DEBATE: Paul Ryan Admits Romney Win Would Lead To War

"I promise to be the most radical (in the 80s sense of the word) vice president ever... right after I finish these reps and meet up with Zack, Slater, and Screech at The Max."

Paul Ryan participated in his first and only debate with Vice President Joe Biden Thursday night and there were many stand out moments. It was clear that Biden was the victor of this debate, with each establishing a clear difference between the candidate they support. While there were many statements made on either side that I would love to dissect and analyze, there were a couple particular related statements made by Ryan that I felt required immediate attention - Ryan's criticism of the administration's Iranian policies and his later explanation of when American military force would be used.

Ryan responded to Vice President Biden by expressing his opinion that Iran poses a security threat to America and that their quest to acquire nuclear capability needs to be thwarted, preferably by a President Romney:

We cannot allow Iran to gain a nuclear weapons capability. Now, let's take a look at where we've gone -- come from. When Barack Obama was elected, they had enough fissile material -- nuclear material to make one bomb. Now they have enough for five. They're racing toward a nuclear weapon. They're four years closer toward a nuclear weapons capability.

Ryan then discussed the administration's sanctions against Iran claiming that Romney proposed sanctions against Iran five years ago and that Ryan himself had been personally fighting for sanctions since 2009, despite objections from the administration.

Mitt Romney proposed these sanctions in 2007. In Congress, I've been fighting for these sanctions since 2009. The administration was blocking us every step of the way. Only because we had strong bipartisan support for these tough sanctions were we able to overrule their objections and put them in spite of the administration.

Imagine what would have happened if we had these sanctions in place earlier. You think Iran's not brazen? Look at what they're doing. They're stepping up their terrorist attacks. They tried a terrorist attack in the United States last year when they tried to blow up the Saudi ambassador at a restaurant in Washington, D.C....

Then, Ryan insisted that because of the feet-dragging of the administration, the delayed sanctions have diminished the credibility of the administration's tough stance with Iran and that the threat of military action is no longer viewed as serious by the ayatollahs.

And so, in order to solve this peacefully -- which is everybody's goal -- you have to have the ayatollahs change their minds. Look at where they are. They're moving faster toward a nuclear weapon. It's because this administration has no credibility on this issue. It's because this administration watered down sanctions, delayed sanctions, tried to stop us for putting the tough sanctions in place.

Now we have them in place because of Congress. They say the military option's on the table, but it's not being viewed as credible. And the key is to do this peacefully, is to make sure that we have credibility. Under a Romney administration, we will have credibility on this issue.

Fast forward to the end of the debate when moderator Martha Raddatz revisits the matter of Iran and national security, asking Ryan "What's your criteria for intervention?"

Paul Ryan responded with the following:  "What is in the national interests of the American people."

When pressed about intervention for humanitarian interests Ryan elaborated, where he seemingly implied that if Mitt Romney were to be elected president, America would go to war with Iran.

Each situation will -- will come up with its own set of circumstances, but putting American troops on the ground? That's got to be within the national security interests of the American people.

That means like embargoes and sanctions and overflights, those are things that don't put American troops on the ground. But if you're talking about putting American troops on the ground, only in our national security interests.

Now if you watched the entire debate, you might remember that in the beginning of the debate Ryan stated that Iran was a national security interest.  When asked which was worse, "another war in the Middle East, or a nuclear-armed Iran," Ryan responded with the following:

A nuclear-armed Iran which triggers a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. This is the world's largest sponsor of -- of terrorism. They've dedicated themselves to wiping an entire country off the map. They call us the Great Satan. And if they get nuclear weapons, other people in the neighborhood will pursue their nuclear weapons, as well.

So by Ryan's own definition, would a President Romney commit American soldiers to another Middle Eastern war because it is in the interest of our national security, or would he continue the route of using sanctions and embargoes, which is what the current administration has been doing?

Considering every answer Ryan gave the moderator was some elusive response, as opposed to the direct statements Vice President Biden made to the American people, I think it is safe to say that a Romney/Ryan ticket would lead to World War III.