It turns out Bibi Netanyahu and Mitt Romney have more in common than a background in management consulting and an unswerving devotion to the security of Israel. When it comes to international diplomacy, we are reminded this week, both have the subtle grace of cattle on loco weed.

Netanyahu’s is the graver offense, because he knew exactly what he was doing. At a news conference in Jerusalem, he dripped scorn on the United States for its reluctance to launch a dubious preventive war against Iran – a war that even many authoritative and patriotic Israelis don’t want. Netanyahu wants America to declare a “red line,” a point at which Iran must cease its nuclear enrichment program or be showered with high explosives. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refused over the weekend to issue such a specific ultimatum. To which Netanyahu sneered: “Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.”

Let’s unpack this a little.

First, Clinton was right. Ultimatums should be a near-last resort in international relations. They put the adversary in a corner. They limit your flexibility. For example: The U.S. has never said what it would do if China decided to forcibly exercise its claim to Taiwan, although we are committed to Taiwan’s autonomy. Announcing our response in advance might embolden nationalists in Taiwan to push up to the limits, provoking the mainland into doing something rash. This approach is what diplomats call “constructive ambiguity,” a phrase attributed to Henry Kissinger. Skillful diplomacy is about postponing hard choices while you look for something better, in this case a negotiated deal to limit Iran’s enrichment to domestic uses. That may be why Mitt Romney, like President Obama, has avoided identifying any “red lines” in Iran; or maybe that’s just consistent with his lack of specificity on so many other issues.

Second, while the U.S. has urged Israel to show restraint so that sanctions and other measures (including the possibility of further cyber-sabotage) can do their part, no one has put a “red light” in Israel’s way. Netanyahu is perfectly free to send his bombers to Iran. The only problem is that Israel probably cannot do a thorough job without U.S. participation.

Whether you agree or not with the idea of using force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons (followers of this space know I do not) there is no reason to strike now. There are inspectors and monitoring devices at Iran’s enrichment facilities to alert us if Iran decides to suddenly start enriching weapons-grade fuel. The only urgency is Netanyahu’s calculation that he can use the American presidential election to pressure Obama. That leverage disappears after November 6.

Netanyahu has done his country no favor. Americans are strongly opposed to a preventive war against Iran, and are likely to resent a brazen attempt to push them into fighting one at Israel’s behest. A new survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, released Monday, finds that 70 percent of Americans oppose a unilateral military strike. Moreover, if Israel bombs Iran and ignites a war, 59 percent say the U.S. should not come to Israel’s aid.

Netanyahu’s crude intervention in our politics may – and should – embarrass his preferred candidate, Mitt Romney. Romney’s options now are to join his friend Netanyahu in attacking U.S. foreign policy (so much for politics stopping at the water’s edge), to distance himself from the foreign leader he has most enthusiastically embraced, or to shut up.

And, if Obama is reelected, the president is unlikely to forget this exercise in manipulation by an Israeli leader he already has ample reason to mistrust.

Meanwhile, Romney’s latest venture into foreign policy was an attempt to exploit a tragedy in Libya for cheap political gain.

Yesterday a Libyan mob, enraged by a video that mocked the prophet Mohammed, attacked and burned the American consulate in Benghazi. Four diplomats, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, were killed. The video, made by a murky character who has told conflicting stories about his identity, portrays Mohammed as a fraud, a philanderer, a child molester and a fool.

Obama issued a statement calling the attack “outrageous.” “While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” he said, “we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.”

The White House response contained two strong messages: expressing indignation at the killing of our officials, and disavowing the insulting video. The second message was arguably more urgent than the first, because if the notion spreads that the U.S. somehow endorsed a blatant insult to Islam’s founding prophet, the rage could metastasize, costing lives.

The Romney response was either a complete misreading of a dangerous situation, or a classic act of cynicism. “It’s disgraceful,” said the campaign’s statement, “that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

The jibe apparently referred not to Obama’s statement but to one issued independently by the U.S. embassy in Cairo, deploring the video. The Cairo outpost rejected “efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” The Cairo embassy was understandably trying to defuse a potentially dangerous situation outside its walls. (Sure enough, the embassy was soon surrounded by an angry throng.)

When the situation became clearer, Romney could have tempered his remarks, and offered the president a hand of American solidarity. That would have been the right, the classy, the traditional and, incidentally, the politically popular thing to do. (It’s what virtually ever other senior Republican official did.) Instead, at a press conference, Romney doubled down, recycling his baseless charge that Obama was “apologizing for American principles.”

Romney has excuses for this kind of blunder: he is a foreign policy naïf, and he is desperate. But, like Netanyahu, he is not helping himself. The polls show that American voters trust Obama more than Romney on foreign policy. Romney’s ham-handed handling of this episode confirms their judgment.