A Republican Candidate Expert in Foreign Affairs?

The lead paragraph of a January 4 news article reads, “The Middle East slid dangerously closer to regional conflict Monday after Saudi Arabia rallied its Sunni allies to sever diplomatic ties with Iran…” https://goo.gl/xGfqPs . This is but one of many flashpoints throughout the Middle East. Indeed, with the unprecedented entry of Russian military might in Syria and its belligerence toward NATO ally Turkey, the world teeters on the parapet of a possible international war with all the complexity of the First World War ratcheted up by the nuclear threat, whether by rogue nations or superpowers.

The volatility of the Middle East has taken American politics by surprise. There are a dozen Republicans running for president, yet the impetus behind these campaigns is domestic; there is only one of them with extensive interest, experience, and expertise in foreign relations. As Americans are forced to turn their electoral attention to foreign affairs, this sets up a general election scenario in which a Republican inexperienced in international relations may face a Democrat who happens to be a former Secretary of State.

Does your candidate know who Bani Sadr is? 

The debates and campaigns will turn on obscurities such as cities and regions, princes and foreign ministers, and apocalyptic theologies and clerics in internecine conflict. Secretary Clinton will likely know the name of the capital of Yemen and Qatar, and will be able to detail the significance of ISIS’ destruction of Aleppo, and what its conquest might say about the future of Assad. In contrast, does Donald Trump know anything about the Saudi royal family? Does Ben Carson understand how Yemen’s water crisis factors into its own civil war? Does Ted Cruz know the theological intricacies behind Saudi Arabia’s execution of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr. Does Marco Rubio understand the pressure Turkey’s government feels from its own Islamic clerics? Hillary Clinton may have gotten all her policies wrong, but she spent several years dealing with these details daily and is fluent in them.

The sole Republican candidate who has expertise in foreign affairs is Rick Santorum. In a recent interview, a reporter pointed out to Santorum that in 2012 he was noted as the social conservative. Santorum’s reply was that at the time the news media seemed obsessed about social issues, and that he wished they had asked him about foreign affairs back them. The reality is that Santorum’s 2006 parting speech to the Senate focused on the Iranian threat. One analyst reported on it and wrote, “The day will come when we will re-read Santorum's words, and wish our leaders had listened” https://goo.gl/oc9Taa .

In his hiatus from politics, Santorum researched the Middle East as a Fellow at the Ethics for Public Policy and wrote 217 articles on the threat of Islamic terror and toured the country giving speeches to explain our situation. Even when all other Republicans were running away from any issue pertaining to Iran and Islamic terror in the 2006 election, Santorum stood on conviction, embracing it in every stump speech, sacrificing his bid for re-election for the sake of the truth. He was a leader in US-Israeli relations, and he authored both the “Syria Accountability Act” and the “Iran Freedom and Support Act,” leading to the sanctions that the Obama administration recently nullified in its Iran-Nuke deal.

In addition to this, Santorum served on the Senate Armed Services Committee where he oversaw the modernization of the military in light of challenges arising from foreign affairs.

As Republicans turn their attention to primary season, they need to vet their candidates in light of these recent developments in foreign affairs. Given the administration’s failure to lead in the Middle East, and because of its incoherent foreign policy, the international relations is likely to rise in prominence in the mind of the electorate. Santorum is the only Republican fluent in these matters; he alone will be able to engage Hillary in debate over the intricacies of Middle East policies.

In a Dangerous World, Experience Matters

I suppose that the most serious international crisis in my lifetime was the coup d'état of Mikhail Gorbachev and the fall of the Soviet Union; picture Gorbachev caged up like a bird, surrounded by rebellious generals and tanks, and no one knowing where the nuclear football was.

Regardless of one's personal view of George H.W. Bush, the world had at the American helm in this extremely volatile time someone with these credentials:

• Eight years as Vice President
• Several years as the U.N. ambassador, 
• Two terms in congress, 
• Head of the C.I.A., 
• Special envoy to China that prepared the momentous opening of that country for President Nixon
• World War II hero as well.

The world is a dangerous place. President Obama ran for president with less than four years in office as a Senator. Senators Cruz, Paul, and Rubio are no different. If they are elected, we will again be offering on-the-job training to them.

I understand the appeal of supporting candidates who hold conservative positions, but in this case, the differences between Santorum and these other conservatives do not outweigh the experience factor. Consider Santorum's credentials:

• Two terms in Congress (in freshman term exposed the House Bank Scandal--Gang of Seven)
• Two terms in Senate
• Third highest ranking Republican at age 43 (one and two years younger than Cruz and Rubio at present)
• Chair of the Armed Services Committee in an era of military modernization
• CEO of Film Production Company EchoLight Studio
• Fellow at Ethics for Public Policy Center where he authored over 200 articles on the Middle East and Radical Islam (The Gathering Storm)

Conservatives might disagree with a policy or two, or a decision or two in Santorum's storied career. But all in all, the combination of the right positions, and level of experience, and record of accomplishment easily makes Santorum a top pick for the Republican nomination.