Over the past two weeks, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., of the 9th Congressional District, has made the rounds on cable news shows to discuss the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran, which began Feb. 28. As the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Smith has oversight of the Department of Defense (DOD) and receives regular briefings from the Pentagon. This means he has far more knowledge and understanding of military actions than the average congressional member.
As of March 11, the Pentagon has reported that seven U.S. service members have been killed, with at least 140 injured. Tel Aviv has reported that 13 Israelis have been killed, with at least 2,000 injured. Iran has reported at least 1,255 people killed, mostly civilians, along with the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The country has named Khamenei's son, Mojtaba Khamenei, to succeed him. As of publication time, there was no indication when the conflict, which has affected numerous Middle East countries, will end.
The Emerald spoke on the phone with Smith, who represents South Seattle, on March 10, while he was traveling between local events. The conversation touched on the causes and consequences of the war, the Congressional response, and Trump's propensity to lie. The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Many members in Congress seem to be against a war with Iran over process concerns, like not getting authorization from Congress first, but would generally support the war. You released a statement after the initial bombing saying that you were against the war. But I want to confirm that you are against the war over both the process and the war itself?
Before [Trump] started this, I've been saying this over and over and over again: The military is not the solution to our challenges with Iran. I am ultimately opposed to the war. But it also matters that Trump decided that he could just do this unilaterally against the will of the public and without any effort whatsoever to make the case for what he was doing, the goal, or [what the] objective was, and why he felt it was important. I think that level of executive power being exercised that way is unprecedented and troubling all on its own. But yeah, the war by itself is a bad idea, even if he had done it the right way.
Something that I have seen a lot of congressional members focus on is, "He should have come to us first." But then not answer: "Should we be in this war in the first place?" It seems like a tacit approval.
I totally agree with you, and I think it's really important to understand why. I think what a lot of the people in that position … think [is], "Okay, if I come out admittedly opposed to the war, then that means I'm okay with everything Iran is doing."
I think they see it that way, and that is simply wrong. I mean, you can be very much against Iran's efforts to build a nuclear weapon, their ballistic missiles program, against their threatening of Israel, against their support of Hezbollah and Hamas and militias in Iraq, and all of that — and still say, "That's all a problem, but it's a problem [that we're] going to have to figure out how to contain without using the military." Because there is no easy military solution, and the cost of trying to use the military is just too high.
I've been doing interviews on NewsMax, and I did one interview with Katie Pavlich on NewsNation, former Fox News person, who just kept pummeling me throughout it. "So you're okay with their nuclear weapons program? You're okay with their ballistic missiles program? You don't care that they tried to kill President Trump." Which, by the way, there's not a ton of evidence that they did. But that point aside, I'm like, "No, I'm not okay with any of that. It's just war is not necessarily the answer to a situation where you're not getting what you want."
And that is how we stumble into all of these conflicts [because] people are like, "Well, gosh, Saddam Hussein is terrible. You know, if we just leave Afghanistan maybe the Taliban will come back. You know, Muammar Gaddafi," and all of that is true, but what I've learned is if you're going to use the military, what happens? Do you get the outcome that you want? Most of the time, no, and all of the time, the cost is horrific.
You had an NPR interview last week where you were talking about getting a briefing from the Secretary of State [Marco Rubio] and the military about what's happening. And after that briefing, Rubio said the U.S. initiated bombing Iran because Israel was planning to bomb Iran first.
And earlier that week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement that U.S. involvement "allows us to do what I have been hoping to do for 40 years: to deliver a crushing blow to the terror regime." Secretary Rubio ended up walking his statement back.
But should the U.S. have initiated the war because Israel was planning to attack, and is it a general problem that U.S. foreign policy is dictated by the desires of another country?
Let me get to the first part of the question, and that's whether or not what Rubio alluded to on several occasions is true. I don't doubt for a second that Netanyahu was pushing for this action. Whether or not it's true that that's why we did it, I don't think it is [true]: We did it because Donald Trump wanted to do it. And I think it's really important to make sure that we hold Donald Trump accountable for that.
The other thing to understand is [that] what Rubio was trying to do in that answer is another allegation in this, in addition to the fact that they did [not] ask Congress, was that the attack was illegal because there was no imminent attack on the U.S. This is a very technical, legal thing. And if there is no imminent threat, then you don't have the right to start a war, basically. We have signed on to every international treaty to this point.
So Rubio was trying to say no, the attack was imminent, not because Iran was going to attack us imminently, but because it was sort of like a bank shot: Israel is going to attack Iran, and then Iran was going to attack us, so therefore it was imminent. But then, very quickly, the president himself said, "No, if anything, I pushed Israel into this. I wanted to do this."
I think Trump is undoubtedly the reason we are in this war. To answer your question specifically: If that is not true, and in fact, we got into this war because Israel forced us into it: Yeah, that's a big problem, and that should not happen.
According to Military.com, there have been over 200 complaints of military commanders framing the war with Iran in biblical terms, and that President Trump was "anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth." What are your thoughts on these complaints, or these allegations, on these biblical terms in this war, and should they be investigated by the DOD and by Congress?
Yeah, they should be investigated, and we have, by the way. The moment I heard about that, I'm working with the House Armed Services Committee to look into it. And all of these complaints have gone to this particular organization that said they've received these complaints from service members.
The Pentagon, we asked to look into it, and said they've received no such complaints themselves. Now, I don't trust Trump's Pentagon to be honest about that. But we will investigate it. I do not yet have a firsthand account of that happening, [like] anyone in the service saying, "Yeah, this guy said this." It's all some commander somewhere said this to some anonymous person. So we have to get the facts on that. Knowing Secretary [Pete] Hegseth's Pentagon, and what he has done, it would not surprise me in the least bit if it happened.
What are your thoughts on what seems to be a Tomahawk missile striking the Iranian elementary school?
Editor's Note: On the first day of the war, news broke that a school in Southern Iran had been struck by a missile, with the death toll now rising to at least 165. New video of the incident shows that a Tomahawk missile was likely the cause, with the U.S. presumably launching the missile. The day after this interview, the Pentagon released a preliminary report stating the U.S. was responsible for the strike due to outdated targeting data.
Do you think that if it was American involvement, what consequences should happen? And do you think there will be a serious investigation by the Pentagon or by Congress?
We will push for a serious investigation. Donald Trump's explanation of it was ridiculous. We have not yet gotten the preliminary report back on what [the Pentagon] thinks happened. But no one in this war has Tomahawk missiles. Just so you know.
I think it's only the U.S., the U.K., and Australia that have Tomahawks, if I'm correct.
Right. So it's completely ridiculous what he said. There is absolutely zero evidence that Iran did this to themselves. There is considerable evidence that this was the result of an error from a missile strike by us. I think Trump is doing what he always does: lying and not telling the truth about what happened. We are pressing Central Command to provide us with that preliminary report, which should come soon. And if it happened, there should absolutely be accountability for the people who made the mistake.
There should also be accountability, in my mind, for Secretary Hegseth and President Trump because they both said, "[no stupid rules of engagement]," "[no politically correct wars]." I forget the ridiculous, little sing-songy definition that Hegseth has on that, but his basic point is "We're not going to pay attention to rules. We're going to kill who we have to kill." Well, there are consequences to having that cavalier attitude to civilian casualties in the midst of a conflict. And that is killing civilians.
We're raising funds to hire our first-ever full-time reporter and grow our capacity to cover the South End. Support community-powered journalism — donate today.