Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer: Ron Paul's Iran Policy Most Accurate
Paul receives more support from U.S. military than all Republican candidates combined
By Paul Joseph Watson
Despite numerous Republican candidates attacking Ron Paul over his "dangerous" foreign policy, Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer praised Paul for being the "most accurate" out of all the GOP contenders when it came to his perspective on Iran.
"I think Ron Paul's perspective or policy on Iran is probably the most accurate of the current GOP candidates," said Shaffer during an appearance on Fox News, adding that Iran probably already has a nuclear weapon.
As Shaffer points out in the clip, Iran would be committing suicide if it decided to create any kind of pretext for a US/Israeli attack by targeting US military assets in the region. The Iranian economy would almost certainly collapse and Iran would be completely outnumbered and outgunned.
Indeed, as this illustration highlights, Iran is completely surrounded by US military bases. The characterization of Iran as an immediate and deadly threat to the security interests of the United States is nothing less than fearmongering propaganda that has been used by numerous GOP candidates to pose as tough leaders. It is their foreign policy of pre-emptive war that represents the greatest 'danger' to US security interests.
While the likes of Rick Santorum and John Huntsman have openly declared they wouldn't hesitate to bomb Iran, Ron Paul has consistently pointed out that pre-emptive wars against countries that pose no threat to the United States have bankrupted the country.
Paul was attacked yet again following the Iowa caucuses by Newt Gingrich, who in the midst of an angry rant said Paul's foreign policy was "stunningly dangerous" to the U.S. Paul responded by pointing out that Gingrich is a chickenhawk.
"You know, when Newt Gingrich was called to service in the 1960s during the Vietnam era, guess what he thought about danger? He chickened out on that, he got deferments and didn't even go," said Paul.
The true popularity of Paul's foreign policy can be judged by the amount of money he receives from the U.S. military.
Ron Paul has has received more money in donations from active duty military personnel than all of the other Republican candidates combined and more than Barack Obama himself.
"Paul's military-connected contributions for the three months more than double such contributions to all the other Republican presidential candidates—and they also exceed Obama's," confirms Politifact.
In the three months from April through June, Paul received "more than $25,000 from individuals who listed their employer as a branch of the military" (the campaign itself puts the figure closer to $35,000).
So if Paul's views on how the U.S. military should be used throughout the world are so "dangerous," as Gingrich and others have charged, why are his foreign policy positions backed by the very people tasked with fulfilling that role?