Morning Joe - Richard Haass: If diplomacy with Iran doesn’t gain momentum, this will escalate

Episode Date: May 5, 2026

Richard Haass: If diplomacy with Iran doesn’t gain momentum, this will escalate To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Are countries booming now, despite the fact that we're in a, I call it a mini-war, because that's all they are? Okay, that's President Trump. Again, calling the war in Iran, which the administration says isn't a war, actually calling it a war, despite everybody in the White House telling Congress. Otherwise, Willie, I don't know. Does a mini-war require a mini-authorization constitutionally? Well, the big war, they don't want to authorize constitutionally, so maybe that's why he's downplaying what this is. He tries to use the ceasefire as well. There's a pause on the 60 days that would require congressional authorization.

But to downplay a war, there are no many wars. People die in wars, and they're dying in this one as well. And Joe, it's stepping up, frankly, in the Strait of Hormuz this morning with some allegations back and forth, some attacks on ships they're passing through as the United States tries to escort at least some U.S. vessels out of the street. It's getting messier by the day and far from a mini-war. It is getting messier by the day. I also, Willie, I've just, you know, there's some days that you go on and you read the news and read everything that's breaking. And, you know, it is the old quote that sometimes nothing happens in decades and other times a decade happens in a week. It seems that a decade is happening a day at a time in Ukraine right now. I mean, you look and you see Zelensky.

I mean, basically saying, okay, we will allow Russia to have its victory celebrations on May 5th and 6th, because obviously they can't do it without getting the go ahead from the Ukrainians. Because the Ukrainian's ability now to strike deep within Russia and even Moscow is extraordinary reports out of Russia from well-placed sources that Vladimir Putin is becoming more and more paranoid. He's got a bunker mentality, afraid that the Ukrainians are going to be able to target and kill him. They're doing terribly on the battlefield. The number of lives lost are just absolutely shocking, the number of Russian lives that are lost. And again, against this backdrop of where Ukraine is in front of our eyes changing the way wars are fought, You have Zelensky. Now, going around, not a national hero, a world hero for all freedom-seeking people except for people that are in the White House. You have Mark Carney delivering economic aid to him yesterday and people calling Carney now the leader of the free world because he actually wants a free world and not autocracies. You, of course, have what the Europeans are doing. And then just some remarkable scenes last night out of a sense. a country that has long been a Russian satellite. You've Armenia now going into the arms of

Ukraine. It's just extraordinary what is happening. And all of this is happening not in months, not in weeks, but even in days we are seeing in front of us history shift on its axis. And suddenly, there are a lot of people who are now beginning to wonder whether Vladimir Putin even survives this war. Yeah, I mean, you've got that summit. We'll talk more about it happening in Armenia right now, where Mark Carney, the prime minister of Canada, has been invited as the sort of headliner, as new ties between Canada and the EU in place, frankly, of the United States, particularly on the war in Ukraine. Let's bring in our panel. We've got a good one this morning. The co-hosts of our 9 a.m. hour staff writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas, and editor at the insider, Michael Weiss. Let's get straight. into attentions flaring in the Middle East yesterday with renewed attacks, putting the fragile ceasefire on even shakier ground, the United States and Iran trading shots in the Strait of Hormuz, as the U.S. started its effort to help vessels travel through that key waterway. The head of the U.S. Central Command says Iran launched cruise missiles, drones, and small boats

at civilian ships under the U.S. military's protection and the U.S. fired back, sinking six small Iranian boats. Washington says they were IRGC vessels and Tehran says they carried civilians killing several of them. President Trump said Iran had, quote, taken some shots at unrelated nations, including a South Korean cargo ship which caught fire yesterday after an explosion in the strait. Also, the UAE says its air defenses engaged multiple missiles and drones fired by Iran, sparking a fire at a critical oil refinery as alert system sounded across the country for the first time since the ceasefire began. Two Amradi government officials tell MS now the UAE is, quote, preparing a severe retaliatory response against Iran, which has not commented officially on those attacks. As the truce is being tested this morning, both sides are speaking out. President Trump warned Iran its forces would be, quote, blown off the face of the earth if they attempt to target U.S. ships in the straits.

Iran's foreign minister, meanwhile, wrote on social media, the events in the waterway make clear there is no military solution to a political crisis, adding both the U.S. and the UAE should, quote, be wary of being dragged back into a quagmire. So Richard Haas doesn't sound much like a mini-war to a lot of people who are watching, to a lot of the Gulf states who are bearing the brunt of the attacks from Iran to this exchange of fire. It appears in this trade of Hormuz. what's your assessment of how shaky this the ceasefire really is at the moment? Well, it's not a ceasefire. You have not just the activities of the last 24 hours. We have a blockade in place. That's an act of war, the last I checked.

Iran tries to control navigation through the strait. On the other hand, it's not all out hostilities. So it's not all out war. It's not a ceasefire. It's certainly not peace. And what I think it shows you, Willie, then unless this does begin to move in the direction of peace through diplomacy, this sort of thing is going to happen.

And when it does happen, to keep it limited, is going to become more and more difficult. So you can use the word fragile, tenuous, brittle, choose your adjective. But this is one of those situations that I think if diplomacy does not gain a lot of momentum, we're inevitably going to have not just days like yesterday, but it's going to escalate.

And someone's going to attack the energy infrastructure of a country. Then there's going to be retaliation. Then we're off to the races. So that's when our crisis becomes a catastrophe. So I actually, the message I take from this is urgency. We've got to get this, try to move ahead diplomatically, because this is not a stable, this is not a stable situation. You know, Michael, Donald Trump keeps suggesting that this is the beginning of the end,

that we're close to peace. But if Churchill said this is not the beginning of the end, this is just the end of the beginning. We're not even at the end of the beginning. It looks like we're starting all over at square one, where, again, the Iranian are accusing the United States and the UAE and others are provoking and the United States is doing the same thing. It looks like, again, and I do not care to quote, Iranian officials, but there is no political, there is no military solution right now, it seems, to this political crisis. This administration is going to have to figure out how to change regimes, which doesn't look like it's going to

happen or they're going to have to sit down and make a deal to keep this straight open. Yeah, and then there are the unforeseen events. I mean, you just mentioned these IRGC fast boats. This has been the real thorn in the side of a U.S. blockade. These boats can attach limpid bombs. They can open fire with automatic weapons and so on. What if these boats really do something bad like Sinkan American Worship, right? The chance of escalation then increases dramatically, Joe. And, you know, the Israelis, if you read the Israeli press, they're still gunning. They want to go all in again. and they want to start bombing again, right? The U.S. does not.

Sources in the DoD tell me we're running low on critical munitions. We fired the bulk of our prism missiles, which are like the upgraded versions of attack, within the first few days of this conflict. You know, this is very concerning for people who watch Asia specific, because if now would be the moment that Beijing would choose to do something provocative in Taiwan,

would we have the kit to defend another ally there? But it seems clear. Donald Trump wants to de-escalate. He wants this thing to be over. He's declared victory. He says the war is over. This is now a mini-war. He's using all kinds of Orwellian euphemisms. But again, you know, we still have a naval blockade. That is an act of war. The Iranians see themselves as not having lost this thing, perhaps even having won it simply by staring us down. They're playing

hardball. They do not want to capitulate in the way that Donald Trump seems to demand. You know, his great fear, as he's repeated oftentimes, is that he doesn't want to do a JCPOA 2.0. He doesn't want to be seen as Barack Obama, right? So much of his president has been the antithesis of what Obama did. But this, I mean, analysts I talk to say, this is where we're attending now, right? We're going to have some diplomatic accord that is very similar to that which we had a decade ago. Yeah, I mean, the problem for Donald Trump right now is that would seem like a very good deal. Having an Obama-style deal would seem like a very good deal to most people around him to stop this war.

Of course, I don't know how he does that politically after, well, you know, he's, he's, of course, and George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter for both being weak. He's in the combination of a crisis, both of those, attacked Barack Obama for doing a deal that actually the United States seems to have been in a much better position there than we are right now as far as keeping Iran from breaking out nuclear-wise. But Michael, one other thing I want to ask you really quickly because you're talking about the possibility, and we're talking about the possibility of sort of boat swarms, swarms of boats attacking U.S. vessels. That's exactly what the Ukrainians are doing right now. I am struck, and I know historians will draw a

straight line between the United States not being able to put away Iran in the two weeks that Donald Trump thought he was going to be able to finish off Iran and bring him to their knees, and Vladimir Putin's three-day war now possibly actually bringing down his government. Talk about the parallels in these two wars and what you see the Ukrainians doing to the Russians and the Iranians following up a few days later with possible threats to do the same to the United States. Joe, it was always a very, very dumb idea for the Russians to go to war with a country filled with IT specialists and engineers, right? I mean, the Ukrainians had MacGyvered their way into fighting, you know, an incredible campaign, not just on their own territory, but now all over the world. I mean, I'm told Ukrainian intelligence has had a hand in driving the Russians out of Mali. They played a part, albeit minimal, in giving drone technology to the Syrians when they wanted

to oust Bashar al-Assad. And now they're doing what they call kinetic sanctions, which is basically going after the shadow fleet, blowing them up with seaborne drones. They're doing these deep strikes, deep, deep into Russian territory as far afield as Siberia. I mean, not a day or night goes by where some oil refinery in Russian is in set ablaze. Russian economists, the honest ones at least, are saying that the lifting of sanctions, which we did because of our war in Iran, are not going to have the same kind of economic impact that the Russians would have liked. There's sort of a sugar high, but it will subside. And the Ukrainians, I mean, have absolutely waged this incredible hybrid campaign. And, you know, we've helped them, by the way, Joe. I mean, one of the

things I want to emphasize here is, in spite of Donald Trump's presidency and his refusal to see Ukraine as an indispensable ally and partner. You know, Zelensky went around the Gulf. He cut all kinds of deals with the Gulf Arab states. We can give you drone technology, counter drone technology. Trump was actually quite down on that bilateral diplomacy by Zelensky. He wants the Ukrainians on the hook so he can impose a deal on them. However, the U.S. intelligence community has not stopped its support for the Ukrainians. In fact, that support, I'm told, at high levels of the U.S. intelligence community has only expanded. So we are helping the Ukrainians kind of wage war against Russia in a covert fashion. And one CIA officer told me at one point that we see the Ukrainians the way we saw the Cubans in 1959.

These are going to be an emigrate population. These are going to be kind of our proxy force to do all kinds of interesting things the world over. So I think the Ukrainians are playing from two sets of books here. Number one, they understand Donald Trump doesn't like them. They understand that Donald Trump has a particular contempt for Volodymyr Zelensky. He sees him as inextricably linked to his first impeachment in term one. On the other hand, nobody can deny. It's one thing to have solidarity and to feel, you know, pity for a victim, which Ukraine,

course was, but Ukraine is not losing. Ukraine is a winner on the global stage. And this is something that not only the United States has to appreciate, it's something that the Russians are beginning to appreciate. When Zelensky can threaten Russia and say, you guys are afraid of having a proper victory day parade on Red Square, you can't bring your tanks and your kit out because of fear of our drones. And this was, again, supposed to be a three-day conflict, the Russian troops and Russian columns at the Polish border within two weeks. That is nothing short of a breathtaking state of affairs. That is a development. Very few people in the analytic community saw coming. Yeah. Senior Trump administration officials still insist, Richard, that Russia is on the verge of

winning this war. But the facts on the ground simply do not back that up. And we are, to Michael's point, seeing that in the behavior of the countries involved, suggesting, like, this is a stalemate at best. And frankly, Ukraine has a lot of momentum right now. And that comes with these meetings in Armenia. You know, long time, you know, sort of Russian sympathizer to the elites are in their sphere of influence. And now we are seeing these European leaders, including at war, leaders of Canada, step forward and say, we are here. So talk to us about how you see this conflict going on. Will there be a certain point where the U.S. kind of has to get on board and say, at the very least, we're going to stop trying to impose a bad deal on Ukraine?

Well, that should have happened, never should have happened in the first place. Look, a couple of things. One, if Ukraine has emerged as the arsenal of democracy, what a remarkable development. And I think Joe alluded to it at the beginning, it's part of this larger revolution in military affairs. And we're actually lagging. But you see it with drones and all these inexpensive, easily to mass-produced systems, anti-ship weapons, anti-aircraft weapons.

So we're a generation behind in some ways. So Ukraine is the forefront, you know, really fast-sitting thing. Politically what's going on with Canada is also a transitional moment. What we're beginning to see is essentially, A lot of countries in Europe, a lot of our allies around the world, have essentially given up on the United States. They've given up that we are there to have their back, Article 5 kinds of questions with NATO. And a lot of them essentially say you Americans are too radical, you're too unilateral, whether it's tariffs or your diplomacy or we can't count on you. So what you're essentially seeing in the economic realm, the strategic realm, the diplomatic realm, you're seeing the emergence of a post-American world where for 80 years we have been the same.

center of international relations, that phase, or that era, rather, is essentially now giving way, and we're seeing a lot of other Ukraine may be in the drone space, Canada diplomatically, you see France, Germany, and so forth. Countries are no longer taking their cue from the United States. They're looking for other economic partners, other strategic partners. This is a world of reduced American impact, reduced American influence. So we're going to continue to do our thing, but we have gone, if you will, from being the center of most relationships and most institutions, by the way, and we've withdrawn from many of the

institutions. So China's a beneficiary, and what's happening is all these other countries are now scrambling to fill the void. So what's going on is a harbbinger of the future. Again, this is the post-American world, one last point, not because others have become so strong, but because we've pulled back. This is a truly odd, almost bizarre point. The United States has decided we don't want to be an empire in it. We don't want to be a great power in many ways. So we've created a vacuum and both adversaries and friends are trying to figure out how to take advantage of this space which is opened. It's remarkable. I mean necessity is the mother of invention and that's exactly what's happening in Europe. You've seen it throughout history

where the fall of Constantinople forced people to try to find another route to India. So Christopher Columbus, search for that route going west. In this situation, you have the Europeans who have depended on the United States, the Canadians who have depended on the United States, seeing that the United States, instead of helping, instead of helping to become the arsenal democracy again, of freedom like we've been for the past century, and it created the American century,

Willie, you've had the administration lying, constantly lying about Ukraine. Ukraine's losing. the war. Ukraine's holding no cards. Ukraine's about to lose the Donbos. Ukraine better go to the negotiating table because this war is almost over. I can't tell you how many times people in the administration have told me that over the past year. And every time I've laughed at him, said, no, no, they're not losing. I don't know what your thing is with Ukraine. But Russia is not winning this war and Ukraine is not losing and they're not only, and yet they continue that. So now you have Europe, along with our other

allies, along with Canada coming together. And this is something I know people have heard me say this time and again, Willie, but there's a reason why I've said it. You've got people in the administration like J.D. Vance who hates Europe, Donald Trump, who hates Europe. So many other people hate Europe. Oh, they're weak. Oh, they're woke. Oh, they're this or that. They also, have the second largest economy in the world. Europe's, the EU's economy, their GDP, along with Great Britain, is larger than China's. And so when the United States teams up with their natural allies that took down the Soviet Union and Hitler, pretty strong. But Europe can go it alone, if they need to go it alone. Why wouldn't the United States want to be sure? What to be

shoulder to shoulder with such powerful allies? Well, that's a question for Donald Trump and his stories to answer, because for the life of me, Willie, I cannot figure out why he continues to try to save Vladimir Putin, the guy who's invaded Ukraine, who invaded Georgia, who wants to invade other European countries as well. I mean, Donald Trump is on the wrong side of history, The Republican Party is on the wrong side of history. And yet, who's stepping to that void? Canadians, Europeans, the British. And it's making a big difference.

Yeah, as recently as last week, that 90-minute phone call President Trump unannounced had with President Putin, where he came out of it and said, Putin wants to make a deal, but he doesn't have somebody on the other side who will make a deal, which is exactly the opposite of what's going on. And for whatever reason, Joe, it's been something of a mystery, though perhaps not a complete mystery, why he's always, for the last decade at least, given Vladimir Putin the benefit of the doubt. And in that infamous meeting last year where the president and vice president harangued Zelensky when he came to the Oval Office and said, you don't have the cards.

Well, as we see here this morning, President Zelensky is saying, you know what? I'm holding a pretty good hand right now. And a matter of fact, I'd like to offer you some drone technology for your war with Iran. Yeah, saying that he's holding absolutely no cards when it's just the opposite. And again, the Ukrainians time and time again, getting battered and abused by Donald Trump. And again, it makes absolutely no sense to anybody at all, Willie. But there you have it. I mean, the Ukrainians, they can do this with us or they can do this without us. And right now, they go from Donald Trump saying they're holding no cards to deciding whether, the Russians can hold a parade in Moscow on May 5th and 6th. That's incredible moment. More than four years into this war. Editor at the Insider, Michael Weiss, Michael, thanks is always good to see you. Still ahead on morning, Joe, President Trump continues to downplay concerns over the economy as the war in Iran drives up energy and gas prices

a little more every day. We'll show you his latest remarks about that. Plus, inside the quiet Republican effort to flip the seat of Democratic Senator, John Federman. Politico's Jonathan Martin joins us straight ahead with more on that. And as we had to break a quick look at the Travelers forecast this morning from Accuweather's Bernie Raina. Bernie, how's it looking out there? Well, it's the warmest day of the week for many along the I-95 corridor. Acuether says 77 Boston, 81 New York City, shouldn't be dried most of the day in the city. There will be a shower north of the city.

Watch out for some shower, sun, sun, thunderstorms late in the day. western New York State and then in the Pennsylvania. Dry weather continues in the southeast, spotty thunderstorm in Miami. Watch out for a gusty thunderstorm from Dallas toward Litter Rock toward Memphis. There will be some travel delays in the Northeast as it turns windy this afternoon. To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, download the ACUweather app today. Beautiful live picture. It'll be a nice day up and down the northeast. Washington, D.C. 627, President Trump is pushing back and concerns about the economic fallout from the war in Iran,

assisting that the U.S. economy remained strong despite what voters are telling him. At a White House event yesterday, marking Small Business Week, the president claimed tax cuts and deregulation have driven record business growth and boosted confidence. It is not. But that message comes as Americans face rising costs tied to the conflict. Gas prices, up more than 30 cents a gallon in the United States. the last week. Despite that pressure, Trump continued to downplay the impact, arguing energy prices could have been much worse and that the economy is thriving. We're truly making America great again. We're doing record, record business. We have a stock market

that hit even with this military operation. Their economy is roaring and factory construction is way up. Consumer confidence is way up. Everybody was wrong. They thought that energy would be at $300, right? $300 a barrel, and it's like at $100. And I think going down, and I see it going down very substantially when this is over, Chris. And I think very rapidly, too, at levels that you've never seen.

Because there's a lot of energy out there. They have ships all over the world that are loaded up with. that they can't do much with it because they got kidnapped by a pretty evil place, but we're taking care of it. A couple of things coming out of that. First of all, I've got to, the president is correct when he talks about oil prices, not going up to what many people thought. They'd go up to with a war with Iran and things happening. Most, we're talking about the possibility of 125, 150. we're about 110, 112 right now. So that is the case.

I will say, though, when he talks about how great the economy is, it does have echoes, fanged echoes of bionomics, where the stock market is high. Other things may be going very well for corporate America, but for working Americans, if you look at the polls, they tell you they are getting crushed by inflation. They're getting crushed by housing prices. They're getting crushed by grocery prices.

They're getting crushed by health. care crisis, prices, I said the right word. It's a crisis. So let's bring it right now, politics, bureau chief and senior political columnist at Politico, Jonathan Martin. You know, Jonathan, my wife, you can tell my wife that a thousand great things are happening and she'll sit there. She'll go, oh boy, okay. Things are about to get really bad, aren't they? I mean, it's what Democrats do. It's just they, they catastrophize. It's just, it's crazy and being married to a Democrat. I see it up close every day. And when it comes to politics, they're just, always catastrophizing. We don't deserve good things. And so I remember laughing about Barack Obama,

anytime he had good economic news and say, well, yes, this is the best in 50 years. But we understand, things are really bad for, and I used to laugh at Barack Obama for doing it, it's a pretty good two-step, because you really have to do that, because if somebody loses their job or if inflation's going up, nobody wants to hear the President of the United States saying how great things are. That's what Donald Trump is doing, because that's what served him well in real estate since the mid-1970s. But clearly, you look at the polls, that's just not working now. Well, and he has one mode, which is sell, sell, sell, and you've never had it so good. And that's a little difficult of a case to make when gas prices keep headed north.

You know, it's one thing for gas to be 350. But Joe, when you pull into the gas station and you look up and you see a four as that first number, it's pretty, it's pretty bracing. When you start seeing fives as that first number, as the old saying goes, you know, when your neighbor's out of a job, job it's a recession. When you're out of a job, it's a depression. When you start seeing fives up there, $5 a gallon gas, you're hitting crisis mode. And I think that's kind of the trigger point that we're going to see this summer where I think you're going to really see Republican panic, which is gas finally crests five bucks a gallon as the national average, which is obviously where it's going if the straits aren't reopened. It's just a matter of market gravity, I think. And at that point, my guess,

is there's going to be some kind of a push in the Congress to at least suspend the federal gas tax, at least to have something to go home with, Joe, for the midterms that they can point to. You just can't go home for the midterms with $5 a gallon gas. It's just untenable. So, J-Mart, as you know, talking to people on Capitol Hill, Republicans quietly and sometimes out loud are bracing to lose the House because of all this come November. Do you think that gives the president impetus, despite what he's saying publicly that, Actually, oil is much lower than we thought it was going to be to worry about gas. It's going to come down to end the war with Iran.

I mean, clearly he's got people around him, at least, who can say the reason gas has jumped a dollar in a year is because of the war in Iran. Does that motivate him, if not military or diplomatic or other questions to end the war? Yeah, well, I think you know that's better than just about anybody. He's motivated by press coverage and the markets and the convergence of those two things. Those are the two checks on Donald Trump, the markets and the media. And he doesn't want to restart this war. Look, this is a war that began at the end of February. It's now early May.

He wants to go to the next episode, right? Like, bring on season two. He's tired of this season of The Apprentice. He's ready to turn the page. And I think that that clearly is weighing on him. The last thing he wants to do is go back to hostilities. He wants to go to the next thing. He doesn't want to be bogged down in a Middle Eastern world.

war? No, he's eager to move on. And not, by the way, because he wants to do a solid to the folks on the ballot this fall. I think more just because of his own appetite to move on and get more things done for himself or his own legacy politically. Yeah, he's already talking about taking over Cuba or at least threatening Cuba. And this is, Richard, he's bogged down, though. And so, J-Mart's right. When gas hits $5 a gallon, that's a triggering point for Republicans in Congress, but it's not a triggering point for the Republican National Guard because they're going to keep doing this until it gets up to $5 a gallon. And therein lies the problem.

Therein lies at least the short-term quagmire. This won't go as long as Vietnam. It's not going to go as long as the Iraq war or Afghanistan. But it's going far longer than the president wants it to go, for longer than many people wanted to go, simply because Iran knows, just like Vietnamese colonels knew, they didn't have to win battles. They just had to make sure they didn't lose the war.

They had to just keep fighting. And the Iranians, they're not thinking, oh, well, maybe we have to keep the Americans here for a decade, but eventually like the French, they'll go home. No, they're just thinking, we've got to keep them here for the next two, three, four months because they've got midterms coming up and the pressure is all on them. look absolutely someone has persuaded the president that we are better situated to endure time than iran is and that person did him no favor uh because i would actually argue that's not obviously true uh maybe joe you could probably say that neither side benefits from the passage of time iran's economy

is in terrible shape it's getting worse but we know we our politics are such uh that we're more It's harder for us to shake the political effects. But Richard, how do we, how do we, how do we, how do we, how do we, how do we, how do we, how does a president get the Iranians to the table with a deal that takes care of nuclear and the straight in a way that he can survive politically? Okay. Well, you know, the answer is, you know, I'm not fighting your question. Military escalation makes absolutely no sense.

I would say, actually, take what the Iranians have put on the table and negotiate with that. Don't accept it. but negotiate. Take a straight first deal. The street is much more urgent economically than is the nuclear. Simply send the Iranians a message. If you mess around with the status of the nuclear stuff, we will break the ceasefire. Short of that, there's nothing urgent about the nuclear because the Iranians are not changing the status of it. It's ultimately going to have to deal with, as we all said before, with a JCPOA plus kind of deal. We know the outlines of that. What is urgent is the straight. And what I would say, sit down with the Iranians and perhaps try to get the straight open while

you're negotiating a long-term arrangement for the straight. But Joe, I'll be blunt here. We're not going to get exactly what we had before this war. Wars of consequences. So the president's going to have to, you know, spin it in certain ways that, yeah, we've got the straight open. We've got some new arrangement. All the local countries are happy. I think that's the best you can do right now.

You know, we were talking during the break. there's a really interesting parallel going on. The Russians have this war in Ukraine, which Putin started thinking it was going to be quick and easy. You have the president starting this war thinking it was going to be quick and easy. Neither has worked out that way. And in both cases, I would argue Putin and Trump are going to have to find ways to settle. They're going to have to come up with less than optimal outcomes. And for the president, he's going to have to, I'd say, do the straight first.

That's what's urgent. then tackle the nuclear. The other problem he's going to have, there's no way the negotiations joke are probably going to be able to deal with drones and the missiles and so forth. So he, and groups like Isbullah. So I think we're also setting up a long-term structural set of frictions with Israel. So let's just park that aside. But I think for the short run, if I were advising the president, I would say, get a deal on the straight. Do it sequentially. Whoever told him that he could put everything together. and get everything he wants has done him a real disservice. He's not holding all the cards,

but I still think he's holding enough cards given Iran's economic weakness. You can get a deal on the straight that's not perfect, but it would be good enough. You know, Jonathan Lemire, Richard Haas, I say, I don't know if you know it or not, but he is not only a New York Giants fan. He is also the President of America's the Council and Foreign Relations. So far beat for me to second guess what Richard Haas says. I tried that once with Dr. Prasinski, and it ended in a stunningly superficial way. It was very terrible. So I'm going to be very careful here, even though I was right. And Dr. Prisensky's biographer will tell you I was right. But that being said, the answer that Richard gave there is probably the answer that most diplomats would give.

I would just say, as a former politician, that would just be devastating to Donald Trump. To come home from Iran, after all of the promises, after all of the suggestions that he was going to overthrow the government, that he was going to destroy the nuke program, remember how angry he got at reporters who were asking whether the nuclear program was finished off a year ago? he cannot politically come home with the Iranian nuclear program in a worse situation than it was under Barack Obama. And the nuclear program is in a worse situation right now, a more dangerous situation right now, than it was under Barack Obama. If you look at the Reuters report, if you look at other information out there that suggests they have much better capability now than in 2018 to build nuclear weapons. And so if you have that situation, and then if you come home with a deal with the Iranians, and right now if you make that deal with the Iranians, they are going to want to have more control over the strait than they had before the war. They are going

to want to make more money on oil than they made before the war. They are going to demand sanctions be lifted that were on them before the war. I just don't know how Donald Trump politically does that. that he comes home with the Iranian nuclear program intact, and he comes home with Iranians controlling more of the strait than they had before we spent tens of billions of dollars and killed a lot of people on the ground in Iran to supposedly liberate them from this terrorist regime. Yeah, those would inherently be defeats for President Trump.

Now, we know he likes to try to assert his own reality, often just staring at a camera and staring at reporters and lying about it. So he may try to spin this that it's a win regardless. But you're certainly right. And Richard would be right. These would be defeats. And at least so far, Trump does not seem willing to take that diplomatic way out. He has rejected the idea of dealing with a straight first and a new program later.

He doesn't want to do that at least for now. But this is, you know, there's only so long and there's only so much political pain he will be able to take. I don't think he cares personally all that much. but it'll be bad for Republicans in November. Yes, the House seems gone, but I am told Trump is slightly concerned about what would happen if the GOP were to lose the Senate, that that would make his life that much more complicated going forward. But we are looking at, Willie, you know, he might have to take a deal that's not better

than what Obama had, despite what he will claim. And we're looking at, as I wrote last week, and we've talked about on this show, almost inherently Iran's going to come out of this conflict with more control over the street of Hormuz, either implicitly or. or explicitly. And even if they end up saying, okay, fine, it's open. We can go through it again. They've shown they can close it anytime they want. So this is going to be a very tough sell for the president going forward. Richard, hold that thought. We're going to get in a quick break. When we come back, we're going to talk to Richard, talk to Jay Mart about his new piece.

Republicans quietly trying to get John Federman to convert. We'll be right back. Jonathan Martin, as I mentioned before the break, your latest piece for Politico is titled Inside the Quiet Republican Effort to Flip John Federman. you write this. Quote, whenever he's asked in public or private about a switch, he invariably cites two statistics to explain how baffled he is about why people would even ask the question. There is Federman's record of voting with Democrats 93% of the time and the running joke he has with his Republican colleague, fellow senator of Pennsylvania, Dave McCormick, about how he, Federman, somehow polls better with Republicans than the state's actual GOP senator. Jay Mark continues.

Fetterman, however, is shrewd enough of a political operator to know exactly why he has alienated his party and become a Republican favorite. It may have started by standing with Israel when most of his colleagues became horrified with the Lekud government's actions in Gaza following the 2023 Hamas attack. Where Fetterman does not play the fool is on his potential leverage in the chamber. He brought up the Democrats' net four-seat scenario without my prompting, all but taunting his current party about how much they may make. may soon need his vote. If we flip four seats in the Senate, who is the number 51 for the new majority? He asked, alluding to himself. So Jonathan Martin, he seems to be enjoying his place right now as a darling of Republicans in many ways. Well, he's having a good time because he's a pretty savvy, you know, media operator. He understands what's going to get him on Fox and the things he

has to say, and he does it. And now he wants to talk more about the sort of fractures in the party over Israel, which are certainly real. There's no doubting that. But, you know, talking about Trump derangement syndrome is not exactly a sort of a real scholarly discussion about Democratic divisions. That's about sort of dog whistle, and it works. Look, I think the real news here, Willie, is the scenario that I laid out. What does happen? and if we get down the road, this is a big election for Democrats. They find a way to net four seats. They're on the doorstep of 51.

They're about to have a majority for Trump's final two years. Trump and Thune pick up the phone to Senator Federman and say, let's do a deal. And I still think today it's unlikely that he would do that. I think the more likely scenario, Willie, he just runs through 2028, finishes out his term as a Democrat and doesn't run again. but look, there's going to be a lot of horse trading and a lot of conversations if this Senate map does really turn for Democrats and they can get 51 seats because then, Thuderman, to borrow a phrase, Joe, holds a lot of cards. Well, same cards that Joe Manchin held. And of course, Democrats always hated Joe Manchin.

I mean, across the country, the grassroots people couldn't say enough bad things about Joe Manchin. I wonder whether they prefer Joe Manchin or the Republican that's in there right now. And same thing with Federman. I used to always joke that when I got to Washington, I realized because I voted against my party occasionally. Maybe I voted with them 90%, 91% of the time. And man, you would have thought I was a Marxist. And I always joked. And Washington, it's kind of like the godfather.

You don't get me credit for being loyal to the family, 95. percent of the time. But the stupidity, just think about this. I understand. Fetterman says things that aggravate Democrats, that aggravate that. I totally get it. I look at some of the things he says and I roll my eyes as well. But he votes with the party 93% of the time. When he becomes a Republican, he would vote against the party probably 93% of the time. Democratic. need to figure out how to deal with somebody that doesn't march lockstep with them on Israel and some of these other issues. Because we're actually ill enough to remember when there were a lot of Democrats that talked and voted this way. And there were a lot of Republicans that talked and voted like moderate Democrats.

Better to have him inside the tent than outside the tent. Well, especially if you're talking about just control of the Senate floor. Look, the most crucial vote, as you know, you cast as a senator is the first vote when you vote for the leader of your party. If he votes for John Thune to control the floor in the next Congress, you have a Supreme Court vacancy. I mean, that's the ballgame right there. You know, if Democrats control the floor and there's a vacancy, they almost certainly would sit on it following the McConnell precedent for the final two years of President. Trump's term. I think there would be huge pressure on them. But, you know, if it's still the GOPN control, there's no question that they're confirming a vacancy on the court. You know, Jay Mart,

a lot of people obviously talking about what Democrat may be able to step up, be a national leader, possibly win in 28. And whenever Governor Pritzker's name comes up, you have grudging respect. Other people like him. But there's still a lot. lot of question marks around him, whether he has what it takes to actually win in 28. You actually sat down with your on the road podcast with Jonathan Martin. You sat down with him. Let's take a look at this clip where you ask him about his potential 2028 primary rival, Rahm Emanuel.

You know, he's done a whole lot of positive things. And I understand why he, you know, he's a public servant. Like he believes himself to be a public student, and doing it most of his life. And so I understand why he wants to run for president. So I applaud that. I mean, I don't know. I mean, I'm not sure.

I know that he's trying to pick a lane and, you know, decide whether he's going to run. I think that we have had great people come out of Illinois to lead this nation. And, you know, I would hope that he, if he actually did get elected, that he would be one of those great people. Well, you mentioned to pick a lane. He clearly is trying to position. sell it more toward the center of the party.

Is that, for example, one of the areas where you guys disagree that he's taking some stances that are pretty combative toward the left? Is that what you have in mind? Yeah, I'm not a big believer in, you know, in going after one piece of the party or another piece of the party. I think Democrats have made mistakes. There's no doubt about it. And I think it's okay to call out mistakes.

Jay Marte, it was a clear to you after talking to Governor Pritzker that he's, he wants to run for president in what's sure to be a big, robust Democratic primary coming up here pretty soon. Well, and big and robust just in Chicago alone, will I mean, you know, even the city of big shoulders may not be able to, enough to contain J.V. Pritzker and Rahm Emanuel. That was a striking part of our conversation because Pritzker is an affable guy. He doesn't throw a lot of elbows in his own party. And you could see in his body language and his tone there that he and Rahm aren't BFF there. And he doesn't like Rom moving to the center and whacking the left.

He wants to be a sort of candidate for both factions of his party. He wants to be the sort of Goldilocks candidate, if you will. He's not too moderate for the left. He's not too left for the center. And he obviously is sort of pegging Rom as a factional candidate just for the center who wants to alienate the left. You saw it right there as he's, you know, articulating that about his fellow Chicago.

and I clearly think Pritzker wants to run. He's up for a third turbis governor guys this fall in Illinois. And I think he's going to use that as a springboard and a platform to run for president in 2028. And don't forget most candidates for president, they don't quit their campaigns. They just run out of money. He's never going to run out of money in his primary in 2028 so he can stay in for a while. The new episode of On the Road available now, Politico's Jonathan Martin. Jaymark, great to see as always. Thank you.