March 13, 2026 • 27 mins
Over the last eight seasons, Margaret Hoover has spoken to many guests about the threat posed by Iran and what the U.S. can do about it. As the war in Iran enters a third week, we look back at how key policymakers and experts have addressed the prospect of military action against the regime.
This episode includes excerpts from interviews with Sen. Tom Cotton, retired Gen. David Petraeus, former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and more. They discuss the challenge of confronting Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the risks of pursuing regime change, and the lessons America learned from past conflicts.
Support for Firing Line with Margaret Hoover is provided by Robert Granieri, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, The Fairweather Foundation, The Tepper Foundation, Peter and Mary Kalikow, The Beth and Ravenel Curry Foundation, Pritzker Military Foundation, Cliff and Laurel Asness, Katharine J. Rayner, Charles R. Schwab, Lindsay and George Billingsley, The Meadowlark Foundation, Jared Stone, and Al and Kathy Hubbard.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:06):
How long will the US be at war with Iran?
Whatever the time is, it's OK whatever it takes.
We have from right. From the beginning we projected
4 to 5 weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than
that. As the conflict enters its third
week, the Firing Line podcast looks back at interviews through
(00:29):
the years that shed light on howwe got here and where we might
be heading. We begin with our news making
interview in 2019 with Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton.
Could we win a war with Iran? Yes.
That didn't take you a second. Two strikes, the first strike
and the last strike. What are the conditions or the
circumstances that would justifygoing to war with Iran?
(00:52):
Well, if Iran struck out militarily against the United
States or against our allies in the region, then I would
certainly expect a devastating response against Iran.
As somebody who fought in two fronts in the Middle East, both
in Iraq and in Afghanistan, do you think it would be a good
idea to go to war with Iran? No, I don't advocate military
action against Iran. I'm simply delivering the
(01:14):
message that if Iran were to attack the United States, it
would be a grave miscalculation on their part and there would be
a furious response. Now, we don't want to govern
Iran. We don't want to rule 80 million
Iranians. We want 80 million Iranians to
be able to govern themselves anddo so in in peace and security
with their neighbors and to taking account our interests in
(01:37):
the Middle East. Where are you on regime change?
What I want is to have an outlawregime change its behavior to
rejoin the civilized world and stop supporting terrorism and
trying to overthrow the governments of so many of its
neighbors. Ultimately, if you have people
like Ayatollah Khamenei in charge in Iran, it's hard to see
how the United States and allieslike Israel can live in peace in
(01:59):
the Middle East. The next week, I interviewed
retired general and former CIA Director David Petraeus.
Let's be very clear that the so-called malign Iranian
activity, the support for the Shia militia, the
paramilitaries, Lebanese Hezbollah, Shia militia in Iraq,
Syria, Yemen and other places isa very, very serious threat to
(02:23):
the region, as is the missile program that Iran has pursued.
What we're doing, though, is putting much increased pressure
on Iran, really targeting their economy.
That economy is into a significant downturn,
depression, and we're going to keep clamping down on that.
(02:43):
Do you understand what the question?
Well, I was just going to say that, in fact, the real question
in my mind is what is the overall goal?
Is it realistically attainable if it is, for example, for
regime change, I tend to doubt that that is attainable within
the resources that we would be willing to commit to this by
(03:04):
certainly not an invasion of Iran.
This is a country that's more than twice the population of
Iraq and three or four times thelandmass.
So again, the question is what are they trying to achieve?
I mean, can we hit Iran with a very, very substantial set of
strikes? Absolutely we can.
What does that win? I mean, you're not going to.
(03:25):
If win means that we're going toagain take over Iran, certainly
that's not attainable with just strikes.
If you want to do a great deal of damage to, say, their nuclear
program and perhaps to their ballistic missile program and a
variety of the other military capabilities that concern us,
certainly we can do that. The question is, what will they
(03:47):
do in return? Keep in mind that there's a lot
of American soldiers, sailors, chairman, marines in that
region. There are a lot of American
civilians, not just the diplomats and development
workers, but many, many others. And there's a lot of energy
infrastructure that is hugely important to the global economy.
(04:09):
In June of 2019, I interviewed Liz Cheney, then a congresswoman
representing Wyoming. On May 19th, President Trump
tweeted If Iran wants to fight, that will be the end of Iran.
Never threaten the United Statesagain.
Is there a risk of using bellicose rhetoric and not
(04:31):
acting? Well, I think that President
Trump is in many, many ways has demonstrated his willingness to
act. And I think that you see that
both with respect to the nucleardeal, you see that with respect
to his decision, for example, when he was meeting with the
North Koreans to say, you know what, I'm going to walk away
(04:51):
from the table. I think he's been pretty clear
in terms of the extent to which he's going to defend this
nation. So I'm, I'm, I think actually
the bigger risk for the United States it's comes if our
adversaries miscalculate and they believe they can attack us
without a response. So.
Is this true? What?
What should be the strategic objective of the United States
(05:13):
visa via Iran? Is it regime collapse?
Is it regime change? Our strategic objective is to
get the behavior to change. Regime behavior change I.
Think it need The behavior needsto change.
Iranians need to stop their support for terrorism.
The Iranians need to stop their activities that result in the
death of Americans and our allies around the world.
The Iranians need to recognize that we won't be blackmailed
(05:34):
into lifting the sanctions General.
Petraeus was on this program a couple of weeks ago and he said
the same thing. Regime behavior change is what
the strategic objective should be.
General Petraeus wasn't sure that that objective is
achievable based on what he's saying of the Iranians, based on
what you know of the Iranians, especially what you've written
(05:54):
about in your book, that for 20 years, 40 years, the Iranians
have never negotiated in good faith, is it possible to change
that regime's behavior? Well, I think we'll find out in
the security United States and of our allies around the world
depends upon the Iranians not obtaining a nuclear weapon and
recognizing that we won't continue to to sort of stand by
(06:16):
while they support terrorism andtheir ballistic missile
development and the other malignactivities across the region.
In September of 2019, I interviewed retired Marine
General James Mattis. Mattis had been President
Trump's Secretary of Defense until January of that year.
We'll talk about Iran. It's well reported.
And you write actually in your book that Iran is a, a, a
(06:39):
perplexing problem and has been throughout the course of your
career. It's even reported that you told
the Obama administration that your biggest concerns were Iran,
Iran and Iran. We have to recognize that the
authoritarians that rule in Iranright now are part of a
revolutionary regime, and they are not acting in the best
(07:00):
interests of their own country. So we're going to have to work
with other countries to restraintheir misbehavior.
In just a short period of time, the world's leading state
sponsor of terror will be on thecusp of acquiring the world's
most dangerous weapons. Therefore, I am announcing today
(07:20):
that the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear
deal. Do you believe now, even though
we are out of the Iran deal, that it is still possible to
prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon?
It's not only possible, I think it's critical.
So how would you do it? Well, it has to do with aligning
(07:43):
the international community and making the diplomatic
consequences, economic consequences, severe enough that
it's not in their interest for the regime to do this.
You just. Have and opponents would argue
that that was what the Iran dealwas intended to do.
Well and and sincere people can argue and disagree on that.
(08:07):
So you have stressed also in your writings and in the book,
as you reflect on your 41 years in the Marines, the importance
of having a political end state when the military is engaged in
wars. You say that George HW Bush got
it right in 1991 in Desert Storm.
He had Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
He said it will not stand. And we attacked, liberated
(08:30):
Kuwait and then came home. You have criticized the recent
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan fornot having the same clear end
state. Is there a recent example after
Desert Storm where we've gotten it right?
I don't believe so right now. In terms of military
interventions, no, I'm not convinced that our policies over
(08:55):
the last some 20 years have beensufficiently rigorous and been
sustained. In other words, we go in to take
out terrorists and we decide we're going to establish
democracy and then we're going to do something else.
There's ways to get all this right up front, but you need to
get it right up front. You need to have a good,
vigorous debate. You need to be hard on the
(09:15):
issue. And once you establish it, then
you have to resource it and you have to sell it to the American
people. You have to tell them this.
Is that important for you? In May of 2020, David Miliband,
head of the International RescueCommittee and a former British
Foreign Secretary, joined me on Firing Line.
I first must ask you about developments in the news this
(09:36):
week. President Trump ordered the
killing of Iran Quds Force MajorGeneral Soleimani last week.
Soleimani was plotting imminent.And sinister attacks.
On American diplomats and military personnel.
But we caught him in the act andterminated him.
(09:57):
In your opinion, was President Trump correct to do this?
Well, obviously, we haven't seenthe evidence that President
Trump referred to in terms of the imminent attack on U.S.
forces or on US assets. I think the big question is
obviously what the consequences of this are.
And I can only speak to you fromthe perspective of a
(10:18):
humanitarian organization. I can tell you we are preparing
across the Middle East for more chaos, more conflict, more
civilian casualties. Is it possible to play a devil's
advocate that the assassination of Quds Force Commander
Soleimani changes the seriousness with which Iran
takes the United States and makeit more likely that Iran returns
(10:41):
to the negotiating table? Well, I can tell you from my own
time in government that Iran whothe UK had full diplomatic
relations with in the time, unlike the US, they take the
United States very seriously. They take the history of the US
Iran relationship very seriously.
They take the power of the United States, the military
(11:03):
power, but also the they. Were expecting their Major
General from the Quds Force to be assassinated in the Iraqi
airport. So that's a good point.
But that doesn't mean that the Iran doesn't take America
seriously. And I think that the sense of
Iranian humiliation could obviously lead them to
miscalculate. That would have very grave
consequences. Those of us who were involved in
(11:23):
the early days in trying to establish a nuclear agreement
with Iran obviously fear that there is a return to a the
pathway to a nuclear weapon, that the terrible choice that
all of us feared, either Iran gets the bomb or Iran gets
bombed, that that choice, we don't want to get back on that
path again, and that's a fear ofanyone who studies the Middle
(11:45):
East. In June of 2021, a hard line
cleric, Ibrahim Rossi, was elected President of Iran.
Retired Admiral William Mcraven,former commander of Special
Operations in Europe, was my guest on Firing Line.
So what is the election of a hard line president in Iran mean
for the future of their nuclear weapons development and their
(12:09):
desire to come to the bargainingtable?
Yes, Sir. It's all about the economy.
I mean, I, I think this is true of just about every country out
there. At the end of the day, the
Iranian hardliners understand that they have still got to get
the economy moving or this more liberal movement, if you will,
is going to put potentially, youknow, bump up against the
(12:30):
hardliners in a way that they won't be able to control.
So it is about the economy. And, and from the, I would offer
from the standpoint of the new president, he recognizes that if
he can, in fact, broker a deal with the United States and our
allies as we're looking at the the JCPOA, the nuclear
agreement, then we will begin tolift some sanctions.
(12:51):
And hopefully we will do so in athoughtful way that will bring
more money into Iran and that will begin to mollify to some
degree the the Iranians that areupset with the the current
regime in Iran. So, you know, Iran is not
looking for a fight. We are not looking for a fight
with Iran. We're going to have to see how
how this new president plays out.
(13:13):
You know, sometimes you think that the hardliners are going to
be the hardest to negotiate withwhen in fact, they become, you
know, a little bit more pliable over time.
So I think it remains to be seenwith the the new guy in power.
In the fall of 2020, 2000s of Iranians took to the streets to
protest the death of a young woman in police custody,
(13:33):
reportedly arrested for wearing her hijab incorrectly.
Masai Alinejad, an Iranian journalist and author living in
exile, came on the program to discuss the protests.
Describe what life is like for women in Iran.
Like a hell. I mean, seriously, imagine
you're just 7 year old girl, then you want to go to school.
(13:56):
If you don't cover your hair, you won't be able to get an
education, you won't be able to get a job.
You won't be able to exist to live more than 60 percentage of
university in Iran being occupied by women.
But where are these women? Women are not allowed to be
judged. Women are not allowed to be
ministers. And before the revolution,
(14:18):
before the revolution, we had somany judges, we had so many
female singers. We were able to go to stadium to
participate any kind of sports. But the Islamic revolution
became a revolution against women.
And this is the reality. You're not a free woman.
If you want to be a free woman in Iran, you have to break the
(14:39):
law every day. Me and you both, it would sit
like this in Iran. We couldn't do this.
No, in the eyes of the government, we're like master
criminals. Black hair definitely we would
get lashes, both of us. Just think about it.
So the Iranian regime is a scared of its own women.
They're actually there is 3 pillars for the Islamic
(15:02):
Republic, death to America, death to Israel, hijab.
But now the biggest enemy of theIslamic Republic is not America
and Israel, it's women inside Iraq.
You know why? Because they are fed up.
They are fed up by the regime telling them what kind of
lifestyle to follow. They are fed up by seeing that
(15:26):
the regime, the same officials who are killing them, they send
their children here in America to have their luxury life here.
All the ayatollahs, they send their relatives and children
here. They have freedom.
They they have fancy life here. So the Iranian young generation,
they risked their lives because they are tired of seeing this
(15:49):
hypocrisy. In October 2023, after the 10
Seven massacre by Hamas militants in Israel, New York
Times columnist Brett Stevens was my guest on Firing Line.
The Wall Street Journal has reported that Iran helped plan
Hamas's attack and gave it the green light.
Hamas and Iranian officials are denying Iranian government
(16:11):
involvement. What is your assessment of
Iran's involvement and motives? I don't believe Iran for a
second of the Iranian regime, I should say for a second in
saying they had no hand in, in, in planning this.
It was far too convenient for them.
They've been funding and arming and helping Hamas in multiple
(16:35):
ways now for for many, many years.
The idea? That they would not have
foreknowledge that they wouldn'tbe involved.
I think is is is implausible, could be wrong, but it's it's,
it's highly, it's highly unlikely.
I think it is significant that the Iranians are furiously
(16:55):
denying it and significant because they may not feel like
they're prepared to get into a war either directly or from one
of their other proxies with Israel right now.
My guess is they they had a large hand in it, but I don't
want to get ahead of of the intelligence.
(17:17):
Terrorism expert Jonathan Schanzer was my guest the
following week. You you've been critical of the
Biden administration for its past appeasement of Iran.
In your estimation, does Iran want a multi front war with
Israel? Look, that's the big question.
Was this 10/7 slaughter? Was that a preamble to the war
(17:40):
that that Iran plant? In other words, did they see
this as a moment that they were going to try to galvanized the
Muslim world and, you know, try to draw in as many actors as
possible and to set the region on fire?
And, you know, to get to your question about my critique of
the Biden administration, look, there has been an effort, an
(18:04):
ongoing effort by the Biden administration to separate out
Iran's malign activity and support for terrorism from the
nuclear track. And so the administration, just
as the Obama administration did before, has been offering all
manner of financial inducements to the regime to try to convince
(18:25):
it to stop its nuclear advances and to, you know, at minimum,
hold steady. What that is amounted to, in my
view, has been appeasement and the financing of a terrorist
state. And I do hope that in light of
all of this and in light of the president's embrace of the
(18:46):
Israelis and the recognition of Iran's hand behind all of this,
that maybe it's time for a policy review.
That the way in which Democrats in particular have approached
the Iran challenge, maybe it's time to revisit some of these
assumptions because I believe that it has ended in failure.
And I, I've got to think that Biden administration officials
(19:07):
are starting to come to that, that realization as well.
In October 2024, former Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice was my guest on Firing Line.
With respect to the next generation of leadership in
Iran, what should the US be doing or what should our allies
be doing to cultivate and think about the next generation of
leadership? Well.
(19:27):
Certainly there is an Iranian. Diaspora that keeps those
contacts and I hope that as we were with the.
Diaspora of the Baltic. States so that when the Baltic
states were freed, there were people who were able to to help
shepherd the Baltic states toward democracy, freedom, and
a. Western looking policy I.
(19:49):
Suspect that if you. Really understood the internal.
Politics. The internal situation in Iran.
There are an awful lot of Iranians who are actually pro
American. Who we see the signs whenever
there's a protest. Women are a group that I think
will be a bulwark. I've I've been asked very often,
(20:10):
you know what, what would succeed Vladimir Putin?
That's not a pretty picture because he's killed off all of
the liberal opposition in Iran. I don't know, but I sense that
that might be a place where you.Could trust the Iranian.
People with just a little help to build a decent regime should
(20:31):
the Ayatollah swell. Later that month, HR McMaster,
who had been the national Security advisor in Donald
Trump's first term, joined me onfiring line.
Would you say Iran is the next president's most urgent and
acute threat? I would say it's.
Iran, certainly, because. Iran has been waging.
(20:52):
This proxy war. I think against us, you know,
the great Satan. But what's it knew?
About it. Are the direct attacks.
Between Iran and Israel. And then also the degree to
which they are are are attackinginternational shipping.
For example in in the red. Sea by the Houthis, which were a
proxy of of the Iranians, but also we've we've learned just
(21:13):
recently that Russia is providing a lot of the
intelligence. Used to attack international.
Shipping, so yes. Iran is a big part of the
problem, that. A new president will face, but
it's really the connection between Iran.
And this greater? Axis of aggressors.
In June 2025, I welcomed Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski in
(21:34):
response to President Trump's announcement to the nation this
last weekend that three key nuclear facilities in Iran were
struck. You issued a statement saying,
quote, I am encouraged by the administration's assurance that
these strikes were deliberately limited in scope.
Your statement also stressed Congress's role as the sole
(21:56):
constitutional entity in the declaration of war.
At what point does the administration need to consult
Congress over this conflict? Well.
I think if you, if you go to thespecifics of the War Powers Act,
it requires a notification period to Congress than a than a
specific time period within which Congress acts.
(22:19):
It is important, it is importantthat the commander in chief have
the ability, the flexibility in an emergency when, when the, the
security of the country is at risk to be able to, to move
quickly. And I think this is what we saw
with these these precise strikesto, to go after Iran's nuclear
(22:41):
capabilities. We will have the important
conversation in the, in the Senate about whether or not we
move forward with more powers act, you know, should it become
clear that this is moving to a, a more expansive or more
expanded scope. If you're talking about
(23:03):
literally boots on the ground, the, the, the role then I think
of Congress and in declaring, indeclaring war, I think becomes
much more clear. So at this moment in time, I
think there is, there is in fairness, much more information
that we all need to have. So boots on the ground is the
(23:27):
demarcation line for a declaration of war or
consultation of. Congress, it is not.
It is one example of Yeah. The less than 24 hours after
these precise, precision and limited strikes, President Trump
posted on his social media platform quote if the current
Iranian regime is unable to makeIran great again, why wouldn't
(23:49):
there be regime change? Is regime change the right
policy? I don't know if regime change is
the right policy. I believe that if Iran's nuclear
capabilities are eliminated, I think the world is a safer
place. Finally, in January of this
year, I welcomed Israeli activist and author Noah Tishbee
(24:11):
to the program. In recent weeks, you have posted
several videos voicing support for the protesters in Iran.
You've called on the US to intervene.
And you said, quote, if you careabout human rights, talk about
Iran. How does Iran fit into the
broader fight against anti-Semitism?
(24:33):
It's a great question. It's not just the broader fight
against anti-Semitism, it's the broader fight for a safer world.
So when you think of every conflict that's happening in the
world right now, almost all of them, When you track back to
where they start and where they come and where they're funded
from and who's behind them, you'll find the Islamic Republic
of Iran, whether it's Hezbollah or Hamas and Houthis that are
bugging and and attacking not just Israel and the United
(24:55):
States, but also the Saudis and the Emiratis.
They're destabilizing force in the Middle East and therefore a
destabilizing force in the West.And here's what people need to
understand. So in 1979, when the revolution
happened, it was the first time that the Muslim world saw a
country that was run by Muslim law, Sharia law, taking the
ideas of Islam, which were I guess fantastic in the times
(25:19):
when Muhammad was around for some people, but really don't
qualify for anything that we canstand up for right now.
You know, if a woman gets raped,she needs to produce 3 witnesses
in order to corroborate her rape.
And if not, she's considered theadulterer and she can be
punished by death and stoning, but she can actually redeem
herself if she marries her rapist.
(25:40):
That's a culture that we cannot stand behind, that we have to
stand against no matter what. We need to be very clear that
Islamic fundamentalism should not be accepted in normal
society. So to me, the people of Iran
have been trying to tell us for years that they don't want this.
They're occupied under their ownregime.
(26:02):
Literally there's a full on gender apartheid happening in
Iran right now. Gender apartheid.
And why aren't liberals talking about that beyond I just.
It defies logic to be honest. President Trump called for Iran
to either negotiate with the United States or face a
potential to attack. What?
Should the US do? I believe that it's time for the
(26:24):
Islamic Republic of Iran to foldand go away.
The Islamic Republic of Iran should not be controlling the
the Iranian people. Is it the Americans job to make
that? Happen.
I don't know who else's job it is, because if you think of 80 +
1,000,000 people, they are not armed.
I don't know that they can do iton their own.
So I really hope that the US, that Israel, that the MI 6,
(26:47):
whoever is there building an opposition that can actually
take over the regime, That's what needs to happen along with
an attack, a strategic attack onon Revolutionary Guard targets
and so on and so forth. Obviously, nobody wants to
attack the Iranian people. They're actually extraordinary.
How long will the US be at war with Iran?
Whatever the time is, it's OK whatever it takes.
We have from right. From the beginning we projected
4 to 5 weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than
that. As the conflict enters its third
week, the Firing Line podcast looks back at interviews through
(00:29):
the years that shed light on howwe got here and where we might
be heading. We begin with our news making
interview in 2019 with Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton.
Could we win a war with Iran? Yes.
That didn't take you a second. Two strikes, the first strike
and the last strike. What are the conditions or the
circumstances that would justifygoing to war with Iran?
(00:52):
Well, if Iran struck out militarily against the United
States or against our allies in the region, then I would
certainly expect a devastating response against Iran.
As somebody who fought in two fronts in the Middle East, both
in Iraq and in Afghanistan, do you think it would be a good
idea to go to war with Iran? No, I don't advocate military
action against Iran. I'm simply delivering the
(01:14):
message that if Iran were to attack the United States, it
would be a grave miscalculation on their part and there would be
a furious response. Now, we don't want to govern
Iran. We don't want to rule 80 million
Iranians. We want 80 million Iranians to
be able to govern themselves anddo so in in peace and security
with their neighbors and to taking account our interests in
(01:37):
the Middle East. Where are you on regime change?
What I want is to have an outlawregime change its behavior to
rejoin the civilized world and stop supporting terrorism and
trying to overthrow the governments of so many of its
neighbors. Ultimately, if you have people
like Ayatollah Khamenei in charge in Iran, it's hard to see
how the United States and allieslike Israel can live in peace in
(01:59):
the Middle East. The next week, I interviewed
retired general and former CIA Director David Petraeus.
Let's be very clear that the so-called malign Iranian
activity, the support for the Shia militia, the
paramilitaries, Lebanese Hezbollah, Shia militia in Iraq,
Syria, Yemen and other places isa very, very serious threat to
(02:23):
the region, as is the missile program that Iran has pursued.
What we're doing, though, is putting much increased pressure
on Iran, really targeting their economy.
That economy is into a significant downturn,
depression, and we're going to keep clamping down on that.
(02:43):
Do you understand what the question?
Well, I was just going to say that, in fact, the real question
in my mind is what is the overall goal?
Is it realistically attainable if it is, for example, for
regime change, I tend to doubt that that is attainable within
the resources that we would be willing to commit to this by
(03:04):
certainly not an invasion of Iran.
This is a country that's more than twice the population of
Iraq and three or four times thelandmass.
So again, the question is what are they trying to achieve?
I mean, can we hit Iran with a very, very substantial set of
strikes? Absolutely we can.
What does that win? I mean, you're not going to.
(03:25):
If win means that we're going toagain take over Iran, certainly
that's not attainable with just strikes.
If you want to do a great deal of damage to, say, their nuclear
program and perhaps to their ballistic missile program and a
variety of the other military capabilities that concern us,
certainly we can do that. The question is, what will they
(03:47):
do in return? Keep in mind that there's a lot
of American soldiers, sailors, chairman, marines in that
region. There are a lot of American
civilians, not just the diplomats and development
workers, but many, many others. And there's a lot of energy
infrastructure that is hugely important to the global economy.
(04:09):
In June of 2019, I interviewed Liz Cheney, then a congresswoman
representing Wyoming. On May 19th, President Trump
tweeted If Iran wants to fight, that will be the end of Iran.
Never threaten the United Statesagain.
Is there a risk of using bellicose rhetoric and not
(04:31):
acting? Well, I think that President
Trump is in many, many ways has demonstrated his willingness to
act. And I think that you see that
both with respect to the nucleardeal, you see that with respect
to his decision, for example, when he was meeting with the
North Koreans to say, you know what, I'm going to walk away
(04:51):
from the table. I think he's been pretty clear
in terms of the extent to which he's going to defend this
nation. So I'm, I'm, I think actually
the bigger risk for the United States it's comes if our
adversaries miscalculate and they believe they can attack us
without a response. So.
Is this true? What?
What should be the strategic objective of the United States
(05:13):
visa via Iran? Is it regime collapse?
Is it regime change? Our strategic objective is to
get the behavior to change. Regime behavior change I.
Think it need The behavior needsto change.
Iranians need to stop their support for terrorism.
The Iranians need to stop their activities that result in the
death of Americans and our allies around the world.
The Iranians need to recognize that we won't be blackmailed
(05:34):
into lifting the sanctions General.
Petraeus was on this program a couple of weeks ago and he said
the same thing. Regime behavior change is what
the strategic objective should be.
General Petraeus wasn't sure that that objective is
achievable based on what he's saying of the Iranians, based on
what you know of the Iranians, especially what you've written
(05:54):
about in your book, that for 20 years, 40 years, the Iranians
have never negotiated in good faith, is it possible to change
that regime's behavior? Well, I think we'll find out in
the security United States and of our allies around the world
depends upon the Iranians not obtaining a nuclear weapon and
recognizing that we won't continue to to sort of stand by
(06:16):
while they support terrorism andtheir ballistic missile
development and the other malignactivities across the region.
In September of 2019, I interviewed retired Marine
General James Mattis. Mattis had been President
Trump's Secretary of Defense until January of that year.
We'll talk about Iran. It's well reported.
And you write actually in your book that Iran is a, a, a
(06:39):
perplexing problem and has been throughout the course of your
career. It's even reported that you told
the Obama administration that your biggest concerns were Iran,
Iran and Iran. We have to recognize that the
authoritarians that rule in Iranright now are part of a
revolutionary regime, and they are not acting in the best
(07:00):
interests of their own country. So we're going to have to work
with other countries to restraintheir misbehavior.
In just a short period of time, the world's leading state
sponsor of terror will be on thecusp of acquiring the world's
most dangerous weapons. Therefore, I am announcing today
(07:20):
that the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear
deal. Do you believe now, even though
we are out of the Iran deal, that it is still possible to
prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon?
It's not only possible, I think it's critical.
So how would you do it? Well, it has to do with aligning
(07:43):
the international community and making the diplomatic
consequences, economic consequences, severe enough that
it's not in their interest for the regime to do this.
You just. Have and opponents would argue
that that was what the Iran dealwas intended to do.
Well and and sincere people can argue and disagree on that.
(08:07):
So you have stressed also in your writings and in the book,
as you reflect on your 41 years in the Marines, the importance
of having a political end state when the military is engaged in
wars. You say that George HW Bush got
it right in 1991 in Desert Storm.
He had Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
He said it will not stand. And we attacked, liberated
(08:30):
Kuwait and then came home. You have criticized the recent
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan fornot having the same clear end
state. Is there a recent example after
Desert Storm where we've gotten it right?
I don't believe so right now. In terms of military
interventions, no, I'm not convinced that our policies over
(08:55):
the last some 20 years have beensufficiently rigorous and been
sustained. In other words, we go in to take
out terrorists and we decide we're going to establish
democracy and then we're going to do something else.
There's ways to get all this right up front, but you need to
get it right up front. You need to have a good,
vigorous debate. You need to be hard on the
(09:15):
issue. And once you establish it, then
you have to resource it and you have to sell it to the American
people. You have to tell them this.
Is that important for you? In May of 2020, David Miliband,
head of the International RescueCommittee and a former British
Foreign Secretary, joined me on Firing Line.
I first must ask you about developments in the news this
(09:36):
week. President Trump ordered the
killing of Iran Quds Force MajorGeneral Soleimani last week.
Soleimani was plotting imminent.And sinister attacks.
On American diplomats and military personnel.
But we caught him in the act andterminated him.
(09:57):
In your opinion, was President Trump correct to do this?
Well, obviously, we haven't seenthe evidence that President
Trump referred to in terms of the imminent attack on U.S.
forces or on US assets. I think the big question is
obviously what the consequences of this are.
And I can only speak to you fromthe perspective of a
(10:18):
humanitarian organization. I can tell you we are preparing
across the Middle East for more chaos, more conflict, more
civilian casualties. Is it possible to play a devil's
advocate that the assassination of Quds Force Commander
Soleimani changes the seriousness with which Iran
takes the United States and makeit more likely that Iran returns
(10:41):
to the negotiating table? Well, I can tell you from my own
time in government that Iran whothe UK had full diplomatic
relations with in the time, unlike the US, they take the
United States very seriously. They take the history of the US
Iran relationship very seriously.
They take the power of the United States, the military
(11:03):
power, but also the they. Were expecting their Major
General from the Quds Force to be assassinated in the Iraqi
airport. So that's a good point.
But that doesn't mean that the Iran doesn't take America
seriously. And I think that the sense of
Iranian humiliation could obviously lead them to
miscalculate. That would have very grave
consequences. Those of us who were involved in
(11:23):
the early days in trying to establish a nuclear agreement
with Iran obviously fear that there is a return to a the
pathway to a nuclear weapon, that the terrible choice that
all of us feared, either Iran gets the bomb or Iran gets
bombed, that that choice, we don't want to get back on that
path again, and that's a fear ofanyone who studies the Middle
(11:45):
East. In June of 2021, a hard line
cleric, Ibrahim Rossi, was elected President of Iran.
Retired Admiral William Mcraven,former commander of Special
Operations in Europe, was my guest on Firing Line.
So what is the election of a hard line president in Iran mean
for the future of their nuclear weapons development and their
(12:09):
desire to come to the bargainingtable?
Yes, Sir. It's all about the economy.
I mean, I, I think this is true of just about every country out
there. At the end of the day, the
Iranian hardliners understand that they have still got to get
the economy moving or this more liberal movement, if you will,
is going to put potentially, youknow, bump up against the
(12:30):
hardliners in a way that they won't be able to control.
So it is about the economy. And, and from the, I would offer
from the standpoint of the new president, he recognizes that if
he can, in fact, broker a deal with the United States and our
allies as we're looking at the the JCPOA, the nuclear
agreement, then we will begin tolift some sanctions.
(12:51):
And hopefully we will do so in athoughtful way that will bring
more money into Iran and that will begin to mollify to some
degree the the Iranians that areupset with the the current
regime in Iran. So, you know, Iran is not
looking for a fight. We are not looking for a fight
with Iran. We're going to have to see how
how this new president plays out.
(13:13):
You know, sometimes you think that the hardliners are going to
be the hardest to negotiate withwhen in fact, they become, you
know, a little bit more pliable over time.
So I think it remains to be seenwith the the new guy in power.
In the fall of 2020, 2000s of Iranians took to the streets to
protest the death of a young woman in police custody,
(13:33):
reportedly arrested for wearing her hijab incorrectly.
Masai Alinejad, an Iranian journalist and author living in
exile, came on the program to discuss the protests.
Describe what life is like for women in Iran.
Like a hell. I mean, seriously, imagine
you're just 7 year old girl, then you want to go to school.
(13:56):
If you don't cover your hair, you won't be able to get an
education, you won't be able to get a job.
You won't be able to exist to live more than 60 percentage of
university in Iran being occupied by women.
But where are these women? Women are not allowed to be
judged. Women are not allowed to be
ministers. And before the revolution,
(14:18):
before the revolution, we had somany judges, we had so many
female singers. We were able to go to stadium to
participate any kind of sports. But the Islamic revolution
became a revolution against women.
And this is the reality. You're not a free woman.
If you want to be a free woman in Iran, you have to break the
(14:39):
law every day. Me and you both, it would sit
like this in Iran. We couldn't do this.
No, in the eyes of the government, we're like master
criminals. Black hair definitely we would
get lashes, both of us. Just think about it.
So the Iranian regime is a scared of its own women.
They're actually there is 3 pillars for the Islamic
(15:02):
Republic, death to America, death to Israel, hijab.
But now the biggest enemy of theIslamic Republic is not America
and Israel, it's women inside Iraq.
You know why? Because they are fed up.
They are fed up by the regime telling them what kind of
lifestyle to follow. They are fed up by seeing that
(15:26):
the regime, the same officials who are killing them, they send
their children here in America to have their luxury life here.
All the ayatollahs, they send their relatives and children
here. They have freedom.
They they have fancy life here. So the Iranian young generation,
they risked their lives because they are tired of seeing this
(15:49):
hypocrisy. In October 2023, after the 10
Seven massacre by Hamas militants in Israel, New York
Times columnist Brett Stevens was my guest on Firing Line.
The Wall Street Journal has reported that Iran helped plan
Hamas's attack and gave it the green light.
Hamas and Iranian officials are denying Iranian government
(16:11):
involvement. What is your assessment of
Iran's involvement and motives? I don't believe Iran for a
second of the Iranian regime, I should say for a second in
saying they had no hand in, in, in planning this.
It was far too convenient for them.
They've been funding and arming and helping Hamas in multiple
(16:35):
ways now for for many, many years.
The idea? That they would not have
foreknowledge that they wouldn'tbe involved.
I think is is is implausible, could be wrong, but it's it's,
it's highly, it's highly unlikely.
I think it is significant that the Iranians are furiously
(16:55):
denying it and significant because they may not feel like
they're prepared to get into a war either directly or from one
of their other proxies with Israel right now.
My guess is they they had a large hand in it, but I don't
want to get ahead of of the intelligence.
(17:17):
Terrorism expert Jonathan Schanzer was my guest the
following week. You you've been critical of the
Biden administration for its past appeasement of Iran.
In your estimation, does Iran want a multi front war with
Israel? Look, that's the big question.
Was this 10/7 slaughter? Was that a preamble to the war
(17:40):
that that Iran plant? In other words, did they see
this as a moment that they were going to try to galvanized the
Muslim world and, you know, try to draw in as many actors as
possible and to set the region on fire?
And, you know, to get to your question about my critique of
the Biden administration, look, there has been an effort, an
(18:04):
ongoing effort by the Biden administration to separate out
Iran's malign activity and support for terrorism from the
nuclear track. And so the administration, just
as the Obama administration did before, has been offering all
manner of financial inducements to the regime to try to convince
(18:25):
it to stop its nuclear advances and to, you know, at minimum,
hold steady. What that is amounted to, in my
view, has been appeasement and the financing of a terrorist
state. And I do hope that in light of
all of this and in light of the president's embrace of the
(18:46):
Israelis and the recognition of Iran's hand behind all of this,
that maybe it's time for a policy review.
That the way in which Democrats in particular have approached
the Iran challenge, maybe it's time to revisit some of these
assumptions because I believe that it has ended in failure.
And I, I've got to think that Biden administration officials
(19:07):
are starting to come to that, that realization as well.
In October 2024, former Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice was my guest on Firing Line.
With respect to the next generation of leadership in
Iran, what should the US be doing or what should our allies
be doing to cultivate and think about the next generation of
leadership? Well.
(19:27):
Certainly there is an Iranian. Diaspora that keeps those
contacts and I hope that as we were with the.
Diaspora of the Baltic. States so that when the Baltic
states were freed, there were people who were able to to help
shepherd the Baltic states toward democracy, freedom, and
a. Western looking policy I.
(19:49):
Suspect that if you. Really understood the internal.
Politics. The internal situation in Iran.
There are an awful lot of Iranians who are actually pro
American. Who we see the signs whenever
there's a protest. Women are a group that I think
will be a bulwark. I've I've been asked very often,
(20:10):
you know what, what would succeed Vladimir Putin?
That's not a pretty picture because he's killed off all of
the liberal opposition in Iran. I don't know, but I sense that
that might be a place where you.Could trust the Iranian.
People with just a little help to build a decent regime should
(20:31):
the Ayatollah swell. Later that month, HR McMaster,
who had been the national Security advisor in Donald
Trump's first term, joined me onfiring line.
Would you say Iran is the next president's most urgent and
acute threat? I would say it's.
Iran, certainly, because. Iran has been waging.
(20:52):
This proxy war. I think against us, you know,
the great Satan. But what's it knew?
About it. Are the direct attacks.
Between Iran and Israel. And then also the degree to
which they are are are attackinginternational shipping.
For example in in the red. Sea by the Houthis, which were a
proxy of of the Iranians, but also we've we've learned just
(21:13):
recently that Russia is providing a lot of the
intelligence. Used to attack international.
Shipping, so yes. Iran is a big part of the
problem, that. A new president will face, but
it's really the connection between Iran.
And this greater? Axis of aggressors.
In June 2025, I welcomed Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski in
(21:34):
response to President Trump's announcement to the nation this
last weekend that three key nuclear facilities in Iran were
struck. You issued a statement saying,
quote, I am encouraged by the administration's assurance that
these strikes were deliberately limited in scope.
Your statement also stressed Congress's role as the sole
(21:56):
constitutional entity in the declaration of war.
At what point does the administration need to consult
Congress over this conflict? Well.
I think if you, if you go to thespecifics of the War Powers Act,
it requires a notification period to Congress than a than a
specific time period within which Congress acts.
(22:19):
It is important, it is importantthat the commander in chief have
the ability, the flexibility in an emergency when, when the, the
security of the country is at risk to be able to, to move
quickly. And I think this is what we saw
with these these precise strikesto, to go after Iran's nuclear
(22:41):
capabilities. We will have the important
conversation in the, in the Senate about whether or not we
move forward with more powers act, you know, should it become
clear that this is moving to a, a more expansive or more
expanded scope. If you're talking about
(23:03):
literally boots on the ground, the, the, the role then I think
of Congress and in declaring, indeclaring war, I think becomes
much more clear. So at this moment in time, I
think there is, there is in fairness, much more information
that we all need to have. So boots on the ground is the
(23:27):
demarcation line for a declaration of war or
consultation of. Congress, it is not.
It is one example of Yeah. The less than 24 hours after
these precise, precision and limited strikes, President Trump
posted on his social media platform quote if the current
Iranian regime is unable to makeIran great again, why wouldn't
(23:49):
there be regime change? Is regime change the right
policy? I don't know if regime change is
the right policy. I believe that if Iran's nuclear
capabilities are eliminated, I think the world is a safer
place. Finally, in January of this
year, I welcomed Israeli activist and author Noah Tishbee
(24:11):
to the program. In recent weeks, you have posted
several videos voicing support for the protesters in Iran.
You've called on the US to intervene.
And you said, quote, if you careabout human rights, talk about
Iran. How does Iran fit into the
broader fight against anti-Semitism?
(24:33):
It's a great question. It's not just the broader fight
against anti-Semitism, it's the broader fight for a safer world.
So when you think of every conflict that's happening in the
world right now, almost all of them, When you track back to
where they start and where they come and where they're funded
from and who's behind them, you'll find the Islamic Republic
of Iran, whether it's Hezbollah or Hamas and Houthis that are
bugging and and attacking not just Israel and the United
(24:55):
States, but also the Saudis and the Emiratis.
They're destabilizing force in the Middle East and therefore a
destabilizing force in the West.And here's what people need to
understand. So in 1979, when the revolution
happened, it was the first time that the Muslim world saw a
country that was run by Muslim law, Sharia law, taking the
ideas of Islam, which were I guess fantastic in the times
(25:19):
when Muhammad was around for some people, but really don't
qualify for anything that we canstand up for right now.
You know, if a woman gets raped,she needs to produce 3 witnesses
in order to corroborate her rape.
And if not, she's considered theadulterer and she can be
punished by death and stoning, but she can actually redeem
herself if she marries her rapist.
(25:40):
That's a culture that we cannot stand behind, that we have to
stand against no matter what. We need to be very clear that
Islamic fundamentalism should not be accepted in normal
society. So to me, the people of Iran
have been trying to tell us for years that they don't want this.
They're occupied under their ownregime.
(26:02):
Literally there's a full on gender apartheid happening in
Iran right now. Gender apartheid.
And why aren't liberals talking about that beyond I just.
It defies logic to be honest. President Trump called for Iran
to either negotiate with the United States or face a
potential to attack. What?
Should the US do? I believe that it's time for the
(26:24):
Islamic Republic of Iran to foldand go away.
The Islamic Republic of Iran should not be controlling the
the Iranian people. Is it the Americans job to make
that? Happen.
I don't know who else's job it is, because if you think of 80 +
1,000,000 people, they are not armed.
I don't know that they can do iton their own.
So I really hope that the US, that Israel, that the MI 6,
(26:47):
whoever is there building an opposition that can actually
take over the regime, That's what needs to happen along with
an attack, a strategic attack onon Revolutionary Guard targets
and so on and so forth. Obviously, nobody wants to
attack the Iranian people. They're actually extraordinary.
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com