Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., entered the presidential race this week under fire for his shifting positions on Iran.
In 2007, when pushing the presidential candidacy of his father, Paul argued that a nuclear Iran wasn’t a threat to the United States. Now that he’s running for president, he’s trying to argue that he always believed a nuclear Iran presented a threat to the United States.
Asked about the shift by the Daily Caller, Paul offered the following response: I think your views on foreign policy should reflect events, so it’d be kind of crazy to think your views would not change as events change. So for example, I’ve always thought Iran getting a nuclear weapon was a bad idea and dangerous to our country. But over the last eight years, as Iran has made progress in their nuclear enrichment program, it’s become more of a danger. So to say it was the same danger as eight years ago would be basically a foolish notion.
The problem with his defense is that in his 2007 comments, Paul didn’t merely say that Iran wasn’t a threat at that particular moment — he dismissed the idea that Iran would be a threat even if the radical regime successfully obtained a nuclear weapon.
Here were Paul’s full comments in a 2007 radio interview with conspiracist Alex Jones, first brought to light by the Free Beacon’s Alana Goodman: I think people want to paint my father into some corner, but if you look at it intellectually, look at the evidence that Iran is not a threat. Iran cannot even refine their own gasoline. Over 50 percent of their gasoline is imported from Europe. Gen. Abizaid, who’s no left-wing nut, was head of the theater over there, retired recently and he says look, we should discourage Iran from having a nuclear weapon, but if they should get one, it is not necessary — they are not a threat to our national security, it is not necessary to go to war with them.
Jones interjected to say that “The CIA’s own national assessment says they’re not going to have one for eight years.” Paul mockingly responded, “Yeah, if we could just get Mike Huckabee to understand what that is. I’m not sure he understands what the National Intelligence estimate is. But you’re right, even our own intelligence community consensus opinion now is that they’re not a threat. My dad says they don’t have an air force, they don’t have a navy, you know? It’s ridiculous to think that they’re a threat to our national security. It’s not even that viable to say they’re a nation threat to Israel. Most people think Israel has 100 nuclear weapons, you know?”
The broader context makes it quite clear that Paul was saying not that Iran wasn’t a threat because they’d never be able to develop nuclear weapons, but that a nuclear Iran wasn’t a threat. So it simply isn’t accurate for him to contend, “I’ve always thought Iran getting a nuclear weapon was a bad idea and dangerous to our country.”
