Transcript [00:00] Hey everyone. So, I came across a clip [00:03] of Senator Rand Paul [00:05] speaking to Secretary of State Marco [00:07] Rubio in a Senate hearing the other day, [00:10] and I want to react to it. Now, Rand [00:12] Paul has been one of the most vocal [00:13] critics of American action against Iran. [00:16] I've talked about some of his arguments [00:18] before. It's been a while since I've [00:20] talked about him. [00:21] He's a libertarian. He's consistent. [00:23] He's a smart guy, and he raises some [00:25] legitimate points. [00:27] But, he also makes some arguments that I [00:29] think are just wrong, and [00:32] they're wrong in ways that are common. [00:33] They kind of reveal [00:35] a a fundamental flaw in how a lot of [00:39] Westerners think. So, what he says just [00:42] rings true to a lot of people, and it [00:44] feels like common sense. [00:46] But, it's wrong. And that's what I'm [00:48] going to be pointing out in this video. [00:49] So, let's go ahead and watch the clip. [00:52] Uh this is, again, Senator Rand Paul [00:56] speaking to Marco Rubio. Here we go. [01:00] >> I am glad to hear today, though, that [01:04] the administration in the negotiations [01:06] are willing to trade sanctions relief [01:08] for removal of enriched uranium. [01:12] I've said for a long time, and argued [01:14] for a long time, that sanctions in and [01:16] of themselves rarely, if ever, are of [01:18] any value. I've yet to see any uh [01:21] Chinese behavior that's changed because [01:23] of sanctions. I've yet to see any [01:25] Russian behavior change because of [01:27] sanctions. I really yet to see any [01:28] Iranian behavior change because of [01:30] sanctions. However, sanctions do have [01:33] some leverage and ability to exact [01:36] change if you uh remove them. So, the [01:38] removal of sanctions actually might [01:40] actually have some hope. So, [01:43] >> Okay. Here is [01:47] This is the first This is the first [01:49] place I have to push back because he's [01:51] defining the goal of sanctions [01:53] incorrectly. [01:55] He's saying that sanctions don't change [01:57] behavior, and he's right. [01:59] They often do not change behavior. They [02:01] rarely do. [02:02] But that was never the point. Nobody [02:04] Nobody sat down and said, "Let's impose [02:06] sanctions so that the Ayatollahs will [02:09] will change the way they behave." It [02:11] would not No one's naive enough to think [02:13] that that's the way it works. The goal [02:15] is to prevent bad behavior by making it [02:18] financially impossible. [02:21] Here's the proof. During President [02:23] Trump's first term, when maximum [02:25] pressure sanctions were full were in [02:27] full effect, [02:29] and they were different. The sanctions [02:30] were different in the first term. Let me [02:31] explain a major difference. [02:34] In the second term, [02:37] the sanctions officially make it illegal [02:39] for Iran to sell its oil. [02:42] Uh the oil is sanctioned, but there's no [02:44] penalty for a country that is found to [02:46] be purchasing Iranian oil. But in the [02:48] first term, [02:50] no one could buy Iranian oil. If you [02:52] bought Iranian oil, you couldn't do [02:54] business with the US. [02:56] And that basically meant that no one was [02:58] buying their oil, including the Chinese, [03:00] and they were going broke. [03:02] They really were. [03:04] Those have never been reinstated. Well, [03:06] very recently, only now during the war, [03:08] Scott Bessent announced that they're [03:10] reinstating that type of sanctions. [03:14] But during the first Trump term, when [03:16] the maximum pressure sanctions were in [03:17] full effect, and there's other elements [03:19] to them, [03:21] just suffice it to say we've never [03:23] returned to those maximum pressure [03:25] sanctions. [03:26] The Iranian regime was on the verge of [03:28] collapse. Hamas and Hezbollah were [03:30] severely underfunded. [03:34] Now But it wasn't only, you know, we're [03:35] we're talking about what sanctions do. [03:37] Here's another example from Trump's [03:38] first term. [03:41] Trump signed into law the Taylor Force [03:43] Act, which withheld funding [03:46] from the Palestinian Authority so long [03:48] as it continued to pay the families [03:50] of terrorists. [03:53] Now, Trump hasn't reinstated adherence [03:55] to that. The Biden administration [03:57] violated the Taylor Force Act, even [03:59] though it's a law. [04:00] But during Trump's first term, he [04:01] enforced it. He actually withheld all [04:03] the funding from the Palestinian [04:04] Authority because of this. [04:07] And guess what happened as a result of [04:08] both of these sanctions on Iran, mainly [04:10] those, but also essentially what was [04:12] sanctions on the Palestinian Authority? [04:14] Well, in the state of Israel, [04:17] in the entire history of the state of [04:18] Israel from 1948 till today. A lot of [04:21] people don't realize this. I looked it [04:22] up. I did the research. [04:24] The entire history of the state of [04:26] Israel from 1948 till today, [04:28] the three calendar years [04:31] that had the lowest number, the smallest [04:34] number of casualties, of deaths from [04:37] terrorism in Israel [04:40] were [04:42] the third lowest ever was 2018. The [04:45] second lowest ever was 2019. And the [04:48] lowest ever was 2020. The last 3 years [04:50] of the Trump administration after he [04:52] instituted all these sanctions and and [04:54] signed the Taylor Force Act. [04:56] This wasn't about changing their [04:58] behavior. It wasn't about making the [04:59] Palestinian Authority reform its ways or [05:02] making the Iranians reform their ways. [05:04] Hezbollah still wanted to kill Israelis. [05:06] Hamas still wanted to kill Israelis. [05:08] But they just were underfunded. [05:12] They didn't have the money to pay the [05:15] people. [05:18] This is not about changing behavior. [05:19] It's about preventing behavior. There's [05:20] a difference. [05:22] Now, Rand Paul also says here that [05:24] sanctions relief, removing them, can be [05:26] leverage in a negotiation. Fine, that's [05:27] a fair point. But the pressure was [05:30] already doing the work without any deal. [05:32] Why would you trade away the thing [05:33] that's actually working [05:35] for a piece of paper [05:38] with a regime whose word means nothing? [05:41] More on that [05:42] in a few moments. [05:45] Okay, let's go back to the clip. [05:49] >> But I support the administration on [05:50] this. Now, there are many Republican [05:52] critics who have been vocal on the [05:54] airways recently saying, "Oh, no, we can [05:56] never negotiate with them. These are [05:58] terrible people." Well, you don't really [06:00] negotiate with really friendly, good [06:02] people. You're you know, in a time of [06:03] war, you have to negotiate with an [06:05] adversary. So, I do [06:08] commend and and supportive of the idea [06:10] of this. And the other thing is it's [06:12] very verifiable. You don't have to wait [06:15] for verification. You could say the [06:17] trade sanctions end as soon as we get [06:19] the 440 kg of enriched uranium. That has [06:22] to be dug, I guess, some of it from [06:24] under a mountain of rubble. But at the [06:26] same time, be very verifiable. But what [06:29] I would argue and what I would advise is [06:31] that you really, you know, why not offer [06:35] everything? Offer all of the relief of [06:37] virtually all of the sanctions if you [06:39] get it. Now, you say you can wait if [06:41] that's what you want is the enriched [06:43] uranium out on a promise. Now, the the [06:46] the rabbit hawks will argue, "Well, [06:49] we're not going to negotiate with [06:50] terrorists. We're not going to negotiate [06:52] with bad people." [06:54] But then they'll continue to have [06:55] enriched uranium and they'll continue to [06:56] enrich uranium. [06:59] >> Okay. This is what we call [07:03] This is what we call a straw man [07:05] argument. [07:07] Rand Paul here says, "You know what a [07:08] straw man argument is?" Where you claim [07:10] that the person you're disagreeing with [07:12] or debating [07:14] is making a certain claim that they're [07:15] not actually making and then you [07:18] you push back against that, but it's not [07:20] actually what they claim. What he says [07:22] here is that critics of negotiations are [07:24] saying are arguing that these are [07:26] terrible people, so you can't talk to [07:28] them. We don't negotiate with [07:29] terrorists. We don't We don't negotiate [07:30] with with bad people. And of course, [07:32] then you say, "Well, of course you don't [07:33] negotiate with bad people." Like of [07:35] course, you have to negotiate with your [07:36] adversaries, right? But that's not the [07:38] argument. [07:39] Nobody serious is saying that Iran is [07:41] too evil to negotiate with and that's [07:43] why we shouldn't negotiate with them cuz [07:44] they're bad. The argument is that [07:46] negotiations with this particular regime [07:50] are futile, are structurally futile. [07:54] That their word is meaningless, not as a [07:56] moral judgment because they're evil, but [07:58] because as a strategic fact. [08:01] We know this because Iran's own [08:03] officials have publicly said that they [08:05] negotiate only to show the world that [08:07] they're not avoiding talks. That's not [08:09] my characterization, that's a member of [08:11] Iran's parliamentary national security [08:14] committee saying it out loud. [08:16] The Iranians [08:17] They have a different concept of [08:19] negotiation. More importantly, [08:21] this is the key point. The regime's [08:23] survival depends on continued hostility [08:26] towards the West and Israel. [08:29] It's not a sidebar to who they are. [08:32] It's not a It's not just a piece of [08:34] their foreign policy, it's the [08:35] foundation of their whole regime. [08:39] Ayatollah Khamenei [08:41] who was killed on February 28th, said it [08:44] over and over again. His line was, [08:46] "Death to America and death to Israel [08:48] are not a slogan, they are a policy." [08:52] It's the foundation of who they are. The [08:54] regime that makes A regime that would [08:55] make peace with America and Israel would [08:58] not be the Islamic Republic of Iran. So, [09:01] when you negotiate with them and they [09:02] agree to something [09:05] and then immediately disregard it and [09:07] start reconstituting themselves, that's [09:08] what happens with Hezbollah. It's the [09:10] same ideology. [09:12] Every time there's a ceasefire with [09:13] Hezbollah, and we've been dealing with [09:14] them for over 40 years, [09:16] every time there's a ceasefire with [09:17] Hezbollah, they violate it immediately. [09:19] Agreements mean nothing to these people [09:22] because of their of their religion and [09:24] their ideology. It's not because they're [09:26] evil. [09:28] Look what happened after the 12-day war. [09:31] They immediately [09:33] doubled down, ramped up their ballistic [09:35] missile production, invested all the [09:36] billions of dollars they were making [09:39] from some sanctions relief that Trump [09:40] gave them. They invested all of it [09:42] in ramping up their military [09:44] capabilities, even though it meant that [09:45] their people were starving. [09:49] That's who they are. [09:51] Negotiations are meaningless with them. [09:54] That's why we don't [09:55] The opponents of negotiations aren't [09:57] saying it because we don't know on [09:58] principle we're not going to negotiate [09:59] with terrorists. They're bad people. No, [10:02] that's a straw man argument. It's a [10:04] structural problem. Negotiating with [10:06] them doesn't resolve anything. [10:08] It just extends and legitimizes the [10:10] regime. [10:13] All right. [10:15] Let's go a little further with Rand Paul [10:16] here. [10:17] >> So, I do think that the argument that [10:20] there hasn't been a military solution to [10:22] this is largely proven by the fact that [10:24] even though we've militarily [10:27] obliterated their military, all of that [10:29] is true. [10:30] It says, [10:31] Fred Ikle wrote in every every war must [10:34] end, that military victory doesn't [10:37] always translate or lead to political [10:39] resolution or to things that you want [10:41] done. You know, what we really want done [10:43] is no more enriched uranium, and you [10:45] don't enrich uranium, you give up on [10:46] these hopes. [10:48] Um, but I would say that as we are [10:50] looking at trading sanctions, you say [10:52] there are some you can do on your own, [10:54] there are some that are congressional. I [10:55] would be bringing in the leaders in the [10:57] Congress who can give up on these [10:59] sanctions, and hopefully try to get [11:01] their voice saying, "Yes, if they will [11:03] give up." Because if you give up like [11:05] oh, a few piddling ones that the uh that [11:08] won't change things, that the White [11:09] House says he's willing to do, and you [11:11] still have all these congressional [11:12] sanctions. If you're on the other side [11:14] of that equation, you might say, "We're [11:16] not [snorts] giving up the one thing we [11:17] think is leverage, [11:19] uh the enriched uranium, for maybe a [11:21] little bit of sanctions relief." So, I [11:23] would I would say, "Really go all in on [11:26] it, because it would be verifiable. You [11:27] don't have to wait and prove it. You [11:29] would have to prove in the future [11:30] whether enriching." But I I I think that [11:33] is a good step forward, but it's also [11:35] important for people to have a [11:36] discussion of what diplomacy is, and [11:38] that diplomacy doesn't always have a bad [11:40] name. And frankly, I'm glad to hear that [11:42] the administration is negotiating, and I [11:44] wish you luck. And I'd love to hear your [11:46] response in general. [11:48] >> Well, first of all, the president's made [11:49] clear the priority Iran can never have a [11:51] nuclear weapon. And what do they need to [11:52] have a nuclear weapon? They need a [11:54] couple things. They need the ability to [11:55] enrich, that has been substantially [11:57] destroyed, but could always be rebuilt [11:58] over time. And the second is the ability [12:01] and and highly enriched uranium, that's [12:03] 60% that could quickly be enriched to [12:05] 90% weapons grade. [12:07] The second point you make is about [12:08] sanctions. So so that's the goal here. [12:10] And the sanctions [12:12] first of all, there's a combination of [12:14] sanctions. There's sanctions that block [12:15] direct sort of activities that generate [12:17] revenue. And that's problematic beyond [12:20] the nuclear program because they also [12:21] use this revenue to fund sponsors to [12:23] sponsor terrorism like Hezbollah and [12:25] others around the region. And then [12:26] there's the frozen assets, which are [12:28] related to sanctions, but these are [12:29] Iranian assets that have been frozen [12:31] that they don't have access to. So what [12:33] I would argue, and again, I don't want [12:34] to get ahead of myself because we're not [12:35] engaged in this conversation with them [12:37] yet. But if you get into a situation in [12:39] which the reason why there are sanctions [12:41] are because the nuclear program. And so [12:43] if they comply with what we're demanding [12:45] on the nuclear side of it, you know, [12:46] zero enrichment, get rid of the enriched [12:49] uranium. If they're complying with these [12:51] things, then I think that's the place [12:52] where the frozen assets could be [12:54] discussed. The [12:55] >> Look at the difference. He's talking [12:57] about compliance, and Rand Paul was [12:59] talking about getting an agreement. Rand [13:02] Paul actually believes that something [13:03] that the Iranian regime would agree to, [13:06] that that has some actual value. [13:09] Like that's what he thinks here. [13:11] >> More they give, the more they would get. [13:12] I think ultimately, we will still face [13:14] other challenges related to Iran [13:16] separate from the nuclear program, like [13:18] what they use their money on, which is [13:19] to sponsor Hezbollah, and to sponsor [13:21] Hamas, and to sponsor terrorism around [13:23] the world. But on the nuclear question, [13:25] which was the president's been focused [13:26] on now. No nuclear weapon program. uh [13:30] The sanctions that are directly related [13:31] to the nuclear program, the more they [13:33] give, theoretically, the more they [13:34] should be willing to get. What they're [13:35] not going to get it is a down payment. [13:37] They're not [13:38] >> Right, the more they give, the more they [13:39] get. It's not that they have to agree to [13:42] something, it's that they have to [13:44] comply. [13:45] That's a huge difference. It's not about [13:48] agreeing, it's about complying. And Rand [13:50] Paul is saying, "Well, if you can get [13:51] them to agree, then, you know, lift the [13:53] sanctions." [13:55] Agreeing versus complying, huge huge [13:58] distinction. [13:58] >> can he get as a as a signing bonus. And [14:01] uh and I would also point out that [14:03] negotiations on nuclear matters are [14:05] highly complex, highly technical. And [14:08] so, it will take some time to work [14:09] through that. As the sanctions, by the [14:11] way, highly technical and in many cases [14:13] multifaceted. There are UN sanctions, [14:15] there are US sanctions, there are US [14:16] congressional sanctions. So, there's a [14:18] lot to unravel there. [14:23] >> is benefit from the idea of [14:27] um trading sanctions relief for [14:30] activity. And if you don't ever trade [14:32] them, if you just have them on the book, [14:34] then I think they're of little value in [14:35] changing behavior. Thank you. [14:39] >> He believes they're of little value in [14:42] changing behavior. Well, [14:44] like I said, [14:46] they're not about changing behavior. [14:49] Look, I understand the instinct behind [14:50] what Rand Paul is saying. [14:53] Right, he war is terrible, diplomacy is [14:55] reasonable. [14:57] Nobody wants escalation. [14:59] But, I want to zoom out for a second cuz [15:00] I think all of Rand Paul's mistakes here [15:03] all are actually [15:05] they're all the same root cause. They're [15:07] almost like the applications of the same [15:09] mistake. [15:10] So, Rand Paul has been, as I said at the [15:13] beginning, one of the loudest voices [15:15] against American action against Iran, [15:18] against this war. And one of his [15:19] arguments has been [15:21] that if America bombs Iran, he made this [15:23] argument. I remember talking about it in [15:25] a video a few months ago. He made an [15:27] argument that if America bombs Iran, the [15:28] Iranian people will rally around the [15:31] regime. [15:33] And that sounds logical, right? That's [15:35] what happens in a lot of countries, but [15:36] it's completely wrong about Iran. During [15:38] the 12-day war, when Israel was striking [15:40] Iranian targets, the Iranian people were [15:42] cheering them on [15:46] openly. [15:48] One of Iran's most celebrated soccer [15:50] legends at the time came out publicly in [15:52] support of the Israeli strikes because [15:54] the Iranian people hate the regime. They [15:56] want it gone. [15:57] There's no country in the world with a [15:58] greater disconnect between its people [16:00] and its rulers. [16:01] And that same misunderstanding is behind [16:03] everything we just heard in this clip [16:05] from Rand Paul. [16:06] When he says sanctions don't change [16:08] behavior, he's imagining a normal [16:10] government that responds to economic [16:12] incentives the way a normal government [16:14] would. When he says we need to negotiate [16:16] with adversaries, he's imagining a [16:18] regime that wants to survive in the [16:20] conventional sense, and that when you [16:22] negotiate with them and agree to [16:23] something, it's an agreement. [16:26] But here's what Rand Paul doesn't seem [16:27] to understand about Shiite Islamic [16:29] thinking. [16:31] Compromise is not a virtue in their [16:33] world view. The concept of negotiation [16:35] is viewed differently. [16:37] Compromise and negotiation are signs of [16:39] weakness for them. [16:41] That is how they think. [16:44] This is not an epithet. [16:46] This is not an insult to them. This is [16:48] it's a different culture. And you know, [16:51] one of the big arrogant [16:54] it's a point of arrogance of Westerners [16:57] that they assume that everyone else is [16:59] functioning with the same incentives [17:00] that they're functioning with. [17:04] Everyone really want at bottom everyone [17:05] really wants the same things, and it's [17:07] just not true. [17:10] The idea that something agreed to and [17:13] signed on a piece of paper, you shake [17:14] hands, you sign something, that that [17:16] binds you in some way. [17:18] Which is an obvious concept. It's of [17:19] course you put your name on a piece of [17:20] paper and you signed it. Why does that [17:22] bind you? That is actually, believe it [17:24] or not, that's a Western concept. [17:27] I mean, it exists in in in Jewish [17:28] tradition as well. That's where, you [17:30] know, you have concept of documents and [17:32] signing things. [17:34] But in that part of the world it has no [17:36] real bearing on how it has no real [17:38] bearing on how [17:40] states behave. I'm not saying they don't [17:42] have any contract law individual among [17:44] individuals, but at the state level at [17:46] the national level it's irrelevant. [17:50] There are literally no examples of [17:53] signed agreements in this part of the [17:55] world that were then adhered to as [17:57] written. [17:58] It just doesn't happen. [18:03] The JCPOA wasn't even signed and Iran [18:05] was violating its terms almost [18:07] immediately anyway. Like I said, every [18:08] agreement with Hezbollah. Yeah, like [18:10] even the like the you know, the peace [18:11] deal with between Israel and Egypt that [18:13] everyone looks at as a model because it [18:16] it's held up since 1979. It's not being [18:18] implemented as written. It hasn't been [18:20] since the beginning. [18:23] So when Rand Paul imagines a negotiation [18:26] where they can agree to something. Let [18:28] them agree and then we'll lift [18:29] sanctions. [18:31] When he imagines a negotiation where [18:33] Iran gives up enriched uranium and then [18:35] honors the commitment, [18:37] he's projecting a Western moral [18:40] framework onto a regime that does not [18:43] operate that way. [18:45] So when Rubio, and he didn't say it [18:47] explicitly, I stopped it and said it [18:48] explicitly. Rubio's talking about [18:50] compliance. [18:51] If they comply, [18:54] they can get rewarded. [18:58] Cuz that's about actions. It's not about [18:59] the negotiation. It's not about an [19:01] agreement. It's not about someone's [19:02] word. [19:06] Their own officials openly say that they [19:08] negotiate only to show the world they're [19:10] not avoiding talks. [19:12] It's not It's not a leak. That is a [19:14] public statement because that's how all [19:16] Iranians think. It's their culture. [19:19] And this regime's survival depends on [19:21] permanent hostility toward the West and [19:23] Israel. [19:26] Look, Rand Paul's a smart guy. He's a [19:27] principled man, but he is applying a [19:29] libertarian Western framework to a [19:32] regime that doesn't operate by any of [19:33] those rules. And when it comes to Iran, [19:36] that is a very dangerous mistake. [19:39] All right, folks. Keep watching. Keep [19:41] sharing. God bless. Thank you so much [19:44] for helping grow the channel, and please [19:46] tell others what we're doing here. [19:48] And uh let's keep praying for a good [19:51] outcome to all of this [19:53] because uh the story is far from over. [19:55] God bless.
