There is a difference between a movement and a campaign. Paul has a serious chance at winning, if he treats it as a campaign. That doesn't have mean he has to give up on the movement.
Saying he will "fight constitutional wars" and downplaying the Iranian threat is not a good campaign move. It just won't win any votes. He can and should frame the same answer in a way that projects strength and defense.
There is a huge difference in psyche between these two statements
1. "I'll fight wars constitutionally, getting congressional approval, when there is an imminent threat to the nation. Currently, Iran is not a threat because of X,Y,Z."
2. "If Iran posed an imminent danger to the United States I'll go to Congress with a declaration of War, and use the strength of this nation to make sure Iran would never pose another threat to the country".
Both statements say essentially the same thing, but the impacts to voters is tremendously different. Downplay the lack of Iranian threat, and play up the response if they become a threat. Don't answer what a threat is (and here I agree with the don't respond to "specific scenarios").
This isn't class. People believe Iran is a threat even when they aren't. People wont' respond to Paul lecturing on why Iran isn't currently a threat, but they'll respond to him saying he'll fight them when they do become a threat (which fortunately will most likely be never).
