The Iranian people want their freedom back, Trump ally says

Key Concepts

• Starlink & Communication: Utilizing Elon Musk’s Starlink for restoring communication access in Iran, and the associated tracking vulnerabilities.
• Iranian Regime & Revolutionary Guard: The nature of the current Iranian leadership, the role of the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps), and potential internal dissent within the Iranian military.
• Kinetic Strikes & Leadership Targeting: The possibility of direct military action against Iranian leadership, drawing parallels to past scenarios and the Maduro case in Venezuela.
• Iranian People vs. Regime: The distinction between the Iranian populace and its government, emphasizing support for the people’s desire for freedom.
• Rule of Law & Domestic Comparisons: The Senator’s critique of comparing domestic law enforcement to the Iranian regime, and his broader criticism of the Democratic Party’s approach to law and order.

---

Restoring Communication & Potential for Direct Action in Iran

Senator Markwayne Mullin discussed potential responses to the ongoing unrest in Iran, framing the situation as a conflict between the Iranian people and their oppressive regime. He highlighted the importance of restoring communication access for the Iranian people, noting that Elon Musk’s Starlink is currently assisting in this effort. However, he cautioned that the use of Starlink presents a security risk, as the Iranian government can track the locations of users through the signals emitted by the devices. This tracking capability extends to identifying individuals communicating via cell phones or shortwave radio.

The Senator referenced past instances where communication shutdowns inadvertently exposed the locations of Iranian citizens, citing the “12-day war” where the US possessed intelligence to potentially remove the Iranian regime. He proposed two potential courses of action: restoring connectivity to allow the Iranian people to share information with the world, and/or a direct strike targeting Iranian leadership responsible for the violence. He emphasized that the US is “not at war with the Iranian people, we’re trying to protect them,” and that targeting leadership could create the chaos necessary for the Iranian people to reclaim their country. Reports suggest the Iranian army is not supportive of the current regime’s actions, and the regime is relying on the IRGC – described as the “SS of Hitler” – for loyalty.

Parallels to Venezuela & Regime Leadership

Mullin drew a comparison to the situation in Venezuela under Maduro, where the US offered an opportunity for the leader to step down, which Maduro declined. He stated that the US will present the Iranian regime with a similar choice: leave voluntarily or face the consequences. He observed a common trait among Middle Eastern regime leaders – a willingness to demand sacrifice from their people while being unwilling to risk their own lives. He suggested that these leaders would likely seek refuge in countries like Russia if given the opportunity.

He differentiated the situation from Venezuela, acknowledging that while Iran is a state sponsor of terror, the US does not have indictments against every member of the regime. However, he underscored that the Iranian people have expressed their desire for freedom. Mullin emphasized that Iran was significantly more Westernized in 1977 than it is today, with greater representation of women in politics and the workforce, even exceeding the US at the time. He believes the current generation of Iranians, and their parents who remember this past, desire a return to that era of progress.

Critique of Domestic Comparisons & Democratic Party

The discussion shifted to a critique of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair, Ken Martin, who compared the situation in Iran to law enforcement actions in Minnesota. Mullin strongly condemned this comparison, stating it was “beyond the pale” to equate a “deadly, murderous, oppressive regime” with American law enforcement. He argued that upholding the rule of law is fundamental to the US identity and attracts people seeking safety and order. He criticized the Biden administration for allegedly ignoring laws, leading to lawlessness.

Mullin attributed the Democratic Party’s low approval ratings to such “reckless” statements, characterizing the DNC Chair’s comments as “insane” and indicative of a party “out of touch with American people.” He stated, “You can’t explain crazy,” to illustrate his point about the leadership within the Democratic Party.

Historical Context & Potential for Force

Mullin referenced the aftermath of the killing of Qassem Soleimani, where President Trump reportedly instructed that the Supreme Leader would be targeted if Iran retaliated. He recalled Keith Kellogg’s account of Trump stating they knew the Supreme Leader’s location and would take action if necessary. This historical context underscores the potential for direct military intervention.

Data & Statistics

While no specific statistics were presented, the Senator referenced the historical context of Iran in 1977, highlighting its comparatively Westernized state with greater female representation in politics and the workforce than the United States at that time. This serves as a point of reference for the potential for a return to a more progressive Iran.

Synthesis/Conclusion

Senator Mullin presented a hawkish perspective on the situation in Iran, advocating for a strategy that combines restoring communication access for the Iranian people with the credible threat of direct action against the regime’s leadership. He emphasized the distinction between the Iranian people and their government, framing the US role as one of support for the Iranian people’s desire for freedom. His critique of the Democratic Party’s rhetoric underscored a broader ideological divide on issues of law and order and foreign policy. The core takeaway is a belief that decisive action, potentially including targeted strikes, is necessary to empower the Iranian people and restore Iran to its former state of progress.