Something is changing in our country, and most
people feel it before they can explain it. Hello,
you're listening to the Steady State Sentinel
from the Steady State. I'm Jim Lawler, a former
senior CIA operations officer, and I've worked
on some of the most sensitive counterproliferation
and espionage cases in recent history. Today,
we're talking with Seth Hatena. Seth is an investigative
journalist. an author who has spent decades covering
national security, organized crime, and the intersection
of politics and power. He's the author of Trump,
Russia, a definitive history, a longtime AP correspondent,
and he's currently working on a book about a
Navy SEAL platoon set up to take the fall for
a CIA torture death in Iraq. He writes the Substack
newsletter, The Iceman, which I read religiously.
And so I'm very interested in chatting with Seth
today. Welcome to the Steady State Sentinel,
Seth. Hey, Jim. Thanks for having me on. Absolutely.
So, of course, everybody is thinking about Operation
Epic Fury, the U .S. strikes on Iran. Everybody
saw it coming. It was basically telegraphed by
the president and all of his senior advisors.
Is that type of strategic signaling or is something
else going on? What's your opinion on that? I
mean, the communication about this has been shambolic.
It's an embarrassment how poor it's been. I think
you need to hold two thoughts in your head about
Iran. I mean, you know, Iran has been a global
menace for, you know, almost 50 years. And, you
know, Iran has blown up our embassies and marine
base in Iraq. It's contributed to the IEDs in,
I'm sorry, not Iraq, in Beirut, excuse me. It
helped build IEDs that killed American soldiers.
I mean, it's been waging a campaign of war and
terror against us for 50 years. Changing that
regime or reforming that place would be a worthy
goal, but I have no confidence that Trump and
his people are at all capable of doing that.
You know, you listen to Pete Hegseth for 30 seconds
and it's clear this is a guy who has no idea
who shouldn't be where he is. So, you know, the
communication is a symptom of that, that we don't
know what the objective of the war is. Trump
has given aims that conflict with his own team.
And, you know, he's done this like an authoritarian.
thought really given to the consequences that
we're now seeing. Absolutely. In fact, I think
I've heard at least six or more supposed actual
objectives here for those four. I mean, first
we talked about, well, the nuclear weapons threat,
although supposedly they had obliterated that
last summer. Then we talk about the possible
regime change, let's say the Iranian people.
Then we talk about the terrorism conducted against
Americans and our allies all over the world.
And all of these are laudable goals, but I don't
think we have any one of these pinned down as
the real objective here. And if it is, if these
are the objectives, my question is, are these
achievable objectives? Well, yeah, I mean, regime
change. You know, I know what I've read, and
I know what I've observed from watching history
for years. We've dropped bombs on multiple countries
throughout our history in the hopes of changing
regimes, and it really has never worked. It didn't
work in Vietnam. It didn't work in the Balkans.
You know, it didn't work the first time around
in Iraq. But somehow we keep falling for this
fallacy that just we can change a regime from
the air. What I think changes regimes and what
history shows is that regimes fall when insiders
defect. That's otherwise it's a, you know, otherwise
it just kind of hunkers down. And in some ways
it can be counterproductive because now instead
of the enemy being the regime itself for the
people. And now we're inflicting all kinds of
suffering on them by bombing their gasoline supplies.
And I even saw there's an attack on a water desalination
plant. So we're causing major disruption. That
may actually help the regime in the end. I agree
with you. In fact, that attack on the desalination
plant, I know even a few months ago, the mayor
of Tehran was saying, we're going to have to
ration water. And that was long before this conflict
started. So we're exacerbating their water shortages
there. And of course, I'm sure the regime, the
IRGC, the Basij, people in the Supreme Council,
all of these, the Council of Experts, they've
all got plenty of water, plenty of everything
else. In all your talks with military and intelligence
officers in recent weeks, has anybody said that
they're seeing cracks in the regime? You know,
you mentioned that a regime might fall once people
start to defect, but are we seeing any of that?
I haven't heard anything like that. And, you
know, that's another problem is the loss of expertise
here is that, you know, are there... people in
government now who would know could recognize
that there are cracks in the regime people who
studied the you know the the the the theocracy
there and know how it works and know how to detect
the you know the slightest rumblings and can
read it i you know that's a question for you
really is there's been a tremendous loss of expertise
and and you know i'm wondering if we even know
how to read the signals anymore yeah i know one
of my dear uh friends, Lauren Anderson, who's
a former senior FBI special agent. She's very
concerned about the counterintelligence and national
security ramifications domestically, especially
right now when the director, Kash Patel, has
been firing so many very talented and very experienced
FBI agents. And I can't help but think that this
is making us much more vulnerable to perhaps
a very spectacular act of terrorism. Yeah, I
mean, that's a huge concern. You know, I was
talking to a former SEAL officer who said, you
know, I live in San Diego. Miramar Air Station
is right here. It's where Top Gun used to be.
It's a military, now it's a Marine base. And,
you know, he was asking, well, why isn't somebody
just set up on, you know, you can almost access
the base. very close by and their targets right
there. You know, we are very vulnerable to an
insider attack like that. And yeah, it's a very
dangerous situation. And, you know, to come back
just to that desalination issue, if we're blowing
up their desalination plants, you know, Saudi
Arabia. as far as I know, runs on desalinated
water. I think other countries there do too.
So is that now a fair target for Iranian drones?
Is that where we're headed here? I mean, we're
looking at a really combustible situation there.
So getting back to, say, domestic terrorism,
I was shocked a couple of days ago when I read
that the White House had stopped a Department
of Homeland Security bulletin out to police forces
and things about the increased chance of terrorism.
And supposedly the White House said, no, we're
not going to put this out. And I thought, wait
a moment. You're saying that we're not in a state
of alert here? That really bothered me. Yeah,
I mean, as it should. I mean, this is the problem
with Trump is that everything is about his ego
and becomes a personal insult to him. I mean,
this reminds me of the early days of COVID when
he wouldn't let a ship with, remember, with sick
passengers land because it would make his numbers
look bad, you know? So, yeah, he's concerned.
Look, he's a showman. He's managing this. He's
managing for everything for appearances. Everything
is being run. And this really bothers me. Everything
is being run for social media, including our
military attacks are being produced as little.
I don't know if you've seen this little snippets
of war porn of bombing and rock music. And, you
know, we proudly show off the boats we're blowing
up in the Caribbean. And it's and it's just,
you know, it's all a stage managed show. But,
you know, we are. Well, we crossed a major bridge
when we attacked Iran and, you know, yeah. You
talk to a lot of either current or former military
officers and intelligence officers. What's their
general feeling about this? Is anybody saying,
gung -ho, let's go in, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran?
What's the feeling among our men and women in
uniform? I think it's great apprehension. I think
there's nobody in the intelligence community
who's... who's pro -Iran. Iran is a regime everybody
wanted to see gone for a long time. But it's
the process that is gone now. I'm not even sure
we have a National Security Council at this point
who's advising on actions. There's just a great
big... question mark and apprehension about where
we are and where we're heading now. Trump, from
my view, seems to be a victim of his own success.
To his credit, he attacked Iran's nuclear sites
in June, I think it was. And this is something
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on. For
years, the national security community was saying,
we can't do that. We'll risk World War III. And
we did it. And it seemed to be a victory, a proof
that Trump, at least in that case, was right.
And he managed to release the hostages from Gaza.
pulled off a stunning raid in Venezuela, and
I just think he's become convinced that he can
do no wrong at this point. And so we're in a
bad place here. Okay, Seth, if you had a crystal
ball and you were able to look into it, how would
you predict that this conflict in the Middle
East ends? And what's your time frame, your best
estimate? I mean, this is Trump, so prediction
is a very dangerous business with him. because
he consistently defies predictions. But I suspect
I could ask him the same question. That is part
of the problem is that nobody knows. But I wouldn't
be surprised, you know, if we continue on this
track with he's very sensitive to economic pressures.
If oil prices, oil prices are very close to 100.
I think they spiked well above it. I think they
dropped down. Gas prices are a real barometer
of You know, strangely, gas prices are really
associated with presidential popularity. And
if both of those are climbing, I wouldn't be
surprised to see Trump in a week or so just say
we declare victory and walk away and leave this
mess to the Iranian people. I just I don't think
he's a serious. There's any serious thought here.
I think he's being run on vibes at the same time.
Iran could get lucky. Its drones could get through
and it could make this a more broader conflict.
It could hit Saudi desalination site. I mean,
you know, we've just taken the whole strategic
playing board and thrown it up in the air here.
extrapolate and look at broader national security
issues, what do you think our current national
security posture looks like today and how it's
different from, say, a year or two years ago?
Any thoughts on that? Yeah, I mean, I have thought
about that. I mean, I think the major difference
is that there's a lack of process, that decisions
are, you know, decisions for the presidency used
to be kind of shaped and focused by the national
security community, by the NSC, by advisors.
I'm not sure how Trump is getting his information
anymore. And the NSC process, maybe it wasn't
perfect, but a process can be fixed. If your
intelligence judgments are wrong, you can put
in a process to correct those. But how do you
correct a process where Trump is just kind of
deciding, like a king, to invade? And that's
the biggest difference I see, is that this is
an authoritarian move here. And there is no process.
There's no real thought being given to consequences.
You know, the fact that they're evacuating people
after the war begins, I mean, isn't that something
you do before? It just seems everything is kind
of, there just seems to be a lack of thought
and a lot of focus. And again, to come back to
that very simple thing they could do of communicate
the objectives, if they can't even do that, which
is, I mean, even an idiot like me could do that.
You could stick to a coherent objective. And
if you can't do that, then you're going to get
a lot of other things wrong. I mean, for me,
the significant question is, how does this end
and win? And like you and like probably 99 .9
% of Americans, I shed no tears at the death
of Khamenei or any of his thugs, you know, in
the Majlis or in the IRGC or in the Basij. These
people are human scum. But I mean, you could
have said the same thing about Saddam Hussein
and his Baathist thugs. But I'm not so convinced
that this is the smartest thing to do. I'm not
going to take any pot shots at our brave men
and women who are putting their lives on the
line overseas right now, doing their best for
America, for our allies. But it troubles me greatly.
I don't see any real coherency to these national
security postures. I mean, what would you do
if you were in charge, Seth? Let's say we elect
you king. What would you do differently to strengthen
our national security and also protect our civil
liberty and democracy? Oh, boy. I mean, well,
you know, I think recognizing your limit, you
know, the line I always love to quote is from
Clint Eastwood, which is a man's got to know
his limitations. You know, I know what I know
enough to know that I don't know enough. And
so in some way, you know, that means I would
have to rely on advice and consent and discussions
and competing opinions. So, you know, I would
reinstitute a process to get experts back in,
to get planners back in, to have people talking
again, to beg and plead our experts who we've
lost to please come back and hopefully peace
back. this broken puzzle here. But that's something
that also worries me. I'm jumping ahead here.
But in four years, let's just say hypothetically,
we do have a sane Democrat or a sane Republican,
let's say a sane Democrat elected. How do you
clean up this mess? Because anything you do is
going to be perceived in our hyper -partisan
lens as... You know, bringing back the deep state.
So, you know, I don't know how you get out of
this, where we are now. I mean, one of my questions
is, will any good come out of this for America,
for Iran, or for our allies? And I don't know.
I mean, I would hope so. I'm normally an optimist.
I like to say the glass is half full. But I'm
getting awfully thirsty here. And I really am
starting to have some severe doubts. I'm glad
our son was a Marine Corps infantryman in Iraq
for a year, and I'm glad he's no longer in the
Marines, but it troubles me a lot. Yeah, you
know, we've broken the trust. I mean, this is
something I kind of am very sensitive to, is
that, you know, what we did in Iraq. especially,
and to Afghanistan as well, but really Iraq,
really broke a generation of patriotic Americans
who were serving in the military to do good in
the world, who believed that America was a force
for good. You know, I've talked to many, many
people who are still patriots, you know, but
that destroyed faith in government for a generation.
And I wonder whether we would have Trump as president
today if that faith had not been so badly broken.
It's not the only factor. There's many. But that's
something I think about a lot. And that even
makes this more amazing that Trump did this because
he knows how his base feels about foreign conflicts.
And to just jump in here like this is real insanity.
Yeah. Do you think that's going to affect the
November elections? Yeah, I do. I do. I don't
see how it can't at this point. I think we've
kind of unleashed some global forces here that
are going to take some time to work through the
economic system. Even if we pull out in a week,
you know, we have countries are right now shutting
down oil production. I think Kuwait has, and
I think some other countries have, the Straits
of Hormuz, the nightmare scenario that everybody's
been fearing for years will be shut down, as
happened. And if you look at oil shocks, I mean,
they are extremely disruptive. I'm sure you remember
the gas lines. From the 70s and what that did
to America and how unstable things here were
for years as a result. So we may be reaping the
whirlwind here. And the longer it goes on, the
worse it'll be. You know, I was amused to read
recently. that Ukraine has actually sent us some
support, drone support in the Middle East. It's
kind of coming back. They're coming back. They're
faithful to us. And they're helping us to defeat
these Iranian drones that are hunting down our
ships and our people. And I was very pleased
to read that, that they're reciprocating out
of their gratitude for our support. How do you
think this situation in the Middle East will
affect the Ukraine conflict with Russia? I mean,
I think we behave shamefully towards Ukraine.
The way I see it is Ukraine was doing a great
service for us and for the world by really smashing
the Russian army and just turning that war into
a grinding slog that was driving Putin and another
brutal regime towards annihilation. Now we've
kind of breathed hope back into Putin. We've
given him life again. And I think, yeah, I'm
really disturbed by the way we've handled Ukraine.
You know, we really betrayed them. And yeah,
you know, I know people who are, you know, Ukraine
could, you know, we've... The American military
right now is behind in the drone war. Drones
are the future of military conflict. Ukraine
was able to hold off a vastly larger army and
is still able to hold them off with minimal,
with very cheap, simple technology that they
have mastered. And we're behind them now. And
if any country, they should certainly be helping.
you know, helping, you know, in Iran, but they
should be helping us. We, you know, I know people
who are trying to bring Ukrainian experts into
the American system. And the drones we're making
now are being produced by Anduril and, you know,
Lockheed Martin. And they're producing these
expense, what defense contractors always do,
these overpriced, you know, too fancy pieces
of technology. When it should be simple, you
know, mass production. And, you know, Iran may
teach us some lessons in that as well. You know,
they're able to field large numbers of drones,
and it gets increasingly more expensive for us
to shoot them down. You know, we're shooting
a $1 ,000 or $10 ,000 drone down with a million
-dollar missile. You know, that is a war of attrition
that we will lose. Clearly, the Ukrainians, out
of necessity, have made some light year jumps
in technology. I guess it's the old saying, you
know, if somebody's shooting at you, it focuses
your mind. And they are focused. This is truly
an existential challenge for Ukraine. And they
have really responded to it amazingly. I'd like
to turn shortly to you telling us about this
new book you're writing. If you could give us
a summary of this. I read about the fact that
this was a Navy SEAL platoon. It's set up to
take a fall for the CIA torture death. Can you
tell us a bit about that? Sure. So this is a
story. It's really an old story, but it's one
I've been following for 20 years or so. There
was a Navy SEAL platoon in Iraq that was working
with the CIA on direct action missions to capture.
insurgents and terror suspects, and this was
in the early days of the Iraq War. This happened
in November 2003. The platoon identified an insurgent,
a cell leader. They went and they grabbed him.
There were some problems with intelligence, so
there was a struggle with the scene, but they
subdued the guy. you know, captured him, brought
him back to their base. He was questioned by
the agency at their base. And then he was, agency
drove him off to Abu Ghraib prison and he died
a few hours later in Abu Ghraib in this torture
position with his arms handcuffed behind his
back. And his hands were behind his back, chained
to the wall above him. And he fell forward and
his arms rotated out of his sockets and he basically
suffocated to death. And the only people ever
brought to justice for this was a SEAL platoon.
And it ruined careers. It altered lives. And
it was part of the Abu Ghraib scandal. And, you
know, when that happened, the Defense Department
cleaned house and they found these guys, this
SEAL platoon. And, you know, they've been living
with it ever since. So, yeah, my book looks at...
You know, the whole history of the torture program,
of field missions, of the relationship between
special forces and the CIA. And, you know, when
that works well, as in the bin Laden raid, it's,
you know, it's a credit to both. But when it
goes badly, as it did in this case, it's not
the CIA that usually takes the fault here. It's
the special forces who do. And you have evidence
that there were CIA officers involved in this,
in the torture positions and things like that?
Yeah, I mean, there was a prosecution of some
of the SEALs here in Coronado, right outside
where I live in San Diego. And yeah, there were
CIA officers testifying. They testified behind
a blue curtain, but they were CIA. Yeah, it was
a CIA operation for sure. And yeah. It's real.
Do you have a working title for your book? Well,
that's where the Iceman comes from, because the
guy who died, his name was Manadel al -Jamadi,
but no one in Abu Ghraib could pronounce that
name. So he died, and his photos wound up surfacing
in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and he was
a corpse packed in ice. And so the soldiers there
called him the Iceman. So that's where that comes
from. Okay. And that's also the name of your,
your sub stack, isn't it? Well, it's the after
action report is really the after action report.
Yeah. And where, where can we find that? Is it
just a subscribe newsletter? Yeah. If you go
to sub stack and type in the after action report
or my name, you'll find both find me through
that. And yeah, welcome any new readers from
your podcast. So, Seth, do you have any last
thoughts or comments that you want to make about
what you're working on or what we're facing as
a nation? Yeah, I mean, I have a lot of concerns.
I mean, there's a lot we could talk about here.
I'm deeply concerned. I think things are happening
now that we won't find out about for years. But
something I think people should pay close attention
to is this fight between Anthropic, the maker
of the Claude AI agent, and the Pentagon. That
is a fight really about domestic surveillance
of Americans. That's what that boils down to.
And the Pentagon is doing something right now,
maybe under these new authorities that Trump
has granted to this national security. memo seven
uh which which targets um you know extremists
in america supposedly uh domestic terrorism and
i don't know what's going on but the pentagon
is involved and that's very worrisome for me
um and they are doing bulk surveillance of americans
and the way that's happening is it's perfectly
legal so uh you know The digital economy has
created a perfect storm for a nightmare for intelligence
and also a goldmine. If you're a spy, like if
you're you and you're, you know, and you're carrying
a cell phone, I mean, you're leaving a trail
of digital exhaust that can follow you throughout
the world without a team of, you know. KGB agents
following you around in a car or a team of surveillance.
You can be followed from your desk. And the American
government is using that information to track
Americans now. And I don't know the details,
but I think people really need to pay attention
to what's happening. Well, as a journalist, Seth,
are you concerned about them tracking you? If
you said something... unfavorable or, you know,
unpolitical, something that you suddenly are
on an enemy's list. How much does that concern
you? Well, you know, I always think about what
Seymour Hersh used to say. Seymour Hersh wrote
stories that are far more, you know, he got far
deeper than I ever have. And his response was,
look, if the government is following some jerk
like me, They've got bigger problems. And I think
that's true. I think if the government is wasting
its time and resources surveilling journalists,
that's the canary in the coal mine for something
else that's much worse is happening. Well, we've
already seen an example of that. They raided
a Washington Post reporter's home and confiscated
a lot of her equipment. Yeah. That shocked a
lot of people in the well, it shocked me and
I'm not a journalist, but I mean, this is really
a strike against the free press. It is. It is.
But, you know, Obama was, you know, he was pretty
aggressive against journalists, too. There were
a lot of leak investigations. Back in the Obama
era, we tend to forget about. It's been going
on for a long time. That's a fair statement.
But anytime we threaten the First Amendment rights,
it always bothers me, as I know it bothers you.
Well, I'm going to wrap this up, Seth, and I
just want to say thank you so much for coming
on our program today. Everybody, please subscribe
to his After Action Report, and we're going to
look forward to his book, The Iceman. And if
you like what you heard on today's show, please
subscribe to the Steady State Sentinel wherever
you get your podcasts and give us a five -star
review on Google. These subscriptions and five
-star reviews help us get this important content
to the widest audience possible. The Steady State
Sentinel is for you, our listeners, and we want
to hear from you. So stay informed, stay engaged,
and join us next week for another episode of
the Steady State Sentinel. For the Steady State
Sentinel. I'm Jim Lawler, still standing watch.
Thank you for listening to the SteadyState Sentinel
podcast. Don't miss out on more insights and
exposes from America's premier global security
experts. Also, subscribe to our Substack at substack
.com slash at SteadyState1 and follow our social
media and join us right here next week for another
exciting edition. The Steady State is a nonprofit
organization working to sustain our democracy
and national security. Join us and support our
mission by visiting www .thesteadysate .org.