Fox News host Laura Ingraham and Sen. Dave McCormick, R-PA, discuss the impact of Operation Epic Fury on ‘The Ingraham Angle:’

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS: Joining us now, delighted he’s with us, Pennsylvania Senator Dave McCormick. Senator, it’s great to see you tonight. You also served in Iraq during the Gulf War. Republicans are holding firm with the president, it looks like, and I know polls are kind of hard to read, but it looks like the base of the Republican Party seems to be holding strong with Donald Trump. What about your colleague’s point that in all real ways, Trump has already won this conflict, and at this point, it’s kind of a cleanup mission? SEN. DAVE MCCORMICK (R-PA): Well, first, I think it’s absolutely within the president’s authority to do what he’s done to combat an imminent threat from Iran. And when people say there’s not clear objectives, I don’t really understand what they mean. He’s been incredibly clear. Destroy the ballistic missiles, destroy the launchers, destroy the manufacturing ability, destroy the Navy, and ensure that Iran has no path to a nuclear weapon. That couldn’t be more clear, and we are well on the way to doing that, but we need to finish the job. We need to ensure that when the military operations stop, that Iran’s capacity to use those weapons against our allies, against American forces, is gone. There’s no regime in the world that has more blood on its hands than Iran, has killed more Americans than Iran. And this is the moment to defang Iran and lay the groundwork for the Iranian people to dictate their own future. INGRAHAM: The president today said that if the Supreme Leader’s son is the one they put up to take over for him, that that’s, quote, not acceptable. But if America is going to be perceived to be placing a new leader of Iran in a position of authority, is that not regime change? Did President Trump not campaign against regime change? Because that’s a step further than nuclear, you know, destroying their nuke and missile capacity. MCCORMICK: Well, listen, I think we’re all scarred by 20 years of war in Iraq. I certainly am. And I think what the American people don’t want is entanglements where we’re stuck for months or many years in Iran, and I think there’s no possibility of that. I think the regime could go a number of different ways. We’ve got to have a leader in there that’s not going to be hostile to the United States, whether that’s someone within the existing regime or whether that’s an entirely new regime. We have to have leadership that is going to recognize that they can’t be a source of terrorism and a source of killing or threatening Americans or our allies in the region. And they have to give up any ambition for a nuclear weapon. That might be somebody within – I think it’s highly unlikely that the Ayatollah’s son is someone who’s going to be able to represent those views, but there may be someone within the current regime that could. And I think the president is open-minded to that, and he’s made it clear that it’s in the hands of the Iranian people to dictate their future. INGRAHAM: And what if the Iranian people choose the son of the supreme leader? Are we going to veto that? MCCORMICK: Well, if the son of – well, I think what we’re going to do is ensure that Iran cannot have the capacity to hurt us. We have to achieve those military objectives. After that, I think there’s lots of different possibilities. I suspect the president has no ambition to get in the middle of Iran’s politics and future on an ongoing basis, but we may need to help early on to ensure that we get off on the right path.

RealClearPolitics Videos