Rand Paul clarifies: No containment on Iran

Washington Post ^ | April 16 at 1:29 pm | Aaron Blake

[SoConPubbie]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is out with another clarification of his foreign policy positions, saying unequivocally in a Washington Post op-ed that he is against a strategy of containment when it comes to Iran.

Asked Sunday about his 2012 vote against a bill that would have prevented a policy of containment -- that is, allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons programs but keeping tabs on them -- Paul said all options should be left on the table. (Paul was the lone vote against the legislation.)

That led some to say that the potential 2016 presidential candidate was open to a policy of containment -- or, at the very least, that he wasn't ruling it out.

He says in his new op-ed that he's 100 percent against containment, but that the United States should never telegraph its moves or take options off the table:

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.

To be against a “we will never contain Iran” resolution is not the same as being for containment of a nuclear Iran. Rather, it means that foreign policy is complicated and doesn’t fit neatly within a bumper sticker, headline or tweet.

Those who reduce it to such do a disservice to their reporting and, potentially, to the security of our nation.

[SoConPubbie]

	"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton "We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all." -- President Ronald Reagan "A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine 1792 "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

[rjsimmon]

This seems as good a time as any for a rousing discussion on this subject, since SoConPubbie brought it up. I would like to hear some thoughts on the Iran problem. Since they have not signed a nuclear non-proliferation agreement with anyone and have a right to energy creation, how would you resolve the conflict of nuclear energy vice nuclear weaponry? Please present theory with potential consequence and resolution.

I believe that the Iranians have the right to nuclear energy but due to their hostile stance in the region should be prevented from nuclear weaponry. Since nuclear fuel for energy can be enriched for weaponizing (given the proper centrifuges and materials), this is in conflict and presents the problem. Should the Iranians be allowed to continue with a nuclear power plant? I surmise no because of previously stated issue. Thus the resolution. The only viable way to prevent enrichment is to eliminate the centrifuge, military action would be required (inspection required access and they are notorious for denial and subversion). This would require agreement by powers in the region as well as the superpowers.

Could this be possible?

[Beagle8U]

They can have a nuke plant and trusted western nations will supply the fuel at cost.

Other than that, any attempt to enrich to make a bomb will result in their litter-box being turned into a glass bowl!

[Iscool]

So Paul is saying we should ignore Iran...What they do is their business...BUT, we should never let on that that is our position...

He is a mirror image of his ‘old man’...That’s why he will do good with the numbers but not quite good enough to go any where...

Rand Paul supports open borders, unfair trade with anyone, anywhere...And smaller government...He’s pro America and anti America at the same time...

[rjsimmon]

They can have a nuke plant and trusted western nations will supply the fuel at cost.

But that still leaves the centrifuges and covert efforts to enrich and weaponize. Potentially, suppliers could demand return of spent rods during refueling?

Other than that, any attempt to enrich to make a bomb will result in their litter-box being turned into a glass bowl!

Therein lies the larger issue. Using fissionable weapons in the region would be a non-starter due to inability of superpowers and regional powers agreeing to their use. Conventional weaponry in a provisional strike would be a possibility, but if the sites are buried in the mountains, they would be ineffective. SOF teams could do some damage, but not a guarantee.

[Iscool]

Other than that, any attempt to enrich to make a bomb will result in their litter-box being turned into a glass bowl!

I think it's a little late for that...No one is going to stop them because no one has...

When they are confident they have enough nuclear warheads on their missiles, they will attack Israel...And Israel has no one to help them out...

Kerry has said they are two months away from a bomb...No one is doing anything to stop it...I and Israel believe they already have them...They just need more before they strike...

[GeronL]

He and Kerry are simpatico on this and many other issues

[Beagle8U]

I know O’bastard will do nothing, I just said what my policy would be.

[SunkenCiv]

earlier on FR: Rand Paul: Let's get this straight --I'm not for containing Iran