Here’s Christie’s whole campaign in a nutshell: He really is telling it like it is here, and not just in terms of what he’ll do as president but what the rest of the field will do too, but I can’t understand what he thinks he’s going to gain from it. Does he really believe there are GOP voters out there, even in mavericky New Hampshire, who will hear this and say, “I hate the idea of electing a Republican who’ll follow Obama’s foreign policy, but damn do I respect him for his honesty”?

Special bonus mystery: Christie’s positioning himself as one of the most muscular hawks in the field. If you’re in the market for a strong hawk above all else, why would you prefer Christie to, say, Rubio after he said this?

“I’m not one of those guys who’s going to say to you, ‘on Day One I will abrogate the agreement,’” Christie said, noting that the American president could not just act alone when China, Russia, Germany, France and the United Kingdom are also parties to the deal, should one emerge. “On Day One, I will look into it and try to decide, depending upon where we are at that moment.”…

“If I’m saddled with the deal as president, then on the first day I’ll be saying to my national security advisor, to my Secretary of State and to my head of national intelligence: give me all the information I need to let me know all the options I have to try to put this genie back in the bottle, and then we’ll make a decision,” he added…

“I have grave, grave doubts that this is an agreement I will be willing to stand behind, but I also don’t want to be the kind of president who tells all of you something in a campaign and that either doesn’t do it, hoping you forget that I told you I would actually do it on the first day,” he said. “Or, who does it only because I promised it, even if at that moment it’s not what’s in the best interests of America.”

He would have quit the nuclear talks already in protest of Iran’s bad faith if he were president now, he stressed, but a lot of good that’ll do him. As I say, though, he’s telling the truth here. He won’t tear up a nuke agreement with Iran on day one, and neither will Rubio or Scott Walker or anyone else, no matter what they tell you to gain your vote. A new president isn’t going to take the oath of office and then immediately turn around and extend a middle finger to America’s European allies, none of whom will want to revisit the issue of Iran’s nuclear program anytime soon. At a minimum, without strong evidence of an Iranian breach to justify the U.S. walking away, the rest of the so-called P5 will keep their sanctions relief for Iran in place, splitting the western alliance against Tehran and giving Iran a propaganda win. It’s true that President Christie or President Rubio would move much more quickly than President Clinton to tear up the agreement if and when there is credible evidence of an Iranian violation, but this “day one” nonsense has to stop. Too bad only longshot candidates like this guy are sufficiently free to say so.

Speaking of Christie trying to impress hawks, here he is on MSNBC this morning arguing that the next terrorist attack on America should trigger congressional hearings into … Rand Paul. Er, why? He’s held filibusters for something like 24 combined hours on drones and the NSA; anything he has to say about his counterterror policies in front of Congress has already been said in front of Congress. Besides, if any policy supported by Paul creates a security flaw that’s exploited by terrorists, it’ll have attained the force of law only because congressional majorities agreed with Paul to enact it. Does Christie want Congress to hold hearings into itself?