Adm. James ‘Ace’ Lyons Discusses the Dangers of Dealing with Iran

Click Here for the audio version

Frank Gaffney: A man who brings enormous intelligence to the issue of national security, as well as extraordinary experience over a lifetime both in uniform, rising to the ranks from Seaman to Four-Star Navy Admiral, and now in a private capacity as the President of LION Associates, is our first guest. Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, one of the authors of a very important letter, recently sent to the Congressional leadership about the Iran deal, and we want to talk with Admiral Lyons about that and much more. Admiral, it’s always a pleasure to have you on deck, thank you so much for joining us.

Adm. James ‘Ace’ Lyons: Nice to be with you Frank and your listeners.

FG: The pleasure is ours. Sir you were instrumental to pulling together this letter with some of your comrades. I believe its up to over 230 Flag Officers and General Officers of the Untied States military, all now of course retired, including some 24-25 Four-Stars like yourself. Could you characterize both the nature of this initiative and its importance if Congress is doing its job?

JL: Frank the basic fundamental issue here is, we should have never sat down to negotiate with this evil regime. The world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism that has killed thousands of Americans, and your listeners should never forget that it was Iran that provided the key material and training support to the 9/11 hijackers, and that 3,000 innocent Americans who were doing nothing more than going to work would be alive today. The fact that we sat down at the table with them to negotiate to me is unconscionable. It’d be like sitting down with Hitler in 1939, I cannot believe we did this.

FG: And admiral what we’ve done arguably is enable a regime that is at least as dangerous as that of Adolf Hitler’s in terms of its global ambitions, its messianic designs, that with nuclear weapons poses a vastly a more formidable threat. What I’m struck by is as I look at this distinguished group of Admiral and General Officers, that we’re not hearing much from the United States military still in uniform on this deal. You continue to have relationships with those folks who watch very closely what’s going on in the Pentagon. Is that because they’re indifferent to this, or that they’ve concluded, in fact despite your analysis and that of your colleagues, this is actually a good deal or a good idea, or are they being sidelined, marginalized, and neutered?

JL: Well it goes back to political correctness Frank, and I tried to get Senator McCain, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, to actually call up all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and make them testify and take a position on this treaty; which I believe is absolutely necessary that he [John McCain] do this, make them commit one way or the other. They must live up to their oath of office, and this cannot just be brushed aside.

FG: This didn’t work out obviously, but do we have reason to believe that the Joint Chiefs are in fact concerned about this Admiral Lyons? I know that some of them have made noises to the effect that they think its an appropriate thing to do under the circumstances or comments to that effect, but there’s not an overwhelming enthusiasm that’s fair to say I think. But what I guess I’m really getting at has the United States military been as central to the construction of this agreement as they will ultimately will have to deal with the consequences of it, as been true as in the past in various arms controls agreements, with which you and I have both been associated.

JL: Well let me say this Frank. First of all this emasculation of our military leadership just didn’t start with this agreement. It has gone on for years under this administration, and quite frankly it’s a situation that we had prior the World War II. You have all these politically correct leaders who are put in positions of authority and what happened at the start of World War II? You had to replace them all, and that’s what has to be done today. They have an oath of office, they have not lived up to their oath of office to protect and defend this great country of ours and they must be held accountable.

FG: Admiral Lyons, again one of the authors of this joint letter, some 230 as I recall senior military leaders now retired, offering their professional advice to the Congress of the United States and very much arguing against the approval of this nuclear deal, I call it the ObamaBomb Deal, Admiral as you know. I wondered if I could just quickly run by you some comments that former Vice President Dick Cheney has made in the past day or two. He’s got a new book out entitled “Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America”, and he basically describes this Iran agreement as a quote “train wreck”. He also suggests, that the President never was willing to consider the use of force, the Iranians understood that, and as he put it they knew quote, “If they played hard to get, he’d give them the store and he did”. Is that your view as well?

JL: Oh absolutely. I’m glad you mentioned the book. I just purchased it, and I’m just starting to get into it, but Dick Cheney is actually right on the mark. What we’ve done here is unconscionable. All of our objectives that we set out, we conceded to Iran. This deal was a total sellout, and of course for Secretary Kerry, this is not the first time he has sold out his country. But in this particular case we agreeing to not only assist Iran in the development of their nuclear program, but we committed ourselves to show them how to protect their facilities against attack, sabotage, and cyber warfare. This is unbelievable, we totally switched sides, and we totally undercut our staunchest ally in the Middle East, Israel. Israel must go on a war footing, there’s no question about it. They may have to use some of the most sophisticated weapons they have to ensure their survivability.

FG: We’re going to be talking with Colonel John Warden, who is the architect of the Desert Storm air campaign, about just how hard that will be Admiral, but what your saying sounds – at least implicitly – is though that may mean the use actually of nuclear weapons as well. Is that something your contemplating?

JL: Absolutely, if they want to survive they’ve got to consider the use of nuclear weapons, or at a minimum an EMP attack against Iran.

FG: Admiral let me turn just to one other topic if I may, because again you’ve had long experience in the region among other things, as the Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet involved in protecting flows of oil and our other assets and interests in that region over many, many years. What do you make of what the Obama administration is doing; we’ve recently marked in a fashion the first anniversary of the so-called war against the Islamic State? How would you characterize the conduct of that war, if you would call it that, and where we stand a year on?

JL: Well it’s not as serious effort, number one. Eighty percent of our air missions do not deliver their weapons. They return to base with their weapons intact, because of the restricted rules of engagement (inaudible). We are not going after ISIS in their core areas, which is Syria, and the reason we’re not doing that is because that might upset our Iranian interlockers here. In fact, it’s a travesty that we’re subjecting the people of the region to the atrocities committed by the seventh century mentality of the ISIS group.

FG: And in a way really that’s what I wanted to close with Admiral. We’re talking about an environment in which we are failing to understand that what we’re up against is that global jihadists seventh century mentality, and by failing to do so we’re simply intensifying the danger it represents. Admiral Lyons, you are a voice, a clear and much valued voice of reason and I believe, insight into the military as well as strategic and national security implications of all this. We appreciate you service as the Chairman for the Center for Security Policy’s Military Committee. I look forward to talking with you again very soon.