It's very hard for me to see Trump sending in ground forces to Iran for a number of reasons. I'm host Michael Allen with Beacon Global Strategies. Today, for an emergency podcast about the president's address to the nation on Iran, I'm joined by Matt Cranig, vice president for GeoStrategy and senior director of the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He previously served in the Department of Defense and the intelligence community during multiple administrations. Mr. Cranig joins us today for the discussion on the Iran conflict. Stay with us as we speak with Matt Cranig. Welcome to NETSecMatters. Michael, thank you very much for having me. It's an honor to speak with you. Well, here we are the morning after President Trump's address to the nation, at least about one month into the campaign against Iran. Tell me your view. What were the big takeaways from the night? Well, the speech really had very few surprises. I think it was the president recapping a lot of what he and the administration have been saying over the past month. He talked about the threat that Iran posed to the United States and the region and the world, talked about the success of the U.S. military campaign, and then also talked about a forward-looking timeline, again, saying that this will be over in a few weeks. So no surprises to people like me and you who are watching this closely, but I still think there's value to giving a prime time address like that to the American people. I suspect there were people who tuned in last night who haven't been paying attention to every press release and statement. So I think he was kind of making the case to the American people. Yeah, I think so too. He leaned into the implications of a state sponsor of terrorism, eventually achieving nuclear weapons status. And so I thought that was a good portrait of the threat that Iran poses. I also was a little worried that he might signal a faster exit, but I was relieved that he said we have two to three more weeks because I think the military needs to do that or have that time so that they can then pivot to an escort mission on the straight-up for moves. You don't think he ruled that out, do you? He just wants more European support? Yeah, I don't think he ruled it out. You know, one military option he did seem to rule out is he talked about Iran's remaining stockpiles of enriched uranium. And as you know, there have been experts saying that maybe we should send in ground forces to seize that uranium. And the president said last night that if they try to enrich that uranium, we've got satellites watching, we'll see them do it, and we'll bomb them then. So he seemed to suggest that that's not a mission that required ground forces, but something we could do with air power. So yeah, I think on the timeline, you know, they've been getting a lot of criticism, but you know, he said four to six weeks within a few days when the war started. We're at about four weeks now. He said two to three more weeks. So it seems like this timeline is still consistent with the initial operational plans. Do you see it differently? No, I think this tracks largely with what we've been hearing, which is that yeah, the Navy or whoever, the sitcom felt like they needed to degrade Iran's, of course, ballistic missiles, drone capabilities, set the region, set the theater, if you will, to shift from an attack missile defense mode to escort mode. And so maybe that's still on track here for another, you know, in about seven to 10 days. That's how we understand, practically speaking, it would go. Do you have a good sense talking to your DOD sources on the mechanics of an escort mission and how it would work? Well, not really, but this reminds me of something else notable the President said in the speech last night. He said that once the war's over, the strait will open naturally. And I've heard some journalists criticizing him for that, but it did get me to thinking, you know, once the United States and Israel stopped shooting and some stability returns, what's in the interest of the government in Tehran? It seems like their first priority is going to be consolidating power at home. These are new leaders who may not have the authority of their predecessors. In that context, is it really in their interest to wage a one-sided war on the global economy? Are they really going to shoot at every commercial tanker that comes through the strait weeks, months, years after the war ends? So I do think the President has a point there that, you know, naturally, things will stabilize and then that may make the mission for these escorts less demanding than it seems now. What's your sense? I mean, I think this this operation militarily has been obviously a success, but I'm worried that if we don't reopen the strait to at least get to status quo ante, that this might be a strategic loss for the United States. If the Iranians are able, and I hear what you just said about they can't shoot, they're not probably not going to shoot at us forever, but if they're able to dictate who gets through the strait and collect tolls like at the Panama Canal, that's not a good outcome for us, is it? Well, that's undesirable. I still think, and I'll come back to that, but I still think overall, you know, and not that a lot of people are missing side of the big picture. I mean, Iran's been such a threat for so long and to significantly degrade its military capabilities. You know, whatever happens on the back end of this, Iran is going to be much weaker than it was a month ago, and you know, no other military power on earth could essentially defang one of its greatest adversaries in a month. And so I think that is overall still a victory almost no matter what happens in the strait. But I think you're right that it would be unsatisfying if we knock Iran back, yet they are still able to exert this asymmetric control over the strait. And so I think finding some way to reopen that to global trade is obviously going to be very important. How are you thinking about the strait and how we get that open? And you know, just to, I worry that there's not a purely military solution because as long as Iran has drones and is willing to fire them, you know, even with an escort, our commercial shippers going to be willing to do that, it does seem like part of this solution has to be the Iranian government deciding it's no longer in its interest to keep threatening international shipping. So I mean, this gets to this issue of what kind of deal is, if any, is possible with the Iranians. I can see the escort mission working for some time, but you're right, I don't think we can do it forever. They may not have an interest in doing it forever. I mean, do you think it's possible for a de facto deal or a worked out arrangement where we quit striking the Iranian mainland and in exchange, essentially for them withdrawing their threat to blow up tankers? Because that might be the landing zone in the medium term. What do you think? I think that could make sense. And you know, many people assume the remnants of the regime are hardline and it seems like maybe they are, but they still have an interest in surviving. They still have an interest in leading the country. What a great unexpected opportunity for them. And so if they can cut a deal with the United States that will reopen, that they, the Iranians, will reopen international shipping, which of course they benefit from as much, if not more, than anyone in exchange for the United States stopping the bombing campaign and allowing them to stay in power. It seems like that's a deal that some may sign up to. I mean, right now, it's not clear to me who's really in charge and do they have the ability to negotiate on behalf of the country and abide by any deal that they make. It seems like that may be a challenge, but it does seem like if there's a leader who wants to run the country and stay alive, that making some kind of a deal would be in their interest. Yeah, I hear you. I could see it going in that direction. Now, I'm not sure how it actually comes together right now. They're obviously not feeling the need to compromise with us in any way. What do you make of the president saying frequently that we are already negotiating with the Iranians? Aren't we really just exchanging messages, exchanging maximums, demands, not so much negotiating? Yeah, and maybe he has information you and I don't have, but my understanding is the same. It seems like we're passing messages through third parties, and doesn't seem like we're really making much progress. I mean, maybe in his mind, the fact that there is an interlocutor on the other side and we're exchanging messages is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't seem like we're very close to any kind of a deal. So where are you on Carg Island? I was in a position of thinking that I persuaded by this expert idea that we can hold that place at risk without actually occupying it, sending in the 82nd airborne to parachute in there. We could say, well, you know what, we're going to blow up the next tanker that goes there, and then they stop doing it. But Trump may want to physically take a hostage, because seemingly the straight is a hostage. Do you think this is still in the offing? Do you still think this is a realistic contingency? It's very hard for me to see Trump sending in ground forces to Iran for a number of reasons. I think we know from his piece through strength doctrine that he's comfortable with short, sharp, decisive uses of force. I think we also know that he's uncomfortable with long drawn out, especially ground operations with no clear ended sight, like Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, and his mind. And so really hard for me to see him sending in forces to hold Carg Island. And as you know, Michael, taking it would be easy. Holding it would be more challenging, because Iran could rain missiles and drones on the island. So I think you're right. One of the things we're learning, I think, from the war in Ukraine is how unmanned systems really give an advantage to this kind of denial warfare. Not easy to take territory, but easier to deny your adversary. And so yes, some kind of denial strategy over Carg Island, preventing the Iranians from using it might make sense. And then I don't know if you saw Brett Stevens in a column, I think today, suggested doing to Iranian tankers what we're doing to Venezuelan tankers, essentially boarding them and redirecting them wherever we want. So essentially sending the message to Iran that if we can't freely trade energy through the straight, then you can't either. We're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back with more of our discussion with Matt Cranig. Beacon Global Strategies is the premier national security advisory firm. Beacon works side by side with leading companies to help them understand national security policy, geopolitical risk, global technology policy, and federal procurement trends. Beacon's insight gives business leaders the decision advantage. Founded in 2013, Beacon develops and supports the execution of bespoke strategies to mitigate business risk, drive growth, and navigate a complex geopolitical environment. With a bipartisan team in decades of experience, Beacon provides a global perspective to help clients tackle their toughest challenges. Let's assume this trade has reopened and we've successfully, I think it's very fair that we've absolutely devastated their ability, as they say, to project power across the region militarily. What about the nuclear issue? Two things in particular, but you know, I had the same read of last night's speech. She seemed to dismiss the idea that we would do a big raid into the nuclear site called Esfahan to recover the 420 or so kilograms of 60% highly enriched uranium that is supposedly deeply buried or mostly inaccessible, so we thought until a New York Times article a couple of Sundays ago said that there's a quote, narrow corridor to get at it. The Washington Post reports today that, you know what, we or the president requested options and he got briefed on those last week. But last night, the president seemed to say, well, you know what, we're going to just stare at it through satellites and if they approach it, we're going to obliterate them. Is that good enough? I mean, is that the right outcome? Because it is true. If somehow they recovered this and they have some centrifuges somewhere, they could enrich it pretty quickly to weapons grade. Yeah, well, I think it is the right approach and, you know, I opine on a lot of issues, but Nuclear is, I'm pretty deep on this, wrote five books on my PhD dissertation and five books on nuclear weapons. And so, you know, you're right, but I think, you know, the enrichment or the uranium is at 60% right now to make a weapons grade that have to enrich it to 90%. So they have centrifuges, but do they have an enrichment facility as far as we know, they've all been obliterated as the president put it. And so they'd have to get the enriched uranium out, build a new enrichment facility. Now, they could be small, they could try to hide it, but they'd have to get the uranium to that facility, re-enrich it. I don't know, I guess it's hard for me to imagine that they could do that without the United States and the Israelis seeing them. And so it seems to make more sense to, if they try to retrieve the uranium and enrich it to higher levels to strike them at that time, if they try to build a new enrichment facility to strike that facility, that seems to be the better approach and less risky approach than sending in ground forces to try to seize the enriched uranium ourselves. Well, we had a podcast maybe a month ago with General Votel and I asked him about it. I mean, he said it was technically possible with the right planning and the right assets, but he admitted it was really hard. He didn't quite say a thousand troops. I have just sort of shorthanded it as this isn't the Osama bin Laden raid. We'd have to have a thousand troops on the ground, set up a perimeter, hold it for a couple of days, get in earth moving equipment, find it, move it to a nearby runway to put on a C-130 or some kind of cargo plane. To me, that seems like a lot. Yeah, and if it were necessary, that would be one thing, but as I'm not sure it's necessary because I do think we could deny the Iranians the ability to use it through air power. And just another aside, I think this enriched uranium is getting more play in the media than it really deserves in part because there are a lot in the media who have an incentive or a desire to make Trump look bad. And so they're saying, well, he didn't really obliterate the nuclear program because there's some enriched uranium left. But again, unless it's enriched to higher levels, hard for the Iranians to do that right now, it doesn't currently pose much of a threat. Yeah, okay, that's interesting. All right, on the nuclear file, one more thing. And that is Pickax Mountain. It is supposedly under construction as a new centrifuge facility and will be deeper than Fordale was, which we were able to blow up by way of the massive ordinance penetrator, the MOP. What do you hear about Pickax Mountain and why have we not heard about any bombing of it whatsoever? I mean, I thought maybe they'd at least be bombing the construction crews around it. What's your take here? Yes, it's a good question. And to be honest, it's not one I'm following as closely as the others. But I think Fordale is instructive because the Iranians thought that that was going to be off limits to American military power, but with the MOP, and it seems like doing kind of successive strikes and maybe exploiting weaknesses in the structure we're able to get in. So I don't know, the US military is pretty ingenious. I've got a feeling that we set our minds to destroying any new enrichment facility at Pickax Mountain, especially in the midst of an ongoing war, there'd be a way to do that. Matt, our allies are meeting today at the best of prime minister's stormer to discuss, is there any way they can help us with a straight-of-hormuz operation? What do you expect to come of that? Yeah, well, I'd be interested in your views, too. I mean, it does seem like the British have, early on, they were skeptical of this operation. It seems like now they've come around and are trying to be supportive and certainly more supportive than some of the other allies who are still denying uses of bases and airspace and things like that. And several European allies have said that they'd be willing to be part of some kind of escort mission after the war ends. So that seems to be the easier lift once there's stability, participating in escort missions. But the willingness to do that in the midst of an active war, I think that's going to be more challenging for obvious reasons. Because even an escort, as I understand it, will let me back up. I used to work on the Iran desk at the Pentagon back in 2010, 2011 on a Council on Foreign Relations Fellowship. And back then, we were worried about threats to close the strait. But really what we worried about were mines. Now with this kind of drone revolution, I mean, can a naval escort even protect a commercial tanker from drones? I guess they do have some air defense and other capabilities, but it wouldn't be perfect. So I don't know, I guess I'm having a hard time seeing how a kind of escort mission solves the problem for us, as long as the war is ongoing. Well, I agree. The mine issue is really tough. To me, the only thing maybe going for us here is that if the Iranians are going to use the strait to let others through, they have an interest in not mining the strait extensively. Because then their buddies would get hurt. So I don't know. I'm persuaded by the CVS News report that there have been some mines put out there, but I don't think the entire passageway has been. So that's where I am on that. Yeah. And if I could just comment on that, one of the reasons back when I was on the Iran desk, we assume that Iran wouldn't close the strait except in extreme scenarios is that they'd be cutting off their nose despite their face. Yes, they'd pose a cost on the United States and Israel, but they'd also be shutting off their own economic lifeline. So with drones, we have seen that they're able to selectively allow which tankers can pass. And so that's something that really wasn't on my radar screen, to be honest, before this war started. And yeah, so it does seem like mining the strait is not in their interest, rather, trying to decide who can pass and who can't is a better approach for them. Better approach for them. Okay. What's your sense of the Gulf Arabs? What's your sense of what Iran's plan is there? Well, I think their whole model is somewhat shattered, the idea that this could be an economic oasis within the Middle East, depended on the idea that there was security, that US military bases would serve as a deterrent. And now we are seeing that they're getting hit pretty hard. So I wonder what it means for their entire model after this. And one thing that's interesting to me is Qatar was a country that was kind of trying to have good relations with everyone, including Iran ahead of time, but they've also been getting hit by Iran. And my understanding is that they're becoming more upset with Iran due to that. And so my prediction is that actually relations between the Gulf States and Iran will be much worse after this, makes sense given that Iran's been attacking them. But then also I wonder about the relations between the Gulf States and the United States. I still think there'll be a strong security partnership because really there's no other game in town. But their sense of invulnerability, I think, has been shattered. And so I think they may see this security partnership as less foolproof than it was a few weeks ago. But you asked the question, I know you follow the Gulf closely. What is your take? You know, I think they didn't want us to do this. They asked us if they could talk us out of it. We said no. And then they said, well, make sure you finish the job. I mean, I don't know that they meant regime change, although they would love it, I think. I think they more meant we don't need to be, this is our neighborhood. We don't want to be the ones that are going to have to be beat up here. You've got to protect us. You've got to substantially degrade and make things easier on us. So if we pull out too soon, I think they're going to be really irritated. Because we still hear from the UAE in Saudi. We hear that we didn't do anything to Iran after they hit Abqaq, which was the Saudi oil facility. And we didn't do anything when, I guess, it was the Houthi that sent into Abu Dhabi a ballistic missile or two. I think the accusation was that Biden didn't even call over there. So anyway, I think they're doubtful of our commitment to them. And so I think we got to make good on that. Yeah, I agree. Well, Matt, as we begin to wrap up, I thought I'd check you on the other issues that you follow very closely. And that's Russia, Ukraine. I've seen a lot of indicators. It's hard to say Ukraine's winning right now, but I've seen a lot of indicators that they're definitely not going to lose this thing militarily to the Russians. And there's some things going their way. And we can get into those. But what's your sense of it? Yeah, well, I think both sides have strengths and weaknesses. But I think you're right. The latest indications on the battlefield are the Ukrainians are actually succeeding and taking back some territory from the Russians. And so that's reassuring. I do worry about Russia's manpower advantage. I do worry about China that doesn't want Russia to lose this war and will essentially continue to provide an economic lifeline. But I guess also, going back to what I was saying before with what we're seeing with new technology, it does seem like drones, AI, etc. are making it very hard to take territory. And so I think technology is helping to lock in a stalemate here that will at least prevent the Ukrainians from losing. But I do think it's in the US and NATO's interest to continue to support Ukraine economically and militarily, because it's not in anyone's interest to see Russia conquer Ukraine. Yeah, you're right. I've seen the good news that Elon Musk shut off Russian access to Starlink, which has not helped them. A lot of their drones are now inoperable. Great. And so yeah, that's some hopeful news. Well, Matt, thank you so much for this quick emergency podcast and being available. I love the term emergency podcast, but we wanted to give our listeners an early take on the president's speech. So thank you so much. Yeah, thank you and happy to come back anytime. That was Matt Cranig. I'm Michael Allen. Please join us next week for another episode of NatSec Matters.
