Actually, the more Romney's supporters keep defending the "non-issue" of Romney's odd semantics changing "Syria is an ally of Iran and could serve as a base for Iranian naval vessels in the Mediterranean" into "Syria is Iran's route to the sea", the odder the assertion gets.
In the National Review Online's analysis, what it really means is, if the US and Iran go to war (which is the Romney foreign policy team's end game), then:
'As you can see, all of the routes to the sea favored by The Daily Kos military experts are what you might call “blocked” by the U.S. military. If Iran is attacked, their routes to the “sea” will be cut and supply from Syria will be one of their few options.'
Because, of course, in case of a US/Iran war, Iran will be able to rely on supply lines from Syria across the Kurdistan area of Iraq or across NATO ally Turkey. Because, of course, in case of a US/Iran war, material support from Syria is how they will stay afloat. Because, of course, in case of a US/Iran war, neither the US, nor the NATO bases in Turkey, nor the Israelis would ever even think of "blocking" any significant convoys from Syria into Iran. Because, of course, in case of a US/Iran war, the Sixth Fleet would sit on its thumbs regarding Iranian warships that happened to be docket in Syria. And because, of course, in case of a US/Iran war, we're talking about a conventional land war.
'So, once again, Mitt was right.' NRO concludes.
Does any of that make sense? I mean, it makes less sense than Romney's initial statement. If I were them, I'd be hoping that folks would simply forget about it, rather than trying to defend it.
Embedded Link
Fact-Checking Romney’s Comment: Syria is Iran’s ‘Route to the Sea’
Greg Pollowitz writes on NRO: The Left is giddy at Mitt’s latest alleged gaffe, pointing out that Syrian and Iran do not share a border, thus Syria can’t be any sort of “route to the sea.” The Daily K…
Google+: View post on Google+
Another example here: http://www.volokh.com/2012/10/24/how-syria-is-irans-route-to-the-sea/
It's actually been interesting reading some of these (certainly informative). But I still think, as one commenter there notes, "Everything else Romney said about naval affairs was nonsense, so it's a little hard to conclude that on this one point he was successfully being a sophisticated strategist."
Now, if you told me that Romney or his team got some sophisticated strategic briefings and fumbled the summary understanding of them such that they turned into this "route to the sea" thing, that I'd believe.
Another example here: http://www.volokh.com/2012/10/24/how-syria-is-irans-route-to-the-sea/
It's actually been interesting reading some of these (certainly informative). But I still think, as one commenter there notes, "Everything else Romney said about naval affairs was nonsense, so it's a little hard to conclude that on this one point he was successfully being a sophisticated strategist."
Now, if you told me that Romney or his team got some sophisticated strategic briefings and fumbled the summary understanding of them such that they turned into this "route to the sea" thing, that I'd believe.