Allen Jackson NOW

Allen Jackson: Good evening and welcome to Nashville. I'm Allen Jackson. The United States is opening a new front against Iran, and this one is aimed at the money keeping the regime alive. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says America is entering the end game, calling the new sanctions campaign an economic D-Day in what he describes as the largest financial offensive ever directed against an adversary.

The timing matters because Iran's economy is already under enormous pressure. The rial has crossed 2 million to 1 US dollar. It's a historic low and Tehran's response has not been to moderate its behavior. In fact, it has warned that countries supporting America's economic campaign could be treated as participants in an act of war.

That should remind us of who we're dealing with. Iran has spent decades threatening Israel and targeting American interests, but its aggression has also reached its Arab and Gulf neighbors. And the Iranian people have suffered under that same regime. While Tehran spends money on weapons and terror, it has crushed demonstrations and executed its own citizens.

The fight over the strait is becoming another test of American resolve. Iran and Oman have been discussing how to restore commercial traffic, while Oman has entertained proposals involving fees for ships using the waterway. President Trump has responded with extraordinary warnings against Oman interfering with American objectives and has even said he intends to declare the Strait of Hormuz a US territory after the war.

So can economic pressure finally force the Islamic regime to change? And after decades of terrorism and deception, what would a real victory over this regime actually look like?

I would suggest that we're going to have to become more astute consumers of information. Don't just embrace every talking point offered up by the media who seem to be opposed to anything Trump is involved in, including the war against the evil regime in Iran.

Iran took our embassy hostage for 444 days. They were responsible for the killings of 300 plus marines in Lebanon in the early 1980s. If you ask people about Iraq and what was the source of many of our American casualties in Iraq, you'll get estimates as high as 75 to 80% of them were due to Iranian-made roadside bombs.

A recent CNN article got my attention because it felt like the author was trying to provide a truthful assessment of what's taking place in the Strait of Hormuz. The CNN article said that with the help of the US Navy, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE oil companies have chartered oil tankers to shuttle oil out of the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz.

The US Navy has taken the costly burden of insurance risk and the physical danger of Iranian attacks away from commercial shippers. The article said, and I quote here, "It has become an effective strategy. It's changed the game for the Middle Eastern oil industry."

Perhaps CNN admitting that the US has been effective in getting oil through the Strait of Hormuz is an indication that this administration's strategy is not going as poorly as some Democrat politicians and most of the liberal media pundits like to profess.

Iran entered this war with a nuclear program in place, as well as its missiles, its drones, its regional terror network, and its ability to hold the world economy hostage through the Strait of Hormuz. We're seeing each of those pillars severely impacted by the courageous actions of the US and Israel.

Yet even after the events that started last summer with the 12-day war with Israel and the US bombing of Iran's nuclear sites, even after the start of Operation Epic Fury that has devastated their military, the evil Islamic regime has still got the region on edge. Every time we think, now we can make peace with Iran, it's a very slippery slope. Any expectations that the Islamic regime would keep their word is simply absurd.

Wherever Islam is the primary political influence, it is not peaceful, it's oppressive. The Ayatollah's regime killed 50,000 of its own citizens in the streets in a single week. 50,000 innocent civilians. The media treated it like a hiccup. It barely got reported. In recent months, 444 verified executions have taken place, including 12 women and some teenagers. Victims were tortured and abused before being put to death.

Women and girls in Iran face state-enforced dress laws, surveillance, punishment simply for refusing compulsory hijab. Human Rights Watch reported cases of detained children in Iran being beaten, electroshocked, sexually assaulted, denied medical care, and then pressured into silence after arrest.

A regime that will do that to its own daughters, its own sons, its own civilians, they'll do far worse to its enemies if it gets the power. The regime even floated a $10 million bounty for Trump's youngest son on Iranian state TV with a three-minute segment called "Where to Kill Barron Trump."

Let's stop pretending that the Iranian regime is just some misunderstood government with different values. That's not the case. This is a regime that has brutalized its own people for decades. Islam is not peaceful. Women are not treated well. Children do not have opportunities. Unfortunately, they're just not willing to say those things in our media.

We have recent primary election winners who are beloved by the Democrat Socialists of America. These individuals refuse to condemn Iran. Democratic primary winner Abdul El-Sayed from Michigan, he refused to make a statement regarding the death of the evil Ayatollah because according to him, there were a lot of people who were sad over the dictator's death.

We can't look to politicians and to the media to speak out against the brutality of Islam. I believe wholeheartedly that Jesus is the answer for our world today. As Christians, we've got to be bold with our faith. Culture tells us that we shouldn't allow our Christianity to be a prominent part of our professional life.

That's not only foolish, it's a destructive lie. Let's have the courage to lead with our faith, to let it be a prominent part of who we are in both our personal and our professional lives. In a moment, joining us will be Mary Kissel. She's the former senior advisor to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. I'll be right back.

Tonight, we're joined by the CEO of the Kissel Group and the senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, Mary Kissel. Welcome to the show, Mary.

Mary Kissel: It's great to be back with you, Pastor.

Allen Jackson: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced economic D-Day sanctions targeting five of Iran's most vital lifelines financially. I know you've got some opinions on the best way to conduct this conflict. What do you think the outcome of those sanctions is going to be?

Mary Kissel: Well, I'm glad that we're talking on this topic because it can be confusing for a lot of viewers out to what exactly is going on inside Iran. Iran is experiencing a huge devaluation in its currency, interruptions in its energy supply, they've had water problems. So there's been a lot of pressure on the regime thanks to the Trump administration starting in Trump one, by the way, with the maximum pressure campaign.

There's been a lot of pressure there for a long time. And that's the context of Secretary Bessent's actions that were announced just in these last days to really ratchet that up and see if it can tighten the noose enough to make the regime come to the table. I think the key question, though, is whether or not the United States is willing to impose secondary sanctions on China, because China is really the regime's key economic lifeline. They buy some 80 or 90% of Iranian energy exports. And so I believe the success or failure of these sanctions may ultimately rest on just how far the White House and Treasury are willing to go in exacting consequences on China for its support of the regime.

Allen Jackson: That's interesting. What would those Chinese sanctions look like? I think the Iranian ones are pretty straightforward. What impact would we try to create with China that would cause them to step back from Iranian support?

Mary Kissel: Well, we would have to impose something called secondary sanctions, which means that the United States would impose consequences on any entity, but largely say banks or refineries that are doing business with sanctioned Iranian entities. Now, we have done this to a degree in the past, but we really haven't gone after the major Chinese, for instance, financial institutions that are financing the energy purchases, that are laundering money for the elites and for the military. And that's really the key.

And I'd also note, Pastor, that you'll often hear people say, "Well, there's sanctions on mainland China, and then there are sanctions on entities in Hong Kong." That's a distinction without a difference. Hong Kong is no longer independent and free. It is part of mainland China. They are one with Macau. And therefore, in my view, if you want these sanctions to have the maximum efficacy, then you also have to be willing to sanction branches or individuals that are also residing in places like Macau and Hong Kong and not just in mainland China.

Allen Jackson: The Iranian leadership is authoritarian. It certainly doesn't reflect the will of the people. What's the effect of all these sanctions just on the general public of Iran?

Mary Kissel: You know, that's a really hard thing to discern. The only way that we know how the Iranian people feel or what they want is when they get out on the streets. And unfortunately, as we know from earlier this year, the regime slaughtered 30,000, 40,000 of them in cold blood. And so you don't see that kind of mass uprising that is so large that it's impossible for the regime to ignore.

We also don't have a lot of foreign correspondents or consular access to the geography of Iran, so we don't have people roaming around with cameras. That means we have to rely on dissident groups and dissident websites like Iran International to understand the sentiment of the Iranian people.

But I think with the constant level of protest, big and small, that we've seen over the past several decades, coupled with these dire economic conditions that we talked about, it is reasonable to assume that there is large-scale discontent and that a different kind of regime or leadership or relationship with the West or all three would be likely welcomed by the majority of Iranians and all kinds of Iranians: Persian, Balochis, Kurds, Azeris, and others.

Allen Jackson: I think one of the things about the Iranian conflict that's been difficult to interpret at home is there's so many different perspectives interpreting what's happening. I want to share a soundbite with Democratic Senator Chris Murphy. He had an interesting take on this war. Listen to what he said and then I've got a question.

Chris Murphy (Soundbite): Donald Trump has lost this war. America is weaker, Iran is stronger. I will support a deal to end this war and to reopen the strait. I am prepared to support a terrible bad deal to end this war and reopen the strait because the only deal that is available at this point in time is a terribly bad deal.

Allen Jackson: That just seems like a bizarre take to me. Can you help us a bit?

Mary Kissel: Well, I think it shows you the vast differences between our regimes and our very lively democratic republic where comments like that that were criticizing the person in power would never be tolerated. Chris Murphy is a very political guy. He's long been at odds with President Trump. I don't think it's helpful for him to criticize a wartime president. In the past, members of either party would never have done that. I guess we live in different and more combative times.

But I also am not sure that he's correct that the only deal on the table is a bad deal. We learned recently that the Department of War has been very successful in opening up the southern route in the Strait of Hormuz. We've been getting many millions more barrels of oil and other kinds of shipments through that area. We have completely decimated Iran's missile and drone capacity. We have taken out their nuclear sites. We have not taken out Pickaxe Mountain. That is very, very important. We're tightening the noose economically.

We've achieved quite a lot here. I think, again, though, the question is in the ultimate result. If we're pretty close to opening up the Strait of Hormuz on our terms, well, then the next question is, of course, can we have a change in regime? And the United States is very, very bad at predicting when that happens. We did not predict the fall of the Soviet Union. We didn't predict the Arab Spring. We didn't predict the protests in Cuba and other parts of the world.

And so while I may be a bit skeptical that airpower alone or economic measures alone will achieve our goal, I think the right answer is we just don't know. And we need good members, patriotic members of both political parties to come together and realize this isn't a partisan issue. And if Chris Murphy and I think his comrades on the left want to see a better outcome, well, then they should work with the president and the administration and make their voices heard.

Allen Jackson: I'd like to explore that idea of regime change a little more fully, but we need to take a short break. Can you stay for another segment?

Mary Kissel: I'd love to. Thank you.

Allen Jackson: All those of you watching, if you've got a phone nearby, try logging onto ajnow.com. Send me an email. We'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic. I'll be right back.

We're back now with the former senior advisor to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Mary Kissel. Mary, we were discussing just before the break the challenge of regime change. And frankly, the United States hasn't been very good at that. How can we improve, and what would that look like best-case scenario in Iran?

Mary Kissel: Well, I think that phrase regime change is of course associated with Iraq and all of the negative coverage of the way that the Bush administration prosecuted that war, the hundreds of Americans that were killed particularly by Iran-backed militias, and a lot of the mistakes that were made. However, what the US media and commentators and politicians never do is they never revisit that subject 10, 20 years later.

And when we look at Iraq right now, we see a vastly different polity than we did when Saddam Hussein ruled it. Recall that Saddam had used chemical weapons against his own people. He had invaded his neighbors. He was harboring all sorts of rogue actors. And that's not the case in Iraq today, which has a functioning democracy. It's not perfect, but it certainly doesn't threaten its neighbors. There's an enormous amount of US energy investment, for instance, in Kurdistan areas in the north.

And so I think when you say we're not very good at regime change, that's true in the short term, when you look at the first four or five years of the Iraq War, but it's certainly not true when we look back maybe with a bit more of a historian's lens. Regime change can also mean different things. Recall that Iran is not 100% a single ethnicity like for instance, Japan. It could be that we end up with a strongman like we'd had in Syria, a former terrorist who's turned over a new leaf and has tried to open up relations with the West.

That's not a democracy per se, but it's not as threatening as it once was. He's reducing Russia's influence, for instance, in Syria. It could be that you have a breakup of the country into different regions with, for instance, the Azeri region moving closer to Azerbaijan. It could mean in the best-case scenario a democratic uprising and a really pluralistic democracy. I think that's harder because you don't have the civic institutions in Iran, but I think when you hear that phrase regime change thrown around, don't just think Iraq bad. We have to think about it a little bit more broadly.

And recall, too, we've had US involvement in places that have turned out very well. You have to go back a bit further, but Japan, South Korea, Southeast Asia, Taiwan, there are many places where US influence has resulted in a far better situation for our strategic interests and the interests of the people on the ground.

Allen Jackson: The US relations with South Korea seem to be taking on a bit of strain. Can you help us understand what's happening there?

Mary Kissel: Yes. Well, President Trump in his first term and now in his second term has encountered some resistance from Seoul in terms of footing the cost of the US presence there. It's particularly unhelpful at this moment because we see Seoul not only doing that but making outreaches to North Korea, which frankly just amount to appeasement just like we saw in the South Korean governments in the 90s.

And this is coming at a time when North Korea is supplying munitions, missiles, and personnel to Vladimir Putin in Russia to prosecute his war against Ukraine. So we need South Korea on our side. I don't think it's helpful if we cancel or downgrade military exercises. That doesn't send a signal of strength to nations like Russia or China that are also have huge presence in that part of the world.

And so I think the president has a tough mission there with South Korea. We have a great ambassador there, former representative from California with a lot of deep ties. We have a long history with Korea. I don't think the relationship is irrerievably broken, but I do think it would behoove both sides to get on the same page vis-a-vis North Korea and understand that Washington's interests and Seoul's strategic interests are in fact linked and they will be for a long time.

Allen Jackson: The conflict with Ukraine and Russia just continues on. Ukraine has developed some new weapons that they seem to have some hope for, but there's been so much suffering over such a long period of time. What's it going to take to finally bring a resolution to that war?

Mary Kissel: Well, wars are only resolved when one side wins and the other side concedes. So what would it take to bring that war to an end? Well, I think it would take a multiplicity of measures. It would take more military and munitions support for Ukraine, not just from us, but from our friends and partners in the UK, Europe, the Middle East. We have seen that.

For instance, the UK government has just given Ukraine the blueprints to make the Storm Shadow missile that will give them capabilities to make more and have more of a capability to hit behind enemy lines. I think it takes economic support, which by the way Ukraine is generating itself. It's developing a very robust defense industrial base, which is allowing it to sell its technology to places like the Middle East and elsewhere. It takes continued US support.

It also takes economic measures from the United States. We're the world's largest, most powerful economy. We have the world's reserve currency. And those secondary sanctions that we talked about vis-a-vis Iran, well, they could be imposed too against Russia for its war in Ukraine. And again, this indicts China, which is Russia's largest trading partners. Germany trades a lot with Russia.

We need to put our foot down and say, no, you can't really have it both ways. You either support the democracy in Ukraine that was attacked unilaterally by Russia, or we are going to not protect you in the most robust way that we did in the past because you don't want to protect yourselves. So I think it's time for some very hard talk between Secretary of State Rubio and the nations of Europe just as he's been having and say, look, Ukraine is starting to gain an advantage here. Let's put them over the line. Let's make life more difficult for Vladimir Putin and his cronies, and let's make life more difficult for their partners and friends in Pyongyang and in Beijing.

Allen Jackson: When you say it out loud, it seems so apparent that wars end when someone wins. Mary, I thank you for your time today. Your insight is always helpful.

Mary Kissel: Great to be with you, Pastor. Thank you.

Allen Jackson: We'll be back in just a moment.

Thank you for spending a few moments of your day with us. God is moving in the earth. Let's join him. Good night and God bless.