Morning Joe - Mideast tensions escalate after U.S. strikes on Iran

Episode Date: July 10, 2026

July 10, 2026: 7am — Mideast tensions escalate after U.S. strikes 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.

Welcome back. Tensions remain high in the Middle East this morning after days of escalating strikes between the United States and Iran. U.S. military officials say they hit about 170 targets across Iran during renewed attacks this week. Tehran's response then reverberated through the Gulf firing at U.S. bases in Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait. Jordan also said yesterday, it intercepted. Iranian attacks, despite the back and forth hostilities and President Trump declaring the ceasefire over, a U.S. official tells MS now the U.S. will continue technical talks with Iran and remains committed to finding a resolution. The official added that Iran's recent actions amount to failed performance at an unacceptable level when it comes to complying with the memorandum of understanding.

but that discussions will continue as the administration remains dedicated to diplomacy. I believe the, okay. We're also learning President Trump spoke over the phone yesterday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. According to Netanyahu's office, they discussed American military actions in the Gulf region amid the renewed fighting with Iran. The prime minister also warned Trump against approving an F-35 fighter jet deal with Turkey. Turkey and Israel have long had tense relations. Netanyahu argued the sale of F-35s to Turkey could endanger Israel. Joining us now, Chief White House correspondent for the New York Times, Peter Baker,

opinion calmness for the New York Times, David French, MS now contributor Mike Barnacle, and defense editor at the economist Shawshank Josie. Jonathan Amir and Katty Kaye are still with us as well. So, Shashank, help us through here, if you will, where we are. You know, you talk about being stuck between Iraq and a hard place. This is where people like David Ignatius yourself, others warned the Trump administration before the war that going into Iran was going to cause a lot of complications. So here we are.

You know, if the MOU as written stays in place, it provides Iran with generational supremacy over the region. So obviously our allies in the region, all across the region, very concerned about it. At the same time, there are political consequences at home for the president continuing this war with oil prices going up. So what is the latest thought on the next best steps? Because the MOU has written, certainly, again, is a generational tragedy for the region and the world. but continued fighting obviously has political costs at home. Yeah, good morning. I agree with that.

I think the fact that the MOU is so obviously lopsided in Iran's favor is paradoxically a reason why I don't think we will see or I don't anticipate a return to full-fledged war. There was a phrase that President Trump used in the context of Israel and Lebanon a few weeks ago. You may recall, he said, a ceasefire in this region is when the two sides are shooting at each other a bit less. and there was a truth to that, I think, and there's a truth to that in this context as well,

which is that what we're seeing here with Iran attacking ships and the United States striking back is a kind of skirmishing. They're feeling each other out to say, I don't want you to take license with this MOU, but I don't want to walk away from it. And by the way, I think that applies to Iran as well,

not just because of the inducement of the MOU and the fact that it gives them very substantial sanctions relief, but also their own economy. is in serious, serious trouble that is masked by some of this diplomacy. So look, keep your eye on the ball. I think there are talks in Islamabad, Pakistan tomorrow, between the U.S. and the Iranian teams. And I still think diplomacy will be restored.

I don't think we're going to see a slide back into anything like the scale of fighting that we saw just a few months ago. I think that's quite unlikely still. You know, Willie, it's so curious watching the president go along with us, for a while. This is, you know, Donald Trump loathe's weakness in his political opponents. And when he sees weakness people flattering him, he just, he drills down harder and harder and harder. It's the same thing with Iran. They exploit the weaknesses of American presidents, whether it's Jimmy Carter worried about his upcoming election with Ronald Reagan or whether it's Donald Trump

worried about the midterm. So you had the lifting of oil sanctions, the most liberal lifting of oil sanctions in Iran since 1979. They made billions and billions of dollars, not required to do anything in return. And they saw that as a weakness. So they just, you know, they just ran over us. And so now the president's pushing back. But where does that end? Yeah. And the president has been bored with this war. Let's just be honest, for months and months and months. He thought it was going to be quick. He thought we'd bring Iran to its knees with the early military campaign, perhaps topple the regime. Remember on the day after, this began in late February. He said the people need to rise up in the streets against the dictatorship

in Iran, to which they said, we just tried that a couple of months ago and about 30 or 40,000 of us were murdered. So all of this was known, except apparently to the people around the president. And so Peter Baker, if you listen to President Trump, even just this week at the NATO summit, railing against the JCPOA, the Obama-Iran deal going into great detail regaling stories of the pallets of cash, which pales in comparison to the amount of money proposed in this MOU that would go directly into the leadership of Iran, that $300 billion investment fund, for example. So where does this White House feel it is right now when it's only recourse is to bomb more targets and Iran really not caving the way it would except to attack our neighbors, our Gulf allies?

Yeah, yeah, we're kind of in the stasis period, neither full war nor peace. and there's no likelihood or this doesn't seem like there's likelihood that that's going to change in a decisive way any time soon, right? It could go on like this for quite a while. You neither have a full resolution of a at the same time. You leave forces in the region and, you know, flex your muscles from time to time and try to keep Iran off balance. But the truth is Iran sees the political clock here at home just like we do. They understand what's happening here in terms of the midterm elections, and they have an incentive to kind of drag this out a little.

little bit because that inflicts more pain on on President Trump and his party potentially going into the fall. Yeah, I've been reporting on that this week as well. I mean, Peter's exactly right. The president does not want a resumption of full-on hostilities. Yes, there will be these skirmishes, yes, some targeted bombings, but to what end? There's not really much damage left to be inflicted on Iran in terms of military sites. It would require a real escalation to make a difference. And Trump doesn't want to do that, but he's left with a pretty bad hand. The midterms are rapidly approaching. And Mike Barnacle, we're at this moment now. This can't be said enough. The hardliners in Tehran, even with a missing Supreme Leader, are more empowered now than they were at the start

of the war, in particular because they control the Strait of Hormuz. And as we've been talking about this week, that is simply unacceptable to the Gulf allies, the U.S.'s Gulf allies, those in the region, who remind those in the administration that the Strait of Hormuz before the war was open and free to use for all. And now Iran continues to note, that's their point of leverage, they're going to insist upon fees or tolls

or whatever they're going to call it, and those in the region who have frankly born the brunt of the Iranian assaults are saying, and now we're going to pay them to rebuild? The Iranians have already won. They've already won. We do this every day. We talk about this every day.

Hot war, cold war, on again, again, let's not go to Spain ever again, things like that. It's the level of exhaustion, frustration, and chaos for the last decade, really, in American government, you can feel it out there on the streets, in supermarkets, at gas stations. You can feel the American public carrying that level and wondering about it. And David French, I'm wondering whether you think that level of frustration that is out there among the American public, we've been carrying a load for a long, long time. I don't know where this goes, but it's out there. Yeah, I think at this point, it's pretty clear that everyone except basically the core maga base now

is over Trump. And even that core bag of base is beginning to whittle away just sort of step by step by step. I mean, look, Trump from the beginning put himself in a box. He sold himself this war, or perhaps even the war was sold to him as sort of Venezuela 2.0. He's said this again and again and again. He keeps talking about Venezuela. He thought he was buying another 24-hour, 48-hour, sort of fabulous victory, where he's able to shape a nation with a very quick and lightning strike. And then when that didn't happen, he began to pursue.

He was immediately sort of over the conflict. He wanted to end the war, but he also wanted to declare victory. And that put him in this box negotiating with a war. Iran, this put him in a box now. He wants this over, but he also still wants to declare victory. Those are not compatible goals as long as Iran stays in the fight. And that's why Iran's strategic position just keeps improving, even though, you know, it is taking serious damage from American forces. Overall, its strategic position improves, in large part because Trump's political position is so, so incredibly weak. Although, I mean, Shashank, yes, Trump's position is political.

weak here. But in some ways, I guess the question is, has he got away with this more than we think he might have done? Gas prices are coming down. They never went to $150 or $200 a barrel. The IMF is just revising its downward forecast for the global economy a little bit less. Asian countries do seem to have weathered the storm. Now, if we are in, as Peter is describing this period of stasis going forward, what is the, what are the, what are the, the repercussions for Donald Trump, has he actually managed to get away with this more than the predictions might have been just two or three months ago? Yeah, I think it's a really interesting distinction there, isn't there, Cathy,

between the political ramifications and the strategic ones, because politically, what he did avoid is the temptation to double down and escalate in a big way. For example, you know, we were discussing the possibility of ground operations against Harg Island or a full-fledged amphibious assault on Iran's Persian. Gulf Coast. And you could argue that unlike previous presidents who doubled down on major land wars in the Middle East, rolling the dice in pursuit of victory, which never came, he's avoided that temptation. He's avoided the apocalyptic scenarios on gas prices. He's avoided mass American casualties through a land invasion. And all of that speaks to some

degree of restraint and more sensible decision-making, knowing when to pull away from the brink. And that could limit the scale of damage he incurs come the mid-term in Nevis. though I personally doubt it will be enough to save him from very serious bruising. But what I don't think that will save him from is the loss of American prestige and standing. That is profound. What's happened is it has been demonstrated visibly and globally that America neither has the ability nor the stomach to reopen the Strait of Hormuz by force. It means that the Iranian sword of Damocles, these missile forces, drone forces,

will hang over that region. the Memorandum of Understanding even commits America to withdrawing forces from the vicinity of Iran, which is a very ambiguous sentence. I think it means naval forces, carriers, but it could be interpreted by the Gulf states in other ways. And the impact on allies, on perceptions of American power, I believe that will be lasting and generational. And I think that you can't run away from that. Defense editor at The Economist, Shashank Joshi, thank you so much for coming on the show this morning. We appreciate it. ahead on Morning Joe with the Senate scheduled to be back in session on Monday, there are new

bipartisan calls for information about the health status of Republican Senator Mitch McConnell. This really shouldn't be hard. It should let the governor or a governor's representative go visit him to see if he's still in a position to represent the people of the state of Kentucky or whether they need to set a special. This is not hard. This could be answered in five minutes if they wanted to. And as we go to break, Willie, what do you have planned this weekend on Sunday today? Got a big one for you this weekend, Mika.

He is the star of the movie everyone is talking about right now. Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey, Matt Damon, who plays the title character Odysseus in this sprawling epic that, trust me, lives up to the hype. It was shot entirely in IMAX. You have to go see it in IMAX. It is truly staggering. Matt Damon calls it the capstone of his career. That's saying a lot, given his career.

It says it's the most difficult role he's ever played due to the shoot that they went through, but also the most gratifying. It's an incredible movie. He's one of the all-time great guys. Matt Damon coming up this weekend over on NBC Sunday Today. And we'll be right back here on Morning Joe. Look at that beautiful shot out of London for you. this morning. It is just about half past the hour. A lot of very nervous people. So much saying

erotic people right now on the edge of their seats in London. Yes. Worried about Wimbledon, worried about the World Cup, worried about the hope. Yes. Slowly but surely killing them. Katty Kay, you have a new podcast launching today titled Doing It Anyway with Katty Kay. I love that title. New episodes release every Friday on YouTube and all podcast, platforms tell us more about it. Yeah, Mika, this is something that I have wanted to do for ages. It's all the experience that I've had on trying to get more women into positions of leadership, on growing women's confidence, on improving our access in the workplace.

And I've wanted to do this podcast series. You actually, Mika, are in the very first episode. I spoke with you. Here's part of our discussion where you demonstrated me the wrong way, which is something that is so bad and so hard for women. this is the wrong way for women to ask for a pay raise. Okay, oh my God, I've got a meeting with Mika on the books. I don't know what she wants.

Mika, come on in. Let's see what you're after. Hi, I'm so sorry. I know everyone's cutting and all the shows are cutting. And I still was hoping, I'm so sorry. I was hoping that we could talk about raising my pay. I have a lot of expenses. You know, this is not a great time, Mika.

We just don't have much money in the budgets. You know that. I am so sorry. You're right. I thought you did this because you like the job. I mean, I really, I am a little disappointed. Never mind. I love the job so much.

I'm so sorry. Okay, so that went really well. That happened. You're welcome. So we had a lot of fun doing that. I speak to Adam Grant. I speak to Ali Love, the amazing Peloton instructor. And there's a lot of research.

There's a lot of data. All of the things that I've spent years working on. But I'm hoping this will give women starting out and men starting out, practical advice on how to, you know, overcome those hurdles, overcome those fears and do it anyway. I love it. It's so good. Katty, thank you so much for having me on.

And congratulations on the new podcast. And turning back to the news, David French, you have a new piece for the New York Times, titled, MAGA's birthright meltdown is in full effect. You wrote about why the MAGA base is so upset. about the Supreme Court ruling to uphold birthright citizenship. Parts of the right still posture as patriots, but they have imagined a different kind of patriotism, one that loves the country, but scorns its creed. They, like Musk on July 4th, reject the classical liberal founding, or at least deemphasize it's important compared with the ancestral lineage of its citizens. And if America isn't rooted

in its creed, and if certain classes of citizens have a superior claim to their American identity than other citizens, then it is a short trip to believing that the American government exists to serve only the favored class, the real Americans who make up, say, the MAGA base. In this formulation, patriotism isn't the preservation of the creed. It's the preservation of the people. And once you see this distinction, MAGA's entire governing philosophy makes infinitely more sense. Well, it also goes, David, against 250 years of American history. It goes against the fact that we are a nation of immigrants that our founders desperately were trying to figure out how to get more immigrants in. a lot of the people that were in the first Congress were immigrants.

And so you have, especially these latest greeds, which have just been so disingenuous, so dishonest, either that or they're just extraordinarily ignorant and stupid about American history, you had people melting down over a constitutional amendment that became part of the Constitution, In 1868, and over 100 years of firmly established president. And then you take all of that ignorance, all of the brushing aside of everything that Ronald Reagan ever stood for, all of the brushing aside of what conservatives ever stood for. And the cherry on top was when they needed a striker to beat Belgium, Donald Trump, And the whole Magarite got involved and lectured us about not being against helping this striker who was only on the team because his mother from Britain couldn't fly home because she was too pregnant.

He grew up in London and yet he was an American because birthright citizenship. So they're for birthright citizenship when it serves their purposes. They're for immigration when it serves their purposes. They're against immigration when it does not. Exactly. And I think the thing, and we've been seeing this unfold for a while, is there's been this attack on the right on the notion that America is a creedal nation. Not long ago, I interviewed Justice Gorsuch over his new book about the American founding.

And he made this statement very clearly in our interview. America is a creedal nation. And by that, we're not bound together by blood and soil. We're bound together by an idea. And this has never been controversial in conservative circles. I mean, Joe, the idea that that would have been controversial saying the Tea Party era, what are you talking about? Of course we are a creedal nation.

The creed is defined in the Declaration of Independence in the Constitution. We're a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. That's the Gettysburg address. And so these creedal documents define who we are. But now parts of the right, we're flipping out over birthright citizenship because they're moving more towards a defining America on the basis of blood and not an idea. How long were you here? You know, J.D. Vance has said that people whose ancestors fought in the Civil War have a greater claim to America. Well, you know, look, I'm proud of my... It's crazy. It's so stupid, David. David, Listen, not thinking, I'm sorry, we're going to have to do faith on Friday right here.

Because let me tell you, the thing that I love about America and that we're a nation, a creedal nation, is what I'm so drawn to about the gospel of Jesus Christ and the fact that we grow up reading and understanding that the ground at the foot of Calvary is level. And it's for everyone. And Jesus tells the parable to bring this point home. parable of the workers, those who came early in the morning, getting angry that those that came late at night working because they got paid the same. And it was Jesus's way of saying, hey, wait a second, what are you complaining about? If you are a believer in the gospel of Jesus Christ, it doesn't matter when you are a Christian. It's the same thing with America. My family, I think

we've lived here about 400 years. You know what I love about that fact? I love about that fact that today, somewhere in America, somebody is raising their right hand and agreeing to that creed and they're every bit as much of an American as me. Now, some people, that may freak some people out. For me, it reminds me of the gospel. It is an extraordinary expression of who we are as a nation. And I can't understand why there are people like J.D. Vance who hate that. Well, you know who would agree with you, Joe, is James Madison. I mean, as I point out of my piece, in 1785, he's writing against a religious establishment in Virginia. And he talks about, he says that religious establishment, this authoritarian top-down sort of Christian nationalism, would harm that policy, which he says is trying to attract people from all nations and all faiths, all nations and all faiths, so that they'll add to the number and to the luster of our nation.

And where does he root this argument for inclusion in this American dream? He roots it in his Christianity. He says that the establishment that a contrary policy would diffuse the light of Christ. And so what we're talking about here is, Joe, exactly what you're talking, what you were saying, is, you know, we have a lot of arguments about the faith of the founders and as America founded as a Christian nation. but one of the reasons why we have been historically inclusive and historically open to people from all nations and all faiths is because of faith-based arguments from the founders, not unlike the one that you just made. You know, Peter Baker, this discussion is really valuable to listen to because it teaches us so much about what's going on in our lives today in the United States of America. This country is weighed under by, I think, cynicism brought and directed and produced in Washington, D.C. And yet there was a snapshot, many snapshots of this country over the past three or four weeks,

of the crowds of foreigners and the crowds of Americans mixing together in American cities, thrilled with the World Cup, thrilled with each other, giving a whole new view from the people who came from around the world, who Americans really are, and giving American. Americans are really nice picture of people who love being in America. But I'm wondering from your point of view, because sometimes you write, not sometimes, most of the times you write very insightful pieces rooted in Washington, D.C., which is the capital of cynicism. And you wonder whether or not the people who live and work in Washington, D.C., understand the true meaning of America. Yeah, it's a great question because this issue is so fraught with contradictions, right?

This is, as you say, a country that at the moment is cracking down on people who weren't born here. We don't want people who were born here to become citizens at the same time. We're welcoming the World for the World Cup and celebrating that. The contradictions are so numerous. Think about this. We have a president who is the son of an immigrant, right? His mother was born in Scotland. Two of his three wives are immigrants.

Came here from other countries, and many of their families joined them. And I think that, you know, they wouldn't qualify under J.D. Vance's, you know, theory of Americanism because his ancestors did not fight in the civil war. Does that mean Donald Trump is less of an American than others? Of course not. But the contradictions are so fraught. The idea that this is about illegal immigration, which is the way it was originally sold, I think, of course, has now been shown not to be the case.

It's actually about immigration much more broadly because they've not just gone after people who are not authorized to be here. They've tried to change the rules about who is obviously. authorized to be here. They've tried to go after people who are here legally, who have done things correctly, but they're changing the rules on their status or, you know, they would like to change rules on birthright citizenship. So it is more about culture. It's about the idea that America is somehow not what it once was and we're missing out and people are coming here and taking over. We've seen this throughout history. There are, you know, generationally, we, you know, every time

the percentage of Americans born elsewhere reaches a certain level, I think, around 15%, you can look back at history. You see this kind of backlash, and we're in this kind of backlash moment. But it's just so full of contradictions at a moment when we're celebrating the 250th, and we're talking about the World Cup being here in the United States. Yeah, Peter Baker of the New York Times. Thank you. And David French, thank you as well.

Check out his latest column online now for the New York Times. And still ahead on Morning, Joe, as Democrats grapple with issues in Maine hopes to take a Republican held seat are growing in Iowa. We'll go live to the Hawkeye State, where new polling is showing the Democratic candidate leading the once-GOP stronghold. I mean, it still isn't a GOP stronghold? This would be, I mean, if it happened, that would be a major, major upset and a sign of a way, I feel like you.

More on that coming up on Morning Joe. We like any excuse to show that smooth swing from Redford in the iconic scene from 1984 classic the natural major league baseball now just four days away from the all star break from the game that brings together the sports biggest stars our next guests wrote about an event actually back in 1917 that is the precursor he says to the modern day midsummer classic an exhibition game played for a carous larger than the game itself he tells the story in a new book titled one day in september baseball brotherhood and the birth of the all star game and national acclaimed author in historian Scott Reich joins us now. He's the host of the Curveball podcast. Scott, it's great to have you

on the show. We're just a few days away from the All-Star game with the, by the way, the insurgent Boston Red Sox. Now, just two and a half games out of the wild card. And I bring them up because this game that you write about in 1917 took place at Fenway Park with an incredible roster of stars that includes Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Trist Speaker, Shulis Joe Jackson, and Walter Johnson. Tell us that game and how it connects to what fans we'll see coming up on Tuesday? Sure. Well, great to be with you, Willie. The game was played September 1917. It was a memorial game for a gentleman named Tim Murnain, who's a largely forgotten figure today, but was the godfather of the early baseball world. He had been the 30-year baseball editor of the Boston Globe and died

unexpectedly of a heart attack, and baseball wanted to pay it forward and help his widow and young children. And so they played this benefit game during a pennant race at Fenway Park, and they invited the Red Sox were the defending World Series champs. As you mentioned, Babe Ruth was there. He was on the mound for the Sox in his pre-Yanky days. And it was a galaxy of All-Stars from both leagues who came to participate. They left their regularly scheduled games on their own dime, took overnight trains to participate. They had a home run derby.

They had a pitching contest. They had a longest throw, race around the bases. So all the aspects of the modern All-Star game were part of the blueprint that started in 1917. You were at the right table for this book. Congratulations on it. So talk to us a little bit about it. You know, all-star, other sports have all-star games, too. But Major League Baseball is always the one that felt a little different.

Like the stakes were a little higher. It mattered a little bit more. Until in early play, it was one of the very few chances you ever had to see some of the other players for play in the other league. So why do you think it's still so resonant today? I think it's resonant because the sport of baseball is obviously special in American history. This is our national pastime. And the very pace of the game itself invites reflection.

It invites the opportunity for us to pause and ponder, what is the meaning of the game? It's an opportunity for people to stand in the crowds, sit in the crowds with the people next to them and explain what's happening and debate what's happening and think about strategy and talk about life, really, because that's what it invites. We're agreeing to gather in the same place for a few hours. And because baseball, I think, is synonymous with the early infrastructure building of the United States itself, there's this history and intergenerational romance about it that keeps us coming back. You know, a galactic all-star team gathered on the field in the back bay at the little citadel on the back bay, Fenway Park, all those years ago. And the players who came are world famous still. And yet the cynicism in you about today, you realize agents today wouldn't allow any of their players to do anything like that without getting paid. Sure.

I mean, this is something that certainly would not happen in modern times, given the size of Congress. and everything, risk of injury. But I think that's actually what highlights why this era is not just about nostalgia, but points us to sort of the meaning of what it means to belong to a community. And the cause. And the cause, absolutely. I mean, we have to think about this in history. Just two years later is the famous Black Sox scandal that compromised the integrity of the sport. And so this is sort of the peak of the golden adolescence of guys that are using well-worn equipment and, you know, their accommodations are not luxurious. They're playing for, love of the game. And as George Will would say, it's men at work. And I would add, it's men at war.

They would go to work each day and they would fight like hell. And from there, I think part of the reason Tim Runeen was so celebrated and warranted this game is because he gave a voice to the character and the virtue in the game. He saw in baseball not merely a sport, but a place where we could build good citizens and enhance the civic infrastructure of the country. So that game's in 1917. Let's talk about 2026. You cover and talk about baseball a lot. Just some of your reflections on this first half of the year as we wind up the last weekend of the first half. The Tampa Bay raise, I think, have been a surprise. The best record in the American League, up four games on the Yankees after splitting their series. The Dodgers are who we thought they were. What else has stood out

to you so far? Well, unfortunately, I'm a Met fan, so it's been a rather tough first half of the season, and we're not expecting a lot more in the second half. But baseball is always exciting, You've got great competition. The expanded wildcard over the last few years makes it so that more teams are in the race, obviously. And you've got the perennial contenders that are doing what they do. So I think it'll be a fun couple of days between the home run derby and the game itself. It's always special to see some future Hall of Famers participate and joke around to get miced up during the game. So it's a great opportunity for young kids especially to just get to know the players a little bit more.

And this is something that we've lost a little bit from the 1917 era. Murnain used to visit players in the offseason. He would go to their homes, to their farms, their apartment buildings, to just get to know them outside of baseball. And so I think the obvious connection here is if we can continue to do that, we keep the game alive and we make it safe for a new generation to enjoy it and keep it as the past time. We'll be watching Tuesday night in Philly.

The new book, One Day in September, Baseball Brotherhood, and the birth of the All-Star game is available now. Author historian Scott Wright. Scott, thanks so much. We appreciate it. Coming up next to here, we'll explain why. tarps are now hanging along the north portico of the White House. What's going on behind them?

That's story next on Morning Jump.