David Ignatius: A longer, wider war than was expected

Our objectives are clear. First, we're destroying

arins, missile capabilities, and you see that happening on an hourly basis on their capacity

to produce brand new ones and pretty good ones they make. Second, we're annihilating their

navy. We've knocked out already ten ships. They're at the bottom of the sea. Third, we're

ensuring that the world's number one sponsor of terror can never obtain a nuclear weapon.

President Trump speaking yesterday about the strikes against Iran will have the very

latest on the attacks throughout the region and the reasoning from the administration

on why it took action in the first place that moving a little bit.

Well, the reason it continues to change and Marco Rubio yesterday gave one of the kind

of craziest reasons that I've heard yet. We'll play that for you.

Also this morning, the House Oversight Committee released his video of former Secretary

State Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton's depositions in the Jeffrey Epstein

investigation. Excuse me. Can I interrupt? I have another photos that are being released

of the Secretary as she is testifying from inside this room. Can you please advise me as to whether

or not that's permissible and consistent with the rules, particularly given that we have asked

for public hearing if there are photos that are being released of the Secretary as she is testifying.

Can you please explain how I've done with this? If you guys are doing that, I am done. You can

hold me in contempt from now until the House come home. This is just typical behavior.

You will go off to record. Oh, for heaven's sake. So I would like to understand how that permissible

for the hearing was. It doesn't matter. We all are abiding by the same rules.

I will take that down. Yeah, well, I would like to take a break at this. Yeah, I'd like to have

done for now. Yeah, I will take that down a little too late. That was the moment Hillary Clinton

learned a Republican member of the committee violated the rules by leaking a photo of the proceedings.

We'll also show you Clinton's reaction to that same member who had these long drawn out

questions about peach again. Willie, you've got to say in retrospect, Arnold the pig chief legal

counsel for James Commer was smart getting out of chapequist. And I screw this guys. I'm going home.

Before that started, you look at two completely different things. Hillary Clinton so humiliated them.

So owned them that if you go on X, you will even have people that have loads that Clinton's

their entire career saying, listen guys, I don't want to be the skunk at the party, but I agree

with Hillary. Yeah. It was it was really that bad. And then and then there was this scene of

an aging Bill Clinton obviously suffering through Parkinson's being being held there for hour after

hour after hour. I mean, it again, it's just and I just set their thinking, this guy has not been

indicted by a grand jury. Like you, you all are doing something to an ex president that nobody's

ever done before that hasn't been indicted by a grand jury. Donald Trump was and the president

and and and you're doing this to a a president in the party you hate who hasn't been president

of the United States for 25 years and you're making a guy who's almost 80 with Parkinson's disease

sit there for how many hours will he? It was it was it was it was it was savage. It really was.

Yeah, I mean, Arnold the pig was smart to schedule that dental appointment at the same time as

this, just like James Comer did a few works prior. No, no reason to be in that room. And seeing

the video of it yesterday really brought home, you listen to Hillary Clinton, for example,

but there's much more in there. The line of questioning the photo in the room was one thing

but the line of questioning about pizza gate and UFOs and all the things she was asked about is

she sat there for nearly six hours and said, guys, I've never met the guy, never been on the plane,

never been to the island. You have the wrong person in the room. And again, giving her the

platform to make that case, there are people that you know very well Republicans, one of whom

is the leader of your party who is all over the Epstein files. I think you've got the wrong people

sitting in front of you. That doesn't mean they're not legitimate questions to ask

of Bill Clinton, but so too are there legitimate questions to ask of Howard Lutnik and a lot of

other people inside this administration right now. So it was a charade and the video exposes it

for just that. Yeah. And you know, I said he had Parkinson's disease that there's been some

question about that through the years. But you just noticed a term, you just see the age and you

also having him sit there for hours and hours and he kept repeating, we say, no, yes, you know,

okay, the president has been set. They sat down. They showed up. So who's next? Because there's

a lot of people who are mentioned in the Epstein files who really should be doing the same thing.

And Hillary Clinton probably didn't need to be called for this deposition, but she showed up.

Well, I mean, she showed up and the questions there are, how do you feel? How did that make you feel

seeing Bill Clinton in this picture? How did that make it? It was again, it was just absolutely

preposterous. And we're going to we're going to play clips of that. And obviously, we're going to

be talking about this war that we're getting deeper into it. And it's not as with most wars.

The enemy always has a say in what direction the war is going. And the the Iranians have not

capitulated those who thought that they would immediately. Obviously, you're finding out that

this war is expanding. With us, we have the co-host of the RESTIS Politics podcast, the BBC's

Kadi K and columnist and associate editor at the Washington Post, David Ignatiusz with us. So,

to that top story, Iran continues to fire drones and missiles toward American assets

and allies in the Middle East. A spokesperson for Saudi Arabia's defense ministry said yesterday

that the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh was struck by drones, causing a fire and damage to the building.

This, as the United States continued to carry out strikes against targets in Iran yesterday,

mass funerals were held for over 160 children who Iran claims were killed in a strike

on a girl's school during the opening phase of the war. The U.S. says it would not deliberately

target a school and an investigation is underway. Exchanges of fire between Israel and Iranian

backed Hasbola and Lebanon continued as well. Meanwhile, the U.S. military has announced

that a sixth service member has been killed in action. Speaking at a Medal of Honor ceremony

at the White House yesterday, President Trump said that plans for Iran were ahead of schedule,

but suggested that the war could last a month or longer.

We have the strongest and most powerful by far military in the world, and we will easily prevail.

We're already substantially ahead of our time projections, but whatever the time is, it's okay,

whatever it takes, we will always, and we have right from the beginning, we projected four to five

weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that. You know, David Ignatius,

you and I had talked before about the dangers of looking at this as another Venezuela. This is

not another Venezuela. This is a regime that's been in power since 1979. They have infrastructure

to fight this for quite some time, and their leaders are saying, we're not going to negotiate with

you. They're actually the reports that I'm hearing, and I'd love to love to, it's your reports.

They're saying this is a war of endurance. They right now, they're sending cheap drones and

trying to terrorize and exhaust, you know, American allies across the region with these constant

attacks, and they're saving their missiles for later. And what you have right now, the Saudis

getting hit, UAE getting hit, allies across the region getting hit, this war now expanding into

Lebanon. The idea of a quick, as you said, on Saturday, Viking-like strike that the Trump

administration was hoping to have here, not happening, and the justification moves, we're going to

play Marco Rubio's very strange justification we had to attack, because Israel was going to attack,

and then, word that JD Vance was the one pushing the president to have a far bigger, far more

expansive attack into Iran. A lot of cross currents in this story. What is your latest reporting on

where this war is, and how long this war may last? So Joe, this is a longer wider war than I think

anybody expected, in part because the Iranians are not suing for peace. They don't want to talk.

The Viking strategy, if that's right, is confounded by a pretty stiff resistance in the need to

continue the battle. This morning, I received a message from the UAE just describing the situation

there. This is a global hub that basically has been shut down. Air traffic in and out has been

almost impossible at a time when people are being urged, in some cases, order to leave. So there's

a lot of confusion. I think across the Gulf, as people reckon with the fact that this could go on

for a month, I think the economic impacts of the war becoming clearer. The straight-of-war

moose has been effectively shut down, so transit of oil out is going to be difficult.

Oil facilities in gutter and Saudi Arabia have been hit. So in all these ways, the length and

cost of the war is clearer today than it was 24 hours ago. Also, Joe, as you said,

I hear people talking about the somewhat confusing and occasionally contradictory explanations

of the war by members of the administration. The Rubio comment that you referenced is the most

striking, effectively saying the imminent reason we had to go to war was because

Israel was about to strike Iran. David, let's count these up right now. We have Marco Rubio saying

we had to attack because Israel was going to attack regardless. We've heard they were

a week away or whatever, a preposterous date was given to it from having nuclear weapons.

We've heard, oh, they were about to attack us. All of these excuses have fallen by the wayside.

Again, it appears that they haven't settled on a justification for this, and the latest is,

yeah, we had to do it because Israel is going to do it. But again, I want you to talk about how

Iran here has, as you predicted, was not going to lay down like Venezuela. Everything they're

doing, like you're talking about cutting off oil in the straight-of-war, why are they doing that?

Because they believe that will give them economic leverage over Donald Trump.

Everything they're doing is calculated. They had, I guess, they've been planning for this attack

probably since 1979, and Iran, if you can explain the geography of the country, it is a mountain

is spread out, extraordinarily difficult place to go into. So when Pete Hegsith or other people

are talking about the possibility of boots on the ground, they don't know what they're talking about.

So the idea of invading Iran continues to me to seem just hard to imagine. No, U.S. commander

in his right mind would try to do that. I can imagine special forces operations in various parts.

But this is going to be a difficult campaign. We have to remember that the people in charge

in Iran see themselves as revolutionaries. And they see the United States have seen since 1979

as their great adversary. And the war that we've predicted awaited feared for 47 years is finally

here for real. And Iran is fighting back as hard as you'd think. One concern that I have is

the evidence that it's spreading to other Shia areas, the number of deaths of Shia's in

Indian Pakistan, who were rioting after the assassination of Aitola Hamani was disturbing.

And I know people in various governments are looking at that with concern.

But I think the simple point is you start out with worse thinking you have a straightforward

objective, people presence, hope wars will be easy, wars never are. And this one isn't.

Changing the nature of this regime, which has caused such havoc and destruction in the Middle East,

I think remains a goal that sensible people should think about. The question is at what cost

and with what justification from U.S. officials and those two are so murky.

Yeah, we've been talking about these shifting justifications depending on which administration

official you talk to in the comment from Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Here is how he framed things

when speaking to reporters yesterday, a message by the way, House Speaker Mike Johnson,

then echoed a short time later.

There absolutely was an imminent threat. And the imminent threat was that we knew that if Iran

was attacked and we believe they would be attacked, that they would immediately come after us.

And we were not going to sit there and absorb a blow before we responded. Because the Department

of War assessed that if we did that, if we waited for them to hit us first after they were attacked

and by someone else, Israel attacked them, they hit us first and we waited for them to hit us,

we would suffer more casualties and more deaths. We went proactively in a defensive way to prevent

them from inflicting higher damage. Have we not done so? There would have been hearings on Capitol Hill

about how we knew that this was going to happen and we didn't act preemptively to prevent more

casualties and more loss of life. They had to evaluate the threats to the US, to our troops, to our

installations, to our assets and the region and beyond. And they determined because of the

exquisite intelligence that we had that if Israel fired upon Iran, it took action against Iran

to take out the missiles, then they would have immediately retaliated against US personnel and assets.

We have troops in harm's way and we have many Americans in the region and that was of a great

concern. If we had waited for all of those eventualities to take place, the consequences of

inaction on our part could have been devastating. We don't know at what magnitude, but you can

assume, because it is common sense, that if Iran had begun to fire all of their missile arsenal,

short and mid-range missiles at our personnel and our assets and our installations,

we would have suffered staggering losses.

They can't. I recognize that look in their eyes. That was a look that I would have when I was

in college and my professor was asking me my take on the Odyssey and I said, exquisite writing,

exquisite writing and then I would ramble. Those were two of the stupidest answers I've ever heard

in my life. I'm embarrassed. Marco Rubio just said of Israel that they were the preeminent threat.

The preeminent threat was Israel attacking Iran. So we had to attack Iran. Hey, sir, why did you walk

into the bar and punch the bartender in the face? Because my friend was about to do that,

so I had to punch him because I knew after my friend punched him, this makes no sense anyway.

It certainly makes no sense geopolitically. It's stupid. If this is, I can't imagine justifications

for the war being stupid. They're doing much better just saying they're that center of terraces

1979. They had to be taken out, but this is getting insane now. Yeah.

It is and it also flies in the face of everything we know that wasn't like Israel was suddenly

freelancing and snuck up on the United States was going to do it. We have our own deep reporting.

The New York Times has an extensive piece this morning about Prime Minister Netanyahu

lobbying Donald Trump for months and months and months leading up to this day. How they picked the

day completely in concert with Israel. So the United States knew exactly what was happening and

what Israel was thinking, but to your larger point, this is not what the president has said.

This is not what other officials have said. They said there was an imminent threat to the United

States. President Trump said that, meaning they had long-range missiles he suggested yesterday

that could reach the United States. Most people say that is not true. Most experts, even

administration insiders say that's not true. The other rationale we heard is that they were on

the brink of Steve Whitcoff set on Saturday, a week away from getting the nuclear material they

would need to make a nuclear bomb. Most experts, most insiders say that's also not true.

Willie, by the way, they got to pick something away, but Willie, I just want you to know right now,

I am a week away from qualifying for the masters this year. So there you go. No, none of this makes,

Willie, I mean, this is the most, I think this is the most significant decision we've made

to go to war since 2003 when George W. Bush decided to go to war in Iraq and they can't even get

their justification for that. Well, they can't, I mean, not only-

They can't get their story straight. They can't get their story straight. And anybody needs to get

them together, Willie, because we're looking stupid in front of the world right now.

Yeah, those were not reassuring performances, shall we say, by the Secretary of State and Speaker

of the House. And this is deadly, deadly serious stuff. Obviously, six American service members

are dead and many more across the region. So the comments we just played for you from Rubio and

Johnson contradict earlier reporting from writers citing two people familiar with the matter who say

Trump administration officials acknowledged and closed-door briefings with congressional staff.

There was no intelligence suggesting Iran planned to attack United States forces first.

Iran's foreign minister responded to Secretary Rubio writing on social media. He quote,

admitted what we all knew. The U.S. has entered a war of choice on behalf of Israel.

There was never any so-called Iranian threat. That's from the foreign minister of Iran,

Kadi K. And obviously now in some ways Europe has its eye on this war being drawn in in some

ways as well. What is the reaction there to this step by the United States and Israel and to

this scramble to find a justification for it? Well, I guess now we know why it was called the

Department of War, not the Department of Defense, because there seems to be, and that's the

perception I've just returned from Munich, Germany last night. There seems to be a perception in

Europe that this is an administration that is set on this kind of gunfire operations where it can

go in and take out leaders. It worked in Venezuela, or as you've been pointing out, it might not work

here. But we know from Iraq how important it is to have a clear rationale, to have a clear reason,

and to articulate that, both the American people and the rest of the world. Because if you don't,

if the reasons keep changing, it was because Israel was going to attack, it was because we were

under imminent threat, then you undermine confidence in other countries around the world.

And other countries around the world will then start to say, well, what do we need to do now

to secure our own defense? What do we need to do to have our own mechanisms for defense?

And you know what they start doing? They start looking at the countries that are not being attacked.

Russia is not being attacked. China is not being attacked. North Korea is not being attacked.

And you quickly get into a position where people start thinking, it's not just that we have to have

a common defense. We've got the Europeans at the moment talking about more common defense,

and even more common nuclear defense. I think that's the danger here, is that if people don't trust

America to have clear reasons to act in a way that is rational, with global interests at heart,

do we quickly start spiraling into a world that is less safe because people go for

maximalist defense positions of their own? We want to bring in defense editor at the economist,

Shashank Joshi, and David Ignatius has the first question for you, sir. David.

So Shashank, you follow defense matter as well as anybody that I read.

He interested in your assessment of this war, what, three, four days in, whether this is

stretching out to a long war, whether you hear concerns from Gulf countries and others who

are involved in it, what you think the widening effects will likely be. But just give us your

sense of how this war is going and whether the Iranians are fighting with more than you would have

thought. Yeah, good morning, David. Good morning, everyone. I think the interesting thing is,

you've articulated in the last 15 minutes how difficult it is to understand the war aims here

because they were initially articulated as being setting the conditions for regime change in Iran.

And I was confident that that is a campaign that would take multiple weeks. That's not something

done in a few days. What we heard yesterday from Dan Cain, from Secretary Rubio, from Secretary

Hegseth, others, was a very, very different set of aims, narrowly focused around Iran's missile

program. Now, that I think can be done in a shorter period of time. They can degrade missile

stockpiles. We've already heard the Iranians, the Israelis say they have destroyed about half of

the Iranian missile launches that Iran is able to bring to bear. And I think you could have really

long-lasting and severe damage done to Iran's missile program by the end of this week. There's

no doubt about it. But the problem is, you would still have an Iran led by individuals who are

more hard-line in some respects than the leaders who have been killed by the strike so far.

You have a new leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, General Vihidi,

who is this man? Well, you know, David, as you know, he is a former head of the Kud's force,

the expeditionary arm of the IRGC. He was associated with the bombing of a Jewish cultural

center in Argentina in the 1990s. This is not a regime that will be more moderate, more pragmatic,

more deterred than that of Ayatollah Haminayi. And so I still think at the end of this week,

even though enormous damage may have been done to Iran's missile program,

including the supply chain, the explosives, the guidance systems, you will still have the political

problem sitting in Iran over a regime that cast this incredible and ominous missile shadow

over the Persian Gulf. And I think the Trump administration will find it very hard to articulate

that and frame that as some kind of decisive win. Shashank, as you point out, President Trump,

even when announcing these strikes on Saturday morning said, we have taken out the top leadership.

Now, Iranian people, it is your turn to step in and fill the void and create a democratic country.

We know many of you hate the regime. Go do this. He was speaking to a population of largely young

people, unarmed young people going up against the IRGC and these commanders who really very much

continue the legacy of the Supreme Leader. So how reasonable, how plausible, if it all is it to

expect now that the Supreme Leader and others dead, that this movement can come back when just

over a month ago, they did take to the streets and thousands of them were killed.

Look, I think the movement can come back. This regime has lost all legitimacy. It's hollowed

out. It's it's hated by the people. There's no doubt about that. But no one is going to come out

while the bombs are falling. You know, none of us would come out onto the streets in those

circumstances. In fact, President Trump told them not to. He said, wait till I'm finished.

Now, the other problem is that some of these strikes so far have targeted the state security

apparatus, right? So Iranian Israeli strikes have hit besiege headquarters across the country.

The besiege, of course, are the paramilitary organization that did lots of the repression

a few months ago. They have struck IRGC bases in different parts of the country. But I think the

focus of these first three days of operations have been on Iran's missile forces, Iran's navy

and nuclear missile sites, as well as political leadership. I think if you are going to give the

Iranian people the confidence to say, if we go back onto the streets in a week's time and we want

confidence, we are not going to be gunned down in the same way, I think what you'd need to see

is an Israeli and American set of strikes over the next four or five days that systematically

break down Iran's domestic security apparatus. I think that is a very hard thing to do.

And I think that President Trump will face the dilemma between doing that and upholding his

commitment to the Iranian people that he has made and sucking himself into a longer campaign.

But he should remember the case of George W. Bush, HW Bush in 1991, who is, you will recall, David

and others, called upon the Iraqi people to rise up in 1991 after the first Gulf War. And the

shears in the south and the Kurds in the north did so, and they were massacred by Saddam Hussein.

That should be, I think, a very, very cautioned retail for the American strategy today.

Defense editor at the economist, Shawshank Jochi, thank you so much for being on the show this

morning. We really appreciate it. And the latest piece on the war in Iran is available to read

right now. Also ahead on Morning Joe, more from Hillary Clinton's deposition on the Epstein files.

How she handled House Republican conspiracy theories. Plus, we'll talk about what's at stake for

Republicans and Democrats today in the Texas Senate primaries as voters get set to head to the polls

there this morning. And as we go to break a quick look, we're going right to Bernie.

We're going to go to Bernie, but I go to Bernie. I know you're going to Bernie. You're Bernie.

I get it. I get it. A quick look at the Tribalist forecast this morning from Acque Weather's

Bernie Reina. Bernie. How's it looking?

Meekis, I'm actually traveled here this morning, west of the 95 corridor, Virginia,

Maryland, Pennsylvania, Baltimore, Washington, DC, Philadelphia. This is going to be reigns

same story in New York City, snow over the reign in Bosie, few inches of snow across northern

New England late today and tonight. No problems across the south. Today's spot is shower in Miami.

Clouds and limited sunshine in Atlanta. We're going to have some travel delays in the northeast

with the rain and the snow and the ice here this morning to help you make the best decisions

and be more in the know. Download the Acque Weather app today.

A beautiful live picture looking south of Manhattan, 6.33 on this Tuesday morning.

More now, the videos and transcripts released by the House Oversight Committee's deposition.

It's a former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

And it's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. During her more than six hours of testimony,

the former First Lady told lawmakers she had no memory of ever meeting Epstein as Republicans turn

then to unfounded conspiracy theories. You described pizza, gait as a baseless conspiracy theory,

alleging you and others ran a child sex trafficking ring from Washington,

Pizzeria basement. Have you reviewed any 2025, 2026 Epstein files that were released

that you believe reference or relate to those specific 2016 claims regarding the pedestrian emails,

Comet Ping Pong, pizza used as code possibly. I'm sorry, you're asking her about whether she's

reviewed emails in the Epstein files. It was related to the wacky pizza gait.

Characterize a however you want. I just would like to know if she's familiar with any of them.

Pizza gait was totally made up. It was an outrageous allegation that ended up hurting a number of people

that caused a deranged young man to show up with his assault rifle and shoot up a local pizza

ria. I can't believe you're even referencing it. Do you think that Donald Trump should be

deposed by this committee? If I were running the committee or I were involved in this investigation,

I would be looking for people who maybe had some prior conduct that might be relevant to either

money or crimes. Yes, I think that it would be in keeping with the scope of the investigation

of this committee to set up a deposition with President Trump. I know he's been deposed many,

many, many times. He's taken the Fifth Amendment many, many hundreds of times. I'm not saying you're

going to get a lot of information, but given what's in the files and given past and prior conduct,

he would be on my witness list. So again, Joe and Mika, by traveling up to Chapacua,

this Republican panel, Republican led panel gave her the chance on camera to do that,

to make the obvious point that you ought to be talking to people who are all over the Epstein

files. Well, and this is what we have said on this show all along that these Republicans are only

making matters worse for the current president and the current First Lady by calling a president

who hasn't been in office for 25 years or a First Lady who hasn't been office in 25 years.

There was nothing to do. And unlike the other three people I mentioned,

had absolutely nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein at any point had never met him.

But she had great advice that perhaps maybe they talk to the people who do have something

to do with the Epstein files and actually get justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and his,

I don't know, teams of creepy men who deserve to answer some questions before that panel and

perhaps before a judge. The rich and powerful in Europe have been held to account. They're going

to continue to be held to account. The rich and powerful in the Democratic Party or people that

are connected to the Democratic Party, they are being held to account when you're losing their

jobs, their professorships, their positions. Right now, it's only the rich and powerful Republicans

that have not been held to account and in part because of this committee. They are covering up

just like the Justice Department is covering up, not releasing all the files. And this is, again,

trying to help you. This isn't going away and it's not going away with your base.

This is more self-inflicted harm. I don't know. We can say this now month after month after month.

And you keep thinking you can cover it up. You can't cover it up. There's too much out there.

Let's bring it right now to the coast of our 9 a.m. hour. Staff writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan

Lumir, also CEO of the senior group, Jim Messina. These are the White House deputy chief of staff

to President Obama and ran his 2012 re-election campaign and has a snazzy article in New York

Times today talking about how Democrats can win in 2028. Jonathan Lumir, this is sort of

popery. I mean, you've written about what's going on in Iran hard though to pass up a quick

discussion of just how stupid this Republican committee was for stirring up the waters again.

And giving Hillary Clinton the microphone to say the very thing she said.

Yeah, you and I have been discussing this for weeks. I mean, they basically put the ball in the

tea and Secretary Clinton hit it over the fence. It couldn't have been an easier swing for her.

When she's got a tremendous experience doing this, we all remember the Benghazi hearings where

she sat there for the better part of a day dealing with Republicans and some questions that were

downright in Maine. So she's got plenty of practice. And this allowed her to pivot exactly as we

heard her do both in this new video. She also did so in the news conference she held outside

afterwards with reporters there in Chapagua where she's like, basically, hey, you've got the wrong

first lady. You know, you've got the wrong presidential couple here. Why don't you, I had nothing

to do with Jeffrey Epstein. And let's be honest, her husband who came in the next day,

President Clinton did have some questions he had to answer. I think most Democrats acknowledge

that's fair. But still, it is the current occupants of the White House, President Trump and First

Lady Melania Trump, who had far more extensive connections with the Epstein, with Jeffrey Epstein

are in photographs. We've all seen them. And Joe Amica, you know, this is something where there

were some even in the President's orbit who were leery about this because it opens the door,

potentially for Trump to be called maybe one of the Democrats if they were to take the House.

You know, and again, every time whether it's Trump's Department of Justice or Republicans in Congress,

try to turn the page either to bury the Epstein matter or try to shift focus back on the Democrats

every single time it has backfire. All right, so the White House is responding to criticism from some

of the president's vocal supporters. After they questioned the rationale for the war against

Iran among them, Tucker Carlson and Megan Kelly, also Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has recently

broken with the president on a number of issues. And then there's Matt Walsh, who posted this to

social media quote so far. We've heard that although we killed the whole Iranian regime,

this war was not a regime change war. And although we obliterated their nuclear program, we had to

do this because of their nuclear program. And although Iran was not planning any attacks on the US,

they also might have been depending on who you ask. And although we are not fighting this war to

free the Iranian people, they are now free or might be, depending on who sees his power.

And we have no idea who that will be. The messaging on this thing is to put it mildly confused.

White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt issued a long rebuttal to that. And president

Trump hit back at Carlson and Kelly, saying quote, I think that MAGA is Trump.

MAGA is not the other two, adding that Kelly should quote study her history book a little bit.

Okay. So yeah. Yeah. I mean, you look at what's happening here. And Jim Messina,

let's just, let's not confuse anybody. We are not saying that because of this war,

that's deeply offending the MAGA base. And because of, because of the Epstein files,

which we've seen, it was really had an impact on the MAGA base. Nobody's thinking, gee,

in that, in that base, gee, I should have gone out and voted for Kamala Harris.

Nobody's saying, gee, I'm going to go out and get my AOC flag and wave it high above my house.

What this does and explain this, I mean, Donald Trump has been able to pull out people that

have never voted before. He's been able to pull out young men, especially that listen to Joe

Rogan Andrew Schultz that listen to these people who have now turned on Donald Trump on so many

of these issues. It's hard for me to imagine, but I'd love you to give me your insight. It's hard

for me to imagine a worse one-two punch to depress your base than having the very people,

Donald Trump, JD Vance, Stephen Miller, who were yelling against forever wars and Kamala Harris

will take us into Iran. President Trump will never take us into Iran. And now we're doing that.

That's the one punch and the two punches, the Epstein files, is belief among the MAGA

online that the Justice Department, rightly, a rightful belief, is covering up and protecting

rich and powerful men. I mean, talk about what that does for your ability to get people out

to the polls in an off-ear election. Well, Joe, when you talk about midterm elections, what you

really talking about is who's going to turn out. And when you look at the current Republican

problem in all these special elections around the country, Jonathan and I were just talking about

this off-camera, Dems are overperforming by 12 and a half points. And when you look at why,

it's not just Democratic enthusiasm, Republican enthusiasm has fallen through the floor.

And I don't know who the brains behind their operation currently is, Joe. But if you want to

start a foreign war, if you want to promise for 10 years, you're going to be the guy that gets

us out of foreign wars, we're now in different operations in seven countries. At the same time,

let's do the obscene thing, apparently, which is inside your own base. You spend the entire time

talking about issues that they care very deeply about. They've gotten no answers to. And what do we

also know? We know at the same time voters out there, swing voters who will decide these elections

are out there screaming, hey, this is all too expensive. I can't afford living. I can't afford

health care. I can't afford gas. And so going into Iran is going to make my gas more expensive.

And it's going to continue to distract a president from doing what they thought he won,

what they thought he was going to do, which is focus on the economy. And so voters are really

angry about this. 19% of independents say this Iran thing is a good idea. They're just screaming

out for both parties to focus on them and not foreign wars. David, how much do you think the

outcome of this will affect how well this plays for President Trump and for the Republican

party going into the midterm elections? You and I were talking earlier about what the possible

outcomes of the other diminished Iranian regime that probably is still an Islamic Republic of

sorts, but without the kind of military capability that it has had to threaten American assets

around the world for the last few decades. Is that a prospect? Is that a kind of outcome of this

that Donald Trump, do you think, could sell as a win to the American public, to the skeptical

American public, as Jim was saying? Like one big issue is what level of American casualties

there are. I wish to remember, we're in the early days of this war. The reports that I get

from people who follow it carefully are that Iranians are depleting their supplies of missiles

and drones quickly with this spasm of attacks on the UAE, Saudi Arabia, wait. So at some point,

they're going to run out of those musicians. The US is now moving into a more intense phase of

bombardment, both Secretary Hegseth and President Trump said that yesterday, that the big wave

to quote Trump is about to begin. So by the end of this week, it may look a little more different

on the ground. I still don't hear a clear account of what the end game is. They keep talking about

what their objectives are, but the things like depleting the number of missiles and

bombing a nuclear program by their own account was already obliterated. So I think

through this week, as the fighting intensifies, so too will the explanation of the American people.

If it says confusing as it was yesterday, I think they have a problem.

Jim, let me ask you about your new sub-stack piece, which I think Democrats will be smart to sort

flag and pin as they prepare for the midterms and beyond to the next presidential election.

You argue Democrats need to build a relationship in an effort to stop losing all the young dudes.

You get at things like TikTok, gaming, streaming, cryptocurrency, sports betting, prediction markets,

and you kind of talk about a cultural reassessment as much as a policy reassessment. Can you kind of,

it's a complicated issue, obviously, but if they Democrats feel like they have an opportunity

to get back some of these young men that they've been losing in recent elections, where do they

start with that effort? Well, William, I thought Joe would appreciate the all the young dudes,

David Bowie reference, first of all. Second of all, if you look at the issues, you know,

Dems' blood young voters in historic numbers in the last presidential, and I think there's a

view in my party that we just need to get on a couple of Joe Rogan podcasts, or we need to

hang out with tech bros, and it'll all be fine. It's really just about, you know, figuring out

social media. And I think it's deeper than that. Right now, the party's saying no to a bunch of

things that young male voters like and do every day, like video games, like sports betting,

like prediction markets, like crypto. And they look at this and say, you're saying no to all these

things. Maybe you're saying no to me too. And I think the party's also always best when we go

back to the Clinton days, or the Obama days of being pro innovation, pro new things, pro,

like things getting better. And right now, we're starting to be in this kind of, you know,

being perceived by these voters as a nanny state. And someone who's saying no, you can't do these

things. And I think that's a really dangerous place to be. Instead, we need to stop talking,

listen to these young voters, and meet them where they are, not where we want them to be.

So Jim, I wrote today about the fractures in the MAGA side, because of the war in Iran,

following the Epstein matter. And no one's suggesting that Trump's basically going to

completely abandon him. But there's perhaps some weakness there and maybe an opportunity,

to your point, for Democrats to swoop in for some of those young men who broke for Trump in 2024,

as opposed to Vice President Harris. Is this a phenomenon that we could see in play even today?

It's the Texas primary. I've closely watched both sides, Democrats and Republicans,

fierce battles. Give us your sense. And also just overall, what are you looking for tonight?

And what the first, I think, high wattage primary of the year?

Yeah, this is the most exciting primary we've had so far. What I'm going to be looking at is two things.

Are the young men coming back? Are they voting at all? Because that's a really important number.

But more importantly in Texas, where are the Latinos going? When you look at somebody's special

elections, Dems are getting back the young voters and back the Latino voters that Donald Trump

rented in 2024. That this will be a really interesting night because you have both a really

hotly contested Republican primary and a Democratic primary. And so you and I look at the numbers

tomorrow, we're going to look and see where the Latinos go on. And if the Latinos are starting to

come back to the Democratic Party in Texas of all places, that is a very good sign for the Democrats

in the midterm elections. All right, Jim Messina. Thank you so much. His latest

piece is available, Read on Substack. Now, also a great story about his efforts to make

a centrism combative again and to help Democrats take control of the message going into 2028.

Great. And coming up the impact on the war with Iran on the sports world, we'll discuss

where things stand with Iran's participation in the World Cup. As the women's team appears to

protest the regimes and them. And later, minority whip Dick Durbin joins us to talk about the

upcoming war powers vote ahead of more US military action. Where is this all going? Morning,

Joe. We'll be right back.

In an apparent show of protest last night, the Iranian women's national soccer team stood silently

with their hands behind their backs while the regimes and them played ahead of kickoff in their

opening Asia Cup match in Australia. In footage shared on social media, the team's manager was also

pictured appearing to smile as she watched from the sidelines. It's not clear to what extent the team

has sung the anthem previously, but Newsweek notes. Photos from last, the last few years have

shown the players placing their hands across their chests or saluting while the anthem sounded.

It comes as the war has raised doubts about Iran's place at the men's World Cup this summer in

North America, set to play its three group stage games in the US. It is unclear if the state

backed Iranian soccer federation will refuse to send its team to the tournament or whether the

US government will block it from coming. According to the Associated Press, Ron's top soccer

officials said quote, what is certain is that after this attack, we cannot be expected to look

forward to the World Cup with hope. Yeah, which is a real shame for those athletes. And obviously,

if the women last night were not singing along to the National Anthem, for good reason, women

have been treated, importantly, as have all of the people in Iran since 1979, unless you're

associated with a small, small block of powerful people. So anyway, let's bring around the founder

of men and blazers, media network, bestselling author Roger Bennett. His new book is out today.

It's titled, we are the World Cup, a personal history of the world's greatest sporting event.

And obviously, we want to talk about the book, we want to talk about the World Cup. I'm curious

to Roger about the disruptions. What are you hearing right now? What are the biggest concerns

for the disruptions coming out of FIFA? Well, the disruptions are many. I don't know where you

want to start. There's the violence in Mexico. There's the domestic challenges here. There's the

unprecedented challenge with Iran who are meant to be playing in Los Angeles and Seattle. We're

100 days out from the World Cup. The joy of football for me is that, and the joy of this tournament

is that when two teams take the field, their nations, their histories, their politics, their cultures

take the field alongside them, that's always felt so joyous. That's what gives this tournament,

the heat of an eclipse that strikes the entire planet for the simultaneous everyday of its

duration. But ultimately, football is a mirror that reflects society, reflects ourselves back to it.

And in this moment, the reflection is incredibly ugly. And Roger, we were saying, as you said,

down here, this is not the first time that's happened. There have been other World Cups

where the host nation has brought with it real questions for fans attending and for the geopolitics

surrounding it. So in that way, this isn't perhaps new. But the beauty of the games tends to shine

through, despite extraordinary ticket prices and questions about FIFA corruption, the beauty is still

the sport. In the modern period, this has almost become the entry point to every World Cup,

2010, South Africa. In the run-up, we were terrified of that car jacking, the crime sprees,

every fan was paralyzed. We were all going to be murdered on the way to the games. It turned out

to be the most brilliant World Cup I've ever been to, with Mandela Shadow and Africa celebrating

2014 in Brazil. The year before, there were riots at every game as the social protest took over.

The football and the people demanded education, they demanded social services, not football.

Brazil was one of the most dance-filled and memory-making for the world and for the United

States, men's national team. So there is that once the ball kicks off, once the Lionel Messi takes

the field, there's a cliche. This is the tournament that's, you know, was stopped for. We think the

Super Bowls in almost 200 million people watch that. Five billion people watch the World Cup and

all I can do is pray that the same happens again in a hundred days time.

We certainly hope so. Roger, good morning. Always great to see you. I have my sign-in-company right

here. I'm loving this book. We are the World Cup. It gets into, you talk about the World Cup as sort

of a marker of time and a marker of history, including of your own, and that 20 years ago in June

of 2006, at the World Cup, you're watching at home as America is trying to entice its audience

into at ESPN into this game. And you hear something as you're watching one of the matches and you say,

boy, America needs a better translator of this game and a better ambassador for this game.

And here comes Roger Bennett. God bless, they could still do better than me. I like to think I'm

the last thing holding the game back from going over the top, Willie. But you're right, 2006,

and you're right about the memories. I mean, it is. This book is a primer for every single

American. Socket, by the way, is now the third most popular sport in the United States,

according to the economist. It's just surpassed baseball as our third most popular. And 2006,

I was watching England take the field. ESPN had just invested deeply in the broadcast,

but they had baseball commentators doing their talking. And the commentator said,

the world's most famous soccer player Charlie Beckham takes the field. And I screamed at the

television. I was like, if only they had people who knew what they were talking about covering this

way, it would go like that. My wife, God bless, it goes, why don't you do it? And I said, okay. And

that's how ultimately the story of my life is America beginning to fall in love with this sport.

By the way, Joe, you having this on, you are a pathfinder. This place, Morning James,

where I learn how to broadcast live with Mika's encouragement every single week. And people like

Tom Brucker, cut me off. I wrote in the book Tom Brucker, cut me off the first time I was on.

So, well, we're talking about this. We're America. And then two years later, he cut me off again.

And he said, I was like, Tom, please not again. He goes, I now go to the Premier League every single week.

And Mika, when we've got Tom Brucker, falling in love with football, I do believe we've got everyone.

Well, you have everybody. Well, you know, speaking of 2006, I was converted into 2006 World Cup by

Zidane, when France took down Brazil. And it was, I'd never seen an athlete do what that man was

able to do. It was extraordinary. But I will say, throughout 2007 and 2008, I would always have

people like, why are you talking about soccer with that British guy? And my answer was simple,

is that because I like it. If I'm interested in it, I think viewers are going to be interested in it.

And they're interested in it because you've been so extraordinary through the years.

I do want to ask you, you just mentioned it briefly about domestic issues. I do wonder how

concerning is it for a lot of fans, for a lot of teams who have seen what's been going on in

the United States with ICE, who's seen what's been going on with people that are here legally,

that have green cards that are going through the proper channels. And for German tourists, for

British tourists, for Northern Irish tourists. And they get brutalized by ICE agents and throw into

prison for four or five months. What are you hearing across the world about concerns

from fans coming to the United States when you have an out-of-control agency that's

hauling people into prison for no good reason? In many cases, especially these European tourists.

Look, I think there's an enormous amount of uncertainty right now across Europe. I mean,

these fans, they travel with their team. They go everywhere, home in a way. They travel huge

distances. I mean, the last time the World Cup was in the United States, European fans tried to

charter a submarine to get here. I mean, there is nothing that will stop them following their

football team. I think there's an incredible amount of uncertainty about the visa situation.

That's what we're hearing from Europe. But again, going into every World Cup, there is this

rational fear. There's always a doom saying the second the ball kicks off. It's almost as if

it's cognitive dissonance. One, rational fears, Neil. The emotions kick in. The memories are made.

We've seen that every single time. 1994, the World Cup was meant to go over the top in the United

States. It's taken 30 years longer than I think anybody dreamt of at the time. But this World

Cup, I do believe in all my heart, being a football fan is ultimately to be an incredible optimist.

To always restore hope. You know that. We've hope in your heart. And so all I can say is this book,

this World Cup is a feast of memory making. It is a place where the globe feels electrically

connected in the most positive way. And all I can hope is what the world needs right now and we'll

have it again. All right, the new book titled We Are the World Cup, a personal history of the

world's greatest sporting event is out now, Roger Bennet. Thank you, congratulations on the book.