Iran Counterattacks, Hegseth Testimony & More | Military Experts Analyze the Conflict

The U.S. military is carrying out its 10th night of strikes on Iran, even after three U.S. service members were killed over the weekend. Colonel Leighton, Iran has been focusing its counterattacks on Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan. At the beginning of the war, it was a much wider breadth of countries they were targeting in the Gulf region. Why the shift here? Yeah, that's a great question, Phil. One of the reasons that they did this is because there's a preponderance of American military forces in places like Kuwait, Jordan, and Bahrain. There are also some in the UAE. But there are some relationships that the Iranians have with the UAE and with Qatar, which also has a major U.S. military base. In fact, the largest air force base overseas is in Qatar. And the Iranians have decided at the moment not to attack those two areas because of those relationships and the fact that Qatar and the UAE are also working on mediation with Iran. So that's one of the main reasons. But the countries of Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan, they are more open to the U.S. being a presence in their area for a long time. And the Iranians have basically said that these are areas that they want to strike because of that U.S. presence. Very explicit, it seems, in how they're targeting at this point. Another service member was killed in a, quote, controlled detonation. Explain for people what that means. So when you're looking at where these people were killed in northern Iraq is the one that you're actually speaking about here. So in this area in Kurdistan is where this happened. So when you're looking at a controlled detonation, what you're talking about is an effort to basically do what a bomb disposal crew would do. So an explosive ordnance technician was the one that was there trying to dismantle a bomb that was on probably one of these Shahid drones. And that was the idea, was to take out the explosive device before it could harm other people. So he was basically, he or she, was basically going in and trying to defuse the bomb. That's what the effort was in this particular case. And we're also learning the U.S. is sending more fighter jets to the Middle East. What does that bill tell us about the strategy, the shifting strategy, whatever things are at this point? Yeah, so one of the types of fighter jets is really the workhorse of the U.S. Air Force, the F-16, and it is basically used for things like air-to-air combat and also air-to-ground attacks. So this is an aircraft that can be used for those very specific missions. And then for the F-35, which is a very key mission, air superiority and strike missions, so what they're going to be doing is they're going to be taking jets like this and actually moving them forward in a way that would allow them to really strike at targets really throughout the region. And when you look at the entire region here, they've got a plethora of targets that they can go after. So the target set that we're looking at would include areas here in the south and in the west because of missile launch facilities there. And then we can't forget about Tehran because that's really the center of everything. And then potentially, they might actually strike at targets in the northeast because that's the connection via rail to Russia and China. Do you think from the northeast perspective, Iran's air defenses are demolished enough, are taken care of? They still clearly have capability. That overflight, I think, would put U.S. assets at a pretty significant risk. It does put them at risk. However, one of the key things to keep in mind is they have conducted these overflights multiple times. And with assets here in the Arabian Sea and in the Persian Gulf and in places all around here, the overflight is actually not that complicated because they know where the air defense assets are. And they've taken out a lot of them. And they can hit here. They've already hit here once. They've taken out a railroad bridge right about there. And that very fact really shows what they're capable of. So, yes, they can take out a lot more of what the Iranians have if that's part of the target list and if it's part of the strategy. There's no questioning the effectiveness of the air campaign. It's kind of everything around that still kind of up in the air. The U.S. defense secretary has been on Capitol Hill as he's trying to defend the war in Iran and ask for more money. Dan Cain said the war had cost almost $38 billion. And that is set to grow. The Democratic senators are raising the policy objections and the concerns about how the war began, whether the president was properly advised and so forth. And I think the secretary and the general are just trying to preserve the privacy of their advice to the president and also trying to defend themselves from a war that's turned to be very, very difficult. So as you look at it and the ability, there was, first of all, this accusation that the number of injured, of U.S. forces being injured, some seriously, is not being reported either with the accuracy or the efficiency that it should be. Which, of course, would be very distressing. You know, one of the things that we have learned from watching the Ukrainians is they do not report their losses. So every day you may hear about missile strikes on Kiev, but you don't hear how many Ukrainian servicemen were killed. That's information that does have intelligence value to our adversary. And one of the things we learned in Vietnam and have learned since then is that when you are dealing with the public and their understanding, they focus on casualties rather than on other aspects that are important in understanding the conflict. Now, these casualties are tragic, and certainly our commanders are doing all they can, I'm sure, to prevent them. But the truth is that war is a risk. And when you put men and women over there, there are likely to be casualties. And that's just a fact. And so I understand why the Pentagon is trying to withhold some of that information. And I hope our viewers do, too. There would be, I suppose, a suggestion that that might be valid, a valid point, provided General Clark eventually the full numbers to come out on our made public. Of course they come out eventually. And that's important. And leaders have to be held accountable for their performance. But I think in the day-to-day struggle here, it's important that, for example, you don't want to tell the enemy exactly where a missile struck, what element it hit, the name of the person immediately, because they might use it for targeting. So I think there is reluctance to share some of this information. I fought in Vietnam, and I know that we were very prompt in reporting casualties. And sometimes that overpowered the public appreciation of what the soldiers themselves were trying to accomplish. So there's a balance here. In a democracy, people and representatives deserve truth. But on the other hand, we have to have military operational secrecy to a point. This business of the ammunition and the missiles and the running down of the stocks, I guess, to somebody like myself who really has very little idea of how all this is done, other than the fact that you use them and they have to be replenished, are you concerned that the United States is deploying and using armaments at a rate not only that can't be replenished, but that is worryingly fast? Yes, I think we're all concerned about the rate of expenditure of critical munitions, and especially defensive missiles like the Patriot and the THAAD. And efforts are being made to accelerate the production. But they're slow. These are complex systems. On the one hand, you could say, well, they're made to be used. But on the other hand, we've got some big challenges facing us. So yes, we're concerned. Now, I will tell you that we've got a very large store of conventional bombs that can be equipped with guidance kits called Joint Direct Attack Munitions. And this is what's being used in a majority of the strikes currently, I think, underway in Iran. Your reaction to the deaths of these service members and the president's vow of retribution to make Iran pay? First of all, all of our hearts go out to the families, teammates, friends of the people that we've lost. Every loss is a tragedy. These are particularly so because we're in an unnecessary conflict and we don't seem to have a good way out of it right now. As you heard, they're increasing the air assets going into the theater. That suggests additional escalation. Donald Trump has put himself in a box and there's no easy way for him to get out of it. He initiated this war thinking there'd be a very quick victory. And that's not what's happened. And what I think has been missing in his mind is the understanding of the Iranian regime's willingness to resist and their intent to achieve their own objectives. And that's what he's confronted with. He doesn't have control of the situation. And that's very, very obvious right now. On the fact that the U.S. is moving assets into the region, they're planning to send additional F-16, F-35 fighter jets, as well as aerial refueling tanks. What options does that open up for the Pentagon? Basically, continued and additional airstrikes. The president's been threatening to attack infrastructure and so on. And we've seen some of that already. Most of the attacks, as we understand it, have been against military targets. The problem we have is that Iran has dispersed its assets. It's concealed them. It's hardened them in some cases. And they're tactical assets. They're really hard to get at. You can't keep continuous air presence everywhere, over, around, all the time. It just can't be done. So their ability to attack assets in the Strait of Hormuz continues and has not diminished meaningfully. And until that does happen, they'll be able to control the Strait. We don't have a good answer to that. It's a very foreseeable problem that the president should have understood, should have been advised about before he started this war. We can escalate. We can go after other targets. As one of your earlier guests said, that's a war crime. But that doesn't seem to have constrained this president very much. And so he can do that and inflict greater pain on Iran. I think it's unknown how much they're willing to accept to make their point that they want to control the Strait of Hormuz. Yeah. Tehran is striking civilian infrastructure, conversely, across the Gulf, including water treatment plants, civilian airports, as well as air capabilities in terms of detection. Do you think that risks driving a wedge between these Gulf allies and the United States? Oh, I think that's the intent, is to extract a price from other countries in the region and discourage them from supporting the United States. There's also some indications that the war will widen, that the Houthis will now be trying to close the Red Sea, basically, to Saudi Arabia and prevent their shipments out by that alternative route. We don't see a good outcome anywhere in sight at this point. I've been saying from day one on this that there was a risk that Iran would overplay its hand. I think that's what they're doing. They can't get much more out of President Trump than he's already willing to concede. And they should recognize that and cut a deal with him. But that doesn't seem to be the path they're on. And Trump is left with very few options but to escalate and try to convince them that it's time to do a deal. So that's where we are. So in your eyes, it's far more likely that we get a serious escalation well before there's any kind of resumed ceasefire or even a more lasting deal? I can't put a percentage on that. It's impossible to predict. The Iranians have their own way of looking at the situation. I can't really get inside their heads. It's not the transactional approach that our president brings to the table. They've gone way beyond that. And so I think the big surprise for him has been their resilience, their willingness to accept punishment, and their continuing attempts to demonstrate that they can control the straits and not give us the kind of limitations on their nuclear program we'd like to have. The president, on the other hand, can't go to a situation which is such a clear loss as a worse situation than the one he had before he started this war. So we're in a box. They're both in a box. Hopefully, the Iranians will come to the point of view that they've accomplished what they can and cut a deal. That's what we need to see happen.