Fox Contributor Knocks Down Trump’s Claim New Iranian Regime is ‘More Reasonable’

Fox News contributor Dan Hoffman, a former CIA chief of station, poured cold water on President Donald Trump’s notion that the new regime in Iran is “more reasonable” than the one the U.S. removed by killing the supreme leader.

Trump told the New York Post earlier in the day, “There has been total regime change because the regimes of the past are gone and we’re dealing with a whole new set of people. And thus far, they’ve been much more reasonable.

Guest anchor Benjamin Hall began the conversation, asking, “It’s this discussion of a new and more reasonable regime that he’s talking to, and it’s so interesting to figure out who he is talking to, where the regime is so cracked at the moment. How does that move forward? Who could he be operating with?”

Hoffman replied, “Yeah, I don’t know that there’s any evidence that this new iteration of the Iranian regime is any more reasonable than the last one. The new supreme leader, whom we haven’t seen publicly at least, and who has reportedly been seriously injured, has certainly given no indication that he’s interested in negotiations.”

“Iran has refused or rejected publicly the idea of coming to the negotiating table in good faith to discuss the key issues which led to this war — which are their ballistic missile program, their nuclear program, and their support of proxy terrorists in the region,” Hoffman warned, adding:

And so the president is delivering this pretty serious threat, and we’ll have to see how Iran responds. The regime, every day that they are surviving, sees it as a victory for them. And from their perspective, they see the world through our eyes, and the capability that they’ve had to inflict some pain on the global economy impacts the United States, it impacts politics here in the United States, and I think that gives Iran perhaps some confidence that they can dig their heels in on the negotiations front.

Hall continued, “And when you consider the demands that Iranian government officials or regime officials are making — they want control of the Strait of Hormuz, they want reparations, they want U.S. bases removed from the region — does that just suggest that there can be no middle ground, no meeting points? And I suppose that means, must there be a ground operation for the U.S. to achieve its goals?”

“So I don’t think there’s any common ground right now to bring an end to this war. I think what Iran wants is a war of attrition,” replied Hoffman, adding:

What Russia wants is for this war to carry on as long as possible. As far as ground troops are concerned, I don’t think Iran is concerned that U.S. ground forces are going to affect regime change or a change in the regime’s behavior necessarily. If we’re talking about 10,000, 15,000, or 17,000 U.S. troops, they might be able to take Kharg Island, but they’re going to create a real opportunity for Iran to strike our troops from the mainland, which is only 15 miles away.

They could take some islands in the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz, but again, that is very tricky to do — or to try to find the enriched uranium, the roughly thousand pounds of enriched uranium, and bring that out of Iran. Again, those things are not going to change the regime in and of themselves, but they will put a bullseye on the backs of our soldiers, and Iran would certainly welcome that. Whatever plans Iran has to resist a United States ground incursion, I just hope Director Ratcliffe’s CIA team has obtained those plans so that in the event that we do mount some sort of land incursion into Iranian territory, we’re as prepared as we could be.

Hall followed up, “So perhaps the focus needs to be on helping the Iranians and the protesters overthrow the regime themselves. What needs to be given to them? I mean, I’ve spoken to a couple who say we need arms. Now, that obviously heads down a dangerous route whereby you’re arming people inside Iran. But what could the U.S. give to the Iranian people to help overthrow their regime if the U.S. pulls back?”

Hoffman replied, “Yeah, so from my experience looking back at the Middle East — back when I was the director of the CIA’s Near East Division and ran our operations in the Middle East — look, we need people on the ground to vet anyone to whom we would be giving weapons. Certainly we’ve mounted an effective air campaign, and Israel has launched a lot of strikes against Iran’s security forces, the IRGC and the Basij paramilitary force. But that’s not enough. There are still 200,000 IRGC out there to suppress any domestic dissent. So I think, absent a real full-scale U.S. invasion — just the sort we saw in Iraq — you’re not going to see any sort of protests overthrowing the regime.”

Watch the clip above via Fox News.

New: The Mediaite One-Sheet "Newsletter of Newsletters"
Your daily summary and analysis of what the many, many media newsletters are saying and reporting. Subscribe now!