Ron Paul: Can Trump secure a Deal with Iran?

After five years of futile negotiations between the U.S. and Iran over the latter's nuclear enrichment program, it's time for President Trump to use his vaunted dealmaking powers.

Take the Deal, President Trump | Ron Paul Institute | Ron Paul:

May 26, 2025 - "Deal-making is said to be President Trump’s specialty, yet after five rounds of indirect talks with Iran – most recently just days ago – we seem as far away from an agreement as ever. The fifth round ended last Friday with no breakthrough, but at least no breakdown. However, each day that passes without a document signed on the table is another day for the neocons to maneuver the US president toward an attack on Iran.

"One way the war party does this is to continuously move the goal posts and change the rules of the game. Trump envoy Steve Witkoff, under great pressure from the neocons, has himself signaled at least three position-shifts: from no enrichment at all, to low-level enrichment for civilian uses, back to no enrichment at all.

"The neocons know that Iran will not give up its right to the civilian use of nuclear power and that is why they are applying maximum pressure to force Trump to officially adopt that position. They know if that becomes the US 'red line' then they will win and they will get their war.

"Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, in league with US neocons, has been warning us for 20 years that Iran is “months away” from a nuclear weapon – even though our own Intelligence Community recently re-affirmed that Iran is not working on a nuclear weapon at all.

"Of course this is the same Netanyahu who promised Congress in 2002 if the US would just invade Iraq, peace and prosperity would break out in the Middle East. 'If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime,' he told Congress in March of that year, 'I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.' We know how that worked out.

"Poll after poll shows that the American people are tired of intervention and tired of Middle East wars. President Trump himself recognized this in his scathing rebuke of neocons and interventionists during a recent speech in Saudi Arabia. But rebuke in a speech is not enough. President Trump must actively turn away from the neocons – many of whom are prominent in his own administration.

"The recent US debacle in Yemen – where billions were wasted, civilians killed, and US military equipment destroyed – is just a taste of what the US would be in for if the neocons get their way and take us to war with Iran.

"The Iranian foreign minister laid down in the simplest terms how the impasse could be solved, posting on X that, 'Zero nuclear weapons = we DO have a deal; Zero enrichment = we do NOT have a deal.'

"My own preference is non-intervention and I do not believe Iran has the desire or the ability to militarily harm the United States. I share President Trump’s view that it would be far better to re-establish relations with Iran and begin mutually beneficial trade with the country. But if a mutually acceptable nuclear deal is the best way to take the neocon war with Iran off the table, then a deal is worth supporting.

"President Trump should make his position clear to his negotiators: no more waffling or contradictions, get this agreement signed and put one in the 'win' column."

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.

https://ronpaulinstitute.org/take-the-deal-president-trump/

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/

What do libertarians see in Tulsi Gabbard?

Tulsi Gabbard Is Not a Libertarian · 71 Republic - Peyton Gouzien:

September 4, 2019 - "For some reason, libertarians love Tulsi Gabbard. Gabbard, the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, has been praised for her anti-war message and honesty on a range of topics including the industrial military complex, the federal reserve, and overarching tech privacy....

"Gabbard’s list of fans includes former Texas Representative and presidential candidate Ron Paul who has called her his favorite of the Democrats. This type of support has amplified ... the buzz about her campaign in libertarian and conservative circles, with many right-of-center outlets publishing glowing pieces in support of her. Libertarians willing to compromise have found a natural ally in Gabbard....

"While Gabbard has an admirable anti-war message, her foreign ... policy is far from libertarian. On the issue of foreign intervention, Gabbard still supports the War on Terror. She also endorsed the continued use of drone strikes on terrorist organizations in Syria. Though her policy positions are far less hawkish than the majority of candidates in the presidential field, supporting drone strikes on foreign nations is a direct violation of the non-aggression principle....

"On many issues, Gabbard says enough of the right thing but her actions don’t always back [her words] up. Domestically, Gabbard’s record is undesirable and big parts of her voting records are a giant red flag for most any libertarian. Gabbard supports Medicare for all, banning offshore drilling, and free college tuition. How these plans would be paid for and the cost to the American worker remains to be seen.

"In their attempts to show at the ballot, libertarians have often compromised on candidates who promote libertarian policy upfront, only to adopt big government positions when elected. President Trump is a great example of this. He has presided over a government whose deficit and debt have grown considerably in the span of four years. Trump has imposed reckless tariffs on China and dropped the MOAB and increased our involvement in Afghanistan

"Supporting Gabbard is no different. Though she is a strong libertarian advocate on several issues, the places where we disagree are numerous and important. Libertarianism is a message of limited government, both physically and financially. Gabbard has shown time and time again that she has no such interest."

Read more: https://71republic.com/2019/09/04/tulsi-gabbard-not-libertarian/
'via Blog this'

Libertarians, the party of peace and freedom

The party of peace: Why I joined the Libertarian Party - The Boston Globe - Lincoln Chafee:

July 19, 2019 - "As an American, I have been saddened and embarrassed by recent failures of American presidents to exercise their global duties responsibly. We have entered into never-ending, illegitimate conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa; bypassed our Constitution and the Fourth Amendment by eavesdropping without warrants on people at home and around the world; shredded free-trade and other international agreements; sanctioned extrajudicial assassinations by drone strikes, which also kill innocent civilians; shredded the Geneva Convention protocols on treatment of prisoners; and worst of all, never apologized to the world for all the lies about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq....

"The sad fact is that the two major political parties are either enthusiastically guilty of these crimes or, at best, negligent of proper American values. I am alarmed about the direction of the two parties, aided and abetted by the pro-war mainstream media. These hawks, many of whom have never seen combat, seem ignorant to the reality that American aggression and arrogance has frightening consequences, particularly in the era of nuclear weapons.

"Thankfully, there is a political party that is willing to fight against irresponsible American global behavior and against the inexorable march to more senseless wars.... I would argue that the Libertarian Party is stronger on many important issues than either the Democrats or Republicans: protection of Fourth Amendment rights, opposition to capital punishment, opposition to crony capitalism, support for balanced budgets, opposition to cruel and unusual torture, support for free trade and, most important to me, 'an America at peace with the world.' The Libertarian Party is also strong on LGBT rights and a woman’s right to make her own reproductive decisions and has an enlightened approach to the corrosive and failed war on drugs.

"I was a Republican in the days when the party had a place for those who stood for fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. Those days are long gone, since Republicans have squandered a surplus by cutting taxes without cutting spending, on top of promoting a $6 trillion unnecessary war in Iraq....

"After I was the only Republican senator to vote against the Iraq war, I was elected governor of Rhode Island as an Independent.... I also dipped my toe into the waters of the Democratic Party, even seeking its nomination for president. What I learned is that the Democratic Party machine is pro-war. By joining with the pro-war mainstream media, they corrupted the process to ensure a war hawk of their liking was nominated....

"Recently my wife and I moved to Wyoming.... Before I registered to vote in the state, I considered the Libertarian Party. With no home for me in either of the two war parties, I decided to read the Libertarian platform on their website. Of the Libertarian Party’s 34 platform principles, I decided that I agree with most of them, disagree with two or three, and a half-dozen I’d need to study up on and think about it. For my children’s sake, my favorites are the planks numbered 3.1 and 3.3, promoting a strong defense but also opposed to foreign entanglements such as the quagmires of Vietnam and Afghanistan....

"If you are a restless Democrat or Republican fatigued by partisan gridlock and the resulting politicization of even the Supreme Court, look up the Libertarian Party’s platform and score yourself. I happily registered as a Libertarian earlier this year. I’m proud to stand with the party of peace and freedom."

Read more: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/rhode-island/2019/07/19/the-party-peace-why-joined-libertarian-party/6syxdoJgnN04qcmJpAFwyH/story.html

'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'

Uprising in Venezuela

Venezuelan Crisis Boils Over as Opposition Leader Declares Himself President - Hit & Run : Reason.com - Eric Boehm:

January 23, 2019 - "Nicolás Maduro was sworn in for his second term as Venezuela's president earlier this month ... at the country's Supreme Court — rather than, as is typical, in front of the National Assembly.... Five days earlier, when the Assembly opened its new session, opposition leader Juan Guaidó stood in front of his colleagues and accused Maduro of being a 'dictator' and 'usurper' who had used a fraudulent election to claim another six-year term....

"In the days since Maduro's January 10 inauguration, things have moved quickly. The United States, Canada, and 17 Latin American countries signed a declaration refusing to recognize the legitimacy of Maduro's government. Some have cut off diplomatic ties with Venezuela. Those official actions have bolstered unofficial efforts to oppose Maduro in the streets of Caracas and other cities, where people impoverished by the Venezuelan regime's socialist policies have clashed with the military, which (along with the courts) remains loyal to Maduro.

"In the midst of huge protests Wednesday that marked the anniversary of the 1958 uprising that toppled a military dictatorship, Guaidó declared himself to be the interim president of Venezuela — a bold move that was quickly endorsed by President Donald Trump and other world leaders. 'The people of Venezuela have courageously spoken out against Maduro and his regime and demanded freedom and the rule of law,' the White House said Wednesday in a brief statement. An op-ed from Vice President Mike Pence ... Tuesday in the Wall Street Journal ... called Maduro a 'dictator with no legitimate claim to power' and encouraged Venezuelans to support Guaidó....

"Whether Maduro can cling to power likely depends on whether he can use the country's military to crush the current uprising — similar to what happened in 2017 when an anti-Maduro uprising was violently suppressed. Hopefully, the military will abandon Maduro....

"Maduro is a monster, and Venezuelans are right to want to remove him from power. He sought to continue the socialist policies of his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, and has now brought those ideas to their inevitable conclusion. Chavez nationalized the Venezuelan oil companies and used the profits to fund a massive welfare state, but production declined  ... in the absence of competition and foreign investment. When oil revenues fell, ... Chavez (who died in 2013) and Maduro printed money.... When inflation resulted, they closed off Venezuela to imported goods. Before long, what had once been the richest country in Latin America was reduced to a place where toilet paper is considered a luxury. An estimated 3 million Venezuelans have fled the country, turning the nation's collapse into a regional humanitarian crisis....

"[T]he Trump administration's response ... has been admirable in its restraint. After all, it was Trump who suggested, in August 2017, that American military intervention could be used to 'topple' the Maduro regime. In September 2018, White House officials met with Venezuelan ex-patriots to discuss the possibility of a U.S.-backed coup to overthrow Maduro. Ironically, both incidents served to only tighten Maduro's grip on power, as he was able to point to U.S. machinations as the source of Venezuelans' problems....

"An American-backed military coup in the style of the ones that toppled governments elsewhere in Latin America during the 1970s and 1980s would likely trigger endless internal conflict in Venezuela — and foment distrust towards whomever eventually replaces Maduro....

"The United States ... has an opportunity to show that it has learned a lesson from the decade-plus quagmire in the Middle East. Namely, that regime change is never as neat and tidy as it might appear at the outset, and that nation-building is best done by the people who will have to live there when the job is finished."

Read more: https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/23/what-is-happening-in-venezuela-socialism
'via Blog this'

Rand Paul backs U.S. troop pullout from Syria (video)

Rand Paul: Promise To End The War In Syria Is Why Trump Won The Election | Video | RealClearPolitics -Tim Haines:

"December 20, 2018 - On 'America's Newsroom' Senator Rand Paul backed President Trump in the face of harsh criticism from Republicans over his decision to withdraw the 2,000-strong U.S. force from Syria.

"RAND PAUL: 'This is a very bold move for President Trump. It is exactly what he promised the American people -- in fact it is one of the reasons he won the election. Because he is different from so many Republicans who want us to be everywhere all the time around the world. They want us to be the world policeman, that every war on the planet we have to have our soldiers involved with. President Trump said he was going to treat America first....

"'I think there are a lot of independent voters, a lot of people in the middle of these states that President Trump won - Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin - these are states that no other Republican won, because they want to be at war everywhere all the time. President Trump said we're going to go to war when we have to, but when we win we're going to come home. It is an incredibly bold maneuver.

"All of the naysayers in Washington will be against him, but guess what, if you ask the American people, this is why President Trump won the election.'"

Read more: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/12/20/rand_paul_promise_to_end_war_in_syria_is_why_trump_won_the_election.html
'via Blog this'

Rand Paul: Bring troops home from Afghanistan

OPINION | Sen. Rand Paul: 16 years on, it's past time to bring our troops home from Afghanistan | TheHill:

August 21, 2017 - "The Trump administration is increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan and, by doing so, keeping us involved even longer in a 16-year-old war that has long since gone past its time.

"The mission in Afghanistan has lost its purpose, and I think it is a terrible idea to send any more troops into that war. It’s time to come home now.

"Our war in Afghanistan began in a proper fashion. We were attacked on 9/11. The Taliban, who then controlled Afghanistan, were harboring al Qaeda, and after being warned, and after an authorization from Congress, our military executed a plan to strike back. Had I been in Congress then, I would have voted to authorize this military action.

"But as is typical, there was significant mission creep in Afghanistan. We went from striking back against those who attacked us, to regime change, to nation-building, to policing their country for them. And we do it all now with an authorization that is flimsy at best, with the reason blurred, and the costs now known. We do it with an authorization that was debated and passed before some of our newest military personnel were out of diapers. This isn’t fair to them, to the American people, or to a rational foreign policy.

"The Afghanistan war going beyond its original mission has an enormous cost. First and most important is the cost to our troops. Deaths, injuries and unnecessary deployments causing harm to families are certainly the most important reason as to why you don’t go to wars that aren’t necessary.

"Then comes the taxpayer. We have spent over $1 trillion in Afghanistan, and nearly $5 trillion on Middle East wars in the past 15 years. Would we not be better off with $5 trillion less in debt or using these funds in other, more productive ways?...

"I’ve spoken to the president, and I know he wants to end this war. We’ve all heard him say it. But talk won’t get it done.... He knows this war is over, and he – unlike the last two presidents – should have the guts to end it for real, on his watch."

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/347393-16-years-on-its-past-time-to-bring-our-troops-home-from
'via Blog this'

Libertarians positioned as moderates for choice

Libertarians Gary Johnson, William Weld endorse choice in CNN town hall - UPI.com - Eric DuVall:

June 22, 2016 - "Participating in a CNN Town Hall event, the Libertarian Party presidential ticket of former Republican Govs. Gary Johnson and William Weld addressed a range of issues, promising, as Johnson said, to 'always come down on the side of choice'....

"Both men described themselves as fiscally conservative but accepting of social differences. They are pro-gay marriage and support protecting a woman's right to abortion, but have proposed across-the-board spending cuts of 10 to 20 percent in the federal government....

 "On gun control: Johnson said he is opposed to banning individuals on the no-fly list and the terror watch list from buying guns outright because some of the names on there are in error. He is in favor of prohibiting individuals with diagnosed mental illnesses from buying them, but expressed skepticism about increasing government involvement in determining who is and is not mentally fit to own firearms. He opposed a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles....

"On immigration: Both men oppose Trump's proposal to deport an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants and build a wall on the Mexican border.... Johnson said 'We should make it as easy as possible for somebody who wants to come into this country to work to get a work visa. They are not taking jobs U.S. citizens want'...  Weld went further, repeating his statement likening Trump's immigration policy to those of the Nazis, particularly for the 'fear' that would be created as federal agents attempted to round up millions of undocumented people for deportation.

"On legalizing drugs: Johnson supports legalizing marijuana completely, but said he opposes legalizing narcotics like heroin. He did express support for some foreign programs where heroin addicts can have their drugs tested for potentially lethal additives, and ingest the drugs under observation to prevent overdosing.... Weld said ...  'Society is coming to view people who have serious issues with either narcotics or alcohol, that that is a public health emergency and that is not a status crime'....

"On the use of military force: Johnson said he opposes 'interventionism' in U.S. foreign policy, but agrees the military needs to be funded to deter attacks and respond to them.... He called for a return to congressional authority over military action....

"On free trade: Both men support free trade agreements, saying they will help create jobs in America. 'I think, unfairly, free trade has come under criticism as crony capitalism,' Johnson said. 'Government can level the playing field for everyone. That level playing field really is free trade.' Weld agreed. 'In the purest sense, free trade is always going to benefit the United States because we have the highest rate of productivity and we are the most technologically advanced country in the world'...

"On taxes: Both men touted their records of cutting taxes as governors. Johnson said that, ideally, ... 'I would eliminate income tax, I would eliminate corporate tax, I would abolish the IRS and I would replace it all with one federal consumption tax'.... Weld did not go as far as saying he would abolish the IRS, but did call for across-the-board spending cuts of 10 percent to 20 percent, which he said would force federal agencies to eliminate wasteful spending."

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/06/22/Libertarian-candidates-Gary-Johnson-William-Weld-Its-all-about-choice/7621466642743/
'via Blog this'

What should a libertarian foreign policy look like?

In Search of Libertarian Realism - Reason.com - Matt Welch, Reason (January 2015):

December 8, 2014 - "For the next decade [after the invasion of Iraq] ... American appetite for war, occupation, and the concomitant surveillance state went on a steady and uninterrupted decline, culminating in the shockingly successful September 2013 public and congressional revolt against President Barack Obama's plans to attack Bashar Assad's regime in Syria. With the occupation of Afghanistan becoming the most unpopular war in recorded U.S. history, and with people telling pollsters they feared their own government more than they feared terrorists, it became possible to imagine a cross-ideological coalition against war, spanning from the progressive left to the constitutional-conservative right, and headed up by the libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

"But 2014 has complicated that narrative. The rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) within war-torn Syria, Iraq, and Libya halted the public's decade-long bear market on war, with more Americans favoring combat troops against ISIS in October than in September....

"With Rand Paul at or near the top of GOP presidential polls for 2016, the principled noninterventionism of his father is colliding with the complications not just of the Islamic State but of Washington politics. If Ron's project is to spread the pure principles of anti-intervention, Rand's is to see how much anti-intervention he can sneak into the mainstream diet. These differing approaches — and the different men behind them — have triggered all sorts of fierce debates about what a libertarian foreign policy really looks like.

"The Hoover Institution's Richard Epstein, in a September piece titled 'Rand Paul's Fatal Pacifism,' criticized libertarians for being 'clueless on the ISIS front,' arguing that 'In principle, even deadly force can be used in anticipation of an attack by others, lest any delayed response prove fatal.'

"Responding at Antiwar.com, reason Contributing Editor David R. Henderson countered that 'whatever else libertarian non-interventionists believe, few of us have what Professor Epstein calls an "illusion of certainty." It is the exact opposite: we are positive that there is great uncertainty. It is this uncertainty that should, in general, cause us to pressure our government to stay out of other countries' affairs.'

"So who's right? And what should libertarian principles about foreign policy look like after colliding with messy reality? In the pages ahead, we have convened a forum of self-identified libertarians who have a range of informed opinions on U.S. foreign policy. The results are designed to start a debate rather than finish it, to take a thoroughgoing skepticism about intervention into the realm of the real. In short, it's a search for libertarian realism."

Read more: http://reason.com/archives/2014/12/08/in-search-of-libertarian-reali
'via Blog this'

Majority of Americans want U.S. to "mind its own business internationally"

Most Americans think US should 'mind its own business' abroad, survey finds | World news | theguardian.com - Paul Lewis, The Guardian: 

December 3, 2013 - "A majority of Americans believe the US plays a less important and powerful role in the world than it did 10 years ago, according to a long-running study that found that most people now believe America should 'mind its own business internationally'.

"It is the first time the survey of US foreign policy attitudes has recorded such a sentiment in almost four decades of polling.

"The findings, published on Tuesday by the Pew Research Center in association with the Council on Foreign Relations, suggest Americans want their leaders to adopt a less interventionist approach, although there is a growing desire for the development of stronger trade and business links abroad.

"The US is now widely seen as less respected abroad, bucking a trend in which Americans believed their reputation had recovered since Barack Obama was elected. Impressions of how the US is perceived under Obama are now, broadly, as negative as they were in the final days of the George W. Bush administration."

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/03/american-public-mind-its-own-business-survey
'via Blog this'

Also read: Non-intervention, by George Dance

Intervention Backfires in Libya

Intervention Backfires in Libya / by Rep. Ron Paul -- Antiwar.com:

September 18, 2012 - "The attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and the killing of the U.S. ambassador and several aides is another tragic example of how our interventionist foreign policy undermines our national security. The more the U.S. tries to control the rest of the world, whether by democracy promotion, aid to foreign governments, or bombs, the more events spin out of control into chaos, unintended consequences, and blowback.

"Unfortunately, what we saw in Libya last week is nothing new.

"In 1980s Afghanistan, the U.S. supported Islamic radicals in their efforts to expel the invading Soviet military. These radicals became what came to be known as al-Qaeda, and our one-times allies turned on us most spectacularly on Sept. 11, 2001."

Read more: http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2012/09/17/intervention-backfires-in-libya/
'via Blog this'