Senators on the Armed Services Committee questioned the Pentagon’s top policy adviser, Elbridge Colby, on Tuesday on how the Trump administration’s strikes on Iran fit into its stated national security strategy.
The lawmakers focused on why his latest national National Defense Strategy memo, released in January, seemingly contradicts the attacks launched on Iran alongside Israel over the weekend.
“The NDS also says little about our vital interest in the Middle East,” said Republican Sen. Roger Wicker, who chairs the committee, as he laid out what he described as flaws in the memo. “This seems out of step with repeated military actions to deal with the ongoing threat of Iran.”
The 34-page memo outlining the Department of Defense’s agenda for the next several years suggests Israel should primarily defend itself against Iran without overreliance on the U.S. It leans into the Trump administration’s focus on pushing allies, including European and Indo-Pacific nations, to take up more of the mantle on their own defense from regional threats and downshift the U.S. military role.
Trending
In a short section on Iran, the Pentagon stated that “Israel has long demonstrated that it is both willing and able to defend itself with critical but limited support from the United States.”
Democrats in particular seized on language and broader wording in the memo that suggested less U.S. involvement abroad.
“Mr. Secretary, your NDS states, quote, ‘No longer will the department be distracted by interventionism, endless wars, regime change and nation building,’” said Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the committee, in his opening remarks. “Yet we have repeatedly intervened, started wars and sought regime change in the past eight weeks alone.”
In his opening remarks, Colby argued that the wider policy outline didn’t rule out the kind of action President Donald Trump is taking in Iran. The goal is to let allies take more of the lead on military operations in their region, Colby said. He said the Iran operation is an example of Israel and other regional partners doing just that.
“If you look in the strategy, it details specifically, not only the threat posed by Iran and ensuring that the President has the option to act against Iran first,” Colby said in response to a question from Reed. “I would say that we actually are, Senator, seeing a real example. Obviously, our Israeli allies are really leaning in. But we see that from our Gulf partners right now. We see it from other partners in Europe. So I don’t think this is an invalidation at all.”
Lawmakers noted that on Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told them in a briefing that the operation in Iran was launched because intelligence indicated that Israel was going to attack Iran, and that Iran would respond with attacks on U.S. forces.
The administration had previously given several explanations for beginning the Iran campaign. Trump said over the weekend that the strikes were to dismantle Iran’s growing nuclear aims and missile capabilities. His officials have also said the war is not about “regime change,” but Trump has encouraged Iranians to overthrow their government while it is crippled.
Sen. Tim Kaine, who is leading a resolution to assert Congress’ authority in declaring war on Iran, questioned Colby on how the language seemingly shifting the burden of defense against Iran onto Israel was approved by Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth if a plan to take military action in Iran was in the works.
“This does not get published on January 23 without the Secretary and the President saying, ‘I’m fine with this,’” Kaine said.
“I wouldn’t get specifically, into the specifics of coordination,” Colby replied. “Obviously, it’s signed by the Secretary of War. It’s not his statutory responsibility. But I would also say, I would, I would assert that this is the most extensively coordinated defense strategy in modern history.”
Author
