Rand Will Vote Against Nuclear Deal

[T.hill]

From Rand's fb page

The proposed agreement with Iran is unacceptable for the following reasons:
1) sanctions relief precedes evidence of compliance
2) Iran is left with significant nuclear capacity
3) it lifts the ban on selling advanced weapons to Iran
I will, therefore, vote against the agreement.
While I continue to believe that negotiations are preferable to war, I would prefer to keep the interim agreement in place instead of accepting a bad deal. Please help share this news.

[mit26chell]

Cool Rand... you look like a real tough guy now. What a flip-flop from 2007 and a disappointment.

[Chieppa1]

Israel lobby much? We need a liberty minded candidate with some backbone. This is so disappointing. I don't want to hear the excuses that he needs to win the Republican vote. This is about aggression, just war theory and morality. Rand is playing politics to the point that his presidency will barely move the meter if he panders this much in office.

[mit26chell]

Israel lobby much?

He is officially beholden.

[Chieppa1]

He is officially beholden.

I know the political move is that the deal with pass without his "yes" vote, but principal is what inspires people. His campaign is not inspiring. All he is doing is collecting baggage he will have to deal with if he ever got to office.

[Wilf]

I know the political move is that the deal with pass without his "yes" vote, but principal is what inspires people. His campaign is not inspiring. All he is doing is collecting baggage he will have to deal with if he ever got to office.

No GOP campaign is inspiring,what did you expect?

[LatinsforPaul]

No GOP campaign is inspiring,what did you expect?

Agree, but having a constitutionalist / libertarian in the White House would be.

[GunnyFreedom]

I know the political move is that the deal with pass without his "yes" vote, but principal is what inspires people. His campaign is not inspiring. All he is doing is collecting baggage he will have to deal with if he ever got to office.

You really think ⅔ of the Senate is going to vote for this?

[Chieppa1]

You really think ⅔ of the Senate is going to vote for this?

It will pass. Obama will veto any objection.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Israel lobby much? We need a liberty minded candidate with some backbone. This is so disappointing. I don't want to hear the excuses that he needs to win the Republican vote. This is about aggression, just war theory and morality. Rand is playing politics to the point that his presidency will barely move the meter if he panders this much in office.

The Israel lobby has a very strong interest in not getting blown off the face of the world. I think Rand is doing a great job trying to keep the match out of the tinderbox here.

I really believe we can't let Iran get nukes. They could easily pass it off to an anonymous terrorist group. If not now, then 50 years from now. Who knows what that region will look like in the course of time?

[Sam I am]

The Israel lobby has a very strong interest in not getting blown off the face of the world. I think Rand is doing a great job trying to keep the match out of the tinderbox here.

I really believe we can't let Iran get nukes. They could easily pass it off to an anonymous terrorist group. If not now, then 50 years from now. Who knows what that region will look like in the course of time?

So I take it that you're in favor of the deal then? since passing this deal will make it harder for Iran to get nukes without us noticing.

[Chieppa1]

The Israel lobby has a very strong interest in not getting blown off the face of the world. I think Rand is doing a great job trying to keep the match out of the tinderbox here.

I really believe we can't let Iran get nukes. They could easily pass it off to an anonymous terrorist group. If not now, then 50 years from now. Who knows what that region will look like in the course of time?

They aren't attempting to get nukes. Manufactured Crisis by Gareth Porter.

We just keep repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true.

Iran's focus on terrorism is Israel.

[DevilsAdvocate]

They aren't attempting to get nukes. Manufactured Crisis by Gareth Porter.

We just keep repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true.

Iran's focus on terrorism is Israel.

Why does such an oil rich nation with so much cheap energy need nuclear power plants? Why are they willing to risk the starvation of their people under crippling sanctions for decades, just to get a couple powerplants built? Explain the logic here

[Occam's Banana]

Why does such an oil rich nation with so much cheap energy need nuclear power plants?

Iran may be "oil rich," but it has inadequate domestic refining capacity (e.g., as of several years ago at least, Iran had to import a third of its gasoline).

It's great abundance of oil has also resulted in horrifically inefficient & spendthrifty (and typically stupid-crappy-cronyist) energy policies related to its oil production and usage. (File under "too much of a good thing" ...)

Why are they willing to risk the starvation of their people under crippling sanctions for decades, just to get a couple powerplants built? Explain the logic here

Obstinate defiance of a power (the United States) that has serially $#@!ed Iran over for more than half a century and that has NO business dictating Iran's energy policies in the first place?

And if nothing else, a viable civilian nuclear power program would significantly reduce Iran's exposure to the vicissitudes of international "petro-politics" ...

[cindy25]

Why does such an oil rich nation with so much cheap energy need nuclear power plants? Why are they willing to risk the starvation of their people under crippling sanctions for decades, just to get a couple powerplants built? Explain the logic here

the USA tried to sell nuclear plants to the Shah in the 70s, so they must have seen logic in it then

[surf]

Why does such an oil rich nation with so much cheap energy need nuclear power plants? Why are they willing to risk the starvation of their people under crippling sanctions for decades, just to get a couple powerplants built? Explain the logic here

look up "atoms for peace" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoms_for_Peace

[supermario21]

Disappointed, but sadly not surprised.

[juleswin]

He is certainly trying to differentiate himself from Ron. Very disappointed but can't say that its surprising.

[FSP-Rebel]

Well, Ron supported Israel's right to bomb Iraq's nuclear facility back in 1982ish and this likely kept the Iraqi military from having hardcore weaponry in the US's former bouts w/ them during the last twenty some years. One could argue that no deal will force or allow Israel to decide whether it wants to take action again in this instance w/o us getting involved any further. I suspect that in foreign policy votes like this where Rubio and Paul vote on the same side, it's for very different reasons. I'd keep that in mind.

[Mr.NoSmile]

So wait, this was apparently a lose-lose scenario, regardless of how he voted, yet there's still disappointment?

[hells_unicorn]

So wait, this was apparently a lose-lose scenario, regardless of how he voted, yet there's still disappointment?

There is no pleasing certain folks, it goes against their nature.

[Chieppa1]

So wait, this was apparently a lose-lose scenario, regardless of how he voted, yet there's still disappointment?

If he voted for the deal, it would signal to me that he gives a crap about morality and the idea of just war. But in a campaign, political sense; yeah I guess this is a lose-lose.

How far the expectations have fallen.

[Brett85]

If he voted for the deal, it would signal to me that he gives a crap about morality and the idea of just war. But in a campaign, political sense; yeah I guess this is a lose-lose.

How far the expectations have fallen.

What exactly is moral about telling Iran that we'll steal their money unless they do exactly what they tell us to do? I understand that Rand didn't give a libertarian reason for opposing the deal, but there certainly are libertarian reasons for opposing the deal.

[Chieppa1]

What exactly is moral about telling Iran that we'll steal their money unless they do exactly what they tell us to do? I understand that Rand didn't give a libertarian reason for opposing the deal, but there certainly are libertarian reasons for opposing the deal.

We already stole their money. Half a trillion dollars. And the actual innocent human beings living under the government of the State of Iran can't buy $#@! because of our sanctions. Lift the sanctions. Vote to lift the sanctions. He will not. His politics and how the overall deal will effect the Government of United States is more important than actual human beings living in a country surrounded by United States military bases.

[Brett85]

We already stole their money. Half a trillion dollars. And the actual innocent human beings living under the government of the State of Iran can't buy $#@! because of our sanctions. Lift the sanctions. Vote to lift the sanctions. He will not. His politics and how the overall deal will effect the Government of United States is more important than actual human beings living in a country surrounded by United States military bases.

I understand your frustration. But Rand basically had a choice between supporting the deal and effectively ending his Presidential campaign, or opposing the deal and at least give himself some chance to win. I understand the argument that it's better to always stand on principle even if you lose every time. But Rand has chosen to make certain moves that at least make him a contender for the GOP nomination.

[Liberty Commentary]

Say what you will, but the grassroots campaigns for guys like Bernie Sanders don't have to deal with this sort of betrayal. Rand can pander all he wants, but he shouldn't expect people like me to stick by him.

[specsaregood]

So wait, this was apparently a lose-lose scenario, regardless of how he voted, yet there's still disappointment?

I trust that Randal thinks that the current situation is better than the situation this deal would create.

1) sanctions relief precedes evidence of compliance

I might suggest that some want it this way so that when they don't "comply" they can say Iran has broken the deal and push for actual war.

[erowe1]

So wait, this was apparently a lose-lose scenario, regardless of how he voted, yet there's still disappointment?

What are you talking about? Every single point in the OP is offensive. How could you expect anyone here not to be disappointed?

Granted, it's not surprising. But there's no upside to this.

[wizardwatson]

deleted

[David Sadler]

From Rand's fb page

The proposed agreement with Iran is unacceptable for the following reasons:
1) sanctions relief precedes evidence of compliance
2) Iran is left with significant nuclear capacity
3) it lifts the ban on selling advanced weapons to Iran
I will, therefore, vote against the agreement.
While I continue to believe that negotiations are preferable to war, I would prefer to keep the interim agreement in place instead of accepting a bad deal. Please help share this news.

Rand adopted the position of the Bill Kristol, his neocons and Israel.

Why is Rand so intent upon intervening in Iran's national security decisions?