Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
[00:00:12] Speaker B: Welcome back to Going Underground, broadcasting all around the world from the uae, where US Secretary of State Marco Rubio scrambled this week after another U.S. defeat. Under the U.S. israel surrender, Iran will reopen the Strait of Hormuz, restore oil exports and receive sanctions waivers and unfrozen funds. Final terms to be negotiated later. An Israeli newspaper owned by one of Trump's billionaire bankrollers, Miriam Adelson, said, you could have been the greatest president of all, but you failed. Adelson's paper accused Trump of signing a surrender agreement in Versailles. And all this ahead of America's 250th birthday next week. The speeches will gush about brave soldiers who are victorious for one struggles to name a single war which the United States has won. Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Lao, Cuba, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia. Those are just some of the proxy wars and, and interventions that arguably had nothing to do with defending the American homeland. They only serve the drive of US Elites for global dominance and the military industrial complex, killing, wounding or displacing hundreds of millions all around the world. Yet today's guest insists the US Must deal with Iran through force, that no amount of negotiating can resolve its issues with Tehran. Joining me now from Bucharest is retired U.S. navy SEAL Vice Admiral Robert Harwood, former CENTCOM Deputy Commander and ex Chief Executive of Lockheed Martin Middle East. He's now Executive Vice President of SHIELD AI, running its international operations here in the uae. An Iran Policy Project Advisor at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America.
Vice Admiral, I think you're speaking to me from the embassy there. Before we get to the important issues of today, I just want you to quickly take us back.
You were here running Lockheed Martin in the uae, refused to replace Mike Flynn, who has been on this show, as Trump's National Security Advisor. And presumably, if you were the National Security Advisor now, you'd be supporting the memorandum of understanding over the Iran war.
[00:02:07] Speaker A: Well, again, if you're the National Security Advisor, your job is to advise and help the president implement his policies.
When I was at the National Security Council under President Bush, that was our job. We had the best from the interagency, the treasury, justice, CIA, Office of Secretary of Defense. We had all those interagency team members on the National Security Council.
So we would take the president's objectives, turn that into policies, and present options to the president. And that's what a national Security advisor does. So when you said I would be supporting the mou, I would be supporting the policies of the President of the United States and helping outline the pros and Cons and all the options associated with the options and objectives he's trying to achieve. So that's what the National Security Advisor.
[00:03:06] Speaker B: Why didn't you take the. I mean, I know Mike Flynn has written extensively about the pressures, political pressures that were on him as National Security Adviser. Why didn't you take the job, though? Would you take the job now? I understand it's now.
Is it Rubio who's acting National Security Advisor?
[00:03:24] Speaker A: Well, you've raised a great issue today.
As you know, the president somewhat stood down at least the National Security Advisor position that no longer exists. He gave that responsibility to the Secretary of State. And in that, he also downsized the scale of the National Security Council, so it has a lot less capacity than it used to have. I do believe where we are now, especially on this Iran issue, that whole government approach, lining up the options, how you go implement this policy, much less insurance phase effective, is really needed. So I do think it's appropriate to have a National Security Advisor outside of State Department, outside of any agency, who then draws the best from all of those government agencies, the pros and cons, to align with the president's objectives to get the right policies.
At the time when the president asked me to do the job, I was in a very unique position in my life and stuff going on, and I wrote him a letter. I told him, Mr. President was an honor, we'd be proud, but the time was not right for me. But I remain on your bench because I like the policies he's implemented so far, and I remain in that position today. If I can serve and help, I'd be willing to do that.
[00:04:50] Speaker B: He hasn't called you, though?
[00:04:53] Speaker A: No. No one's called you.
[00:04:55] Speaker B: You're in the US Embassy there in Bucharest. So I suppose I have to ask you, if Iran violates the mou.
Do you believe, and I kind of hinted at this in my introduction, you believe that the United States should return to bombing Iran?
[00:05:10] Speaker A: Well, all I believe and I know because I've seen this, and as you all knew, I grew up in Iran. I saw what Iran was before the Islamic Revolution came to power in 1979. And I've watched this government people call the regime ever since, and they've never held to their word. They've never complied with anything unless they got what they wanted out. I believe we're in the same situation now. I'll be very surprised.
[00:05:38] Speaker B: The IAEA said they did. IAEA said that they did.
[00:05:43] Speaker A: That's debatable, too. We watched the iaea. They, and I think You've seen former National Security Advisor Bolton, Josh Bolton, talk about this recently.
The IAEA was in Iran. They had access sometimes, but it wasn't the unfettered access we require or need.
And so they have their own agendas as well at play here. But back to the point where I do not believe at the end of the day that Iran intends to comply with any of the demands or objectives the President's looking. And I think throughout their history they validated and proved that while the IAEA may say they had they met their objectives, they could tell how much material they had, they knew the number of cascades, everything the Iranians allowed them to see. But as we know from intel, there were a lot of things going outside, outside of the purview of the iaea and the Iranians intended that way. So I think that same behavior should be inspected as we move forward in these, be it negotiations and anything the Iranians will do going forward.
[00:06:55] Speaker B: Yeah, I should say John Bolton's another person who's been on this show, another national Security Advisor of Donald Trump's. But as regards nuclear enrichment, then you don't believe that one side effect of this war has been a growing population, part of the population in Iran that now says Iran must have nuclear weapons to balance Israel's nuclear weapons. If you were National Security Advisor in Iran, in Tehran to the Iranian government, you would be advising the enrichment, presumably.
[00:07:29] Speaker A: Well, I'm going to challenge that comment.
I don't think the population of Iran supports is the population of Iran wants some peace, stability and some economic benefits where they have not had that for decades. But I do think the government that's currently, and I, I mean when the people, it's really not.
[00:07:52] Speaker B: But Vice Admiral, why wouldn't the people want a deterrence?
[00:07:55] Speaker A: Because their governments, their governments fail them in the basics. You know, their economy, what it costs to eat, what it costs to pay for power, what it costs to war. That's what they're focused on first. The nuclear weapon and a deterrent for the people is irrelevant to their standard of living and taking care of their families and have some modicum of freedom at least to make choices.
And if they object to the government not to be murdered for it, that's what I think the bulk of Iranians. So when you talk about the nuclear program, that's an instrument of power for the current government of Iran, I don't think the people see that as a priority at all. I think their well being is their highest priority.
[00:08:44] Speaker B: But life expectancy in Iran is 76 and a half that's I don't know how many years longer than Mississippi, West Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama, Kentucky. I mean we're talking here about the largest car manufacturer, car manufacturing country in the Middle east, right? Iran global top 10 steel producer ahead of Italy.
I've lived in Iran and I don't recognize the Iran. I mean I recognize that there is some in Iran that support the mou.
And I would imagine that a lot of young people feel now is the time to have nuclear weapons so that their lives can't be threatened again the way they were by, by Donald Trump. I mean, let's not forget it has the largest Jewish community as well in the Middle east. And Trump, the Trump Netanyahu bombing, besides
[00:09:37] Speaker A: Israel, I should say did have a large institute.
[00:09:40] Speaker B: It has the largest. Well today it has the largest Jewish population in the Middle east and Israel bombed its synagogue in Tehran.
[00:09:51] Speaker A: A vampire population. And again, I'm not current with the numbers, but the whole time I was there, it's always had a very large Jewish community and I do, as you said, the largest one outside of Israel in the Middle East. I don't know if that's true today. I know it was historically and again, I'll go back. Regardless of the religion, I think the people of Iran, it is true today is really are more focused on their standard of livings, being able to take care of their families and being able to live a life they want to live. I think that's the number one concern amongst Iranian people. And the industry as you have all talked to, have always been there. When I was there it was the Paycom. So I don't know what the car there is producing today, but it's a very educated, hard working population that we have more in common with anyone else. But I still think their focus is not the nuclear weapon because they don't think it's the regime that poses and will dictate to them how they live. And you see that with the protests, especially in January, then they took several cities in Iran and yet no one came to their assistance and then they were all murdered on the street.
[00:11:09] Speaker B: Did you, what did you make of, what did you make of Israeli claims that they were actually behind those protests? And actually the numbers 40,000. Ehud Olmet, former prime minister of Israel was on this program last week saying 40,000 and I challenged him on that figure.
How many? Was it a CIA program for Kurds to send weapons into Iran, which has also been said by Trump administration figures. And was Israel behind the protests as Israel maintains?
[00:11:40] Speaker A: Well, again let's go back to your main question here. And this is part of the issue, finding truth in Iran. Because the regime controls all the apparatus of intelligence and information is hard to verify. And there are networks certain countries have to extract and get as much information as possible. And today the Internet's back on. So I would think that flow of a. But don't forget, for numerous times all information has been controlled by the regime. So you're right to get the facts behind some of these statistics is a challenge. But what is irrefutable is the murders that they have killed tens of thousands. And let's go back history and this is the part that's so challenging to me. We know they have killed hundreds if not thousands of Americans throughout the their regime. They've killed Emirates, they've killed Saudis with their missiles attacks. And I'm not talking about the war now, I'm talking about years ago. I was in UAE when Iran conducted its first drone and missile attacks in the country. And this was a year or two. It killed several people, hit their airports. So it's been a consistent aggressive attacks by Iran on people and countries outside of their purview that they wanted to influence. And no one has held them accountable. President Trump came to the table and held them accountable. And at the end of the day, I think it's that accountability. Everyone's looking for the Iranians, the Emirates, the Saudis, the Qataris and the Americans. And I think that's long overdue.
[00:13:26] Speaker B: Vice Admiral, 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 the retired US Navy SEAL and former CENTCOM Deputy Commander, Vice Admiral Robert Harwood. Vice Admiral, you were talking about GCC countries being attacked by Iran over many years. Of course, where we stand now is that GCC countries are making deals with Iran. They recognize the geographical proximity and reality of the situation. Oman has made a deal over the Strait of Hormuz. The sharing of it, the 21 nautical miles on both sides.
What exactly? Who decides that? The existing government of Iran has lost its legitimacy. Obviously, all the GCC countries refuse to allow the United States to launch a tax from their land. And they all maintain relations with Iran.
[00:14:34] Speaker A: Well, I think that's because of our policies. One thing that has been very clear to me as I've watched our process and our governments, we have elections every four years, in fact, every two years with midterms. So our policies change quicker than the moon rises, so to speak. And they've seen a Saudi UAE cover where we've worked deals and had accommodations.
Election happens and we flip and go the other way. Where they are in their governments are very stable and go decades in the same.
[00:15:08] Speaker B: Yeah, but they recognize, they recognize the government of Iran. They don't seek regime change in Iran, only the United States. And Israel is seeking that. So Washington somehow has the right to decide what Iranian government is acceptable.
[00:15:28] Speaker A: Let me challenge you on that. They know the United States has the power to act and support them, but they can't trust and believe in the government because there's inconsistency in our, our policies. They know they face existential threats from Iran. And so since they cannot depend on the United States, they have to accommodate Iran.
[00:15:55] Speaker B: But the existential threat. But Vice Admiral, the existential threat is by virtue of them having the US Bases, isn't it? And as for the United States, it doesn't have the military power to defeat. It doesn't have the power to defeat Iran. Clearly, I mean, a $2 trillion Navy that you've worked most of your life in cannot secure the sea lanes in the Gulf. It cannot secure them.
[00:16:21] Speaker A: Again, I'm going to disagree with you. It's not a matter we cannot. It's if we will or not. And that's where the political will. We can do all of those things if we have the political will. Will to do that. And President Trump finally acted that decades to show Iran we can do that. And yet he stopped short of the end state.
If he were to achieve that end state of regime change, to have an Iran that is at peace with its Arab neighbors, at peace with Israel, and became prosperous, they would all be in support. But they cannot.
[00:17:04] Speaker B: Well, why not make friends with.
[00:17:06] Speaker A: If they don't know.
Let me finish. If they don't know that the United States is not going to see it through, that we don't have the consistent political will to deliver that end state.
[00:17:20] Speaker B: I mean, Israel clearly doesn't like Iran because it has allies in Lebanon and around the region. But why doesn't the United States make friends with the largest car manufacturer, the largest steel producer, one of the largest iron producers in the world, Iran, 90 million people. Iran has previously worked with the United States, most famously during Iran Contra trying to overthrow the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. I'm not calling for that, but why doesn't the United States make friends with Iran? Iran is not anti American.
[00:17:55] Speaker A: Iran has made it clear from its inception of Islamic at revolution that the defeat and destruction of Israel, the defeat and destruction of the United States and the world.
[00:18:09] Speaker B: That can't be true because they were working with Israel in the 1980s, weren't they? That's clearly not true that Iran is against Israel.
Israel was helping. Israel was helping Iran in the war against us Saddam Hussein.
Israel was working with Iran.
[00:18:27] Speaker A: Let me go back again.
Let me make it very clear again. When the regime came to power, and don't forget the first nine years of their existence, they were at war with Iraq. So they had not made. And that gave them time to consolidate their power in turn during Iran. And so during those years and in the early stage, it was unclear after that when they consolidated power and wanted to enhance their nationalistic objective, Israel, excuse me, Israel and the United States became their number one objective. They said that in everything they do. And they've taken all the actions ever since to include support of their surrogates such as Hezbollah. So again, I don't think the current regime, and I'm be specific, the IRGC can be accommodated. If you add a different government that renounced the principles and programs of the Islamic revolution, which is, I think, the end state, then you could be at peace, you could work together. But with those policies and programs in hand, you'll never get there.
[00:19:42] Speaker B: Well, the rest of the world is trading clearly with Iran. It's a member of brics like the uae. Let's turn to Ukraine.
Your February plan calls for ironclad US Security guarantees from Russia.
I have to put the thought experiment to you. If Russia openly backed and changed the government of Mexico with Russian officials caught discussing which opposition leaders should be running Mexico, then armed it promised Mexico in return military alliance and then arm the killing of communities in Mexico that were from the United States. You'd think that Washington would just say, that's all fine. I wouldn't see that as a threat because that's how Russia sees it clearly.
[00:20:29] Speaker A: Yeah, I find that very hypothetical. That situation with Mexico. This is a much different situation. You had Russia come into Ukraine, invade Ukraine, and there are currently about 400,000 Russian troops in Ukraine. They're not going anywhere. They've taken and they intend to keep Ukrainian soil. So they've violated the sovereign integrity of Ukraine. And the Ukrainian people find that completely unacceptable, as do we and I think most NATO.
[00:21:03] Speaker B: How do you mean the Ukrainian people? Trump called them a dictator.
That's why he's not having elections. Mr. Zelensky, Trump famously said he's a dictator. He refuses to have elections.
His very low poll ratings in Ukrainian polls, the only thing he was good at was playing Biden like a fiddle, a dictator without elections.
So what do you mean, the Ukrainian? Most of the Ukrainian people have left Ukraine anyway.
[00:21:32] Speaker A: I wouldn't say most of them have, but yeah, sure, people have left the war zone, but not most of them. They've committed to the fight. They've lost a lot of their good soldiers. I've been in Ukraine and see how they're suffering and the price they're paying. But they're going to see this thing through. And I think, really more importantly, I think a lesson for all of us. You've seen two countries, Ukraine with no air power and Iran with no air power, able to hold off two of the premier superpowers in the world, Russia and Iran.
[00:22:08] Speaker B: Well, Russia, in fairness, says it hasn't gone full throttle, as you know, into Ukraine because it doesn't want to kill its brothers and sisters. So you seriously think that your February plan for guarantees, I don't know, like Article 5 guarantees, you believe that the USA should risk nuclear confrontation by backing Ukraine.
[00:22:34] Speaker A: Again, I'm opposed to any course of action which would take us to the
[00:22:39] Speaker B: brink of, well, wouldn't that take it? Well, that would do it. It would trigger a US Military response. You said no.
[00:22:45] Speaker A: Again, you're making an assumption then and again. This conflict's been going on for several years now and we've had not press that precipice, but it illustrates the, the scope of the industrial complex, the weaponry and the manpower it takes to sustain this effort. And that's a challenge for Russia and they're paying a high price for it. Ukraine has been able to use drones, missiles and long range drones.
[00:23:14] Speaker B: Wait, so you think Russia can lose this war?
[00:23:18] Speaker A: Again? I'm not going to say who loses. Everyone loses at the end of the day because of a life loss, the damage done. But again, Russia invaded Ukraine.
Let's not forget that. That's how this all started. And that's the focus here.
[00:23:35] Speaker B: No, I think that's what I was alluding to in the Mexico hypothetical. They didn't start the war, did they? We know the Victoria Newland phone call. We know the coup in 2014.
We know that people in the MAGA movement upon which Trump draws his support, realized that this was due to NATO expansion. You must know that, Vice Admiral, that Russia didn't suddenly want to expand the largest country on Earth. They don't need more land in Russia.
[00:24:03] Speaker A: Well, if you make that analogy, which I, I don't think is appropriate, but I think is something to consider. Of course, Ukraine, all the nations that broke away from Russia after the Gorbachev era sought to become part of NATO to enhance and protect their own sovereignty.
[00:24:25] Speaker B: Nor would that help the CIA, not with the help of,
[00:24:32] Speaker A: again, I find that hypothetical as the cause. What really Putin over the line of why he went in. But don't forget, we watched them line up their troops. We watched them line up their forces. And the red question, would they go on? And Putin made that decision to invade. That's undeniable. We all live that and watch that very closely. And he's been reinforcing and building that 4 structure, taking as much land as he can during that campaign.
I think that's irrefutable at every step. Now, the reasons why he did that, we'll never know unless he tells us, and he may tell us a political cause as well.
[00:25:14] Speaker B: It's not just him.
It's not just him. He has an opposition in Russia that wanted him to go in much earlier, clearly, to the NATO provocations, in response to the NATO provocations. But you still stand by the idea that Trump, if you were his national security advisor, you'd be advising that this war should continue rather than peace talks, an end at the lines of control and detente, and perhaps strategic arms limitation with Russia, given that nuclear weapons are clearly.
[00:25:43] Speaker A: One sec.
Once again, let me clarify the role of the national security advisor. You're not necessarily there to advise President Trump. I think President Trump knows what he wants to do very clearly.
So your job is to take his objectives, turn that into policy, present the pros and cons, and how the whole of government, the interagency, can support those efforts.
He makes those decisions. So your advice as a national security is predicated on his objectives, what the interagency can do, both the pros and cons and limitations.
[00:26:24] Speaker B: Okay, all right.
[00:26:25] Speaker A: Point taken.
[00:26:25] Speaker B: But just.
Point taken. But just very finally and very briefly. So basically, not as the nsa, but as vice admiral, you'd be wanting Trump now to revert back to bombing Iran if it breaks the MoU, and back to pouring American tax dollars and weapons to Zelenskyy to attack Moscow.
[00:26:49] Speaker A: No, I did not say that. And again. But what I do think is important to these all tools of national power, political, military, and financial. And I think the biggest tool the president has because of the blockade is the financial strangulation of Iran. And so I would be very focused on understanding the pros and cons of maintaining that financial pressure to enhance our objectives and force Iran to comply, along with all the other military options. And I would ensure we maintain all the leverage we can through our policies and capabilities to do that, to support the president's objectives.
[00:27:41] Speaker B: Vice Admiral Robert Howard, thank you.
[00:27:44] Speaker A: Thanks. Good to be with you.
[00:27:46] Speaker B: And that's it for the show. Our continued condolences to all those of you bereaved or affected by today's NATO nation wars of aggression. We'll be back on Monday with the editor of the Gray Zone, Max Blumenthal, who was in Iran before Trump and Netanyahu killed Ayatollah Khamenei and members of his family. Until then, keep in touch via all our social media, if it's not censored in your country. And head to our channel, going underground.
[00:28:05] Speaker A: TV on.
[00:28:05] Speaker B: Join rumble.com to watch new and old episodes of Going Underground. See you Monday.
