Republicans need more facts and less posturing

February 6, 2012 by Nathan Warner 

When it comes to foreign policy, candidates should have a hands-off approach

I am far from a Ron Paul fan. However, I can’t help sometimes seeing the attraction he has to a small but fervent sect of voters.

The reason for my own admiration is partly because of Paul’s libertarian views on social policy, though that is largely cancelled out by his extreme economic policies. Mostly, though, it’s Paul’s foreign policy views that are distinct, original and somewhat sane, and thus deserve more positive attention than they get.

It is helpful to first recount the entire Republican field’s views on foreign policy. In November, CNN reported that their views on Iran were the one similarity between most of the candidates. The prevailing view: “President Barack Obama is not doing enough to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions.” Each of the GOP candidates has given their two cents about Iran or about the Middle East in general.

Presidential aspirant Rick Santorum declared at the November GOP foreign policy debate that, “We need to say very clearly that we will be conducting covert activity to do everything we can to stop their nuclear program.” This week, he warned Missouri that failure to reelect him would mean that Iran will procure a nuclear weapon, which will threaten even the American Midwest.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich agrees that we should take explicit but simultaneously covert action.

“First of all, have a maximum covert operation to block and disrupt the Iranian nuclear program, including taking out their scientists, including breaking up their systems, all of it covertly, all of it deniable,” said Gingrinch. It remains to be seen how Mr. Gingrich can now plausibly deny assassinating Iranian scientists once (and if) he is president, but at least we know his position on the issue.

Current (and former) front-runner Mitt Romney calls Obama’s Iran policy his “greatest failing, from a foreign policy standpoint.” Never mind that Iran still hasn’t actually acquired a nuclear weapon and thus the “greatest failing” hasn’t quite failed just yet.

Romney went on to say that Obama should not have capitulated to Russia, nor ruled out military action — of which he did neither. It isn’t really capitulating to Russia if they have an equal veto on the U.N. Security Council. I suppose by “capitulating” Romney could mean “utilizing international organizations and/or following international norms instead of acting unilaterally.” He ended his comments by claiming that, “If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if we elect Mitt Romney, if you elect me as the next president, they will not have a nuclear weapon.” We should commend him on his logic, even if he fails colossally in even attempting to establish the veracity of his premise.

All of this posturing ignores the reality on the ground: President Obama’s foreign policy is widely recognized as being perhaps the most successful part of his administration. The current administration has crippled al-Qaeda by killing Osama bin Laden, among other terrorist leaders, and has stepped up drone surveillance and attacks worldwide. Obama ordered armed intervention in Libya, this time wisely refusing to act unilaterally and instead corralling international support, especially from regional allies such as the League of Arab States. This is all the more puzzling because Obama has yet to, as he has put it several times: “Take any options off the table” in his foreign policy toward Iran, and has led the West in imposing a new, more stringent round of economic sanctions on the Iranian government.

This brings us to Ron Paul, who has resisted the bandwagon approach to foreign policy and has remained consistent to his libertarian, non-interventionist roots. In the same November debate, Paul declared that much of the recent controversy over Iran has been simple political posturing. In his words, “I’m afraid what’s going on right now is similar to the war propaganda that went on against Iraq.”

This is not to say that the U.S. and the international community shouldn’t be worried about Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons. In fact, soon before the November debate, an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report sounded new warnings about Iranian nuclear energy, stating it “has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.” The ensuing economic sanctions led Iran to then threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz off to international trade, which would be catastrophic to oil imports worldwide. These are all serious concerns that should be addressed by any person aspiring to lead our country.

However, this kind of Republican posturing does nobody any good. The world should be encouraged by Iran’s recent willingness to allow IAEA inspectors into its facilities, and should continue to encourage Iran to adhere to international norms regarding nuclear energy and weapons. We should also encourage sanity and restraint from contenders for the presidency, especially when their decisions and even their rhetoric could have international consequences. As James Fallows of The Atlantic puts it, “Apart from Ron Paul, no prominent Republicans seem to be expressing second thoughts.” That in itself is troubling.