Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Trump Says U.S. Bombed "Iran's Crown Jewel" Kharg Island; Hegseth Vows To Destroy Iran Military, Reopen Strait Of Hormuz. Pentagon Deploying A Marine Expeditionary Unit To Middle East; Is The U.S. Campaign In Iran A Test Of The "American Way" Of War?. Aired 9- 10a ET

Aired March 14, 2026 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:34]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: We begin with an escalation in the war with Iran. The Pentagon deploying a Marine Expeditionary unit to the Middle East. A rapid response force of about 2,500 marines and sailors. In Baghdad, video shows smoke and flames near the U.S. embassy compound with early images appearing to show damage to a building in the area. And President Trump says the U.S. has now bombed every military target on Iran's critical oil export hub, Kharg Island.

I'm Michael Smerconish in the Philly burbs.

Is it now time to rally around the flag? Americans are less supportive of our attack on Iran than we've been at the start of most other conflicts. According to a New York Times analysis, the Times cited CNN polling noting that 41 percent approval is what the president enjoyed immediately after the initiation of the attack on Iran with support of the Iran attacks ranging from 27 percent in a Reuters Ipsos poll to 50 percent in a Fox News poll. After the U.S. was attacked at Pearl Harbor, 97 percent of the public supported a declaration of war against Japan. That's according to Gallup. And when George W. Bush post 9/11 put troops on the ground in Afghanistan, 92 percent of Americans agreed, also according to Gallup.

Americans are split across party lines on the war in Iran. The data is consistent regardless of the source, take your pick, CNN, Fox, Reuters, Ipsos, Quinnipiac, the Washington Post, chalk that up to polarization. This time we're all just suiting up in our partisan jerseys. Republicans are overwhelmingly supportive. Democrats likewise in opposition.

Independents are the tiebreakers and side more with the D's than with the R's. And the net impact is that a majority are in opposition. But there's an additional explanation. Emmy Award winning political journalist Jeff Greenfield wrote a memorable column for Politico four years ago when President Biden was weighing the extent to which the U.S. would support Ukraine against the Russian invasion. Greenfield explained that contrary to conventional wisdom, we rarely rally around the flag unless we've been attacked. Quote, "Foreign crises, even wars, rarely produce anything like national unity. During the Civil War, deadly riots broke out in New York City over the prospect of a draft. In 1864, Lincoln's election opponent was George McClellan, whom Lincoln had replaced as the commanding general of the union forces. From Korea to Vietnam to Iraq, Americans have fought wars amid clamorous discontent at home. Even in World War II, the quote, "Last Good War," discontent over everything from military strategy to home front policies divided us politically.

In the 1942 midterms, Democrats lost eight Senate seats and 45 House seats, losing the national popular House vote by a million vote margin."

Well, we haven't been attacked by Iran, thank God. The administration has not made a compelling case that we faced an imminent threat. I think Major Garrett framed an appropriate question for Secretary Pete Hegseth on "60 Minutes" last Sunday night when he asked if the attack on Iran is more about opportunity than imminent threat. Hegseth said that was silly and academic.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAJOR GARRETT, CBS HOST: Some might look at that sequence of events and say, well, then it was an opportunity more than an imminent threat.

PETE HEGSETH, SECRETARY OF WAR: I mean, I think much of that discussion is silly and academic. They've been killing us for 48 years, 47 years. They have unabated nuclear ambitions. And when we obliterated their nuclear program at the end of the 12 Day War in Operation Midnight Hammer, they should have come to the table and said, OK, we get it, you mean business. We're not going to have nukes.

And they haven't. And as a result, when the president looks at it generationally, he sees a threat that would continue to gather.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: No doubt opinions on the war are being driven by opinions about the commander in chief, whose approval rating remains underwater. But what if views about Trump are clouding our judgment? David Boies is one of the nation's brightest and most prominent trial lawyers. His client list crosses the political divide. In 2000, you'll remember, he represented Vice President Al Gore before the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.

Later, he teamed up with conservative attorney Ted Olson, a former Solicitor General under President George W. Bush, as the two challenged California's same sex marriage ban. He's also represented blue chip corporate clients like IBM and Oracle in high stakes commercial litigation.

[09:05:11]

Well, Boies just published an essay in the Wall Street Journal under the headline Partisanship on Iran is dangerous for America. I say it's a must read. Quote, "Those of us who generally oppose Mr. Trump, but who recognize the threat Iran poses need to support the military action, not because we owe anything to Mr. Trump, but because we owe it to ourselves, our country and our children. If we oppose the war and succeeded in pressuring Mr. Trump to curtail it before the mission is accomplished, we would have the satisfaction of defeating someone we generally oppose, which might help ourselves politically, but America would be worse for it."

There's something to what Boies is arguing. From the founding of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, they've strongly opposed America, or as they call us, the Great Satan. Some highlights, they took over our embassy, holding 52 hostages for 444 days. Iran backed Hezbollah killed 241American military personnel in the Beirut barracks bombing. It's estimated that Iran is responsible for over 600American troop deaths in Iraq.

And today, according to the Trump administration, Iran will not back off development of nuclear weapons. According to Boies, if Trump hadn't acted, his successor would have been left with a more dangerous choice. Boies makes a more compelling case than has the administration thus far as to why, regardless of how we got here, the mission needs a successful conclusion. As he wrote, quote, "If we believe that Iran presents a serious threat, we need to support the president on this issue. There's plenty to disagree with him about and we don't need to like or admire him.

But on Iran, we should be on common ground, not primarily because we want to reduce partisanship in foreign affairs, although that is conceivable. Not because the voters will reward us for a more measured response, although I hope they will, but because it is the right thing to do for our country, our children, and the Democrat who will succeed Mr. Trump as president."

Many, including me, have noted that the president has not laid out a clear rationale for the use of force and that the reasons given by the administration for prosecuting this war now have been questionable. But doing the right thing, even for the wrong reason, is still doing the right thing. Which leads me today's poll question at smerconish.com, should opinions on the war in Iran transcend one's view of President Trump?

We're tracking new video into CNN showing smoke and small flames rising from a building near the U.S. embassy compound in Baghdad. It comes as several Gulf States reported interceptions overnight, including in Qatar, where the U.S. embassy there remains under a shelter in place order. Meanwhile, President Trump says the U.S. bombed every military target on Iran's Kharg Island, which handles 90 percent of the country's crude oil exports. According to Iranian state media, no oil infrastructure was damaged in the attacks, but President Trump threatened to attack the island's oil infrastructure if Iran continues to block ships from traversing the Strait of Hormuz. This coming amid news that the Pentagon is deploying a Marine Expeditionary Unit to the Middle East, although it's not yet clear what the unit will be used for or where exactly it will be deployed.

Joining me now is CNN Senior Military Analyst, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Admiral James Stavridis.

Admiral, for Bloomberg, you just wrote about scenarios that might necessitate troops on the ground, including Kharg Island. And you wrote these words, "tempting target would be Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf. This is the main location for the Iranians oil and gas terminal transits, and depriving them of the crown jewel of their energy system would be a significant achievement. It's only 16 miles off the coast of Iran and well northwest of the newly mined Strait of Hormuz. Simply destroying the infrastructure by bombing is a possibility, key words now, but the U.S. hasn't done so yet.

We just did because controlling it would be far better." What did you mean at the end of that graph?

ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS, CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST: Controlling it would mean that we could use the leverage of owning it. As you said, Michael, 90 percent of the Iranian oil and gas flows through Kharg Island. So go in there, take it. You don't have to destroy the infrastructure. And in fact, you hold it hostage.

You say to the Iranians, oh, you want to close this Strait of Hormuz? Well, we have a card to play. We are going to control Kharg Island. And let's have a conversation about whether you'd like to open the Strait of Hormuz again.

[09:10:03]

Michael, it's a bigger question, which is how do you get the Iranians to back off so we can have oil flowing through there? I can think of four things and, you know, it's March Madness. Let's start with basketball. You can escort ships, point to point defense, kind of one- on-one on a basketball court. Problem with that, it's very expensive, time consuming to go one-on-one.

Number two, you can do area defense, zone defense in basketball, if you will. And that would be convoys. You marshal up these ships, you put them in convoys. And then number three, you do local superiority. So you take away the small boats, the mines, the ballistic missiles.

And number four, we come to Kharg Island, you use a strategic offense and take a target like Kharg and hold it at risk for the Iranians. Once you blow it up, that leverage is gone. So I think final thought here, Michael. I think the Pentagon was smart to go in and take out the military part, but it's still an asset Iran will continue to want. That's leverage.

Now, we can use that going forward as we move hopefully towards some kind of termination of the conflict.

SMERCONISH: This morning via Truth Social, the president said in part, "I have chosen not to wipe out the oil infrastructure on the island. However, should Iran or anyone else do anything to interfere with the free and safe passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz, I will immediately reconsider this decision." Your reaction, Admiral?

STAVRIDIS: Thank you for your attention to this matter, as the saying goes.

SMERCONISH: Right.

STAVRIDIS: I think the president has it absolutely correct on this one, which is precisely what I just said. It is take out their military capability to defend it, hold it at risk. And what's the advantage? Now the Iranians, we hope, will be less likely to use massive swarms of small boats to go after the big tankers, less likely to put thousands of mines into the water and turn the place into a hellscape. Less likely to use short range ballistic missiles to go after the tankers, less likely to use limpet mines affixed to the tanker.

So the thought here, and I take it from that Truth Social, is the president is saying to Iran, we have a card to play here. Don't overstep what you want to do offensively in the Gulf.

SMERCONISH: School me quickly on the Strait of Hormuz. We talk about it, we look at the video. You've sailed it dozens of times. And I know that at its narrowest point, it's 21 miles. I'm sure you don't sail toward the edges so you're in the middle.

There's only 10 miles to the shoreline. The issue, I take it, is one of missiles and drone strikes being easy to launch. Only one of them needs to get through and consequently it's bedeviling how you can have passage in the current climate. Can you do it without taking the shoreline and limiting the ability of drones and missiles?

STAVRIDIS: Ultimately, we're going to have to control this strait, not only on the sea and not only in the air, but we are going to have to take away the Iranian ability to launch from the land. Now, whether you need a permanent occupying force, I don't think so. I think you can do a lot of that with air power. But your categorization is exactly right. It's 20 miles or so from land to land, but it's a narrow traffic separation scheme.

Think of it as a highway that where the water is deep enough for the big tankers to sail through. And so it's only a mile on either side, north and south to get through that strait. So at the end of the day, Michael, it's a very challenging military problem.

And oh, by the way, we spent a lot of time and we should talking about Strait of Hormuz closure. There are a couple other choke points right next door. One is the bottom of the Red Sea where the Houthis are kind of the dog that haven't barked yet during this part of the conflict. And of course, the Suez Canal is another very significant choke point. Could the Iranians go after either of those using Houthi proxies or terrorist activity up in the Suez?

I'm sure the Pentagon is looking at those options and preparing for them as well.

SMERCONISH: Give me just the 30 second soundbite. In response to my commentary where I looked to David Boies in writing for the Wall Street Journal, who says regardless of what you think of the president, the issues in this case now transcend the partisanship and ought to be decided on the merits. Gut check from you.

STAVRIDIS: I know David Boies well, one of our smartest Americans and strategic thinker and someone who plays the ball down the middle of the field. Worth reading that piece and thinking about it.

[09:15:07]

One point I would add, Michael, to your excellent examination of how do we get to this polarization? There's another aspect hanging over this conflict. In its recent history, many Americans vividly recall, have tragically been touched by the forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore, I think another conflict in the Middle East is a particularly high bar to get over.

SMERCONISH: Admiral Stavridis, we always appreciate your expertise. Thank you.

And to those who are at home, make sure you're following me on X or on YouTube and perhaps I'll read your comment during the course of the program. From the world of what? X, I think? Let's see it.

A key part of Americans rally around the flag is leaders making the case that the war is critical to U.S. national security interests and is the only option. Trump has not made the case.

Joseph, I said in my commentary I thought that David Boies was more articulate in advancing the here's why this needs to take place than has frankly, anyone from the administration so far. OK. But here we are now and it's a shame now that instead people are getting bogged down, suiting up in their, you know, their partisan jerseys as I mentioned a moment ago, instead of evaluating the issue on the merits. They hate us. Their leadership has hated us for half a century.

They've not given up their nukes. They've threatened to come after us time and time again. Were they really imminent? Was the situation imminent? I have my doubts, but I have no -- I have no doubt as to whether the world's a safer place with the leadership having been decapitated.

Yes, I get it. The son is now a, you know, an apple who apparently hasn't fallen far from the tree. That's got to be dealt with.

I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com. I have to tell you something about today's poll question. When you vote, you see the result. I'm normally because frankly, I want to make sure that the poll is functioning.

One of the first to vote. That wasn't the case today. By the time I voted, there were 700 plus who had voted. We'll end up at 30, 40,000. And I was really surprised, I was really surprised by the result when only 700 had voted.

Here's the question that I'm asking. Should opinions on the war in Iran transcend whatever it is you think of President Trump? Go vote at smerconish.com. Up ahead, U.S. Central Command confirms that strikes on Iran's critical oil export hub Kharg Island hit more than 90 military targets last night as Iran fires back with threats of retaliatory attacks. President Trump says the only outcome there is unconditional surrender. But is that a military objective or something much larger? David Sanger will join us next.

Also, don't forget to sign up for the newsletter at smerconish.com where you're voting on today's poll question. Oh, check that out. Eric Allie drew it for us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:22:16]

SMERCONISH: New developments in the war with Iran rapidly unfolding across the region. President Trump says the U.S. bomb quote every military target on Iran's Kharg Island, which handles 90 percent of the country's crude oil exports, according to Iranian state media, no oil infrastructure was damaged in the attacks, but Iran did threaten retaliatory strikes against the U.S. linked oil facilities in the region if its own energy infrastructure continually is attacked.

The fallout from the campaign in Iran. Major disruptions in the global oil supply causing gas prices to soar. But beyond the battlefield, a central question remains, what exactly is the end game here? President Trump has demanded Iran's unconditional surrender, even suggesting that the United States could help shape Iran's next leadership. But as the New York Times reports, those shifting goals, quote, "have left his aides and congressional allies struggling to keep up at a times contradicting him."

Joining us now is one of the authors of that reporting, New York Times National Security correspondent David Sanger.

David, I listened yesterday to Secretary Hegseth in that morning press conference, clearly frustrated with what he sees as a lack of acknowledgment of military success. He's upset with the New York Times, they're upset with CNN. My thought was no one can deny the near flawless execution of the U.S. military thus far, but there are limitations to this approach. Is that a fair statement and assessment?

DAVID SANGER, NEW YORK TIMES WHITE HOUSE & NATL. SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Completely fair, Michael. Look, there are two issues that are underway here. Number one is Secretary Hegseth, like most defense secretaries at time of war, think Donald Rumsfeld, during Iraq and so forth, gets frustrated by press coverage because it's the role of the press to ask hard questions about what progress we're making on the battlefield and then how that translates to political victory. I think you could say in Iraq and certainly in the Persian Gulf War, we had big military victories, and at the end we didn't have the kind of political outcome we were looking for. And that's happened in a lot of conflicts the United States has been in.

So when Secretary Hegseth calls for, you know, the reports from a patriotic press, well, I can't think of anything more patriotic than asking hard questions about how we're doing on the field and then hard questions about whether or not that achieves our objectives. That's what independent journalism is all about.

In this particular case, the question is what is the ultimate political outcome you're trying to get to? And the president has said unconditional surrender. Well, that's got two parts. One part is the military victory, right? Whether or not they have the capability to strike out, whether Iran has the capability to strike out beyond its borders again.

[09:25:10]

And the president could declare on its own that -- on his own that they don't have that capability. The second part of unconditional surrender is a government saying, OK, we completely give up, you take over and sort of run the government, which is essentially what happened in Japan in 1945 for example. And we then had a seven year long occupation of Japan. I don't think you're likely to hear that from the Iranians.

SMERCONISH: So Kharg Island was struck. The president via Truth Social early this morning said, quote, "I have chosen not to wipe out the oil infrastructure on the island. However, should Iran or anyone else do anything to interfere with the free and safe passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz, I will immediately reconsider." So this was sort of the muscle flex and then some to say we're giving you an opportunity to open the strait. Your thought.

SANGER: So first I think Admiral Stavridis had this exactly right. The president needed a card here to keep the Iranians from mining the strait or using these small fast boats to go harass shipping. And the card he's chosen, I think it's a smart one, is to show that the U.S. can reach Kharg Island and that ultimately it might be able to go take it over. And you know, there are, as the Times has reported, there are plans underway, we don't think the president has approved them yet, to both take over Kharg Island and try to get the uranium out of the main nuclear sites that are remaining. Those would both be very risky operations.

But if the President could set up a trade here in which he says the strait remains open and you'll be able in the end to ship fuel out of Kharg Island, then you know, that might well work. And I think it actually was a -- was a strategically smart move.

SMERCONISH: For how long can Iran play this asymmetric game?

SANGER: So the asymmetric game they can probably play for a long, long time. And that asymmetric game goes beyond what you're seeing in the Strait of Hormuz or any place else. Look, they concluded early on they can't take on the U.S. military and I think the past two weeks have been proof of that. So they had a two part strategy to go deal with this. Number one was hit the United States where it hurts the most.

The economic tools that Iran has in which they've played very deftly. All of a sudden oil is at $100 a barrel, slightly above that. And the second part of this has been that the Arab allies, about a dozen of them, have found themselves under attack. So that's spreading the pain out.

The second part, which we haven't yet seen in full is their ability to reach us with terrorism and with cyber. And of course their cyber capabilities are quite significant. You already saw a major producer of medical equipment for the United States get hit by an Iranian backed cyber-attack in the past week. That did them a lot of damage and I think you may well see more of that. They're going to hit us with the tools that the U.S. Air Force cannot bomb.

SMERCONISH: David Sanger, thank you as always. We appreciate you.

Social media reaction from folks who are at home, follow me on X, subscribe to the YouTube channel. Maybe I'll read your comment. I think it's pretty simple. A vast majority of Democrats hate this president so much that they're praying that our military fails. Hope that's not the case.

It's not about being anti-war, it's about your party being sick in the head. Learn who the enemy is and remember which nation raised you.

I thought that the Boies essay was so important to read and comprehend and understand. And it would have meant less if it were coming from someone partisan and a part of MAGA, a supporter of the president. Instead, it's a very bright individual who says, hey, he's not my guy either. But here's who we're dealing with in terms of Iran. Here are the circumstances, this is the history.

And if he hadn't dealt with it, he meaning President Trump, then the next president would have had to and perhaps that'll be a Democrat who follows him. So we're here now. What are we going to do about it?

I found it to be compelling and that's why I'm asking today's poll question. Does this now transcend for those of you who don't like the president, does it now transcend or the way I worded it, should opinions on the war in Iran transcend one's view of President Trump?

This -- I can't remember a time when I've been so keenly interested to see how the poll will turn out because something happened that doesn't normally happen. And that is I got an advanced look of the first 700 to come in the door and vote, and it was not what I thought. But let's see. Maybe when the CNN show started, you know, there was a turning of the tide. I don't know.

In fact, later in the show, we'll get a -- not now, but we'll get a screen grab of what I'm talking about so that we can do a comparison of where it ends. That will be interesting. Still to come, your social media reaction by commentary.

Plus, is the United States proving its longtime military doctrine works or exposing its limitations and weaknesses. One expert says the war with Iran could determine whether America's high tech approach to warfare can succeed especially against future adversaries.

Go vote for the poll question, sign up for the newsletter. You'll get the work of illustrators like Steve Breen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:35:24]

SMERCONISH: You can find me on all the usual social media platforms. Please do so. Maybe I'll read your comment during the course of the program.

I do not care who is in office. I have never and will never support a war. It's murder.

OK. Would you -- would you have been supportive -- were you supportive of going after the 19 perpetrators, Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri? I mean, come on, really post -- I'm not for war. Who's for war? Nobody's for war. But post September 11th did you not think justice demanded finding and taking out Bin Laden and Zawahiri?

I was like a dog on a bone talking about that on radio and demanding that the Bush administration close that loop. And finally, Obama did. Thank you, Admiral McRaven and all those on SEAL Team Six. More social media reaction. What do we have?

Finally, a president to stand up and do the hard stuff. Even though he knows it could be risky before midterms. But he knows we have the greatest minds and military at this moment in time. Thank you Trump.

Yes, reaction from all sides on this. StephD, let me just say, I didn't think that -- look, the State of the Union in my opinion was a blown opportunity. It was a blown opportunity because he didn't get to Iran until about an hour into the -- into the speech. And I think it demanded treatment much higher in the speech especially if he knew then that he was going to take action.

And I was also -- I was also unsettled by, you know, the whole sequence of events a week ago, I guess it was, when Secretary Rubio is doing the briefing and he says, well, we weren't going to go, but Israel was going to go and, consequently, we'd be struck and -- I just thought it was mishandled from the get-go.

But here we are. They are dangerous. They wish us ill. Trump has taken action. And as David Boies says, some efforts to curtail what the president is doing in Iran seem motivated simply by a desire not to give him, Trump, a win even if it means a loss for America.

I don't like that. I agree with him. I agree with what he wrote. And I think there's truth in that. But some people are so vehemently against Trump it's like, he's for it. I've got to be against it even if it means ridding the world of a dangerous leadership in Iran. That's what I think.

Don't forget to vote at Smerconish.com on today's poll question. Should opinions on the war in Iran transcend one's view of President Trump?

And still to come, the war with Iran may be more than just a regional conflict. One analyst argues it could become a real world test of the so-called American way of war. In other words, if precision strikes and overwhelming air power cannot deliver victory here, what does it mean for future conflicts?

Sign up for the newsletter at Smerconish.com. Get the work of talented illustrators like Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:42:28]

SMERCONISH: As the United States and Israel continue their campaign against Iran, the Pentagon now deploying a marine expeditionary unit to the region, a rapid response force of about 2,500 marines and sailors. Though officials have not said where they will be sent or what their mission will be. The development raises a broader question about how the United States expects to fight this war.

Some analysts say the conflict could become a defining test of how the United States approaches warfare in the 21st century. That is, winning through overwhelming air power, precision strikes, and advanced technology with the goal of defeating an adversary without large numbers of American troops on the ground.

In a new column for the "Financial Times," Jacquelyn Schneider argues that Iran may represent the, quote, "ideal case to test the U.S. vision of warfare. It is a chance to demonstrate that, despite two decades of counterinsurgency and the drone revolution in Ukraine, the American way of war is still possible."

Conversely she argues that if the U.S. fails in Iran against a relatively weak military opponent, it could raise serious questions about whether the American way of war would work against a more formidable adversary like China.

Joining us now is the author raising those questions Jacquelyn Schneider, Hoover fellow at Stanford University and director of the Hoover Wargaming and Crisis Simulation. Dr. Schneider, thank you so much for being here. OK, so post 9/11, it was the counterinsurgency era. Then we saw the drone revolution in Ukraine. Where are we now?

JACQUELYN SCHNEIDER, HOOVER FELLOW, STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Yes, I think, the last few days have been a really pivotal moment about thinking about the future of war. So, we saw what was happening in Ukraine, the so-called drone revolution, and the technologies that the Ukrainians have invested in are really technologies that have led to a war of attrition, of violence, of no significant kind of dominant military.

And so, when you look at the technologies that the United States has invested in, and these are not the kinds of technologies you see in Ukraine, these are not cheap quadcopters that are delivering blood and medical supplies to the troops in the front, these are technologies that are far more expensive, more exquisite, and then are able to strike from long distances. And this is significantly different.

SMERCONISH: The American way --

SCHNEIDER: So -- yes.

SMERCONISH: The American way of war, as you -- as you term it, is it unique to us? Are others emulating it?

SCHNEIDER: You know, for a long time I think the vast majority of our allies, the Europeans, the Taiwanese, the Japanese, the South Koreans were trying to emulate this type of warfare.

[09:45:09]

Maybe, actually, not to their benefit. Taiwan is a really good example here. Taiwan is invested in the same kind of precision, exquisite technologies the United States has invested in, where it might actually need to invest in mines and technologies that increase the pain of an invasion that China would take. So, it's a very different type of technologies.

These are technologies that are -- you know, there's a lot more of them. They're potentially cheaper. They might be platform agnostic. That's very different than the American type of war.

SMERCONISH: Dr. Schneider, can you hold ground without ground forces in the American way of war? Can you -- can you control territory that you otherwise didn't have?

SCHNEIDER: Well, that's been what we've been trying to accomplish for a very long time. And so, you see this kind of previewed in 1991 in the first Gulf War you see this -- an attempt of this in 2003 and, actually, at the beginning stages of Afghanistan. And it's this idea that you can be so precise and so effective in the initial volleys of war that you basically coerce an adversary to give up before you even put the boots on the ground.

And that has not so far been successful for the United States. We spent two decades in Iraq and Afghanistan. And so, I think this was kind of the moment like, oh, we got -- we got Khamenei at the very beginning. And we're, you know, using artificial intelligence. We're using this extraordinary technologies.

Maybe this is the moment where finally we're able to execute the ideal version of kind of an effects based operation. But as we can see now it's far more complicated. And it does not seem likely that the United States will be able to, you know, significantly control territory or potentially even change the regime here without significant escalation.

SMERCONISH: As I read your piece, I thought to myself, how far in the future are wars fought by gamers with joysticks?

SCHNEIDER: I mean, some element of that has been happening already, right? And, you know, we invested in remotely piloted aircraft during the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the operators were nowhere near the battlefield. So, there's some element of this already happening.

I mean what we've seen in Ukraine, however, is that there's a tit for tat in warfare. And so even if you want to control war from far away, there are countermeasures. There is jamming. There are cyberattacks. There's space attacks. |And that ends up kind of bringing warfare back into this close in conflict. And so, I think we kind of would love to think about the way in which we could fight wars of our choice from long distances as kind of like remote games. But the reality is that war is a nasty, violent struggle. And that is what eventually happens is that states go back to kind of these core elements of what war is.

SMERCONISH: Jacquelyn Schneider, thank you for your expertise. We appreciate it. To everybody at home continue with your social media reaction to the program.

From the world of X. I think. I am completely against this war, but now that we are in it, we need to finish it and finish it quickly.

Gary, that's what I'm driving at with the poll question today. Look, I've said it. It'll be the third time I've now said it. I wasn't satisfied with the articulation by the administration as to why it was necessary, when it was necessary. Different accounts at different times by different people.

But here we are. But here we are is what I'm saying now and that's why the David Boies people that frame today's -- the David Boies essay that framed todays poll question, I think, is a valid one. Here's what I'm asking at Smerconish.com and you've still got time to go and cast your ballot. Should opinions on the war in Iran transcend one's view of President Trump?

Don't suit up in your partisan jersey because he initiated this, right? Make up your own mind based on where we are now. Subscribe to the newsletter when you're voting on the poll question. You'll get the exclusive editorial cartoons from the likes of Jack Ohman. By the way, won a big prize this week, was just recognized as a leader in his field, and there's some of his work.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:53:42]

SMERCONISH: OK. Little something different today. I'm going to put on the screen in a moment the poll result when under a thousand people had voted and then we'll do a comparison to where it ended. I don't know. I have no idea where it ended. So, we're going to see.

All right, 934 votes. Should opinions on the war in Iran transcend one's view of President Trump? I saw that because that's when I voted. And 65 percent agreed with that sentiment. Yes, this is bigger than Trump, make up your mind, regardless of what you think of the president of the United States.

So, two-thirds were saying yes then. Let's see where it is now. This is kind of cool. Wow. OK. It held constant. I got to say, I'm floored. I am floored by that.

I happen to think that it's, as you heard me say earlier in the program, the right outcome. Forty thousand plus and 63 percent agree with David Boies. I'm not taking credit for it. I had the same thought, but he wrote it. Sixty-three percent say, yes. You know, you got to -- you've got to put that aside and not be so partisan in terms of how you regard the events that are unfolding. All right. That's a pretty cool result. I'm -- yes, I'm loving the way that it turned out. OK, social media reaction. What do we have, X, Twitter --

[09:55:01]

In the old days, we were allowed to have different points of view from our party view. Today, it's all or nothing -- it's so true. Today, it's all or nothing. You know, you're a traitor.

Susan Segal, I love your opinion. Make up your own mind. It's OK to be independent. And guess what else? It's OK to say, I don't know. I haven't figured it out yet. I'm not sufficiently read in to have an opinion.

I love that perspective as well. More social media reaction. What do we have?

We've learned our lesson regarding rallying around the flag. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a couple of dozen times? Nope.

Well, Smoked Manhattan -- by the way, we could be -- we could be friends, Smoked Manhattan. What we learned from Jeff Greenfield, who took a deep dive in the issue four years ago, is that rally around the flag is not accurate. It's only when we've been attacked, think 911, think Pearl Harbor, that for a sustained time period, we rallied around the flag.

If you missed any of today's program you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Thank you for watching. See you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)