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.