Hegseth on The Hill: Iran Nuclear Not Imminent, But They Had Ambitions 4-30-26

Good morning. This is the answer today. I am Chris Ryan. I appreciate you joining us for the show. This hour of the program is presented by New England College at n.c.edu. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth was on Capitol Hill yesterday. And I thought there were two key things that came out of yesterday's hearing. Obviously, Pete Hegseth was contentious. He was greeted with, obviously, a bunch of contentious democratic questioners. as well but he told us the cost of the war to date of 25 billion dollars and also it seemed pretty consistent that there was not a quote unquote imminent threat from iran in regard to utilizing a nuclear weapon which is consistent with intelligence that we have heard from the national intelligence entity in that regard. John Bolton joins us right now on the HRC, your neighbor credit union guest on, former National Security Advisor to President Trump and UN ambassador under George W. Bush. Good morning, Ambassador John Bolton. Good morning. Glad to be with you. Appreciate you joining us for the show. So let's start with your takeaways from Pete Hegseth's testimony yesterday. Is this provided kind of a reset on the last two months and obviously being under oath and testifying in regard to what was going on with this operation, shed some new light in my view on the administration's rationale and follow through this war. Well, I thought that the argument about whether the threat was imminent enough, imminent was really not central to the reason we did this. You're not required to wait until the last minute and risk that you were wrong. I think the argument that Iran's steady build up, not just if it's nuclear program, but it's conventional forces. is convincing enough. And the idea that, you know, we're required to wait until practically we're under attack just doesn't comport with the realities of dealing with weapons of mass destruction in an age of high-speed weapon delivery systems. You know, we're not back in the 1800s or the 1700s where infantry troops marched in line to confront each other. And so you could see them coming. And, you know, I just think we're debating about the wrong thing. I thought the tone of the hearing was bad on both sides. I've testified before Congress an awful lot as a government official, and there have certainly been some contentious times. But you've got to maintain your decorum. This is part of civil society. The people on the Democratic side of the aisle are HECS's political opponents. They're not as enemies. And likewise, HECS is not the enemy of the Democrats on the panel. And this is, I think, just a critical part of getting back to a place where we can disagree with each other without risking violence, frankly.

Yeah, I think that's a really good point. And we saw, obviously, Pete Hegseth was emotional. He was expecting what the Democrats were going to send in his direction. And Democrats, vice versa, were viewing him more in terms of kind of an enemy combatant as opposed to the U.S. Secretary of War. Obviously, there's reasons for Democrats to be upset and there's reasons for Hegsv to be upset. But the tone continues to get, you know, hotter and hotter. the argument in regard to whether or not there was an imminent threat. I think that's important because of the fact that President Trump has said that there has laid out that there was an imminent threat and that he was trying to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And the fact that they laid out that's They weren't even close to getting to that point, but you believe different that they could have potentially, you know, expedited things because the testimony seemed to indicate that their nuclear program had been obliterated. And our intelligence has indicated that they may not even been currently pursuing a nuclear weapon after what had taken place back in the 12-day war. And so that rationale to me is important. Well, you know, our intelligence community has been wrong on Iran in a lot of respects. And if we've learned anything in the past 25 years, as though, God bless them for all their efforts, they don't get everything right. The intelligence community concluded in 2007 that Iran was not seeking nuclear weapon, and they were wrong then, and they've never really fundamentally changed their view, notwithstanding everything that has gone on. And people ask me over and over again, how soon could Iran get a nuclear weapon? The answer is probably 72 hours. You send a bank transfer to the central bank of North Korea and Tianyang for whatever amount the North Koreans want, and they put one of their nuclear devices on a Russian transport plane, and it's pretty soon it's in Tehran. That's one of the principal dangers here that nobody who opposes... overthrowing the regime ever seems to think about. It's not simply Iran acting alone. And the doctrine that we derived back in the George W. Bush administration... that some call preventative warfare, I think is extremely important in the nuclear age and in the age of hypersonic cruise missiles. You don't have a lot of time to think once you're already under attack. And unless you're willing to put your civilian population as a tethered goat for regimes like these religious fanatics in Iran, it's only common sense, not to mention entirely humanitarian. from your own population's point of view, not to let these potential adversaries get anywhere close to that capability.

That is John Bolton, joining us on the HRC, your neighbored credit union guest. When it comes to President Trump meeting today with CENTCOM, he has said that we are in a period of time now where it's a ceasefire that is a ceasefire that does not necessarily have a beginning and end date. Do you expect that President Trump will reengage in military action with Iran? And what do you see in regard to negotiation? Well, he's apparently, according to leaks, considering some additional military activity, I've been saying for some time, I thought the ceasefire was a mistake. I'd certainly welcome canceling the ceasefire and finishing the job we haven't finished. There's evidence. Iran has dug out some of its missile launchers, missiles, drones, that perhaps we close the entryways to the underground storage facilities where these things were, and they started to bring them back out. I say, great, now that they've told us where they are, let's go back and finish them off. I've also said we should use military force to open the Strait of Hormuz to restore deterrence, to say to this Iranian regime that it's going to remain in power, don't ever think about closing the straight again. If we do it by diplomacy, we're going to leave the Strait of Hormuz like a light switch that the Iranian regime can turn on and off. I think that's unacceptable. I don't know whether Trump's ready to do that or not. We'll see. But I think the current stalemate has negative effects all the way around. Negative effects on the global economy because the Gulf Arab oil is not coming onto the market. Very negative effects on Iran, too, because of our blockade. They're not earning any revenues. Their economy was wretched even before the war started after six weeks of bombing. they've suffered a lot more damage, and now the blockade's hurting them further. So they're under real pressure, but so is the global economy. So I do think additional military steps are necessary. I wish that weren't true. But this regime in Tehran has spent 47 years building the deepest military state we've seen in a long time. It's no wonder that even in six weeks of intensive bombing, we haven't destroyed all the resources they've created. Well, obviously, President Trump is getting a lot of the same advice that you just gave there and that the stalemate that we're currently in is not really benefiting anyone. The President Trump has said, and there's analysis that indicates the blockade is hurting Iran, but obviously it's also hurting the United States and the global economy. When it comes to militarily seizing the Strait of Hormuz and opening it up, It's obviously been an option that's been on the table for a period of time now. There's concern that there'd obviously be casualties as a result of that. What are the main deterrence in your view from this, from a military action to open up the Strait of Hormuz? Because there's been a lot of things discussed. It doesn't feel like that is really at the forefront of the conversation, despite the fact that it remains the most obvious element to open up the street. Well, I want to open up the strait for the Gulf Arabs and keep it closed for Iran. So the first thing we need to do is make sure there are no mines out in the street.

I can't tell, and I don't think anybody can who's not familiar with the intelligence, but I don't think there are a lot of mines out there, if any, at this point. I hope we're engaged in the mine clearance operations now. It's a question of search and location and detonation of mines when we find them. It doesn't necessarily require any military action. So I hope that works underway quietly. Now, the main threat, I think the tankers would face in the Persian Gulf. or the Arabian Gulf, if you want to call it that, and the Strait of Hormuz is from anti-ship missiles and swarms of fast boats or drones, each of which might have one rocket on it that they try and launch together at a particular tanker. That's what we ought to be working on now, and since it's our objective to destroy the missiles and drones and missile launchers anyway, but part of completing the job we haven't yet finished is... directly correlated with keeping the straight and the Gulf open. I agree. And it's been, you know, three weeks now, obviously, of the ceasefire and two months of the war. And it seems like this is still kind of at an inflection point. But a major issue to, in my view, is still, I don't think that President Trump has a clear understanding of how this concludes and what exactly the objectives are of. the negotiations i mean he has been opaque in those um but those those items that he wishes for such as iran never ever having a nuclear weapon um you know those those things are not going to be agreed upon to iran or if they do it's not necessarily going to be something that is uh as obvious as he is making it Yeah, look, the only sure way to eliminate the nuclear threat is get a different regime that pledges not to go for nuclear weapons, clean out under permissive conditions, everything they've got and watch them like Hawks. for another century. But if Trump is looking for something that he can declare victory on, I think opening the straight to commerce is the most important. Again, continue to squeeze Iran, blockade their ports, let the rest of the Arab oil out from our friends. It, I think, would have a dramatic negative effect on global oil prices. and would be, I think, good political news for the president if he could deliver it. And so it's always appreciate your time. We'll talk soon. Thanks again for having me. John Bolton joining us on the HRC, your neighbor credit union gas line, former national security advisor to President Trump at UN Ambassador under George W. Bush. I am Chris Ryan. This is New Hampshire today.