Listen to this episode

Speaker A: I think it’s fair to say that former GOP Congressman Adam Kinzinger and I, we disagree about plenty. He got elected as a Tea Party guy. That’s not really my scene. He saw Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal as appeasement. As a result, Adam can totally see why military strikes in Iran could have made sense.

Speaker B: I’m a little more hawkish, probably, certainly, than you on it, but part of my hawkishness is assuming that we go in with a plan, limited objectives, we can win, and we can achieve what we’re doing. So, yeah, maybe we’re a little different, but we’re probably united on this specific one.

Speaker A: So when you learned, given all this a few weeks back, that President Trump was joining this war in Iran, can you just walk me through the stages of your process? Were you initially like, huh, this could be.

Speaker B: This could be okay, or were you immediately like, oh, no, I wasn’t immediately like, oh, I didn’t think it was the right move. Right. I didn’t think this was the time. I didn’t know what the goal was here. My biggest problem at the time was that the President spent no time preparing the American people. Typically, if you do that groundwork, the American people will support you for a little bit. And then it just seemed to drag on. And the President, the other thing that really kind of a trigger point was right when he said, we’ve already won. I mean, for them, it’s a war. For us, it’s turned out to be easier than we thought. And I know this enough about Donald Trump that he doesn’t want to put in the hard work of convincing anybody. He feels that he’s above, like, having to convince anybody of anything, like, if he makes a decision that should be good enough. And so he was in such a hurry to tell everybody it was over to calm the oil markets by like, oh, this is no big deal. That’s when I realized we might be in over our head on this.

Speaker A: That’s interesting that as soon as he said, like, it’s. Everything’s done here, it’s all over here. You’re like, oh, yeah.

Speaker B: That’s when I started to get really worried.

Speaker A: Because you just knew, like, there’s no way it was over.

Speaker B: Yeah. And I mean, now you have the straight, here’s the only thing I can give you that I can think of. And I’m hoping people are thinking of stuff beyond what I am, and I think this is only a one in four chance it would work, but I think there is a chance that they are going to attempt to occupy Kharg island, which is Iran’s number one oil export. In fact, in the 80 to 88 war, Iran finally decided to enter negotiations with Iraq when Iraq started bombing Kharg Island. And so one of the things I think is a possibility is to take Karg island, hold it. Hold it. In exchange for Iran stopping attacks and opening the straits, is that going to guaranteed be successful? No, I think that is an option, though, that you can probably compel a diplomatic solution, maybe.

Speaker A: Let’s be clear about what you’re suggesting here. You’re suggesting ground troops, right?

Speaker B: Yeah. I mean, if we want to win this thing or we want a diplomatic conclusion where we don’t look like. We don’t look like we’ve lost, I think this is an option. Now, I want to be clear. I’m not saying that we should do this, but what I’m saying is if there is a way to compel a diplomatic solution in which we may come out favorably, this is one way I see that could be successful on that.

Speaker A: Today on the show, Adam and I talk through the dirty details of what a way forward in Iran could look like. I’m Mary Harris. You’re listening to what next? Stick around. Do you think the president is going to be successful in convincing any of our allies to help us open the Strait of Hormuz? We’re in this interesting moment right now where all of them are like, no, we’re good.

Speaker B: It’s tough. You know, there may be a point at which some of our allies basically make the decision to help because of high oil prices, because it’s in their interest. At this point, it’s clear that nobody is going to help. And that’s not necessarily because we went into Iran, although I think we shouldn’t have done it. It is because Donald Trump has spent the last year and a half telling our allies we don’t need them. And then two weeks ago puts out a tweet and says, Ken Starmer is looking at sending two aircraft carriers. Guess what, Kent? We don’t need it. Keep them. And then he’s begging them for these aircraft carriers. And then he says yesterday, like, no, we’re taking our ball and going home. We don’t need anybody. If I’m the president of a European country, even that’s favorable to what the United States is doing. I would sit here and say, I’m not putting this ship under the command of a baby who changes his mind every 12 hours if he’s been offended.

Speaker A: Well, and what credit do you Get. I think that’s the other thing, which is like, if you’re going to be playing in the world of negotiation, then you have to legitimately offer something to the other side.

Speaker B: That’s right.

Speaker A: And I think we, over the last year, our European allies have learned, like, there is no offer on the other side.

Speaker B: And here’s what I hope the European allies are doing. If I was advising them, would be like, okay, be willing to help us, but only in exchange for a commitment from Donald Trump in writing, something that has to stick, that we will reimpose sanctions against Russia and help Ukraine. Because Ukraine to the Europeans is the most important thing. It actually is to me too. It is the most important thing going on in the world. If they can get a commitment out of him, that’s one thing. I mean, an interesting thing, though, to tell you about how ill thought out this was, this war. We’ve used 900 Patriot missiles, Patriot interceptors, to defend us and our allies in the Middle East. And a significant amount of stuff is still getting through in all of the war, defending themselves. A country the size of Texas in Ukraine has only had 600 of those interceptors in four years. We used 900 in like two weeks. You think about the good that could have done for the Ukrainian people if instead of launching this war, we would have actually given them that air defense.

Speaker A: How much do you worry about the US Military getting overextended here? Like, before we went into this conflict, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff apparently warned the administration we could, like, run low on munitions. Do you think that’s like a real thing?

Speaker B: It is, yeah. And the thing that’s most worrisome to me is I’m not seeing the defense industrial base, which gets a bad rap. And I understand that, you know, the F35 debacle, some of the ship debacle, but in terms of the defense industrial base that does basic things like make munitions. Right. Or makes Patriot missiles, we’ve allowed that to atrophy. And it’s understandable because we haven’t had to use stuff you don’t want to keep buying things you’ll never use.

Speaker A: But is it cranking back up now?

Speaker B: A little bit. A little bit. Not fast enough. And this is the concern, and I hope this changes because now you have a financial incentive for these companies to do it. But what I worry about is the air defense munitions. I worry that we’re not prepared for drone warfare. And I’m not even talking about the big shaheeds. I’m talking about drone Swarms from China. And I’m worried that our precision, like our GPS guided munitions, we’re running out of.

Speaker A: Are you worried that we don’t have enough drones of our own or that the drones could somehow overwhelm us?

Speaker B: It’s all of it. So it’s that we don’t have enough drones of our own for offensive. And it’s also that how do we defend against them? Right. You imagine a drone swarm and these can be hundreds or thousands of drones with like little grenades, basically. Think of it on them. How do you defend against that? Some people will say electronic warfare. Well, that works until what we see in Ukraine is each one of these drones are now connected to a fiber optic line. And in fact, it’s terrible for the environment. You see, at the end of a battle, it looks like angel hair all over a battlefield because now they’re spooling out 10, 20 miles of fiber optic cable behind a drone. And that way it can’t be electronically jammed. How do we defend against that?

Speaker A: Wow.

Speaker B: So that’s where I worry that we’re behind on. And then long range precision munitions, which we’re using a ton of in this war, need to be replenished. But look, we still have a lot of stuff. I mean, we’re not helpless by any means, but some of the best weapons, unfortunately, we’re expending on the stupidest war right now.

Speaker A: You’ve urged Americans to look at who’s benefiting from the war as it’s playing out right now. Specifically Russia.

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker A: Can you just lay out what you want people to pay attention to here? Because I think you’ve made a compelling case that, you know, Russia is aiding Iran and we’re aiding Russia, which is just a bizarre circumstance to be in.

Speaker B: Yeah. I mean, this is where you have to just say, like, for me, I’ve always kind of tried to stay away from the what does Russia have on Trump because, you know, I can’t prove anything whatever. But now I’m starting to really just ask that question because why? Because Russia. So Russia gets initially the Shahid drones, which are the size of small airplanes like Cessna’s. Okay. They get those from Iran and basically keeps Russia alive when Ukraine was advancing in 2023. And ballistic missiles. Now Russia has made these drones in house. Now they’re shipping them to Iran to keep Iran going. Iran is being provided targeting information by Russian satellites, which is why now they’re hitting very accurately, are what we call the defect, which is like the chow hall or the combined area operations center. These Specific targets we have in our bases, they’re now hitting accurately because of Russia. And instead of Donald Trump saying, if Russia is providing target help to my enemy, I am going to strengthen sanctions, Donald Trump went to Russia and said, we are now going to relieve oil sanctions on you. It benefits you, by the way, $150 million a day. We’re going to do that because of the oil markets. And by the way, the relief of sanctions has done nothing to bring the price of oil down. So Russia helps Iran survive and kill Americans. In Donald Trump, instead of then helping Ukraine defeat Russia, he instead helps Russia get more money to keep doing what they’re doing. None of that makes sense.

Speaker A: And then on top of that, it seems totally unsustainable. It’s, it’s completely, you’re talking about loss of American life, literally, like people striking chow halls. You are going to have families who are so enriched raged here that I, I don’t know what you do with it.

Speaker B: I’ve heard stories, I, I don’t want to say them because I don’t want, but I’ve heard stories about lack of things like food in theater. Again, I, I, it could be like a specific situation in a small area. All that stuff gets rectified pretty quickly. But if that’s true, it tells me there was not great planning.

Speaker A: Well, it’s interesting though, because also that, that resonates with the fact that when we saw the ICE deployments, there were reports of people sleeping on the floor. Not good planning for that. So it kind of the reason why that’s believable, even if you’re saying you don’t know it’s true, is because there’s previous experience of lack of planning.

Speaker B: Well, that’s true. And so there’s an old saying, and it’s what America is really good at in warfare is logistics. Right? Yes.

Speaker A: People say, like, the military is basically a logistical operation that happens to have bombs.

Speaker B: That’s what it is. The idea that we can move a military halfway across the globe and execute a war is honestly nothing short of magic, if you know how it works. Russia is right next to Ukraine and they have logistics problems. But the other thing that really does concern me is it doesn’t matter. Even if we win this war, which I want to be clear, I do want us to win. I want America to come out on top. I’d love the Iranian people to have freedom. I’m just worried it’s not going to happen. And I’m worried that we launched the wrong war. But the other big question about did we win? And is is our reputation on the global stage stronger or weaker? Are our alliances stronger or weaker? And I don’t even need to spend the next five seconds telling you that our alliances are way weaker.

Speaker A: We’ll be right back after a quick break. Can we talk about what happened this week with Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center? He resigned. He released a public letter and it was this odd moment where, you know, this guy is problematic. He’s been tied with white nationalist thought. And but he’s resigning because he’s saying, I do not believe that this war in Iran is just. And what do you make of this and what kind of alarm bells did it ring for you?

Speaker B: Well, let me also say that either today or tomorrow or sometime within this week, he’s going to be on Tucker Carlson.

Speaker A: Huh. It’s interesting because Ro Khanna was like he should testify in front of Congress. And I saw that and I was like, huh, is that what we need?

Speaker B: Now I’ll be honest.

Speaker A: There are certain areas that some parts of the right and some parts of the left alignment, horseshoe theory.

Speaker B: Right. And I would be very cautious to my friends on the left do not align with this group. This, because here’s the thing. We can be glad that Joe Kent left. We can be glad and like welcome him to that part of the debate. But this guy is a white nationalist. He has clear ties to white nationalism. His thing with Iran is not so much some disagreement about the US Being involved in the Middle East. This is one of those. He’s part of the Tulsi Gabbard club that loves Russia. Okay. So let’s just be clear. He may come to the same conclusion that somebody else has come to, but for very, very different reasons.

Speaker A: Yeah. Is there a way to talk about his stance here that doesn’t drag in all of these harmful ideas at the same time? Like if this guy did get in front of Congress, is that useful in some way or not?

Speaker B: I personally think not. And not because he’ll go in front of Congress and necessarily say something that is bad but like it will welcome him into circles he shouldn’t be welcomed into. But look, I mean if Ro Khanna wants to call him, I’m sure he’s now like this kind of the face of the anti Iran thing. I just would warn people, be very careful. What he says may be true, but he may be coming at it with a very different heart.

Speaker A: Yeah. Can I ask you something? I’m just curious about because of your experience in Washington, obviously You’ve got a lot of experience and expertise in military, foreign affairs. There is one member of this administration that I imagine you know better than I do, and then most. And I want your take on what he’s up to, and it’s Marco Rubio. And I say that because, you know, when he was first named as the nominee, you were like, he’s pretty good, right? Pretty good, yeah. And since he’s been in the role, we’ve seen him. I don’t know if you call it an evolution, but he’s certainly been incredibly aggressive about Venezuela. He’s now talking about Cuba, and you can see the president talking about Cuba, too. And when it comes to Iran, he’s saying, you know, there was an imminent threat, and that’s why we made this action, went to war in Iran. What is your take on Marco Rubio at the moment?

Speaker B: I think those actions that you just mentioned are actually the only thing that’s consistent about Marco. Right. He’s been pretty hawkish. He obviously had a real issue with Cuba. That’s where he comes from. Hates communism in Cuba. The big thing on Venezuela is I have no idea what they really accomplished because it’s the same regime, just a different person at top. And now I guess we’re friends with them.

Speaker A: More pliant.

Speaker B: Yeah. And now we get money from them. I guess so. The thing that’s crazy is I had a conversation with Marco after the 2016 election when he dropped out, in which I’m sitting here having breakfast with him, and we’re talking about the need to maintain the resistance against Donald Trump to prevent this from infecting our party. And now he is that infection. And, you know, the bozo shoes are the best example of. Of. Of who he is. Right. He will wear.

Speaker A: Marco Rubio wore these very large shoes, and the rumor is they were from Trump.

Speaker B: Yep. Because he doesn’t want to say. He wants to fit in. He doesn’t. I think this is a guy that still has presidential ambitions and has completely collapsed his own personal moral belief system to either those ambitions or just to the least. To the least challenging road. Look, if I had to pick somebody in the administration to be president that’s already there, I would pick him. Whoa.

Speaker A: Really?

Speaker B: Well, that’s versus like what, Kristi Gnome and Pete Hegseth. Right. Like J.D.

Speaker A: vance.

Speaker B: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Way over J.D. vance. J.D. vance is. Is creepy.

Speaker A: That’s so interesting. You would pick him even now.

Speaker B: Well, again, let me stress this before this becomes a headline. I would pick him if my only options are Other current cabinet members. Right. I’m not saying I want him to be president, but if it’s like you can have Hegseth, J.D. vance or, you know, Kristi Noem or Mark Wayne Mullen or whoever. Yeah. I would pick Marco over any of them because I think he has the potential.

Speaker A: Real murderers row. I’m just like imagining it in head.

Speaker B: Yeah. But I don’t trust him and I don’t trust, you know, anybody that is able to. To throw out what they personally believe at the altar of power to me, doesn’t deserve either.

Speaker A: Yeah. Okay. Back to the war in Iran. You’ve basically predicted, I think a lot of people have, that President Trump will try to declare victory. Get out of there fast. I guess. I wonder if you think that’s still possible.

Speaker B: Yes. It’s a little more complicated now, obviously. And, you know, I think going. If you could go back in time, the smartest thing he could have done is after the strike on the leadership is done. Exactly that. Right. Just leave. And then, you know, if.

Speaker A: Kind of a mic drop situation.

Speaker B: Yeah, a mic drop. And say we did what we wanted to do now. I mean, the complication now is simply the straight. And, you know, I do think they’ve done significant. I mean, here’s the reality of it, and I want to be fair, which is if the goal is degrading Iran as, you know, their ability to project out power, that’s been done. I mean, Iran is not going to be a player on the world stage for a very long time because they’ve just been obliterated and continue to be. But the thing I worry about is it becomes Syria. Right. In which it becomes a destabilizing mess for the entire Middle East. So that is the danger is Trump now knows if he just declares victory and leaves, the chances of it becoming just a failed state is big. I think actually Israel would like that or at least would be okay with that. But the really, the big issue is the strait. If he leaves and the strait is closed. I mean, when we say close, all it takes to close a strait is a public threat that we will shoot a boat that. That closes the strait.

Speaker A: Yep.

Speaker B: Then, you know, then you will see oil skyrocket. You think it’s high now? It’s high now. Also pricing in that the US Military is there attempting to open the strait. If all of a sudden we leave and it’s closed, you will. I think you could see oil double because the only thing that determines oil’s price is people’s prediction of what happens in the future. And I think that’s when they’re like, right now, the thing keeping it down is just the idea that the strongest fighting force in the world is trying to open it when it becomes clear that it’s going to stay closed. Yeah, we’re in. We’re in a world of hurt at that point.

Speaker A: I know that there’s some debate about what an opposition party should be doing in this moment. Like, I had one of the pod save guys on last week, and he was basically like, we need to not fund this war. Donald Trump is going to come to us and ask for money. We need to say no. I get the sense your answer might be different to that, though.

Speaker B: Is it kind of not different? Maybe, I guess, maybe slightly. Typically, I give the President a lot of leverage on foreign policy. Now, I’m not talking about Trump, but any president a lot of leverage on foreign policy. But a president at least has to do lip service to the fact that Congress has a role for the President to have never come to Congress. And this is Congress’s fault, by the way. Congress is the one that could take its own power if it wanted to, but it’s choosing not to. But I think he should have come to Congress. He should keep this advice. He should tell the American people what’s going on. And so if he’s going to come and ask for billions and billions of dollars for this mission that he claimed three weeks ago was already accomplished, then I don’t think the Democrats are under any obligation to vote for that money.

Speaker A: Yeah, the problem to me is that you’re funding a literal madman. So it’s like, you know, there’s.

Speaker B: There’s one thing to say, like, we need to finish the job we started, but when the person who’s doing the job is doing so poorly, the question is, how would you even build in enough safeguards to make sure that financial support was distributed in the ways that made sense and there’s creative ways to do it? And this is where I actually would advise Democrats to go, is like, two things. Number one, we may release a tiny bit of money a day with these kind of mile marker requests. You need to come to us with the plan, you need to come to us with whatever, and then you get this amount of money. This. I’m just odds on that happening are like, I’m inventing zero. And by the way, I’m inventing this as I’m telling you. So I haven’t thought this through a ton. But the other thing is just like, I think Democrats have to Be very careful to say, okay, we’re not going to fund offensive combat operations. But also be careful not to cut money off for, you know, obviously the troops in place right now, not for them to go bomb, but in terms of living, coming home, stuff like that, that’s where you need to be very careful. And I don’t envy whoever is going to have to navigate through that because if you just simply cut off all funds for the war in Iran, in theory, in theory, you can’t put gas on airplanes to bring troops home. Even so you just have to nuance that correctly. But I don’t think Democrats are under any like American obligation, you know, as Americans to fund this.

Speaker A: You know, you served in Iraq and Afghanistan and you were an airman. I know you take American life, loss of life very seriously. And I get the sense you don’t think that this administration does.

Speaker B: Right? Yeah.

Speaker A: You wrote this thing on your substack when six airmen and women died in a mid air collision in the last week. It was nickel in the grass, brother and sisters. What does that mean? Can you explain it?

Speaker B: Yeah, there’s an old thing, I think it came from World War II in which whenever a pilot would die, people would come in. And if you remember World War II, you know, hundreds of pilots die a day, basically they would come in and throw a nickel on the grass on behalf of that person or throw it on their casket. And I don’t know where it comes from, except it became, became a pilot tradition where you throw a nickel in the grass for somebody. So that’s the meaning to it. You know, you, you can give a godspeed or, you know, eternal skies or nickel on the grass. And you know, to me it’s, it’s interesting because we are so lucky and I hope, I want us, no matter where you’re at on the political spectrum too, to take a moment and embrace the fact that we are lucky to have the best military in world history. Because when we go to war, we, there’s not a, a huge list. Even during the war and terror, we would lose 100 guys a month in the height of Iraq. As terrible as that is, Russia is losing a thousand a day right now. And that’s typically what warfare is. But it also makes each death kind of more personal to us because you do see a face, you do see a name. And so it’s great that there’s not as many deaths. But we also need to remember that that represents a life, right? That represents a person extinguished, a future extinguished. And I always said I wear the name of a buddy of mine who was killed in Iraq, Andreas o’. Keefe. And I always said when I went into Congress, and it was ironic because it actually culminated on January 6, I said, if I’m willing to take votes to arm people for combat and I’m willing to ask young people to die for this country, I have to be willing to give up my career for this country, because there is no way I would be unwilling to give up a job, but then let somebody give up their life for the country. And that stuck with me. And that stuck with me through January 6th. And. And I hope people take that lesson, which is just appreciate, you know, the life of everybody that didn’t have to die. They didn’t have to join the military. They did it for whatever reason. Maybe it’s patriotism, maybe some cases college money. It doesn’t matter. They chose to. And we should. We should honor that.

Speaker A: Adam, I’m really grateful for your time. Thanks for coming on the show.

Speaker B: Yeah, thank you. Enjoyed it.

Speaker A: Adam Kinzinger is a former GOP congressman and a retired lieutenant colonel in the Air National Guard. And that’s our show. What Next is produced by Elena Schwartz, Rob Gunther, Anna Phillips, and Madeline Ducharme. Paige Osborne is the senior supervising producer of what Next and what next DVD. Mia LaBelle is our executive producer of podcasts here at Slate. Ben Richmond is the senior director of podcast operations. And I’m Mary Harris. Go follow me on bluesky. I’m aryharris. Thanks for listening. Catch you back here next time.