STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
How is Congress viewing all of this? Yesterday, we heard House Republican Mike Lawler, who flatly said, yes, when asked if the U.S. should strike. Today, we have the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Adam Smith of Washington State. Mr. Smith, welcome back.
ADAM SMITH: Well, thanks for having me on. I appreciate the chance.
INSKEEP: Are you persuaded that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program, which is the Israeli allegation that they made as they began the war?
SMITH: I think that's probably likely. And as we've moved through this whole process, gosh, Iran has always been doing more - we've discovered that Iran has been doing more than they'd said publicly. And it's not actually a secret that they've been massively increasing their enrichment capacity. As I think one expert put it, you know, there's no country in the world that doesn't have a nuclear program that has as much enriched uranium as Iran has. So clearly, they're trying to get right up to the edge...
INSKEEP: But I will just mention...
SMITH: ...Of having nuclear weapons.
INSKEEP: I - experts on this have done a distinction between gathering the material, which they clearly are doing in a massive way, as you say, and actually starting a program to build a bomb. You think it is likely they are...
SMITH: Oh, sure.
INSKEEP: ...Doing the latter?
SMITH: Well, when you - I mean, people draw that distinction. But I think it's more accurate to say - yeah, I think Iran's position is, we're going to go right up to the edge, but we haven't made a decision. But the concern is they get right up to the edge and then they're, in some cases, you know, mere weeks, if not days, away from making that decision and then getting a bomb. Look, Iran took an enormous chance by enriching all this uranium. The IAEA came out and said they're not in compliance with what they said. So there is reason to have concern that Iran could, in fact, be days or even weeks from making that decision and then having a bomb. I think that's fairly widely agreed upon.
INSKEEP: The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, of course. In recent history, Congress has generally avoided that responsibility. But in this case, is it necessary for Congress to speak in some way?
SMITH: I believe so, yes. I mean, I don't think that we should get directly involved in attacking Iran. And if the decision were to be made to do that, I think Congress should be - should - under the Constitution, our approval should be required.
INSKEEP: And that is true not just for a full-scale war, but for an airstrike? Because we had somebody on our air yesterday who said a mere airstrike is something different than a full-scale war.
SMITH: Yeah, I mean, it's technically different. And let's be honest here. I mean, I feel strongly that if we're going to attack Iran in that way, there's no argument that this is inherent right of self-defense. There's no existing AUMF that would justify this. I feel strongly that legally, the president should come to Congress, but the history of this is clear - presidents do what they want to do on a whole series of instances. I mean, we had - during Kosovo...
INSKEEP: Yeah.
SMITH: ...We had a vote in Congress that actually went down to approve the - President Clinton's actions. And President Clinton went ahead and did it anyway. There was no congressional approval for our involvement in the Libyan campaign during President Obama's...
INSKEEP: Yeah.
SMITH: ...Administration. So as a practical matter, I think President Trump would assert the right to do this without Congress and probably get away with it. But that doesn't change the fact that I think the law and the Constitution are clear that you should not be able to do that.
INSKEEP: I want to ask how far this might go. We think of it as one U.S. plane flying overhead, dropping one really big bomb, and we're done. But then this morning, we worked through the problem of striking Fordo, this facility under a mountain. And we...
SMITH: Yeah.
INSKEEP: ...Talked with Michael Knights, an analyst. And the logic of it causes Michael Knights to put boots on the ground. Let's listen.
MICHAEL KNIGHTS: There's many ways that you can possibly destroy those facilities, and certainly do them a lot of damage, without drilling down into them with a big bomb. But if you want to be sure, and if you want to actually remove the highly enriched uranium, then maybe a commando operation is an option.
INSKEEP: Commando operation. Suddenly, we're sending in troops, in his...
SMITH: Yeah.
INSKEEP: ...Scenario. Anyway. If we're going to commit, do we have to commit to a full-scale war, if it comes to that?
SMITH: Aside from the legality and the constitutionality of this, there are two big problems with the U.S. getting involved. Number one is that - you know, what's it going to take to completely destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program? I can tell you - I've been briefed on this for years, and there's always been considerable concern that destroying it is going to be vastly more difficult than people realize. How much damage can you do to this particular site? And also, does Iran have other sites? We don't think they do, but then again, we didn't think they had this one until we discovered that they did.
So number one problem is, how do you actually make sure that you destroy it? Number two problem is if we attack Iran, we have facilities - we have bases in Qatar, in Bahrain, in Iraq and Syria that Iran has said they will target. If we get involved in this war, Iran will start hitting U.S. troops. And then it becomes unpredictable, which is why I do not think that we should do this.
INSKEEP: Democratic Congressman Adam Smith of Washington State. Bottom line - not to act. Thanks so much.
SMITH: Thank you. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
