Evidently Romney does not know the location of Iran (whom he declared the greatest threat to the US) OR Iraq (despite an eight year US occupation of the latter ending less than a year ago.) If he gets his finger on the red button I hope someone aims the missiles for him so he does not nuke Nebraska.

Frankly, if foreign policy itself were not so trivial to most voters, this would be a gaffe on par with Fords "there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe." Romneys statement suggests COMPLETE IGNORANCE of:

1) Basic military terms,
2) Irans border with the sea, its longest,
3) the sea in question being NAMED FOR IRAN,
4) Irans LACK of a border with Syria, which thus offers no route to the sea anyway without a portage through Iraq.


It is trivially important, for many reasons. First and foremost, "route to the sea" means just that: Putting ships in the ocean lets them eventually reach ANY point on the ocean. If Romney meant "a route to the Mediterranean" he should have said so, because everyone with even a passing knowledge of strategic terms understands "a route to the sea" means what I just stated.

Even if he DID mean that, however, the Persian Gulf grants Mediterranean access via the Suez Canal, which the Muslim Brotherhood would never deny Iran. As far as choke points, the Straits of Hormuz have nothing on the Straits of Gibraltar; any Iranian military fleet that reached the Mediterranean would be under the guns of NATO fighters and bombers (not to mention the US, British and French navies) for over 1000 miles before it could escape a MASSIVE kill zone.

All of which ignores (or reinforces) what may be the most significant factor: Iran is not a sea power in the first place. Its principal need for sea access is commerical, for its oil tankers; unless Romney is planning to attack commercial Iranian shipping the whole debate is moot. Except that it demonstrates a shocking the would-be Commander-in-Chiefs shocking ignorance of what he calls "the greatest threat to America." Irans border with the Persian Gulf is as dangerous to America as Mediterranean access would be; it is about the same distance to the US either way, if Iran had a navy capable of crossing it and ours would not blow it out of the water.

Romneys whole statement was patent nonsense, but he gets away with it because 1) most of the US could not care less what happens outside its borders, so 2) most voters are at least as ignorant of Iran as Romney, and do not know enough to know how wrong he was.


Going through Syria poses all those same problems because IRAN HAS NO BORDER WITH SYRIA. Pretty sure if Iran invaded Iraq to reach Syria to launch ships in the Mediterranean the US would have something to say about it. Even President Romney would, once someone told him where Iran, Iraq and Syria are.


This was not nuance, it was Romneys galloping ignorance of what he calls the greatest threat to America. He was sucking up to the USN as he has throughout the campaign, because he is far more knowledgeable of Norfolk and Pensacola than he is Iran.