Appearing on Fox News Tuesday, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul reaffirmed his image as a foreign policy dove — a man who, at nearly all times, opposes the use of military force, even against a man as evil as Iran’s terror General Qasem Soleimani.
“I hate this,” Paul said about Trump’s decision to have the U.S. military take out Iranian terror General Qasem Soleimani. “I hate that this is where we are going. I have been someone who has been for engagement, but there was much less killing, there was much less violence after the Iran agreement.”
“In fact, there was a lull, a period in which I think we were headed towards a much more stable situation with Iran,” he went on to say while clearly disregarding the many Iranian (backed) aggression against America, among which the recent attack on the embassy in Bagdad. “And now I think that’s gone. And I think it may be gone for a lifetime.”
Incredibly enough, Paul went on to say that “I was a critic of the Iran agreement, however, I think it was a big mistake to pull out of the Iran agreement. We should have tried to build upon the Iran agreement.”
So: the Iran agreement was a terrible deal — as President Trump has called it on numerous occasions — but the White House should’ve “build on it” regardless? Can someone, anyone please tell the good senator that you can’t build a strong house on a rotten foundation?
To make matters even more fantastical, Paul laughably went on to say that the U.S. had already committed an act of war against Iran by placing “an embargo where Iran was not allowed to sell any goods internationally, including their main export of oil.”
“To top that off, we’ve now killed one of their major generals,” he added about the infamous Terror General’s untimely (for him and his Mad Mullah friends, that is) death.
Well, yes. Indeed. There is one minor issue, however. Paul seems to completely forget that a) the Terror General happily continued killing Americans (through proxies), and that b) Iran-backed stooges recently attacked the American embassy in Iraq. If that doesn’t constitute an act of war, I don’t know what does. This in contrast with an embargo, which is an international punishment, not an act of war, as Paul would have us believe.
Like many conservative libertarians (or actually: classical liberals), I’ve got a lot of respect and appreciation for Senator Paul’s views on domestic issues. With regard to foreign policy, however, it is an entirely different matter altogether. We can only hope he never becomes president. If he does, America’s enemies will benefit even more than they did under President Obama.