Senator Tammy Baldwin, thank you so much.
>> Thank you for having me. >> 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 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 build up
their, their missile inventory to such an extent
that you couldn't act. And President Trump decided
this 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 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 is charged with
declaring war, but we haven't declared war since
World War Two. 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 a commander in chief.
>> Does it does it matter in your mind that the
administration's justification for the
the first days? >> I think there's multiple
reasons. Again, you know, it's not like we declared
war on 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, 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 in terms of his war aims
destroy their missile capability launchers. The
missiles themselves are manufacturing capabilities,
destroy their navy so they can't, you know, stop the
flow of oil, make sure that they will never have a
nuclear weapon. Those 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 this is not he's 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 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?
>> Well, that's Iran's doing. I mean, that just
shows what a persistent threat they are. You know,
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 time. And I for one, hope
the regime falls and that the Iranian people take
over Iran for the benefit of themselves.
>> How how does that work? How do the Iranians take
over their country? >> It'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. You know, there were 16 or 17,000
executions in the French Revolution, 2 to 5000
executions during the Spanish Inquisition. Just
puts you puts the Iranian regime how brutal they are
just in context. So again, this is 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. I mean, you know, we have a
mom from Wisconsin who lost her daughter from White
Bear Lake. I mean, you read about that. It's just it's
just absolutely tragic. So nobody, nobody wants to see
these types of fatalities. But unfortunately, that's
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 have 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 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 what a menace they
were. So we we had to take them out. And again, I do
not mourn the loss of Khomeini 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 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 other side of
the aisle will say, we can't allow them to become
a nuclear power. Well, what are we going to do to stop
them? Eventually they're going to become a nuclear
power. Then they would have been untouchable. President
Trump's prevented them from ever reaching that stage.
>> 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. 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 the other components of DHS that
aren't. And there are a lot of components, DHS, that
that work to try and keep us safe. So I think it's
unconscionable. The defund DHS.