Matthew Kroenig analyzes President Trump's speech on the Iran war, noting the claim that the Strait of Hormuz will naturally reopen despite its critical role as a global energy choke point. While China and Russia provided limited intelligence and weapons to Tehran without direct military intervention, Kroenig defends his criticism of the nuclear deal for enabling vast fuel capabilities. The segment contrasts these expert insights with diverse viewer calls ranging from praise for proactive defense to accusations of constitutional violations and religiously motivated conflict, ultimately highlighting deep divisions over American agency and strategic clarity. [Automatically generated summary]
And the president's speech went for about 19 minutes.
We have all the cards.
They have none, he said in referring to Iran.
We want to get your reaction next about the president's speech and the war in Iran.
202 is the area code for all of our numbers.
748-8920.
If you are a Republican, 748-8921.
If you are a Democrat, and if you are neither of the above, 202-748-8922.
You can see all the social media addresses at the bottom where you can continue the conversation or send us a comment as well.
Rejoining us now is Matthew Kroenig of the Atlantic Council.
He held positions in the defense and intelligence areas for George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and for Donald Trump.
What's your initial reaction to the President's speech, Mr. Kroenig?
unidentified
Well, not a lot of new information repeated a lot of the points the administration has been making for several weeks about the threat that Iran poses to the United States and the world.
There was a part of the speech talking about the military progress in terms of degrading Iran's capability.
The president also repeated this point that if the European allies are concerned about the Strait of Hormuz, then they can come and help to secure the Strait themselves.
One thing that was new and interesting to me is he said that once the war ends, the Strait of Hormuz situation will resolve itself naturally because Iran will have an incentive to open the Strait to international commerce.
I roughly agree with that point.
It was put pretty simply in a short speech.
So that was new, getting some insight into how the President thinks he might get the Strait open after the conflict is over.
So I'd say not a lot new, but bringing together a lot of what has been said before.
And of course, it is powerful to do it in a prime time address from the President directly to the American people.
So a lot of people who maybe weren't paying attention to the various press conferences and other things, maybe were tuning in tonight.
And so this was an opportunity for the president to present his comprehensive view of the war in Iran to the American people.
Well, speaking of the Strait of Hormuz, and I don't know how far you can go in this, but it's about 21 miles wide, Iran on the north or that half, and Oman on the southern half.
But there's only a small corridor that the ships can go through.
Is that correct?
unidentified
That's right.
And a large portion of the world's energy, oil and gas every day transits through that strait.
And so it is a choke point because it's so narrow and so easy for a country like Iran to threaten to close the strait by attacking ships that go through there.
And so this is something that's been recognized for a long time.
I worked on the Iran desk during the Obama administration.
This is something that we worried about, that if there were conflict with Iran, they could try to close the Strait of Hormuz.
So I don't think this has caught anyone or most experts anyway by surprise, but it is right now the biggest challenge of this war.
And how do you get the Strait reopened?
How do you get energy transiting through the Strait to fuel a global economy which relies on oil and gas from the Middle East?
And the President did make a point about how the United States doesn't rely on energy from that region because it is energy independent now.
He argued that Europe and others can buy energy from the United States.
But the reality is it is a global market.
So if there are supply disruptions in the Middle East, that has an effect on the prices and the economy for the entire world.
He seemed to have pulled his punches when it came to NATO and the critique of NATO that we were hearing about this afternoon and the possible U.S. withdrawal from NATO.
unidentified
Well, if you go back to what I said before the speech, I said I think he's frustrated, but I think at the end of the day, he does value NATO and the alliance will remain strong.
So you're right, there are many people.
So I guess I was right in my prediction.
But you're right that there were many people who were worried today.
And fortunately, the president didn't threaten to pull out of NATO or anything of the sort.
And again, I think that's the right move.
I know he's frustrated that the European allies aren't doing more to help.
But on balance, NATO is an important alliance for the United States.
And so I think the president played it right in the speech tonight.
And in fact, the Hill publication is reporting via X that NATO's Mark Root has scheduled a Washington trip as Trump re-evaluates the alliance.
unidentified
Secretary General Ruta has been very effective in the job, and I think he understands that part of his job is keeping the United States engaged in Europe and engaged in NATO.
And so he's emerged as an important Trump whisperer, understanding Trump.
You know, he was the one who played a role in getting Trump to pursue negotiations over his concerns with Greenland when we had tensions over that issue several weeks ago.
And so yes, Ruta is coming to town, I think maybe next week.
And I think that's on balance a good thing for the NATO Secretary General and the President of the United States to be working closely together.
Have China and Russia been overly supportive of Iran during this war?
unidentified
No, and it's interesting because they are not formal treaty allies like the United States is with NATO, but they are close security partners.
They've been working together in a number of ways that are troubling, including providing weapons and intelligence.
And so many, I think, in the West worried if the United States were to do something like attack Iran, would Russia and China militarily intervene to help Iran?
Would this lead to a direct superpower conflict?
But other than some critical statements, other than some reports that Russia is providing Iran with intelligence information, Russia and China really haven't done very much.
And so maybe a message to other rogue states out there.
If you're planning on counting on Russia and China for your security, maybe you should think again.
We also saw that they didn't come to the defense of Maduro and Venezuela after the military, U.S. military operation there.
So yes, they're condemning the United States, but not really doing much practically to help Iran.
Matthew Kroenig, it seemed that the president was rather low-key or mute about the role of Israel.
Was that on purpose, do you think?
unidentified
Well, that's a good point.
He did talk early on about how they're working together.
And of course, they have been working together.
And early on in the conflict, it was the United States going after the military targets, but it was Israel going after the leadership targets, including they're the ones credited with killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khomeini.
And so, a good point.
Why did he not make a bigger deal out of that?
You know, before the speech, you read the letter from Iran's president that was full of, I'd call it, anti-Semitic tropes about how Israel essentially tricked the United States into this war.
And so maybe that's why the president played it the way he did, to make it clear that this is something that he wanted to do.
And by the way, I guess I do think the Iranian president's letter doesn't really make much sense.
President Trump is pretty strong-willed.
Hard to imagine that he's being led around by a small partner in the Middle East.
So I think that was maybe the reason for that in the speech, to make it clear that this is something that President Trump has always thought important.
He's always thought it was important to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons.
And so this is an American action to protect Americans.
It's not about what smaller partners in the region desire.
Do you think his critique of the Iranian nuclear deal was fair?
unidentified
Well, it is a controversial issue.
You've got people on both sides.
I was a critic from the beginning for two reasons.
One, when you make nuclear fuel, you can make nuclear fuel for a reactor for peaceful purposes, or you can make it for weapons.
It's the exact same technology.
And so U.S. policy has always been that other countries are not allowed to make the fuel.
It's too dangerous.
And if you want fuel, you can get it imported from the United States or Russia or other countries, but you can't make it yourself.
And so that's the standard we've imposed on Mexico and United Arab Emirates and other partners.
And that was originally our standard with Iran.
But then Iran wouldn't agree to that.
And so with the nuclear deal, we relaxed our traditional standards and said, okay, Iran, you can enrich uranium.
We will let you make fuel that you could use for nuclear weapons, potentially.
And also, what many people don't understand is the nuclear deal was only temporary.
The limits began to expire over time.
And so I do think that over time, it would have allowed Iran to build such a vast nuclear fuel-making capability that it would have been very hard in practice to stop them from building nuclear weapons.
So, you know, it's a political speech, and so the president maybe overplayed how terrible it was.
But I do agree that I wouldn't have signed up for that deal.
We'll start with Rory in Menifee, California, Republican line.
Go ahead, Rory.
unidentified
Yeah, I thought President Trump was perspicuous, genuine, and direct to put the American people first.
I think this exercise manifests that as well.
He is, I don't think the America really deserves an unfair press that we have, that their job is to be objective and to avail the news in the most objective sense they can, not to take sides and promote the Democrats against the Republicans, which, you know, so the media and the Democrats are on the same team, you know, and when you vote for the Democrats, you're voting really for the elite Librania's values.
So it's, but I don't, I think the elite Label is also the enemy of the country.
They hate Trump, and yet they're too arrogant to even tell America why they hate him.
I mean, you know, like him or not, he's very genuine, and he does put the American people first.
And I think that's vitally important at this juncture.
So, Rory, just to ask you very quickly, do you see attacking Iran as an America first agenda item?
unidentified
Yes, I do, because I think we need there's such a threat, we needed to be proactive and not vacillate on that front at all.
So I appreciate his proactivity, and only the future will tell, but I really think he really came to America's defense in a very effective and proactive way.
I always try to be fair to both sides when I listen to this, and I really didn't hear anything new in the address tonight.
But I just have these questions that don't go away about the beginning of this.
And how is it that, you know, first off, you know, we weren't going in for a regime change, but yet we aimed it when we knew all the leaders were going to be congregated.
So that's kind of part of my question.
And then the other part is this.
Why is it that of all the times possible that simultaneously when our country could be in jeopardy from retaliations or, you know, whatnot, that this is going on at the same time that our Department of Homeland Security is shut down?
I'm a 10th grade high school student here in Texas.
Tonight, President Trump spoke about the truth that peace is secure through strength.
And, you know, that message really spoke to me as students and as future leaders because we're learning that strength isn't physical.
It's about discipline and teamwork and standing firm to things that we believe in in America and our values.
Peace through strength goes beyond military.
I believe it's about moral clarity and unity and faith.
And when we stay grounded in our values, I believe that we're just going to keep fighting for the America that we founded and fighting for the America that we want to keep for future generations.
Marco, do you think President Trump did that tonight?
unidentified
I do think that he delivered that in his message.
I know everyone has different opinions on how things are delivered and how actions are taken.
But I think at the end of the day, the end motive is to make sure that America is first, to make sure that we are strong and that we're going to keep staying strong for future generations.
I just wanted to say, the President's speech, although I feel like some people might have taken away a lot, I feel like it's still a lot of answers that we haven't gotten, especially the involvement with Israel.
I don't know why we don't talk about how Israel should be helping us more by sending in.
If we're sending in ground troops now, shouldn't Israel also take the bulk of that and send ground troops with us?
If it's such a big alliance we have, shouldn't they be fighting the fight with us?
I feel like not really answering that leaves a big hole in what we want to believe is America first, right?
Are we trying to put our values forward or are we trying to help someone else's value that is very heavily influenced not only in our Congress, but in our media as well?
I'm not trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist here, but I feel like if we talk about our alliance so much, why aren't we going in together?
Hey, well, I think the big problem is that I agree with the guy from Jersey that we don't have a treaty with Israel.
So how are they our ally?
And another thing is that Trump talked about, I believe, it was the USS Cole.
Israel attacked the USS Liberty in 1967 and there was no repercussions.
I think the problem now is that we have a unitary executive, right?
We have a unitary executive and there was no formal declaration of war to Congress.
And we don't have a treaty with this country.
And a lot of our politicians are taking money from the American-Israeli PAC.
And that's a problem to me.
And again, I'm a big America firster.
I voted for Trump.
I supported him in all three elections.
I'm 23, but Trump was my first vote in 2024.
But I'm a little disappointed if I'm being quite disappointed if I'm being quite frank.
And I'm not sure that this really fulfills a just war.
I mean, I'm Catholic and I, you know, the just war theory.
And, you know, I don't know what intelligence they received, but I'm not sure this really fulfills it, especially when if it's true that he was talking about bombing civilian infrastructure, I mean, that's just monstrous and barbaric.
Connor in Wallingford, Connecticut, Republican line.
Senator Chris Van Holland, Democrat, Maryland, social media.
Trump has always lied to us.
Over two weeks ago, he said we won.
If so, then why are we still there?
What's next?
All we can count on is more lies from Trump.
This delusional man is a danger in our country and the world.
That's Senator Chris Van Holland, a Democrat of Maryland.
Next up is Matthew in Spotsylvania, Virginia.
Hi, Matthew, Independent Line.
unidentified
Hey, I'm Matthew.
I'm 17.
I got out of high school not too long ago to just got in college not that long ago.
The president's speech was, it was, I think there's a very large disconnect to what people, especially people my age, deal with nowadays, especially when they're just starting to work.
The president talked about how the economy was stronger when it's really felt kind of weaker lately.
I mean, like gas prices in my area, not bad as others, but I could definitely feel it.
And the whole war, I mean, I kind of understand, mostly understanding America first people, but I don't really feel like this is in our interest.
In fact, I worry that, you know, like it's going to be bad.
I'm so sorry, Emma.
But it's just, you know, I don't know.
I don't think what the president really said was, I don't think it's really correlated to us people who are actually down on the ground.
That's Matthew in Spotsylvania, Virginia, and this is Steve in Johnson, Vermont, Democrat.
unidentified
Thanks for having me.
On a day when the President of the United States sits in the Supreme Court to try to pressure the justices to violate the Constitution through the birthright citizen repeal, birthright citizenship repeal, days after he attempts to force congressional Republicans to violate the voting rights of millions of Americans by forcing the SAVE Act through the halls of Congress.
We're expected to believe that the president is about America first, sitting there in the White House, again, violating the rules of Washington, D.C., by starting on a construction project that violates the law.
Congress is to approve that.
The president tells us that there's no inflation.
The president tells us that we are the hottest country in the world as American families losing health care, as American families can't afford to feed their families, and we're expected to believe that.
This is a joke.
He is a criminal element sitting in the Oval Office.
That speech tonight was for one audience and one audience only.
I'm a Republican, but I'm a little bit embarrassed because in the speech that Trump wrote, he said that the United States has more gas than Russia and Saudi Arabia, and everybody should be buying from the United States.
If everybody would be buying from the United States, gas wouldn't be over $4.
Yeah, I think I saw a past gas station where diesel was about six bucks a gallon for diesel.
Frederick, Houston, Minnesota, Democrat.
Hi, Frederick.
unidentified
Yeah, hi.
No, I didn't watch Trump.
I'm a big believer in C-SPAN, except when you have Mr. Trump on.
You guys could do a lot better with better programming.
I know you have better programming than this.
Anyway, yeah, you know, a couple nights ago, I watched the movie Nuremberg.
And in my opinion, I think Trump and Exit and a bunch of his people could be brought up on war crimes for committing aggressive war.
I mean, look at Venezuela, look at Iran.
And, you know, as far as the price of gasoline, this morning on my way to work, I filled up, was $3.39 a gallon here in Minnesota, which is a lot less than a lot of places around the country.
Well, by this afternoon, I went by the same gas station.
It had gone up 30 cents a gallon in about six hours.
So, you know, I wouldn't listen to Trump if he was the very last program ever broadcast anytime.
Appreciate you calling in, sharing your point of view.
Jeremy's in Macon, Georgia, Republican.
unidentified
Well, this is completely ridiculous.
I'm a lifelong Republican.
I've decided I'm going to vote Democrat this year, as a matter of fact, unfortunately, for Donald Trump with his nonsensical attacks on true patriots like Thomas Massey, who is brave enough to go against this ridiculous war for Israel that we unfortunately are engaged in.
And this is Eric, a Democrat in Missoula, Montana.
Hi, Eric.
Yeah, hi.
Yeah, hello.
unidentified
Thanks for taking my call.
Really quickly, you know, the strikes that were done in, what was it, late May, early June, where Donald Trump had said basically that they had obliterated,
and I want to basically focus on that word to say that they obliterated Iran's nuclear capabilities and then to go in there and say that this was all for America first and strength through force and all that stuff because they said that they posed an imminent threat.
So what did we do in May and June?
That's my question is if we obliterated their nuclear stockpiles, then why are we there?
Why are we talking about them being an imminent threat?
Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, put out this social media post.
President Trump delivered a powerful speech tonight.
He was clear about our objectives in Iran: destroy their weapons factories, destroy their navy, destroy their air force, destroy their chances of ever having a nuclear weapon.
The president's leadership.
And I apologize, I can't read those last couple of words.
So that's from Marco Rubio.
Next call is John in Massalin, Ohio, on our independent line.
John, you're on C-SPAN.
What's your reaction to what the president had to say about Iran?
unidentified
Well, I got a reaction to quite a few things, actually.
Thank you for taking my call.
I hear a lot of people disagreeing with President Trump's actions and whatnot.
A lot of people don't understand that Iran has been targeting Israel, who is an ally.
You don't have to have a treaty, I don't believe, to be an ally.
I could be mistaken.
But they've been very aggressive towards Israel.
And let's not forget the hostages when President Carter was in office and when Ronald Reagan came in, all that that went on back then.
So Iran is a very big player in the Middle East.
They're a big bully, basically.
And one thing a lot of people don't realize is that this is a war of good and evil.
And it's not actually a war.
Nobody's declared war.
It's a we're standing with Israel because we are an ally.
Our guest earlier, Matthew Kroenig, wrote this piece for the Wall Street Journal, Twilight of the Rogue States, talking about getting rid of some of these smaller countries that have caused problems for the U.S. and other countries, such as North Korea, Iraq, Libya, et cetera, et cetera.
And he is supportive of attacking Iran and getting rid of the problem, or as he calls it, leaving behind the national security problems of the past.
So I would steer you toward this.
It's on the Wall Street Journal website: Twilight of the Rogue States by Matthew Kroenig.
As far as the, you know, the speech about Iran, you know, as a Republican voter who has, you know, defended Trump for the past decade using his speeches and, you know, his tweets saying, hey, if you vote for Joe Biden and Kamala, we'll have World War III in Iran to see what we're doing now with no clear goal, at least from the speech.
They're talking about enriched uranium.
We need to see it as voters.
He's losing support.
Republicans all over the country, diehard MAGAs that voted for him, are feeling betrayed.
All right, Igor in Tennessee, thanks for calling in.
Jim, Jackson, New Jersey, Democrat, your turn.
unidentified
Hello, how are you tonight?
Thank you very much for taking my call.
Yeah, of course, I did watch the president's speech tonight.
And I want to comment that the president is very fond of telling American citizens about all of the oil and natural gas that we have in this country.
And yet all of his policies seem to benefit the people who are invested in natural gas and oil.
It's a very dangerous situation that we've placed us in.
He has allied us with the Middle East, walked away from NATO, and has dammed us to an oil and gas economy for the next 40 to 50 years when we were well on our way under Joe Biden's leadership and Bill Clinton and Al Gore,
if we had won, leadership, getting us those patents that the rest of the world is using that new technology of the next century that would save us from the degradation that I see every day around me.
Trees are dying.
Forests are, you know, we're losing species at an alarming rate.
There's pollution everywhere.
Our scenic beauty is gone.
And I think that that needs to be mentioned because America has always been great.
I love America.
And I wanted a clean planet that people can survive on.
Morgan Chalafant from the Semaphore publication puts this up on social media.
Don't forget, Marco Rubio co-sponsored a bill passed into law in 2023 that prevented any U.S. president from suspending, terminating, or withdrawing U.S. membership in NATO.
It was reported this afternoon that the president was going to be more critical of NATO in his speech than he was.
He kind of, you know, downplayed that a bit.
And it is a fact that the Senate, if the president proposed withdrawing from NATO, the Senate would have to approve that as it is a treaty.
Randy is in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Independent Line.
Hi, Randy.
unidentified
Hi.
Thanks for taking my call.
I did watch this speech.
I was disappointed.
I was hoping for something more.
I'm retired, so I'm actually watching a lot of news.
I've already heard everything he said.
I just can't believe he brags about assassinating a general and how many he just more or less bragging about killing people.
I just thought we were going to stop.
Way back in the 60s and 70s, when they found out about that stuff, they thought, yeah, it's going to be illegal and all that.
And now it's just, you know, ever since unfortunately 9-11, New Lake Biden and Lauren Joey, after October 7th, he was don't make the same mistakes we did, like over reacting.
It should have been a criminal case instead of a war.
I was just hoping that there was going to be some type of end to the war when I listened to it.
And unfortunately, it was just the same thing that he was talking and bragging about.
And unfortunately, you really can't trust most of the things he says.
So I just wish he would have had some type of more new information, I guess.