Trump revisits a changed Middle East

President Donald Trump's return visit this week is to a Middle East that has changed dramatically since his first-term trip seven years ago. 

Trump plane 001, 2011, courtesy IowaPolitics.com. CC BY-SA 2.0, Wikimedia Commons.

What Will Trump Find in the Middle East This Week? | Ron Paul Institute | Ron Paul:

May 12, 2025 - "President Trump’s return to the Middle East this week, the first since his first-term 2017 visit, will take place amidst great turmoil. It is a region that bears little resemblance to  the Middle East of 2017 and it appears, at least from media reporting this past week, that the Trump Administration has some understanding of this reality.

"Syria has been over-run and is now controlled by the same al-Qaeda that the US government supposedly spent 20 years fighting in the 'war on terror.' Violence against religious and ethnic minorities has, predictably, exploded under the 'rule' of a self-proclaimed Syrian president who until very recently was on the US 'most wanted' terrorist list.

"After the October 7, 2023, Hamas raid [on Israel], Gaza has been reduced to rubble and turned into a humanitarian catastrophe. Tens of thousands of civilians have been killed and perhaps another million face starvation. US bombs and financial aid have facilitated the utter destruction of Gaza.

"Iran has made peace with Saudi Arabia thanks to Chinese mediation and is deepening its ties with the Kingdom. Thus, the US has little leverage in talks with the two former enemies.

"Israel is conducting military operations against several countries in the region simultaneously as the world increasingly condemns its aggression against its neighbors.

"After tearing up the JCPOA nuclear deal with Iran in his first term, President Trump is pushing for a new deal with Iran while threatening to attack if negotiations do not produce the results he demands.

"Massively increased US military action against the Houthis in Yemen starting in March did not result in their capitulation to US demands. Despite attempting to put the best spin on things, it is clear that the US retreated from the region in the face of a series of successful Yemeni actions in defense of their homeland. Biden and then Trump launched attacks against Yemen on behalf of Israel, but in the end the US president wisely removed US military assets from the area and called off the bombing.

"In short, President Trump will be wading into a minefield this week, but it is a peril that the US government has largely brought upon itself. Decades of US interventionism, from at least the 2003 Iraq war, have not produced the peaceful transformation of the region, as promised by the neocons and their mentor, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. From the unnecessary Iraq war – based on lies – to the destruction of Libya and Syria and countless other interventions, the Middle East is a basket case.

"And it turns out none of it actually helped Israel at all! Having ignited the tinder box of the region with US backing, Israel has now found itself friendless in a region increasingly hostile to its policies and even its very existence. Now there are indications that the Trump Administration is tiring of this entangling alliance as the MAGA base looks more warily on foreign interventionism.

"The lesson that President Trump should take with him is that to a large degree it has been US interventionism in the Middle East that has produced these poisoned fruits. His wise military disengagement from the Houthis in Yemen should serve as a US model for the region. Ties forged by trade and friendship produce peace and prosperity and are far preferable to endless neocon war cries."

Copyright © 2025 The Ron Paul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

Read more: https://ronpaulinstitute.org/what-will-trump-find-in-the-middle-east-this-week/

Iraqi parliament votes for US troops to leave

Iraqi Parliament votes for plan to end US troop presence in Iraq after Soleimani killing - CNN - Eric Levenson, Fred Pleitgen, Schams Elwazer & Amir Vera:
January 5, 2020 - "The Iraqi Parliament voted Sunday to obligate Iraq's government 'to work towards ending the presence of all foreign troops on Iraqi soil,' according to the media office of the Iraqi Parliament.

"The vote represents a rebuke of the United States over its targeted airstrike on Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport in Iraq early Friday. The attack has sharply escalated tensions with Iran and has pushed Iraq to reconsider the presence of American troops in the region.

"Iraqi officials were preparing a memorandum for the withdrawal of foreign forces Sunday, Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul Mahdi told French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian in a phone conversation.

Muqtada al-Sadr, a leading Shia cleric and the head of Iraq's largest political bloc, Saeroun, called the Iraqi Parliament's vote Sunday a 'weak response'.... He called for Parliament to terminate the security agreement with the United States immediately and to close the "evil American embassy" and all American bases immediately.

"US officials tried to persuade Iraqi leaders to stop the parliamentary vote Sunday, according to two sources familiar with the discussions. Despite US officials claiming it would be harmful for Iraq to follow through on such a move and hold the vote at all, ultimately the argument fell flat.... 'The mood in the country was pushing for it,' one source familiar with the discussions said of the vote. 'This was not something that could have been avoided.'

"The US was 'disappointed' in Iraq's actions Sunday, a US State Department spokeswoman said.... US State Department and National Security Council officials [planned] to meet with Iraqi officials Monday and Tuesday in Washington."

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/05/world/soleimani-us-iran-attack/index.html
'via Blog this'

Afghanistan Papers show years of official lying

The ‘Afghanistan Papers’ Confirm Critics’ Worst Fears About America’s Longest War – Reason.com - Steven Greenjut, Orange County Register:

December 20, 2019 - "It's been 18 years since the United States invaded Afghanistan in what officials promised to be a decisive mission to uproot a breeding ground for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. You're totally not shocked to learn that things didn't quite work out as promised, and that the government repeatedly misled the public about its level of success, about the fundamental purpose of the endeavor and just about everything....

"That's how government behaves — not that many readers believed anti-war libertarians as we warned about such things at the time. I'm surprised it took so long for anyone to notice, and that the latest evidence — a meticulously reported project by The Washington Post — has been met with yawns. It's hard to compete for attention with the ongoing impeachment proceedings, but the 'Afghan Papers' should cause heads to roll (or explode)....

"On the Orange County Register editorial board, we issued our warnings about overseas commitments — the costs in lives and treasure and the impossibility of turning impoverished backwaters into modern democracies. We were accused of basically being bad Americans. Yet the Afghan and Iraq conflicts turned out pretty much as we and other critics predicted, as the Post report reveals in maddening detail.

"Most people have long realized that Iraq was a debacle ... that had little to do with the 9/11 attacks, but Afghanistan seemed more defensible given that the Taliban and Islamic fundamentalists clearly had set up shop there. But the Post report suggests that even that reality didn't make the war's focus clear....  The newspaper found 'that as the war dragged on, the goals and mission kept changing and a lack of faith in the U.S. strategy took root' at the highest levels. Officials couldn't even agree on the purpose of the war....

"The arrogance of American officials always amazed me. Our country's large-scale efforts to transform parts of this country — the War on Poverty, the Great Society — failed spectacularly. Yet our leaders thought they could invade a country that most Americans couldn't pinpoint on a map, and which had a history of repelling invaders (think of Russia), and fundamentally transform its society. And they kept spinning Americans and distorting 'statistics to make it appear the United States was winning the war when that was not the case'....

"Some of the Post's stories were eye-opening: how military officials were ordered to spend millions of dollars a day in small regions, even though no one had any idea what to do with it. That's government. It literally dumps money on problems and hopes it will create progress, when all it does is encourage corruption. Even more amazing, our military couldn't distinguish between friends and enemies....

"These days, we're all sure our fellow partisans are brilliant and the other side is evil, but this ought to give everyone pause: President Barack Obama's policy in Afghanistan wasn't appreciably different from George W. Bush's — and neither of them had any particular success. Both made grandiose promises about 'winning' and eradicating terrorists, but neither delivered."

Read more: https://reason.com/2019/12/20/the-afghanistan-papers-confirm-critics-worst-fears-about-americas-longest-war/
'via Blog this'

Iraq was the Democrats' war, too

When Iraq Was Clinton’s War - Chip Gibbons, The Jacobin:

May 6, 2016 - "When [George W.] Bush entered the White House, the US (with help from the UK) was bombing Iraq an average of three times a week. In 1999, the US spent  $1 billion dropping bombs in Iraq; in 2000, that number was up to $1.4 billion....

"Omitting the decade leading up to the 2003 invasion distorts the roots of the war, which wasn’t just a product of post–9/11 hysteria or the creation of various Bush administration personalities. The February 2001 assault was part of a bipartisan policy that put continuous war with Iraq at the center of strategies to maintain US hegemony in the Middle East....

"[A]t a February 1998 town hall... Secretary of State Madeleine Albright tried to sell the public on bombing Iraq. Albright was repeatedly interrupted by antiwar activists, and ... replied, 'No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction'.... Just a few years later, similar scenes, with different players, would be reprised in the buildup to the Bush administration’s invasion.

"Much as George W. Bush inherited his initial Iraq policy from Bill Clinton, Clinton inherited his from Bush’s father. Following Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, the UN Security Council imposed sanctions on Iraq.... Even after Hussein pulled out, however, the US ... refused to allow the sanctions to be lifted. Their new rationale was that the restrictions were needed to  disarm Iraq. Yet as early as 1992 the US knew Iraq had given up its weapons of mass destruction, and the sanctions remained....

"Iraq experienced shortages of food, medicine, and clean drinking water. And a 1995 Lancet study sponsored by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization concluded that 576,000 children under the age of five perished because of the policy, while a “conservative” estimate put the death toll for the same age group at 350,000. Dennis Halliday, a thirty-four-year UN veteran, resigned ... after spending a little over a year as the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq. He said the sanctions constituted genocide.... Clinton simply denied the facts in question....

"Like his successor, one of Clinton’s early acts in office was to bomb Baghdad. In 1993, he sent twenty-three cruise missiles to hit the city.... Five years later, Clinton signed the 'Iraq Liberation Act' into law, formalizing the US’s demand for regime change. The legislation, which also appropriated $97 million to fund Iraqi opposition groups, was followed up with ... Operation Desert Fox ... sold to the public as retribution for Hussein’s decision to kick UN weapons inspectors out of the country. Yet ... Clinton ordered the inspectors out. Saddam didn’t kick them out....

"From the end of Operation Desert Fox [in December 1998] until the 2003 invasion, the US and UK bombed Iraq at least once a week."

Read more: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/war-iraq-bill-clinton-sanctions-desert-fox/
'via Blog this'

Kochs invest millions to reshape US foreign policy

Getting Realist: Charles Koch Ramps Up Efforts to Reshape U.S. Foreign Policy — Inside Philanthropy:

December 14, 2017 - "The Washington Post's Greg Jaffe reported recently that the Charles Koch Foundation is making 'major investments' in foreign policy programs at elite American universities, including a $3.7 million grant to Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

"That news comes on the heels of roughly $10 million in similar grants the Charles Koch Foundation has given in recent months to Notre Dame, Tufts University, Catholic University, and the University of California San Diego — with much more on the way.

The grants, according to Jaffe, are part of a 'larger effort to broaden the debate about an American foreign policy Koch and others at his foundation argue has become too militaristic, interventionist and expensive.' Longtime watchers of Koch philanthropy won't be surprised here; the Cato Institute, which the Kochs helped found in the 1970s, has long made these same arguments....

"Charles has never been aligned with Republicans on foreign policy. He was against the Vietnam war and more recently ... America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, as mentioned, Cato has long been among the leading voices challenging the globalist security dogma largely embraced by both political parties.

"To that end, according to Jaffe, the grants are 'aimed at generating new ideas about how America should use its military power and vast economic influence,' and adhere to a 'realist school' of foreign policy that is leery of humanitarian interventions, nation building, or other causes that are tangential to American interests.... The gifts will primarily pay for graduate-level and postdoctoral fellowships....

"Charles' expanding anti-interventionist grantmaking aims to intellectually bolster a strain of thinking that's lately gained steam on an increasingly populist right and has fans on the left, too. While Trump's crude America First rhetoric isn't very persuasive, the arguments made by realist scholars like Stephen Walt carry more heft. Walt, who's getting in on this new Koch funding, has lately emerged as a leading critic of a national security strategy that has America embroiled in multiple wars, with 200,000 U.S. troops stationed in 177 countries....

"The Peace and Security Funders Group (PSFG) and the Foundation Center recently found that conflict, national security, and peace ... funders have made an 'outsized impact'.... Such high-leverage giving goes back decades, but it's typically been supported by donors who embrace an expansive U.S. role in the world, and that's still largely the case.

"Now it's fair to say that such funders are going to have some competition. These success areas are precisely the kinds of foreign entanglements that Charles Koch, armed with an impressive Rolodex and billions in the bank, would like the U.S. to avoid."

Read more: https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2017/12/14/koch-anti-intervention-grants-posen-walt
'via Blog this'

Documents shed new light on origin of ISIS

ISIS, Al Qaeda And The CIA: The Documented Connection | Zero Hedge - Tyler Durden:

December 17, 2015 - "The Middle East is fertile ground for conspiracy theories, and one growing to towering heights these days says the US created the Islamic State.  But while the US may well have aided ISIS in its formative days with covert supplies of weapons and CIA funding (directly or indirectly, via Turkey leading political families) the one nation most responsible for iteration after iteration of 'terrorist organizations' is Saudi Arabia which 'created' not only the Islamic State, but al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, and many other Sunni Jihadist groups.

"The US has long been aware of this, of course, and it has provided material support to some of them in the distant past, for example to the Taliban in the war against Russia. But the more reasonable among us have questioned recent claims that the US intentionally created the Islamic State, a group of the same lineage as the Saudi terrorists responsible for 9/11....

"Thanks to the resurrection of 'J Pierpont Morgan', these doubts and questions are no longer reasonable.... Yesterday ['Morgan'] tweeted three public source documents that conclusively show a Senior CIA Spy - a major figure in operations from South America to the Middle East - is lobbying the US Government to destroy Iraq and formally create an independent Sunnistan on behalf of a Sunni terrorist.

"That terrorist joined the Iraq insurgency in 2004 under the Al-Qaeda Iraq banner, and was given hundreds of millions of dollars by the CIA and CENTCOM to defect, joining the US-led coalition in the now famous 'Surge.' Known as H.E. Shaykh Abdalrazzaq Hatem al-Sulayman, this self-described prince is the head of a 4 million strong (mostly Sunni) tribe in Anbar, and lived the high life on US taxpayer money - that is until Obama declared AQ and AQI dead, bolted from Iraq and pivoted toward Asia....

"His Eminence [then] created an insurgency called The Anbar Tribes Revolutionary Council in 2013, and solicited funds from Sunni Monarchs and individuals throughout the GCC [Gulf Co-operation Council]. The goal: destroy Baghdad and restore the Sunni to power in Iraq. His allies: the Ba’ath and ISIS.

"In late 2014 Sulayman connected with Jonathan Greenhill, 'former' Senior Operations Officer at the CIA who set up shop in DC as a lobbyist. Makes sense. CIA Spy since the early 1980s, probably living oversees under non-official-cover, comes home to lobby Congress. Anyway, Mr. Greenhill incorporated the Greenhill Group, and Sulayman retained him....

"[O]ne of the most important spies in the CIA, one with a major role in the Near East (probably Iraq), definitely was retained as a lobbyist by Sulayman. And Sulayman retained him to 'create an autonomous Sunni region in Iraq or an independent Sunni State.' In other words, destroy Iraq by formally creating and recognizing Sunni-Jihadi-stan. Or a safe-zone for Sunni terrorists. Or what it actually is, a caliphate."

Read more: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-17/missing-link-islamic-state-iraq-and-now-documented-cia-connection
'via Blog this'

Iraq war contributed to rise of ISIS, Blair admits

Blair: Iraq war contributed to rise of ISIS but was justified | News , Middle East | THE DAILY STAR - Associated Press:

October 26, 2015 - "Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has acknowledged that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was partly responsible for the emergence of ISIS militant group in the Middle East. But he insists that toppling Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had been the right thing to do.

"Blair told CNN 'there are elements of truth' in the assertion that the war in Iraq caused the rise of ISIS, which now controls a large swath of Iraq and Syria.

"'Of course, you can’t say those of us who removed Saddam in 2003 bear no responsibility for the situation in 2015,' he said in an interview broadcast Sunday.

"Blair added that the Arab Spring revolutions, which began in 2011, had also played a part by allowing the Islamist fundamentalist militant group to flourish in civil war-torn Syria and then Iraq. And he said the 'sectarian policy' of Iraq’s Shiite-led government was also a factor in destabilizing the country.

"Blair’s decision to take Britain into the Iraq war – based on what turned out to be false claims about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction – remains hugely divisive at home and contributed to his Labour Party’s loss of power in 2010....

"'I apologize for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong,' he said. 'I also apologize for some of the mistakes in planning and, certainly, our mistake in our understanding of what would happen once you removed the regime.'

"Some 179 British personnel died in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. A public inquiry into decisions and mistakes in Britain’s planning and execution of the war began in 2009 but has yet to issue its findings."

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Oct-26/320228-blair-iraq-war-contributed-to-rise-of-isis-but-was-justified.ashx
'via Blog this'

Liberty Caucus only voice against 3rd Iraq war

House Liberty Caucus Republicans Stand Strong Against Third Iraq War - Thomas R. Eddlem, New American:

September 13, 2014 - "Members of the U.S. House of Representatives' Liberty Caucus have become the sole congressional voice openly speaking out against President Obama's proposed third war in Iraq.

"In a Facebook posting after Obama’s September 10 speech, Michigan Representative Justin Amash strongly condemned the president's violation of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution's reservation of the war powers to Congress: 'The president boldly claimed, contrary to the Constitution, that he alone can order our Armed Forces into a protracted war. And he left unanswered the basic questions responsible Americans and their representatives must ask before going to war. Whom, specifically, will the mission target and what, specifically, is the threat to our homeland?'...

"The anti-war Left has faded into insignificance since the election of a president from the Democratic Party, but the anti-war Right has become more vocal and numerous since its halcyon days of the lone calls by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) against war in Iraq in past decades.... Amash does not stand alone in his opposition to the war, as Ron Paul once did. Other members of the Liberty Caucus have openly questioned Obama's policy of arming the Free Syrian Army, the same organization that first kidnapped U.S. journalist Steven Sotloff and later sold him to the ISIS terrorists who beheaded him. 'I disagree with the president,' fellow Liberty Caucus member Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) told the Washington Post on the day after Obama's speech.... Fellow House Liberty Caucus member Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) likewise counseled a cooler debate in Congress on MSNBC's Morning Joe before any war starts....

"Against this contingent of liberty-loving congressmen is the leadership of both parties in Washington.... The media propaganda effort toward war has even swayed the rhetoric of Amash's closest allies in the U.S. Senate. Leading Senate Tea Party/liberty senators such as Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) have backed the war, but unlike Boehner have insisted that the president follow the U.S. Constitution in pursuing his bombing campaign."

Read more: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/19113-house-liberty-caucus-republicans-stand-strong-against-third-iraq-war
'via Blog this'

Rand Paul backers tolerate interventionist rhetoric

Libertarians give Paul a pass - POLITICO.com - Katie Glueck with Kenneth P. Vogel:

September 19, 2014 - "Rand Paul insists he’s not an isolationist. Luckily for him, many in his libertarian base are willing to let him keep saying that....

"In more than a dozen interviews at a libertarian conference this week in Alexandria, Virginia, many attendees said they understand if Paul, who recently came out in favor of airstrikes against militants in Iraq, has to hedge on some issues to gain broader appeal — but that they still believe he’s one of them at heart.... [A]t this week’s Liberty Political Action Conference, it was clear that, for now, Paul maintains a large reservoir of support even among the most hardcore libertarians.

"More than 600 ardent libertarian activists gathered for the event, which is tied to Ron Paul, who is idolized at LPAC. Those gathered were far from mainstream Republicans....  Yet they represent an energetic segment of the grass roots that would be vital to a Rand Paul presidential bid....

"Rand Paul ... has sought to explain — with some success in the broader Republican Party — that being cautious about intervention doesn’t equate to isolationism.... He has held meetings with some of the most hawkish donors in the GOP, has visited Israel and made other overtures to that wing, including bringing on Lorne Craner, who served in former President George W. Bush’s State Department and worked for Sen. John McCain, to serve as a foreign policy adviser....

"But in private meetings with major libertarian-oriented donors on the sidelines of an Americans for Prosperity activist summit in Dallas late last month, Paul affirmed his noninterventionist views, and contrasted them with those of his more hawkish prospective 2016 rivals, according to people familiar with the sessions. They said the message was well received, since many top AFP donors — including the billionaire Koch brothers — opposed the Iraq War and generally bristled at the Bush administration’s aggressive foreign policy.

"Paul has tried to make the case that, when it comes to foreign affairs, intervention should be done cautiously and on a case-by-case basis.... 'He’s a conservative realist who will look at each situation,' said Doug Stafford, a senior political adviser to the senator."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/rand-paul-libertarians-111157.html
'via Blog this'

Rand Paul, Cheney publicly feuding over Iraq

Rand Paul: Republicans Are "Too Eager for War" | Mother Jones - David Corn, Washington bureau:

June 27, 2014 - "On the Sunday morning television shows this past weekend — against the backdrop of an Iraq in flames — former Vice President Dick Cheney and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) continued their ongoing feud and the battle for the (national security) soul of the Republican Party. In recent months, as Mother Jones has reported that Paul in 2009 accused Cheney of using 9/11 as an excuse to launch the Iraq invasion to benefit Halliburton (the corporation Cheney once led) and called on the GOP to disassociate itself with the former vice president, Cheney's allies have slammed the senator for expressing reckless positions. During a private speech in March, without mentioning Paul by name, Cheney contended that Paul's skepticism about US intervention abroad would endanger the United States. On ABC News' This Week on Sunday, Cheney explicitly assailed Paul as 'basically an isolationist' — a term of profound derision in the neocon wing of the GOP. Meanwhile, on Meet the Press, Paul was asked if Cheney could be considered a credible critic of President Barack Obama's foreign policy, and Paul, without saying Cheney's name, replied, 'The same questions could be asked of those who supported the Iraq war. You know, were they right in their predictions? Were there weapons of mass destruction there? That's what the war was sold on. Was democracy easily achievable?...They didn't really, I think, understand the civil war that would break out.' This was obviously a jab at the former vice president....

"In his recent dueling with Cheney and the neocons, Paul has eschewed his sharper critiques of the GOP. As he tries to broaden his political appeal — perhaps in preparation for a presidential bid — Paul has sheathed the harsher accusations and rhetoric. But as 2016 approaches and the battle for the GOP heats up, two questions remain: will Paul be able to continue practicing restraint and not share the full disgust with the Cheney/neocon crowd he formerly expressed, and will the neocons, hawks, and Cheneyites let Republicans forget what Paul has previously said?

Read more: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/rand-paul-cheney-republicans-eager-war
'via Blog this'

Rand Paul is the target of Cheney's new org.

Dick Cheney’s new group is all about Rand Paul - Washington Post - Philip Bump, "The Fix":

June 18, 2014 - "The op-ed penned by former vice president Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday is probably what you'd expect from the Cheneys. It argues that President Obama's administration has weakened America's global standing; Obama, they write, 'seems determined to leave office ensuring he has taken America down a notch'....

"It should be apparent, though, that the Cheneys' target audience wasn't really America at large, and almost certainly wasn't liberals who are unlikely to reconsider their existing opinions of the former VP. Instead, the audience is Republicans. More specifically, Republicans inclined to support a 2016 candidacy by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

"The Journal essay is part of a PR push for the Cheneys' new group, Alliance for a Stronger America. The Cheneys also released a video explaining the rationale for the organization....

"Rand Paul is not a Dick Cheney Republican. The libertarian-leaning Paul has been widely described as isolationist, though his allies prefer 'non-interventionist.' He recently caused a stir when he suggested that he didn't support military action against a nuclear-armed Iran (though he later gave a more nuanced answer to that question).

"What's more, Paul has repeatedly been critical of Cheney personally, largely for Cheney's role in the Iraq War. And Cheney has been critical of Paul, attacking the senator last year over government surveillance.

"But in most recent polling, including by The Post, Paul leads (or is near the top of) the Republican field for 2016. The Republican that has most strongly opposed Dick Cheney is currently the most likely Republican to earn the party's nomination for president."

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/18/dick-cheneys-new-group-is-all-about-rand-paul/
'via Blog this'