海角大神

Well, that escalated quickly.

No sooner has Sen. Rand Paul announced the launch of his presidential campaign Tuesday in Louisville, Ky., than a conservative group unleashed the first salvo in the 2016 political ad wars: a $1 million, 30-second TV ad calling the Republican presidential hopeful "dangerous."

Attack ads typically appear weeks after a candidate has announced. This time, it appears, a hawkish foreign policy group is determined to tie聽Senator Paul to Obama's Iran policy on Paul's announcement day.

鈥淭he Senate is considering tough new sanctions on Iran,鈥� a male narrator says in the . 鈥淧resident Obama says he鈥檒l veto them. And Rand Paul is standing with him.鈥�

Paul supports Mr. Obama鈥檚 negotiations with Iran, the ad suggests, 鈥渁nd he doesn鈥檛 understand the threat.鈥�

鈥� is wrong and dangerous,鈥� the narrator intones. 鈥淭ell him to stop siding with Obama.

鈥淏ecause even one Iranian bomb would be a disaster,鈥� it concludes. Just like the infamous 1964 "Daisy" ad that attacked Republican presidential hopeful Barry Goldwater, the聽final shot is of a mushroom cloud.

The ad comes from the 501(c)4 nonprofit, the Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America. , the ad will run Wednesday through Sunday on broadcast TV in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada 鈥� the four states with early presidential primaries and caucuses 鈥� as well as nationally on Fox News.

The group is led by Rick Reed, who helped produce ads for聽the "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth" campaign, which in 2004 sought to undermine then-presidential candidate John Kerry's national security credentials.

This time, Mr. Reed's target is Paul.

"The scale of the campaign is remarkable this early on in a primary fight, and reflects not only the depth of the hostility toward Paul鈥檚 worldview among many conservatives but also the prominence of national security in the 2016 cycle."

Why does the attack ad single out Paul?

The broader answer is that Paul is seen by those on the right and left as a possible "third way." Last fall, former Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele .听

What I admire about Rand Paul, and what I appreciate in his effort, is that he is making the effort. He鈥檚 been honest and exposing himself a lot more than any Republican potential candidate in three or four cycles and that is almost 30 years. So the reality of it is you鈥檝e got this individual who is reshaping right now, the landscape going into 2016. The Times [sic] called him 'the most interesting man in politics.' I call him the most dangerous man in politics, because he has the ability to draw from the Democrats as well as the Republican bases in a way that could upset a few apple carts if this thing strikes the way he is talking.

More specifically, establishment Republicans and foreign policy hawks famously oppose Paul's non-interventionist approach to foreign relations.

The ad highlights a recording from a 2007 interview in which Paul, defending his father鈥檚 worldview on Iran, said, 鈥淵ou know, it鈥檚 ridiculous to think that they鈥檙e a threat to our national security.鈥�

In the latest round of Iran negotiations, after the Obama administration announced a framework for a deal in which the Persian nation would receive sanctions relief in exchange for pulling back its nuclear program, every 2016 Republican contender has come out publicly against the deal except Paul.

Nonetheless, , Paul was one of 47 Republican senators who recently signed a letter to Iranian leaders warning them that the next US president could simply reverse any deal on Iran鈥檚 nuclear program.

On Monday, after avoiding comment on the Obama administration's Iran deal for days, Paul broke his silence.

鈥淪enator Paul will be watching closely and believes any deal must make clear Iran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon, allows for full verification and is approved by Congress,鈥� 鈥淗e voted for sanctions both times they were put before Congress and believes only Congress should remove those sanctions.鈥�

As Bloomberg suggested, this week's attack ad may put further pressure on Paul to take sides on Iran, by "choos[ing] between appeasing his critics or staying true to the libertarian base."