Morning Joe - Richard Haass: There is no argument for attacking Iran's bridges and power plants

Episode Date: April 7, 2026

Richard Haass: There is no argument for attacking Iran's bridges and power plants 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.

What about the rescue that took place yesterday? What about that? It's something that you rarely see. You know, they were giving me a briefing about that. And they said normally when you're in very hostile territory, and I don't think it gets much more hostile than Iran. They're capable fighters. They're very tough people. And there are others like that. You don't mind when the enemy is weak, but that enemy is strong. Not so strong like they were about a month ago. I can tell you, in fact, right now they're not too strong at all, in my opinion, but we're soon going to find out, aren't we? President Trump.

So, Richard, I don't know what you're life about Richard. There were many times when Richard was in Northern Ireland negotiating who would have that same exact money. It was a furry. That is called the diplomatic, the bunny of peace. That's very touching. President Trump yesterday threatening major attacks on Iran flanked by the Easter bunny while hosting children at the the White House for the Easter egg roll. Happy Easter, everybody. Happy one. Good morning. And welcome to Morning, Joe. It is Tuesday, April 7th. With us, we have

the co-host of our 9 a.m. Hour, staff writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire. President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas, co-host of the Rest is Politics Podcast, Caddy Kay, managing editor at the bulwark, Sam Stein, doing way too early for us this morning. Thank you. And former national security advisor under President Biden, Jake Sullivan joins us. We weren't going to talk about sports, but just very quickly. Okay, Michigan won, right? There, it's done.

Yeah, it was a grind of a game. Neither team could shoot very well. They played it to more Yukon's pace, but Michigan just had a little too much at the end. They made their free throws. We should give even more credit to Sam Stein for doing way too early. He's a diehard Yukon fan. So he's in morning this morning.

Playing hurt. That's a gamer. At least Sam is not a Red Sox fan because if you were a Red Sox fan, Oh, wait a second. Red Sox and Yukon fan. Guys, it's even worse. Last night, under a dark star for Sam Stein. Guys, it's even worse.

I was in the Easter egg outfit. Easter bunny outfit from Trump. It's been a long day, okay? That's funny. I like that a lot. He had a very, very busy day. There is. A member of the cabinet.

Ladies and gentlemen, there's Sam Stein. You did a good job. The guy is a tireless reporter. He'll do anything to get this story. Anything from scoops. behind this story. All right, let's get to the news. President Trump is once again threatening to devastate Iran's infrastructure if a deal is not reached

to reopen the Strait of Hormuz by 8 p.m. Eastern time tonight. The president has repeatedly pushed back this timeline over recent weeks, first issuing an ultimatum to Iran on March 21st before delaying his deadline several times in quick succession. Then on Easter morning, President Trump issued. issued that expletive-laden threat to attack Iran's power plants and bridges if the critical waterway is not reopened by tonight. The president then reiterated this morning in a press conference yesterday at the White House, suggesting the timeline would be final, while also

acknowledging talks are ongoing as the escalatory deadline looms. Iran, however, remains publicly defiant. Tehran yesterday rejected a 45-day ceasefire proposal from mediating countries. Instead, putting forward its own 10-point plan that calls, in part, for a permanent end to the fighting. Iranian officials, meanwhile, are warning that if President Trump carries out his threats, the consequences will be far-reaching and will be met with a, quote, regret-inducing response. At this hour, the president is still digging in. Here is more of what he told reporters yesterday in the briefing room. The entire country can be taken out in one night, and that night might be tomorrow night.

You said that very little is off limits in Iran as far as the targeting, including power plants, bridges. You've mentioned those. Very little is off limits. Are there certain kinds of civilian targets, though, I'm thinking. I don't want to tell you that. I don't want to tell you that. I don't want to tell you that. We have a plan because of the power of our military where every bridge in Iran will be decimated by 12 o'clock tomorrow night, where every power plant in Iran will be out of business, burning, exploding, and never to be used again.

I mean complete demolition by 12 o'clock, and it'll happen over a period of four hours if we wanted to. We don't want that to happen. We may even get involved with helping them rebuild their nation. And you know what? If that's the case, the last thing we want to do is start with power plants, which are among the most expensive thing and bridges. This is a critical period. They have a period of, well, until tomorrow at 8 o'clock,

I gave them an extension. They asked for an extension of seven days, right? I said, Steve, give them 10 days. Ten days is up actually today, so I gave my level, I guess, indirectly. I thought it was inappropriate the day after Easter. I want to be a nice person. They have till tomorrow. Now, we'll see what happens.

I can tell you they're negotiating. We think in good faith. We're going to find out. We're getting the help of some incredible countries that want this to be ended because it affects them also. A lot of people are affected by this. but we're giving them we're giving them till tomorrow 8 o'clock Eastern Time

and after that they're going to have no bridges they're going to have no power plants Stone ages yeah yeah you know it bears repeating what David Ignatius had said from the very beginning

as the president was talking about going into Iran and that is the fact that the Iranians actually hate their regime And for the most part, we're hoping the Americans could come Linda helping hand and help liberate them. And Jake, instead, what they have now, what they're hearing now is threats that their entire country is going to be wiped off the face of the earth because, well, the mullahs are the Revolutionary Guard won't do a quick deal. You don't have four hours, the whole four hours to answer this question, but I know you could. talk about everything that's wrong with that and how it puts the United States

just in a terrible position moving forward. Well, Jerry, you're so right, and David Ignatius is so right that the Iranian people have basically been written out of this story now. These brave people who went to the streets in huge numbers all across the country to try to claim their freedom and their dignity who were gunned down by the tens of thousands. Now, all of a sudden, they have to be hunkered down, worried that they're going to be cast into darkness, that their civilian infrastructure is going

to be destroyed, and that many of them, many of those civilians. Is that the war crime, by the way? Well, if he's talking about if we go after civilian infrastructure the way he's promising to go after civilian, by the most basic reading of the rules of international law, or would those be war crimes, the United States was committing? The way this is set up, the answer to that question is. straightforward. It's yes, they would be because this is punitive. He's not going after a power plant because it's a pure military target that's fueling the war machine against the United States.

He's going against those power plants to punish Iran and punish the Iranian people to try to make them basically quit. And he is Donald Trump speaking for the Iranian people. Alex, play this really quickly, if you will, suggesting... You've said Iranians would be mad if you stop these attacks. But why would they want you to blow up their infrastructure, to cut off their power? Wouldn't that be punishing Iranians for the actions of the regime? They would be willing, and it's suffering. They would be willing to suffer that in order to have freedom. The Iranians have, and we've had numerous interests. Yeah, we have, Jay. We have a president that now says Americans are fine paying $4 a gallon for gas, despite the fact the overwhelming majority of Americans are

Supposes now the president saying that he knows what the Iranian people want more than the Iranian people. I want to underline this fact again, and we said it before the war. We're saying it during the war. This was a regime on its last legs. This was a regime that was going to die a natural death. This was a regime who looked to America for hope and inspiration, not a regime, a people. Now, we're turning them into enemies, and the Iranian people that expected us to save them. We're victimizing them again. What's so cynical about this is if you go back to the beginning, it was President Trump who said to the Iranian people, go to the streets, help is on the way, who told the Iranian people we would have their back if they went out. And they went out and they died in large numbers.

Help is on the way. Help is on the way. It was his line. Then when we started this war, we took out the Supreme Leader, only to see his son in a harderline group of generals take over the country who are going to be even more repressive. And then we basically came out and said, no, no, no, regime change has nothing to do with what we're trying to achieve here. By the way, I think us trying to achieve regime change through aerial bombardment was a bad idea. But we've written that out of the story. So when President Trump says, I'm going to bomb the

infrastructure and then the Iranian people are going to get freedom, he's not even trying for that. He's trying for something much more simple, which is to open the Strait of Hormuz, which was open before he started this whole thing. So there is something deeply cynical in the way that he's presented this entire operation over the course of the past month. And the Iranian people are certainly suffering as a result. So too, of course, as you said, are the American people who are feeling it in their pocketbook at the pump every day with no end inside. John Lear is the president bluffing? The president has not decided what to do. I'm told advisors, though, that he's not.

This is on the table. He is not committed to doing this. All of this is on the table. This is on the blowing up of infrastructure, basic infrastructure for civilians. Yes. And in fact, I was told yesterday, the Pentagon is working to sort of justify some of these targets,

saying, well, this electrical plant is used by military facilities or this here, trying to say that at least some of them would therefore escape the definition of war crime, at least what they're saying. Who at the Pentagon is advised? These are this. I mean, it's the Secretary of Defense. It is. Who else?

It is his. staff. And, I mean, he is, of course, just purged, you know, the chief of staff of the Army in recent days. And it's not, I'm told that General Kane, the chairman of the agency staff, his job is to create a menu of options. He's not going to advocate one way or the other. So they have done that. They have created options for the president. They have options for a ground invasion. If they want it, small, which reported last week, whether it's small targeted towards Clark Island or something to try to find the Iranian facilities. But this threat is on the table. Now, the president would like there to be some progress in negotiations, but at least so far,

we haven't seen it. And Richard, this with the Wall Street Journal editorial page has this morning. Trump's ultimatum target list in Iran reads this. Striking indiscriminately critical infrastructure would be wrong as well as unwise. Punishing the Iranian people we need on our side. Regime mismanagement has already left Iran's grid in a permanent state of crisis, but such an attack would give Iranians all the suffering with none of the freedom. It would also, lower road support for the war at home and abroad. The obvious solution to discriminate between types of infrastructure, one-yard stick, by which to judge any U.S. escalation is this. In addition to increasing pressure, which may never be enough to sway Iran's regime, will

it help prepare an operation to reopen Hormuz? And of course, you know, you've got to know your enemy. Exactly. This is a president that doesn't know his enemy. He thinks, he, he, He's still looking for Delci Rodriguez. He still thinks he can intimidate. This is the most hardened group of leaders that went through a Revolution 79, went through a war with Iraq where a million people were killed, went through one attempt after another for attacks against Iran. they are as battle-hardened as it gets. And what we have done, as Jake just said, is, yeah, we killed Diatola. What did we get in the Ayatollah's place?

We got the Revolutionary Guard and some really mean bastards. Like this is, again, not Venezuela. This is not Iraq. You know, Iraq was tough. But Iraq, you lop off the head of Saddam Hussein, everything falls around it. That's not going to happen here. you can blow up as many plants as you want. They don't care about the people.

They don't care that the people are suffering. They haven't cared for 47 years. So making the people suffer even more tonight? I'm just saying all that's going to do is harden them even more, get more people against America and probably hurt the president's efforts here at home as well. 100% right. We're not going to get regime change. If anything, this strengthens the regime.

We're not going to get capitulation, as you say. The one thing the Iranians are really good at is resilient. And after five weeks of war, if the president learned nothing else, he ought to have learned that Iran can take a punch. It's not going to get the straight open. It's not going to help us deal with the enriched uranium. What it is going to do, if we go ahead with this, is going to get a lot of Iran's neighbors hammered.

We're talking about potentially water treatment plants, energy infrastructure. No one's going to be building data centers and those that are there are going to get destroyed. So there is no argument for doing this. No, we've got a problem, which is an enormous gap between what we want in a negotiated outcome, what the Iranians are putting forward.

But this is not going to close that gap. This is not going to accomplish it. So the president did not make the case for doing this yesterday. Caddy Kay. Yeah. My understanding is that so far, the Americans have not put anything on the table, Jake, the Iranians would consider serious, a serious negotiating plan.

What they're looking for, particularly is reparations for the damage that's been done. And some kind of a security guarantee, a bit like the Ukrainians are looking for, that this isn't going to happen again in six months' time or in one month's time. Do you see the makings from everything that you're reading? Do you see at this stage the makings of some kind of diplomatic plan that could come together during the course of today to prevent retaliation against infrastructure tonight? Well, I spent a couple of years negotiating with the Iranians directly in the same room sitting face to face with them, and it was difficult to negotiate when you were actually in person

trying to bang out a nuclear agreement. It's that much harder to do when you're doing it indirectly through third parties, through third countries, and that's what's happening right now. I think what we're seeing in public from each side are maximalist positions. The Iranians have put forward their 10 points. We'll never agree to that. We've put forward various proposals up to an including 15 points. The Iranians will never agree to that. But my guess is that behind the scenes, messages are getting passed that are a little closer to reality on both sides. But I still think, as Richard just said, there is a very big gap. And I think the single biggest thing the Iranians are looking for is some clarity that we're not going to stop today and just start again a week, a month,

or six months from now. So you think they're closer together, negotiations? My guess is that just based on the history, what gets put out publicly is typically far more expansive than what is communicated privately. Can the Iranians, you've negotiated with Iranians, can they be negotiated with in this sort of situation? They could be. They're going to drive a hard bargain. And as I said, it's really difficult to do this through a game of telephone of third countries trying to pass messages. You really do have to get in a room together. And how do the threats?

How do public threat? I mean, it seems to me. Exactly. It's just the opposite. Again, if you're dealing with Venezuela, that's one thing. But it's just the opposite with the Iranians, isn't it? Don't you want to do this quietly instead of on Easter morning saying praise me to Allah with a profane tweet? Right.

Exactly. You know, if you think about this regime, on the one hand, this is a revolutionary regime that has built its entire identity on resisting America. So when you threaten it, it feels we must stand up. On the other hand, it's also the air of a. long culture, thousands and thousands of years, a proud culture, a Persian culture that does not like being lectured to or threatened or told, get in a box or bend a knee. So this strategy of, you know, just saber-rattling constantly, maximalist public demands, statements like unconditional surrender, this is not helping. By the way, you bring up this point, we've brought it up once or twice,

but you bring up this point about their culture, about their history. It's one of the most extraordinary remarkable cultures and history on the planet. You go back, it goes thousands of years. I always say, I always said one of the most fascinating stories is Battle of Marathon. We actually, was considered the birth cry of Western civilization because the Greeks were able to keep up with the Persians in one battle. And a poor guy even died for running 26.1 miles to say the Persians are coming, the Persians are coming, they have this sense of themselves, right?

And it's not just the Revolutionary Guard. It is the Iranian people. It's unlike, you know, you get all of these people running around talking about, you know, one culture being superior to other cultures, et cetera, et cetera. We can have that debate, like on college campuses. The Persians believe they are superior, superior to everybody else. They have an extraordinary history. They have an extraordinary culture.

and they are not the type of people that are going to fold going, oh, he threatened us on Twitter. It's just this doesn't play to this country. I wish somebody in the administration actually understood the history of the Persian people to understand why all of this is counterproductive. Yeah, and it seems to have had the regime only dig in further. And some of it's public posturing, but they've rejected everything the president has said. Now, to the possibility of progress, we know that, Maybe just a little bit will be enough for the president to push back this deadline.

He has blinked several times before. He has moved the deadline. That still may happen, Jake. So we'll be watching for that today. But if you were President Trump's National Security Advisor, the role you played for President Biden, what would your counsel be? In terms of what the military should be doing, you know, is it a strike like this about electoral infrastructure? Should it be more focused on the Strait of Hormuz? Should it be, you know, having armed escorts for the ships to come through there, the tankers?

would it be a limited ground invasion? Consider the box we're already in. You're being dropped into the rule right now. What would you tell them to do? Well, I think it's really difficult, given where we are, because the military options at this point are very bad. A ground operation, I think, would only get us in deeper, cost American lives and not solve the problem.

I think continuing to degrade Iran's military capabilities and targeted operations is fine, but it also is not going to open the strait. And an attempt right now to do an escort operation, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has told the president basically that's not a very plausible option. So this is a reason to get a diplomatic off-ramp. Now, my view is that a diplomatic off-ramp doesn't have to be a formal agreement between the two sides. It could be something a little more informal, a little more implicit.

And I think that the president and his team should be looking for that because they should be trying to bring this war to an end. And I believe the straight could be reopened on the back of that. and we could send a clear deterrent message to Iran. You mess with the strait. You mess with our neighbors. You mess with anyone else. We retain a lot of capabilities to cause harm to you. But an off ramp right now for the president, I think, is by far the best option.

Richard, final thought. Yeah. The other thing we could do is blockade the strait. The idea that here we are five weeks into this war and Iran continues to be able to use the straight for itself and its favorite countries and we're floating the Iranian economy, they are paying no economic crisis. John Bolton agrees with this. And I will say, I've heard from the Trump. administration, at the time, former Trump administration officials for four years that Biden let Iran

off the hook because they ended some sanctions. I've been hearing that for four years. And now they're allowing, now they're allowing Iran to literally make more money on their oil than they've ever been able to make. Let me say that again. The same people that were bitching and moaning and whining at the Biden administration for making it too easy with Iran on sanctions, are the same people who are allowing Iran to make more money during this war than they have ever made on their oil? It has the virtue of what you said has the virtue of being true. It is crazy.

Why don't we, if you had the map back up there, put a blockade of course the Gulf of Oman, and that way you stop Iran from benefiting from the war. And we say, look, this straight is going to be open to the world or it's going to be close to everyone. Make your choice. And of course, your good friend, Ambassador John Bolton. One of the rare times with you. And finally agree with touch. Jay, can you stay for another block?

Sure. All right. Still ahead on morning, Joe. We'll have much more on President Trump's escalating threats against Iran ahead of tonight's deadline to reopen the street of Hormuz. Plus, we'll talk about Vice President J.D. Vance's trip to Hungary. Oh, my God. To boost Victor Bourbonne.

Oh, my God. Ahead of a pivotal election there. To help the openly. pro-Russian leader of Hungary who works every day to help Vladimir Putin and works every day to hurt Western democracy every day. And that's who they're going all in on right now, along of course with Vladimir Putin. Also ahead NASA's Artemis 2 astronauts are heading back to Earth after a trip around the far side of the moon. We'll take a look at that historic mission. And as we go to break, a quick look at the travelers forecast this morning. It's getting cold out there

again. What's going on? From Acqueweathers, Bernie Raino. Bernie, how's it looking? Help us Bernie. Meek, it's going to feel like mid-Marched today in the Northeast, your acuether exclusive forecast showing even some showers, Portland, Boston and Albany that can mix

with snow this morning. New York City photo, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., windy with some sunshine this afternoon. It's even chilly in Chicago. Nice, though, from Texas toward the southeast, not nice, though. Tampa Orlando, Miami, where we're looking at rain and thunderstorms. That means your

Accuether Travel forecast showing delays in and out of Miami all day and Orlando, New York City, Philadelphia delays this afternoon due to the wind. To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, download the Acuether app today. As always, I leave you with a great view. We've got 50,000 soldiers in Japan to protect them from North Korea. We have 45,000 soldiers in South Korea to protect us from Kim Jong-un, who I get along with very well, as you know. Do you notice he said very nice things about me? He used to call Joe Biden a mentally retarded person, okay? So don't tell me about your stuff.

Joe Biden, he said he's a mentally retarded person. He was so nasty to Joe Biden. It was terrible. But to me, he likes Trump. Japan didn't help us, Australia didn't help us. South Korea didn't help us. And then you get to NATO. NATO.

NATO didn't help us. Saudi Arabia has been excellent. Qatar has been excellent. UAE has been excellent. Bahrain, Kuwait. I mean, Kuwait did shoot around three of our planes. The only planes, really, that we lost it with.

Friendly fire, they call it. I call it unfriendly fire. They unfortunately didn't know how to use our great patriots. The pilot said, what kind of a missile's coming at us? Patriot. Boom. They got out because they know a patriot never misses. So they had beautiful patriots.

There were planes heading in their direction. Unfortunately, they decided to shoot those planes. They were our planes. So, you know, NATO is a paper tiger. And you know, it all began with, if you want to know the truth, Greenland. We want Greenland. They don't want to give it to us. And I said, bye-bye.

Okay, thank you very much, everybody. He actually will be at the Catskills Tuesday and Thursday night. going to be doing two shows, seven and nine 30. Make sure you get there early. Tip the waiters and waitresses. They have to hear the act. Every night, twice a night, seven days a week. So there's so many things to say there.

I don't even know where to begin. There is this idea that if the United States actually has troops positioned across the globe, yes, protecting others' interests. But let's face it, protecting our own own interests also, that everything that we have created, post-World War II, starting in 1947, was to extend our reach across the globe, not only for the Cold War, but after that ended in 1989, to continue to have our reach across the globe, to be able to respond if we needed to respond to crises. It's the short-sightedness is just, it's absolutely stunning.

And I will say this again, and I get tired of saying it, but of course, nobody in the administration understands it, so I'm going to just say it to you. The United States has the GDP roughly of $27 trillion. Biggest economy in the world. Europe and Great Britain, together, have an economy of about, $27 trillion. You had Japan, Australia, all these other allies he likes to denigrate because they would not let him seize Greenland.

I mean, we have a GDP altogether of well over $55 trillion. Russia has a GDP smaller than Texas. It's got like a $1.7 trillion GDP. China, who is going to overtake us? as a GDP, maybe 22, 23 trillion. Together with our allies, and I was supposed to go to Sam, but I just got to say this to you, Jake. With our allies, we are so extraordinarily strong. And by the way, people sitting there bitching, oh, Europe didn't do this, year, but why should they?

He insults them day in and day out. He insults Midron to Midron's face, says he's weak. Midron. Not Midron, see, Macron. We all see, it starts with an M. They run France. It's all the same thing. I'm a child of the 80s.

Macron, by the way. Yeah, there's a guy. There's a guy. We'll get into Mitteron and his funeral later. And the attempted, the fake assassination attempt. But you combine all of these forces together. We're unbeatable. And the primary example is George H.W. Bush in 1990 and 1991.

the coalition he put together that included Syria, Assad's Syria, to go into Kuwait, made him above reproach. It was extraordinary. And yet we have a resident here who goes out of his way every day to insult our allies. You know, two people who understand what you're saying better than anyone are Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. Thank you. Xi Jinping and China have been trying for a long time, to drive a wedge between the United States and our allies. They would love a circumstance where they had strong, capable allies and partners around the world. They don't. We do.

And now Donald Trump is doing their work for them. By the way, this is simple stuff in the art of war. Make allies with your enemy's allies? Yeah. And that's what China's doing. Reaching out country by country saying, we're the responsible one. We're the stable one. You can count on us.

You can no longer count on the United States. And they're out there doing that everywhere. And then you've got Putin sitting in Moscow, whose lifelong goal beyond subjugating Ukraine is to break the back of NATO's Article 5 guarantee. And Donald Trump is doing that for him day and day out. Desperately. And what else are they doing? Jonathan Lemire just told us about a child story.

What is it? I'm happy to bring it up now. Thank you so much. Bloomberg News has new reporting out. They've reviewed a transcript, a government transcript, a Hungarian government transcript of a phone call between Victor Orban and Vladimir Putin. And as we were just talking about, Trump administration desperately trying to pump up Victor Orban as his reelection bid falters. And in this call, Orban tells Putin that he's willing to go to great lengths to assist the Russian

president, saying, you know, on any matter where I can be of assistance, I'm at your service. And he illustrates the point with a fable, a popular children's story in Hungary, he says, where he was willing to be a mouse to assist Putin's lion. So he is willing in this to embrace the comparison of a mouse in order to be in any way helpful to Vladimir Putin. And, of course, what happened, Richard, was Vladimir Putin, it's reported, then laughed, and then followed up by saying, no, Mr. Orban, I expect you to die. It's a James Bond thing. My dad loved James Bond. But anyway, Richard, everybody around Trump loves to run away from the word collusion.

Collusion, no collusion, no collusion, no collusion. Let's talk about the collusion that's going on right now between Donald Trump. and Vladimir Putin to elect Orban. You have, we had last week, Michael Weiss on, they have a transcript of Lavrov, talking to the foreign minister of Hungary, basically plotting and scheming to try to help Orban out before the election. You have Donald Trump doing everything he can to get Orban elected. And you have J.D. Vance over there.

Again, it's true. Oh, we believe in Western civilization as I'm coming over here to drive a stake in the heart of Western civilization with the one guy who hates Western liberalism and brags about being illiberal. And they're Vladimir Putin's biggest friend. They're Vladimir Putin's only hope in the EU. And you have Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin both working to the same end to elect the most anti-democratic thug. And he is a thug in all of Europe. There are two things going on here. One is Victor Orban. By the way, we're the Republicans. Where are the people that grew up, like believing what I believed growing up, Richard?

Where are they? People that believed in the West. people that believed in Western democracy, people that believed in Western liberalism, people that believed in a free press, people that believed in a free election, people that believed in a strong West that pushed back against Russian authoritarianism. Where are those Republicans in the Senate? Where are they in the House? Where are they on television?

Where is my tribe? They have all vanished for Vladimir Putin. and Victor Orban. Where are they? One, we've abridged the Constitution. Article 1 is in remission. That is what we're seeing. And the Republican Party, the Republican Party has become a populist party of Donald Trump

rather than a conservative party. Point one. Victor Orban. Orban has become the model of a liberal democracy. Let's just call it for what it is. What worries me, Joe, is he's the model for a lot of people for what the United States ought to be, which is a really frightening prospect.

Third, this is one of one hundred examples of a tilt towards Russia. And the fact that right now, Russia is the biggest beneficiary of this war, its economy, and so forth. They're helping our enemy here. They're helping Iran passing intelligence. Openly. Openly. You got Vance and his wife traveling to support him. But they are the greatest strategic beneficiary of this war, arguably, what's happened.

It's a windfall for them. But this is not a one-off. this is a pattern of the last 14, 15 months. And we can speculate all well about why it's the case. All I know is that strategically we have destroyed, our allies are, you know, we were good. It's a great force multiplier of American national security. So we are undermining our allies,

which has been a great force multiplier. Again, the greatest economic beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin. The greatest strategic beneficiary of the weakening of the fabric of American alliance just the same Vladimir Putin. Yeah. I'm being told me could go to Caddy. I guess Alex just doesn't like Sam,

but Sam did get in. You can't really hear him through the bunny suit. You can't hear him through the bunny suit. But, ooh. No, grumpy bunny. Grumpy Sam. No, no, no. Happy Sam.

I will be going to Sam next. Okay. Caddy Kay, go. Okay. I will go to Sam. Sam, how are you feeling happy or grumpy? I forgot how to use my voice. It's been so long.

Okay, get it, right. So, good. Look, there's a lot that came out of the president's press conference, but it's not just the president that's been speaking in this language that is imbueing somehow God in this mission in a way that the Iranians may understand, but I'm not sure that they're going to be particularly frightened by it. Yeah, let me make a couple of things. The press conference was very crazy for a variety of reasons.

I mean, Joe pointed out a bunch of them. At one point, I believe he said he understood Persian culture because he's from New York. That was a weird one. But what really stood out to me was the lack of solemnity around the very real prospect that tonight at 8 p.m., we're going to kill a lot of people. I mean, that's what's going to happen. And it's going to set off the cascading series of events that Richard Adeline, which will kill more people. And he's talking about it as if it's some episode of some game show, right?

Like, tonight at eight, tune in. That was really disturbing. But then you pointed out the other thing that we haven't really focused on it. Really has gotten little coverage, which was what Pete Hexeth said. And so the defense secretary is up there yesterday. He's comparing the Easter rescue of this downed U.S. airmen over Wren to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And his account of the rescue operation, he dropped perils between the airmen's ordeal and the account of Christ's death and the resurrection given in the Bible.

You can watch it right now. One downed airman evaded capture for more than a day. scaling rugged ridges while hunted by the enemy. When he was finally able to activate his emergency transponder, his first message was simple and it was powerful. He sent a message, God is good. Shot down on a Friday, good Friday. Hidden in a cave, a crevice, all of Saturday,

and rescued on Sunday. flown out of Iran as the sun was rising on Easter Sunday. A pilot reborn, all home and accounted for a nation rejoicing. Look, I mean, this is a question for Jake. When you frame war in matters of theology, when you have the president mocking Islam in his tweets or through social posts, how does that play with the leadership in Iran? How will they view this war when you have the defense secretary talking like that?

Well, it does two things. First, in a way, it plays into their hands because these guys are theocrats themselves. And so the idea of having a holy war against the great Satan, the United States, and the little Satan Israel, is core to their identity and core to their argument to their own people who they were just mowing down. you've got to back us in this holy war. So it really plays on the turf of the Iranian mullahs and clerics. But secondly, the other thing it does is it makes it clear to the Iranian regime. This is existential for them, that these guys in the United States are just going to keep coming. And so why make any concessions? Why actually get into diplomatic compromise if there's this kind of totalizing rhetoric coming from the other side?

So I think it sets back the cause of diplomacy. And from the point of view of whether, or not this actually achieves any national security objective of the United States? I didn't hear a word of that in what the secretary said. He, you know, talked in these great allegories. But where is this delivering safety and security for the American people? I think that's, it's, it has clouded the strategic thinking of the United States in this administration. You know, the rescue was extraordinary. We all talked about it.

But, Richard, the continued deification, a follow up on what Jake said. You know, and having people coming in, uh, uh, uh, scam. preachers, phony preachers coming in saying Donald Trump is Jesus Christ by Jesus Christ. It's grotesque. It's just beyond grotesque. Again, I ask, where are my people that I grew up with? Bill Clinton had done this? My God, Barack Obama, Washington would be shut down. I mean, if anybody had done this. And yet, every single day in what they're doing is Jake's exactly right. They are turning this into a crusade. they are literally playing right into Iran's hands, right into the Revolutionary Guard's hands. Absolutely.

And again, it works against the idea of compromise. It takes an important word. For the Iranians, this has become an existential conflict. For us, this is still a limited conflict. In order, it's very hard to prevail in a limited conflict when you're up against someone who basically feels, if they lose, they're gone. Let me give you an example of that, Ukraine. Ukraine.

To some extent, Vietnam. And for great powers, we've got to think about the entire world. We've got a lot of squares on the chessboard. For Iran, this is the entire thing. This is the chessboard. And when we start using this sort of religious language, this just reinforces the sense that this is a fight to the finish, among other things, let me use a religious metaphor.

They then become like Samson. If we're going to bring them down, they're going to bring down the temple. And the temple is the Middle East and through it the global economy. So let's get serious about the stakes here. We keep broadening the stakes in ways that are going to come back and wreck us as well as Iran. I mean, the blowback, Jake, we've got to go to break. But I just have to say this one more time.

I keep thinking of Lincoln's words, we cannot escape history. And yet it's as if people in the Trump White House believe history began on January 20th, 2025. because we've all have the collective memories of what happens. I mean, hell, even before I was born, I mean, 1953, what we did in Iran then had a blowback effect. Everything we do in the Middle East, we'll have a blowback effect. And it's always trying to balance that out. But the idea that they think they can continue doing this and that Israel can wipe out half of Lebanon and Netanyahu can have a forever war because he's...

He doesn't want to go to court. He doesn't want to end up in jail. So he just keeps fighting wars. I mean, at what point? At what point does somebody understand that regardless of how we do militarily in the first stage, and we're only in the first stage here, there's going to be tremendous blowback. Like there was in Iraq. Like there was in Libya.

Like there is everywhere we go. Well, look, I think President Trump ran as the candidate who said, I'm going to not be in Middle Eastern wars. Then the 12-day war happens last year, and there isn't a big reaction. Then he does the Maduro raid. And after the Maduro raid in Venezuela, I think he concluded, I can use the American military anywhere, any time for any reason, and I'm not going to suffer any consequences. And he forgot, as you put it, every lesson of history because his appetite grew with his eating. And that is why we are in the situation we're in.

And he ignored the intelligence professionals who told him how Iran would respond. He ignored, I think, voices in the Pentagon who said we can only do so much militarily. And I think he did that because he saw what happened by bombing Fordo and he saw what happened by grabbing Maduro and he decided, hey, I can act with impunity in the world. And now we're all paying the price for that. Former National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, thank you very much for coming on this morning. And you can listen to Jake on his Vox Media podcast, The Long Game. And Richard Haas, Sam Stein, thank you both as well. get some rest.

Coming up, there are growing calls to crack down on prediction market platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi, former Democratic Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney, who serves as CEO and president of the Coalition for Prediction Markets, will join us for his take on the matter. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. The fact is, the states are regulating it. What are they doing? They're saying you can't open an account and bet until you're at least 21 years old. The predictive markets allow folks to do that starting at 18.

So they are marketing directly to teenagers, teenagers who are in college, teenagers who are in the workforce, and it's irresponsible. It's wrong. States who regulate this also say, you've got to contribute some of this money to help for gambling addiction treatment. The predictive markets are doing none of that. And what happens with the sports themselves is that in state-regulated sports, games, any unusual betting that is noted, it's required for the companies to report that, not only to the leagues, but to law enforcement. And so you've seen some of the things that have happened here now in terms of finding problem betting, betting that is insider betting,

is being discovered. As we see in the predictive markets, that's not been happening. Yeah. Hey, John Lemire, we're not going with this right now, but there has been some buzz over the last 20, 30 minutes, some texts I've been receiving that perhaps tonight is a head fake, that there could be attacks earlier in the day, and we're not going with it specifically, but Iranian media is suggesting that may be the case as well. Yeah, there are some video, we have not confirmed them. There are some videos being circulated of potentially air strikes in Iran on energy infrastructure, Carg Island in particular, but it's not verified yet.

But that is coming from Iran media. Coming from Iran media. And it looks like civilian footage. You know, what we don't know, of course, is we have known in the past. The President Trump has issued deadlines as a headfake and then move them up and accelerate to try to catch the element of surprise. We do not know yet if that's the case. We, of course, are looking into it right now.

That's something we're going to monitor as the morning device. Yeah, we'll be talking to our desk. And when we get confirmation of anything, we'll let you know. No, right now, no confirmation that anything's going on. But I have been, again, receiving text over the last 30 minutes, suggesting that maybe tonight was a head fake. So anyway, we just heard former Governor Chris Christie last weekend morning, Joe, talking about the differences between what he sees in the legal gambling industry and also predictive markets that are gaining a lot of momentum right now. Christy serves as a strategic consultant for the American Gaming Association. Our next guest is CEO and president, the coalition of the prediction markets.

This is a lobbyist square off, no holds barred. He says Christy is wrong. He also is former Democratic Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney, our good friend from New York. Maloney served as ambassador to the organization of economic cooperation and development. I would have loved to visit you because it looked like a hell of an embassy you were living in. I'm telling you. So let's first, before we get to predictive markets, let me, since you served in Congress, tell me a couple of things. First of all, your thoughts on Iran. What should the United States be doing

right now? Well, thanks for having me on. It's good to see you guys. Good to see you. And obviously a busy news morning. Look, you know, I think you've got to start with, we've got a lot of young Americans in harm's way. None of us should be rooting for the president or the country to fail. But it's a very dangerous thing. situation. And for those of us who had the privilege of serving, as I did on the House Intelligence Committee, these are not unfamiliar scenarios. And you get yourself halfway to the net as we are in a conflict with Iran. And you've decided you don't want to go in on the ground, as we should not. Then the options become very serious when you're at this point in the conflict

and they're sitting there among a bunch of rubble and refusing to cabitulate. And you're left for the choice of what do you do about the Strait of Hormuz and this, this, this reported action on Carg Island, or these threats against civilian infrastructure are the kind of escalatory steps that might seem like a good idea when you're desperate, but don't lead anywhere. It takes us a very bad place. Agreed. Since you're on the Intel Committee, I'm so glad to have you here to ask you this question, because people in the administration were shocked, shocked.

The Strait of War moods was closed. Well, we never saw that coming. You could have ever seen our allies being a... We've got video of Dr. Brzezinski from 2012. saying, if you go into Iran, good luck there. They may not be able to prevail militarily, but they will shut off the strait. They will attack your allies. They will set the region on fire.

He basically called out what you and other members of the Intel Committee have known since 1979, right? That's right. And, you know, you hope that, you know, there's a way through this that's better than some of those scenarios. But right now, what we've got is you've got the Iranians very clear on the fact that they can control this trade of Hormuz in effect. Right. And our only choice is to stay there, to stay heavy there, and ultimately to go after the sources of threat to that, to that intrudiction point.

Those aren't good options. That means those sites along the Iranian coast, that means those islands that may be under attack right now, that means boots on the ground if you want to hold it. And honestly, that's why you work so hard at diplomacy. It's frustrating. It's difficult. But, but, and the threat, by the way, of the nuclear program is real. Nobody is saying that wasn't serious.

But my God, that's why you go the extra mile for peace. So let me ask you about what you're here for, predictive markets. I'm deeply concerned as a parent, especially. And every time I watch a football game or baseball game with any of my sons or daughter, like saying, it's, that's fools, gold. You're going to, you're going to hurt you. there are a lot of guys, a lot of people out there, young men that don't have fathers telling them that. And there are a lot of people that lose a lot of money on this stuff.

It seems awfully dangerous. It seems so pervasive that, you know, we banned Pete Rose from the Hall of Fame. We used to kick people out of leagues for betting on anything. Now you see gambling companies with their names emblazoned on Jersey. So, I mean, is there not? societal harm to predictive markets and gambling being so present for our teenagers, for our young adults, for, well, for grown men and women? Well, I'm a parent. I understand those concerns. I share them. But let's have a little context.

If you're talking about U.S.-based regulated prediction markets, 97% of the trades are people 21 and older, 3% are 18 to 21. There are nobody trading on these markets under 18, number one. Number two, the median age of somebody doing a trade on a prediction market is 33. And so I think it's important to put that in context. In addition, every other financial market, which is well-regulated and policed, you know, allows 18 to 21-year-olds, stocks. Chris Christie says you all aren't regulated. Yeah. So. Are policed. So yesterday, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which is New Jersey, in a case against

New Jersey, held unequivocally that prediction markets are legal under U.S. law and well-regulated by the CFTC, and that the CFTC and federal law preempts state efforts to treat it as the same thing as casinos. Nobody's going to touch the casino business, which is, you know, the interest that are funding those kind of arguments. This is an option for the consumer to trade on a financial exchange in a way that's much better for the consumer. Should they be able to trade, though, on politics, on war, on matters of life and death? Well, we don't allow trades on war and matters of life and death.

There are some cowboys overseas on other platforms who do that kind of thing. It's wrong. It's immoral. It is prohibited under U.S. law, which is why you want them here in the U.S. and regulated. So we don't do that. On politics, though, I'm a political nerd. You guys know that. Right.

I mean, all the guys running for governor out there are setting around their kalshawads, not their polls. And every major news organization, including, I think the NBC networks, is now using prediction market data. Because the academic research is very clear that market prices is a really interesting forecasting tool. Yeah. And I had actually seen, I think it's Wall Street Journal's story talking about how prediction markets actually, Jonathan, I've been more accurate in sussing out what markets were going to do than some of the best in the bright. on Wall Street, some of the best and brightest analysts. Yeah, I mean, there's no question to political campaigns

are watching this stuff, that it's being sent around among operatives, that they feel like the success rate, success rate's pretty high, they do care about these odds as much as they do. The polls, I mean, I guess my question to you is, how do you prevent it someone from taking advantage of having some sort of like insider nods, not necessarily on issues of life or death, but other things where someone would get a leg up, if you will. How do you crack down on that?

100%. And that's why we ban insider trading. We have know-your-customer rules on U.S. regulated platforms. We have anti-fraud and anti-money laundering rules. And so the answer to your question is we do it exactly the same way we do it on other regulated financial exchanges. Market manipulation is always something you worry about. We have a cop on the beat called the CFTC. They have a comprehensive, century-old approach to these types of markets, you know, because these are derivative contracts, just like grain futures or the price.

of oil. And on the politics point, which overlaps with yours, you know, the interesting thing is that we don't have an argument right now about the price of oil. Because over on Fox, they're not saying the price of West Texas in the immediate is different than we'd say here. Why? Because we can all agree on a market price. And I think that's exciting to have sources of data on a political campaign or even in journalism where you don't have to have a partisan fight about it. And that's what market sourcing information has the potential to provide. So there are use cases well beyond sports. All right. When you think about hedging or you think about using your expertise or you think about forecasting tools, and that's why millions of Americans like these products. All right,

the CEO and president of the Coalition for Prediction Markets, former ambassador, and Congressman, Sean Patrick Maloney. Thank you very much. Good to see you, Congressman. Thank you. It is two minutes past.