This interchange between CNN’s Kaitlin Collins and Senator Markwayne Mullins (R-OK) really is something to behold. The topic of discussion was the potential for US strikes on Iran. The full transcript can be found here, but here are the key bits (emphases mine).
COLLINS: So, it sounds like you’d support U.S. military strikes?
MULLIN: Well, I would support removing the regime that’s killing their own people. Reports are coming out right now that the number could be 12,000 to 20,000. It’s 12,000–
COLLINS: Because you are in favor of taking out the Iranian regime?
MULLIN: I am, at this point. They’re murdering their citizens.
[…]
MULLIN: […] Even though we’re not into regime change, we’re not — we’re not — this isn’t the Arab Spring like happened underneath Secretary Clinton. But this is the people of Iran standing up to a murderous regime. And if that leadership is going to kill their own people, the President said, We’ll come to your rescue.
COLLINS: But you just said you are for a regime change here.
MULLIN: No, I said I’m for the strikes. I didn’t say–
COLLINS: But you said, before that, you are for taking out the regime.
MULLIN: Yes, absolutely, because they’re the ones murdering their own people. That’s different than regime change. The regime change is up to the Iranian people. We didn’t — we’re not going actively to remove the regime. We’re going after the people that are killing their own people, and that happens to be the regime.
COLLINS: But just to be clear, you support taking out the Supreme Leader?
MULLIN: If he’s the one that’s calling these air strikes, you mean?
COLLINS: But that would be–
MULLIN: Or the killings of his own people? Then absolutely.
COLLINS: OK, but that would be regime change.
The video can be viewed here.
On one hand, I guess it doesn’t fully matter what Mullin thinks vis-à-vis the administration’s Iran policy, as he is not a key decision-maker, although he does serve on the Armed Services Committee. (But who cares what Congress thinks these days? Amiright?)
On the other hand, it is always incredibly disheartening to listen to a member of the US Senate to sound this, well, dumb. Although the good news for Mullin is that until Tommy Tuberville leaves to become Governor of Alabama, he is out of the running for Dumbest Sitting Senator. BTW, I recognize that this hardly counts as profound analysis, but I nonetheless stand by the basic assessment.
Members of the US government ought to have a better grasp of what all of these actions mean. If the US targets leadership in the hopes of decapitating the regime, that is a step towards changing the regime by definition. Indeed, any offensive action aimed at degrading the regime’s capacity to put down protests would be a step towards regime change.
Just because there isn’t a plan about what to do if we help the regime topple doesn’t mean we wouldn’t have fostered regime change under the kinds of scenarios being discussed in that interview.
It just means we would have acted rashly and without much thought beyond immediate action, which is not a smart way to engage in international politics. Which, unfortunately, appears to be a core component of this administration’s foreign policy approach.
At any rate, the above is a stunning display of circular reasoning (if I might be bold enough to deem it “reasoning”).
Granted, he may be confused by the fact that we are claiming to have taken over Venezuela when all we have done is remove the president while leaving the entirety of the regime otherwise in place.
We won’t even get into the notion that if a regime murders protestors, it ought to be taken out…
