‘The Death of Diplomacy With Iran’: Rand Paul Calls the Situation After Soleimani’s Death ‘Sad’

While several Republicans defended the decision to authorize a strike on Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) did not mince words in an appearance on CNN when he voiced his disapproval of the strike.

On Monday, Paul told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that it is “a certainty” that there will be attacks against American targets in retaliation for the strike.

“While Soleimani may have been plotting attacks, and probably was, it’s now a certainty that there will be attacks in revenge for his killing.”

See his comments below:

He continued to say that the strike on Soleimani has made it harder for Iranian officials to engage in diplomacy with the U.S. without seeking revenge first.

“It lessens the voices of anybody that wants moderation or diplomacy. And even the Iranians will not be able to approach us on diplomacy until there’s revenge. Until there’s adequate revenge to satiate the people who want some kind of revenge. And this is sad. I mean the death of Soleimani, I think, is the death of diplomacy with Iran. I don’t see an off-ramp. I don’t see a way out of this.”

When asked if he thought President Donald Trump made a “major mistake,” Paul said he believed the president received bad advice, and criticized the administration’s Iran strategy —which he suggested was the brainchild of former National Security Advisor John Bolton.

“You’d have to be brain dead to believe that we tear up the [nuclear deal], we put an embargo on you, and we kill your major general. And they’re just going to crawl back to the table and say, ‘What do you want America?’ I mean military escalation is really what you’d predict with this.”

He continued to call the current escalation in military tension predictable, adding that “most people” could have predicted the administration’s strategy would have led to increased military tension.

Additionally, Paul indicated he would support a resolution to limit the president’s authority over military actions in regard to Iran.

“I, in general, have always supported that a declaration of war is necessary. I think killing a country’s major general is an act of war. I don’t think you can get away with saying it’s imminent. ”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) blasted Paul for being “under the illusion” that there are moderates in Iran and urged him “not fall for this Iranian mythology.”

Responses

  1. Hey Rand, comb your hair before you go on TV.

  2. “Giving them free rein to develop nuke” I Ching

    I am confused, I Ching.

    Who was it that got Iran to agree to NOT develop their nuclear weapon program?

    Who was it that abrogated that agreement, to unleash Iran to CONTINUE developing their nuclear weapon program?

    Those are two very simple questions which I hope don’t confuse you.

  3. Paul is being stupid. Iran has been at war with the US for 40 yrs. Kill all Americans. Destroy the Great Satan. Their most recent demonstrations have EXACTLY thatmessage.

    Diplomacy? How’d that work out when they stormed the US embassy and took hostages? That was NO kind of diplomacy or the conduct of a civilized nation.

    Giving them free rein to develop nuke and sending billions in “illicit” aid as Obozo did is appeasement and bribery. It was in not diplomacy.

  4. The killing of an enemy combatant (actual military according to his real General title)(not to be confused with a confused genital) is perfectly within the Constitutional privilege of a president. q.v Obozo’s frequent use of drone attacks.

    Diplomacy is for civilized nations that ACTUALLY PRACTICE it. That ended in ’79 when they stormed our embassy and took hostages.

Comments are closed.