While Some Democrats Decry It, Marco Rubio Makes Clear: The Killing of Soleimani Was Self-Defense. Without it, We Were Headed for Greater Casualties

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. speaks with reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, May 17, 2017. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

 

Was the killing of Iranian Gen. Qaem Soleimani an attack on American Democrats?

Some have asserted it seems that way.

But plenty on the right side of the aisle are calling it good work, and one of those is Florida Senator Marco Rubio.

Marco took to CBS Sunday program Face the Nation to defend the President’s move against the general, calling it self defense.

Host Margaret Brennan asked: Is America safer now?

“Overnight, Iran’s military has been readying ballistic missiles across that country. Here at home, Homeland Security is also issuing a terrorism bulletin. Do you believe now that America is safer after carrying out the strike with Qasem Soleimani?”

It’s most always a good question: If aggression begets aggression, when’s the right time to attack?

To Marco, now sounds about right:

“I believe that Iran was on the verge of scaling up the attacks that they were aiming against United States, probably through surrogates in many places — not just in Iraq, but in Syria as well –and the United States had to take action in order to prevent that from happening and to make very clear what would happen if they undertook further attacks.”

Rubio sees it as an obligation.

Post-Soleimani, Margaret posed, what’s the plan?

The senator said we’re gonna do our job:

“Here is the strategy: We are there for an anti-ISIS operation and to support the Iraqi government, by the way, at the invitation of the Iraqi government. The Iranians don’t want us there and they’re threatening to kill Americans. The President of the United States has an obligation to protect those Americans.”

As reported by Reuters, U.S. Special representative for Iran Brian Hook relayed to Al Arabiya TV that Soleimani was plotting “imminent attacks” that would kill hundreds of Americans.

So here’s the bottom line — it was defense, not offense.

Marco explained:

“It is called self-defense. The United States has over 5,000 military personnel in Iraq and, of course, additional personnel in Syria who are under direct threat — not just from Iran but from their proxy groups. And Iran needs to understand if we are attacked — whether it’s directly by the Iranians, or through these proxy groups — we will respond.”

The President believes in a militarily strong presentation toward those that would do us harm. Apparently, Rubio agrees:

“[I]f you don’t enforce the consequences, they won’t believe it and they’ll continue to ratchet it up.”

Makes sense, and things have been building for quite a time:

Do you believe Iran will try to call Trump’s bluff? Or do they fully now understand that he’s different than the last guy at the desk?

If they don’t — and they continue to push — it appears likely they’ll be made to believe.

As the President told Meet the Press’s Chuck Todd in June:

“I’m not looking for war, and if there is, it’ll be obliteration like you’ve never seen before. But I’m not looking to do that. But you can’t have a nuclear weapon. You want to talk? Good. Otherwise you can have a bad economy for the next three years.”

-ALEX

 

See 3 more pieces from me:

In Retaliation for al-Baghdadi, an ISIS Group Murders 11 Followers of Christ: ‘This is a Message to Christians All Over the World’

Dean Cain Sounds Off On Hallmark Movies’ Alleged Fascistic Propaganda: ‘I Thought It Was A Terrible Adam Schiff Parody’

Sen. Roy Blunt on CNN: Nancy Pelosi Doesn’t Have the Right to Stall a Vote in the Senate

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.