During the debates, where voters are seemingly worried about jobs and the economy (and not Iran or Syria), Romney repeats his standard campaign talking points that Obama "has failed to slow Iran's nuclear threat, thrown allies like Israel under the bus, and been too eager to give Russian President Vladimir Putin flexibility."
Romney is less specific about what he would do differently, saying only that he "would give America's friends more loyalty and jack up pressure on Iran." Just like Obama, he doesn't make any mention of Afghanistan, a dismal war that most Americans want out of; the rise of developing nations which has begun to eclipse the American Century that Romney pledges to prolong; or the revolutions in the Arab world, which have changed the new world order in favor of Muslims and developing nations.
However, vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan has offered some insight into what a Romney foreign policy might look like. He says, "We will act with the conviction that the United States is still the greatest force for peace and liberty that this world has ever known!" This begs the question of whether Romney's foreign policy would differ in practice from Obama's - if he wins?
Firstly, Romney has no reason to worry about the US foreign policy. Because it is mandated by other quarters, mainly Israeli lobbies, interest groups and US military complex. These quarters are in direct control of the US government and work over the shoulders of those whom America calls 'The Principals', inventing and dictating the naked aggression and cheap lies that the Obama administration and Israeli lobbyists repeat daily against countries such as Iran.
As for the allegations fired at Iran and its so-called threat to global peace and security, it suffices to state that American politicians have the roles reversed. Here are a number of facts that have been acknowledged by political pundits and scholars the world over:
It is not Iran that is threatening war. It is Washington and Tel Aviv. A recent case could be their obsession to jack up unilateral sanctions against Iran or funding, training and sending terrorists into Syria for regime change - Damascus happens to be Iran's No. 1 regional ally.
It is Obama and Netanyahu who sound like Adolf Hitler blustering and threatening that "all options are on the table", while funding assassination teams inside Iran to kill Iranian nuclear scientists in order to halt its nuclear program, which continues to be under direct supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
It is also the members of pro-Israel Obama administration like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who continue to lie about Iran's nuclear program or military support for the troubled nation of Syria. The world public opinion, in particular the Non-Aligned Movement plus China, Russia and Brazil, have every right to say, "We don't buy the allegations that the White House and their European counterparts want to sell. Iran is not a threat to world's security."
Besides, the peace-loving nations of the world, especially those at the non-aligned bloc, are doing the right thing when they vote overwhelmingly in support of a peaceful solution to the Syrian crisis and not to endorse Western-Israeli expansionist policies, just as they could not recognize the South African apartheid regime, nor the Afghan Taliban regime, nor Saddam's Ba'athist regime, nor the Serbs' ethnic cleansing, etc.
So this isn't about Iran; it's about the new world order in which the United States and Europe are still reeling from the 2008 financial crisis and endless wars, while disparate developing nations and emerging-market countries are using their combined clout to legally demand a larger voice at the councils of power.
In a nutshell, it's a genuine call for restructuring the World War II-era global system and an eventual end to a common sense of exclusion that developing nations have been suffering for decades under the destructive reign of the Western apartheid.