Former Centcom commander: US ‘certainly vulnerable' to attacks in Iraq, Syria
Retired Gen. Frank McKenzie, the former commander of U.S. Central Command (Centcom), said on Sunday that he thinks U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria are 'certainly vulnerable' to retaliatory attacks by Iran.
In an interview on CBS News's 'Face the Nation,' McKenzie said he's not surprised that Iran has not yet retaliated following U.S. strikes on its nuclear sites, noting, 'I think Iranian decisionmaking is a little crippled right now because of the loss of senior leaders' at the hands of the Israelis.
But he said he's confident the U.S. military has taken steps to prepare for any future attacks.
'To your question about where they might strike, I think we're certainly vulnerable in Iraq. I think we're certainly vulnerable in Syria,' he said. 'And I'm certain that Central Command has done all the things we need to do to harden ourselves against those potential attacks.
'The same for our other bases across the region,' McKenzie said. 'I don't know that it would be localized to the region though.'
McKenzie speculated about the possibility of a strike on U.S. soil but noted efforts to achieve such a goal in the past have not been very successful.
'Iran has long harbored the desire to attack us in the United States. They typically have not been effective when they've done that. We've caught them in a couple of plots that are very public, that you're well aware of,' McKenzie said.
'So I think all those things are on the table, but it may take the Iranians a little while to work through this process, because nobody's excited about going to a meeting in Iran right now,' he said.
The interview comes as U.S. leaders are warning Iran from taking retaliatory actions against the U.S. and of far-reaching consequences if Iran does not take steps to make peace.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
A week of shifting descriptions of Iran attack spark ongoing questions about extent of damage and goals
A week after President Donald Trump ordered a U.S. attack on three Iranian nuclear sites, the explanations and descriptions of what happened voiced by him, top aides and early intelligence reports paint contrasting pictures of the extent of the damage to Iran's nuclear program. While the president and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth repeatedly claimed that Iran's nuclear program has been "obliterated," preliminary assessments — including from the Pentagon's own intelligence wing — painted an evolving picture as the week went on. Trump said he ordered the attack on June 21 to strike a uranium enrichment site located in 300 feet deep in a mountain in Fordo in northwestern Iran, an uranium enrichment site in Natanz and the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center following reports that Iranian officials failed to comply with international nuclear regulations. And as those early damage assessments cast doubt on the extent to which Iran nuclear program was crippled, several of Trump's top aides and allied lawmakers also appeared to scale back the stated goals of the attack. Here are some of the accounts and characterizations over the last week. Officials label mission a success, but provide few details to start On Sunday morning, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed Trump's statement from Saturday night, just after the strikes, that the sites had been "obliterated." "It was clear we devastated the Iranian nuclear program," he added. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, however, declined to go as far, saying it would take more time to assess the extent of the damage done. Hegseth acknowledged that damage assessment was ongoing but stuck by the description he and Trump were using. "All of our precision munitions struck where we wanted them to strike and had the desired effect, which means especially the primary target here, we believe we achieved destruction of capabilities there," he said. Pentagon initial damage report leaks Officials and inspectors from outside Iran have not been able to gain direct access to the bombed sites to make a first-hand assessment. Trump officials had a more nuanced take after news reports surfaced Tuesday about an initial Defense Intelligence Agency assessment that said the attack set back Iran's nuclear program only by months. On Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned the leaks of the military's report but did not go as far as to claim that the sites were obliterated. Instead, he insisted that "very significant, substantial damage was done" to key components of Iran's nuclear program, "and we're just learning more about it." At the same time, Rubio provided more details about the attack, including that the bunker-buster bombs were dropped on ventilation shafts leading deep inside Fordo's heavily fortified facility -- buried, officials and experts said, 200 to 300 feet inside a mountain. He ultimately acknowledged that it was difficult to get a read on damage inflicted to Fordo at this point, but asserted "the bottom line is real damage was done." That same day, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard claimed in a statement that the three facilities were destroyed. The director general of the U.N.'s nuclear oversight agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, said Wednesday that he believed some of Iran's enriched uranium had been moved from the sites before the attacks. Trump refuted that analysis. "It would have taken two weeks, maybe. But it's very hard to remove that kind of material, very hard and very dangerous. Plus, they knew we were coming, and if they know we're coming, they're not going to be down there," he said Wednesday. Trump reiterated that the sites and the uranium were buried under rubble and inaccessible, adding that trucks seen in satellite images at the plant before the attack -- which some speculated could have been used to move the nuclear material -- were construction vehicles being used to cover the ventilation shaft openings with protective concrete. According to the two people familiar with the DIA's classified report, the bombing sealed off the entrances to two of the three nuclear sites targeted in the attack but most of the damage was done to structures above ground, leaving the lower structures intact. The assessment also found that at least some enriched uranium remained – possibly moved from the nuclear sites ahead of the blasts. The next day, on Thursday, Hegseth held a news conference where he slammed the news media over reporting but did not make the same assessment on the nuclear materials. Asked twice during the briefing if he could be more definitive about whether the enriched uranium was moved before the attack, Hegseth said the Pentagon was "watching every aspect." At that same Thursday briefing, Caine noted it's not his job to assess the damage, saying, "We don't grade our own homework." Facility destruction downplayed by officials, ceasefire emphasized Hegseth also highlighted what appeared to be a different goal of the mission, arguing the attack had succeeded because it led to stopping the fighting between Iran and Israel — rather than the facilities' destruction because it destroyed Iran's nuclear program. "We got that peace, that ceasefire, that option because of strength, because of [Trump's] willingness to use American military might that no one else on the planet can do with the kind of planners and operators that the chairman just laid out," he said. Then, on Friday, Trump echoed that sentiment. "They put out that fire once that happened, once those bombs got dropped out, that war was over," he said. Still, the president claimed again that the sites were obliterated during a news conference. "We finished them off," he said, adding, "I don't believe that they're going to go back into nuclear anytime soon." Abbas Araghchi, the Iranian foreign minister said on Iranian State TV Thursday, however, the facilities were not destroyed and his country will have leverage in negotiations. The fate of the enriched uranium On Capitol Hill on Thursday, after administration officials gave lawmakers a classified briefing on the strikes, Republican lawmakers acknowledged that the U.S. strikes may not have destroyed Iran's cache of enriched uranium. But they said that wasn't part of the mission. "The purpose of the mission was to eliminate certain particular aspects of their nuclear program. Those were eliminated. To get rid of the nuclear material was not part of the mission,' Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., told CNN. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the "program was obliterated at those three sites," but added, "I don't know where the 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium exists. But it wasn't part of the targets there."
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Hamas leader and Oct. 7 mastermind Hakham Muhammad Issa Al-Issa killed in airstrike, IDF says
Israel's military 'eliminated' a founding Hamas military leader responsible for planning the Oct. 7 attack, Tel Aviv officials claimed Saturday. Hakham Muhammad Issa Al-Issa was killed during a targeted airstrike on the Sabra neighborhood of Gaza City, Israel Defense Forces said. Al-Issa was one of the final remaining founding members of the terrorist organization's military wing and played a crucial role in the Oct. 7 attack that launched the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict. Advertisement 'Issa led Hamas' force build-up, training, and planned the October 7 massacre. As Head of Combat Support, he advanced aerial & naval attacks against Israelis,' said an IDF post on X. 'The IDF & [Israel Security Agency] will continue to locate and eliminate all terrorists involved in the October 7 massacre.'
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
With Iran, President Trump faces his neocon moment
Donald Trump rose to the presidency on a promise to end America's 'forever wars' and avoid new military entanglements, particularly in the Middle East. He often blames global instability on former Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama, but he reserves his harshest criticism for President George W. Bush and the neoconservative movement, which he accuses of dragging the U.S. into costly and endless Middle Eastern conflicts. Yet with his recent decision to order strikes against Iran, Trump tied himself to the very neoconservative vision he once derided. Rhetoric aside, Trump has now become the ultimate neocon. And if he hopes to succeed, he must see that vision through. The neoconservative doctrine — crystallized during the Bush administration — aimed to reshape the Middle East by removing authoritarian regimes, eliminating weapons of mass destruction, and ultimately securing regional peace through U.S. military power. The invasion of Iraq was the signature act of this strategy. Trump has repeatedly ridiculed that war as a mistake, yet by launching strikes against Iran, he has adopted the same logic: The use of force to achieve long-term strategic transformation in the region. To avoid the very 'forever war' he once promised to end, Trump must now follow through on the neocon playbook. That means embracing a strategic objective beyond limited airstrikes. Trump must work on forever eliminating Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon, dismantling its theocratic regime and laying the groundwork for regional realignment — between Israel, Iran and the Arab Gulf states. It's a mistake to assume that Iran's current leadership is permanent. The shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, ruled for nearly four decades, and many believed his regime would last indefinitely — until it collapsed in 1979. The current Iranian Islamic Republic has now ruled for roughly the same length of time. Its longevity is no more guaranteed than the shah's. Recent Israeli — and now American — strikes on Iran have exposed serious vulnerabilities in the regime. By degrading its nuclear program and Israel demonstrating complete control over Iranian airspace, these attacks have shaken the foundations of Iran's power. Without the deterrent of a nuclear arsenal and with weakened internal confidence, the regime may be more fragile than at any point since 1979. If the Iranian regime were to fall — perhaps through an internal military coup, catalyzed by Trump's actions — the entire regional dynamic could shift. For decades, Iran has sought to dominate the region as the preeminent Shiite and Persian power, in opposition to the Sunni and Arab Gulf states led by Saudi Arabia. Israel, meanwhile, has viewed a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat. A post-theocratic Shiite Iran that prioritizes stability over ideological expansion could pursue peaceful coexistence with its Sunni Arab neighbors — and possibly reach a détente with Israel. Such a transformation could usher in an era of relative peace and stability in a region long defined by conflict. But this outcome is only possible if Trump commits to completing the strategy he has now initiated. Without that commitment, his strike on Iran merely risks escalating tensions without achieving meaningful change. A half-measure could backfire — provoking Iran into accelerating its nuclear ambitions and intensifying regional conflicts involving Israel and the Gulf states. This is the precise 'forever war' Trump vowed to avoid. Trump states he first ran against 'warmonger' Hillary Clinton, in part, for her support of the Iraq War, and he repeatedly lambasted Bush for what he called a 'stupid' decision to invade Iraq. But with his own decision to strike Iran, Trump now finds himself embracing the very framework he once mocked. The choice before him is stark: either follow through on the neocon vision he has inadvertently adopted or risk becoming the failed foreign policy leader he so often condemns. Charles K. Djou served in Congress from 2010-2011 and was a member of the House Armed Services Committee. He is an Afghanistan War Veteran.
