We have been a cool to warm supporter of Ron Paul until today. In the following and other articles, it has become clear to us that he is way off the reservation when it comes to foreign affairs and would be dangerous, if not catastrophic to have him as our President.Iran has the national interest in closing an international waterway like the Strait of Hormuz is completely out of touch. This Strait is where a majority of Middle East oil tankers traverse on their way from the oil fields to the refineries. To have these Straits closed would be catastrophic to the western economy and would cripple any hopes of economic recovery.
Additionally, when he says that Iran
Ron has lost our confidence on foreign affairs with these statements. Regardless of how we like his ideas on cutting the budget and getting the Fed under control, we cannot endorse him for President.
If you disagree, that is your option and we will post your comments as long as they are thoughtful.
Conservative Tom
Ron Paul: Iran Would be Justified in Closing Strategic Waterway in Response to Sanctions
Sailors stand watch on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis, deployed in the Persian Gulf, as an F/A-18F Super Hornet leaves the flight deck on December 22, 2011. (U.S. Navy photo/Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kenneth Abbate)
(CNSNews.com) – As Iran ratcheted up its rhetoric Thursday about closing the Strait of Hormuz, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul revisited his earlier criticisms of Western policy towards Tehran, adding that Iran would be justified in cutting off the strategic waterway in response to sanctions.
Paul’s views on Iran and other foreign policy issues – essentially a noninterventionist, anti-war approach – have sparked clashes on several occasions during the GOP presidential primary season, and are attracting growing scrutiny as the Iowa caucus looms.
At a campaign event in Iowa Thursday, Paul called Western sanctions imposed against Iran over its nuclear activities “horrendous” and “acts of war,” while repeating earlier assertions that Iran would understandably want to develop a nuclear weapons capability, the Los Angeles Times reported.On Iran’s threat to close Hormuz, the Texan congressman said that as president he would not respond with military action to any such move, as he would not consider it an act of war against the United States. Instead, he would refer the matter to the U.S. Congress.
Paul’s Republican rivals have stepped up criticism over his foreign policy stances.
“One of the people running for president thinks it’s okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney told a Muscatine, Iowa event on Wednesday. “I don’t.”
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, campaigning in Des Moines, said, “You don’t have to vote for a candidate who will allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, because America will be next.”
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Sen. Rick Santorum have also both tussled with Paul over Iran during primary debates, while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has called for robust measures to bring down the regime “with minimum use of force,” including cutting off its gas supply and sabotaging its oil refinery.
More than one-third of the world’s tanker-borne oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz, transiting the narrow channel through Iranian and Omani territorial waters. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons/Perry–Castañeda Library)
Some 40 percent of the world’s tanker-borne oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz. Tankers transit the narrow channel in the Persian Gulf use two-mile wide channels demarcated in each direction, sailing through Iranian territorial waters in the north and Omani waters in the south.
Under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, ships have the right of “innocent passage” through the territorial seas of a coastal state.
Iran’s vice-president, Mohammad Reza Rahimi, warned earlier this week that if Western countries go ahead with proposed sanctions against Tehran's crude exports, then “not a drop of oil will pass through the Strait of Hormuz.”
“Any attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz will not be tolerated,” Pentagon spokesman George Little said in response to the threats, describing the waterway as “an economic lifeline for countries in the Gulf region.”
A senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander, Brig.-Gen. Hossein Salami, fired back, telling the Fars news agency Thursday, “our response to threats is threats” and saying the U.S. was not in any position to prevent Iran from shutting the waterway.
Adding to the bluster, Iranian military spokesmen said a U.S. aircraft carrier had been monitored this week as it moved eastward through the Strait of Hormuz, near the area where Iran’s navy is holding wargames.
Iran has been carrying out extensive naval maneuvers in a wide area including the eastern approaches to Hormuz, with some politicians characterizing the wargames as a warning to the West. The drills are scheduled to run through January 3.
The Pentagon’s Little described the movement of the carrier USS John C. Stennis and accompanying vessels through the strait as a “pre-planned, routine transit.”
A Sea Hawk helicopter picks up stores from the flight deck of the combat support ship USNS Rainier, accompanying the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis in the Persian Gulf on December 21, 2011. (U.S. Navy photo/Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kenneth Abbate)
The carrier was earlier deployed off Iraq, where according to the U.S. Navy it carried out the final air mission in support of Operation New Dawn on December 18. It is now in the Arabian Sea, where it will support the mission in Afghanistan, Operation Enduring Freedom.
Should the Strait of Hormuz be closed to shipping – through Iranian action or for any other reason – an alternative route for oil moving through the Gulf to world markets would be via the 745-mile East-West pipeline across Saudi Arabia to the Red Sea. From there, tankers would have to sail north through the Suez canal or south through the Gulf of Aden.
But according to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration, while the Hormuz route accounts for up to 17 million barrels of oil a day (15.5 million in 2009) the Saudi pipeline only has the capacity to handle five million barrels a day. Longer, alternative routes would also push up costs, the EIA says.
Asked whether the U.S. was doing any contingency planning or holding discussions with other oil producers in case Iran closed the strait, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland issued a brief statement Thursday.
“The United States maintains a regular, full and robust dialogue with significant energy producing and consuming countries on various aspects of the oil markets, including contingency plans in the event of disruptions to those markets,” the statement said. “We cannot, however, comment on the specifics of these discussions.”
Ron Paul is the only politician on the national stage who makes any sense on foreign policy. Say we get Europe to go along with the ban on imports of Iranian oil. What does this accomplish? Will they stop their nuclear energy program? Won't happen. What WILL happen is that the price of oil will go through the roof because Saudi Arabia can't make up the difference. This will throw Europe into recession, which will probably cause another recession here. Iran will sell its oil to China (and other countries that don't go along with the U.S. sanctions).
ReplyDeleteThe thing nobody except Ron Paul supporters understands about his comment regarding starting a war with Iran over their possible closure of the strait is that Ron is a strict constitutionalist. Under the constitution, the president of the United States does not have the authority to declare a war against another country. It is the responsibility of Congress to declare war, and that is why he said he would refer the matter to Congress. I -- for one -- am sick and tired of presidents usurping the power of Congress to declare wars (or, to put it differently, Congress abdicating their constitutional responsibility). The Framers of the Constitution did not want this power to ever reside in the hands of ONE person. Ron is upholding the constitution.
--David
David, closing the strait of Hormuz will effect ALL mideast oil(Saudi, Kuwait, Iraq, Emerities) and not Iranian oil. Most of our oil comes from the Mideast. If the straits are cut, it will crush our economy!
ReplyDeleteBy closing the straits they are effecting OUR NATIONAL interests. It would be an act of WAR!
If you will go back and read your history, you will find that both Afganistan and Iraq actions were approved by Congress, however, Libya was not!
I do agree that Presidents do not have the authority to declare war and should not be allowed to commit troops without Congressional approval.
Sorry, I am a strict constructionist on the constitution. The power to declare war is granted exclusively to Congress in Article 1, section 8. There is no provision in the constitution which allows Congress to delegate this power to the president of the United States. Essentially, that is what was done in Iraq. Congress said to the president, "We are not going to exercise our constitutional power to declare war on Iraq, but we are okay with it if you decide to go ahead and start this war yourself."
ReplyDeleteThere were only a few people in Congress who protested that is was unconstitutional. Robert Byrd was one of them (the old guy carried a copy of the constitution in his pocket every day).
Ron Paul was another…
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html
Yes, I agree that shutting down the strait would create a global oil crisis. So would an effective ban on importation of Iranian oil by Europe. The European economy would crash under the effects of either of these actions. Whether either of these acts should be called an "economic sanction" or an "act of war" by/against Iran depends whether you are administering the pain or receiving it.
--David