Carlson Cruz Crackup
Who would have believed that two men who violently agree with each other on 80% of all political issues would end up calling each other names rather than calmly discussing the topic - Senator Cruz’ support for regime change in Iran.
To be fair, the discussion returned to amicable, somehow, after Senator Cruz insinuated Tucker was an anti semite and Tucker punched back calling the senator a sleazy feline. It was truly bizarre, the Senator even mocking Tucker’s laugh. As Tucker surmised, he hit a sensitive spot when he questioned the senator’s influence by AIPAC, questioning whether AIPAC lobbying should fall under FARA, the foreign agents registration act. The senator put on his lawyer hat and began to explain the difference, but Tucker moved on.
Although the exchange got heated and personal, both interviewer and interviewee got their points across. Senator Cruz’ position was expressed on an individual level and a statesman’s level. On the individual level as a Christian, the senator referred to the biblical promise of God to Israel: “And I will bless him who blesses thee and curse him who curseth thee.” Genesis 12:3 (I had to look it up also). Tucker probed, does that mean the current nation state of Israel? Senator Cruz replied yes, but then he qualified his position. As a senator, his primary foreign policy goal is to look out for and promote the vital national interests of the United States. This is a position I myself have maintained, on both counts. One can bless Israel without being led by the nose by Israel into actions which would be detrimental to the vital interests of the United States. On the issue being discussed, regime change in Iran, Tucker rightly brought out, before being told by the senator that intelligence has briefed the Congress on Iranian efforts to assassinate president Trump, that regime change may not be in our best interest. Do we actively promote such a change? How? What are the chances of success? What are the chances of making the situation even worse? At what cost? Cruz, clarifying, stated he supported regime change, but not our positive actions to effect it. His primary focus was to prevent Iran from attaining a nuclear weapon.
Tucker, and I, were surprised to learn that our intelligence services had uncovered plans by Iran to assassinate president Trump. Interestingly, neither Cruz nor Tucker brought up EO 12333 which states that “2.11 Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Of course, President Trump could rescind this provision but, as far as I know, he has not.
The crux of the discussion, at least for Tucker, was to probe the issue, and the senator’s support for, regime change in Iran. I believe Senator Cruz gave good answers for his positions. I also believe that technology has enabled something our nation and its laws have not caught up with. Long range precision surveillance, and strike capabilities make assassination much easier than placing a wet works operative on the ground. Does the prohibition on assassinations apply to enemy military commanders? Does it apply to civilians with special skill sets, nuclear scientists for example? Does it apply in war at all? It seems categorical. Of course, the U.S. is not at war with Iran, or are we? That too was something Tucker noted the senator seemed to be informing the public on given our level of support to Israel’s offensive actions against Iran. What level of support constitutes an act of war, an issue Putin has remarked on in terms of U.S. support of long range fires into Russia.
As I have stated before, the rules of war exist so that it can be waged within agreed upon constraints, some modicum of protection for those waging it under the governing and controlling authority of the state, as well as for innocent bystanders/civilians who are not active participant’s. As I have also stated, the rules of war, that which defines its character, have been changing and continue to change well ahead of their codification. It would be well to catch up, as evidenced by the discussion between Tucker and Senator Cruz on regime change in Iran.