Skip Navigation

Taking Iran Seriously at the GOP Debate: Cruz and Kasich

Twenty-three million people watched the primetime GOP debate in mid-September — a record for CNN as the most watched program in its history. Given the pervasive dialogue surrounding political apathy, low voter turnout, and a collective frustration with a government that has mastered the art of threatening to shut itself down for just about every kerfuffle they face, this seems odd. The theatricality may account for the whopping numbers, as the debate lent itself more to a reality show than a debate on domestic and international policy. Perhaps this was the inevitable outcome to questions that only seemed to incite ad hominem attacks.

However, though no one outlined a viable foreign policy strategy — or really any viable policy strategy of any nature — the way in which the candidates responded to Jake Tapper’s question about the Iran nuclear deal offers significant insights into their worldviews and perspectives on the kind of role the United States should play in the world. The most revealing answers appear to be the contrasting responses of Senator Ted Cruz and Governor John Kasich on the Iranian deal. Coincidentally, the greatest divergence in their politics lies within their views of international affairs.

From what both men have revealed prior to the debate, they disagree on military expansion. Cruz intends to scale the military and seems to respond to any questions concerning current international conflicts with a call for bombing our enemies or arming their opposition. Needless to say, diplomacy hasn’t played an integral part in Ted Cruz’s agenda.

Conversely, Kasich hasn’t supported hawkish military endeavors or expansionary measures. In fact, he’s been more outspoken about waste than his peers. However, his platform emphasizes supporting the troops at home and preventing adventurism abroad while exuding strength through leadership about other facets of foreign policy. Jake Tapper’s question read in its entirety: “The next president, no matter who he or she may be, will inherit President Obama’s Iran deal. Senator Cruz, Governor Kasich says that anyone who is promising to rip up the Iran deal on day one, as you have promised to do, is, quote, ‘inexperienced,’ and quote, ‘playing to a crowd.’ Respond to Governor Kasich, please.”

Senator Cruz was first to present his case against the Iranian deal, calling it “catastrophic” and vowing to “rip it to shreds” on his first day in office — the typical hawkish rhetoric we might expect from the Tea Party darling. He even framed the estimated $100 billion added to the Iranian economy through the sanctions relief as a charitable donation from the pocket of the United States, suggesting the deal “will send over $100 billion to the Ayatollah Khamenei, making the Obama administration the world’s leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism.” However, the most revealing aspect of his answer came next.What President Obama wants to do is he’s run to the United Nations, and he wants to use the United Nations to bind the United States and take away our sovereignty,” trumpeted Cruz. The senator went on to boast of his record as Solicitor General of Texas and the “historic” victory of Medellin v. Texas, which to Cruz affirmed that “World Court and the UN, has no power to bind the United States and no President of the United States, Republican or Democrat, has the authority to give away our sovereignty.” In his response, Senator Cruz heavily obfuscates the consequences of Medellin v. Texas, treating it as a judicial stamp of approval to defy international treaties and peace accords at whim. The case concerned whether Texas had to comply with an article in the Vienna Convention that requires nation-states to inform foreign nationals arrested in the United States of their right “to request assistance from the consul of his own state,” which Texas chose to disregard when sentencing a Mexican national to death. The decision to execute Humberto Leal Garcia, the central figure of the case, provoked international outrage — from the Obama administration to diplomats to foreign governments. The clause giving foreign nationals the right to contact their consulates for legal council has been upheld by nation-states as uncooperative as North Korea and Iran. For imprisoned American journalist Euna Lee, this was the “lifeline to secure her release.” Medellin v. Texas concluded that only Congress — not the President — could ensure the state comply with the treaty.

The case that Ted Cruz calls his proudest achievement represents a departure from the standards of international politics. As Ted Cruz interprets it, the decision implies no state has to comply with any international treaty, accord, or otherwise unless explicitly ordered by Congress — an interpretation that would bear real catastrophic consequences for the United States in its attempts to protect citizens abroad or secure its foreign policy interests in future negotiations. It undermines the cooperation that makes diplomacy and cooperation possible. In particular cases, unilateralism may allow the United States to act in ways that will secure our short-term interests, but will undoubtedly hinder our long-term position in the international order.

“How would Ted Cruz’s extremist view of sovereignty translate into a foreign policy agenda?” you may ask yourself. Simply, it would not. Offering up pieces of sovereignty in a specified and strategic realm like war, for instance, in exchange for the safety of citizenry and the advancement of foreign interest lies at the very foundation of foreign policy. Nation-states forfeit sovereignty in agreeing to refrain from chemical warfare, for example. A mutual respect for the rules of war is the only leverage countries have aside from military and economic tactics in ensuring their military men and women are safeguarded from those kinds of weapons. We cannot realistically maintain a system in which specific cantons in France decide not to abide by these rules until Parliament compels them to do so. However, that is the very consequence of the world in which Cruz lives.

A world in which military clout is omnipotent contrasts vividly with the more cooperative system Governor Kasich revealed in his rebuttal: “A lot of our problems in the world today is that we don’t have the relationship with our allies. If we want to go everywhere alone, we will not have the strength as if we could rebuild with our allies.”

His response, although void of any real foreign strategy, offered a more practical, reasonable, and seasoned approach to a complicated arrangement with a pariah country we are just now beginning to re-engage. His answer suggests a far more collaborative approach to international politics than his peer, likely stemming from his 18 years on the House Armed Services Committee. Furthermore, it displays a deeper understanding of the international landscape: Foreign affairs aren’t unilateral. Just as random cantons of France cannot choose to wage chemical warfare, the United States cannot simply do as it pleases because it has the military backing to defend any of its actions. In fact, Kasich implies that we must deeply embed ourselves within the international community through cooperation if we seek to address the most prevalent challenges.

In regards to the deal itself, Kasich suggested snapback sanctions — sanctions that are put back in place after noncompliance. The governor proposed that, in the case of the United States uncovering Iranian collaboration with Hamas or Hezbollah, it should renew previous sanctions. Additionally, given any indication that Iran seeks to develop a nuclear weapon, the United States should explore its military options. Kasich concluded, “We are stronger when we work with the Western civilization, our friends in Europe, and just doing it on our own, I don’t think is the right policy.” In this way, the governor’s reply was not only a reaction to the Iran deal, but also a testament to his overarching approach to foreign policy. In fact, we may infer that a Kasich administration may continue the work of the current White House in repairing the relationships severed by the hawkish actions of the Bush years.

Though we may not have walked away from the Donald Trump three-hour extravaganza with a clear idea of Cruz’s or Kasich’s respective foreign policy agendas, their replies to the question concerning the Iranian deal revealed a great deal about their contrasting vision of international politics. No matter the strategy of either candidate, we know that a Cruz administration would be led with the assumption that the United States sits at the helm of the international order, and with its military supremacy, can conduct its affairs unilaterally and unfettered by international norms and agreements. Kasich’s answer offered a more cooperative vision of the international system, in which the United States will find strength in collaboration and strong alliances — perhaps his vision may even lend itself to scaling back on military initiatives to seek more diplomatic channels. Clearly, these are mere calculations based on the candidates’ respective narratives during the last debate. We will have to wait and see if either can produce a cohesive foreign policy strategy for crucial conflicts with Iran, ISIS, China, or Russia.

Photo: Marc Nozell

About the Author

Justine Breuch is a staff writer for the Brown Political Review.

SUGGESTED ARTICLES