Scott Walker is the governor of a medium-sized state that, sure, almost borders a foreign country – albeit Canada, though. In other words, we shouldn't really expect much from him on foreign policy, and that's okay; it's not like he used to be the U.S. Secretary of State or anything.

Other people in positions like his who run for president might be careful about what they say on foreign policy, then, trying really hard not to attract too much attention to how little they may actually know about it. Walker is not like those other people, though, and the image of him that comes through is of a man unfit to lead the world's most powerful nation.

Before he officially announced he was running for president, for example, Walker's clearest statement about foreign policy was that he was perfectly capable of taking on the militant Islamic group ISIS after he stood up to Wisconsin's teachers. Crazy.

But now that he's in the race for real, he's getting more outlandish with his foreign policy pronouncements. And, if possible, crazier.

Speaking of the Iranian nuclear deal recently negotiated by the Obama administration (and others – this is not just a bilateral thing) last week, Walker made a terrible, terrible analogy.

"Gov. Scott Walker," goes the lead of the news story, "is comparing the nuclear inspection agreements in the Iran deal to leaving teenaged boys unattended with girls."

That's right. Walker told an Iowa radio host that approving this deal would be like "telling teenage boys not only can you have the door closed" with a girl in the room, "but we gotta shout up the stairs" as a warning for everybody to put their pants back on before coming up to check on you. Crazy.

Part of Walker's problem is that he's living in the past. For Republicans like Walker, it's as though the Obama, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush years never happened, and any discussion or negotiation can only be viewed through the hawkish lenses of Ronald Reagan circa 1980. This op-ed on the Iran deal he published at Brietbart.com, one of the hackiest of right-wing hack news sites, invokes Reagan explicitly, for example, and dwells on events that happened 35 years ago, but doesn't acknowledge that anything has happened since then.

For one, he doesn't acknowledge that (Walker's hero) Reagan supplied arms to (Walker's great enemy) Iran. He doesn't acknowledge that the Bush-era wars have left the United States with a diminished international reputation and no appetite for another Middle East military adventure. Indeed, his calls for "clear and decisive leadership" remind me of nothing so much as George W. Bush's 2003 bravado as he threw this country into a war with Iraq that it didn't need, didn't want and couldn't sustain.

And Walker doesn't acknowledge that the Obama administration's regimen of sanctions and international pressure on Iran, you know, worked. For all his gloating there at Breitbart about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton compromising some of her positions to support this deal, he misses that Iran's leaders actually gave up much more.

If you don't believe me, believe an actual expert, Gary Samore. He's been "been working on Iran's nuclear program since the Reagan administration," so that ought to make Walker happy. Samore used to be the president of a group called "United Against a Nuclear Iran," right up until this deal was announced. Samore, the expert, supports the deal while the group, including hawkish politicians like former senator Joe Lieberman, sound more like Walker demanding it be abandoned in favor of some mythical "better deal." You have perhaps seen their ads on your TV.

"I was extremely skeptical that an agreement was possible because [Iranian Supreme Leader Ali] Khamenei was laying out public red lines that I knew the United States could not accept," Samore said. "It was clear that his red lines were simply bluster," though, and Iran's leaders (the "mullahs," Walker calls them, because Islamophobia, I guess?) gave up significant ground in this deal. Which is why Samore supports this deal – the Iranians lost this round.

Could there have been a better deal? Probably not, unless you want to bomb first and ask questions later. "We would have to be willing to use a military ultimatum to get those kinds of concessions from Iran," Samore said. And, look, we had a chance in 2008 to elect someone willing to bomb Iran, and we declined.

When Walker makes the girl-in-his-teenage-son's-bedroom analogy, he's talking about the part of the Iran deal that covers inspections of Iran's nuclear sites. He's seized on an anti-deal talking point that is, to put to mildly, stupendously wrong, which is that any inspection of Iran's nuclear sites will take place 24 days after they're announced. This is the, "Hey, you kids, I'm coming up the stairs!" part of Walker's analogy. "Okay, I'm putting my foot on the first step!"

But if he were honest about what the Iran deal actually says, he would have placed himself in the room with his son and the girl. That's because "under the accord, all of Iran's known or declared nuclear sites are under permanent and constant surveillance." One source refers to "satellite coverage, live camera feeds, radio identification, tamper seals" in those sites all the time. There's no 24-day waiting period there.

In fact, there's no mention of "24 days" at all in the agreement; that's simply the maximum sum of days in an appeals process should Iran want to deny inspectors immediate access to some new site, after which the crippling sanctions – the ones that led to Iran's capitulation in this deal in the first place – go back into effect.

In Walker's analogy, it would be like thinking there's a girl behind the closed door that he is presently knocking on, and if the door doesn't open right now, the kid's grounded for the next five years. I don't know any teenage boys who would take that deal, but apparently Iran did.

Yes, yes, I know that Walker is not the only Republican presidential candidate to promise to kill this deal. I believe they all have – and they're up to, what, 1024 candidates now? I can't keep track.

And I also know that Iran may try to cheat on any deal. But they've so far held up their end of the interim agreement signed in 2013, and the provisions of this deal – a document more than 100 pages long and more detailed than anything like it in recent memory – will make it almost impossible to cheat, the experts say. I'm sure Walker doesn't think locking his sons in the basement because they might break a rule is good parenting.

Because he's stuck in the past, Walker would throw that all away in favor of something destructive, dangerous, and – if his analogy is to be believed – based on a complete misunderstanding of how the deal works. If this doesn't tell you he's completely unfit to lead on foreign policy, I don't know what will.