Speaker 1: What we now have is Iran versus Israel. Each time
Speaker 1: one hits the other, the other feels they have to
Speaker 1: do something. That's you know, the typical security spiral, where
Speaker 1: one side does something that it believes it has to
Speaker 1: do the other side can't do nothing. Then that triggers,
Speaker 1: you know, a further one. So up goes the ratchet.
Speaker 1: So far it's been calibrated and calculated, but it could
Speaker 1: get out of hand. That's Freed Zakaria on CNN this morning.
Speaker 1: There was a retaliatory attack by Israel in Iran, actually
Speaker 1: attacked in Iran last night, but Israel hasn't claimed they
Speaker 1: have and Iran hasn't claimed that they were attacked. Only
Speaker 1: our pentagon has said that this happened, and so officially
Speaker 1: it's you know, it's it's interesting. Neither neither the attacker
Speaker 1: or the attack he's willing to admit it happened. How intriguing.
Speaker 1: Let's discuss with CNN military analyst Mike Lions. Mike served
Speaker 1: with various military organizations both the US and Europe throughout
Speaker 1: his career, and I would like to talk about Europe
Speaker 1: in a bit.
Speaker 2: But Mike, greetings, how are you taking one of you guys,
Speaker 2: great to be back.
Speaker 1: First of all, how much damage was done in this
Speaker 1: attack by Israel on Auran.
Speaker 2: Well, we don't know specifically, we haven't seen the battle
Speaker 2: damage assessment enough to you know, create the flak. It
Speaker 2: range decided, you know, obviously to try to shoot it down.
Speaker 2: But the bottom line is it got through and it
Speaker 2: was a military target in the same coincidentally a location
Speaker 2: where Iran converts mine uranium before it figures to that
Speaker 2: third stage where it gets to that enrichment stage, and
Speaker 2: in the FURDO and the files reason in order to
Speaker 2: create nuclear capability like we all saw Oppenheimer, right, So
Speaker 2: that's what definitely goes down. But it's definitely close enough.
Speaker 2: So I think there was two issues here. Number One,
Speaker 2: they took out it was a military target. They took
Speaker 2: out what was an air base and likely created runways,
Speaker 2: and took out F fourteens you know, planes from literally
Speaker 2: fifty years ago, and Isuel could claim that they were
Speaker 2: part of that initial barrage that took place last week
Speaker 2: on Sunday. But the second thing, it's just close enough
Speaker 2: to that nuclear facility, and the message from Israel to
Speaker 2: Iran is we could get any of these facilities we want.
Speaker 2: Your air defense platforms are just not capable. And the
Speaker 2: difference between you firing weapons and US firing weapons that
Speaker 2: you as ours will actually hit the.
Speaker 1: Target well, sensor Ran seems to be really close to
Speaker 1: a bomb at least that's what the reporting was last week.
Speaker 1: Why didn't Israel just go ahead and take out their
Speaker 1: nuclear facilities?
Speaker 2: It would be too difficult. That would be a very
Speaker 2: serious military campaign. I'm not even sure you'd accomplish that.
Speaker 2: You would set it back if you destroyed it, but
Speaker 2: you would. You know, they've diversed this program through multiple
Speaker 2: different areas up and down inside of Iran, and I
Speaker 2: don't think you know, it would be more than one strike.
Speaker 2: It would be an absolute campaign in order to take
Speaker 2: it out. This facility in particular would be important. It's
Speaker 2: kind of the second phase and that nuclear enrichment process,
Speaker 2: and so you know you have to have all three.
Speaker 2: But also, you know, the intellectual capital now is inside
Speaker 2: of Iran to do this. It's not like when he
Speaker 2: ISRAELI stick out Ostrich in eighty one or took up
Speaker 2: the Syrian one in Iusozo six and sometime in thear
Speaker 2: O seven. They you know, those are facilities built by
Speaker 2: someone else, the North Koreans or the Chinese, those countries
Speaker 2: really had no idea what was going on. They kind
Speaker 2: of outsourced it. Iron's got this capability now that they know,
Speaker 2: they've got scientists, they have the intellectual capital. So you're
Speaker 2: not going as ye's out of the bottle. You know,
Speaker 2: they're not going to ever be set back. Whether it's
Speaker 2: now fifty years from now, Eventually they're going to want
Speaker 2: to develop this kind of nuclear nuclear capability for power,
Speaker 2: and then potentially that does lead to you know, a
Speaker 2: potisla nical weapon.
Speaker 1: Well, golly, that's something to look forward to. Back to
Speaker 1: the strike in Farid Zakaria's point there that it's the
Speaker 1: inevitable obligatory counter strike and ratcheting up, it feels pretty
Speaker 1: clearly to me to be a ratcheting down.
Speaker 2: What do you think, Yeah, I think so deterrence is
Speaker 2: based on offensive capability, and that's what we're talking about
Speaker 2: when we say deterrence is becoming restored. You know, when
Speaker 2: the White House tells Israel, you know, take the w
Speaker 2: nothing got through. Defensive posture does not deter anybody in
Speaker 2: the future. It doesn't you know that the next time
Speaker 2: the Iranians can attack with six hundred missiles or one
Speaker 2: thousand missiles or you know, whatever's in their inventory. Who's
Speaker 2: to say that that won't get through. So so from
Speaker 2: from a just a just a definition perspective, you know,
Speaker 2: there's no there was no deterrence, and that's what Israel
Speaker 2: had to do. Number one is re established the deterrence
Speaker 2: and that's an offensive capability. And so that's what they did.
Speaker 2: And by sending the message that the again the Iranian
Speaker 2: air defense platforms, they went after them. The looks that
Speaker 2: they took out a few of those, some radar sites
Speaker 2: as well. I wouldn't be surprised if they took out
Speaker 2: some along the way. They likely, if Iron is smart,
Speaker 2: they've prepositioned radarf forward in places like Syria and these
Speaker 2: other little locations in the Middle East, as they have
Speaker 2: their fingerprints everywhere there. So I think that from from
Speaker 2: Israel's perspective, they had to strike back offensively. They had
Speaker 2: to have a target hit the ground. And oh, by
Speaker 2: the way, you didn't you didn't see any Chinese or
Speaker 2: Russian air of fence platforms going after why because Roan
Speaker 2: doesn't have any those kind of allies. So this is
Speaker 2: where you know, but for the United States, some of
Speaker 2: those missiles make it, make it make it through the
Speaker 2: other night. But this is a case where it's going
Speaker 2: to have allies that the US has arn doesn't have
Speaker 2: any those allies. And should Israel decide now that I
Speaker 2: think de terrence has been restored, Aron now knows that
Speaker 2: if it wants, all it's going to do is readjust
Speaker 2: that next fire mission and instead of hitting that military
Speaker 2: target in that town, they can hit in Istlan, they
Speaker 2: can hit the whole nuclear facility there.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I got to say, I learned something last night
Speaker 1: from your tweet. And it's obvious once it's stated, this
Speaker 1: is probably the sort of thing they teach you at
Speaker 1: West Point. But deterrence is restored by showing your offensive capability,
Speaker 1: not your defensive capability. And yeah, yeah, so saying hey, hey,
Speaker 1: I could stop you doesn't work. You got to hit
Speaker 1: them so hard. Yeah, that's really interesting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, and that's what I think. That's why I
Speaker 2: had to respond, And I thought it might have been
Speaker 2: a little more covert. And who knows what else what's
Speaker 2: going on. There could be cyber attacks going on, There
Speaker 2: could be all kinds of other things that they're doing,
Speaker 2: and people that I've been talking to think that it'll
Speaker 2: go back into more of the shadows now. And you know,
Speaker 2: if you're a scientist, keep your head on a swivel.
Speaker 2: And I think that, or I still not to say
Speaker 2: Israel is not going to attack inside a Syria or
Speaker 2: attack military targets that Iranian hall.
Speaker 1: All right, as I said, as I said earlier, if
Speaker 1: I'm a reigning nuclear scientist, I wouldn't go out for
Speaker 1: a jog at night.
Speaker 2: Yeah, or have a cup of tea. Here, I have
Speaker 2: this cup of tea. It's going to be really good.
Speaker 2: Give us a shot.
Speaker 1: So, Mike, I asked this, not for political reasons, but
Speaker 1: geo political historical reasons. Have you an answer if you'd like,
Speaker 1: as a dad, as a coach, as a military commander, whatever.
Speaker 1: How pathetic is it the whole don't don't when time
Speaker 1: after time they went ahead and did.
Speaker 2: Did Yeah, yeah, it's you're not a sun also that
Speaker 2: serves right now. So it is very concerning that level
Speaker 2: of rhetoric. And I'm not sure who it's two. Is
Speaker 2: it too Alan or is it actually to a political
Speaker 2: body out in Michigan some place that he's trying to
Speaker 2: gather votes for I mean somebody's size right now. Are
Speaker 2: talking internally as opposed to externally. You used to have
Speaker 2: a country where an administration, you know, there would be
Speaker 2: a sign on the wall that says the priority is
Speaker 2: the country, period, full stop. And anytime someone came up
Speaker 2: with some kind of crazy hair green schemes, it wasn't.
Speaker 2: So how did they do with that? Because if it doesn't,
Speaker 2: we're not going to do it well. Saying things like
Speaker 2: don't or things like take the w you're good to go,
Speaker 2: I mean like it. It's not in the best interest
Speaker 2: of our country. It's in the best interest frankly, that
Speaker 2: Israel puts as much military spank on Iran as possible
Speaker 2: and to beat their capability. Look, they get thousands of
Speaker 2: these rockets. They only sent three hundred the other day.
Speaker 2: If the Iranians would like they could, they could fire
Speaker 2: a thousand, and I guarantee some of them would make
Speaker 2: their way through. They're they're dumb. You know what I
Speaker 2: mean by that? Those ballistic missiles are travel in a
Speaker 2: way that they're not you can't really aim them. They've
Speaker 2: got all kinds of things, and that they're like those
Speaker 2: scud missiles from the nineties, they could hit anywhere, and
Speaker 2: so it's kind of hard to hit them down, and
Speaker 2: so that that could still happen. So let this get
Speaker 2: brat get back to speak softly and carry a big stick,
Speaker 2: not to speak, you know, dumbly and carry you know,
Speaker 2: whatever happens. Mother comes next, you.
Speaker 1: Know, amen to that. So you use the term flack earlier,
Speaker 1: which trip the trigger in my head. Have you watched
Speaker 1: Masters of the Area yet the series? Yeah, what do
Speaker 1: you think of it?
Speaker 2: Yeah, terrific. I think that story has not been told,
Speaker 2: you know, each of these different interest groups, you know,
Speaker 2: the Army's story always gets told with you know, obviously
Speaker 2: Banded Brothers and Saving Private Ryan the best the best
Speaker 2: movie I've ever seen that replicates combat frankly, and then
Speaker 2: you set the Pacific that series because each of the
Speaker 2: you know, and the story of the Air Force pilots
Speaker 2: has not really been told there. But it also demonstrated
Speaker 2: what that life was like. I mean, they would go out,
Speaker 2: maybe get shot down, if not, they come back, they
Speaker 2: go up, maybe get shut down, come back, they go up,
Speaker 2: they get shot down and become a pow and you know,
Speaker 2: you know, that's not the same as a tactical situation
Speaker 2: on the ground, but the courage of those crews, I mean,
Speaker 2: deciding when to bail out at five thousand feet or
Speaker 2: ten thousand feet in you know, non static line parachutes,
Speaker 2: and it just it's incredible and the courage that they show.
Speaker 2: So I'm glad that story was finally told for all
Speaker 2: those those in the eighth the Air Force back at
Speaker 2: the time, which is part of the Army, actually the
Speaker 2: Army Air Force Corps back then. Tremendous story, I.
Speaker 1: Think, yeah, well you understand why for the British version
Speaker 1: of that Churchill's quote. Have never had so many owed
Speaker 1: so much to so few, I mean, as a hell
Speaker 1: of a thing to do right right, exactly? A final
Speaker 1: question for me at least, Mike, we're discussing the situation Ukraine,
Speaker 1: Putin the funding the rest of it earlier, and we're
Speaker 1: discussing the likelihood that certain voices are correct, that Putin
Speaker 1: would continue to press forward and at the very least
Speaker 1: grab up just a little chunk of Poland on some
Speaker 1: pretext and just a bit of estonia. You know, Well,
Speaker 1: Hitler in thirty eight style strategy, how concerned about that?
Speaker 1: Do you think that's paranoia or just a pitch to
Speaker 1: get more funding, or do you think that's a realistic possibility.
Speaker 2: Now, a pitch to get more funding. He's not any
Speaker 2: position to take any of these other lands. He can
Speaker 2: barely contain what he's got in Ukraine right now, although
Speaker 2: from a just a grinding out perspective, he continues to
Speaker 2: do that. But if they do take Poland or Estonia,
Speaker 2: those are NATO countries and that trigger's Article five and
Speaker 2: here we go. But I don't think that that that,
Speaker 2: you know, Russia has that capability. You know, you go
Speaker 2: back to the terrence. Part of that sixty billion dollar
Speaker 2: package would be the terrence because if Russia knew that
Speaker 2: the Ukraine's can draw on that kind of thing, that
Speaker 2: would really, you know, potentially stop them and decide that
Speaker 2: they're going to negotiate at that point in time. Well,
Speaker 2: the other thing too, is we're both seeing both of
Speaker 2: these platforms, both of these theaters. Is the importance of
Speaker 2: air defense. I'll tell you right now, find the air
Speaker 2: defense companies, invest in them, because when these flicks are over,
Speaker 2: countries are going to really recognize the importance of protecting
Speaker 2: their airspace. I think we've talked about that before. But
Speaker 2: it's just more or less really come now to be
Speaker 2: as we saw when Israel like violates the Iranian airspace
Speaker 2: last night without without any kind of problem at all.
Speaker 2: You're seeing even in Ukraine. Now, if Ukraine, if we'd
Speaker 2: let the Ukraine take some of these offensive weapons attacking
Speaker 2: the Russia, they would be have they'd have some real
Speaker 2: problems too. I think they're you know the airpens platforms
Speaker 2: that Iran has. Oh by the way, those are sic
Speaker 2: three hundreds, those are Russian, may Chinese made systems. It's
Speaker 2: all the same crap, and it just goes to show
Speaker 2: the superior of the Western technology in the battlefield right now.
Speaker 1: Uh CNN Military analyst Major Mike Lions Mike always enlightening.
Speaker 1: Really enjoyed the chat. Have a great weekend, looking forward
Speaker 1: to talking again.
Speaker 2: Great guys. Had an aspect's looking forward to the weekend
Speaker 2: taking Oh.
Speaker 1: Cool, have fun, go to the sphere. I went to
Speaker 1: the sphere Armstrong ANDETI