Name: Iran an 'imminent threat' every day, US Republican chairman tells Al Jazeera
Uploaded: 2026-03-04T23:02:03.000Z
Duration: 9 min 58 s
Description: Thousands of YouTube videos with English-Chinese subtitles! Now you can learn to understand native speakers, expand your vocabulary, and improve your pronunciation...

Joining us live now from Washington, D.C. is Brian Maass.

He is the chairman of the U.S. house Foreign Affairs Committee and a Republican U.S.

Thank you, Congressman Mas, for speaking to Al Jazeera.

I want to start with you because you argue that the objective of US Action is to eliminate an imminent threat to the United States.

What intelligence or indicators would you say have convinced you that, that the threat from Iran had reached that level?

So let's start recent and work our way back.

Obviously there is what has gone on just in the last couple of weeks with our negotiations that were ongoing in Oman, in Geneva with Oman, in Geneva, with others, and

the desire to say no nukes, no missiles, no proxies.

And where that conversation was going, which I can't speak to you about where everything in that conversation was going other than to say it led us to believe that there was the potential for a strike.

You go beyond that and you look at the US Aircraft that had been knocked off the decks of our carriers because of the drones and ballistic missiles that Iran or their proxies had fired directly at our Navy vessels.

You look at their harassment of our merchant marine vessels as an ongoing threat.

You look a year and a half ago at their killing of three US servicemembers members in Jordan at a place called Tower 22.

That being Sergeant Moffitt, Sergeant Sanders, Sergeant Rivers and the list of these continual threats go on.

In the United States, we designate Iran as the largest state sponsor of terror.

But what that means to me when I say they are the largest state sponsor of terror, that means to me that every single day they are an imminent threat against me until the day that I do not designate them the largest state sponsor of terror.

And I just want to shift here to the goals.

Now, you have said that the goal is to degrade Iran's military capabilities rather than enter a full scale war.

What would success look like from your perspective?

And how would Washington know that the objective has been achieved?

As our allies in the region know, we have a tremendous capability for intelligence because of our combined network of intelligence.

You've seen the operations that have taken place.

Destroy every single piece of Iranian military hardware that can reach out and touch American forces anywhere in the region.

Whether that's surface to surface, surface to air, whether it's the platforms that deploy them, whether it's caches of the systems that would go inside of some type of launcher, whether it's assets that are working as a part of their navy, allowing them to mine the Straits of Hormuz or other places, whether it's buried in the side of a mountain or whether it's a mobile platform moving across the road somewhere to destroy every single piece of equipment that has been used in the past or could be used in the future to reach out and touch us or our allies.

That is what mission accomplished looks like.

I believe that we can accomplish that mission.

And maybe to say one final thing on that point, it would be it's a worthy goal to say taking out the archer is easier than taking out the arrows.

And we are working to take out every bit of the archers that are deploying those arrows in our direction.

Congressman, you sound, you know, very confident there that you will achieve those goals.

How confident, though, are you that the United States and its allies can contain the conflict and prevent a wider regional war?

Because that is a concern for many of us here in the region.

We plan for the worst, we hope for the best.

But what we have going for us is every minute that goes forward, we are degrading their capabilities.

And at the same time, we are bringing more capabilities online.

Certainly the United States of America, but

certainly allies in the region as well, because they see the justice in what we are doing.

additionally because of the attacks that Iran has taken against those allies in the region that have caused them to say, you know what, we are not going to stay out of this fight.

We are going to get involved either in a defensive or an offensive posture.

And the US has had long standing partnerships across Middle east for decades now.

How do you see allies in the region responding if the tension does continue for a long time?

This is a tension that has existed for a very long time.

I would beg the question, why does the United States of America have forces across the region?

Whether in Bahrain, uae, uae, Qatar, in Sinai, Egypt, anywhere throughout the region, why do we have these forces?

And it is in part to protect what are our interests in the region?

And in part as well, because two things can be true at once.

So many of our partners and our allies want us there because they realize they are a couple minute supersonic jet ride away from Iran.

And without the United States of America's capabilities there, they worry about getting rolled over by Iran in the same way that Kuwait was rolled over by Iraq.

We are that hedge of protection we have been that hedge of protection against that.

And so it's numerous fold reasons why we have that presence there.

I think that relationship and that recognition of the protection that we provide I think will continue.

And what the point is that the United States of America has gotten to is we are no longer going to stand by and be harassed or be attacked by Iran.

We're not going to have US Sailors put on their knees on an Iranian vessel and then go in the future and reward them with billions of dollars.

We are going to instead, once and for all put Iran on their knees and never have to respond to that threat again.

And as you said there, that you are, as in the US a hedge of protection.

And that's certainly been the case when it comes to Israel.

You've been a strong supporter of Israel yourself and its security.

So that leads me to ask you in the current environment, how do you think US Attacks against Iran would serve Israel's long term security concerns?

And let's add to this certainly a hedge of protection for Qatar, uae, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the list goes on and on.

Again, what I already outlined against that threat, that is Iran and that is being proven by Iran right now.

But I think what it does for all of those allies, to include Israel and to include all US Forces in the region, is to say our goal is to eliminate every single platform that can reach out and touch us.

That means the United States and that means all of our allies that are in between there.

All of us are in a stronger position when that goal reaches mission accomplished.

And we are not in the business of failing.

We are not in this to not reach our objective.

We are in this to get to mission accomplished and change the face of the world so that Iran is, is no longer the largest state sponsor of terror, no longer the largest instability anywhere across the globe because of what they do with their ballistic missile platforms, where they sell their shaheed drones to, what they work to develop in terms of nuclear weapons or even have the capabilities for some type of dirty device or a more old rudimentary type nuclear weapons system, what they do in training their proxies to bring terrorism across the entire region.

All of that comes to an end and we are all better for it.

And I just want to, Congressman Moss, turn to diplomacy now.

We did hear from US President Donald Trump earlier saying that it's too late for that.

What conditions do you think, if any, would need to be in place for there to be space there for diplomacy with Iran, for it to resume.

And do you believe the relationship has now entered a fundamentally different phase?

Yes, I believe that we've entered the United States of America's strongest round of negotiations with Iran in history is the way that I would classify that.

And what needs to take place to step back to the negotiating table would be to say, okay, Iran, we acknowledge that we are in a position that we will say, no pursuit of nukes, no pursuit of ballistic missiles, no support of any terrorist proxies anywhere in the region or within our shores.

If they say they are willing to meet those as a starting negotiating point, then I think the United States of America would step to the table and say, okay, let's begin the process.

I think we would continue attacks until we get to the point of finalizing an agreement, deroding destroying that infrastructure that we are working at right now, because we are not going to give them an opportunity to regroup, to take a breath.

We're not going to take our foot off their throat in any way, shape or form.

And so if they want to step up with that as a plan, that is a proposal.

But I don't think there's going to be much conversation until that time.

That's the U.S. republican Congressman Brian Mast, also the chairman of the U.S. house Foreign Affairs Committee.