When congressman Dana Rohrabacher suggested at a congressional hearing that the June 7 ISIS attack in Iran might’ve been a good thing, the blowback was swift.

Critics noted that at least some of the 12 people killed were thought to be civilians. They also said U.S. officials should not condone terrorists attacks, even those attacks that are carried out against other U.S. enemies.

The Costa Mesa Republican then issued a lengthy clarification, but let’s try to untangle the web by looking at his original statement first.

The setting was a House Foreign Affairs Committee meeting the day after the attack. The hearing was on Hezbollah, a Shiite group aligned with the Iranian government — and which the U.S. has designated as a terrorist organization. Rohrabacher was questioning Hezbollah experts, including Matthew Levitt of the Washington Institute, and noted that the attack had been attributed to Sunnis. ISIS follows a fundamentalist Sunni doctrine of Islam.

“I just want to make — to this point, see what you think,” Rohrabacher said, according to the transcript. “Isn’t it a good thing for us to have the United States finally backing up Sunnis who will attack Hezbollah and Shiite threat to us? Isn’t that a good thing? And if this is so, maybe this is a Trump — maybe it’s a Trump strategy of actually supporting one group against another considering that you have two terrorist organizations.”

Levitt didn’t mince words in his response.

“It’s never in our interest to support a terrorist group like the Islamic State,” he said. “We should condemn the attacks in Iran and we should condemn any act of terrorism even if we hold Iran accountable for its sponsorship.”

But Rohrabacher, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats, wasn’t yet done with his train of thought.

“So, that’s like Joe Stalin was a horrible guy,” he said, building a somewhat confusingly worded reference to the U.S.-USSR alliance during WWII. “We must never associate with horrible guys like that, even against Hitler. And so, maybe it’s a good idea to have radical Muslim terrorists fighting each other. I’ll leave it at that.”

Among those issuing statements condemning Rohrabacher were the National Iranian American Council, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Harley Rouda, one of Rohrabacher’s five Democratic challengers for 2018.

The clarification

Rohrabacher posted his clarification online June 12, beginning with an unequivocal statement.

“I oppose the use of force against unarmed civilians no matter who is the victim or who is doing the killing,” he said, referring to the June 7 ISIS attack on Iran’s parliament building and Khomeini’s mausoleum.

But after some explanation of the background, Rohrabacher works his way back to the point he says he was trying to make at the June 8 hearing.

“So when it comes to Sunni terrorists or Shiite terrorists, I prefer them to target each other rather than any other victims, especially innocent civilians and Americans,” he said. “This is something I mismanaged to clearly articulate at last week’s hearing.”

He goes on to indicate that Iranian patriots opposed to the government might target the same buildings that ISIS had.

“That does not include ISIS, but it may include a lot of Iranians who see blowing up Khomeini’s mausoleum as an expression of freedom from the yolk of Islamic terror,” he said.

More blowback

Predictably, that didn’t quell the attacks of Rohrabacher foes — especially at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which has targeted his seat as vulnerable in the 2018 election.

“A member of the United States House of Representatives should not have to clarify their position on terrorism committed or inspired by ISIS,” said the DCCC’s Andrew Godinich.

Rohrabacher, a 15-term congressman long known for free-thinking and unlikely statements, is drawing particular scrutiny since his district voted for Hillary Clinton last year — an outcome that has Democrats seeing opportunity despite Republicans’ 11-percentage point advantage in the district’s voter registration.

This was the second time this year he’s issued a clarification after making a controversial statement.

In February, he said on Albanian television, “Macedonia is not a state” and should be divided up among neighboring countries.

His clarification? “Macedonia is a legitimate country with the right of self-determination and sanctity of borders. My comment alluded, perhaps inartfully, to my concern with internal governing challenges that Macedonia faces concerning ethnic minorities.”