We are recording.
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 to 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 built 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 the 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 to speed 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.
You know, it's now like we declared war in Iran. They declared war on us.
And this has just been ongoing there. 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?
Well, I think the administration, the president, has been very clear in terms of his war aims.
Destroy their missile capability of launchers, the actual missiles themselves,
the 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 fire grater 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?
Well, 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, it 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 time. And I, for one, hope 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?
That's going to be very difficult. I mean, there's, again, there's no guarantee whatsoever.
There's 200,000 in the Revolutionary Guard. There's another 600,000 in their militias,
the brutal militias that slaughtered 32,000 Iranians in just a few days.
Now, there were 16 or 17,000 executions in the French Revolution,
two to 5,000 executions during the Spanish Inquisition.
It just puts the Iranian regime how brutal they are just in context.
And 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.
I mean, you read about that. It's just absolutely tragic.
But 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.
If 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 rod.
That's all they had to do. 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 when it menacingly works.
So we had to take them out.
And again, I do not mourn the loss of comedy and the people underneath them.
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.
What are we going to ever do to stop them?
Eventually, they're going to become a nuclear power.
Then they would have been untouchable.
President Trump prevented them from ever reaching that stage.
Alright, 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 U.S. launched strikes against Iran,
there was public facing heightened threat alert for inside the U.S.
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 had a fund DHS.
It's incredible to me that 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.
The other components of DHS that aren't,
and there are a lot of components of DHS that work to try and keep us safe.
So I think it's unconscionable that Democrats are refusing to fund DHS.
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
throughout 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
a shutdown fairness act.
Every Republican senator voted for that.
The vast majority of Democrats voted against it,
but that already been taken care of.
Even better, eliminate shutdowns acts.
We would have to be worrying about this type of thing.
All right.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Have a good day.
You too.