Originally Posted by Frank777
If you actually look at a map, you'll see exactly what Romney meant.
It's thought that in a full scale mid-east war, Israel can't be beaten unless they are engaged on all sides. Iran can engage air to air, but to truly fight Israel means that the Persians need a strong ally capable of giving them a "route to the sea", meaning the Mediterranean. Iran has a well equipped Navy which can likely cause lots of problems in the Persian Gulf. But that's of no use if you are aiming to fight Israel.
What this actually shows is that Romney is already much more aware of the logistics of the Middle East situation than most Americans.
Really? First of all, Iran has about a 0% chance in a war with Israel and they know it. Second of all, it's doubtful that Iran's naval capabilities can threaten Israel, and even if they could, they would simply go through the Suez Canal, or go around Africa. Not to mention, Bashar al-Assad hardly is in a position to be helping Iran go to war with Israel - he wants to save his own skin, he already nearly provoked Turkey to war, I doubt he'll be threatening anyone.
The most realistic situation would be for Iran to simply attack Israel from the air which, again, is not particularly smart because Israel has the second most capable air force in the world and nuclear weapons.
Iran is smart enough to know that getting nuclear weapons is the only way they'll be able to avoid getting attacked - Pakistan is safe because they have nuclear weapons, and they're hardly friendly to us but we accept it.
Romney also said he's confident Netanyahu would 'discuss' attacking Iran with him before he did it - please, Netanyahu has never given a **** about what the international community has said. Romney made so many ignorant comments during the debate that it's perfectly logical to assume he has no clue about geography either... And if what you claim he meant is what he actually meant, he would have been smart to explain the comment.