Rand Paul’s views don’t deserve backlash

On April 7, Sen. Rand Paul announced his run for presidency. As soon as he declared his candidacy, The Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America, a neoconservative nonprofit, revealed that they will launch an advertisement attacking Paul on his foreign policy views. The advertisement accuses Paul of supporting President Barack Obama’s negotiations with Iran and of “[standing] against sanctions that would hold the regime accountable.” The group has been running the advertisement in key early primary states, including Iowa and New Hampshire.

This smear campaign is misguided for two reasons: first, it is mistaken about Paul’s views on Iran. Second, it feeds into the hawkish mania that seems to dominate mainstream foreign policy thinking in favor of the Republican Party. The GOP, if it wishes to be a true contender in 2016, would be wise to curb its neoconservative rhetoric in favor of Paul’s more sensible approach.

Paul’s father, Ron Paul, ran for president as a Republican in 2008 and 2012, but Ron never made it past the primaries, largely due to his stance on foreign policy. He was strongly anti-war, favoring a strict non-interventionist ideology. During one of the debates, Ron argued that from the Iranian perspective, nuclear development is rational, given America’s hostile relationship with Iran’s neighbors.

This view earned Ron some backlash and ultimately cost him the Republican candidacy. Rand Paul is not his father, though his viewpoints have the same libertarian foundation as his father’s. When it comes to Iran, Paul differs from his father greatly. Despite what the advertisement claimed, Paul has consistently voted in favor of sanctions against Iran. He was also one of the 47 Republican senators to sign the letter advising Iran’s leaders to hold off on negotiations with Obama until the Senate approves a deal. Clearly, the claim that Paul stands with Obama on Iran is baseless.

The only piece of evidence the advertisement uses in support of their anti-Paul argument is an audio clip of Paul saying that Iran is “not a threat to our national security.” This clip is from eight years ago, before Paul even entered in the U.S. Senate. His views have evolved with the issue. Whether he flip-flopped to appease his party or whether his views are sincere is of little relevance — the Paul that is running for president clearly approaches the Iran nuclear issue differently than Obama does.

But this Republican organization’s unfounded accusations are revelatory of a deeper problem the GOP needs to confront. Ronald Reagan and later George W. Bush ushered in a new era of conservative foreign policy, one that supports excessive foreign intervention and unauthorized preemptive wars. Paul strays from his party’s platform on this topic, but in a way that will benefit him in a national election against Hillary Clinton, the presumed future Democratic candidate.

Paul supports maintaining a robust, nimble military (though he doesn’t necessarily support drastic defense spending hikes, as some of his Republican opponents do). But he also emphasizes a cautious and constitutional approach to foreign intervention. He recognizes that a president cannot make the decision to bomb and invade another country on his or her own — he or she must first gain Congressional support. This is basic Constitutional law.

Paul also stresses that the government must have a better understanding of the consequences of foreign intervention. He is one of the only Republicans (or government officials for that matter) who is willing to admit that when the United States armed Syrian rebels, it strengthened ISIS, which is now arguably the largest threat to our national defense. He wants the government to understand that when it topples or weakens a secular regime in the Middle East, it creates a vacuum that is almost always filled by radical Islam.

Paul’s foreign policy is not weak, nor is it isolationist. It is, however, sensible at a time when many Americans still feel war-weary. The Republicans should be able to reconcile with his views, and adopt them into the mainstream party platform. Lying about his stance because it is a perceived threat to the party establishment will set them up for another loss in 2016.