Morning Joe - David Ignatius: Different messages, different accounts within administration on Iran

Episode Date: March 31, 2026

David Ignatius: Different messages, different accounts within administration on Iran 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.

Why is the president threatening what would amount to potentially a war crime with the U.S. military? And how do you square that with the administration repeatedly saying that the U.S. does not target civilians? Look, the president has made it quite clear to the Iranian regime at this moment in time, as evidenced by the statement that you just read, that their best move is to make a deal, or else the United States armed forces has capabilities beyond their wildest imagination, and the president is not afraid to use them. White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt dodging a question yesterday about President Trump suggesting the United States could attack civilian infrastructure if Iran does not reopen the Strait of Hormuz. That's a war crime, by the way.

The Wall Street Journal has new reporting that the president is telling AIDS he is willing to walk away, even if the waterway remains closed. Meanwhile, the war with Iran dragging down the stock market as Wall Street. is now on pace for the worst quarter for stocks in four years. Plus, we're learning more about the Air Canada flight attendant who miraculously survived the crash at LaGuardia Airport. We'll have an update on her recovery. Good morning. And welcome to Morning, Joe. It is Tuesday, March 31st.

And with us, we have the co-host of our 9-am hour staff writer at the Atlantic. Jonathan Lemire. CEO and co-founder of Axis, Jim Van de High, is with us. columnist and associate editor of the Washington Post, David Ignatius, is here, an opinion writer for the New York Times, David French. So we'll start with gas prices in the United States, crossing an average of $4 a gallon this morning. As the war with Iran stretches into its second month, it is the first time prices have surged to this point since August of 2022, when Russia's war against Ukraine shook energy markets. This just as the latest sign of the impact of the conflict in the Middle East on costs here in the United States. And new reporting from the Wall Street Journal suggests it may continue to get worse.

According to administration officials, President Trump has told AIDS, he's willing to end the war in Iran, even if the Strait of Hormuz remains largely closed. Officials tell the paper that in recent days, President Trump and his aides assessed that four the crucial waterway open would mean extending the military mission beyond the four to six week timeline. Given that, officials say the president decided that the United States should instead prioritize degrading Iran's navy and missile stocks while pressuring Tehran diplomatically to resume the free flow of trade. If that fails, the journal reports, Washington would press allies in Europe and the Gulf to take the lead on reopening the strait.

It's a move that experts call irresponsible, warning that there is no insulating the United States from the escalating economic damage associated with the closed waterway, as seen today in soaring gas prices and oil shocks. Meanwhile, attacks across the region continue this morning. Tehran reported large explosions, sparking initial power outages and Saudi Arabia. Arabia said it destroyed 10 incoming Iranian drones in the past few hours alone.

We're going to be going to our panel in one moment, but we actually have on the phone, Ed Luce, from Financial Times, a friend of ours, a friend of the show. And, Ed, I understand you spoke with the president. And yesterday, tell us about the conversation. Good morning, Joe. Yes, it was the second that I. that happened, and we're just cold calling him, you know, as one does. And he was struggling between what, that's what I call the Armageddon Taco Shuffles,

in that he was, you know, talking about taking around oil and how easy it would be to seize Kajar Island, referring to the Venezuela model of regime change by taking out. ahead for doing business, including oil business, with the remains of it. But then shifting to saying that he was having great talks with the Iranian regime. And I did sort of press him to say, who? Was this Steve Wickoff talking to Arakshi? Or was there to his son-in-law, Jerry Kushner, talking to Dalibati, a speaker, or who was

who was talking to who, and it turned out it's really all indirect. It's Pakistan as a messenger, really, or an emissary was the word he used it, a word he used. So sort of switching from saying it's going great to maybe we'll take their oil. You know, Ed, I'm going to ask you about the oil. Obviously, the president often doesn't reveal his hand, and he will say several contradictory things. at the same time because he's, of course, working through the options himself. I want to follow up on the oil, though, because one of the things that has not made sense up to this point is the fact that the president has suggested that maybe we don't take the

oil, and yet he's been critical of George W. Bush since 2003 for going into Iraq and not taking the oil. Did you get a sense that he's closer to that today than he's been so far during this war when he talked about possibly taking Carg Island, when he's possibly talked about taking Iran's oil? Well, he, I see, I wasn't impressing him on oil. He kept raising oil. And this was a 15 minutes. Okay, that's fascinating. And he kept raising it and saying, why wouldn't we? And that the Card Island defenses were not that strong. We have the capability to take it very easily. And of course, as you know, Joe, he was talking back in the 1980s when you had this Iran-Tanker war in the Gulf.

He was talking at 87 as a New York figure about America should just go in and take the oil. It's a recurring thought, you know, in his mind over a period of decades. But he didn't, you know, it was slightly in tension with what he was saying about, well, now they're letting 20. tankers through. I believe these are Pakistan flag tankers. But the Iranians have given me an even bigger gift and even bigger present, 20 tankers. And of course, you know, that in a way, it's a little bit awkward because that in a way demonstrates Iran's ability to control who goes in and who goes out. Right. Ed, let me ask you about this. And usually it would be, I might not ask this of other politicians because other politicians, other presidents are able to guard their feelings

more closely with the president. Often what you see and what you hear is what you get about where his mood is at that moment. Did the president sound confident in the execution of this war? Did he sound confident in the direction it was going? Or did he at any time seem irritated or angry about about things related to the war? He seemed less angry than the previous time I called him, which was a couple of weeks earlier, in which he'd really had quite a few choice words for NATO, and for Britain in particular,

allies not stepping up to the plate, essentially a stabbing us in the back sort of narrative. He didn't talk about that this time. I guess he doesn't expect any NATO assistance because none is false coming. But I didn't sense anger. I sent a little bit of sort of thrashing around for ideas because other than this stress on the indirect talk

and these 20 ships that have been permitted to go through the threat, it didn't sound like he had a whole lot of ideas as to how to get out of this situation. All right, Ed Luce, the Financial Times. We greatly appreciate you calling and debriefing us on your call with President Trump yesterday. David Ignatius, you know, past, we usually find covering politicians and presidents. Past is usually prologue. And the president from the late 80s has been talking about how the United States is getting ripped off and screwed by at the time it was Japan.

And now it's China. but that's been a recurring theme. So anybody, you know, these businessmen and women that have act shocked that he actually implemented tariffs, you just want to ask, where have you been since like 1987? There are some things that Donald Trump's been consistent with. The other thing is, you know, take the oil. We've heard it time and time again. We've heard it recurrently recurring.

We heard it in Venezuela where the president actually told me. The difference between me and Bush is he didn't take the oil. I'm going to take the oil. It appears from this conversation with Ed and other things we hear that the president may be moving to where I personally thought he was going to go all along, taking the oil. We understand the dangers of it. I wonder what your reporting is telling you, because just like before the war, we're toggling these peace talks that are going so great at the same time all of these American troops

are moving into the region. So, Joe, I think taking the oil is another example of what we've seen from the beginning of the war, which is mixed messages about what the mission is, what a satisfactory outcome would be. I think you're right that he returns to the theme of taking oil, taking the key resource. There's a way in which to President Trump, this still seems to be like Venezuela, his last measure of a resounding success. So, you know, he took the oil in Venezuela and he'll do it with Iran, the problem is when you say take the oil, if part of your mission is to relieve the pressure on oil prices, taking another country's oil by force likely would have the effect of choking

supplies, not increasing them, at least for a while. And that's another example of what I find the consistent theme this week of different messages, different accounts, what Secretary of State Rubio says about the way that this war might end is different from what President Trump says. What President Trump says one day about the Strait of Hormuz and the need to reopen it and the consequences of not doing it and what he seems to be telling his aides the next day, if you read the Wall Street Journal this morning, about the non-essential nature of reopening the strait. There's just a continuing confusion about how you end a war that they marched into with a lot of confidence that would, just like Russia invading Ukraine in February 22, they thought it'd be over

in a week. They thought they were Iranians would cave. And that hasn't happened. And now they're stuck with this question of what is the way that you terminate the conflict. Right. And, you know, mecca, the question is whether what we're hearing, the mixed messages from the president, whether it's him improvising or whether it's intentional like it was before the war where he had Iran believing that they were going to follow up on a Wednesday with the negotiations, and that Friday is when he launched the attack. So now allies in the region are saying, hey, you need to see this through the end. You need to stay here.

And they're offering him warnings. Well, the AP has new reporting on U.S. allies in the Gulf who are privately urging President Trump to continue and intensify the war against Iran. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain are making the case that the war should not end because Tehran has not been weakened enough, according to U.S., Gulf, and Israeli officials. the AP reports that these governments initially complained that they were not given advance notice by the United States and Israel before the conflict started and that the U.S. ignored their warnings that a war would have devastating consequences for the entire region. But some officials from these countries now view the war as an historic opportunity to cripple Tehran's clerical rule once and for all. President Trump was asked about Gulf allies Sunday night while on board Air Force One. They are fighting back. Saudi Arabia is fighting back hard. Qatar is fighting back. UA.E is fighting back. Kuwait's fighting back.

Bahrain's fighting back. They're all fighting back. Actually, they were surprised to be hit. I was very surprised they got hit. And once they got hit, they started fighting very well. We're very strong. communications with all of those countries and they've all been fighting. They're 100% of us. Okay. All right. There's some fact checking to be done there while the Gulf countries host U.S. forces and bases from which the military has launched attacks on Iran. The countries themselves have not joined the offensive strikes. And they're very careful to actually say that there are no offensive attacks coming from our countries. Jim Van der Heye. The president has a couple of different ways to go here while we're hearing the Wall Street

Journal's reporting that he's telling AIDS that he may go ahead and leave with the straits still closed and controlled by Iran. But others are saying he needs to carry through with it. Strategically, it may be a very bad move to leave an angry, injured, radical regime in place in Iran, even more radicalized by this. war, if that was actually even possible. That's on one side, and that's why our Gulf allies are saying you've got to finish this regime off. On the other side, our opening story, and I'm sure the opening story for a lot of people, and a lot of media outlets is $4 a gallon gas, which really

hits Americans in their pocketbooks at a time they were struggling already on affordability issue. So the question is, which direction does the president go? And what are the political stakes? Yeah, let's step back for a second. Any of you were watching this has got to be thinking like, why the hell are we in Iran and what the hell is the strategy? And the Wall Street Journal reporting is correct. AP is correct. Everything that Barack Rabid is written is correct. The president, when you talk to AIDS, is about 75 to 85% total improvisation by the moment on this war. And so at any given moment, he is saying different things and those things are getting transmitted out. They would say, well, that's part of the strategy. We're keeping the enemy confused. The truth is he's really hacked off

internally. He wants to get out of Iran. They thought they were going to be able to go in quick. They were assured they'd be able to go in quick, decapitate the regime, decapitate the ability for Iran to continue to do what it did in the region and get out. And now they can't get out. And just looking at the conversation, listening to this conversation, you hear emphatically why it's going to be really, really, really difficult to get out of here. The Iranians have no reason to compromise right now. They have to end this war with us fearing, ever going back into Iran. The Israelis don't want the war to end at all. They want to destroy Iran, so it's no longer a threat to them. Now you have all these Gulf allies who were surprised that they got attacked. Nobody should be

surprised. We've had $25,000 to $50,000 drones available to almost any nation. obviously at scale, they can be used for asymmetrical warfare that are now being used in the region that have pulled in five, six, seven additional countries. They now don't want us to leave. And so you have four or five, six different parties that have an interest here. So just pulling out and grabbing the oil and throwing in a tanker and running, that doesn't work. It's not logistically possible. It's not a diplomatically possible. It's not financially possible. Yeah, and not possible that. Find, find, uh, uh, Delci Rodriguez speaks Farsi to step up and run the country. So this is a, you know, Jonathan O'Meer, I keep hearing people saying that they're shocked, shocked,

that there's gambling going on, the establishment. We have been war gaming. We've literally been war gaming an attack against Iran since the early days of the I told Khomeini's regime in 1979. And every one of those war games, every single one of those war games have shown that they could attack the straits

that they could really screw the West and the rest of the world on holding oil hostage. So when people say they're shocked to that, when people in the administration say they're shocked to that, when Republicans in Capitol Hills say they're shocked to that, then they're

just dumb. They're stupid because they haven't been seeing what everybody who's been wargaming this has been saying, whether they're in the military, whether they're the intel community. That wasn't difficult to figure out. It's the same thing with attacks against regional partners. And I have been hearing since I was young. If we go in and attack Iran, understand the blowback will be extraordinary, not just in the region, but in Europe, in America, all across the world. These are all things. We've all been hearing for over four decades. So please, if everybody could just stop with a,

I'm so shocked and stunned. I could have never seen this coming. How could anybody believe they would have ever stopped the straits or attack the UAE or attack Saudi Arabia? Of course, they were attacking Saudi Arabia months ago. The UAE months ago. It is just like this is, this should not be a shock to anybody. And quite frankly, they're lying if they say they are shocked. I was, you used the word I was going to. They'd be lying. The president will be lying. administration officials would be lying because we know through our reporting, we've talked to ex-military administration officials from a number of Republican and Democratic administrations alike on air and off saying, yes, they knew that Iran would do this. Now, perhaps Iran has been

more effective than expected in closing the straight-at-formoose. Perhaps Iran has hit at its neighbors more forcefully than expected, but this was not a surprise, period. And the fact that the administration is claiming it was, is them trying to spin because the war is not going as well as they thought. To Jim Vanda High's point, they did think this could be done in a handful of days, a week or two at most. We're now past the month mark. They are seeing energy prices soar across the globe. Gas, yes, hitting $4 a gallon. There's going to be ripple effects into other fields soon. We're already seeing that. And let's just underscore here, if the U.S. were to, as the Wall Street Journal reports, the president is considering, suddenly

abandon this mission and let Iran control the state of Hormuz. What a disaster that would be. What would this war have accomplished? We'd be, yes, you've degraded some of Iran's military. Well, Iran's military wasn't a threat to the United States to begin with. So instead, though, you've allowed Iran to control the energy markets in a new, outsized way. We'd be leaving in a less stronger, we'd be leaving in a weaker position than we were going in. And we also would have, and let's be clear, enraged our allies in the Gulf. And President Trump has made a point of trying to befriend some of those Gulf states,

trying to have better relations with them. They would be furious if we suddenly were to leave Iran and control of the Strait of Hormuz, which they need as well, and also leaving an embittered, angry, hardline regime in place that will continue to lash out at its neighbors and potentially the West. Well, and I think that's the reason,

the reporting that the president's very frustrated that this wasn't, like Venezuela is why. And I must say David Ignatius warned daily that the White House, the administration should not look at Iran like Venezuela, that it was not Venezuela. It wasn't going to be one and done. And I will just say whenever I was asked whether by people in administration or other people in Washington or whether we should go into Iran, I said absolutely not. In fact, my exact words were, don't listen to Lindsay Graham. This is not going to be easy.

Are they like the head of the axis of terror? Yes, I've been calling Iran the epicenter of terrorism since 1979. But I also have understood, because I've been hearing this for four decades, going into Iran was going to be extraordinarily difficult. And so here we are. And because this is where we are, leaving the region, and actually the United States consumers in a worse place at the end of the war than they were at the beginning of the war, if the straits are closed, that's just a lose, lose proposition for everybody. So we stay here. And we're going to go back to David Ignatius because I want him to underline what he said yesterday. You know, slow down. Now, don't escalate. Let's see if negotiations can find their way. I'm going to have David talk about that. And also, Mika, I want to talk about what I consider me the unfolding tragedy in Israel. Go to David French and talk about the unfolding tragedy that continues in Israel under

Benjamin Netanyahu. It's perpetual war. And the consequences I fear are going to be devastating for Israel over the next generation. Everyone's day put. So David will weigh on that. And also the latest on the long security lines we've been seeing at airports across the country after TSA agents finally received a paycheck yesterday. Plus, a group of January 6 rioters now suing the police officers who defended the Capitol on the day of the riot. Are those the rioters who, the family of four dead cops? The families of four dead cops? Yeah. The families of four dead cops say those rioters are the reason their family members are dead?

Or are those the same rioters that injured over 140 police officers? Are those the same rioters that jammed cops' heads indoors and kept beating them up and almost killed them on the spot? Is that, are those rioters that are bringing with American flags? Those rioters? Yeah, those. We're going to dig into that new pretty craven lawsuit. And as we go to break, a quick look at the travelers' forecast this morning. From Accuethers, Bernie Rayno.

Bernie, how is it looking? Warm, warm, warm, mecca. Let's add some thunderstorms into the equation today. Your Aqueather exclusive forecast showing those thunderstorms from Chicago toward Detroit. They'll be locally severe this afternoon. Morning shower in Boston, New York City. then clouds will break for some sunshine. How about 83 degrees in Washington, D.C. today, from Texas toward Florida, it's dry, generally warm,

just a few spotty thunderstorms across the southeast. Shouldn't have too many travel delays today, but there will be lingering delays out of LaGuardia. To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, download the AcuWeather app today. And as always, enjoy the view. Israel has suspended a military battalion after its Troops detained a CNN crew in the West Bank, allegedly, putting one photojournalist in a chokehold. The soldiers are from an ultra-Orthodox military unit, which has faced repeated accusations of human rights abuses in the West Bank. Yesterday, as the Washington Post reports, Israeli President Isaac Herzog condemned violence by extremist elements in Judea and Samaria, using the biblical term for the West Bank.

he writes, quote, I share your conviction that these acts of violence stand in stark contradiction to the values upon which Israel was founded and to the enduring ethical tradition of the Jewish people. Our heritage emphasizes the sanctity of human life and grounds it in a basic biblical tenet. You shall love the stranger, a foundational moral principle that has divined the Jewish people across generating. You know, David French, you and I were raised in the Christian, and I was raised in the Southern Baptist Church. I'm not exactly sure if that was your denomination, but we were both raised as evangelicals. And, you know, I've long supported Israel in large part because of my faith. I remember a professor one time saying, can you believe some people even support Israel because of their faith?

Well, I do support Israel because of my faith. I don't support Benjamin Netanyahu because of my faith. And I see an unfolding tragedy in Israel. And it hurts me as a longtime supporter of Israel, a man who has taken this country and kept them at constant war after the tragedy, obviously, of October the 7th. But playing it about the way the United States played September 11th, That horrific tragedy and leading us into places we shouldn't go. You've got half of Lebanon, it seems being leveled.

You had Gaza leveled, all to disarm Hamas. Hamas isn't disarmed. We heard Hezbollah was finished off a year ago by exploding pagers. Hezbollah is not finished off. Marco Rubio, our Secretary of State, said, we're in Iran because Netanyahu is going to attack Iran. I'm curious your thoughts, especially on top of that. What has been rumbling in the background for me constantly is the heinous treatment, the heinous treatment of people on the West Bank by radicalized settlers.

And that includes, folks, that includes Christians. That includes Christians. My pastor has been going over to the West Bank. to the few Christian communities left there, and the settlers are terrorizing them as well. And David, I just, again, I fear the blowback. Not only Israel, but the United States, and the rest of the region is going to experience for a generation to come. Well, yeah, I mean, look, everybody can look at the Israeli strategic situation where you had attacks

from the north, you had the horrible Hamas massacre on October 7th, and know that Israel has real challenges. It has to defend itself. It has to. Missiles from Iran. It has to defend itself. It does not have to indulge pogroms against Palestinians in the West Bank. It doesn't have to fight the war in such a way that it kills tens of thousands of Palestinians and yet somehow still leaves Hamas in control of much of Gaza. And so you have this situation where Israel has undeniable strategic challenges, undeniable ability and right to defend itself against people who want to destroy it. But in the same time, many of the extremist elements are creating their own human rights violations

and their own human rights abuses. And Joe, you know, what's interesting, I talk to, you know, friends in the church, and they just don't hear about any of that negative stuff that Israel does. They don't hear about any of it at all. They're hearing only about, you know, the challenges that Israel faces. They're not hearing at all about Israel's own human rights violations. And I feel that that sort of Israel's core supporters aren't seeing clearly the challenge in the situation that now exists.

So Jim Van Nu know, the thing is, it's just like in America, I'm sorry, Jonathan, go to you here, but it's just like in America, for so many people in evangelical church, if somebody calls themselves pro-life, they have license to do whatever they want to do, to say whatever they want to say, to be as heinous to other human beings as they want to be to other human beings, to start as many wars as they want to start. The same thing with Israel, where they feel like, oh, well, you got to support Israel, Israel, good, everybody else bad, when the fact of the matter is, and I saw Bishop Barron write this a couple of weeks ago.

He said, I'm a Zionist. And do you know what being a Zionist means? Being a Zionist means Israel has a right to exist. One, two, we're against anti-Semitism of all kinds. And number three, and this is the important one, the current state of Israel is not a part of a biblical prophecy. So that means that we, who are Zionists, can criticize the Israeli government. And there's just this feeling, oh, well, if you criticize the Israeli government, you're anti-Semitic.

No, I can criticize Benjamin Netanyahu, and nobody can call me anti-Semitic, who knows my life, who knows my beliefs, who knows my history. But let me tell you, Jonathan, this idea, and I guess I'm angry because I'm older, this idea that Israel and the United States can continue to strike out, and there's not going to be blowback is insanity. It ignores thousands of years of history. The idea that Benjamin Netanyahu is going to be able to blow up enough buildings in Lebanon and finish Hezbollah off, it's not going to work. And when is Hamas going to get disarmed? You know, this is, again, we've said it. There's been deep reporting on it. Benjamin Netanyahu is fighting this war for Benjamin Netanyahu.

Benjamin Netanyahu knows when this war ends. People will start asking questions like, oh, I don't know. Why Benjamin Netanyahu? Did you keep going to Qatar and tell them to give billions of dollars to Hamas? How could it be Benjamin Netanyahu? You knew everything that was going on across the Middle East. And yet you were so asleep at the switch that you allowed Hamas to attack your country and to slaughter them more.

Jews and had been slaughtered in a single day since the Holocaust. He doesn't want to ever answer those questions because we've been asking those questions for years and you know what they always say? Oh, well, there'll be time to answer those questions when the war's over. Benjamin Netanyahu is never going to end this war. Never. Because he knows that when he does, he will probably stand trial and go to jail. So it is a constant state of war. And at what point? point, at what point do people start worrying more about Israel and the people of Israel than Benjamin Netanyahu? Because anybody here that is blindly supporting what Israel is doing

and supporting what Benjamin Netanyahu is doing, they don't have the facts. They just don't. And this is a person that has long, I spoke, I spoke at A-PAC meetings when I was in Congress. I have been a fierce supporter of Israel. But Benjamin Netanyahu is taking the them down a path that again will lead to horrific blowback, not only for them, but our regional allies and the United States of America. And Marco Rubio said it. Forget all the lies that came after. He was asked, why are we in this war? What did Rubio say? Because Israel was going to attack them so we knew we had to follow Israel. Yeah, we'll add to that. The Netanyahu was already facing legal trouble. Corruption charges even before October 7th, the scrutiny around

has only increased. And let's be clear, one can criticize the government of Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu, without being anti-Semitic. The CNN reporter involved this incident, Jerry Me Diamond, a friend, I knew him. We covered the 2016 Trump campaign together. He was very plain about this. He's like, I'm glad the Israeli authorities acted swiftly here. They only did because we're an American television crew. And that incidents of violence in the West Bank that these extreme settlers are carrying out on Christians and Palestinians alike usually are ignored. That this is sort of, and they're growing in frequency. It's been a slow march towards violence there.

People are living in fear. And Jim Vandahai, I'll go to you with the point that Joe is just making. There's going to be almost inevitably a blowback here. For, yes, for what's happening in Iran, but also happening in the West Bank, there's an inflame of the situation. And there are people, we've talked to them on this show. I've talked to them off air, security officials, ex-administration folks, law enforcement, intelligence agents who feel like what's only a matter of time before there is some sort of payback,

some sort of repercussion of terror attack in the West in the United States. We've already seen some violence here, perhaps inspired by what we've seen in the Middle East, but likely it's only going to be more, and it seems like the U.S. in particular, simply not ready. You can't wish away and you can't bomb away thousands of years of, heritage, thousands of years of strife, thousands of years of faith. And like, that's just the reality of the Middle East always has been. It's why you have to think long and hard before you wage a war in the Middle East. And it, again, like, I'm so sympathetic to people at home who are

trying to make sense of all of this. I had a fascinating conversation yesterday with Jamie Diamond, and we'll air it on our show in the next couple of days. But he was talking about how in our lifetimes, we've never had this many different risks concurrently. So it's not just that the American people are looking at what's happening in Iran. They understand that China's a threat. They understand that cyber is a threat. They understand that AI could take their job. They understand that we have unsustainable federal debt. Some people understand that we have a potential private credit crisis on our hands. So everywhere you look, and this really is an all-hands-on moment, all-hands-on-deck, for the country, even though most hands are not standing up in trying to do something.

There are big, huge, difficult problems to solve. And all that happened in the Middle East, like maybe we'll achieve our military objective. It seems like we've destroyed a hell of a lot in Iran. And that's great. Like, they've done a lot of bad things. The president is absolutely right about that. But it's always been what comes next. The idea that suddenly we're not going to have people who hate us, who try to kill the Israelis,

who disrupt peace in the Middle East, seems like fantasy, as Joe. said, and I think people need to be aware of that and understand the complexity of getting out of these nine or ten potential crises. Yeah, David Ignatius, you asked from the morning of Israel's war, going into Gaza, a war that I think we all agreed. They had a right to launch to go after Hamas and tried to destroy Hamas. You asked from the very beginning, okay, we understand why you're doing this. What's your plan for the morning after? It seems now we have to ask Israel that question when it comes to Lebanon. What's your plan for the morning after? Because Hezbollah is not going away. You still haven't come up with a plan for Gaza. What's your plan for the morning after in Gaza?

watch your plan for the West Bank and then for the United States. The same thing. Mr. President, what's your plan for the morning after? And again, for those of you that are younger and didn't grow up in the shadow of Vietnam and don't understand or haven't learned about the Weinberger doctrine that Colin Powell refined, David, obviously, presidents after Vietnam understood you never go into war unless you have a trigger point. That is your end game. And as soon as you accomplish it, you bring the troops home, as George H. W. Bush famously did after he liberated Kuwait.

What's the morning after plan for all of these wars? So, Joe, the lack of that clarity is part of this tragedy. It's the very, very center of it. I've been covering the Middle East for 45 years. And if there's one thing I don't hear year after year, it's an answer to tell me how this. ends. The role of the United States at its best, you know, in the days when Jimmy Carter brokered the Camp David Accords that brought peace that lasted today between Egypt and Israel, the role of the United States at its best was trying to answer that question. How does this

end? How do we de-escalate and de-conflict? We're now in a situation where we just don't see answers to the question, how does this end? As I said on the show yesterday, in moments like that when every option seems like a bad one, probably wise not to take any of the bad options and just wait a little while. I do hear that by the end of today, there should be more clarity on the diplomatic front. Yesterday, we haven't talked about it. The U.S. and Israel attacked enormous store of missiles and ammunition. and Isfahan, significant military action, making Iran weaker, less able to inflict harm. So, you know, day by day, the answer, how does this end, ought to emerge, but it takes

strong leadership for the United States. Israel and the Iranians in the middle of us can't answer the question themselves. That's the role of the United States, is that we're big enough and smart enough to answer the question. David French, and I hope you're not insulted by all the times I associate myself with you and your upbringing and my upbringing. But I think they're fairly similar. And I'm sure your feelings about Iran have been my feelings too. A country can't kill Americans for 47 years, can't be burning American flags for 47 years, can't be shouting death to America for 47 years, and not expect some response or some reaction at some point. I am curious, how are you working through the contradictions?

All of the contradictions that are floating around that, yes, a terror regime is being degraded in a way it needs to be degraded. But at the same time, we may win the war over there, but lose the one over here economically for people who are already working Americans already struggling. You know, I keep going back to the original sin of not getting congressional approval, Joe, because you get congressional approval, you know what the objective is. You rallied the American people to support some potential sacrifice. You get the people behind you that allows the people to support the military and support the effort through adversity. But he did none of those things.

And that means that we're living in an incoherent moment with incoherent objectives, no clear endgame and no rallying of the people. And that makes the military operation more difficult. So he has botched us on the way in, and that is having ramifications on the way through and out. All right, David French, thank you very much. David's latest piece is available to read right now at the New York Times. Thank you, David.

Jim Van de High. Thank you. We'll be looking for that interview with Jamie Diamond at Axis. and the Washington Post, David Ignatius. Thank you as well. His latest analysis is online. And coming up on Morning, Joe, the Supreme Court will consider the legality of President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. Well, this should be about a five-minute hearing. Read the 14th Amendment. With one of the attorney generals leading the challenge against that order and have legal analysis on what we might be able to expect from justices. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. Welcome back to Morning Joe.

It is 52 past the hour. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments tomorrow on President Trump's executive order that looks to end birthright citizenship. It is a major test for Trump's immigration agenda and marks the first time the justices will weigh the legal merits of one of the president's immigration policies, a signature policy. I'm so confused. in right now, Democratic Attorney General Abanta of California. He's co-leading a coalition of more than 20 state attorneys supporting the challenge to Donald Trump's executive order to abolish the 14th Amendment. I mean, to abolish. I'm channeling your answer with us. The great MS now senior legal reporter, Lisa Rubin. I mean, Mr. Attorney General, I must say, you read the 14th Amendment. It could not be more clear. Like the Supreme Court threw out this racist argument in 1898. 1898.

I will tell you truthfully, the reason I am actually excited about this is because I want to know if Clarence Thomas and Alito both decide they're going to have the guts, decide with Don. Trump in abolishing the 14th Amendment because the clear language of the 14th Amendment states what birthright citizenship is. All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States. And Donald Trump is trying to get that overturned. Mr. Attorney General, I just— Joe's got his popcorn out. forgive me, how could any justice of the United States Supreme Court side with a president

who wants to abolish the 14th Amendment? I agree with you. And I channel all your energy. All right. Thank you so. Mr. Attorney General, thank you so much for being with us. Yes, see next time. Yeah. Go ahead, Mr. Attorney General. I'm sorry. No, I appreciate it. You know, this is a remarkable action, as you stated. Donald Trump tried to rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen. with an executive order, there is a way to amend the Constitution if he wants to have a constitutional convention or marshal the votes in two-thirds of each house and get three-fourths of the states to

ratify. But this is about whether the Constitution means what it says. And it says exactly as you set forth, that if you are a person born in the United States, you're an American citizen, period, full stop. That's what the 14th Amendment said back over 150 years ago. The Wong and Kim Ark, U.S. Supreme Court case issues precedent on this very issue and says the same thing and upholds birthright citizenship. Every lower court leading up to the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed that the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, the Citizenship Clause, means what it says. And so this one should be very straightforward. It, you know, it should be a 9-0 vote in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. We'll see how that turns out. But there are some arguments the United States is making around

transients versus permanence, around loyalty to the United States. These are more. more fringe theories that have never been adopted by courts and shouldn't be adopted here. So we're confident and hopeful as we go into the argument tomorrow that the birthright citizenship clause will be upheld. So, Lisa, this feels pretty straightforward, as the Attorney General said, it feels pretty settled. But yet, the government is making some of these arguments. President Trump is on social nearly every day, pushing for this to be overturned.

Walk us through a little bit about some of the arguments that are being made and even Haven't some of these been sort of heard in the past? Absolutely. This is a recycling of arguments that have been made since and prior to the 1898 decision that the Attorney General and Joe were just talking about. They were made at that point primarily as a basis to exclude Chinese immigrants from the United States. Now it seems like they are being adopted again as part of a Stephen Miller-led project

to change the definition of who is an American and who counts. But what it hinges on, Jonathan, is the phrase subject to the jurisdiction of. To you and me and the Attorney General, that likely means if you're subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and its laws, it means you can be criminally prosecuted, for example. Nobody contests, for example, that undocumented immigrants are criminally prosecuted every day. In fact, this Department of Justice has made that more of a priority than ever before. But the administration says, subject to the jurisdiction of means you have pledged fidelity to the United States government and you are titled to protect.

from it. If that's the meaning of that phrase, that helps them narrow the definition of the citizenship clause to exclude people like the children of undocumented immigrants, as well as foreign diplomats, for example, or wartime conquerors. So, Mr. Attorney General, the administration is actually relying on the legal theories of just out and out racists from the 1800s. I, again, I, I don't mean to be, I don't mean to be naive here, but how could any Supreme Court justice take the side of bigots and racists from the 1800s, again, whose arguments were rejected by a Supreme Court in 1898?

And if I'm not mistaken, I think that's about the same time as Plessy, B, B, Plessy and separate but equal. I mean, this, again, this wasn't an enlightened court that ruled in 1898, was it? I mean, the court ruled very clearly in 1898. That shouldn't change now. You know, the arguments of the United States government are, they're really reaching and stretching that have racist undertones or explicitly racist. And, you know, this is just a straight up application of the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act and prior precedent in the form of the Wong Kimmer case and other cases. cases. So, you know, there's some cases that are more difficult. This one shouldn't be. I'm hoping for a 9-0, but we'll see. Lisa, final thoughts.

You know, Joe, one of the things that strikes me here is that there is also a problem here sort of in terms of how the executive order works. One of the things it says is that if the mother is present, even lawfully but temporarily, the child does not get citizenship, you can see how from even an equal protection perspective, that's really problematic. A woman could come here on a student visa and tend to be here permanently and for forever. And still, this administration wants to deny her child citizenship in the United States. It's not right. And I hope the Supreme Court sees through it tomorrow.

Let's put up the 14th Amendment one more time as we go to break. It's very straightforward. And again, this has been the law of the land since the 1860s. And it was reaffirmed that it means exactly what it said in 1898. There is no justification for any justice. So stand back and stand by on this. Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta of California. MS Now senior legal reporter Lisa Rubin.

Thank you. We'll be looking for Lisa's reporting on this issue, including her sit down with some of the attorneys leading the charge online at MS now.