‘Disappointing’ that the Biden admin expressed condolences for Iran’s president: Sen. Tom Cotton

Exactly. Is official condolences. So condolences on behalf of the United States government. I'm not even sure why you're offering condolences if you this guy was as bad as you say he was. Look, why? I mean because because we regret any loss of life. Aren't you sending contradictory messages? Absolutely not. We didn't hear this kind of statement when you have got any precaution. Famously went and died in a plane crash. Not a head of state. Neither is race. It is a diplomatic thing that you hopefully reciprocated, like just talk us through it. It has nothing to do with hopes of anything that will transpire. State Department today talking about the death of Iran's president in a helicopter crash. Does it throw the Middle East into even more uncertainty tonight? Joining us now to talk about that and other things? Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton. Sen thanks for being here. Thanks, Brett. Good to be on. What about the the death? We don't know all the circumstances of the helicopter crash, but we do know that the president, the foreign minister and other officials died. You heard the State Department offer condolences and some of the questioning about that. Does it change the Middle East tonight? No, Brett, I really don't think it does. In Iran, they don't have hardliners and moderates. They have hardliners and harder liners. The president of Iran was one of those harder liners. But ultimately decisions in Iran are made by the supreme leader. I think it's disappointing to hear the Biden administration expressing condolences for a man who's known as the Butcher of Tehran for the thousands of his own people that he killed, still leaving a regime that chants death to America. I certainly don't have condolences or sympathy to extend to the ayatollahs in Iran. And for that matter, the people of Iran are probably pretty pleased that the butcher of Tehran is no longer there to torment them. But more broadly, I don't think it'll have any kind of significant impact across the region or on our interest because again, the supreme leader of Iran is the one who calls the shots there. It's the ones that Joe Biden has been consistently trying to Curry favor with and appease, whereas Donald Trump stood up to him for four years on the same day the International Criminal Court, the ICC prosecutor, is seeking arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu and Hamas leaders. Obviously, Iran supports Hamas. The Wall Street Journal allegations against the Israeli leaders focused largely on what he said were decisions and actions taken by the Israeli government and military that have led to this humanitarian crisis inside Gaza. The president came out against that. The Israelis, even the Palestinians have come out and said this is wrong. You have your own piece of legislation about the ICC. Yeah, I do. It's an outrageous moral equivalence, which the president acknowledged. That tells you how far to the left the International Criminal Court has gone. It's disappointing that President Biden didn't also refute the underlying claims that Israel, for instance, has intentionally targeted civilians for killing or tried to starve children. The civilian suffering happening in Gaza, which is real, is happening solely because Hamas is using those civilians as human Shields or props for international political strategies. I do have legislation that would impose sanctions on this rogue prosecutor and those in his office who have not just targeted Prime Minister Netanyahu, who now but also in the past targeted American soldiers as well. We're working with the Republican leadership in the House to try to pass that bill promptly and hopefully force Chuck Schumer's hand to bring it up in the Senate because he also condemned the International Criminal Court today. But I would just say the only reason we have to pursue this legislation is that Joe Biden reversed Donald Trump's decision to sanction this very office in this very court in the past. This is a rogue court that Congress has previously given the president power to stand up to. Joe Biden hasn't used that power. Donald Trump did. You've been a proponent of Ukraine standing up to Russia trying to push them out of there. Ukraine is the hill UPS pressure on the US to allow strikes in Russia, saying this is insane. Here's some sound bites on that. The UN rules, the international law and every other rules that exist in this country, which Russia violated by the way, give us a clear right to defend ourselves by striking an aggressor. It is time to give the Ukrainians more help hitting these bases inside Russia. I mean, that's a big turn to start going after bases inside Russia. And for the people who are concerned about World War Three, et cetera, et cetera, you're a supporter of the supplemental that gave money to Ukraine. Where are you on this issue? Well, I think Ukraine has to be able to target weapons depots and fuel depots and staging grounds for Russia. Otherwise Russia is going to have free reign. It can't be the case that Russia gets to shoot anywhere once in Ukraine, and Ukraine can't target Russian troops and fuel and ammo depots just a kilometer two over its border. That's one reason why you've seen Russian gains on the border regions, because President Biden has been putting pressure on Ukraine from the very beginning not to try to win this war, but rather merely to try to not lose it only at the last second. It's very different from what Joe Biden did. If you remember going back to Barack Obama, the first time Russia invaded Ukraine, all we sent to Ukraine was blankets and meals ready to eat. President Trump reversed that decision. He provided them with the very weapons that helped them fend off Russia in the Battle of Kiev in 2022. Now again, Joe Biden allowed that Vladimir Putin to invade Russia, and he's consistently been pussyfooting around for two years, not providing Ukraine the weapons they need and the volumes they need to defend their own territory. You served in the US military. You've been a leader in the Senate on intelligence and military. There are some people who look at the Republican Party and say it's split now and that there is a more America first, maybe more critics say isolationist view in some Republicans minds about where policy should be. Can you be both a Trump administration, President Trump supporter and still be aggressive on foreign policy overseas? I think there's no question, because President Trump, like President Reagan, subscribe to a philosophy of peace through strength. We want peace, security and stability around the world. We do not want war. But to make sure we have that peace and stability, we have to be prepared for. We have to be strong. Take the case of Ukraine again. It seems that Vladimir Putin only invades Ukraine when Democrats are President Barack Obama and Joe Biden. He did not do that when Donald Trump was president. Look, in the Middle East again, we had peace, stability and security with literal peace agreements between Israel and some of its Arab neighbors. Under President Trump, under Barack Obama and Joe Biden, we've had war raging throughout the regions. What we want is a peaceful, stable world that protects America's interests. The way to achieve that, though, is through strong continent American leadership. And use Afghanistan as an example. Yes, exactly.