Skip to footer

Obama vs. Romney 101: 3 ways they differ on Iran

For his pursuit of diplomacy with Iran, President Obama has reaped a sputtering international diplomatic effort to curtail Tehran’s nuclear program. Rival MItt Romney says a weak Iran policy gave Tehran 3-1/2 years to progress toward “nuclear weapons capability,” but his specifics often don't sound different from Obama's. Here are three areas on Iran where the two do differ.

3. Dialogue or regime change?

Office of the Supreme Leader/AP
In this photo released by an official website of the Iranian supreme leader's office, Iranian top leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (l.) delivers a speech on March 8, 2012, welcoming comments by President Obama advocating diplomacy and not war as a solution to Tehran's nuclear ambitions – a rare positive signal in long-standing hostility between Tehran and Washington.

  • By Howard LaFranchi Staff writer

Little is left of Obama’s effort at dialogue with the Iran,  but that is not stopping Romney from citing Obama’s “extended hand” as a misguided show of weakness with America’s adversary. The former Massachusetts governor says Obama was so focused on “outreach” to the Iranian government that he refrained from supporting Iran’s Green Movement in 2009 – “a disgraceful abdication of American moral authority,” he says.

Obama has not spoken about “regime change” in Iran, in part because the term is so closely associated with the George W. Bush presidency, but also because any hint of American support for the Iranian regime’s internal foes risked dooming the international nuclear talks with the Iranians.

Romney shows no such concerns about Iranian sensitivities: He says his administration would work with Iranian civil society and dissident groups “to encourage regime change” in Tehran. In addition, he would seek an international indictment of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for “incitement to genocide” over his past calls for Israel’s annihilation.

For a full list of stories about how Romney and Obama differ on the issues, click here.

3 of 3
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.