In last night's debate with President Obama, Gov. Mitt Romney ran into trouble when he suggested that "Syria is Iran's...route to the sea." The remark unleashed a torrent of geography sticklers (see here, here, here, and here) who pointed out that Syria and Iran don't share a border (Iraq is in between) and that Iran has 1,500 miles of its own coastline along the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman.

The comment wasn't Romney's first geography flub. In the infamous video of a Florida fundraiser released by Mother Jones in September, Romney suggested that a Palestinian state in the West Bank would border either "Syria at one point or Jordan." This, as FP blogger Daniel Drezner pointed out, doesn't make a whole lot of sense because "Whatever contours a possible Palestinian state would have, it won't border Syria."  

Of course, Romney isn't the only one with creative geography. In a campaign stop in Oregon in 2008, Obama famously said, "I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go."

So Romney's in good company, and hey, at least he didn't try to diagnose the "situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border" like Sen. John McCain did in 2008.

This evening's town hall-style debate, we're told, will be different. An intimate setting. Direct interaction with the common voter. The potential for curve-ball questions. While audiences might not relate to the presidential candidates or the media, moderator Candy Crowley told CNN, "they do relate to 80 people sitting on a stage that look like them, and maybe have stories similar to theirs.... And I think that's where a candidate has to make a connection."

I'm all for the civic engagement that town-hall style debates promote, of course. But since Tuesday night's forum will feature domestic and foreign policy questions, it's worth noting that Americans have some astonishing misconceptions about international affairs (for more on how Americans view foreign policy, check out this great Carnegie Endowment/Pew Research Center infographic).

As the Washington Post's Dylan Matthews explained last month, the baffling fact that 15 percent of Ohio Republicans believe Mitt Romney deserves more credit than Barack Obama for killing Osama bin Laden may have as much to do with polling psychology and sampling error as with self-delusion or ignorance. But here are some other statistics that may surprise you:

• 41 percent of Americans believe China is the world's leading economic power, according to a 2012 Pew poll (the correct answer is the United States, which 40 percent of respondents in the Pew poll selected)

• 73 percent of Americans could not identify communism as America's main concern during the Cold War, according to Newsweek, which administered an official citizenship test in 2011 (admittedly, it's not entirely clear what if any alternative answers -- the Soviet Union? Nuclear weapons? -- the magazine accepted) 

• 9 percent of Americans frequently worry about becoming a victim of terrorism, according to a 2011 AP-GfK poll (Reason magazine has calculated that the chances of being killed by a terrorist are roughly one in 20 million, and that "in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist")

• Nearly 25 percent of Americans don't know that the United States declared its independence from Great Britain, according to a 2011 Marist poll

• 71 percent of Americans believe Iran already has nuclear weapons, according to a 2010 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll (Israel, the United States, and the International Atomic Energy Agency would beg to differ)

• The average American thinks that the United States spends 27 percent of the federal budget on foreign aid, according to a 2010 World Public Opinion poll (the figure is more like 1 percent)

• 33 percent of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11 as late as 2007, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll (it's worth noting that the number was down from 53 percent in 2003, and that more recent polls suggest the percentage has continued to decline since 2007) 

• 88 percent of young Americans couldn't find Afghanistan on a map, 75 percent couldn't locate Iran or Israel, and 63 percent couldn't identify Iraq, according to a 2006 Roper Public Affairs/National Geographic Society poll

OK, so tonight's town hall participants probably won't bust out a world map to make a point or ask the candidates why they've never acknowledged Saddam's role in 9/11. But a reference to China's economic leadership or Iran's nuclear weapons stockpile certainly isn't out of the question.

The Benghazi fallout continues

The Obama administration continued to face criticism this week over its handling of the Sept. 11 attack that killed U.S. Amb. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya. Contradicting the initial statements made by senior administration officials, the event is now being described as a terrorist attack unrelated to the protests over an anti-Islam video that erupted elsewhere in the Middle East on the same day. At a dramatic hearing convened by the House Oversight Committee this week, the former chief security officer for the U.S. Embassy in Libya testified that his request to extend the deployment of a U.S. military team had been turned down by the State Department.

In her testimony, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, insisted, "We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi on the night of 9/11," to which committee chairman Darrell Issa replied, "That doesn't ring true to the American people."

Democrats, including ranking committee member Elijah Cummings, criticized the GOP for politicizing the investigation into the attack, but Barack Obama campaign  spokesperson Stephanie Cutter took things a step further on Thursday by arguing during a CNN interview, "The entire reason that this has become the political topic it is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. It's a big part of their stump speech and it's reckless and irresponsible."

Romney was quick to take advantage of the gaffe, saying at a rally that night, "No President Obama, it's an issue because this is the first time in 33 years that a U.S. ambassador has been assassinated. Mr. President, this is an issue because we were attacked successfully by terrorists on the anniversary of 9/11."

Meeting of the running mates

Benghazi also came up on Thursday night during the one and only debate between Ryan and Vice President Joe Biden. The vice president insisted that the White House had not been made aware of the request for more security from Tripoli. "We weren't told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there," he said. Ryan also picked up on Cutter's remark, saying, "This is becoming more troubling by the day. They first blamed the YouTube video. Now they're trying to blame the Romney-Ryan ticket for making this an issue."

Moderator Martha Raddatz, a veteran foreign-affairs correspondent for ABC news, pressed the candidates on a number of foreign-policy issues, including Iran's nuclear program, the escalating violence in Syria, and the war in Afghanistan. "Under a Romney administration, we will have credibility" on threats to use military force against Iran, Ryan promised, and said, "We wouldn't refer to Bashar Assad as a reformer when he's killing his own civilians with his Russian-provided weapons." But he offered few specifics on how a Romney administration's policies on these issues would differ going forward. "What would my friend do differently? If you notice, he never answers the question," Biden quipped.

Both candidates agreed on a 2014 withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, but Ryan criticized the Obama administration for announcing its withdrawal plan in advance. Biden said that U.S. goals in Afghanistan are "almost completed. Now, all we're doing is putting the Kabul government in a position to be able to maintain their own security. It's their responsibility, not America's."

There were no questions about East Asia, Latin America, Africa, Europe, or any country outside the Islamic world.

Romney speaks out

In a speech on Monday at the Virginia Military Institute, Romney referred back to the post-war policies of VMI graduate Gen. George Marshall -- not exactly a conservative hero in his day -- in arguing that Obama has weakened U.S. power through cuts to the military and has lost control of events in the Middle East. "I know the president hopes for a safer, freer, and a more prosperous Middle East allied with the United States," Romney said. "I share this hope. But hope is not a strategy. We cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds, when our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut, when we have no trade agenda to speak of, and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership, but of passivity."

Attack of the RAND PAC

Outside of the presidential race, a political action committee associated with Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has been buying ads targeting vulnerable Democratic senators over their support for foreign aid. In the first ad, targeting West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, the narration states, "While they tear down and burn the American flag in Egypt and shout ‘death to America, Joe Manchin votes to provide U.S. taxpayer aid to Egypt." It concludes: "Joe Manchin works with Barack Obama to send billions of our taxpayer dollars to countries where radicals storm our embassies, burn our flag and kill our diplomats." RAND PAC is also planning to run similar ads against Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida and Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham defended Manchin from his Republican colleague's attacks, saying, "I'm sorry that my colleague Sen. Rand Paul felt that he needed to get involved and has gotten involved ... I very much would like to have a Republican president, and I'd very much like to have a Republican-controlled Senate, but when it comes to foreign policy and matters of war and national security, I really do try to be bipartisan and I respect Joe a lot."

The poll picture

Polls this week continued to show Romney making up ground. While the two candidates are in a dead heat nationally, a new Tampa Bay Times/Bay News 9/Miami Herald poll shows Romney with a 7-point advantage in Florida, a state that appeared to be trending toward Obama a month ago.

The shift is even starker on foreign policy. A Fox News poll released on Wednesday gave Obama a 6-point edge over Romney on handling of foreign policy, down from a 15-point lead prior to the Benghazi attack. A new Zogby analytics poll gives Romney a 48 to 45 percent advantage on national security.

The latest from FP:

James Traub looks at Biden's role in shaping the Obama administration's foreign policy.

Jacob Heilbrun wonders when Republicans decided they had always loved Harry Truman.

Danielle Petka, Joshua Trevino, and Justin Logan debate who's winning the battle for Romney's national security soul.

Ty McCormick looks at Romney's history of declinism.

Uri Friedman runs down the best moments in vice-presidential debate history.

Plus: Follow the latest from the campaign trail on The Cable and Passport.

The debates begin

The two candidates met for their first head-to-head debate on Tuesday night -- an encounter almost universally agreed to have been won by Mitt Romney. The debate was focused on domestic policy, but the rest of the world did come up a few times. Romney noted that, "Spain spends 42 percent of their total economy on government. We're now spending 42 percent of our economy on government. I don't want to go down the path to Spain." The statement provoked some backlash from Spanish reporters and politicians, and is slightly misleading, as well: Spain actually spends 46 percent and the American figure includes state and local expenditures as well.

Romney also promised to "open up more trade, particularly in Latin America" and "crack down on China if and when they cheat." Employing a popular applause line from the campaign trail, Romney also vowed to "eliminate all programs by this test -- if they don't pass it: Is the program so critical it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?"

Barack Obama, who appeared somewhat listless throughout the debate and unable to effectively defend his record, returned to national security when summing up his accomplishments as president. Describing his willingness to "take ideas from anybody, Democrat or Republican," the president said, "That's how we signed three trade deals into law that are helping us to double our exports and sell more American products around the world. That's how we repealed ‘don't ask, don't tell.' That's how we ended the war in Iraq, as I promised, and that's how we're going to wind down the war in Afghanistan. That's how we went after al Qaeda and bin Laden."

The two also clashed on defense spending, with Romney arguing, "We have a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of our people, and that means the military, second to none. I do not believe in cutting our military." Obama countered that Romney's pledge to provide "$2 trillion in additional military spending that the military hasn't asked for" is economically unsustainable.

The two candidates will meet again on Oct. 16 for a town hall debate that will feature foreign and domestic policy and a final debate on Oct. 22 focused entirely on international issues.

Romney on the attack

Romney is likely hoping to capitalize on the momentum from his debate performance, and part of that will be renewed attacks on the president's handling of national security. Romney is scheduled to give a speech on foreign policy at the Virginia Military Institute on Monday. He still trails Obama in polls asking voters which candidate they trust more as commander in chief, though Obama's foreign-policy numbers have been slipping in the wake of the recent turmoil in the Middle East.

Romney's speech may continue themes raised in a Wall Street Journal  op-ed on Monday which criticized the president's handling of the crises in Libya, Syria, and over Iran's nuclear program. "[A]mid this upheaval, our country seems to be at the mercy of events rather than shaping them. We're not moving them in a direction that protects our people or our allies," Romney wrote.

On domestic policy, Romney seemed in the debate to have moved away from the Tea Party-influenced rhetoric on spending cuts and tax breaks that he has employed since the GOP primary toward more centrist positions, prompting Obama to quip, "When I got on the stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney." The VMI speech will be an indication of whether a similar shift is underway on Romney's approach to foreign policy.

Benghazi backlash

The Obama administration continues to face criticism for its handling of the attack in Benghazi, Libya, three weeks ago, that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Asked on 60 Minutes on Sunday if recent events in the Middle East had caused him to reconsider U.S. support for the Arab Spring, Obama replied, "I think it was absolutely the right thing for us to do to align ourselves with democracy [and] universal rights, a notion that people have to be able to participate in their own governance," Obama said. "But I was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there are going to be bumps in the road because, you know, in a lot of these places, the one organizing principle has been Islam. The one part of society that hasn't been controlled completely by the government. There are strains of extremism, and anti-Americanism, and anti-Western sentiment."

Republicans have seized on the "bumps in the road" remark, with Romney campaign spokesperson Andrea Saul, saying "After nearly four years in office, President Obama is eager to make excuses for his failed policies at home and abroad by declaring ‘bumps in the road.'" Former candidate Newt Gingrich was more blunt, tweeting, "It is disgusting to have Obama describe the killing of an ambassador and three other Americans as 'a bump in the road' on 60 minutes." White house spokesperson Jay Carney countered that suggestions that the president was referring to the killing of Stevens in his remarks were "desperate and offensive."

The State Department began a review this week into the circumstances of the Benghazi attack and what security lapses may have occurred. Critics have asked why the ambassador was in such a lightly defended compound in a city where militant violence had recently occurred on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. FBI investigators finally arrived in Benghazi on Thursday, three weeks after the attack and after the site had already been picked over by looters and reporters. Some officials have suggested that the State Department dragged its feet in securing a security escort for the agents, though the administration blames the Libyan government for the delay. 

When will Syria be an issue?

The crisis in Syria showed worrying signs of inflaming the wider region this week when Turkey shelled targets within Syria in retaliation for a Syrian Army mortar attack that killed a woman and three children in Akcakale, Turkey. The Turkish parliament has authorized further military action, though it does not appear likely that there will be a larger military response for the time being. NATO called an emergency meeting to discuss the issue, though there has been no discussion yet of invoking Article 5, which would obligate the alliance to come to the aid of member state Turkey. The U.S. State Department called Turkey's actions "appropriate" and "proportional" and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed outrage at the Syrian mortar attack.  

The possible internationalization of the conflict raises the question of whether the Syria crisis will become more of an issue in the campaign. The Romney campaign has accused the president of having "dragged his feet" in response to the crisis and a "lack of leadership" but Romney has provided few specifics on how he would handle Syria differently other than being "more assertive."  In his Wall Street Journal article, Romney noted that, "In Syria, tens of thousands of innocent people have been slaughtered" but didn't address the crisis further.

Looking ahead to the VP debate

The major political event of next week will be Thursday's vice presidential debate at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky. Democrats are hoping for a strong performance from Joe Biden to stop the GOP's momentum. In the debate, which will include both foreign and domestic policy, Paul Ryan may be looking to establish his national security bona fides in a debate with the more experienced Biden. Ryan has lately been taking up the attacks on the administration's handling of Benghazi, telling radio host Laura Ingraham, "We've seen a confused, slow, inconsistent response to what is now very clearly known as a terrorist act."

The latest from FP:

Peter Feaver, Clyde Prestowitz, and Dan Drezner shared their thoughts on the debate.

Uri Friedman looks at the 10 best foreign-policy moments from debates past.

John Norris lists 6 campaign gaffes that really mattered.

David Rothkopf says it's time to start thinking about 2013.

Aaron David Miller slams Romney's Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Michael Cohen says the Pentagon doesn't actually care about the national debt.

Issac Stone Fish imagines what would happen if U.S. political hacks covered China's horse race.

Plus: Follow the latest from the campaign on The Cable and Passport.

There's a lot of coverage today of Barack Obama's tough words for Iran at the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA), but the president has expressed the main points in the speech -- America's commitment to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, the limited timetable for a diplomatic solution -- before, notably in an interview with the Atlantic and a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee this year.

Still, as the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg notes today, the U.N. General Assembly is "not exactly a Hadassah convention." And Obama's comments on Iran's nuclear program before world leaders on Tuesday were far more aggressive than the language he's employed in past UNGA addresses.

Here's what Obama said about the Iranian nuclear program today: 

Time and again, [Iran] has failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that its nuclear program is peaceful, and to meet its obligations to the United Nations.

Let me be clear: America wants to resolve this issue through diplomacy, and we believe that there is still time and space to do so. But that time is not unlimited. We respect the right of nations to access peaceful nuclear power, but one of the purposes of the United Nations is to see that we harness that power for peace. Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty. That is why a coalition of countries is holding the Iranian government accountable. And that is why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Rewind to 2011:

The Iranian government cannot demonstrate that its program is peaceful, it has not met its obligations, and it rejects offers that would provide it with peaceful nuclear power. North Korea has yet to take concrete steps towards abandoning its weapons and continues belligerent action against the south. There is a future of greater opportunity for the people of these nations if their governments meet their international obligations. But if they continue down a path that is outside international law, they must be met with greater pressure and isolation. That is what our commitment to peace and security demands.

And 2010:

As part of our effort on non-proliferation, I offered the Islamic Republic of Iran an extended hand last year, and underscored that it has both rights and responsibilities as a member of the international community. I also said -- in this hall -- that Iran must be held accountable if it failed to meet those responsibilities. And that is what we have done.

Iran is the only party to the NPT that cannot demonstrate the peaceful intentions of its nuclear program, and those actions have consequences. Through U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, we made it clear that international law is not an empty promise.

Now let me be clear once more: The United States and the international community seek a resolution to our differences with Iran, and the door remains open to diplomacy should Iran choose to walk through it. But the Iranian government must demonstrate a clear and credible commitment and confirm to the world the peaceful intent of its nuclear program.

And 2009:

I have said before and I will repeat: I am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity and more secure peace for [Iran and North Korea] if they live up to their obligations. But if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards, if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people, if they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East, then they must be held accountable.

Obama, in other words, broke new ground today at UNGA by warning that the administration's patience on diplomacy and sanctions is wearing thin, outlining the dire global implications of a nuclear Iran, and stating that the United States will not permit Tehran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Where Obama stopped short, however, is in repeating his assertion that all options -- including military force -- are on the table when it comes to preventing Iran from getting the bomb -- a key issue in the U.S. election (he opted for the vaguer formulation that "the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon"). Perhaps Obama wanted to avoid comparisons to George W. Bush, who made the case for invading Iraq at UNGA in 2002, just months before launching the operation. 

If you've been watching the Democratic convention, you're surely aware by now that Osama bin Laden is very much dead -- and Barack Obama gave the order to kill him.

On Wednesday, I started keeping track of how many times Democrats mentioned the former al Qaeda leader in their speeches. There were seven references on the first night, no references on the second night, and 14 references on the third and final night, bringing the grand total to 21, or 20 more than at the Republican convention.

The most memorable lines goes to John Kerry. "Ask Osama bin Laden if he is better off now than he was four years ago," the Massachusetts senator crowed.

"Was there this much bragging about killing Hitler at the 1948 convention?" Slate's Dave Weigel asked on Twitter.  It turns out neither Harry Truman nor Thomas Dewey mentioned it. Of course, Hitler had committed suicide only days after Truman took office in April 1945. 

During their convention in Tampa, the Republicans mentioned Osama bin Laden a grand total of one time. "Every American was relieved the day President Obama gave the order, and Seal Team Six took out Osama bin Laden," Mitt Romney conceded.

How times have changed. Welcome to the Democratic convention in Charlotte, where the former al Qaeda leader is a favorite topic of conversation. We got a taste for what the rhetoric would be like on Monday, when Vice President Joe Biden responded to GOP questions about whether Americans were better off than they were four years ago.

"You want to know whether we're better off?" Biden asked a crowd in Detroit. "I've got a little bumper sticker for you: Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive."

As the Democratic convention continues, we'll be keeping track of how many times the Democrats manage to work the successful raid into their speeches. The tally so far? Eight references on Tuesday, usually in the context of Obama keeping his promises to take out terrorist leaders, end the war in Iraq, and wind down the war in Afghanistan.

The most colorful mention goes to actor and former Obama administration official Kal Penn, who informed the crowd that while he's worked on many movies, "my favorite job was having a boss who gave the order to take out bin Laden -- and who's cool with all of us getting gay-married."

And you can be sure there's more bin Laden boasting to come -- we haven't even hit national security night yet.

Mitt Romney only devoted a little more than 200 words to foreign policy in his convention speech on Thursday evening, and most of the section consisted of familiar refrains from the campaign trail. He promised North American energy independence by 2020, while accusing President Obama of throwing Israel "under the bus," embarking on an "apology tour" around the world after his election, and failing to demonstrate strength in his dealings with Iran and Russia.

"Under my administration," he declared, "our friends will see more loyalty, and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin will see a little less flexibility and more backbone."

Notably, Romney acknowledged Obama's role in the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and didn't mention the ongoing war in Afghanistan once -- both topics that have hardly been discussed during the convention. 

But the most controversial foreign-policy line in Romney's speech may very well have been when he briefly alluded to climate change. "President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans," he noted, pausing skeptically as the crowd jeered. "And to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family." The remark elicited an extended standing ovation. 

Critics swiftly derided the comment. "That climate change laugh line is going to be in every documentary from the latter half of the 21st century," Matt Novak wrote on Twitter. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof tweeted that Romney's "dismissiveness was appalling."

It's not entirely clear, however, whether Romney was mocking global warming, Obama's lofty rhetoric and misguided priorities, or both. Earlier in the speech, Romney had argued that "Hope and Change had a powerful" -- but ultimately empty -- appeal. "You know there's something wrong with the kind of job he's done as president when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him," he observed.

Romney has shifted his position on global warming. In June 2011, he told a town hall that he believed "the world is getting warmer," that "humans contribute to that," and that it was important to "reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases." Several months later at a campaign stop, he argued that "we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet" and the "idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us."

The Republican platform opposes Environmental Protection Agency climate change regulations and criticizes the number of times the word "climate" appears in the Obama administration's National Security Strategy.

Beyond the debate over climate change, however, Romney's line speaks to a larger point -- one that should be evident to anyone who's watched the convention these last few days: As the campaign progresses, Romney will do his best to continuously steer the conversation back to his strengths: jobs and the economy.

The Life of Ryan

Last Saturday, Mitt Romney ended weeks of speculation by naming Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate. With Ryan, Romney gets a potential VP who is popular with the GOP base and is seen as a leader on fiscal issues. He does not, however, get an awful lot of foreign-policy experience, which could be an indication that this isn't going to be a major focus of the campaign going forward.

Ryan is known staunch free-trader, having worked on the Middle East Free Trade Agreement, and has even bucked GOP orthodoxy by suggesting that the embargo on Cuba by eased. Most of what we know about Ryan's foreign-policy views comes from a June 2, 2011 speech at the Alexander Hamilton Society in which he strongly supported promoting democracy in the Middle East and argued that the United States "should seek to increase China's investment in the international system."

Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" budget plan would boost military spending while cutting the budget of the State Department and USAID.

Prominent Romney campaign advisor and Middle East specialist Dan Senor has been named as Ryan's senior advisor.

Going to the mat over China

Ryan wasted no time attacking Obama on trade policy, accusing President Barack Obama of weakness on Chinese trade practices in a speech in Ohio on Aug. 16.  "Free trade is a powerful tool for peace and prosperity, but our trading partners need to play by the rules," Ryan said, according to Buzzfeed's Zeke Miller.  "This challenge focuses on China. They steal our intellectual property rights, they block access to their markets, they manipulate their currency. President Obama said he would stop these practices. He said he'd go to the mat with China, instead they are treating him like a doormat."

Convention line-up

Many of the shortlisted names passed over for the VP slot will get a chance at the national spotlight at the Republican National Convention in Tampa Bay at the end of August, including New Jersey Governor Chris Christie who will give the keynote, and Florida Senator Marco Rubio -- an emerging GOP leader on foreign policy -- who will introduce Romney. Other rising stars including Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte, and Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell are also slated to speak, along with party veterans such as former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Sen. John McCain.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former President George W. Bush are not scheduled to speak.

Spec Ops or swift boat?

A group of U.S. Special Operations veterans calling themselves the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund has released an ad this week criticizing Obama for taking undue credit for the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and leaking compromising information to the press. Wired reports that the ad was viewed 226,000 times on YouTube on its first day and will air on television in key battleground states. The donors that are funding the effort have not been revealed.

The Obama campaign hit back, comparing the group to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the notorious organization that attacked John Kerry's Vietnam War record in 2004. "The Republicans are resorting to 'Swift Boat' tactics because when it comes to foreign policy and national security, Mitt Romney has offered nothing but reckless rhetoric," campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt told Reuters.

Immigration reform comes into effect

The immigration reform measure announced by Obama in June, under which the federal government will stop deporting illegal immigrants who arrived in the country as childrenand are enrolled in school or the military, came into effect this week. Long lines formed outside immigration offices throughout the country as immigrants sought to enroll in the program. The reform is similar to the DREAM Act, a more formal and controversial program that is supported by the Obama administration but has little prospect of passing through congress. Immigration opponents have accused the president of pushing through the reform in order to pander to Hispanic votes.

Immigration is emerging as a major issue in statewide races as well, particularly in a closely contested Republican Senate primary in Arizona, where businessman and Tea Party activist Wil Cardon has been hammering Rep. Jeff Flake over his past support for immigration reform. 

More scrutiny for Adelson

Real estate mogul Sheldon Adelson, who almost single-handedly bankrolled Newt Gingrich's presidential run and is now one of Romney's major backers, has continued to generate controversy over his business dealings in Macau. The New York Times reported this week that one of Adelson's Chinese representatives, Yang Saixin, is the subject of a federal investigation into the bribery of Chinese officials. Adelson is also currently suing the National Jewish Democratic Council for defamation over an online petition that quoted news accounts alleging that he had approved of prostitution at his Macau casinos. The petition has been removed, but the group has not apologized for its contents.

The Romney campaign doesn't seem to be making any effort to distance itself from the controversial Adelson, who has pledged $100 million to defeat Obama. On Tuesday, Ryan met with Adelson at fundraising event in Las Vegas. 

The latest from FP:

On the Shadow Government blog, Peter Feaver says it takes some chutzpah for Obama supporters to question Romney's foreign-policy qualifications (given how green Obama himself was in 2008) and looks at the foreign-policy implications of Ryan's fiscal views. Paul Bonicelli assesses what we've learned so far about how the two view national security.

Michael Cohen asks what ever happened to the long legacy of Republican foreign-policy expertise.

Obama campaign advisor Colin Kahl defends the president's record on the Middle East.

Ty McCormick is not impressed with Ryan's vision for Middle East trade.

And Joshua E. Keating takes a look at some of the world's most controversial VPs.

Sure, why not?

Arthur Honegger, a reporter for public broadcaster Schweizer Fernsehen, told POLITICO the Swiss consulate in Chicago has confirmed that the former Republican presidential candidate became a citizen March 19. The Swiss consulate in Chicago covers the state of Minnesota, which Bachmann represents.

Marcus Bachmann, the congresswoman’s husband since 1978, reportedly was eligible for Swiss citizenship due to his parents’ nationality — but only registered it with the Swiss government Feb. 15. Once the process was finalized on March 19, Michele automatically became a citizen as well, according to Honegger.[...]

Bachmann's office confirmed that the congresswoman had received Swiss citizenship, and attributed the decision to her children.

"Congresswoman Bachmann's husband is of Swiss descent, so she has been eligible for dual-citizenship since they got married in 1978. However, recently some of their children wanted to exercise their eligibility for dual-citizenship so they went through the process as a family," said Bachmann spokesperson Becky Rogness.

The timing of this is pretty funny given all the fuss over Mitt Romney's Swiss bank account. Super PACs could presumably have had a pretty good time with the all-American congresswoman's dual citizenship. Marcus Bachmann seems to have waited until after his wife dropped out of the race to make his application.

There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prevents members of Congress -- or presidents for that matter -- from holding dual citizenship, so long as they don't renounce their U.S. nationality, though it's obviously pretty unusual. (In the video above, Bachmann rules out the possibility of running for office in Switzerland, where she would now be eligible.) When Rahm Emanuel -- who had served as a civilian volunteer for the Israel Defense Forces and whose father was Israeli -- ran for Congress in 2002 he faced untrue attacks alleging that he held dual citizenship.

Google searches for current dual citizens in Congress just turns up a lot of anti-Semitic garbage. Anyone know of any actual examples before Bachmann?

Mitt Romney apparently described Russia as "without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe" on CNN today, while discussing the president's unfortunate hot mic incident. Romney was challenged on the statement by host Wolf Blitzer and a number of commentators are already discussing it as a "gaffe."

Romney stuck by the claim when Blitzer asked if he was really saying that Russia is a greater foe than Iran, China or North Korea: 

Well, I'm saying in terms of a geopolitical opponent, the nation that lines up with the world's worst actors.  Of course, the greatest threat that the world faces is a nuclear Iran.  A nuclear North Korea is already troubling enough.

But when these -- these terrible actors pursue their course in the world and we go to the United Nations looking for ways to stop them, when -- when Assad, for instance, is murdering his own people, we go -- we go to the United Nations, and who is it that always stands up for the world's worst actors?

It is always Russia, typically with China alongside.

While one can certainly argue with the statement, it's not at all inconsistent with Romney's previously stated positions on Russia. This is the same candidate who described the New START treaty as Obama's "worst foreign policy mistake":

New-START gives Russia a massive nuclear weapon advantage over the United States. The treaty ignores tactical nuclear weapons, where Russia outnumbers us by as much as 10 to 1. Obama heralds a reduction in strategic weapons from approximately 2,200 to 1,550 but fails to mention that Russia will retain more than 10,000 nuclear warheads that are categorized as tactical because they are mounted on missiles that cannot reach the United States. But surely they can reach our allies, nations that depend on us for a nuclear umbrella. And who can know how those tactical nuclear warheads might be reconfigured? Astonishingly, while excusing tactical nukes from the treaty, the Obama administration bows to Russia's insistence that conventional weapons mounted on ICBMs are counted under the treaty's warhead and launcher limits.

By all indications, the Obama administration has been badly out-negotiated. Perhaps the president's eagerness for global disarmament led his team to accede to Russia's demands, or perhaps it led to a document that was less than carefully drafted.

Here's his take on the "reset" from an interview with Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin:

He’s under no illusions about Vladi­mir Putin. He is convinced that Putin dreams of “rebuilding the Russian empire.” He says, “That includes annexing populations as they did in Georgia and using gas and oil resources” to throw their weight around in Europe. He maintains that the START treaty was tilted toward Russia. “It has to end,” he says emphatically about “reset.” “We have to show strength.” I ask him about WTO, which has been much in the news as Putin blusters and demands entry into the trade organization. Romney is again definitive. “Letting people into WTO who intend to cheat is obviously a mistake.”

Is the most recent comment an escalation of rhetoric? Absolutely. But it's not really a change in position. (Yes, Romney did once call Iran "the greatest threat the world faces," but that's not quite the same thing as a "geopolitical foe".) Expect more of this line of attack as we move into the general election.

Romney rolls through New Hampshire, Gingrich unloads the kitchen sink

Mitt Romney enjoyed a decisive victory in the New Hampshire primary, taking 39.2 percent of the vote to second-place finisher Ron Paul's 22.8 percent. Romney took aim at President Barack Obama's foreign policy in his victory speech: "Internationally, President Obama has adopted an appeasement strategy. He believes America's role as leader in the world is a thing of the past. I believe a strong America must -- and will -- lead the future. He doesn't see the need for overwhelming American military superiority. I will insist on a military so powerful no one would think of challenging it. He chastises friends like Israel; I'll stand with our friends. He apologizes for America; I will never apologize for the greatest nation in the history of the Earth."

Romney might already be gearing up for a showdown with the president, but none of his opponents dropped out. After the drubbing in New Hampshire, the anti-Romney rhetoric from the other GOP candidates in South Carolina is getting harsh. Leading the attacks is Newt Gingrich, who essentially tied for fourth place in New Hampshire, and continues to make the case that only a "bold Reagan conservative," as opposed to a "timid Massachusetts moderate" can defeat the president.

A super-PAC supporting Gingrich unleashed a 28-minute video attacking Romney for causing layoffs during his time with private equity firm Bain Capital. Rick Perry piled on, calling Romney a "vulture capitalist." Some conservatives have complained about the anti-capitalist undertones of the attack -- with Rush Limbaugh even comparing Gingrich to liberal Massachusetts senate candidate Elizabeth Warren.

The Gingrich campaign also released a new attack ad which compares Romney to fellow Massachusetts pols John Kerry and Michael Dukakis ("a liberal governor who wanted us to believe he was strong on defense"). For good measure, the ad even threw in a clip of Romney speaking French.     

Is Huntsman done?

Despite the hype, Jon Huntsman did not enjoy a Rick Santorum-like surge in New Hampshire and finished a disappointing third place. (He's been widely mocked for claiming this result was a "ticket to ride" in a confetti-strewn post-primary speech.) The former ambassador says his goal for South Carolina, where a recent poll showed him trailing comedian Stephen Colbert, is to "stay relevant." As opposed to New Hampshire, where Huntsman campaigned tirelessly for nearly a year, often touting his foreign-policy expertise and even his fluency in Mandarin, Huntsman is working to remind South Carolinians of his conservative credentials on issues like gun control, abortion, and taxes. Huntsman's chief strategist told the Wall Street Journal "I don't care if Gary Johnson or [Twilight Zone creator] Rod Serling wins it.... As long as it's not Mitt Romney."

Santorum on Iran

Santorum weighed in on this week's mysterious killing of an Iranian nuclear scientist in Tehran, which Iranian authorities have blamed on the United States and Israel. The Obama administration has denied any role in the assassination, raising Santorum's ire: "Well, I would have -- I've already made a public statement that any nuclear scientist, particularly any foreign nuclear scientist, who's cooperating with the Iranians in developing a nuclear weapon program would be considered an enemy combatant," he told Fox News' Greta Van Susteren. "And I wouldn't -- I would be doing what Israel was -- would be doing tonight, which is saying nothing."

The immigration debate returns

Immigration is again emerging as a major topic in South Carolina. The Romney campaign announced this week that it had received the endorsement of Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, the co-author of Arizona's restrictive immigration policy. Kobach called Romney, "the candidate who will finally secure the borders and put a stop to the magnets, like in-state tuition, that encourage illegal aliens to remain in our country unlawfully." 

On this issue, Gingrich is playing the part of moderate, looking ahead to the looming Florida primary: "I can't wait for them to campaign in Florida," Gingrich said. "Try to go into Miami with the battle cry, 'everybody must go.'... That is clearly going to come across in the immigrant community as a sign you have no sense of humanity for people," Gingrich said this week. As it happens, the Romney campaign has already begun running Spanish-language ads in Florida.

Is anyone paying attention to foreign policy?

A newly released Gallup poll asks Americans, "What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" "Foreign aid" and "international issues" received 2 percent each, compared with 31 percent for the economy in general and 26 percent for unemployment. The relative indifference to foreign policy could be bad news for Obama, who receives much higher ratings for his handling of international affairs than domestic matters.

What to watch for

The candidates meet for a debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, on Monday. CNN may have slightly bent its rules to allow the struggling Perry to participate. (Given Perry's difficulties in previous debates, that may not have been much of a favor.) The South Carolina Tea Party will hold a convention prior to the debate, featuring appearances by Gingrich and Santorum.

The current RealClearPolitics poll average shows Romney with a nearly nine-point lead over Gingrich in South Carolina.

The latest from FP

Larry Kaplow looks at Romney's Mexican roots and asks if he could be the "first Latino president." (Yes, someone's already started a "Mexican Mitt" fake Twitter feed.)

Scott Clement asks whether using China as a political punching bag is really effective.

Joshua Keating looks at five ways Romney will attack Obama.

Romney supporter Sen. Jim Talent tells FP's Josh Rogin that the White House is making dangerous, "budget-driven" decisions.

Michael A. Cohen says a Romney foreign policy probably wouldn't be all that different from Obama's.

David Rothkopf hopes this election will start a public debate about the virtues of American capitalism.

Passport looks at whether Americans really hate Europe and Gingrich's dark Francophone past. 

Expat journalist Eric Pape says Mitt can say what he likes about Paris, but he's enjoying European socialism just fine, thanks.