Follow us on social

google cta
Screen-shot-2021-08-18-at-6.39.55-am

They were right: Marginalized antiwar lawmakers now get due

These members bucked their parties and risked alienation (and primaries), but stood their ground on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

This week “Ron Paul was right” trended on social media as video compilations of the former Republican congressman’s speeches were shared showing that he had been one of the few in Washington to predict how terribly U.S. intervention in Afghanistan would end.

Paul gained a sizable following during his two Republican presidential primary campaigns a decade ago, receiving one million votes in 2008 and doubling that number with two million in 2012. While the libertarian icon’s antiwar stance was always central to his messaging, that view marginalized him for most of his time in the GOP and particularly during the Bush-Cheney era when Republican identity was almost exclusively tied to war and unquestioning support of it.

Yet today, Paul looks prescient. So do a small handful of antiwar voices in both parties who were also generally kept at arm’s length by their parties for opposing the Washington foreign policy consensus.

Ron Paul’s son, Sen. Rand Paul, is arguably the most high profile and mainstream antiwar voice in American politics today on the Right (disclosure: I am currently employed by Sen. Paul’s campaign on a part time basis), but before he was elected the GOP establishment went out of its way to stop him. Paul’s Kentucky Republican primary opponent Trey Grayson received major endorsements from Senator Mitch McConnell, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Vice President Dick Cheney. When Paul beat the odds and won, neoconservative David Frum lamented, “How is it that the GOP has lost its antibodies against a candidate like Rand Paul?”

Frequent Ron Paul ally, the late former Republican Congressman Walter Jones became a fierce critic of the Iraq War and Bush administration, even saying in 2013 that Dick Cheney would “rot in hell” for his foreign policy. Neoconservative forces within the GOP would pour money into primary challengers to take out Jones every cycle and a few came close. A former Iraq War supporter, Jones saw the toll the war was taking on his North Carolina military community and told reporters that he sought forgiveness for sending sons and daughters into an unjust war. At one point he was in line to take a seat on the Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness in 2007 and was denied that move. Roll Call reported that former Rep. Duncan L. Hunter told the North Carolina congressman “he couldn’t put him in that position because he knew Jones would vote with the Democrats to get out of Iraq.”

“I said, ‘Duncan, you’re exactly right; I will,” Jones recounted. “So that pretty much told me that by doing what you think is right, no matter what the issue might be, there’s a price to pay.”

There was a price to pay for antiwar Democrats as well.

Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee was the only member of Congress to vote against U.S. intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 and was called a “traitor” and worse by everyone, including members of her own party. She was physically threatened and harassed non-stop.

This week, Lee has been celebrated as the one congressperson who was right about how an American war in Afghanistan might turn out. Lee said on MSNBC Sunday that the Taliban immediately gaining power after U.S. withdrawal proves “that there is no military solution, unfortunately, in Afghanistan." She added, “We’ve been there 20 years; we’ve spent over a trillion dollars and we’ve trained over 300,000 of the Afghan forces.”

Similar to Ron Paul in the GOP, Sen. Bernie Sanders became a populist antiwar voice in the Democratic presidential primaries in 2016 and 2020, particularly in his sparring with fellow candidate and military hawk, Hillary Clinton, in 2016. As Sanders popularity continued to rise, Team Clinton helped tip the primary scales against the Vermont senator, as claimed by former Democratic National Committee head Donna Brazile in 2017. As his popularity grew, Ron Paul had a similar scam pulled on his campaign by the Republican establishment in 2012.

Antiwar political leaders across the ideological spectrum will likely always face daunting challenges no matter how many times the pro-war establishments in both parties are discredited.

The utter chaos and heartbreak that continues to unfold in Afghanistan could become the first test to see how much power and influence the forever war old guard has. 

Or, as we have seen more often, it could not. Even America’s grand mistake in Afghanistan likely won’t convince those who knew they were right.


Rep. Ron Paul (R), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I), Rep. Barbara Lee (D). (all photos taken by Gage Skidmore/Flickr)
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
Will Democrats pop Trump's $50 billion trial balloon for war?
Top image credit: Sens. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) sit look on during a congressional hearing in January, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Sipa USA)

Will Democrats pop Trump's $50 billion trial balloon for war?

Washington Politics

On Wednesday, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) told CNN that he would support new funding for the U.S. war with Iran — but only if Israel and Arab Gulf states help pay for it.

“We’re using our taxpayer money to protect those countries,” Gallego said. “We’re using our men to protect these countries. They need to throw in and have skin in the game too.”

keep readingShow less
Polymarket Iran War
Top photo credit: Polymarket logo (Shutterstock/PJ McDonald) and Scene following an airstrike on an Iranian police centre damaging residential buildings around it in Niloofar square in central Tehran on march 1, 2026. (Hamid Vakili/Parspix/ABACAPRESS.COM)

Prediction markets are a national security threat

Latest

Hours before an Israeli attack in Tehran killed Ayatollah Khamenei, an account on the prediction market Polymarket made over half a million dollars wagering that Iran’s Supreme Leader would vacate office before 3/31. That account, named “Magamyman,” was not the only one to cash in on the attacks.

Half a dozen Polymarket accounts made over $1.2M betting that the U.S. “strikes Iran by February 28, 2026.” Those accounts were allegedly paid for through cryptocurrency wallets that had previously not been funded prior to Feb. 27. Overall, prediction market users bet over $255M on markets related to the attacks in Iran on the prediction markets Kalshi and Polymarket alone.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.