Morning Joe - Morning Joe 6/17/25

Episode Date: June 17, 2025

Will Donald Trump back Israel's goal of toppling the Ayatollah's regime? Joe asks David Ignatius in Washington and Richard Engel reporting from Israel. Also, MAGA infighting on the Middle East war and immigration.

The president, as he said today, his position has not changed. What you're watching in real time is peace through strength and America first. Our job is to be strong. We are postured defensively in the region to be strong in pursuit of a peace deal. And we certainly hope that's what happens here. And America first means we're going to defend American personnel and American interests. Defense Secretary Pete Hagstaff telling Fox News last night. What did that mean?

Peace through strength or strength. It's like a couple bumper stickers. He could have just held up bumper stickers. I don't understand what that means. Yeah. Israel, wait, we're talking about Israel's peace through? Yeah. Jonathan O'Meara, I'm confused. What was that? Is that's peace through... Yeah.

Jonathan O'Mare, I'm confused. What was that? Is that like peace through strength? He's talking about Israel? Was that an Israeli? Should that have been like a Hebrew peace through strength? America first? Netanyahu bombing Iran?

I'm deeply confused. What was that? Well, that was the Secretary of Defense's... What's he trying to say here? Can you interpret this for me? I'm a simple caveman lawyer who stays up too late watching the Red Sox pitch shutouts and things such as this. But go ahead. Yeah, maybe secretary. We don't know his baseball legions. We need to figure that out. Um, that was the secretary of defense speaking a lot of

platitudes without a lot of meaning behind it. But it was part of an effort by the White House to combat some information last night. Rumors swirling as President Trump cut short his stay at the G7 in Canada, rushing back to the White House, reports out of Israel the U.S. was actively engaging, being involved in the war, perhaps even attacking Iran. The White House very quickly put out a bunch of statements saying, that's not true, that's not true. And Hagseth went on Fox News to say that, and it wasn't clear what else he meant. So let's explain this too. There may actually be even more to this politically for domestic politics, manga politics, more than anything else. Tucker Carlson going on Steve Bannon's show yesterday,

and again saying that Donald Trump going along with Netanyahu could not only destroy the American empire, but also destroy his presidency. We've heard other people, other Fox News commentators, and others out there in the right-wing MAGA sort of media sphere, talking about this civil war that's coming domestically inside, saying that Donald Trump's going to destroy his presidency. So is that what he's saying? Donald Trump supporting Israel is really America first,

and that's why people need to just, you know, people on MAGA base need to go along with this? Yeah, that's the subtext here. There's been a real divide, particularly in the last couple of days, and it really exploded yesterday, as you said. So almost a civil war within the MAGA movement. There's the Tucker Carlson wing that is saying, don't be involved in Iran. You know, when Donald Trump first ran for office 10 years ago yesterday, he pledged to no more be not be involved in these forever wars, no more Middle East entanglements and the like.

America first, much more of an isolationist view. Then there's the other side of this, Mark Levine, Charlie and some of the Rupert Murdoch and others members of that wing who say, no, now is the time where Iran is weak, the US should be involved, if not directly, but at least support Israel's efforts. And there is a schism here, and President Trump, well aware of this schism. He, in fact, called Tucker Carlson kooky last night in a social media post after Carlson called him complicit

in what we're seeing in Iran right now. And I am told by people close to the president, he's mindful of trying to satisfy both bases, and that's why we're getting a little bit of a waffling. He's not quite sure how to navigate this very fast moving situation in the Middle East. Well you can go back to 1979. Mika of course, something your father was greatly aware of.

When Ayatollah Khomeini took over Iran, you actually had the rise of a terrorist state, and the first Islamist state, but a terrorist state that exported terrorism across the Middle East and across the globe. It's been the epicenter of terrorism since 1979. There have been conservatives out there, traditional conservatives. There have been people like Marc Levin, who was, before being a Trump conservative, a Reagan conservative, and for so many conservatives, Iran has been the epicenter of terror.

And the feeling in those quarters that we are this close to seeing Israel actually finish off this radical regime that has exported terrorism across the globe now for almost 50 years. They don't want to hear other people inside the MAGA base saying, ah, let Israel off the hook or let Iran off the hook. So it is going to be a fascinating ideological battle on the MAGA right. Well, there's more news that happened overnight to get to also with with us this morning, New York Times opinion columnist David French. And columnist and associate editor for the Washington Post, David Ignatius is with us as well.

I'm just curious, David French, you are also part of the expat conservative community like me. We are conservatives living in a strange land. What is being called conservative now? Ronald Reagan would not have recognized. Hell, people 10 years ago wouldn't have recognized. I'm curious, your thoughts on this civil war inside the MAGA world about the Tucker Carlson side, the isolationist side, the so-called America First side, versus those who since 1979 have seen Iran as the epicenter of terrorism on the globe, believing that if you can take down the Islamic State in Iran, or if you can stand back and watch Iran, watch Israel do it, that's not a bad thing.

I'm curious your thoughts on that. Yeah, this conflict was inevitable from the moment that Donald Trump was sworn in. I mean, look, Israel was already engaged in active warfare at that time. Those attacks were changing the reality on the ground, rendering Iran far more vulnerable to an attack than it's been in a long time. The opportunity was there for Israel. I think it was only a matter of time, no matter who won the election before Israel was going to take advantage of this opportunity to hit Iran, to hit Iran's nuclear facilities.

And then Donald Trump was going to have to make some choices he didn't want to make, because he had convinced one set of Americans that he was going to be Israel's best ally. He'd convinced another set of Americans that he was going to be totally turning the page on American foreign policy in a way that no other president had. And these things are not reconcilable. These are not reconcilable ideas. And I think what he's hoping is that Israel can finish the job with Iran so that he doesn't even have to make the decision.

But it's very unclear whether Israel can finish the job, especially with the deeply buried nuclear sites without American help. And what happens if he leaves Israel hanging with the job almost done, not completely done militarily? And so he's going to... Right now, I'm sure he's hoping that Israel can resolve this for him But it looks like he's gonna have some tough choices to make and one part of his coalition is just not gonna like the outcome Well, and I would say David Ignatius will confirm this. I'm sure you're not gonna you're not gonna get rid of the nuclear program

You're not gonna get rid of the nuclear site without American weapons, with American bunker busting bombs. As they say, David, I won't get you in the middle of this maga civil war. I will ask you a question that a lot of people have to be thinking because we, you and I remember November of 1979, remember the Iranian hostage crisis, remember Ayatollah Khomeini coming to power and suddenly creating all of these, are supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, being this perceived power, massive power in the Middle East that the Saudis and all of our Sunni Arab allies feared. I'm curious, was the foreign policy community surprised at just how weak Iran ended up being when we got the news months ago that their air defenses were completely

stripped, that Israel could attack at will. Because I would guess most Americans, after hearing about this frightful Iranian regime, revolutionary regime, would never have seen this coming, where Iran right now is basically at the will of what Israel decides it's going to do, strike after strike after strike. So we get to this moment where Israel has what seems unchallenged dominance over Iran's skies, the ability to bomb almost any target in Iran that it wants. Through this enormously difficult period since October 7, 2023, in which Israel initially was just battered and traumatized and then began rolling back the Iranian-backed proxies in Lebanon,

in Gaza, in Syria. It was another process, but the same thing happened. And then beginning to really move in on Iran in October, took out Iranian air defenses around Tehran to a large extent. And at the time- David, are you surprised by how easy that was? Are you surprised that this supposed superpower in the Middle East, that for good reasons had been feared for decades, had its air, so easily wiped out that Hamas leaders

were so easily targeted in Iran while visiting Iran and assassinated that their proxies were wiped out as easily as they were wiped out. I mean, this is Israel from a distance has made this look rather rather easy. Joe, it's been tactically brilliant. I keep being astonished by each stage of this. I think a lot of it is the quality of Israeli intelligence. They seem to know just where people are going to be in Tehran. When they struck early Friday, in the beginning of this latest round, they knew the locations of every senior commander and went in with munitions.

In most cases, it seems to have been drones that Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, had smuggled into Iran and took those people out in their apartments, in their homes, bing, bing, one after another. The same kind of precision intelligence has been seen in other parts of the campaign leading up to where we are now. I think that the dilemma that Israel has and the United States as its friend and ally has is for all of Israel's tactical brilliance, the strategic side, how does this end up?

What's the end state of this conflict? Has always been a weaker part of their operations. And that's what we're asking now as we look at Iran. How does this end? Does this end with an Israeli attack with U.S. munitions on the last major facility in their nuclear complex, Fordow. Three others have already been hit decisively, but this last one is remaining as crucial. Do we end with an attempt to topple the regime of the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, and have

regime change in Iran with all the uncertainty that that portends. Those questions are possible because of Israel's overwhelming military dominance in the air right now. And I think that's part of the dilemma for the administration. Do they want to stop that process before it culminates? Do they think that making an 11th hour deal with Iran really is in the United States' long-term interests.

There's a lot of American blood on Iranian hands as well as Israeli. So, David, let me ask you this question just to follow up. We all remember what happened in March of 2003, all of the warnings about going into Iraq, although that ultimately over the first few months was very successful and had people running victory laps on both sides of the aisle, that quickly deteriorated. You fear the same might happen if the Iranian regime was toppled? So, I think first for the United States or Israel to get involved in a ground war in the Middle East, in Iran specifically, would be a potentially disastrous mistake.

Iraq, its neighbor, fought an eight-year war. A million Iranians died. It was just a nightmare of a conflict. In terms of the potential costs for the United States, you have to weigh that the two sides going further has the risk of uncertainty. You don't know what a fragmenting Iran would look like, the degree of instability, but letting this nation that now is almost pressed to move toward having a nuclear weapon. I'm sure Iranians will say tonight, if we'd had that nuclear weapon we wouldn't

be under this kind of attack now. That's the problem I think that both Israel and the US face. If you don't go further you end up with this angry snake ready to strike because it has no other way to defend itself. All right. Looking at where we are up to this moment, ahead of President Trump's early departure from the G7 summit, a joint statement agreed upon by all leaders present was released regarding the developments out of the Middle East. Trump at first declined to sign the document, but decided

to do so when the draft language was adjusted. The statement reads, in part, Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror. We have been consistently clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. We urge that the resolution of the Iranian crisis leads to a broader de-escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, including a ceasefire in Gaza. Jonathan O'meer, so let's talk about this. Of course, Donald Trump first came there strangely obsessed with talking about Vladimir Putin and now Russia after attacking Ukraine in 2014 should have remained a member of the G8, Crimea.

And now after the latest attacks and of course last night killing more people in Kiev, the highest number I think this year, also going after hospitals, targeting hospitals as Washington Post reports. Also at this time talking about once again how they should be a member of the G8. So absolutely bizarre timing there, to say the least. That said, what did the president see in the G7 statement that he didn't like, that he wanted to change? And tell me, what was the general read on how Donald Trump and other leaders interacted up there.

Of course, there were no trade deals, so the markets, the futures look like they're going down because there was actually, I think maybe they signed the deal with with Sarmour. You can fill us in there. But it looked like he was getting along well with Carney looked like he was getting along well with with with other members he was getting along well with other members there, and other than sort of the poke at Macron on the way home from the summit. It seemed like his relationships, his personal relationships with those leaders seemed fairly positive.

Yeah, I think that's right. We know for this president in particular, those personal relationships, he prizes at the sort of the center of his diplomatic efforts. He really wants to get along with those leaders, and those leaders know that the play is to flatter him, to try to get on his good side. You're right about the lack of trade deals. They did put pen to paper on the UK deal. That seems to be done.

But really, per what I've been told, no progress made anywhere else, and the markets are reacting with a disappointment. Of course, President Trump only stayed half as long as scheduled, racing out of there last night. The kerfuffle with Macron is Macron was asked about Trump's early departure and said, well, he's heading back to Washington to try to work on a ceasefire between Iran and Israel. And Trump took real exception to that, saying he doesn't want a ceasefire, he wants a permanent end to the war. He said that both on True Social, he also talked to reporters for a few minutes on Air Force One on the flight back. He had nothing but good things to say publicly about the new prime minister of Canada, Carney.

He had bristled at a few of Carney's remarks but said he did a good job hosting the summit just outside Calgary. So I do agree, personal relationships seem positive, but there wasn't a lot of progress there. And certainly European leaders, I talked to a few diplomats, texted with yesterday, were just baffled by his continued deference to Vladimir Putin, suggesting that it was a mistake by Barack Obama and later Joe Biden to not bring Putin back into the G8 when, as you just detailed, he was expelled for the attacks in Crimea back in 2014

and has only accelerated his hostilities in recent times, including, let's be clear on this, as the US has pulled back from negotiations in Ukraine, Putin has only stepped up his attacks there in Kiev and other major cities. Let's turn back now to the Middle East. Joining us now live from Israel is NBC News Chief Foreign Cor foreign correspondent Richard Engel.

Richard, good to see you. Obviously at the G7 last night, talks about what's happening there in Israel. First and foremost, the president flew all night. Doesn't look like he got any sleep on Air Force One. He is just back in the White House. He's gathering security officials this morning to talk about the situation. Give us an update from the ground there. So last night was a little bit quieter than it has been in recent days.

The Iranians had been promising a night of fire and brimstone. They said that Iran was preparing the most intense bombardment by missiles against Israel that this country has ever seen, and it didn't really happen. There were a few explosions, there were a few missiles that were fired at this country, some at Haifa, some in the Tel Aviv area. This is where one of them managed to get

through the Israeli security net, through the air defenses. And I can show you what it did. When we talk about these ballistic missiles, they are extraordinarily powerful. This is the crater that one of them caused just a few hours ago. I heard the explosion. It's probably 15 to 20 feet deep and it didn't cause any deaths, didn't cause any injuries here, but it did cause some damage, mostly to this bus depot. It charred all of these buses, and luckily nobody appears to have been here at the time. Nobody was on these buses.

It was more or less a parking lot. But had it hit an apartment building as it did yesterday, also not very far from here, a very different situation. So Israelis are are on edge The Israelis do feel that they have the upper hand they have the upper hand militarily as you've been talking about the Israeli Air Force Says it now has complete freedom of operation over Tehran But the Iranians are still firing some missiles at Israel

Iranians are still firing some missiles at Israel, but last night on a relatively small scale, not this massive attack that they had been threatening. And one thing, Joe, you mentioned earlier about the concern that these early military successes that Israel's having, will it give it a false sense of security? Will it lead to more action? Is there a 2002 dynamic here? And that is exactly what many senior officials across the Middle East who I'm speaking to are worried about. They're telling me that this all feels like 2002 all over again, that there's discussion

of redrawing the map of the Middle East, changing the mentality of the Middle East, regime change in the Middle East, allegations of weapons of mass destruction imminently being ready and imminently going to be used in a variety of locations. And not here necessarily in Israel, but across the Arab world, I'm hearing this on a daily basis. People are worried, are we back in 2002? Are we back in 2003 thousand two are we back in two thousand three all over again which are dead this david ignatius in washington just curious what you're hearing from israeli officials and the people that

you're talking to this question you were just discussing how does this and who's really see this conflict going on until effectively there's an Iranian surrender? Would they be disappointed if President Trump moved into a serious negotiation with the Iranians for some kind of new deal? As you know, the Israelis are very divided on this subject. They're very divided on Prime Minister Netanyahu.

I was speaking yesterday with a young Israeli woman who was more or less echoing the government line and it's the line you hear from government officials, it's the one you see very often on state TV, that Israel has no choice, that if it didn't do this action and if it didn't take advantage of this moment when Iran is weak, when its proxies around the region have been defanged, that one day it would be facing Iran with a nuclear weapon, and the logic being better now than later. So there is a significant portion of Israeli society that believes that. People on the street believe that, and that is the government's line.

But there are others who don't trust Netanyahu, who don't trust his intentions, who worry that he's acting for his own political motivations. And they see scenes like this every day and they say, enough is enough. We're fighting in Gaza, they're fighting in Lebanon, they're fighting still or occupying parts of Syria in the Golan Heights, and now in an open war with Iran with no apparent end in sight. And the war in Gaza is often getting overshadowed by all of this. It is continuing at a ferocious pace.

According to medical officials, just today, more than 50 people were killed while they were trying to gather food. A medical official told NBC News that they were hit by drones and artillery as Palestinians were waiting to collect basic supplies, food primarily, and that hospitals in the area, because of this latest attack that is describing as a massacre, that the hospitals are overwhelmed. So this country is at war on multiple fronts. It is facing protests. It is facing protests. It is facing international backlash. Some airlines no longer fly to Israel, not just

because the airspaces are closed right now, but for political reasons. So there is a segment of the society that would like to wrap this up and see an exit strategy. But it's unclear to say which is in the majority, but the government is certainly saying that this is not a war of choice, but a war of necessity. All right, NBC News foreign correspondent Richard Engel, thank you very much for your reporting this morning. There is still a lot more to get to this morning on Morning Joe. We're going to go live to Calgary where the G7 summit continues without President Trump. Plus the White House is now reversing course

resuming immigration raids at farms and restaurants and hotels. We'll dig into that new report as officials look to ramp up deportation efforts. Also ahead we'll bring you the latest on the man accused of shooting two Minnesota lawmakers as prosecutors released new details on the attacks and a reminder the morning Joe podcast available each weekday featuring our full conversations the latest news analysis you can listen wherever you get your podcasts. Good morning, Joe. We'll be right back. David, yesterday, David French, yesterday we had Jody Kander on who had a remarkable profile of Amy Coney Barrett, who by the way, still conservative, still somebody that was, you know, sort of out of the Federalist society mold, somebody who is, but at the same time, like someone that

she always looked up to, Justice Scalia, who said he was an originalist but he wasn't a nut, she is going to go where the law takes her. And just like Scalia, she will surprise conservatives at times with rulings, as Scalia did on flag burning. And I just loved his quote, which was, if you always rule the way you like, then you're doing something wrong. It means you're not following the law. She has emerged, I guess, for people that don't really follow the court and just read headlines instead of opinions. She's emerged as somebody who's either growing or somebody who's a trader, when in fact it

does appear, especially if you read her opinions, if you read her concurrences, she's just, she's calling balls and strikes and doing it in a pretty, well, in a very insightful way. Oh, absolutely. I mean, she is a conservative justice in the way that for generations, the conservative movement conceived of conservative justices, originalist, independent minded, open to persuasion, but also very sharp and defensive or values. I mean, these are all qualities and characteristics that were considered ideal for a conservative judge or justice for a very long time. But now they're laying around on top of another one, which is you can't just be originalist.

You have to say when originalism is in conflict with Trumpism, then Trumpism has to win over originalism or you're somehow woke now, at least according to MAGA. And so when we're talking about MAGA's attacks on Amy Coney Barrett, we have to be very specific. What MAGA is saying is that what we want is for Trump to win, period, full stop. That's what it means now to be a conservative judge or justice. Amy Coney Barrett, like other members of the court, she's not alone in this, but like other members of the court, has stuck to her guns. She has stuck to her legal philosophy, to her values and principles.

And that's deeply confusing for a lot of Trumpists because they're used to members of Congress just caving and throwing all of that away for Trump. The judges aren't doing it and it's causing real anger and Amy Coney Barrett has become the focus of that anger. Well, and this has been the case, David, now, not only throughout Donald Trump's first term, but Donald Trump's second term, and all these people that are whining and screaming and squealing like little babies, that, oh my God, there are more injunctions against Donald Trump than anybody. Well, that's because, and again, you know, faulting for this, it's his right as president,

he's pushing the boundaries of Article 2 powers. We knew coming in, if you read Project 2025, he was going to be pushing the boundaries of Article 2 powers. And when you push boundaries, you are going to get pushback, and there will be some give, and there will be more often than not, pushback. This is all very predictable, and the idea that they're attacking conservative justices for doing their jobs, again, it's maddening.

But again, you are right. They're used to seeing House members and senators betray their conservatives' beliefs, House members and senators sitting there allowing the budget deficit to go up at record levels, House members and senators allowing the U. the US debt to grow at just absolutely staggering numbers, House members and senators betraying our Ukrainian allies, the list goes on and on and on. So you are right. Judges have continued to do their jobs, whether they are progressive or whether they are conservative,

but you contrast that with Republican House members and Senate members who've betrayed the conservative cause time and time again. And this is just something that I guess some people on the Magorite can't comprehend. It's just too much for them. Well, it also demonstrates some of the wisdom of the founders by having these judges insulated from things like primary voters. These Republican members of Congress have now looked at the political landscape over the years and have seen that every Republican elected official who stands up against Donald

Trump ends up with the tire tracks of the bus running over them. And so now they've just become as quietly compliant as any congressional majority that I've ever seen in my entire life. But the judges have different incentives. They have the lifetime appointment. They don't have to face primary voters. Also when they're making their decisions, they're thinking about the judgment of history and precedent.

They're not thinking as much about the applause of the crowd and walking into, especially a judge like Amy Coney Barrett, who has been trained in originalism and trained in the court's counter-majoritarian tradition, to come in and say, well, the people have spoken in the form of Donald Trump and Donald Trump gets what he wants. Well, the people have spoken is not always a great argument to make to a justice who understands the purpose of the Bill of Rights, for example, which is to protect individual liberty and individual dignity sometimes from the people and from mob rule. So they're making all the worst arguments if you're wanting to persuade originalist

judges and justices. And that's one of the reasons why they're failing so much. Based on the one and a half percent majority nationwide and less than that of the swing states. All right. We want to bring in now NBC News White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor, who joins us live from Calgary. Yamiche, we've been discussing why President Trump left the summit early.

Tell us more about what he accomplished while there. Well, Mika, I can tell you that this was really a striking announcement that President Trump made when his office decided and the White House press secretary made the announcement that he was going to be leaving early. Her explanation was that it was because there was so much going on in the Middle East and the president needed to leave before this announcement. The president was having what some would say was a successful G7 in that he did roll out a new trade deal that was actually signed between him and the prime minister of the

United Kingdom. We'd been waiting for a while for that trade agreement to be rolled out. He was also meeting with a number of other heads of state. He met with the head of Canada, who of course is hosting the G7, talking about the fact that while he hasn't worked out a trade deal with them, that they are continuing to be in negotiations. And the president was supposed to be with a number of other people, including the president of Mexico and the president of Ukraine today.

That of course is not happening. It is interesting to see that the president is, it sounds like, backtracking on this idea that he was not going to sign a G7 statement that called for de-escalation between Iran and Israel. It sounds like he is now going to be citing that, even though he might be sort of adjusting the language a bit here. In terms of what's happening in the Middle East and why the president is going back, we had reporting that he had actually told the National Security Council to be ready

in the Situation Room when he landed in DC. We now are looking for details to see whether or not that happened and what happened once he landed in DC. But what we do know is that on the plane back to DC, the president was talking at length to reporters. And at one point a reporter asked him specifically, well, what is going on with the U S involvement between Israel and Iran? And the president, uh, simply said, as you put you put earlier Mika that Iran simply cannot have a nuclear weapon

he didn't say the US troops are gonna be on the ground or that US personnel is gonna be involved but then he was also asked about this idea that he told everyone in Tehran to evacuate and there was real worry across the board I was talking to a number of sources who were worried but whether or not there was gonna be some imminent threat some imminent military action that the United States might take against Iran. The president said though, that there is no threat that in fact right now he was just wanting people to quote, stay safe. So it's still, I think, very alarming to some that the president tweeted out and you should all evacuate because of course the words of the

president have a lot of weight here. But from what we can tell right now, the president is sort of in a defensive posture and wanting to see what happens next. But really, I think some remarkable set of events here at the G7. But let's also remind folks he left the last G7 early. So there is a little bit of talk of whether or not he was just done here because he thought he got what he needed to do. And maybe he just wanted to go back to D.C.

Mika, Joe. Yeah, President Trump, not known to being particularly fond of these international summits that may have played a role. NBC's Yamiche Alcindor live in Calgary. Thank you so much. David Ignatius, let's go back to what we're seeing in the Middle East. We shouldn't gloss over. Yamiche just mentioned it. The president's social media post last night calling for an immediate evacuation of Tehran, a city bigger than New York, obviously something impossible to do that did create a lot of real worry and panic. He did then backtrack it off while on Air Force One saying, well, I didn't mean anything

was imminent. I just want people to be safe. OK. But he is now in a very precarious position. There's the post there. Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran is how he ended it. These next steps, this next day or two, it does feel like it could be an inflection point in this conflict as the president decides what role the US will take.

Will it give its blessing to Israel and perhaps equipment to Israel to really take out Iran's nuclear program once and for all, maybe even regime change? Talk to us about how you think that's playing out there in Washington on the Hill, where we also know, we talked earlier about the divide in your sort of MAGA world. There's also a divide in the Republican Party as to what to do. Lindsey Graham, for instance, advocating going for it. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who speaks a lot in the MAGA world, decidedly no, saying that'd be a betrayal of his American first values. So I think, Jonathan, there is an element in the president's comments and behavior that

is trying to use Israeli military pressure, this enormous, overwhelming military campaign over Iran, to push the Iranians to make the kind of deal that they weren't prepared to make in the days before Israel began its bombing campaign early last Friday. I had somebody in the administration say to me yesterday that the president remains as interested in getting a diplomatic settlement as ever, that his philosophy when he thinks about Iran is make trade not war, you know, he'd like to have a deal that opens Iran to development and progress, brings it back into the circle of trade with the US and the West.

I think the question that I find Iran watchers pondering is whether it's possible for this Iranian regime to make the kind of deal that President Trump is talking about without what is in essence a regime change, without a significant diminution, the power of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, whether Khamenei will survive this period. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has almost directly threatened that he might end up being a casualty of the war. So I think we're getting to ultimate questions now.

As you talk about the Supreme Leader, excuse me, David, I'm sorry, but continue your thought. I just want you, though, before we let you go to underline the number of leaders, military leaders, intel leaders that have been killed by Israel, and I bring this up today because there were the initial five, but it continues day in and day out. The targeting of the Supreme Leader's core military leaders, I mean there's, even if he survives, the leadership underneath him has just been absolutely decimated, hasn't it? So it has been. One striking example is the person who was appointed, the new military commander, after the Iranian commander was assassinated in the opening hours of the war, has now himself been assassinated.

So who's behind him? Somebody else I'm sure will be installed. But your point is right. If the Supreme Leader turns to his cabinet, his military leadership, and says, you know, what are we going to do now? He's got a group of people who are new to their jobs, who are not sure of the resources that they have. And Iran is in a serious predicament.

Every sign I've been getting from the Iranian people that I talked to who are in contact with Tehran is that Tehran does want to be back at the negotiating table. Question is, how much are they willing to give up? Are they willing to give up their right to enrich? If they did, I think a deal could be made fairly quickly that certainly that President Trump would accept. For the Israelis, it's more complicated. But the situation in Tehran today must be completely chaotic, not simply because of

bombing but not knowing who's in charge or anything. Yeah. The Washington Post, David Ignatius, thank you so much for your analysis and insights this morning. Thank you, David. Coming up, we're going to take a closer look at President Trump's military parade in Washington, D.C. Anand Girdardis argues, quote, a bad parade is a good sign.

He'll explain that next on Morning Joe. This big might sound like a giant waste of taxpayer money, but the White House did find a way to make a teeny bit of that cash back. Special thanks to our sponsor, Lockheed Martin. Special thanks to our sponsor, Lockheed Martin. Special thanks to our sponsor, UFC. Special thanks to our sponsor, Coinbase. Now, some people have said that's in bad taste, but remember, our military has always had sponsorships. Who can forget FDR's speech after Pearl Harbor?

December 7th, 1941, a date that is brought to you by Farmers Insurance. We are farmers. Bum, bum, bum, bum, World War II. Yeah. Good folks at Farmers. Very good folks at Farmers.

That's not how I quite remember it, but well done there by the folks at Stephen Colbert. So the parade, the military parade, was not the only event this past Saturday, as more than 5 million people took part in the No Kings rallies also this past weekend, according to organizers of that protest movement. That coincided with the aforementioned military parade

in Washington, DC, which celebrated the 250th anniversary of the US Army and just so happened to fall on President Trump's birthday. Joining us now, MSNBC political analyst and girdardist, he is publisher of the newsletter The Inc. available on Substack and is out with a new piece titled, A Bad Parade is a Good Sign. Also with this, Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and MSNBC political analyst, Eugene Robinson. Our thanks to you both for being with us.

We'll start here and with you. We were talking about how Saturday really felt like a heavy day. We all woke up to the news of the terrible violence in Minnesota. Those lawmakers killed, fear that, you know, warnings that the suspect was to the large, fears that some of these protests could turn violent. They did not, outside of a few very minor exceptions. And I know you were focused on what happened in Washington with the military parade.

There were a lot of concern about the images that President Trump was trying to create there, in addition to beyond the, perhaps, taxpayer expenditures. But you found comforting. The crowds just didn't show up. They didn't. It was a flaccid and sad parade. And after, you know, people have seen now the images

of the kind of half-empty bleachers, of the officials kind of yawning and not particularly excited about their own parade that they'd ordered up. Look, Donald Trump tried to use the United States Armed Forces as a birthday party rental company, right? He tried to throw as a birthday party rental company. He tried to throw himself a birthday using the United States Armed Forces.

And what's so interesting, there were these memes that started doing the rounds of these pictures from the parade, pictures like what you're seeing, but also the actual marching juxtaposed with pictures of military parades of the kind we know Trump likes, the kind of North Korean, Chinese, marching in lockstep, thousands of people in these like square formations, the kicking going up and down, the arms going up and down, we know that's what he wanted. And in the United States of America, he was not able to get it despite his power and being the commander-in-chief. And so I started to think about why for this piece. And it strikes me that it's good to be bad

at certain things. And throwing a lockstep military parade is not something we're gonna be good at in this country because we are free in our bones. This is the country of jazz, not people marching in lockstep. I think this is the country, not of North Korean unity, but Korean tacos where lots of things mix in one, Mexican food,

North Carolina food, Korean food. This is not the kind of country that is very good at doing what North Korea is so gifted at, and I'm very grateful for that. Yeah, Eugene Robinson, certainly no one suggests the Army shouldn't be celebrated on its birthday, but we had so many ex-military officers, generals, and the like say at this point, these military parades, that's not quite our thing. No, it's not our thing. And it is good that it's not our thing.

The military parade was a history lesson, starting with the Continental Army, the Revolutionary War. It was American in that sort of freedom in our bones way. And I actually thought it was, you know, it was not a very exciting parade, but that was indeed a good thing. You know, the split screen is what I thought was so fascinating because you had on the one hand,

the military parade that wasn't, there was no goose stepping, none of that. And then you had five million people in demonstrations around the country against what President Trump is doing. What it brought to mind to me was a number that Joe Scarborough mentioned earlier, one and a half percent. That was the margin between the 77 million votes that Donald Trump got and the 75 million that Kamala Harris got.

And it's not this overwhelming mandate for proto-fascism. Anna, talk about that, talk about what you saw on Saturday with the split-screen images. You're right. It was a tale of two gatherings, right? You had this attempt to make us something we are not in Donald Trump's birthday party military parade. And then you had these no-kings rallies.

It wasn't in one city or two cities or 10 cities. It was in hundreds and hundreds more than I think 2,000 locations, separate organized events, millions of people. I saw in the New York Times this morning possibly the largest single day of protests in American history. One of Donald Trump's legacies is causing that record to be broken multiple times. And what you saw there, I think, and I've been talking to people who themselves are part of this growing movement, who feel like courage is contagious,

and it's growing with each successive demonstration of force. There were people in January who were not sure if they wanted to be in it, maybe I'm not so political, maybe I don't really know, I've never been to a protest before. Maybe I feel scared.

And then February comes along and March comes along and courage is growing. And you're seeing people who were a little bit scared to go to the hands off rally a couple of months ago, now going to this one. And you're seeing people bring a neighbor, bring a friend. And what you're seeing is people refusing to be ruled. And by the way, Republicans in this country,

just regular people, Republicans, don't like to be ruled, don't like to be lorded over, don't like chaos brought into their life, to their 401k, to their VA benefits, just because an unhinged wannabe autocrat is trying to use his office to get rich. want to be autocrat is trying to use his office to get rich. So, David French, I'm curious your thoughts about the military parade. You know, my feeling is, of course, we want to always salute our men and women in uniform. My guess is, serving in a district that had more military retirees than any other district in America,

my guess is they would say, you know what, use that money to help with VA benefits. Use that money to strengthen the VA instead of gutting the VA. Use that money keeping military retirees in their positions in the federal government instead of firing them after 20 years of honorable service to the United States of America. Use that money on military retirees and vets, healthcare. You know, use that money to improve housing for men and women and their families in uniform.

That's just generally my thought again, serving in a district that had six, seven military bases and more military retirees than any district in America. I think most of those people who obviously love the military would look at that military parade and come to me if I were still representing him and saying, why do we have cuts at the VA? Why is Congress and the White House not keeping their promise on veterans' health care, on military retirees' health care, but they're running parades that cost hundreds of millions of dollars?

That's kind of... I'm pretty sure that's what I would hear from my constituents. What are your thoughts? You know, I think Americans broadly don't mind a celebration of the Army. Of course, the cost has to be reasonable. It can't be too much. But I don't think Americans mind a celebration of the Army at 250 years. It's a long record of courage

and sacrifice and service that have helped make the American experiment possible in the first place. And so I don't think Americans mind that. The problem, though, comes against the backdrop of larger context. When Trump has his fingerprints all over something, it's importing a lot of larger context. And so it's one thing to have a 250 year celebration in the United States Army. It's another thing to have it right in the midst

of a potentially illegal deployment of the Army to Los Angeles. It's one thing to celebrate 250 years of the Army. It's another thing to do it right after he went to an Army base and held what looks like virtually a political rally at an army base. And so these larger pieces of context, I think, cast a pall on what should have been, what should have been by all rights, a very unifying thing, a celebration of 250 years of courage and sacrifice. And so this is one of the problems you have when you have a man like Donald Trump as the

president of the United States. He has tainted so many things with his corruption and so many things with his self-interest. It's very hard to pull any one thing out and say, hey, look, this is purely a unifying American moment. And that is what is such a shame about this era. You know and I will say following up on the Fort Bragg speech that David brought up, if you talk the military, the retired military men and women that I spoke to over the past week or so actually didn't love the idea of the military parade, they

wanted again, spend that money on people in the army, spend that money on their quality of life, spend that money on readiness. But they seemed far more disturbed by the speech at Fort Bragg, the politicalization of a speech to our US troops in uniform and deriding Donald Trump's political opponents, that that they considered far more dangerous than a parade celebrating 250 years of the U.S. Army. MSNBC political analyst, on and geared artist, thank you very much. His new piece is online now at The Inc. And Eugene Robinson and David French, thank you both as well.