The upcoming confrontation regarding the situation in Iran will likely involve the Department of Defense’s appeal for $200 billion. This allocation aims to ensure our armed forces remain in peak condition, not merely to fulfill the objective in Iran, but also to uphold President Trump’s doctrine of achieving peace through strength. We desire optimal provisions for our service members. Troops, mariners, aviators—they must possess all essential resources, today, tomorrow, and, frankly, indefinitely.
Nevertheless, it is predictable that Democrats will exploit this request for war financing as part of their pacifist rhetoric, seeking to obstruct this vital funding measure. I wish to briefly interject here before discussing the methods for securing funds for our military. We must not overlook the unsettling report brought back by the special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, following the recent round of discussions with Iran. In essence, they boasted to Mr. Witkoff and his associate, Mr. Jared Kushner, about possessing 460 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent. At that juncture, the negotiations concluded, as they had no intention of relinquishing it.
However, the crucial point is this: when enrichment levels reach 60 percent, they can be elevated to 90 percent within seven to 10 days, according to Mr. Witkoff and numerous other experts. And this quantity of 460 kilograms of enriched uranium would be adequate to fabricate 11 nuclear devices. This illustrates Iran’s dangerous proximity. This situation arises because so many administrations preceding Mr. Trump failed to adequately address Iran’s atomic advancements.
Now, some Democratic voices might contend that the Iranians lack a viable delivery system. Is that truly the case? Indeed, they could transport that nuclear weapon to neighboring Israel very swiftly. Or to our partner nations across the Middle East. Or to the vulnerable southern European territories. Their capacity to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile is uncertain, but numerous projections suggest it could happen in significantly less time than commonly believed. Why should we countenance such hazards?
Furthermore, we observe Iran employing short-range projectiles against petroleum and gas-producing countries immediately adjacent. Or impeding passage through the Strait of Hormuz, thereby endangering global commerce. And since the early 1980s, it’s imperative to recall that our Department of State has designated Iran as the foremost governmental patron of terror. Naturally, Iran has engaged in hostilities against the United States for 47 years, with their rallying cry of “Death to America”—let’s recall this. Not to mention their call for “Death to Israel.” They refer to “the lesser Satan” and “the greater Satan.” This is their perception of us. Nor should we overlook this.
Previous CIA specialist focusing on Iranian objectives, Reuel Marc Gerecht, examines the triumph of Operation Epic Fury and the potential outlook for the Iranian populace on ‘Kudlow.’
This Democratic assertion, claiming an absence of immediate danger, has consistently been unfounded nonsense. Consequently, we should not withhold appropriations that may prove vital to achieving the objective in Iran.
While this Department of Defense appeal holds significant weight—because the pacifist-leaning Democrats will likely all oppose it in the Senate, perhaps excluding Senator John Fetterman—the Republican Party is unlikely to secure 60 votes for the allocation. Therefore, I contend it necessitates being enacted through a reconciliation measure, which will require merely 50 votes, in addition to the vice president’s tie-breaking vote.
House Speaker Mike Johnson and the Chairperson of the House Budget Committee, Jodey Arrington, have already initiated steps to prepare a reconciliation bill. To date, the Senate’s leadership has evinced a lack of zeal for it. However, I assert this is the sole avenue to secure the requisite defense expenditures. And the Republican Party must demonstrate diligent effort, akin to its actions approximately a year prior, to craft an exceptional reconciliation package. This will include expenditure adjustments, reductions in inefficiency, deception, and misuse, alongside ample scope for entitlement modifications. Potentially even certain supply-side, growth-oriented tax adjustments, yet the paramount concern will remain our nation’s defense, achieving the objective in Iran, and upholding a robust peace.
Additionally, the critical SAVE America electoral rights legislation, which candidly is unlikely to garner 60 Senate votes for enactment, could be incorporated into a reconciliation measure. At a minimum, an attempt should be made. Since stipulations such as citizenship verification, photographic identification documents, and other provisions will establish national regulations requiring rigorous enforcement, thereby necessitating financial resources.
I anticipate the Department of Homeland Security would serve as the suitable electoral oversight body; much like border security necessitated substantial budgetary augmentation, so too will the implementation of the voting rights legislation. Thus, I urge that the most astute legislative intellects collaborate to formulate a robust reconciliation proposal that will preserve our military prowess and uphold sound electoral statutes, thereby perpetuating the most exceptional democracy ever known.