Senior lawmakers in both parties said Monday that the Trump administration’s decision to launch bombing and missile strikes across Iran this weekend was largely dictated by Israel’s plan to attack Iran with or without U.S. support.
TRANSCRIPT:
Does it have to be from the Can you Oh,
cuz my face looks weird from the bottom.
So, look, the United States conducted
this operation with a fair clear goal in
mind. I haven't got a chance to see a
lot of reporting. I don't understand
what the confusion is. Let me explain it
to you and I'll do it once again as
clearly as possible. Perhaps you'll
report it that way. The United States is
conducting an operation to eliminate the
threat of Iran's short-range ballistic
missiles and the threat posed by their
navy, particularly to naval assets. That
is what it is focused on doing right now
and it's doing quite successfully. I'll
leave it to the Pentagon and the
Department of War to discuss the tactics
behind that and the progress that's
being made. That is the clear objective
of this mission. The second question
that been asked is why now? Well,
there's two reasons why now. The first
is it was abundantly clear that if Iran
came under attack by anyone, the United
States or Israel or anyone, they were
going to respond and respond against the
United States. The orders had been
delegated down to the field commanders.
It was automatic. And in fact, it bared
to be true because in fact the within an
hour of of the initial attack on the on
the leadership compound, the missile
forces in the south and in the north for
that matter had already been activated
to launch. In fact, uh those had already
been pre-positioned. The third is the
assessment that was made that if we
stood and waited for that attack to come
first before we hit them, we would
suffer much higher casualties. And so
the president made the very wise
decision. He we knew that there was
going to be an Israeli action. We knew
that that would precipitate an attack
against American forces and we knew that
if we didn't preemptively go after them
before they launched those attacks, we
would suffer higher casualties and
perhaps even hire those killed. And then
we would all be here answering questions
about why we knew that and didn't act.
Going back to the purpose, the purpose
of this is to destroy that missile
capability. Why does Iran want that
ballistic missile capability? What they
are trying to do and have been trying to
do for a very long time is build a
conventional weapons capability as a
shield where they can hide behind.
Meaning there would come a point where
they have so many conventional missiles,
so many drones and can inflict so much
damage that no one can do anything about
their nuclear program. That is what they
were trying to do is put themselves in a
place of immunity where the damage they
could inflict on the region would be so
high that no one can do anything about
their nuclear program or their nuclear
ambitions. They are producing by some
estimates over 100 of these missiles a
month. Compare that to the six or seven
interceptors that can be built a month.
They can build a hundred of these a
month. Not to mention the thousands of
one-way attack drones that they also
have. They've been doing this for a very
long time. And by the way, they've been
doing it under sanction. You see the
attacks they're conducting right now.
They're attacking airports. They're
attacking hotels. They're hitting not
just military bases. They're attacking
our embassies directly. They're
attacking facilities that have nothing
to do with war or with military. And
that's a weakened Iran. That's an Iran
despite years of sanction. Imagine a
year from now or a year and a half from
now the capabilities they would have to
inflict damage on us. It's an
unacceptable risk especially in the
hands of a regime that's run by radical
clerics. The Ayatollah is a radical was
a radical cleric. That entire regime is
led by radical clerics who don't make
geopolitical decisions. They make
decisions on the basis of theology.
Their view of theology which is an
apocalyptic one that has to be taken
very seriously as well. So that was the
purpose for what this operation is all
about. That's what it's focused on. As
the president said earlier today, it is
on or ahead of schedule. I will defer to
the department of war to discuss uh the
progress being made at a tactical level.
But it was the right decision and an
important decision for the safety and
security of the world.
Does Congress have to weigh it? Does
Congress have to weigh it? Is the
president in Congress weigh in? And is
there an imminent threat? Did you tell
lawmakers that there was an imminent?
There absolutely was an imminent threat.
And the imminent threat was that we knew
that if Iran was attacked and we
believed they would be attacked that
they would immediately come after us.
And we were not going to sit sit there
and absorb a blow before we responded
because the Department of War assessed
that if we did that, if we waited for
them to hit us first after they were
attacked and by someone else, Israel
attacked them, they hit us first and we
waited for them to hit us, we would
suffer more casualties and more deaths.
We went proactively in a defensive way
to prevent them from inflicting higher
damage. Had we not done so, there would
have been hearings on Capitol Hill about
how we knew that this was going to
happen and we didn't act preemptively to
prevent more casualties and more loss of
life.
US was forced to strike because of an
impending Israeli action.
No, first well I mean two things I would
say. Number one is no matter what
ultimately this operation needed to
happen. That's the question of why now.
But this operation needed to happen
because Iran in about a year or a year
and a half would cross the line of
immunity. Meaning they would have so
many short-range missiles, so many
drones that no one could do anything
about it because they could hold the
whole world hostage. Look at the damage
they're doing now. And this is a
weakened Iran. Imagine a year from now.
So that had to happen. Obviously, we
were aware of Israeli intentions and
understood what that would mean for us
and we had to be prepared to act as a
result of it. But this had to happen no
matter what.
Mr. Secretary, President Trump said
overnight that his top choices to now
run with Iran were killed in the
strikes. Does the United States have a
firm plan for how they intend to handle
this power vacuum in Iran to ensure that
an IRG wariner does not take power?
So, two things and two things can be
true. Number one is our mission and our
focus is the destruction of their
ballistic missile capabilities and their
ability to manufacture them as well as
the threat posed by their navy to global
shipping. That's the objective. That
said, we would not mind. We would not be
heartbroken and we hope that the Iranian
people can can overthrow this government
and establish a new future for that
country. We would love for that to be
possible. But the objective of this
mission is the destruction of their
ballistic missile capabilities and of
their naval capabilities.
Are you saying based on that are you
saying that there is no responsibility,
no plan for the US to at least play a
role in whatever government comes? I
mean, we might we'll see how
circumstances play out. But you I'm
telling you what the objectives of this
operation are. The objectives of this
operation are to destroy their ballistic
missile capability and make sure they
can't rebuild it and make sure that they
can't hide behind that to have a nuclear
program. That's the objective of the
mission. That said, abundantly clear, we
would love for there to be an Iran
that's not governed by radical Shia
clerics. As I've said myself repeatedly
for years, uh the leadership of that
country does not reflect the people of
Iran. And I think that's been pretty
apparent in the protests that you've
seen. If there's something we can do to
help them down the road, we'd obviously
be open to it. But that's not the
objective. The objective of this mission
is the destruction of their ballistic
missile
capability.
Change has not gone well for the United
States. What now?
Regime change has not gone well for the
United States for many, many decades.
How do you assure the American public
that things will not get worse for the
next regime that comes in there and
replaces the
Well, we would love to see this regime
be replaced. And ultimately, as the
president has said, he calls No, no, but
let me finish my answer. As the
president has said, he would love for
the people of Iran to take use this as
an opportunity to rise up and remove
these leaders. They've been wanting to
remove them from a long time. We've seen
successive waves of protests and we've
seen them slaughter people. Okay? But
the objective of this mission is to make
sure they don't have these weapons that
can threaten us and our allies in the
region. That's why we're doing what
we're doing now. And while we would love
to see a new regime, the bottom line is
no matter who governs that country a
year from now, they're not going to have
these ballistic missiles and they're not
going to have these drones to threaten
us. That's the objective of this mission
is to deny them the ability to use
ballistic missiles to threaten their
neighbors, to threaten our bases, to
threaten our presence in the region, and
ultimately as a shield behind which they
can do whatever they want with their
nuclear uh weapons ambition. We were not
going to let them hide behind that. And
that's why this was such a critical
mission to undertake now while they were
at their weakest point and not a year
from now where they could inflict even
more damage and perhaps already be
behind that point of immunity.
Right here behind go you and then you.
Yes.
Your critics in Congress have said that
that they should have a role. They
should be able to weigh in here and
there are going to be war powers
resolutions voted in Congress later this
week. Why not notify Congress ahead of
this? And does Congress
Well, we did. We notified Congress. I
mean, we notified the gang of eight. We
notified congressional leadership.
There's no law that requires us to do
that. The law says we have to notify
them 48 hours after beginning
hostilities. We've done that. I think
the notification went today, but we did
notify members of Congress in advance,
but we can't notify 535 members of
Congress
authoriz
vote on whatever they want, but there's
no law that requires us to do that. And
I want to say something to you because I
see people on TV. Look, that's fine. If
they want to take a war powers vote,
they can do that. They've done that.
They've done that a bunch of times. But
there's no people keep saying that we
have there's no law that requires the
president to have done anything with
regards to this. We're the to begin with
no presidential administration has ever
accepted the War Powers Act as
constitutional. Not Republican
presidents, not Democratic presidents.
That said, we have followed the
notification at 48 hours and we're here
today. I've done more Gang of Eight
briefings than I got in the four years
that Biden was president and I was a
member of the gang of eight. All of that
said, we've complied with the law 100%
and we're going to continue to comply
with it. We've done the notification,
you know, and and we officially to
Congress, but we did notify members of
Congress. We just can't notify 535
people. That's not possible. But we did
the gang of eight twice. I briefed them
last week and then I called them the
night before the operation.
Can you tell us what you know, Mr.
Secretary, the administration knows
about the strike on a building in
southern Iran that the Iranians are
saying there's a school reporting large,
including children killed?
Yeah, I've seen those reports. I don't
have I would refer you not because I'm
not trying to answer your question, but
I don't want to get it wrong. The
Department of War would be investigating
that if that was our strike and I would
refer your question to them and I'll
make sure they're aware that you have
that question. But we'd like to know
an American missile.
Well, clearly the United States would
not deliberately target a school. Our
objectives are missiles, both the
ability to manufacture them and the
ability to launch them and the oneway
attract drones. That would be our focus
and that's what we would be focused on.
we would have no interest and frankly no
incentive to to to target civilian
infrastructure. The Iranians are on the
other hand targeting civilian
infrastructure. You guys have seen it.
I'm sure you've seen it. They're hitting
hotels. They're hitting embassies.
They're hitting airports. They're
hitting oil infrastructure.
Children killed your
Well, it' be very tragic, but I can't
speak to the details behind it because
I'm not I just don't have it. It would
be a tragic outcome if it's happened. I
don't have the details as to what led to
it. But what is clear that the United
States would not target deliberately
target a school. They are on the other
hand deliberately targeting civilians as
you've seen because you know why they
are a terroristic regime. They sponsor
terrorism and they participate in
terrorism.
What's your message to Americans who are
concerned about rising energy prices
given the spiking of oil prices today?
Yes. And we we we knew that going in
would be a factor. And so we have a
program in place that will begin to be
implemented by Secretary Wright,
Secretary Bessant. We talked about it
last night again about this program. We
talked this morning and starting
tomorrow, you will see us rolling out
those phases to try to mitigate against
that. Obviously, markets are going to be
reacting to news about what's happening.
And again, a reminder, think about it,
okay? This terroristic regime led by
radical clerics has the ability
potentially to shut off 20% of global
energy. That's the kind of leverage they
have because of their navy. We're going
to destroy their navy. But um but there
is a plan in place. We anticipated this
could be an issue and Secretary Wright
investment will begin to roll out those
steps starting tomorrow to mitigate to
mitigate against the impact that could
have
I got to do this briefing. So I got to
come.
Do you anticipate putting boots on the
ground and how long do you anticipate
the conflict to last?
Well, we don't. Let me say two things
about it. Number one, I'm the president
always has the options to undertake
whatever operations he decides to do as
the commander-in-chief. That said, um
the we believe the objective that we
have set for this mission, which is the
destruction of the ballist ballistic
missile capabilities, both launch
capability and manufacturing, can be
achieved without ground forces. Right
now, we're not postured for ground
forces, but obviously the president has
those options. He's never going to rule
out anything. But right now, our focus
is on the destruction of their ballistic
missile launchers, their ballistic
missile uh stockpiles and their
ballistic missile manufacturing
capability as well as their one-way
attract drones and their navy because of
the threat it poses to global shipping.
How long?
All right, I got I can only do one more
right there. Right there in the middle.
Yes, sir.
Is there a diplomatic exchange going on
right now between us and Iran? Any
exchanges whatsoever outside of
No, not at this time. I mean, look, we
always have people that reach out from
inside of governments. You don't know if
they're authorized to reach out or not.
They're suffering a tremendous amount of
damage. Honestly, again, I'm not going
to give away the details of our tactical
efforts, but the hardest hits are yet to
come from the US military. The next
phase will be even more punishing on
Iran than it is right now. Someone was
screaming, "How long will it take?" I
don't know how long it'll take. We have
objectives. We will do this as long as
it takes to achieve those objectives,
and we will achieve those objectives.
The world will be a safer place when
we're done with this operation. All
right. Thank you guys.
water. Thank you.
Senior administration officials told Republican and Democratic lawmakers at a classified briefing on Capitol Hill that the Israeli plan to strike Iran pushed the United States to take preemptive action to protect U.S. troops stationed at bases throughout the Middle East, whom the Pentagon believed would have been targeted by retaliatory strikes.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who serves as vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee attended the briefing, said the decision to initiate a massive military assault on another country because of pressure from a U.S. ally put the nation in “uncharted” territory.
“This is still a war of choice that has been acknowledged by others that was dictated by Israel’s goals and timeline,” Warner told reporters at the briefing.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine provided the briefing to lawmakers Monday afternoon.
Warner said he supports Israel, but he questioned the decision to put American lives at risk when an imminent threat may be directed at an ally instead of the United States itself.
“Israel is a great ally of America. I stand firmly with Israel. But I believe at the end of the day when we are talking about putting American soldiers in harm’s way and we have American casualties and expectations of more, there needs to be the proof of an imminent threat to American interests. I still don’t think that standard has been met,” he said.
Warner argued if the military operation against Iran “was being driven by imminent security threats from Iran against America, I think we would have had better planning.”
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), speaking to reporters after the briefing, said that President Trump faced a tough call on ordering strikes against Iran when it became clear that Israel would launch military operations, even without U.S. support, which would have put U.S. troops in the region in danger.
“Israel was determined to act in their own defense here, with or without American support. Why? Because Israel faced what they deemed to be an existential threat. Iran was building missiles at a rapid clip to the point where our allies in the region could not keep up,” Johnson said.
“Because Israel was determined to act with or without the U.S., our commander in chief and the administration and the officials [in the Cabinet] had a very difficult decision to make. They had to evaluate the threats to the U.S., to our troops, to our installations, to our assets in the region in beyond,” Johnson said.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5764030-trump-administration-iran-strikes-israel/?