I have a feeling you misunderstood his statements on the subject:
WASHINGTON - GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul says “offering friendship” to Iran, not sanctions, would be a more fruitful to achieving peace with Tehran.
The Texas congressman says fears about Iran’s nuclear program have been “blown out of proportion.” He says tough penalties are a mistake because, as he says was the case in Iraq, they only hurt the local population and still paved a path to war.
When asked on “Fox News Sunday” what he would do to deter Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions, Paul said “maybe offering friendship to them.”
Paul’s remarks put him at odds with both the Bush and Obama administrations; U.S. policy has relied heavily on sanctions and diplomacy to try to convince Tehran to abandon its atomic program. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful.
A war between Israel and Iran seems inevitable, no matter who becomes president.
I used to consider his FP views naive as well, but he makes valid points that are either totally ignored or twisted into strawmen to be more easily written off as "kooky", which seems to be what you did with his statements about sanctions against Iran.
For example, we send more "foreign aid" money to the enemies of Israel than we do to Israel, and we force Israel to spend 100% of the money we send them for defense on US products, effectively subsidizing the US MIC. Which is more "kooky", supporting that policy, or wanting to end it?
