Posted on 04/17/2014 7:15:49 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A new op-ed prompted by his interview with ABC over the weekend, which generated headlines like, “Rand Paul: Don’t dismiss containment option for nuclear Iran.”
He’s not for containment, he now says, but nor is he irrevocably against it. What he’s for is strategic ambiguity, not telegraphing your intentions towards a bad actor lest you inadvertently limit your options later. Does America have any recent experience with that?
I am not for containment in Iran. Let me repeat that, since no one seems to be listening closely: I am unequivocally not for containing Iran.
I am also not for announcing that the United States should never contain Iran. That was the choice I was given a few months ago and is the scenario being misunderstood by some in the news…
Ronald Reagan was once criticized for not announcing in advance his policy toward particular situations. He was accused of not having a concrete foreign policy. His response was that he simply chose not to announce his policies in advance…
In fact, Reagan often practiced strategic ambiguity. He thought, as many other presidents have, that we should not announce to our enemies what we might do in every conceivable hypothetical situation.
Fair enough, but Reagan was a staunch cold warrior running for the nomination of a party that was full of them. He could afford to be coy on foreign policy as needed since his hawkish bona fides wasn’t in doubt. Rand’s in the opposite position, a guy who’s suspected of not only being more dovish than he lets on but of overlapping with his father’s world view to a degree greater than most righties are comfortable with. “Elect me if you want to know the answer” won’t cut it in his case.
What does he mean by “containment,” anyway? He says he’s against it, notes that he’s voted for sanctions on Iran more than once, and insists that all options should be on the table, but c’mon. There’s no way President Paul is ordering a bombing run on Iran’s enrichment facilities. Whatever else you may think about his Iran rhetoric, it’s palpably clear that he thinks war is the worst option and ultimately a futile one — an opinion shared by plenty of Iran observers, by the way, not all of them doves. If a military attack is indeed off the table and yet Paul opposes containment, where does that leave us? What’s the middle-ground option? I think maybe his idea of “containment” doesn’t include sanctions; he’s wrong about that, but his dad’s always treated sanctions as a de facto act of war. Maybe Rand sees them similarly, as something that falls somewhere on the spectrum between “containment” and out-and-out bombing. In that case, his Iran policy would be to preserve the status quo unless/until the economic pressure finally forces Iran to give up its bomb program someday. The U.S. waited 70 years for the Soviets to break, right? Well, get comfortable. That … sounds like containment.
Actually, here’s another option: Regime change. Would President Paul support action, covert or overt, to oust the mullahs in hopes of replacing them with a government that’s more likely to play ball on nukes? That would be a complete abandonment of libertarian principles against meddling abroad, but maybe it’s his best bet to defuse the Iranian bomb. I assume “strategic ambiguity” prevents any firm commitment on that too.
DO NOT TRUST RAND PAUL!
Sounds like Rand is getting in touch with his inner Ron.
“So, is this man still Presidential material?”
He never was.
Reason: He’s too much like his father.
“but of overlapping with his father’s world view to a degree greater than most righties are comfortable with.”
Glad to see others agree.
Sounds more Presidential by the Day. If he had the media on his side, he would be just sending up a weather balloon to test where Americans really stand. Very Clintonesque if you ask me.
He never was.
I don’t. And neither should anyone else on the planet. I will say I applaud the GOPe on this one. They are HAMMERING him in a coordinated effort to make him irrelevant before 2016. I sincerely hope it works.
He’s not for containing Mexico either.
Stay out da bushes
No, he's not.
Iran can't be contained. They have more money than God and will use it exactly when and how they want.
The ONLY "containment" over there is Uncle Saudi because they have even MORE petroleum and natural gas than Iran, so they can "squeeze" when it's necessary.
The Saudis have ANOTHER 200 years, at least, of petroleum and natural gas reserves and they haven't even TOUCHED the "Empty Quarter"--the Rub' al Khali.
As much as Americans may hate, despise, loathe, detest, deplore and otherwise DISLIKE the Saudis, they are our only "friends" over there.
===============================
Our own U.S. Internal Revenue has a "deal" with Saudi Aramco. Saudi Aramco is NOT U.S. government. It is a private company. Americans who work for Saudi ARAMCO pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES and because we were out of California for more than a year, we were no longer California residents and therefore pain NO STATE INCOME TAXES. How 'bout them apples?
===============================
From the Internet:
Saudi Aramco (officially the Saudi Arabian Oil Co.) is a Saudi Arabian national petroleum and natural gas company based in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Aramco's value has been estimated at up to US$10 trillion in the Financial Times, making it the world's most valuable company.
Saudi Aramco has both the largest proven crude oil reserves, at more than 260 billion barrels (4.1×1010 m3), and largest daily oil production.
Headquartered in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Aramco operates the world's largest single hydrocarbon network, the Master Gas System. Its yearly production is 3.479 billion barrels (553,100,000 m3), and it managed over 100 oil and gas fields in Saudi Arabia, including 284.8 trillion standard cubic feet (scf) of natural gas reserves.
Saudi Aramco owns the Ghawar Field, the world's largest oil field, and the Shaybah Field, another one of the world's largest oil fields.
===============================
In early 1980 my husband was taking home $800.00 a month (after taxes) working as an engineer for P.G.&E, the state gas and electric company. That was a lot of money.
His first ARAMCO paycheck, in late 1980 was $5,000.00 per month!! No federal or state income taxes!
After two measly years there we were able to BUY a house in San Francisco. We left the Kingdom after five years.
After a total of NINE years we had that house paid off...PAID OFF.
===============================
There is only ONE reason to go to Saudi Arabia to live and work: MONEY. We also got to travel ALL over the world...Egypt twice, Syria, Kenya, India, Jordan, every country in Europe except Albania, China, when it first opened up in 1981, Hong Kong, Singapore...I can't even remember all the places now, it's been so long.
There is NO REASON on earth to hate the Saudis. My Saudi boss was one of the kindest, gentlest and most humble men I ever met. He had never learned to read or write, as the Kingdom had 99% illiteracy rates back then. But he WAS the boss and he had a lot of information that he had to have at hand. SO, he MEMORIZED all the information. He could remember 15 things he had to do. I was his secretary for most of those years and I SAW and HEARD his memorization skills.
He's dead now for sure as he was older back then. The Saudi health wasn't the best and most Saudis looked much older than they were.
============================
Lol. One VERY odd thing. The Saudis who worked for ARAMCO were allowed to OFFICIALLY change their BIRTH DATES three times...which allowed them to work longer...and they did.
I agree! My stage name was developed during the Bush"sKerry election and it's stuck. (If that's what you were referring)
If a military attack is indeed off the table and yet Paul opposes containment, where does that leave us? What’s the middle-ground option? I think maybe his idea of “containment” doesn’t include sanctions; he’s wrong about that, but his dad’s always treated sanctions as a de facto act of war. Maybe Rand sees them similarly, as something that falls somewhere on the spectrum between “containment” and out-and-out bombing. In that case, his Iran policy would be to preserve the status quo unless/until the economic pressure finally forces Iran to give up its bomb program someday. The U.S. waited 70 years for the Soviets to break, right? Well, get comfortable. That sounds like containment.
Rand Paul On Shutdown: "Even Though It Appeared I Was Participating In It, It Was A Dumb Idea"I said throughout the whole battle that shutting down the government was a dumb idea. Even though it did appear as if I was participating in it, I said it was a dumb idea. And the reason I voted for it, though, is that it's a conundrum. Here's the conundrum. We have a $17 trillion debt and people at home tell me you can't give the president a blank check. We just can't keep raising the debt ceiling without conditions. So unconditionally raising the debt ceiling, nobody at home wants me to vote for that and I can't vote for that. But the conundrum is if I don't we do approach these deadlines. So there is an impasse. In 2011, though, we had this impasse and the president did negotiate. We got the sequester. If we were to extend the sequester from discretionary spending to all the entitlements we would actually fix our problem within a few years.[Posted on 11/19/2013 12:16:51 PM by Third Person]
Rand Paul's immigration speech...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.[Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg]
Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.
Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.
Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.
If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...
This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.
Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.
Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reformLatinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]
[but he's not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]
Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
Ron Paul & Rand Paul want Iran to have nuclear weapons. They know that Israel will be bombed and millions killed. Israle will retaliate and Iran will cease to exist as will many millions of people in the rest of the Mideast.
Next up will be the people of the United States. Do they think they are immune to the bomb blast or the radiation?
Both of these men are madmen.
Another day, another bash a Constitutional conservative thread, neocons rule, Constitutional conservatives drule.
Maybe instead of using labels ( e.g. neo-conservatives ), we might want to debate whether or not preventing Iran from developing or acquiring nukes is a good idea...
I swear, I am not an Alex Joneser. I am not (too) conspiratorial. But there are people with an agenda saying things that ... may not be their own thoughts.
Just listened to Levin ranting and raving for an hour about how Putin and the Iranians are gonna' kill us all. This is so out of character with most of his (good) work the past couple of years. Then, I hear that an inordinate amount of his commercials on WABC are public service ("1-877-Kars4Kids")stuff. Am I paranoid to think that he's taking orders?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.