Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
[00:00:10] Speaker B: Welcome back to Going Underground. Broadcasting all around the world from the uae. It's seven months today the Trump and Netanyahu launched Epstein fury on Iran. Millions have been killed, wounded or displaced. Billions have been economically wounded by the war. Today the week long UN so called General assembly debate finally ends in Manhattan. Future generations may either see it as one of the UN's many swan songs or when it became northern normal for a speaker to threaten the annihilation they're driving into hell of an ancient civilization that numbers 90 million. There were walkouts during Trump's speech, but at least the forum gave a chance for Iranian and American informal talks. But leaders of BRICS powerhouses Russia and China chose to skip the whole thing. Genocide in Gaza continues. Saudi Arabia bears the scars of Yemeni strikes and the Bab El Mandeb and Strait of Hormuz are not fully open. Former UAE Foreign minister and current senior diplomatic adviser to President MBZ Hanwar Gagash called for a new mindset for Iranian Arab relations and said this is the period for greater diplomacy. On Saturday's episode we spoke to Joe Kent who resigned as Trump's counterterrorism chief over the war in Iran, citing Israeli interference in U.S. foreign policy. Today we talk to a former CENTCOM deputy commander who advocates more bombing. Joining me again from Abu Dhabi in the UAE is the ex chief executive of Lockheed Martin Middle east retired U.S. navy SEAL Vice Admiral Robert Harwood. Robert, thanks so much for coming back on Vice Admiral. You turned Trump down when you when he selected you to be his national security adviser. I understand you believe that the timing may be right now to lift the responsibility from Marco Rubio after Mike Waltz famously was sacked as national security adviser, demoted to become U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. I'm not sure whether is a demotion.
What do you say you're going to you'd become national security adviser today?
[00:02:01] Speaker A: Well first I'd be remiss if I didn't comment on your introduction where you suggested that I've recommended more bombing, which is not a true statement.
I've always said the solution to Iran is a multi front whole of government effort while we've demonstrated our military power and that's quite obvious with what we've been able to do and come and do it anytime.
[00:02:25] Speaker B: More diplomacy then at the same time it wasn't incorrect?
[00:02:28] Speaker A: No, not at all. I think we need to leverage all available resources and assets and that's as much as you're noting politically and economically. I'm a big fan of what Secretary Besant has done where he's brought this economic power. And we've yet to see all of that brought to full fruition. But that will play out here shortly.
[00:02:50] Speaker B: But you'd want US Air support.
You'd want US Air support if there was any of these, I mean many people would say mythical demonstrators.
[00:03:00] Speaker A: What I would say that those are all options. So again, it's very important here when we talk about Iran, talk about the situation in the straits and the Bab Al Binjab to be as precise as possible. And that may be part of the problem.
So I've always felt that the solution to long term solution for Iran, long term solution for the Arab countries in the Gulf that leads to security and stability for the long haul is what we have to be focused here and what we now have an opportunity to do because of President Trump. I've watched my entire life Iran and what it's become since 1979 and the inception of the Islamic Revolution, not just in Iran, but other events in the
[00:03:48] Speaker B: region that's I should remind you, is that you grew up in Iran.
[00:03:54] Speaker A: Yeah. Thank you. We were there from 1968 through 79 when it collapsed. In fact, we were in Tehran when the Shah left Khomeini, Iraq. But going back to the the subject at hand, I feel we have to get a solution that provides long term stability and security in the region and with Iran. And that's not been existence since really 1989 at the end of the Iraqi Iranian war. When the regime first came to power in 79, they were fumbling about somewhat, they had different presidents. But it was the Iraqi invasion of Iran that really gave the, the regime the, the opportunity to coalesce all its people. And it's under the nationalistic flag as they fought in Iraq. But at the end of the war, war with Iraq, when the IRGC was established a lot of their security in places, they turned their ire on the United States, the West and Israel as a form of galvanizing and controlling their people while they continue to support and enhance all their mechanisms of repression against the people of Iran.
[00:05:08] Speaker B: I do want to get back to the national security advisor question, but what Iran just certainly did that the United States wasn't doing anything against Iran at all.
[00:05:18] Speaker A: Well, why not? Again, you got to go back.
[00:05:20] Speaker B: Israel wasn't doing anything to the Palestinians and they were ensuring solidarity with the Palestinians.
[00:05:26] Speaker A: Again, let's go back in that historical content is so important and again, as you know, our political systems, I think our adversaries and others realize that is very cyclical as you go through Democratic Republican parties, midterms elections and that. So we can be very inconsistent in our long term policies. And I think that's what's happened in the region at large, not just Iran. So when the. After the fall of the Shahna, the arrival of Khomeini coming in from France and taking control, you had the Russian.
Well, but that sets the stage because the policies that happen not only from the United States but Saudi Arabia that year as well is to help shape what it is today. When the Russians came into Afghanistan, our policy was to fund and leverage the Mujahideen to combat the Soviet occupation of Iran.
[00:06:24] Speaker B: I know, but there's so many interesting. I know. And of course they turned into Al Qaeda. And we've just had the terrible anniversary of.
Your history misses out. Your history of course is missing out the deals Reagan made with the Iranian government, the revolutionary government of Iran as regards their supply of weapons to death squads in Nicaragua. It misses out famously when Iran was an ally against isis, Al Qaeda, of course Iran was.
[00:06:56] Speaker A: You're reinforcing my point that American policy has been cyclical and not a long term prioritization for security and stability in region in the Cold War for many
[00:07:10] Speaker B: years you supported the, I don't know whether alliance is too strong a word with Iran against Al Qaeda, did you not? I mean there was a secret meeting. You were supposed to meet Qasem Soleimani, I understand in 2011 when the fight was on and eventually it was victorious, helped by Iran because Iran and the United States worked together. Qasem Soleimani with the United States worked together to defeat these extremists in Iraq.
[00:07:41] Speaker A: Well, I don't know if we ever defeated them. Actually we made more placated that the time being. But that was a concept of Operation 1 options based on my background. One of the options of the time that we did not exercise was how could we coordinate and communicate with the government of Iran.
One of the options was to have me meet Custom Soleimani for discussions. But again that was in 2004, 2005, 20 some years ago.
[00:08:16] Speaker B: I thought it was 2011 at the beginning of the.
[00:08:20] Speaker A: No, Syria. The point being that either way that's a decade, two decades ago and a much different situation and the illustrating the growing and persistent threat the IRGC has presented during that entire journey.
[00:08:37] Speaker B: No, wait, wait, wait. I know. I would say if you look at Time magazine from the era which celebrated Qasem Soleimani as this great hope, the famous article in Time magazine, you can tell if even mainstream so called media were talking about Qasem Soleimani in this way, there were close contact there to try and defeat Al Qaeda. Iran was the ally of the United States after 9, 11 against.
[00:09:03] Speaker A: I call that a bridge too far. What I would characterize it is there was discussions, there were attempt at coordination and again we never know how that were we being played. Were they actually an ally? And in most of these cases in Iran for the last four decade has played the United States. They've outplayed us and many times predicated on the understanding that they only had to worry about a two year cycle for elections are at best a four year cycle.
[00:09:36] Speaker B: So their long term approach, you are arguably being generous to the IRGC because surely it was obvious that the war in Iraq would strengthen Iran's geopolitical power in this region. I do want to get to the first question I asked you, though you're avoiding it now. Would you be national Security advisor to Trump now after you previously turned him down?
[00:09:58] Speaker A: Well, let me say this and again I think the whole of government, and I spell that with the W H O L E is necessary to reach the objective the President wants and has articulated and using all the elements, all the component of the US Government, not only to come to consensus on policy and strategy, but also implementation. That's a place the Security Council can add incredible value and capacity for the President.
And so I think right now more so than ever, that's a necessary, necessary to see the best solution and best approach for the region. I would add to that prioritization. If you look at the United States for the last three, four decades, it's always been China, China, China and the Middle east may have been second or third on the pecking order. Second at best based on Europe and the concerns with Ukraine and Russia, where at the end of the day I see it as a much higher priority. If you think of energy and how important that is to the world and the markets and the amount available in the region and what that represents to global economies, I would place this region as on a parallel path with China in prioritization not just because of what it means to the rest of the world, but more importantly what it represents to China at the end of the day. So it's a great enabler.
[00:11:40] Speaker B: Look, look, we know that. But does that mean that if you had taken the job Trump offered you around the table, you'd have been on the J.D. vance side in the Situation Room and said don't assassinate Khamenei and bomb Iran and Start this war, which would create this sort of energy crisis that clearly flows from what you just said.
[00:12:02] Speaker A: Well, let me just. Again, I'm not on anyone's side. If you're the National Security Advisor, you're not on anyone's side. Your job is to articulate the intel.
[00:12:13] Speaker B: Would have told you that. The Americans, what are they? How many millions a day are the Americans? Billions a day? Is it 2 billion a day? The Americans are paying for this war? If you calculate the diesel costs, the military costs, the interest rate increases, the food and fertilizers, or increases $2 billion a day, your intel would have told him that, and you'd have been able to tell Trump that, and we wouldn't be in this war.
[00:12:39] Speaker A: Well, again, the National Security Council's goal is to prepare the best options, the best lay of the land, assimilate and bring together all the intelligence to present to the President his options, but more importantly, to support the options to. And policies.
Your job isn't to be on any side.
Your job is to support the President of the United States to meet his objectives with the best policies and strategies possible. To do that, and bringing together all those elements, the treasury, the State Department, the Department of War, the Secretary of the Joint Staff, all those entities that have capacity to bring to the effort, your job is to coordinate those policies, present the pros and cons and lay those out for the president to make his decisions on what policies and strategies he would implement. You're not on anyone's side. You've got to be the honest broker to all working in support of the President.
[00:13:47] Speaker B: Vice Admiral Bob Harwood. I'll stop you there. More from the former CENTCOM Deputy Commander after this break.
Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with retired US Navy SEAL and former CENTCOM Deputy Commander Vice Admiral Robert Harvard. Vice Admiral, you were talking a lot about how it's not the job of a National Security Advisor to take sides, it's just to present the intelligence when I wanted an answer, whether you'd take up Trump's offer so many months after he offered it to you. But do you think Marco Rubio is doing a good job or. In fact, actually, there is no National Security advisor since Mike Waltz was sacked to become United Nations Ambassador.
[00:14:33] Speaker A: Listen, I think the administration and the whole team's done an incredible job.
They took on this threat when it had to be addressed, and everyone's focused on how much it costs. We can't do this.
There's been a threat from Iran for the last 30, 40 years. Are you kidding me? I watched friends die because of Iranians. I had the intelligence, we had the proof. We knew they were killing our people.
[00:15:01] Speaker B: But US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said that Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon. And Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor, the post that was offered to you that he has right now, he said, clearly we only got involved because we had information that Israel was going to attack Iran and Iran would retaliate, as Tucker Carlson actually said that Trump pushed him out to say that because he was so annoyed by Netanyahu and what Netanyahu had done to persuade him for the war in the first place.
There is no clear and present danger From Iran on February 28, let alone June last year. You know that.
[00:15:41] Speaker A: I've watched Iran my entire life.
I've watched them accelerate their capabilities in every lane, be it terrorism, be it nuclear weapons, be it missiles and drones.
And I've watched them, and I've watched them use those instruments against my American friends and families in Iran, and I'm sorry, in Iraq and Afghanistan, I've watched them launch missiles into Saudi and uae. All of this years past Iran, I've watched face to face, I've gone face to face with Iranians where they told me they were going to kill me if I continue moving in astral waters. So I've seen this threat up close and personal for the last 34 years
[00:16:32] Speaker B: at the UAE before February 28th last year.
[00:16:36] Speaker A: Was it last year they hit the.
[00:16:40] Speaker B: Yes, since the Trump bombing.
[00:16:45] Speaker A: Okay, so you're saying all that. Let's just forget about that. That's not just effective, that's just what
[00:16:51] Speaker B: they would call it day after day out. So that's not, as President Brzechki said of the United nations, it's retaliation. It's clearly defense.
[00:17:01] Speaker A: Retaliation for what? What had UAE done? What had Saudi done? When.
When they hit their refineries, when they hit missiles, when they hit the airport here in Abu Dhabi, what had they done?
[00:17:15] Speaker B: Well, it was retaliation for the US bases. In fact, that is a question for you to answer. Are the US Bases going to leave this region now? Because the GCC countries clearly see these US bases as not areas of protection, but actually targets. It makes these countries targets.
That's one side effect. Let alone the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the financial terrorism against the American people.
[00:17:43] Speaker A: You forget how long those bases have been there. My father was helping install the basin in Bahrain.
So those have been longstanding bases to help provide the fifth Fleet.
[00:17:55] Speaker B: Ever going to is the fifth Fleet ever going to be there? I mean, is the Jordanian bases, King Hussein, Al Azraq, they were bombed on 30 August 2 September, Camp Titian, Prince Hassan Air Base. Are they all gone now?
Are they finished?
[00:18:11] Speaker A: Well, let's go back to your point.
Your premise was there is no threat from Iran. Sure, if they bomb us, then we all leave. I guess there's no threat. But your premise in the initial discussion here was the threats that Iran.
[00:18:29] Speaker B: I'm personally not threatened by the United States, but if I, if I set off a bomb in Washington D.C. i presume Washington's going to retaliate against me. It's not a question. You can't after the fact say, look, they are, they were a threat because we bombed them and they retaliated. That's not the way war works.
[00:18:49] Speaker A: Well, but I'm thinking again, you're as I've seen Iran over the last three decades, four decades since the end of the Iraqi. All they've done is threaten, go after our people, some kinetically and some more asymmetrically where it did not. They went after our cyber activities. They're threatening our ships. They've always been harassing our fleet.
[00:19:13] Speaker B: Surely you don't believe that a country retaliate against another country if it enforces, say, sanctions.
The Lancet study says 38 million people have been killed by American sanctions between 1971 and 2021.
You don't believe that all the killing, de facto killing, that economic sanctions mean deserves retaliation? If the United States were to be sanctioned by another country, would the United States not retaliate? The United States may well have been sanctioned by Xi Jinping, who knows as regards rare earth metals.
[00:19:47] Speaker A: But you recount all that again, you're talking about the current state of affairs that goes on everywhere in the world. None of it becomes kinetic.
[00:19:57] Speaker B: Iran went kinetic supporting Saddam Hussein decades ago.
If you want to go into the history, the United States supported Saddam Hussein. They gave them chemical weapons to target Iran. So obviously Iran may look to the sponsor of Saddam Hussein, which was the United States.
That's the history.
[00:20:18] Speaker A: Again, I'll challenge some of that history, especially the chemical biological. But again, you're talking three, four decades documents.
[00:20:28] Speaker B: We have Donald Rumsell photographed with Saddam Hussein giving the, arranging the chemical weapons being given to him. I mean, I don't want to get too historical from all this altogether, but I understand you've been in Kiev lately.
Tell me about how the war is going on in Europe at the moment and is there any point in Well,
[00:20:52] Speaker A: I think the effort in Kyiv is not dissimilar many ways to what we're watching in Iran. Two countries, well, at least one with 30 million people, the other 90 million people, both of them have been able to take on two the premier superpowers in the world, Russia and the US and so forth, hold them at bay.
And I think due to their inventories and the use of drones.
And so that's the biggest takeaway of what I'm watching. We're watching the nature of warfare change before our very eyes, where we had invested billions of dollars for drones and used them exclusively in Iraq and Afghanistan, primarily as an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance asset. In this case, they provided kinetic. They went that step, as we just previously talked about kinetic, and now Keith has demonstrated they're very much able to put a, a bomb or strike anywhere in Russia anytime they want.
[00:21:55] Speaker B: I mean, they're not going to win that war, are they? Clearly, rather like you can't win a war against Iran. It's very different in the sense that Kiev can't win the war against Russia.
[00:22:07] Speaker A: Presumably you would agree, again, it's as much about deterrence. The fact that they can hit any location, a refinery, a headquarters in Moscow itself, is a great deterrence and should help drive a political solution for the situation there. Tell me about your office strategy.
[00:22:29] Speaker B: Tell me about your office in Kiev and how you're helping the Ukrainians.
[00:22:33] Speaker A: We've been there for many years. We support with drone technology on many fronts and we are assisting their capabilities to evolve in drone warfare. I think it's best to leave that. That's it. But it's clear to everyone, what did
[00:22:52] Speaker B: you think when Trump said.
What did you think of it when, as a person who Trump wanted to be National Security Advisor? When Trump said to Zelensky, quit using your drones to attack Russian refineries?
[00:23:05] Speaker A: That's logical. But again, they can hit anything they want. So if they're not going to hit refineries, they may put another target on their priority list. So I can understand the concerns of the president and some of that is as messaging, as a more operational. But I think with the drone warfare, and that's where our support and where we're involved in Ukraine and we're seeing this play out in the Gulf with Iran as well, the ability to touch and strike anything in the country you
[00:23:34] Speaker B: want and you think strategically valuable. How strategically valuable is it if you're supplying drone technology to Ukraine for it to target Russian cities?
I should say civilians in Russia have been killed by these drones, you could
[00:23:49] Speaker A: ask the same question of any European country, much less the U.S. sure. And so there's a lot of support going into help Ukraine defeat or at least stop the Russian onslaught.
[00:24:01] Speaker B: Well, you see, that's the point, you know, as a vice admiral, as a former deputy commander of centcom, that Ukraine cannot defeat Russia.
[00:24:10] Speaker A: What do you, I guess I'd have to define what you mean by you just said defeat.
[00:24:16] Speaker B: Stop Russia. That's obviously not going to happen.
[00:24:19] Speaker A: Stop the Again, I think you're playing with words here, Bill. Let me re articulate what I'm saying. The drone warfare and your ability to put holes in the ground anywhere you want becomes incredible. What does it achieve? And strengthens your, and strengthens your position when you go to the table to discuss the terms at which this conflict will end. But again, remember, it's Russia that invaded Ukraine.
So NATO, the US and others have been steadfast in their commitment and support to Ukraine. I don't see that changing.
[00:24:58] Speaker B: And so you don't think NATO expansionism has anything to do with, with the conflict in Europe at all?
Joe Kent, the former head of counterterrorism, is on the record as saying it was NATO expansionism that caused the war in Europe. Trump has previously mentioned it when he was campaigning. JD Vance has mentioned it.
You don't give any credence to the idea that this was a deliberate provocation, a coup in Maidan in 2014.
You don't believe any of that.
[00:25:31] Speaker A: I can't articulate what went through Putin's mind. It was his decision. I'm not going to try to second guess what positions or what antagonists caused him to act. But it was very clear in his buildup. We all saw and knew it was coming. And there was no effort at that point by Russia to resolve issues. So again, I can't debate or understand what made his calculus for his decision to invade Ukraine.
[00:26:00] Speaker B: Well, clearly the drone strikes mean that there is opposition to Putin growing, but because Putin isn't acting more extremely seems to be the information we're getting from Russia just finally because we're running out of time.
Tucker Carlson said on this show that part of the war on Iran was Israel's desire to weaken the power of the gcc.
We're both in the United Arab Emirates right now. What do you make of the fact that Israel, because it's an Israeli project, the war in Iran, they also wanted to weaken the countries in the gcc. That was part of what Netanyahu wanted, what Israeli leaders have long wanted. And the United States fell into that trap. The GCC should realize this is an Israeli project meant to weaken them.
[00:26:50] Speaker A: If you look at the situation today where Iran and what they're able to do militarily against the Gulf, the nations control the straits, control the Bab El Mandeb by either their surrogates or partners is indicative, as I said earlier, of the threat Iran posed to all the Arab nations in the world, much less Israeli and the United States.
So that needed there was going to be a point where you could say Israel's the threat.
[00:27:22] Speaker B: Some would say Israel's a threat clearly to the region.
[00:27:25] Speaker A: Well, it's clear Iran, since it's since its inception regime have been a threat to Israeli, not only Israel and West and their own nation. And they've articulated that consistently throughout to the gcc.
[00:27:42] Speaker B: But we're out of time.
We're out of time. Alas, you'll have to. We'll have to have this conversation again soon. Vice Admiral Robert Harwood, thank you.
[00:27:52] Speaker A: Thank you.
[00:27:54] Speaker B: That's it for the show. Our condolences to all those of you bereaved or affected by Washington's wars of aggression. We'll be back on Saturday with a brand new show. Until then, keep in touch via all our social media, if it's not censored in your country. And head to our channel, going undergroundtv on rumble.com to watch new and old episodes of Going Underground. See you. Sadly.
