Morning Joe - Morning Joe: 'Trump should make a good-faith effort at diplomacy in Iran': Richard Haass

Episode Date: June 19, 2025

President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he was still considering a U.S. military strike on Iran’s nuclear sites. “I may do it. I may not do it,” he said. “Nobody knows what I’m going to do.” The Morning Joe panel discusses the president's options in the region. This episode aired June 19, 2025, from 6-10 AM 

How many people live around by the way? I don't know the population at all. No, I don't know the population. You don't know the population of the country you seek to topple? Why is that relevant? Because if you don't know anything about the country. I didn't say I don't know anything about the country. Okay, what's the ethnic mix of Iran?

They are Persians and predominantly Shia. Okay, this is you don't know anything about Iran. So I am not the Tucker Carlson expert on Iran who says... You're a senator who's calling for the overthrow of the government, and you don't know anything about the country. No, you don't know anything about the country. The rift between Republicans over Iran on full display right there, as Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who has been a strong supporter of military action, and Tucker Carlson, who has been very much opposed sparring during an interview there. That went on for quite some time. Well, as you know though, I mean there is precedent to this because, you know, before Jonathan

Lamire, you will remember that before Dwight Eisenhower launched the D-Day attacks on June 6th, 1944, Ike got him on a transatlantic phone call and was actually peppering him with trivial pursuit questions about the ethnic makeup of Germany, their population size, and which soccer clubs were having the best seasons over the past 3 years. I'm also we see it in popular culture all the time I

remember Joe as I'm sure you do as well. Yeah, before Luke Skywalker got on the X wing and went after the death star run he was asked how many Imperial troops were on that space station at that time you have to know these things that you have to know these things good for Tucker. Yeah, it was though to me this point a very contentious interview that did lay out the divide in the muggle world right now. It's well short and I will say for left wingers watching that

it was kind of like staying with the Star Wars analogy. Are you for Darth Vader are you you for Emperor Palpatine? Palpatine, and, you know. It's a tough call for a lot of them. They did not know. What? What? What? I'm gonna move on. What's this transition? What's this transition?

Speaking of baseball. There it is. That's it. Yankees lose again. Speaking of the evil empire, well done. Red Sox win again. Yeah. What? Red Sox win again. And of the evil empire, well done. Red Sox win again. Yeah. Red Sox win again.

And the Giants, who I randomly started checking in the standings, how many games have they lost in a row? So the San Francisco Giants have lost four straight, including the first two with their prize new acquisition, Rafael Devers. Okay, a lot of news to get to. That's $125 million per loss. Okay. Okay. Back to the issue at hand. Meanwhile, President Trump continues to consider possible attack plans, telling reporters yesterday, quote, nobody knows what I'm going to do.

Now that, a lot of people say that you can't trust anything Donald Trump says. Well, a lot of people say that. Nobody has said that here, of course. But this, this is a, one of the most truthful statements he has ever made. Nobody knows what I'm going to do. And they really don't. It could break in either direction. We're going to bring in the latest reporting out of the White House.

Which is a good thing, by the way. And on Capitol Hill yesterday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was grilled about possible plans for the Middle East, as well as the deployment of U.S. troops in U.S. cities. Did you see he threw Jesus under the bus again? They all threw Jesus under the bus. It was very painful. It's like you get put in the corner, and Jesus is your get-out-of-jail-free card. Or, well, I don't believe anything except the bus. It was very painful. It's like you get put in the corner and Jesus is your get out of jail free card. Or, well, I don't believe anything except the Bible.

Yeah, okay, well great, yeah, we all do, but that really, that's the only thing? Not the Constitution? Also ahead, this is a big story out of Boston. We're going to go through the verdict in the high profile retrial of Karen Reed, who had been accused of killing her police officer boyfriend. Danny Savalos will join us with analysis on that case outside of Boston that has really gripped much of the time.

So let's go back to our Boston correspondent, Jonathan Amir. Jonathan, it's hard really to explain to people that don't follow true crime trials like this or art of the Boston area just how huge this case was for those two sexes, for New England and also for people who follow true crime stories. They have been locked on this case. I've heard them talking sort of in the periphery for several years now.

Yeah, and it's broken through to the point where it's even on the front page of the New York Post today, not the main headline, and it's broken through to the point where it's even on the front page of the New York Post today, not the main headline, but it is here as well. Yeah, this was the story up there. I remember being a few months back, or it was last year, during the first trial, being on the mass pike and driving by an overpass above the highway, signs were being flown

on both sides of the Karen Reed trial. There was crowds, we'll show them later, I'm sure, of hundreds of people gathered outside the courthouse waiting for the verdict. It had become this sort of... For someone who's not a celebrity, it was being covered like a celebrity trial. And then we had the retrial this week,

this last couple weeks, with a split verdict, but she was acquitted of the larger, more serious charges. All right, let's get to our top story this morning. President Trump still weighing his options on how to deal with Iran. Yesterday morning, he told reporters he has not yet made a final decision saying Iran has suggested coming to the White House for talks, but it might be too late. Iran's got a lot of trouble and they want to negotiate. And I said, why didn't you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction? Why didn't you negotiate?

I said to the people, why didn't you negotiate with me two weeks ago? You could have done fine. You would have had a country. Unconditional, son. That means I've had it. Okay, I've had it. I give up. No more. Then we go blow up all the nuclear stuff that's all over the place. Look, nothing's finished until it's finished.

You know, war is very complex. A lot of bad things can happen. A lot of turns are made. So, I don't know. I wouldn't say that we won anything yet. I would say that we sure as hell made a lot of progress. And we'll see. The next week is going to be very big, maybe less than a week, maybe less. We've got David Ignatius here. We're going to be going to him in a second. But I will say you parsed the role of that and what you see is somebody who

still may be looking for a deal and who is acknowledging what everybody who's seriously looking at this knows. That as David said yesterday, it just starts with the bombing of Iran. The spinoff from this, I'm not going to even say could be, it most likely would be just as messy as what happened after you replaced a regime in Iraq. Well, Iran denies ever asking to meet at the White House, writing in a statement, quote, Iran does not negotiate under duress. That is not true.

They will negotiate under duress to save their regime if they can. The president did meet with security advisors in the situation room yesterday. As for the situation on the ground, Iran and Israel are still trading fire. Earlier this morning, an Iranian missile struck a hotel in southern Israel, though Iranian officials say they were... Hospital, sorry, not a hotel. Though Iranian officials say they were aiming for a nearby military site. The direct hit caused extensive damage to the facility and seriously injured at least six people. Several residential buildings in Tel Aviv were hit as well, injuring at least 47 people.

According to the Times of Israel, the Israeli military says Iran launched roughly 30 ballistic missiles this morning. In Iran, Israel hit a heavy water reactor early this morning. At a news conference yesterday, an Israeli military spokesperson said the IDF had launched three waves of aerial attacks from Tuesday into Wednesday. The waves involved dozens of warplanes dispatched to strike over 60 targets in Tehran and in Western Iran.

Citing a Washington-based Iranian human rights group, the Associated Press reports at least 639 people have been killed in Iran since last Friday. With us we have the President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass. Columnist and associate editor for the Washington Post, David Ignatius. Managing editor at the Bull Works, Sam Stein. Thank you for doing way too early. And national security reporter for the Wall Street Journal, Alex Ward,

is with us this morning. Good to have you on. You won't be thanking Sam after we talk about the Red Sox for the next five minutes. Oh, God. So, David Ignatius, we've had four and a half years to study Donald Trump, and actually to be able to pick out some patterns as disruptive

and random as it may be. And I would say the one area where he seems to be conservative with a small C and perhaps the only area that I can think of is actually the use of military force. And I'm just curious what you're hearing after he spoke on the White House lawn yesterday talking about all of the possible complications that are sure to follow a strike against Iran and how he balances that, which is extraordinarily important and I'm glad he's thinking about that, with people in Azir saying this is your chance to take out a regime that's been the epicenter of anti-American terror since 1979.

What are you hearing? So, Joe, I think you describe it accurately. This is a moment of high drama. President Trump is surrounded by aides, some arguing, you got a bomb, Mr. President, others arguing, let's try to negotiate. I'm told that he made the decision Monday that he's prepared to use the US bunker buster bomb over Fordow, but is not yet prepared to actually deploy it, and still hopes that he can somehow find a path to negotiation.

He said as much yesterday, talking about the Iranians wanting to come to the White House, a deal is still possible. He loves the drama of this. He said yesterday he won't make a decision until the last second. So I think negotiation is still possible. In some ways, it is Trump's preferred course. His problem, I'm told, is that there's just a lack of trust on the Iranian side.

They see him as the person who basically chucked the Iran nuclear deal when he was president in his first term. They think that maybe he's been straying them along in the negotiations so far. The Iranian condition, I'm told, is the bombing must stop, and then they're prepared to sit down and talk with Trump or some group. The Europeans are meeting Friday to talk about diplomacy. I just would add one detail that I was thinking about last night about a somewhat similar moment.

In 1962, President Kennedy was surrounded by advisors during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Some of them said bomb Cuba. Many were preparing an invasion of Cuba. Some wanted to sink the Soviet ship that was steaming toward Cuba. And Kennedy, surrounded by all these competing voices, stepped out of what was called the EXCOM, the executive committee that was making decisions. He needed some time alone, and he went with his brother. And he came up with the most unusual sort of double-speak deal with the Russians, where

he said one thing publicly and did something quite different privately. And he ended up with a deal that solved the Cuban Missile Crisis. And I couldn't help thinking last night, this is a similar situation. I hope President Trump, in the hours, days remaining to make this very difficult decision, can step away from all these competing voices and think creatively. We say JFK stepped out of the box. If it's possible for Donald Trump to step out of his box, he might get to a point where he sees a way to resolve this that serves our interest, serves Israel's, and leaves Iran not completely obliterated in a kind of mess that would be

hard to put back together. Yeah. Richard Haass, like you, to weigh the two competing scenarios here, and offer what advice you would give to the president. On one side, you have the opportunity to finish or to deep, to finish the nuclear program, most likely, or certainly dent the nuclear program of, again, the country that's been the epicenter of terrorists since 1979. That's on one side. On the other side, of course, is what we all remember

following the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, where for a month or two everybody was celebrating America's extraordinary success, and it turned into a decade-long nightmare. We still haven't seen the final consequences of that invasion, of that regime change. What advice would these two competing interests, what advice would you give the president or any president in this situation?

I'll tell you in 30 seconds what I tell this president, but the first thing I think to recognize Joe is we've got to get rid of words like solve this once and for all, finish off the Iranian nuclear program. It's just not going to happen. It's not the way history works. It's not the way these things work. Second, well, neither option is particularly attractive right now. If we use military force, we get tied down in the Middle East again quite possibly.

We'll see how Iran retaliates against US troops in the region, what have you. It normalizes the idea that great powers can use military force. I bet the Chinese and the Russians and some others might be taking notes. Everybody sees gathering threats out there they might want to act against. So the downsides of using force are real. The elements of the Iranian program will survive. If you read The Economist this week on the dossier, you understand that there's all sorts of things we still don't know completely about.

The Iranians have squirreled away all sorts of equipment and material all over the country, I would expect. So we will, as you used the phrase, make a major dent in it if we use military force. But one, they'll be able to reconstruct it. And second of all, they'll be determined to. Indeed, they're probably already determined to. They've lost their proxies for the most part. Israel's acting with impunity over their territory.

So my guess is most Iranians will say the lesson we need to draw is that we actually need nuclear weapons in order to prevent this sort of thing from happening. I actually think the best thing at this point the president could do is do a sequential approach. Go to the Iranians and say, we'd like to work this out through negotiation. He should stop tweeting, by the way. It's not unconditional surrender. The Iranians are going to have to compromise significantly, but there might be some things

they don't. We're not going to get everything we want. But I would certainly try an ambitious diplomatic approach. And that way, if he does have to use force, it seems to me it's always better to have tried the diplomatic. The parallel I'll give is George H.W. Bush. And David used the Cuban Missile Crisis. Let me use the Gulf War.

We had resolution 678. We gave Saddam Hussein every opportunity to get out of Kuwait through diplomacy and so forth. And then when it didn't work, then we use force. And because we had tried, we had the country and the world behind us. So I think if I were Donald Trump, I would make a good faith effort at diplomacy to get the Iranians to give up their enriched uranium to agree to inspections and so forth. You'd offer them sanctions relief, you wouldn't attack their country, the regime would survive. If that doesn't

work and you have to use military force that's a much better way to do it in terms of managing the domestic, the regional, and the international reaction. Alex, I want to pick up on that because, as David mentioned, one of the issues here is do the Iranians trust our diplomacy? The JCPOA, Trump pulled out of it. It's very hard to then go and say, hey, let's cut a deal. Secondarily, I want to ask you about, I know we kind of glossed over it and made fun of it, but the

Tucker-Krews debate, what was at the epicenter of the debate was, should we have regime change? It's not just, should we attack the Iranian nuclear capabilities, but what would regime change look like? And Joe alluded to this. It's easy to do the first wave of attacks. It's what comes next that I think is really bothering or at least troubling this administration and people in the MAGA movement. Can you do regime change?

And if so, what does it look like and what kind of American commitments are there? From your reporting, to what degree is that question vexing the administration and how are they working through it? So on the trust issue, there's no question that the Iranians don't really trust the US right now, right? I mean, we're not only leaving the JCPOA, but Trump was leading a diplomatic effort. In fact, even up until the Israeli strikes, they were saying, hey, Steve Witkoff, the peace envoy, we'll meet you in a couple days in Oman.

And the strikes hit before then, and now the US has been helping defend Israel throughout this whole time, including up until that Sunday, when they were supposed to meet. And so if you're the Iranians, you're going, OK, can't trust the Americans anymore. Why would we do so? However, it does seem like the Iranians are trying to reach out a little bit to have some talks, so that could be happening. In terms of the regime change, so far, it seems like the president is against it. He's vetoed, if we can say that, the strike on Khamenei, the supreme leader.

It's possible that still happens, or the Israelis go ahead without the US. But say the regime were to collapse in some way or there's strong protests that lead to this. Okay, fine. Well, the basic scenario that people are considering is it would be like Assyria, pockets of instability, basically warlords, people in charge of certain areas, but large sectarian ethnic divisions, and it's a massive country, and that would be really an ungovernable situation. Or we could also have a moment in which the regime is very weak, but they're trying to

retaliate in large ways or in unconventional ways. Some of those you could do is you could try to shut the Strait of Hormuz, which would disrupt global trade. You could start attacking tankers in the Red Sea. You could have a network of proxies or cells all around the world attack US embassies or global hotspots. And there are some really weak embassies, or not as strongly secured embassies that the US has in Latin America or Western Africa, Western Africa, particularly weak spot.

So let's not pretend that the Iranians have no cards here. They do. They are weakened. A lot of their proxies are decimated in Hamas and Hezbollah, but they have cards to play here and they are signaling that they will retaliate in some major way if the U.S. were to get involved. And that, of course, would include bombing Ford out of that large uranium enrichment facility inside the mountain.

And if there are attacks on embassies, like there were in the late 90s. If an American is killed, one American is killed by the Iranians in any military procedures, that ups the ante for the president for this administration, for military leaders. Suddenly, we aren't sitting back as dispassionately as we are right now in the Ukrainian and Russian conflict as we are here. When Americans start dying, the costs go up, the stakes go up, and what is expected of this White House and our military goes up, that's when we cross the line and it becomes far, far more dangerous. I'm curious, Jonathan O'Meara, as we were talking about how when it comes to the use

of military, the president actually has been conservative with the small c at least over the first four and a half years of his time in the White House. I'm curious about leverage. Does the president see everything that's unfolded over the past two weeks, like past week, week and a half? Does he see that as giving him the sort of leverage he didn't have in his first 60 days of negotiating with the Iranians? Yeah, the equation has changed. And the answer is yes.

This is still about the president hoping to have leverage. This is still about him hoping to get a deal. There are a couple of things at play here. Remember his first term, when he was blustering against Kim Jong-un and others, there was a sense that it was the quote madman theory of diplomacy. So in chaos, he was unpredictable, frustrating allies to be sure, but also potential adversaries. They simply didn't know how to test him. They weren't sure what to do because they weren't sure what his response would be.

Leaning into that again a little bit here now, from all over the place, sometimes just because that's who he is, but also because it's sometimes deliberate in terms of sending mixed signals, mixed messaging. And yesterday, certainly, he seemed a little cooler on the idea of a military strike than 24 hours prior. That's part of the plan here, but there's no question. They wanted to get a deal before it got to this point. But now that we are here, I am told by a number of people in the administration, there is

a sense with Iran taking these terrible losses, Iran really weak, potentially desperate, President Trump now does think he has more leverage to get to that deal. And that includes these threats here about the bunker busting bomb. That is still, he's got that card to play. He's got it to loom over the Iranians, saying, look, I'll say yes. And as Alex and others have reported, he's given that preliminary okay already,

but still holding off because he wants to give their more time for a deal. It seems the situations are fluid. We know that things can change, but at least for now, the president and his team are signaling they want to give this a little more time over the weekend, into next week even, to see if Iran will come to table in a real meaningful way, not just lip service, but a real meaningful way, and maybe a deal can be struck that way before using this military force.

Let's bring in NBC News chief international correspondent Keir Simmons live from Erbil, Iraq. Keir, what are you hearing? Well, Mika, just to pick up on your conversation, we're just hearing that the Israeli defense minister has engaged in the debate again, saying that a dictator like Khamenei cannot be allowed to continue on the question of regime change. Of course, we're here in Iraq where they know a thing or two about regime change and about how regime change is just the beginning, is what comes afterwards that really counts.

Just in terms of the news, as you've been reporting, continued strikes both in Iran and in Israel. That hospital in Beersheba, the Soraka hospital, that was hit. The Iranians saying that they were targeting a military site across Israel. More than 65 have been injured in Iran. The no longer, apparently no longer working

heavy water reactor in Iraq, Iran, that has been hit. Clearly the Israelis think that that may well have been part of Iran's nuclear program. But as I mentioned, we are here in Iraqi Kurdistan, in northern Iraq. Let me just get our cameraman Moose to pan over there to the base that is in the distance there. That is the American base here in Erbil. That is, of course, one of the targets that you've been talking about, that we worry about. About 30 miles from here this morning there are reports that an Iranian drone went down. There are reports too of Iranian drones around the US bases in Syria, but it

is relatively calm here. This again, this is the Kurdish region of Iraq, neighboring the Kurdish region of Iran, and the messaging that you're hearing from the Israelis to the Iranian people to rise up, that in part will be directed at the Kurdish people. Here's one of the issues on that though, aside from the question of what happens after regime change, what happens if there is some kind of a revolution, here's one of the issues. You guys all know the history here, that in the past the Kurdish people have been encouraged to rise up under Saddam Hussein, for example. For that, they were

subject to gas attacks by Saddam Hussein that killed huge numbers of Kurds. There was uprising in Iran just a few years ago over the death of Masa Amini, the woman who was apprehended by the Iranians because of the clothes she was wearing, no one came in to help the Iranian people who stood up then, the Iranian women. So it's understandable that the message we are getting, we've just arrived here, is that if you want the Iranian people to rise up, you may need to do a little more than just talk. I guess that's what the Israelis are trying to do as well as hit the Iranian, I guess what the Israelis trying to do as well as hit the Iranian nuclear program but there are huge questions and I think doubts about whether that's really gonna happen.

My gosh when you talk about the Kurds nobody and no group has been more used more lied to more abandoned than the Kurds over the past 20-30 years. Kier we were obviously talking about the United States going into Iraq, one of the reasons that the people who opposed that, one of the few people who opposed it like Dr. Przezinski, they talked about it was a Shia dominated country and that it would actually accrue to the benefit geopolitically of the Iranians in the long run. I'm curious, here we are 22 years later, Iran's facing an existential crisis. How is the Shia majority in Iraq, where you are right now, responding to this conflict? Have there been strong

condemnations? Are they sitting back like Syria and other Middle Eastern countries with muted responses? The Iraqi government is condemning the Israeli attacks on Iran. The Popular Mobilization Forces here in Iraq, who are the Shia pro-Iran militia, if you like, they are making noises. They're not doing very much at this stage. Why? I'll let you guys discuss why that might be, whether they're waiting to see what President Trump does, whether they are holding for whatever reason.

I'll let you guys dig into that. But I will say one other thing to Richard's point about those bunker busting bombs that might hit Fordow, the 30,000 pound American bombs. I think we're getting into a little shorthand on that now. The reality is that it's not absolutely clear that those bombs work in Fordow. They are the most powerful bombs able to go deep into the to the ground but it doesn't necessarily do the job if you like it isn't a kind of trump card to eradicate the Iranian nuclear program and all as well and I think the story of Iraq and of intervention in Iraq here where we are now that tells the story of how

predictions of military intervention, that they're just going to be a solution, don't necessarily play out that way. Well put. NBC's Keir Simmons live in Iraq. Thank you very much for your reporting and analysis this morning. And as Keir pointed out, there are estimates that the nuclear facility is half a mile deep. Right. So the idea that this is a sure thing.

There are no, once you cut war, there are no sure things. That's a great point. Yeah, it's not. All right, still ahead on Morning Joe, we're going to play for you more of that really testy interview between right-wing media personality Tucker Carlson and Republican Senator Ted Cruz as they clash over President Trump's Middle East policy. Plus, we're going to go through the verdict in the Karen Reed case that's gained national attention now acquitted of murdering her police officer boyfriend.

And a reminder, the Morning Joe podcast is available each weekday, featuring our full conversations on the latest news, also analysis. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts. You're watching Morning Joe. We're back. It changed your life. In 90 seconds. I tell you, it reverses of lower Manhattan just now.

636 in the morning. We've had days worth of rain. That's finally over. And now we fast forwarded to summer because temperature is hot and humid today. Temperature is going to be 100 degrees next week. We got there and we got there quick. Back to the news now, and Karen Reed, as mentioned, whose widely watched murder trial ended with a hung jury

last year, was acquitted yesterday, a second degree murder, after prosecutors retried her in the 2022 death of her Boston police officer boyfriend. NBC News correspondent, Emily Ak Aketa brings us the details. Karen Reed walking out of court with hand over heart and a major win in her murder trial redo. I just want to say two things. Number one is I could not be standing here without these amazing supporters who have

supported me and my team financially and more importantly emotionally. I'm so grateful for the support that I've received. I'm so grateful for the support that I've received. I'm so grateful for the support that I've received. I'm so grateful for the support that I've received. I'm so grateful for the support that I've received. I'm so grateful for the support that I've received. I'm so grateful for the support that I've received.

I'm so grateful for the support that I've received. I'm so grateful for the support that I've received. I'm so grateful for the support that I've received. I'm so grateful for the support that I've received. I'm so grateful for the support that I've received. I could not be standing here without these amazing supporters who have supported me and my team financially and more importantly emotionally for almost four years. And the second thing I want to say is no one has fought harder for justice for John O'Keefe than I have. She was accused of hitting her police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe with her car in a drunken argument and leaving him to die in the cold back in 2022. But her defense has insisted there was no collision and Reed was framed. And after three and a half days of deliberating, the jury of seven women and five men agreed to acquit her of the most serious charge. Murder in the second degree. What say you is the defendant of our guilty or not guilty? Also clearing her of manslaughter and fleeing the scene of a deadly

accident, prompting hugs and tears inside the courtroom. Cheers even heard from crowds gathered outside. So say you all the jury did convict read of a lesser charge operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol after considering nearly 8 weeks of testimony and mountains of material, including crash demos vehicle and phone data and reads own words. I mean, I didn't think I hit him hit him but could I have clipped him read acknowledging she shouldn't have been driving the night O'Keefe died. Her defense tried to point the finger at law enforcement but in a new interview with Dateline the lead investigator fired

for his misconduct on the case now speaking out. What do you want to say to anyone who believes the narrative the defense's narrative that that you are corrupt that you framed Karen Reed? I laugh because it's such a ridiculous accusation. There's not one piece of evidence or fact to support that because it did not happen. I would never do something like that. Did you frame Karen Reed? Absolutely not. This is the second time a jury has deliberated reads fate since her first trial last year ended in a mistrial declaring a mistrial in this case, the

case since garnering intense public interest, both online and in person with a sea of supporters in pink erupting in cheers at word of the jury's verdict today. It feels wonderful because we got a non guilty verdict it feels great it's worth everything every minute of travel every penny we pay to get here was worth it for the verdict. But a much more somber tone from Keith's loved ones his mother had testified in the retrial.

I hear Karen Reid yell Peg is he dead is he did pay peg is it dead. Some of those at the center of the case who testified against Reid writing in a statement, today we mourn with John's family and lament the cruel reality that this prosecution was infected by lies and conspiracy theories, going on to say the result is a devastating miscarriage of justice. Joining us now, NBC News and MSNBC legal analyst Danny Savalas. Danny, good to see you. I mean, it can't be overstated just what a national phenomenon this trial became.

I mean, from people I know who grew up in New England and Massachusetts, but it spread beyond that. So considering all the attention and plenty, what went different? Why would you get a different outcome in this retrial? First, this case has completely divided the nation in half into two categories.

Those who have either never heard of this case, and I suspect that is a lot of people at this table right here. Richard Haas raises his hand. Richard Haas, president emeritus of the Council of Foreign Relations, he doesn't have time for the Karen Reed case. I do.

All right? Half the country never heard of the case. The other half, it has completely shut down their lives as they watched this case gavel to gavel. I'd probably fall into the latter category. But within that group, it further divided the nation into people who believe this was a massive cover-up by local and state police and others who think Karen Reed probably was guilty. It has divided my own household. My wife is an investigative journalist and a crime reporter.

She firmly believed there was a conspiracy and a cover-up. I was not so inclined, but I believed that this would likely be a not guilty. And that's exactly what happened in this case. What the defense did differently this time, they didn't push the conspiracy so hard. They instead took a more conservative approach. Their theme was there was no collision. That's a reasonable doubt theme. At the end they argued the Commonwealth did not prove that there was a collision. And if you don't believe there was a collision, then the only thing you can convict of is operating under the influence. And

frankly, that was a foregone conclusion. You can see when the verdicts read. Karen Reid is happy with her OUI conviction because she knew she pretty much admitted it herself on camera. There was plenty of evidence of that but if there's no collision she had to be not guilty of every other crime charge. All right, Danny Savalos, thank you very much. We appreciate your having time for that. Coming up on Morning Joe, MAGA divided more on the rift, the clash really between Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson, what it means. Also more with Richard Haass and David Ignatius on what comes next in the Iran-Israel conflict

and the growing rift inside the Trump administration. Also ahead, to understand what ails the Democratic Party, our next guest points to the mayoral primary unfolding in New York City. New York Times opinion writer Mara Gay joins us to explain why she says Andrew Cuomo's candidacy is a symptom of a bigger Democratic problem. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. 42 past the hour, the prospect of U.S. involvement in the conflict between Israel and Iran is

creating a deepening divide among President Trump's inner circle. Some of the president's most devout supporters, including his former adviser Steve Bannon, spoke out against military action this week. If we get sucked into this war, which inexorably looks like it's going to happen on the combat side, it's going to not just blow up the coalition, it's also going to thwart what we're doing with the most important thing, which is the deportation of the illegal alien invaders that are here. The public rift reflects what is unfolding

inside the administration as well. NBC News reports the National Intelligence Director, Tulsi Gabbard appears to have fallen out of favor with Trump. Gabbard has long used her public platform to oppose US.S. military action against Iran and has been working behind the scenes to try and find a diplomatic solution, according to administration officials. Gabbard's allies say that although there is some tension

in the White House, some of the public blowback is overstated, and none expect her to leave her position in the administration. So at the top of the hour, you saw part of Tucker Carlson's interview with Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. As they went back and forth on the issue of Iran, here's more of that intense exchange. How many people live in Iran, by the way? I don't know the population. At all the way? I don't know the population at all. No, I don't know the population. You don't know the population of the country you seek to topple. How many people living around 92 million?

Okay. Yeah, I could you not know that? I don't sit around memorizing population tables. Well, it's kind of relevant because you're calling for the overthrow of the government. Why is it relevant whether it's 90 million or 80 million or 100 million? Why is that relevant? Because if you don't know anything about the country.

I didn't say I don't know anything about the country. Okay, what's the ethnic mix of Iran? They are Persians and predominantly Shia. Okay, this is cute. You don't know anything about Iran. So actually the country. Okay, I am not the Tucker Carlson expert on Iran. You're a senator who's calling for the government. You don't know anything about the country. No, you don't know

anything about the country. You're the one who claims they're not trying to murder Donald Trump. You know, I'm not saying that who can't figure out if it was a good idea to kill General Soleimani. You said it was bad. They're trying to murder Trump. Yes, I guess you're not calling for military strikes against them in retaliation. If you really believe that. We're carrying out military strikes today. You said Israel was. Right, with our help. I've said we, Israel is leading them, but we're supporting them. Well this, you're breaking news here because the US government last night denied, the National Security Council spokesman Alex Pfeiffer denied on behalf of Trump that we were acting on Israel's behalf in any offensive capacity at all. We're not bombing them. Israel's bombing them. You just said we were.

We are supporting Israel. This is high stakes. You're a senator. If you're saying the United States government is at war with Iran right now, people are listening. Growing up in Sunday school, I was taught from the Bible, those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed. And from my perspective, I want to be on the blessing side of things. Those who bless the government of Israel? Those who bless Israel is what it says. It doesn't say the government of it says the nation of Israel.

So that's in the Bible. As a Christian, I believe that. Where is that? I can find it to you. I don't have the scripture off the tip of my, you pull out the phone and use the Bible. It's in Genesis, but, so you're quoting a Bible phrase, you don't have context for it,

you don't know where in the Bible it is, but that's like your theology, I'm confused. What does that even mean? Tucker. I'm a Christian, I wanna know what you're talking about. Where does my support for Israel come from? Number one, because biblically, we're commanded to support Israel. But number two...

Hold on. No, no, no. Hold on. You're a senator and now you're throwing out theology and I am a Christian and I am allowed to weigh in on this. We are commanded as Christians to support the government of Israel? We are commanded to support Israel. And we're told... What does that mean? We're told those who bless Israel will be blessed. But what... Hold on. Define Israel. This is important. Are you kidding? This is a majority Christian country. Define Israel? Do you not know what Israel is? That would be the country you've asked like 49 questions about. So that's what Genesis, that's what God is talking about. The nation of Israel. Yes. And he's, so is that the current borders, the current leadership? He's talking about the political entity called Israel? He's talking about the nation of Israel. Yeah, nations exist

and he's discussing a nation. A nation was the people of Israel. Is the nation God is referring to in Genesis, is that the same as the country run by Benjamin Netanyahu right now? Yes. Yes. It is. Wow. Well, okay. Okay. So much to say there. What's the big story out of it? Well, I mean, there is a big story, but I just have to say, I just... Don't say it. There's a lot of... I actually don't. There's a lot of holding up Jesus here. Let's just let it speak for itself.

You had the secretary of defense cornered and he said, I believe the Bible, nothing, only believe the Bible. Oh, that was hard to shut back. And when he got cornered and now you have... That's the fallback....the crew's getting cornered and now you have... That's the fallback. ...the crew's getting cornered and we go back to the... I'm just saying this administration and this Republican Party, they throw Jesus under the bus an awful lot or they use Jesus as a political shield.

When they have nowhere else to go. Much like Martin Sheen used a child as a political shield in the end of The Dead Zone. Watch the movie. Again. I just ruined it for you. So let's rise above this, my brothers and sisters. Let's rise above this. And David Ignatius, I want to talk, actually, what's going on here ideologically,

because it's something that actually divided Republicans when I was in Congress in the 1990s, whether it was on Kosovo, Bosnia, etc., etc., we weren't as much of an interventionist as, say, Republicans were during the Cold War. But of course, you had Republicans, you had conservatives strongly opposed to Wilson's League of Nations after World War I, you had the interventionists leading to World War II, you had Mr. Republican Robert Taft and a lot of other Republicans

opposing the entrance into World War II. Afterwards, they reluctantly got on board. But post-Cold War, which seemed to shake up that whole dynamic of Republicans being isolationists and then becoming interventionists. Now we're back, it seems seems we're back to where we were in the 90s where there is a pretty strong split between the interventionists and the non-interventionists in the Republican Party.

I'm curious your thoughts, you've seen this unfold over the past 40, 50 years. Where is the party right now? And what are the political risks for Donald Trump if he goes in or if he stays out? So Joe, we're struggling in a in a I'd say real national debate about where our national interests are and I must say as somebody who lived through the pre-Iraq period, that was the kind of debate we needed back then.

We needed in 2003 to be talking about what was in our interest as a country, did this make sense, what would happen after we invaded? Wasn't enough of that because Dad was big, and Brzezinski was a rare example of somebody who was asking those questions. So the more debate that I'm hearing the better. I think one one thing that's likely is that President Trump will learn in this debate, noisy, sometimes fractious, who he trusts and who he doesn't. But he'll make up his mind better. You know he's often all over the map in terms of his views. One day says something, next day the next. That's one

reason I think the Iranians mistrust him in these negotiations. They just aren't sure where he is. But over time that'll shake out better. There are reports that it's a different group now in the Situation Room than it was initially. So I think that's also good for a president to have this kind of shakedown cruise on a really big issue like this. Final point that I'd like to make is we're all focused to a surprising extent on Washington and what we're talking about here in Washington, but the cockpit in this war is in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The Israelis won't wait forever.

They have embarked on what they see as an absolutely critical, existential campaign to take out Iran's nuclear capability while they can. They have other options besides waiting for the US bunker buster. They're not good ones, but there's more and more talk being leaked about commando operations, other ways to get deep underground at Fordo and have some of the same effects they could get from the US. So the idea that we can take as long as we want,

make up our minds two weeks from today, not necessarily. This is in the end going to be an Israeli decision primarily. So Richard, I promise I won't quiz you on any facts about Iran or its demographics or population, but I do want to hear your thoughts picking up where David actually was just where I was going to take you anyway. This idea of the relationship with Israel, what Israel may or may not do without the US support. We know that the bond between Yahoo and Trump

once very close is definitely frayed in recent months. Trump is clearly going to take some time here, he's signaling, to make a decision, and that's certainly his right. But let's get you to weigh in on this as to how long is Israel willing to be patient? Thirty seconds for us. Just for Ted Cruz, one of his staffers ought to help him. In Semitic languages, there's a fundamental difference between the word for nation and state. In English, we tend to use the two interchangeably.

In the Middle East, very different things. So when one speaks of the nation of Israel, it's about the Jewish people, thousands of years predating the Jewish state, separate words and all these languages to them. So they're not interchangeable, just a slight aside. Look, I think part of Donald Trump is America first. In a half dozen ways, he has differentiated himself

from Bibi Netanyahu, did his own thing with the Houthis and so forth. He's not waiting on this. On the other hand, as David pointed out correctly, Israel is driving events. But no, I can imagine the president, if he decides that he prefers not to have the United States enter the war directly, he'll make that decision. And even Bibi Netanyahu, as much as he's driving policy, he has to be wary of going too far out in front of Donald Trump. Any Israeli prime minister, his principal priority is to manage the relationship with

the United States. He's got to be wary of that. And when he gets that wrong, it's dangerous for Israel, also politically dangerous for Bibi Netanyahu. He actually brags that he's able to deliver Donald Trump. What if he can't? So I think he's got to be really mindful. And Bibi has another problem here, Jonathan.

He has set out on this war and he's got two goals, neither one of which he can achieve. He can't denuclearize Iran. He needs the United States to help him. And he can't bring about regime change because no leader can guarantee if you do certain things regime change will be the result. So as is the case in some ways in Gaza, Bibi Netanyahu has bet the farm on a set of objectives that I do not believe he can unilaterally realize. That's why he needs Donald Trump here.

Richard, I don't think Sam Cruz really cares for that distinction, but we'll pass it along to him. Alex, what's the population of Israel? No. I want to pick up on something you and I talked about yesterday, which is Trump's process here, to a degree that's expected, I guess, of Trump, but certainly unprecedented. We are seeing sort of real-time deliberations through his true social feed, and then even on the White House South Lawn as he's putting up flagpoles saying, well, you know, I may

do it, I may not. I'm sort of convinced that he basically will go where public opinion tells him to go. If it looks like what Israel's doing is going to be successful in Iran, he will align himself with that success. But you know more because you've reported on this dynamic a little bit. Tell us a little bit about what you know about how he views this, what his decision-making process is, and the degree to which public opinion itself drives the type of strategic decisions that he makes.

Well, in terms of the process, there is no process. I mean, it usually used to be that at the National Security Council level, there would be multiple interminable meetings, and eventually to be that at the National Security Council level, there would be multiple interminable meetings, and eventually options get up to the presidential level, and then the president makes a decision. In this case, there are advisors telling Trump to his face, here's what you should do, here's what you should not do, and then at some point, he'll make a call. And as we reported, he's already approved of attack plans for Iran.

He's just waiting for the final order, waiting to see if maybe Tehran will solve this issue diplomatically. In terms of public opinion, I mean, if you the final order, waiting to see if maybe Tehran will solve this issue diplomatically. In terms of public opinion, I mean, if you're Donald Trump, you're remembering your first term. You basically threatened nuclear war with North Korea and you ended up getting a diplomatic process going and you were allotted for that. You were told, oh, don't start a big conflict with ISIS because that's basically the US getting involved in wars in Syria and Iraq, and you were able to really weaken ISIS and you got applauded for that.

Now this is obviously a much bigger situation in terms of the US bombing Iran and trying to dismantle its nuclear program. And it is fracturing the coalition. If you're Donald Trump, you're feeling I have been here before, I have had people follow me, been reelected, despite my actions in the first term, including on its foreign policy. And so maybe as long as I make the case here for why this is in the American interest, for why this actually helps us with Israel, maybe I can get MAGA on board.

So I think what the worry is here is that Trump is going to be dragged in, one is going to be dragged in, which it seems more and more likely as of now, but also that they're worried that this could lead to a regime change, that there will be unintended consequences that Trump cannot control. But for right now, Trump, I think by taking his time and being very clear that if we get involved, it will be basically just to destroy Ford out, as of right now, that's the thinking, then maybe he can ward off those forces against him. National Security Reporter for The Wall Street Journal, Alex Ward, thank you so much.

David Ignatius and Richard Haas, thank you both as well.