Sen. Slotkin: Trump Is Desperate to Escape His Iran War | Command Post

[00:00:00]Welcome to a very special episode of Command Post. I'm joined as always by our very own Lieutenant General Mark Hurtling and General, we've got a special guest this week.

[00:00:08]>> We do, and we've been looking forward to this uh for a long time, Ben. Uh we asked Senator Alyssa Slatkin to to join us and talk about the state of affairs.

[00:00:18]And interestingly enough, it comes on a day when the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Agriculture are testifying before Congress. That's why I'm so dressed up. I was uh narrating some of that for one of our partners and uh to have Senator Slatkin on is a special joy. I know her from her time as a CIA analyst. We ran into each other quite a few times in Iraq during our two different tours. And I think asking her some key questions about the state of play in Iran and the state of play across the board in the US Senate is going to be very interesting. What do you think? I think that's absolutely right. And without further ado, let's welcome Senator Sodkin. I wanted to start off by asking you about a little bit of uh spicy testimony that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegth gave today during his hearing. I'm not sure if you've seen this yet, but we have a video of the uh an exchange he had with Senator Jack Reid.

[00:01:16]>> The Department of Defense has been planning for potential operations against Iran for many, many years. And one of their obvious assumptions was that the three of them moves could be closed. Uh were you unaware of that?

[00:01:36]U Senator, you you are correct. Uh nobody plans more and looks at more contingencies than our department. And so of course undertaking a historic effort like this of this scope and scale, of course the straight of Hormuse was front and center in every single aspect of that. Hence why one of our key objectives to begin with was to uh sink the entirety of of uh Iran's navy which its conventional navy was sunk. Now you can't get rid of every single fast boat and every single machine gun and a fast boat or every single uh coastal cruise missile. So we acknowledge that if the state decided to become a terror state shooting at commercial shipping that would be an ongoing and contested part of the battle uh to include their willingness to mine international water.

[00:02:14]One side weaponized the straight and we've been completely aware that the straight of Hamus could be closed and obviously sinking their ships has not affected their ability to effectively close the straits.

[00:02:26]>> Senator uh was that a convincing answer to you?

[00:02:30]>> Look, it is literally Middle East 101 um to talk about the straight of Hormuz. I can remember being in college and taking my first Middle Eastern classes and it was like there is a strategic choke point um in this area. So, so I think that's a a very well-known thing or at least um uh in military planners, it's a well-known thing and and um obviously it's true that we took out a huge chunk of their navy. We have incredible firepower that has done incredible work over there. But their definition of winning is different than our definition of winning. Their definition of winning is keeping us on our toes and unable to process ships through the straight of Hormuz. And they can do that by drone.

[00:03:10]They can do that by mine. They can do that by fastboat. They can do it by boat drone now. So, um I I it's not that we didn't do important um things to their navy. We did. It just wasn't enough. And for them, just kind of ankle biting in the straight of Hormuz is their definition of winning. Um and right now, I I don't know how you can say anything other than they continue to have veto power over the straits.

[00:03:35]>> Senator, first of all, thanks for joining us. I'll echo what Ben said.

[00:03:39]We've been hoping to get you on for a long time, but I'm gonna start off with a perhaps a softball question to you.

[00:03:45]Uh, we know each other. You served as a Middle Eastern an analyst at the CIA, and during your work, you spent several tours inside of Iraq, where I think we first met in Baghdad. You have a better understanding of the region than likely all of your Senate colleagues, uh, and a lot of other people, too. By the way, given what you know about the culture, the dynamics of the Middle East, how's that shape your questioning of what's going on right now and specifically when people appear before you and the SAS, how do you approach them when they try and give you answers that are just uh let's just say uninformed?

[00:04:27]>> Yeah. I mean, look, I think we're all prisoners to our own experience. And for me, I mean, just the most formative thing that shaped my adult life was 9/11. And, you know, I was in New York City that day. It was my second day of grad school. I had just moved there. Um, and by the end of the day, um, you know, when the smoke was clearing, I knew I was going to go into national security and, you know, got recruited by the CIA and within a year starting there was off on my first of three tours in Iraq. So my defining experience along with a lot of other people I know um was stepping up to serve after 9/11 and then watching our country that we love get embroiled in very long very difficult wars in the Middle East in Iraq and Afghanistan and obviously beyond those places in the the greater Middle East. And so it's impossible for me to hear testimony about what's going on in the Iran war and not pull those lessons forward from these other two wars that I engaged on.

[00:05:28]Um, and to take a really critical eye to things like not having an endgame, not being able to tell us the cost of a war.

[00:05:36]You know, we now have coffins coming back to do Air Force Base tomorrow.

[00:05:41]Another three at least. um young men and women who lost their lives in this war.

[00:05:47]So, it's very real um I think for for people who served over there in previous wars. Um but um all those things that um we didn't do the right way. I think in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, you're trying to like help your country not make the same mistakes. So, I think that's that is my overwhelming lens that I bring to it. Um, and then just being a CIA officer and then serving for years at the Pentagon, like you know, sort of a you have a decent BS meter when someone's in front of you and saying, "Well, of course, you know, we couldn't possibly do that." It's like, we do that every day. I mean, so um I I think um uh it colors everything that I do certainly in armed services committee. Yeah, it's interesting you say we can do that, but there's also a lot of times when you probably say, "Yeah, we don't do that either." Ben, if you don't mind, I'll ask one more question and turn it back to you. You know, if you can do this, Senator, put put your senator hat away and go back to your military analyst, your CIA analyst hat. And you know what what kind of things are you looking for right now in this operation in terms of the state of the military campaign and connecting that with policy, the state of the political campaign and what we're hearing from people like Secretary Hegsth and President Trump and Secretary Besson and others about how they are portraying what's going on and the overall strategic campaign whether the US has a defined end state and a path to get there. Is there going to be escalation or deescalation? And I know that's a lot of questions to answer in one trunch, but you know, I I I want to ask you from a mil from a CIA analyst viewpoint what you think about what's going on.

[00:07:40]>> Whether you're a CIA analyst or or you you you know are just talking to your neighbors in Michigan, they want to know how this ends. For me a as a you know putting on my analyst hat there's basically three options as I see them and correct me if you see more but one is just to continue what we're doing and hope for a different outcome right significant military activity every night tit fortat um uh significant um capability coming back from the Iranians on uh allies like Jordan um and other Gulf states you know kind of hoping that that changes the balance somehow eventually and we exhaust cost the Iranians. That's number one. Number two, you know this escalate to deescalate.

[00:08:23]How do we change the terms of the negotiation that we ultimately have to get to? We bring in overwhelming firepower to um punish them, the Iranians, and get them to sort of feel compelled to go back to the negotiating table. Um unfortunately, the minute you start thinking about that, you got to start talking about ground troops. I mean, you know that that that's in the ether and the president won't rule it out. So de so escalate to deescalate is number two. And then third is like just cut a worse deal with the Iranians where we accept that they have some sort of toll taking that they do for every ship.

[00:09:00]They get approval of every ship, 20% of the world's oil um going through that very very narrow area. None of those are great. None of those are good options.

[00:09:11]So whether I'm I'm wearing the analyst hat or just talking to my neighbors, um they there is not great options on the table and in the meantime the American people are paying for it. Right? When you're a CIA officer, you focus on the strategic issues of protecting the country. You don't have to answer for the cost of gas um or fertilizer, but um people are are feeling it. And when you know this, when the country, when the population is not feeling good about a war, when they are questioning it, when they feel exhausted by it, um it starts to break down the staying power that the the political cover that the military has to prosecute the war. I think this president is desperate to get out of this war. I think he wants it over. I think he doesn't want to talk about it.

[00:10:01]He's trying to distract us and talk about other things. And I guess that's good that he wants to get out of the war, but um uh if that's, you know, we all know, you know better than anyone, it's a lot easier to get into a war than it is to get out. And I think that's the reality he's living in.

[00:10:16]>> This segment is sponsored by the New York Times. Yes, the New York Times. So on Sunday, Donald Trump flew on the Qatari donated jet that's been made into the new Air Force One. And as the Times reported, Trump told reporters that the new plane will be taken out of service to be, in his words, maxed out. Times has been ahead of the story from the beginning. Earlier this month, experts and administration officials spoke to the Times about the security concerns they had with the jet. Now, days later, the White House started a leak investigation because their reporting was so well sourced, they subpoenaed the New York Times reporters. Now, look, the foundation of the news commentary is fact-based reporting. This show and every other show with commentary on current events really does depend on original fact-based reporting. I'm constantly looking to the New York Times to stay informed because I know I can trust that paper. And it's especially true for reporting surrounding the new Air Force One. They've been at the front of this story from the beginning.

[00:11:15]Without fact-based reporting like this, the rest of us are just left guessing.

[00:11:19]So, wherever you seek it out, nationally, locally, support fact-based reporting.

[00:11:24]>> Mr. Senator, I want to ask you another question, which is um basically let's answer, right? How does this end? If let's say there's a Democratic president in 2029 and they say, "Senator Slokin, I want you to be the Secretary of Defense and the first thing I want you to do is tell me how do we fix the Iran issue?"

[00:11:41]Where do we go from here? What does the solution look like?

[00:11:44]>> Yeah, I very much hope that we're not still in a hot war in 2029. then we have a real problem and our our economy and and sort of the world's economy is in a different place. Um uh so I I hope and I pray that we're not dealing with that issue. I but I do think um there's there is some pretty different perspectives on Iran and Ukraine whether you're a Democrat or a Republican and I think those two issues have to be dealt with.

[00:12:11]I think certainly on Iran, I mean, I would be putting every ounce of capital I have into that negotiating team and being creative and thinking um long-term. Um I think it's difficult to get the Iranians to trust us for a big deal. You know, we had a big nuclear deal back in 2015. Wasn't perfect, but when we broke that deal a couple years later under Trump, it told the Iranians like we're not great at keeping to our word. So, you're at a disadvantage. But I would put all my energy into the negotiating team. I'd maybe mix up that negotiating team. I'd put a few more military folks on that team so that one hand was kind of talking to the other.

[00:12:54]Um and then I would um figure out frankly um how we get back to the status quo ante not having any um Iranian control of the straight of Hormuz um but then um you know having a deal on the table that gives them some things that they want and uh I think it's difficult but I think that's where I would be putting my energy on on Ukraine of course um I think that is a a very important um fight uh that continues to go on. I think actually there's been some interesting developments in the past 90 days in Ukraine. Um and um if Russia does not hit steel, if they do not feel like the world pushes back on them when they invade other neighboring countries, they'll just keep doing it.

[00:13:40]It's just a matter of time. So, um those two things I think we'd have pretty different views if I were if others were put in charge. During the Iraq war, U, we both repeatedly heard the phrase planning for phase four and how it was not part of what we did very well. You know, you just talked about the long-term solution to combat, and I'm with you. It's it is it is going to be delicate at best. I personally don't think that Iran will ever give up uh some type of control of the straight of Hormuz now. Uh but whatever happens there, can you talk a little bit about from you know a policy standpoint, what do you see coming after combat? If if for with some miracle combat does end and it deescalates, what comes next?

[00:14:30]What's what's a long-term vision that we should be looking toward? I mean, I think the the long-term vision again is some sort of um very thoughtful phased approach, trust building and phased approach in the negotiation. And um look uh the we we got to a deal in 2015. It didn't include things like ballistic missiles and terrorism. That was a problem. Um we should have just added on like kind of stacked on top of the old deal other deals. and Trump had the ability to do that >> and and I think that was the intent of the JCPOA was to start the process, >> right? So, we we'd have to restart a version of it. And I think that um um in many cases there'd be some similar asks by the Americans and the Iranians. In other cases, things have changed. The Iranians, I think, knew that they could control the Straits, but they hadn't really done it. Now, they've proven to themselves and the whole damn world that they can do it. and I think they're feeling like good about that leverage point. So, the negotiations are going to be different. Um, but I think a stairstepped approach um where you build trust in the early phases cuz the Iranians are going to say, "Why would we make a deal with you? A new administration's going to come in and you know, they could get rid of that deal." So, we there's some trust building. I don't think the Iranians want to be in a permanent state of war with us. Um, so, uh, you know, I think there's a path out. Um, but it takes very deaf diplomacy.

[00:16:04]>> I did want to ask you, uh, what can Congress do? I mean, let's say the world changes and you're able to get a few uh, of your Republican colleagues who have a long history working with the Department of Defense and on defense issues. You're able to get them to co, you know, come along, cooperate on a bipartisan effort.

[00:16:23]What can Congress do to make sure that the war in Iran has a clear vision of victory and a strategy behind it and that you know it is prosecuted well, whatever that means.

[00:16:37]You can't just defund the defense department and say you're not getting money back until you do better. So what tools are at your disposal here?

[00:16:43]>> Yeah. Well, first of all, like basic oversight, right? My Republican colleagues have to be interested in basic oversight. So, like the Secretary of Defense was up on the hill today. We haven't gotten a briefing on the cost of this war since early May, and we're now back in full-scale combat operations. We haven't had a strategic briefing by senior level officials about the endgame and the scenario planning. How does this end? And I'm not saying all of that has to be in public, right? We don't want to tell the enemy what we're what we're doing, but basic understanding for the, you know, the Armed Services Committee, the Homeland Security Committee to make sure we're safe. Those are things um that if my colleagues wanted to engage on those things, they could. Many of them don't. Um and then I think frankly there's coordination with the courts. Um uh the the president has um a tremendous amount of money unspent sitting at the defense department, right? He has I think the the secretary of defense acknowledged today that I think $75 billion from the big beautiful bill to the defense department on top of their trillion dollar budget last year that is unspent. And because of the way they did that money up here, it's like fungeable.

[00:18:01]meaning the secretary of defense can say pay for things right now. So the idea that um that they don't have money right now today is just not factual and he said that today. Um if if he won't use that money, we can help precipitate and push for him to show his math and make the math work. One of the things that I have certainly um uh um seen in real time as a new senator, freshman senator, is that this institution needs to change, that it does not exert its collective power in an effective way. And while the Senate like used to be a caterpillar and could one day be a butterfly, we hope right now it's like in the cocoon and it is nasty in there and it does not know what it wants to be. And I think um you know the strongly worded letter that might have worked 20 years ago doesn't work or at least not with this administration. Um, and so how do we organize better with a strategic plan to use our collective power in the Senate? That is something a lot of senators are not used to doing and I see very clearly as a an a freshman and also b as someone who comes from the national security world where we do planning and you know strategic planning like just to go to the bathroom every day. I mean we do it kind of in just instinctively. So, um, those are the things we could and should be doing.

[00:19:29]>> And Senator, you know, you have a great amount of credentials, uh, beyond your time in the Senate. And it and I and as I know you do, you listen to Ben and I on this show all the time. And, you know, we talk a lot about alliances.

[00:19:44]From your perch in the Senate, what what is the state of the alliances across the board? And I know you have more influence in the Middle East, but you can you talk a little bit about what you see happening in regions of the world, specifically the Middle East, Europe, and and Asia.

[00:20:04]>> We are seeing the erosion of the standing of the United States of America. I think people at best, other countries, our friends aren't sure about us. They're hedging their bets. you know, yes, we will always talk to the United States, but you know, we better have a plan to do other things on our own or with other allies. Um, some of them are hedging their bets with our adversaries. Like, huh, I'm not sure the United States is really um going to to be a good partner into the future, but I live in China's neighborhood, so maybe I should cozy up to China. I didn't like doing it, but you know, before, but maybe I have to do it now because America's not trustworthy. strategic choices are being made both by our adversaries and our allies based on this chaotic approach we have um in this administration for sure but also just the pendulum you know if you think about Bush to Obama to Trump to Biden to Trump like they've been on like a nauseainducing pendulum swing for a while now and it was never like that after World War II for for decades. So, I think the world is coming to grips with the fact that it's hard to understand what we're all about. And that pains me because I deeply believe in American leadership in the world.

[00:21:26]That we're not perfect, but I'd rather have American leadership over Chinese leadership or Russian leadership any day of the week. So, I think our allies are hedging. I think they're talking amongst themselves. It's kind of like when we're not around, they're talking with each other and trying to figure out how to form different alliances, different groups. Um I think um in some cases our the fights we have with allies like the Canadians, it's just petty. I mean, what's gone on in the last few days, we were on the border. Michigan's a border state. Um, the Canadians are our cousins and the way we've kicked them in the teeth is wholly unnecessary and part of a pissing match rather than a strategic plan. Um, and um, and then I think there our adversaries are just absolutely enjoying themselves. I think our adversaries are like this is great. Uh, all these other countries are finally talking to us in a real way. Trump doesn't know what his policy is. like for China, I sort of understood it in the first term what his policy was. I cannot tell you what his strategic approach to China is in the second term.

[00:22:34]Um so I think our adversaries are are pretty thrilled um that um uh they have kind of the ability to do what they want to do and to make new friends and new partnerships. Senator, I want to ask you about a military issue closer to home relating to our elections, which is uh about a bill you proposed, the Protect Our Polls Act, which is about the military uh not acting thousands of miles away, but right here in America for the coming midterms. What's that bill uh designed to do? And um do you actually think you can get Trump to sign it? So, look, this bill is in response to the president, including this past week, laying out a story culminating in the elections in November, where if he loses, he's built a case that the elections were rigged. He's telling us he's doing it. He's giving prime time addresses. He's suing for voter roles, including in my state. Um, he's talking about it at the State of the Union. He's trying to change the rules of the post office so that they won't mail mail in ballots unless it's on his approved list. I mean, in every category of the federal government, he is trying to skew the outcome of these elections or build the storyline um that they were rigged if he lost as as you know has been sort of pulled and predicted. Um what I'm worried about in that context to me the the big problem there is the potential use of the uniform military or federal law enforcement in and around our polls.

[00:24:07]Um I think it's horrible for voter intimidation and disenfranchisement.

[00:24:11]It's straight up illegal for the uniform military to touch ballots or voting machines today. like that's not a oh you know something we have to wonder about and I think in the process completely disrupt our democracy um throw off our elections and taint the US military in the process. That's that's to me the ultimate concern I had that led us to put out this bill. Um, which basically says if there's a security threat so important that you need to send uniform military, active duty uniform military or federalized troops to the polls, which by the way we've never done in our history. We didn't do in World War II.

[00:24:52]We didn't do in the election right after 9/11 just a couple months when we were all worried about another terrorist attack. local law enforcement, state law enforcement have handled whatever security risks we've had. But if for some reason you think that we need to send in uniform military because of a, you know, armed enemy of the state, A, show your math, show us the threats, and B, get congressional permission. But you can't just be sending federal troops, uniform military to our polls um to have them play a um politicized role in our elections. And um you know I'm someone who barricaded myself in my office on January 6th. Um this is not a theoretical thing. The guy tried to dispute the 2020 election when he lost.

[00:25:37]So you know I'm not a sky is falling kind of person. But this guy is flagging on what he is going to do. He's telling us in his own words. Um and it's just a matter of whether we hear him and we do something about it. So the bill is I don't expect him to sign it. Um the bill was uh um frankly to help pop a flare and focus more attention on this um being prepared with tabletop exercises which is happening in our states. Um having the legal framework ready if federal law enforcement or uniform military try and enter a polling location or surround a polling location.

[00:26:17]I mean we are doing scenario planning.

[00:26:19]allah the department of defense because this guy won't rule it out every time he's asked. So that's what that bill is in the context of. Well, that is a suitably dark note on which to end any episode of Command Post. Thank you so much for joining us, Senator Slotkin.

[00:26:36]Really appreciate it. Um learned a lot.