I'm inclined to say hawk or not doesn't even matter much at this point - there is no money and no public support to engage in a new war, not unless America's hand is forced so badly that pretty much any president would have to make the call - Syria taking the genocide against its own population too far, or Iran attacking Israel.

Though for what it's worth, Romney doesn't really strike me as particularly hawkish. He doesn't strike me as having much of a particular interest in foreign policy in general, really. And one can hope that if president he would appoint somebody serious at State - Powell is probably not an option anymore since he's shown himself too blatantly liberal, but Rice or Lugar or someone like that would be good.

There's absolutely no money, momentum or desire for Iraq-like wars. If at all possible, they'll deal with an escalating Syria Bosnia-style (or Libya-style, I guess we should call it now). If Israel and Iran face off... that could really turn out many different ways, but American troops on Iranian soil seems like a fairly extreme result.

Not too much, no. Although a Romney administration would be even more useless with regards to the Israeli-Palestine conflict than an Obama one, judging by what he's said so far. But then, I find it increasingly hard to see what an American president can still contribute to the solution of that conflict. Looks like in the end it'll be the two countries themselves that will have to do the hard work - neither's allies are really all that helpful when you get down to it.