Colby says nuclear Iran an ‘existential danger' to the U.S., backpedaling on past views
Elbridge Colby, the nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy, said at his Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday that he now views a nuclear-armed Iran as an 'existential' threat to the United States homeland and said he would provide military options to the administration to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon if necessary. Colby also sought to distance himself from Michael DiMino, who prompted alarm among supporters of Israel after being named deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East. Colby's comments suggest he's backtracking on his past views that the U.S. could contain a nuclear-armed Iran, and that the consequences of striking Iran to eliminate its nuclear program would be worse than those of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, which had raised serious concerns for Senate Republicans. But when pressed in detail about his past comments, Colby also tried to justify them by arguing he was merely pushing back against what he viewed as an overly hawkish consensus at the time. And he underscored, later in the hearing, that the Trump administration's goal is to reach a 'trust-but-verify negotiated agreement' with Iran — with a military option available. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), a skeptic of Colby's nomination, questioned Colby on his views towards Iran, saying he had concerns about Colby's past comments and that they were inconsistent with the administration's policy. Pressed by Cotton on whether he considers a nuclear-armed Iran to be an 'existential danger to us … not just a 'severe danger,' as you said in response to Sen. Gillibrand or a 'significant one' as you said in your written answers,' Colby said he agreed. 'Yes, a nuclear-armed Iran — especially, Senator, given that … we know they've worked on ICBM-range capabilities and other capabilities that would pose an existential danger to the United States,' Colby said. He said that it was consistent with his understanding that Iran's nuclear program poses an immediate danger to Israel and U.S. Arab allies and that Iran would have the capabilities to strike the continental United States within a few years. Colby agreed, when asked by Cotton, that if diplomacy with Iran fails and the U.S.' only options are a military strike to prevent Iran from nuclearizing or allowing the nuclear program to proceed and hoping that it can be contained, he would provide the administration with credible military options to eliminate Iran's nuclear program. At his confirmation hearing for a top Pentagon post, @ElbridgeColby said he now views a nuclear-armed Iran as an 'existential' threat to the United States homeland and said he would provide military options to the administration to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon if… pic.twitter.com/1EtVQEnQ4u Jewish Insider (@J_Insider) March 4, 2025 'I believe we should not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon and if confirmed I would believe it's my responsibility to provide credible good military options,' he said later, responding to Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK). Pressed by Sullivan, Colby provided an evasive response about his past accommodationist rhetoric about Iran. 'I would say a lot of what I was arguing against at the time, these conversations 15 years ago, a lot of the opponents I felt had a casual or in some cases even flippant attitude towards the employment of military force,' Colby said. 'That's a lot of what I was arguing against. Was my wording always appropriate, was my precise framing always appropriate? No.' In an exchange with Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), Colby said that his 'advocacy and commentary especially as a public intellectual, if you will, was pushing back against a lot of people who frankly I would say were quite cavalier about the employment of military force.' He added that the current U.S. leadership 'understand that we need to be militarily strong, but also understand the downside risks of the deployment of military force, it needs to be rational.' Colby said he agreed with Cotton that military options must go beyond providing Israel with certain bombs and leaving it to take out the Iranian nuclear program. Asked by Cotton if one option could be allowing Israel to use advanced U.S. bombers, refueling tankers and heavy bombs to strike Iran, Colby said, 'I wouldn't want to get ahead of the president on specific decisions, but I think those are the kinds of things that should be absolutely part of the discussion … and those would be the kinds of things that I would raise for the consideration of the secretary of defense and the president.' Again prompted by Cotton, Colby said that having credible military options on the table could make it easier to achieve a viable nuclear deal with Iran. Cotton, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also indicated during his questioning that he'd be open to a nuclear deal with Iran that fully dismantled Iran's nuclear program. Cotton recalled that, in his written answers provided prior to the hearing, Colby had said 'the United States should deny Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. Outside the hearing room, Vice President J.D. Vance, who introduced Colby, told Jewish Insider that the administration's policy is 'extremely clear, that we cannot tolerate nuclear proliferation, especially in Iran.' 'The president has been very clear he doesn't want to tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran,' Vance said. 'I don't know what Mr. Colby has written in the past, but I'll say that every single person that we nominate to a position is going to have at least one thing that they disagree with the president about. That's okay.' Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the committee's chairman, began his questioning of Colby by asking about DiMino, underscoring Republican concerns about the top Middle East official and the way that the selection of DiMino — seen as a Colby acolyte in isolationist foreign policy circles — has colored Colby's confirmation proceedings. Colby denied he was responsible for hiring DiMino and rejected DiMino's view that the U.S. does not have any critical interests in the Middle East, saying that is not consistent with the administration's policy. 'He does not speak for me and I think I have a number of views that differ materially from his, from what I understand, just in public reporting,' Colby said of DiMino. He similarly distanced himself from Andrew Byers, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for South and Southeast Asia, who has advocated for a dovish approach toward China. Wicker asked Colby if it was correct that Colby had 'made no determination as to whether' either man 'would be retained in those positions' —suggesting that they could be fired once he takes office. 'As part of not presuming, my understanding is that I should not be even thinking in that way,' Colby said. 'What I would say is that, if confirmed, I would obviously be only one person in a chain … but what I would commit to you is that anybody in my organization, if I'm confirmed, should be in line with the president's agenda.' The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations had urged senators on the committee to question Colby about his views on Iran and about DiMino at his confirmation hearing.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
22 minutes ago
- Newsweek
2024 Election Results Under Scrutiny as Lawsuit Advances
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A legal case questioning the accuracy of the 2024 election is moving forward. The lawsuit, brought by SMART Legislation, the action arm of SMART Elections, a nonpartisan watchdog group, filed the lawsuit over voting discrepancies in Rockland County, New York. Judge Rachel Tanguay of the New York Supreme Court ruled in open court in May that the allegations were serious enough for discovery to proceed. Newsweek has contacted SMART Elections for comment via email. People cast their ballots on the last day of early voting for the general election in Michigan at the Livingston Educational Service Agency in Howell on November 3, 2024. People cast their ballots on the last day of early voting for the general election in Michigan at the Livingston Educational Service Agency in Howell on November 3, 2024. Jeff Kowalsky/AFP via Getty Images Why It Matters The lawsuit could renew debate about the 2024 election, though it won't change the outcome since Congress has certified the results declaring President Donald Trump the winner. It comes amid unconfirmed reports that voting machines were secretly altered before ballots were cast in November's election. The federally accredited testing lab, Pro V&V, that signed off on "significant" changes to ES&S voting machines—which are used in over 40 percent of U.S. counties—"vanished from public view" after the election, according to the Dissent in Bloom Substack. What To Know According to the complaint, more voters have sworn in legal affidavits that they voted for independent U.S. Senate candidate Diane Sare than the Rockland County Board of Elections counted and certified, contradicting those results. The complaint also cited numerous statistical anomalies in the presidential election results. They include multiple districts where hundreds of voters chose the Democratic candidate Kirsten Gillibrand for Senate, but none voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate for president. Max Bonamente, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the author of the Statistics and Analysis of Scientific Data, said in a paper that the 2024 presidential election results were statistically highly unlikely in four of the five towns in Rockland County when compared with 2020 results. What People Are Saying Lulu Friesdat, the founder and executive director of SMART Legislation, said in a statement: "There is clear evidence that the Senate results are incorrect, and there are statistical indications that the presidential results are highly unlikely. "If the results are incorrect, it is a violation of the constitutional rights of each person who voted in the 2024 Rockland County general election. The best way to determine if the results are correct is to examine the paper ballots in a full public, transparent hand recount of all presidential and Senate ballots in Rockland County. We believe it's vitally important, especially in the current environment, to be absolutely confident about the results of the election." Max Bonamente said in a paper on the voting data from Rockland County: "These data would require extreme sociological or political causes for their explanation, and would benefit from further assurances as to their fidelity." Costas Panagopoulos, a professor of political science at Northeastern University, told Newsweek: "Statistical irregularities in elections should always be investigated, but the sources of such inconsistencies, which can include error or miscalculation, are not always nefarious. Still, scrutinizing election results can strengthen confidence in elections. Mistakes can happen. "In this case, the drop-off inconsistencies could reflect the idiosyncratic nature of the 2024 presidential election cycle. Alone, statistical comparisons to previous cycles cannot provide definitive proof of wrongdoing. "In any case, it does not appear that any of these inconsistencies would be sufficient to change the outcomes of any of the elections in question in New York state. That does not mean they should not be scrutinized, and any errors, if verified, should be corrected for the historical record. But there is not necessarily any need to invalidate any of these elections in these jurisdictions." What's Next The lawsuit is seeking a full, hand recount of ballots cast in the presidential and U.S. Senate races in Rockland County. A hearing has been scheduled for September 22.


CNBC
28 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump's 'big beautiful' spending bill could make it harder to claim this low-income tax credit
As Senate Republicans debate President Donald Trump's "big beautiful bill", a lesser-known provision from the House-approved package could make it harder to claim a low-income tax credit. If enacted as written, the House measure in the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" would require precertification of each qualifying child for filers claiming the so-called earned income tax credit, or EITC, starting in 2028. Under current law, taxpayers claim the EITC on their tax return — including Schedule EIC for qualifying children. The provision aims to "avoid duplicative and other erroneous claims," according to the bill's text. But policy experts say the new rules would burden eligible filers, who may forgo the EITC as a result. The measure could also delay tax refunds for those filers, particularly amid IRS cutbacks, experts say. More from Personal Finance:Job market is 'trash' right now, career coach says — here's whyWhat a 'revenge tax' in Trump's spending bill could mean for investorsWhat Trump's plan to slash Pell Grant to lowest level in a decade means for you "You're going to flood the IRS with all these [EITC] documents," said Janet Holtzblatt, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. "It's just not clear how they're going to process all this information." Holtzblatt, who has pushed to simplify the EITC for decades, wrote a critique of the proposed precertification last week. "This is not a new idea, but was previously considered, studied and rejected for very good reasons," Greg Leiserson, a senior fellow at the Tax Law Center at New York University Law, wrote about the proposal in late May. Studies during the George W. Bush administration found an EITC precertification process reduced EITC claims for eligible filers, Leiserson wrote. During the study, precertification also yielded a lower return on investment compared to existing EITC enforcement, such as audits, he wrote. One of the key benefits of the EITC is the tax break is "refundable," meaning you can still claim the credit and get a refund with zero taxes owed. That's valuable for lower earners who don't have a tax bill, experts say. To qualify, you need "earned income," or wages from work. The income phase-outs depend on your "qualifying children," based on four IRS tests. "Eligibility is complicated," and residency requirements for qualifying children often cause errors, said Holtzblatt with the Tax Policy Center. For 2025, the tax break is worth up to $8,046 for eligible families. You can claim the maximum EITC with adjusted gross income up to $61,555 for single filers and $68,675 for married couples filing jointly. These phase-outs apply to families with three or more children. As of December 2024, about 23 million workers received the EITC for tax year 2022, according to the IRS. But 1 in 5 eligible taxpayers don't claim the tax break, the agency estimates. Nine Democratic Senators last week voiced concerns about the House-approved EITC changes in a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. If enacted, the updates would "further complicate the EITC's existing challenges and make it more difficult to claim," the lawmakers wrote. Higher earners are more likely to face an audit, but EITC claimants have a 5.5 times higher audit rate than the rest of U.S. filers, partly due to improper payments, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. The proposed EITC change, among other House provisions, still need Senate approval, and it's unclear how the measure could change. However, under the reconciliation process, Senate Republicans only need a simple majority to advance the bill.


Fox News
33 minutes ago
- Fox News
Republicans challenge 'irrelevant' budget office as it critiques Trump's 'beautiful bill'
Both Republicans and Democrats have used analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office as a political cudgel when it suits them, but with unfavorable reviews of President Donald Trump's "one big, beautiful bill" coming out, some in the GOP are questioning the relevancy of the agency. The CBO's latest analysis of the gargantuan tax cut and spending package found that the House Republican-authored super bill would add $2.4 trillion to the national deficit over the next decade and boot millions off of health insurance. Senate Republicans will now get their chance to tweak and change the legislation, and have vowed to do so, despite warnings from Trump to reshape the bill as little as possible. Congressional Republicans have largely scoffed at the agency's findings, arguing that the CBO doesn't include expected economic growth or other factors into its scoring of the bill. "I don't care what the CBO says," Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., told Fox News Digital. "They're irrelevant to me. They were biased before. They've been biased in other things, but all the numbers speak for themselves." The agency's latest score found that the House's reconciliation offering would cut $1.2 trillion over a decade, add $2.4 trillion to the deficit and decrease revenues by $3.6 trillion. It also found that if the GOP's proposals to slash Medicaid stay as is, nearly 11 million people would be booted from their health care. That number cranks up to about 16 million Americans removed from the benefit rolls when factoring in Affordable Care Act provisions that are set to expire. However, the White House declared the CBO scores inaccurate, and argued that the package achieved, through a combination of spending cuts, reversing regulations ushered in by the Biden administration and tariffs – which are not part of the bill – roughly $6.6 trillion in savings over the next decade. Many raised issues with the agency's accuracy, arguing that they got the score wrong for Trump's 2017 tax package. "I mean, I heard the numbers are always wrong," said Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas. "What's the purpose?" Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas, agreed, and contended that it was "time to discuss the CBO being more damn accurate." Still, some Republicans believe the CBO serves a purpose. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said she didn't believe the agency should be done away with, adding "we need to have a source for scores." "We kind of go back and forth in terms of condemning CBO because we hate their score, or praising CBO because we like the outcome," she said. "And I think that's what we're seeing a lot of right now, is looking at that CBO score and saying, 'That's not real.'" Other lawmakers questioned what the alternative would be. Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., told Fox News Digital, "We need something," but acknowledged that he felt the agency was biased, and that both parties used scores "to our manipulation." Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., believes that the agency's score was wildly incorrect. Still, he is one of the main antagonists of the current bill because it does not go far enough to achieve deep spending cuts. The lawmaker told Fox News Digital that he believed the 50-year-old agency would soon be a relic of the past. "I think just AI is gonna replace them," he said. "I'm using AI all the time to do the sensitivity analysis. I don't need CBO to do these sensitivity analyses anymore, I can do it myself."