So here is my question – right now, Israel is an ally of the United States. What would a Ron Paul Presidency do about this?
From Haaretz:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Iran was determined to eradicate Israel, ISNA news agency reported Thursday.
"Iran believes that whoever is for humanity should also be for eradicating the Zionist regime (Israel) as symbol of suppression and discrimination," Ahmadinejad said in an interview with a Lebanese television network, carried by ISNA.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on July 20, 2011.
"Iran follows this issue (the eradication of Israel) with determination and decisiveness and will never ever withdraw from this standpoint and policy," the Iranian president added in the interview with the Al-Manar network.
The remarks by Ahmadinejad came one day before the annual anti-Israeli rallies named Qods (Jerusalem) Day, which are held nationwide in Iran on the last Friday of the fasting month of Ramadan.
Ahmadinejad on Monday said that Iranians and Muslim nations worldwide should hold Qods rallies and show their willingness to dispose of this "infectious tumor and this regime full of rascality."
I ask without snark or malice – but of high concern. Israel is smaller than NH, it would take but 3 or 4 nukes to do exactly when the Iranian Government has sworn to do on multiple occasions. A strict "do not attack unless attacked" would not work if all the Israelis are already dead. Does a Ron Paul Presidency just say "let them slug it out between themselves" or do we honor our commitments? Does he make a declaration upon assuming the Presidency, that all such commitments are null & void (or like with what Obama is now doing, just refusing to enforce current law as a matter of Presidential policy)?
Forget about Israel for just a moment – what if it was it was…
…Germany or Japan? Or then, Britain? Or switch to the US – do we wait for our homeland to suffer human losses first before defending our citizens? After all, the Iranians have said that the Little Satan (Israel) must be destroyed, and then the Big Satan (us). If it is a strict "do not attack unless attacked", where does he stand on the policy of preemptive strike to safeguard an attack on the US?
I go back to Ron Paul’s statement in the Iowa debate: his seemingly lackadaisical answer concerning Iran obtaining the bomb raised a lot of eyebrows on a whole lot of Conservatives – mine included (to the point of ‘he just said what?" and replayed that section a couple of times to make sure I heard the exact words correctly).
While a number of Ron Paul supporters are absolutely adamant that he is THE candidate and he WILL win, I’m not locked into that answer. While his fiscal views absolutely have become mainstream due to the headlong rush Obama and the Democrats (and Democrat Socialists like Maxine Waters) to national bankruptcy, most Conservatives believe in a robust defense. Frankly, he cannot win without a substantial number of Conservatives voting for him, and this kind of an answer brings out the telescoping 10 foot poles. His neoisolationalism may well isolate voters from him this cycle, no matter how strong the perception might be of being as totally an "anti-Obama" as possible.
