Rand Paul’s willingness to okay President Obama’s nuke deal with Iran means he is the odd man out among Republican presidential contenders.
The rest of the field is virtually unanimous in condemning Obama’s deal with the mullahs, which world powers blessed last week as a way to stop the terrorist-sponsoring regime getting nuclear weapons.
A few GOP contenders have vowed to cancel the accord unilaterally if elected president in 2016, although details of the agreement are unlikely to be finalized until talks end in July.
But Paul has downplayed Iran as a national security threat in the past and in recent months voiced support for Obama’s negotiations. Now, the Kentucky senator, who announced his presidential bid on Tuesday, is criticizing Obama as a weak negotiator and casting doubt on Iran’s trustworthiness, but he is reserving his right to support the administration in the end.
“I’m going to keep an open mind and look at the agreement. I do believe that negotiation is better than war,” Paul said Wednesday, during an interview on the Today Show on NBC. “I think I’ve been one of the reasonable people in our party, who has not been beating the drums for war.”
This is a contrast with Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, businesswoman Carly Fiorina, former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, and Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who have all blasted the framework of the deal and additional details revealed by Obama since the outline was concluded on April 2.
All promise to use their executive authority if elected in Nov. 2016 to junk the deal and reset policy toward Iran. This would put them at odds with European allies, China and Russia.
Still, said Perry this week, “One of my first actions in office would be to invalidate the president’s Iran agreement, which jeopardizes the safety and security of the free world.”
Paul’s only red-line demand is that Obama should submit any final deal to Congress for a vote.
He, with his Republican colleagues in the Senate, support legislation which would compel Obama to request congressional approval. The bill, authored by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., is set be heard in committee next week, after Congress returns from a two-week Easter recess.
Paul also is quick to emphasize that while he has taken a different approach toward Iran than other Republicans, he voted for economic sanctions passed by Congress in 2011. He credits sanctions, which would be lifted as a part of Obama’s deal, for squeezing Iran’s economy and bringing the regime to the bargaining table. Paul spent a significant portion of his presidential launch painting himself as tough on Iran.
“We brought Iran to the table through sanctions that I voted for. Now we must stay strong. That’s why I cosponsored legislation that ensures that any deal between the U.S. and Iran must be approved by Congress. Not only is that good policy — it’s the law,” Paul told a hotel ballroom full of supporters Tuesday during a speech in Louisville, Ky. “It concerns me that we may attempt, or the president may attempt, to unilaterally and prematurely halt sanctions.”
Paul does not mince words on domestic issues. On some matters he is less equivocal than his presidential rivals.
The federal government is too big; taxes are too high; and surveillance programs are too intrusive. The presidential hopeful vows to cut, cut, cut if voters send him to the White House in 2016. But on foreign policy, he tries to square his libertarian, non-interventionist approach to foreign policy with a GOP more hawkish than he is.
Early in his Senate career, Paul broke with most Republicans who argued that a nuclear-capable Iran was a threat to the national security of the U.S. and its allies. In September of 2012, the first-term lawmaker was not just the only Republican but the only member of either party to vote against a non-binding Senate resolution that stated it was U.S. policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb.
Obama’s framework deal would allow Iran to retain its nuclear weapons capabilities and free Tehran to develop a bomb openly 10-15 years from now. Much of what happens in the interim would depend on inspections and verifications measures being as robust as the administration claims, as well as Iran keeping its commitments rather than cheating the way North Korea did in the 1990s after it signed a similar agreement.
On Tuesday, Paul offered vague opposition to a final deal that does not end Iran’s “nuclear ambitions and does not have strong verification measures.” He didn’t explain what that means in practical terms. The candidate was equally evasive on Wednesday, refusing to answer Today Show host Savannah Guthrie’s question regarding whether he would support a final deal that was based on the parameters of the framework as presented by the Obama administration, assuming Tehran agrees.
“If it were written in black and white exactly as President Obama has described it, and the Iranians agreed to it exactly as it has been described, is it a good deal, would you support it?” Guthrie asked.
Paul dodged by saying he was concerned that Iran has publicly disputed the U.S. version of the framework agreed to in talks last week in Switzerland. Of course, Guthrie’s question accounted for that. And Iran has a history of proving untrustworthy and opaque regarding its nuclear weapons program. The deal that has been presented relies on Iran keeping its word and an inspections regime that catches them if the don’t — neither of which are guaranteed.
“The sincerity of the Iranians does make a big difference, and if they’re immediately saying that the agreement doesn’t mean what President Obama says, that is a big problem,” Paul said.
