Rand Paul’s biggest problem on foreign policy…

Given all the hubbub surrounding Rand Paul’s foreign policy, I thought I’d post a quote from a speech he did last year at Heritage where he characterized his own foreign policy with respect to Iran:

I have voted for Iranian sanctions in the hope of preventing war and allowing for diplomacy. The sanctions have not been fully implemented but they do appear to have brought Iran back to the negotiating table.

I am persuaded, though, that for sanctions to change Iran’s behavior we must have the commitment of Iran’s major trading partners, especially China, Russia, Japan, and India.

Understandably no one wants to imagine what happens if Iran develops a nuclear weapon. But if we don’t have at least some of that discussion now, then the danger exists that war is the only remedy.

No one, myself included, wants to see a nuclear Iran. Iran does need to know that all options are on the table. But we should not pre-emptively announce that diplomacy or containment will never be an option.

Rand Paul believes diplomacy is an option with Iran and that sanctions can curb their behavior, even bringing Iran back to the negotiating table. This is the same belief of the Obama administration and has it stopped Iran from continuing their nuclear program?

Let me quote John Bolton with respect to diplomacy and sanctions on Iran back in 2010:

We have followed a course of carrots and sticks for the last eight years. The Obama administration’s policy fundamentally is not that much different from the Bush administration’s policy and that policy has failed. Diplomacy was never going to work and the sanctions have been borne by Iran. They’ve caused some incremental effect on them — I support the sanctions because someday I hope it will lead to regime change — but anybody who thinks these sanctions are going to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons doesn’t understand the determination of the Revolutionary Guard which really, effectively holds power in Iran today to achieve that objective.

The talking which has gone on for 8 years…is the umbrella which allows Iran to continue to make progress. The more legitimacy and the more time you give them, the more certain you are making it that they will have nuclear weapons to all of our detriment.

I think you can count on Iran getting nuclear weapons sooner rather than later. The only thing that stand between Iran and a nuclear weapon is a preemptive military strike against the nuclear program.

John Bolton gets it on Iran and their nuclear program, which is probably the biggest issue we have in foreign policy these days. He knows that the only thing that will stop Iran from getting nukes is military force. Israel understand this as well and if they didn’t feel the boot of the Obama administration on their necks, they would have likely have already responded militarily to Iran’s nuclear program.

But Rand Paul doesn’t understand this and seems to want to find any other option than to use military force. But there is no other option as Bolton has made clear.

At this point, under a Paul administration Iran would likely get nuclear weapons unless his admin decided to use military might to stop them. And that doesn’t look very promising based on his views on this. Thus, this is why I call this Rand Paul’s biggest problem on foreign policy.

And just a little more food for thought, this is what Paul said about our overall foreign policy strategy:

What the United States needs now is a policy that finds a middle path. A policy that is not rash or reckless. A foreign policy that is reluctant, restrained by Constitutional checks and balances but does not appease. A foreign policy that recognizes the danger of radical Islam but also the inherent weaknesses of radical Islam. A foreign policy that recognizes the danger of bombing countries on what they might someday do. A foreign policy that requires, as Kennan put it, “a long term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of . . . expansive tendencies.” A policy that understands the “distinction between vital and peripheral interests.”

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • Amjean

    I am not willing to sacrifice one of my family members (and yours) so our politicians and pundits can feel “manly” and defense contractors can make billions nation building.
    I am not willing to sacrifice one of my family members to wars that politicians micromanage. A ten year war in Iraq? How many in Afghanistan?
    War should only be implemented after all other efforts have failed.

  • Kiyoti

    ~~ Yes….foreign policy is going to be an issue with Sen. Paul.
    I wonder if he sprays a wasp nest….or poisons a fire ant mound….he knows the inherent danger in these things and probably disposes of them before those things can harm his family or himself.
    I know it is simplified….but dealing with the worldwide dangers can be somewhat likened to that.
    Either you deal with them and eliminate the threat or your going to get bitten, somewhere – sometime !!!

  • I’m not willing to sacrifice my family because politicians decide that talking sanctions with leaders in a country whose real leader is the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary Guard is going to in some way make them agree that they don’t really need to build nuclear weapons.
    I’m not a proponent of meddling the way the dear leader has all over the middle east and north Africa either-
    I fully supported both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but if you’re going to send our boys to war- for God’s sake please let them FIGHT it and be done with it.

    • notsofastthere

      We were bombarded daily with polls about how American’s wanted out of the wars. They never reported the WHY. To me, the rules of engagement were sending our soldiers in just to be slaughtered. We went in for containment and political correct nonsense, not to win. That’s the disgrace of our alleged leadership.

      • stage9

        Agreed!

        As usual the marxist media spun the message to fit their propaganda.

      • Darrell Griffin

        It’s just like polls that Dem talking parrots regurgitate about Congressional approval numbers.

        I disapprove of Congress because they are allowing this boy king to run roughshod over them. Yet in their world it means Congress should roll over and play dead.

        • notsofastthere

          Media has done such a great job at propaganda that most forget Democrats ARE part of congress. It’s a damned pity the LIV believe the garbage.

    • 1vote

      I have just about come to the conclusion that it takes a warrior to wage a war. Fight to win decisively or stay home. I remember soon after (~ 1 or 2 weeks) the Iraq invasion being sick to my stomach when I started hearing the “hearts and minds” language. I knew what lay ahead for our warriors and it still sickens me to this day. Warriors are for waging war. Let the enemies build or rebuild their own countries. The might of our military should strike fear into the heart of the enemy. With a warrior at the helm, it would.

      • I don’t mind having our country help the people after a war, but like BearNJ said, do it after the enemies are crushed.
        If they dont, we have what’s happened now in Iraq. All the good our guys did there, helping kids, help build schools, hospitals etc, now are all being over run by terrorists again.
        But I squarely blame dear leader for that.

        • 1vote

          Your point is well taken , Duckie. I realize that our guys did a lot of good with, kids, schools, and hospitals, etc.
          However, my contention is that that responsibility be left to others and not to our warriors. Other institutions can build habitat, schools, and hospitals, etc., but, that should not be a military objective. Citizens must have the will to take charge of their own destiny. Yup, we can help through charities and missionaries etc. but winning “hearts and minds” should never be a mission for the military.

          • I agree too, but in some ways part of the winning hearts and minds is necessary to help our guys while they are there.
            But I know. They are trained to fight, their jobs are to go and fight. They are the best and they ought to be allowed to do their jobs to the fullest and be done.

    • BearNJ

      Paul still talks about cutting defense in a dangerous world. AS Lt Col Ralph Peters reported if Obama’s cuts go into effect it will be down to less than 100,000 shooters.

      As a former Army officer and West Point grad I’m disgusted how PC the Army has become. In previous wars we didn’t nation build till AFTER we crushed are enemies.

    • Conservative_Hippie

      Exactly right Duck-sister! Let our military fight. Stop putting bogus “rules of engagement” in their mind. Let them Fight!

  • stage9

    ” the more certain you are making it that they will have nuclear weapons to all of our detriment.”

    I’m sorry, but does anyone with a pulse believe that this is not the liberal-marxist’s intention as well? They believe in nonproliferation unless our enemies possess WMD’s and want to use them against us, then it’s OK with them. They’ll drag their feet and give the Iranians opportunity to develop more weapons.

    Liberal-marxists hate America as much as the Iranians do. Why else would they be stocking the federal government with Muslim Brotherhood and capitulating to Iranian madmen? They sympathize with evil, and by doing so they themselves become witting participants in it.

    Now that all may sound like alarmism, and perhaps it is, but the only other conclusion one can draw from all of this is that our government is utterly incompetent and doesn’t understand the nature of evil and the desire our enemies have to impose evil upon us. If our choices are that they sympathize with evil or are ignorant of the threat it poses, it doesn’t bode well for us either way.

    • Well said, but it’s not alarmism. It’s true.

    • PhillyCon

      As Rush so aptly put, “how did disarmament work out for the Ukrainians?”

    • MaxineCA

      I agree with your statement, with one change in your last sentence. I do not believe they are ignorant of the threat. The infiltration of the MB has been on steroids in this admin. They put our military on the battlefield but won’t let them fight to win with the ROE’s.

      Yes, there is evil and we have real enemies. Unfortunately, I believe the enemies are here.

  • marketcomp

    Thank you, RS. We must expose this before anymore time is wasted.

  • Conservator1

    So now that Rand has set-up his campaign to be able to announce his presidential bid after the mid-terms, we see that Paul is like his dad on foreign policy – a wimp isolationist.

    He can use Reagan’s name all he wants because real conservatives know the “Papa Paul and Sonny Rand’ are the antipathy of the Gipper’s foreign policy. Rand Paul will never stand up to world thugs like Reagan:

    Reagan at Brandenburg Gate – “tear down this wall”

    • PeteZe.

      Reagan cut bait in Lebanon after 250 soldiers were killed. He didn’t even retaliate. Reagan negotiated with the USSR. He was called an appeaser for sitting down to negotiate. He didn’t just talk tough. He signed a treaty to drawdown the nuclear weapons stockpile with Russia. Reagan sold arms to the radical Muslim Ayatollah in Iran as a way to negotiate letting hostages go.

      People like you love platitudes. Reagan was far more nuanced. His White House communications director was Pat Buchanan for chissake.

      • Conservator1

        Go back to your utopia isolationism hermit. I don’t waste time on Paulbots or progressives who want to hide their heads in the sand while the world spins like an ostrich.

        Regarding people like me and platitudes, I’ll waste time and address your revisionism. Only a fool would have taken military action in Lebanon. Reagan proved his willingness to retaliate when he launched tomahawks into Libya which almost killed Kadafi.

        You don’t launch tomahawks to retaliate a terrorist attack which wasn’t conducted by a goverment. Also, using the military would have lead to a permanent America presence in the ME which would’ve been one of the worst decisions of the 20th Century.

        Reagan was unaware of the ‘guns for hostages’ and when he learned the truth he took responsibility, worked to release all relevant information to all investigative bodies, he didn’t protect any staff members and spoke directly to Americans about the illegal program when he knew the facts.

        And your correct; Reagan held out, even waking out of nuclear talks with the Soviets in Iceland that was strongly criticized by the MSM, until Gorbachev CAVED and signed a long term nuke reduction treaty with
        a historical achievement – a verifiable nuclear reduction treaty with the USSR.

        Get it? That’s peace through strength that libertarians will never comprehend.

        • PeteZe.

          I don’t disagree with much of what you said. We are on the same page. So, I guess that means you will support Rand Paul

          • Conservator1

            I guess so – good one.

  • Larchmonter445

    His foreign policy of hands off and Obama’s foreign policy of only drones are just a few missile strikes a month different.

    Rand Paul has no clue about geopolitics. Isolationism is not a policy. Nor is open borders, amnesty and a too-small military.

    America has a huge enemy—Islamic jihad, radical Islam, Muslim terror. It is a stateless enemy, asymmetrical and global. Fighting it requires involvement with all nations, an advanced military with an agile panoply of weapons and integration with other large powerful militaries.

    So our foreign policy has to be very astute and broader than Paul or his father could ever imagine.

    Saying No is not a solution.

    • PhillyCon

      I think very few people understand the Islamic threat in this country, And Paul seems to be one of those people.

  • Myptofvu

    Israel has assassinated their Physicists, detonated their laboratories, cyber attacked their computers….what makes you think a war will stop them?

    • notsofastthere

      Israel didn’t go far enough. Giving up land and appeasement hasn’t worked out well for Israel now…has it?

    • Larchmonter445

      Those were slow-down methods. Not meant to end the threat. Meant as speed bumps while the West dithers.

  • notsofastthere

    Diplomacy and discussion at first is nice but talking to a stone wall is stupid.
    Explaining to Obama that he is destroying a country is nice and when he refuses to understand….it’s time to get RID OF HIM.
    Try to rehabilitate a pedophile is nice. When he doesn’t listen…you crush him permanently with a lifetime sentence before he strikes again.
    When diplomacy obviously isn’t working …..you take action!!

  • But Rand made a good point in his Breitbart essay about the Soviets and Reagan. Reagan took a lot of flack for that from his supporters.

    Anyway, this dance Rand’s doing seems a bit risky. The Iranians are a different ball game.

  • LIBERTYUSA

    …talk talk talk talk talk that is all these politicians do we need a General George Washington to take the Bull by the horns and give our enemies a good ass kicking to put them back in their place .”

  • Mark Salinger

    This is a completely legitimate critique of Rand Paul’s foreign policy. I fully agree, and it is right to point out the clear differences between willingness to use force and a reticence to using force.

    Where I disagree with some (not RightScoop since he hasn’t made the accusation) is where people who want to avoid war, but would rely on sanctions and diplomacy are somehow called isolationist. Like that’s the cool new word or something. Isolationism would be worldwide retreat from all our positions and bases. Rand Paul hasn’t advocated that.

    I used to be in favor of going in and destroying any regime around the world that made to threaten us or our allies, but after the lengthy and seemingly unending conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan I’ve come to feel like too many others, that military action can still be a legitimate and necessary action, but that wanting to avoid the costly destructiveness and loss of life that occurs in wars is, at the very least, an equally legitimate position to hold.

    Sanctions could work if they ACTUALLY had teeth and a much more intense looming threat of joint military action. The problem in the long run, though will be that nuclear technology will only continue to proliferate and our politicians never seem to have resolve enough to enforce anything consistently.

    If we could eliminate authoritarian nutcase regimes with a more tactical limited approach (hitting the exact targets from space or with drones, etc.) and then combine that with supporting local rebels for freedom we should phase out such backward governments that would pursue and use nuclear weapons in the first place. Otherwise sooner or later some authoritarian nut will get the bomb and use it or give it to terrorists and then the world will change in ways we should all shutter to contemplate.

    • notsofastthere

      The wars lasted so long because we underestimated the enemy, we used surgical strikes not wanting to hurt civilian, we respected Iraqi demands to not go into the enemy strongholds. That was our problem – our disastrous rules of engagement and desire for containment.

      • Mark Salinger

        The rules of engagement are totally disastrous, you’re right!

        We didn’t have a containment policy for Iraq or Afghanistan though. Containment applies in a cold war scenario where you are trying to avoid conflict.

        If we fought those countries like we did the Axis powers in World War II the rest of the planet would scream bloody murder for the extreme collateral damage and brutality, which is why many think it’s not worth even going in in the first place, because few are truly willing to fight wars as wars are meant to be fought, bloody and destructive.

        As technology improves, though, surgical strikes could get the job done. Future military action should be against tyrants and terrorists and their immediate supporters ONLY & DIRECTLY. I think one day the elimination of authoritarianism around the planet will become an engineering problem more than a political one.

        • Conservator1

          What action would you take if Russia invades Hungry next? Would you recommend imposing sanctions only?

          You sound like an isolationist/libertarian which doesn’t bother me. It’s still a free country and you are entitled to your opinion.

          I just would like a clearer understanding of your position on foreign policy, the horrendous cuts in the military proposed by Obama and the role the US should play globally. Thanks…

          • Mark Salinger

            Well, in my imaginary world the US would have crazy technology and setup a total world hegemony that eliminated terrorist cells, drug lords, war lords, pirates and authoritarian regimes as soon as they popped up, but that’s just fantasy.

            In the real world, I’d love it if we could completely rid the planet of all the bad actors and I’m seriously not making light of the issue. Let’s kick the crap out of them!

            At the same time I’m attempting to temper myself to the fact that there are limitations and wars can be extremely un-predictable things since there are at least two sides commanding the chaos and unforeseen third, fourth, fifth or more parties might also look to take advantage. It’s not something that we should be eager for.

            • notsofastthere

              Unfortunately nations are ‘drawn into war’ usually due to political leaders who have an ego and ideology. Nice idea but hegemony doesn’t work at the expense of someone else. I wouldn’t trust our government completely, since we have serious issues with trusting them to do what’s right even for our own nation. We all wish for peace but it hasn’t happened since the beginning of mankind.

              • Mark Salinger

                All very true and another excellent reason for why it should remain just a fantasy.

                • Conservator1

                  That’s fine and I thank you for your keenly written albeit smog response. Yet, it would’ve been easier and simpler if you just stated you would let Hungary fall based on your belief in American isolationism.

                • Mark Salinger

                  Truthfully I wasn’t trying to be smug. No idea where you got that.

                  Not sure how you turn US world hegemony into isolationism either.

                  But you’re right I got sidetracked and failed to respond to your Hungary example.

                  I do think the missile shield should be brought back in full force before such an invasion could even happen. If an invasion DID happen then I would have to believe it would be another Germany invades Poland moment and that such action must be stopped by all means possible including a sensible military strategy.

                • Conservator1

                  I again thank you for your excellently worded reply. But you really can’t see or feel the smugness that follows:

                  Well, in my imaginary world the US would have crazy technology and setup a total world hegemony that eliminated terrorist cells, drug lords, war lords, pirates and authoritarian regimes as soon as they popped up, but that’s just fantasy

                  In the real world, I’d love it if we could completely rid the planet of all the bad actors and I’m seriously not making light of the issue. Let’s kick the crap out of them! – really?

                  After all, my main and only question asked was are you an isolationist/libertarian to afford a clearer understanding of your comment. BTW, I never used the word hegemony – you did.

                  Our paths have never crossed based on my recollection, thus a more concise answer would’ve been appropriate and there’s no crime to be a libertarian either.

                • Mark Salinger

                  Hah, yes you do have a point, that could indeed seem smug. Got carried away as I do like to write. Wordiness tends to be a flaw of mine and I crossed threads somewhere in there and got confused.

                  Yes, I did use the word hegemony. Nothing meant by that other than my attempt to say a hegemony would practically be the opposite of isolationist.

                  Sorry for the confusion. I think we’re good now. 🙂

            • lawngren

              About the only political prediction I ever made more than one day before an election that came true was that the Soviet Union would collapse. About 1986 or 87, someone was pounding the war drums and I said, “No nation can control the whole world. It’s too big.”

              Imaginary worlds are fun and do have some uses, but a one-world hegemony is something even the antiChrist won’t be able to pull off. No group of humans has a snowball’s chance in a blast furnace.

              • Mark Salinger

                Maybe it could be the League of Liberty Loving Nations. lol

                I think you’re right though, one world anything kinda gives me the heebee jeebees

                • lawngren

                  Actually, your imaginary world will become real one day in the not-too-distant future:

                  “And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.” (Revelation 11:15)

                  And you have a personal invitation, from the Prince of Peace Himself:

                  ” ‘I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.’

                  And the Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’ And let him who hears say, ‘Come!’ And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.” (Revelation 22:16-17)

      • lawngren

        Amen.

    • Conservative_Hippie

      You make valid points. I appreciate your POV!

  • Alborn

    I for one think that we have over reached our use of force in the Middle East because of the corruption of our government and their corrupt allies. Now whoever becomes president is going to have a real balancing act with the American people because they will not be trusted because of past presidents. Let Israel do what they have to do to survive and support them but not with troops on the ground anywhere. We no longer even have a military that has not been infiltrated by our enemies. It seems to me that we have our own problems to solve. Did Ronald Reagan bomb Russia? No he used other means of pressure to negotiate his success. Rand Paul would do what he had to do to save this country. I would venture to say that we have moved way away from our founder fathers philosophy with involvement in other countries and it is part of the reason we are seeing the downfall of our country. We need to clean up our own mess and it is not going to be peaceful or pretty. Let the discussion continue.

    • Conservative_Hippie

      Let Israel do what they have to do to survive and support them but not with troops on the ground anywhere.

      I disagree. Either they are Our Allies or not. If they are (and they are), then support them with the full force of our military! This whole namby pamby diplomatic sanction stuff can only go so far with Middle East totalitarian regimes! Dictators only understand one thing – Force!

      • lawngren

        Cruise missiles are force. Nuke-armed drones are force. Let’s let technology give us some benefit after all the expense. Keep the troops home.

        “Long distance – the next best thing to being there.”

        • Conservative_Hippie

          Do we have nuke armed drones now?

          • lawngren

            If they were listed as “molecular-particle population control devices”, the Dept. of Health and Human Services would gladly include it in their budget. If they were listed as “Islamic UIltimate Worship Devices” (“help muslims meet allah” ***), DHS would approve it in their budget.

            No problem. It’s all in how you word it. It’s all in the wrist, Duffy.

            *** There are bound to be some muslims in the vicinity, no matter where the drones are applied. Fastest-growing religion in the world, right?

    • Jim Land

      Agreed. It is amazing how hawkish some Republicans have become. Bolton is the most hawkish of the bunch.

      • Conservator1

        Disagree; the Republican party has been hawkish my entire life and that goes back to Eisenhower. During most of that time, (basssically prior to Reagan) the GOP was moderate to liberal on domestic policy. Nixon is a great example.

    • las1

      I would venture to say that we have moved way away from our founder fathers philosophy with involvement in other countries… You mean like the founder Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence sending the American Navy to fight the Barbary States in the Mediterranean to stop piracy and to stop paying tribute to Muslim Jihadists. This act of Jefferson was the genesis policy of America keeping sea lanes open. Jefferson caught “realpolitik” real quick, even though his gunboat building project was no match against the British navy.

      “Did Ronald Reagan bomb Russia?” Absurd question. Who’s talking about bombing? You stated in your own commentary, America had a full quiver of other means to contain and to check Russia’s hegemonic aspirations. You libertarians always use the same cliches…If you don’t agree with the Pauls… you’re all about bombing other countries. What piffle!

      Did America bomb Iraq in 1981? No… America’s proxy Israel did… and for good reason too. American acquiescence and cooperation was with them every step of the way. With today’s Obama… not so much.

      More sanctions will not stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Obama has done everything to thwart Israel’s plans to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. This includes Obama leaking the Azerbaidjani/Israeli deal to base jets in the Baku of Azerbaidjan in prelude to bombing the Iranians. Israel had plans to swoop over Teheran from the Caspian in a surprise attack to eliminate the Iranian leadership on the way to bombing the nuclear sites. They had plans to cut the head off the snake as well as the snake itself. Paul’s FP would be the same as Obama’s… a disaster leaving America exposed and unprepared.

  • Conservative_Hippie

    “The apple doesn’t fall….”

  • jrt

    Rand, the fact that you responded to Ted in a snarky way…. Not good. Ted stated he likes and supports you but just had a difference of opinion. You backtrack and make your opinion based on Teds. His was not done with bad intent. Yours came off defensive and rude. And why make such a big deal because a lot of young hippies go out of their way to vote for you in polls. Romney won his polls and look where that got us. I for one am depressed at what the 8 years of Obama has brought. You would be a huge improvement. But Ted, that’s Reagan material if not better than Reagan which is what we need to combat the Jimmy Carter of the 21’st century.

  • TedCruz2016

    Ted Cruz2016, the 2016 Ronald Reagan. Not McShame, Romney, Cruz is the real deal. All aboard now

  • las1

    Paul says we need “A foreign policy that requires, as Kennan put it, “a long term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of . . . expansive tendencies.”

    This encapsulates the central delusion of Ron Paul’s.. and Rand’s position on FP. This statement shows that they have an anachronistic Cold War understanding of Islam and the Muslim existential threat. At least in the Cold War, the Soviet Union’s leaders were rational actors on the international stage and even they understood the concept of MAD. For the Pauls not to grasp that simple truth makes a Paul FP a dangerous project for America and the world by drawing parallels and comparisons between the Soviet Union and Islam. There are none… plain and simple.

    What part of “kill the infidel” do the Pauls not get.

    • For some strange reason that just makes me think of

  • Sentinel

    I feel like this is a viper’s nest topic… that being said, Rand Paul is running for President in 2016. As such, he’ll likely walk a moderate line. Unfortunately, he is his father’s son and will likely take a Libertarian view of Iran, etc. – meaning live and let live (I think). This isn’t popular with most conservatives – especially with Iran’s belligerent rhetoric and threats. I think Iran needs regime change… but America is tired of war (because the new generations have been wussified by liberal union teachers). So… while I understand what Rand is saying and agree with it to an extent… I think actions speak louder than words. War with Iran might bring in Russia and China – which would be very bad. But Iran needs their butts kicked if the people don’t rise up and remove the devils in charge (Syria 2.0). I don’t have the answer other than probably a very stealthy attack to wipe out their reactors (from inside or outside the country). But all of this is just more talk… ACTION speaks volumes! And that is what gets respect.

  • cattastrophe

    Conservatives do understand the difference between vital and peripheral militarily. What Libertarians don’t understand is the difference between peripheral and indifference. We station armies around the world to guard what can become vital and to deter aggression. We support Democracies because Democracies don’t invade their neighbors and become our friends, the more Democracies the more peace in the world. We don’t need an isolationist government because it’s our responsibility to use our influence when applicable and force when necessary to keep the world safe for us. The only problem I see with this scenario is electing a government that knows how to carry out this balancing act effectively.

  • Exactly.

    The dirty little secret about sanctions is that they only work if the entire international community is on board.

    We were close to proving that sanctions could actually work for a change with Saddam Hussein. All it took was one country, France, stabbing us in the back, and we had to go to war instead.

    If France had stayed the course, Saddam and his idiot sons would all be alive today in some luxurious apartment, and Iraq would have had a parliament still standing, that could have elected a replacement. And we’d never have had to go in there and get the fool.

    So sanctions are great for politicians to wave around like they are doing something. But they aren’t actually doing anything but making poor people’s lives more miserable. That’s it, entirely.

  • puma_for_life

    The big question is not what Rand’s policy is on anything it is what is Cruz’s policy on anything. What exactly is his policy regarding Crimea and Russia? And I mean more than saying it is not Rand’s but closer to Reagan’s. What does that mean. I would like some statements and specifics from Cruz….

  • puma_for_life

    Ronald Reagan’s son tweets: https://twitter.com/ReaganWorld/status/443410730633539584

    “Rand Paul Gets it.”

    Rand Paul Gets it.#Rand Paul.Exclusive–Rand Paul: Stop Warping Reagan’s Foreign Policy http://shar.es/RcTrX via @BreitbartNews

    • That’s disappointing. Rand’s foreign policy is not like Reagan’s at all. This seems more like Mike Reagan dissing Ted Cruz at the expense of his Dad’s actual policies.

      “Peace through strength” does not mean thinking about reducing military spending AFTER barack has already gutted defense.

    • Texas_TEA_Time

      Michael Reagan also supported David Dewhurst over Ted Cruz in the Texas Senate race, so his opinion may be biased. Can’t understand why, but he doesn’t like Cruz at all. In my opinion, Michael Reagan was wrong about Cruz as a Senator, and he’s wrong about this.

      • He was also never a big fan of Sarah Palin.

  • JJHLH

    I prefer Cruz’s foreign policy views over Paul’s.

  • Isolationist but pretends to be strong. If you sound weak with words your actions will be even more so. Rand is a chip off the old block. Ted Cruz is my guy at this point. He is the only one fighting so he has gained my full respect and support!

  • PapaLouie

    “This is the same belief of the Obama administration and has it stopped Iran from continuing their nuclear program?”

    Rand is weak on foreign policy but not quite as weak as Obama. Obama has now abandoned sanctions of Iran in favor of appeasement. For some reason he thinks that sanctions are a hindrance to negotiations, and if he is nice to Iran, they will reciprocate. He thought the same thing when it came to Putin. But reducing our nuclear stockpile and giving up missile defense systems in Europe did not convince Putin to reciprocate in kind. It only made Obama look weak and feckless in his eyes. It’s clear now that Iran sees him the same way. They got sanctions removed in return for a few vague promises that they publicly denied immediately afterward. Now they have billions of additional dollars to invest in their nuclear program. So unless Rand lied, at least he disagrees with Obama about the need for sanctions on Iran. That said, I prefer Cruz’s “peace through strength” attitude over Rand’s emphasis on diplomacy, which he thinks can make up for a weak military.

  • TJinNJ

    Where are Paul, Cruz and any other repube on the islamic infiltration of the Govt and military? No one gets my vote until they speak of the 800 pound gorilla sitting on this country’s neck.

  • Freedomswatch

    Rand Paul’s position might have had some chance if we had a strong presence in the world, but not after 8 years of Obama foreign policy disaster where he humiliated our allies and let our enemies run rough-shod over whatever imaginary red lines he painted in the sand. America cannot afford our next President to show any weakness or reticence to defend itself, it’s interests or its allies. After Benghazi America is seen as not even willing to defend its own ambassador, that says it all. It is the wrong time for Paul to be isolationist.

  • Paulbot

    Yeah, because our foreign policy has been SO successful for the past 40 years, that no one can POSSIBLY have a better idea. “Full steam ahead with interventionism, it’s worked great so far, it’s only gotten us in 3, wait 4, wait 5, 6 unnecessary wars, but hey it’s GOOD! ‘Merica f**k yeah!”

  • stevemcfadden

    After reading this article if true, the senator from Kentucky will be a poor choice to lead America in this violent and crazy world. Just look what 5 + years with socialist democratic leadership has brought us. After 8 years it will be an unholy mess for sure.

  • Hitched

    Here we find an opportunity to sow the seeds of liberty across the fruited plain: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0094KY878