Iran Man

Rick Santorum says he's been studying Iran for a decade. But does he know what he's talking about?

BY URI FRIEDMAN | FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Rick Santorum, who wrested some momentum from Mitt Romney this week by winning primary contests in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri, likes to cast himself as something of an expert on Iran, which has arguably become the top foreign-policy issue in the campaign. From making clear that he'd take care of Iran's nuclear problem if Tehran refuses to do so to warning of jihadists lurking in the Gulf of Mexico -- he's not shy about his obsession with the Iranian threat, or his hawkish stance.

In a November radio ad, for example, the Republican presidential contender asserted that he was the only GOP candidate discussing the Iranian threat. "Even Newt Gingrich said 'no one has done more than Santorum to alert America to the dangers posed by Iran,'" the narrator crowed. Santorum's campaign website boasts that he "has recognized the looming threat of Iran's nuclear ambitions for nearly a decade -- standing tall against both Republicans and Democrats who have discounted and dismissed the reality that this radical theocracy is intent on destroying Israel and Western civilization." Forget "nearly a decade" -- in Iowa, he told voters, "I spent ten years focused like a laser beam when I was in the Senate on the country of Iran."

There may be no better window into Santorum's views on Iran than his writings as a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) -- a position he held between losing his Pennsylvania Senate seat in 2006 and entering the presidential race in June 2011. He joined the Washington, D.C.-based think tank, which aims to apply the "Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy," back in 2007 to establish and direct the "America's Enemies" program -- an initiative that, unlike America's adversaries, folded after Santorum's departure, according to the EPPC. And, for Santorum, Iran was Public Enemy No. 1. "I know that I'm not the foremost scholar in the world, but I can offer a lot of ideas," he told National Review as he settled in at the think tank.

So, just what were those ideas, and how do they compare to Santorum's rhetoric on the campaign trail today? Under the disquieting rubric "The Gathering Storm," Santorum penned roughly 40 articles on Iran during his EPPC stint, scrupulously aggregating news and commentary to paint a picture of the multidimensional Iranian threat facing the United States. Here's a look at some of what Santorum had to say on the subject, in between posts on Latin American Regression, Extradition, and Alligators and Religious Freedom: A Pluralist Street with No Address in Saudi Arabia.

THE NUCLEAR THREAT

Expressing no doubts about Iran's determination to build nuclear weapons, Santorum described Iran as an existential threat to America's ally, Israel -- an enemy "well on its way to achieving nuclear capability as it also straddles a long track record of supporting Hamas and Hezbollah."

But early last year, Santorum warned that the United States itself could be vulnerable to an Iranian electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack -- a scenario in which a nuclear weapon is detonated above the United States, knocking out electricity and communication technologies across the country (the New York Times has noted, however, that many nuclear experts dismiss the threat). "An EMP attack would require only one nuclear missile detonation to bring our nation to its knees," Santorum warned, citing similar concerns voiced by former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ). "Whether by using EMP or other [weapons of mass destruction], Americans are still constantly under the threat of terrorism."

If anything, Santorum has adopted even more of a doomsday approach on the campaign trail, telling voters in Florida, Missouri, and South Carolina that they would not be safe in their states if Iran obtained a nuclear weapon. He says a Santorum administration would authorize more research on EMP threats and develop a plan to prevent "severe terrestrial and space emergencies that would take down our information systems or electrical grids" (Newt Gingrich has issued dire warnings about an EMP attack as well).

During his time at the EPPC, Santorum also worried that an emboldened Iran could tamper with the global energy supply in the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, or Suez Canal. "It is becoming increasingly clear that Iran's nuclear program is not merely a bargaining chip but a core component of the regime's stability," he observed in 2007 when discussing a threat by Iranian leaders to use oil as a weapon. Iran, he added, wants to "dominate the region and to challenge the West without fear of retribution."

Whitney Curtis/Getty Images 

 

Uri Friedman is an associate editor at Foreign Policy.

THEPALADIN

11:42 PM ET

February 9, 2012

nutjob!

And where exactly is the huge amount of money for all your campaign of bombarding Iran back to the stone age coming from?

 

JAC323

12:26 AM ET

February 10, 2012

When in doubt just nuke em?

Sorry Ricky, Stalinist Russia was more of a threat to this country than Iran is now or every could be. If Stalin thought had an advantage over the west he would have not hesitated to impose his utopia on the rest of the world.(got the bomb first) Israel is more than capable of taking care of themselves.

 

CHARLESFRITH

1:42 AM ET

February 10, 2012

The Islamic/Christian/Judaeo Axis of Evil

Saudi/US/Israel. It's that simple.

 

DELTA22

2:24 AM ET

February 10, 2012

 

LOGICAL

5:42 AM ET

February 10, 2012

The stupidity of Rick

The stupidity of Rick Santorum never ceases to amaze me....

 

SIEGGY

9:35 AM ET

February 10, 2012

So?

First, there is no consensus about Iran actually building nuclear weapons. As with Iraq, we're hearing the same voices crying out that "OMG! they're going to get nukes and NO ONE WILL BE SAFE!!!" Sorry, but Iran has been 'going to have nuclear capability any time now' since, oh, 1992 . . . And I automatically discount any claims by AIPAC partisans on the subject, as their objectivity and veracity is nonexistent.

Second, Iran is on the brink of a huge demographic shift - the old conservatives are getting older and dying off, and the youth are rather disinclined to go along with the old fart's turban and birka wearin' ways. Any interference by the west will simply confirm what the crazy old men are saying -that the west is trying to interfere with their internal affairs, which will rally the youth to their side. Using 'THEM!' as a bogeyman is a strategy dating back to our earliest primate days, and we haven't gotten any better.

No, let the stew simmer . . . as the mad mullahs and angry ayatollahs drop off one by one, their replacements (who have satellite TVs and internet connections) aren't buying the crap the old guys are peddling any longer. The fundies (as in this country) want to go backwards to some imagined golden age, and the young are more concerned with the future.

And third, even if Iran gets nukes, all that really does is guarantee them protection from a US attack, which given our past behavior and current rhetoric, actually IS an existential threat to them. You have remember that we have troops literally surrounding them - Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and a huge base in the former soviet colony of Khazakstan . . . Sorry, but I can quite understand their paranoia. Not that I like it, but I can understand it.

Iran is a self-solving problem. The hardliners are dropping fast, and when Khameni finally dies, watch Iran go through a fundamental transition into a local version of modernity. Assuming no one does anything stupid in the meantime, of course.

 

SPOOD

10:21 AM ET

February 13, 2012

Just taking your argument to the logical conclusion

"Second, Iran is on the brink of a huge demographic shift - the old conservatives are getting older and dying off, and the youth are rather disinclined to go along with the old fart's turban and birka wearin' ways. Any interference by the west will simply confirm what the crazy old men are saying -that the west is trying to interfere with their internal affairs, which will rally the youth to their side. Using 'THEM!' as a bogeyman is a strategy dating back to our earliest primate days, and we haven't gotten any better."

So it makes sense that Iran would try to manufacture an international brouhaha in order to rally support the the regime.

What better way to do so and avoid looking like the provocateur than to create a bluff of developing nuclear weapons. Real nuclear weapons development is expensive and requires a great deal of secrecy until the finished product is made.

Sparking a conflict over nuclear weapons potential is easier, plus one can act coyly by announcing efforts at allegedly peaceful nuclear power expansion. Create an atmosphere of plausible deniability and paranoia.

If Iran had legitimate motives for its efforts they would not be so public (practically goading a response), nor so uncooperative. If Iran really wanted to produce nuclear weapons, it would be a lot more discreet.

However their actions are perfect for creating a short-lived conflict situation.
I think they deserve nothing more than a cold war.

 

MBRMARK

10:05 AM ET

February 10, 2012

Santorum

Santorum is expert on absolutely nothing. He is quite repulsive, and that Americans pay any attention to him, is frankly bizarre.

 

WATTY

10:28 AM ET

February 10, 2012

Another GW Bush in the making

With half-witted leaders such as these, America is doomed to become China's lackey.

 

HASS

11:35 AM ET

February 10, 2012

Appeal to lowest common denominator

Apocalyptic fear mongering and appeals to bigotry are sure ways to win votes in the US, unfortuantely. Remember, a very small percentage of Americans actually read FP, and fewer still realize the grip that AIPAC has on this country's political institutions.

 

EBOY

12:29 PM ET

February 10, 2012

freak

santorum is a fucking religious freak no different than the ayatollahs
so he probably knows more about iran than one would think!
he thinks secular is bad for the US.
i think he is bad for the world.
cheers

 

URGELT

1:33 PM ET

February 10, 2012

"(A year earlier, Santorum

"(A year earlier, Santorum had criticized the media for referring to Iranian hard-liners as "conservatives" -- "as if conservatism is about imposing theocracy and depriving people of freedom.")"

I have to admit, when I read this, I laughed out loud.

America's conservative movement is *entirely* about breaking down the separation of church and state and stripping citizens of personal liberties and rights.

Santorum's idea of 'freedom' is the freedom to obey the moral teachings of evangelical Christianity, or rot in prison.

 

HURRICANEWARNING

3:03 PM ET

February 10, 2012

crazy neo/ultra-conservatives at it again

If anyone honestly thinks that Rick Santorum has a snowballs chance in hell at winning the presidency; they need to have their heads examined. The man is so incredibly out of step with everything that the majority of America, and for that matter the world, thinks; that he is doomed to fail. No question. I would bet my entire life savings and that of my family and friends, to include my personal freedom that Rick Santorum will not beat Obama in a general election
It is actually kinda sad; what has happened to the Republican party. They used to put forth thoughtful, well spoken public servants as nominees. Now they're all so blindingly Christian and extreme in their social views (not to mention their strange hatred of accurate history and science); that they are slipping further and further into an abyss of stupidity and irrelevance.
The two conservatives in the public eye that are the most like the old guard, and that are the most intelligent and constructive, Bloomberg and Huntsman, are probably the two least popular conservatives amongst Republicans because they don't tow the line of pure insanity. Republicans should honestly take a long look in the mirror and think about what they want to be when they grow up.

 

PULLER58

6:26 AM ET

February 13, 2012

Santorum's angle

Look, Rick gotta eat, so he jumped on the bandwagon of neoconmen who want to eliminate all of the threats faced by Israel (Hey, former Senator will shill for food). Is Iran a threat? Perhaps, but Santorum merely plays into hands of the EndTimes crowd that wants a Middle East war to herald the return of Jesus. As an expert, he fails.

 

GENNY

9:02 AM ET

February 13, 2012

Is there any difference between Iran and Russia?

I am not an American, rather one from the region concerned. I don't understand the difference. Please explain me. It must be a new American trick, to differentiate between those two countries (may be for budgeting reasons?). The Americans who fight in Afghanistan, which roads they control? Those where Russian or on their behalf, lorries drive or other? The UN Antidrug division based in Austria is headed by a Russian, but in Russia there are no marijuana plantations, it's too cold, and there is no big market of the grass, because the people mostly drinks. And for correct dispatching and legalizing of the flows, one has to be in very close connection (or relation) with the producers. So, it's a nonsense to assert any slightest difference.

 

WILLIEJOE

2:54 PM ET

February 13, 2012

Santorum

There is a reason why Mr. Santorum is not one of our Senators any longer and his "thoughts" are a good example of why not. He was far more interested in lining his pockets at our expense than doing the work needed to advance both Pennsylvanias and the United States interests. It has nothing to do with his religious beliefs or his economic philosphy-Senator Casey is a devout,practicing Catholic- Senator Toomey is a libertarian(club for growth guy) both quite conservative in their own way-no Mr.Santorum is a hustler who will happily flack for the money while loudly proclaiming his righteousness. We did'nt buy it after a good look and tossed him out I suggest you do the same. As to Iran- I got to know some Iranian students in Chicago back in late 70's and it left me with an appreciation of just how complex and multifacted they are as a people and how hard you have to work to begin to understand the world as seen through the eyes of a completely different culture and history-no I don't claim any expertise but I do want a go slow and carefull approach after seeing the events of Iraq and Afganistan to date-and I sure as hell don't want another war. Israel is a soverign nation and will make its own decisions-we will do the same.