Walz got off to a slow start, accidentally referring to Iran as Israel and vice-versa. “Iran, or I uh, Israel’s ability to be able to defend itself, is fundamental,” he said. Moments later, he said “the expansion of Israel and its proxies is an absolute fundamental necessity for the United States to have the steady leadership there,” presumably mistaking Israel for Iran.
Walz supports the expansion of Iran and it’s proxies? REALLY? The country we have a trade embargo on and no formal diplomatic mission to? Americans have the most negative view of Iran in the world(BBC World Survey, 2013).
You’re telling me Walz was talking about THAT Iran instead of Israel, the entity we have supported with billions in weapons and investment?
Well if he meant Israel I don’t know which proxies he could mean. My reading is that he meant the expansion of Iran and it’s proxies necessitates US leadership in the region. Which is a statement critical of Iran (and, in context, supportive of Israel), and not something I agree with (the US has unilaterally meddled enough in Western Asia), but it’s not a Zionist call for greater Israel. He definitely fumbled his words there, so I might be wrong.
No, quite clearly he’s saying that it’s important to have stable leadership in the region to prevent Iran and its proxies from acting. It’s pretty apparent in context that he’s tripping over his words.
Walz supports the expansion of Iran and it’s proxies? REALLY? The country we have a trade embargo on and no formal diplomatic mission to? Americans have the most negative view of Iran in the world (BBC World Survey, 2013).
You’re telling me Walz was talking about THAT Iran instead of Israel, the entity we have supported with billions in weapons and investment?
Really now. Come on.
Well if he meant Israel I don’t know which proxies he could mean. My reading is that he meant the expansion of Iran and it’s proxies necessitates US leadership in the region. Which is a statement critical of Iran (and, in context, supportive of Israel), and not something I agree with (the US has unilaterally meddled enough in Western Asia), but it’s not a Zionist call for greater Israel. He definitely fumbled his words there, so I might be wrong.
No, quite clearly he’s saying that it’s important to have stable leadership in the region to prevent Iran and its proxies from acting. It’s pretty apparent in context that he’s tripping over his words.
Reading comprehension. Iran expanding makes it necessary for the US to have stable leadership.