Did Rand Paul Endorse Military Action Against Iran? Not Quite
by Nick Hankoff
July 22, 2015—Senator Rand Paul’s unending shift towards the war hawks, especially since the Iran talks concluded, has left many of his (former?) supporters outraged. This outrage is being played up by Buzzfeed after an interview Paul had on the Mark Levin Show today.
The Buzzfeed headline reads Rand Paul Says He Supports Using Military Force If Iran Is Building Nukes. That purported news set off Daniel Larison, senior editor for The American Conservative magazine, who wrote basically the same headline for his blog post on the matter. Larison doesn’t quote Paul, instead choosing to quote the Buzzfeed editor Andrew Kaczynski.
Like what you’re reading? Keep VoicesofLiberty.com going by contributing to the cause of freedom.
But what exactly did Paul say? Mark Levin asked him, “If they violate this treaty, hypothetically, and they’re building nukes, would you support, if you thought it was in America’s self defense interest, attacking them?”
Paul’s answer is tailored to Levin and his audience, but not something Larison or Kaczynski should’ve jumped to any new conclusion about regarding Paul’s stance towards Iran. Paul’s raw answer is in the audio file above, but here I’ll break it down a little more closely:
“I think military force always has to back up diplomacy. And diplomacy doesn’t work without military force behind it, and I think making that decision is a difficult decision, but ultimately, yes, you have to have military force that backs up the diplomatic negotiation that you have. And then we have to say there has to be force as a backdrop to this.”
Understandably, the words in bold (mine) sounded like news worthy of breaking. But there’s a but. And Rand Paul has a pretty big but:
“But I think the decision has to be made, which is the best way to try to have an outcome that is the best outcome. And I think the best outcome, if we were looking at the best outcome from there, if we were to use military force, I think we delay a nuclear weaponization but i think ultimately what you end up having is you have situation where there are no more inspections and there may well be a quicker development of a nuclear weapon after that. So, I think as long as we have a chance of negotiations we should continue it, but it has to be verifiable. I think the mistake that this president has made is that I think he was so eager for a deal that he cut a deal that I think allows the collapse of the sanctions before you have evidence of consistent compliance.”
Larison correctly writes, “Attacking Iran would be grossly illegal and unnecessary,” but this ignores Levin’s question to Paul which was a hypothetical where if Paul thought (in Levin’s imagination) it was in America’s “self-defense interest,” would Paul attack Iran? Levin’s question had necessity built into it. As near-impossible that hypothetical is, Paul answered it, then went on to give his “best outcome” policy of returning to negotiations if Iran began building nukes.
Connect With Us