Planet America is an Australian Broadcasting Corporation television show1 which has been running since 2012. It is fronted by John Barron2 and Chas Licciardello3, and is an entertaining show which details what is happening in US politics. While it tries like hell to be serious, occasionally it cannot because of the craziness of the Trump regime. Often they will have US-based commentators on, to explain some aspect, weird or otherwise, of current events.
In an episode from a few days ago, they questioned former US Navy Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery about the US-Israel attack on Iran. When he was introduced it was stated by John Barron that he spent three decades in the US Navy, commanded an aircraft carrier battle group, served on the National Security Council during the Clinton administration as well as being a top advisor to Republican Senator John McCain4. The transcript of the interview is in the appendix. However, something was missed (see below).
What struck me about Montgomery’s commentary was that he spoke about the president as if the latter was normal, rather than a dementia-suffering malignant narcissist, and that the bombing of Iran was sensible, rather than a completely irrational, pointless war.
Much of what Montgomery says is padding, talking about ‘ways and means’ (i.e. bomb and missile attacks) and how things are progressing as expected. When asked how much leverage does Iran now hold over the US and allies with its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, it was then that he said that one of the end states of the war is for the US to be able to control traffic through the strait, and expects that this would take another one or two weeks of ‘ways and means’ (i.e. bomb and missile attacks). He also noted that it is creating a political challenge for Trump as he now has an economic risk as well as a military risk. Barron also asked if he thought Australia would be invited to take part in the mission (i.e. sending warships) to try to reopen the strait. Montgomery suggested that Australia was likely to be invited and that he’d be disappointed if they didn’t join in. He then rambled on about China, Russia, Iran and North Korea being the ‘axis of evil’ (I seem to have heard this before, a couple of decades ago) suggesting that this should be enough to convince Australia to “do the right thing” and participate4. Fortunately, like many other democracies, the Australian government has said ‘No’.
When asked about Trump sending 2,500 marines to the Middle East, Montgomery suggested that they were unlikely to be used soon, and then laughingly said that “I take the president at his word” that he has no desire to use ground troops4. Taking Trump at his word is a ridiculous position to take, as Trump rarely if ever tells the truth.
Then Montgomery said that Trump shouldn’t make the same mistake as George W. Bush in Iraq stating ‘mission accomplished’ long before the end of the fighting. This is something he was very emphatic about, seemingly aware of the nickname TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) for Trump, when he stated “The president, this is hard for him, but he’s got to maintain, persevere, live with the economic and political arrows that he’s going to take for the next two weeks. I think long term, it’s to his benefit to stick this out, do the full four weeks, allow us to establish the military conditions for success”. He noted that if Trump pulls the plug in the next week “the message to our international partners is that the United States lost this war”. Then he laughably said that Trump, for his ‘legacy’, for the good of the world economy, long term, cannot take his foot off the pedal4. Trump’s legacy is not something of which to be proud.
Despite this fairly long interview and the listing of Montgomery’s command positions and longevity in the US Navy, nowhere was it mentioned that he was a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD)5.
What is the FDD? It is a neoconservative ‘think tank’ based in Washington DC and, revealingly, was initially founded in 2001 as “Emet” which in Hebrew means “truth”. In the initial documents filed for tax-exempt status, it’s mission was stated to “provide education to enhance Israel’s image in North America and the public’s understanding of issues affecting Israeli-Arab relations”. The FDD is part of the powerful Israel lobby in the US6. Indeed, Sima Vaknin-Gil, former director general of Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs7, stated that the FDD works in conjunction with the Israeli government, including with the ministry directly6.
FDD opposed the agreement negotiated during the Obama administration in which Iran agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. In an article in The Atlantic in 2019, “no place else has made an institutional specialty of recommending hard-line Iran policies and offering detailed proposals for how to implement them the way the FDD has done”6.
So, Montgomery seems to be most concerned about the well-being of Israel. Of course, in his interview, there was no mention of the genocide in Gaza, or the invasion of Lebanon, nor was there any mention of the illegality of the attack on Iran because it was done without the approval of Congress. The loophole in the latter case is that ‘war’ was not declared; the term used by Trump several times was a military ‘excursion’. So, in fact this section of the constitution (Article 1, Section 8) is largely meaningless, as the US has not declared war since the Second World War, despite being involved in numerous wars since then8.
When Senator John Kelly and several other Democrats in Congress suggested that US armed service members should refuse to carry out “illegal orders”, Kelly was ‘investigated’ by the Pentagon, and the idiotic Secretary of Defence, Hegseth, attempted to have Kelly’s (retired) rank in the navy downgraded. This was blocked by a federal judge9. This incident demonstrates that the oath to which members of the US armed services swear to uphold the constitution is meaningless10. They are simply supine servants of the Mango Paedo and are willing to sacrifice their lives and the lives of countless Iranians in whatever unplanned, pointless, military ‘excursion’ he sends them on.
Diplomatic coda: In an op-ed by Oman’s Foreign Minister, Badr Albusaidi, who mediated talks between Iran and the US, he states that the US “has lost control of its foreign policy” to Israel. He also stated that a deal between the two parties was possible, as the UK’s national security advisor (who also attended the talks) has confirmed. These talks were continuing when the bombing started11.
Sources
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_America
- https://www.abc.net.au/news/john-barron/167134
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chas_Licciardello
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49vVpKgjQjo
- https://www.fdd.org/team/radm-ret-mark-montgomery/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Defense_of_Democracies
- https://isgap.org/our-staff/
- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/18/president-or-congress-who-in-the-us-has-the-power-to-declare-war
- https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgk4vl30vko
- https://blotreport.com/2025/10/04/oaths/
- https://substack.com/@arnaudbertrand/note/c-229913878
Appendix: Transcript of Interview with Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery on Planet America, 11.35-18.29 mins
John Barron: Mark Montgomery spent three decades in the US Navy. He commanded an aircraft carrier battle group. He served on the National Security Council during the Clinton administration as well as being a top advisor to Republican Senator John McCain.
John Barron: Admiral, welcome to Planet America. In your assessment, what has been achieved militarily by the United States in the first fortnight of this conflict?
Montgomery: Yeah, thanks. So, if I look at the ways and means, the kind of military ways and means, not the strategic end states, uh, but the ways and means, I think we’re doing about as expected. I would have expected this to be probably 20,000 strikes over 4 weeks and I think over two weeks, they’ve actually done about 13 or 14 thousand strikes. And what they’re really doing is they’re hitting at drone facilities and production, ballistic missile facilities and production, the naval capabilities, particularly ships and submarines, but now minelayers and missiles and, uh, actual mine stowage facilities, the enemy air defence, and that’s really pretty much done. The IRGC leadership and some of their facilities, and, and [sic] then finally the nuclear program. Each one of those is moving along with the exception of the enemy air defence. None is complete, but they’re moving like I thought they would. And I think within about a week, they’ll start looking at what do we need to reattack and, uh, because we didn’t get it right or what do we need to new attack [sic] because we didn’t understand it would, it was [sic] actually a target. And so I honestly, as a military, purely military, uh, operation, I think this is going about how Brad Cooper, Admiral Brad Cooper, the US Central Command commander expected it to be.
John Barron: And Admiral, how much leverage does Iran now hold over the United States and its allies with its effective blockade of the Straits of Hormuz?
Montgomery: Yeah, thanks. So, if I think about what the strategic end states are now, because whether regime change is one or not, I think the first strategic end state is change how the regime acts, you know, how it treats its Arab partners, how it sponsors terrorism throughout the region, how it threatens Israel and US national security interests. That’s moving along. And then there’s a second end state that’s for the United States to be able to control flow through the Straits [sic] of Hormuz to ensure that the world can benefit from the fossil fuels that come out of there. That is, you know, not achieved and a lot more of the ways and means are going to have to happen to trick the drones, the missiles, the mines and the fast attack craft that threaten shipping. And not just in the strait, people tend to focus on that small 21 mile separation, but in the transit schemes leading up to it. Historically, that’s where Iran has mined and done a lot of its attacks. Currently, that’s where most of its attacks are happening between that transit scheme and the port of Dubai. And so, to get that strategic end state right, it’s still going to take another week to two weeks of, uh, ways and means, that is military strikes. And as you pointed out, that’s creating a political challenge for the president who now has an economic risk, competing with the military risk.
John Barron: And Admiral, do you expect Australia will be invited by the United States to take part in a mission to try and reopen the straits? [sic]
Montgomery: Well, I think it’s likely they’d be invited. Um, I think it’s possible they’d come and I’d be disappointed if Australia doesn’t see who Iran is. Iran is part of an axis of evil. That is China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. All four of them are fighting Ukraine. Last I heard, Australia felt some support for Ukraine. All four of them have been terrorizing the Arab countries in the Middle East. The Iranian Republic threatens that as soon as they can get a hold of a nuclear weapon that they’ll use it immediately on the Jewish state of Israel. And they threaten US national security interests routinely. I would have thought that would be enough to convince Australia to do the right thing and participate in this, but I certainly don’t speak for the Australian government.
John Barron: Admiral, when you heard in recent days that the Trump administration was sending maybe two and a half thousand marines into the Middle east and additional naval assets, what did you guess their mission would be?
Montgomery: Well, certainly I understand why the other naval vessels are necessary, additional destroyers for the convoy operations I discussed. I see limited value in the marines and the amphibious ships. I’m not opposed to them coming around. At some point, there might be a reason you need them. I wouldn’t let them get anywhere near the Arabian Gulf until things were completely calm. Now, it might be that some point we need them some kind of offshore island or things like that. But again, I think that’s in the distant future. I mean, which is good because these ships go kind of slow. Uh, and when they get there, maybe things will be in a position where they can be utilised. But, the first thing that came to mind for me wasn’t, ‘boy, we need some ground forces’. I take the president at his word that he has no desire to put, uh, ground forces in Iran. So, these marines are not for that purpose.
John Barron: Finally, Admiral, what do you think the end of this conflict looks like? And as a military man, are you concerned that the president could prematurely declare ‘mission accomplished’ before the military objectives have been achieved?
Montgomery: Well, there’s only one way forward for a successful conclusion of this, and that’s to play out the campaign plan for at least four weeks. Now, he’s president. Elections have consequences. And if he makes a choice to terminate this in the next weeks or two and declare ‘mission accomplished’, I think that will have the same historical reference as George W. Bush declaring ‘mission accomplished’ in Iraq in 2003. It didn’t play well over time. The president, this is hard for him, but he’s got to maintain, persevere, live with the economic and political arrows that he’s going to take for the next two weeks. I think long term, it’s to his benefit to stick this out, do the full four weeks, allow us to establish the military conditions for success. If he pulls the plug in the next week, Iran will eventually control either immediately or very quickly control flow through the Straits of Hormuz. If Iran is left in control of the flow of oil and natural gas through the Straits of Hormuz, the message to every Arab partner, the message to our international partners is that the United States lost this war. But more crucially that Iran is in control of the resources of the Middle East and that is something the president can not allow to happen. So, for his own legacy, for the good of the world economy long term and for the effective security of our Arab partners, Israel and the United States national security interests, the president cannot take his foot of the pedal. The president cannot prematurely end this and we have to continue the military campaign through its natural military conclusion.
John Barron: Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery, thank you for being with us on Planet America.
Montgomery: No problem. Thank you very much, John.
Only ever watched small bits of it – and that was pre-Trump2 – so take my opinion with a grain of salt. Your discovery seems to confirm what I thought – it’s lightweight and relatively ignorant, possibly ‘okay’ for people who usually take no interest in the Benighted States. Can only think PA makers thought that others already do serious analytical lifting and were looking for a niche. Ratings and longevity appear to suggest they were right. Frankly I’m shocked.
Btw, Albanese and Marles both recently said Trump hasn’t asked them to get involved in the naval action. Implication – shouting ill-considered, often contradictory epithets on his social media site don’t count as adult consultation with an ally. My guess is they would both kiss his arse if a formal, considered request was made. We could proabbly send a decommissioned ferry and some used trawlers and shark nets if that helps, $$Donny$$.
Thank you. Most enlightening. I appreciate the overview.