David Ignatius: Trump's job now is to make his case clearly, directly to the U.S.

Combat operations continue at this time in full force, and they will continue until all

of our objectives are achieved.

We have very strong objectives.

They could have done something two weeks ago, but they just couldn't get there.

Centcom shared the news that three U.S. military service members have been killed in action.

As one nation we grieve for the true American patriots who have made the ultimate sacrifice

for our nation, even as we continue the righteous mission for which they gave their lives.

We pray for the full recovery of the wounded and send our immense love and eternal gratitude

to the families of the fallen, and sadly, there will likely be more before it ends.

The way it is likely be more.

President Trump warning, there will likely be more U.S. troops killed and wounded.

As part of Operation Epic Fury, we have all the angles covered to this fast moving story,

including the latest on the attacks, how Iran is responding, who is leading that country,

what the Trump administration's strategy might be, the push by members of Congress to have a say

in the matter, the economic impact on oil markets, and much more.

Good morning, and welcome to Morning Joe.

It is Monday, March 2nd.

We have top reporters in foreign policy and military experts assembled to start us off this

Monday morning, the co-host of our 9 AM hours staff writer at the Atlantic.

Jonathan Lamirez here, columnist and associate editor at the Washington Post, David Ignatius,

President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas,

decorated combat veteran and former commander of U.S. Army Europe,

retired Army Lieutenant General Mark Hurtling is with us.

And presidential historian and Pulitzer Press, winning author John Meacham joins us this morning.

So why don't we get, why don't we really quickly, before we get into the strikes that are

intensifying across the Middle East? Let's just a lot obviously happen over the weekend.

We were here on Saturday morning, but even since then, so much has changed.

David, why don't you give us a debrief?

Like you, I was calling and speaking to people in the administration this weekend,

and nobody's, nobody off camera is suggesting this is going to be quick or easy.

They're talking about a several step process that may take up to six weeks,

and they start by decapitating the leadership. They move on to cut off any

abilities for the destroyed neighbors in the region, and that may take a while.

But then they're even talking about after destroying nuclear and ballistic missiles,

the ability for production of those missiles.

You, it is, and talking to this well-placed administration official,

the IDS seems they are going to tear up the roots from the roots, any war-making ability that

Iran has created since 1979. This is not going to be one and done or a quick strike,

at least based on what everything I heard on Sunday and from our allies. What are you,

what? Get us up to date on your latest reporting.

Joe, I'm hearing the same thing. I think there were concerns because President Trump has

liked the quick in and out, hit hard, and then pull back and negotiate approach that that might

be the case here. But it doesn't seem to be in his broadcast remarks to the country yesterday.

He said this will go on. He told the New York Times. He had a timeline of three to four weeks,

which is substantially said he had the ammunition supplies to conduct a long war of that dimension.

He called on the Iranian people again to rise up and change the regime, which indicates he has

substantial ambitions for this. One, at least in friend noted this early this morning,

that there's an element of jazz improvisation to the way that Trump is conducting this war.

There are different themes that are conflicting. He says he's ready to talk one day to

Iranian leaders. But then the next day, he's talking about this law and campaign. As you say,

take the regime out, root and branch. In terms of the firepower expended so far, it's substantial.

Estimates from the U.S. Central Command and others are the 2,000 targets have been hit in

these first two days in the war in Iran. The number of targets hit by Iran and the Gulf is in

the 500 range. We now have a war that's expanded significantly in the 11 and as has Bolafires

in Israel and Israel retaliates. So when we talk about the danger of a regional war,

well, we've got one. Don't worry about the danger anymore because we actually have a regional war

now. And I think the key thing, just to conclude this, Joe, is for the president to make the case

to the country that the benefits of this war in terms of changing Iran finally after the 1979

revolution, having a more responsible country in the region are worth all the pain.

I mean, without political support, we're going to see, I fear what we have in the past in the

Middle East, which is that the country tires of war soon. And the promises that an American

president makes, the country just isn't willing to deliver. So that's really, that's President

Trump's job now as to make his case clearly, directly, forcefully in the country. So the country

will support a long and really consequential battle against Iran.

Yeah, you look at the number of some lawyers, Ibsos. Obviously, the president has his work cut out

for him. David, one thing though, whether people supported this war or did not support this war,

Stephen Erlanger, who of course covered Iran in the 1970s, wrote this warning for the New

York Times that regardless of how you feel, this is going to be as consequential, at least in this

region as the collapse of the Soviet Union was. I think we would all agree that people that have

been following and covering Iran in the region over the decades. Iran's regime may survive

rights Erlanger, but the Middle East will be changed. The Islamic Republic already weakened

and unpopular. Now, further diminished its power at home in the region at one of its slow steps

since its leaders took power during the revolution to overthrow Iran's American back shot in 78

and 79. Even if the regime does not fall, which remains the stated goal of President Trump,

this massive attack, it's likely to have strategic consequences in the Middle East comparable to

the collapse of the Soviet Union. I don't think anybody that's followed the Middle East seriously

for some time would disagree with that. I will say, though, David, I think we could do a lot of people

a service here who might be reading various reports, seeing what the President's saying to

different media outlets, trying to figure out exactly what the world's going on. You talked about,

you know, jazz improvisation, other people are saying the President's just spitballing.

This is what he does. He's trying to figure out how he gets a deal with the Iranians,

but he is going to continue along with Israel attacking whether people like it or not. It's got a

most likely continue to attack until they take away their more fighting capability,

and we'll do a deal with whomever he can do a deal with, but you brought it up in our Saturday

morning special as the attacks just started. This is now, if somebody wants to understand

what Donald Trump is going to do or the Trump doctrine, it is not what the negotiators are saying.

Chance is a good, it's like you said, this Viking strike strategy, strike, pull back, negotiate.

For President Trump, anybody who wants to understand how he's thinking right now,

you have to look at what happened in Venezuela, which the President and people around him in

the White House see as a spectacular success. As the President told me on Friday, we replaced two

employees in Venezuela. They have been changed from an enemy to somebody that we can work with.

David, the same thing most likely is what the President's strategy is here, regardless of what he

says to journalists, right? So Joe, we did talk early Saturday morning about Trump conducting the

Viking way of war, using speed and surprise to launch raids and then pull back and take the

political and trade benefits of that. This is going to be something more sustained than a Viking

raid. It's clear. That idea that I think we were right in describing the early hours of the war,

I think is being replaced by the reality that this is now a big regional war. And it's a war

that's going to go to the heart of what has been destabilizing the Middle East since I began covering

it in 1980, which was the Iranian Revolution of the Year before that revolution continues to rumble.

It's a destabilizing factor throughout the region, certainly in Lebanon, certainly in Syria,

certainly in Gaza. So I think Trump has decided to go to the heart supported by Israel.

It's been very interesting to see in the day plus that the war has been going on.

Countries that were initially very wary, like Britain didn't want to let the United States use

its bases for this war because it doubted the rationale. They're now beginning to open up their

bases. Similarly, our girlfriends in the UAE and Saudi Arabia initially very cautious, suspicious,

that this really makes sense. Now I've decided they're getting punched in the nose by a rod. They're

getting the missiles landing at their hotels and their properties across the Gulf and they're angry

and they're moving toward being ready to fight back. So I think the elements for support for

Trump's coalition are strengthening. And as you said at the outset, this is going to be about the

fundamental destabilizing nature of the Iranian regime and a broad desire in the region to change it.

Well, and speaking of Great Britain, that is going to be a lingering impact of the decision

of Kirsturmer not to let the President use the U.S. Basin Great Britain to launch this attack.

The administration, of course, enraged by that decision. We'll see how that plays out.

But Mika, there's no doubt. I think anybody, I would guess most people here,

most people across Europe, across the Middle East, relieved that Khomeini has been killed,

relieved that a lot of the worst of the worst of the Iran have been killed.

But this now is, of course, exploding into a regional conflict is everybody suspected it would be.

So we don't know where this goes. The White House doesn't know where this goes.

It could be over, if Iran topples in a week, it could be over a week, but that's unlikely.

The White House is thinking four to six weeks at the least.

So the conflict expanded into a new front just hours ago as Israel and the Iran-backed militant

group, Hezbollah, exchanged fire, shattering a truce that had been in place for about a year.

Hezbollah says it was acting to avenge the death of Iran's supreme leader,

and Israel responding in moves that threaten to expand the deadly conflict and destabilize the

region as a whole. Video this morning shows explosions and smoke in the Lebanese capital of Beirut.

Meanwhile, fire and thick black smoke were seen rising earlier near the US embassy in Kuwait,

as the State Department urges US citizens to shelter in place there. Over the weekend,

three US service members were killed in action in Kuwait. The first Americans to die in the war

with Iran, although President Trump acknowledged. Their quote likely will be more.

Iran's retaliation to Operation Epic Fury has been expansive, targeting many of its

Middle East neighbors. As the country's top national security leader said late last night,

Tehran quote, will not negotiate with the United States. President Trump, meanwhile, told the

Atlantic he's open to speaking to Iran's new leadership without specifying whom those talks

would be with. He also told the New York Times the attack could last four or five weeks,

but he did not lay out a clear plan for how power might be transferred to a new government.

ABC's Jonathan Carl says the president told him the US had identified possible candidates to

take over Iran, but they too were killed in the initial attack quote, it's not going to be

anybody that we were thinking because they're all dead. Second or third place is dead. Jonathan

Lamir, give a sheer latest reporting from the White House. So Joe, obviously, this is a defining

moment for this presidency. Someone who President Trump, of course, in 2016, we know vowed to end

the forever wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, vowed he would not be entangled in a new Middle

Eastern conflict that no longer the case. What we're seeing here is, I mean, we heard from President

Trump is a lack of messaging really to the nation. He's recorded two videos that were put out on

truth social, but is yet to do an address perhaps in the Oval Office as were customary from

presidents at a time of war. He is yet to field a single question in a news conference. He has,

though, done a series of quick phone calls with reporters, although noting as you were

making was starting to there that messaging, seemingly changing each and every time in terms of

the length of this mission, some of the objectives of the mission, who might be next in that call

with Jonathan Carl, it seems like they had identified possible leaders, but then whoops,

killed them too. So that, I think, is unnerving some here at home who aren't sure how long this war

will last, what its objectives might be, and how many more Americans may be killed. We know

three already have the president and his message, just for sort of saying, that's the way it is

in terms of the cost of conflict, suggesting there will be more. And we've seen footage

this morning of a fighter jet downed in Kuwait, though the pilot seems to have escaped.

Richard Haas, I mean, I'm talking to people in the White House who are certainly pleased with

the military objectives so far, and Joe is right at the top of the show. Venezuela is the

driving force behind all of this. That was such a success. It has inspired President Trump to

believe he can do the same here. There are some who already think Cuba could be next.

So the military objectives are strong, but Iran's retaliation has also been widespread,

despite the decapitation strike. So talk to us about what you've seen in this first day or two,

in terms of Iran's ability to respond despite the damage inflicted, but also the sort of lack of

messaging from the president to make the case to Americans why this conflict is happening,

why it's in their interest. Well, Jonathan, if a word comes to mind for me to describe what's going

on now, it's undisciplined. As disciplined as the United States has been on the military side

of this war, we have been undisciplined on the foreign policy and political side. We've yet

to make the case to the country in the world as to why this war had to happen now. The president

has been all over the place as to U.S. objectives, and on the clip he showed at the beginning of the

show, if the complete realization of all U.S. objectives has to happen before this war ends,

this war is not going to end until literally the Iranian regime falls. That's not something

under our control. That might not just be a question of days or weeks. That could be once or years.

And that's where the Venezuela parallel comes in. This shows to me a profound misunderstanding

of the DNA of Iran, the degree of institutionalization of political, clerical,

ideological leadership, hundreds of thousands of people, and security forces, both the revolution

and guards, as well as the militia. So to think that somehow the two situations aren't any way

analogous or parallel is frightening to me. So again, what keeps coming back to me is the lack

of discipline as to analysis, as to making the case for why we're doing this, and above all now

for war aims, and what's our definition of success, and what we're seeing with the Iranian reaction,

Iran gets a vote. Yeah, we started the war, but it takes everybody to finish it, and that's the

danger. This could be this could be open-ended, and by not consulting with Congress and the American

people, the president has put himself on a high wire without a net below. And likely one of two

things are going to happen, Jonathan. Either he's going to have to walk back ambitious war aims,

or he's going to lose support. I don't think a history suggests you cannot sustain support

for a war that is costly and doesn't seem to be on a trajectory of success.

So General Hurtling, a couple of things. First of all, and I will be talking to John

Meacham about this next block, but first of all, anybody that is trying to hold Donald Trump

to any of the same sort of standards of previous presidents ramping up to war are going to be

badly mistaken. We've already seen Maduro who didn't take his threat seriously, could be

living right now and cut her on the beach instead. He's in a jail cell in Brooklyn. You can say

the same thing of the Iranians. So I don't, certainly the question will be at the end of this,

whether there is a method to that madness. But anybody that's looking at what this commander

and chief is saying, what he's having his negotiators do, what he's saying to the press,

they're kidding themselves, because this is the second time the Iranians have been surprised

that Donald Trump did what he did in the past six months. So I speak to that, but also speak,

if you will, to the war aims. If you really dig in deep to this, both Israel and the United States,

they are not interested in a hit and run here. It looks again from everything I've read and everything

that's been reported. They're talking about ripping up the Iran's military's infrastructure that

they've been building up since 1979. Talk about that. Talk about the successes you've seen

in the early part of this operation militarily. And also what if you're there running it,

what are your concerns in the coming days and weeks and possibly months?

Yeah, a couple things, Joe. Before I do that, if I can just comment on what everyone else has said,

David Ignatius, I loved his phrase improvisation because it follows the ad hocism that was involved

in the planning. And improvisation is great for jazz, not so much for combat when lies are

stake and chaos is usually the environment, is usually the environment. Richard said it's

a form of discipline. That's the way I see it as well. Jonathan said, military objectives are

extensive and being executed. Well, we're repeatedly showing the strikes against targets.

Those are all very successful. But as I was taught early on, and in my time in the military,

showing precision strikes when the real question is to what end doesn't really help us right now,

we're beyond the point of talking about the strikes because you can win every engagement,

hit every target, and lose the war. When we're talking about, I think, the Middle East,

which I'm very familiar with and have a whole lot of starch issue in, what I conclude is

external strikes alone can't produce democratic change. We've seen that in multiple contexts.

We saw it in Desert Storm when 45 days of their strikes was followed up by a ground campaign.

If you don't have something to put in place afterwards, it's going to be even tougher than what we

saw in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because these strikes in the Middle East will usually strengthen the

hardlines. It's going to create further chaos. You don't have a security force if some of the

targeting now is not only going after headquarters and air defense system, it's going after formations

where the revolutionary guards are. They're trying to kill those forces that provide security

for a regime. Whenever you lose security in a society and you have people rising up looking for

leadership, there's a huge disconnect. What I would say from the military standpoint, yes,

the strikes are being executed with great precision and effects. I hate to say this is a military

guy. You have to, at one point, say, so what? Are we just destroying things? Are we just

bombing targets? What is going to happen right now? It is a pipe dream to think people are going

to rise up when they're continuing to see their nation being struck, when their security forces

are being dismantled, when there's no government leadership, when you don't have the people running

the organization, and you have public unrest. Okay, great. First day, the leader was being overthrown.

But now we're seeing the escalation in other countries. The last thing I'd talk about is the

president, when he was talking to the New York Times last night, talked about the amount of

munitions that are being used. 2,000 strikes as of this morning about that number.

Precision weapon were used in all of them. Defenses systems like the Patriot missiles and the

THAAD batteries that are protecting various Gulf states and soldiers in the regions have very

expensive missiles that they shoot. Those can only last so long, and as we've said, the intel

estimates say that Iran has anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 missiles that they can launch.

You can only shoot them down with so many defensive weapons. So the dynamics of expenditure

gets into something called battlefield math. And somebody at the Pentagon is now concluding,

where are we taking risks around other places in the world? I know they're doing that in the

Pentagon because that used to be my job. When we were in Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000s,

my job is the J7 to say, what risk are we incurring elsewhere as we're using all of our resources,

intelligence gathering, formations, airplanes, naval ships, and especially weapons systems that

cost a lot and take a long time to produce or all on the ballot to say, how long can we conduct these

strikes four to five weeks as the president of the New York foreign class night is a very long time.

All right up next, we're going to get historical analysis from John Meacham.

Plus, MSNOW's Michael Schnell was one of the reporters who spoke with President Trump

on Saturday night following the strikes on Iran. She joins us ahead with more on that. We'll also

talk about how the military campaign is fracturing the Republican Party as some GOP lawmakers

criticize the actions of the administration. And as we go to break, a look at the traveler's

forecast this morning from AccuWeathers Bernie Raynow. Bernie, how's it looking?

Meacham, it's a cold but tranquil Monday across the Northeast. The AccuWeathers exclusive

forecast Sunshine Boston 28 degrees. Some clouds in New York City this afternoon, 32.

Watch Washington DC and dollars for a little bit of snow this afternoon. Pretty sharp contrast

in the southeast, 52 in Charlotte with some drizzle, but 70 in Atlanta and then widespread

warmth across Texas. While I don't have any flight delays here posted in your AccuWeathers exclusive

travel forecast, watch Washington DC and dollars for some minor delays with that snow this afternoon.

The Make the Best Decisions will be more in the know. Download the AccuWeathers app today.

So, the front page of the New York Times this morning talks about the war. Of course,

she has troops killed as blasts. She's ultimatized, fear of wider war after Iran's response.

But there's also the talk about the President here willing to talk to Iranian leaders. We're

going to get a new reporting out of the Gulf region from David Ignatius in one minute. First,

three US F-15 strike equals flying in support of the operation in Iran went down over

quite due to apparent friendly fire according to US Central Command. A press release put out

moments ago reads in part this. During active combat, that included attacks from Iranian aircraft,

ballistic missiles, and drones. The US Air Force fighter jets were mistakenly shot down

by Kuwaiti air defenses. sitcom also notices all six air crew ejected and have been safely recovered.

So, David Ignatius reading the front page of the Times. And I'd love for you to go to David Ignatius,

I go to John Meacham here. David, first of all, a couple of quick questions on some reporting.

You just got out of the Gulf region. One, Donald Trump says he's willing to talk to Tehran's

new leadership. You have some reporting on that new leadership. You also have some reporting just

in on what sort of hit Iran's stockpiles took regarding missiles and drones. What can you tell us

right now? So, Joe, the question of who's running things in Iran after this overwhelming

broad 2000 targets according to sitcom's estimates does raise the question of who's running the show.

Sources in contact with people in Iran tell me two things. First, the person that I had

to accommodate designated as the succession figure who would manage transition if he were killed

is now in place. He's the head of the so-called Supreme National Security Council. His name is

Ali Larjani. He's familiar to anybody who follows Iran. He is a wily, tough survivor. People call him

a pragmatist, but that means he's managed to be useful to every tough president and IRGC

commander who's come along. He was known as the hanging judge early in his career because he

was responsible for so many convictions of people who were caught protesting. So that's the first

person that President Trump's going to have to have to work with. Interestingly, there are reports

that an early informal ballot of the so-called Council of Experts that's going to choose the

next Supreme Leader, the successor to Ali Hamine. It's chosen on Ayatollah, Arafi, not well known

in the West. A conservative cleric described as fairly a risk of worse. A person that keeps

a low media profile, kind of the opposite of Hamine. Make of that what you will, it's not an

official choice. But it led me as I thought about the situation in Tehran and the leadership

uncertainty there to want to ask John Meacham, eminent presidential historian,

what's the nature of leadership for an American president in wartime? Because Donald Trump,

in a way that really hasn't faced before, now confronts that question, John. What is a wartime

leader do in America in a big war? Well, it depends on the era, obviously. Our friend Michael

Bechloss wrote a monumental book about this called Presidents of War. What we're seeing now is an

imperial presidency, a phrase coined in the early 1970s in the wake of Korea and Vietnam by Arthur

Slazinger Jr. And Arthur mentioned as sort of a criticism. It's, let's leave that aside for a

second. It is, in fact, a descriptor. I've been getting a lot of questions as I'm sure you have

from people saying, how can a president do this? Well, this is what Presidents do. And it's why,

it's this example, 7,012, of why presidential elections matter so much. In many ways, the exertion,

projection of force since World War II, which was the last time we declared war officially in the

constitutional sense, has been for Presidents, if you will, to ask forgiveness rather than permission

that phrase. They tend to act. Now, the Bushes both went to the UN and to Congress,

but President Bush 41 in Richard Haas knows all about this. President Bush 41. In August of 19,

when he was contemplating a war to remove Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait,

was had a resolution in Congress, went to the UN, but repeatedly told his diary, I think it was 7

times, that he was willing to be impeached because he had convinced himself of the righteousness

and efficacy and necessity of this mission. And so even if Congress, and you'll remember David,

well, how close of vote that was, in 1990, 1991, he was willing to do it. And he was willing to act

in a unilateral way. And we think of George Herbert Walker Bush as kind of this embodiment

of the wise men, Ethos, which I think is safe to say President Trump has not usually evoked

in most people's minds. Character as a war president is destiny in the way that character

in the presidency broadly put is destiny, because the way power has evolved is that presidents

do have an extraordinary amount of leeway to project our military force.

A final point is successful war presidents, which is what they all want to be, are in fact the ones

who make the case, who explain why we are expending blood and treasure. Those who try to do it

unilaterally, though they can, tend to regret it. And so that's I think an important lesson

of history for President Trump to be thinking about as, and this is not a partisan point, right?

I mean, and by the way, as we all know, this was a terrible regime, killing protesters,

exporting terrorism. So this is not a reflexively ideological criticism of the president. It is,

as you ask, a historically based point that if you want a democracy to go to war and to support you,

let us in explain it to us. FDR said in the February of 1942 that the news is going to get worse

and worse before it gets better and better, and the American people deserve to have it straight

from the shoulder. Give it to us straight from the shoulder, and history tells us we'll do what it

takes. Try to tell us that it's not that big a deal or that successes our number failures

as President Johnson, how well that worked out. And you look at the history of Winston Churchill

in 40 and 41 during the Battle of Britain. He always sold the unvarnished truth to the British

people and let them know that things were like FDR were going to get worse before they got better.

And they remained patient. You know, as I was listening Richard Haas to John Meacham talking

about bringing the American people along or so reminded by the lessons of the Vietnam war,

Reagan Secretary of Defense, Cap Weinberger setting out the four aims, the Weinberger doctrine,

which Colin Powell added to it, which is before you go in, know what the triggering event is,

that you come out and one of those four or five things that people like Colin Powell especially

believed were important because they were fighting a war in Vietnam that the American people didn't

support was getting the public on your side. Talk about what you saw with Bush 41 and what you would

recommend for this administration, how to bring the American people along. What did Bush 41 do

and the lead up to the first Iraq war and what would you recommend this president do

to get the American people on his side in this war? I'll talk about it Joe, but I want to come back

to one big difference between the two because we've talked about Vietnam, we've talked about the

Gulf War. There's a difference between wars as necessity and wars of choice when it comes to

selling them to the American people in the world. Gulf War, we arguably have vital national

interest in state Iraq invaded. World War II was obviously that case. I would think Vietnam,

the Iraq War of 2003, this one, we can question whether a vital interest word state, we also had

other possible policies, whether it was negotiations, economic sanctions, whatever. My point is simply

that when it is a war of choice, it puts far greater pressure, far greater premium on a president

making the case. Why are the costs worth it when we had other options? Why are the costs worth it

when the interest in state might be important, but not necessarily vital? So in 1990 and 1991,

President Bush 41, again, I think had the advantage of we were reacting to an Iraqi invasion,

but what he did is he went to the American people repeatedly and he went to the United Nations

repeatedly. He went to the Congress repeatedly and he did one other thing, Job. He kept our

aims limited. What he tried to do was say, okay, here's what we're going to do, but we're not going

to do more than we have to. This president has basically, I think, violated every one of those rules.

He hasn't gone to the American people. He hasn't gone to the Congress. He hasn't gone to the international

community to the UN. And these aims are extraordinarily expansive, even worse than the general can talk

to this. He's an articulated aims that you can't give to a general or an admiral and say,

accomplish these. Regime change is not a military mission. What we can do is perhaps set the table for

it. We can destroy munitions. We can kill leaders. But offshore, you cannot bring about regime change.

So I think in this president, the only way the lessons of 1990 and 1991 pick it is he really

needs to start to articulate a much more doable and narrow set of war aims. What he's going to get in

trouble. In general, you obviously have experience that nobody here has and most people watching

do not have. What do troops in the field need to hear, not only from their president, but from

political leaders? I mean, they're focused on the objective. They're focused on the mission,

I'm sure, and tune out most of it. But I was always struck by Colin Powell talking about his

experiences in Vietnam and the need for public support when you're out there with you and your

buddies putting their lives on the line. Talk about what they need while fighting this war.

Any war is very dangerous, Joe. We all know that. What John Meacham and Richard just said

really sings to me because I think it just reflects back on the statement of with great power,

which the president has, comes great responsibility. And that goes beyond just talking people to

poll traders. It goes to the bringing the nation on board. It goes to talking to the press about

exactly what the plan is. It is the hard work of building alliances and getting support from the

international community. All of those things are required. Now, when you're talking at the soldier

level, they want to know why they're there. You know, what I would say is it's just it goes beyond,

hey, do this and hit that target. You know, any Reese's monkey can do that. But when you're talking

about people coming from a from a democratic nation, you want to know why you potentially might

suffer consequences and have to sacrifice to support and defend the Constitution.

From my perspective, those things aren't present. We don't know what this is about. We don't know

why we've been in there other than to change your regime. Well, that's a grand hand wave of a

statement of an objective. There's got to be more to it than that because, you know, as you said at

the beginning of this segment, you know, there have now been three of 15 shot down by friendly fire

because that kind of stuff happens in war. It's the fog. It's the chaos. It's all the dynamics.

So you want as much clarity as a soldier as you can possibly get. And that includes

what the heck is the mission? What are we trying to do other than that act?

Right. And I think there's such a distrust in the Trump administration of the press, of politicians,

of diplomats that so much has kept closely held. Like, for instance, in long conversations I

had this weekend, you know, I was told that the overall goal is Venezuela, Iran, Russia,

ultimately getting that oil out of the hands of China. So it cuts off the ability for China to

get cheap oil. And I could go on it a very long way about how this is part of their over-arching

plan. But that's not conveyed to the American people. Everything right now is invaded an ad-hoc

basis. And I think a part of it is because there's such a distrust coming from this administration

of allies, of the media, of other people that presidents would usually talk with. And so that

has a lot of people asking the question of what exactly is going on right now, and what is

a long-range plan. Retired Army Lieutenant General Mark Herdling and President Emeritus of the

Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas, thank you both very much for your insights this morning.

And coming up, our coverage of the U.S. strikes on Iran continues. We'll speak with New York Times

calmness, Thomas Friedman, plus we'll dig into the criticism from some in President Trump's

megabase that U.S. intervention in Iran is not America first. Politico is Jonathan Martin and

Bloomberg's David Drucker. Join us next on that rift. We'll be right back.

Many Republican lawmakers are strongly backing President Trump, praising the strikes in Iran as

decisive and necessary. That includes the Senate Majority Leader and Speaker Johnson.

But other Republicans are questioning the attacks on social media Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Wrote that he opposed, quote, another presidential war, citing the Constitution. Congressman

Thomas Massey declared, I am opposed to this war. The Constitution requires a vote.

Congressman Warren Davidson of Ohio also responded online writing, quote, no. When asked if he

supported the president's actions. And former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia

accused both President Trump and vice president fans of betraying their promises to avoid foreign

entanglements, calling the operation, quote, America last, because it will not lower inflation

or help struggling Americans with the current cost of living crisis.

You know, Jonathan Lamir, we have been able to see throughout the weekend, quotes from the president

tape, from the president, from the vice president, from Stephen Miller. Other people now in the

administration in 2024, 2023, 2024, just saying outright they were never going to go into Iran.

And several several former Republicans saying I was told that if I voted for Kamala Harris,

we would have forever worn Iran and the joke the dark humor was, well, I voted for Kamala Harris.

And now we have forever wars in Iran. That said, on the hill, this is one of those issues.

It's like Israel, right? It splits both ways. You have Republicans breaking opposing the president

on Iran. You have some Democrats not going with the majority of the Democratic caucus,

also supporting these attacks on Iran. So right now, you actually, you actually have sort of

breakaway fractions on both sides of the aisle on this Iranian attack, I suppose, because of the

nature of the Iranian government being such an export of terrorism since 1979.

Yeah, it's messier than usual in terms of reaction here. And certainly almost unanimous that

I mean, no one's mourning the supreme leader and his downfall in Iran. But there is some pushback,

though. There's certainly where a lot of Democrats saying, look, you need to consult with Congress

here. You didn't. And I believe Senator Cain's war power resolution is going to be up on the floor

either tomorrow or Wednesday in the Senate. There are those in the Republican party,

others who have opposed this. Tucker Carlson, loudly doing so. Eric Prince, loudly doing so.

Steve Bannon, these are all influential Manga voices expressing real concerns. Congressman

Massey going on to say, well, look, this isn't also going to change the topic from the Epstein

files. We're going to continue our investigation there as well. But it is. This is a president.

Our friends at Axios have some data this morning. The president Trump, despite proclaiming a

peace being a peace president and despite so many voting for him because they thought he was more

of an isolationist that he is now launched attacks, often just one and done missile strikes,

on more nations than any other modern president so far in this term. And the fallout politically

is going to be significant. So let's talk more about it. We'll see your writer at the dispatch

in a calmness and Bloomberg opinion, David Drucker, politics bureau chief and senior political

calmness at Politico, Jonathan Martin, as well as MS now congressional reporter Michael Schnell,

who spoke with President Trump over the weekend. And Michael, we'll get to that conversation

just a moment that you had with President Trump. But Jay Martin, starting with you, I mean, I do

think there are, I mean, this is a significant war and a massive story. And you know, hard to know,

exactly the fallout is I think a lot will depend on how long the conflict lasts and how many

American laws are lost. But certainly I heard from a number of Republicans this weekend who said,

look, he president barely even mentioned this in the state of the union. And now this is topic

a number one, you know, with the midterms approaching. Yeah, I think you're right that this is not

going to be Venezuela, which is, you know, a nice sort of 48 hour weekend news cycle. And we can

install, you know, somebody from the previous regime who's, okay, willing to salute and help us

on the oil, you can stay in power. And then we all kind of move on to the next thing. This is not

that. And I think that the response so far has been, I think a reflection of the fact that there's

not been a realignment in their Republican party when it comes to foreign policy. There's been a

realignment around a personality of their Republican party. Okay. If there was a realignment

or a more realist or restrained foreign policy, guys, you would have had a hell of a lot more

Republicans over the weekend raising questions about what happened. I know MTG and Tucker,

but look at the current numbers of Congress. You can't get that far beyond Rand Paul and Thomas

Massey who are the libertarian voices consistent. I'm out of the form policy. Where's everybody else who

purportedly was going to be a voice of restraint was, was going to sort of walk away from this

neocon approach. It underscores the fact that there's a loyalty to President Trump in whatever

he says or does that supersedes this ostensible realignment of their Republican party's foreign

policy posture. You just don't really see up on a handful of Freedom Caucus folks massing in

Paul. And John, I think to your point, that raises the great question of, are we looking at a

replay of the Iraq war in terms of the political reaction within their Republican party? Don't forget

2002-03 everybody in the party is lined up with the administration about taking out Saddam Hussein

and then of course the war goes on and he loses support within their Republican party and folks walk

away. I just right now it's extraordinary that the great to which folks are saluting President

Trump's choice here with really no explanation as Joe pointed out as to why we're doing this at all.

So it's a Trump party folks right now we're in line. Let's see John where we are two weeks from

now, a month from now because this is not Venezuela. And David Drucker, what's so fascinating is

and Jaymar, it's exactly right. So many of the same people in the Washington establishment,

whether you're talking about the Vice President, whether you're talking about President, whether

you're talking about Steven Miller, people around the President, close to the President,

promise in 23-24 we're never going into Iran, we won't go into Iran, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden

would take us to Iran but President Trump won't. But by and large as Jaymar said most of the Republican

establishment in Washington DC is lockstep behind the President which isn't a surprise. I think

what's interesting is some of those voices that we heard John Lamir bring up and what I'm hearing

curious if this is what you're hearing from the MAGA base, the Republican base is that it's not

so much the Vice Presidents and the Presidential Advisors and the Republican Senators that the President

may lose on this, it is the MAGA online base. It is younger voters that voted for the President

in 24. It's all these people who've been disappointed first with the Epstein files not being

released in full and now with Iran. Is that, if there is a fissure, is that more of the danger?

I think that's a good place to look Joe, there's so much to impact there that's so important.

Look, I think, you know, one thing to remember, the President didn't just say and the people

surrounding him and in 23 and 24 in that campaign weren't just saying up to Peace President

and it would all be the Peace President. They referred to everybody else, Democrat and Republican

as a bunch of neocon warmongers, but I mean, they were very specific about what they would do

and what they wouldn't do. In a sense, what we're seeing here is a reversion to Reagan era,

hawkish Republican foreign policy, which is why you're not getting a huge backlash from Republicans

in Congress, because even though Trump has refashioned the party and there are so many new members

on the hill that have come up in the Trump era, by and large, you still have so many Republicans

who were products of the Reagan era who were weaned during that era before Trump, and this all

makes sense to them. This is the sort of thing that they would have hoped a Republican President

would at least consider doing, if not actually doing, when you look at nearly 50 years of failed

diplomacy and very laudable attempts, but failed attempts to curtail Iran's nuclear program,

right? And I think that what happened on October 7th had so much to do with that because all

of a sudden, Iran and its proxies weren't just talking tough. They went after civilians and they

wage war, and I think that changed the calculus. Now, where this can go south for the President

is if this thing gets bogged down, if we start setting up temporary bases. I was talking to people

over the weekend and they said, look, the online right is a significant portion of the Republican

base and they matter in the party. But when you're looking at Republican voters writ large,

they're still prone to support military action like this. You go after foreign adversaries that are

acting 11ly, you take them out, and that makes sense to a lot of Republican voters, even though

the online right is so much louder. But if this thing gets bogged down, if we start to lose soldiers

and this goes on without end, then the President is going to find himself with a political problem.

And I think especially, and as everybody's been discussing here at the table this morning,

because he hasn't made a case to the American people. And there is a case to make. I was able to lay

up part of it in 10 seconds. It's not his way, he hasn't bothered doing it. And unlike the Iraq war

of 2003, Mekhan, we saw how that went. He hasn't gone Congress to get buying it. And so he's on an

island, which is fine as long as this goes well, but it's not fine if it doesn't.

All right, David Drucker. By the way, during our show, we are going to be hearing from Defense

Secretary Pete Hankseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dan Cain. They'll be speaking live,

giving an update on this. And as we close out the first hour of Morning Joe and launch the second

John Meacham final thoughts on where this is headed and any historical lessons that apply.

Unfortunately, we're living in an age of unpredictability. And analogies are perilous.

If you think about it, as we just said, this is kind of a Reagan era of foreign policy move

from a president who has proven to be durably protectionist. And so what we are living in,

and this is somewhat sobering, is this is the age of Trump. And it's whatever seems to occur

to him at a given moment to be the course that the country should take. And that's a monarchical

system. I'm not saying that, you know, it, but you understand. So that's, that's where we are.

And it's why every vote matters. And it's why we, I don't think it's, I think it's a fool's

air and to say, this is where we're going to be on Wednesday. I'm reminded of the great scene

in Tom Sawyer, where Mark Twain writes that Tom Sawyer said, an evangelist came to town who was

so good that even Huck Finn was saved until Tuesday. Right. So it's just, this is a period of

seasonal certainty. And when I say season, in the age of Trump, a season is an hour.

Yeah, no doubt about it. All right. John Meacham, thank you so much. And I will say just

underlining it so people can understand, you know, the history of this. And why there is a large

number of Republicans, despite what the President, Vice President Stephen Miller either said during the

campaign, why so many of the Republicans would support this for those of us that came up as Reagan

conservatives for those of us who remember 1975, 1979 is a defining moment in our political

development. I was in a high school. This is something that so many people, Reagan conservatives

have been wanted in one way or another, maybe not a full-scale invasion, but a confrontation.

People like myself, very skeptical a decade ago about the Iran nuclear deal because our feeling

was that the Iranians always lied. If you, if negotiations, if you're sitting there going,

well, why are so many Republicans supporting this? Well, these are the people that were inspired

to get into politics by Ronald Reagan. And who know that Donald Trump will be out of office,

you know, within three years, that's that sort of base of Republican support. I think,

as I said before, the problem is going to get to come up online with younger

maggots' supporters of the President who don't know about Ronald Reagan, who care about Ronald

Reagan and said that was then this is now, sort of a split in the Republican party there. Mike