Sen. Markwayne Mullin on Iranian threats: There's no way they can fight a war

shawl that left he's passed away excuse me the shawl's son is um it hasn't lived in the country in quite some time so the people of iran really don't know him um and uh and so the path forward is either one to contain them knowing that they can't get a nuclear weapon or two um we have the options to remove the iatola and then uh look at the arab states to help stabilize it Well, here's the thing. Washington, the Wall Street Journal and the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, both say, Mr. President, you said you're going to support the protesters. You can't, you're going to look like Obama in 2009 when he did absolutely nothing or when he did Syria says it's a red line of used chemical weapons and they used chemical weapons and then nothing happened. We never, well, the Obama administration was never able to reestablish credibility. Do you see credibility being an issue if we don't do anything? No, no one in the region believes that President Trump is weak on his words. It's just that his timing is when he will decide to strike. I mean, he was very clear that he wouldn't allow them to build a nuclear weapon. He showed the strength of the American power through air superiority and the ability to be able to take down their defense systems in the 12-day war. And then he also warned the Ayatollah and the rest of the leaders, we know where you're at. We're choosing not to take you out. If we knew where they were out then, we most definitely know. where they're at today, too. It's just that we don't want to create another Arab Spring like they did underneath Obama and the secretary at that time, Secretary Hillary Clinton, because we see the region has been greatly destabilized because of it. Look at Libya, look at Syria, look at even what's happened and in the different regions because of that, to destabilization. So. We've got to be cautious as we move forward, but the option to remove the leadership is still there. We just want to work in, we don't want to have, we're not there for regime change. We're there to support the people, but there's not a leader that's, in my opinion, that has risen to the top to say, hey, I'm able to take over like maybe President Al Shari has in Syria. Right. So. So far, we're watching Iran do what they always do. They'll go ahead and they start talks and they want to drag out talks. And they did five or six rounds of talks. And now Turkey's going to host the talks. I don't know what Steve Witkoff, even if he says, hey, they want to get rid of their ballistic missiles. They're going to stop with their nuclear program. And they're going to stop funding Hezboin Hamas. Someone like you, Senator, knows you can't believe one thing they're saying. And to verify, you know, money flows to Hezbollah. There doesn't just go into a checking account. There's got to be ways to unwind that. So I just, I'm wondering if this is just one of those things where the president's getting his missile shield in place before he goes forward. And it looks like other allies are going to be involved in those talks.

You know, I think the definition of insanity is doing the same thing, expecting different results. We know what the Ayatollah and his murderous regime is about. You can't trust a word they say. And we have to trust but verify Turkey and Recep Tayyip Erdogan's motivation in this thing too. And so I think the president is just waiting for the right time. And he's positioned our assets in a place that the people of Iran, which keep in mind, we love the Iranian people prior to the overthrow of the shawl and the Ayatollah coming out of power in 1979. we had a lot of business relationships inside Iran. In fact, Iran, in some cases, was more westernized in the United States. They had more women elected to public office in the United States did. They had more women working in a professional setting than the United States did. And it was very similar to looking to what the United States had, but it was obviously in the Middle East. And so that group of people, the same age as my parents, right? There's still a large sector of the people that remember what Iran could be. And what we are saying is that we are there to support you. We have assets in place to support you. If it comes to it, we will use the strength of the United States. But we'd really like to see the Iranian people take over their country like they did. And, you know, when the shawl got everybody, or not the shawl, but the Ayatoll got everybody stirred up against the shawl. And they overthrew the country. We believe they can do that now. And sometimes they just need to know that the United States is there. But there's a big difference between sporting the Iranian people against a murderous regime and removing the murderous regime without leadership in place to take it. We are really, really concerned about a huge vacuum, and that's what the Arab states around there are, about the huge vacuum that it could take. And I want to reiterate this, Brian, the wealth. that is in Iran is tremendous, and it could destabilize that entire region. Now, as far as the I tell they're going out there and saying, you know, if the Americans attack, it will cause a regional war, there is no way that Iran can fight a regional war. They haven't been successful in fighting a war. I don't even know they were successful then in the 80s. I got to think about it. Iraq is draw. Yeah. And so they talk large and have, they have a large, they have a large bark and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, except for they kill thousands or at least hundreds of other own people, innocent on Iraq, right, working through their militias, uh, that's right. That's right. And, and we, and if you look to so many of their problems, they are a Graham Platner's war in the region, the Houthis Hezbo and Hamas.

That's a good example. Cheers to America's 250th birthday. Get 20% off your first purchase at Fox Newswinshop.com with code FNRadio 20. 20% discount excludes wine club offers and cannot be combined with any other promotion. Expires July 31st, 2026. Must be 21 order to order. Please drink responsibly. Some really good news. It looks as though. Donald Trump picked up the phone in September, said, happy birthday to President Narendra Modi of India. They broke the ice. And now yesterday they broke a deal. It looks like we have got trade deal with India framed out where no longer charging them 25 to 50% on tariffs is down to 18%. They're going to open up their markets to a degree to American oil and American products. It seems to be both sides are happy. And according to President Trump, not backed up by Narendra Modi yet, they stopped. They will stop buying Russian oil. That would be beyond great. What does this mean for the economy? Well, once one, it allows us to align with one of the largest democracies outside the United States in India. And we have a lot of partnerships, a lot of good friends that are in India, a lot of individuals that we are friends with inside the United States that came from India and their families in India. So we wanted this partnership. The biggest question is, is what this means for the United States, it opens up a tremendous opportunity. But what it really means is the pressure. is putting on on Russia. The president is doing an end around on Russia right now. By taking out these ghost ships that Russia and Venezuela was using to ship crude oil on the black market, the president's put a heavy boot on Vladimir Putin's neck. At the same time, taking away India's appetite for Russian oil, it puts another heavy boot on Vladimir Putin's neck. And the president thought that the easiest war to end was going to be in Ukraine and it hasn't happened. He mentions that multiple times. But hitting them financially where the biggest majority of Vladimir Putin's resources come from is oil and gas reserves. This is a huge hit and it could put a tremendous amount on pressure on Russia's economy by saying we need to find a solution to ending this because Vladimir Putin has no desire. He's like trying to, it's like negotiating with the IATOLA right now looking for. peace. Vladimir Putin doesn't have any real desire for peace, neither does the Ayatollah. But when you hit him financially, they do. The only reason why the Ayatollah is in a position he's in is because the president hit him with sanctions. The only reason why Russia is going to be in this position is because the president is doing an end around and slowly choking the head of the snake out, which is Vladimir Putin and their oil economy that they've been shipping and delivering in the black market. Is he going to sign off on your saying? in the Senate, bipartisan, 85 votes, I think, in the Senate that would put tariffs on anyone buying Russian oil. And that's India, Turkey, Brazil, and China.

Once we move in the Senate with this, the White House has said that the President would support it. What we're trying not to do is, Brian, is get in front of the President. The President is doing a phenomenal job on foreign affairs, and we want to give him a lot of leeway, not backing him into a corner, and we don't want there to be any daylight between the Republican senators and the White House. And so when we decide to move with it, it'll be a decision moved with the President of the United States. And there'll be no question or go to his desk and get signed. So tell me the latest on avoiding a shutdown or coming out of this shutdown. It looks as though the House used to belong there is going to pass the rule and is going to be voting on where do you guys handed them. And that was funding the government and the DHS for two weeks. And at some point, talk about some type of bipartisan reforms. What could you tell us? Yeah, so the house, I was with the house this morning and talking to a lot of my friends over there trying to figure out where they're moving. It looks like we're going to find a fund 97% of the government today. The only thing we're not going to be able to do completely is DHS, which is, you know, which is roughly 3% of our overall budget. Even if we stay in the CR with them, it's kind of a bad move for the Democrats because the funding level is actually higher with the CR than it is with the actual appropriation bill, which was a bipartisan bill we negotiated. They body cameras for $20 million is actually in the appropriation bill, not in the CR. It puts the Democrats really in a hard place to negotiate because for them to say they want to defund DHS is fine. But the one big, beautiful bill had billions of... dollars put in place to build a fund border agents and ICE. So the border agents and ICE, they're continuing to get fund. What shuts down with DHS, if the Democrats decide to shut down DHS funding would be our FEMA programs and the FEMA employees, it'd be the secret service, which would be detrimental to a lot of people that require that type of service. It would be, you shut down the National Guard, and you shut down TSA agents and a portion. of air traffic controller. Senator, here's what I worry about. I worry that Democrats will say, well, I'm standing up for the for the anti-ISers freezing in Minneapolis, but they know they have a political advantage if they could slow down the president's economy. Like they cost us billions of dollars, I'm talking about Americans, billions of dollars in the fall. Do you think on some level political operatives are urging them for another shutdown to slow down this economy growing at over 4%? It's a great point, Brian, but it wouldn't really, it really wouldn't shut us down. We were able to, the president would be able to deem them essential employees. We'd be able to take money that was appropriated for DHS. Okay. For border agents and ICE agents, we'd be able to string it over to TSA agents, and it would be able to continue to move forward. So they would accomplish nothing. Even Patty Murray, who is the ranking chair on appropriations for the Democrats, which is what I said on. on the Appropriations Committee, even came out publicly and said shutting down DHS does nothing except hurt FEMA.

And so she was very open about that. But to hurt our economy, we don't want to do it. We want to avoid any type of shutdown at all. But 97% of the government will be open. We'll build a reappropriate funds if we had to for emergency purpose because the president's authority increases during a shutdown. And in the country wouldn't even know we were in a shutdown. All right. Senator Markwayne Mullin, you got your hands full. You're back in Washington. And it was great talking to you today. Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma. Appreciate it.