Steele: Iran ‘Objectives’ Unclear Amidst Shifting Intelligence

Steele: Iran ‘Objectives’ Unclear Amidst Shifting Intelligence

Former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has voiced strong criticism regarding the stated objectives concerning Iran, labeling the current administration’s messaging as “unfortunate” and characterized by “general B.S.” Steele, speaking on a recent broadcast alongside investigative reporter Caroline Levitt and David Rhodes, questioned the clarity and urgency behind the U.S. approach to Iran, particularly in light of evolving intelligence and diplomatic interactions.

Ambiguous Objectives and the Question of Imminent Threat

Levitt outlined several key objectives related to Iran: the destruction of ballistic missiles, the dismantling of Iran’s missile industry, halting regional destabilization by Iranian proxies, and preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. While acknowledging these as long-standing goals for successive administrations, Steele questioned what specific, pressing intelligence prompted a “full-frontal assault” on Iran at this particular moment.

“All of those were objectives, has been objectives for every administration since we’ve been engaged with Iran,” Steele stated. “So, you know, I think objectively, you’re looking at it and going, what was so pressing? What did the intelligence that we received that told the president of the United States that we had to take a full-frontal assault on Iran?”

A significant point of contention for Steele was the source of the intelligence, specifically questioning whether it originated from Israeli intelligence and if the U.S. was merely following suit. “Was it Israeli intelligence? So what did the Israelis know that our intelligence didn’t know? Was it our intelligence that we just, you know, sort of grabbed the Israelis and tagged along? There is no explanation for that. They’ve been all over the map.”

Concerns Over Russia-Iran Cooperation and Presidential Communications

The conversation also delved into the complex relationship between Russia and Iran, particularly in the context of President Trump’s hour-long conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Steele expressed bewilderment at the White House spokeswoman’s response when questioned about potential Russian assistance to Iran: “if Russia is helping Iran, that would not be a good thing. We’re hoping that’s not true. What do you mean if?”

“This is their major player in the Middle East. This is their anchor of terrorism in the Middle East,” Steele emphasized. “What do you mean if Iran is not being helped by Russia?” He further questioned the lack of a readout from the President’s call with Putin, adding to the opacity surrounding U.S. foreign policy decisions.

Tomahawk Missile Strike and Intelligence Gaps

The discussion turned to the use of Tomahawk missiles and the implications of a strike that reportedly hit a school, killing 175 children. Steele highlighted the limited number of U.S. allies who possess Tomahawk missiles, suggesting that either the U.S. or one of its few allies was responsible.

“So if a tomahawk hits a school and kills 175 children, either we shot it or one of our allies shot it. That’s the extent of the investigation,” Steele remarked, expressing frustration with the perceived lack of thoroughness. He also noted that Israel, contrary to some speculation, does not possess Tomahawk missiles, further narrowing the possibilities.

Rhodes added a crucial detail regarding intelligence shared between Russia and Iran. According to his sources with knowledge of intelligence matters, Russia has been providing Iran with information that could be used to target American forces in the region. While the extent of this cooperation remains unclear, the implication is that such intelligence sharing could significantly escalate tensions.

National Security Implications of FBI and DOJ Purges

The conversation shifted to a report detailing the impact of purges within the FBI and Department of Justice on national security investigations. Levitt presented “blockbuster findings”:

• Approximately 300 seasoned FBI agents specializing in national security have departed the bureau since the current administration took office.
• The counterespionage unit within the Department of Justice’s national security division has been reduced to half its former strength.

Levitt explained the critical role of the counterespionage unit, which has been instrumental in disrupting Iranian efforts on U.S. soil, including murder-for-hire schemes, surveillance of Americans and Jewish community centers, and recruitment of U.S. prisoners for attacks against both Americans and foreign dissidents.

While Levitt cautioned against directly linking these departures and reductions in force to specific intelligence failures, such as the shootings in Austin or the bombing attempt in New York, she highlighted a significant concern: the FBI’s failure to detect the New York bombing plot, despite both individuals involved having pledged allegiance to ISIS. “The fact that they didn’t detect it is a worry,” she stated.

Broader Concerns and Future Outlook

Steele’s overarching concern is that the administration’s communication and actions surrounding Iran are not adequately addressing the anxieties of the American public. The perceived ambiguity in objectives, coupled with questions about the reliability of intelligence and the potential for foreign interference, creates an environment of uncertainty.

The combination of these factors – unclear strategic goals in Iran, potential Russian complicity, questions surrounding a key missile strike, and significant internal weakening of national security investigative bodies – paints a complex and concerning picture. As these issues continue to unfold, the public and policymakers will be watching closely for greater transparency and a more coherent strategy to address the multifaceted threats posed by Iran and its allies.

Source: 'General B.S.' from Leavitt about Iran is 'unfortunate': Steele (YouTube)