MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:
Now to someone with deep experience with U.S. military strategy in the region, retired Vice Admiral Robert Harward. He grew up in Iran when his father was serving in the U.S. Navy. Our guest later became a Navy SEAL who led U.S. special operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. He later served as deputy commander of U.S. Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East. He's now a member of the Iran Policy Project at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. It's a pro-Israel thing tank. Admiral Harward, thank you so much for joining us.
ROBERT HARWARD: Good to be with you, Michel.
MARTIN: Now, you've made it clear you think diplomacy had run its course. Then at the start of the war, you told our colleague on All Things Considered that the strike that killed Iran's supreme leader was, quote, "brilliant." What about now? What's your assessment of the U.S.- and Israeli-led war effort at this point?
HARWARD: Well, I think the strategies and priorities may be a little deconflicted - or at least I hope so. We know, and I think no one is saying it - is regime change the end state? I believe it is. You've heard that from Israel. You've not heard it from our administration succinctly. So towards that measure and towards that goal, your strategy with how to do that - understanding there's going to be another government in place after the hard-liners are removed. And in that case, destroying oil facilities, infrastructure, civilian stuff is almost counterproductive.
Now, the challenge for the prioritization for the U.S. is the missiles. If we've gone 10 days in this campaign, and I've heard some estimates that the GCC nations are still preparing for 25 strikes a day, that's indicative we have not been able to neuter their power. And that has to be the top of the strategy. So those two different prioritizations of strategy may be some of this, where the two are working on different game plans at the moment.
And in terms of timing, if you can take out the missiles, then you have all the time in the world to work on the regime, because they're not going anywhere unless they're running away. And as we've seen in the last 30 years, we've been very good at targeting leadership and taking them out. If you were an al-Qaida member and your boss got killed and now you're in charge, your life expectancy was very short.
MARTIN: OK.
HARWARD: And I think that it should expect the same here with Khamenei.
MARTIN: Let me get to regime change in a minute. Let's just focus for just now on the question of military capabilities. As we just heard from our colleague in Tel Aviv, Israel estimates it can completely destroy Iran's military capabilities in three weeks. Do you think that's realistic?
HARWARD: Well, I don't know if that's the best strategy. Is destroying it better than flipping it? As we saw in Iran in '79, the army turned on the regime. And that's what got the turnaround. Is that the better strategy? So again, this is one of those strategy challenges that I don't understand what the U.S. position is and the Israel, and how that's deconflicted, and who's working on which prioritization. So destroying it is an option, but is that your best move if you want to see regime change?
MARTIN: You know, you just sort of alluded to this. President Trump predicted that a new leader picked without his administration's involvement is not going to last long. As we heard, the late ayatollah's son has been named as his successor. Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that's true, that the son is also killed. But does that necessarily mean an opportunity for a change in this region? I mean, some analysts have their doubts.
HARWARD: Well, it's the path you're on. And it's worked in other places - look at Panama, look at Venezuela. And Iran is neither one of those. But the strategy is sound. Only allow a regime that we support, and the people support, to come to power. Anyone else remains a target. So I think that's a very sound strategy.
MARTIN: And you're saying that. And President Trump has said he doesn't want U.S. engagement in Iran to be a forever war. But does it seem - forgive me, we only have a minute left. But it does seem that it would require some time to achieve the goals that the president says he wants.
HARWARD: I agree. But if they cannot project power and not a threat to anyone outside of Iran, then time becomes irrelevant.
MARTIN: And as the war widens, do you think the U.S. needs to do more to drum up support among its allies? Neither NATO, a Gulf state or even the Kurds, according to our correspondent, have formally joined this effort.
HARWARD: Well, you've seen all of them, public announcements that they will defend their sovereign territory. And that's a step in that direction.
MARTIN: And do you think - before we let you go, with 30 seconds now, do you think that the U.S. and Israel have accurately estimated Iran's ability to sustain this conflict?
HARWARD: Well, I think their targeting is driven by that concern.
MARTIN: OK. That is retired Vice Admiral Robert Harward. Admiral, thank you so much for your time and for your insights.
HARWARD: Thanks, Michel. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
