This weekend, speaking at a security conference in Canada, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the U.S. should consider military strikes on Iran over its reported nuclear program. Graham said “we’re probably even past that point” in which a conventional limited airstrike would succeed in eliminating Iran’s nuclear program and that the best course would be to “neuter that regime“:

GRAHAM: Instead of a surgical strike on their nuclear infrastructure, I think we’re to the point now that you have to really neuter the regime’s ability to wage war against us and our allies. And that’s a different military scenario. It’s not a ground invasion but it certainly destroys the ability of the regime to strike back.

This morning on MSNBC, host Joe Scarborough — who has recently been taking Republican leaders to task for their extreme right-wing views — lambasted Graham for his comment. “I don’t get this. This is neoconservatism on crack,” he said. Iranian-American writer and religious scholar Reza Aslan noted what the implementation of Graham’s vision would look like:

ASLAN: The reality is that, what we found out last year, it’s an incedibly complex, diverse, eclectic society and one thing that I can tell you and you would find this out if you just read their poetry and their fiction, is that they’re deeply nationalistic which is why when we were laughing at what Lindsey Graham was saying, he actually believes that if we are going to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions through a military outlet we’re going to have to neuter the entire country. Well listen, the Iranians as we know, hate their own government…they would like nothing more than a change in regime. … But they are also, with the possible exception of Americans, the most patriotic, most nationalistic people on earth. This isn’t Iraq, this isn’t Afghanistan. … If you attack Iran, it’s the best way to ensure that this government goes absolutely nowhere.

SCARBOROUGH: It will unify Iran and like the Iranians, a lot of our so-called allies in the Middle East, the public likes America

Watch it:

Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay of the Conservative Party, who also attended the conference, later told a panel there that a military attack on Iran would have negative consequences and that sanctions are the preferable course of action. “No question there would be a negative reaction to that course of action,” he said. Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) said Graham’s idea would have “worldwide repercussions.” “I’m not willing to put my support behind that step,” he said. According to Brooking’s Ken Pollack, “attacking Iran is more likely to guarantee an Iranian nuclear arsenal than to preclude it.”

Last week, state Sen. Russell Pearce (R) and sponsor of SB-1070 was elected president of the Arizona state Senate. ABC15 notes that the “biggest fear” of some Republican lawmakers was that Pearce would “use the powers of the office to push controversial anti-illegal-immigration measures” instead of focusing on the state’s ailing economy. The news outlet also claims that Pearce put those fears to rest to gain the last few votes he needed to win his leadership seat by pledging to “put off” his so-called “anchor baby” legislation until 2012, and focus on pushing through an economic stimulus package in 2011.

Yet, once Pearce’s colleagues elected him Senate president, he denied making any such promises. On 12News’ “Sunday Square Off,” Pearce attempted to clarify his plans:

HOST: Senator Pearce, did you pledge not to sponsor bills targeting immigration, including a challenge to the 14th amendment?

PEARCE: No. What we agreed to was…as the president of the Senate…you know, I’m not gonna run a lot of bills. My job is to help move the agenda forward. The 14th amendment is gonna be run by other folks. But the fact that I may run a couple of bills to clean up what’s been done is true. I may do that. The 14th amendment is gonna take a lot of time. I support it. I intend to help move it. But I have other folks who would really like to help carry that water. [...]

HOST: So did Senator-elect McComish and the others just misunderstand you? — Because it was their clear understanding that there was going to be no immigration legislation this year.

PEARCE: No there wasn’t. That’s just absolutely not true. [...] He’s not completely wrong. There was no deal cut. What there was is comments by me that I’d like other folks to carry as much of this legislation as possible.

Watch it:

Senator-elect John McComish isn’t the only Republican surprised by Pearce’s turnabout. “What he’s committed to me was [the "anchor baby" legislation] wasn’t going to be dealt with in the first session and that we’re going to focus on the economy and jobs,” Tucson Republican Sen. Frank Antenori told ABC15. “That was the deal. I’d hate to be disappointed by Russell if he gets behind an effort to push that bill through without doing the reforms we have to do on the economy and creating jobs.”

Meanwhile, Pearce’s plan for fixing Arizona’s ailing economy seems to involve rejecting federal health care funding and stimulus funds. “The federal money comes with strings,” complained Pearce. “No longer are we going to have our hands tied by the federal government to do what’s right for Arizona.” Arizona is currently facing an estimated $825 million budget deficit. Local economist John Lucking said that Arizona can “expect to see sluggish growth through next year.”

In his interview on Sunday, Pearce would not rule out a gubernatorial run, saying “you never slam doors shut.”