Interview highlights:
- Sen. Jeanne Shaheen questions the Trump administration’s strategy in Iran: “There’s not a real endgame for what we’re trying to accomplish.”
- Shaheen’s office is helping some Granite Staters find flights out of the Middle East; the evacuation reflects poor planning by the Trump administration, she says.
- “If the goal was regime change, there’s no guarantee that who replaces the Ayatollah is going to be any less repressive, any less authoritarian.”
- “I think we need to restore Congress’ role in declaring war,” she said.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen is concerned about the war in Iran escalating and she says President Trump lacks a clear strategy for the military operation.
In an interview with NHPR on Thursday, Shaheen said she does not mourn Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader who was killed in a joint U.S.-Israeli attack, whom she called a “repressive, autocratic, authoritarian dictator” who was responsible for American deaths.
“But I’m concerned about the loss of life,” she said. “We’ve already lost six members of our military. I’m concerned about the escalation that’s going on.”
The lack of planning is also evident, Shaheen says, with respect to an estimated one million Americans in more than a dozen countries that the administration has urged people to evacuate from since the war began Feb. 28.
Shaheen said those concerns were why she voted for a war powers resolution Wednesday in the Senate, which failed 45-53, mostly along party lines. Despite that outcome, Shaheen said there is real concern on Capitol Hill for military authorization when going to war.
“I think we need to restore Congress’ role in declaring war,” she said.
Shaheen, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently pointed out to her committee that there are about 40,000 U.S. service members within striking range of Iran.
Shaheen said America needs to be aware of heightened threats from Iran. “We know there have been past attacks by Iran, threats against elected officials here . . . cyber incursions into the country.”
The cost of war will go beyond gas and energy prices, and could have ramifications for the affordability of groceries, housing, and child care, according to Shaheen.
When the air strikes began, Shaheen and the state’s congressional delegation accused Trump of having “recklessly rushed to war” in Iran.
NHPR’s Jackie Harris and Mary McIntyre produced and edited this story for broadcast. Dan Tuohy and Mary McIntyre adapted this interview for the web.
TRANSCRIPT
First, why did you vote against further U.S. military action in Iran?
Well, what I voted [for] was to try and have Congress to restore the authority of Congress over declaring war or not. And I think there is real concern in Congress on both sides of the aisle, although the vote was pretty one sided. But there was real concern about having the sole authority to go to war vested in the president of the United States. There was a reason why the Constitution and our founding fathers gave the ability to declare war to the Congress, because they wanted to make sure that it wasn't just one person who was making that decision — that if we were going to go to war, that there was support from the people of the country. And I think we need to restore Congress's role in declaring war.
You've been in briefings on this conflict, and it’s rapidly escalating. What's your view on how it's going?
I am not mourning for the Ayatollah. He was a repressive, autocratic, authoritarian dictator who denied his own people their human rights, who murdered thousands of Iranians just a couple of months ago. He promoted terrorism across the Middle East, from Hezbollah and Lebanon to the Houthis in Yemen to Hamas in Gaza, has been responsible for a lot of American deaths.
And I would also say that I think the military has executed their mission in a way that deserves our admiration. But I'm concerned about the loss of life. We've already lost six members of our military. I'm concerned about the escalation that's going on. I'm concerned that there was no plan for how to address our embassies in the region and how to address the thousands of Americans — the estimate is about a million Americans are in those 14 countries that the administration has urged people to evacuate from, and there's no plan for how to help them get out.
We've been working with constituents from New Hampshire who have called our office to try and see how we can help them. I think they're finally beginning to get some evacuation flights that are being sponsored by the government and the State Department, but that should have been part of the planning. I'm also concerned about how much this escalates. We've already seen attacks against Turkey, against Azerbaijan. So there are an expansion of operations in ways that, I think, we have not adequately planned for.
And then, of course, the cost of the war is going to be huge at a time when people are still dealing with an affordability crisis. We're seeing gas prices go up dramatically. We'll see energy prices go up and people are struggling still to afford groceries, housing, child care, all of the things that people need to be comfortable living and supporting their families. So I think there are a lot of ramifications for this action that people in America are going to be feeling.
Well, do you feel there's a clear strategy here, Senator?
No, and the president has changed the strategy almost daily or whenever he's spoken to the press. There is not a real end game for what we're trying to accomplish. He said it was regime change. We know we want to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Of course, when we did the bombing of the nuclear sites last June, the president said they were obliterated. But clearly we have not been able to obliterate the knowledge of how to enrich uranium and produce a nuclear weapon. And that's why the diplomatic negotiations would be so important, because I think that's the way we ultimately prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
Now we have thrown Iran into political uncertainty with the death of the supreme leader and other top government leaders. And I imagine, you know, military force aside, you're thinking about the role the U.S. should be playing now, if any, in bringing stability to the nation.
Well, that's the concern. If the goal was regime change, there's no guarantee that who replaces the Ayatollah is going to be any less repressive, any less authoritarian. There is the potential for civil war. Now we're hearing that the CIA is arming Kurds in parts of the country to come in and to try and help destabilize the regime, and the president has refused to rule out boots on the ground. So I think there are a lot of questions about what is the end game. What are we trying to accomplish? How long is this going to take, and how many lives are going to be lost?
Do you feel you're getting any communication from the administration on that?
I don't think we've gotten as much as we need. Unfortunately, the administration didn't communicate in advance about what the plan was. The communication that we have heard has all been in a classified setting, so we're not able to talk about details of that. So there's been very little transparency with the American people about what the endgame is here, what we're really trying to accomplish and what success is going to look like.
Now, what do you think the U.S. should be doing in order to protect troops that are serving in the region right now?
Well, I think, the troops who are in the region are there defending the situation. And obviously, we need to ensure that whatever strikes are being made against our bases in places that we have the defensive weapons and the ability to go back at Iran for making those strikes. But that's the challenge, you know. We had Marco Rubio before the Foreign Relations Committee a month or so ago. And one of the things he pointed out at that time was that we have 40,000 service members within missile striking range of Iran. And we're seeing now the impact of that.
We've been told that the New Hampshire National Guard has been deployed, but we don't know where they currently will be. Can you tell us anything about their role in this conflict?
I can't tell you because that has not been released to the public. I'm sure that where — there are two things that I am sure of. One is that they will do whatever they are being asked to do because that's part of their mission, and again, they are outstanding in whatever they're asked to do. But the other thing is that we are concerned about their futures and making sure that they come home safely.
Are you concerned, Senator, that Iran could attack the U.S., you know, physically or with cyber attacks?
There have been threats and we know there have been past attacks by Iran, threats against elected officials here, cyber incursions into the country. So, yes, I think that's a very real possibility.
As you mentioned, many Americans [are] stranded right now in the Middle East struggling to get flights back home [and] find a way out. Major airports in the region [are] being targeted with Iranian strikes and shutdowns. How are you helping Granite Staters evacuate?
We're trying to make sure that anyone who calls our office, or that we hear about who is stranded, has as much information as possible about what's available to them. As I said, the State Department has been slow in getting planes in to evacuate Americans. That's beginning to happen now. So we're trying to make sure that people have access to that information — when flights are going to be coming out and that they know everything that we know about the situation.
One of the challenges, Rick, is that of the 14 countries that the administration has urged Americans to evacuate, only six of them have confirmed ambassadors right now. So in terms of having people on the ground there, the ambassadors who normally take charge in those kinds of situations are not there. And in fact, in two of the countries, their political they're not — in Lebanon and Israel, we have ambassadors, but they don't have diplomatic experience and have not dealt with this kind of a crisis before. So that has also exacerbated the challenges for Americans in the region.
I do want to touch on another issue here in New Hampshire while we have you, Senator, on the line. The Department of Homeland Security says it's not moving forward with a Merrimack ICE detention facility anymore. Now, I know you've asked DHS Secretary Kristi Noem for assurances that the department would not revisit those plans. Can you tell us anything about communication from Noem on that?
Well, we haven't heard any response to our concerns. We filed legislation that would require local engagement before a facility like that goes forward, and there are a number of specifics around reporting that the department would have to comply with. I actually asked the question this morning in a Foreign Relations Committee nominations hearing, because the nominee to be the ambassador to El Salvador had been a deputy at the Department of Homeland Security when the decision to try and put a facility in Merrimack was taken. And I asked him — he happens to be a former mayor — I said, don't you agree that communities ought to have input in that kind of a major federal facility before it gets plunked down into the towns? And he agreed. He said, yes, it should. So clearly the department is not listening to what people think.
Latest news: Trump fires Kristi Noem as DHS chief, names Sen. Markwayne Mullin to replace her
