Is Rand Paul's refusal to rule out Containment of Iran a Disqualifier for the Presidency with Conservatives who believe in a Strong Defense?

Seemingly oblivious to the implications of what he was saying, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told ABC’s Jonathan Karl that he didn’t think it was a good idea to rule out containment of Iran: 

I’ve repeatedly voted for sanctions against Iran. And I think all options should be on the table to prevent them from having nuclear weapons,” Paul said on “This Week” Sunday. But he said those who oppose the idea of containment — or living with an Iran with nuclear weapons — ignore that such an outcome has been necessary in the past.

“They said containment will never ever, ever be our policy,” Paul said of those who oppose Iran getting nuclear weapons at any cost. “We woke up one day and Pakistan had nuclear weapons. If that would have been our policy toward Pakistan, we would be at war with Pakistan. We woke up one day and China had nuclear weapons. We woke up one day and Russia had them.” 

“The people who say ‘by golly, we will never stand for that,’ they are voting for war,” he added. 

Asked by ABC’s Karl if we could “live with” and “contain” a nuclear Iran, Paul said, “I think it’s not a good idea to announce that in advance.”

“Should I announce to Iran, ‘Well, we don’t want you to, but we’ll live with it?’ No, that’s a dumb idea to say that you’re going to live with it,” Paul said. “However, the opposite is a dumb idea too,” referring to the prospect of war. 

His repeated refusal to rule out containment has profound implications for his presidential ambitions and may suggest he has given up on positioning himself as a mainstream conservative on national security. Why are his remarks such a problem? A whole bunch of reasons:

Read the rest of the article HERE and listen to Paul's complete interview below:

If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.