As we enter what all indications suggest will be one of the most gloriously sociopathic Republican primary campaigns in recent memory, a helpful suggestion: Foreign policy statements by prospective candidates do not necessarily need to be stupid. For example, your stance on attempting a negotiated settlement by which the nation of Iran does not produce nuclear weapons should probably be bit more substantive than what Scott Walker burbled up
in his announcement speech:
We used to tie ribbons around the tree in front of our house during the 444 days that Iran held 52 Americans hostage.
But then Reagan freed them with his mighty and overstyled hairdo, and so that's why we need "crippling economic sanctions" now, end of story, shut up. There might be considerably more history there, both beforehand and afterwards, but since the Carter-era hostage crisis seems to be the only Iran-related information Scott Walker readily knows, that is what our post-Obama foreign policy will be based on
now. (As for the obligatory Reagan reference, history buffs may have a fun time arguing with Scott Walker over whether
negotiating with Iranians is something Ronald Reagan would have done. Knock yourselves out on that one.)
All right, so Iran Bad. We can argue all day over whose CIA helped overthrow whose government, or who has been a naughty and ungrateful client state, or who threw bricks through whose window that one night after the breakup when everything got a little fuzzy and somebody else woke up with tire tracks on their lawn, but in the end we can all at least agree that Iran Bad. Good point to make, and that's why we would prefer they not have nuclear weapons. We'd also love to avoid miring ourselves in Yet Another Goddamn War so soon after the last one went belly-up, if for no other reason than because we're on a deficit kick again and while we're ever-eager to toss large numbers of our soldiers into the neatly mowed and watered and flag-accessorized dumping grounds we've provided for them after their tragic loss, we no likey spendy the money. This leaves sanctions, which we're doing, and diplomacy, which we're also doing. Given that economic sanctions can only work so well against an oil-rich state with many friends in the world who are Not Us, that leaves just the one thing.
There you go, then. In a few brief sentences we have described more of the history and current geopolitical constraints on our actions than presidential candidate Scott Walker was able to muster during his own coming-out speech, and we did so while fully recognizing that yes, there was a hostage crisis in 1979, and yes, Iran Bad.
We already know that Mr. Walker considers Ronald Reagan's union-busting to be the highest expression of "foreign policy", so we can presume that Walker will never be the sharpest foreign policy knife in the drawer. He pivoted immediately from his vow to end all diplomacy with Iran to a demand that American military troops in Iraq "take the fight to" ISIS by better partnering with ISIS's foes, but did not mention that one of those foes is, for example, Iran; as far as explaining things to Scott Walker that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish, and probably one that would make both he and his audience Very Sad.
At any rate, Scott Walker would like you to know that he is against diplomacy. This is less nuanced than even fellow candidate Jeb Bush's complaint, which is that Obama-backed diplomacy uses too many big words, and not measurably different from Donald Trump's own conviction that negotiations are for suckers, because Iran will be so intimidated by the sight of him that they will bow to whatever demands he makes as soon as he asks them.