Ron Paul and Rand Paul disagree over the Obama administration's proposed nuclear deal with Iran.

Former presidential candidate and congressman Ron Paul came out in support of the Iran nuclear deal in a weekly column for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. Contrastingly, in a Facebook post last Tuesday, his son and current presidential candidate, Rand Paul, said he opposed the deal.

Rand Paul stated three objections to the nuclear deal: "1) sanctions relief precedes evidence of compliance, 2) Iran is left with significant nuclear capacity, 3) it lifts the ban on selling advanced weapons to Iran."

"While I continue to believe that negotiations are preferable to war, I would prefer to keep the interim agreement in place instead of accepting a bad deal," he continued.

Conversely, Ron Paul believes that the agreement has "reduced the chance of a US attack on Iran."

Ron Paul continued:

"It is unfortunate that Iran was forced to give up some of its sovereignty to allow restrictions on a nuclear energy program that was never found to be in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty." He concludes, "[I]f the net result is the end of sanctions and at least a temporary reprieve from the constant neocon demands for attack, there is much to cheer in the agreement. Peace and prosperity arise from friendly relations and trade – and especially when governments get out of the way.

While Ron Paul likely does not have his son in mind as one of the "neocons" who are willing to attack Iran, the deal will likely become a major issue in the 2016 presidential election and the senior Paul's views are not a popular position within the Republican Party.

Rand Paul is currently seeking the Republican nomination, and only time will tell whether or not the conflicting positions between father and son will come into play, either during a debate or by Paul's primary opponents.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore