← Boots on the Ground: TV Clips
Kellogg on Newsmax: Troops in Iran, Finish Job
Keith Kellogg, retired Army lieutenant general, former assistant to President Trump. Newsmax, March 24, 2026.
Newsmax · posted 2026-03-24 · 7:28
Added to this site: September 27, 2026 · Transcribed: September 27, 2026
Original: youtube.com/watch?v=FHOItsg92KA · IPFS QmRFL9tv3gXbsbd8HKUZinswjJ6r4jW8BBRC77FXdJmVmZ
What this video shows
On the same day as his Fox & Friends appearance, retired Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, a former assistant to President Trump and his Special Presidential Envoy for Ukraine, made the same case on Newsmax. He says he does not trust the IRGC (Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the regime's ideological army), and that simplicity is a principle of war: "Let's just finish the job." By that he means getting rid of "the theocratic government."
Asked what the simplest way to end the war would be, he answers: "you actually use ground troops. You know, you basically put troops on the ground like the Romans did." He names the places — "not the interior of Iran, but you could take Kharg Island," the island off Iran's coast that he says carries most of Iran's oil output, and clear the port of Bandar Abbas near the Strait of Hormuz. Marines from two amphibious groups would open the strait, and "parachute troops, the 82nd or Rangers" would take Kharg Island.
The host asks whether American troops would be "sitting ducks" and whether the U.S. could be stuck there "for months or even years." Kellogg does not say no:
"We've crossed the Rubicon on war. We're at war. And that means there's risk involved. That means soldiers, potentially, airmen, Marines, whatever, potentially, you're gonna get hurt... It's long term. It's not a short term issue."
Where this fits: this clip is one of the TV clips calling for American boots on the ground in Iran. For the full story, what the public was told next to what was happening, see American Soldiers on the Ground in Iran — Videos.
Transcript
Machine transcription (apple-speechanalyzer · Source duration: 00:07:28 · Transcript covers: 00:07:28 ✓ full) made with Large File Bridge on September 27, 2026. It can mishear names and words, so check exact wording against the video before quoting it.
Several people heard, as you know, in Israel overnight, and into early this morning, following a new wave of attacks from Iran, it comes just hours after the president said, U.S. and Iran were at least engaged in very strong talks to try to bring this conflict to an end. How concerned are you that Iran will not hold up their end of the bargain?
I'm hugely concerned. I mean, I don't trust the Revolutionary Guards, the RRGC. When you look at, for example, they just appointed another IRGC former general, as the Chief of the Supreme National Security Council, that sends a clear signal. And when we kill Larry Johnny, they just put another one in there.
You put Galabar in there as part of the negotiating team for Moran. They're all IRGC. We've combated them for over 40 years. Look, you know, I'm a big believer in the principles of war.
One of them is simplicity. Let's just finish the job. We took away their nuclear weapons. We took away their military forces.
Now is the time where we get rid of the theocratic government, and go forward. And hopefully, we'll get some type of government that works well with the other Gulf nations. We're not there yet. I think we should be.
I hope the President thinks like that. I don't know. You got to give him full credit for what he's done. No other president has done it, but it's time we finished the job.
So how do we finish the job? I mean, I appreciate what you're saying, given your vast experience, about simplicity, but I don't see a simple solution to getting Iran to agree to end the war, the hostilities, essentially? They keep firing missiles, as I mentioned? They keep firing drones at other Gulf states, and wreaking more havoc.
In your eyes, what would be the simplest way to end this so the president could keep to the four to five week timetable? Yeah, you basically put a stranglehold on their economy. What I mean by that is you do you actually use ground troops. You know, you basically put troops on the ground like the Romans did.
You know, it's the only way you really control territory. And there was two places that I do it. Not the interior of Iran, but you could take Carg Island, which is 89% of their economic output, in oil, and it's a petro state, and you can clear the Bondero Bos near the street of Hermuz. You can do that with two amphibes for the groups, Marines, that are handed that way, they can help clear and open the straight, and you can take parachute troops, the 82nd or Rangers, somebody like that to take Carg Island, which sits 15 to 16 miles off shore.
Now you've got control of your economy. You know, even President Trump said 1988. with the New York Times interview. Take their oil, take Carg Island, and maybe that's what you need to do, finish the job.
Otherwise, we're gonna see this in five years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years down the line, and I'm tired of fighting these guys and working against these guys. Let's just finish the job once and for all. Absolutely. But one quick follow up on that.
Some reports I've read suggested, and this may be wrong, that if you send in the 82nd Airborne or another group, some kind of special forces, that they could be sitting ducks, for the Iranians and other bad actors to go after our troops, does the president potentially get into a quagmire if we're trying to take over Carg Island? You make it sound simple, so I wanna understand, make sure that I'm clear, and our audience is clear. Would the U.S.
military be sitting ducks there? How do we do it? So it's simple. Take Carg Island, as you say, stranglehold on the Iranian economy.
Can we do that in a short amount of time, or are we stuck there for months or even years? Now, you can note a short amount of time. Look, we've crossed the Rubicon on war. We're at war.
And that means there's risk involved. That means soldiers, potentially, are airmen, Marines, whatever, potentially, you're gonna get hurt. I've been there. I've seen that.
But we have to make that assumption that's gonna happen and finish the job. It's long term. It's not a short term issue. It's a long term issue.
Are they vulnerable? Of course, they are. Is there risk involved? Of course there is.
But it's, I think, it's the only way you really finish that job, is to economically put a stranglehold on them, and you do that through their oil pipeline, which is cargoyle in the straight of hormones. We can do it. We have the capacity and the capability to it both ways. Last thing on Iran.
You mentioned a moment ago, the president gets great credit for what he's accomplished so far. CNN had a guest on Miles Taylor, you remember, who's been a critic of the president. It was an anonymous, so called anonymous writing that book years ago. Maybe he wishes he remained anonymous, because he went on CNN last night, and got schooled as he tried to praise Barack Obama's approach to Iran.
Listen. Three of us ragged on the Obama administration for given cash to the Iranian regime to reach a nuclear deal. I think it was $400 million in palates. What Donald Trump just did on lifting sanctions on Iranian oil...
is already at sea. is 10 times... is much money. Well, first off, likely to be money, which is 10 times as much money.
He's giving cash to our enemies, lower abominable. Miles, do you think that the Ayatola prefers his life under Obama or under Trump? Look, probably... Yeah.
Probably Obama, yes? Yeah, Atoll is dead. You heard it... Scott Jennings owned it, as he always does.
The Aitoll is dead. Wasn't the Barack Obama approach vastly different than what we've seen from President Trump? Oh, absolutely. He can give great credit to President Trump for what he's done.
Look, I am surprised that national television allows miles to go on TV. You can't be that dumb and actually talk about things that are serious like war. And war is a serious business. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise.
And we've got some great people out there. It's not a business deal. It's a gunfight. And we've crossed that river, we crossed the Rubicon.
We're in a fire. Let's finish it. There you go. In terms of finishing a war.
Let's move on to what your portfolio used to be, which is special envoy, in terms of ending this Russian war on Ukraine. You were appointed by the president shortly after his historic victory, November 2024. We all know that the president said he was going to end that, you know, if not on day one, very early in this second term. He was repeatedly frustrated by Zelensky, the Ukrainian president saying, He's harder to deal with than Putin.
Do you agree with the president's assessment on that? And, you know, given your rule of simplicity, what's the simplest way to try and finally end this war in Ukraine based on your experience there? I know it's not easy, but that's your rule. How would you try to get there, sir?
How do we get out of this? Well, first of all, it's not a business deal. It's a war to finish, and Putin has been the aggressor. And you need to apply the pressure on Putin to do it.
Zelinsky is a hard ass, okay? I got it. He's a lot like President Trump. He's very direct, he's very hard, not in stature, but the way he is, and the way he operates, and the way he talks.
But I've been into Ukraine. I've seen the people. I know what they're doing. I've been to the battlefront.
I know what's happening out there. And I have great credit to the Ukrainians. What they have done in the last four years, plus, is astounding. They've basically taken and stopped the Russian war machine dead cold.
And you got to give them credit for that. And I think it's over time that Putin just has to realize he cannot win this war. He's not winning the war. He's not gonna win the war.
He, and he can do it. Declare victory and go home. There you go.
Last Updated: 2026-09-27