Exclusive Interview of Voice of America with Robert Spalding, Retired Air Force General

Robert Spalding, a retired U.S. Air Force general, answered a range of questions in an exclusive interview with Siamak Dehghanpour about the military, political, and economic dimensions of the U.S. tensions with the Islamic Republic, including China's role in this context. Spalding, former director of strategic planning at the National Security Council in the White House, told the Persian section of Voice of America that the Biden administration should follow the Kosovo war model to quickly end tensions in the Middle East and strike at targets that are of high importance to the Islamic Republic. Below is the detailed conversation: You were in Baghdad during the 2007 riots and the increase of U.S. forces in Iraq under George Bush. How do you see the situation after the recent U.S. attacks on the Islamic Republic's proxy groups? Is the situation getting out of control, or has the Islamic Republic sensed the danger? In my opinion, the U.S. government has not implemented many of the policies aimed at limiting the Islamic Republic's ability to conduct actions through its proxies throughout the region. That is why you are witnessing all these attacks. Unfortunately, the Biden administration has not paid attention to the good results that came from 'limiting the Islamic Republic's ability to become a bad actor in the region' and 'creating closer relations between Arab countries and Israel.' I mean, all those policies would have led to a much more stable situation. The Islamic Republic has no interest in regional stability. It has no interest in peace between Arabs and Israelis. The removal of policies aimed at limiting the Islamic Republic's capabilities in the region – including removing the Houthis from the terrorist list – when you put together the efforts the Biden administration has made over the past few years, you see that these are all policies that have led to more security problems for the region. Do you accept the Islamic Republic's claim that it has little control over its proxy attacks? Suppose we completely trust the leaders in Tehran who say they have no control over those proxies. Very well, but the next issue is that they are giving them money and weapons. I believe the Islamic Republic has the ability to behave well or poorly in the region. We have evidence that the Revolutionary Guard is training its proxies. They are practicing with them. I believe they collaborated with Hamas in the October 7 attacks. Not only that, but they are arming them. They provide them with resources. Remember that the Biden administration released Iran's financial resources and provided money to the Islamic Republic. When you allow them to access resources, this is what happens. The issue is not just control. I am not saying that the Ayatollah directly contacts Hamas and tells them, 'Carry out this attack at this time.' But it is clear that they are working in coordination. And then, the Revolutionary Guard supports them with resources, money, weapons, and training. You were a B-52 and B-2 bomber pilot. What message does the current U.S. military posture in the region send to the Islamic Republic? What message does the flight of a B-52 bomber over the Middle East carry? In my opinion, the Islamic Republic and the Revolutionary Guard believe that at least there will be no attack on Iran. Therefore, [the flight of a B-52 bomber over the Middle East] really does not affect the behavior of the Islamic Republic. And as long as the Tehran rulers do not realize that the consequences of their behavior will have a direct impact on the things they value, I really do not think it will have much effect. We are seeing attacks continue. We are witnessing American soldiers getting injured or killed. And this is really unnecessary. We have seen time and again that if you send the right message in a way that the leaders of the Islamic Republic understand that they are at risk – now their assets are at risk, or their lives are at risk – then they will think differently about supporting these proxy groups in attacks they carry out throughout the region. U.S. intelligence officials had previously warned that with the increase in attacks by the Islamic Republic's proxy groups on U.S. bases, one of the drones might bypass air defenses, and that happened in Jordan. Has the military use of cheap drones flying at low altitudes challenged U.S. military superiority in the sky? The U.S. has thousands of troops in the Middle East. What is the solution? The threat of drones is a new and different threat. Our weapon systems are not designed to counter this threat. Our weapon systems are primarily designed for large confrontations of conventional forces. Drones are a completely new phenomenon. Therefore, when you look at the structure of our forces today, we really have not created that kind of structure for our forces that can defend our personnel against that threat in the field of battle. The need to counter this new threat is that we must think differently. I believe that in the next 10 years, you will see a complete transformation of the military. Because this is a threat that, frankly, countering it with current conventional weapons is very costly. For example, if you want to shoot down each little drone with a Patriot missile, or suppose a large number of drones have been sent together. If you want to shoot them down with a Patriot, the cost goes very high and is not logical at all. Therefore, we need to rethink how to protect people from this kind of drone attacks. In my opinion, a defensive initiative needs to be implemented in the context of our current society, that is, in our infrastructures, because drones can be sent suddenly in waves. And the reality is that they are very destructive. And they can be very lethal. Therefore, an effective defensive strategy requires that we think differently about that aspect of warfare. You were at the National Security Council in the White House during the peak of tensions with the Islamic Republic. How do you see the current situation of the Biden administration? Do you think they have a clear program and strategy for dealing with the Islamic Republic's proxy groups? It is unfortunate, but in my opinion, this current 'National Security Council' has accepted people who do not really understand the region. They have gone back and revived many policies that were implemented over decades, for example, during the Obama administration. These are policies that do not work and indicate a lack of familiarity with the region, how regional interactions occur, and the way actors involved in the region operate and their interests. [Members of the current 'National Security Council'] do not know how to create conditions that would be beneficial for U.S. national security. We do not act this way. One of the things that came out of the 'Abraham Accords' was this idea that the levers of peace are entirely on the shoulders of the Palestinians in that they must end their conflicts with Israel. However, since they cannot do this, their tactic is to keep delaying. In my opinion, the 'Abraham Accords' exposed this lie. Another thing that is not understood correctly is the recognition of the region, understanding the dynamics between Israel, Arab countries, and Iran, understanding the Sunni-Shia relationship, and then understanding the relationship between Iran and the Arabs. None of these have been understood correctly. We do not have people who have a truly accurate understanding of these things. Now, suppose they have understood the problem. I do not think they understand how to maneuver among the conflicting interests of different groups and create a situation in the region that would be beneficial for the United States. Time and again, it has been shown that they do not have such understanding. To implement such a strategy, a logical approach must be taken. Engagement with countries and all involved actors must be done as they are, not as we want them to be. And a strategy must be devised that limits the actions of those seeking to disrupt the region and allows those who want to have a more peaceful coexistence to do so. But that is not what we are doing today. So no, I do not think we have a good strategy. I am not even sure that the people we have really understand the region. I mean, our strategists, even if they know the region, do not really know how to engage with each of the various actors in a way that brings us closer to conditions that are truly more stable and aligned with U.S. national security interests. Can the U.S. achieve its goals in the Middle East by avoiding direct military confrontation with the Islamic Republic of Iran? Probably, but that means the U.S. must target objectives that are valuable to the leaders of the Islamic Republic. So, the Revolutionary Guard may or may not be a legitimate target. I think this question is really interesting because we pay a lot of attention to the technical issues of war. We focus heavily on the use of weapons and aircraft and which tactic is better than others. However, we have strayed from the fundamentals of war. The important point is that war is designed to achieve a political objective. The use of military force is to achieve a political outcome. And sometimes it is not about 'how many targets you hit' or 'how precisely you hit those targets.' The issue is what target you choose and what message you want to send. I believe we need to think more about the region, and consider who has the ability to make decisions that align with our desired political outcomes? And then we need to understand what they value? Then we can start selecting targets. I think this way we will be much more effective. This is exactly what we did during the Kosovo war. We started by identifying who the main players were. What do they value? And we began to eliminate capabilities and destroy things they valued. This way, the war was very, very short and ended quickly. Therefore, you first need to understand who can decide and what is valuable to them? And you need to put those things at risk. In my opinion, this is where we will gain a proper understanding of the politics behind war. Not just saying, 'Hey, I need to choose this weapon to attack these targets.' This might be great for TV news. But it is not great for governance. It is not great for achieving results. China has significant economic interests in the Persian Gulf. What role can Beijing play in calming the crisis? That is a really good question. I think the U.S. government is oblivious to this issue. We are overlooking China's ability, across the free world, to provide resources and diplomatic cover for Iran, Russia, and North Korea. So, in this regard, I think Beijing has a lot of capability to contain Iran. Unfortunately, the United States thinks it is enough to just attack proxy forces in the region and then compel the Islamic Republic to do certain things. The key point is to know how they receive their resources. China is buying oil from Iran and providing goods, weapons, and money to Tehran's leaders. The United States can pressure China to do something about this. But the U.S. is reluctant to do so, as it may have repercussions for large companies. Perhaps if it does this, there will be consequences for the global supply chain and the prices of goods for consumers in stores. I do not know why the U.S. government is unwilling to apply pressure. I mean, the U.S. can, for example, sanction Chinese banks. We can exert a lot of pressure on China to stop supporting the Islamic Republic's bad behavior. However, we simply do not want to do this. The same goes for the Ukraine-Russia war. Because we support Ukraine but are unwilling to sanction China for its support of Russia. China has taken the side of Russia by providing it with weapons and resources and allowing Iranian weapons to reach Europe in support of that conflict. Therefore, China has significant control over the actions of its proxies, which are Iran, Russia, and North Korea. Whenever the U.S. has used these levers, it has responded. Unfortunately, the United States does not use diplomacy and all the tools at its disposal to essentially pressure China to achieve the outcome it wants regarding Iran.