Morning Joe - David Ignatius: A longer, wider war than was expected

Episode Date: March 3, 2026

David Ignatius: A longer, wider war than was expected To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Our objectives are clear. First, we're destroying Iran's missile capabilities, and you see that happening on an hourly basis and their capacity to produce brand new ones and pretty good ones they make. Second, we're annihilating their navy. We've knocked out already ten ships. They're at the bottom of the sea. Third, we're ensuring that the world's number one sponsor of terror can never obtain a nuclear weapon. President Trump speaking yesterday about the strikes against Iran will have the very latest on the attacks throughout the region and the reasoning from the administration on why it took action in the first place. That's moving a little bit. Well, the reasoning continues to change. And Marco Rubio yesterday gave one of the kind of craziest reasons that I've heard yet. We'll play that for you.

Also this morning, the House Oversight Committee released. his video of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton's depositions in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. Excuse me, can I interrupt? I have photos that are being released of the secretary as she is testifying from inside this room. Can you please advise me as to whether or not that's permissible and consistent with the rules, particularly given that we have asked for public hearing. If there are photos that are being released of the secretary as she is testifying,

Can you please explain how that can occur? I'm done with this. If you guys are doing that, I am done. You can hold me in contempt from now until the cows come home. This is just typical behavior. We will go off the record. Oh, for heaven's sake. So I would like to understand how that's permissible.

It doesn't matter. We all are abiding by the same rules. I will take that down. Yeah, well. I would like to take a break at this moment. I'd like to have a conversation for now. Yeah, I will take that down a little too late. That was the moment Hillary Clinton.

learned a Republican member of the committee violated the rules by leaking a photo of the proceedings. We'll also show you Clinton's reaction to that same member who had these long, drawn out questions about pizza game. Willie, you've got to say, in retrospect, Arnold the Pig, chief legal counsel for James Comer, was smart getting out of Chappaquist. Sanneck, screw this, guys, I'm going home before that started. You look at two completely different things. Hillary Clinton so humiliated them, so owned them that if you go on X, you will even have people that have loathed the Clintons their entire career saying,

listen, guys, I don't want to be the skunk at the party, but I agree with Hillary. It was really that bad. And then there was this scene of an aging, Bill Clinton, obviously suffering through Parkinson's, being held there for hour after hour after hour. I mean, again, it's just, and I just sat there thinking, this guy has not been indicted by a grand jury. Like you all are doing something to an ex-president that nobody's ever done before, that hasn't. been indicted by a grand jury. Donald Trump was. And the president is sad. And you're doing this to a president in the party you hate who hasn't been president of the United States for 25 years. And you're making a guy who's almost 80 with Parkinson's disease sit there for how many hours,

will he? It was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was savage. It really was. Yeah, I I mean, Arnold the Pig was smart to schedule that dental appointment at the same time as this, just like James Comer did a few works prior. No reason to be in that room. And seeing the video of it yesterday really brought home. You listen to Hillary Clinton, for example, but there's much more in there. The line of questioning. The photo in the room was one thing, but the line of questioning about Pizza Gate and UFOs

and all the things she was asked about. As she sat there for nearly six hours and said, guys, I've never met the guy, never been on the plane, never been to the island. the wrong person in the room. And again, giving her the platform to make that case. There are people that you know very well, Republicans, one of whom is the leader of your party, who is all over the Epstein files. I think you've got the wrong people sitting in front of you. That doesn't mean they're not legitimate questions to ask of Bill Clinton, but so too are the legitimate question to ask of Howard Lutnik and a lot of other people inside this administration right now. So it was a charade, and the video exposes it for just that.

Yeah. And, and, you know, I said he had Parkinson's disease. I mean, there is, there's been some question about that through the years. But you just notice that Trump, you just see the age. And he also having him sit there for hours and hours. And he kept repeatedly say, no, yes, you know, okay, the president has been set. They sat down. They showed up. So who's next? Because there's a lot of people who are mentioned in the Epstein files who really should be doing the same thing. And Hillary Clinton, probably didn't need to be called for this deposition, but she showed up. I mean, she showed up, and the questions they were out, how do you feel? How did that make you feel seeing Bill Clinton in this picture? How did that make, it was, again, it was just absolutely preposterous, and we're going to play clips of that. And obviously, we're going to be talking about this war that we're getting deeper into it. And it's not, as we're, as we're With most wars, the enemy always has a say in what direction the war is going.

And the Iranians have not capitulated. Those who thought that they would immediately, obviously you're finding out that this war is expanding. With us, we have the co-host of the Restis Politics Podcast, the BBC's Caddy Kay, and columnist and associate editor at the Washington Post, David Ignatius, is with us. So to that top story, Iran continues to fire. drones and missiles toward American assets and allies in the Middle East. A spokesperson for Saudi Arabia's defense ministry said yesterday that the U.S. embassy in Riyadh was struck by drones, causing a fire and damage to the building.

This, as the United States continued to carry out strikes against targets in Iran yesterday, mass funerals were held for over 160 children whom Iran claims were killed in a strike on a girl's school during the opening phase of the war. The U.S. says it would not deliberately target a school and an investigation is underway. Exchanges of fire between Israel and Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon continued as well. Meanwhile, the U.S. military has announced that a sixth service member has been killed in action. Speaking at a Medal of Honor ceremony at the White House yesterday, President Trump said that plans for Iran were ahead of schedule, but suggested that the war could last a month or longer.

We have the strongest and most powerful by far, military in the world, and we will easily prevail. We're already substantially ahead of our time projections, but whatever the time is, it's okay, whatever it takes, we will always, and we have right from the beginning, beginning we projected four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that. You know, David, David Ignatius, you and I had talked before about the dangers of looking at this as another Venezuela. This is not another Venezuela. This is a regime that's been in power since 1979. They have infrastructure to fight this for quite some time. Their leaders are saying, we're not going to negotiate with you.

They're actually the reports that I'm hearing, and I'd love to love to get your reports. They're saying this is a war of endurance. They right now, they're sending cheap drones and trying to terrorize and exhaust, you know, American allies across the region with these constant attacks. And they're saving their missiles for later. And what you have right now,

the Saudis getting hit, a UAE getting hit, allies across the region getting hit. This war now expanding into Lebanon. The idea of a quick, as you said, on Saturday, Viking-like strike that the Trump administration was helping to have here, not happening. And the justification moves. We're going to play Marco Rubio's very strange justification we had to attack because Israel was going to attack. And then word that J.D. Vance was the one pushing the president to have a far bigger, far more expansive. attack into Iran, a lot of, a lot of cross currents in this story. What is your latest reporting

on where this war is and how long this war may last? So, Joe, this is a longer, wider war than I think anybody expected, in part because the Iranians are not suing for peace. They don't want to talk. The Viking strategy, if that's right, is confounded by pretty stiff resistance and the need to continue the battle. This morning, I received a message from the UAE just describing the situation there. This is a global hub that basically has been shut down. Air traffic in and out has been almost impossible at a time when people are being urged, in some cases, ordered to leave. So there's a lot of confusion, I think, across the Gulf, as people reckon with the fact that this could go on for a month. I think the economic impacts of the war are becoming clearer.

The Strait of Hormuz has been effectively shut down, so transitive oil out is going to be difficult. oil facilities in gutter and Saudi Arabia have been hit. So in all these ways, the length and cost of the war is clearer today than it was 24 hours ago. Also, Joe, as you said, I hear people talking about the somewhat confusing and occasionally contradictory explanations of the war by members of the administration. The Rubio comment that you referenced is the most striking. I'm effectively saying. Stunning. The imminent

reason we had to go to war was because Israel was about to strike Iran. And David, let's count these up right now. We have Marco Rubio saying we had to attack because Israel was going to attack regardless. We've heard they were

a week away or whatever preposterous date was given to it from having nuclear weapons. We've heard oh, they were about to attack us. All of these excuses have fallen by the wayside. Again, it appears they haven't settled on a justification for this. And the latest is, yeah, we had to do it because Israel is going to do it.

But again, I want you to talk about how Iran here has, as you predicted, was not going to lay down like Venezuela. Everything they're doing. like you're talking about cutting off oil in the Straits of Hornwood, why are they doing that? Because they believe that will give them economic leverage over Donald Trump. Everything they're doing is calculated. They had, I guess they've been planning for this attack, probably, since 1979. And Iran, if you can explain the geography of the country, it is a mountainous, spread out, extraordinarily difficult place to go into. So when Pete Higgs, other people are talking about the possibility of boots on the ground, they don't know what they're

talking about. So the idea of invading Iran continues to me to seem just hard to imagine. No U.S. commander in his right mind would try to do that. I can imagine special forces operations in various parts. But this is going to be a difficult campaign. we have to remember that the people in charge in Iran see themselves as revolutionaries, and they see the United States have seen since 1979 as their great adversary. And the war that we've predicted, awaited, feared for 47 years is finally here for real.

And Iran is fighting back as hard as you'd think. One concern that I have is the evidence that it's sort of. spreading to other Shia areas, the number of deaths of Shias in Indian, Pakistan, who were rioting after the assassination of Ayatollah Khomeini was disturbing. And I know people in various governments are looking at that with concern. But I think the simple point is you start out with wars thinking you have a straightforward objective, people presence, hope wars will be easy. Wars never are. And this one isn't. Changing the nature of this regime, which has caused such havoc and destruction in the Middle

East, I think remains a goal that sensible people should think about. The question is, at what cost and with what justification from U.S. officials? And those two are so murky. Yeah, we've been talking about these shifting justifications, depending on which administration official you talk to in the comment from Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Here is how he framed things when speaking to reporters yesterday. A message, by the way, House Speaker Mike Johnson then echoed a short time later. There absolutely was an imminent threat. And the imminent threat was that we knew that if Iran was attacked and we believe they would be attacked, that they would immediately come after us. And we were not going to sit there and absorb a blow before.

we responded because the Department of War assessed that if we did that, if we waited for them to hit us first after they were attacked, and by someone else, Israel attacked them, they hit us first, and we waited for them to hit us, we would suffer more casualties and more deaths. We went proactively in a defensive way to prevent them from inflicting higher damage. Have we not done so, there would have been hearings on Capitol Hill about how we knew that this was going to happen and we didn't act preemptively to prevent more casualties and more loss of life. They had to evaluate the threats to the U.S., to our troops, to our installations, to our assets in the region and beyond.

And they determined, because of the exquisite intelligence that we had, that if Israel fired upon Iran and took action against Iran to take out the missiles, then they would have immediately retaliated against U.S. personnel and assets. We have troops in harm's way, and we have men. Americans in the region, and that was of a great concern. If we had waited for all of those eventualities to take place, the consequences of inaction on our part could have been devastated. We don't know it at what magnitude, but you can assume, because it is common sense that if Iran had begun to fire all of their missile arsenal, short and mid-range missiles, at our personnel and our assets and our installations, we would have suffered staggering losses.

I mean, they can't be serious. I recognize that look in their eyes. That was a look that I would have when I was in college and my professor was asking me my take on the Odyssey. And I said, exquisite writing, exquisite writing, and then I would ramble. Those were two of the stupidest answers I've ever heard in my life. I'm embarrassed. Marka Rubio just said of Israel that,

They were the preeminent threat. The preeminent threat was Israel attacking Iran. So we had to attack Iran. Hey, sir, why did you walk into the bar and punch the bartender in the face? Because my friend was about to do that. So I had to punch him because I knew after my friend punched him, he was going to. This makes no sense. It certainly makes no sense geopolitically.

It's stupid. If this is, I can't imagine justifications for the war being stupor. They were doing much better just saying, they're that senator of terror since 1979. They had to be taken out. But this is getting insane now. It is. And it also flies in the face of everything we know. It wasn't like Israel was suddenly freelancing and snuck up on the United States who was going to do it. We have our own deep reporting. The New York Times has an extensive piece this morning about Prime Minister Netanyahu lobbying Donald Trump for months and months and months leading up to this day, how they picked the day completely in concert with Israel.

So the United States knew exactly what was happening and what Israel was thinking. But to your larger point, this is not what the president has said. This is not what other officials have said. They said there was an imminent threat to the United States. President Trump said that, meaning they had long-range missiles. He suggested yesterday that could reach the United States. Most people say that is not true. Most experts, even administration insiders, say that's not true.

The other rationale we heard is that they were on the brink. Steve Whitkoff said on Saturday, a week away from getting the nuclear material they would need to make a nuclear bomb. Most experts, most insiders say that's also not true. Willie, Willie, by the way, they got to pick something here. But Willie, I just want you to know right now, I am a week away from qualifying for the masters this year. So there you. No, none of this makes, Willie, I mean, this is the most, I think this is the most significant decision we've made to go to war since 2003 when George W. Bush decided. to go to war in Iraq, and they can't even get their justification for that war.

They can't, I mean, not only... Their story straight. They can't get their story straight. They can't get their story straight. And somebody, anybody needs to get them together, Willie, because we're looking stupid in front of the world right now. Yeah, those were not reassuring performances, shall we say, by the Secretary of State and Speaker of the House. And this is deadly, deadly serious stuff.

Obviously, six American service members are dead and many more across the region. So the comments we just played for you from Rubio and Johnson contradict earlier reporting from Reuters citing two people familiar with the matter who say Trump administration officials acknowledged in closed door briefings with congressional staff, there was no intelligence suggesting Iran planned to attack United States forces first. Iran's foreign minister responded to Secretary Rubio writing on social media. He, quote, admitted what we all knew. The U.S. has entered a war of choice on behalf of Israel.

There was never any so-called Iranian threat. That's from the foreign minister of Iran. Kadi K. And obviously now in some ways Europe has its eye on this war being drawn in in some ways as well. What is the reaction there to this step by the United States and Israel and to the scramble to find a justification for it? Well, I guess now we know why it was called the Department of War, not the Department of Defense, because there seems to be, and that's the perception I've just returned from Munich, Germany, last night, there seems to be a perception in Europe that this is an administration that is set on this kind of gunfire operations where it can go in and take out leaders.

It worked in Venezuela, as you've been pointing out, it might not work here. But we know from Iraq how important it is to have a clear rationale, to have a clear reason, and to articulate that, both the American people and to the rest of the world. because if you don't, if the reasons keep changing, it was because Israel was going to attack. It was because we were under imminent threat. Then you undermine confidence in other countries around the world. And other countries around the world will then start to say, well, what do we need to do now to secure our own defense?

What do we need to do to have our own mechanisms for defense? And you know what they start doing? They start looking at the countries that are not being attacked. Russia is not being attacked. China is not being attacked. North Korea is not being attacked. And you quickly get into a position where people start thinking, It's not just that we have to have a common defense.

We've got the Europeans at the moment talking about more common defense and even more common nuclear defense. I think that's the danger here is that if people don't trust America to have clear reasons to act in a way that is rational with global interests at heart, do we quickly start spiraling into a world that is less safe because people go for maximalist defense positions of their own? We want to bring in defense editor at the economist, Sha Shank, Joe, Shia. and David Ignatius has the first question for you, sir. David? So, Shashak, you follow defense matters as well as anybody that I read. Be interested in your assessment of this war, what, three, four days in,

whether this is stretching out to a long war, whether you hear concerns from Gulf countries and others who were involved in it, what you think the widening effects will likely, be, but just give us your sense of how this war is going and whether the Iranians are fighting with more than you would have thought. Yeah, good morning, David. Good morning, everyone. I think the interesting thing is you've articulated in the last 15 minutes how difficult it

is to understand the war aims here because they were initially articulated as being setting the conditions for regime change in Iran. And I was confident that that is a campaign that would take multiple weeks. That's not something done in a few days. What we heard yesterday from Dan Kane, from Secretary Rubio, from Secretary Higset, others, was a very, very different set of aims, narrowly focused around Iran's missile program. Now, that, I think, can be done in a shorter period of time. They can degrade missile stockpiles.

We've already heard the Iranians. The Israelis say they have destroyed about half of the Iranian missile launches that Iran's able to bring to bear. And I think you could have really long-lasting and severe damage done to Iran's missile program by the end of this week. There's no doubt about it. But the problem is you would still have an Iran led by individuals who are more hardline in some respects than the leaders who have been killed by the strikes so far. You have a new leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, General Vahidi, who is this man? Well, you know, David, as you know, he is a former head of the Quds force. the expeditionary arm of the IRGC.

He was associated with the bombing of a Jewish cultural center in Argentina in the 1990s. This is not a regime that will be more moderate, more pragmatic, more deterred than that of Ayatollah Hamenei. And so I still think at the end of this week, even though enormous damage may have been done to Iran's missile program, including the supply chain, the explosives, the guidance systems, you will still have the political problem sitting in Iran of a regime that casts this incredible and ominous missile shadow over the Persian Gulf. And I think the Trump administration will find it very hard to articulate that and frame that as some kind of decisive win. Shashank, as you point out, President Trump, even when announcing these strikes on Saturday morning, said, we have taken out the top leadership. Now Iranian people, it is your turn to

step in and fill the void and create a democratic country. We know many of you hate the regime. Go do this. He was speaking to a podcast. population of largely young people, unarmed young people going up against the IRGC, and these commanders who very much continue the legacy of the Supreme Leader. So how reasonable, how plausible, if at all, is it to expect now that the Supreme Leader and others dead that this movement can come back when just over a month ago they did take to the streets and thousands of them were killed? Look, I think the movement can come back. This regime has lost all legitimacy. It's hollowed out. It's hated by the people. There's no doubt about that. But no one is going to come out

while the bombs are falling. None of us would come out onto the streets in those circumstances. In fact, President Trump told them not to. He said, wait till I'm finished. Now, the other problem is that some of these strikes so far have targeted the state security apparatus, right? So Iranian-Israeli strikes have hit besiege headquarters across the country. The besiege, of course, are the paramilitary organization that did lots of the repression a few months ago. They have struck IRGC bases in different parts of the country. But I think the focus of these first three days of operations have been on Iran's missile forces, Iran's navy, and nuclear missile sites, as well as political leadership. I think if you are going to give the Iranian people the confidence

to say, if we go back onto the streets in a week's time, and we want confidence we are not going to be gunned down in the same way, I think what you need to see is an Israeli and American set of strikes over the next four or five days that systematically break down Iran's domestic security apparatus. I think that is a very hard thing to do. And I think that President Trump will face the dilemma between doing that and upholding his commitment to the Iranian people that he has made and sucking himself into a longer campaign. But look, he should remember the case of George W. Bush, H.W. Bush in 1991, who, you will recall David and others, called upon the Iraqi people to rise up in 1991 after the first Gulf War, and the Shias in the South and the Kurds in the North did so,

and they were massacred by Saddam Hussein. That should be, I think, a very, very cautionary tale for American strategy today. Defense editor at The Economist, Shashank Josie, thank you so much for being on the show this morning. We really appreciate it. And the latest piece on the war in Iran is available to read right now. Also ahead on Morning, Joe. more from Hillary Clinton's deposition on the Epstein files and how she handled House Republican conspiracy theories. Plus, we'll talk about what's at stake for Republicans and Democrats today

in the Texas Senate primaries as voters get set to head to the polls there this morning. And as we go to break, a quick look at... Are we going to talk to Bernie? We're going right to Bernie. We're going to go to Bernie. But I go to Bernie. I know you go to Bernie. You're Bernie. I get it. I get it. A quick look at the travelers forecast this point. morning from Acqueweathers, Bernie, Raina. Bernie, how's it looking?

Mika, some icey travel here this morning west of the 95 corridor, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, this is going to be rain. Same story in New York City. Snow over to rain in Bossie. Few inches of snow across northern New England late today and tonight. No problems across the south. Today's spotty shower in Miami. Clouds and limited sunshine in Atlanta. We're going to have some travel delays. in the Northeast with the rain and the snow and the ice here this morning. To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, download the Acuether app today.

Beautiful live picture looking south of Manhattan, 633 on this Tuesday morning. More now with the videos and transcripts released by the House Oversight Committee's depositions of former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. During her more than six hours of testimony, the former First Lady told lawmakers she had no memory of ever meeting Epstein, as Republicans turned then to unfounded conspiracy theories. You described Pizza Gate as a baseless conspiracy theory, alleging you and others ran a child sex trafficking ring from a Washington pizzeria basement. Have you reviewed any 2025-20206

Epstein files that were released that you believe reference or relate to those specific. 2016 claims regarding the Podesta emails, comet ping pong pizza used as code possibly. You're asking her about whether she's reviewed emails in the F-Team files, which relate to the wacky PizzaGate scam. You could characterize it however you want. I just would like to know if she's familiar with any of them. PizzaGate was totally made up. It was an outrageous allegation that ended up hurting a number of people that caused a deranged.

young man to show up with his assault rifle and shoot up a local pizzeria. I can't believe you're even referencing it. Do you think that Donald Trump should be deposed by this committee? Absolutely. If I were running the committee or I were involved in this investigation, I would be looking for people who maybe had some prior conduct that might be relevant to either money or crimes. And yes, I think that it would be in keeping with the scope of the investigation of this committee to set up a deposition with President Trump. I know he's been deposed many, many, many times. He's taken the Fifth Amendment many, many hundreds of times. So I'm not saying you're going to get a lot of information. But given what's in the file,

and given past and prior conduct, he would be on my witness list. So again, Joe and Mika, by traveling up to Chappaqua, this Republican-led panel, Republican-led panel, gave her the chance on camera to do that, to make the obvious point that you ought to be talking to the people who are all over the Epstein files. Well, and this is what we have said on this show. all along that these Republicans are only making matters worse for the current president

and the current first lady by calling a president who hasn't been in office for 25 years or a first lady who hasn't been office in 25 years. Who has nothing to do. And unlike the other three people I mentioned had absolutely nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein at any point, had never met him. But she had great advice. that perhaps maybe they talk to the people who do have something to do with the Epstein files and actually get justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and his, I don't know,

teams of creepy men who deserve to answer some questions before that panel and perhaps before a judge. So rich and powerful in Europe have been held to account. They're going to continue to be held to account. The rich and powerful in the Democratic Party or people that are connected to the Democratic Party, they are being held to account when you're losing their jobs, their professorships, their positions. Right now, it's only the rich and powerful Republicans that have not been held to account. And in part because of this committee, they are covering up, just like the Justice Department is covering up, not releasing all the files.

And this is, again, trying to help you. Yeah. This isn't going away, and it's not going away with your base. This is more self-inflicted harm. I don't know. We've been saying this now month after month after month, and you keep thinking you can cover it up. You can't cover it up.

There's too much out there. Let's bring it right now the ghost of our 9 a.m. hour. Staff writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, also CEO of the Messina Group, Jim Messina. He served his White House Deputy Chief of Staff to President Obama and ran his 2012 re-election campaign and has a snazzy article in New York Times today talking about how Democrats can win in 2028. Jonathan O'Meer, this is sort of pot-a-re. I mean, you've written about what's going on in Iran. Hard, though, to pass up a quick discussion of just how stupid this Republican committee was for stirring up the waters again.

And giving Hillary Clinton the microphone. to say the very thing she said. Yeah, you and I have been discussing this for weeks. I mean, they basically put the ball in the tea and Secretary Clinton hit it over the fence. It couldn't have been an easier swing for her. She's got a tremendous experience doing this. We all remember that Benghazi hearings

where she sat there for the better part of a day dealing with Republicans and some questions that were downright inane, so she's got plenty of practice. And this allowed her to pivot exactly as we heard her do, both in this new video. She also did so in the news conference she held outside afterwards with reporters there in Chappaqua, where she's like, basically, hey, you've got the wrong First Lady.

You know, you've got the wrong presidential couple here. Why don't you, I had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. And let's be honest, her husband who came in the next day, President Clinton did have some questions he had to answer. I think most Democrats acknowledge that that's fair. But still, it is the current occupants of the White House. President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump, who had far more extensive connections with Jeffrey Epstein are in photographs. We've all seen them. And Joe Mika, you know, this is something where there were some even in the president's orbit who were leery about this because it opens the door, potentially for Trump to be called maybe one of the Democrats, if they're to take the House. And again, every time, whether it's Trump's Department of Justice or Republicans in Congress, try to turn the page, either to bury the Epstein, matter or try to shift focus back on the Democrats, every single time it has backfired.

All right. So the White House is responding to criticism from some of the president's vocal supporters after they questioned the rationale for the war against Iran, among them, Tucker Carlson and Megan Kelly. Also, Marjorie Taylor Green, who has recently broken with the president on a number of issues. And then there's Matt Walsh, who posted this to social media, quote, so, far, we've heard that although we killed the whole Iranian regime, this war was not a regime change war. And although we obliterated their nuclear program, we had to do this because of their nuclear program. And although Iran was not planning any attacks on the U.S., they also might have been depending on who you ask. And although we are not fighting this war to free the Iranian people,

they are now free, or might be, depending on who sees his power. And we have no idea who that will be. The messaging on this thing is, to put it mildly, confused. White House press secretary Caroline Levitt issued a long rebuttal to that. And President Trump hit back at Carlson and Kelly, saying, quote, I think that MAGA is Trump. Maga's not the other two, adding that Kelly should, quote, study her history book a little bit. Yeah. Okay. So, yeah.

Yeah. I mean, you look at what's happening here. And Jim Messina, let's just, let's not confuse anybody. We are not saying that because of this war that's deeply offending the MAGA base, and because of the Epstein files, which we've seen, has really had an impact on the MAGA base, nobody's thinking, gee, in that base, gee, I should have gone out and voted for Kamala Harris.

Nobody's saying, gee, I'm going to go out and get my AOC flag and wave it high above my house. What this does and explain this, Donald Trump has been able to pull out people that have never voted before. He's been able to pull out young men, especially, that listen to Joe Rogan, Andrew Schultz, that listen to these people who've now turned on Donald Trump on so many of these issues. It's hard for me to imagine, but I'd love you to give me your insight.

It's hard for me to imagine a worse one-two punch to depress your base than having the very people, Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, Stephen Miller, who were yelling against Forever Wars and Kamala Harris will take us into Iran. President Trump will never take us into Iran. and now we're doing that, that's the one punch and the two punch is the Epstein files. This belief among the MAGA online that the Justice Department, rightly, a rightful belief, is covering up and protecting rich and powerful men. I mean, talk about what that does for your ability to get people out to the polls in an off-year election. Well, Joe, when you talk about midterm elections, what you're really talking about is who's going to turn out.

And when you look at the current Republican problem, in all these special elections around the country, Jonathan and I were just talking about this off camera, Dems are overperforming by 12.5 points. And when you look at why, it's not just Democratic enthusiasm. Republican enthusiasm has fallen through the floor. And I don't know who the brains behind their operation currently is, Joe. But if you want to start a foreign war, if you want to promise for 10 years, you're going to be the guy that gets us out of foreign wars. we're now in different operations in seven countries. At the same time, let's do the Epstein thing, apparently, which just incites your own base.

You spend the entire time talking about issues that they care very deeply about. They've gotten no answers to. And what do we also know? We know at the same time, voters out there, swing voters who will decide these elections, are out there screaming, hey, this is all too expensive.

I can't afford living. I can't afford health care. I can't afford gas. And so going into Iran is going to make my gas. more expensive, and it's going to continue to distract a president from doing what they thought he won what they thought he was going to do, which is focus on the economy. And so voters are really angry about this. 19% of independents say this Iran thing is a good idea. They're just screaming out for both parties to focus on them and not foreign wars. David, how much do you think the

outcome of this will affect how well this plays for President Trump and for the Republican party going into the mid-term elections. I mean, you and I were talking earlier about what the possible outcomes have been of a diminished Iranian regime that probably is still an Islamic Republic of sorts, but without the kind of military capability that it's had to threaten American assets around the world for the last few decades. Is that a prospect, is that a kind of outcome of this that Donald Trump, do you think, could sell as a win to the American public, to the skeptical American public, as Jim was saying? One big issue is what? One of the big issue is what level of American casualties there are. We should remember we're in the early days of this war.

The reports that I get from people who follow it carefully are that Iranians are depleting their supplies of missiles and drones quickly with this spasm of attacks on the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. So at some point they're going to run out of those munitions. The U.S. is now moving into a more intense phase of bomb. bombardment, both Secretary Hegeseth and President Trump said that yesterday, that the big wave, to quote Trump, is about to begin. So by the end of this week, it may look a little more different on the ground. I still don't hear a clear account of what the end game is.

They keep talking about what their objectives are, but they're things like depleting the number of missiles and bombing a nuclear program, but by their own account, was already obliterated. So I think through this week, as the fighting intensifies, so too will the explanation to the American people. If it's as confusing as it was yesterday, I think they have a problem. Jim, let me ask you about your new substack piece, which I think Democrats will be smart to sort of flag and pin as they prepare for the midterms and beyond to the next presidential election. You argue Democrats need to build a relationship in an effort to stop losing all the young

dudes. You get at things like TikTok, gaming, streaming, cryptocurrency, sports betting, prediction markets, and you kind of talk about a cultural reassessment as much as a policy reassessment. Can you kind of, it's a complicated issue, obviously, but if Democrats feel like they have an opportunity to get back some of these young men that they've been losing in recent elections. Where do they start with that effort? Well, Willie, I thought Joe would appreciate the all the young dudes, David Bowie reference, first of all. Second of all, if you look at the issues, you know, Dems bled young voters in historic numbers in the last presidential. And I think there's a view in my party that we just need to get on a couple Joe Rogan podcasts or we need to hang out with tech bros and it'll all be

find it's really just about, you know, figuring out social media. And I think it's deeper than that. Right now, the party's saying no to a bunch of things that young male voters like and do every day, like video games, like sports betting, like prediction markets like crypto. And they look at this and say, you're saying no to all these things. Maybe you're saying no to me too. And I think the party's also always best when we go back to the Clinton days or the Obama days of being pro innovation, pro new things, pro like things getting better. And right now we're starting to be in this kind of, you know, being perceived by these voters as a nanny state and someone who's saying, no, you can't do these things. And I think that's a really dangerous place to be. Instead,

we need to stop talking, listen to these young voters and meet them where they are, not where we want them to be. So, Jim, I wrote today about the fractures in the MAGA side because of the Warren Iran, following the Epstein matter. And no one suggests. suggesting that Trump's basically going to completely abandon him. But there's perhaps some weakness there. Maybe an opportunity, to your point, for Democrats to swoop in for some of those young men who broke for Trump in 2024, as opposed to Vice President Harris. Is this a phenomenon that we could see in play even today? It's the Texas primary. Yep. I've closely watched both sides, Democrats and Republicans, fierce battles. Give us your sense and also just your overall, what are you looking for tonight in what the first, I think, high wattage primary of the year. Yeah, this is the most exciting parameter we've had so far. What I'm going to be looking at is two things.

Are the young men coming back? Are they voting at all? Because that's a really important number. But more importantly in Texas, where the Latino's going. When you look at some of these special elections, Dems are getting back the young voters and back the Latino voters that Donald Trump rented in 2024. This will be a really interesting night because you have both a really hotly contested Republican primary and a Democratic primary. And so you and I look at the numbers tomorrow, we're going to look and see, where the Latinos go on. And if the Latinos are starting to come back to the Democratic Party in Texas, of all places, that is a very good sign for the Democrats in the midterm elections. All right, Jim Messina, thank you so much. His latest piece is available to read on Substack.

Now, also a great story about his efforts to make centrism combative again and to help Democrats take control of the message going into 2028. Great. And coming up, the impact on the war with Iran on the sports world. We'll discuss where things stand with Iran's participation in the World Cup as the women's team appears to protest the regime's anthem. And later, Minority Whip Dick Durbin joins us to talk about the upcoming war powers vote ahead of more U.S. military action. Where is this all going? Morning Joe, we'll be right back.

In an apparent show of protest last night, the Iranian women's national soccer team stood silently with their hands behind their backs, while the regime's anthem played ahead of kickoff in their opening Asia Cup match in Australia. In footage shared on social media, the team's manager was also pictured appearing to smile as she watched from the sidelines. It's not clear to what extent the team has. has sung the anthem previously, but Newsweek notes, photos from the last few years have shown the players placing their hands across their chests or saluting while the anthem sounded. It comes as the war has raised doubts about Iran's place at the Men's World Cup this summer in North America, set to play its three group stage games in the U.S.

It is unclear if the state-backed Iranian Soccer Federation will refuse to send its team to the tournament or whether the U.S. government will block it from coming. According to the Associated Press, Ron's top soccer officials said, quote, what is certain is that after this attack, we cannot be expected to look forward to the World Cup with hope. Yeah, which is a real shame for those athletes. And obviously, if the women last night were not singing along to the national anthem,

for good reason, women have been treated abhorrently, as have all of the people in Iran since 1979, unless you're associated with a small, small block of power of people. So anyway, let's bring it right now the founder of Men and Blazers Media Network, bestselling author Roger Bennett. His new book is out today. It's titled, We Are the World Cup, a personal history of the world's greatest sporting event. And obviously, we want to talk about the book, want to talk about the World Cup. I'm curious, so, Roger, about the disruptions. What are you hearing right now?

What are the biggest concerns for the disruptions coming out of FIFA? Well, the disruptions are many. I don't know where you want to start. There's the violence in Mexico. There's the domestic challenges here. There's the unprecedented challenge with Iran who are meant to be playing in Los Angeles and Seattle. We're 100 days out from the World Cup.

The joy of football for me is a, and the joy of football. joy of this tournament is that when two teams take the field, their nations, their histories, their politics, their cultures take the field alongside them. That's always felt so joyous. That's what gives this tournament the heat of an eclipse that strikes the entire planet for the simultaneous every day of its duration. But ultimately, football is a mirror that reflects society, reflects ourselves back to it. And in this moment, the reflection is incredibly ugly. And Roger, we were saying as you sat down here, this is not the first time that's happened. There have been other World Cups where the host nation has, you know, brought with it real questions, you know, for fans attending and for the geopolitics surrounding it.

So in that way, this isn't perhaps new. But the beauty of the games tends to shine through, despite, you know, extraordinary ticket prices and questions about FIFA corruption, the beauty is still the sport. In the modern period, this has almost become the entry. point to every World Cup. 2010, South Africa, in a run-up, we were terrified of that carjackings, the crime sprees, every fan was paralyzed. We were all going to be murdered on the way to the games. It turned out to be the most bullion World Cup I've ever been to with Mandela's shadow

and Africa celebrating 2014 in Brazil the year before. There were riots at every game as the social protest took over the football and the people demanded education. They demanded social services, not football. Brazil was one of the most dance-filled and memory-making for the world and for the United States men's national team. So there is that once the ball kicks off, once Leonel Messi takes the field, there is a cliche. This is the tournament that's, you know, wars stop for. We think the Super Bowl's enormous. 200 million people watch that. Five billion people watch the World Cup. And all I can do is pray that the same happens again in a hundred days time.

We certainly hope so. Roger, good morning. Always great to see you. I have my signed copy right here. I'm loving this book. We are the World Cup. It gets into, you talk about the World Cup as sort of a marker of time and a marker of history, including of your own.

And the 20 years ago in June of 2006 at the World Cup, you're watching at home as America is trying to entice its audience into, at ESPN into this game. And you hear something as you're watching one of the matches and you say, boy, America needs a better translator of this game and a better ambassador for this game. And here comes Roger Bennett. God bless, they could still do better than me. I like to think I'm the last thing holding the game back from going over the top, Willie.

But you're right, 2006. And you're right about the memories. I mean, it is. I wrote this book as a primer for every single American. Soccer, by the way, is now the third most point. popular sport in the United States, according to the economist. It's just surpass baseball as our third most popular. And 2006, I was watching England take the field.

The SPN had just invested deeply in the broadcast, but they had baseball commentators doing the talking. And the commentator said, the world's most famous soccer player, Charlie Beckham takes the field. And I screamed at the television. I was like, if only they had people who knew what they were talking about covering this, it would go like that.

My wife, God bless her, goes, why don't you do it? And I said, okay. And that's how ultimately the story of my life is America beginning to fall in love with this sport. By the way, Joe, you having this on, you were a pathfinder. This place, Morning Joe is where I learn how to broadcast live with Mika's encouragement every set. Mika's training every single week. And people like Tom Brokaw cut me off. I wrote in the book, Tom Brouca, cut me off the first time I was on.

So, what are we talking about this? We're America. And then two years later, he cut me off again. And he said, I was like, Tom, please not again. He goes, I now go to the Premier League every single week. And Mika, when we've got Tom Brokart falling in love with football, I do believe we've got everyone. You have everybody.

Well, you know, speaking of 2006, I was converted into 2006 World Cup by Zadon when France took down Brazil. And it was, I'd never seen an athlete do what that man was. able to do. It was extraordinary. But I will say throughout 2007 and 2008, I would always have people like, why are you talking about soccer with that British guy? And my answer was simple, is I, because I like it. If I'm interested in it, I think viewers are going to be interested in it. And they're interested in it because you've been so extraordinary through the years. I do want to ask you, you just mention it briefly about domestic issues. I do wonder,

How concerning is it for a lot of fans, for a lot of teams who have seen what's been going on in the United States with ICE, who's seen what's been going on with people that are here legally, that have green cards that are going through the proper channels, and for German tourists, for British tourists, for Northern Irish tourists, and they get brutalized by ICE agents and throw into prison for four or five months? What are you hearing across the world about concerns from fans coming to the United States when you have an out-of-control agency that's hauling people into prison for no good reason in many cases, especially these European tourists? Look, I think there's an enormous amount of uncertainty right now across Europe.

I mean, these fans, they travel with their team. They go everywhere home and away. They travel huge distances. I mean, the last time the World Cup was in the United States, European fans tried to charter a submarine to get here. I mean, there is nothing that will stop them following their football team. I think there's an incredible amount of uncertainty about the visa situation. That's what we're hearing from Europe.

But again, going into every World Cup, there is this rational fear. There's always a doom saying. The second the ball kicks off, it's almost as if it's cognitive dissonance won. rational fears, Neil, the emotions kick in, the memories are made. We've seen that every single time. 1994, the World Cup

was meant to go over the top in the United States. It's taken 30 years longer than I think anybody dreamt of at the time. But this World Cup, I do believe in all my heart. Being a football fan

is ultimately to be an incredible optimist to always restore hope. You know that with hope in your heart. And so all I can say is this book, this World Cup, is a feast of memory making. It is a place where the globe feels electrically connected in the most positive way. And all I can hope is what the world needs right now and we'll have it again.

All right, the new book titled, We Are the World Cup. Personal History of the World's Greatest Sporting Event is out now. Roger Bennett. Thank you. Congratulations on the book.