Name: Sen. Lankford says U.S. is winning Iran war but ‘there’s still work to be done’: Full interview
Uploaded: 2026-03-29T23:07:35.000Z
Duration: 15 min 26 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...

And joining me now is Republican Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma.

Senator Lankford, welcome back to Meet the Press.

I want to start off by talking about the war with Iran.

Senator President Trump continues to insist that the United States is winning.

Take a listen to a little bit of what he had to say this week.

You know, you never like to say too early you won.

We won the bet in the first hour it was over, but we won.

We've knocked out their Navy, their Air Force.

Senator Lankford, do you agree with President Trump that the United States has, in fact, won the war?

The major features of this was to be able to stop their production of ballistic missiles, of one-way attack drones, to be able to take out their capability to attack Americans and our allies in the region, to be able to stop their nuclear program development, to be able to halt that, and

then to be able to try to take down their Navy so that they can't endlessly shut down the Strait of Hormuz over and over again.

Obviously, there is still work to be done.

But if you want to talk about the military objectives, just about every one of those objectives have been hit and have been hit early.

Well, let's unpack that a little bit, and

let's start with the regime that is in power, because, of course, the Supreme Leader was killed.

And arguably more hardline than his father even was.

Is it a victory for the U.S. if the war ends with this regime still in power, Senator?

Well, to be clear, we've yet to see the new Supreme Leader anywhere in public or to make any kind of public statement, so we're not sure 100% about that yet.

But the administration's focus has been very clear.

This has been about taking out their nuclear program, stopping their terrorism, their ballistic missile program, and

reopening the Strait of Hormuz permanently.

We're going to have to work with whatever leader is there.

Iran is not going to bring in Thomas Jefferson to be able to lead Iran, though it'd be great to be able to see that for the people of Iran, to be able to have that kind of freedom.

It will be a different type of regime than what we would select here in America, but

it will be important for us to be able to have at least someone who's not trying to kill us every day.

Remembering that for 47 years this regime has been attacking Americans at every opportunity they can possibly get, whether it's Marine barracks in Lebanon, whether it's Houthis attacking just ships randomly coming across their coast.

Iran has been focused on trying to be able to carry out their acts of terrorism.

Every base that we have in the region there is a base there because of the threat of Iran.

This has been a threat for almost five decades now.

And President Trump has just determined it's going to stop.

You're going to stop trying to threaten and kill Americans.

can only confirm the destruction of about a third of Iran's missile arsenal, which is significantly less than the 90% or more that the administration says that it's destroyed.

Do you think it's a victory if the war ends with less than 100% of Iran's missile program destroyed?

Yeah, there's a difference between the missiles and the missile launchers.

We've been actively going after missile launchers.

You can't launch a missile if you don't have the launcher itself.

So the focus from the administration from the very beginning is, yes, taking out their production capability for missiles and all of their industrial infrastructure for that, but

taking out one by one the launchers so they can't actually launch these missiles at us and our allies.

As you know, there's a lot of discussion, Senator, about what exactly is going to happen next.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that he believes it is possible to meet all of the military objectives without putting U.S.

We should be able to do that for what the American objectives were and still remain.

That is taking out their nuclear program, stopping the terrorist threats on it, and

But I would tell you the President's actually bringing ground troops.

He is creating contingencies to put pressure on Iran to be able to finish the negotiation, to say we are capable of doing more and doing what the United States military alone in the world can actually do.

So I don't fault the President for being able to put additional pressure on Iran, saying, "Come to the table.

Let's get this done." No one wants a war, and

you certainly don't want a battle against the United States of America, the strongest, most moral fighting force in the world.

So I think the President's right to be able to put troops in the area and to be able to ratchet up the pressure on Iran to make a deal.

The Wall Street Journal announcing they could be preparing some 10,000 troops to be deployed to the region.

Would you support the President putting U.S. boots on the ground in Iran, Senator?

We've got to be able to know what the objectives are and what they're actually carrying out.

So to be very clear on this, the worst thing that can happen is to be able to have this kind of conflict start and to not end it, to leave it undone.

Again, almost five decades, Iran has been attacking Americans at every single chance that they have, at any moment, through their allies in the region, through all these terrorist proxies that they have in Iraq, and

all the way through Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis.

They're going to continue to be able to come after us until we make them stop.

The focus here is to be able to stop them from attacking us and to make sure it does not restart again.

So you say it is a different story when we're talking about U.S. boots on the ground.

Let me ask you bluntly, Senator, do you believe President Trump would need congressional approval if he, in fact, does want to put U.S.

If we have a longstanding war that's happening go back again to what happened in Iraq or in Afghanistan, yes.

If this is to protect Americans and to be able to make sure that we're in there for a season and we're stopping and getting out, that's very, very different.

It's an interesting question to be able to talk about on the political side, but

really the focus needs to be on how do we make them stop attacking us.

The President has the authority to be able to prevent someone from attacking us.

If we're going to have a longstanding occupation, that's a very different issue.

But I don't think that's even what President Trump is even talking about.

We're not trying to be able to go in and to be able to occupy the country or to be able to have a longstanding, long-term war.

So I'm looking forward to us getting this mission complete and getting out of there.

I just want to put a fine point on what you're saying, though.

Subtitles ListPlay Video

Sen. Lankford says U.S. is winning Iran war but ‘there’s still work to be done’: Full interview

tremendous

determine

demand

reward