Shortly after launching his presidential campaign last month, Rand Paul described himself as a different kind of Republican on the hot button issue of foreign policy.
Faced with tough questions against the backdrop of an emerging nuclear deal with Iran, the Kentucky senator said he backed the negotiations, unlike many of his GOP colleagues – and 2016 primary foes.
“I think they need to keep the sanctions in place but I think keeping the door open, continuing conversations, is better than war,” Paul said. “I differ from some Republicans.”
In many ways, Paul has been viewed as the foil to Florida senator Marco Rubio, who has built his own presidential candidacy as a forceful defense hawk and is leading the charge against the accord with Iran.
But a closer look at Paul’s actions in recent weeks make it increasingly difficult to distinguish where, exactly, he differs from the likes of Rubio and other tough-on-defense Republicans. A forthcoming series of votes on Iran could separate rhetorical flourishes from what the foreign policy of a Paul administration would actually look like.
On Wednesday, Paul offered one clue by voting for an amendment to the Iran sanctions bill that would require the president to certify that Iran has not supported acts of terror against the US or a US citizen. The measure, sponsored by Wyoming senator John Barrasso, ultimately failed but was significant as far as policy is concerned.
The White House strongly advocated against including the provision in the Iran bill and all but promised to revive the president’s veto threat if it was reinstated. The bill’s co-sponsors, senators Bob Corker and Ben Cardin, also lobbied strongly against the so-called “poison pill” amendment.
Paul’s office would not provide comment on why he supported the amendment, pointing instead to the fact that he is a co-sponsor on the broader sanctions bill. But if other controversial amendments are put to a vote, they could also indicate where Paul actually stands on a deal he theoretically supports.
Rubio has filed seven amendments to the Iran sanctions bill, the most controversial of which would force leaders in Tehran to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. As with Barrasso’s amendment, supporters of the Iran bill have argued the measure would imperil both the Senate compromise and the overall negotiations.
A spokeswoman for Paul did not respond when asked if the Kentucky senator supported Rubio’s Israel amendment.
Iran is just one of several areas where Paul faces mounting pressure from pro-Israel and hawkish donors as he seeks to broaden his appeal.
Last week, the senator was noticeably tepid in his response to revelations that the US government accidentally killed two innocent hostages – an American and an Italian – as well as two American members of al-Qaida in January counter-terrorism operations. He later told Fox News he felt Obama was “trying to do the right thing”.
“I tend to not want to blame the president for the loss of life here,” Paul said.
It was a markedly divergent response from a senator who rose to the national stage in 2013 with a 13-hour talking filibuster attacking the Obama administration’s drone program – namely the killings of American militant fighters overseas.
A clip of the memorable speech was included in the announcement video for Paul’s candidacy, and his campaign sells “Don’t drone me, bro” T-shirts. But when asked if he held the same legal concerns with the recent killings as he raised two years ago, Paul said he had “been an opponent of using drones on people not in combat. However, if you are holding hostages, you kind of are involved in combat.”
The reversal was noticeable enough that South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham – another potential Republican presidential contender, with whom Paul has often sparred – took to Twitter to mock Paul’s “new position” on drones.
.@RandPaul glad to see your new position on drones/targeting Americans who join al-Qaeda & affiliated groups. They do so at their own peril.
— Lindsey Graham (@GrahamBlog) April 27, 2015
In many ways, Paul continues to contend with the shadow of his father, former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, whose unconventional views denied him a serious shot at the party’s nomination.
A Republican strategist told the Guardian Paul’s “foreign policy record, and past campaigning for his dad’s conspiratorial policy positions, are going to be disastrous for him if he makes it into the top tier of candidates. So he will shift as much as he can to make this about past versus present.
“It’s quite clear that foreign policy will be a major factor in the election and the primary electorate remains quite hawkish, even among the 18 to 29 demographic. Rand Paul’s pollsters have to be seeing the same numbers.”
Indeed, Paul already disavowed comments he made in 2007 while campaigning for his father, in which he said it was “ridiculous” to consider Iran a national security threat. He has also sought to portray himself as a closer ally of Israel and has distanced himself from a bill he once introduced that would have cut off funding to the country’s closest ally.
His support for military strikes against the Islamic State was another perceived flip-flop, given Paul had previously been wary of engaging in the conflict.
Paul also proposed a recent amendment that would boost the Pentagon’s budget by roughly $190bn over the next two years, despite his prior criticisms of defense spending. He was even one of 47 signatories on a controversial letter to the Iranian leadership, in which Republicans warned that they could undo any future nuclear deal. Paul sought to justify it as a bid to strengthen Obama’s negotiating hand.
Paul has stood his ground on at least some of his pet issues – namely his desire to end the National Security Agency’s surveillance dragnet. He also supported Obama’s decision to normalize ties with Cuba and in December sought to force a congressional vote on war against Isis.
But Paul’s foreign policy credentials still face skepticism in many GOP circles and will probably be questioned sharply by his opponents on a debate stage. In early voting states, the launch of his campaign was met with a $1m attack ad that said he was “dangerous”. Behind closed doors, Paul has had to explain to donors that he is not an isolationist.
At least for now, his shifting views appear to be having some impact. At a recent meeting of the wealthiest pro-Israel Republicans, held at the resort of GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, attendees were far less skeptical of Paul than in years past. Paul did not attend the conference but dispatched an aide, according to Politico.
But as he continues to grow more hawkish to appease his critics, Paul is growing less distinguishable from his GOP opponents. In an election where foreign policy will be hotly debated, it remains to be seen just how unorthodox Paul will actually be.
