Morning Joe - UAE moves to freeze Iranian assets

Episode Date: March 6, 2026

UAE moves to freeze Iranian assets 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.

Welcome to Morning Joe on this Friday, March 6th, and we begin with breaking news in the war with Iran. The push to punish Iran is expanding from the battlefront to the banking system. Morning Joe has learned that the United Arab Emirates moved forward early this morning on its threat to freeze billions of dollars in Iranian assets. That's according to a top official in the region speaking with Joe. The UAE has long been a financial hub for Iran and its business interests seeking to avoid Western sanctions. The Wall Street Journal had reported that such a move by UAE officials would sever a key economic lifeline for Iran and cut off its access to foreign capital and trade. The Iranians who have fired over 1,000 missiles into the UAE have suffered a sharp economic downturn that was resumed. responsible for public demonstrations that led up to the American and Israeli attacks on that country.

David Ignatius, we're going to get into the specifics of the military side of the war. But the journal had reported that if the UAE went through on this, would have a crippling effect on their economy because they've used the UAE as a conduit to avoid Western sanctions, that this would severely limit currency, their ability to get foreign currency. and trade. I'm curious now that the UAE has moved forward with this, what impact do you see it having? So, Joe, I think it'll have both political impact and economic impact. The economic is obvious. The UAE holds enormous volumes of Iranian assets. It's the place where Iran does business. And so just in economic terms, it will squeeze Iran at a time when it needs to have access to its money and assets.

Politically, it's significant as a sign that Iran's strategy of attacking the UAE and other Gulf countries has totally backfired. The Iranians were hoping that by launching missiles and drones at key U.S. UAE cities early in the war, There now been over a thousand drones launched on the UAE. They would intimidate the Emirates into basically stepping back from the war, not supporting the U.S. and Israel. And the opposite has happened. Emeraldives have gotten angrier. They've talked about their willingness, if pressed, to take offensive action.

So on both fronts, the actual economic squeeze on Iran and the demonstration of the the political impact of unwisely choosing to attack the UAE and these Gulf countries. It's significant on both levels. And Willie, it's just fascinating to me that as poor as the economy has been doing in Iran and with them obviously suffering these military attacks to launch the most missiles at any country other than Israel, to launch it at the country that is responsible for your economic lifeline seems more than short-sighted. That is just extraordinarily stupid.

And the Emirates, my reporting, is that the Emirates, let the Iranians know. Like, if this continues, we're going to freeze your assets, which again, as Wall Street Journal reported last night, if they were to follow through on this, it would create. cripple them economically and the Iranians kept going. Yeah, Iran has fired more than a thousand drones and missiles at UAE, which as you and David just laid out very well, it's frankly the country that keeps Iran afloat, allowing it to avoid Western sanctions.

It's been a haven for their businesses, for them to park oil money that funds the IRGC and these military operations. So effectively, they attacked one of their main benefactors in a very, very curious, and I'll use the word dumb move perhaps now because UAE, perhaps they didn't think the UAE would take this step, but according to your reporting this morning, they have gone that route. David Ignatius, I wonder would we see more of this across the Gulf region?

Because the UAE is not alone in having been attacked by Iran. This appears this move to have further isolated the Iranian government right now. Willie, there have been strong statements over the last two days, stronger than I would have expected from both gutter and from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has seen its oil facilities at Rastanura hit direct strike and gutter has seen attacks on some of its natural gas delivery facilities leading to an enormous spike in the price of natural gas. I mean the the gas impact is even even higher than the oil impact coming out of the Gulf. So both countries have issued statements making clear how angry they are, and again, suggesting that they might be prepared to take action themselves against Iran.

So across the Gulf, you have an unusual unity of these countries, which had been trying up until the beginning of the war to ease their relations with Iran, to find ways to de-escalate, in general, the confrontation, not. Not anymore. Now they're angry. And the UAE has even mentioned taking maritime action against Iran and those oil ships. We will see there. The Wall Street Journal also reporting this morning on Iran's effort to widen the conflict using low-cost drones after suffering significant setbacks and its ability to unleash massive barrages of its most powerful weapons. The regime has hit at least 11 countries in six days. Tehran also fighting with jets that date back to the Vietnam War, many acquired before the 1979

Islamic Revolution. As the journal notes, the planes could be museum pieces, and none of Iran's air fleet has stealth capability, making the jets easy targets, Joe. So you put all this together in terms of military capability and isolation in the Middle East. It shows a further weakening Iran. It certainly does. And John Meacham, just let's talk about this historically. I will count myself as one of those people who, along with most Americans after the first month or two of Iraq, thought things were extraordinarily successful. I remember John Stewart, had been a loud voice against the war, and George W. Bush, joking at one point,

He said, I guess I'm going to have to take my kids to middle schools named after George W. Bush and made a joke about it. Then we saw the mission accomplished banner. So I say that just to talk about, I want you to talk about the humility that we should have in trying to predict where a war is going. I've heard a lot of people on the left saying, oh, everything is bad, everything is doomed. This is going to fail. I've heard people close to the president saying this is a lot of. the most successful military invasion ever? I mean, the truth is, we have, we, we own this guys over Tehran, and one Intel officer told me yesterday, that's just something nobody ever

imagined uttering those words, that we own the skies over Tehran. The Navy is crippled, according to the president and others. So we really don't know where this is going, and give us some sort of historical parallels. about the foolishness of predicting an amazing success are failure, which again, a lot of people did, even during the surge with betrayus. I think Iraq proved everybody wrong on every side, every time. Yeah, when Dwight Eisenhower was coming along as a mid-level officer, he had a mentor, a great general lost a history named Fox Connor, who made him read Klauswitz, Baron von Klauswitz, It's the German officer who a book had been published posthumously called On War.

And the line we all, it's frequently quoted, is war is the continuation of politics by other means. The book is largely about war being the province of chance that the wise commander knows that there is going to be failure, there will be success. you often won't be able to predict either one until it happens. And it's just the art of managing the unknown when you project force. And one of the interesting things for the United States and Iran, and this may seem overly facile, but I think it's worth thinking about, is two generations of Americans saw Iran as a central part of of what our national security posture was, what our position in the world was. In the early 1950s, the CIA is involved in installing the Shah.

If you wonder why Iran keeps coming up, look at a map. It's a vital gateway between east and west, as we call it. So the Shah goes in as a Cold War maneuver to have a friendly regime. And then, of course, and I don't know. me to tell Mika about this in the late 1970s, the Islamic Revolution signals to be, you know, the rise, the new relevance of Islamic fundamentalism, and demonstrates over the Iranian hostage crisis a concern that we were no longer the giant we felt we had been back when we'd installed the Shah. Here we have a third chapter and an open question, which is can America project force

at will in order to, and I'm just trying to follow the administration's lines here, first to try to disrupt a nuclear program, to stop nuclear proliferation, to protect that neighborhood and our allies there. Can we do this in a way that seems improvised? Perhaps it has not been militarily, and I'm not making any comment, whatever on the effectiveness of the military operations. But politically, this is an improvisational exercise. And so the question, I think, is going to be, what is the extent of our power in the

first quarter of the 21st century? How will we use it? And will, after this, will we be able to bend people to our will more easily with simply the threat of force? And so these are open and important questions. that will define, I think, as certainly a key period of time here. And your summation is in line with everything. All my reporting from yesterday that the military operation has been a stunning success from all angles,

even with the tragic loss of life. But the political side of it, will, he improvised and causing grave concerns not only with Intel, community here, but also in the region. If I could just two quick comments about John Meacham. First of all, he certainly had to go long and deep explaining who Clausewitz was. Thank you, John, so much for that. Secondly, I am curious. I mean, it shows you what he thinks of us. But secondly, Willie, I'm not so sure that what he said was overly facile. Do you think what he said was overly facile? I think nothing John Meacham says has ever remotely. facile.

And that's an opinion rendered by a member of the Vanderbilt Student Media Hall of Fame. There it is. We got their 12 minutes into the show. Boom. Hall of Fame, Willie. Really?

All in different directions. Really? Hold on a second. The Student Media Hall of Fame. It's a very specific. I'll explain what. That's actually an insult. I'll explain to you in the break.

It's always an insult. Okay, great. Good stuff. Good stuff. Okay. All right. Moving on now. Go ahead, Willie. Yeah, well, I'm just talking about, we're on the one hand talking about the military side of this, but also then the political side and the what comes next side. President Trump told Axios, he needs to be involved in the selection of Iran's next leader.

Asked about reports that the son of the now deceased Ayatollah may be picked to lead Iran. Trump called the Ayatollah son a, quote, lightweight who would force the U.S. back to war in five years. President then compared the situation to Venezuela, saying he needs to be involved in picking the next leader like he did with the now acting president of Venezuela, Delci Rodriguez. Speaking of overly facile, Jonathan Lemire, that seems like a pretty simplistic way to look at that and certainly the comparison between Venezuela. He's a hall of famer. Lamar's a hall of famer.

He's like, they've given him Willie like 12. Boys. Hall of Fame, like, trophies from his high school in Massachusetts. Don't think that's what he was talking about. Oh, no. You know what? Maybe it was poorly, the sentence was poorly formed. I meant the argument by President Trump was, oh, what is that picture?

What am I looking at there? That's all. Hey, come on, man. La Mer just grab it. They had that one ready, didn't they? Grab the baton, Lamere, grab it. That is incredible how fast that came up. And embarrassing, too.

Yeah, that was being. God. That was me in high school. Willie stunned into silence. Let's change back to Iran here. Yes, the president is continuing his wave of phone calls with reporters. A few things to note. First, what Willie just said.

Yes, he wants to say. It doesn't quite work like that. Iran has not picked a new leader yet. What they do is they gather what's known as the Assembly of Experts, and then they will select the new Ayatollah. I don't think President Trump's going to get an invitation to the Assembly of Experts to have a say there. The Ayatollah son is considered.

the frontrunner. He also, you know, to the point about what John Misham just said, about the concerns about what could be, you know, next, you know, after the stunning military success. In an interview with our friend Jonathan Carl, President Trump literally said the words, forget about next. He only wanted to revel in the military operation. And this, I think, is telling about the lack of plan as to what the future of Tehran will look like whenever the fighting does stop. Again, the phrase, forget about next. And an interview with Time Magazine, that's now part of their cover story, he was asked about, well, what about the repercussions here? Could there be perhaps terror attacks on U.S. soil? We saw the one in Austin last weekend,

murky as to what motivated that, but believed to be connected. Could there be more? And he acknowledged the possibility of an attack at home with this phrase, I guess. Simply saying, I guess, at the possibility of Americans losing their lives goes on to say, like I said, some people will die when you go to war. Some people will die. So he's facing a lot of blowback for those comments today, Joe and Mika. But I think two things can be true at once. The military operation has been stunningly successful. The news this morning from the UAE will only further weaken Iran in the short term.

But the long term, the future of the conflict, the future of Iran, seems like the U.S. doesn't have much of a plan making it up as they go along. Joe and Mika, as we proceed with this conversation, a clarification, when I said overly facile, I meant the comparison by the President of the United States, Venezuela to Iran, and certainly not that Jonathan Lemire was overly fast up or that he did not have a historic track career in Massachusetts. Right. Well, look at this. I mean, I got evidence of this.

If we could put the picture up that T.J. apparently has, like, it's button number B right there. Yeah, he won Hall of Fame for Track and he won Hall of Fame for, like, everything. I don't know. Cute. You know, I mean, they just, quickly. Wrap this up. We got a lot of news to get to. They just throw pork chop into my room at Catholic.

and tap me chew it and say, stay out of here. I never had anything like that. All right, David Ignatians, we're going to make a quick turn here. So a lot of talk yesterday about Donald Trump saying that he was going to pick the next leader. And while other people are quite skeptical of it, looking at what happened in Venezuela, you saying time and again that Iran was going to be sort of his blueprint. Venezuela would be his blueprint for Iran. I think the president saw that the military went in, moved swiftly.

You talked about that Viking-style attack. They sat back, waited, and then Donald Trump went in and actually did shape the terms of Venezuela's future. For 90 million different reasons, Iran is different than Venezuela. At the same time, this president is telling people, I'm going to fight this war as long as I need to fight this war. It's up to Iran, and they're going to have to accept on. my conditions. Given the history and given the way this president has operated, I'm not so sure that he's not going to keep this war going until he has a say.

I like your input and what you hear from your reporting. So he seems absolutely determined. He's still in the flush of presidential use of military power, which we saw in Venezuela. and again with Iran animates him as nothing else does. The initial U.S. approach working with Israel was what we call decapitation, just knocking off the senior tier of leadership. And as President Trump himself said, the people he was expecting to be able to make a deal with are dead now. They were among the group that was killed.

A new group is coming along. and he said the other day, and they're dead too. But he does have this sense that he wants to be selecting somebody pliable that the U.S. can work with. From everything that I know about what's happening in Tehran, there has been surprising continued cohesion of the leadership group, even as the top leaders are knocked out, new replacements come in. You'd expect fragmentation. It hasn't happened so far, according to my intelligence sources.

Secretary said Rubio, briefing members of Congress this past week, said basically, we're going to continue with this military campaign, which, as we've said, has been fantastically successful. They're operating basically at will now above Iran, taking out whatever targets they want. And then Rubio said, and then when it's done, you know, basically when the country has been, countries institutions have been reduced to pretty much to rubble, we'll see what's possible. We'll see who emerges. Right. We'll see about what strategy we might have for the future. So it's that, as we've said, that parallel, military success, political, I think, uncertainty, lack of clarity.

Right. And Mika, right now, there seems to be a standoff. You have President Trump saying we're going to see this to the end. It's up to the Iranians to decide when the pullback. And you have Iranian leadership that's making the gamble. That if they can keep gas prices up high enough, if they can keep the U.S. bogged down long enough, at some point, they have just out and out said, we're waiting for Donald Trump to declare victory and go home. So they think they can wait him out.

And right now, that's a big question on how long can the Iranians actually wait the U.S. and Israel out. And as we follow these breaking developments still ahead on Morning, Joe, what we're learning this morning about President Trump's decision to oust Homeland Security Secretary Christy Knoem. And a look at the person President Trump has tapped to replace her. Quit the Tough Guy Act and the Senate hearing. You know where to find me. Any place, any time, cowboy.

Sir, this is a time, this is a place. If you want to run your mouth, we can be to consenting adults, we can finish it here. Okay, that's fine. Perfect. You want to do it now? I'd love to do it right now. Well, stand your butt up then. You stand your butt up. Oh, hold on. Oh, stop it.

Is that your solution every pulling? No, no, sit down. Sit down. You know, you're a United States senator. Actedly. Okay. Thank goodness. The police.

Republican Senator Mark Wayne Mullen. The potential next head of DHS. Morning Joe is back in a moment. You know, Mika, this is a gorgeous shot from Liberty Island, New York, from the torch of the Statue of Liberty. You know, T.J. has, he's like, he's always holding five aces in his pocket. Like, he has this. Mm-hmm. Right.

I was going to. I love this. He has the Lomere running shot. Like, he just pushes that. He's got that one up, the Hall of Famer. He's got Arnold the pig. Well, he's always got to have that. If you ever talk about Chief Legal Counsel for Comer.

Got to have it ready. And then just because he knows how much I love the Atlanta Braves from the 60s and 70s and 80s, 90s, he has Biff-Pokurova. And that's for Braves fans, for Braves fans that suffered through the Pat Rock and era when I love Pat Rocket, but when they couldn't even grow grass at Fulton County Stadium, but then Field was filled with chicken weed Willie. Biff Pocoroba, he was one of the thousand points of light for us Braves fans back then. I also just love baseball cards. Biff Poccarob was just crouched in front of a mobile home, it appears, and got his headshot taken for his baseball card. It's perfect. It's just.

Perfect. Fantastic. By the way, Joe, I'm hearing a lot out in the street. Right. Out on the street from your fans about Arnold the Pig, he's become a really important part of this show. He's kind of become a reference point, a touchstone for our Morning Joe family. They love him. And for those who don't know, Arnold the Pig, as John meets him knows, they know. Arnold Pig was always the smartest character in Green Acres.

And maybe the only one that Eddie Albert could relate. too. And weirdly enough, he goes from that TV career, Mika, to actually being James Comer's Chief Legal Counsel, who the second Hillary Clinton walks into the room, he's like, screw it, guys, I'm going home. And he gets out because he knows what's going to happen. Yeah, that was so unbelievably. That backfired, but you could see it coming. Nice bit, a little long. Let's get on to the news now. President Trump has fired Homeland Security Secretary, Christy Noem, making her the first cabinet secretary to leave the administration during Trump's second term. Her ouster comes after two contentious days of testimony before Congress, where she faced scrutiny

from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. The president didn't offer an explanation for the firing, but a costly DHS ad campaign is believed to have been a factor. No, way more than $220 million. $220 million. And the ads are her on horses. It was crazy. With her cowboy hat and full hair and makeup. Anywho, the advertisement, of course, encouraged undocumented immigrants to self-deport. Weird.

That's what she thought. The president approved ahead of time you spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently. Yes, sir. We went through the legal processes. Did it correct? Did the president know you're going to do this? Yes.

He did? Yes. Okay. And one thing, Senator, I think, would be helpful to know is how effective that communications has been. Well, they were effective in your name recognition. I mean, I personally just, I mean, to me, it puts the president in a terribly awkward spot. Yeah, I mean, it certainly did. And John Lemire, I mean, you just look at those ads. You're like,

really? They spent $220 million on those campaign ads. Like movie shoots. Yeah, yeah, exactly. I thought I was seeing like a scene out of North by Northwest with, yeah, anyway. So, help me out here. Was this the fun? There we go. There we go. Wow, pan off into the skyline. There you, yeah. There she is. It's beautiful. Representing America at its best. Yes, yeah. It's great cinematography.

I wonder how much that cost. Oh, way. Oh, wow. Galvin. It costs $220 million. And she blamed Donald Trump. Oh, look. We got rockets, assassination attempts.

This is her way of saying, don't call. And Kristen, I am America. I don't even know what that was. Is that a scene from The Shining? It's all so scary. Jonathan Amir. Take this down, T. Take this down now.

I feel bad for the horse. I do, man, we all do. What about the horse? The dog. I mean, she might have shot it. You never know. A bad day. If the horse was misbehaving, what was the dog's name?

It was Cricket. And I think Cricket got the last laugh. Just for Cricket. So anyway, Cricket. So John Lemire, the last straw, there were many straws. And as you reported back at the end of the year, the president was thinking about replacing her and a couple of other officials anyway, but he wasn't. wanted to wait for the new year. Then Minneapolis happened.

Then the two killings happened. Then you had just one bit of bad news after another. And then apparently you think this may have been, from your reporting, the straw that broke Christy Dome's horses back, that she blamed the president for this $220 million political ad campaign for her. It looked like a political ad campaign for her. Yeah, she said the president approved it. That is not the case.

The White House is denied it. And in fact, Senator Kennedy, who we just saw in that clip talking to the secretary about it, later revealed after the news came out that Secretary Nome was being fired, he told reporters that he actually heard from President Trump that night. He got a call from the president that night. And Trump was furious saying, no, I had nothing to do with this. She lied. Now, she was already on thin ice.

There were some momentum in the administration to make some changes. as the administration hits its second term. It was a real point of pride to not have much turnover in the first year, unlike the first term. We've talked about the no-scalps policy that Trump put into place. But this got too much. He was furious about the ad campaign, furious at the suggestion that he signed off on that amount of money.

But it wasn't just this. And, of course, was the killings of the two American cities in Minneapolis. It was known being the face of that. And also lying about the circumstances. And she was pressed during the hearings this week about her. characterization that these were domestic terrorists who were gunned down when certainly they were not. Their questions surrounding her relationship with Corey Lewandowski, her top aide, Willie, and also just there are the polls and the president can see them. Immigration was his signature

issue and a real strength when he took office. Now he is badly underwater on this. And, you know, in his estimation, those around him, gnome and her tactics, are to blame, and she is now the first to go. For some more reporting on this, let's bring in MSNau, White House reporter Laura Barone Lopez. Laura, you've been digging into this story and what ultimately was the final straw for Christy Knoem. President Trump, we heard reports here at MSNOW and also outside reporting that he'd been calling around Capitol Hill this week, and we actually heard from Senator John Kennedy yesterday, who said, yes, he got a personal phone call from the president himself saying,

should I get rid of Christy Nome? Senator Kennedy said the president was furious. Apparently, according to your reporting as well, about this claim that he had approved, that the president had approved $220 million so Christy Nome could put on costumes and ride around on horseback. What was the final straw, according to your sources? Well, the final straw appears to have been this statement by her in the committee saying that, yes, he approved this $220 million ad. And sources told me and my colleague Jake's trailer yesterday, a White House official and someone with knowledge with the decision that the president made, who's very close to the White House, saying that this didn't sit well with the president, that he was not happy at all, that she made these statements to Congress, that she said that he signed off on it and a White House official telling us, quote, you know, this really upset POTUS. So ultimately, this ended up pushing the president over the edge.

I reported in December, along with some of our other colleagues here at MS now, that the president was considering replacing Noam. And at the time, a lot of what was feeding that was Stephen Miller. Stephen Miller was not, you know, the top, the architect, as many of you know, of a lot of these hardline immigration policies. And he was not happy with the way Nome was spending all of that money that was the billions that have been provided to DHS, the billions that have been provided to ICE alone. Miller was not happy with the pace of her spending on especially detention centers because they've been trying to build out all of this detention capacity in order to hold tens of thousands of immigrants. So back at the end of last year, Miller wasn't happy with the way she was handling that money.

Again, at the end of the day, even though it was this statement to the Senate judiciary and her back and forth with Kennedy that seems to have done her in, I think what's key here is that Christy Noem was not pushed out because she, because of the tactics that ICE was using or because of the hardline policies of the administration or because of all the immigrants that are being rounded up, legal immigrants as well, it was because of this self-promotion that she was dealing in. And ultimately, the president didn't like the headlines and didn't like the scrutiny that she and Corey Lewandowski, her right-hand guy, were facing. So because he was very happy all along with the way ICE and DHS was conducting themselves as they've been carrying out his mass deportation campaign, Willie. Also reports from Axios and others that some $300 million in taxpayer money were spent on the purchase of new Gulfstream luxury jets, a leasing of another one so that she could fly wherever she needed to be personally. You mentioned Corey Lewandowski and Christine Nome. I guess the question now is are they moved out of government completely, President.

President Trump has a long relationship dating back to the 2016 campaign with Lewandowski. Is he trying to push them out altogether or will they be reassigned somewhere in the government? So the sources that we talked to yesterday said that Corey Lewandowski is out. They said he's completely out, but of course they also were saying, look, the president does have, as you mentioned, this really long relationship with Lewandowski. He's been an advisor to the president for a long time, has always stuck by his side. And so because of that, he could very well end up landing somewhere else in the administration, despite the fact that sources inside the White House are saying that he's out. I texted Lewandowski yesterday, didn't get a response.

I know that he seemed to respond to a different reporter, I believe, saying that no decisions are final. Christy Noem is about to head this new, be a new envoy for the shield of the Americas, which we don't have a ton of details on what exactly that means or what exactly that means or what exactly. that position is going to entail, but the president is going to be meeting with Latin American leaders this weekend down in Florida. And that's where he's expected to provide more detail about what exactly this new position for Nome is going to entail. And it seems to be part of this initiative that they're launching that the president and the White House says is about combating drug trafficking. And it's now White House reporter Laura Barone Lopress. Great reporting this morning for us. Thank you, Laura. Meanwhile, President Trump,

has tapped Republican Senator Mark Wayne Mullen of Oklahoma to serve as the next Homeland Security Secretary. Mullen, a longtime Trump ally, who's been a vocal defender of the president's border policies in particular. Also, a former MMA fighter has drawn attention for his brash, combative style. As we played for you before the break, during a congressional hearing in 2023,

he challenged the president of the Teamsters Labor Union to a physical fight after he criticized Mullen online. standing up, beginning to take off his ring for the fight before Bernie Sanders sat everybody down. Mullen will need to be confirmed by the Senate and his nomination will go through the Homeland Security Committee. That panel is chaired by Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. A twist there. Mullen recently called Rand Paul a, quote, freaking snake during remarks to voters in Tulsa. So, Joe and Mika, there's a lot there. By the way, an interesting twist to that almost fight. inside the Senate chamber between Senator Mullen back in 2023 and the Teamsters President

Sean O'Brien. They since have become friends. And yesterday, Sean O'Brien said, quote, if anyone is willing to stand their butt up to protect America, it's Mark Wayne Mullen. That's from Sean O'Brien. Apparently President Trump back then brokered a meeting between the two, said you'd like each other and now they're buddies despite this moment. Well, because the senator was a gentleman and took off his ring before. before he was going to find him, I guess. Maybe that. I don't know what's going on there.

I do know, though, that calling the chairman of the committee that's going to be reviewing you, a friggin' snake may be interesting. And I will say, the hearings may be interesting because, of course, we're in the middle of a shutdown based on the demands of Democrats and, you know, small government Republicans like Rand Paul expect DHS to do. So expect some fireworks. Could be bumpy. There, could be.

Coming up as the war with Iran continues, questions are still circulating about the United States' motive in the conflict. While President Trump consistently claims Iran was going to strike first, some Americans remain skeptical, given the U.S. past actions in the Middle East. We'll discuss what led the U.S. back to Tehran. And as we go to break, a look at the moment, Republican Senator Tom Tillis confronted Christyne. at a congressional hearing this week. I read your book last week. And honestly, some of the parts of it impressed me, but some of it distresses me.

And I'll give you a good example of one that does. The passage where you talk about killing a dog that was 14 months old, I trained dogs, all right? And you are a farmer. You should know better. You should know that if you're going out to a hunting lodge and you're putting pheasants out and you're putting dogs out, You don't take a puppy out there.

A 14-month-old dog is basically a teenager in dog years. You decided to kill that dog because you had not invested the appropriate time and training. And then you have the audacity to go into a book and say it's a leadership lesson about tough choices. Welcome back to Morning Joe. It's 47 past the hour. A live look at the White House. The Justice Department has released more Epstein files this time involving uncorroborated accusations made by a woman against President Trump.

The department previously said it was working to determine if any records were wrongly withheld. After several news outlets reported the massive public collection did not include a number of files documenting interviews conducted in 2019 with the woman involved. The DOJ said yesterday those files had been, quote, incorrectly coded as duplicative and were accidentally not published along with other investigative documents related to Epstein. The accusations against Trump date back to the 1980s when the woman involved was a teenager. Her account of the alleged assault is among the number of unconfirmed accusations in the documents released by the DOJ. President Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing in connection with

Epstein. Justice Department officials have defended. their handling of the files, saying they strived to release documents as quickly as possible under the law while also protecting victims. Although it turns out that a lot of victims' information, personal information, and pictures were actually released. And information about some men actually redacted. And of course, this information that mentions President Trump and an accusation not released at all. Meanwhile, Lindsey Halligan, the former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, is now under investigation by the Florida Bar Association.

The probe was confirmed in a letter last month to the Watchdog Group campaign for accountability that had filed complaints to the bar about Halligan's actions while she was working for the Department of Justice. In a very brief response, the bar explained an active investigation was all. already underway. The complaint filed by the group focuses on her action as interim U.S. attorney. Halligan, who left the DOJ, back in January, was elevated to that position to oversee the indictments of James Comey and Letitia James, two named targets of President Trump. Both cases were later dismissed after a judge ruled Halligan's appointment was unlawful. The administration is appealing that ruling.

now reached out to the Florida bar yesterday, and they did confirm the probing to Halligan is, quote, an open case. The New York Times reached out to both Halligan and the DOJ, but both declined to comment. We'll follow that story. And still ahead on Morning, Joe, more of our new reporting that the UAE has moved to freeze billions of dollars in Iranian assets held in the Gulf State a development that could cripple Tehran's economy. We'll get a live report from Dubai straight ahead on Morning Joe. The lives of over 50 innocent people are at stake. The foundation of civilized diplomacy is at stake.

The integrity of international law is at stake. The credibility of the United Nations is at stake. And at stake, ultimately, is a stake. maintenance of peace in the region. President Jimmy Carter in December of 1979, emphasizing the outcome of the Iran hostage crisis would have consequences far beyond those who were involved directly. Carter's own presidency also was at stake.

He later acknowledged the failed rescue attempt of the 50 Americans being held at the U.S. Embassy in Iran, which left eight U.S. service members dead, likely contributed to his loss to Ronald Reagan. Join us now. author Tim Barnacle, Tim's latest substack piece, is titled The Road Back to Tehran. In it, Tim writes this, quote, as his domestic agenda fails, the beginning of 2026, has seen President Trump use his powers to decapitate nations, not because they pose an imminent threat

to Americans, but simply because the opportunity presented itself. More so than in 1953, the decision this week to force a change in Iran's leadership has no clear answer to what comes next. As Americans learned in Iraq, removing a murderous autocrat does not alone provide a stable future and often results in the opposite. Six Americans already have been killed in yet another war in the Middle East. As President Trump said on Sunday, there will likely be more before it ends. That's the way it is. Perhaps the best summary of his plans so far, writes Tim Varnacle. Tim, good morning. Great to see you. You kind of give us a brief history of the 20th century, now into the 21st century of the American relationship with Iran. How far back

do you trace it and how do you see glimpses of what was happening back then today? Well, every story has a first sentence. And for the United States and Iran, that story kind of starts in 1953. That's when the CIA conducted Operation Ajax, which employed Kermit Roosevelt Jr., Teddy Roosevelt's grandson, who besides having one of the great names of all times, actually deposed the democratically elected prime minister of Iran and kind of raised up the Shah. Now, over the next 16 years, the Shah in Iran was pretty much a pro-Western, pro-American autocrat. And in doing deals with the United States, he gave us 40% of the oil kind of causing resentments within the Iranian people. And then also in 1957, the United States, the United States,

States and Eisenhower, who's on this right there on the TV screen, actually through his Adams of Peace program gave Iran its very first nuclear reactor, kind of planting more of the seeds we have seen today. So from 1953 when there was the coup to 1979, when there was a revolution kind of partially caused by that coup, all the way to 2026 and this war starting in Iran, there's a complete straight line. Tim, explain if you would, our national interest in Iran. Professor Meacham, wow, this feels like I'm being deposed of sorts. Our national interest in Iran is one that is confusing to the American people. We see Donald Trump, who in 2016, was elected for some of the similar reasons Barack Obama was in 2008,

and that was running against these kind of forever wars in the Middle East. And we see now a story that keeps changing. History is teaching these lessons to us again and again. We have, you know, in Greenland, we tried to buy Greenland in 1868. We have, where we have troops there for over 80 years. We have Venezuela, which the story of Maduro is very similar to the story of Panama, where we took down Noriega in 1990. So again, history is repeating these stories to us again and again and again. but for Donald Trump and for the Trump administration, there is no straight through line for them. There is no coherent story. There's just, as he says, the way it is. You know, John Meacham, you've been living with Dwight Eisenhower for quite some time and studying him.

You know, here's a president who, again, engaged in sort of brinkmanship threat reportedly with North Korea. but during his eight years, he didn't get involved in hot wars. He certainly managed a Cold War. But I always thought from my reading of Eisenhower's history that it was interesting that 1993, if not a one-off, because I know we did some other things, but it seemed to be almost out of character in the Eisenhower. presidency. Is that your take or did it, let me ask, what lessons did he take away from, from Mosadei and what happened in 53? He, covert action could work. In fact, the success in Iran and our action in Guatemala in the 50s, in sort of a very, very, very,

30,000 footway set up the affection for, if not fetish, for covert action that came back to BITUS in a significant way in the 1960s. You're exactly right about his avoidance of hot wars. He did not want what he called brushfire wars. He was relentlessly logical. He fell in love with plain geometry at Abilene High School. He loved, you know, A to B to C. And to him, from really from 1941, 42, when he was summoned from Texas to come up and run the War Plans Division, which became the operations division under General Marshall before he went over to, before Eisenhower went over to Europe, he was defining, as we were talking about with Tim, America's national interest in those first months of World War II. And a significant one, and this is a perennial

force, right, was oil. He did not want the Middle Eastern oil to end up in the hands of the axis. And that was one of the two or three things that's in every letter, right, every diary entry about how they have to secure that, because the loss of that source of energy could be so devastating. And so one of the things about Eisenhower and I think many successful presidents is, yes, there were doctrines. Yes, there were principles. But he really did react to facts as they developed. He did not go in with grand and inflexible plans. And he also surely never went in someplace without knowing how to get out. And that seems to be the difference here as that President Trump, Tim, doesn't have a clear,

at least he has not that he's announced, a clear exit strategy, any clear goals. And no doubt, to this point, the military operation has been a huge success. At the same time, Politico is reporting right now that Pentagon officials are preparing for this war to last, perhaps to September or longer, underscoring the idea, we don't know what's next. Is there anything else you've learned from your examination of the history of the U.S. relationship with Iran. Are there any other lessons that if President Trump were listening, he should take? Well, I would say to President Trump, I would just repeat his words back to him. In May, in Riyadh, he said that the so-called regime builders wrecked more than they built.

Now, there's a history lesson that's probably correct. That was to the Middle Eastern leadership in May, and now we have him yesterday, just yesterday, saying to Axios, I believe, that I have to be involved when it comes to picking the next. leader of Iran, just as he had to be involved in picking the next leader of Venezuela. Why? Because to him, this is not a history lesson. This is not something to thumb through the pages of John Meacham's book or anything like that. It is an episode of The Apprentice. It is something that is all about him. And in this case, it's not about, you know, one of the thousand explanations they seemingly have had as to, you know, where their facilities were obliterated in June and yet now they're back up.

what's happening is an opportunity for Donald Trump, an opportunity for BB Netanyahu. All right. Author Tim Barnacle, thank you very much. You can read the rest of his latest piece available right now on Substack. And John Meacham, thank you as well.