Morning Joe - Morning Joe 1/5/24

Episode Date: January 5, 2024

House Democrats say Donald Trump received millions in payments from foreign governments as president

Saudi Arabia, and I have great relationships with Saudi Arabia, as I do with Mexico, as I do with everybody. You know, they all buy apartments from me. They pay millions and millions of dollars. Am I supposed to dislike them? I love them. China. I sell apartments for 50 million, 30 million, 25 million, 18 million. Some of the cheap ones like 10 million. Okay, those are the cheap ones. I don't even bother to sign those contracts. But I get it from Saudi Arabia. I get it from Japan. I get it from everybody. I love these people. You see, Willie, what do I always say? When he's talking, there's laugh tracks going in the audience. But you can believe him, right? You can always believe Donald Trump when he makes a claim like that. Yeah, that was almost a decade ago, too.

And there's some new information we're getting this morning. We're going to get more specifics about just how much he enjoys those relationships he was just bragging about. Yeah, there's a new report that finds those payments continued during his years in the White House. So we'll talk about that. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Friday, January 5th, along with Willie and me. We have the host of Way Too Early, White House Bureau Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire. And we're absolutely thrilled to have Pulitzer Prize winning columnist at The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson, back with us. Gene, we read the beautiful piece about your wife, Avis.

We're so glad you're back. And at the same time, I know it's really hard. Well, it is, Mika, as you know. But I am happy to be back and, you know, feeling better, a little better every day. And I had a great conversation with Joe yesterday as a matter of fact we discussed a certain little college football game between a certain two schools in which a certain school the right school University of Michigan Oh, Gene's really back. He's really back. He's back. And we are so blessed. Absolutely. So let's begin this morning with the new report from House Democrats that alleges the first two years of

Donald Trump's presidency, his family business received seven point eight million dollars from foreign governments. Democrats on the Republican-led House Oversight Committee yesterday released the findings of an investigation that began back in 2016 into violations of the Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause. The report finds from 2017 to 2019 alone, Trump's businesses received at least $7.8 million from 20 foreign governments. Most of that money, according to the report, came from China, whose government allegedly paid more than $5.5 million to rent out Trump-owned properties during that time. The government of Saudi Arabia, where Trump

visited on his first foreign trip as president, paid his businesses more than $600,000. The information stems from documents obtained from Trump's former accounting firm in 2019. The report only covers the first two years of the Trump presidency. Once Republicans regained the House majority in 2022, they ended Democrats their investigation. We know also, Willie, that Jared Kushner, after leaving the White House, got a lot more money from Saudi Arabia. But this also makes the Republicans investigation into the Biden family over similar types of behavior. It's unbelievable. Just Trump can do anything and Republicans don't care. They just don't care. And Republicans already after this report came out yesterday trying to draw an equivalency with Joe Biden and suggesting that what he did or is alleged to have done, according to them,

although they've provided no evidence of it, is somehow worse than this. Let's talk more now with one of the Democrats who authored the report, member of the House Oversight Committee, Congressman Robert Garcia of California. Congressman, good morning. So take us through this a little bit more. There was an assumption, and in fact there was some reporting over the course of Trump's first term, that this was going on, that he had stepped away from his businesses, but countries knew well that staying at his

hotels and giving money to him through his real estate company would be helpful to them in exerting influence over the United States. So what more did you find in this report? Greg, good morning. And look, it's important to realize first that this is an enormous grift. This is a violation of the Constitution. This is about foreign payments and bribes to the president of the U.S. from multiple foreign governments and countries. And I also just want to note, because it's important, what we have in front of us is really just the tip of the iceberg. The nearly $8 million that we're discussing is essentially

just not only a two-year window. It's only from four properties owned by Donald Trump. Donald Trump has hundreds, hundreds of properties and businesses around the world. And so we were very limited in what we could actually look at. We know that the full scope of the hundreds of businesses and the bribes, it's much larger. But James Comer, of course, who chairs our oversight committee, stopped the investigation immediately. So this is very, very concerning. We demand this investigation to continue and to reveal the full scope of this incredible grift.

And the amount of money is not just coming from these 20 governments. We know that there are other countries that we don't have receipts and records for, like Russia, who have made payments to the Trump organization. And we need to find out the truth. This has both national security implications, but certainly violations of the Constitution. So, Congressman, you can anticipate, and I know you haven't heard yet from Donald Trump himself or from the campaign, we can expect a true social post at any moment, I expect. But that he would say he stepped away from his businesses, that his sons were running the businesses at the time, and therefore somehow this was OK, that he now we know he didn't fully divest. We know he never fully steps away from his businesses. But what do you say to that argument that it was, in fact, his

children, his adult children who were running the businesses while he was president? I mean, look, I think first, if we remember, Donald Trump actually said years ago that he would be the first person to make money off the presidency. I mean, he said that publicly. We should believe Donald Trump whenever he speaks. In addition to that, I think it's really important to note here, when Donald Trump talks about the president or the president's family or they're attacking the president. Look at Jared Kushner in Saudi Arabia. Jared Kushner, like was mentioned at the top of the show, got a $2 billion investment fund from the Saudi government after leaving the White House.

He was the Middle East envoy during the time in the White House. Rex Tillerson, the secretary of state, Trump's first secretary of state, opposed that and opposed Jared Kushner. Jared Kushner puts together a $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia. And Saudi Arabia at the same time is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars that we have records for, because I'm sure it's a lot more than that, on Trump properties here in D.C. and other places. And so this is clearly a major grift. But most importantly, it's a violation of the Constitution.

And so Republicans need to do the right thing here. We need to get all the records and information and hold Donald Trump and his family accountable. So I and I, the Jared Kushner and all the stuff that happened after the presidency. Let's put aside the grossness of that for a second, Representative Garcia, and talk about why this is a violation of the Constitution, why this is bad for our country, how behavior like this impacts our national security by impacting the president's ability to make a decision, how it exposes America and America's safety through the presidency to other governments, even our enemies. That's absolutely correct. I think first, let's be very clear that a president cannot take gifts, certainly cannot take bribes from any foreign government while they serve as president, whether they have business interests or not.

That is clearly in the Constitution. And so while we've uncovered about $8 million and likely, of course, millions and millions more that we don't have records from, even taking one gift is a violation of the Constitution. And so Donald Trump, this has never happened before in American history, where you have a president taking as much as possible. And so it directly impacts our national security. Was President Trump, was his family, was Jared Kushner, the Middle East envoy, making decisions knowing they were getting paybacks, getting investments into the Trump organization? And it's not, of course, just Saudi Arabia or China.

It's Kuwait. It's the UAE. It's Qatar. It's governments that had major national security relationships with the United States. It's governments that had interests with the United States and other foreign powers. And we've got to investigate this fully. I'm committed to that. The Oversight Committee is committed to that. But James Comer and the Republicans want nothing to do with this information. Of course not. My question to you, though, is as you continue the investigation and if you do uncover what is alleged here or much more of what you've already found, what are the consequences? Well, look, I think first we're going to put together, led by Jamie Raskin, who's a ranking member of our committee,

we're going to put together a package of reforms that we're going to present to the Congress to deal with this part of the Constitution to strengthen laws around this important clause within the Constitution. But the American public have a right to know. One is we want transparency and the full recording of actually what happened. This year, the public are going to make choices, choices within the election, choices about Donald Trump, choices about President Biden. And they have to know the full scope of the corruption, of the con, of the grift, of the illegal activity that Donald Trump performed while he was president of the United States. And how his children benefited and governments to himself and his family. That is wrong. The American public deserve to know the full truth. And we're committed to getting that truth. Congressman, you have evidence here that the Trump family profited while he was in office. That's the exact claim that your Republican colleagues are trying to make about the Biden family,

that the Biden family, Hunter Biden, profited from his father while he was vice president. So, and yet they, of course, have provided no clear evidence of that, unlike what you have done. So tell us how you will bring this to your Republican colleagues. What do you think, does this change anything?

Do you gonna make that argument? And frankly, what do you see as the future of the Hunter Biden probes, which again, members of your committee are trying to make a central part of President Biden's reelection campaign? I mean, let's be just clear. There is zero evidence, of course,

as we know that links President Biden with any wrongdoing. Republicans cannot come up with any information President Biden with any wrongdoing. Republicans cannot come up with any information or any sort of wrongdoing. And they're clearly projecting. I mean, this report shows where the real grift and corruption and illegal activity is. We have receipts. We have bank records. We have accounting. It's all there laid out in the report. And there is much more that has yet to be uncovered. And so the Republicans, it's incredible to see the hypocrisy that the House Republicans, that James Comer, that the new speaker are trying to are trying to put together with this impeachment scam that they have put together essentially to try to attack the Biden family. But President Biden has no

business interests as he serves as president. Donald Trump had a complex web of ways of pulling in money from foreign governments to enrich himself and his family. And so we're going to make that contrast clearly. Republicans want to just throw whatever they can at the wall. They've been doing that in the oversight committee. But this report is incredibly important. We're going to make sure people know about it. And certainly we're getting this report out to all the Republicans as well. All right. Democratic member of the House Oversight Committee, Congressman Robert Garcia. Thank you so much for coming on the show this morning. Thank you for your work. And we will talk to you again soon.

Gene Robinson. So happy to say that name again. This should matter. And yet, yeah, we know we know what the response is going to be from many congressional Republicans and Republican leaders in Washington and Republican presidential candidates. We know that they will quiver and quake and not talk about the difference between right and wrong. And yet this matters. So what do you make of that conundrum? No, you're absolutely right. I think the reaction from James Comer, for example, already has been to just poo poo the whole thing and say, oh, nothing to see here. Of course, he's he's fixated on the fact that that, you know, Hunter Biden may have paid his father back for a loan to buy a truck for like a thousand dollars or something like that. And that's a huge deal. that foreign governments unconstitutionally gave or that Trump accepted as his properties

from foreign governments unconstitutionally, to say nothing of the more than $2 billion, nearly $3 billion that Jared Kushner, after the presidency, somehow miraculously raised from the Saudis, from the UAE, from the Persian Gulf, basically, in exchange for what? Well, we can guess, but this is—we become numb to this. We become numb to these numbers and to these violations of the way this country is supposed to work and the way the president is supposed to work, the way the Constitution says presidents are

supposed to behave. Yet, here we are. And the entire Republican Party is going to ignore this and say, it's no big deal and let's move on. And what about Hunter Biden and his laptop? Yeah, to the peril of the entire country. Back, President Biden will mark tomorrow's three year anniversary of the January 6th Capitol attack with a campaign speech today near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. He's expected to focus on the importance of American democracy in the 2024 election, emphasizing the danger another Trump presidency would mean to the American institution. The Biden campaign tells NBC News that, in its view, the January 6th attack

has been underestimated and that the president is, quote, going to be very straightforward about what happened, the truth of what happened and the role that Trump played. A Biden campaign adviser adds that while Trump and his allies have tried to rewrite what happened on January 6th, the images of that day are still very much seared into people's minds. And so as we look, gosh, now three years after that day, it's definitely seared in our minds, Jonathan Lemire. But it has been papered over by a lot of Republicans who also refuse to sort of face what happened. And now you have states across the country that are opting to take Trump off the ballot for engaging in insurrection. Are we at the stage where we're going to debate whether or not that was an insurrection?

Yes, certainly. Trump and his allies have done an effective job convincing other Republicans that what happened on January 6th was not that big of a deal to try to downplay it, to normalize it. And President Biden simply isn't going to let that happen. Aides tell me from my reporting on this that he's going to return to some familiar themes about defending democracy, about saying that it is indeed on the ballot this November. But his aides believe that when there are searing national moments like January 6th, the next national election becomes a referendum on what happened. And they think that the American people are just so sick and disgusted of what happened on that January

day three years ago that they won't choose to go down that path and pick Trump again. So today's speech in Valley Forge, sort of the unofficial kickoff of the Biden campaign, twinned with a speech in South Carolina on Monday at the site of that racist mass shooting at a church in Charleston some years ago. And today we'll hear from the president. He'll evoke his setting, a valley forge. He'll talk about George Washington, not just as a defender of American ideals, but also someone who walked away, someone who twice gave up power, resigning his commission, leading the Continental Army, and then again, walking away from the presidency after two terms, setting that precedent that his successors followed for centuries, and comparing that to Donald Trump, who, of course, fought to overturn the 2020 election, fought to cling to power, and, President Biden will argue,

remains a real threat to our nation's democracy. So on the eve of the third anniversary of January 6th, we wanted to talk to some of the heroes of that day who helped to save our democracy. They are former members of the Capitol Hill Police and D.C. Metro Police, part of the law enforcement teams that defended the Capitol that day,

and the lawmakers inside from the rioters who violently stormed the building January 6th, 2021, following a Trump rally. Joining us now, former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn. He's the author of the book Standing My Ground. Former D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone. His book on the January 6th insurrection is titled Hold the Line. And former Capitol Police Officer Aquilino Ganel. He's the author of the book American Shield, available now in both English and

Spanish. Gentlemen, good morning to all three of you. Thank you for being with us again. Three gentlemen and three heroes we've gotten to know well over the last three years. And Officer Dunn, I'll start with you and just get your reflections on where we are three years, three years on now. This day, three years ago, you thought you had not routine. You had a big rally and a group of people there, but you never could have anticipated what was going to happen. And your life is so different, obviously, since then. What are you feeling as we approach this anniversary? Good morning, Willie. Morning, guys. Good to see you all. Good to be here with everybody.

Man, I had never anticipated that my career would take the turn that it has now and that I am in this space that I am now. I never thought that I'd be on a morning show, um, with the title former Capitol police officer, uh, attached to it. But, you know, I, it's a little, it's a little heartbreaking a little bit, um, one for selfish personal reasons, but also for the direction that our country is headed in. I mean, who would have ever thought that, you know, like you said, we thought it was a normal protest that we've dealt with hundreds of times, thousands of times at the Capitol. People expressing their First Amendment right. We never thought earlier you said, well, we debate. Is this an insurrection? The definition of an insurrection is a violent uprising against the U.S. government or against the government.

And that's exactly what happened that day. So it's important for all of us. And I'm glad that my my fellow officers, former officers are here with me and standing up and pushing back against that narrative that a lot of people on the right are trying to rewrite, erase or completely just whitewash it. So, Officer Fernone, you know, it's obviously been shocking to a lot of us, to a lot of Americans who agree the vast majority, we should point out, agree January 6th was a terrible day. We believe what we saw with our eyes that day, either in person for many people or on television, but also this narrative

that's taken hold in certain quarters among Trump supporters in particular, that it actually wasn't what we saw that day. That's the one side of it. The other side of it is you've had more than twelve hundred people arrested, the head of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers going to jail for a very long time. More convictions to come. Prosecutors say they're only about halfway done with the people they wanna find. So how do you feel three years on after January 6th, 2021? I mean, when you mentioned all those investigations, the Department of Justice undertaking

and prosecuting more than 1200 Americans for their actions on January 6th, states now starting to debate and make an effort to remove Donald Trump from the ballot. All of those things, I think, are a good start and necessary. I don't want to put too much stock into any one institution. I think it's an all hands on deck effort to make sure that Donald Trump doesn't assume the presidency in 2024. We all know what that's going to look like. He's told us as much. But I also, you know, I've got to point out some of the disappointments that I've had over the past three years.

And that's where is the outrage on behalf of the current administration? You know, I give credit. Joe Biden has given some fiery speeches with regards to MAGA and and its effort to overturn a free and fair election. But that's something that this country needs to hear every single day, specifically younger people, young voters. When I go out and talk to them, they seem completely disillusioned with the political process. And I think a lot of the problems that President Biden is dealing dealing with now, the image problems stem from being too soft. You know, I feel like Biden can be outraged. He can express anger without coming across as unhinged like Donald Trump.

And I would like to see him fight for our democracy with the same tenacity that Donald Trump fights to destroy it. And you may hear some of that from the president today in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, as he kind of launches that side of the campaign, which is this idea of defending our democracy. And Sergeant Ganell, obviously you, we've talked to you many times, always grateful for your time, talking about the injuries you suffered that day, how it changed the course of your career, effectively forced you out of your job because of what happened to you that day. What are your reflections three years after January 6th? Three years. Thank you for having me on your show. Three years ago, I was doing my normal jobs and unfortunately that tragic day ended my

career due to the injuries that I sustained, both physical and mental as well. Right now, I'm focused on myself and my family. I have been able to overcome a lot of the adversities that came about with the physical therapy and whatnot. You know, it's having that separation in time away from the Capitol and not dealing with protecting the same people who are now saying that nothing happened on January 6th allowed me to heal. And one issue that I do have is with the new Speaker of the House, you know, he claims to be on the side of law enforcement officers. He claimed to be the party of the law and order.

And then a couple of weeks ago, he said in the same sentence, we want transparency and blurring out the faces of the rioters, the same people who were hunting them down room by room and injure many of my colleagues, including us three who are here. So they are not the party of rule of law. And whatever they said is just for political points. But they don't believe it. They don't act on it the way they say they do. And that's reflected on their records. Akalina, Gonal and Michael Fanone, I have a question for both of you. Sergeant Gannell, you have driven to the federal courthouse in D.C. to testify at trials, to victim impact statements, to show support for

other officers who were victims. There are like 1,200 cases now. You've been at 20 sentencings at least, including four cases where defendants were convicted of violently assaulting you. There are many who are serving time for crimes committed during this insurrection, violent crimes. And yet former President Donald Trump labeled them as hostages in a speech recently. I'd like to hear from both of you just what your reaction is to that. And Ekalina Ganel, how about you go first? Well, as I was mentioning, you know, these are the people that say that they are pro-law enforcement in support of police. I was assaulted by more than 40 people on January 6th. You know, it's recorded,

it's on video, it's on pictures. So those are the ones that I mainly go to the court to give my statement and also to testify. Just right before Christmas, one guy who, one writer who assaulted me and injured my hand, He tried to dissuade the judge in pretending that he didn't assault me when it was clearly on video. You know, these are violent people. Whether they were violent before January 6th, I don't care whether they were good people or not. They did it on January 6th. They were showing me who they were. And that's the reason why I go to the court to hold them accountable. Because whenever they get in front

of the judge and ask for leniency because they have a family, because they have a kid, because they're too old, because they're too frail, because they have PTSD, because they are a former member of the military and a veteran like myself. Well, they should have thought about those things before they committed those crimes, before they assaulted me and my colleagues. I took the same oath that they did, and yet that did not make me remove myself from doing my duty and my job on January 6th. And that's what the reason why I continue to, uh, go to court and hold those people accountable. And I have a couple of, uh, trial cases that I'm, uh, I'll be in the coming months. I'll be in court

as well. So doing those things. Michael Fanone, your take on former President Trump calling these criminals convicted criminals hostages? I mean, it makes perfect sense to me. You know, the individuals that stormed the Capitol on January 6th attacked law enforcement in an effort to stop the certification of the election, you know, those people, that's Donald Trump's core group of supporters. I don't know whether or not he actually believes that they're hostages or even that, you know, he cares for them outside of the fact that he knows they'll vote for him if he says things like that. I mean, it just comes back to the fact that, you know, their support for Donald Trump is based on lies. And so Donald Trump has to continue to perpetuate those lies in order to maintain that level of support.

And another thing. Former. Oh, go ahead, you know, tourists, peaceful protesters. If there are those things, according to him, then what does that make us the police officers? Are we the sequesters? Are we the hostage takers? We were the one defending the Capitol on January 6th, not the other way around. And he's only accusing other people and making those assumptions because he never had done any sacrifice for anyone else but himself. Former D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone and former Capitol Police Sergeant Aquilino Ganel,

thank you both very much for coming on the show this morning. And thank you for your service. Thanks for having me. Thank you. So, Harry Dunn, I know you started off by saying you're surprised to be calling yourself a former Capitol Police officer. You're also author of Standing My Ground book. And we're keeping you on for a few more minutes because you have an announcement to make right here on Morning Joe. What is it? Yeah, you know, so it's so interesting, like this whole process that where January 6 has taken this country and has taken me personally. And one of the things that I've always said and tried to live by is a saying that says,

until there's nothing that can be done, there's always something that can be done. And I feel like I've run my race with the Capitol Police and the last 15-plus years of public service in that capacity. So here right now, I'm here to announce my candidacy for Congress in Maryland's third district. And, you know, I just want to continue. What a better, what better way than to continue fighting for the people of Maryland, for the people of the United States and to continue to defend democracy? Because I think on January 6th, it exposed, one, how weak and fragile that it is. And I don't think it's an exaggeration to say it may sound scary, but we are one election away from the extinction of democracy as we know it.

I mean, Donald Trump said it himself that he is ready to be a dictator. And, you know, a lot of his supporters will sit there and say, oh, he's just joking. But how many times has he said the things that we thought were jokes that he actually did and took him seriously? So right now I'm here to announce my candidacy to fight back and be able to push back against the people in Congress right now that I spent the last 15 years of my life protecting. And I want to serve as their equal, as their colleague. I want a voice at the table, and I'm ready for that challenge. So you can find out more information about that at harrydunnforcongress.com. Former Capitol Police officer, now officially a candidate for Congress in Maryland. Harry Dunn, thank you very much. And we will be talking to you again soon as a candidate.

Thank you. Thank you. Gene Robinson, that's not only incredibly moving. I'd love to hear your take on all of this. It's amazing to hear these three men who did their job on January 6th, who protected those members of Congress. And the sort of hurt and sense of betrayal they still feel, understandably, inevitably, from the members of Congress, the Republican members of Congress, who now essentially say, oh, it was nothing, they were tourists, they were peaceful protesters,

they were whatever, that—the way that that hurts and rankles, these three men should hurt and rankle all of us, I think. And, you know, they cannot, because of what they experienced, they cannot leave behind that sense of hurt and outrage at what happened. And I think it's just a reminder to all of us that we can't either. We can't forget what happened on January 6th. It was unprecedented. It was horrific. It was a rupture in the constitutional order of the kind of which we had never, ever seen in this country before. And we must never see again. And we have to. I do agree with Officer Fanone. We have to keep that front and center because it's so important. That was a historic day in the worst possible way.

Jonathan Lemire, it's so true. Listening to those accounts from the three officers, so much has been clouded and obscured and whitewashed and rewritten about what happened that day. And we all saw it. You wrote an entire excellent book about it called The Big Lie. What led up to that day? What came after it. And listening to Officer Fanone, it's important to remember, as you listen to what the story Donald Trump is trying to tell every day, he was dragged down steps, beaten, shocked with a stun gun and suffered a mild heart attack. And he was just one story. That's one police officer on that day. Hundreds of others were beaten by people who've now been arrested. Many of them have pled guilty. And as Sergeant Galino was saying, some of them had asked for mercy of

the court. Donald Trump sent me to do it. But we know what happened. We covered it. We were there. But there's a there is a portion of this population right now that has bought into the story that Donald Trump and others have tried to sell them that what happened that day wasn't so bad or that it didn't really happen at all, or that the FBI was behind it, all this nonsense, these conspiracy theories. You've got to listen to those officers, and they can tell you exactly what happened that day. And be cognizant, as they pointed out, that Donald Trump, you better believe, will be ready to do it again if he loses.

Yeah, that violence was inspired by Donald Trump's words and Donald Trump's lies, period. And what can't be that can't be overstated here. And it can't be said enough. And yes, as I mentioned earlier, the Republicans have done a good job like trying to downplay it, suggesting that it was a conspiracy or there's there's a political protest to get out of hand. It wasn't that bad. It's being overblown by those who want to make sure Trump can't take the White House again. We have Trump himself referring to those convicted for riots on January 6th, calling them hostages, appearing with a choir of January 6th convicts singing the national anthem. He has embraced it. He has normalized it. He is heading in that

direction. There's no doubt that the political violence is very, very possible as we start this 2024 election year. Violence that would look like what happened on January 6th. And that's what we're going to hear again from President Biden today, saying that sort of extremism, that political violence has no place in this country. That's something that belongs on other shores, not ours. And he's going to warn that Donald Trump and his movement represent that threat to our democracy and that were Trump to win again, this nation would not be the same. We would not come out of it after four years as the same country with the same ideals that we have now. That is correct. State Antony Blinken is headed to the Middle East today as tensions continue to rise across the region. Just yesterday, the United States carried out a drone strike in Iraq and more

ships in the Red Sea were attacked. NBC News chief international correspondent Keir Simmons reports. The U.S. sending a message to Iran, an American airstrike killing the leader of an Iranian-backed militia in Baghdad. A senior U.S. defense official calling it a precision strike on his vehicle, saying he was actively involved in planning and carrying out attacks against American personnel. U.S. bases in the Middle East have been hit over 100 times by various Iran-backed militias, according to the Pentagon. But Iraq, furious, saying the assassination breaks agreements it had with Washington. Then there's the growing threat from the Iranian-backed Houthi militia,

just hours after the U.S. and others issued a final warning to the group to stop attacks on ships in the Red Sea. The Houthis launching an unmanned drone boat loaded with explosives and detonating just a couple of miles from U.S. Navy and commercial ships, the Pentagon says. President Biden under pressure to order a stronger military response among the options reviewed by members of his national security team Wednesday strikes against Houthi targets inside Yemen involving the U.S. and other allied militaries, according to two current administration officials. I'm certainly not going to telegraph any punches one way or the other. We take these responsibilities seriously.

The Red Sea, a critical economic route used by 12% of global cargo shipping as fears mount of massive disruption to trade, fueling more inflation. Meanwhile, Iran is under pressure too after that deadly terror attack inside Iran Wednesday, ISIS claiming responsibility. And there are fears of an escalating regional conflict here in Lebanon to Hamas holding the funeral of a leader assassinated this week in a drone strike at a Hamas office in Beirut. Israel not publicly saying it was behind it, but has promised to hunt down Hamas leaders after the October 7th terror attacks.

Keir Simmons reporting for us there. Meanwhile, Israel's defense minister is outlining his vision for the next phase of the war against Hamas. Under the plan, the IDF would shift to what appears to be a scaled down approach to combat, focusing on, quote, erosion of terror hotspots inside Gaza. In the north, troops will conduct raids and special operations, while in the south, the main focus will be on eliminating Hamas leadership. The proposal also talks about post-war Gaza, explaining Hamas no longer will be in charge, while Israel will keep security control of the strip and only take military action when necessary. There will be no Israeli civilian presence once the war is over. Palestinian

entities, likely made up of local civil servants or communal leaders, would run the territory, with Israel providing some guidance, it says. The defense minister says the next phase of the war has not yet begun. His plan still needs to be approved by Israel's war and security cabinets. Joining us now, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, retired four-star Navy Admiral James DeVritas. He's chief international analyst for NBC News. Also with us, staff writer at The Atlantic, Graham Wood. His latest article is titled, Hamas Doesn't Want a Ceasefire. Good morning to you both, Admiral. Let me start with your analysis of that proposed new plan from Israel

about what this war will look like. You've been telling us for some time at some point soon it would come down to more targeted raids and going after Hamas leadership and not the wide scale bombing we've seen. What do you make of this new proposal? I think it makes sense. And I like the idea of a division of mission between north and south. In the north, the center of gravity is the infrastructure. It's the tunnel complex. It's the ability that Hamas created to launch this kind of dramatic strike against Israel to shield their nefarious activities from overhead sensors, all of that. That's infrastructure that will be up in the north. In the south, the center of gravity remains the leadership of Hamas. That's where they're still holed up, the ones that haven't fled to Qatar, the Persian Gulf, over points north.

So there are two distinct missions there, Willie. And the good news for Israel is that neither one of them requires massive bombing campaigns, huge collateral damage. There'll be less of that going forward. And the Israelis will use more of their special forces, foot soldiers, precision guided work, commandos, if you will, alongside engineers who are going to be thinking very long and hard about how to permanently decommission that tunnel complex in the north. military tactical kind of strategy. What I am less sanguine about is the long term plan and the idea that somehow in a very vague sort of way, the local control will be given to clans or families or entities. That strikes me as a prescription for a lot of confusion and a lot of danger. I would want to see a cleaner plan, but there aren't willing participants on the other side, at least yet, to take the handover. So Israel is reaching for some kind of plan going forward.

I think it's going to be very difficult. As usual in war, it's easy to get in. You can conduct the tactical fight. The hard part is the exit strategy. I don't see that yet. Yeah. And as you look at the top line in that proposed war plan, it just says, as a matter of fact, Hamas will not control Gaza. Easier said than done, as you say, Admiral. So, Graham, you're writing about this this week in The Atlantic, that Hamas will not accept the ceasefire. That's something we've sort of known from the beginning as people have been calling for a ceasefire here in the United States and around the world in this war, that Hamas will not cease firing despite what the world is asking for. So how do you say this playing out from here?

Yeah, I think Admiral Stavridis is correct that much of the plan that's been outlined is realistic. The long-term plan, still a lot of hand-waving that's involved in suggesting that there will be some kind of Palestinian presence that will administer the Gaza Strip. But what we're seeing, though, is that Hamas needs something other than a ceasefire. It's the opposite of a ceasefire for it to achieve its objectives. At some point, it was hoping that Israel would kind of let up on its bombing, on its attempt to invade the Gaza Strip. When that didn't happen, now the only hope that Hamas has is to widen the war, to make it regional.

And so when we say, you know, we'd like a ceasefire, it's a matter of saying it in Hebrew, also Arabic, and increasingly in Persian too, because the conflict has been at Hamas's desire and at the guidance increasingly of Tehran, widened to include, as your report said, the Houthis, Hezbollah and other entities in Iraq that are guided by Iran and asking Iran to cease fires, asking it to abandon a mission that it's had for the better part of 30 years. So, Admiral, from the early hours of this war, the Biden administration has been intent that it not widen into a regional wide conflict. But what we have seen in this last week or so, we have seen these explosions in Iran. We have seen the killing in Iraq. We have seen violence in Lebanon, a strike in Beirut. We have, of course, seen the growing chaos in the Red Sea. So walk us through this. Is this the Gaza spilling over its borders?

And how concerned are you that this could just be the beginning of something that gets even bigger? I am very concerned about it. And Graham is exactly right. Graham, by the way, came up when I was dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University. He did a marvelous presentation about one of his earlier books. Graham, good to see you. He is correct that this is a decision that is not going to be made in Washington, not going to be made in Jerusalem, not going to be made in the Gaza Strip, not going to be made in Beirut. It's going to be made in Tehran.

You know, we think of the Iranians as this kind of annoying mid-level power. That's not how they see themselves. They see themselves as inheritors of the Persian Empire, which stretched from the Indus River in South Asia to the Mediterranean Sea. And their objectives are breathtaking, and they're going to continue to pursue them. The one that I'm particularly focused on, and that worries me in terms of a widening conflict, in addition to all of the hotspots that you mentioned, focused on and that worries me in terms of a widening conflict, in addition to all of the hotspots that you mentioned, Jonathan, and you know the Admiral's going to say this, is out at sea. And the reason is because 15% of the world's shipping, maybe a bit more,

is really in irons, we would say in the Navy, because they can't get through the Red Sea. You know, and it's a big place. It's the size of the state of California. It's that body of water kind of dead in the center of the graphic you're showing. And you can't patrol the state of California with half a dozen police cars called cruisers and destroyers. Sooner or later, we have got to deter Iran into pulling back on these Houthi pirates. And frankly, we ought to stop calling them Houthi pirates. They're Iranian pirates. They're trained, equipped and organized by Tehran. And that is a dagger pointed at the heart of the global shipping chains. And if that is allowed to continue, the economic impact is going to be disastrous. So I know the White House is looking

carefully, doesn't want to looking carefully, doesn't want to escalate, doesn't want to drag us into a regional war. But we have got to create more deterrence in the minds of the mullahs in Tehran. I have a question for Graham, which is about the day after the the Biden administration has a very clear position that it ought to be the Palestinian authority, which has authority in the West Bank, that ultimately comes in and somehow runs Gaza after the war. The Israelis have just given a flat no to that. So how do you think that gets resolved between these two key actors, the United States and Israel, as to what happens and who leads Gaza? Yeah, I mean, the American argument for why it should be the Palestinian Authority is a two-word argument. Who else? It's the only Palestinian entity that has established itself with any competence at all.

And I use that word advisedly because its competence can certainly be questioned. The Israeli position that the Palestinian Authority cannot be ruling Gaza is a byproduct of a broader view that this war can't be for nothing. And there is a large constituency in Israel that says as long as there is an armed entity in Gaza that doesn't support the right of Israel to exist or that has a hostile view toward Israel, it will eventually use those arms and there will be another 7th of October. So I think these are simply incommensurable views. There's no way that the Israelis, as they're currently constituted, as their government's currently constituted, will be OK with the Palestinian Authority moving in.

And the United States has, along with many others who are observing the situation, has no better offering. So I'm very curious to see how this is going to be resolved. But eventually, there has to be something other than an Israeli occupation there, and I'm very curious to see what that's going to be. The Atlantic's Graham Wood and retired four-star Navy Admiral James Tavridis, thank you both very much for your insights this morning.