Ambassador, you are a long time critic of Iran, but I'm wondering what you

think about these strikes and how they were carried out and if they were legal

under presidential authority. Well, I think the the objectives of the

strikes are clearly correct and proper. Eliminating the threat of Iran's nuclear

weapons program, its ballistic missile program, its long history dating back to

when it came to power in 1979 of international terrorism, particularly

against Americans and its repression of its own people, which Donald Trump drew

a red line against back in January and said that help was on its way and didn't

come until earlier today. So I think the objectives are clear.

This is manifestly within the president's constitutional commander in

chief authority. The Gang of Eight were briefed on this

on Tuesday. And if Congress doesn't like it,

Congress can cut off appropriations. That's where congressional power comes

in. Ambassador Bolton, if you were to take

that book off the shelf, John Bolton's plan for regime change in Iran, how

closely would it shield what we've seen take place here today?

I'm curious what you make of the means by which the president decided to do

this, the the element of surprise so much as there was one here and the

cooperation with Israel on these attacks?

Well, I think there are a couple of things that worry me.

In his statement in the very early morning hours today, when he told the

people of Iran that that he was finally delivering, he said.

Now you have a president who is giving you what you want, so let's see how you

respond. That doesn't sound like cooperation with

the opposition. Iran.

It sounds like a challenge. And I'm worried that that this is

campaign in the air. However important it may be for other

reasons has not been made clear to the people of Iran how

they can use the time to seek defections from within the regime to try and pull

it apart at the top. And I think it's something that when

autocratic regimes begin to fall, people look around to say, I want to be on the

winning side of this. And if they think the regime is in

danger, they could well defect to the opposition.

I think it said coordination with opposition leaders and their

disorganized opposition, to be sure. But I feel a lot better if if I knew

there was more to that. And second, I just I worry about the

potential that after a couple three days, Trump declares, okay, that's

victory. And now it's up to the people of Iran.

That's that's not going to be enough. It's not a one and done kind of

operation. These attacks, I think, as they destroy

the instruments of Iranian state power, can be very effective.

But but it remains to be seen if Trump will carry it through.

That's what we were just talking about. You break it, you bought it.

If if the U.S. does, in fact, destroy this regime, what

should the U.S. set up in order to facilitate some sort

of democratic transition in that country?

Is that even possible, given the decades long repression of civil society?

Who leads Iran if the Ayatollah does not?

Well, that's going to be up to the Iranians, and I don't think it's up to

us to set it. I don't buy the Pottery Barn rule.

I buy American national security interest, which are threatened by the

nuclear program, the ballistic missile program and decades of terrorism.

I think we should certainly help the Iranians in in many different ways.

But ultimately, it's up to them. I think the most likely near-term

outcome of the fall of the ayatollahs and the Revolutionary Guard will be a

military government, a secular military government, not the Revolutionary Guard,

but the conventional military that will hopefully then allow the Iranian people

to have some kind of constitutional process to decide on what

they want their new government to look like.