I had my own three takes on Iowa posted earlier today — "foreign policy matters, evangelicals matter and Ron Paul matters" — Shmuel Rosner has eight.
Rosner, whose indispensable blog is now at the LA Jewish Journal, is especially worth reading for his takeaway (point 3) on how disingenuous is the claim by Ron and Rand Paul to have Israeli intelligence chiefs on their side when they defend their do-nothing posture on Iran:
Paul’s usage of [Mossad boss Tamir] Pardo’s and [former IDF chief of staff Gabby] Ashkenazi’s position is misleading. Both think that Iran is dangerous. Both think it is not just dangerous to Israel but to the region and to the world. Even if they oppose a military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, what they oppose is an Israeli attack – and would probably have a different view if asked about the possibility of an American attack.
Also point 8 pithily encapsulates where the candidates are on Iran:
Here’s how the candidates fare on Iran, from left to right: Paul (do nothing), Romney, Gingrich (sanction, attack as last resort), Bachmann, Perry (not much appreciation for sanctions), Santorum (attack – the 2012 version of John McCain’s “bomb bomb Iran”). Bottom line: On Iran, as on other issues, Romney seems to be thinking about his possible future role as President and doesn’t want to box himself into positions that he would later regret.
Rosner, by the way, on Dec. 23 accurately forecast the three-prong GOP Jewish strategy for explaining Paul and Iowa: Iowa is not relevant, Paul is not relevant because he won’t outlast the primaries, Democrats are just as loony as Paul.
