Sen. Adam Schiff pushed back on CNN host Kasie Hunt’s ridiculous framing on whether there was any “upside” or “positive news” from Trump’s irresponsible and unconstitutional attack on Iran this weekend.
After expressing his gratitude to the troops who put their lives at risk to complete the mission, Schiff hit Trump for putting them at risk in the first place, and pointed out to Hunt that the Iranians may have already moved material out of one of the sites prior to the strike.
SCHIFF: But it’s not an operation that should have ever been authorized by the president in the absence of intelligence showing that Iran had made the decision to break out and build a bomb.
The intelligence I have seen — and it’s been limited — indicates that Iran had certainly enriched uranium, but had not made the decision to build a bomb or pursue the mechanism of a bomb. And, in the absence of that, this is not a strike that should have been ordered.
In watching Hegseth during that press conference this morning, we saw a lot of arrogance from the defense secretary. And as wars in the Middle East have demonstrated, arrogance is a deadly commodity. We simply don’t know what is going to occur now, whether Iran will retaliate, whether Iran was able to evacuate some of the enriched material from Fordow.
There were satellite — commercial satellite images of trucks lined up at Fordow and leaving Fordow in the days preceding the strike, so, a lot of questions, including the risk to American service members
Yes indeed there were, and it’s surprising there hasn’t been more media coverage of this:
You know if Trump is claiming we “completely obliterated” their nuclear program, that means in all likelihood, the opposite is true.
Schiff went onto discuss the fact that we don’t know right now how this is going to end, and whether it will set back the Iranian nuclear program, or whether it accelerates their pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the fact that Trump had no right to make this decision without consulting Congress:
SCHIFF: In terms of is there anything positive to come out of it, yes, I mean, the destruction of these facilities is a positive, in the sense that it will set back Iran’s program. And, look, this is a nefarious regime that is a — the preeminent state sponsor of terror. It should have never been pursuing a nuclear program. But it is very possible and I think we have to anticipate Iran now kicks out any inspectors, it leaves the Nonproliferation Treaty, and if it wasn’t in a sprint for a bomb, it is now going to engage in a sprint for the bomb, so, a lot of uncertainty there.
Finally, this was not constitutional, it was not lawful in the absence of a declaration by Congress. And so the administration should have come to Congress. We will have a vote on a war powers resolution. But there’s a reason to bring this to Congress. And it is, you want the Congress bought in, you want the American people bought in on an action this substantial that could lead to a major outbreak of war.
HUNT: So, just to put a finer point on it, do you think the world is less safe this morning than it was yesterday?
SCHIFF: I don’t think, to be honest, Kasie, there’s any way for us to know.
Anyone who says they can see into the future and what the Iranian response will be, whether it will claim American lives, or whether there will be some change in the Iranian regime or new opening, a new opportunity, we simply don’t know. We simply don’t know.
And I think, because of that uncertainty, you don’t want to take an action like this without a strong basis. That is that Iran was imminently pursuing a bomb. And we simply don’t have that intelligence. Or, if we do, it hasn’t been shared with the Congress.
And that last question asked of Hegseth at the press conference indicates he doesn’t know either. He was asked, do we have some new intelligence, is it our own intelligence, or we were lying on Israeli intelligence for the conclusion that we had to take this strike now? And he simply said, well, the president looked at everything.
That’s really not an answer, but we will demand answers this week when we’re briefed. In the absence of it, though, and not knowing what the future will bring and the consequences, this is an order that should not have been given.