Former Defense Secretary: Iran Is “On Its Knees” After U.S. Strikes

Straight shooter with Stephen A. Welcome to hour number two of Straight Shooter with yours truly, Stephen A. Coming at you as I love to do every Wednesday night from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time over the airwaves of SiriusXM PUS radio channel 124. number to call up as always is 86696 pus. That's 86696 pus. It is my honor and privilege to have my next guest with us right now. He served as the 27th United States Secretary of Defense from 2019 to 2020 and as Secretary of the Army from 2017 to 2019 under President Donald Trump in his first term. He also served in the administration of President George W. Bush as deputy assistant secretary of defense for negotiations policy. Please welcome for the first time to straight shooter with Stephen A, Dr. Mark T. Esper. Mark, uh, Dr. Esper, how are you, sir? How's everything going? Good to see you. >> I'm I'm doing well, Stephen. Great to be with you uh tonight and with your audience. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you so much. Really honored to have you. Let's get right to it. What was your reaction to the US and Israel's bombing of Iran when you first learned of it, sir? >> Look, I think it's the right thing to do. I, you know, I grew up uh uh with Iran since the revolution in 1979. It's been 47 years that they've been killing Americans, threatening the region, uh causing mayhem from uh from Lebanon, through Gaza, you know, the Arabian Peninsula, you name it. And these are bad guys. And uh and as I said, they've been killing American service members, hundreds uh over the years. So, I think there was a strategic opportunity in time to take this regime down, or at least to degrade it significantly. and they've proved that they were unwilling to give up their ambitions to pursue nuclear um en enrichment leading to weapons. So look, I think it's the right call. Educate us please, sir. Because what where people like myself, noviceses like myself and others are absolutely positively lost and we defer to people like you is when we watch the president go on national television and tell us months ago they've been completely obliterated. We've disarmed them. They're not a threat any longer. we were not going to allow them to have nuclear weapons and they worked in concert with Israel and really decimated them. That's what we were told. So considering what we were told, why would this move be necessary? >> Yeah. Well, I think if you go back to uh June of last year, which is what you're referring to, Operation Midnight Hammer, which was preceded, of course, by >> Yeah. by many Israeli attacks, the Israelis did do a fantastic job in terms of taking down their air defenses, right? And that opened up the way then for the Israelis to uh to to attack ballistic missiles uh to take out other sites. And of course the Isra the Iranians responded and many of those missiles were shut down. But in the case of the nuclear program uh we along the with the Israelis did go after the core their program the the enrichment sites and other sites but at is with places called isvahan the tons and and uh look I the best you can do is set them back weeks months or years in some cases and I think we did do a significant setback to their nuclear program but you know it just takes a matter of time resources and will and they will rebuild that and so I I think I'm I guess I don't have the access to the intelligence anymore. Okay. >> That we saw or had indication they wanted to rebuild that program and they certainly were rebuilding their air defenses and missile defenses and >> in your estimation is this a war? >> Yeah, I think this is a war at this point in time. It's not uh you know a fewday contingency like um operation just cause in in 1989 or or uh grenade in 1983. So my take is it's it's a war and the president has said it'll take several weeks. So I'd certainly put it in that category. Do you have any issue with what the uh uh you know with the with the president's position considering what the Democrats are saying on the opposite side of the aisle? He was supposed to consult with Cong Congress. It's not constitutional. I read article two constitution. It gives him the right to, you know, you know, make a move like this. It seems it seems very clear to me. But nevertheless, they had a vote on it and it was struck down by the Senate today. I'm wondering what your take on on all of that in terms of the Democrats coming at him the way that they did. What did you make of that? >> Yeah. No, you're you're right, Stephen. Um, look, there are a few ways to look at this. One are the things he, you know, he has to do, others he should do, others that are nice to do. He certainly has the authority under article two of the Constitution as commander-in-chief to deploy the American forces uh to conduct operations like this. That's uncontested. Uh, Democrats and and and a few Republicans are saying, well, we he's obligated under the War Powers Resolution, which which, you know, is was passed in 1973 during the Nixon time. and uh consecutive presidents have rejected um the war powers resolution as an encroachment upon their authority but nonetheless many at times have abided by it and um o Obama President Obama did not during Libya in 2011 uh this president I think from what I've read has largely abided by the notifications so far to date uh with regard to notifying Congress. Now look, then the bigger question is what is what how do you really enhance your position here because the the polls don't look favorable right now and that is him coming out and speaking to the American people, getting his cabinet out there and speaking to the American people, going to Congress, doing all those things that help build support and if not support, at least understanding of what's at play here. >> What about the notion that he campaigned under on on no more wars? That's what he campaigned on yet he's made this move. How should the American people feel about that in your estimation? How would you feel as a member of his cabinet if he said that and then something like this happened? What would be your position? >> Yeah, look, that's a fair question. I will tell you during my time in the cabinet with him, he he is averse to wars. Uh he does not want to get involved in wars, particularly ones that involve uh you know, some type of nuclear element. Um, right. >> And so I think at this point in time, my sense would be that um his uh his his counselors, his cabinet spoke to him and and said, "Look, this is a strategic opportunity." At least this is what I would have said to him. This is a strategic opportunity where a foe of 47 years is on its knees. They are unwilling to negotiate a serious and a serious curtailment of their nuclear activities. And uh look, we can let them go and they'll build up their missile defenses and they'll build up the air defenses and they'll be more difficult to take down a year from now or two years from now and maybe we'll pass this problem under to another administration or we can take care of it now. And I think everything lined up, the stars aligned, and he saw the strategic opportunity to do so. What about legitimacy, Dr. desperate to to to what what level of legitimacy do you attach to the fears of American people when you think about Iran, who they are, the proxies that they have under their stewardship? You know, you've got the hoodies in Yemen, obviously Hamas and Hezbollah, it seems like they've been severely compromised at the very least. that might be putting it kindly, but when you're a terrorist, when you're funding terrorists, per se, and they're all over the world and you've gotten the money that you've gotten uh to do so, shouldn't that be something that the American people are incredibly concerned about due to this maneuver, this joint maneuver by Israel and the US? >> Sure. Look, and this is these are things that need to be explained to the American people. And some, you know, like myself, maybe you remember this regime going back. It was this regime that stood up Hamas and stood up Hezbollah. Hezbollah who killed 241 service members in the Marine barracks explosion in 1983 if you go back that far. And we can go, you know, year by year and talk about Americans attacked and diplomats killed and whatnot. So look, this is an evil regime. They've sponsored terrorism throughout um certainly the region for years from Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis now in Yemen, Iraqi militias. They propped up uh the the notorious Assad regime in Syria that that that used chemical weapons against its own people. So these are not good guys and they spent billions and billions of dollars over the years, not just stirring the pot in the Middle East, but then repressing their own people. And it was just last month or two months ago now in January when the Iranian people came out fed up once again with the social repression with the economic hardships with what is a a corrupt theocracy and protested and at least 7,000 were killed in the streets men and some put the numbers at 32,000 people. So look, this this is autocratic regime. The the world's longest dictator Ayatollah Homminet was just killed 3 days ago and we shouldn't mourn at all his loss, but at this moment in time, it's worth pressing the advantages we have to see if we can topple this regime and push it over. Certainly, we need to defang it. Dr. Mark Esper right here with Stephen A. Straight Shooter with Stephen A. You know, I want to be fair to everybody, so I want to make sure that I echo this correctly. A friend of mine just text me and reminded me, Trump never said no more wars. He said no new wars. No new wars. I just want to make sure that I'm fairminded. It's good to be fair. Let me ask you this question. What about Israel and the role they play, if any at all, in influencing the actions of the United States of America? How legit is that in your mind? Or is that just folks whistling into the wind that don't know any better and they're just automatically assuming that Israel is a culprit in all of this? give us something, give us some intel from your vantage point of how real or how insignificant that is. >> Well, you know, look, since the Israeli state was formed by the UN in the late 40s, it's been under pressure constantly from neighbors and certainly since the Iranian regime has been their biggest foe since then. But they've suffered war and and uh they are in a bad neighborhood. And this really all began, these dominoes began following Steve following Stephen in October 7th, 2023 when, okay, >> when Hamas in Gaza, sponsored, supported, funded, armed by Iran, uh, killed, murdered 1,200 innocent Israelis. >> Uh, and from there is, of course, Israel went into Gaza to take care of them and eventually, you know, largely crushed the Gaza. They took on Hezbollah, killed its leaders, tech took down Hezbollah, have gone against the Houthi. So for three three years now they set up the situation where we're in now and uh and so look they are a country under constant threat and uh their sense of vulnerability was broken on October 7th 2023. So we understand how they feel now. Look BB Netanyahu is a tough guy. I've known him for many years. He's uh he he's quite the capable leader of that country um and has led them through conflict. My interactions with him and really observing interactions between him and Donald Trump, I I don't think he has any magic sway over President Trump. I I think uh you know he he understands the American position. There's been long-standing US support from both parties at least until a few years ago for uh the the Israeli people, the Israeli state. And uh I I think they work as colleagues. But clearly, you know, the United States kind of calls these shots more than Israel does because Israel is dependent on the United States for diplomatic support, moral support, uh arms and ammunition, those types of things, >> you know. Well, one of the interesting things as well is that we we watched President Trump going on a tour through the Middle East, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, other places like that. And and and considering how Iran retaliated, I mean, even bombing a hotel in Dubai, we don't have any American bases there, but they did that. What do you believe their reaction, their act of reciprocation? What did that mean to you? How do how are we to interpret that as American citizens? Watching the United States and Israel do what it did and then watching Iran's response. What are we to make of that? >> I I think it was a real mistake by the Ayatollah. U I think those were instructions led to his Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to attack those sites. I think they realized, of course, that they would have no sway with uh with the White House and the Europeans were sitting things out. uh you you know for the most part the the best that Iran's friends China and Russia have done is is condemn US action and protest and so I think the Iranians were thinking hey look we'll we'll strike the Arab states uh they'll react they'll cower down uh they'll press Washington to end this quickly and uh it backfired on them rather than getting that reaction what ended up is the Arabs said hey this is nonsense look we we we told the Americans we were sitting this one out we weren't allowing them to use our bases or our airspace and and now you attack us And so now they're moving into our column. They're they're saying, "Hey, we're going to support US operations." So I think it was a a strategic mistake um by the Ayatoll or at least by his leadership to do that. >> Let me go to let me get a little personal with you here. How do you feel about the job uh Pete Hexth is doing as the the Secretary of War, the defense secretary of the United States of America? What are your thoughts about the job that he's doing? >> You know, I I I kind of have a policy that my predecessors have followed as well. So uh you know my view is there are enough people it's the job is difficult enough and there are enough people criticizing you don't need your successors criticizing and and grading your homework as well. So I've never commented on Lloyd Austin during his four years in as seaf and I'm not going to do the same with Pete Hagath. People can make their own judgments. >> Secretary Esper I totally respect that. I appreciate I had to ask the question. I appreciate your answer and I respect that and I respect that. What's the end goal in all of this in your estimation? Well, you know, that's what people are asking right now because there's been some lack of clarity, misalignment, if you will, uh, coming from different voices from the the government. But look, I I begin here. I think General Dan Kaine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have enunciated very clearly military objectives of destroying their ballistic missiles and their missile production capability. Number one, number two, taking down their air defenses, uh, degrading them severely. Number three, destroying the navy. And number four, making sure that we take out what's left of their nuclear complex. So to me that's a core base of military objectives that are achievable that are measurable and I we seem to be well on our way to that. Now the next question Stephen is well what's after that? Like so if we want to um do do we want to bomb them long enough and push them so far that we get to the negotiation table so that they agree to never pursue enrichment again. I think that would be a good offramp here. Uh certainly no less than that. Although I would argue that deal was on the table a week and a half ago and that deal is gone now. The new deal would be no nukes, you know, no no ballistic missiles, no support to proxies. And then there's the long shot. I think the best option which we have the the hardest to accomplish and the least influence we have to do is a complete regime change where we where the people rise up and they take over and some type some type of different >> Do we want to be a part of that though? Secretary asked, do we want to be a part of that of of of being a part of a regime change? That's very complicated. That that invites a level of hostility we might not want to deal with. Do we really want to engage in that way? >> I think it's too hard. I I I think that would involve some form of troops on the ground. It's very again very difficult to do. That's why I say it's a long shot, right? If you can do it, if you can somehow support internal militias, there there's talk about supporting the Iranian Kurds and stuff like that. The Israelis are really pushing hard to do this. It's worth a shot, but I wouldn't put that up as as my measure of success because it's so difficult to to achieve without putting troops on the ground. >> Let me move on to additional uh you know, a different area of this world because the Pentagon announced yesterday that the military is conducting operations in Ecuador targeting quote unquote designated terrorist organizations in a Latin American country, marking a new front in efforts to curtail drug trafficking. Why is now the time for servicemen to deal with this in your estimation? >> Well, you know, I I I saw that report. I didn't see much detail on what's happening, why that in particular. I will tell you during my time in administration, the president was very serious about about drug trafficking and and curtailing this coming up from uh from Mexico mostly, the fentanyl. It was killing 100,000 Americans or so. And I think in his and we had taken some action to to do that, but I think he came into the second administration kind of far more con with far more conviction to take this down. So I I my my guess is this is part of that program where they've been going after uh the cartels going after drug traffickers to to to rid this scourge because look, we've all we all know people who've uh who've had their communities, their sons and daughters, family members affected by this. you know, my wife and I raising our kids, our biggest concern was somehow our kids would be get hooked on drugs and thankfully they didn't, but it's it's terrible. So, it's it's I'm glad there's some focus on it. And if this is one way to do it, I think, look, I think addressing this problem takes a both a supply and demand approach. But but um if we can if we can slow down the flow of drugs, I think that's a good thing. >> Absolutely. Before I let you get on out of here, I want to switch back to Iran in this regard. Four days into the war, the stock market has taken a hit. Oil prices have risen. their threats to global shipping. I'm wondering what will the war's economic impact be on Americans? What what are your comments about that? >> Well, you hit that nail on the head. The immediate impact is are the energy shocks because 20% of energy, both oil and uh LNG comes out of the region. It's largely stopped at this point in time. So, you see, you know, both the the the uh the oil markets prices going up and uh the futures markets going up as well. And look, I I think it depends on how long this lasts. uh if it lasts for a few more weeks, at some point in time the markets will settle back down. And so that's number one. Number two is not just how long it lasts, but are there any major curve balls that happen here that somebody else big gets involved? Does Russia get involved or something like that? And then maybe thirdly is what what what does the battlefield look like when we're all said and done, right? If we we withdraw our forces, but what's left? Is it a new regime? uh not just a new regime made up of the old characters, but a new regime made up of new players or is it um they've agreed to some type of condition, some type of inspection, stuff like that. So, I I think that'll have some impact down the road, but but uh but I think in the short term we're going to see these oil spikes and and and those things. Maybe there's a chance other commodities will be affected, but at this point in time, it seems focused on energy. >> How do we ensure that this isn't another Iraq or Afghanistan? >> Yeah. Well, look, I I think it you start getting concerned about that. And I think if if that were to happen, it's the injection of boots on the ground, troops on the ground in large numbers is where I think you got to start getting concerned about being trapped in that type of u uh that type of dilemma. I think at that point in time you'll see more calls come up to do war powers resolution because congress is going to want to say in that uh but that becomes a really big commitment and so I think that's what we got to watch for and we have to be again careful in terms of telling and communicating and setting forth what our objectives are again the objectives laid forth by General Dan Kaine at the Pentagon briefing briefing are very clear very attainable and uh they'll do a lot in terms of of of limiting Iran's ability to project power outside that and and if we stick to that then I think that the chances of of this turning into a multi-year war like Iraq or Afghanistan are very limited. >> Very last question to you, sir, and thank you for your time. I ask you this as somebody who worked under President Donald Trump in his first term, but you're watching him now. How is that Donald Trump different from this Donald Trump that you're seeing, if at all? And is there a reason to feel more concerned or more comforted by what we're seeing the commanderin-chief from the first administration to his second administration? >> Yeah, I you know I get asked this question often. I I wrote about it in my memoir. I will tell you that during my first experience and I was in in the first term and I was there for four years, right, from 2017 to to 2020. Uh what I saw is the president evolve and and that's not unusual, right? Presidents evolve. they get comfortable with the job, they get more knowledgeable. But what I saw him is evolve in terms of knowing DC better, getting more comfortable with his positions, uh, with how he interacted with people. Um, he he ended up, uh, you know, was more inclined to choose people that were more in line with him and get rid of others. As as as you know, I was fired by President Trump in in late 2020. And so, I think he came into this, and I predicted this, he came into this second term with being much more comfortable with the job, knowing what he wanted to do. He had four years to prepare to think about his policy positions, but most importantly, he knew who who he wanted and what he wanted and who he didn't want uh on his team. And so, he came up came out with people who were far more loyal to him and his cause. And so, what you see now is uh you know, he comes into the second term with a lot more energy, a lot more focus, and and a lot more willing to to kind of stretch the boundaries of of maybe what were con previous conventional administrations. >> I do I apologize. I do have one more question cuz you just said something that sparked something in my brain. Is it good for a president >> to have people who are fiercely loyal to him and will just follow him lock step or is it good or is it better for him to have somebody who question some things from time to time and say this is not advisable this is not wise you do not need to do this and pose some level of resistance. What's better for this country? You know, I I tend to believe that a a president is best served when we have people around him who are who are uh able and willing and have the experience and knowledge to express their own views and feel comfortable enough expressing dissenting views to the president and he can he can then or she one day will take them all in and come up with the best judgment. So I I think u you know a team that again has that knowledge that background that experience and credibility and is willing to articulate those to the president and then to privately with him is a good thing. I think it comes up it ends up with better policymaking. I feel the same way by the way about the government at large. I like divided government. I like when both parties work together uh to have disagreements in a positive way and can come up with uh constructive solutions to Americans problems that will endure and that will be acceptable. And to me that's what's lacking these days and has been for some time in our in our government between the certainly the the legislative branch and the executive branch. But I'd like to see us get back to that. >> Dr. Marker T. Esper, former Secretary of Defense for the United States of America right here on Straight Shooter with Stephen A. Really appreciate your time, sir. Thank you for the education. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule and know that you're always welcome back anytime. Thank you so much. >> Thanks, Stephen. Thank you. >> All right, Mark. Esper, that's an education right there, ladies and gentlemen. Let it sink in. Inhale what the man said because he knows what he's talking about. Make no mistake about it. 86696 POTUS. That's the number to call up. That's 866967-6887. You're listening live to Straight Shooter with Stephen A. Back with your calls to end the show in a minute. Got plenty of time. Got some lines open, but a lot of lines filled as well. I'm not going anywhere. Don't you go anywhere either. Back with more straight shooter in a

Former U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper joins Stephen A. Smith to break down the escalating conflict with Iran. Esper explains why he believes Iran is “on its knees,” what the real military objectives are, and what the possible endgame could be in the region. https://sxm.app.link/YouTubeSAS Connect with me on social media: Twitter: https://x.com/stephenasmith Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/stephenasmith/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@stephenasmith Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/stephena/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephen-a-smith-763b31194/