One way to look at this is that they will simply commit the country to war. But I don't think that's the most likely option. More likely, they will copy the policy most associated with George W. Bush's first term, and 'stand tough' while Iran does whatever it wants.Of course, it doesn't matter one lick. Walker isn't answering a serious question about disarmament. The actual question at hand is the political one. "Are you a very tough person and is Obama bad at stuff?" As long as the candidates are answering that question, how they get to that answer doesn't have to make any sense.
Even more striking though is just how little grasp Walker has of any of the details about what's involved, and how little his advisors have prepped him.
If elected president, Walker says that he'll pull back on any nuclear agreement on day one. And revealingly, he says he doesn't care if our trading partners aren't willing to go along with us. He'll have America go it alone.
This is a good encapsulation of Walker's seemingly total ignorance of this topic. What brought Iran to the table and forced this agreement was a mix of crippling economic sanctions and a covert war of sabotage by the US and Israel. The sanctions have only worked because Europe, Russia and China have joined us in imposing them. Without them, they would be onerous, but simply not effective on the same scale.
Friday, April 03, 2015
It doesn't have to make sense
Not sure why it's necessary but Josh Marshall explains what's wrong with Republican 2016 candidates already committing to back out of the Iran nuclear deal.