Senator Rand Paul doubts whether US strikes halted Iran’s nuclear ambitions: 'We'll find out over time'

WASHINGTON, DC: While the White House is busy popping champagne over the Iran strike, Senator Rand Paul has some biting questions about what comes next.

Speaking to Steve Bannon on War Room, the Kentucky Republican wasn’t ready to declare victory just yet. Instead, he posed a question that’s hard to ignore: “Does this stop them from getting a nuclear weapon, or does it spur them to get a nuclear weapon?”

That might be the million-dollar question, especially after President Donald Trump told reporters on Air Force One that Iran’s nuclear capabilities had been “completely and totally obliterated.”

Trump sounded confident — even optimistic — saying the country should now “get on to being a great trading nation” with its oil wealth. He insisted that after such a major hit, “the last thing on Iran’s mind right now is nuclear weapons.”

But Paul isn’t convinced the attack ended anything, especially not Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Rand Paul says US may have sparked a bigger conflict with Iran, not prevented one

One of Senator Rand Paul’s biggest concerns is that the US may have lit the fuse rather than disarmed it, RealClearPolitics reported.

“There are news reports out today saying that 400 kilograms of enriched uranium at 60 percent was spirited out before the attacks,” he said, referencing reports that Israeli intelligence believes Iran managed to move a significant amount of nuclear material ahead of time.

Iran didn’t just relocate the uranium; they strategically transferred it to another nuclear complex near the ancient city of Isfahan.

Paul said he isn’t sure whether the US can simply “bomb away [Iran's] ability to make a nuclear weapon.” He noted that Iran now has enough uranium to potentially manufacture about 10 nuclear weapons.

The senator said he’s bracing for what comes next. “I hope the war will not continue, but I base my judgment on previous incursions by so many presidents — from Obama to Bush — that didn’t go as planned,” he said.

“I think they believed Iran was weak enough, and, you know, the assessment looked pretty strong — that both Israel and the United States could get in and out unscathed. But this isn’t the end of the question. It’s the beginning of the questions now,” the Kentucky Republican continued.

"Did something change in that intelligence? But also, the question will be, does this stop them? And I think it's an open question," he continued. "Does this stop them from getting a nuclear weapon, or does it spur them to get a nuclear weapon? And I think that's an open question we'll find out over time."

Rand Paul draws line between Trump’s restraint and Lindsey Graham’s war hawk views

Paul didn’t hold back in criticizing his colleagues, particularly Senator Lindsey Graham, who has reportedly been vocal about pushing for regime change in Iran.

“I would say Graham is on the extreme war side — the neoconservative side — of things. And he always has been,” Paul said, adding that Trump has never really aligned with that stance.

Paul shared that in private discussions where both Trump and Graham were present, “The president has always sort of chided Graham for being too far out on the limb trying to intervene everywhere, all the time, and be involved in every war.”

He continued, “I don’t think that’s the president’s natural inclination. I do appreciate that President Trump is now telling Israel, in fairly forceful terms, that they need to adhere to the ceasefire.”

He hopes the ceasefire holds, but still has reservations about how the strike was authorized in the first place. “I still have a constitutional question about the way it was done,” Paul said. “But I hope for the best. I mean, I don’t want our country to be involved in another war or get mired in another Middle East conflict.”

“Iran would put both Iraq and Afghanistan to shame,” he warned, adding that the country is far too large and complex for the US or Israel to occupy successfully.

Rand Paul warns of escalation amid rising civilian deaths in Iran

Despite the chest-pounding in some circles, Iran isn’t exactly waving the white flag — and the human cost is already staggering.

Since Israel first attacked on June 13, Iran’s Health Ministry reports that at least 606 people have been killed. June 23 alone saw 107 deaths, marking the deadliest single day of the conflict so far.

Paul isn’t just concerned about nuclear weapons. He’s alarmed by the spiraling violence, the risk of regional war, and what it all could mean for America’s future.

“Militarily, we’re incredibly superior. And really, the last week has shown that our military is unmatched — Iran is no match for it,” he admitted.

“But it’s still an open question how they respond. Do they respond in a chastened way, where they stop nuclear development, or do they respond in a headlong push towards the bomb? And I think that is an unknown," the senator concluded.

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online