← Federalist Radio Hour
Federalist Radio Hour
What’s Next In The War In Iran?
00:41:30
On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Jacob Olidort, the chief research officer and director of American security at the America First Policy Institute, joins Federalist Senior Elections Correspondent Matt Kittle to analyze Operation Epic...
Loading summary
Transcript37 lines
- [00:00]
Safeway/Albertsons Announcer
Safeway and Albertsons have made saving easier than ever with great savings on family favorites this week. 16 ounce sweet strawberries are two for $5 member price. And don't miss the incredible deal on Signature select boneless skinless chicken breast value packs for $2.97 per pound limit. One plus medium avocados or mangoes are five for $5 member price. Fresh and delicious savings for every meal. Hurry in. These deals won't last. Visit safewayoralbertsons.com for more deals and ways to save.
- [00:32]
Cox Internet Advertiser
Quieres mejor Internet Cox Internet the tresintas megas tiene las velocidades rapidas yi confiables que buscas perfecto para streaming e gaming y TRA bajardes de casa todo porso Dolores Almes Congregas Cox Mobile Inculia Quipo de Wifi y guarantia deprecio de dos anos en tu plan nues cambia te hoy a Cox the Quiere Cox Mobile Gig Unlimited.
- [01:18]
Matt Kittle
We are back with another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, senior elections correspondent at the Federalist and your experience sherpa on today's quest for knowledge. As always, you can email the show at radio the federalist.com follow us on x@fdrlst. Make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast and of course to the premium version of our website as well. Our guest today is Jacob Olidor, Chief Research Officer, Director of American Security at the America First Policy Institute. As we talk about the war in Iran and we found out that the world had changed again on Saturday. And now we are days into this joint mission, this joint operation between the U.S. military and the Israeli forces. And the questions, of course are many. And where do we go from here? I think is is a good place to start. Jacob, thank you so much for joining us in this edition of the Federalist Radio Hour.
- [02:27]
Jacob Olidor
It's a pleasure to be with you, Matt, and with your listeners.
- [02:30]
Matt Kittle
You bet. Well, here we are. I like to save this question for the end and we'll get back to that perhaps again. But now we're here. What's next?
- [02:42]
Jacob Olidor
Now we're here indeed. And it's certainly I always start from the position of what we don't know. And it's been in this case revealing insofar as in the lead up to Saturday, the president and his team were very discreet about the overall objective. Of course, the nuclear was part of it. But in that speech on the early hours of Saturday, which I found one of the Most eloquent of his presidency, he laid out for the American people two things. First of all, the distinct American objective here, which his team has since echoed with remarkable consistency. And that is his fulfillment of his Article 2, Section 2 duties as President, as prescribed in the Constitution, to protect the American people against threats against them. And the rest of the remarks outlined the nature of that threat. And I was listening to that. As a congressional staffer, I had the privilege of serving for Senator Orrin Hatch when he was in Senate leadership. And I would have to read the justifications, in fact, from President Trump and other administrations, the justification for strikes. And that is how those are. Are tailored. It's the, the. The kind of what. Listing out what the threats are. And at the very end, of course, he says, look, this will basically set the conditions for you, the Iranian people, to take the country finally into your hands and create your own destiny. That's not the American people's job. That's not America's job. It is for you, Iran. But in completing, in meeting our objectives here, which, by the way, are shared by our partners, not only Israel, but others, you will have that opportunity, but we need to job done. Because the American people, their lives are at stake here. And so that, I think, is where we are. And it's been. The success has been remarkable. I mean, within hours, basically decimating, you know, several layers of military leadership, their capabilities, and the other remarkable piece, and this is something important for context. Yes, it's a US And Israeli operation so far. And, you know, we do have distinct priorities to a degree, but there are other voices wanting to take a bigger part potentially. And I look at the statements from our Arab partners in the region who are, who have a lot of confidence and very vocal about their positions about Iran and the threats that it poses to them. And then over the weekend, you saw that joint statement from the United Kingdom, France and Germany in which they say very specifically they will take defensive actions. Let Europe call it whatever it is, defensive, offensive, but targeting Iranian ballistic missile capabilities, and that's in that statement. So if we do see Europeans taking this action, you know, it's us and our allies really eliminating an existential and immediate threat to all of us.
- [05:44]
Matt Kittle
The messaging has been confusing, though, in the opening days. And I wanted to get your take on this because, you know, the President, as you mentioned, the president laid out some of the objectives that, that, you know, prompted all this. But we heard from different administration officials, kind of different stories about why this was happening. Obviously, there is that existential concern of Iran Getting a hold of a nuclear weapon or being able to, to build that nuclear weapon by the way, with the help of previous U S Administrations, I think we must point that out. We talked about regime change then and then all of these other things kind of surrounding that taking out. And no love loss of course to the supreme leader of Iran who has been the face of the leading nation, nation leading sponsor of terror. But then finally on Monday I think it became clear that this was about the United States, the Pentagon and the president making the decision that Israel was going to do this with or without us. And the, the administration said if you're going to do this then we're going to do be involved because we want to make sure that we can control the outcome. Is that ultimately this is about.
- [07:15]
Jacob Olidor
No, it's not. I think that, look, this regime at the outset and, and to this day uses the phrase, you know, big Satan, little Satan. I mean it's clear who they're referring to. Big Satan being the United States, little Israel. But that doesn't limit their threats as well as I said, I mean it's, it's the regional partners that are. You saw the UAE actually taking more missiles than Israel actually in Iran's volleys. I mean part of that is geographic, I get. But look, at the end of the day you alluded to the point here is that the distinction from prior administrations, this is a president that knows what an adversary looks like and understands the threats to the American people and takes that action. And we don't have to wait for a threat to be imminent, by the way, I mean if it is a threat to the American people, that is his job as commander in chief. Separate from that, there's the question of the state of the regime. And I thought the Vice president did a remarkable job on Fox. I think it was yesterday, yesterday and I think his words were the fate of the regime is incidental to our objectives. So there is, it's very possible, potentially likely that the regime will fall or what we, what we know is the regime will collapse and yet our objective will remain taking out the threats because we know that they are persistent and pervasive in their pursuit of those threats. And even after we took out their nuclear program last summer, an action that we took, again because of the imminence of that threat, their intention did not disappear. And that was the conclusion that the president drew, I believe, based on the way in which they carried out their negotiations, their part of the negotiations in the weeks leading up to this weekend. So the narrative, the justification, the Context is very clear here, and I think the president and his team have articulated it as well.
- [09:14]
Matt Kittle
What is your assessment of the readiness of the. The people of Iran, the. The counter movement against this regime? It is no secret that many in Iran have lived under this oppressive regime, and they. They hate it. It. It's. It's clear. It couldn't be more clear. And it was, you know, a few weeks ago when. When so many thousands came out in the streets and risked their lives, literally risked their lives in protest, and then you had this evil regime mowing down, you know, thousands, tens of thousands of these people. All of that said, one can sympathize and, and, you know, and want to see the removal of this regime by the people of Iran. How ready are they to do that?
- [10:13]
Jacob Olidor
Yeah, it's a good question. There is, on this, I think, obviously, there is more that's unknown than is known. What we do know, of course, is the regime has the weapons, and we know their tactics and record. Now, the president put them on notice that should they take action against their people, they will be met with an even more overwhelming response. But, you know, the future of the country, again, that is ultimately, for the Iranian people, that won't be something for us to be. It'll be obviously a situation that we'll be monitoring. But, you know, what that looks like and how the people take the opportunity and how long it takes, that is still unknown and very much contingent on. On basically their own capacity and who comes up as the leader they determine needs to be the one to lead them through. With that being said, of course, as the regime is collapsing, and I think it's obviously no overstatement, the removal of Khamenei was a historic, a colossal change in the regime's calculus. But then also, several layers below, you still have remnants that are no less vicious and seeking to cause harm and create threats. And our responsibility to protect Americans will. Will. Will be there as well, because those threats will continue. So that's something to monitor as well, and kind of the unpredictability of how. How the regime in its decline or in its weakened state looks to escalate in new ways. But again, all of this, I think, from the, I believe, the strategic objective focus of what we're doing, I think these are all considerations that I'm certain we've been thinking through in obviously embarking on this.
- [12:00]
Matt Kittle
Yeah, I think that that's my. My broader question is, as noted, there are many, many citizens of Iran that are not not only wish for, but are working for regime change at this hour. But there are still many Iranians who hate the United States more than they hate this evil regime. So what does that all mean to the success of these operations?
- [12:29]
Jacob Olidor
Well, I think it's important not to overstate as well and really not to generalize too, about a country as large and diaspora community as diverse and large as well. But I think it's interesting too, just as you look at the streets of places like Los Angeles and other parts of our country not traditionally supporters of the president in arms and parading at celebrating his achievements, celebrating his actions, I think that speaks to a new consensus or maybe an existing consensus that we're only seeing now that on this issue, on the fact that Iran needs a different future and that the president has helped Iranian people have the conditions for them to pursue that on their own terms. That is, I think there's some kind of a consensus there on that issue alone. Now, that being said, there are you've also seen images out of Iran of the size of the funeral for Khamenei I always look at, and the size of that crowd. There are regime supporters and as I mentioned, they are the ones, or at least those in government are the ones with the guns. But all that being said, I think there is also a regional component to this as well, and populations within and without Iran that have a desire to see a different future for that country for their own sakes, because they know that will be, that is a guarantor of peace for them in the region. So again, a lot of unknowns. But I think that as far as the perspective of those who want this regime out, I think they have a wider chorus of support even beyond their borders, which I think will be interesting to watch.
- [14:18]
Watch Dart on Wall Street Advertiser
College underemployment is at crisis levels. Almost half of recent college grads are working in jobs that do not require a college degree. We have not seen numbers like these since when, 2008? Check out the Watch Dart on Wall street podcast on Apple, Spotify, wherever you get your podcasts.
- [14:37]
VRBO Advertiser
At vrbo, we understand that even the best of plans sometimes need a little support. So we plan for the plot twists. Every booking is automatically backed by our VRBO Care guarantee, giving you confidence from the very start. Whenever you need help, it's ready before your stay, through the moments in between and after your trip. Because a great trip starts with peace of mind and maybe a good playlist. But we've got the peace of mind part covered.
- [15:08]
Matt Kittle
What is interesting but not surprising, of course, is the the number of people on the left, the radical left in this country who have suddenly become grievers, grieving for the Ayatollah who has spent the last three plus decades, of course, doing everything that he can to obliterate Israel, to wipe it off the map and whatever he could to at the very least harm Americans in America and elsewhere. But you also see a kind of two different responses on the conservative side. The one of course is full celebration of, of this operation and a lot of optim that Iran will finally be be dealt with. But there are a number of conservatives in this country who voted for President Trump because he promised to do what previous administrations, previous presidents failed to do. And that was to tell America we are done with endless ever wars. We spent of course, a very long time in Afghanistan, spent a very long time nation building in Iran. And the America first principle, of course, is often seen as what it suggests. This America don't we, we don't need to, to meddle elsewhere. What do you think the administration's response to that will be ultimately? And where do you see all of that playing out?
- [16:56]
Jacob Olidor
All right. Speaking purely my personal capacity, I have no visibility obviously, and don't want to speak on behalf of the administration. I think there is to me, well, first of all, I think they've articulated the objective, as I mentioned, about protecting Americans. And I think that to me is highly compelling and really and in fact is the kind of reversal of history that we needed because Obama in particular has endangered Americans by emboldening, empowering the ayatollahs, thinking there are moderates in their midst, thinking that lucrative pallets of cash would moderate them, would make them more, when in fact all they wanted was to just prolong these engagements to harm us. And so that's corrective, number one. But the other thing, you know, as you mentioned, there are different voices and obviously different voices speaking from different assumptions of, you know, what the president may or may not think this or that. But if you look at his rhetoric and his, his focus, first of all, he has said since he went down the golden elevator escalator, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. That has been something he has never wavered from. That was on his campaign trail and this is part of it. But the other thing, to me there is a continuum as well of his position on whether it's trade, whether it's other issues, as he stepped again onto that escalator in 2015, the ways in which the American people have been taken advantage of by other countries and have been under threat because of that, it's the same Narrative that we fundamentally, the Washington consensus has betrayed Back row America, working America, the American families, they've paid the price because of, and part of that too, because of these forever wars, these expansive projects which, you know, in their military operation, I want to clarify, were effective and important in eliminating terrorists. We can't deny that. But in their other trappings of nation building and in civil society type thing, you know, different types of projects like that were completely expansive and beyond the focus and then a waste, of course, of taxpayer dollars and failures. So what he's trying to do here is bring the focus back to the American people, focus on and in this case, the most pervasive global threat, the source of it all is from this regime. That's point number one. Point number two is the operational part that the objective here is. And we're seeing the evidence of its successes in, in, as the President would say, you know, faster than the intended schedule time, you know, ahead of schedule, meeting that objective operationally in a very targeted, precise way alongside partners. So it's not just our burden and I believe, I think will see if the rhetoric from our partners translates into actions. We will see others come in and really ensure this is comprehensively dealt with.
- [20:04]
Matt Kittle
Yeah, the coalition building is extremely important as we have seen time after time after time, particularly in engagements in the Middle East. I want to get back to that in just a moment, but you know, there are a lot of Americans who are asking today, okay, well, wait a minute. I thought we took out Iran's nuclear capacity, the capacity to, to build intermediate long range nuclear warheads or short range for that matter. And so, so why are we, why are we back there? Didn't we handle that last, last summer? What is the answer to that and what is the status of their, their capacity?
- [20:52]
Jacob Olidor
Yeah, well, the answer is exactly what the President said right after Operation Midnight Hammer. If we see evidence again that Iran is trying to do this, we will respond again militarily. He said that right after the successful operation. And in fact, as I mentioned, the intention, not only on the nuclear program, but in building out other types of measures, other new tactics to get around it, have only have expanded, but out of necessity on, on the Iranian regime's part. But Secretary Rubio mentioned, I think it was yesterday, this drone shield that Iranian, the regime is thinking of. I mean, that's a whole new use of the drone warfare to kind of insulate them and give them that flexibility. So to think that this is an adversary that's just going to wait around and just take the punch and not try to fight back. I think nobody was under any illusions about that. We dealt a substantial, substantial blow to their, their nuclear, eliminating its threats for the foreseeable future, if you include as well the researchers that were taken out and the various facilities, of course, the three big ones. But, yeah, this is still they are, they want to kill Americans and they want to do harm. And so that remains their intention. And this is the response to that or the preemption of that. I should say. We're not going to wait around.
- [22:19]
Matt Kittle
Our guest today is Jacob Olador, chief research officer and director of American Security at the America First Policy Institute, talking about what's next in the war in Iran. We talked about coalition building. Obviously, that was extremely important in the Persian Gulf War. It became extremely important again in what a lot of, a lot of conservatives and others believe was a fool's errand in, in Iraq with the weapons of mass destruction claims and all of those sorts of things. But we understand, you know, what was happening at the time. But you are seeing, at least for now, Iran isolated because it has, let's put it in simple parlance, that nation has ticked off its neighbors for a long time. And, and the neighbors have had to deal with the threats, not only of Iran and getting a nuclear weapon and what that would, but they've had to deal with the unleashing of terrorist groups like Hezbollah, the funding of those terrorist groups, the Houthis and the, and, and Hamas, of course, in Gaza. It's, it's an unstable region of the world. It has been for a very long time. Iran made it that much more unstable. Where do you think the coalition building will go, given the history here?
- [23:50]
Jacob Olidor
Right. It's great to be back with you. You know, the, so much of the foundation of the coalition was established by President Trump in his first term. Obviously, the Abraham Accords created a new opportunity for our regional partners to work together. And then Israel, President Trump made the decision to bring Israel out of the European command military structure into the Middle east central command structure, which enabled a lot of those incredible historic military cooperation you saw between Israel and its partners over the last couple of years. And I think the coalition has and in large part because of how the problem metastasized under the Biden watch or Biden negligence, I should say the Biden Iran policy I see as much worse than the already completely disastrous Obama policy in that they were waiting around basically for 2015 to come back. And obviously that wasn't going to happen. They had no plan, no backup. So obviously the problem grew Much worse. And the Europeans were also in the crosshairs during Putin's decision to invade Ukraine, in which Iran provided missiles and drones too. So that allowed Europe to actually take a bold stand, which obviously Europe is not known to do. But they've issued sanctions and then a series of sanctions against Iran for its support of Russia. And then just now recently even the EU took the step, unthinkable I think, to list the IRGC as a terror organization. And so they have actually I've made this observation that we don't agree on too much with our European friends, but there's one issue that's undoubtedly a consensus and that is on the need to address the threats from Iran. And so I'm curious to see if and how that develops. But certainly I think for Iran's part, they always relied on Europe to be able to do business there, to have operate there freely. I think you're seeing especially from some of the heads of government there an awareness of a different landscape and a different need. And so I'm waiting, you know, that'll be an interesting to watch. But so I think the coalition is forming. I think the, and you've seen as well from some of our now they, the public statements of caution that we've seen in previous weeks, especially from Saudi Arabia, that is a public message because they are, as we're seeing now, in the crosshairs. They're in the neighborhood. But we also saw that Washington Post piece that the crown Prince was encouraging quietly the president to act and the defense minister in Washington saying that we do need to act on the ultimatum we set. It's important for peace. And so the consensus is there. The record of working together to defend against Iranian threats is also there on which they're building. And so I think those are all positive signs for me in terms of where a potential new coalition can take shape and take ownership over the next phase of hopefully seeing their neighborhood reach a more stable condition.
- [27:16]
Ryan Reynolds
Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop with Mint. You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments. But that's weird. Okay, one judgment anyway. Give it a try. @mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for
- [27:39]
Jacob Olidor
3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month Required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra.
- [27:44]
Matt Kittle
See full terms@mintmobile.com clearly this is a very complicated region. And there are all kinds of politics, geopolitics, sect politics playing out. You know, you have, you have, it's, it's more than that, but you have two major fundamental versions of, of Islam or, you know, the, the political power surrounding Islam.
- [28:08]
Jacob Olidor
Right.
- [28:09]
Matt Kittle
And so Saudi Arabia is, is not Iran in that capacity, just as Iraq was not Iran, because you have the two. But will you ultimately see the Islamic Brotherhood, if you will get together in. And this is what Iran is hoping for, a common enemy, the United States and of course Israel.
- [28:37]
Jacob Olidor
No, it's a good question. I think the opposite is true. And I'll tell you why I think that. I think we don't appreciate enough that it's not only the Muslim communities in the Middle east, but even the Shia communities in the Middle east that are some of the victims of this regime's terror. Not all. I mean, but, but first of all, you know, this regime, which came to power with a hybrid, it's really a hybrid of Islamic and Marxist ideology. So you have the vanguard that's very much Marxist thinking, and one of many of their ideologues came from that school in the 60s and 50s. So you have to think these are communities that not only are target physically now because they live in these countries that are under attack from regime missiles, but also their religion, you know, is being packaged in this way to basically be the biggest force of destruction in the world. And so even from a, I would think just individualistic perspective, the, this is an issue as well. So I, I think that'll be interesting. That'll, I think, account for some of what we'll see on the ground in the Middle east as far, you know, if, if the regime, out of desperation, tries to reach out to, as it's been doing a little bit, some of the militias in Iraq, you know, if they respond, you've seen many of its proxies not actually take action. That's because, for example, Hezbollah only recently, they, they did start a little bit, but their calculus is what does the population think? And, and frankly, the population is not on board. And so the prime minister of Lebanon is going out and saying, we should not be attacking Israel. This is not in our interest, precisely because that's not what the Lebanese street wants. This is an important context for, for again explaining the success, the likely success of the continued efforts that we're taking
- [30:31]
Matt Kittle
this president has been clear and this administration has been clear from the beginning, and it's been clear throughout. It was clear throughout the first term. It's clear in Trump 2.0. They don't take any options off the table. And that's a good thing. That's, that's a position of strength. That's a position of strength that we certainly did not have in the Biden or Obama years where red lines were crossed all the time, of course. But all of that said, he has not ruled out boots on the ground. That has long been a major concern for Americans, American families, of course, with, you know, with military members, not that they, you know, they don't believe in, in the, the work, the commitment, the job that these brave members of the military have. But all of that said, how likely is it that we will have to see ground forces in Iran?
- [31:34]
Jacob Olidor
Yeah, well, what the president, his team have said is they don't want to weigh in either way on that issue. And again, we have to remember when they're speaking now, especially now on this issue, anything they say publicly will also be heard by the adversary. And so they don't want to provide any additional support to them say, all right, well America's, this is kind of the extent of it. We can, we can pucker through and, and figure this out. That being said, I, you know, I obviously see this, this is something that most likely I'm not on the inside anymore and wasn't really this. But I would think that this type of an scale which the President said is unlike anything we've seen before with consequence for our benefit, unlike anything we've seen before around the world. I would imagine this was in the works and planning for a lot of time. And so I think that speaks to the success of the operation of which we've only seen again, we're only at the end of day four local time there already with historic success. So again, not, not weighing in either way. But I think it's, it's kind of a moment where having accomplished so much already, let's sort of see what, how it plays out and, but yeah, I think that's kind of where they're at on it. But you know, and so obviously we've had, we should have started, you know, we have had already American casualties and which the President mentioned in his opening remarks on Saturday morning and that as the President said, a reality of any military engagement in war, especially of this magnitude. But I think it's important for us to remember this is not us alone, that this is something that truly is shared by I think the world, the peace loving people around the world. And we see it again in the statements from our partners and allies, but certainly in the region and so where we do have not only support, but cooperation. And so that, I think, is an important piece of context for both for how this is being conducted.
- [33:49]
Matt Kittle
How likely is it that this war, this military operation, expands further into the region? We are seeing explosions, hearing explosions, and seeing them in Lebanon and elsewhere. How far does this, this campaign go, do you think?
- [34:15]
Jacob Olidor
Yeah, I think at a certain point, it becomes a little bit of a semantics piece of, you know, using the word war. What we really haven't seen, the Iranian response has been pretty much like it's done in the past. I mean, they really don't. Are not able to really mount a sufficient response. But that's exactly been the approach. We are preempting and preventing a bigger escalation. And that's been obviously Israel's approach. You know, it's very possible, had they not done that with Lebanon years ago, over the last few years, they would have actually had, you know, the scenario that everybody feared of the hundreds of thousands of Hezbollah missiles fired into Israel that never materialized because Israel took out the launchers, the commanders, and so forth. Now, that being said, Israel has its specific objectives in the region, and part of that will be decisively eradicating Hezbollah presence, not just the threat from Lebanon. I mean, the last few years has been dismantling the threat, which has included, again, incredible accomplishments through their covert actions of taking out Nasrallah and all the leadership. I think, and what I've been reading in the press as well, is that Israel is looking at something substantial in Lebanon, which again will accrue benefit, the result of which this is the war that Israel had planned, not the Gaza war, which Israeli parlances sometimes call the war of mass distraction, because the real threat, the strategic threat to Israel's existence was in the north. But that again will accrue benefit as far as addressing the President's objectives of giving over to our partners their region. Because once the threat from Lebanon, from Hezbollah is eradicated in Lebanon, then there is opportunity for progress in that part of the world and for Israel and its neighbors, who, by the way, agree with the actions Israel is taking, by the way, are those that Lebanese people want, as you see, a lot of the, what the Arab street really wants to see, they all want to see Iran's influence taken away, eradicated. And so, but again, that. That is Israel's war, just as the Gaza war was Israel's war. And, and again, those are wars. Those are wars of necessity because of Israel's survival. Because if it doesn't, that's again, narrowly its calculus which ennats its prerogative to, to take in defense of its own citizens. The American objective here, going back to the original point, is looking at the immediate threats to the American people, which again, are pervasive as we look at what Iran has been building towards and discussing publicly. So will that be considered a wider war? Will that just be Israel's military operation to eradicate the threat from Hezbollah, which will, by the way, accelerate the effectiveness of our objectives? That remains to be seen. But again, I think the state of Iran's military political leadership is in such an unprecedented state of disarray. And I say that especially with the ouster of Khamenei, that I really, you know, I, we don't know exactly what their calculus is, but, you know, it's, it's, you know, given how much, how effective things have been, you know, I, I think the objective is in sight is what it looks like.
- [38:05]
Matt Kittle
Speaking of the language and the semantics, we have a lot of folks in Congress who seemingly haven't read the Constitution or.
- [38:14]
Jacob Olidor
That's right.
- [38:15]
Matt Kittle
Learned much about, you know, military actions and what the executive branch can do and, and cannot do. And so you're hearing this talk that this is an illegal operation, that the president did not have the authority to do this and he needs Congress's approval. That, that obviously is not the case. Why, why, other than for naked politics, is is this the, the response from, from many members of the Democrat side.
- [38:51]
Jacob Olidor
It's completely reckless and especially right now among Democrats, to be gratuitous to be going there. Look, I, I served for Senate leadership and I, I was there, I, I read the justification, as you know, we were given the, by President Trump of his actions. And so he is using the same method. In fact, here, you know, he, he immediately gave notice to the American people, to Congress in Those remarks at 2:30 in the morning on Saturday. That is sufficient to meet whatever that goes beyond, in fact, what he's required to do by the Constitution, which authorizes him, again, if you read the plain language, to take actions that he deems necessary. It's his decision alone as commander in chief to protect the American people. That's exclusively the objective here. And look, I think there are, you know, this will be, you'll see all types of, you know, broadsides that are, again, the time right now is to put politics aside and for everyone get together behind the president in unity to support this important, this important action on behalf of the American people.
- [40:00]
Matt Kittle
Final question for you, and you've been very generous with your Time. But this isn't just about Iran. We talk about the 4D chess of this administration. There are other things in play, I think, about our other significant adversaries, Russia and China. What kind of message and, and what is the strategy relating to Russia, China and other adversaries in this particular conflict right now?
- [40:39]
Jacob Olidor
I think it'll be interesting to watch how they, obviously they're the only ones who have been criticizing the, the operation. I think that we will see. So it has direct impact on both in terms of deterring them. But I suspect that we will see a, a very quick downstream effect on Russia especially. I mean, that Putin's war has already not been going in his direction in his favor. He's hemorrhaging men. The numbers in, I think in last month alone was the total number that we had lost in, in the Korean War just in one month. And he is not, and with no gains really to show. And I, and I think militarily speaking, I've heard that, you know, after the winter, which is, you know, sooner in spring, the Ukrainians will have the advantage militarily. But if you think about his dependence on Iran for ballistic missiles, drones, other types of equipment, you know, that supply line is now being cut off by our efforts just de facto. So I, I think it's very real that we will see an end to the Ukraine war, you know, in short order. I mean, I don't want to, you know, be flippant or overstate, but I think that'll be the first domino default. And then as for China, you know, they take their consumer of Iranian oil. They, you know, for them, Iran represents a major foothold in the region. They provide missile parts and missiles to Iran. That, that is, is disappearing as well. So their opportunity to, to, to undermine our interests, you know, within other parts of the world is being lost. So, and certainly vis a vis anything else they want to do. So I think this is having global effect already, and I think that the benefits of that will accrue only towards us and our interests. So another reason why this is important.
- [42:41]
Matt Kittle
Time will tell, obviously, with all of these things, but as we watch all of this play out, Americans will pray. I will pray, but I will pray for America first. Thanks to my guest today, Jacob Oledor, chief research officer and Director of American Security at the America First Policy Institute. You've been listening to another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, senior elections correspondent at the Federalist. We'll be back soon with more. Until then, stay lovers of freedom and anxious for the fray.