We are.
We turn now to Republican U.S.
Senator Ron Johnson on the war with
Iran. And Senator, thanks very much
for being here.
Thanks for having me on.
So you voted this week against a
war powers resolution to block
future U. S.
Military action in Iran.
It failed mostly on party lines,
but describe why you voted against
it.
Well, first of all, we have to
recognize Iran has been at war with
us for 47 years
in a low-grade war.
But they have the blood
of hundreds, maybe thousands of
Americans on their hands, the
largest state sponsor of terror.
They've declared that we
are, you know, death to America,
death Israel.
They are a menace.
They threaten world peace, they
threaten regional peace.
And at some point in time.
We simply weren't going to be able
to deal with them if they became a
nuclear power or they build up
their missile inventory to
such an extent that you couldn't
act.
And President Trump decided this is
the moment to act.
You cannot have 535
commanders-in-chief.
Quite honestly, even a full-blown
discussion prior to the military
action would have completely
neutered our ability to take
the type of decisive action we've
taken, so.
Again, the Constitution means
something to me.
We have a commander in chief.
Yes, Congress is
charged with declaring
war, but we haven't declared war
since World War II and look at all
the military interventions from
both Republican and Democrat
administrations.
So this is the way things are right
now.
And when information really
travels the speed of light, you've
got to make quick decisions, and
that's why we have a Commander in
Chief.
Does it matter in your mind that the
administration's justification for
the strikes was changeable in the
first days?
I think there's multiple reasons.
Again, it's not like
we declared war on Iran.
They declared war on us.
And this has just been ongoing.
The threat has been persistent.
And at some point in time,
we were going to have to act.
And good thing that we did act
before it was too late.
How do you think this will progress
or escalate and
ultimately end?
I think the administration, the
president, has been very clear in
terms of war aims.
Destroy their missile capability,
launchers, the actual missiles
themselves, their manufacturing
capabilities. Destroy their Navy so
they can't stop
the flow of oil.
Make sure that they will never have
a nuclear weapon. Those are three
war aims,
President Trump is highly reluctant
to put boots on the ground.
That's why he's encouraging the
Iranian people. This is the moment
of the regime's weakness.
Take advantage of it.
Take back your country.
I sincerely hope Iranian people do
that.
But again, this is not,
he's not going to ensure regime
change. That's going to be up to the
Iranian people. And I hope they do,
because if they do what we
will be witnessing is just the
historic opportunity to
create far greater peace and
stability, not only in the Middle
East, but throughout the world.
How concerning is it that this has
spread to the entire region?
That's Iran's doing.
That just shows what a persistent
threat they are.
Normally, if you go to war, you want
to try and find allies, they're just
creating greater enemies.
So again, that just proves the
point.
Iran was going to have to be taken
care of at some point in time.
I guess this is that point in the
time. And I, for one, hope that
the regime falls and that the
Iranian people take over Iran
for the benefit of themselves.
How does that work?
How do the Iranians
take over their country?
Going to be very difficult.
I mean, there's, again, there is no
guarantee whatsoever.
There's 200,000 in the
Revolutionary Guard.
There is another 600,000 in
their militias, the brutal militias
that slaughtered 32,000
Iranians in just a few
days. You know, there were 16 or
17,000 executions in the French
Revolution, two to five thousand
executions during the Spanish
Inquisition.
It just puts you, puts the Iranian
regime, how brutal they are, just in
context.
So, again this is an evil regime.
The sooner they're gone, the better.
What is your message to
men and women from Wisconsin now
serving as part of the war mission?
First of all, thank you for your
service, and Godspeed.
It's tragic.
We have a mom from
Wisconsin who lost her daughter from
White Bear Lake, and you read about
that. It's just absolutely tragic.
So nobody wants to see these types
of fatalities.
But unfortunately, that's what
happens when you have an evil regime
like Iran that threatens everybody
that has to be taken care of.
You know, this question,
is it the United States' right
to take out other countries'
rulers, even with the Ronald
Reagan executive order that bans
such assassinations?
I don't know how many times I
had to point this out.
We didn't start this.
All Iran would have had to do is
agree not to obtain a nuclear
weapon, stop enriching uranium if
they want nuclear power by the power
rods. That's all they had to.
There wouldn't have been sanctions,
there wouldn't be bombs dropping,
but they refused to do
that, take that one simple step.
And the fact that they didn't do
that as I said, speaks volumes and
just shows what a menace they were.
So we had to take them out.
And again, I do not mourn the
loss of Khamenei and the
people underneath him.
What about the way
people on the other side of the
aisle are talking about how
it should have been
diplomacy that solved
this?
We've been trying diplomacy for 47
years with Iran.
Obviously, it was never going to
work.
We could not allow them.
And even the folks on the other side
of the aisle will say, we can't
allow them to become a nuclear
power.
Well, what were we going to ever do
to stop them?
Eventually, they're going to become
nuclear power, then they would be
untouchable.
President Trump's prevented them
from ever reaching that stage.
All right, Senator Johnson, thank
you very much.
Have a good day.
So this is the question I wanted
to ask outside our time.
In June, when the
US launched strikes against Iran,
there was public-facing heightened
threat alert for inside the
US.
Now the National Terrorism Advisory
System says, due
to the lapse in federal funding,
the website will not be actively
managed.
So what is your response
to that?
We ought to fund DHS.
No, I mean, it's incredible to me
that, you know, at this moment
of danger for our homeland,
Democrats are still digging their
heels in, not
funding DHS, and the excuse they're
using is they want to defund ICE.
Well, ICE is fully funded.
ICE agents are getting paychecks.
It's just the other components of
DHS that aren't, and there are a lot
of components of the DHS that work
to try and keep us safe.
So I think it's unconscionable the
Democrats are refusing to fund DSHS.
Wouldn't those positions
that offer those kind of
alerts to the American
populace be considered essential?
I would think so, and a lot of those
folks are being forced to work
without a paycheck.
So again, I can't explain
it. I do know that this would
have all been taken care of if we
would have passed my Shutdown
Fairness Act.
Every Republican senator voted for
that.
The vast majority of Democrats voted
against it, but that would have
already been taken care of.
Even better, it eliminates shutdowns
acts. We would have to be worrying
about this type of thing.
Appreciate it.
Have a good day.