WTH Is Going On with Iran? General Jack Keane Explains. Episode #375 | June 4, 2026 | Danielle Pletka, Marc Thiessen, and General Jack Keane

 WTH Is Going On with Iran? General Jack Keane Explains.

Episode #375 | June 4, 2026 | Danielle Pletka, Marc Thiessen, and General Jack Keane

Danielle Pletka: Hi, I'm Danielle Pletka.

Marc Thiessen: And I'm Marc Thiessen.

Danielle Pletka: Welcome to our podcast. What the hell is going on? Ever more aptly named. Marc, what the hell?

Marc Thiessen: What the hell is going on is we're in a holding pattern on Iran. We're now in what, eight weeks into this two-week ceasefire. We gave the Iranians a two-week deadline to ... We stopped combat operations. We gave the Iranians a two-week deadline to make progress in the negotiations and the progress isn't there and the combat operations haven't started.

We have the allies in the region who are opposed to a resumption of combat operations. We've got a president who believes in his ability to get the Iranians to make a deal who has some red lines that I think are inviolable. I think he needs to get that nuclear dust. He needs to get the Iranians to give up their nuclear program. But the longer this takes, the less likely they are to do that. We can give him what he wants, because they don't think that he's willing to ...

Trump believes he has all the leverage, and the Iranians believe that they have all the leverage, and that is not the recipe for a good deal. And then on top of that, we have the added question, which is let's say we did get a good deal. What does that mean? Even the best deal. Let's say the Iranians allowed us to land US military aircraft in Iranian soil and dig up all the nuclear material and take it to Oak Ridge, Tennessee and do everything we did in Libya in 2004 and the rest of it.

They would expect something in return for that. And what do they want in return? They want billions and billions and billions of dollars in frozen assets, sanctions relief, reconstruction fund to rebuild their country. And they will just use that money to reconstitute everything that Trump destroyed in Operation Epic Fury.

And I want to start, before we turn it over to you, Dany, I want to just make an important point, which is that was the right decision. The decision to launch Operation Epic Fury. You keep hearing Democrats saying, "So Donald Trump got us out of the Obama nuclear deal, went to war and he can't even get the Obama nuclear deal."

First of all, what he's demanding is much more than anything Barack Obama ever demanded and it's not even comparable. But second of all, there are 13,500 US strikes on Iran. Another 8,000 Israeli strikes that took out 82% of their defense industrial base, that sunk their entire navy, that has grounded their entire air force, that has decimated their ballistic missile capabilities.

And with a couple of more weeks of bombing, we could do it irreparable damage, but we're in this holding pattern where we're not finishing it. But even if this turn doesn't end as we like it, it was still the right decision to do it in the first place and we've set them back a long way, and so Donald Trump deserves credit for that.

Danielle Pletka: I think a lot of that, Marc, depends on how this ends, because I'll be honest with you, I think it was absolutely-

Marc Thiessen: No, I disagree, Dany. I think that the decision to go and what was accomplished by Epic Fury doesn't depend on how this ends. It just depends on whether it's irreparable or not, whether it's reversible and how long, because the damage done is significant.

Danielle Pletka: Marc, if we give them $300 billion as a number you and I have both seen, let me assure you, irreversible will not be a problem for them.

Marc Thiessen: I know.

Danielle Pletka: So depending on how it ends is a big, big question. Look, like all Americans, I have ears. I can hear the President, I hear what he says, but I had always believed that, A, he would not get bored with this. B, that he would not waffle, convey weakness, because I think he has an inner ear about things like that. He understands weakness and he understands, in many ways, markets and he understands how to leverage people. That's why he's so good at politics, right? He's good at that. I mean, he and I don't have the same taste in politics, but he's good at that. And we can see that with what an endorsement from Donald Trump means.

And nonetheless, somehow he has been persuaded, frankly, with arguments that I can't even imagine to myself because they are so demonstrably false that the Iranians are desperate for a deal with him. That they're going to give up, what he said today by the way. They have already agreed to give up their nuclear weapons program forever, and that he is somehow in the catbird seat.

When you are sustaining hits on your allies, when you are having your own bases and service members targeted, when you are not able to move traffic in any significant number through the Strait of Hormuz, when you are leaning on our allies, the Israelis not to kill terrorists, you are not the guy with all the cards in your hand. How does the President not feel that given who he is?

Marc Thiessen: I think the arguments are different than the ones you're suggesting that have given him pause about restarting combat operations. Here's the argument that I think gives him pause. If he restarts combat operations, the Iranians are going to target the Gulf energy infrastructure. If they hit the Gulf energy infrastructure, they can destroy 40%, 60% of the Gulf infrastructure, let's say. Gas prices are going to go through the roof. We're going to have $8 gas. Also, we've been using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and some of our stockpiles to keep the price of gas low, but those are running low. We just had the chairman of Mobil, I think it was, saying that this is the case.

And then on top of that, if the Gulf oil infrastructure gets hit, Gulf cash into investment, into the world economy is going to collapse, and you're going to have an economic catastrophe going into midterm elections. I know he says all the time he's not concerned about the midterm elections. I believe that to some extent, but I think he's being told that there's going to be an absolute wipe-out in the midterm elections if people go to the polls and there's $8 gas, which may be true.

And so he's in a position where I think he doesn't have the leverage that he needs to get a deal. And if we had just ... The closer we get to the midterms, the more pressing all that political and economic weight is on the decision, the less likely we are to go back to combat operations and the Iranians are skillfully exploiting that by dangling the possibility of a deal, making it sound like they're reasonable, making sound like they want it in order to extend the timeframe.

And as Jack Keane, our guest today, points out all the time on Fox News, their strategy is to stretch it out as long as they can in order to get it closer to the midterms, in order to make sure that we don't restart the war. And so I think it's a political calculation that is weighing on him right now. Here's where-

Danielle Pletka: Marc, I think that's crap. Can I just say if he wanted to win-

Marc Thiessen: Tell me why you think that's ... First of all, I'm just telling you what the situation is, whether you think it's legit or not.

Danielle Pletka: No.

Marc Thiessen: You can say, but-

Danielle Pletka: I'm saying I don't think that's what he thinks. If he was worried about the midterms, he would've endorsed John Cornyn, right?

Marc Thiessen: You're presuming the kind of traditional political calculations that ... I just don't see the connection between the two things.

Danielle Pletka: But I think Donald Trump understands what win and lose mean. And if he had endorsed John Cornyn, we would be keeping the Senate. It wouldn't be a question.

Marc Thiessen: Do you think he doesn't care about the midterms at all?

Danielle Pletka: Right. That is exactly what I think. I think he doesn't give a damn about the midterms.

Marc Thiessen: I don't think that's true at all.

Danielle Pletka: I don't think the President-

Marc Thiessen: He does, because if he loses the midterm, if we lose the House in the midterms, he's going to get impeached.

Danielle Pletka: Here's a news flash for you and our listeners. We are going to lose the House in the midterms.

Marc Thiessen: I think that's entirely likely, and that was likely before the Iran war, by the way.

Danielle Pletka: Bingo. Exactly. Even more to my point, but I would go further than that, Marc. And I would say that, yes, I understand all those things you've talked about, but the President has articulated to you among other people that he believes that the United States has enormous economic resilience.

In addition, we are told, and everybody's going to hear our interview with Jack Keane, but Jack says rightly, "If that is what we're worried about, if we're worried about the Iranians hitting the Gulf oil infrastructure, which I think is a very, very credible threat on their part because they've done it before, then give them the means to protect themselves."

Marc Thiessen: Dany, I'm not saying that, that's a correct analysis. I'm saying that's the calculation. That's what he's being told and what the political calculation is.

Danielle Pletka: Well, you need to get on the horn with him and tell him that's not right.

Marc Thiessen: Well, thank you very much, Dany. I'll take that advice. I'll do that. Yeah. Good idea.

Danielle Pletka: Let me get off this podcast right now and call him and tell him.

Marc Thiessen: Exactly. Yes. I hadn't thought of that. Thank you.

Danielle Pletka: Marc, damn it.

Marc Thiessen: But here's the problem. I mean, you're right, the analysis is wrong, because we can protect the Gulf and oil energy infrastructure because we had protected Israel and they weren't able to destroy it when we started Operation Epic Fury. So why would they be able to destroy it now and rip the fricking Band-Aid off and finish this in, as Jack Keane will tell us in a moment, 10 to 14 days is what our military thinks that we need? And by the way, we have new target lists, because they've been taking stuff out that they had buried and bringing it out to use and now we can hit it. And if you give CENTCOM 14 days to do this, they will do irreparable damage to the Iranian regime and then we can go into the midterms having kicked their asses.

Danielle Pletka: Bingo.

Marc Thiessen: Because this is the biggest political problem that I don't think the White House appreciates is that ... And I know buildings are inanimate objects. So Don Rumsfeld always used to say, so buildings don't think things, but I'm speaking euphemistically, that people will pay $5, $6 gas for a period of time for victory. What the worst situation-

Danielle Pletka: Indeed.

Marc Thiessen: ... you can have is going into the midterms with people having paid $4 or $5 gas for nothing.

Danielle Pletka: To lose.

Marc Thiessen: Or nothing.

Danielle Pletka: Or yet, to give the Iranians money.

Marc Thiessen: In their perception. Or for a muddled outcome and people running around saying, "This was a mistake." It wasn't a mistake. It was the most courageous, important decision that an American president has made in my lifetime to start this, and you got to finish it decisively or it will be a political problem for you. That's where the calculus in what they're getting wrong over there is that this is the worst possible outcome to not have ...

Now, let's say he does get a deal that we can come in and get the nuclear dust and maybe people will say that that's a great outcome and it was all worth it. He can stand there at Oak Ridge, Tennessee and receive the dust and have a media moment and all the rest of it, but the Iranians think they're winning so they're not going to do that.

So he's not going to get the deal and he's not getting the decisive victory and he's going to go into the midterms with a muddled outcome and people paying more for gas in their minds for no good reason, which is the worst of all worlds. You need a decisive outcome to this before people go to vote, if politics is driving your calculation. And this is the mistake that they are making over there and I'm at a loss for how to get that through to them.

Danielle Pletka: Well, if you don't know, I sure as hell don't know. Let's hear what Jack says. Everybody who listens to What the Hell knows our very dear friend, General Jack Keane. He is widely, not just widely, I would say universally recognized.

Marc Thiessen: A national treasure.

Danielle Pletka: Recognized as one of America's most respected authorities on foreign policy and national security. He's a retired four-star Army general, former vice chief of staff of the Army. He served our nation in uniform for 37 years. He's a Fox News senior strategic analyst and he is the chairman of the Institute for the Study of War.

Marc Thiessen: Here's our interview.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Marc Thiessen: Well, Jack, welcome back to the podcast.

Gen. Jack Keane: Yeah. It's great to be back with the both of you. Thank you.

Marc Thiessen: Well, it's great to have you. So what the hell is going on with Iran?

Gen. Jack Keane: Yeah. It's a great question and certainly we went to a ceasefire on April the 8th and that ceasefire was largely driven by Iran taking control of the Strait of Hormuz. And part of that, and many in our audience may forget and certainly understandable, but part of that going to that ceasefire was that they would remove the control over the Strait of Hormuz within a couple of weeks and that did not happen.

And it was after that the Naval blockade put in place which has been equally as successful as the shutting down the Strait of Hormuz by the Iranians. Actually, it's more successful because we've been able to pass through probably some 80 something ships on the southern part of the Strait of Hormuz close to Oman, which is in the lane that we have cleared. But that compares to nothing to what would normally go through of a hundred plus ships a day. But ever since that, I believe the Iranian second objective was to use the Strait to shut the war down. I think they accomplished that. And then I think they had another objective, which yes, go into negotiations, but drag those negotiations out as long as possible, which they have a history of doing. I think the JCPOA was a year and a half and correct me if I'm wrong, but it was an extensive period of time and they're very good at it because they're always promising something and gives you a sense of anticipation.

And when it actually comes to making the deal, there's something less than that and then that elongates the negotiations a little further. And that is kind of where I think we've been. And the reality is that we're supposed to be under a ceasefire, but it doesn't look like a ceasefire and those people who are involved as a result of these attacks taking place, it's certainly not a ceasefire. Witnessed the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf States and the repeated attacks over several weeks now and certainly the last 24 hours, no exception to that were Kuwait airport and other facilities in Kuwait were attacked and they had 60 plus casualties as a result of that. That certainly is something to take note of and attacking US spaces over the last several weeks as well. And in their minds, they're responding to the fact that we are taking defensive action against ... They're trying to either interfere with ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz where they fire drones at them.

And by the way, so our audience understands, under the ceasefire, it's certainly permissible for us to pass ships through the Strait of Hormuz and we have to do it at risk certainly and Admiral Cooper and his people have been able to defend significantly against those attacks and much more than that is they not only defend against attacks, but they go to the source of it, defeat the air, the drone bases, the drone commander control, or if missiles are fired at our drone like they did in shooting down an MQ-1, which is a long-term penetration drone that can stay up in the air for a considerable amount of time, flying in international waters.

We went to the source of that and shot down the air defense systems and the command and control and that is, Admiral Cooper doesn't have to ask permission from the Secretary of War, which is his boss or the commander-in-chief who's next in the chain of command to do that, the President of the United States. He has full authority to take what he believes is appropriate defensive action and those actions that he's taken have the full support of the Secretary and the President of the United States. And then we have this situation in Lebanon, which is really quite astounding. The Iranians insisted that the ceasefire deal applied to Lebanon as well and the Israelis always wanted to delete Lebanon as a special case from the overall Iran ceasefire, but nonetheless, a special ceasefire and terms of agreement was established on April the 17th and it's just a paragraph and a half on what those terms of agreement are and obviously both sides are supposed to not attack the other.

However, Israel and so can Hezbollah, according to the terms of the agreement, if Israel detects an attack is being planned with specificity or it's eminent or it's being executed, they have the right to defend themselves by conducting an attack against the force that's planning or executing it and they have been doing that, but nonetheless, it's not proportionate at all because of what Hezbollah has been doing in terms of significant offensive operations, nothing defensive about what Hezbollah is doing here. They have fired 2,400 rockets and drones, a little bit over that now because I'm dated by a couple of days, into Northern Israel, which has forced the evacuation of many of the towns and villages in that area to include anybody that's an audience that's been to Israel and gone up to the sea of Galilee and seen how pristine the sea of Galilee is similar to what it was I think 2000 years ago with no habitation taking place around it, but certainly in the villages that surround it, all of those are evacuated.

There's been over 300 civilians wounded and one killed as a result of that. And there's been 15 Israeli soldiers as of 24 hours ago that have been killed inside of Lebanon. No nation state can stand for what I'm describing here. And just think as an analogy, if the cartels got so frustrated with us trying to thwart their movement of drugs into the United States and kind of constipated it to the point that they felt they had to retaliate and they took on flying some drones across our border and attacking some of our southern border towns and wounding some people, think about what the United States reaction to something like that would be. No nation state can stand for that kind of violation of its sovereignty and to think that it's being done, remind our audience, under a ceasefire is actually preposterous. And what happened recently is the Israelis were attempting to finally shut this down.

They've done everything they can, maintain the terms of agreement of the ceasefire and they were going to conduct an offensive operation into a Hezbollah stronghold from the air and from the ground. And as a result of that, that prompted a conversation with the President of the United States and Prime Minister Netanyahu. And what was also happening is the Iranians threatened to cut off all negotiations as a result of Israel's actions, which is, I mean, this is pretty rich. I mean, they're conducting the 2,400 rocket and drone attacks I just described, wounded hundreds of civilians in doing this. It's not exactly a military target whatsoever and they're upset because Israel is trying to take some action against them. Here's why they were upset. The Israelis have killed 3000 Hezbollah since April the 17th and going into their stronghold would have truly taken lots of capability away from them.

Why? That's where their leaders are, that's where their command and control operation centers are, and that is in that general vicinity, because they know that Southern Beirut is in fact a sanctuary and hands off as a result of the agreement that's been made or not the agreement so much as a stipulation that President Trump told Prime Minister Netanyahu in a previous conversation, "Stay away from Beirut." The reality is that the Iranians took advantage of that and pressured our president as a result of that and that led to a conversation shutting that operation down. And what the president is trying to do is get back to negotiations overall. But it doesn't take away from where Iran really is in their head here. For our audience to understand, if you're somewhat confused as to what is happening here, it's a large crowd and we're part of it because let's face it, we're trying to negotiate a deal and our negotiators are getting positive indications from Iranian negotiators that a deal is possible.

They're masters at this. I'm not suggesting that they're not. They are. They're very good at it and they want to kick the can down the road as much as possible and drag their so called status quo out and get as close to the, I think, the midterm elections as possible because the likelihood they believe of President Trump taking aggressive action as a result of their actions is unlikely and that I believe is their strategy. All that said and done, here we are. The political side of the regime is negotiating in our people's mind with a sense of "good faith." The three of us here probably have some suspicions about that, but we are not involved in those negotiations. We don't see the people.

By the way, they don't see them either. They negotiate through third parties. So the result is though that all the physical and kinetic activity is being done by who? That is being done by Ahmad Vahidi, who is the head of the IRGC and he is calling these aggressive shots despite what the political negotiators are attempting to do. And I believe he's much more in control of the activities of the regime than the people on the political side who are doing a negotiation. He's providing the security for the Ayatollah and I think he has more access to him likely than many of the other people on the political side who are doing the negotiation. After all, the Ayatollah essentially lost his family as a result of our initial airstrikes. So his protection certainly has to be iron clad for him to survive this and I think that relationship he's establishing with the people that are protecting him and particularly Ahmad Vahidi is understandable.

So what is happening here is the IRGC commander, those are his forces that are firing on Kuwait, firing at us, taking our drone down, shooting at ships coming through and also forcing other tankers to and other ships to go through on their order and the proxies work for who? They work for the IRGC. The Hezbollah funds through the Quds Force, IRGC-Quds Force provides all the weapons, all the munitions and all the funding to Hezbollah. And believe me, they are directing Hezbollah activities, not the specifics of it, but the general tenor of it, "Be aggressive. Go after the Israelis. Get as many civilian casualties as you possibly can. Break their will here." And they want a response from Israel. And so this is what is happening here and we all have a right to be somewhat confused because we're trying to get to a point where we're on a diplomatic pathway and we get positive results.

We do know President Trump and we do know that he, number one, is committed to this diplomatic pathway. He was very close to committing a kinetic attack, a re-attack to be sure, but he came to the conclusion based on advice he received that a deal was truly possible and also the other thing that happened is the Muslim and Arab States came together, led by Pakistan and the Qataris and had a meeting with him and convinced him yes, that a deal would be possible. And the other thing that's happening here, because it's not talked about very much, is the Arab States that have oil and gas infrastructure and obviously their entire wealth of their nation is tied to that commodity, they are very concerned about Iran's capability to retaliate against that oil and gas infrastructure. And I'm absolutely convinced that part of the conversations with the president over a period of a number of weeks was not their unwillingness to go back into combat operations knowing full well that Iran would retaliate against that oil and gas infrastructure.

They have done some of that and they have been able to defend against it, but they believe it would be much more comprehensive and that's certainly possible. And I think that registered with the president because his economic advisors are also telling him that that could lead to "a global depression" as a result of all of that. The challenge I have with those factual statements is that it doesn't account for what the military can do here. What am I talking about? If the Gulf States need to be defended, their oil and gas infrastructure more than what they're capable of doing themselves and in addition to what we have given them, as an example, the UAE has 19 Patriot batteries and has at least two Iron Dome batteries with the Israeli military manning those batteries in the UAE, which is an historic significance to say the least.

And I think they're in pretty good shape and they do support return to Connecticut operations but are not doing that publicly. Saudi Arabia has less of that capability. But if Saudi or others need to be defended, Cooper can put together, this is Admiral Cooper at CENTCOM, a plan to do just that. He has not been asked to do that. He could do that.

Marc Thiessen: We did it in Israel.

Gen. Jack Keane: And we are defending Israel because why? They've asked us and we have been able to keep the penetration rate down to something that's very low. The penetration rate down to something that's very low and quite acceptable to the Israelis. So that's number one. Number two is they also, so they're discounting our capability to do that is one of my frustrations. The second frustration is they're also discounting our capability to take down Iran's retaliation capability. So we're going into eight weeks now of ceasefire. And what have we been doing for those eight weeks in addition to the activity and the Strait of Hormuz? We've been tracking everything the Iranians do. Our intelligence agency, the Israeli's intelligence agency, if they move, they excavate a deeply buried tunnel where they have ballistic missiles and launches and they excavate that. We watch it every single day and then they pull things out of there.

And whatever they are, ballistic missiles, launchers, other activity that they're doing, let me just say we are tracking it, which gives us huge leverage when we start combat operations. I have a general sense of what our combat operations would look like and they are very comprehensive. It would not leave Iran with any revenue source to speak of whatsoever. That is how devastating it would be just on the economic side alone. The other one is it would attempt to take down just about all of their remaining military capability to include drones and ballistic missiles. Upfront, very aggressive for the reason I stated about their retaliation against the Gulf and oil infrastructure.

And then also the third major focus would be on IRGC, the organizations that sustain the regime. So it would take their military capability away from them. It would be forcing an economic collapse and a decision would be made about Karg Island. Do we take the oil or do we destroy the oil infrastructure at Karg Island? That's a presidential decision. But at the end of it, they are clearly on a path for economic collapse, much more so than they are now with no military capability of any consequence left and many of their leaders destroyed and the organizations hurt seriously. That is a pathway to a regime collapse, and certainly aided and abetted by the CIA, the Mossad, and the Iranian people themselves. That is what we said no to.

But I think as we look at this, the pattern of what's happening here, I don't see the Iranians making the deal to meet the president's objectives. I don't see it happening. And why? Look at what they're doing. What the IRGC is doing is tantamount to a light flashing saying no deal, no deal, no deal, despite what the political operatives are saying. And that's where I think we kind of are. And the administration obviously is closer to it than we are and they're dealing with them. But it looks to me like whatever our idea of a deal, and they're meeting all of our objectives were, I think it's unlikely now that that's going to happen.

And if we're going to get momentum back then to curb Iranian behavior, the only tool I see that could do something like that would be return to military operations, comprehensive, not limited, and then open up the Strait of Hormuz. And the reality of the Strait of Hormuz also is we got to understand the significance of it, not just the military significance of the control that they have over it, but the geopolitical significance of it is huge, and it goes beyond what we're dealing with right now. The implications are there. If we let this stand, they come out of this stronger than they were when they went into it, despite all the military capability.

Why is that? Because of the geopolitical inference that, well, we can take control of the Strait at any time we want. So this is a prize, I think that they always knew that it was there. I don't believe they thought it would come as easy as it did, and I think the results of it likely exceeded their expectations, and it has emboldened them as a result of it. I truly believe the best of all options is comprehensive military operation, open the Strait forcibly, take it away from them, and put the regime on a pathway to its collapse.

Marc Thiessen: Amen.

Danielle Pletka: Amen to that, Jack. Look, I think I speak for Marc as well, right, we could not agree with you more. But I want to ask you about one part of this in the hope that maybe you understand, because I don't. And that is you talked about the president's objectives. At the outset, the president said unconditional surrender. The president has told the people of Iran that help is coming. Now it seems that we have reduced those or narrowed those objectives to something relating to their nuclear weapons program, nothing relating to terrorism, nothing relating to missiles. Do you have a sense of what his bottom, bottom line objectives really are?

Gen. Jack Keane: Well, his clear objective, the number one objective that continues to get consistency with, is removing the enrichment and then also having no capability to enrich whatsoever. And the last part of removing the enrichment, he doesn't like the idea of possibly going to a third party. He would rather do what Marc has been advertising publicly, and that is take it ourselves, much as we did with Libya. We went in there and literally took it and brought it back to Oak Ridge, Tennessee. And that seems to be, as we all know, the president listens to Marc, and that seems to be the option that he favors.

But you're right about this. While I do believe that ballistic missiles have got to be in this, and drone capability, and support for proxies, I don't think it's off the table, but I do think it doesn't receive the priority certainly that nuclear does because that's what he's talking about. And I think that's the centerpiece of these negotiations, and likely there are a few things that are holding up. Now for our audience to understand, we've been trying to get to a draft MOU, which is a framework. It's not a peace deal. It's a framework of what the discussions are going forward, but in it, there would be some commitment to the deal itself.

And the first thing would be to open up the Strait of Hormuz and then we would likely remove our naval blockade as the Strait obviously it gets completely open. I hope we would wait until we absolutely see all of that. I would suspect that the Iranians have proposed, yeah, we'll open the Strait of Hormuz, but they still want some organizational control over it. But what do I mean by that? Well, telling countries when they can go, where they can go, how they can go, et cetera. And that gives them some level of organizational control.

Believe me, this shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, I cannot understate the significance it means to Iran and what they have achieved here, and they're going to be very reluctant to give it up. I suspect strongly that they're still fighting us over taking all the enrichment out or the United States taking it out. They would likely probably want to give it to Russia or maybe China so that at some point in a subsequent administration, Russia or China give it back to them. None of that makes any sense. Just speculating because I don't know the specifics of it.

The other thing is the Iranians are obsessed with getting money back for all the obvious reasons here. Now listen, I don't want to understate what Bessent, the Secretary of Treasury, and the entire economic team is doing with economic warfare here. It is significant, in addition to what the blockade is doing. So they deserve a lot of praise. Where I part company with them a little bit is where they think that lever is sufficient because it's their lever and I understand their bias for it, but we got to understand who these Iranians are. We're in an ideological struggle as much as we're in a physical military and economic struggle.

They're not going to change one iota here and the evidence of that as well. We have the evidence. After the 12-day war and we took down much of their nuclear enterprise, what alerted everybody to the war that we're fighting right now, the intelligence agencies picked up almost immediately their recommitment to all of their goals. They decided to recover their nuclear program, although they hadn't executed it. They put in place a completely different program than what they had before with ballistic missiles, more deeply buried tunnels, larger capability. China was giving them solid fuel to help them with the kind of missiles they really want to use so they can use mobile launchers, and the speed at which they were moving to accomplish that alarmed everybody.

And when you did the math in terms of what they had now and what they were able to achieve in terms of ballistic missile development, and knowing a lot of it's going to be protected with these tunnels that we're not able to penetrate, and you ran that out over a period of months, what they would be able to achieve is salvo rates that would achieve a penetration rate even with US defense and Israeli defense in the major population centers that would exceed anything that's tolerable for the Israeli population, and what it would do also to US bases and our allies and partners in the region. But the focus initially was certainly Israel itself.

That was alarming, and why? They changed the funding route from through the Qataris. I'm not saying through the government, but we are suspicious about Qatar for sure, but network through Qatar's country, through Turkey this time, through Istanbul, the funding kept going. So support for the proxies, ballistic missile development, drone development, all put on acceleration, decision to recover the nuclear program to return to all the goals they originally had despite the 12-day war. That was sufficient evidence. Anybody looking at it and saying, look, these guys haven't changed one bit. So now here we are. We punished the military. We're hurting them economically. Have they changed? Absolutely not.

They are not changing on bit. So if we give them money, which is what they want, and I suspect it's part of this deal, they want some goodwill money upfront because we're demonstrating goodwill. That finances what? Their recovery. We know they're going to survive. Then they recover, and recover what? Recover eventually the capabilities that they've lost. Ideologically, they're going to go right back to where they were. They've already showed us that, and they're going to be buoyed a little bit by what they were able to achieve with the Strait of Hormuz. And in their minds, I mean, difficult to accept, but in their minds just stopping the war and moving to negotiations. In the Iranian mindset, what that means is we got the United States to back down. That is their mindset.

And we don't want to hear that because our taking diplomatic action is noble and it avoids killing a lot of people unnecessarily. That's the mindset of nobility there, but where Iran is, they don't see it that way, and they will absolutely take whatever money we give them to recover as quickly as possible, and a subsequent administration will have a real challenge on their hands. And as Marcus said many times publicly, they will do everything they can to reverse all of what we have done, all of it. Ballistic missiles, recover it. Drones, recover it. Money will help them do all of that. They don't have to hide them out there building. They can start factories up.

Iran is one of the most educated societies in the world. They have huge capability here, and certainly the money will flow to the proxies. And if you're sitting there where Israel is and you scratch your head and say, "Look, we started this thing to stop all of this, not to have it return in a few years and restart it all over again." So yeah, this is who they really are. We're not going to change the ideology. We got to be clear-eyed about that and we cannot finance their recovery and their reversal of everything that we have done. And we have done significant damage to these guys. I know people want to understate it, but it cannot be understated. It is serious damage to them that will take them years to recover from. And what we can likely do is going back to military operations is finish it once and for all.

Danielle Pletka: Jack, I want to press you on a question that I don't understand, and maybe you with your vast military experience do. Even if we rested back control of the Strait of Hormuz now, which we haven't, but even if we did, how would we stop them from using that as an option anytime they didn't want to do something, they didn't want to keep some part of the deal. They didn't want to deal with our interlocutors. They didn't want to stop funding Hezbollah. How do we take that card out of their hands? Is there any way?

Gen. Jack Keane: Well, I think the first thing is we do it forcibly and we show them that this can be done. And we have skeptics in our government about whether this can really be done or not. Remember, we were in the 36th hour when the president and Admiral Cooper were told that the United States could not ... It was actually prior to the 36th hour, we shut it down in the 36th hour. Project Freedom, the military operation to open the Strait. And the Saudis came to us and said, "We're not going to let you use your air base that's in our country as part of the operation." And equally damaging not to use Saudi airspace. And you look at a map and look at how large a footprint Saudi airspace is in the Gulf. It's almost as large as Iran's where it borders the Gulf. And obviously, that airspace was incredibly valuable to us. That restricted us to only carry a born aircraft as ...

That restricted us to only carry a Boeing aircraft as a result of that. Admiral Cooper could still do the mission, but certainly he was handicapped in being able to execute it. Plus the Saudis had no confidence that we would be able to open the strait and likely some others did. And I think also some people in the administration had the same view. They had this thought, well, a single drone will shut it down. And that's just not true. But we do have the capability to open it. I'm very much aware of the comprehensive plan we did to do that. I'm taking a little time to explain this because there's a lack of confidence out there that we really can do it. There was skepticism around whether we can actually conduct an effective military operation to open up the Strait of Hormuz. I absolutely think we do. I'm fairly familiar with the plan on how we would do that. It's a very comprehensive layered defensive plan. And when it really comes down to it, so maybe the audience could understand this, the Strait of Hormuz, when you get at it, is a small piece of territory there that we're actually defending against. We're defending again, where we have our ships at sea in a much larger space that we have to defend for missiles and drones coming at us from 360 directions almost, depending on where we are, if you wrap the Houthis into that. And we can do that adequately and no one's come close to sinking a ship, although they fired at it, oh, many, many, many times. So we can defend not only there, but we'd have to defend deep into Iran.

And the idea here is we can do that and then we can continue to do it. And I think we would have to establish with the Iranians. I mean, it's a great question, Dany, that shutting down the Strait of Hormuz is an act of war and we will respond accordingly. So you shut it down, even though you may not be using kinetic force, it's an active war to take away international waterways and freedom of navigation and we will respond, and we would likely have to do that once or twice to convince these guys that we're dead serious about it.

So yeah, we have to step up here and take control and be aggressive about it. And in warfare, it always is to test of wills and you can see that being played out right before our eyes right now where the Iranians are, they've been testing our will, they think they have momentum as a result of it and the president's team thinks they have momentum because they're moving towards what they believe is a deal that's very achievable and not having to use force to achieve it. But also the Strait of Hormuz is a test of wills and we need to make certain that they understand what the risk to them would be if they subsequently tried to take control of it weeks, months, two years from now and what the response is. And what we got to do here is where are our allies and partners in the region on this as opposed to kowtowing and taking a knee out of fear with the Iranians, stand up and man up here a little bit and deal with this thing.

And we got to lead them and have a real face-to-face conversation with a finger in your chest sort of conversation in terms of what our expectations of you are. We've been providing an umbrella of security for you post World War II to the present. We have a nuclear umbrella over you and doing that and we've been providing physical security against conventional capability for years and years and years. And now when so much is at risk here to finally take this actor who's been a predator in the region for close to 50 years off the table, when they shout a little bit, you take a knee. Let's man up and find some spine here and stand up publicly and address this issue. And yes, talk to your people about it and educate them about what this threat is and how we can't live on with continued decades like this.

Yes, there will be some risk to them. Yes, there will be some risk to their way of life and doing this and we have to do that. We have to get our allies and partners in this with us. And the Europeans, they are willing to come in here. It took a little cajoling to say the least, that's a kind word, to get them to contribute. But first and foremost, we need our allies and partners. The UAE is already there. There's no doubt about that. They are the exception, but the rest of them have to really step forward here and that would help a lot. And we can get the UN involved in that. As much as that body is anti-American, has an undercurrent of anti-American, is blatantly anti-Israel, and we have all sorts of challenges with it. The fact that they have past resolutions where the majority of the countries are against Iran here, there's more that can be done just focusing on the Strait of Hormuz and make certain that there's international pressure.

None of those things by themselves will do it, but collectively all of that pressure, the military pressure, the economic pressure, the international pressure, allies and partners in the region will have some impact on them going forward. We put together a comprehensive plan, Dany, to do this. I'm not suggesting it's easy. It's not, but it's doable, but it starts with our will.

Danielle Pletka: Yep, it does.

Marc Thiessen: Jack, it seems like the president or his team has put the president in a box that is increasingly tightening around him because we started the ceasefire and we gave them two weeks, right? And he smartly used those weeks to refill our magazine so we now have double the combat power in the region that we did at the start and to sail ships through the strait to start the blockade. And if we had turned around after two weeks and started combat operations again, then it would have been a pretty smart move. But now we're in a position where we haven't done that and the longer we go, the ceasefire goes, the Iranians know the less likely we are to start combat operations again because we're getting closer and closer to the midterms. And the less leverage we have because the Iranians think we're not going to restart the combat operations. So the less likely we are to get a deal. So we seem to be spiraling into every week that goes by, every day that goes by, it's less likely that we get a deal or that the deal is acceptable one.

Gen. Jack Keane: No, I absolutely believe the Iranian strategy here, one, to shut the war down, achieve, two, to drag out the negotiations for the reasons you just stated, is actually playing out right before our eyes. And they believe that the closer we get to the midterm elections... I think the spike in oil prices, people recognize that that's temporary and eventually going to go away, but I do believe that that, in a sense, has been playing right into their hands. The president has said time and time again publicly that, "Look, I'm not going to let the midterm elections drive me here. If we have to return to combat operations, I'm prepared to do it."

And I think we would agree with that and I think that has to be sooner rather than later. To keep dragging this out, I can understand if he actually believed that the pathway was there, that the incremental goals are being achieved and it looks like we're on a path to get the deal that he wants. Remember, he wants the perfect deal now and nothing less than that, and that is fraught with problems because at some point they're going to want financial relief.

Marc Thiessen: Yeah.

Gen. Jack Keane: And that-

Marc Thiessen: Even the perfect deal-

Gen. Jack Keane: As we stated before, that gives the regime recovery and the ability to reverse it. But I'm expecting him to make a decision that as this continued status quo that the Iranians have got us in, as the deal does not get tangible, and look where we are right now. I mean, the negotiators talk to them and they come back. Remember, we're talking through third parties a lot and they come back and say, "Yeah, they're talking about things they haven't ever talked about before." And I'm assuming that, yeah, take all the enrichment out or yes, and we won't have any enrichment capability.

So I'm assuming that, let's use it as an example as opposed to an assumption and that gives them encouragement, but where's the deadline? I mean, we're going to go in. We haven't even started the 60-day clock on negotiations. The MOU framework agreement starts a 60-day clock. We should cut that back down to 30 days or a couple of weeks given where we are right now and put a deadline in front of these guys and say, "Guys, perfect deal or I'm returning to combat operations. Put the date on the table." We did this once before.

The president gave, remember before the 12-day war, the president was trying to work a deal, diplomatic with the Iranians and he gave them a 60-day clock, ironically the same timeframe we're talking about here and they didn't come forward. And on the 61st day Israel was greenlighted to begin the 12-day war. We should have a deadline that we hold them to and if we don't do it, then we're full up military operations and there'll be others that will come to the president and say, "Well, no, we don't have to do the comprehensive 10 to 14 days. We just do a limited military action as leverage to get back into more realistic negotiations and that will convince them that they have to make a deal." No, that won't convince them. What that'll do to... Yeah, sure. They'll say, "Yes, yes, we are convinced." They'll lie to us like they always do and we'll find ourselves back into kicking that down the road again because we took a half measure.

And let's face it, we took a three-quarter measure because we did, 75% of our signed military objectives were achieved by the combined Israeli and CENTCOM military force. That left a lot to do. And we have a lot more to do now in a compressed timeframe because we have more resources to do it and our intelligence has improved so much.

Marc Thiessen: Jack, how much time does that take? We've said before that the president stopped the war with about two weeks left to carry out the destruction of the target list that he had been given. If we were to do what you suggest and go back to full combat operations and finish this thing, how long would it take to do that?

Gen. Jack Keane: I've had nothing that's contrary to 10 to 14 days, is what I've been told and it remains the same. Some of that, they want a little flexibility as you can understand in this because I mean, they don't know for sure until they get into it. Some things may take a little longer, but they're not saying two to four weeks or three to six weeks. They're saying 10 to 14 days and that is still where they are, which tells...

In talking to the Israelis and talking to Central Command, there's enormous confidence in what they know and what they can do about what they know. And believe me, eight weeks of looking at these guys, we have accumulated a lot of exquisite knowledge and we have new targets and we have... Central Command has more resources now, close to two to one and what they had when they started the conflict. These are in the words of Admiral Cooper. The Israelis' magazine depth, while they ran into shortages during the five-week campaign, they're flush with it. So they are ready to go and they would start to make certain the air defense systems were all down to do that and another targets would be upfront as you could imagine, but they have very comprehensive and very achievable target lists within the timeframe I suggested.

Danielle Pletka: So Jack, another question about military sustainability, having two carrier battle groups, having the resources that we have in the region, given the fact that we've just spent the last four decades disinvesting in our military is not without cost. How long can our military afford, can we afford to let everything sit there and wait for the Iranians as they move two steps back and one step forward and play games with our negotiators?

Gen. Jack Keane: Well, we could do it for months if we needed to. To me, that just plays to Iran's hand. We would switch out some of our capability in there. As you've seen, we switched out a carrier strike group, but that shouldn't be our pacing item. Our pacing item, what does this status quo we're in and by dragging all of this out due to Iran geopolitically in the region, are we emboldening them? What's the impact on the Iranian people? When we started this war, I would imagine their optimism was over the top because the United States and Israel were now at war with their predator that was frustrating their entire way of life for a couple of generations and they saw the potential that this was all going to go away. And we were telling them that we wanted them to go away, and that's why we were doing this and we wanted them to help in doing all of that. So yeah, we...

... And doing all of that. So yeah, we could drag this out longer if we have to. I don't see any reason to do that because they're not going to change. Their objective is to drag it out and we're taking a knee to that objective. And makes no sense that we should put a deadline down and put up or shut up and let's get on with the military operation if they're not going to deliver.

Marc Thiessen: The other problem we have, Jack, is let's say by some miracle the Iranians decided to agree to what President Trump wants and give him what he considers a great deal. Right? They'll let us come in, get the nuclear dust, get all the centrifuges, take them to Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and all the rest of it.

They're going to expect something in return for that. We are hearing news stories about a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran. I mean, that seems to me a price way too high to pay for that success. That lets the regime off the mat and all of this becomes reversible if this regime survives. They're two weeks away from irreparable damage and we're going to let them up off the mat. That just makes no sense to me.

Gen. Jack Keane: Well, strategically and geopolitically permitting this regime to recover. And when we say recover, recover from a damage done and reverse whatever deal that they've made, that's what we've got to get into our head. Whatever they sign on a piece of paper is one thing. It's just like what they're telling us is one thing now and what they're going to do is something else. And we're seeing it right before our eyes. They're telling us right now, yeah, we really do want to make a peace deal with you and we're talking about things with you we've not talked about before. That's how sincere we are. But what are they doing? Well, they're killing over three... They wounded over 300 Israelis. They're forcing the evacuation of towns. Hezbollah is at full-fledged war.

Danielle Pletka: And they're hanging people left, right, and center inside Iran.

Gen. Jack Keane: Very good point, Dany.

Marc Thiessen: And they just bombed the Kuwait airport. They just bombed Kuwait's airport.

Gen. Jack Keane: Yeah. How many times have we been in and out of that airport there? And now we saw the physical damage of it. So they're saying one thing and doing another. And when they sign on a piece of paper, they're going to sign to something, they're going to do something else. They will systematically begin the reversal of everything that we believe we've achieved on that piece of paper.

And to think that we would give them hundreds of billions of dollars to assist in their recovery, I mean, that is such a gut punch to the Iranian people. 90 million people whose hopes and aspirations are depending on us here and not to recover this regime and make them even stronger than what they have been in the past. I agree. It makes no sense to do anything like that. And we've got to find the will to stand up to this and also give credit to the United States military.

I mean, there are people who fear the Iranians. I mean, this is ridiculous and are discounting the United States military's capability here. If you talk to any of the military leaders or any of the leaders in the IDF, there's absolutely no fear, none. What they can do to devastate and destroy them is significant. And what they want to do is get after it and they can do that for us and we should have some confidence in them to do that.

This bluster and letting the Strait of Hormuz achieve a geopolitical victory that's beyond what it actually is, we can take it away from them and devastate these guys. This is fundamentally a test of will and spine to deal with who they are and what they're threatening here. We are the number one military power in the world and this is by a generous statement, a second rate power by anybody's definition. More like a third rate power now for sure with hardly any capability that's left.

Marc Thiessen: But what changed, Jack? Because we weren't terrified of this when we launched Operation Epic Fury. They did try to attack the Gulf States. They got some missiles through, but we were able to largely defend it and take out their capability. Why do people suddenly think that we couldn't do that again?

Gen. Jack Keane: I think this has been going on for some time in the United States government. I saw it initially in the Obama administration where number one, when it came to the military, they didn't trust us. So therefore when we said we could do X, they didn't trust it. If you remember, we had the Osama bin Laden target in August of 2011. We didn't take it down until May of 2012. He sat on it for close to nine months out of fear of failure, even though we told him we couldn't guarantee he was there for sure, but all the circumstantial evidence led us to it. He finally made the decision to do it when he realized the political ramifications of losing the target after having it for nine months was going to be worse than mission failure and not trusting the military. And the other thing is, I don't think they liked us very much either.

And then the Biden administration, I don't think there was much of a problem with liking, but they didn't trust us. And they had a tendency to discount what we're saying. Here comes the Trump administration and what I see in the president, like. I mean, he loves the United States military. He admires it, respects it, defends it, resources it. Talks about them all the time, talks about their values, who they are and obviously has put his arms around the military as a symbol of the greatness of America. And actually at times exaggerates some of our capabilities because we do have serious deficiencies and he doesn't want to talk about that publicly too much. And I can understand that. He is the commander in chief.

But the reality is is that there are people around the president who don't have the confidence in our military that I think he does and that advice I think is fairly consistent at times. And they discount what we can do and therefore negotiations receive a degree of emphasis, and that's how fear seeps into decision making. Fear is something that's always there because there's the fear of failure, the fear of not being able to accomplish the objective. The number one attributes you need, I think when you're fighting a war, when I'm dealing with generals on this subject and sometimes in a group setting, I'll ask them, "What is it? If you had to pick one attribute to succeed in war, what would it be?"

And you get various answers. Intelligence, the craftsmanship of being able of a war fighter, courage obviously. All of those things are, integrity, very important. But the one attribute, if you had to pick one as perseverance, because all the impediments... There's always impediments. One impediment is casualties. If the mission is what needs to be accomplished, then you accomplish the mission regardless of the casualties and you got to get your head around that. You don't have this rank on your shoulder and being able to direct people in combat and you're going to let casualty stop you from taking the objective. And you got to understand that.

And George Marshall in World War II was willing to expend the army to defeat Germany and Nazism in Europe. He was willing to expend it and that was the mindset he had. Talk about casualties. He's talking about something considerably more than that. And that was the mindset and that's an example for me in terms of the moral will and perseverance that you have to deal with war. There's always going to be impediments. In our case, casualties is not an issue. They're like by anybody's definition. Political pressure, big issue, economic pressure, big issue. There's always issues, but the objective takes perseverance to get through those and that's why war has always been rightly characterized as a test of will.

And we're in that right now. There is a test of will that's taking place right now and I believe the president gets advice that at times it's discounting the capability of the combined force, the Israelis and central command to be able to achieve the results that they believe they can achieve. And that is not healthy for the commander in chief to be getting that kind of information.

Danielle Pletka: Jack, just one, I know I'm mindful of your time limitation, but I have one asterisk sort of outgoing question because everything you've said is I could not agree with you more. And that unwillingness to persevere is in many ways heartbreaking I think for a lot of people who see what could be if the president was willing to stay the course.

But last question, one of the things that I have found enormously disheartening is that the Iranians now seem to have so much confidence in their superior position in negotiations that they are using leaking and their position to try to leverage the United States against Israel and Hezbollah. And so we saw that there was the contents of a call between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump a couple nights ago where the president reportedly blew his stack, swore at the Israeli prime minister, called him an idiot, used all sorts of other words. Who is serving that up to the American press and what is their agenda?

Gen. Jack Keane: Yeah. A couple of things there. From the Iranians perspective, I think the Hezbollah operation serves them well geopolitically because what they want to do is separate, get some distance between Israel and the United States over that issue. And the more they press it, they think that's likely. And we've seen some evidence of that, but the press is overstating it rather dramatically, but I think that is an objective.

And then there's the political issue of what Prime Minister Netanyahu is dealing with. For our audience to understand, I mean, he's facing an election. He has to have it by October and his political opponents are after him on a daily basis and hammering him for not being aggressive enough because we have 300 Israeli citizens that are wounded, one killed, villages are being evacuated. Why aren't you going full throttle to finish Hezbollah once and for all? And why aren't you doing this? And they're coming after him and they're also saying, "Why aren't you standing up to the President of the United States? Why aren't you separating yourself from him?" This is his political opponents.

And the Iranians are also pushing on that as well. So when somebody leaked and not only the fact that there was a phone call on some of the contents but fabricated the content and I know that for a fact because I know a person that was on the call. And that person called me right after and said, "General, this is total nonsense." Yes, was there tension in the call over Israelis eminent military action going south of Beirut, the southern part of it? Yes, there was tension over that. And did the president rather not do that at the present time? Yes, that's all factual, but the degree of intensity that was being created by that leak and the fabrication of it is destructive and it's being done for political reasons.

We have people I think inside of the United States who do not want Prime Minister Netanyahu to be reelected and that's the Israeli people's decision, not ours. But I suspect there are people who are trying here to create some separation between the president and the prime minister as well, unfortunately, that are dealing with this. Listen, we've seen these Godforsaken leaks. Remember, it almost started the first week the president was in office the first time. Didn't he have a conversation with Mexico was it or Australia and somebody leaked a ... A conversation with the president and a leader of another country, a prime minister or a head of state is a classified conversation by definition, and to leak that is classified. It is a violation of classified information. And obviously somebody is doing that to the media to fabricate this thing.

So yeah, it's really unfortunate to see. It's very disappointing to see something like that take place and knowing that likely originated by someone inside of our government for their own motivations.

Danielle Pletka: Disappointing.

Marc Thiessen: It is disappointing, but I'll tell you what, Jack. I don't know what we'd do without you because there's nobody with your clarity of thought and your strategic vision and the country is so lucky to have you.

Danielle Pletka: Amen to that. Thank you, Jack. Thank you for taking the time to be with us always.

Gen. Jack Keane: Yeah, thanks. Thanks for helping me out with my timeline here, guys. I appreciate it.

Marc Thiessen: Take care.

Danielle Pletka: We understand.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Marc Thiessen: All right. So Dany, what do you think?

Danielle Pletka: So look, I continue to believe that victory can be snatched from the jaws of defeat. I continue to believe that the President does have the vision that's necessary. I continue to believe that this could be the most transformative decision a president has made in many, many decades. And it just makes me want to tear my hair out to watch people around him who somehow don't have the courage of their convictions, don't have the courage of his convictions and who, honestly speaking, mislead him about the prospects of a serious deal with the Iranians because there isn't one. Because Barack Obama-

Marc Thiessen: And misleading him about the ability of our military to stop the worst outcomes and to be successful.

Danielle Pletka: Exactly. Well said.

Marc Thiessen: He's got the calculus, he's being given a backwards calculus. The calculus should be that a deal is unlikely, that is satisfactory, and that our military actually can protect our Gulf allies and prevent 40% to 60% of the world's oil from being destroyed. And we can kick the ass of the Iranian regime into kingdom come in 10 to 14 days. That's the truth. And we can open the Strait and we can maintain the blockade.

I mean, look, the solution here is it's a two-minute decision in the first minutes for ... Let's take that up. The solution here is pretty damn simple. Restart the combat operations for 10 to 14 days and beat the hell out of them, protect the Gulf States' oil infrastructure. And by the way, tell the Iranians, "If you hit that Gulf infrastructure, we're going to take out Kharg Island, which means your economy is finished."

Then reopen the Strait by force, hand that over to the Europeans, and then start arming the Iranian people through a CIA covert operation the way we did during the Cold War with solidarity. We did arm solidarity, but we provide support with the Contras, with the Mujahideen, with UNITA in Angola. We've got all the muscle memory we need and bring the regime down.

I always preview columns that I'm going to write and I think I might have mentioned this one before, but I am going to write it, I promise you. This is the glaring flaw in the Trump doctrine is that he really doesn't deeply believe in democracy being an important part of the strategic calculus, right? In Venezuela, what he accomplished in Venezuela is enormous and he loves Delcy Rodriguez because Delcy Rodriguez does what he tells her, and she will do that until January 20th, 2029. And then a new president will come in and they will revert to form the way they were before, right? Everything's reversible and it's the same thing here with Iran. If Baby Khamenei, the younger are running-

Danielle Pletka: Baby Ayatollah.

Marc Thiessen: Baby Ayatollah is running the country on January 20th, 2029, everything that he's achieved will be reversible. The only way you can lock in your accomplishments is by having regime change. And we don't have to do it the Bush way. We don't have to send 300,000 troops to occupy a country. We can do it the way we did it during the Cold War.

There's two methods of regime change. One that we've decided we don't want to do anymore, and I think that's right, which is with a massive ground invasion. But there's another way, which is to give people the means to liberate themselves with weapons, training, intelligence, and all the rest of it. It's kind of what we're doing in Ukraine, right? We're exercising those muscles right now. And we did it in Central America, and we did it in Africa, and we did it in the Middle East during the Cold War. We liberated 400 million people without any boots on the ground except for a handful of advisors here and there.

Danielle Pletka: Right. Well, listen, Marc.

Marc Thiessen: You think we can't overthrow the Iranian regime without putting boots on the ground? Heck, we did it with Mosaddegh. CIA did it before.

Danielle Pletka: They did. The CIA didn't do it with Mosaddegh. The Iranian people did it, but we helped. That's right.

Marc Thiessen: Yeah. We helped. Exactly. That's what I mean.

Danielle Pletka: We cannot help. True.

Marc Thiessen: We're not doing it. We help people overthrow their tyrants. We have so much muscle memory as a country of doing this.

Danielle Pletka: Yeah, we don't have it now.

Marc Thiessen: And this is what's missing is everything that Donald Trump is doing from bombing the Houthis, to bombing Boko Haram, to seizing Maduro, to bombing the hell out of the Iranian nuclear program. All of these things, these are great decisions that the President has made, but it's all reversible if we don't change the regimes. And that's where we're falling short. It's not making a deal with them. It's getting rid of them.

Danielle Pletka: Yeah. Amen.

Marc Thiessen: That makes the change irreversible.

Danielle Pletka: Amen. Couldn't agree more. And with that folks, keep your fingers crossed. Hopefully there'll be some good news by the next podcast. Take care, everyone.

Marc Thiessen: See you next week.