In announcing on Tuesday he would seek the presidency, Sen. Rand Paul tried to present himself as supporting a harder line against Iran. But his record on sanctions against the Islamic regime places him a lot closer to President Obama than he let on.
The biggest obstacle that the Kentucky Republican is facing as a presidential candidate is that his core supporters come from the non-interventionist strain of foreign policy that fueled his father Ron Paul’s presidential runs, but he’s seeking votes from a Republican electorate that’s generally more hawkish, and angered by Obama’s nuclear diplomacy with Iran. So he’s trying to strike a balance.
In his announcement speech, Rand touted his past support for sanctions and his backing of legislation that would require congressional approval of any deal that Obama negotiates with Iran. It was his way of seeming tough to more hawkish conservatives, while taking a position that’s defensible from a non-interventionist perspective — that Congress should check executive power and assert its constitutional role when it comes to foreign policy.
“Successful negotiations with untrustworthy adversaries are only achieved from a position of strength,” Paul said in his presidential announcement in Louisville, Ky. “We brought Iran to the table from strength, through sanctions I voted for.”
Though it’s true that Paul backed sanctions in the past, what he left out is that he’s been one of only two Republican senators (along with Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.) that has opposed new sanctions legislation to increase U.S. leverage. This even though every Senate vote for an updated sanctions bill is crucial if there’s a chance of achieving a majority strong enough to override an Obama veto.
“The difference between President Obama and myself — he seems to think you can negotiate from a position of weakness,” Paul declared in his announcement.
But an account of remarks Paul made at a Wall Street Journal-sponsored event in December noted, “Mr. Paul said he doesn’t favor increasing sanctions on Iran as the U.S. continues diplomatic efforts aimed at ending the Iranian nuclear weapons program, saying, ‘I think it would be a mistake to push them away from the table.'”
For all the campaign talk about wanting to negotiate from a position of strength, Paul’s reluctance to ratchet up pressure during negotiations for fear that it would drive Iran away from the table is consistent with the Obama administration’s weak stance.
