Latest / Beyond the Summit with Amir Golshani / U.S. Retired Admiral Mark Montgomery: The IRGC Must Be Punished

Transcript

U.S. Retired Admiral Mark Montgomery: The IRGC Must Be Punished · Beyond the Summit with Amir Golshani

• Amir Golshani: Welcome back. We are joined by retired Admiral Mark Montgomery, senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracy and the chief architect of America's modern cyber sovereignty, a commander who has navigated both the high seas and the highest corridors of power. He remains the definitive voice on integrated deterrence and the deconstruction of global threats. Admiral, it's an honor to have you on Beyond the Summit. Mark Montgomery: Thank you for having me, Amir. Amir Golshani: Fantastic. You began your journey as a nuclear trained officer and rose to lead careers by Group 5. Looking back, what was the specific moment or realization in your early career that shifted your perspective from managing your ship to architecting global strategy? Mark Montgomery: So that's a great question. was very fortunate as a lieutenant commander, which is like a major in the army, to be selected for the White House Fellows Program. And that is a program where you go work for a principal, ⁓ know, member or senior White House official. And I happened to be selected to go work, ⁓ selected that program, which is mostly civilians, but every one or two military every year. And then that, was assigned to the National Security Council working for ⁓ the national coordinator for counterterrorism, man named Richard Clark. so working for Dick Clark for three years, I ended up staying another couple of years after my fellowship was up and working for three years with him, I spent a lot of time and counterterrorism, weapons of mass destruction, critical infrastructure protection, cybersecurity, working those issues for him and inside the White House and When you worked there, this was a very small White House back in the Clinton administration and then the beginning of the Bush administration. So you got to really see how power works in Washington. And then when it was over, I returned to go command a ship and went back to my Navy career for about ⁓ years or seven years until I made admiral and then began to get into more strategy and policy positions again. So it was a very good introduction and ⁓ apprenticeship in... ⁓ and how power works in Washington. Amir Golshani: Yeah, fantastic. Thank you for sharing that. So that shift in perspective is vital today as President Trump prepares to meet Xi Jinping this week. the U.S. declaring Iran's current proposal unacceptable, what do you believe is the hidden agenda regarding Iran on the table in Beijing? Do you expect that green light for further kinetic action to be the silent byproduct of this meeting? as President Trump prepares to meet Xi Jinping this week. With the U.S. declaring Iran's current proposal unacceptable, Mark Montgomery: So I suspect that kind of discussion would not directly occur as you imply with the silent. I probably Donald Trump express his inclination, what he's thinking, and he might express a little frustration with Chinese support for Iran. He also might not. ⁓ Trump tends to be a realist and doesn't really hold people accountable for what they do on things like that. And then... ⁓ But he also might say to him, look, problem's not solved until my problem solves. In other words, your oil and natural gas and fertilizer is not getting here until everyone's problem is fixed. Which is ⁓ to say that the US blockade's not going anywhere. And that US blockade is cutting off Iranian oil shipments to China. Now China is not under duress from that yet. overall impact has been that the world economy is suffering and then that causes China's economy to suffer when their trade partners suffer. So hopefully China will see wisdom of ⁓ leaning on Iran a little bit. But if they don't, don't think President Trump would evaluate the success or failure of the summit based on that. Amir Golshani: Right. Staying on China, as you mentioned, so regarding oil, they buy nearly 90 % of Iran's oil. If the US resumes the strikes or tightens the blockade, does Beijing view Iran as a strategic asset worth protecting or as a convenient liability? They're willing to trade for concession on Taiwan or trade tariffs. Mark Montgomery: So right that ⁓ take 90 % or a high percentage of China's shadow fleet But I'll also say that's still not a terrifically large percentage of Iran's imports. They have a massive strategic reserve for which they not been that interested in doing releases from. They've talked about it, but not really done it. They also have a heavy reliance on coal, nuclear power, renewables on their grid. So again, there's not this direct corollary of the blockade to significant current pain. But ironically, the other blockade, Iran's threats damage merchant ships that causes few, if to transit through, that's having an effect on China's economy because that's all the other countries in Asia, in Europe. Amir Golshani: Right. Mark Montgomery: who are going to have significant, who are going to have recessions or certainly perturbations in their GDP that make China's economy less robust throughout the year. So China's going to want this to get fixed. I just don't think they want to take a lead in getting it fixed. Amir Golshani: So we know that China is famous for being opportunistic, know, and they mainly like to work behind the scene rather than, speaking publicly. How do you think they're looking at Iran as an ally, a country that facilitates their objectives economically or because of the geography? How do you think, you know, China is realistically looking at Iran? Mark Montgomery: So I think they probably see him as a useful but expendable partner. Pretty much, you know, they have a very transactional relationship to everything. They were transactional before Trump was transactional. know, and so ⁓ people tell me there's an axis of authoritarians, I agree there is. think, for example, Ukraine is fighting Russia, but also North Korea, Iran, and China. But at the same time, ⁓ Amir Golshani: Right. Mark Montgomery: China is a leading provider of that serve as one-way attack drones and kill Russian soldiers. So China has no trouble bleeding Russia dry while they support Russia. Similarly in Iran, there's in pinning the Americans down in the Middle East. So supporting Iran has value to them. They won't expend any political effort though to position Iran better or... I mean, they'll do simple things like vetoes in this, know, cost free things like vetoes in the UN Security Council. But they won't do things that have an impact on their economy to support Iran. Amir Golshani: So while we look at the Pacific, we are seeing the UK and France deploying significant naval assets to the region after the US and Israel have done the heavy lifting. Do you see this European surge as a meaningful strategic shift from NATO allies or it's largely diplomatic show of force? Mark Montgomery: Yeah, so I'll say my definition is significant and the European definition is significant or different. know, I think the UK will be lucky to slog two ships down there. France have a carrier strike group in the lightest sense of the word. Look, that's meaningful. It's helpful, but it's secondary. It could certainly. ⁓ They neither have the capability nor the intent to open the Straits of Hormuz against this illegal action by Iran. They could support the United States in doing that. I don't think they will. What they're doing is showing up for the enforcement of some kind of peace in time plan. In other words, once we've all agreed to not have any combat, their ships will show up. I it's been extremely disappointing. One of the things we don't think about when you only spend 2 % of your GDP on defense for 30 years, the actual biggest losers are your navies. For the countries that had navies, it's the navies because navies are large investments that 2 % defense budgets don't support. So the Royal Navy is a shadow of its former self. The French Navy is still capable but significantly, you know, less capable than Europe needs. The Spanish Navy is actually reasonable because they bought American destroyers. They don't brag on that too much these days. And all their people train in America. Again, I don't think the Spanish brag on that too much. But they're not willing to commit them even to this mission, I think, this peace mission. So we'll have to see. So ⁓ my is that it'll be useful in monitoring a piece. It could have been effective in ensuring the transit passage of lawful merchant shipping through an international transit passage in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. But these countries chose not to get involved. They looked at what Iran did and said, well, well. I mean, I guess from their point of view, it's okay for Iran to have control of the Straits of Hormuz. know, in contravention of hundreds of years of traditional maritime law, you know, 50 years of, or 40 years of unclass. So I'm very frustrated with them. And by the way, I'll take it one step further and say these two countries, you know, most of Europe has amnesia about 32,000 or so Iranians being murdered in 36 hours by the IRGC. You know, most of Europe has amnesia about 32,000 or so Iranians being murdered in 36 hours by the IRGC. Amir Golshani: Hmm. Mark Montgomery: If any other country in the world had done this, I suspect the Europeans would be up in arms. But somehow, because the United States and Israel did something about it, it's not acceptable to acknowledge that and say that there's some righteousness in pushing back on the IRGC. And by the way, if you don't punish the IRGC and strike them, they would just continue to do that to their population. I mean, there's no one out there that can tell me sanctions have had a... if you don't punish the IRGC and strike them, they would just continue to do that to their population. mollifying effect on the leadership of the IRGC's performance the last 47 years. So I'm extremely frustrated with both those countries. Amir Golshani: I really appreciate you mentioning that because it's less than 48 hours, know, those many tens of thousands of people were killed and murdered on the streets, you know, and they mainly Europe just they kept silence, you know, and they did nothing. And even right now, I doubt that, by sending these vessels, they actively get involved. You know, let's see, you know, how it turned out. Mark Montgomery: No, they will not actively get involved. They will passively be involved. Amir Golshani: Right. So whether it's a joint effort or led by the US, you've noted that we now operate at will within Iranian aerospace. Beyond removing uranium and the remaining missiles and arsenals, ⁓ what the targets left that, if neutralized, would render the regime's military machine permanently obsolete? Mark Montgomery: I think you've named the ones for military targets, but clearly are legitimate economic targets. And what I mean by that are dual use bridges, dual use ⁓ power I wouldn't advocate for striking anything that's singularly public health safety or commercial sector only. There might be some more military ⁓ or what would call defense industrial base or legitimate military. ⁓ targets ⁓ as well. But I think the vast majority of what I would call the, know, the, you the strike, ⁓ deliberate strike planning list has been handled. There's probably a few targets left in that. Then there's reattacks, particularly on missile stowage facilities where we did not achieve the results we wanted, or some of the nuclear stowage facilities. But ⁓ I don't, you know, I don't think near as many targets left as have already been ⁓ serviced the United States ⁓ and aviation forces. Amir Golshani: So there is a domestic dimension to this as well. In the January uprising that we talked about, so the regime uses snipers and machine guns, not drones. If their high tech military power is decimated by external strikes, does it actually weaken the besieged security apparatus or the dealing with two different words of ⁓ control. So they still have guns on the streets. They still can kill people regardless of having drones or missiles. How these we can militarily, you know, can help people, you know, when they get get into streets again. Mark Montgomery: Well, listen, would be an advocate for that kind of targeting plan if either the United States of Israel had armed opposition. But an air campaign ⁓ to a ground power and get kind significant change in the regime has always required an armed interventionist group on the ground, whether it's Libya in 2011 or an air ⁓ to destroy a ground power and get some kind of significant change in the regime has always required armed interventionist group on the ground, in 1999, the United had armed belligerence ⁓ we ⁓ supporting with our airplane. Without that, this is a very hard mission and I think it's one that would be very challenging and after a while the damage and civilian casualties would begin to rack up as you try to individually target. the IRGC personnel in the absence of an armed intervention group. I to, I don't know how the traditional Iranian military is going to approach a vastly weakened IRGC. At some point they could take action. In theory, they have weapons. In practice, they don't have the ideological intent to do anything. I think they've been collecting paychecks and are comfortable and are not willing to do the right thing for the people. ⁓ Amir Golshani: So did you, tissue conventional army, you there is not a huge difference, especially after the revolution, the recruitment process, you know, is in a way that ideologically it's very similar to IRGC, you know, they're not, you know, very much different from each other in terms of, you know, being loyal to the system, but you're right. Then when it comes to their paycheck, you know, it can be a decisive factor. Mark Montgomery: I don't think they're as wealthy. I don't think they've been exploiting the economy in the same way the IRGC. mean, people don't understand the IRGC. America, think about a mob family running a city. That's what you have, you know, a separate security service that kills with impunity, collects money, stows illegally in Dubai or Abu Dhabi or Cayman Islands, wherever. Amir Golshani: Right, right. Mark Montgomery: that some of them are truly ideologically motivated, some are financially motivated. But yeah, ⁓ my, I get that they and the Artes may began in the same place, but the IRGC is much more committed to the status quo right now. Amir Golshani: Right. Right. So the idea of arming people inside Iran, how realistic and how feasible do you think it is? know, so because there is no existing organization apart from some minorities, I don't know logistically how doable is. the idea of arming people inside Iran, how realistic and how feasible do you think it is? Mark Montgomery: Yeah, I'm not sure either. I'm not sure how doable it was. It certainly got harder once you start the air campaign. Now everything's under a microscope. It's hard to... And effectively martial... There's always martial law in Iran, but there's really martial law in Iran right now in terms of movement or ⁓ aggregation people. So I think it would be very hard to do it now. ⁓ That doesn't mean it wouldn't be hard to do it in the future. You know, as we resolve this issue, both the nuclear program and the Straits of Hormuz and move forward, I don't, you know, as easy as it would be for the United States to kind of take the eye off this issue, we have to keep our eye and our attention on it and look for the right opportunity to get the regime change we're not going to get in this air campaign. Amir Golshani: At least I don't think the current US administration wants to kick the can on the road for another couple of years. might some faces have changed, but ⁓ ideologically, structurally, they're the same, ⁓ maybe more hardline. Mark Montgomery: Yeah, mean, look, the Trump administration has not shown a proclivity to push hardliners around. ⁓ week or so, people were highlighting in Venezuela that the vast majority of political prisoners still haven't been released. We Maduro, you thought, well, at least the political prisoners would be released. And they're not, because the United States doesn't make it a priority. We make getting their oil production rate going a priority. And we reward the ⁓ former leaders like the vice with, you know, we allow them to maintain power on cooperation on oil, not cooperation on democracy. allow them to power based on cooperation on oil, cooperation on democracy. Amir Golshani: That's true, then the question is that, what would happen to Iranian people who sacrificed so much in the last 47 years, been just suffering. ⁓ You're talking about neighboring countries. The concern, of course, is the neighborhood. ⁓ Iran has repeatedly threatened the UAE and GCC in an era of integrated deterrence. How does the U.S. protect Mark Montgomery: I agree. Amir Golshani: these allies, practically Mark Montgomery: to that all these countries are the same. United Arab Emirates took a much harder ⁓ pounding attack rates from Iran and defeated a very high percentage for a lot of reasons and were hit, still were impacted, were damaged. Amir Golshani: Hit. Mark Montgomery: ⁓ But they kept their cool and their military performed well and they did well. They also have the longest standing beef with Iran outside the other GCC. Not longest standing, but most aggressive over control of some islands and ⁓ claims fields. Although there are many multiple competing claims in the Gulf, the Iranian ⁓ UAE claims. So from my perspective, UAE has done a fantastic job and the United States should partner closely with them. I think with some of the other states, the United States has got to recognize that those bases in those states like Bahrain and Kuwait were too close, and Qatar even, are too close to Iran. We need to have some strategic depth, which means we're to have to work closely with Saudi Arabia because that's where the strategic depth is. And that's going to be a challenge. and potentially with Israel, because there's even there and maybe Jordan. these are all options along the way. It's going to cost money ⁓ and and a lot of political will. So I have to see what happens ⁓ over But ⁓ I that the United States also has to continue to cooperate through arms sales with all those countries, training opportunities, ⁓ make sure you know, that their equipment and Amir Golshani: And even Jordan, Mark Montgomery: personnel are up to snuff. And then we're going to have to maintain deployments there for some period of time. We currently have. Amir Golshani: Do you see there would be a fundamental change of military presence in the region? Mark Montgomery: Not initially. So right now we're, you know, if there was a ceasefire and it was successful through three to five months, you know, we'd probably draw down some of the Air Force fighter squadrons. So we have maybe 23, 25 % of Air Force fighter squadron, some reasonable number. And there might be slightly lower than that now in the Middle East. If we keep them there too long, know, 12, 18, 24 months. It'll mean that we have a massive Air Force fighter readiness problem about three years from now. These problems take a little while to work their way through the system. then, you know, the last time this happened, our fighter readiness dropped down to 33%, which meant, you know, we couldn't respond to crises effectively. Same with the Navy ships, you know, after being really deployed in the Gulf in 2013, 2014, we were unable to deploy a carrier in 2017, like three years later. So, and we have about 23, 24 % of our carriers and 20 % of our surface ships, destroyers and things like that in the Gulf. these are meaningful numbers that will have to come down, but they won't come down, I think, for three to six months. the aircraft can come down first, the ship's a little slower because it takes longer for the ships to come back. So you have to be really sure that you're done with them. So we'll have to see what happens on that, but that's a pretty big... commitment for the United States. But the answer is yes, and it's going to have an impact on our ability to conduct operations, say, against China or Russia. Amir Golshani: Absolutely. So now let's talk about securing Persian Gulf. If we secure Persian Gulf, there is a steel north with Russia providing routes via the Caspian and ground path through Pakistan. How tight can this blockade actually get? Mark Montgomery: Well, Russian one's interesting. Israel that path a few times during the 40 days of conflict. I think we could warn Russia and then hit it again, either us or Israel, and just say, look, we've told you not to do these shipping routes. We're going to sink every ship in the Caspian that does this. And they're pretty much defenseless against that. So hopefully you can them into not doing it. But if they insist on doing it, then you can sink them. And after you sink one, I think the others will get the message and you probably only have to sink one. But then, you know, the Pakistan route, we have to talk with our Pakistani partners that. there'll be some through there. ⁓ It's going to be, I mean, we cannot cut Iran off from the world. We can just cut Iran from having large ships take oil to the rest of the world. And that's the kind of blockade we can do. We're not going to. I don't think we're gonna shoot down civilian aircraft flying into Tehran from overseas, just for fear of it being a bunch of passengers. ⁓ we'll be very careful with that. Amir Golshani: Right. Admiral, you're one of the few voices that I've seen, you're talking about Iranian people and day after, what importance, you know, the succession, you know, and if the regime's grip does you know, we face the question of what follows. You've emphasized ensuring the next leader isn't a threat. How can the West a ⁓ secular democratic movement like one How can the West support a secular democratic movement like the one centered around Prince Raza Pahlavi without it being dismissed as a foreign imposed transition. centered around Prince Raza Pahlavi without it being dismissed as a foreign imposed transition. Mark Montgomery: First, I don't specifically support anyone, but I support the principles you're talking about, which is how do we get to a selected leader who ⁓ not, as a due course, threaten the United States and Israel with extermination? ⁓ That's a pretty low bar, by the way. Amir Golshani: The reason that I mentioned the name of Prince Pahlavi because it's, yeah, people are shouting his name, you know, inside and outside the country. You know, he's got, you know, a big followers and supporters, you know, as a leader of transition, at least, yeah. Mark Montgomery: Yeah. Yeah. And he may, he may be the guy. in no position to judge. But I would say is, that the Iranian deserve better than they have. And, ⁓ you ⁓ do believe, know, I don't know that president Trump thinks too often about restoring democracy. I think he thinks about know, removing threats from the United States, which is absolutely fine. That's, you know, as president, that's what he ran on and he does it. I tend to be more thoughtful, you know, more thinking about what can we do to restore democracy, to restore capitalism, you know, restore the rule of law and transparency to countries. So a that you think can do that is a leader that I would hope to succeed there. And that's the... ⁓ Amir Golshani: course. Mark Montgomery: Prince then so be He does appear to have support outside the country. Amir Golshani: You mentioned about US, how about the West in general? Do they play any role or they're willing to help this transition or not, in your opinion? Mark Montgomery: So they can help with sanctions. So they can help both drive us into transition and out of transition with sanctions. it's just passing sanctions, it's enforcing sanctions. And look, the United States is guilty of this as well. We don't perfect in sanctions enforcement. And we create challenges when ⁓ we're insufficient unsuccessful. Amir Golshani: Absolutely. Mark Montgomery: But I think our European partners can help with that. I don't think they're going to help with anything else security wise initially. mean, they just, there's no there there. And there's certainly no there there when you have to project 8,000 or 10,000 miles. It's just, is one of the things we're starting to realize that, that. nobody has in a way, like I think Israel had a great air force, ⁓ great But if you told me Israel had to fly strikes in South America, I would say it's gonna be a lot smaller because they only have a handful of refuelers, they're not gonna get over there, you know what I mean? Same with Europe, they may have a bunch of F-35s up there, but they don't have the ability to sustain and operate them on an overseas deployment with ease. So as a result, I don't think much of Europe. I think that this is a... Arab US Israeli problem to fix. Amir Golshani: Since you talk about and care about people, I'm going to ask you this. If you were speaking directly to the young generation of Iranians who are watching their regime's military capability being dismantled in real time, what is the one high signal piece of strategic advice you would give them for the coming month? If you were ⁓ speaking directly to the young generation of Iranians who are watching Mark Montgomery: I think they need to maintain patience. Let the, that's going to be a tough month with the blockade in effect. That is absolutely eating up 95 % of Iranian exports, know, 17 billion, 20 billion a month, know, 350 to 400 billion a year of lost exports. That's going be tough. It's going be tough on the Iranian people, good people and bad people. And so they just have to have patience and resilience to get through this while the United States brings a pressure clamp onto IRGC. Amir Golshani: Right. So ⁓ Admiral, is there anything that we haven't talked about but you think it's absolutely crucial to pay attention to or talk about right now? Mark Montgomery: Yeah. Look, I think the United States needs to restart access, know, ⁓ freedom through the, through the straights of moves. And we need to do it for three reasons. One, because it's an international waterway. And that's how international waterways are supposed to operate. And we've spent either 80 years or 250 years, depending how you count it, making damn sure international waterways ⁓ are free. may not have signed on to UNCLOS. ⁓ the UN Conventional Odyssey, but one of the most aggressive enforcers of it. that's number one. two, Iran can't be perceived as controlling the Straits of Hormuz at the end of this set negotiations. They have to be physically demonstrated to be unable to stop the United States from both transiting with our own warships, but also dragging merchants back and forth through there. And number it'll relieve the pressure on the world economy. so that they can remove the blinders from their eyes and see who is who here. Who is the revanchist authoritarian regime that killed 30,000 plus of its people in such a short period of time? Who's the authoritarian regime that for 47 years has pilfered the wealth of the state, the accounts of the IRGC, and its neighbors nonstop? conducted terrorism throughout the region, it's Iran. And you'd need to reveal that and expose that. And the way you get your allies and partners to do it is you remove the chokehold they have from the LNG and fertilizer that are stuck in the Gulf. So three advantages to continuing the operations for secure transit. through the Gulf. And I think we need to do that alongside any negotiations. Amir Golshani: Right. I love it. Agner, we always ⁓ with ⁓ this, personal. Beyond the treaties and military strikes, purely personal level, what does freedom mean to you? Mark Montgomery: know, freedom is about opportunity. You know, it is the opportunity to succeed. it encompasses speech and press and and, but it's really about social mobility for individual, you know, student or youth you are not confined. to the economic status of your parents. You have the opportunity to move in society through your own hard work, ingenuity, entrepreneurship. I think what we call the American dream is that's what embodies the American dream. Every country has their own dream. And so for a country like Iran, I hope we restore that kind of freedom, that freedom of choice, of opportunity, particularly to the young women in the country who I think for a country like Iran, I hope we restore that kind of freedom, that freedom of choice, of opportunity, particularly to the young women in the country who I think even more than anyone have been, you know, more than anyone deprived of that the Iranian regime. than anyone deprived of that by the Iranian regime. Amir Golshani: Absolutely. Admiral Montgomery, thank you for providing the strategic clarity we need to see beyond this global crisis. Mark Montgomery: Thank you for having me, Amir was very good. Amir Golshani: Thank you.