It running back to Houti militants launching a new rave of missiles and drones that commercial ships their response after the US destroyed ten of their attack drones and a ground control station in Yemen, but the string of US and Allied strikes so far failing to slow the Hooty attacks. Final preparations now under way at the Pentagon for multi
day multi target missilein bomb strikes. Militants and their weapons in a rock, Syria, and possibly Yemen all on the list of likely targets for retaliation.
They have a lot of kabilly, I have a lot more.
I am frustrated as hell as how this story has dropped out of the news media so much. Martha raddits she seems to be frustrated herself on ABC News. I like the angle She's been taken all week long. But last yet, so Lloyd Austin does a press conferenceation today. The only thing anybody seemed to be concerned about was the you know why he didn't tell the president when he told the president, and the whole prostate thing and
everything like that barely and he coverage whatsoever. Questions of what do you think about three of your service people dying last week. How are they not protected? How are you going to keep them protected in the future. We've seen no evidence of deterrence against any of these groups. To who these are still firing at US? That was like not even an important story for most of the newscasts. Really pissed me off.
Well, we can delve into the media coverage of it at some point, but let's welcome Jeff mccauslin's CBS News military consultant to discuss the military aspects of this. Jeff, there's so much When Jack was just describing the fact that the Pentagon is still quote unquote making final preparations and then announcing where the attacks would come. What do you make of all this?
Well, I make first of all, I'd share some of Jack's frustrations. Jean. For a long time, I've been saying this is almost inevitable, this particular tragedy. US forces in Iraq and Syria have been subjected to over one hundred and sixty attacks by these particular groups prior to the one that hit the tower twenty two and Jordan. The result in three USKI. So despite our efforts and we have not been able to shot shoot down and defend ourselves think pretty dog going well, Inevitably one of these
things was going to get through. Inevitably you were going to able to tragedy like this kind of this where you're at. Clearly the Pentagon is preparing for some type of a large scale response. I think it'll be a Mouldi day if you will, air campaign real questions of why this is taken so long. But I think to some degree, when you're doing something like this, you want
to be a bit deliberate. Clearly, what the Divide administration has been trying to do in all its responses is walk a tight rope between trying to send a very clear and forceful messages these various groups to stop doing what they're doing, whether there are Rocky groups, CHII groups
back by Iran or whether the huthis in Yemen. Well at the same time not doing something so precipitous that the tips that particular conflict, all this being tied to the war in Gaza into a regional conflict that could literally stretch from the Mediterranean See all the way to Iran.
And then there are operational requirements that have to be considered. Apparently, the weather and the target area has been particularly bad, and they're interested that you go in VFR visual so you can make sure you hit the right targets and
have the least collateral damage. Number Two, you've got to make sure that you wouldn't look at force protection because once this campaign begins, all the bases we have in a Rock and in Syria, and we have a number in some places relatively remotely, there may be a large scale response, and as a consequence, we've got to be ready to resupply, reinforce, defend, or in fact evacuate those bases if things were to escalate very precipitously in the aftermath.
We've got to make sure we talk to some of the allies in the region, make sure we understand they their concerns, and then we decide where we're going to go on that tight rope between trying to send a very very forceful message that hopefully brings us to a close without kicking this over into a major regional conflict.
Well, everything you say is unquestionably true, but my counter would simply be you would think those preparations would have begun in earnest after say thirty or a sixty or one hundred and twenty seven attacks, and as we have been saying similar to you, it seems an awful lot like the administration endured attack after attack after attack and needed some dead people to justify the sort of deterrence that would prevent dead people. And it just I find that morally and as a patriot unacceptable.
No, I think your point is very well taken. But that being said to you, in this case, I learned when I worked in the White House and I work in the Pentagon. When you get into a crisis like this, this immediate attack, you got to make sure you understand
one thing. Half of the initial reports you get is wrong, and so as a consequence, one thing you want to make sure as you identify which of the groups is directly responsible for this attack, It's very likely this group called katav hits Belah without a doubt, though there are two or three other Scheite militia groups that are operating in the area in both Syria and Rock. Second thing you got to look for is the proverbial smoking gun. Yes, as the President said, are these groups backed by iron,
no question about it. Is the drone that was using this attack, largely manufactured in likely manufacturer probably and the minissions on board, but backed by iron does not mean directed by iron. Can you find the smoking guns from intelligence where you have a direct connection between the IRGC Revolutionary Guards in Iran and this particular group. I mean, metaphorically, we back Israel in the conflict there involved in, but
we don't direct the ongoing military operations. The fact, we've complained about the level of violence that the Israelis have used to kill twenty six thousand Palestinians. So there's that differentiation of me and those I think will slow that response. Although you're quite right, many of these things in terms of so called options, should have been prepared in advance if in fact we saw the situation deteriorating in terms
of descending, resupplying, or evacuating our bases in the region. Yeah, I got violence.
I'm beyond an armchaired quarterback on this. I'm not even as good is that. But I do not understand, since you used the word inevitable over and over and over again, how the Pentagon didn't have all of these plans ready to go immediately when it finally happened. And then in terms of you saying they're all backed by Iran but not directed by Iran. What difference does it make if you hit Iran hard enough, they'd have to call off their dogs, wouldn't They wouldn't they have to say, hey,
you better not do that anymore. And we're trying to deter the houthis also from interrupting the shipping lane. So we got to send a message to all of those at the same time, don't we.
Well to sendergree these two they're connected, but they're separate. I mean, what will deter these Iraqi groups? I think will be different than necessarily deter the HOUTHI But you're quite right. We can go after Iran a big way if we sort of choose. We certainly have the capabilities beyond question. But we also have to consider what happens in response. Okay, what happens in response? Uranians have already demonstrated long range missile capability. They struck Pakistan because of
a terrorist attack in the last few weeks. They struck a group in Syria a week or so ago against the so called terror We know they have long rangeists. They could respond using that. They could intensify their efforts all across the region to include hitz Fe Lah in soudn elebanon intensifying their attacks on Israel. They could for a time at least close the Straits of Hormuz and drive the price to oil one hundred fifty bucks of barrow.
Those may be things that you're willing to accept without question, but you've got to consider that particular possibility. In some ways, I think deterring and getting these people to stop doing what they're doing in Iraq and Syria is a lot easier than trying to deter the hooties who have asclutely nothing to lose and have their own agenda as do the Iraqis, which is to embellish their brand, attack more resources, encourage more volunteers, et cetera.
I find myself wishing we had almost unlimited time for the Socratic class with doctor Jeff McCausland here CBS News Military Consultant, because if I was sitting there in your class, I would say, well, Professor mccauslan, it sounds like we're What you and Jack are are are talking about is the question of the US's meticulousness and deliberation that we
have to have a smoking gun. We need to figure out if Iran was actually directing blah blah blah, as opposed to not worrying about that sort of thing and just protecting the sort of power that our advertaries would say. We don't want to mess with them. We just can't mess with them. Last time we did, they went nuts, they blew up things, had nothing to do with it. We're never going to mess with them again. And I realized that the answer to that query would take a
very long time. But I think that's where we're at, isn't it.
It is the degree. But that one thing I always about concerned about when we make a response to things like this is and I saw this in Washington. Nobody seems to want to answer the following question. And then what and then what? You know, a military force is a means and not an answer. We can go and just devastate it if you'd like. It, could nuke Oran if you like, We could do all that. What does that leave us on the other end of it? And the concern is to lead us into a wider conference concern.
Of course, it results in large scale civilian casualties on the Iranian side. A lot of innocent people had nothing to do with all this stuff, are going to die or get killed in the process. Now, once again, one might argue, and one could have a convincing argument that that level of deterrence is required. Okay, but at least I would I'd like to make sure there was some consideration of what happens the day after as you go through this process.
Sure shouldn't. Ultimately, though, they be more worried about us escalating than us worried about them escalating.
Well, they are worried about us escalating. Quite frankly. The first thing the Arrange do is jump up in all the forms they could find and deny any connection to this particular mission. At the same time, kadab hits Balah jumped up in all their forms social media likes, and Ron was totally disconnected from all this. And oh, by the way, after negotiation with the Iraqi government, we've decided we're going to suspend all these particular tacks so that
they're all kind of scurrying towards the exits. And that's why, instead of a moment ago, it seems to me bringing this particular sad chapter to a close may be easier than dealing with the Houthis. Unfortunately, I don't think they've got a great deal to lose. The problem the Iranians have got is they basically, I think, in many ways, won the game. The game for them was to get the
United States out of the reach out of Iraq. In particular, even prior to this most recent attack, we had begun negotiations with the Iraqi government on a timetable to withdraw our forces because of strained relations following previous air strikes that hit Iraqi soil. So the Iranians had really in their hand gained what they wanted to accomplish, and I think they have gone a step too far, or their proxies, who they may have only limited control of, its going
a step too far. And so what they want to do is take their winnings and leave the table.
So interesting. Jeff mccauslm CBS News military consultant, Always enjoy the conversation, Jeff, thanks a million.
You guys are a pleasure to talk to.