>> How long will the US be at war with Iran?

>> Whatever the time is, it's okay.

Whatever it takes, we will always -- And we have, right from the beginning, we projected four to five weeks.

But we have capability to go far longer than that.

>> As the conflict enters its third week, "Firing Line" looks back at interviews through the years that shed light on how we got here and where we might be heading.

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... And by the following.

>> Could we win a war with Iran?

>> Yes.

>> That didn't take you a second.

>> Two strikes -- the first strike and the last strike.

>> What are the conditions or the circumstances that would justify going to war with Iran?

>> Well, if Iran struck out militarily against the United States or against our allies in the region, then I would certainly expect a devastating response against Iran.

>> As somebody who fought in two fronts in the Middle East, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan, do you think it would be a good idea to go to war with Iran?

>> No, I don't advocate military action against Iran.

I'm simply delivering the message that if Iran were to attack the United States, it would be a grave miscalculation on their part, and there would be a furious response.

Now, we don't want to govern Iran.

We don't want to rule 80 million Iranians.

We want 80 million Iranians to be able to govern themselves and do so in peace and security with their neighbors and to taking account our interests in the Middle East.

Where are you on regime change?

What I want is to have an outlaw regime change its behavior, to rejoin the civilized world and stop supporting terrorism and trying to overthrow the governments of so many of its neighbors.

Ultimately, if you have people like Ayatollah Khamenei in charge in Iran, it's hard to see how the United States and allies like Israel can live in peace in the Middle East.

Let's be very clear that the so-called malign Iranian activity, the support for the Shia militia, the paramilitaries, Lebanese Hezbollah, Shia militia in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and other places is a very, very serious threat to the region, as is the missile program that Iran has pursued.

What we're doing, though, is putting much increased pressure on Iran, really targeting their economy.

That economy is into a significant downturn, depression.

And we're going to keep clamping down on that.

Do you understand what the strategic goal is?

Well, I was just going to say that, in fact, the real question in my mind is, what is the overall goal?

Is it realistically attainable?

If it is, for example, regime change, I tend to doubt that that is attainable within the resources that we would be willing to commit to this.

It's certainly not an invasion of Iran.

This is a country that's more than twice the population of Iraq and three or four times the land mass.

So again, the question is, what are they trying to achieve?

I mean, can we hit Iran with a very, very substantial set of strikes?

Absolutely, we can.

What does that win?

I mean, you're not going to, if win means that we're going to again take over Iran, certainly that's not attainable with just strikes.

If you want to do a great deal of damage to say their nuclear program and perhaps to their ballistic missile program and a variety of the other military capabilities that concern us, certainly we can do that.

The question is what will they do in return?

Keep in mind that there's a lot of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines in that region.

There are a lot of American civilians, not just the diplomats and development workers, but many, many others.

And there's a lot of energy infrastructure that is hugely important to the global economy.

On May 19th, President Trump tweeted, "If Iran wants to fight, that will be the end of Iran.

Never threaten the United States again."

Is there a risk of using bellicose rhetoric and not acting?

>> Well, I think that President Trump is, in many, many ways, has demonstrated his willingness to act.

And I think that you see that both with respect to the nuclear deal, you see that with respect to his decision, for example, when he was meeting with the North Koreans, to say, "You know what?

I'm gonna walk away from the table."

I think he's been pretty clear in terms of the extent to which he's going to defend this nation.

So I think actually the bigger risk for the United States comes if our adversaries miscalculate and they believe they can attack us without a response.

>> So what should be the strategic objective of the United States vis-a-vis Iran?

Is it regime collapse?

Is it regime change?

>> Our strategic objective is to get the behavior to change.

>> Regime behavior change.

I think the behavior needs to change.

Iranians need to stop their support for terrorism.

The Iranians need to stop their activities that result in the death of Americans and our allies around the world.

The Iranians need to recognize that we won't be blackmailed into lifting the sanctions.

>> General Petraeus was on this program a couple of weeks ago, and he said the same thing.

Regime behavior change is what the strategic objective should be.

But General Petraeus wasn't sure that that objective is achievable based on what he's seen of the Iranians.

Based on what you know of the Iranians, especially what you've written about in your book, that for 20 years, 40 years, the Iranians have never negotiated in good faith.

Is it possible to change that regime's behavior?

>> Well, I think we'll find out.

And the security of the United States and of our allies around the world depends upon the Iranians not obtaining a nuclear weapon and recognizing that we won't continue to sort of stand by while they support terrorism and their ballistic missile development and the other malign activities across the region.

>> Let's talk about Iran.

Well-reported, and you write actually in your book that Iran is a perplexing problem and has been throughout the course of your career.

It's even reported that you told the Obama administration that your biggest concerns were Iran, Iran, and Iran.

We have to recognize that the authoritarians that rule in Iran right now are part of a revolutionary regime, and they are not acting in the best interest of their own country.

So we're going to have to work with other countries to restrain their misbehavior.

>> In just a short period of time, the world's leading state sponsor of terror will be on the cusp of acquiring the world's most dangerous weapons.

Therefore, I am announcing today that the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.

>> Do you believe now, even though we are out of the Iran deal, that it is still possible to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

>> It's not only possible.

I think it's critical.

>> So how would you do it?

>> Well, it has to do with aligning the international community and making the diplomatic consequences, economic consequences severe enough that it's not in their interest for the regime to do this.

>> And opponents would argue that that was what the Iran deal was intended to do.

>> Mm-hmm.

Well, and sincere people can argue and disagree on that.

>> So, you have stressed also in your writings and in the book, as you reflect on your 41 years in the Marines, the importance of having a political end state... >> Yes.

>> ...when the military is engaged in wars.

You say that George H.W.

Bush got it right in 1991 in Desert Storm.

He had Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

He said it will not stand, and we attacked, liberated Kuwait, and then came home.

You have criticized the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for not having the same clear end state.

Is there a recent example after Desert Storm where we've gotten it right?

>> I don't believe so right now in terms of military interventions, no.

I'm not convinced that our policies over the last some 20 years have been sufficiently rigorous and been sustained.

In other words, we go in to take out terrorists, and we decide we're gonna establish democracy, and then we're going to do something else.

There's ways to get all this right up front, but you need to get it right up front.

You need to have a good, vigorous debate.

You need to be hard on the issue.

And once you establish it, then you have to resource it, and you have to sell it to the American people.

You have to tell them, "This is that important for you."

>> I first must ask you about developments in the news this week.

President Trump ordered the killing of Iran Quds Force Major General Soleimani last week.

Soleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel, but we caught him in the act and terminated him.

In your opinion, was President Trump correct to do this?

Well, obviously we haven't seen the evidence that President Trump referred to in terms of the imminent attack on U.S.

forces or on U.S.

assets.

I think the big question is obviously what the consequences of this are.

And I can only speak to you from the perspective of a humanitarian organization.

I can tell you we are preparing across the Middle East for more chaos, more conflict, more civilian casualties.

Is it possible to play devil's advocate that the assassination of Quds Force Commander Soleimani changes the seriousness with which Iran takes the United States and make it more likely that Iran returns to the negotiating table?

Well, I can tell you from my own time in government that Iran, who the U.K.

had full diplomatic relations with in the time unlike the U.S., they take the United States very seriously.

They take the history of the U.S.-Iran relationship very seriously.

They take the power of the United States, the military power, but also the broader political role.

>> I don't think they were expecting their major general for the Quds Force to be assassinated in the Iraqi airport, though.

So, that's a good point, but that doesn't mean that Iran doesn't take America seriously.

And I think that this sense of Iranian humiliation could obviously lead them to miscalculate.

That would have very grave consequences.

Those of us who were involved in the early days in trying to establish a nuclear agreement with Iran obviously fear that there is a return to a-the pathway to a nuclear weapon, that the terrible choice that all of us feared, either Iran gets the bomb or Iran gets bombed, that choice, we don't want to get back on that path again, and that's a fear of anyone who studies the Middle East.

So what does the election of a hardline president in Iran mean for the future of their nuclear weapons development and their desire to come to the bargaining table?

Yeah, so it's all about the economy.

I mean, I think this is true of just about every country out there.

At the end of the day, the Iranian hardliners understand that they have still got to get the economy moving.

Or this more liberal movement, if you will, is going to potentially, you know, bump up against the hardliners in a way that they won't be able to control.

So it is about the economy.

And from the president, I would offer from the standpoint of the new president, he recognizes that if he can, in fact, broker a deal with the United States and our allies, as we're looking at the the JCPOA, the nuclear agreement, then we will begin to lift some sanctions.

And hopefully we will do so in a thoughtful way that will bring more money into Iran.

And that will begin to mollify to some degree the the Iranians that are upset with the current regime in Iran.

So, you know, Iran is not looking for a fight.

We are not looking for a fight with Iran.

We're going to have to see how this new president plays out.

You know, sometimes you think that the hardliners are going to be the hardest to negotiate with when in fact they become a little bit more pliable over time.

So I think it remains to be seen with the new guy in power.

>> Describe what life is like for women in Iran.

Like hell.

I mean, seriously.

Imagine you're just seven year old girl.

Then you want to go to school.

If you don't cover your hair, you won't be able to get an education.

You won't be able to get a job.

You won't be able to exist, to live.

More than 60% of university in Iran being occupied by women.

But where are these women?

Women are not allowed to be judge.

Women are not allowed to be ministers.

And before the revolution, before the revolution, we had so many judges.

We had so many female singers.

We were able to go to stadium to participate any kind of sports.

But the Islamic revolution became a revolution against women.

And this is the reality.

You're not a free woman.

If you want to be a free woman in Iran, you have to break the law every day.

Me and you both, if we sit like this in Iran... We couldn't do this in Iran.

No.

In the eyes of the government, we're like master criminals.

Leg.

Hair.

Definitely we would get lashes, both of us.

Just think about it.

So the Iranian regime is scared of its own women.

Actually, there is three pillars for the Islamic Republic.

Death to America, death to Israel, hijab.

But now, the biggest enemy of the Islamic Republic is not America and Israel.

It's women inside Iran.

You know why?

Because they are fed up.

They are fed up by the regime telling them what kind of lifestyle to follow.

They are fed up by seeing that the regime, the same officials who are killing them, they send their children here in America to have their luxury life here.

All the Ayatollahs, they send their relatives and children here.

They have freedom.

They have fancy life here.

So the Iranian young generation, they risk their lives because they are tired of seeing this hypocrisy.

The Wall Street Journal has reported that Iran helped plan Hamas' attack and gave it the green light.

Hamas and Iranian officials are denying Iranian government involvement.

What is your assessment of Iran's involvement and motives?

>> I don't believe Iran for a second, the Iranian regime, I should say, for a second, in saying they had no hand in planning this.

It was far too convenient for them.

They've been funding and arming and helping Hamas in multiple ways now for many, many years.

The idea that they would not have foreknowledge, that they wouldn't be involved, I think is implausible.

I could be wrong, but it's highly unlikely.

I think it is significant that the Iranians are furiously denying it, and significant because they may not feel like they're prepared to get into a war, either directly or from one of their other proxies with Israel right now.

My guess is they had a large hand in it, but I don't want to get ahead of the intelligence.

You have been critical of the Biden administration for its past appeasement of Iran.

In your estimation, does Iran want a multi-front war with Israel?

Look, that's the big question.

Was this 10-7 slaughter, was that a preamble to the war that Iran planned?

In other words, did they see this as a moment that they were going to try to galvanize the Muslim world and try to draw in as many actors as possible and to set the region on fire?

To get to your question about my critique of the Biden administration, look, there has been an effort, an ongoing effort by the Biden administration to separate out Iran's malign activity and support for terrorism from the nuclear track.

And so the administration, just as the Obama administration did before, has been offering all manner of financial inducements to the regime to try to convince it to stop its nuclear advances and to, at minimum, hold steady.

What that has amounted to in my view has been appeasement and the financing of a terrorist state.

And I do hope that in light of all of this, and in light of the president's embrace of the Israelis and the recognition of Iran's hand behind all of this, that maybe it's time for a policy review, that the way in which Democrats in particular have approached the Iran challenge, maybe it's time to revisit some of these assumptions, because I believe that it has ended in failure.

And I've got to think that Biden administration officials are starting to come to that realization as well.

- With respect to the next generation of leadership in Iran, what should the US be doing, or what should our allies be doing to cultivate and think about the next generation of leadership in Iran?

- Well, certainly there is an Iranian diaspora that keeps those contacts.

And I hope that as we were with the diaspora of the Baltic states, so that when the Baltic states were freed, there were people who were able to help shepherd the Baltic states toward democracy, freedom, and a Western-looking policy.

I suspect that if you really understood the internal politics, the internal situation in Iran, there are an awful lot of Iranians who are actually pro-American, who we see the signs whenever there's a protest.

These women are a group that I think will be a bulwark.

I've been asked very often, what would succeed Vladimir Putin?

That's not a pretty picture because he's killed off all of the liberal opposition.

In Iran, I don't know, but I sense that that might be a place where you could trust the Iranian people with just a little help to build a decent regime should the Ayatollahs fall.

Would you say Iran is the next president's most urgent and acute threat?

I would say it's Iran certainly because Iran has been waging this proxy war, I think, against us, you know, "the great Satan."

But what's new about it are the direct attacks between Iran and Israel.

>> And Israel.

>> And then also the degree to which they are attacking international shipping, for example, in the Red Sea by the Houthis, which are a proxy of the Iranians.

But also we've learned just recently that Russia is providing a lot of the intelligence used to attack international shipping.

So, yes, Iran is a big part of the problem that a new president will face.

But it's really the connection between Iran and this greater axis of aggressors.

In response to President Trump's announcement to the nation this last weekend that three key nuclear facilities in Iran were struck, you issued a statement saying, "I am encouraged by the administration's assurance that these strikes were deliberately limited in scope."

Your statement also stressed Congress's role as the sole constitutional entity in the Declaration of War.

>> Yep.

>> At what point does the administration need to consult Congress over this conflict?

>> Well, I think if you go to the specifics of the War Powers Act, it requires a notification period to Congress, then a specific time period within which Congress acts.

It is important.

It is important that the commander-in-chief have the ability, the flexibility in an emergency when the security of the country is at risk to be able to move quickly.

And I think this is what we saw with these precise strikes to go after Iran's nuclear capabilities.

We will have the important conversation in the Senate about whether or not we move forward with War Powers Act.

Should it become clear that this is moving to a more expansive or more expanded scope, if you're talking about literally boots on the ground, the role then, I think, of Congress in declaring war, I think, becomes much more clear.

So at this moment in time, I think there is, in fairness, much more information that we all need to have.

>> So "boots on the ground" is the demarcation line for a declaration of war or a consultation of Congress?

>> It is not.

It is one example of -- >> Uh-huh.

Example.

Okay.

Less than 24 hours after these precise precision and limited strikes, President Trump posted on his social-media platform, quote, "If the current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again, why wouldn't there be regime change?"

Is regime change the right policy?

>> I don't know if regime change is the right policy.

I believe that if Iran's nuclear capabilities are eliminated, I think the world is a safer place.

In recent weeks you have posted several videos voicing support for the protesters in Iran.

You've called on the U.S.

to intervene and you said, quote, "If you care about human rights, talk about Iran."

How does Iran fit into the broader fight against anti-Semitism?

It's a great question.

It's not just the broader fight against anti-Semitism.

It's the broader fight for a safer world.

So when you think of every conflict that's happening in the world right now, almost all of them, when you track back to where they start and where they come and where they're funded from and who's behind them, you will find the Islamic Republic of Iran, whether it's Hezbollah or Hamas or the Houthis that are bugging and attacking not just Israel and the United States, but also the Saudis and the Emiratis, right?

They're destabilizing force in the Middle East and therefore a destabilizing force in the West.

And here's what people need to understand.

So in 1979, when the revolution happened, it was the first time that the Muslim world saw a country that was run by Muslim law, Sharia law, taking the ideas of Islam, which were, I guess, fantastic in the times when Mohammed was around for some people, but really don't qualify for anything that we can stand up for right now.

You know, if a woman gets raped, she needs to produce three witnesses in order to corroborate her rape.

And if not, she's considered the adulterer and she can be punished by death and stoning, but she can actually redeem herself if she marries her rapist.

That's a culture that we cannot stand behind, that we have to stand against no matter what.

We need to be very clear that Islamic fundamentalism should not be accepted in normal society.

So to me, the people of Iran have been trying to tell us for years that they don't want this.

They're occupied under their own regime, literally.

There's a full-on gender apartheid happening in Iran right now.

Gender apartheid, and why aren't liberals talking about that?

Beyond -- It just defies logic, to be honest.

-President Trump called for Iran to either negotiate with the United States or face a potential to attack.

-Mm-hmm.

-What should the U.S.

do?

-I believe that it's time for the Islamic Republic of Iran to fold and go away.

The Islamic Republic of Iran should not be controlling the Iranian people.

-Is it the Americans' job to make that happen?

-I don't know who else's job it is, because if you think of 80 plus million people, they are not armed.

I don't know that they can do it on their own.

So I really hope that the US, that Israel, that the MI6, whoever is there, building an opposition that can actually take over the regime.

That's what needs to happen, along with an attack, a strategic attack on Revolutionary Guard targets and so on and so forth.

Obviously nobody wants to attack the Iranian people.

They're actually extraordinary.

- Firing Line with Margaret Hoover is made possible in part by and by the following.

(upbeat music) You're watching PBS.