Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) is drawing criticism for opposing stronger sanctions on Iran and backing the current nuclear negotiations, a position that aligns him with the Obama administration’s foreign policy:
Speaking at a meeting sponsored by the Wall Street Journal, "Mr. Paul said he doesn’t favor increasing sanctions on Iran as the U.S. continues diplomatic efforts aimed at ending the Iranian nuclear weapons program, saying, 'I think it would be a mistake to push them away from the table.' " Another story quotes him as saying he was worried that new sanctions would hurt the progress that was made so far.
At the Washington Examiner, Phil Klein blasted Paul for his "woefully misguided" stance on Iran and argued that it would hurt the senator in a Republican presidential primary:
Should a new sanctions bill come up for a vote, it will likely get overwhelming support in the U.S. Senate — and should Paul vote against the sanctions, he will likely be the only Republican to do so. He'll have to defend, in the midst of a Republican primary, why he took a lonely stand to give bipartisan cover to a farce that has come to epitomize Obama's failed foreign policy. Months from now, when conservative media are filled with reports of how the administration is playing a dangerous game with Iran, Paul will be on the debate stage having to explain why, when it came time to confront the administration, he stood with Obama and Kerry instead.
Paul argued that his foreign policy views were in line with the public mainstream during a meeting with the editor of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial section on Tuesday.