Speaker 1: What is your message to Hesboala and its backer Iran?
Speaker 2: Don't don't don't don't.
Speaker 3: And what's the message to Iran?
Speaker 1: Don't?
Speaker 2: As President Biden said, just don't.
Speaker 4: Exactly one word, pretty straightforward. It was very important to
Speaker 4: send a very clear message to anyone who might seek
Speaker 4: to take advantage of the conflict in gas but to
Speaker 4: threaten our personnel here anywhere else in the region, don't
Speaker 4: do it.
Speaker 5: I've already delivered.
Speaker 2: The message to marand they know not to do anything.
Speaker 5: I've already delivered the message who Iran, they know not
Speaker 5: to do anything. That's from about a week or two ago.
Speaker 5: Apparently all those don'ts did not work.
Speaker 3: The chaos in the Middle East shows signs of growing
Speaker 3: into even greater chaos. To discuss that in the recent
Speaker 3: events were joined by Josh Rogan, Global Opinions calumnists with
Speaker 3: The Washington Post, author of Chaos under Heaven Trumps she
Speaker 3: The Battle for the twenty first Century. Josh, welcome, How
Speaker 3: are you.
Speaker 2: Great? I mean, the world is terrible shape, but it
Speaker 2: personal I'm just doing okay.
Speaker 5: Thing that's good to hear. When the horrible news broke
Speaker 5: on Sunday, what you called a brazen escalation. Even though
Speaker 5: it was the one hundred and sixtieth attack we've had
Speaker 5: on us since October seventh, this one ended in the
Speaker 5: death of three soldiers and bad injuries for dozens of others.
Speaker 5: And I started reading your twitter feed. I see your
Speaker 5: Washington Post column today about Iran's proxy forces are teaming
Speaker 5: up to attack Americans. So why did we I've been
Speaker 5: reading your Twitter feed, So I want you to explain
Speaker 5: this to our listeners. Why were we where we were
Speaker 5: there in Jordan? What were we doing? Who attacked us?
Speaker 5: Who was it that attacked us? Before we get to
Speaker 5: some solutions right now.
Speaker 1: I think it's a.
Speaker 2: Perfect place to start, because I think most Americans when
Speaker 2: they heard that three US troops were in northeast Jordan,
Speaker 2: their first reaction was like, what are three US troops
Speaker 2: doing in.
Speaker 1: Northeast right exactly?
Speaker 2: But you know, it's it's actually really important that they
Speaker 2: be there. They're fighting isis they're stopping Iranian proliferation, and
Speaker 2: they're protecting the civilians there from all sorts of manner
Speaker 2: of horrendousness. Now, it's not a combat role, you know,
Speaker 2: they shouldn't be really in any danger.
Speaker 1: But the reason that they are.
Speaker 2: One big reason that they are is because the Iranian
Speaker 2: government and its procties have been ramping up the harassment
Speaker 2: of US forces all over the region without a proper
Speaker 2: response from the United States. And I think that's what
Speaker 2: this incident shows us. And that doesn't mean we need
Speaker 2: to go to war with Iran right away, doesn't mean
Speaker 2: that we even need to overreact. It just means that
Speaker 2: it's very clear now that after one hundred and fifty attacks,
Speaker 2: whatever we thought we were, whatever the US government thought
Speaker 2: it was doing the turn of those attacks ain't working okay,
Speaker 2: because the attacks are getting worse, not better, and the
Speaker 2: attackers getting more brazen. So yeah, I mean, you could
Speaker 2: have a discussion of should we just take all of
Speaker 2: the US troops out of the release and get rid
Speaker 2: of them and bring them back or whatever. That's that's
Speaker 2: not an unfair discussion to have, But there's there now.
Speaker 2: They're in harms way right now, They're getting attacked right now,
Speaker 2: and you know, it seems pretty clear that we're gonna
Speaker 2: need a to do something different in order to uh,
Speaker 2: you know, stop this what is escalation?
Speaker 5: If it got worse, you could only imagine, well, who
Speaker 5: are the attackers you explain how there's several different militia
Speaker 5: groups that the cud's forces brought together with the one
Speaker 5: goal of attacking Americans.
Speaker 2: Right, So you have to understand that this like you know,
Speaker 2: patch of desert in between where Jordan and Iraq and
Speaker 2: Syria meat, there exists a rich tapestry of militant extremist groups. Okay,
Speaker 2: some are Stunnis, some are Shia, some are Syrians, some
Speaker 2: are Russians, are cheched Hints, some are wow, you name it.
Speaker 2: So there's there's just dozens of you know, gangsters with guns,
Speaker 2: sponsored by all sorts of foreign governments. Now what we
Speaker 2: have there is we have a base called TOMP which
Speaker 2: is again fighting terrorism and stopping Irunian in proliferation. We
Speaker 2: have another base called Power twenty two. That's the one
Speaker 2: where the troops got killed, but both of them have
Speaker 2: been attacked. And then there's a refugee camp full of
Speaker 2: Searings that we protected to have a partner. So essentially
Speaker 2: what's going on is that you know, all of these
Speaker 2: groups were being held at day by the presence of
Speaker 2: the US forces.
Speaker 1: You really don't want to attack the US or it
Speaker 1: doesn't a matter if it's only two hundred US troops.
Speaker 2: That's like two thousand or twenty thousand troops from any
Speaker 2: other countries. We have got the best soldiers in the world,
Speaker 2: they've got the best equipment in the world. But for
Speaker 2: some reason, and all of a sudden, these Iranian groups
Speaker 2: are getting really, really aggressive. And of course if you
Speaker 2: ask them, they'll say, well, that's because we want to
Speaker 2: push the United States to pressure Israel to.
Speaker 1: Stop the fighting in Gaza.
Speaker 2: But if you ask the US troops on the ground,
Speaker 2: they'll say it's because they don't have.
Speaker 1: Permission to really go after them the way that they
Speaker 1: want to.
Speaker 2: And again, I'm not saying we need to attack Iran.
Speaker 2: I'm not even saying we need to go attack inside
Speaker 2: it Bran. But these are bad guys who are killing Americans,
Speaker 2: not to mention Syrians and Iraqis and anyone else who
Speaker 2: gets in their way. They are funded by Iran.
Speaker 1: I think they've.
Speaker 2: Earned a more forceful response to the United States, and
Speaker 2: I think that's what we're gonna see.
Speaker 1: We just don't have seen. Again, we just don't know
Speaker 1: exactly what it's going to be.
Speaker 3: I think it's pretty much self evident that our choices
Speaker 3: are either a as you suggest, to get everybody out
Speaker 3: of there, or b defend them forcibly with such overwhelming
Speaker 3: and terrifying force that nobody dares attack them. And it's
Speaker 3: not like this is some sort of new military doctrine
Speaker 3: I've cooked up in the last forty eight hours. I mean,
Speaker 3: it's ancient wisdom, and I think, you know, barring some
Speaker 3: sort of accidental unleashing of the you know, a world war,
Speaker 3: there's no reason to question the ancient wisdom? Am I?
Speaker 3: Am I being a belligerent talk show host there, Josh.
Speaker 2: No, I mean again, I guess it's easy for us
Speaker 2: to say right now, but yes, you want to kill
Speaker 2: the people who are trying to kill you, and if
Speaker 2: these people are determined to try to kill you, probably want.
Speaker 1: To kill them first.
Speaker 2: Again, there's the debate is whether or not we should
Speaker 2: then kill the people who are paying I think that's
Speaker 2: a fair debate to how I think we attack inside
Speaker 2: of Iran. That's a pretty risky thing to do. Start
Speaker 2: killing Iranians leaders inside of run. Yeah, that could get
Speaker 2: out of hand real fast. I'm not saying that we
Speaker 2: should be cautious about that. But the people in Syria
Speaker 2: and Iraq who are sponsored by Iran who are trying
Speaker 2: to kill Americans. I think, yeah, we should probably kill
Speaker 2: them first.
Speaker 1: It really couldn't be much more simple than that.
Speaker 3: Hey tell me if I'm overrating this, because I don't
Speaker 3: want to be guilty of grossly oversimplifying anything. But when
Speaker 3: the Trump administration took out Solamani, which was unquestionably an
Speaker 3: extremely provocative thing to do, the Iranian response was essentially,
Speaker 3: I'm I'm this is my words. They said, oh my god,
Speaker 3: these guys are serious. We're going to show our righteous
Speaker 3: anger by shooting a few missiles over there, and that
Speaker 3: we've struck back, but we need this to recede. We
Speaker 3: don't want it to escalate. They showed their true colors.
Speaker 2: Then, all right, Well, I think a couple of things.
Speaker 2: So one is that they killed two Americans in March
Speaker 2: twenty twenty under Trump Trump's watch at a base in Iraq,
Speaker 2: and one British guy. So when Trump goes on truth
Speaker 2: to social says this would never have happened under my presidency,
Speaker 2: he's not really true, because it did happen under his presidency.
Speaker 2: So they did kill too Americans.
Speaker 1: That's that, we can't forget that.
Speaker 2: But what was interesting is that after that Mike Pompeo,
Speaker 2: John Bolton he not a gale. Michael pay and John
Speaker 2: both went to Trump and they said we got to
Speaker 2: attack Iran, and Trump said no. Trump actually went against
Speaker 2: his national security team and did an attack around He
Speaker 2: showed restraint. You know, every one sinks Trump is going
Speaker 2: to get us into some sort of war with Iran.
Speaker 2: Actually he pulled us back now right or wrong. That
Speaker 2: showed that actually there is a chance to avoid the
Speaker 2: bigger war that neither side. Once there's no way Iran,
Speaker 2: what's the war with the United States, they would definitely lose.
Speaker 1: We would definitely win.
Speaker 2: But you know, there is a need to show the
Speaker 2: Iranians that we're just not going to take take it
Speaker 2: lying down when they kill about when they kill three
Speaker 2: Americans and injured three dozen more So in that window
Speaker 2: is a response that's different from what we're doing now.
Speaker 2: But I think the Trump example shows that, you know,
Speaker 2: it doesn't matter which party is in power, there are
Speaker 2: smart things to do and they are dumb things to do.
Speaker 2: And you know, letting these attacks just continue to continue
Speaker 2: without any response is very dumb. And uh, I think
Speaker 2: that that shouldn't be political. That should just be again
Speaker 2: sort of basic common sense.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I didn't. I didn't mean to make this about
Speaker 3: Trump or not Trump or anything. It was more about
Speaker 3: the Iranian tendencies and the fact that they're not going
Speaker 3: to respond with some sort of all right, world War
Speaker 3: three is on, uh, and we're going to nuke you know, Hartford,
Speaker 3: Connecticut or something like that. They backed down right.
Speaker 2: Right, because in the end, they're going to push us
Speaker 2: until we until we show them that we can't be
Speaker 2: pushed around. But they there's nobody in Iran, there's nobody
Speaker 2: in the world who thinks that Iran's going to win
Speaker 2: a war with the United States. So again, if we
Speaker 2: show strength, then that produces a positive result. If we
Speaker 2: show weakness, that emboldens our enemies to push further. And
Speaker 2: this is the same game that all.
Speaker 1: Of our enemies play, whether it's.
Speaker 2: ISIS or the Russians or the North Koreans. The more
Speaker 2: ground we see, the more that they'll test us.
Speaker 1: And when they do test us, if we don't respond,
Speaker 1: then the tests will get more and more dangerous.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I think basically your core assumption is right,
Speaker 2: is that Iran is not going to start a war
Speaker 2: with the United States.
Speaker 1: Because they would.
Speaker 2: Definitely lose, that would be the end of their regime.
Speaker 1: And they're not suicidal. They're evil, they're just not suicidal.
Speaker 5: So I can't get over your description of that area
Speaker 5: of the world. Holy crap, with all those different kinds
Speaker 5: of groups bumping around. Sounds like the wild West or
Speaker 5: something you'd see on the Mandalorian with all these armed
Speaker 5: people with all kinds of divergent needs and goals and
Speaker 5: that sort of thing. But I had a brother who
Speaker 5: was in the Middle East all the time, all kinds
Speaker 5: of different places and non combat rolls often, and uh,
Speaker 5: you and could have been in this situation. Absolutely, if
Speaker 5: we're gonna have people on all these different places, they
Speaker 5: got to be able to sleep at night. No one,
Speaker 5: they're not gonna be It's unlikely they're going to be
Speaker 5: attacked and killed. We've got to deter all these different groups,
Speaker 5: whatever their motives are. They've got to believe that that's
Speaker 5: a bad idea. Do you think that's possible?
Speaker 3: It is.
Speaker 2: And you know I'm not just you know, barking for
Speaker 2: the sake of barking.
Speaker 1: You know, I talked to the troops on the ground,
Speaker 1: the commanders on the ground. They're in the.
Speaker 2: Best position to know how to keep themselves thick. What
Speaker 2: they say, if they need more authority to do more
Speaker 2: things to keep themselves sick and to go after the
Speaker 2: people who are trying to kill them, that's what they say.
Speaker 2: But you know, in the Bid administration, everything is run
Speaker 2: out of the White House. If they want to strike
Speaker 2: a warehouse in the middle of Syria, they've got to
Speaker 2: get the House stamp of approval, and that that's ridiculous.
Speaker 2: You know, they have to be proactive, they have to
Speaker 2: be able to do whatever they have to do to
Speaker 2: make sure that they can't sleep at night not worrying
Speaker 2: is that if they're going to get bombed by some
Speaker 2: sort of like crazy Irani and militia. So I think
Speaker 2: we just need to trust these troops for and what
Speaker 2: we also have to give them credit. You know, there's
Speaker 2: a lot of people in this country who are like, oh, well,
Speaker 2: you know, these troops are not doing any good over there. No,
Speaker 2: they're doing a lot of good.
Speaker 1: They're doing the.
Speaker 2: Things that we want our military to do. They're helping people,
Speaker 2: they're protecting us from terrorism, they're supporting our enemies plans
Speaker 2: to control the region. And it is like you said,
Speaker 2: it's a non combat role. They really shouldn't.
Speaker 1: Be be getting attacked.
Speaker 2: And it's only because we've forgotten how important it is
Speaker 2: to protect those troops and give them the authority to
Speaker 2: protect themselves that we're in this situation in the first place.
Speaker 3: Josh, I know, asking people to get into the prediction
Speaker 3: game is always you know, fraught and a little jiv.
Speaker 3: But if you were to dabble, what do you expect
Speaker 3: to see in the next several days.
Speaker 2: Well, so let me first start with the next several months,
Speaker 2: because I think that the war in Gaza and the
Speaker 2: regional attentions and the gradual simmering escalation is going to
Speaker 2: go on for the bulk of this year. And I
Speaker 2: think that's partially because of our strategy, is also partially
Speaker 2: because our enemies get a vote, and as we get
Speaker 2: closer and closer to the election, it's to the incentive
Speaker 2: of all of our enemies to make things a lot
Speaker 2: more difficult for us. So that's a sort of a
Speaker 2: mid to long term prediction that's not that good. Over
Speaker 2: the next two days, I fingers crossed, we're gonna hopefully
Speaker 2: kill a lot of terrorists who are trying to kill
Speaker 2: American troops. I wish we'd get that decision pretty soon.
Speaker 2: I don't know what they're waiting for. The plans must
Speaker 2: have been there already.
Speaker 5: That's what I was saying yesterday. You can't tell me
Speaker 5: you need to draw plans. You didn't have any plans
Speaker 5: during the previous several months when we're getting attacked every day.
Speaker 2: I never met a military commander deployed them released who
Speaker 2: didn't have a plan to kill the people who are
Speaker 2: trying to kill them ready to go right at the
Speaker 2: moment that, you know, again, empower the people who are
Speaker 2: protect us and to protect themselves, and that's got to
Speaker 2: be the guiding force here. I just don't think we
Speaker 2: see that, you know, I just I just don't think
Speaker 2: this administration. Again. You could kind of understand they don't
Speaker 2: want to pour fuel on an already raging fire. But
Speaker 2: how's that working out? You know, it's been four months
Speaker 2: and it's only getting worse and worse. And their strategy,
Speaker 2: to be honest, I think what the strategy was was, oh,
Speaker 2: we'll get the Israelis to end the warren Doza, and
Speaker 2: that'll you know, allow the Iranians and the harassment.
Speaker 1: Of US troops and places like Jordan.
Speaker 2: But that's not happening either, Okay, So like it or not,
Speaker 2: this thing's gonna get worse before it gets better.
Speaker 1: So we might as well be on the right side
Speaker 1: of that.
Speaker 3: Josh Rogan Global Opinion's Calmness for The Washington Post, Josh
Speaker 3: saw was great. You're the best.
Speaker 2: Thanks anytime.