Morning Joe - Morning Joe: Israel claims Iran 'completely violated' ceasefire; Iran denies launching new missiles

Episode Date: June 24, 2025

Breaking: Israel claims Iran 'completely violated' ceasefire; Iran denies launching new missiles

Hot day in New York City today. Going to be another scorcher. It's 5 59 a.m. Wake up if you must. Good morning and welcome to morning Joe. It's Tuesday, June 24th. We've got a lot to get to including the developing situation in the Middle East as Israel is now accusing Iran of breaking a ceasefire agreement

overnight, claiming that Tehran fired more missiles. Also ahead, we're going to go through Iran's retaliatory attack on a U.S. military base in the region, their response to President Trump strikes over the weekend. Meanwhile, the President is headed to the Netherlands this morning for the NATO summit. We're going to be joined by Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, who are going to be part of a congressional delegation at that event. With us this morning, we have co-host of our fourth hour contributing writer of the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, also Bureau Chief at the USA Today, Susan Page, and New York Times

opinion columnist David French, The Washington Post's David Ignatius will join us in a moment. So Jonathan, while we were sleeping, news breaking. Yeah, there is a lot to get to this morning. And we'll begin with that breaking news. A top Israeli official says that Iran has completely violated the ceasefire just hours after it went into effect. Officials claim that Tehran launched war missiles into Israeli

territory. No injuries though have been reported. Iran is denying that it violated the agreement but now the IDF has been instructed to respond forcefully with strikes against Iranian government targets in the heart of Tehran. This comes just two hours after Israel officially accepted the ceasefire deal with Iran, and President Trump claimed that the agreement was in effect. Now, Trump first announced the deal yesterday evening, saying Iran will halt its attacks first, then Israel will start the ceasefire, bringing an end to, in his words,

an official end to the 12-day war. Iran said last night it's willing to stop hostilities if Israel does the same. But shortly afterwards, Israel reported a barrage of missiles that were launched from Tehran. At least five people were killed in that strike. Then, overnight, Israeli forces announced that they destroyed missile launchers in Western Iran that they say were aimed towards Israeli territory. The attacks then stopped until just moments ago when Israel said it detected another Iranian

barrage. Now, even earlier in the day, before the ceasefire was announced, Iran launched missiles at the United States Air Base in Qatar. Both the US and Qatar were informed about the strike before it happened. Air defenses shot down 13 of the 14 missiles, while the remaining one reportedly posed no threat. It was let go.

No casualties reported. Iran's telegraphed assault outside of populated areas suggested it was prepared to reduce tensions while also trying to save face among its own population. In a very lengthy post on social media, President Trump thanked Iran for giving early notice of the strike, which he described as very weak. So, Joe, let's underscore this.

The United States, of course, hit these Iranian targets on Saturday, inflicting damage, not sure how much, but significant damage on its nuclear sites. There was a sense that Iran would strike back. The question is, how much? Turned out pretty limited, pretty face-saving measure yesterday at the U.S. base in Qatar, telegraphed in advance. The U.S. was able to easily pick it down the question then was trump going to respond The answer at least for the moment is no but now we would of course wait to see if indeed the ceasefire has already been broken

Well, I'm curious your thoughts It would seem to me that it's certainly the feeling from those I talked to yesterday around the region feeling is Iran And it's it's it's already a cliché, 24 hours into it, but Iran doesn't have, quote, any cards to play or many cards to play. So a ceasefire makes sense to them. You heard Israel talking, sort of edging up to this ceasefire moment, saying that they've achieved most of their strategic goals. I'm curious your thoughts. So with Donald Trump in the middle of these two, with Iran certainly not wanting to encourage further U.S. attacks, and we saw that yesterday with how the Qatar strikes played out, I guess the question is, will the president be able to keep Israel locked in, along with Iran locked in to this ceasefire

deal. Obviously, there are going to be elements in Iran that are going to want to push back against this as well. Yeah. Well, as you and I discussed yesterday, and as I then later reported in the day for the Atlantic, I mean, President Trump, he kind of wanted this to be a one-off. He did the strikes on Saturday, hoping that would be it. His hand would be forced if Iran were to retaliate forcefully.

The sense then would be, well, the U.S. would have to hit back. But Iran's response was so limited and frankly weak that the U.S. was able, Trump was able to, to use the words of a senior advisor, take the win and move on. Didn't need to escalate further. And then he's really banking and betting big on this ceasefire. Something he really wants. He wants these hostilities to end.

Feels like the mission was accomplished. Although, again, there are questions remaining about the fate of the Iranian nuclear program, but hoping hostilities would end. But it is a fast-moving, fluid situation. So let's bring in NBC News chief international correspondentrespondent Keir Simmons now live from Iraq. Keir, good to see you. As we just discussed, a lot of unknowns right now. What's the very latest there from the region in terms of the state of play?

Yeah, it is a little murky right now. We do have some reports of strikes on camps sites here in Iraq. Those reports too that the Iranians have fired on Israel. The Iranians saying that that is not the case but it is a dramatic escalation. It's just hours after the Israeli government announced that it agreed with the president's announcement that there would be a ceasefire. And it was a fulsome statement just hours ago, remember this, from the Israeli government saying that the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, had convened the cabinet that Israel has eliminated a dual immediate existential threat both in the nuclear field and in the realm of ballistic

missiles. So effectively Israel declaring victory and saying, okay, good for us, we're done here. And then these reports of the Iranian, according to the Israelis, breaking the ceasefire should say that at the very same time, the Iranians, through Iranian state media, appear to be saying that the Israelis broke the ceasefire. One of the clues to this might be if you now, what seems like an age ago, but was literally some 12 hours ago, if you think back to the President Trump's post on Truth Social, the timing was a little confusing about which side was going to stop when.

And so once you have that kind of slightly unclear picture of how it's supposed to work, you then potentially risk both sides accusing the other of breaking it. Now I'm told by a diplomat with knowledge of the talks here in the region that this may be a shake in the ceasefire rather than an end to the ceasefire, that this may be both sides are going to hit each other once and then they're done. But I think another aspect of all of this though is the strike that Iran carried out on Beersheba overnight, which appears to have been just before the ceasefire. That was inflicted real deadly impact in Israel.

Last I checked, there was a report of five dead. So that I think has left the Israelis pretty furious just at the moment when they are agreeing to cessation. All right. NBC's Keir Simmons reporting live from Iraq. We thank you so much. Greatly appreciate it. Let's bring in David Ignatius now.

David, you look at the sides. Obviously, President Trump wants to cease fire, it seems, by people I've spoken with. I'm curious what you're hearing, that Iran really doesn't have a lot of cards left to play in a back and forth with Israel. Don't know that they could continue with a week, two, three weeks. Is it not in Iran's best interest to take this ceasefire? And do you think that at the end of the day, will the ceasefire hold? So, first, I think it's definitely in Iran's interest.

Iran, by any practical measure, is on its knees. Its command and control structure, senior leadership has been shattered. Its leading military facilities, not simply in the nuclear area, but missile launching, missile producing facilities, have been attacked repeatedly. We don't know the extent of damage that Israel has inflicted across the country. But this is a moment when Iran, again, figuratively is on its knees. In the days before the ceasefire, before the United States attacked Iranian facilities with its B-2 bombers, Iran was sending the message

if the firing stops, we're prepared to resume negotiations. In effect, that's the terms on which they've come back to the table. Israeli firing stops, they will rejoin negotiations back to the dialogue they were having. The big issues, Joe, now are the ones that remained before, but with a kind of sharp underline. How will the Iranian nuclear program be dismantled in a way that it doesn't threaten Israel in the future, so that Iran cannot, in the aftermath of this war, sneak back to military capability, race to get enough highly enriched uranium to make even a dirty bomb that could threaten Israel. How will the material that is in Iran, the 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium,

very close to being able to be used as a dirty bomb. How will those be located? The last we knew their whereabouts was uncertain. And how will they be removed from Iran? Those would be the issues at the top of the list. But to simply answer your point, Iran was so severely weakened, it didn't have good choices. This last spasm of violence, I have to say, covered a lot of Middle East wars.

This is how wars end. They end with a last-minute rally from both sides. Well, and so I was going to ask your assessment of the situation right now. Is your assessment that it is more likely than not that the ceasefire holds after, as you said, this final spasm of violence in this war brings it to a close? I think President Trump has so much at stake in the ceasefire that he negotiated. He has this enviable position of being both the war maker, the commander of the forces that struck Fordow and the other

sides, and now the peacemaker, having invited both sides, and I think he'll insist that the firing stop. The real crunch comes when you address these issues. How do you dismantle the program that Iran still in many ways regards as defining its national pride and purpose. But that program cannot exist in its current shape. So Susan, let's explore the President Trump's piece of this. He of course, as noted, he became the commander in chief after decades of American presidents

being frustrated at Iran's program. He's the one who gave the go ahead to have those strikes on Saturday, inflicting unspecified damage, but significant damage, to its program, and then very quickly pivoted toward peace, and made clear in some late-night true social posts, he's hoping for a Nobel Peace Prize here. Give us your sense as to how he's navigated this, because certainly his members of his administration,

his allies last night were saying, were really taking a victory lap, saying that he accomplished something that his predecessors couldn't and also brought a swift end to this conflict. They're saying he handled this perfectly. You know, Jonathan, you said earlier the White House was ready to take the win. And it is, on the one hand, it is a win. If this holds, if Iran returns to the nuclear talks, if there is an agreement reached, if the ceasefire holds, this would be a significant event in the history of the Middle East. On the other hand, things rarely go in a straight line in the Middle East, and victories are

rarely final. They are constantly tested. And so this will be the case with President Trump as well. He is now in a good position. He has bragging rights. I think this is probably papered over the schism that we saw developing in his coalition between the America First forces and the more hawkish forces.

But we have a long way to go. I'm wondering, David, France, just your thoughts this morning. forces, but we have a long way to go. I'm wondering, David French, just your thoughts this morning following up on what John just said. You had all the president's allies yesterday declaring victory in the 12-day war, clamoring for the president to receive Nobel Peace Prize, saying that only President Trump could have done this. I wonder if all of those things taken together will end the president's desire to be proven right with a strike in Iran, if that will not have him really exerting pressure on Israel and Iran

to get past, as David Ignatius said, these last spasms of violence in the war and move towards a ceasefire? I mean, I think there'll be a lot of pressure that'll put a lot of pressure on Israel and Iran to make the ceasefire stick. I mean, if you step back just a few feet and look at this, he's on the verge of a really big victory for him.

And if these strikes have been effective, if Iran's nuclear program has been set back substantially, it is a really big victory that he has every interest in trying to preserve, that the world has every interest in trying to preserve. But we don't know what comes next. Look, I think the bottom line here is that Israel inflicted on Iran a military defeat, the likes that which we've not really seen in this new century, that this has been a comprehensive military defeat that Israel has inflicted on Iran. All of its major proxy armies are decimated.

Iran's national defense capabilities are decimated. Its nuclear program may be decimated. There are a lot of reasons why Iran needed this to stop right now. Trump came in at the very end, hopefully the very end, and sealed the deal, perhaps, by hitting that bunker with the bunker-busting bombs. And at this point, he wants to put the bow on it and end this thing with a success. And we'll see, but it appears that every party right now, at least in the short term, it's in the interest of every party to try to make this fighting stop.

It does seem that way. It's in the interest of every party to try to make this fighting stop. It does seem that way. Everybody stay with us. We'll be right back in 90 seconds. And still ahead on Morning Joe, we'll continue our conversation on the shaky ceasefire between Israel and Iran with Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware as he leads a bipartisan delegation to the NATO summit. And he'll join us next. Plus, we're're gonna be going through the Supreme Court's ruling, allowing the Trump administration to report some migrants to countries they're not from. And remember that the Morning Joe podcast

is available each weekday, features our full conversations and analysis on news events happening now. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts. You're watching Morning Joe. We will be right back. Let's bring in right now, bring back in David Ignatius. David, obviously it's our job to analyze what's happening, and certainly when ceasefires are

agreed to and then broken overnight, obviously that's what we're going to be responding to this morning. I do just want to step back though, because I've been thinking about this an awful lot over the past couple of days, about a conversation you and I had after President Trump visited the Middle East, and how you saw a transformation of this obsessive focus in U.S. foreign policy and in the Middle East on faith, on ancient faiths, and how Donald Trump shifted that when he went to the Middle East, and he was focusing on finance and meeting with the Saudis, meeting with the Emiratis, meeting with the Qataris. And you and I discussed how it seemed that that was quite a change, not even talking

with Netanyahu. And now here we have Iran teetering. And the thing that is so striking with Iran teetering right now is how isolated they are. Obviously, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Shi'aad wiped out Russia, basically saying, nice to know you, buddy. And in Syria, obviously saying absolutely nothing. I want, if you could try to put this in perspective, just the extraordinary shift in the Middle East over the first six months of the Trump administration

and where we are now compared to where we were six months a year ago, or even going all the way back to Camp David in 1979. So, Joe, when I try to stand back, I see a couple of themes, one happening, one in prospect. The one that I think is happening is that the story that began on October 7, 2023 with a terrible Hamas attack across the border, now seems to be ending with a decisive Israeli victory. Israel has run the table, to run the table from Gaza to Lebanon to Syria, and now across Tehran, Isfahan, Fordo.

There's not a lot that was on Israel's strategic agenda that hasn't been achieved. So that marks a change. Israel has been under the shadow of Iranian power now for decades. I remember when I began covering all this in the 1980s, even then, that was the issue Israel worried about. So maybe that story begins to end. The larger question that you're really posing is whether the story that began in 1979 with the Iranian revolution, death to America, death to Israel, this implacable foe of the West, whether that story begins to bend. Donald Trump has tried to say to the Middle East, you've been fighting ceaselessly.

I'm sick of wars. It's time for everybody to focus on trade and making money. It's classic Donald Trump theme. Make trade, not war. That's his basic pitch. And there are a lot of people who want to listen to that, who agree with him entirely. When I talk to my Emirati friends, they say, we're thinking about artificial intelligence. We don't want to think about wars anymore.

So Trump will have a receptive audience, not least in Tehran. The Iranians, as much as anybody, would love to join this modern, intense economy. They have a lot to bring to that economy. Their technology is first-rated in many areas, sadly in the nuclear area in particular. So I think it's just possible. I don't want to overstate it. I think it's a big danger this morning, but the question you're asking, is it possible that we're entering a different period? Yes, it is possible. And David, just not to draw down too deeply on this, but there is a massive divide between

the brutish terrorists, the theocrats that have run Iran, and large segments of that highly educated society. What you're talking about, we're not talking about bringing Afghanistan from the second century into the 21st century. Talk about how in Iran there actually is that possibility because there are gifted scientists, gifted minds. David Ignatius, take us through that. So Joe, when you visit Iran, you discover that the meanest thing you can say about somebody

is that they're uncultivated. Iranians are a people of subtle distinction, learning, culture, and they've been embarrassed by the regime that they've had, these old theocrats and mullahs. There were, for a while, movies making fun of mullahs that were very popular in Iran. They clamped down on those. But this is a country that really can't wait to be governed in a more modern way. And let's be honest, the mullahs, led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, have made a mess of the

country. Its economy is nowhere near what it should be. Its oil industry has been falling apart. It smuggles and cheats on oil with its neighbor, Iraq. It spends so much of its money strutting around in the region, financing its proxies. Iranians are sick of that. So there is ground for change. And I don't mean regime change in the dramatic sense of marching to Tehran.

I mean a slow process. I hope that out of this comes real engagement between the United States and Iran, a lot of trade, a lot of Americans going to Iran again. That's what's going to change the country quickly, is that engagement. Let's bring in now Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware.

He serves on the Foreign Relations Committee and is in The Hague on a Congressional delegation to the NATO summit. President Trump heading there as well later today. Senator Coons, thank you so much for joining us this morning. Obviously, the conflict in the Middle East now a major topic of discussion where you are there at NATO. Give us your assessment. What do we know so far about the damage that was indeed

inflicted on Iran's nuclear sites? Because we heard from the president initially, total annihilation. But since then, the administration has had to acknowledge that these assessments take time. They're less certain. What's the latest intel the Senate's received? Well, I'm here and have not received a classified update or a battle damage assessment, but

you're broadly right that it inevitably takes days, if not weeks, to know exactly what a strike accomplished or didn't accomplish. And the talk of the town here at the NATO summit is the commitment of all 32 members to significantly step up their investment in defense, in joint support for Ukraine's fight for freedom against Russian aggression, and in our European allies and partners taking on more of the military burden of collective security here in Europe. But we will have to wait for more days to know whether or not Iran's dangerous nuclear program has in fact been ended. A number of the European leaders we've already met with, Senator Shaheen is leading

this delegation, have said this morning that if we have accomplished the end of the nuclear program by Iran, that would be a great thing, a big accomplishment. But it is today completely unclear whether the Iranians relocated some of their fissile material before the American strikes on Fordow and Isfahan, and whether or not they retain or might gain from Russia or other partners a renewed capability to enrich. Senator Coons, this is Susan Page. So lots of ifs, but if the ceasefire holds, if there's significant damage to the Iranian

nuclear program, if they return to the table, does that mean that President Trump was right to drop those bombs Saturday night? Look, I will of course agree that ending Iran's nuclear program would be a real positive for the region and for the United States. Exactly how we went about it, the lack of consultation with Congress, the lack of advance notice, I think was a mistake. And we don't know for sure what the real objective of the administration is. We had on the same day, Vice President Vance on a Sunday show saying, we are really only focused on ending the enrichment program. And then the president tweeting about maybe regime changes and such a bad thing.

I think it's important to move to diplomacy, to find a way to make the ceasefire hold, and to get Israel and Iran, the United States and our European partners at the table to secure a permanent end to Iran's dangerous effort to enrich uranium to bomb levels and develop a nuclear weapon. And of course, the administration yesterday also saying after that tweet, their focus not on regime change, but the destruction of the program. I want to ask you before we talk about what you're going to be discussing in The Hague today, I want to ask you about the Middle East and talking about the transformation there with

David Ignatius. How much safer is the Middle East with Hamas destroyed or nearly destroyed, with Hezbollah severely damaged, Islamic Shi'a severely damaged, with Iran the weakest militarily? It's been since 1979. Again, we don't know what's going to happen with the ceasefire, but over the past several months these enemies of Israel and America, their terror networks have been shattered. How does that transform the Middle East and the world? Look, it significantly transforms the Middle East to have Hezbollah and Hamas and the proxies

in Iraq largely degraded. The Houthis are still actively engaged. As you know, they until very recently were firing at American ships in the Red Sea and interdicting commerce and firing on Israel. And frankly, the ongoing war in Gazaaza which gets too little attention in this moment also needs to come to an end humanitarian relief needs to be delivered into gaza

uh... hummus needs to be removed from gaza completely uh... and there needs to be a resolution to that a piece of this that began with its uh... the brutal uh... aggressive attack on civilians by hummus on October 7th. So what Israel has accomplished in terms of their strikes on Hezbollah and their success in really tamping down the regional proxies of Iran that have posed so much of a threat to Israel for decades is nothing short of spectacular, but the ongoing war in Gaza needs

to be brought to an end. If Prime Minister Netanyahu could find his way towards embracing a two-state solution, he has right in front of him the possibility of reconciliation with Saudi Arabia, the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and full integration of Israel into the region. That's something that a number of us, a bipartisan group of senators, went over to meet with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, the leader of Egypt and Prime Minister Netanyahu just a few weeks after October 7th. It is clearly something that is still possible.

Israel has achieved security, but that security won't last until there's an end to the war in Gaza and a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict now decades old, but that may now be possible. And so, as you were discussing with David Ignatius just a moment ago, Joe, we can and should dream of the possibility of peace in the region, but it's going to require some significant changes and compromises, and I think American leadership. Sam Steinswood, this has a question. Sam, just reading the news out of the hay yesterday and looking how Great Britain and

other countries in NATO are pledging to get to 5% GDP for the military spending, that is significant. That's something that even when I was in Congress, I was hearing members on the Republican and Democratic side saying that Europe needs to step up and do more for the military funding. It looks like they're moving in that direction, a last minute glitch from Spain, but we'll see how that gets ironed out at the NATO conference. Yeah, I just want to take a second to marvel at what the senator just said, an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict within reason.

I remember being a student two decades ago at Dartmouth writing my thesis on the Arab-Israeli conflict, thinking there was never going to be a resolution, but I suppose all these dominoes are falling in a certain direction. Perhaps we can dream big about that. As for NATO, Senator, I do want to ask you about this gathering. When the meeting was planned, obviously the Iran-Israeli conflict was not a thing. Now it is, of course, but it clearly has impacts on other theaters. And I was watching an interview with Zelensky, Prime Minister, President Zelensky of Ukraine

this morning, where he was talking about the way in which he was worried that the Iranian conflict might bleed into the Ukrainian conflict and how it might hurt weapons supplies to Ukraine. At the same time, of course, we have Russia, who has come out and said, look, the attacks on Iran we vehemently oppose, and that they're going to help facilitate Iranians' achievement of a nuclear weapon. So, can you talk about those two contributing factors to the Ukraine-Russia conflict and

how the current crisis in Iran might affect all that? Yes. Well, Sam, as we all know, Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine, its aggression against Ukraine faltered as the Ukrainians stood strong and with Western help began to push back. And so Russia now, a year and a half ago, brought in Iranian drones and Iranian resources to help bolster their fight against Ukraine. They've also more recently brought in North Korean troops. And so as the Ukrainian conflict, as Russia's aggression against Ukraine has changed, there's

been dramatic modernization of drone warfare. And there is now the very real risk that Russia, having lost one close partner in the region in Syria, will now decide to come to Iran's aid to repay their support for Russia's aggression against Ukraine by helping them with moving towards a bomb, or at least ensuring that their enrichment program does not come to an end. We will be meeting with President Zelensky later today here. And I think it's important that Americans realize that our adversaries around the world are coordinating

and coalescing in critical and in threatening ways. In past NATO summits, there have been Indo-Pacific partners at the table, leaders from, for example, Japan and South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. The potential threat of Chinese aggression against Taiwan is not that far removed from the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. And it is connected to Iran and Iran's aggressive actions in the Middle East by Iran's projection

of drone technology into Russia and aiding Russia's aggression against Ukraine. All right, Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, thank you so much for being with us on this very busy day for you. We greatly appreciate it. Thank you, Joe. So David French, the Senator, I said it there, it's a good thing that Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad,

Iran are all severely weakened. I listen, though, to some democratic leaders who seem to be focusing on the lack of notice to Congress. I understand their concerns. It's something, again, going back decades, you've had Congress complaining about the president not coming to them enough or even getting approval for acts of war. But I just sit there thinking, I feel like telling these democratic leaders that two things can be true at the same time. Yes, the president should have given you more advance notice, but it's okay to say it's

a good thing. It could be a good thing that Iran's defenses have just been shattered over the past three months. It's a good thing that Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad have been brought to their knees, that Iran's defense structure has been brought to its knees, the epicenter of terrorism since 1979. It's okay to say that even if you don't like the president, that got them there. I'm just curious your thoughts on as you hear the response to the strikes

and see the reluctance to say, no, this is a good thing that people that have been saying death to America have been weakened. David Hickman Yeah, it's a good thing that Hezbollah has decimated, that Hamas has decimated. It's a good thing that Iran is so vulnerable that its nuclear program has been set back. All of these things are good things. And also, by the way, there should be a bipartisan process of taking credit here, if people are focused on credit, because Israel accomplished an enormous amount under the Biden

administration in inflicting substantial defeats with American help on its enemies. It achieved a substantial victory over Iran with American help defending Israel. So this goes back to October 7th. It's been a bipartisan process of America coming to Israel's aid, America supporting Israel in its attacks on its enemies. And then the Trump administration, I think very wisely after Israel had inflicted substantial defeats on its enemies, came in with this raid, which I think we should all hope was very effective. We should hope that it was extremely effective in setting back the Iranian nuclear program. But look, this has been a bipartisan process of supporting Israel here.

This has been something spanning two administrations that has accomplished something really extraordinary and inflicting such historic defeats on Iran and its proxies. The world is very different right now than it was on October 6th, and military victories can dictate political realities, and we're seeing that happen right in front of us. All right, New York Times columnist David French, thank you so much.

Let's go back to David Ignatius. David, I'm sure you're twitching Sam Stein reassessing his... My prior thesis. ...on peace, forever peace in the Middle East. It was a good thesis, Jeff. Well, what was it? You're seeing your paper at... What?

Go on. Sam, what was it? Oh, it was on the Ziav Japatinsky. It was on the Ziav Japatinsky in the Iron Wall Doctrine of Israeli Politics. I can go on forever, but I'm sure the viewers won't mind that. Well, I have for a second that I thought you were going to. But David Ignatius, let's go to you. David, when I hear people talking about peace breaking out in the Middle East, I know you're

twitching. The Berlin Wall is not going down yet. There have been some significant changes that also, of course, could lead to a lot of danger. I'm just curious, though, what are you looking at today? What are you looking for today? And what are you mostly focused on in the coming weeks? So, Joe, when I began covering the Middle East even longer ago than Sam Stein was writing

his thesis, they used to say, when you're looking at the Middle East, pessimism pays. You know, the bad outcome almost always triumphs over the good. This is a morning where you can imagine that maybe that rule can be suspended or diluted. What I'm looking at is the terms under which this conflict ends. How the Iranian program is in fact dismantled. How the 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, which are dangerous, which are just that close to being a bomb, are identified and withdrawn from the country. If those terms can be resolved between Israel and Iran with U.S. help, then I think the future is brighter. It's a different Iran. They've agreed to give it up.

And if that doesn't happen, I feel we're still in the same mess and waiting for the next round. All right. The Washington Post, David Ignatius. Thanks a lot. Greatly appreciate it. And still ahead, today marks three years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. We're going to be talking about the impact of that decision coming up on Morning Joe.

Welcome back. Abortion healthcare advocates are gathering in the nation's capital this morning for the Free and Just Storyteller Summit, marking three years to the day since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. One 100 patients, providers, and advocates from 32 states are participating in the three-day event, sharing personal stories about how they've been directly affected by abortion bans. And then later today, they'll head to Capitol Hill to meet with members of Congress.

Joining us now is one of the abortion rights advocates participating in the summit, Amanda Zorowski. She was the lead plaintiff in the Center for Reproductive Rights lawsuit that challenged the abortion ban in Texas, a ban that the Texas Supreme Court ultimately upheld last year. Amanda, good morning. Thank you for joining us this morning.

Let's just start with this moment in time, your personal story, if you will, but also here three years since Roe v. Wade was overturned, sort of the landscape that so many women, not just women, that so many people in America now face over reproductive healthcare. Yeah. First of all, thank you so much for having me. So my story starts about three years ago when I suffered under the extreme abortion ban in Texas.

And in the three years since that, it's just been heartbreaking to watch what is happening in this country and how our restrictions are expanding all across the country. And I'm here as part of this Free and Just Storyteller Summit because there are so many people who have been impacted in the last three years. And so although it's a heartbreaking thing to commemorate, it's also very empowering to be in community with a hundred storytellers that are here advocating for our rights and standing up for what we believe in. Amanda, this is Susan Page. So, it's been three years. At the time of this decision, there was a sense among, I think, some abortion rights advocates

that this was a silver bullet for Democrats, the issue of abortion rights. In some of the early contests after the decision, that seemed to be true. But you don't get the sense that it's defining American politics or certainly didn't drive a winning coalition last November for Democrats and the presidential race. Can you talk about what's happened to the impact with voters of this issue over these last three years? Well, I think it actually was quite impactful in the last election cycle. I think when we see abortion access on the ballot, we see it win.

And we see that time and again. We had initiatives on ballot measures in 10 states, and we won in seven of those 10 states and we actually won in Florida as well with a majority but we didn't reach this arbitrary threshold that we needed to. So although we maybe didn't connect the dots between how the state of affairs that we're in today is connected to President Trump and his last administration, I think we do see that people vote for abortion access and we just have more work to do in connecting the dots between showing folks that who they vote for

ultimately is how we get here. Amanda, it's Sam Stein. Just picking up on that, on the policy front, obviously I don't think anyone anticipates a sort of a federal right to an abortion passing through this Congress and being signed into law by this president who said, let's leave it up to the state. So I'm sort of curious, where do you see the sort of biggest breakthroughs for the abortion rights community? Is it going to be legislative?

Will it be in the state? Will it be judicial? And where are you focusing your resources? I hope you're right. I hope we don't see a federal abortion ban under this Trump administration. Sorry, not an abortion ban, a right to an abortion. Sorry, my apologies. Oh, sure. Sure. Yeah, I don't think we're going to see that either.

So I think that where we're really going to see the initiatives and where we're going to see the most impact is at the local level. And I've seen that in Texas firsthand, we've been fighting so hard in our state house and we have been able to pick up some wins, albeit they've been small ones, but they are important and we know that this is going to be a very long process and we're going to have to fight tooth and nail for every single crumb. And while it's exhausting, I think that's where we're headed. I think we're going to have to look at city council.

I think we're going to have to look at our state houses. And I'm seeing that not just in Texas, but across the country. That's where folks are really plugging in and advocating and having a real impact Well, of course be watching the events of there in Washington Amanda Zyrowski. Thank you very much for joining us this morning Sam Stein Thank thank thank you as well And and Joe certainly, you know, this is you know, three years since Roe v. Wade Still a seminal issue for so many Americans. Well, it is. And you know, John, it's interesting.

So many people look at abortion and say it wasn't as big an issue as we thought it was going to be in 2024. Well, people are just looking at the presidential campaign. And obviously, that is extraordinarily important. But you look at the Democrats winning in Nevada, a Senate seat in Nevada that many predicted they were going to lose with a very pro-choice candidate there, winning the Senate seat in the swing state of Arizona with a very progressive, very pro-choice candidate there. The same thing happening in Wisconsin with Tammy Baldwin.

The same thing happening, of course, in Michigan. So you look at the swing states, a lot of those Senate races, the abortion issue made the difference between Democrats holding the seat or picking up new seats or losing the seats. So, you know, for people who suggest that because Donald Trump won by one and a half percent that somehow abortion didn't impact the race in 2024, I think they're misreading the whole sweep of races in the 2024 election.