Panel: Pain with no gain? Will the Iran war leave the US worse off?

[0:00] they don't have voters to answer to and we do and that's the constraint it's an asymmetric [0:05] constraint that we are under right now that is causing some of these problems and that that's [0:10] so critical to understand because these folks will fight to the death they will just keep [0:15] going and going so the assumption that we're going to be able to come up with a reasonable [0:19] diplomatic compromise i don't know that that's baked into the folks that we are dealing with here [0:24] and that you're right they have no voters to respond to this is you know but here in the [0:30] states i think we're seeing the impact of this already as it relates to the midterms coming up [0:36] i mean look at the republicans you all just lost something in trump's backyard i mean if that [0:41] doesn't send a message about how freaked out and scared and worried the american people are i don't [0:48] know what would and i feel like trump's response so indicates that he understands that because he says [0:55] that the strait is going to open up once they stop fighting the war he says we don't really [1:01] have a role in ensuring that iran doesn't control it he's like i wash my hands on of it and it'll [1:07] just go back to the status quo pre-war once we're done well first of all i think making national [1:12] security decisions based on a state house result in florida in an off-year election is not a great [1:18] way to make national security policy that would be my rebuttal to that no no but it's the impact [1:22] number not the decision making it's the impact [1:25] number two generally you want the commander in chief in my opinion to make national security [1:30] decisions based on one thing is this in the best interest of protecting the american people [1:35] the decision he obviously made was that i've set a red line they're not going to have nuclear [1:39] weapons and i'm tired of them for 47 years terrorizing the world shooting us with missiles [1:45] shooting our allies with missiles having this aggressive navy and they crossed a line with him [1:50] and now he's enforcing it and to say well if gas goes up a nickel or we have a state house race in [1:55] florida we can no longer operate national security policy i think is an extremely short-sighted and [2:00] cynical way to assess this at the end of this if they're totally defanged if they meet our [2:06] objectives here in terms of nukes and missiles and navy and exporting terror if there are new people [2:11] in charge who are willing to abide by some kind of an agreement that is a net positive for us for the [2:16] world for the world and that's what we that's what we're waiting for that argument that we [2:20] heard the last time we attacked them and they declared victory they said they annihilated their [2:25] so were they wrong were they lying were they misinforming us what was the situation before [2:30] and then how did it deteriorate in such a short amount of time from then and now we're talking [2:33] a few months went by and now up there's this there's this threat we got we got to get them [2:38] right now they've never by the way explained what that threat was they've never given any [2:41] information to american people about why it was well wait and then they do have missiles that can [2:45] reach most of europe you know that right but the last thing is good or bad the last time they did [2:49] that they said we annihilated it that's literally the words right they used their capability that [2:55] this is the problem with the president you want iran this is the problem the president [2:58] that can hit the president made an expectation i don't the president okay then why are you upset [3:04] that i'm not upset the president said he has annihilated them that is the expectation that [3:09] is the goal post that he's being measured against his own words his own hyperbole so now that he [3:14] comes back and says actually that wasn't what happened now this time we got it right this time [3:19] we've all blown them all up exactly has no credibility because he already used all the [3:23] platitudes [3:25] on your own political views based on what he said what he said that wasn't true and no one's saying [3:30] change national you know international policy based on the politics i'm just saying the american [3:35] people are raising real the most important people who believe in the issue is i really think that [3:40] the assumption that we are going to be able to root out iran as a terror entity based on these [3:48] new new folks who have come in i don't see i hope that would be true but that's just a hope i don't [3:54] see the evidence [3:55] there is a group of people out there now that believe president trump what he says right they [4:00] are the iranian people who witnessed their military get decimated their navy get decimated [4:04] their ability to shoot down american aircraft all the things that the the iranian regime promised [4:09] them they could do it was revealed that the emperor has no clothes so whoever's ruling iran [4:14] in the next phase they know that they can't hide behind this false idea that they have this [4:19] military that's capable of standing up to america and western allies well they just need a military [4:23] capable of standing up to civilians [4:25] have machine guns i mean we're not i'm talking about the ability of other countries to ensure [4:30] that they don't have nuclear capabilities everything they promised they can do was [4:33] revealed to be fake you know what other emperor has no clothes is president trump who said that [4:39] they had annihilated their nuclear capacity and that was not true margaret yeah i just want to say [4:44] one point to scott's point you know we're just forgetting that days ago the president was [4:48] threatening to take out civilian infrastructure for the express purpose of opening the strait [4:52] of formu so i would offer that that is one example where he is going to be able to do that and he is [4:55] tying a military action to basically lowering gas prices and that's wrong in my opinion for two [5:01] reasons one civilian this is long boring legal opinion that you don't need but basically civilian [5:06] structures don't lose their protective status unless there's a specific military objective for [5:10] it lowering gas prices isn't one of them but two the point that we all just discussed the iranian [5:14] regime isn't worried about the damage to civilians so that isn't going to resonate i mean it's [5:18] unlawful for the threatened for the president to threaten to harm civilians purposely but it also [5:23] just isn't effective strategically because the regime doesn't care [5:25] look i think tomorrow night he's going to have to lay out military stuff but also [5:30] talk to the country about who he's talking to what they're telling him and what a post-military action [5:36] scenario looks like here that has to include some conversation about the straight of hormuz [5:41] you know my impression is the other gulf states are tired of iran you know harassing everybody [5:46] and making the the region have instability they're probably going to have to be involved in this i'm [5:51] as interested as anyone to see what the president has to say about that let me play with this is [5:55] just has to Jimmy uh you as president can speak that i think it's not what you she's trying to [6:04] do it's you know he's trying to when of habit it's kind of what you came up with you're not [6:11] part of it modesty it's not what you want you're you're not we're notiają member of administration [6:13] here you're not you're not even saying that you like the bill though candidate what I don't [6:17] want to hear is this agreement that the president made with with gulf states in his decision [6:22] you won't have to get ahead with it i think the opportunity is tobathe that within the government [6:24] and it's that you can bring pro-奔 [6:25] to the administration for example what if you're waiting on that health care [6:25] nothing i mean really formal it's radical bringing prosperity into the comical relationship [6:25] we said earlier if we're here if we're not and we Bob's are the people who have to follow you [6:26] to include boots on the ground maybe negotiations work or maybe there's a [6:29] different approach the point is to be unpredictable in that certainly not let [6:34] anybody know what you're willing to do or not do I mean look he can say that [6:40] but the American people also have a say and it's very unpopular to put boots on [6:46] the ground not to mention that there's a good reason for that because it would be [6:50] extremely dangerous so yeah I mean to Scott's point I mean does the president [6:54] have to level with the American people about what the expectations are look [6:58] we're talking about the MAGA base you know we have to compare that to the [7:02] experience that gave rise to the MAGA movement the never-ending wars a 20-year [7:06] engagement in Afghanistan a 15-year so engagement in Iraq that's the that's the [7:11] parameter which I think this argument is framed it's not framed in whether it's [7:15] five weeks or six weeks or seven weeks and as far as boots on the ground I've [7:18] said this every time I've been on this show if it takes some American troops in [7:22] a limited engagement to secure nuclear-enriched material I think that [7:27] would be a wise use [7:28] of American military power is that is that the same thing as nation building is [7:32] that the same thing as occupying cities that the same thing as as occupying a [7:35] country for 20 years absolutely not and I think the American public would be [7:39] smart enough to see the difference I think that the American public would [7:42] really need to understand how just really dangerous what you're talking [7:46] about is because it is not just a small contingent of troops to remove nuclear [7:50] materials every time we've talked to military experts about what it would [7:54] take to do that it is extraordinary difficult extraordinarily difficult and [7:58] extraordinarily dangerous because of the location of these materials and it [8:02] would it would require thousands of troops yes which is why these types of [8:06] military operations these offensive operations starting a war should be [8:10] going through Congress this is basically a surprise war that we all woke up one [8:13] day and realized the country was in and now we're talking about committing tens [8:16] of thousands of troops on the ground if it is properly authorized by Congress [8:19] that's a different position that we're in there's been a conversation nationally [8:23] about it and that did not happen well and the president here again is being measured against [8:28] that with his own base in his own party he campaigned on no more Endless Wars no more [8:32] Middle East no more spending good money after bad there and the insurance run does a complete 180 [8:36] without laying the groundwork without giving the explanation and again days before this attack [8:41] happened days before the offensive he delivered the State of the Union address he could have made [8:45] the case right there we got congressional authorization after 9 11. so there's really [8:48] no reason that we can't go to Congress and people can't speak through their elected [8:51] representatives with the military strategy absolutely