The U.S. and Israel began bombing Iran in the early hours of Saturday, February 28th. 48 hours later, at least four American service members, 11 Israelis, and 555 Iranians are dead. With only two days on the clock, already this illegal war has exposed the brutality and human cost of conflict.
What have those four American service members sacrificed their life for? Unfortunately, Representative Adam Smith (D-WA) says the U.S. government does not know. In his revealing talk with Jen, Rep. Smith outlines the possible outcomes of this war, risks of elevating an even more dangerous Iranian regime, and deflation of any diplomatic path forward.
And while Congress slumbers as shelling rains down on innocent civilians overseas, Rep. Smith is determined to use whatever tools in his pocket to force our elected officials to wake up and do their jobs.
Adam Smith has been the U.S. Representative for Washington’s 9th district for fifteen terms and is a ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. Before his election to the House, Smith serves as prosecutor and pro tem judge in Seattle.
Jen Rubin
Hi, this is Jen Rubin, Editor-in-Chief of The Contrarian. We’re delighted to have back with us Representative Adam Smith, who is the ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee. Congressman, Have you seen any intelligence or any hard evidence that the United States or its assets or its allies were in imminent danger of being attacked?
Adam Smith
I have not, and I think it’s pretty clear that no such evidence exists. I mean, the administration isn’t even really trying that hard to convince anybody that there was an imminent threat here. So there’s no evidence of that, because it wasn’t happening. Yes, Iran was trying to reconstitute their missile program. We don’t know what they were doing with their nuclear program, which I can get into more if you want, but the evidence was very clear. Iran had no intention whatsoever of striking the U.S. or U.S. interests.
Jen Rubin
Now, the president has said… well, he said a lot of things, but his main purpose seems to be what he calls regime change. Putting aside for a moment the notion that he came into office promising not to launch wars for regime change, do you see any connection between the type of military action we’re launching and the potential for a true regime change, as opposed to a regime Decapitation?
Adam Smith
Sure. Let’s take a step back here, because there’s sort of 3 big things that you raise in that question. First of all is. Yeah, putting aside for a moment, the political aspect of this, let’s focus on that. I mean, the president ran for office, saying very specifically, very specifically, we will not go to war with Iran if I am president. And, you know, talked about basically pulling back, not engaging in these conflicts. So, without question, either he changed his mind dramatically when he became president, or he was lying to him. Because he is acting like the most aggressive neocon ever elected president. And, you know, putting aside for the moment any judgment of the wisdom of that, he clearly was not honest with the American people about what he intended to do as president. No doubt about it. Second, there’s the legality of what he’s doing here. And it is… it’s clearly illegal. To the extent that the law matters whatsoever to anybody, this is illegal. This is a war. No doubt about it. Now, I’m not going to walk through all the other conflicts that we’ve engaged in over the course of the last 50 years and beyond, but usually there was some sort of plausible explanation. It was a limited action, it had limited purpose, whatever. This is a war. No one can argue with that. The President has said, repeatedly, this is a war, and the Constitution is clear. War requires congressional approval. He didn’t get it, he didn’t seek it, he didn’t even really make his case to the American people, much less to Congress. This is a unilateral action in violation of the Constitution. It also violates international law in a variety of different ways, but there’s no doubt about it. But then you get to the second question of, okay, putting aside the legality of it, and the politics of it for the moment. Does this make sense? And what is he really trying to do? Two separate questions. And listening to Secretary Hegseth this morning and others, I think I know what they’re trying to do at this point. What they’re trying to do is they’re trying to bludgeon Iran to the point where, regardless of who is in charge when it’s done. we will have cowed them sufficiently that they won’t dare oppose us. So he’s not really focused, and this is what Hagstaff meant, I don’t know if you saw it this morning, where he said, regime change is not the purpose, but the regime has certainly changed. That’s what he’s, like, trying to say, is we’re gonna change how they look at the world so that they no longer threaten us. And there’s all kinds of problems with that. Number one, he’s telling the Iranian people Rise up, you know, we’ll be with you. And no, no, no, no, no. He has no intention of being with them. You know, he doesn’t care who winds up leading Iran now that the Ayatollah is dead and they’ve been weakened. He just cares that whoever winds up leading Iran bows to what we want. So, he’s not really supporting the Iranian people who want a better, more democratic future for themselves. And then there’s the issue of, well, is he right? Is what comes after going to actually be a more pliable Iran? There’s a lot of evidence that, A, we have no control over it. I mean, now that the Ayatollah’s done, either A the hardline group that was around him, because keep in mind, he’s built this up over the course of 30-plus years now. The IRGC is powerful, the people who are going to take over are going to be no less militant. Then he was. So there’s that, and then there’s the fact that it’s unpredictable. you know, you don’t know exactly who’s going to come in. There could be chaos. You have a variety of different ethnic sectarian groups without Iran could split off. You could have civil war, you know, which could easily spread into neighboring countries. So, they’re trying to basically punch Iran in the face to force them to come to heal. And the final point on this, that’s an incredibly costly thing to do. We’ve already had 4 American service members killed, hundreds of civilians have been killed. There’s been massive damage throughout the Middle East. More than a half-dozen countries have been dragged into this war. Hezbollah and Israel are now back at war as of this morning. Enormous cost. on the hope that at the end of it, Iran will be different in a way that is substantially better for U.S. interests. That’s the way I would sell up where we’re at.
Jen Rubin
Let’s say, for sake of argument, that they do get bludgeoned. And they say, fine, we will… Do what you want, Mr. President. Don’t we still need a diplomatic agreement and visibility into their nuclear program? At some point, unless we’re going to run the country of Iran, we have to have some kind of relationship with them in which we stop killing people, and they give us some visibility. I don’t see how the Iranians, or frankly, anyone, would trust this president after negotiating in bad faith, and then smacking him around.
Adam Smith
Yeah, I mean, the most likely outcome when this is done is that Iran redoubles their efforts to build a nuclear weapon so that it doesn’t happen again. Yes, there’s a huge risk in that regard, and the second risk to this is You mentioned diplomacy, and it’s going to be an enormously important part about it. Trump has effectively sidelined all of our experienced diplomats in favor of Jared Kushner and Steve Whitkoff. Two real estate guys. In fact, I was seeing reports this morning that allegedly Iran felt like they had some kind of an agreement that Whitkoff and Kushner misunderstood and didn’t communicate clearly. I don’t know if that’s true or not. But, you know, when you pick two random guys, as opposed to our career diplomats to negotiate this, it creates problems, and going forward. You know, Trump always likes to say, oh, they’re talking, they’re desperate for a deal. We don’t know what that means, and we haven’t seen any evidence of it. And then there’s the point of, okay. we’re gonna bludgeon Iran into doing… what do we want? What is it specifically that the president is asking for?
Jen Rubin
We don’t really know. And I’m not sure that he really knows. your Republican colleagues seem to have given up any hope that they would uphold their constitutional oaths, that they would have some institutional loyalty, that they would do anything to check this president. So, given that situation, what’s your objective in the next week or so for trying to create some accountability, some insights, some pressure on Our government to stop doing what they’re doing.
Adam Smith
Yeah, keep pushing the issue. I mean, you’re right. As of this particular moment, the Republican Party and the House and the Senate is completely subservient to Trump. They will not do anything that he does not want. which means we will not have the votes we need to pass what we want to pass. But it’s clear what we need to pass. I mean, number one, war powers resolution. The war in Iran stops until Congress approves it. Force a vote in Congress on whether or not they think this war is a good idea. Which, by the way, in a representative democracy, as opposed to a dictatorship. is the absolute minimum that the American people have a right to expect of our elected leaders in the House and the Senate. We are the elected representatives of the people. You know, if you think this war is a good idea, then you oughta go on record saying that you do. That vote ought to happen. That’s number one. Number two, we could also go after the money, and cut off appropriations, for Iran. That’s, you know, ultimately how the Vietnam War stopped. We could do all of that, but in the meantime, to get to that point, we gotta keep putting the pressure on the Republicans. You know, and I think, you know, this is a pretty good opportunity to do that, because going back to a point I made earlier, I mean, Trump ran for office literally promising not to do this. And all those people who were standing up and cheering him, you know, when he said it. Okay, now he’s doing the exact opposite, and this gets to the larger problem with where the Republican Party is at right now. They are simply a cult for Donald Trump. If Donald Trump says one thing in the morning, they’ll all stand up and say, we agree, we’re with you. If he says the exact opposite in the afternoon, they’ll all stand up, we agree with you, you’re right. Forget principle. We’re past the point of even rational thought on the part of the Republican leadership. Their answer is very simple. What does Trump want? We’ll do it. They don’t think through it, the analysis, whatever, we will do whatever Trump asks us to do, which is not the oath that they pledged when they took office, and not what they promised their constituents when they ran.
Jen Rubin
Indeed. Well, Congressman, as always, very helpful to get your insight, and I think, frankly, there’s no prospect that your Republican colleagues are going to see the light. They may check it out once they see the polls, but frankly, you gotta just beat them, folks. These people are incapable of doing their constitutional duty. So, good luck, Congressman. Keep the heat on, and we will look forward to following the story and getting back to you. Take care.
Adam Smith
Yeah, thank you very much, appreciate the chance.
