"A presidency engulfed in twin crises"

Hi, everyone. It's 4 o'clock in New York. Donald Trump's presidency is right now engulfed

in twin crises, a ballooning national security crisis and an unprecedented political civil

war within his own political movement. Having plunged the United States of America into

a war with Iran without speaking to the country directly or honestly about that war's objectives

or the war's timeline or how it would be measured for success, Donald Trump's own secretary

of state has revealed that the United States of America was essentially dragged into war

by Israel.

We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate

an attack against American forces and we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after

them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps

even higher those killed. And then we would all be here answering questions about why we

knew that and didn't act.

Rubio's comments right there are sent shockwaves across the political spectrum. Here's

how the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee Mark Warner summed it up.

There was no imminent threat to the United States of America by the Iranians. There was

a threat to Israel. And if we equate a threat to Israel as the equivalent of an imminent

threat to the United States, then we are in uncharted territory.

Now, as I said, the reaction is not tied up in the typical partisan confines of our normal

political debates. On the right, the reaction was more swift and more furious. Even Steve

Benin has questions. Watch.

If we knew they were going to be that Iran was going to be attacked and they would attack

us, is there no coordination in this? I think that has to be explained.

Our government's job is not to look out for Iran or for Israel. It's to look out for

us.

What is happening to the man that I supported? You supported the man that denounced what

happened in Iraq, the man that said no more foreign wars, no more regime change. And

we're a year in, a year in, and we're in another war. And we've got American troops being

killed.

Do you clean up on aisle nine? Donald Trump? Listen to what he had to say.

Israel forced your hand to launch these strikes against Iran, did that mean that the whole

of the United States is in this war?

No, I might have forced their hand. You see, we were having negotiations with these

lunatics. And it was my opinion that they were going to attack first. They were going to

attack. If we didn't do it, they were going to attack first. I felt strongly about that.

It was my opinion.

Again, Senator Mark Warner said after a briefing by the Secretary of State and the Secretary

of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the CIA director, quote, there was

no imminent threat to the United States by the Iranians. End quote. Meanwhile, in the

Middle East, the war shows no signs of de-escalating, quite the opposite. More than 800 people

have been killed across the Middle East, including six United States service members. The U.S.

embassies in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have closed after Iranian attacks. The U.S. Embassy

in Lebanon is also closed. In the last few hours, a drone struck the U.S. consulate

in Dubai. No injuries have been reported. The Trump administration is urging all Americans

in the Middle East right now in 16 countries in total. Look at that map. Any American in

any of those countries is being urged to evacuate. The same government is not offering any

means by which to help them evacuate. The BBC reports that somewhere between 500,000 and

one million Americans live in that region. And they have been let stranded by the Trump

administration. The U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem said this quote, the U.S. Embassy is not in a position

at this time to evacuate or directly assist Americans in departing Israel. Democratic

Senator Chris Murphy tweeted this quote, so the State Department is forcing everyone to

immediately leave the region, but is also refusing to help people leave the region. The strike

itself is illegal and disastrous, but their lack of readiness for what comes next is unforgivable

in competence everywhere. After a significant backlash, the State Department announced today

that it is facilitating charter flights from the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, adding to the

tensions Donald Trump announced a few hours ago that the U.S. may deploy the Navy to escort ships

through the Strait of Hormuz. That's the narrow channel through which one fifth of the world's

oil supply goes through. Iran has threatened to attack any ships across the strait sending oil

prices spiking. Donald Trump's war against Iran, a war of choice, turning into a cascading

economic, political, and foreign policy crisis is where we start today. And Applebaum is here.

She's a columnist for the Atlantic, also joining us. Retired U.S. Army Brigadier General

Steve Anderson is here. Plus Washington investigative correspondent for The New York Times,

Mark Mazzetti is here. And with me at the table for the hour, the President of Media Matters

for America, Angela Kerosene is here. Mark Mazzetti, you were here on Friday with some incredible

reporting about the three rationales that have been offered up as potential predicates for war in

Iran were untrue false. And I think the last thing I asked you was, are we going to war tonight

or this weekend? And you said, I don't know. Just tell me how we got here.

Well, right, as we said last week, the administration was in this sort of 11th hour mode of trying to

sell the idea of why there needed to be a war now. And it centered around the idea that Iran was on

the brink of having a nuclear weapon. And on the brink of having missiles that could hit the

United States. And as we discussed, the intelligence didn't support that at all. It was unfounded.

The claims were unfounded. So it was clear, you know, it's clear now that this was done

at the very end when there was a preparation for a strike over last weekend.

The interesting thing about Rubio's claims that you showed a clip of about him saying that ultimately

Iran, United States moved because they were afraid Iran would strike first because this

rule was about to strike, right? This was not just a off the cuff remark he made. It's the same

logic that he used with the gang of eight last week when arguing about, you know, the possibility

of a war and why it might be necessary. The Democrats at the time in the gang of eight, as we reported,

saw this as circular logic. And Rubio repeated it yesterday. And as you say, drew a lot of criticism

for it. And Applebaum, let me ask you, I think you were also here at the end of last week and we

talked about how Europe has changed because of the political vacuum America created in Ukraine

and beyond Trump's to put it generously in difference toward NATO. What is the response from

our allies about America's Secretary of State essentially saying we are at war because we're

responding to what Israel was about to do? So alongside not explaining to Americans what the war

would be about, the U.S. also didn't explain to allies. I think it did warn some allies so people

were aware that there might be something happening in the Middle East last weekend. But there was no

effort to build support for the American position. There was no effort to get European countries

who have actually had a lot of interaction with Iran and who know Iran well and who have troops

or military capabilities in the region to be involved that includes France, Britain, Germany,

and others. The suddenness of the announcement actually led to the Spanish government refusing to

allow Americans to use bases in Spain. It's almost impossible for Europeans really to

react in a consistent way because they weren't included in the conversation. So mostly they're

staying on the sidelines. I would hope that at some point down the road some will start to offer

help with some kind of Iranian transition if we ever get to that and something Europeans know about

and could do. But they're the lack of building consensus, allies, process, expectations. I mean,

that's not just an American domestic issue. It's also an issue with the countries that who could,

as I say, be helpful to America in inter crisis. General, let me show you what Trump is saying.

And what he's had to say has not really meshed up totally or narratively with what the Secretary

of State has had to say. But let me play for you what Trump has had to say.

What's the worst case scenario that you have planned for in Iran?

Well, I don't know if there's a worst case. I guess the worst case would be we do this and then

somebody takes over who's as bad as the previous person, right? That could happen. We don't want

that to happen. You have someone in mind right now as you said, all the people you do have in

mind have been taken out. Well, most of the people we had in mind are dead. So, you know, we had some

in mind from that group that is dead. And now we have another group that may be dead also based on reports.

Your thoughts about where we are as military and where the conversation with the country

stands right now as being led by Donald Trump? Well, I mean, the goal, this is obviously turning

I think into a major disaster. But the point that he was making about taking out senior leaders,

I mean, I remember very vividly my time in Iraq. You remember the decks of cards that we had with

all the bad guys listed, you know, from the Asia stage to the two of clubs, whatever. And how

every night we were trying to take out bad guys, senior leaders in the Iraqi military, Al Qaeda and

the like. And I remember the impact on the ground was pretty much negligible that every time that

they killed a bad guy, another one would jump up. These are not stupid people. They know that this

attack was coming for quite some time. We had an 86 year old committee that was leading this part,

this country who had cancer. And he knew that his days were numbered. They had at least four

levels, I believe, appointed of the succession plan. So, you know, to think that these people

aren't going to be taken away or we're going to execute regime change merely by killing off the

top 40 or 50 senior leaders in the IRGC. I mean, that's pretty rich to go to make that kind of an

argument. These people are smart. They are dug in. They're well equipped. And they're going to hold

out for quite some time despite the fact that they've lost a lot of senior leaders. The military

has done a superb job. I'm very, very proud of that. But Donald Trump is taking advantage of their

incredible competence and their ability to get the job done because they've been taught to respond

yes sir when a civilian leader gives a command and they've done it very, very well. But he's been

taken, what he has essentially done is he's turned America's military in the Trump's militia

to execute his plan and his, you know, to feed his ego, make him look like the tough guy.

This is not going well. It's only going to get worse and we're only four days into this.

Trump's latest public communication about where he will use the military is to deploy the navy

to lead ships through the straight support moves. What risk does that present to the men and women

of the navy? Well, to rent this risk obviously. I mean, if they're going to go into the Persian Gulf

a very small area and a 21 mile straight out of our muse as we pointed out earlier, I mean,

they put themselves at tremendous risk. You know, their landmine or their mines in the sea that

have been placed out there. And of course, they do have a navy, Donald Trump claims that we

degraded quite a bit of it. But there's lots of threats that the navy would definitely encounter

in trying to support the movement of oil through the strait of hormones.

Let me come back to what Marco Rubio has put before the Congress and the country. This public

narrative that we went to respond to what would be the response from Iran knowing that Israel was

going to go. It presupposes that we had no sway or no influence over what Israel would do.

Which, if that is the sworn testimony of Secretary of State, that's shocking in and of itself.

But this is where the most dramatic rupture is within Trump's movement since I've known you,

since I've laid eyes on you to see how these conversations. And this is a tweet from right wing

influencer, the Daily Wire host, Matt Walsh, quote, so he is flat out telling us we are in a war

with Iran because Israel forced our hand. This is basically the worst possible thing he could have

said. Yeah, that's, I mean, that's an important point to consider because one of the things that

Rubio did is that there was a bunch of people that were tepid, but they were so saying, look,

there's, I don't know, I'm not sure I'm here, but I, they're not full-throated attacking Trump

or the Trump administration like Walsh. When he said that, he basically kicked the horn at

us because this has been a major fault line in the larger Magan coalition for a while. That big

dust up back in October between Nick Fuentes and the Heritage Foundation that created that

pile on where all these right wingers then started picking aside, where JD Vance had essentially

say, no, no, we're going to let the grippers in because he couldn't say no, we're not going to

let them out. It was all because of this, how much power and influence do we actually want Israel

to have over our politics? And then separate from that, how much tolerance are we going to have

for the mere perception of that, that narrative threat? And would Rubio said, is he confirmed for a

large part of the Magan coalition, something that they've been saying for a while, the Alex Jones

of the world, the Nick Fuentes, the Matt Walsh's, that actually this is all about Israel,

and that Trump was not really, Trump did not have his hand on the wheel. This sort of the strong

man that you've been fully supporting and carrying all this water for, backfilling all the lies for,

he wasn't the one that made this decision, we are now doing it for someone else.

And that created that to open up a massive fault line. And they had been percolating beforehand,

there was already tension, but that was the difference maker. And there's no way to walk that back.

He can claim that wasn't what he was saying. It's too late because there was a perception that

was percolating, a feeling they had been soaking in that narrative for such a long time. That is where

the growth has been in the magma media has actually been around that threat. The reason that the grippers

and these other figures have so much influence is because they always tie everything back to that.

Candace Owens ties everything back to that. And so that is the major sort of theme. And

their America first is what they say they are, but at the core of their isolationists.

And this fear, not only fuels antisemitism and feeds into that, but also

ones against their isolationist tendencies. So what Rubio did was not just validate and confirm

and serve them one of their biggest fears, but he basically said this is now the fault of the fight.

This is actually what this fight's about. And so now he's calling the question as to whether or

not they're going to tolerate Trump being it as closely aligned with Israel as he's been.

Mark Mazzetti, this is so such a shock to the system. I think for Americans to hear

that we have launched a war against Iran with sort of a paragraph from the wildly

unpopular doctrine of preemption from the Bush era, which I worked in the administration,

but only to follow and be led by Israel's foreign policy decisions. Is it true that we had,

I mean, do we have any capacity to influence or weigh in with Israel? I mean, just tell me with

all of your knowledge of the US Israeli relationship, where does that relationship stand? And

is it as Rubio describes, they were doing this with or without our approval or our buy-in? And so we had

to strike Iran at the same time to what? I mean, just fill in the blanks of what Rubio has said

publicly, so I understand. So we did a story that published yesterday that got into basically what

led Trump to war. And it kept coming back to Benjamin Netanyahu, where if you go back to late

December, Netanyahu makes a visit tomorrow, logo. And during that meeting, he kind of plants the

seed of an idea of that Israel was probably going to have to strike Iran some time during the first

half of 2026. He would like American support. He would like protection. But Netanyahu is basically

saying we're going to need to do this. And over the weeks that followed, as Trump was taking this

sort of securitist path, is he going to protect the protesters, is he going to knock out the

nuclear program throughout or cut it deal, right? Throughout behind the scenes, there was this push

increasingly by Netanyahu that led to what we now see, which is a joint US Israeli military

operation. And Trump was not getting any advice of his own advisors against doing this.

But he was getting strong advice from Netanyahu that he needed to be part of that. So Netanyahu

kind of filled the vacuum there. And the one other thing I think it's important to say is that

Trump came off the operation in Venezuela in early January, quite confident about how quick and

easy US military force can be. And I think got into the idea that maybe something as clean as

Venezuela can be done in Iran. So it's these combination of forces that kind of led us to where

we are right now. It's important to note those since we've been covering Rubio so closely. Rubio

described the operation in Venezuela as a quote, law enforcement operation. So again, all these

public discrepancies, they may well be singing Kumbaya from the same sheet privately, but publicly

Rubio and Trump do not seem to be emphasizing or saying similar things. I want to share with

all of you some reporting in the Wall Street Journal about Trump's openness to supporting

our militias inside Iran. I have to sneak in a break before I do that. Also ahead for us,

Donald Trump's Secretary of State Marco Rubio is right now, once again, publicly defending the

U.S. strikes against Iran. He's briefing senators. We'll talk to Democrat Rubim Gallego when that

briefing wraps up to see if his message is consistent with what he said publicly yesterday. Plus,

days before the U.S. military operation in Iran began, FBI director Cash Patel's politically

motivated firings included agents specializing in Iranian counterintelligence. We'll talk about

that reporting. And later in the show, an unbelievable moment on Capitol Hill when a Republican

senator called for the resignation of Kristi Nome, comparing her disastrous decision-making in Minneapolis

to the murder of her 14-month-old dog cricket, something we have covered here extensively after

she reported on it herself in her own book. We'll play you that stunning moment. All those stories

and more when Dylan Whitehouse continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere today.

I can't think of anything more dismissive and arrogant than this president not directly addressing

the American people and explaining this war more thoroughly.

Well, good morning. This is not a so-called regime change war. But the regime sure did change.

Oh, for God's sake. I stand corrected.

Rebecca the Ann, General Anderson, Mark and Angelo. And there's been so much over the last 13

months that people like John Stewart have talked the country through. I mean,

part because of their unique courage at the moment when so many powerful people, people have

capitulated from law firms to universities to business leaders, civic leaders, and elected officials.

But this lack of believing that a conversation with the American people, especially, especially

the families, the kids, the parents, and the members of the military is an outlier. The New York

Times had some great reporting on Sunday that even with the fracturing of our media system,

it is completely unprecedented in our country's history and really around the world for a leader not

to address the country when he takes the country and uses the military to wage war. Now that six

service members have lost their lives, so six families will not see their sons or daughters or

moms or dads again. That feels even more negligent in terms of our leadership. What do you make of

that as part of a pattern or practice of how Trump sees himself as an autocratic leader?

So one of the strange things about Trump's presidency, and this is actually even different from

some dictatorships. I mean, there are a lot of dictatorships before they go to war, would do a

propaganda campaign. As the Russians did, for example, before attacking Ukraine, they would spend

months talking about the enemy and so on. But Trump's method of leadership is often called

personalist. So he does what he feels like in any given moment. His main aim is to win the

current moment, whatever that is. So whether it's a confrontation with a journalist or whether

it's a confrontation with a foreign enemy, to be seen as the dominant person or the dominant figure

in the room or the conversation or of the moment. And it looks like that's what he did here. In

other words, there was no particular plan. There was no clear goal. But he felt that this was a

moment when he could demonstrate his dominance and he could win somehow. Of course, he doesn't win,

then he'll walk away and say, you won anyway. But the consequences of that for Americans,

for anybody in the Middle East, and actually for Iranians. The Iranian people don't seem to

have been at the center of this of this operation at all. There's been no attempt to think about

who might who might rule Iran next or how the Iranian democratic opposition might come to power

or might become at least have influence inside the country. You know, instead he's speaking about,

oh, well, there were some other military leaders. There were some other members of the Islamic Republic

who he imagined they would take over as in as in Venezuela. So it's this personalist way of

running the country. You know, there's no policy process. There's no presentation of different

points of view. There's no consideration of alternatives. There's no internal debate inside the

White House. And then there's no external debate in the country. There's no public debate. There's

no debate with Congress. As we've already said, there's no debate with allies. In other words,

there's no attempt to create any kind of consensus or movement or agreement, even if it's a minority

consensus. And that's very unusual, actually, not just in American history, but anywhere. I mean,

the that the whims of a of an individual leader would would would make these life and death dramatic

decisions without any input from anybody else, which is certainly what it looks like from the outside.

This is this is this is very strange and it's likely to produce very erratic and unpredictable

outcomes. General, even Trump's I mean, to answer point, Trump Trump has told us that quote,

most of the people we had in mind to run Iran are dead end quote. It suggests that regime

change is not the goal because if he also killed all the people that he quote had in mind to run

Iran are dead, they were close enough to the itola to have been in the same blast radius. And so

what have the military families been told they are doing? Well, that's a very good question. I don't

think they really know what they're doing. There have been no real clear military objectives. I

mean, regime change is not something that the military does. I mean, that's that's done in our

lexicon of things that we can do. There's lots that we can do and less that we have to. But

but the military and back to my point about, you know, Trump's militia versus americans military is

that he's found in the military people that salute smartly and say yes sir to almost everything

that he asks them to do. He asks them to have a parade in Washington DC and they say yes sir,

they ask him to deploy national guard troops to Los Angeles and Portland and southern border.

They say yes sir, they sent him down to Columbia to to Venezuela, rather to grab Maduro.

Execute a mission down there, superbly done, superly executed. Yes sir, once again, and here we are.

Now we're in Iran. And I'll tell you what, I mean, I remember what general

and marine buddy mine reminded me with generals in it said back in 2007, he said that if you like

Iraq and Afghanistan, you're going to love Iran. It's three and a half times the size of Iraq

92 million people. It would take 500,000 troops and six months to deploy if we were to have

some kind of a ground invasion. So we need to know what we're going to do. The military families

deserve to know that to know that. Unfortunately, you know, Donald Trump never served in the military.

In fact, he tried to avoid it five times, you know, President Bonesburg's and all that.

He's never had a family member. He doesn't know what military families go through in the sacrifices.

There are like over 50,000 American families now back in the United States that are on

pins and needles waiting to see what happens to their sons and daughters in the Middle East.

He doesn't understand that. It's really, really sad. Let me read one more piece of reporting.

Wall Street Journal reports Trump opened to supporting armed militias in Iran,

according to US officials, quote, Trump is open to supporting groups in Iran, willing to take

up arms to dislodge the regime, according to US officials, an idea that could turn Iranian

factions into ground forces, at least rhetorically backed by Washington. Trump spoke Sunday with

Kurdish leaders, officials said, and it's continuing to engage with other local leaders who might

leverage Tehran's weakness to make gains. The Kurds have a sizable force along the Iraq

Iran border. Israel has bombed positions in Western Iran, leaving to speculation that it's

paving a path for a Kurdish advance. Donald Trump has also not ruled out, quote, boots on the

ground. And Marco Rubio has testified to, quote, the worst bombing as being yet to come.

Marco Rubio is right now briefing the Senate, and we will have one of those senators.

Join us on the other side. But there is certainly more public rhetoric that suggests escalation

is what is ahead, as opposed to a Maduro style one and done kind of operation.

Mark Mazzetti, does any of your reporting suggest that this is what was considered by any sort of

formal NSC process? Oh, I'm not sure there was much of an NSC process. It was very opaque to us

the decision making had actually any kind of process. Certainly, President Trump was briefed

on military options. But I mean, even this report you just quoted, this question of what they're

considering now that the war has started about what the endgame might be, it sort of certainly

gives the impression that this is to a degree being made up as they go along. And just look at what

the last five days that brought us on Saturday, you heard President Trump in his video message.

He didn't say regime change, I don't believe, but he certainly left the impression that this is

the goal of the mission is to change the leadership. And then that was certainly considered an

unpopular option by many after it was announced. And yesterday you heard Marco Rubio try to go out and

narrow what the objectives were. He had said four specific things, it's missiles, it's the nuclear

program, it's the proxy militias that are on uses and it's the Navy. So they're trying to say this

narrowly focused. And once they achieve these objectives and it's over, however, again, as it's

just been said, this is now the kind of warrants has been opened. And so the question is just how much

the U.S. and Israel are going to have to own the outcome. Yeah, that is a question. And Apple

Bob and Mark Mazzetti, thank you so much for your time today for starting us off. General Anderson

and Angela stick around a little bit longer. After the break, as we've mentioned, Senator

Ruben Gaigo will join us on what he's learned in his latest briefing, where the cabinet is

briefing members of the Senate on the justification for war with Iran. We'll be right back.

Most people feel like, I do, what I have never had more compliments on something I did,

people felt it's something that had to be done. So if we have a little high oil prices for a

little while, but as soon as this ends, those prices are going to drop, I believe lower than

even before. I mean, every now and then, the truth seeps out. We're back with General Anderson and

Angela. As soon as this ends, prices are going to go back down. That might be true, but it is also

true, as he said there, that quote, we'll have high oil prices for a little while. The pressure

on the American people from his tariffs, even before the Supreme Court ruled them illegal,

the pressure on the American people from his lack of interest in dealing with inflation,

the pressure and the people feel will now also be felt at the pump.

Yeah, and I think the fact that he acknowledged them is revealing in a significant way,

because it shows probably how we're in this mess, is that why he acknowledged that is because

that's the coverage on Fox News. So if you look at Fox News, they're all acknowledging that the

oil prices are going to go up. Now, they're spinning themselves in knots to try to run

sort of cover for their audience. You know, Angela Yard is saying, well, you know, they're going to

go up, but they were so low to begin with that that's okay. She isn't true. You know, Maria

Potter rumo saying, well, you know, but wherever it's country, we can find a way to deal with it

or Jesse Waters. Trump was basically quoting what Jesse Waters was saying. You know, Jesse Waters

is globally acknowledging that prices are going to go up. But saying, don't worry in the end,

it's all going to balance out because the prices are going to end up even lower. And so the

average is going to cut in your favor. Trump obviously lashed on to that defense, which is that

somehow there's going to be something you get out of it. But part of the reason we're in this

mess is because he's been pickled in the narrative about Iran from Fox News since 2010. You know,

I mean, they're the ones that were driving toward this world. They're the ones that really wanted

this. They were the ones that advocate and he just started looking at Joe Rogan. He's not looking

at what the podcast are saying. That's his worldview. That is the lens to which he sees the world.

Whatever is happening on his phone from these random phone calls and then what he sees on Fox News.

And you know, he's just not connected to the zeitgeist in the way that he was anymore. He's not

looking at what's happening on these online spaces. So that's it. And he relies on that. So when

it does break through, he then acknowledges it and responds to it or incorporates it into his

thinking. But it does sort of show you that the fact that they're on this early about it already

sort of teeing it up that this is going to happen shows that they are worried about the political

ramifications here in some ways are trying to do them a favor by getting in front of it. And I

think that's the significant part ahead. General, I'm not suggesting causation, but I do want to

cover aggressively the correlation between Fox News's aggressive coverage of the rising gas prices

and Donald Trump's decision today to deploy the Navy to escort ships to the Straits of Hormuz.

Your thoughts. Well, I mean, obviously you're talking about a president who really doesn't

care about military service, soldiers, sailors, airmen, or ains and doesn't understand the risks

that are intended with, you know, conducting operations. We've already had six

soldiers killed. And he kind of blew it off as well. This happens during war.

You know, and they'll be probably more to follow. I mean, it just shows that he's totally out of touch

with what goes on in military lifestyle and military service. In fact, any kind of service.

He's all about service of himself. And whenever it can get him power and glory, it's something

that he's going to pursue. And if he can use the military, you know, as competent and as professional

as they are, if he could take advantage of that and show the world what a tough guy is,

he's going to do it every single time. Despite the fact that it's totally contrary to the things

that he ran for president on, you know, eliminating those forever wars and doing something about the

price of gas and cost of living in America. These are all things that he doesn't seem to really

care about anymore. And he's completely contradicted himself by virtue of this unprovoked

war that he's initiated in Iran. It just brings to mind something he also revealed about himself

and his foreign policy. He recently said in an interview with my colleague,

Joe Scarborough, about Iraq that quote, I would have taken the oil. So he does not disentangle

another country's natural resources with the use of the US military.

Brigadier General Steve Anderson, thank you so much for starting us off today and sticking

around for most of the hour. We are grateful. Quick break. We'll be right back.

A closed-door Senate briefing has just wrapped up with Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth,

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dan Cain and CIA Director John

Ratcliffe. As the Trump administration continues to shift its public story about the reasons for

attacking Iran and their timing for doing so or what happens next. We want to bring into our

coverage Democratic Senator Rubin Gallego of Arizona. He sits on the Homeland Security Committee and

was I'm wearing combat veteran who served in Iraq. Senator, I know it's a busy day and that you

zipped out to the camera to talk to us for really grateful for that. We wonder if you could just

take us through what you heard. Well, look, there's a certain amount that I can't say

it's in the classified in nature, but I could tell you what I did not come out feeling better.

Number one, there is still, without any dispute, the fact that we ended up going into this action,

going into war because we had to follow our subordinate allies lead when it came to Israel.

That is very, very concerning, especially considering, on timing,

considering what the repercussions of that are. Number two, I still don't know what the end game is.

There still is no clear indication what is success, what is victory, what is Iran going to look like

when this is done and what the time table is. I think that's also very concerning. We should all

be concerned because we have been very clear. I think the American public has been very clear

that we don't want another forever war and we are currently engaging into something that is

potentially going to just keep on evolving. Again, who ends up paying for this are the men and

women of this country, the service, and the whole public right now because, again, government is

distracted for what they really should be doing, just focusing on what people are worried about,

the cost of living, and everything else that's really hurting every day Americans.

Can I just throw out for you some of the things they've said publicly and ask you if you heard

these contradictory things or if they were able to narrow them down? So I can't hear us. Can you

say that again? Now I can hear you. So Donald Trump has talked about, quote, boots on the ground,

and Marco Rubio has talked about how the bombing campaign against Iran and inside Iran will

quote escalate in the coming days. Are both those things on the table? Well, certainly what I've

been told is that they're not off the table. So that can be a concern right there. And again,

part of this is that there is no real understanding of what victory looks like. They have a mixture of

reasons of what we want to do while we're there. Now they've kind of landing on the reason why we

ended up going. And the reasoning in terms of why they didn't have to come and get authority,

you know, authorization from Congress before is because their interpretation of a preeminent attack

is entirely based on this idea that if Israel had attacked Iran, Iran was going to attack them back

and so therefore we had to go in with Israel before the attack actually happened that would have

been the contact to us. That is their definition of a preeminent situation that was able to basically

go against, you know, standing policy of actually coming and talk to Congress. That is a very scary

policy situation that they're making because it basically dictates our, you know, standing of whether

we're going to go to war or not and leave you to other partners and other allies. I don't think

any American wants to give that type of power to anybody else. I think it's especially in dangerous

areas. And again, you know, we're burning through a lot of ammunition right now. At some point,

we're going to start dragging in ammunition from other parts of the world. What is that going to do

to that? And what is this going to cost us? The amount of money we're burning through right now

could have paid for a lot of health insurance, could have paid for the food stamps, could have paid

for it, tell people by their first homes, whatever it is. But we ended up following an ally,

a surrounding ally into a situation that's just going to burn our time, our cash, our money.

Did they describe this as a new doctrine that we followed Israel into war inside Iran,

because Israel was going to attack anyway, and we had to attack. Also, I mean, does that extend,

if Poland decides to attack Russia, will we follow Poland into war in Russia or Taiwan decides

to attack China? Will we follow Taiwan? Is it a doctrine that they've adopted or is it specific to

Iran and Israel? No, I don't want to mischaracterize that this is somehow a new doctrine. That's not

correct. But I will say that the reason they give us is exactly what you just which mentioned,

and it does scare me if this is going to be a consistent pattern and or logic that we're going

to be able to use in the Middle East. This time, it's Israel. It's the next time going to be Saudi

Arabia or Qatar, or one of these other countries that have long-term beef with Iran. I don't think

that's what the American public wants. When you talk about places like Poland, they're part of NATO,

but it's very clear in our treaty with NATO and NATO countries that we do not have to, and

Arco 5 does not, is not invoked if you are the offending country, if you're the invading country.

That is, so we could avoid situations like this where we end up being

embroiled in other people's messes. What would you want to hear if you were a family, military

family right now? If your son or daughter or husband or wife or your dad were deployed,

why is it so important to understand both why we went, why we went when we went, and what the end

game and objectives are? Well, what I wanted to hear when I was in Iraq in 2005 is why

am I here? What am I still doing here? What is the mission? And am I going to be done?

Or when is this mission going to be done? And right now, the president has not been very clear

what the overall reasoning while we went. He has backtracked on, you know, in terms of the

the pre-imident attack of these of the Israel, but his staff is not, his cabinet members have not.

We don't know what the timeline is of how long we're being engaged. We don't know what we can

define as victory. And those are the three things that would really scare me, because you already

have, for example, sailors that have been on rotation or on board of ship for almost 10 months,

right? Something that is unheard of. You know, they have not seen their families have not seen,

you know, been able to to port at all. This is the kind of thing that is, you know, very deteriorating

to a family. Like it's, you know, not only it's a stressful, it's scary, you know. You know, hearing

from my mom, for example, from an experience of her waiting to find out if I was alive or dead,

or when I was coming home, imagine what we're doing to families right now. And look, we already had

six deaths. This is a very serious situation that we find ourselves. And the president needs to

treat this in a serious manner by actually having a press conference. He's had more time talking to

Mar-Lago, you know, rich dudes than he has to actually sit in front of the American public and

explain what is going on and why we ended up going to Iran. Your voice is so important right now.

We really appreciate you taking the time to talk to us today. Senator Ruben-Gaiga, thank you.

Thank you. And, well, thank you for spending the hour with me. And we'll continue to call on you

because I think it's impossible to overstate the sort of hot political war going on on the right

right now. And we'll continue to rely on you to cover that. Thank you so much. We have to sneak

in one more break. We'll be right back on the other side.

As much as we'd like to get home, we feel like we're not the priority and we'll just kind of keep

hoping for the best when it's time for us. We definitely haven't gotten any information from our

airline about flights. We checked in with the U.S. Embassy and all that they said was to shelter

in place. I've been here since the 23rd and everything has just went left. In the last,

I will say three days. So my main focus is just making it out. It's just a very out of body

experience. And I just wouldn't wish this on anyone, honestly. Four days after the first U.S.

Israel attacks on Iran, thousands of Americans are stranded in the Middle East. The Trump

administration says it is now organizing military aircraft and charter flights and also urging

U.S. citizens in more than a dozen countries to leave now, quote, due to serious safety risks,

using, quote, available commercial transportation. But the problem with that is many airports are

shuttered and U.S. embassies are acting in survival mode. And then attacks at Donald Trump

horns could continue for days or weeks or, quote, far longer. Coming up for us, this sounds like

a good idea. Cash Patel gutting an FBI team with a specialty in tracking threats from Iran

that reporting behind the story when deadline White House continues after quick breaks. Stay with us.