AMNA NAWAZ: For additional perspective now, we turn to retired Rear Admiral John Kirby.

He's the former White House national security communications adviser in the Biden administration.

Admiral Kirby, welcome back to the show.

Can I begin by just asking for your reaction to a little bit of news we heard from the Iranian foreign minister, saying earlier his country is ready for a U.S.

ground invasion, that they're prepared to fight U.S.

troops on Iranian soil?

We know President Trump hasn't ruled out ground troops.

What do you make of that?

Could that actually happen?

REAR ADM.

JOHN KIRBY (RET.

), Former Pentagon Press Secretary: I don't think that that's what the administration wants to do and I think they have been kind of clear, although they're keeping their options open, and obviously you don't want to foreclose any decision space by the commander in chief.

It doesn't appear that they're very enthusiastic about moving in on the ground and that kind of an option.

And as for what the Iranian foreign minister said, I mean, that's the kind of bluster you would expect to hear out of these guys to intimidate or to bolster their own sense of morale and perhaps point to their readiness to fight a ground invasion.

But I really don't see that right now as a strong option, and it certainly doesn't seem to be something that the Trump administration is really leaning towards in any great -- with any great energy.

AMNA NAWAZ: What about what we have heard from President Trump, in that he would back Kurdish militias if they launched an offensive inside Iran?

In your view, is that good policy and what kind of impact could it have on the war?

REAR ADM.

JOHN KIRBY (RET.

): You know, I think I need to know more about what their plans are.

I do worry a little bit about trying to foment an uprising when you clearly aren't going to be on the ground yourself to help direct how that goes.

I mean, you're counting on another party here, who may be well-trained or not, to sort of take it in a direction that you're expecting it to go.

And I think it could be very, very unpredictable.

I also think it's important to remember that, as your reporter just indicated, the Iranian people are staying indoors.

They haven't -- for 50 years, they have really not had the opportunity to develop a strong organized opposition or resistance effort.

They don't have arms and ammunition.

The regime still does.

So it's very unclear to me that this would be able to at scale literally foment an uprising that could topple the regime.

But, again, I think it's only been an idea floated here today.

We don't have a whole lot of more information about it to really judge it.

But it does worry me in terms of the additional violence it could visit upon the Iranian people, who are defenseless right now.

AMNA NAWAZ: If you take a step back and look sort of a broader picture at this war, the way it's been carried out so far, we have seen an evolving explanation from the administration about why it's being carried out, about why now it was begun as well.

And part of it centers around the idea that Iran is weaker now than it has ever been and that this prevents a nuclear-armed hostile regime in Iran.

In your view, is that worth it?

REAR ADM.

JOHN KIRBY (RET.

): I think, first of all, I'm not shedding any tears about the loss of the supreme leader or the pressure that the regime is under.

I get behind nobody in my hatred of what the regime has done in the region and to the Iranian people.

It is unclear.

Because the messaging on this has been sort of all over the place, it's really unclear to know and to be able to take confidence in the fact that this was something that really did present the kind of imminent nature of a threat that needed to be responded to as quickly and as swiftly as it was.

And I think we need to have more information before the American people can really make a judgment about that.

And while it's good to see a Pentagon out there doing briefings, and Secretary Rubio on Capitol Hill talking to the press, I think there's an awful lot more transparency that the administration really should come forward with here to the American people to kind of answer exactly those questions.

AMNA NAWAZ: If it does result in regime change, though, to a regime that has been hostile to the U.S., hostile to U.S.

allies, is that worth it?

I mean, if President Biden had had a chance to assassinate the ayatollah, would he have taken it when in office?

REAR ADM.

JOHN KIRBY (RET.

): Let me put it this way.

If, as a result of all this, a government can be formed in Tehran that is responsive to the needs of the Iranian people, a government that they have a vote, that they have a voice, that they get to install, and can bring them into the community of nations, which so many young Iranians really want to do, then obviously that is a good outcome of all this.

But the history doesn't point us in that direction.

The history says that, when authoritarian regimes are toppled or fall or collapse, most likely, they are replaced by other authoritarian regimes.

I hope that's wrong.

I hope that's not what happens.

But I'm concerned right now about the what next and certainly what's going to be a government in Iran that can be responsible in the region.

And, right now, I just don't see any signs that there's been enough of strategic thinking and long-term thinking about exactly what comes next.

There's lots of talk today about what's bombed and what's destroyed and what the Iranians can't do anymore militarily.

But I don't think we're hearing enough about what is in their future and what can be done to make Iran a more peaceful nation and, again, one that's responsive to the Iranian people.

AMNA NAWAZ: As part of that administration talk about this war, as you mentioned it there, we have heard from the secretary of defense talking about the U.S.

sending death and destruction from the sky.

We have seen him accuse the media of wanting to make the president look bad when we report on U.S.

soldiers who are being killed.

As someone who was responsible during your time there in the Biden administration for managing the message and communicating with the public, what do you make of how this administration is talking about this war?

REAR ADM.

JOHN KIRBY (RET.

): Well, when you hear the Joint Chiefs chairman, General Caine, do his briefings, they're very thoughtful, they're very contextual.

He's keeping it to the facts and the figures, and he's being very realistic and pragmatic about what we're doing and the resistance we're facing, the retaliation by the Iranian military, and he lays it out pretty clearly.

I think it's really important, when you're talking about issues of war and peace, that you're direct and simple and concise with the American people.

They need to know, they deserve to know, how their military is being used in their defense.

And, again, I take no backseat to anybody in terms of my hatred of the regime, and so hitting them while they are weaker or getting weaker, certainly from a military perspective, makes a lot of sense.

But I do think it's important, when we're talking about war, when we're talking about military operations, that we do it in a way that is respectful of the unpredictability and the uncertainty of what's going to happen in the coming days and weeks.

The truth is, we don't really know.

And I think humility when you're talking about war and peace is always a good thing.

AMNA NAWAZ: That is retired Rear Admiral John Kirby joining us tonight.

Thank you so much for your time.

Good to speak with you.

REAR ADM.

JOHN KIRBY (RET.

): You too.

Thank you.