time discussing the "nuclear option" against Iran. What would the United States do if a country or group of countries were continuously discussing in a semi-public way (at least it is leaked to the press) the options for nuking U.S. soil? Just think about it from another point of view and not one of blind assumptions about the superiority of our reason and humanitarian values.
Record Kirby