The GOP’s deranged foreign-policy dream: Build a wall around America—and then prepare for World War

[DonViejo]

The GOP’s deranged foreign-policy dream: Build a wall around America—and then prepare for World War III

The way Republican candidates for president have responded to Iran negotiations tells you all you need to know

HEATHER DIGBY PARTON

It seems like only yesterday that the Beltway establishment was assuring us that the Tea Party had fundamentally transformed the GOP’s approach to foreign policy and national security, paving the way for Rand Paul and perhaps some of the other more conservative Republicans to attract the anti-war faction to its side. Some even went so far as to say that the Robert Taft conservatives were back, referring to the famous Roosevelt-era isolationist. Never mind the fact that the Tea Party has never been the least bit isolationist, or that conservative Republicans are all unreconstructed hawks; it was taken as an article of faith among many that this was the path by which the Republicans would “moderate” and once again become the reasonable party the Beltway fantasizes could serve as the proper balance to the liberal hippies of the left.

If the last few month of bellicose GOP presidential hopefuls caterwauling about saving Western civilization didn’t finally persuade the establishment that their narrative is no longer operative, the battalion of candidates’ uniform reaction to this week’s announcement of a nuclear agreement with Iran should get the job done. No one could have expected someone like Lindsey “stop them before they kill us all” Graham to be circumspect in his comments. But saying that the agreement was “akin to declaring war on Israel and the Sunni Arabs” was over the top even for him. And Rick “you will live by exactly the standards that the rest of us live by” Perry could have been expected to be opposed. Even still, his statement that the agreement is “one of the most destructive foreign policy decisions in my lifetime” went well beyond even his normal level of belligerence.

Jeb Bush pretty much made a declaration demanding regime change in Iran, which shouldn’t come as a huge surprise considering the family history in the region. Scott Walker, the man who once said that his historic battle with kindergarten teachers in Wisconsin made him the best prepared to face down ISIS, said that the deal “will be remembered as one of America’s worst diplomatic failures” and then said that if he were president he’d sprinkle fairy dust on the world and make it all go away. (Well, to be precise, he said, “in order to ensure the safety of America and our allies, the next president must restore bipartisan and international opposition to Iran’s nuclear program while standing with our allies to roll back Iran’s destructive influence across the Middle East,” which is kind of amusing coming from a guy who calls the president “breathtakingly out of touch with reality.”)

Here’s a little recap of the rest of the field’s instant reaction (as gathered by the National Journal):

more
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/17/the_gops_deranged_foreign_policy_dream_build_a_wall_around_america%E2%80%94and_then_prepare_for_world_war_iii/

[Ilsa]

1. But like everyone else, they still want their foreign goods made

with cheap labor, at least until they can force Americans to work for as little.

[leveymg]

2. Sounds like Hillary - regardless of agreement, confrontation against Iran will continue

Last edited Fri Jul 17, 2015, 04:24 PM - Edit history (1)

and she'll lead the charge. Looks like Jeb and Hillary see eye-to-eye on more endless war. Same as it ever was.

HRC actually said regardless of the nuclear talks, she would lead a new coalition against Iran: vid

http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2015/07/hillary-clintons-full-remarks-on-iran-deal.html?ml=tl_8_b

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT:

And secondly,this does put a Lid on the nuclear program but we still have a lot of concern about the bad behavior and the actions by Iran,which remains the largest state sponsor of terrorism,which does go after and undermine governments in the region,that poses an existential threat to Israel,that unfairly,unlawfully confines and tries Americans on trumped up charges.

That bad behavior is something we have to address.

Having been part of building the coalition that brought us to the point of this agreement, I think we will have to immediately upon completion of this agreement and its rigorous enforcement look to see how we build a coalition to try to prevent and undermine Iran's bad behaviors in other arenas.

I will be talking as soon as I leave you with the other Secretaries of State and other national security advisors to get more details.

But as I say, I think this is an important step that puts the lid on Iran's nuclear programs and it will enable us then to turn our attention as it must to doing what we can with other partners in the region and beyond to try to prevent and contain Iran's other bad actions.

In the latter part of her address, as we see (linked above), she says she's "immediately" going to form a coalition to sanction "bad" Iran for being a regional rival that Israel and the Sunni states don't like. In her speech, she said "bad" and "Iran" in the same sentence over and over again. For emphasis.

In other words, she now says disarming Iran's nuclear program is just step one in President Hillary Clinton's plan to eliminate Iran as a regional power - "the world's greatest terrorist threat, an existential threat to Israel, does bad things within Sunni Arabia, blah, blah." Bottom line, HRC adds further confirmation she'll push like hell to be at war with Iran within a year of her Inauguration.

Listen to what she's saying. She isn't playing 8-D chess. She's a committed neocon who wants further conflict with Iran regardless of the outcome of nuclear talks.