VIDEO: Intelligence Officer Says Ron Paul Is Right on Iran

[Constitutional Paulicy]

Judge Andrew Napolitano discusses Ron Paul's foreign policy towards Iran with Lt. Col. Anthony Schaffer.

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

this guy supports Ron, but says iran may have 2 low yield nuclear weapons... doesnt that go against what Ron said about theres no nuclear weapons in iran? although, just because they have nukes doesnt mean they have a means to deliver it. probably weighs are few hundred pounds or even tons.

 

[paparazziparks]

this guy supports Ron, but says iran may have 2 low yield nuclear weapons... doesnt that go against what Ron said about theres no nuclear weapons in iran? although, just because they have nukes doesnt mean they have a means to deliver it. probably weighs are few hundred pounds or even tons.

I think he's just saying that Ron Paul's policy toward Iran, should it have a nuclear weapon, is the most sound. This guy supports the most crucial part of Ron Paul's Iran stance, even if he's (in my opinion falsely) saying that Iran has nuclear weapons capabilities. Saying Iran has no nukes leaves the argument "What if they have nukes? What if you're wrong?" open. This guy agrees with the part of the argument that completely shuts down Santorum et al's "bombing Iran" viewpoint, and is doing so from an overall worldview similar to neoconservatives.

Does Ron Paul still say Iran has no nuclear weapons? I know the IAEA has come out with a report saying they have evidence that Iran may be pursuing it, but I've also read that the evidence is shaky and unproven, or just references their previous weapons program. Paul likened Santorum's take on Iran to saying there were WMD's in Iraq, which either implies that Iran isn't pursuing the weapons, or that the threat is being overblown. I haven't heard him say that Iran doesn't have ambitions for nuclear weapons, at least since the IAEA report came out in November. He focuses more on the threat Iran would pose if it did, which I think is the right approach. Arguing the level of threat is going to win over a lot more people, because the argument covers so many more scenarios. I think he should still argue about the evidence of Iranian nuclear weapon ambition, but stress the "threat level" argument that takes the debate off the table, along with stressing Israel's nuclear program.

I watched his debate with Ron Paul on Stossel's show. This guy supports controlling natural resources in foreign countries and using the military to do so if needed. He seems to support an aggressive foreign policy and sees it as pragmatic, which is completely different from Paul, who always stresses diplomacy. Having him agree with Paul on this issue is a boost, at least in the current Iran debate, as he agrees for reasons that any war hawk can agree with.