Rand Paul

Rand Paul Peeves Fans of Ron Paul's Foreign Policy: "Any Attack on Israel will be Treated as an Attack on the United States"


As Nick Gillespie noted earlier today, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is being pretty sharp in at least defending proper constitutional prerogatives when it comes to decisions about when U.S. military might ought to be extended overseas.

But today he said something to Breitbart News that highly distresses those who thought his vision of when U.S. military might ought to be used would be similar to his father Ron Paul's: only in actual defense of the United States.

As reported in Daily Caller:

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul took what very well could be considered his most pro-Israel stance yet, saying in an interview that an attack on Israel

 should be treated as an attack on the United States.

Asked whether the United States would stand with Israel and provide it foreign aid if the Jewish state were attacked by its enemies, Paul went a step further.

"Well absolutely we stand with Israel," he said in an interview with Breitbart News, "but what I think we should do is announce to the world – and I think it is pretty well known — that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States."

From Daily Paul, a sampling of some of the discomfited reactions of Paulites who thought Rand might follow his father's (and George Washington's) mistrust of entangling alliances and the dangers of war they create.

Paul has understandably and obviously been walking a line between keeping his dad's (not insignificant, 11 percent of the primary vote in 2012) base and reaching out to enough other Republicans to be a viable national winner down the line. But Ron Paul's fans are very easy to disappoint if you don't hew to what seemed strong and unique about him as a politician. My book, Ron Paul's Revolution: The Man and the Movement he Inspired.

NEXT: Big Turnout for Washington Forum on Marijuana Sales

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But Ron Paul’s fans are very easy to disappoint if you don’t hew to what seemed strong and unique about him as a politician.

    To put it mildly. If they don’t get over this tic they’ll wind up as irrelevant as the LP.

    Seriously, if Rand flerking Paul isn’t libertarian enough for you you’re self-marginalizing and saving the left the effort of marginalizing ltd gov persons.

    1. Wow, Tulpa and I agree on something related to libertarianism and the Republican Party.

      Someone write this down.

      1. this down

        1. Psst, typing isn’t writing. I just hope I can remember why I wrote in on my notepad three weeks from now.

          1. pshaw! You old timers and your quaint definitions based on the tools of writing.

      2. Re: Randian,

        Wow, Tulpa and I agree on something related to libertarianism and the Republican Party.

        Oh, we have to put the two of you together! How’bout the pizza parlor, saturday?

        Wear a pink ribbon.

    2. What Tulpa said.

    3. I can get over it. I don’t have to like it though.

    4. Rand Paul openly shuns the Libertarian label. So those of us who aren’t taken in by him are taking him at his word, and viewing him as a Conservative (albeit, one who actually follows the Constitution, but there is a lot more to libertarianism than that)

  2. Great another politician who wants to give out blank checks to defend other countries.

    Its so easy to give out blank checks, to other countries, to banks, to homeowners, to old people, to young people, but its not so easy when it comes to paying.

    1. I just watched him skewer John Kerry over foreign aid – particularly over aid to Pakistan and free F-16’s for Egypt.

      1. But then he goes and gives the ultimate foreign aid to Israel, the pledge that the US will go to war for it.

    2. Yup. Talk about a “moral hazard.” If his statement was actually enacted, and Israel attacked Iran and killed a couple thousand people, and the Iranians retaliated, we would then be stuck in a war against Iran.

  3. Rand Paul is obviously tacking to the far right in order to appeal to the GOP base for the 2016 primaries.

    So he alienates a few thousand LPers? So what? I always support the rational action.

    1. I always support the rational action.


    2. See Tulpa, Cyto, and the rest of you? This is who you have agreeing with you.

  4. Well in Libertopia they say, that the neo-con Rand boners grew three sizes that day.

  5. Quick! Somebody get out the Buttplug LP Purity test!

  6. Are you trying to tell me that a man’s son doesn’t completely agree with his father?!


  7. At the caucuses last January, I spoke for Ron Paul and focused on respecting the constitution and limiting the size of government. I was the only one to speak that night that drew a question from the audience. And I was asked about Ron’s position on Israel. This topic was a major issue with SoCons who didn’t like Ron.

    Apparently, Rand pay attention.

    1. Note that this is not a foreign policy issue for the conservative Christians in Iowa. It is about protecting the land of Jesus from the Muslim hordes — it is about religion.

      1. It’s just not up for debate. On pot and maybe even abortion you can sometimes get a socon to accept the libertarian position. But not on IL. If we want go get Iowa socons to vote for a libertarian in the primary, it can only be a libertarian who gives in to them on this issue.

    2. Hooray for allowing religious hicks to dictate foreign policy! How cunning of us!!

  8. Police capture dogs after woman trapped in car Watch Video

    Officials said the woman was getting out of her car when the dogs ran up, growling and foaming at the mouth.

    So two growling, foaming-at-the-mouth dogs are attacking a woman trapped in her car, and cops wait for animal control to show up. Meanwhile, any dog barking while tied up in the back yard is a threat to the safety of the officers?

    NWA said it best.

    1. The foaming-at-the-mouth dogs weren’t growling at police officers. Big difference.

  9. I asked the morning links gang for some help earlier, but perhaps the evening links crew could offer some insights into some potential areas I will be attending school in the fall.

    I wasn’t planning on having a car, but it sounds like with the exception of Chicago I should rethink that.

    Basically, the schools I’ve been accepted into or am still waiting to hear back from are in Chicago, Houston, Baltimore, Lexington, Louisville, Miami, Tallahassee, and Charlotte. I would be grateful if you could offer any insights into how easy it is to get around said cities, additional knowledge of transit in those places, or just general housing/living-in-the-area knowledge.

    A big thanks to everyone who replied in the AM Links as well.

    1. shit… this is not PM links

    2. I’ve lived in Baltimore, worked in Charlotte, spent a lot of time in Houston (lived in Austin), and now live in Chicago. Hands down, Chicago is the easiest to get around in without a car. A car downtown would be a fucking nightmare, not to mention a hideous parking expense. Metra and CTA are by and large quite good and quite extensive.

      Even if B’more were easy to get around in, it’s a Detroit-level shithole. The only good thing about it is having a terrific football team.

  10. Rand Paul is very clearly pandering here. I sincerely doubt that he’s actually going to be all that supportive of war if war comes.

    1. I hope you’re right. Rand has done a very good job so far, and I definitely understand the need to not be alienating towards mainstream GOPers as his father, but at the same time, I hope he doesn’t end up going too far in sacrificing principles.

    2. “Rand Paul is very clearly pandering”

      This is very unfortunate and also politically unnecessary.

      In May, 2011 Ben Netanyahu made a pretty awesome speech before congress during which he stated that Israel is more than capable of defending itself, and that he would greatly appreciate it if the US President wouldn’t vilify Israel for that right or capability.

      That’s all Rand Paul needs to repeat.

  11. Disappointing. I was hoping Rand could try to placate the pro-Israel sentiment within the GOP without embracing foreign aid or military alliance

    1. See Randian’s comment above.

      1. See my response

  12. Until Israel joins NATO, I don’t see how Rand could justify this stance.

    1. Why not? The US can’t have allies outside of NATO all of a sudden? Better tell South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, ect…. And not all of our NATO “allies” are deserving of that term.

      1. I was think more of the “an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us” adage.

        1. You don’t think an attack on Japan would be treated as an attack on the US? I’ll bet it would and most politicians would say as much.

  13. Let me see if you can defend Rand Paul’s statement: Can war to assist (not “defend”, per se) a treatied ally, such as Israel, be okay on libertarian grounds so long as the country’s post-9/11 perpetual war-boner mentality is kept in check*?

    *Granted, Israel is located in the Middle East, so the the war-boner mentality will grow to freakish proportions once it stops becoming a war to “assist” Israel to a war to defend Israel from at least a half dozen other countries.

    1. Do we have a treaty with Israel?

        1. It is pretty unlikely that the rest of the Middle East will decide to gang up on Israel again. Syria is currently enjoying a civil war, Jordan wants no part, and Lebanon is permanently fucked up. Only Egypt could organize an attack and get themselves wiped out.

          But if it did happen, the U.S. would probably do what we did before – break any blockade and offer Israel whatever resupply it needs.

      1. Good question. I just assumed that there’s a document somewhere that pledges the US’s military support in the case of a war of annihilation.

    2. Re: Caleb Tuberville,

      Let me see if you can defend Rand Paul’s statement: Can war to assist (not “defend”, per se) a treatied ally, such as Israel, be okay on libertarian grounds so long as the country’s post-9/11 perpetual war-boner mentality is kept in check?

      As long as people who want to help Israel pay for the expedition themselves. Not me.

    3. Libertarianism ends at the water’s edge.

      The NAP assumes the existence of a dominant coercer who enforces it, and there is no such thing beyond our border.

      1. If we are safe from attack, libertarianism very much extends from the water’s edge (I assume you mean non-intervention when you say “libertarianism”)

      2. Nonsensical but logically valid consequences of Tulpa’s axiom and implied premises:

        1. The United States government is a perfect enforcer of the non-aggression principle, never wronging anyone not deserving of it, and always protecting those who are.

        2. No other government is morally equivalent to the US government; all other countries are despotic hellholes where rights are trampled wantonly.

        3. Your place of birth, and thus likely and in many cases mandatory place of residence, was entirely your choice, and choosing to be born outside the US is self-evidently immoral.

        4. Borders form a magic line delineating moral from immoral actions; all acts committed outside of our national borders are just.

        5. Morality ultimately descends from government; for without government, there is no one to determine what is moral.

  14. Sure, he’s pandering a bit, but he’s probably as good as his word. He will help defend Israel if attacked. But on the bright side, they probably won’t be attacked. And if they are, it probably won’t be by a country they can’t easily defeat themselves, much less with our help. And he would be seen as a popular war president afterward, able to do more controversial things like audit the fed or fix entitlements. If he’s good on almost every other issue it’s not a dealbreaker for me.

  15. I see AIPAC succeeded with Rand where they failed on his father. Still, even with this statement, in the scheme of things he’s one of the least hawkish members of the Senate, who knows he has to bark louder because he doesn’t have much bite.

    1. Re: Proprietist,

      I see AIPAC succeeded with Rand where they failed on his father.

      I don’t know, P. The contention that any attack on Israel will be taken as an act of war against the U.S. is too radical even for the most hawkish of hawks. They may privately hold those feelings, but they have not externalized them in those terms. My guess is that Paul is leading the AIPAC crowd into thinking he’s one of them by making such a bold statement. Paul is the same guy that stopped a vote proposed by Marco Rubio on sanctions against Lybia, so I have to think there’s more strategy at play here than mere idle chat.

      1. He’ll never win over AIPAC and he knows it. He’s probably targeting the sheeple who jingoistically and blindly support Israel because a bunch of ex-commies their next generation of statists at National Review and Fox News told them to.

  16. “Well absolutely we stand with Israel,” he said in an interview with Breitbart News, “but what I think we should do is announce to the world ? and I think it is pretty well known ? that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States.”

    If he really means that, it would be a first because Israel has been attacked several times in her history and yet the U.S. never considered them to be acts of war against America.

    It looks more like he’s pandering to the AIPAC crowd – that is, as in bamboozle – to get their blessing. That makes him shrewd, not necessarily principled.

    1. You can be both shrewd and principled. And generally when Israel was attacked the U.S. has given material support. For example look at Nixon and the Yom Kippur war.

  17. Sounds like a pretty serious deal to me dude.


  18. The knee-jerk support for Israel these days is intriguing considering that before the 1970s it was never a foregone conclusion that the US government or the American people at large would support the Jewish state.

    Ike told them and the limeys and the frogs to go fuck themselves over Suez.

    And Nixon famously said, “Fuck the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway.”

    And in the words of Don Draper, “So, we’ve got a quasi-communist state where women have guns, and it’s filled with Jews.”

    1. of course, before the 1970s the only support the US government had given to Israel was Harry Truman pandering to get the Jewish vote in 1948 recognizing Israel in spite of established promises to the Saudi and other Arab governments to not do so without consultation and established promises by the British government to the indigenous Arabs in the region for their own government under the terms of the League of Nations Mandate.

    2. Yeah a lot of things seem like they were less fucked up before the 1970s it seems. I don’t know if I’m allowed to say that around here but it’s true. At least weed is better now though.

  19. Ugh. I’m going to have to seriously think about voting for him after this. If he votes against Hagel (and justifies it in neocon terms), I’m going to give up on him completely.

  20. So either Rand is trying to bamboozle the AIPAC crowd or he has become an interventionist. Ugh. I guess you have to make sacrifices if you want to get the GOP nomination. Not sure how a “less free shit” message will work out well though.

    1. He’s actually being clever. No one has attacked Israel in decades so he’s betting he won’t have to action his statement, but it gives him more room to be less interventionist than otherwise.

      1. You sound like an Obama supporter (“he may be saying X, but what he really wants is the opposite of X!! Any day now he’ll close Guantanamo! he’s playing the long game!”)

        I see bootlicking and apologetics aren’t just confined to Obamatrons

        1. You sound like an Obama supporter Ugh so true. I remember Howley and Balko using the “Obama is liar” as a defense back in 2008.

          Also to be fair several anti-war libertarians seem to be trying to bamboozle the anti-war left into thinking that eliminating the warfare state will somehow spare the welfare state. Either that or they are only “libertarian” in the sense that they don’t like the US government.

  21. Most libertarian Paul fans like Rand. Most of the people who are so…picky are the Alex Jones crowd. The real reason they don’t like Rand is because he and others like him have been giving false narratives about the presidential campaign and other things and is actively telling people that Rand has sold his father out and is now working for the NWO, a conspiracy most of us reject. They are just using the opportunity to jump on him. Trust me, as long as Rand stays him ground on foreign policy and spending and fights to let states nullify federal laws, including drug, gun, health-care laws (like Colorado, Washington, New York gun ban, or Obamacare), then he’ll have a powerful coalition of libertarian and conservative supporters.

    1. Rand voted yes for a 600 billion dollar military budget and Iran sanctions. I don’t see how his foreign policy is that great.

      1. It isn’t. It’s just less shitty than the rest. But if you’re looking for principles, look elsewhere

  22. I think it’s time to move on from Rand. Gary Johnson, for one, is better.

    1. hahahahahahah *gasp* hahahahahahaha

      1. Well he is. I don’t see what’s so funny about it.


        2. Gary “humanitarian military intervention” Johnson?

  23. Rand is clearly getting lubed up for the presidential run. Its essentially fact. Its gonna come down to Christie vs. Paul vs QUEEN HILLARY.

    I honestly find the Paul people who write someone completely off because they wont tow the “Gaza=concentration camp” propaganda as annoying as the so-called “Israel firsters”.

    1. And lets assume for a second that the unlikely event of Israel being attacked again, occurs. A principled guy like Rand would still go to Congress to have the matter debated.

    2. Yeah that whole “reality” and “telling the truth” thing is so annoying. It’s alright when you’re young but then you grow up and realize that being about nothing is far superior.

    3. There’s a great distance between “Gaza is a concentration camp” and “Any attack on Israel is an attack on the United States”

  24. Given the correlation of forces, the only kind of attack on Israel that could succeed is a nuclear first strike. Somebody performs an act of aggression that kills millions, it’s both proper and only sensible to make sure he doesn’t remain in charge of nuclear weapons afterward.

  25. I see all the Hit and Runpublicans are predictably defending this act of cowardice (or madness, if he actually means it). Tell me, when he comes out against cutting military spending or against legalizing drugs, are you guys still going to stand behind him.

    Rands done some good, there is no denying that. And he is better than 99% of other politicians. But he is not nearly the man his dad was.

  26. BTW, am I the only one who honestly wouldn’t give a shit if Israel was completely obliterated? Or the Palestinians, for that matter?

    1. BTW, am I the only one who honestly wouldn’t give a shit if Israel was completely obliterated? Or the Palestinians, for that matter?

      Well the US funds Israel so you have to give a shit so sez Raimondo. However you shouldn’t give a shit about that girl the Taliban tried to kill despite the US funding of Afghanistan.

  27. Also I find bashing Rand Paul ironic considering the defenses of Vidal, Hitchens, Zinn and McGovern.

    When Chavez goes I expect some slobbering Obits by Raimondo and Rockwell.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.