Morning Joe - Morning Joe: 'Trump is on the edge' of making consequential decision on Iran: David Ignatius

Episode Date: June 18, 2025

Trump weighs U.S. strike as Iran's Khamenei says the 'battle begins'

Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Wednesday, June 18th. We have a lot to get to this morning as the situation in the Middle East continues to escalate with Israel's military announcing overnight it struck a centrifuge production site in Tehran. We'll bring you a live report from the region in just a moment. This all comes as President Trump is weighing his options on the growing conflict. We'll go through the new reporting on how and why the president's perspective on Iran has shifted over the past week. Meanwhile, new analysis of the president's massive spending and tax bill is revealing more issues with its fiscal impact.

Plus, we'll show you the big moments from Democratic Senator Alex Padilla's speech on the Senate floor yesterday in response to being detained last week by DHS agents. With us, we have the co-host of our fourth hour, contributing writer at The Atlantic, Jonathan Amir, NBC News, national affairs analyst and a partner and chief political columnist at PUC, John Heilman. Columnist and associate editor for The Washington Post, David Ignatius is back with us this morning and former chief of staff at the CIA and Department of Defense, Jeremy Bash is here.

Also with us, U.S. national editor at the Financial Times, Ed Luce. And we'll get right started right now as Israel and Iran trade fire. For the sixth trade day, President Trump is calling for Iran's, quote, unconditional surrender. He made the comment in a Truth Social Post yesterday, shortly after meeting with the National Security Council in the Situation Room. The president claimed the U.S. knows exactly where Iran's supreme leader is hiding, writing,

quote, he is an easy target. We are not going to take him out, at least not for now, but we don't want missiles shot at civilians or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Videos posted on social media show huge lines of bumper-to-bumper traffic as people stream out of the Iranian capital this week. There was also gridlock at gas stations. Multiple current and former administration officials tell NBC News the president is now

considering a variety of options including launching a possible strike on Iran. This comes as Israel wants the United States to drop its largest bunker-busting bomb on a nuclear site that's deep underground. A White House official tells NBC News the president has spoken with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. No other details were provided so far. It all comes as Israel's military says it struck a centrifuge production site in Tehran,

along with several weapons manufacturing facilities, part of the ongoing exchange of fire between Israel and Iran. Missiles continue to be intercepted over Tel Aviv by Israel's Iron Dome defense system overnight. The civilian death toll in Israel now stands at 24 according to officials there. In Iran strikes continued throughout the day and into the night with a large explosion reported just before dawn today. State media says at least 224 people have been killed since last Friday. And as the two sides exchange fire there are signs Iran is

scaling back its attacks on Israel. The New York Times reports it could be part strategy, part necessity. While Israel's strikes have diminished Iran's ability to hit back, the Islamic Republic may also be making a deliberate shift toward lower-intensity attacks sustained over a longer period. At the same time, Israel is reportedly running low on a key piece of weaponry that intercepts long-range ballistic missiles. A U.S. official says the Pentagon has been aware of the capacity problems for months.

It raises concerns about Israel's ability to shield its population centers if the conflict isn't resolved soon. David, yeah, I'm sorry. That brings us all up to date. Yeah, thank you for that. And David Ignatius, I'm curious about your latest reporting, and obviously the one word, two-letter word that everybody focused on yesterday for good reason

was the word we. When Donald Trump talked about we have control over the skies of Iran, over Tehran. What's your latest reporting? Is the president moving towards bringing America into this war with Israel against Iran? Joe, I think from the language coming out of the White House, what we know about the meetings that are taking place, there's no question that President Trump is on the edge of making what would be a very consequential

decision to use U.S. military force in this conflict. This is not an in and out, a one and done kind of intervention to join the war at this late date. It really does mean you're going to be involved in trying to obliterate the essence of the rule by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and in a sense share responsibility for what comes after. From the beginning of this, Joe, there has been concern among U.S. officials that Israel can start a war against Iran, but it can't finish it without U.S. help. That's something that bothered President Trump back in February when Prime Minister Netanyahu

first began proposing the kinds of attacks that we've seen beginning last Friday. And Trump was wary of being drawn into something that he wasn't sure was required. He thought that maybe diplomacy could accomplish the same. But this issue, that in the end, there would be this deep, deep underground Iranian facility at Fordow, south of Tehran, that could only be taken out, where the Iranians keep many of their most sophisticated centrifuges, could only be taken out by a US weapon, the so-called massive ordinance penetrator, that would require American intervention. And we're now on the edge of that, as I said at the beginning.

Trump seems still uncertain what he wants to do, how to make up his mind. He should be uncertain. It's a big, big choice, one of the most consequential of this presidency. Well, and you know, Jonathan O'Meara, you obviously have been reporting out of the White House over the past 24 hours about some of the divides inside Trump's own coalition. And part of the reason there's a divide inside of Donald Trump's own coalition is there's been a divide, it seems, internally with Donald Trump over the past 20 years. He's been talking for 20 years about how George W. Bush made a mistake

going into Iraq. It's one of the things he constantly talked about on the campaign trail. And if somebody thinks that attacking Iraq and then dealing with the aftermath is difficult, try Iran. And that's, I mean, my God, that's not, that's not stating anything but the facts. I mean, what an absolute, what an absolute complicated mess that would be. Not just humanitarian, but strategic. The warnings we've heard for years about the possibility of terrorism spawning off of that. I'm curious, where is Donald Trump right now and how does this line up with what he's been saying about the United States getting involved in Middle Eastern wars over the past 20 years

and how he's always thought those wars were mistakes? Yeah, it feels like so long ago, but one of the animating principles of his 2015-2016 campaign was to be sharply critical of these forever wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, and say he would not do the same, that he did not want further American intervention in the Middle East because of how inevitably messy and prolonged it would be.

He now seems to be on the brink of doing just that. And right now, from people I've talked to inside the building and just outside close Trump allies, all the signs, all the momentum is pointing one way, which is the U.S. getting involved fully. But that has not happened yet. And we know that during President Trump's first term, both two separate times in 2019 and 2020, he was on the brink of real escalation of using US forces, US weaponry on Iran and both times held back. So there is a chance here he could again, this is and could just be a negotiating

tactic. We know as of a week ago, that was his hope to bluster to use the threat of American force to get Iran back to the negotiating table. He does seem though, the events of the last few, of the last week or so being pushed along by Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has convinced him that Iran is close to a weapon. Now I will say, U.S. intelligence does not agree with that assessment. They do not believe that Iran is on the brink of that. And Jeremy Bash, that is where we are right now. And because if President Trump gives the go-ahead, if they do this, my understanding is,

to use these bunker-busting bombs, it's not just a B-2, it's not just an American bomb. It would need to be an American aircraft and an American pilot needed to deliver them, which would mean this would be an American strike. We'd be all in. Walk us through this calculation. So, for the last 10 years or so Jonathan the US and Israel have been discussing how to destroy, dismantle, degrade the underground enrichment

facility at Fordow outside of the city of Gome. This is a deep buried underground facility with cascades spinning centrifuges that are enriching uranium and that can be enriched to what the IAEA said last week was 60 percent which is approaching bomb grade fuel. Now that cascade hall is too small to power a civilian energy program for the Iranian people. It is really a facility that's kind of tailor-made for a weapons program and the US has had its eye on that facility for many years.

We've engaged in several operations, including sabotage operations, to go after it. But of course, that facility still exists. And you're right, Jonathan. The only way to access it would be through a B-2 stealth spirit bomber, which is based at a Whiteman Air Force base in Missouri. The pilots will have to fly a round trip mission all the way there gaining aerial refueling and carrying that 30,000 pound massive ordnance penetrator. There's really no scenario in which we would give the plane to another country or let other

country's pilots fly it. And so this is kind of squarely the president's call. I would just say Jonathan on the intelligence, yes, you're right that U.S. intelligence has said we're not close, we do not believe that Iran is close. I think you said we're closer on the brink of having a weapon. But let's just be precise. They suspended a weaponization program, but we have seen them enriching to higher levels necessary than civilian fuel.

We've seen the program disperse. We've seen an extensive Iranian nuclear program all over the country. And if you kind of take just kind of take a big step back and say, look, Israel destroyed Osirak, the Iraqi reactor, in 1981. It destroyed Al-Kabr, the Syrian reactor, in 2007 in a post-October 7th world. Israel and any country really can't kind of wait for threats to gather and kind of wait to war on the brink of having a nuclear weapon. This defensive preemptive action by Israel does make logical sense.

The question really is how much will the United States become involved? All right. Let's go straight to Israel. Joining us now from Israel, just south of Tel Aviv, is NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel. Richard, what are you seeing there? Well let me just start by describing the site where I am right now. I am just south of Tel Aviv as you mentioned.

This is where one of the Iranian ballistic missiles landed a couple of days ago, but there is still an active search and rescue operation here. At least six people were killed in the initial strike and rescue workers have recovered another two bodies, bringing the death toll so far to eight in just this attack. Let me just step out of camera for a second. You can get a sense of the extent of the damage. This bomb landing right in the middle, this missile I should say, right in the middle of a residential area, shearing off the side of the apartment building, obliterating all of the buildings around it.

Actually, when you look at it, it's quite surprising that the death toll was relatively low considering this city is still full. There are no evacuation orders in place. There is a semi-state of emergency where people are told to stay near shelters. They're told not to congregate, but people are not evacuating this city despite what was a threat by Iran for Israelis to, for their own safety, get out of this country.

But I must say that over the last 24 hours or so there have been more Iranian barrages, but they are not the same as we saw in the first days. There are still barrages, but not hundreds of ballistic missiles at a time, not hundreds per day even. Instead, last night there were two batches fired more or less back to back, about 15 minutes apart, and each one only had

about a dozen missiles in it, and nearly all of them were shot down. The Israeli military is systematically taking out Iran's military capabilities, its nuclear program, its fighter jets, its launch sites, and now there is this open question, will the United States get involved? And President Trump issued that ultimatum calling for an unconditional surrender.

Iran's supreme leader has said that unconditional surrender is effectively out of the question. He's issued some bellicose statements on X saying that the war is only beginning and that Iran will show, quote, no mercy. But the real question is, do they have the capacity to do much more than they are already doing? So, Richard, if you could describe the domestic debate right now, or the opposition, the support for this all-out war against Iran inside of Israel,

but also about any discussions, debate about the United States becoming involved. Where do the Israeli people seem to be on this? I would say at this stage most Israelis seem to be behind this conflict. Once Iran started launching ballistic missiles, creating scenes of devastation like this in the in the heart of Tel Aviv and in the surrounding suburbs like I am right now a lot of Israelis pulled together. We're not seeing the same kind of anti Netanyahu protests on the streets that we did even a few weeks and a few months ago.

Instead Israelis seem to say that this is a war that they had no choice but to launch, that it is better to fight against Iran now while it is weak than wait for it to have a nuclear weapon. So yes, of course, Israel society is divided, it's divided socially, it's divided politically, but there are no protests and when we're talking to people on the streets, most of them seem behind the operation. All right. NBC News chief, foreign correspondent Richard Engel, as always, thank you so much. Ed Luce, you look at reaction around the world and especially in Europe.

We did have German Chancellor Mertz come out saying that Israel is doing the dirty work, the hard work for the rest of us. Other European leaders seemed a bit more reserved in their support for the United States getting involved or Israel's actions in Iran. Give us a reaction that you're picking up across Europe and the world. Well, I think that they're all calling for restraint, the British, the French. They, of course, have just been in at the G7 meeting in Alaska that Donald Trump left early.

But they're fairly peripheral to this situation. I think far more interesting is Russia's relative restraint on this. They like the fact that the focus has shifted from Ukraine to the Middle East, even though Iran is really a protégé of Russia's. Putin hasn't been robust in support of Iran. He hasn't been providing it with the weapons it's been asking for since it's been really exposed over the last few months and is indicating that he's not going to get in the way of whatever Trump is up to in the Middle East.

This is a different kind of relationship, of course, to the one that he had with Biden. But ultimately, I think there's real skepticism about Netanyahu's grounds for launching this war on Iran right now. The Europeans, British I know have similar intelligence to what the American intelligence agencies have been saying, which is that Iran is not moved dramatically closer to break out a nuclear situation than it was a few months ago. There is this view, and I think it's pretty well grounded, that Netanyahu stays in power because of war and that he's run out of road with Gaza.

There's been a real back growing backlash internationally, but also at home, former prime ministers like Gehud Olmert criticizing his conduct of war in Gaza, and that there was some nervousness by Netanyahu that Trump's talks with Iran, that Steve Wittkopf's negotiations there in the region with Iran, might be coming close to some kind of a deal. A deal of course that Trump pulled out of in his first term. And that, of course, would have shut off Netanyahu's ability to conduct an operation like this. So I think the view is that this is a war of choice and a war that is essentially sabotaging any negotiations

that Trump was planning to continue with Iran. A lot of skepticism about the grounds for this war. that Trump was planning to continue with Iran. A lot of skepticism about the grounds for this war. All right, everybody stand by. Coming up, we're gonna bring in New York Times investigative reporter Mark Mazzetti, talking about how Trump has shifted on this issue. Also, the very interesting developments

between the relationship between Donald Trump and his DNI director director Tulsi Gabbard as he flatly rejects her assessment of an overall situation here. We'll be right back with much more. Morning Joe. Doesn't seem like Trump is listening to the anti-war wing of his party. Maybe he'll listen to the anti-war wing of his party. Maybe he'll listen to the anti-war wing of his own administration, like Tulsi Gabbard, his own director of national intelligence.

Tulsi Gabbard testified in March that the intelligence community said Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon. Okay, what she said, I think they were very close to having one. Yeah. This is the benefit of appointing unqualified, crazy people to your team.

You can always be like, do you know how crazy and unqualified she is? I don't care what she said. That's a clip from the Daily Show on President Trump blowing off Chelsea Gabbard, his own director of national intelligence. Politico is reporting on the tensions between the two, stemming in part from Gabbard's recent social media post warning about nuclear annihilation. According to Politico, quote,

Trump saw the unauthorized video and became incensed, complaining to associates at the White House that she had spoken out of turn. Trump reportedly saw it as an audacious attempt to steer him toward her anti-interventionalist approach to foreign policy. It was a bizarre thing to do, obviously a bizarre thing to do, especially if you hadn't spoken with the president who appointed you and the president whose administration you work for.

I mean, look at it just seriously. John Heilman, I will say, as bizarre as that video was, it really does underline the divide, the great divide down the middle of Donald Trump's MAGA base. You know, 2003, the closest parallel, obviously, the invasion of Iraq. You had Republicans marching lockstep, not only in Congress, but also outside of Congress,

behind George W. Bush's decision to go into Iraq. Not so here. Talk about the divide in the MAGA base and also how that divide rose out of Donald Trump opposing, flatly opposing, in the campaigns of 2016, 2020, and 2024, this type of intervention and wars in the Middle East. Well, right, Joe.

I mean, first of all, if you're gonna, in a conventional administration, if you're a senior official and you wanna try to influence the president's thinking, you generally don't wanna leave fingerprints, right? So you have those, you go on background as a senior official or a source familiar in the New York Times. You don't put out a highly produced video

with speaking straight to camera weighing in and limiting the president. Speaking straight to camera, basically saying if the president does this, he's gonna lead us to World War III. Not a traditional move inside of any administration. Yes, it looks more like a democratic attack ad than it looks like, than a product of internal debate inside the Trump administration.

So Tulsi Gabbard may be on thin ice there because Trump does not like to have him, to feel like it's been boxed in by people who work for him. You are right though, you know, what she is representing there is a point of view. It is the point of view of Tucker Carlson, the point of Marjorie Taylor Greene, the point of view of Steve Bannon, the point of view of Charlie Kirk, a lot of very powerful people in Donald Trump, particularly in the media sphere, but not wholly in the media sphere of Donald Trump's base on the MAGA right. And then you have obviously this much larger more traditional piece largely in the

in the legislative branch people like Lindsey Graham would be the poster child for those who think that the United States should get involved here and yes it is true that Trump has throughout not just on the Iraq question but throughout one of his proudest talking points has always been no wars I didn't get us into any wars in my first term. I will not get us into any wars in our second term. He has been very powerful. He's a place where the MAGA base is, in fact, connected to a broader American public, which is, in fact,

sick of forever wars. It does feel as though the US has often made giant, costly mistakes getting involved in these kinds of conflicts. But Trump is a man of absolutes, Joe, as you know. He loves to be able to say things like, we've gotten into no wars, but he also is on record for a long time saying Iran must not have a nuclear weapon. And that's where we get to this conflict.

Trump normally takes an absolute position where he feels safe, that there won't be another absolutist position that he has raised that will conflict with it. Now he is being told by many that those two things are absolutist position that he has raised that will conflict with it. Now he is being told by many that those two things are in opposition, that he's going to have to get involved actively in this war if he's going to accomplish the other absolute that he's pledged to, which is Iran not getting a nuclear weapon. Now I know the intelligence is murky on this, but this is the kind of situation Trump hates, where two absolute promises he's made are in conflict.

And I have no idea where he's going to come down in the end. He's under a lot of pressure from both sides though, Jonathan. absolute promises he's made are in conflict, and I have no idea where he's gonna come down. In the end, he's under a lot of pressure from both sides though, Jonathan. Yeah, he is, and I wrote on this today. Let's remember, back in 2020, after the Soleimani strike, you talk about the divide in the media, but you could go on Fox News back then.

At eight o'clock, Tucker Carlson was talking through Trump, through television, saying, don't do this, don't retaliate. And then at nine o'clock, Sean Hannity, a much more hawkish view views suggesting this might be the moment to strike on Tehran. Trump close to both men spoke to both men privately as well as watched the show eventually sided with Carlson didn't escalate. This time around it feels a little different. John is right in this divide the MAGA base I've

written about it for today. Carlson though Trump just called a kook. He doesn't seem to be listening to Carlson. He seems to be leaning more towards the hawkish viewpoint. And also, Joe and Mika, at this moment where it seems like Israel is going full force anyway, Trump wants to associate himself with their success. How much a part of this was the fact

that Donald Trump knew that Netanyahu wasn't listening to him any more than he was listening to Joe Biden and he didn't want Netanyahu to attack Iran while he was urging restraint. Yeah, that's a real part of this is that the relationship between Trump and Netanyahu has really grown strained over recent months. Netanyahu, much like he ignored President Biden, ignoring what Trump has wanted there in Gaza, not willing to talk ceasefire. And here in Iran, Netanyahu signaled to him over the last week, and we're going to bring

in some more reporting on this in a moment, you know, that Israel was forging forward and that Trump didn't want to be seen as being completely ignored. Still though, wanted negotiations. But once he saw that first wave of Israeli attacks go so well and how weak, how weak Iran looked like in response, he saw a moment there to shift his view. And you can read Jonathan's piece in The Atlantic. Let's bring in now investigative reporter for The New York Times, Mark Mazzetti. He is co-author of the new piece entitled How Trump Shifted on Iran Under Pressure from

Israel. So, Mark, walk us through it, if you will. We started talking about it. Walk us through it. Well, as David Ignatius pointed out earlier this show, Netanyahu, as we know, has been pushing for years, decades, for the United States to join in an Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear facilities. And ultimately, several American presidents decided that he was bluffing because if the United States was not going to join, he would not start the war for several reasons.

Hezbollah had thousands of missiles in southern Lebanon that Iran could use to retaliate. The Iranian missile program seemed incredibly capable. Israel didn't have access to over Syrian airspace and Iranian airspace. Well, a lot of that changed in the fall where Hezbollah was largely knocked out. The Syrian regime fell.

The Iranian missile capability seemed less than previously thought. So that led Netanyahu to a position of greater leverage where he could push the new American president to say, basically, I'm going to start this war, and it may be a fait accompli that you have to join once I've started. So the leverage changed, and I think Trump began to see that. Late May, American intelligence agencies assessed that

Netanyahu was likely going to launch an attack with or without the United States. And then it became a decision for Trump about, well, would he join? And that's kind of obviously where we are now. And this idea of Israel being able to start a war, but not being able to start a war but not being able to finish a war remains because the United States still has the capabilities that Israel doesn't have,

these bunker buster bombs, to hit facilities, the central sort of core of the Iranian nuclear program. And so in many ways Netanyahu has kind of boxed Trump in on this. Mark, this David Ignatius in Washington, that's a superb piece of reporting this morning in The Times. I want to ask you whether in your reporting you get any sense of whether US or Israeli officials have thought clearly and systematically about what comes next if you use this massive ordinance penetrator to take out the remains of the Iranian program, if Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader, is as he appears a target, what happens after those actions are taken? Who takes responsibility?

Have you heard any discussion of that? I mean, the not on the, I mean, the obviously the Americans have been thinking about this for some time, but not it's been this sort of sort of hypothetical exercise, right about what if the the nuclear program went down and what if the regime fell, right? There's no way, as you've said, that this just is a clean one-shot operation where you drop a bunker buster, Fordo is gone, and everyone can walk away happy. I mean, that would be one course of action, but that's not what ultimately the aim

of the Israeli operation is. There would have to be some ground element to go into Fordo on the ground, to gather information, to finish off the program. The United States would not think that Donald Trump would want to authorize a larger ground presence of American troops in Iran. They're certainly thinking through the scenarios of what happens afterwards, but these are, they're certainly thinking through the scenarios of what happens afterwards, but it does not, these are not scenarios that would necessarily be in line with what Donald

Trump would want to authorize. All right, New York Times investigative reporter Mark Mazzetti, thank you so much for being with us. Thank you, Mark. And sharing your important reporting, we greatly appreciate it. Jeremy Bash, it seems the president finds himself, I'm going to use a couple of old southern sayings that I heard growing up, between a rock and a hard place. And it reminds me of what an older member of the Armed Services Committee once told me, which was, boy, if

you attack a snake, you better kill the snake, talking about the provocation that the United States had started. And it seems to me that is a gross oversimplification of what situation we find ourselves in, because if Iran survives this, obviously, they will have all the more reason to build a nuclear weapon. That's on one side of the ledger that the president has to look at. On the other side of the ledger is, of course, what happened in Iraq 22 years ago in March when everybody was talking about

how we were marching to Baghdad and how easy that was and and how we were going to remake the Middle East in sort of model Jeffersonian democracy and a lot of us, I'll include myself, in the initial stages of the war, greatly oversimplified the tragedy that was about to unfold there. The president was defined by that in many ways.

So these are the two things that the president is balancing right now. How, based on your experience, how should he, how should other policy leaders, how should all of us sort through that dilemma? Well, look, I think one lesson from Iraq is boots on the ground of regime change can't be done easily because you've got institutions in a country that won't run themselves. And so it kind of falls to the occupying power to rebuild that nation, sort of the Colin

Powell pottery barn rule. You break it, you buy it. But we shouldn't also over learn lessons from the Iraq experience in which there are standoff weapons, there are capabilities that don't involve boots on the ground, that don't involve regime change, that can be the precise use of effective military power to get strategic advantage. We've done that against the Houthi forces. We've done that in other cases against other Iranian surrogates and proxies in Iraq. And as Mark and David and others have pointed out, the context in the region has changed.

And since last year, after Iran attacked Israel with ballistic missiles twice, after its proxy Hezbollah fell, after Hamas has been degraded, and after the Syrian regime fell as well, this may be a moment in which Israel, working with the United States, could use precise military power to achieve the objective of setting back Iran's nuclear program. I'm not arguing for it. I'm just saying there is an inherent logic to it that doesn't mean we're all going to be in an Iraq-style war for 20 years and that there's going to be regime change and we're going to be boots on the ground.

There are ways to achieve your objectives short of that. All right. Former chief of staff at the CIA and Department of Defense, Jeremy Basch. Thank you so much. David Ignatius. Jeremy brought up Colin Powell's quote before the second Iraq war. If you break it, you own it. What will the United States own?

I mean, people are not going to be looking across the world for Israel to clean this up. We all understand the opportunities of destroying Iran's nuclear program once and for all. But on the other side of the ledger is the president's thinking about this, what would you tell him? What does owning this war and breaking this regime, what does that entail? So Joe, I think any sensible counsel begins with the reality that, as I said earlier, this is not in and out, it's not one and done. This is a consequential choice that would change Donald Trump's presidency. You can imagine that you'll just go in with a B-2 and drop this bomb and bluey.

There goes the Iranian nuclear program. But the follow-on consequences of that, because that would bring the regime into jeopardy, are enormous. In Iran, that becomes anarchic, ungoverned, is a different kind of danger for the region. My fear about a limited military option is that we'd end up with something like Saddam Hussein in Iraq in the 1990s. We waged a limited war in 1991, the first Gulf War, to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and then pulled back. President George H.W. Bush thought, let's not get into a deep war there.

The consequence was that you had a hideously repressive regime of Saddam Hussein basically taking it out on the Iraqi people for the next 10 years in some of the grimmest rule by torture that I've ever written about. So, again, these are not easy questions for the president. I wish—I think the one thing that troubled me was that he seemed finally to leave his position of wanting to try to negotiate a settlement of this, seeing the Israeli glamorous military victory. Then suddenly it was Donald Trump claiming,

we own the skies. Well, it's Israeli jets and fighter pilots who've done that. The idea of jumping into a war at the late stage to claim some of the credit doesn't seem right, but he's got a big decision, and you can only imagine the kinds of pressures he, like any American president, would be feeling right now. The Washington Post, David Ignatius, once again, thank you.

We have a feeling we just might see you again tomorrow morning, David, thank you. And still had a morning, Joe. The New Republic's Michael Tomaski says America is at a terrifying turning point and there's no going back. He'll join us to explain that ominous headline. Plus, we'll play for you some of Democratic Senator Alex Padilla of California's emotional speech on the floor of the upper chamber after he was forcibly

removed from a press conference with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. And a reminder, the Morning Joe podcast available each weekday featuring our full conversations on the latest news and analysis. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Ever have a moment like this. But I will tell you, in that moment, a lot of questions came to my mind. First of all, where are they taking me? Because I know I'm not just being

escorted out of the building. Am I being arrested here? And what will a city already on edge from being militarized think when they see their United States senator being handcuffed just for trying to ask a question? That was Democratic Senator Alex Padilla of California yesterday on the Senate floor. His fiery speech was in response to being forcibly removed from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's news conference last week. Here's more of what the Senator had to say. Now throughout this country's history, we've had conflict. We've had tumult, but we've never had a tyrant as a commander in chief. And that is not by coincidence.

It's because the American people have always been willing to speak up and exercise their First Amendment rights to protest, especially when our fundamental rights have been threatened. If a United States senator becomes too afraid to speak up, how can we expect any other American to do the same? It doesn't matter if you're a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent, we all have a responsibility to speak up and to push back before it's too late. to speak up and to push back before it's too late.

So I do encourage people to keep peacefully protesting. There's nothing more patriotic than to peacefully protest for your rights. Let's bring in the editor of the New Republic, Michael Tomaski, Ed Luce of the Financial Times, still with us as well for this conversation. Michael, good to see you. Your recent piece reflects on the consequential events of this past weekend with the headline, America is at a terrifying turning point and there's no going back.

Tell us what you mean. Well, good morning, Jonathan. I think we all woke up Saturday to that absolutely shocking news out of Minnesota about the shootings, and it was just very hard to process. And then, of course, we followed the manhunt over the succeeding days and learned more about the assailant, the alleged assailant. That was preceded, though, by what happened to Senator Padilla in Los Angeles the previous week, and now, ever since I wrote that piece, it's been followed by what happened to Senator Padilla in Los Angeles the previous week. And now, ever since I wrote that piece,

it's been followed by what happened to Brad Lander, the mayoral candidate in New York yesterday, when he also was manhandled by ICE agents. You can't watch these things and not see a pattern. They always teach us in journalism that three is a pattern. But more seriously, I mean, you can't watch these things and not suspect that something

bad is happening that's new and unique and that isn't where we've been before. I say in the piece, we did go through a period of pretty extreme political violence in the United States in the late 1960s and early and mid 1970s. This feels worse to me. This feels more permanent. That felt like it was aberrational because it was about a couple of issues that caused a generational convulsion, Vietnam and civil rights. This though feels different because, frankly, one of our two major political parties winks at and sometimes abets and then sometimes literally pardons political violence.

And, Ed Lewis, you covered similar ground in your latest piece with this chilling headline, Return of the American Assassin. Yeah. And so I strongly agree with what Michael's just said, that we're at a, we've been at a turning point for a while. The difference between previous periods of political assassination, political violence, fringe should have terrorist kind of activity in the late 60s and the 70s was that that was not being exhorted from the White House.

That was not being encouraged by the White House. What Donald Trump has done—and it's the first big act, of course, after he was inaugurated this time in January—was to pardon those hundreds of people who were felons because of the Jan 6 storming and, of course, commuting the sentences of those who have plotted it and been involved directly in violence. That signaled that Trump has your back if you commit violence in his cause. He has also recently said he's considering pardoning the nine men who were convicted of plotting to kidnap Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer. Again, exactly the same signal, green light is being sent from the White House. We never had that coming from the White House under LBJ or under even Nixon, let alone under Carter. This is a very, very different kind of situation. So I strongly agree with Michael's point that there's a pattern here, and that pattern originates from the top, not from the fringes.

Hey, Michael, it's Heilman here. I think you see the—it doesn't feel coincidental that you've seen the assassinations. You've seen Senator Padilla now here in New York. You've seen a mayoral candidate, the comptroller, take it away. These are, you know, talk about threes a pattern, you know, etc. As you say, and I think in some respects, obviously it feels, it feels more focused than the violence in the 60s. The point that you make it more, I'm not sure worse or better, because some of the things that happened in the 60s

were pretty horrific, from Kent State to the bombings at Columbia, et cetera, et cetera. But the point you make also is here to stay. And I want to try to get you to comment on that. What makes this feel to you as though the 60s was transient and that the patterns we're seeing now might be even longer lasting? Because you felt the Vietnam War was gonna end eventually.

You felt that the civil rights movement was, you know, that at some point we were gonna find some kind of equilibrium there. It's arguable whether we have even yet today. But, you know, those didn't feel like things that were permanent features of our political life and culture. But this does now, and because, as I wrote,

and because, as Ed said, it's coming from the top. It's being abetted and winked at by the White House. And that's a really different thing. Now, will that change? Maybe that will change, you know, if the Republicans lose spectacularly in 2028, assuming there's an election, and the Democrats win and Republicans decide to do an autopsy and decide to change course. But I think the MAGA grip on the Republican Party, with its winking at violence and sometimes

even worse than that. I think that's here to stay for the foreseeable future, for sure. Well, Michael, of course, people on the Magorite would remind you and remind everybody in this conversation that it was Donald Trump himself who was a target of two assassination attempts over the past summer during the middle of the campaign. I think one of you, I think it may have been Ed talked about, hard to imagine the horrific consequences if one of those two assassination attempts had been successful. So this obviously is not just a MAGA right phenomenon.

What explains what happened to Donald Trump twice over the past summer? Well, there doesn't seem to have been a strong political motivation for either of those shooters. Obviously, those were horrible events. But there doesn't seem to have been a strong political motivation identified by the FBI in either of those cases. More broadly though, Joe, you make a fair point and a point that I should address. There's some political violence that emanates from the left. There's no question about it.

But here's the difference. Antifa, they hate the Democratic Party as much as they hate the Republican Party. The Democratic Party is just part of the capitalist oppressor class of those people. They weren't running to the polls to vote for Kamala Harris. And you know, if those kinds of groups had offered their support to Harris or any high-ranking Democrat, it would have been, I'm sure, spurned. But not that any such offer would have been made, because those groups hate the Democrats. On the right, there's a different relationship between the extremist groups and the Republican

Party and the sitting president. Very different. Yeah, and Ed Lusole asked the same question of you. Obviously, you wrote about the two assassination attempts against President Trump over the past summer. Explain how that fits in to your thesis. Well, what's odd about that is that Trump isn't more concerned about the danger of bullets in politics. I mean, as I wrote, if Trump had been killed last July,

goodness knows what the social breakdown would have been. Of course, it in itself would have been a tragic crime to kill the nominee of one of America's two parties. But the backlash to that is just unknowable, which makes it all the more puzzling that when the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI and American threat assessors for domestic violence have consistently over many years been saying, look, the stronger terrorist threat and lone

wolf threat of political assassination and other terror events comes from these far-right militias. It makes it all the more surprising that Trump's administration is dismantling those units that were set up at the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI to monitor those groups and try and preempt such violence. So I don't think there's any allegation, not that Trump's used to it, that he's being consistent here, but he was within a quarter of inch of losing his life. And I think some of the actions he's taken to remove these monitoring groups at federal agencies are making it likelier that other such tragedies like we saw in Minnesota are going to take place.

I mean, that's just a real puzzle and it shouldn't be happening. Yeah. And Jonathan O'Meara, talk about the reporting from inside the White House. The White House, Donald Trump obviously sent out words of consolation, of condolences after those heinous assassinations in Minnesota. Some Democrats though upset that he hasn't spoken out more, that he hasn't talked to Tim Walz, that he and other members of the Republican Party haven't condemned Mike Lee. What is the White House saying post-Minnesota about those slangs? And is there any going to be any attempt by this White House to curb political violence

coming from the right or the left? This is one of those situations where the White House and the president don't always march in lockstep. From the White House's age, I've talked to in recent days, of course, horrified by what happened in Minnesota, deep and concerned about the rise of political violence, which is becoming far, far too common in our society. And you're right, President Trump immediately, very quickly after the news of the shooting broke,

took to social media to offer his condolences to condemn what happened. He's been asked now a couple of times, however, why haven't you called Governor Walz? And he just basically said, well, I don't like the guy. I think he's an idiot, I'm paraphrasing, but was very critical of him because he was, Vice President Harris, his running mate in in 2024 and basically says he has no

interest in talking to him. So there's the inherent contradiction there with with Trump. And look, the temperature is entirely too high in the political discourse in this country. We have well chronicled over the years how Trump has contributed to that. But there is certainly a hope that the temperature will lower.

But we have yet to see concrete steps from anyone in Washington including at the White House to really bring it down. And one day the point that we haven't brought up yet, one other thing that hasn't been brought up yet is of course after the vicious attack on Nancy Pelosi's side, not only did Donald Trump not condemn those attacks but Donald Trump openly mocked and ridic but Donald Trump openly mocked and ridiculed Paul Pelosi, mocked and ridiculed Nancy Pelosi, mocked and ridiculed the security situation around their home. Something obviously very shocking for everybody in the political sphere.

Ed Luce of the Financial Times, thank you. He's the author of the new book entitled Zbig, The Life of Zbigniew Brzezinski, America's Great Power Prophet. And Joe, you brought up Nancy Pelosi and Paul. I saw them this past weekend at an event. And Ed, she's halfway through the book and loves the book about her old friend. So another fan of Zbig. Thank you, Ed Luce. All right. Editor of The New Republic, Michael Tomaski. Thank you so much for being on this morning. And Michael and John Heilman.

Yeah. I know. Veering wildly here, we could talk about the passing of Brian Wilson, of course, which was tragic. But we have 30 seconds actually to wish one of his biggest fans a happy birthday this morning, Paul McCartney. Michael, I'll start with you. I was going to text you before the show started, actually, Joe, to make sure you knew. I'm glad you brought it up, Sir Paul.

You don't have to. You know, yeah, I know I don't. I'm glad I don't. Happy 83rd, sir. OK. And John, 83 years old and still kicking it. Joe? And amazing.

I mean, I think about the things, the blessings that we have, the fact that we have been allowed to be alive on this planet at the same time as Paul McCarty. It's like being on the planet with Mozart or Bach or Beethoven. There you go. Exactly. Roll over, Sir Paul. See you later. Happy birthday.

There you go. Alright.