Ron Paul: Cautious Optimism On Iran

Last week, for the first time since the 1979 Iranian revolution, the U.S. president spoke with his Iranian counterpart. Their 15 minute telephone call was reported to open the door to further high-level discussions. This is a very important event. I have been saying for years that we should just…

Last week, for the first time since the 1979 Iranian revolution, the U.S. president spoke with his Iranian counterpart. Their 15 minute telephone call was reported to open the door to further high-level discussions. This is a very important event.

I have been saying for years that we should just talk to the Iranians. After all, we talked to the Soviets when they actually had thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at us! The Iranians have none, according to our own intelligence services. I even suggested a few years ago that we should “offer friendship” to them. Unfortunately, so many so-called experts have a stake in keeping tensions high and pushing us to war. They did not want to hear what I was saying. It seems, though, this is beginning to change now with these recent events.

The phone call was one of the most important moves away from war and conflict in a long time. Taken with the Obama administration’s decision to hold off on bombing Syria, we should be encouraged.

It is also probably a good sign that this phone call has infuriated the neoconservatives at home, the pro-war faction in Israel, and the hard-liners in Iran. Now that a process of negotiation has begun, the chance of war has been significantly reduced. The US is very unlikely to bomb Iran while it is talking with them, and Israel is also unlikely to start a war while the U.S. is at the negotiating table with the Iranian leadership.

But we should also remain very cautious. Obama’s war on Syria was only stopped because the American people finally stood up and said “enough.” The message was received loud and clear and it shocked the neocons pushing war. They were used to being in charge of foreign policy.

In a recent CNN poll, more than 75 percent of Americans favored negotiations with Iran. This is very good news, but those pushing for war will not give up that easily. Believe it or not, some Members of Congress have recently introduced legislation to authorize war on Iran – even as these first steps toward a peaceful resolution of our differences begin to bear fruit!

So no, they will not give up that easily. There are many in the president’s own Cabinet who do not want to see U.S./Iranian relations improve. Even the president himself seems unable to avoid provocative statements — such as his claim that the Iranians are only willing to talk because the sanctions have been so successful in bringing them to the table. That is a false and unnecessary boast, and if he continues in such a way he will destroy what progress has been made.

But we are in the majority now. There are more than three-quarters of us who do not want war on Iran. It is essential that we keep the pressure on the Administration to ignore the war demands in both political parties and among the so-called foreign policy experts. There will be much more war propaganda coming our way as the warmongers get more desperate. Americans must see this propaganda for what it is. They should educate themselves and become familiar with alternative news sources to gain the tools to counter the propaganda. We do have a better chance at peace, but this is no time to let down our guard!

ron paul

Ron Paul is a former U.S. Congressman from Texas and the leader of the pro-liberty, pro-free market movement in the United States. His weekly column – reprinted with permission – can be found here.

Related posts

US & World

Amanda Cunningham: The Reach For Freedom

Amanda Cunningham

Letter: About That Semiconductor Guest Column …


Joe Biden Dials It Back In Ukraine

Will Folks


CNSYD October 7, 2013 at 10:03 am

I may now believe in reincarnation. Neville Chamberlain has come back as Ron Paul.

TontoBubbaGoldstein October 7, 2013 at 10:23 am

You mind articulating, one more time, how 2013 Iran is comparable to 1938 Germany? TBG is drawing a blank.

The Colonel October 7, 2013 at 10:59 am

Stretching here a little:

Both hated Jews
Both faced hard financial times
Both became increasingly isolated
Both had regional allies of dubious virtue
Both embrace an ideology of theocratic supremacy

Need I continue?

Smirks October 7, 2013 at 11:11 am

Both hated Jews
Both faced hard financial times
Both became increasingly isolated
Both had regional allies of dubious virtue
Both embrace an ideology of theocratic supremacy

Are we talking about Iran? Hard to tell, this describes a majority of the Middle East.

The Colonel October 7, 2013 at 12:51 pm

No argument there

TontoBubbaGoldstein October 7, 2013 at 11:53 am

Stretching here a little:

Either your last name is “Armstrong” or you’re the guy that Stevie Wonder and TI sang about.

Point by point:

Both hated Jews

Although there is a lot of overlap, the Iranians fall more into the “Anti-Zionist” camp, while Hitler was more in the “Anti-Semitic” camp. Hitler, ITBGRC, before the “Final Solution”, advocated shipping German Jews to Madagascar…which kinda makes him almost “Pro-Zionist”.

Both faced hard financial times

So does TBG. So does TBG…
On the other hand, Putin NEVER returns my calls about divvying up Poland.

Both became increasingly isolated

Both had regional allies of dubious virtue

Just to play Devil’s Advocate…

If Iran had invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico, we would be “isolated”, too.

We were allied with the USSR in WWII and count Saudi Arabia as an ally, today.

Both embrace an ideology of theocratic supremacy

“Theocratic supremacy” is kinda stretching it for the Germans.

The Colonel October 7, 2013 at 12:42 pm

I said it was a stretch…
The theocratic supremacy I’m referring to is of course “the state” or the “Aryan Ideology”.
Germany was isolated from “sane states” like France and Great Britain and aligned with “loony bins” like Italy and Japan (much by choice – just like Iran. Iran couldn’t get along with some of the loonies, they spent most of the 80s fighting over a swamp with) Iraq). If they’d play nice with any of the “stans”, Turkey or their other Arab neighbors, they’d be a lot better off – instead they support more insurrection in more places than we do.
As to ?s point below, they are not without military capability – remember that Germany was under the “demilitarization rules” of the “War to End All Wars” when they swept across Poland then turned West.

? October 7, 2013 at 3:42 pm

“As to ?s point below, they are not without military capability”

In fairness to me though I didn’t say they don’t have capability, it’s just that in comparison to us and others around them they are still peons….unlike the Germans at the time who still had exceptional capability in comparison to those around them.

The Colonel October 7, 2013 at 3:55 pm

No argument, my strategery training would say that the primary difference is one of industrial capability.
The Germans flew gliders to train their fighter pilots until 1934-5 while giving lip service to the Armistice Treaty rules from WWI. Less than 2 years later they were sweeping the skies of Spain clear of enemy aircraft in one of the most advanced and prolific fighters of its day, the ME-109. 4 years from the drawing board to almost winning the “Battle of Britain”. They built 33,000 of them before the last plant was bombed out of existence in April of 1945

TontoBubbaGoldstein October 7, 2013 at 4:04 pm


+1 for the use of Will Farrell’s Bushism, “strategery”.
+5 if it was intentional.

The Colonel October 7, 2013 at 4:18 pm

Never misunderestimate the deciderer.

TontoBubbaGoldstein October 7, 2013 at 10:16 pm

the ME-109

“Those Fokkers were flying Messerschmitts!”

CNSYD October 7, 2013 at 1:20 pm

“We were allied with the USSR in WWII and count Saudi Arabia as an ally, today.”

We weren’t allied in WWII until Hitler attacked his Russian “allies”. Even then it was a trade off. Ally with the USSR so they could help keep Hitler busy on two fronts.

IRT Saudi Arabia, it appears that is a mutual benefit situation. So why not?

? October 7, 2013 at 12:24 pm

Vast differences in the military capability between the two however.

Getting back to the Neville Chamberlain comparison though, it doesn’t even apply remotely in that Ron Paul would never commit US troops to anyone else’s cause, unlike Chamberlain who:

1. Made a pact with Poland over Danzig(stupidly) that was always in questions historically that drew the UK into the war.
2. Continually drew stupid lines in the proverbial sand that he never backed up.

Whether you agree with Paul the Smarter or not, he has continually and consistently preached a “non-interventionist” foreign policy with no entangling alliances(per the recommendation of the Founders).

He is very different from Chamberlain in that regard because Chamberlain helped grow the German problem, through said alliances and continued “resolutions” denouncing Germany. In fact, I think it’s reasonable to say his continued meddling exacerbated the problems…not his supposed “hands off” policy…which wasn’t.

Not to say that the WWI agreements didn’t make a peaceful resolve close to impossible…but regardless Chamberlain was very much “involved”.

The Colonel October 7, 2013 at 12:57 pm

Definitely can draw some valid comparisons to the enforced isolation of Iran and Germany. Particularly in the financial realm.

? October 7, 2013 at 3:40 pm

“”When goods don’t cross borders, armies will.”-Bastiat

9" October 8, 2013 at 5:16 pm
tms5510 October 7, 2013 at 1:45 pm

false Iran just hate Zionists. Iran has more 25000 jew and even a jew MP.

The Colonel October 7, 2013 at 2:41 pm

And yet, for the last 8 years, the President of Iran made the following statements without repudiation:

· “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.”

· “Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations.”

· “The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.”

· “If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d’ tre, Israel will be annihilated.”

· “Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed.”

· “Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm.”

Separate “Judaism” and “Zionism” if you wish but “Dinner Jacket” and the mullahs wanted to kill Jews to eliminate “Zionism”. (Yes, there are more Jews in New York City, Florida and California than in Israel but the Mullahs et al have a few choice words for “The Great Satan” as well.)

tms5510 October 7, 2013 at 2:44 pm

All he means is Israel Zionist regime. Iran perceives Israel regime as Apartheid south Africa and wants the same fate for this regime.

The Colonel October 7, 2013 at 3:31 pm

Yeah, riiigghtt…

Obviously you’ve fallen for the whole “Muslims are about goodness and light” and “der Juden” are the source of all the ills in the Middle East.

Believe what you will, I’ve spent enough time over here to know better.

CNSYD October 7, 2013 at 1:14 pm

You missed my point. My comparison was that Chamberlain believed what Hitler said to him in Munich. The “rulers” of Iran are just as believable. Not to worry. Before Iran gets too far down the nuclear road Israel will take care of the problem

TontoBubbaGoldstein October 7, 2013 at 3:56 pm

I doubt that Ron Paul trusts foreign (or domestic) leaders any more than TBG does…
You are probably correct about Israel dealing with Iran. Which is as it should be. Recall that Ron Paul was supportive of Israel when they bombed the Iraqi nuclear facility in the early 80s.

Zach Martin October 8, 2013 at 1:35 am

Great handle, btw.

The Colonel October 7, 2013 at 10:33 am

Holy crap – this is just to dumb and dangerous to even make fun of this week.

Quoting Here: “…Last week, for the first time since the 1979 Iranian revolution, the U.S. president spoke with his Iranian counterpart….” What numb nuts, er Goober er um Dr. Paul left out is almost as soon as they hung up, the Mullahs were reeling in what Rouhani said.

Note to Dr. Pepper, er uhm Paul and the President, Rouhani is at best a puppet of the theocratic regime running Iran.

Here’s what others said of the conversation:
The Week
“…Indeed, reaching out to Rouhani may very well be interpreted as yet another sign of weakness, following Obama’s highly public vacillations over whether to punish Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons….

From the Washington Post:
“…The entire context of the call was troubling to the trained eye. A former U.S. official told me, “They are not equals: Obama was freely elected (*by gullible Americans) and is head of state and government; Rouhani is none of those….”

Of Mr Rouhani:
National Review:
“… It is worth recalling that this is the same Rouhani who played a key role in the violent crackdown of Iranian student protests in 1999. He carried out his regime’s orders with pleasure to “crush mercilessly and monumentally” the student demonstrations. Moreover, Rouhani as the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council for 16 years famously boasted about using divide-and-conquer tactics against the West to buy time to advance Iran’s illicit nuclear-weapons program.”…

“…facts completely discredit Rouhani’s repeated claims that Iran’s nuclear program exists only for “peaceful” purposes. His boasts about playing for time (in a 2004 speech) when he served as Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator further undermine his credibility on this issue (in his words: “While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in parts of the [nuclear conversion] facility in Isfahan”)…”

*I added the “gullible Americans” part, couldn’t resist.

This just in . . . October 7, 2013 at 11:53 am

Ted Cruz: Destroying Entire Planet Best Way to Stop Obamacare

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) — Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) raised the ante in the battle over the Affordable Care Act on Sunday, telling CNN’s Candy Crowley that “destroying the entire planet is really the best and only way to stop Obamacare.”

“Look, I’m in favor of shutting down the government and not raising the debt ceiling, but let’s not kid ourselves. Those are only half measures,” he told Crowley. “If we are really serious about stopping Obamacare, we’ll destroy the entire planet.”

Explaining his proposal to a visibly alarmed Crowley, Senator Cruz said, “Obamacare is like a parasite that needs a host to feed on. If you want to kill the parasite you kill the host, and in this case that means killing this planet. As long as there’s a planet Earth, the nightmare of Obamacare could always come screaming back to life.”

While he was not specific about how he would go about destroying the planet, Cruz said, “This is something that my colleagues and I have been working on for some time.”

The Texas senator refused to speculate on whether there were enough votes in Congress to support his proposal of obliterating Earth, but he ended his interview on a personal note: “Candy, I don’t want my children and my children’s children to live in a world with Obamacare. And the best way to guarantee that is by destroying the world.”

bogart October 7, 2013 at 12:12 pm

You do realize that if a Tea Party member reads this they will be cheering for batshit crazy Cruz and will send him a check……that being said …….APPLAUSE,APPLAUSE….and two thumbs up…..The only thing more important to baggers than a woman’s vagina is Obamacare.

Gregory Geddings October 7, 2013 at 5:01 pm

I doubt if many TP’s will get too far into the article. Correct spelling, sentence construction, and punctuation confuses them…maybe if it was published in ALL CAPS?


Leave a Comment