Brian Doherty doesn’t think Huntsman can siphon off voters from Paul (via Weigel):

Why do I think Huntsman can’t pull Paul’s people? (Huntsman won’t even be on the ballot in Virginia or Arizona.) Paul, unlike Huntsman, has a coherent, wide-ranging, principled worldview about politics, a worldview expressed and acted on in a variety of existing institutions, books, news and commentary sites: Paul has a political movement. To paraphrase something Thomas Woods, author of the New York Times best-seller Meltdown promoting the Paulite view of Federal Reserve responsibility for the economic crisis, said Saturday night at a mini-Paul rally in a Manchester pool hall: no one says that discovering Jon Huntsman changed their whole view of the world and sent them on a life-changing intellectual odyssey through a coherent and thrilling world of books and ideas. (Woods said it about Romney. It applies equally to Huntsman, considered against Paul.) Even Huntsman’s supposed anti-interventionism is more confused and weak than Paul’s.

All of that makes sense. I would add that the “supposed anti-interventionism” is so “confused and weak” because Huntsman is mostly an interventionist who has objected to starting a war in Libya and wants to wind down the one in Afghanistan. His Libya and Afghanistan positions have been the only things that realists and non-interventionists can cite as evidence that there is any reason to think Huntsman would conduct a more sane foreign policy than most of his rivals, which still leaves a lot of room for hawkishness and folly. Iran is the most important and contested foreign policy issue right now, and Huntsman has made it clear that he is on the wrong side of that debate. War-weary voters have no reason to prefer Huntsman over Paul, since the former has all but guaranteed that he will start yet another war if he has the opportunity.

Update: Here is a JTA interview with Huntsman in which he refers to an Iranian “weaponization program” that doesn’t exist, and then describes it as “the most challenging, transcendent threat of this decade.”