Murphy to Hegseth On Iran War: History Is Not On Your Side, Time Is Not On Our Side

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Tuesday questioned U.S. Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, during a hearing of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. With the Strait of Hormuz still closed, and price increases on gas and basic goods fueling an economic crisis at home, Murphy grilled both witnesses on the Trump administration's fundamentally misguided strategy in Iran. Murphy also highlighted significant inconsistencies between President Trump's premature declarations of strategic victory in Iran and intelligence reports showing the regime retains most of its pre-existing missile and drone capacity.

Murphy pressed Hegseth on the Trump administration's plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and bring down gas prices for Americans: "In other briefings, people that work for you have told us in plain terms that there is no military mechanism to reopen the strait, that ultimately it will be a political decision made by Iran. How are we going to get the strait open? Because nothing matters more to our constituents than doing something about these spiraling gas prices which are bankrupting families and farmers all across the country."

Murphy warned Trump's long-game strategy in Iran guarantees economic doom for countless American farmers, small businesses, and families: "Time is not on our side here. I believe you are being way too optimistic in your assessment of their potential to cave. But, if this goes on for another 30 days, there are going to be thousands more farms that will go bankrupt. There are going to be families that are going to be ruined. And so, time is not on our side. And I just don't believe that Iran is ready to capitulate yet. And if they capitulate in a year, there is going to be a whole lot of families and businesses that are ruined in the United States."

Murphy laid out the long history of failed economic pressure campaigns that dragged on for years: "The Russians believed, years ago, that Ukraine would cave because of the economic pressure they were putting on Ukraine. We thought the North Vietnamese would cave because of the economic pressure we were putting on them. Your own intelligence estimates, as has been reported, suggest that in fact, the Iranians are in a position to hold out for potentially years. This is a high risk strategy, to hope that this economic pressure will eventually cause [Iran]to voluntarily reopen the strait when there's plenty of evidence from military history to show that countries that are being attacked or invaded or occupied are actually willing to put up with a whole lot of economic misery in order to preserve national pride."

Murphy called for transparency from Hegseth and Caine after they repeatedly refused to answer basic questions about whether the war's objectives had been met: "How do we or the American public assess the success of the mission when you've stated publicly the purpose of the mission is to destroy their missile and drone capabilities? How do we assess whether we should continue funding this?"

A full transcript of the exchange is available below.

Murphy: Thank you Madame Chair, thank you all for being here. Let me give you a chance, Mr. Secretary, to answer Senator Coons's question, which is a really simple one: how are we going to get the Strait open? Because nothing matters more to our constituents than doing something about these spiraling gas prices which are bankrupting families and farmers all across the country.

And maybe let me ask it this way: this is the first time you've come before this committee, but in other briefings people that work for you have told us in plain terms that there is no military mechanism to reopen the Strait, that ultimately it will be a political decision made by Iran. And I think you're confirming that here today, by suggesting that it will be economic pressure that will create a political imperative inside Tehran to open the strait.

So can you just confirm for the committee that there is not a military mechanism or means to reopen the Strait? That ultimately we have to, essentially, use diplomacy, economic diplomacy in this case, in order to convince Iran to make the decision to reopen the strait.

Hegseth: I would say, Senator, there most certainly are military means by which we could open the Strait. Both targets on land and also what we do with our naval capabilities, not to mention our naval blockade, demonstrated by-

Murphy: Why haven't you done that? If that's true and that's not what has been testified to us in private briefings, why haven't you done that already?

Hegseth: Ultimately, a preferred long-term approach would be a deal where they open it up. Where they stop being pirates of an international waters, and allow countries from all nations to flow. You know, these aren't US ships that are being blockaded there, these are ships from all around the world, creating much more pressure for other countries than ours. So the bad guy here is Iran, who is closing the Strait through piracy effectively, because they really only have fast boat capabilities. We're blockading them, none of their stuff is getting out, they're feeling all the pressure.

Murphy: Ok so here's my follow up question: you don't worry that through a study of history you might come to the conclusion that you are overestimating their willingness to cave based upon economic pressure? The Russians believed, years ago, that Ukraine would cave because of the economic pressure they were putting on Ukraine. We thought the North Vietnamese would cave because of the economic pressure we were putting on them. Your own intelligence estimates, as has been reported, suggest that in fact, the Iranians are in a position to hold out for potentially years.

This is a high risk strategy, to hope that this economic pressure will eventually cause them to voluntarily reopen the Strait, when there's plenty of evidence from military history to show that countries that are being attacked or invaded or occupied are actually willing to put up with a whole lot of economic misery in order to preserve national pride.

Hegseth: Well aware. We understand all of those historical case studies. And it's not just economic pressure: there is military pressure, diplomatic pressure, we certainly have a lot more military pressure we can bring to bear - if the President were to choose to do so. I think there are a lot of different dynamics that we can, cards that the president can play, holding all of them to ensure even greater economic pressure or even greater military pressure in Iran. And they know that and that's why the negotiations are serious and ongoing right now about giving up their nuclear capabilities, because they understand that.

Murphy: The problem is time is not on our side here. I believe you are being way too optimistic in your assessment of their potential to cave. But, if this goes on for another 30 days, there are going to be thousands more farms that will go bankrupt, there are going to be families that are going to be ruined. And so, time is not on our side. And I just don't believe that Iran is ready to capitulate yet. And if they capitulate in a year, there is going to be a whole of families and businesses that are ruined in the United States.

Murphy: General Caine, let me finally ask you a question about what seems to be a difference of opinion between the intelligence services you rely on and the public statements of the President of the United States, with respect to our war objectives. The Secretary and others in the president's cabinet have said very clearly that our war objective is to destroy Iran's missile and drone program. The president said just a week ago that Iran maybe had 18% to 19% of their missile capacity left. But there is public reporting suggesting that our intelligence agencies say that Iran still has 70% of their missile and drone capability, which would be a failure of our objectives if that were to be true. What can you tell us about the number of missiles and drones they have left and do you dispute that intelligence estimate?

Caine: Sir, I'm not going to comment, with deep respect for the question, I am not going to comment in this forum, on what may or may not have been opined on by the IC, which would suggest a leak or a confirmation of any intel. So while I appreciate the question, I hope you will also appreciate my not answering it.

Murphy: The president said that 80% of-

Caine: I'm not going to comment either way Sir.

Murphy: How do we or the American public assess the success of the mission when you've stated publicly the purpose of the mission is to destroy their missile and drone capabilities? How do we assess whether we should continue funding this? If you can't state-

Caine: I am not going to answer what you guys in Congress consider decision criteria around continued funding or not. What I know is that I have not read the report you are talking about. All of our battle damage assessment matters are classified and it would be inappropriate for me to comment in this forum on that. I appreciate the question but I'm not going to answer it.

Murphy: Let me put it to Secretary Hegseth. The president said that 80% of the missile capacity had been destroyed. This public report says it's only 30%. Can you give an answer?

Hegseth: I mean I would answer the same way as the chairman.

Murphy: Not talking to this committee about the damages?

Hegseth: Not validating leaked information that could be wrong or not wrong. Why would I validate what people may or may not leak? This is not a classified setting. We don't talk about those things. You like to talk about them on TV, we don't talk about them here.