Why Conservatives Cannot Support Ron Paul In 2012

The worst candidate of this 2012 election is Ron Paul. He cannot be allowed to win the Iowa caucus or any primary election in this election. Let me explain why.

Ron Paul's foreign policy positions are neither conservative, pragmatic or sane. He has the same foreign policy positions as President Obama. Some people think he is further left than Obama. However, at least Obama leads from behind on foreign policy whereas Ron Paul, with his isolationist positions, won't lead at all. 

Since he won't be even be leading from behind, Ron Paul won't protect America. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair explains how isolationism is essentially a choice to do nothing and how it weakens a nation and makes the world a more dangerous place:

In the Middle East, where our strategic interests are dramatically and profoundly engaged, it is unlikely that the effect of a regime going rogue and brutalizing its own people will remain isolated within its own borders.

If Moammar Gadhafi were allowed to kill large numbers of Libyans to quash the hope of a different Libya, we could end up with a pariah government at odds with the international community—wounded but still alive and dangerous. We would send a signal of Western impotence in a region that analyzes such signals keenly. We would dismay those agitating for freedom, boosting opposition factions hostile to us.

This underlines another point: Inaction is also a decision, a policy with consequence. The wish to keep out of it all is entirely understandable, but it is every bit as much a decision as acting.

If you look at Ron Paul's record, you will find that he has not made the world a safer place for the United States, our allies or the world.

Ron Paul & Iran

The strongest example of this is his position on Iran's nuclear program. Watch him explain his views on Iran during the most recent Republican debate in Iowa:  

The fact that Ron Paul is fine with Iran having a bomb should be disturbing to anybody regardless if you're on the left, right or in the middle. 

In fact, Ron Paul's isolationist policy means that America will not support people around the world who went to the streets to protest against their government and demanded greater freedoms to the people. For example, Ron Paul was the only person to vote against the House Resolution to support Iranian protesters back in 2009. 

His isolationist policies also means that Ron Paul would not do anything to stop investors from doing businesses in Iran since he  voted against HR 1400, which aimed at blocking foreign investment in Iran, in particular its lucrative energy sector. But then again, why make it harder for foreign companies to invest in Iran's energy sector if he thinks that Iran is using these nuclear plants for peaceful purposes or that the rest of the world should be fine with Iran using these nuclear plants to make nuclear bombs. 

Ron Paul & Terrorism

 He stated that he would not have approved of sending our special forces to kill Osama Bin Laden. He has also voted against  the Terrorism Information Awareness bill which provides funding for offensive and defensive military programs that would help combat terrorism. He also voted against the Project BioShield Act of 2003 which was an initiative to research and develop vaccines, medications, and other countermeasures to combat biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological bioterrorism threats to our national security and speeds up the process of authorization for funds for research and purchase of agents to combat bioterrorism.

Ron Paul & Israel  

During the Western Republican Debate, Ron Paul said that he would cut foreign aid off to all countries including Israel:

As Tuesday night’s GOP presidential debate turned to the topic of foreign policy, Ron Paul said he would cut “all foreign aid.” When asked if such cuts would also apply to Israel, Paul said, “I would cut all foreign aid. I would treat everybody equally.”

“That foreign aid makes Israel dependent on us…They should have their sovereignty back,” Paul reasoned.

“To cut military spending is a wise thing to do. We would be safer if we weren’t in so many places…We have an empire. We can’t afford it,” Paul asserted.

Its not surprising that Rand Paul, the son of Ron Paul, shares the same exact views as his family in which he also wants to cut foreign aid to Israel.  

The problem with Ron and Rand Paul's argument is that from an economic stand point, our problem isn’t how much we spend on foreign aid or on military campaigns. That is not why we are massively in debt. Cutting off foreign aid or bringing all the troops home from wherever they are stationed around the world won't make a dent in reducing the national debt. 

The truth is that we can sustain as many military campaigns as America needs if we weren’t for entitlement spending. Entitlement spending is the single largest driver of our current debt right now. In fact, our government is more efficient in the money it spends on defense related matters than it does with entitlement spending. It is true that our government spends more money than it takes in, but the way Ron Paul wants to reduce the deficit by reducing the amount we spend on national security is neither logical, practical or prudent.

Conclusion

Regardless if you choose to call Ron Paul's position "isolationist" or "noninterventionalist", the  results of his policies are the same: no leadership which results in America taking no action against our enemies at home or abroad. Moreover, if Ron Paul were president, you can imagine that he would have no problem saying no to important programs for national security, counterterrorism, our military or supporting our allies. 

In the end, Ron Paul positions on  foreign policy and national security will never be taken seriously by the general public or by conservatives. The more Ron Paul speaks out on foreign policy and national security, it decreases America's trust in him because it will decrease their ability to feel safe and secure with him as a leader.

That is why Conservatives, moderates, Independents or TEA Party people cannot vote for Ron Paul in any other Republican Primary.  He simply doesn't deserve our support at all.

Why Iran Attempted Terrorist Attacks Against the United States

Today, I read an blog article over at Hot Air in which Allahpundit expressed confusion over Iran's choice to conduct a failed terrorist operation in the Middle East. Allahpundit isn't the only one who is confused by Iran's actions. A lot of people are. 

However, I highly recommend a book called Why They Hate Us: Middle Eastern Politics and the Principle of the Strong Horse, authored by Lee Smith. The title of the book, according to Lee Smith comes from Bin Laden’s observation that when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse. 

Lee Smith gave a long interview with Michael Totten in January 2010 in which he talked about his observation about Middle Eastern politics. I will be using quotes from this interview to explain why Iran made a sloppy and poor attempt to conduct terrorist attacks against the United States. 

Osama Bin Laden's observation reveals alot about how the Middle East works. Its also relevant to understanding why a nation like Iran would conduct a sloppy terrorist organization in the United States. 

In order to understand how Bin Laden's observation applies to Iran's botched terrorist attempt, you have know how crucial violence is in Middle Eastern culture and politics:  

To say that Lebanon is held at gunpoint by an armed gang, or that Lebanese journalists are assassinated for their work, Syrian intellectuals and Egyptian rights activists are typically thrown in prison and tortured, and regional minorities like the Shia, Druze, Alawi, Christians, Kurds and Jews have often been the target of purges and political violence all in the name of Arab nationalism, a corporatist ideology that seeks to erase communal as well as individual difference, is not to say that Arabs only understand force, but that violence is a central factor in Arab political life and it is impossible to understand the region without taking this into account. 

Given how central violence is to the Middle East politics, it become easy to see why these countries use violence to maintain national security within that region:

Instead I tend to see 9/11 like this: Middle Eastern regimes, almost all of them, but most notably Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia use various so-called non-state actors to advance their regional interests and deter each other. For instance, Syria’s relationship with Jordan’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Action Front, and Jordan’s friendliness toward the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, means that these two states effectively deter each other—if you use Islamists against me, I will unleash Islamists on you.  

Understand that terrorism a national security tool that Middle Eastern states use and can be considered a unofficial branch of their armed forces:

The jihadi movement, what is often referred to as a transnational network of rogue or non-state actors, is a function of Arab regimes and their security services. 

As a result, according to Lee Smith, terrorism is a foreign policy tool of the Middle East:

Islamist terrorism, is a function of states. Yes, it is an ideological movement with its own history and sources and political ambitions that run counter to the current nation-state system of the Arabic-speaking Middle East; but it is a movement that is sustained by Middle Eastern regimes and their intelligence services who use terror organizations to advance their own strategic interests and deter other states from using terror organizations against them. 

However, despite the fact that Middle Eastern countries use terrorism to project power as well as for foreign and domestic policy reasons, it reveals a major weakness that actually demonstrates how weak these nations really are: 

The fact is that Arab states are weak as it is, and I’m not referring to their inability to provide a better life for their peoples. I mean they can’t defend themselves. The fact they use Al Qaeda to protect them from Iran, and each other, is evidence they are feeble affairs. The Saudis and Egyptians and the rest of the Arabs are waiting on the Israelis to strike the Iranian nuclear program because they can’t do anything about it themselves. As I was saying above, the Arab moment is over, by which I mean the Arabs no longer set the tone and tempo of the region, nor are they even capable of shaping their own destiny. If the Israelis do attack the Iranians it will reveal for all to see what is quite clearly the case: the major regional nodes now are Israel, Iran and perhaps an ascendant Turkey. That’s who is calling the shots in the Middle East today, not the Arabs.

Despite the fact that terrorism reveals how weak Middle Eastern states are in projecting power and maintaining national security, many of these countries still use terrorism as a tool to achieve its foreign policy goals and to prevent other states from achieving their foreign policy goals against them because it is still effective and useful to many of these Middle Eastern nations.

Here's why I think people shouldn't be so confused as to why Iran would conduct a poor terrorist operation. 

Everyone assumes or expects Iran to carry out the operation succesfully and professionally. 

The fact that Iran didn't conduct this mission successfully or professional wasn't the point. The point was to send a message the United States government that it could conduct terrorist attacks unless America agrees to whatever demands Iran is requesting through official and unofficial diplomatic channels. 

However, while Iran's botch terror attempt was designed to communicate a message to America, the real or actual intended recipient of this message wasn't for our country. Iran was sending a message back home to its Middle Eastern neighbors in which it was letting other countries know that they are the strongest horse in the region because it dared to attack the America.  As a result, this is a message warning other nearby states not to mess or interfere with Iran. This message could be because some Middle Eastern nations have joined the international community in preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons.  

If you think this idea is bizzare, check out Lee Smith's reason for why Iran is involved in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: 

The same holds true for the Islamic Republic of Iran. Why does Iran care so much about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? They don’t share a border with Israel, they have not taken in Palestinian refugees like Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, nor are they even an Arab state. Sure, it is a Muslim power and Jerusalem is important to Muslims, but Indonesia is also a Muslim state and it is not anywhere near as vocal as the Tehran regime on this subject; nor of course does the Indonesian government provide many hundreds of millions of dollars of financial support to armed groups that fight Israel, like Hezbollah and Hamas, as the Iranians do.

The reason Iran has inserted itself in the Arab-Palestinian crisis is in order to project power in the region by shaming Sunni states, like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. All of these states, US allies, either have peace treaties with Jerusalem or have opted out of any active participation in the war against Israel. The Iranians calculate that the Arab masses prefer resistance to reform, accommodation and compromise, and so Tehran has picked up the banners of war that the Sunni states have put down. Again, this is not to say that Iran’s rhetoric about destroying Israel is all a put-on, I don’t think it is. But the main reason they are ratcheting up the noise is because they see resistance ideology as a way to get a leg up, as you put it, on their real regional adversaries, the Sunni Arab states. And these countries, along with Israel, are all part of the US-backed order of the Middle East, which means that Iran’s posture toward the Sunnis, as well as Israel, is an enormous issue for us, our major strategic concern right now in the Middle East, bigger than Afghanistan, bigger than Iraq and much bigger than the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

With a little extra understanding of the "strong horse" concept in Middle Eastern politics, Iran's actions aren't really that confusing.