Trump Predicts a Multi-Week War as Badly Wounded Iran Strikes Out at Neighbors, Conflict Widens

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Trump Predicts a Multi-Week War as Badly Wounded Iran Strikes Out at Neighbors, Conflict Widens"

The Morning Meeting
Host: Mark Halperin (2WAY)
Guest Hosts: Eric Erickson, Melissa DeRosa
Airdate: March 3, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on the rapidly widening conflict following Iran’s crippling military strikes and U.S.-led responses under President Trump, including regime decapitation and regional fallout. The panel dives into the war’s evolving day-to-day situation, American political reactions, media coverage, potential operational and political risks, and the complex dynamics among U.S., Iranian, and regional actors. The hosts also examine the effect of the war on the domestic political landscape and party narratives, with pointed analysis of both Democratic and Republican moves.

---

Key Discussion Points

1. Presidential Schedule, White House Dynamics, and Political Scheduling

• Trump's Day: Multiple moments scheduled for Trump to weigh in on Iran, including a press-enabled bilateral with the German chancellor (11:15 am EST), and a closed (possibly open) meeting about energy prices after Iranian disruption (2:00 pm EST) ([05:00]).
• Political Stakes: National attention split between war events and major legislative/business items—a housing affordability bill gaining surprising bipartisan support, Supreme Court hearings, and Texas Senate primaries ([07:00]).

2. Texas and National Primary Politics

• Texas Senate Races: Both Democratic and Republican Senate primaries anticipated to go to runoffs. Speculation abounds on the likely breakdown; key names include Jasmine Crockett (D), Talarico (D), Paxton (R), and Cornyn (R).
• Trump’s Endorsement: Discussion on whether Trump will endorse Cornyn or Paxton and how vote percentages could influence his move ([08:00]).

3. War in Iran: Operational Realities and Goals

• Situation Update:
  • The U.S. and Israel have successfully decapitated Iran’s top regime leadership, including the Ayatollah ([12:50]).
  • Questions persist about the endgame and exit strategy. Trump has predicted a 4-6 week campaign but specifics remain unclear ([12:05]).
• Metrics for Success: Panelists agree that top-level objectives—eliminating Iran's nuclear, missile, and terrorist leadership—have largely been met so far ([14:05]).
• Biggest Risks: Regional escalation, supply-chain and munitions depletion, Iranian drone capability, cyber and electronic warfare, and “boomerang” instability ([15:16]).
• Notable Quote:

  "There's lots of operational threats that go beyond just the very beginning of this, and we're still in the first inning, so there's a lot to be seen."
  — Melissa DeRosa ([15:29])

4. Iranian Drone Threat

• Both the U.S. and Israel are now using Iranian-style drones. Concern that Iran’s drones can bypass defense systems and hit targets in the Gulf. The Ukrainians are informally providing counter-drone expertise ([16:38]).

5. Media Coverage and Information Battles

• Coverage Critique: The panel debates if the U.S. media is serving the public well, suggesting they are replaying Iraq War-era negativity and failing to update their narratives to reflect current military realities ([18:16]).
• Hostility to Trump: Suggestion that mainstream coverage is even more negative due to Trump’s presence, compared to if a Democrat were in office ([19:08]).
• Notable Quote:

  "The idea that the United States is going to run out of weapons after a few weeks seems somewhat absurd to me...the media playbook...has been defined by the Iraq war and there's never been an update to it."
  — Eric Erickson ([18:16])

6. Shifting Messaging and MAGA Response

• White House Communications: Criticism of poor, shifting public explanations for the war, including confusion over preemptive strikes and perceived lack of congressional authorization ([20:23]).
• MAGA Cohesion: Despite early skepticism, Trump maintains strong MAGA base support, especially as prominent establishment figures (e.g., Jeb Bush) come on board ([22:11]).
• MAGA Podcasters and Contrarians: Vocal critics like Matt Walsh raise inconsistencies in the narrative, but panelists argue most dissent is performative or click-driven ([24:33], [26:10]).

7. Political Risks and Party Narratives

• Potential Costs: Confusion risks splintering Republican support, but panelists believe ultimate political impact hinges on war outcome, not messaging hiccups ([28:05]).
• Media & Democrat Reaction: The panel laments Democratic and media partisanship, wondering if any will acknowledge a Trump success if the war achieves regime change ([30:16]).
• Notable Quote:

  "At a certain point, we have to be together and root for America."
  — Melissa DeRosa ([30:16])

8. 2028 Democratic Field and Foreign Policy Leadership

• Lack of Gravitas: Both panelists and Halperin express dismay at the absence of serious national security leadership among likely Democratic 2028 candidates; responses have been “reactive” rather than visionary ([32:14], [33:16]).
• Hypocrisy Charges: The discussion highlights perceived hypocrisy in Democrats’ Middle East stances, especially post-October 7 and on Iran’s domestic repression ([34:04]).

9. Congressional Investigations: Clinton’s Testimony

• Comer’s Failures: The release of Clinton’s video testimony is described as a debacle, with Republicans outmaneuvered and achieving no substantive investigative progress ([38:48]).
• Notable Quote:

  "She ran circles around them. Every single investigation Comer has done, he's gotten mud on his face. He is Wile E. Coyote of Congress."
  — Eric Erickson ([43:24])

---

Listener Questions & Community Insights

1. War Support and Public Opinion (Wayne, 48:44)

• Comparison to Gulf War: Initial opposition can flip to support if the war is successful and brief.
• Melissa and Eric agree: Early polling is unreliable—the public digests events as they unfold, and ultimate attitudes depend on results.

2. Arab-Israeli Alignment and Europe’s Role (Jim, 51:03)

• Unprecedented Arab-Israeli alignment against Iran noted; panelists point to Trump’s prior diplomatic efforts and warn against overemphasizing European reluctance ([51:06], [52:13]).
• Notable change: Open flights and communications between Arab capitals and Tel Aviv—a dramatic shift from the past.

3. Democratic Messaging on War (Chris, 53:22)

• Listener criticism: Democrats could point out Trump’s past “no new wars” pledge being broken.
• Melissa responds: She won’t recite talking points and is focused on a holistic, historical analysis of the situation ([55:17]).

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• "Can we soften up the ground enough for the Iranians to take back their country themselves?"
  — Eric Erickson ([12:50])

• "We honor the incredible bravery... of the servicemen ... and the courage and leadership of our commander in chief, President Donald Trump... "
  — Jeb Bush, via Halperin ([23:49])

• "Anti-war absolutism is silly. That's Matt Walsh ... in January of 2020 talking about taking out Iranian leaders."
  — Eric Erickson, on shifting contrarian positions ([28:33])

• "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."
  — Mark Halpern, on Congressional investigations ([43:54])

---

Notable Timestamps

• [05:00] Trump’s schedule & media angles
• [08:00] Texas Senate Primary analysis
• [12:05] Iran war update, endgame discussion
• [14:05] Metrics for success
• [15:16] Operational risks enumerated
• [16:38] Iranian drone capabilities
• [18:16] Media’s effect, comparison to Iraq coverage
• [20:23] Critique of White House communications
• [24:33] MAGA response, Matt Walsh & the right critics
• [28:05] Political risk analysis
• [30:16] Democrats’ challenge in supporting U.S. interest
• [32:14] 2028 Democratic candidates scrutinized
• [34:04] Hypocrisy charges on Middle East policy
• [38:48] Clinton testimony, Comer investigation critique
• [43:24] Eric’s “Wile E. Coyote” quip
• [48:44] Wayne’s public opinion/gulf war analogy
• [51:03] Jim’s question on regional realignment
• [53:22] Chris’s critique of war pledges
• [55:17] Melissa’s principled response
• [58:22] Israeli strike on Iran’s Council of Experts—escalation updates

---

Tone & Style

• Conversational, fast-moving, frequently irreverent.
• Sharp, sometimes acerbic exchanges between panelists on the substance and spin of the news cycle.
• Emphasis on media literacy, skepticism, and cross-party critique.

---

Summary Takeaways

• The Iran conflict is escalating and highly fluid, with short-term operational success but enduring ambiguity about endgame and aftermath.
• Media coverage is widely perceived as hostile to Trump and stuck in outdated frameworks.
• Both parties are struggling with internal coherence, but the Republican MAGA base remains mostly loyal to Trump.
• Democratic leadership and future 2028 hopefuls are widely criticized for lacking gravitas on national security.
• Congressional oversight efforts, e.g., the Clinton testimony hearing, are depicted as ineffective.
• Listener feedback reveals deep divisions but also cautious optimism should the war resolve favorably and succinctly.

---

This summary provides a thorough, timestamped guide through the episode’s core debates and memorable moments—useful for anyone seeking to catch up on this critical moment in U.S. foreign policy and domestic politics.

Transcript

[Eric Erickson]

Lifelock.

[Mark Halpern]

How can I help?

[Melissa DeRosa]

The IRS said I filed my return, but I haven't.

[Mark Halpern]

One in four tax paying Americans has

[Eric Erickson]

paid the price of identity fraud.

[Melissa DeRosa]

What do I do?

[Mark Halpern]

My refund though. I'm freaking out. Don't worry, I can fix this.

[Eric Erickson]

Lifelock fixes identity theft guaranteed and gets your money back with up to $3 million in coverage.

[Melissa DeRosa]

I'm so relieved.

[Eric Erickson]

No problem.

[Mark Halpern]

I'll be with you every step of the way.

[Eric Erickson]

One in four was a fraud paying American.

[Mark Halpern]

Not anymore.

[Eric Erickson]

Save up to 40% your first year.

[Mark Halpern]

Visit lifelock.com podcast terms apply good morning everybody. This is two ways the Morning Meeting. Thank you for being here. Eric Erickson Melissa DeRosa guest hosting today. Greetings to you both. Thank you for being here, thank you for having us, and thank you all for being part of the two way community. Your questions and comments will be here before too long. We know that in this time of war and we where there are people in both red and blue America who are for this and people in red and blue America who are against it, there's a lot of energy, a lot of interest in weighing in, asking questions. So we'll get to your questions before too long. If you're here on the two way platform, want to get in the conversation, raise your hand. This program is based on the Network News Division's morning meetings where people sit around and talk about the day preview the day with the Daybook, which I'll do in a moment. Then we'll kick things around and then again with peace, love and understanding, we'll welcome your opportunity to be part of the conversation. If you want to participate by putting things in the chat either here on the two way platform, on X or on YouTube. One stipulation, no smack in the chat. There's just no reason to put smack in the chat. That's for other platforms, not for this one. And as you know, every day I get a long readout of all the smack and I'm asked to respond by hand to all of you. Put smack takes an enormous amount of my time. Don't have the time. So please, if, if for no other reason, no smack in the chat. We also today have a bunch of events going on live at this hour that we may go to live and sample those. We've got some pretty interesting potential news breaking during the show, so stick around. Much could happen. And then of course we'll be on in the 10 o' clock hour on Sirius XM. So in a moment I'll hit the Daybook and then we'll go to Eric and Melissa on everything but a quick word from one sponsor before we do that. And that's the folks from ethos.com ethos.com mark is where you can go get a free quote on life insurance. If you're the primary breadwinner in your family, you don't have life insurance for whatever reason. Now's the time to do it. Go to ethos.com mark. Use the online platform that makes getting life insurance easy. Make sure your family is protected if something happens to you. Pay the tuition, pay the mortgage, pay college costs, rent, whatever it is. They're relying on your income now. They'll be relying on your income and missing it when you're gone. Ethos helps provide financial security. Easy to do. It's just go. It's all an online process. Not complicated. 100% online. No health exam. You answer a few health questions and some other questions and in as little as 10 minutes, you can get up to $3 million in life insurance. Kind of peace of mind that money cannot buy. Go to ethos.commark to get a free quote on life insurance from Ethos, the online platform that makes getting life insurance easy. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

[Chris]

This is it. The world as you know it is over. Completely done.

[Eric Erickson]

It's not about to be over. It's over.

[Mark Halpern]

Some of the scientists who helped build AI are now sounding the alarm. I was selling AI as a great thing for decades and I was wrong. I was wrong.

[Melissa DeRosa]

There is a longer term existential threat that will arise when we create digital beings that are more intelligent than ourselves.

[Wayne]

We have no idea whether we can stay in control.

[Mark Halpern]

While others say that AI will usher in unfathomable abundance, I've always believed that it's going to be the most important invention that humanity will ever make. This really will be a world of abundance. And among these fears and these fantasies,

[Eric Erickson]

we seek the story of our future.

[Mark Halpern]

Listen to the last invention on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts. All right, let's, all right, let's hit the daybook. And President of the United States. I keep saying it. He's not the whole war, ladies and gentlemen. There's other elements here. There's other people, there's other actors. But the people in the media like to think of this as Trump versus Iran. And his schedule today is replete with opportunities for him to weigh in, Most prominently at 11 o' clock this morning Eastern time, when he greets the German chancellor. And that is open. I'm sorry 11:15 open bilateral meeting. It's open to the White House press pool. Let's see who's in the press pool today. This is a 201 please or 101 ABC. The President loves the ABC correspondence, so they'll be greeted warmly. Bloomberg TV will be in there, the griot will be in there, ABC Radio will be in there, Reuters will be in there. And then our friends at Breitbart are the new media. So most of the pool is made up of people who will either be traditional media, secretly liberally biased, or others who are openly liberally biased, except for Breitbart. So that'll be interesting. Now, sometimes the President brings ringers into the Oval Office and lets them be part of the pool, even though they're not officially part of the pool. We'll see what happens there. And then later in the day, go back to the President's schedule. After the German Chancellor departs, The president at 2 o' clock is meeting with the Secretary of the treasury and Secretary of Energy. It's closed press now, but a little birdie suggests to me this may end up being open press. Yesterday, Secretary Rubio said, we've got a secret plan to lower energy prices in the wake of the disruption of supply by the Iranians. And that's what they're meeting about today. And maybe they'll open that up and make an announcement of what it is. I've got some theories. Either of you have any theories about what that is? What are they going to do to lower energy prices? I think it's going to involve increasing supply.

[Melissa DeRosa]

Say, take all the oil from Venezuela.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah. So there's Venezuela, there's the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and then there's the Saudis and other nations. So just, just be watching for that event today. It's 2 o'. Clock. Could move markets then. He's got a policy meeting at 3, policy meeting at 5. Don't know what the Vice President's doing in the wake of the New York Times reporting that although he was worried about a potential military action, that he urged the President to go big before going home. Nine o' clock this hour. Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, is testifying in front of Senate's judiciary. It's her first time on the Hill since all the things that went down in Minnesota. Secretary Rubio was on the Hill yesterday, briefing a small group of members. Back on the Hill today, briefing everybody. First the Senate, and he'll be accompanied by some of his compadres, the Secretary of War, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs Dan Kaine and the CIA director John Radcliffe. And then that whole operation that's at 3:30 in the Senate moves over to the House side for a five o' clock briefing right when two way tonight is on. So screw them up for that anyway. The bipartisan housing bill. The housing bill. Keep your eyes on this, ladies and gentlemen. May not be as front of mind as the war, but the housing bill. Both the Senate and House pass bipartisan, very substantive policy proposals on housing. The White House wants something to pass. They also want their provision in there that relates to keeping Wall street firms from owning housing to some degree. Yesterday in the first test vote, this moves with surprising bipartisan support and includes a provision like the White House wants on homeownership by private equity. They're taking up the bill again today. It's called the 21st Century Road to Housing Act. Politics of this are so interesting because the Democrats right now appear willing and on track to give the President a huge bipartisan win on the central affordability issue. We've talked about it here before. I'm still surprised that they're going to do that, but that's where that seems to be heading. Supreme Court's hearing a case today about defendants rights. Polls today. Polls already open in North Carolina, in Arkansas, they opened in Texas as well. They closed tonight. 8, 7:30 or 8 o'. Clock. And of course the marquee, the marquee thinks is the two Senate primaries in Texas. Melissa, who will win the Democratic Senate primary?

[Melissa DeRosa]

I think they're headed for a runoff

[Mark Halpern]

in the Democratic side.

[Melissa DeRosa]

Oh, I'm sorry. And the Republicans. And they're headed for a runoff. I think that it's a jump ball but I think Jasmine Crockett may eke it out just because the Democrats love to steal defeat from the jaws of victory. And why would we want a shot at the general when we could have Jasmine Crockett in November?

[Mark Halpern]

Eric, do you think Crockett will win that primary?

[Eric Erickson]

You know, I actually look at the late breaking point. I think Talarico may be able to pull it out. I think the Republicans are probably more suicidal than Democrats in Texas because the Democrats are hungrier for a win. So the Republicans will probably push Paxton and Cornyn into a runoff. And if Paxson comes out pretty good on top, probably, probably the President will endorse him.

[Mark Halpern]

See, I think the President's going to endorse Cornyn unless it's a white bat. What percentage of the vote in a three way, Eric, do you think Paxton will get tonight?

[Eric Erickson]

I think Paxton probably gets about 40%. But I got to tell you, when I was running campaigns, if you got 40% headed into a runoff, you actually tended to lose the runoff. And I think if the President does come out and endorse corn and that'll seal the deal, I mean, Republicans gonna have to have a wake up call about the amount of money they would have to spend to get packs across the finish line.

[Mark Halpern]

Now, Melissa, who do you think, what do you think Paxton's percent is going to be?

[Melissa DeRosa]

I think somewhere in that neighborhood between 30, 42.

[Mark Halpern]

Okay, I'm not a math genius, but let's say it's 40. That leaves 60% of the vote. It's not going to be 40. 30. 30. Right. Hunt's not going to get 30. See what I'm saying? If he only gets 40, then, then if Cornyn gets 30. 40. 35. 25.

[Jim]

Right.

[Mark Halpern]

That doesn't seem right. You sort of have to say what Hunt's gonna get before you can say what the other two are. Split. Split. But, but my point is everybody's talking about Paxton winning this primary by such a big margin that Trump couldn't justify endorsing Cornyn. But what I'm saying is if you do the math and you think as you both do, that paxton ceilings around 40, then cornyn's gonna get around 42. Right. It's going to have. The vote has to go somewhere. See what I'm saying?

[Eric Erickson]

Yeah, I see what you're saying. But you know, at the same time, I think that the, the PAX and energy is, seems to be there. Cornyn and Hunt have not actually been doing a very good job running into this. In fact, for a time there, I think a lot of people thought Paxton could get it without a runoff. But going into it, you're right. What does Wesley get? He ran a surprisingly anemic campaign. Yeah, I do expect him to come into third. The fact that Paxton's been attack Hunt more than Corden has been attacking Hunt kind of suggests Paxton really does want a corn and Pax and runoff.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah, but, but again, I hate to be obsessed with the math, but I was thinking about this last night and I was curious if you guys would say 40. Let's say, let's say PAX. Let's say Hunt gets 20. Again, I'm just doing the numbers again. That means they're both. It leaves 80%. And if you think Paxton can only get 40, that means the other guy's going to get corn. It's going to get 42. Let's listen to Jeanne Shaheen as we segue to talking about the war. This is Jeanne Shaheen live right now on Morning Joe.

[Melissa DeRosa]

Ayatollah gone is a good thing because he was a promoter of terrorism across the Middle East. He repressed his own people killed thousands last month when they were demonstrating in the streets. But the rationale from this administration for both what the strategy is, what the end game is and why we made these attacks now is not clear at all.

[Mark Halpern]

You said it or certainly the president himself in a series of phone calls with reporters has offered different motivations for why he gave the green light here. But let's pivot to what happens now, or should I say what happens next. It was was it communicated at all what the the end game here is what the exit strategy or off ramp

[J.D. Vance]

might be for this US Military operation

[Mark Halpern]

in Iran, which the president himself says could be four, five, six weeks.

[Melissa DeRosa]

Well, what we heard yesterday in the press conference from Secretary Hegseth was the military goals of this these strikes.

[Mark Halpern]

All right.

[Melissa DeRosa]

We'll monitor what the president has said.

[Mark Halpern]

Something different, Shaheen, but she talks too slowly for me. She's of course, in the Is she in a gang of eight? I think she is in a gang of eight. I think she was brief yesterday. All right, Eric, how's the war going? How's this operation going? Macro? There's a million things say gas went up 11 cents overnight. How's just overall, do you think it's going on net net net good, Net net bad. How do you think it's going? The military?

[Eric Erickson]

I think it's going going well. So far, the fact we've decapitated the major leadership of Iran, including the ayatollah. The ayatollah, not the old ayatollah, but we got that guy and then we got the next guy, too. Now we've got multiple heads of the Defense Ministry in Iran. I think it's going well. The question is ground game. Can we soften up the ground enough for the Iranians to take back their country themselves? I mean, people forget, I think, of a very large nation. The largest majority of the population does not support the regime, but they're also the least armed portion of of the population. So can we mobilize them? There was a report I saw this morning the president has been talking to the Kurds, which are the largest minority population in Iran. They do have well trained people who've been in Iraq. And I noticed overnight the Israelis have been bombing the border positions between Iran and Iraq, which seems like they're Trying to soften the ground for a ground operation by people other than us.

[Mark Halpern]

Eric, as a. As an American, as a. As someone who's supportive in general of this effort, would you consider it a success if the navy, the Iranian navy, swiped out their nuclear capability, their missile capability, their terror network leadership, if all that's wiped out, but there's no regime change, would you still consider it a success?

[Eric Erickson]

Yeah, you know, I wouldn't, but. But I've got history. When I was in fifth grade, they tried to kill me and my friends. And then in ninth grade, the Iranians tried to kill my dad when we lived overseas. So I want regime change. But I do think the president can make a very good case that if you've wiped out all of their capabilities, abilities, then we have had mission accomplished as far as neutralizing the threat.

[Mark Halpern]

Melissa, Susie Wiles called you and said, how's this going? What would you tell her?

[Melissa DeRosa]

No, look, I think that by all of the measurable metrics, right, in terms of loss of life from US Troops, which one life is one too many, you know, but it being at six, given what we've accomplished, sort of the surgical way, we went in and did this and wiped out so many of them at one time. And I think that their limited ability to strike back, I mean, that could change, Right? There are a lot of operational things that could still happen in the region that could change, but on those metrics, I think that this is going well. I think that's sort of inarguable. It feels a little bit like Venezuela in that way. The question is, what's next? And this is very different from Venezuela and what needs to happen next to ensure stability and that this doesn't boomerang or somehow get worse.

[Mark Halpern]

What's. Melissa, sticking with you, what's the biggest operational risk right now for the Americans and Israelis? Is it the Iranian counter strikes? Is it running out of munitions? What's the biggest operational risk?

[Melissa DeRosa]

Regional escalation, running out of munitions, changes in supply chain issues, potential cyber attacks, electronic attacks. That's where my brain goes. And then we don't know where their sleeper cells are. So there are num. There are lots of operational threats that go beyond just the very beginning of this, and we're still in the first inning, so there's a lot to be seen.

[Mark Halpern]

Right?

[Melissa DeRosa]

But look, I'm a Democrat who's not abjectly, who's not knee jerk opposing this. I think this is good that I think the world is a better place today than it was three days ago because The Ayatollah is gone. I think it's better for the Iranian people. I think it's better for the region. I think it's better for Americans. But what next? And I think we need a clear path.

[Mark Halpern]

Put up 104, please. Eric, there's a concern I keep hearing from people about the Iranian drone capability. Here's the AP story. One of the few organizations who's written about this that I've seen Iranian drones buzz across the Persian Gulf after their pivotal use by Russia and Ukraine. The US And Israel are using an unprecedented amount of drones to hit Iran. How concerned are you going forward about the Iranian drone capability?

[Eric Erickson]

The Iranian drone capability actually is significant in that they've been able to bypass the Patriot missile batteries in Iron Dome batteries. They've been able to target them to the uae, to Dubai, to Bahrain, to Qatar. You know, the people who are most experienced dealing with them are the Ukrainians who have offered some assistance on how you combat the drones. This is going to be a learning exercise for the US I did see the story that we've modeled our current drones after the Iranian drone, which is actually fairly cheap to build and fairly good. They have a lot of them. What I'm noticing, however, is that the disproportionate response promised by Iran is not coming. And it does make me wonder if we've been able to blow up a lot of the supplies that they had. They were clustered around the country. It seems like the Israelis had a pretty good idea of where those clusters were and have gone after them.

[Mark Halpern]

Well said. Okay, next is the media. I just think about the way, for instance, what happened with the Biden administration, the withdrawal from Afghanistan was covered. It was covered negatively. But if that had been Donald Trump, it would have been covered a lot more negatively than it was. In my experience, all wars are covered in a pretty negative way by the press. It's always looking for what's going wrong, not accentuating the positive. There's throwaway lines about how great the American military is. But this seems to be covered as anything with the Republican president is really negatively. And I'm wondering, Eric, you first. Just overall, without cherry picking individual examples, overall, do you think the American people are being well served by the way this has been covered for the last couple days?

[Eric Erickson]

No. And Mark, the thing that's really struck me is in the way that the analysts forget the pundits, but the way the analysts are talking about it, they seem very stuck in an early 21st century Iraq War phase. The talking points about dragging countries further into this war. They're already there and they're already united with us. Now you've got the overnight stories from several media outlets about the supply chain issues and the weapons issues. And I realize that's legitimate, but the idea that the United States is going to run out of weapons after a few weeks seems somewhat absurd to me that they would, and I don't think they will. It just, it's like the media playbook for every engagement has been defined by the Iraq war and there's never been an update to it, despite our overwhelming capabilities that we've seen since the Iraq war.

[Mark Halpern]

Do you think that's it, that they're living the past? Do you think it's hostility to Trump? Do you think it's both?

[Eric Erickson]

Yeah, I think it's a lot of it. They don't like Trump to begin with. I mean, look at, for example, the folks like Bill Christel, Jen Rubin, Max Boot, who for years have called for the overthrow of the regime, including without congressional authorization. And now they're suddenly like, my God, we can't do this. There's no justification for this. People are defining their positions not based on their principles and ideals, but based on who's in the White House, which I don't think any of us, left, right or center should ever do. If it's a good thing to go after the regime, it's a good thing. And the American media has a, not just a deep hostility to Donald Trump, but they've also got old talking points from former long ago wars and they've never updated them.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah, Eric, just the litany of some of the, some of the people he cited as the subject of his substack today. I tell you this every time Eric's on subscribe to his substack, it's truth to power across the board from a conservative point of view, but he'll call out anybody who he thinks isn't doing the right thing in today's is a pretty good critique. It's part of what made me raise the topic. Melissa, if Joe Kahn of the New York Times called you or the head of NBC News and said, we want to cover this warfare, we want to be tough, we want to hold the administration accountable, but we want to cover it just as if Barack Obama were doing this, how are we doing? What would you tell them?

[Melissa DeRosa]

Well, listen, I think that in general, we obviously always start from a place where the legacy media and the mainstream media comes at Trump from a negative lens. Like we start there. But he's helping them right I think that Pete Hegseth is sort of like the Christie gnome of this thing. When I watched the press conference yesterday, I was like, we need a different messenger. Like he needs a different messenger. He was too hostile to the press. I didn't think that he was speaking clearly and coherently about any sort of strategy or mission. And I think that this changing explanation for the why and Rubio coming out and then Johnson coming out and saying Israel was going to strike, and then if Israel struck, then they were going to strike us. So we had to preemptively strike first of all, was the worst thing you could possibly say if you're trying to rally support for Israel and our allies and our alliance with them in the region. It blew my mind that it came out of both of their mouths. But this ever changing narrative that they're spitting out is just giving them more and more ammunition on top of the fact that they didn't go to Congress for permission to begin with, which is a potential violation of the. I think it's a violation of the Constitution. I don't think it's in dispute that this was an act of war. So he's not helping himself. So is the press being fair? No, but the president's on helping himself both in terms of explaining the why, the what, the net, what's next. And also he didn't lay the proper groundwork going into this thing. I said it on your show last week. He blew an opportunity when he had a captive audience with the State of the Union to lay out the case for this. They should have been making consistent drumbeat. There needed to be an address to the American public, not dropped on truth social at 2am but in advance of this, as to all of the reasons why they've been the largest threat to us since 1979. And I think you could have gone into this with other public support, which would have created more political support and at least chasten the press a little bit into being a little bit more fair.

[Mark Halpern]

All right, we could, we could do the whole show on the question of their changing explanations and whether it's justified in their failure to consult with Congress. But those are big issues we've covered before we can move on maga. Yesterday was the first day of MAGA media back, all the podcasts, etc. And there are some prominent critics, to be sure, but it doesn't seem spilling out of control. And even though the polls are negative for the President on this question of whether people approve of it, support from MAGA is actually higher in the polls I've seen than it is from other Republicans. That's, you know, there's cross cutting. MAGA generally is less neocon, but they're also more supportive of the President. A recent development, just the last day, that I think will significantly help the President's chances to rally MAGA behind this operation. Here is someone extremely supportive of the President of the United States and it might surprise you. 123, please. We honor the incredible bravery and selflessness of the servicemen of the United States Armed Forces and the Israel Defense Forces. We applaud the courage and leadership of our commander in chief, President Donald Trump, in steadfast partnership with our Israeli friends as the United States and Israel confronts the forces of tyranny and terror. Last night we learned that Ali Khamenei had been killed. For those listening on the podcast or SiriusXM, that was a very skinny Jeb Bush speaking in support of his commander in chief. Eric. Will Jeb Bush's support sway MAGA Tucker come right back on board?

[Eric Erickson]

No, I don't think so at all. But you know, at the same time this. Mark, you raise an issue that I guess I should have brought up earlier that it really actually is one of my other side grievances with the way the media covers this is every single thing Donald Trump does is is this going to be what breaks him from his base?

[Mark Halpern]

Right.

[Eric Erickson]

You saw the guys in Axios and several others. Several Americans died. Is this going to be the thing that breaks him from the base? Every media story and now some of the podcast world is all what's going to be what severs the president from his base. And I don't think going to war with Iran is going to be the thing that breaks apart the MAGA base.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah. Melissa, thoughts on, on, on this. I want to tease something up for you, Eric. Who's Matt Walsh? Who's Matt Walsh?

[Eric Erickson]

Matt. Matt Walsh is a longtime contrarian on the right who now works at the Daily Wire, has a large social media presence on podcast.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah. So Matt Walsh has probably been the most outspoken. I put Tucker aside for a moment. Here's Matt Walsh. This is one on Twitter he says this. So far we've heard that although we killed the whole Iranian regime, this was not a regime change war. I don't think that's, that makes any sense. And although we obliterated their nuclear program, we had to do this because their nuclear program, again, that doesn't make sense. And although Iran was not planning any attacks in the U.S. they might also have been depending on who you ask? That doesn't make sense. And although we are not fighting this war to free the Iranian people, they are now free or might be, depending on who seizes power. And we have no idea who that will be. Sort of makes sense. The messaging on this thing is, to put it mildly, confused. One more from Matt Walsh responding to Secretary Rubio saying that the United States attacked because Israel was going to attack and then the Iranians would have attacked the US So the US had to attack first. Matt Walsh on Twitter. So he's flat out telling us that we're in a war with Iran because Israel forced our hand. This is basically the worst possible thing he could have said. Now, Melissa, I like to distinguish between arguments that are political arguments that are substantive arguments meant to influence the political system, arguments based on free speech, whatever it is. There's arguments from Matt Walsh, just not him, but people making those kinds of arguments, many of which are being made by same arguments being made by Democrats. What's the purpose of those? What's the impact of those on what's going on?

[Melissa DeRosa]

Well, I think it's just to undermine overall what it is that the president's doing and try to build public support in opposition to it. And as I said, you know, I think that there's lots of reasons that we should have done this. I think that, you know, the intelligence around this is uncanny. What we, what they were able to do here, the fact that they had all those people in one room and they took their shot and they were able to wipe out the regime the way that they did, is an incredible feat and in the long term, best interest of this country if the next step is handled properly. So instead they want to pick apart and undermine all of the shifting reasons for why and try to make people more adverse to this and oppose it on both the left and the right, which is why I'm saying I think the president's blowing it because I think he has a much more forceful case to make and they're not doing it. And if anything, they're doing it in like a scattershot, disappointed way where they're stepping on themselves.

[Mark Halpern]

But what's the cost of not doing it if, if there's no election tomorrow and they're not going to lose the war powers votes in the Congress, it

[Melissa DeRosa]

appears, well, there's no cost to Trump, but there's a cost to Republicans. And I would also say, but the

[Mark Halpern]

election's not for several months. It's not going to whether, whether this war costs Republicans anything. To me, I'm Asking you is not dependent on are they spinning it correctly in the first week. It's, do they win the war? If they win the war, it seems to me this will be very good for Republicans politically. If they lose the war, it'll be very bad. But that's nothing to do with whether Caroline Levitt's tweets are good enough. It's my view.

[Melissa DeRosa]

I don't care at all about Caroline Levitt's tweets. But look, I remember when 911 happened and this country was incredibly unified in what we were doing and George bush had a 90% approval going into that war, which later obviously was.

[Mark Halpern]

But that's not in the car. That's not in the cards for this guy.

[Melissa DeRosa]

But. But it didn't need to be done this way, Mark. It didn't need to be done this way. He could have gone out. He could have made the case.

[Mark Halpern]

What's the political. What's the political cost of doing it this way?

[Melissa DeRosa]

The political cost of doing this way is that you can splinter some pieces of the MAGA base. You have a reason for the left to bitch. You have a reason for the media to say that everything you're doing is authoritarian and dictatorial and you've got no plan. And. And at the same time, you're off message on affordability in the economy. And there's lots of, I think, political things that come with this.

[Eric Erickson]

Right.

[Mark Halpern]

So, Eric, I think Melissa's list is correct, but I just don't think it matters right now.

[Eric Erickson]

I don't think it matters now. I think it'll matter a month and a half from now or if we're still at it, if, if the Republicans would look at Venezuela. It was negative polling on Venezuela until after it happened and then suddenly it was majority support. You go after this for a few weeks. I think it helps the president. But you know, to a related point, let me just read you something. I've got this here. Quote, I'm not in favor of regime change, wars, and I don't want to be world police. But taking out a monstrous scumbag who's been killing Americans for decades and staged an attack on our embassies. Neither of those. It's appropriate, just and necessary. Anti war absolutism is silly. That's Matt Walsh From January of 2020 talking about taking out the Iranian leaders. I just think there's got to be a conversation on the right at some point about these people with social, monetized social media platforms who will say or do anything for clicks, including wanting to turn on the president being contrarian at all times just for the sake of it and leading a bunch of people astray. That's, I think, more dangerous to the Republicans than the Iraq situation or the Iran situation.

[Mark Halpern]

Right now, I'd say some of them are doing it for clicks, but I think some of them believe it. Even if it's a new position for them. I think in the current context, they believe it. And the president did speak out against Tucker last night, I believe. Melissa, let's say the war super successful. Every Democrat I hear, not everyone, not Fetterman and Josh Gotheimer, but almost everyone, they say, yeah, the Iranian, the ayatollah was a bad guy, but Trump has no plan. This is going to be a disaster. It's going to cost a lot of money. A lot of Americans are going to die. It's amateur hour. Let's say it's a huge success. Let's say all the Iranian military capacity is destroyed, terror capacity is destroyed. And let's say there's regime change and there's a friendly government there. What will Democrats say at that point?

[Melissa DeRosa]

I mean, Democrats should say I was, this is the part that's also bothering me about my party regard. This is, and I said it on your show when Gavin Newsom went to Europe and was giving out knee pads to world leaders. At a certain point we have to be together and root for America. And it bothers me that I feel like the Democrats want so badly for Trump to lose and some in the media want so badly for Trump to lose that they can't possibly get behind what you just laid out, which would be mean generations of good to come under.

[Mark Halpern]

Understood.

[Melissa DeRosa]

But then they should say he did a phenomenal job and he did it and nobody could.

[Mark Halpern]

But if, but if reporters happen to ask them, well, here's, here's video of you in March saying the president had no plan. This is a disaster, this is doomed. What, what would that, what will they say at that point? So I'm not laying out a far fetched scenario. This could work.

[Melissa DeRosa]

If it works, then people should say that what will.

[Mark Halpern]

But what will they say when confronted with the fact that you, Senator, you were doom and gloom about this in March, in the early days, you said it couldn't possibly work because Trump had no plan and it was going to cost a lot of money and Americans were going to die. What if that doesn't happen? What will they say? We were wrong. Thank you, President.

[Melissa DeRosa]

Depends on what spectrum of the party you're talking about. But some will say we were wrong. I think, respectfully, I think some will say I always said it was the right mission and I wanted to see that he had a plan and he proved that he had a plan and, and some will say he never should have done it to begin with and he didn't ask for permission and end. And because that's just where they're.

[Eric Erickson]

I just think it's adorable you think the press would ever go back to the Democrats and hold them accountable.

[Mark Halpern]

I knew that. I knew that. I knew that. Would you be positioned? Well, I plan to ask him if it happens. Do either of you think anyone who might be running for president as a Democrat in 2028 have acquitted themselves well so far? Is anybody out there leading the opposition or demonstrating that they are thoughtful about national security? Bueller. Bueller. Anybody?

[Eric Erickson]

You know, I, I gotta say, Gavin Newsom yesterday, bringing up the, the, the deterrenian children at the school after it turned out it was an Iranian misfired rocket. But blaming the United States is just another, like, what is this guy doing?

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah, Melissa. Is anybody you think like the temple?

[Eric Erickson]

No.

[Melissa DeRosa]

And if anything, they continue to reinforce how unserious they are. Kamala Harris's statement right out of the gate, I was like, who let this woman put this out? And like, aoc, we shouldn't even be talking about any more vis a vis 2020. Like, we shouldn't even give that any credence because God forbid it were to come true. But no, like, I feel like, if anything, they're reinforcing the Trump derangement syndrome, which is a word I don't like to repeat, but it continues to be true within my party. And again, these people aren't running 2028. They're going to be running against Rubio or they're going to be running against Vance or they're going to be running against Cruz or somebody else. And so they've got to carve a different lane and shoot and prove that they are serious. And none of them did that in Davos and none of that did that in Munich.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah. I will say people say voters don't vote on foreign policy. Well, if you're running for commander in chief, they want to at least be able to check the box and say you're a serious and thoughtful person. And, and I will say there's nothing any of them have done. Any of them, including the ones who have some foreign policy experience that shows a level of gravitas and thoughtfulness. It's all reactive to the base. It's all trying to compete to be more anti Trump. And it just, it demonstrates what I've said before. It's the weakest field of either party I've ever seen in my career. And the gap between where they need to be on credibility as commander in chief and what they're displaying now is massive. And if you think, oh, it's early, they can figure this out in the next years, number one, this is a gut check moment. And number two, if you don't have it now, if you don't have the instincts to do this in a serious way now, you're not going to develop them in two years. That just.

[Melissa DeRosa]

No. And also, and we can't not throw this into the conversation, the hypocrisy of the people who were out there against wanting to cease fire in Gaza and saying Israel didn't have the right to defend themselves after October 7, but then showing absolutely no or little regard to for the tens of thousands of people who were slaughtered at the hands of the ayatollah and the women who were raped and beheaded and who weren't allowed to walk around without a headscarf. The hypocrisy is so difficult to, it's, it's just mind blowing.

[Mark Halpern]

Yes. And voters aren't stupid. A couple more topics and then we're going to get to your questions. So if you're here on the platform and you want to get in on the conversation, raise your hand. And in about an hour, if you want to get in the conversation in Sirius XM, you can call me at 833-446-3496. Vice President was on TV last night. The New York Times reported that he was pressing the president in the run up to this to use big force. Now, some people say that shows he's hypocritical. It's really not. Vance is fine with using American force if it's not for a forever war, if it's not for a grand war. So I think people are miscasting what the Times claims he said. I don't know that he did. And people were wondering, though he hadn't really said much since Saturday. So last night he went on with Jesse Waters and he said this regarding the operation. 110, please.

[J.D. Vance]

So to step back just a little bit. If you go back to Midnight Hammer in the summer, what the president wanted to do with that mission was eliminate Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. And we did destroy the nuclear enrichment facilities during Operation Midnight Hammer over the summer. Now, here's the thing. Jesse we destroyed Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon during President Trump, Trump's term. We set them back substantially. But I think the president was looking for the long haul. He was looking for Iran to make a significant long term commitment that they would never build a nuclear weapon, that they would not pursue the ability to be on the brink of a nuclear weapon. And after months, really almost a year of painstaking diplomacy, what the president determined is he didn't want to just keep the president, excuse me, keep the country safe from an Iranian nuclear weapon for the first three, four years of his second term. He wanted to make sure that Iran could never have a nuclear weapon. And that would require fundamentally a change in mindset from the Iranian regime. So he saw that the Iranian regime was weakened. He knew that they were committed to getting on that brink of a nuclear weapon, and he decided to take action because he felt that was necessary in order to protect the nation's security.

[Mark Halpern]

Eric, you correctly pointed out the press is constantly looking to write the story. This is when the MAGA base breaks from the president. The second story they're always looking to write is this is when the vice president's relationship with the president dooms him politically because the president's going to be unpopular and he's got all these past statements critical of Trump. How do you think if the vice president is positioned politically, depending on how this comes out, or is it simply if the war goes well, he's fine, and if it doesn't, he's not?

[Eric Erickson]

Yeah, look, I think it goes well. He is going to be fine. And part of the dangers of being a vice president is you are tied to the president's record, whether you like to be or not. And the fact that J.D. vance is willing to come on board beside the president and possibly take positions that he otherwise wouldn't take as vice president. It's commendable for in terms of loyalty, but, I mean, there could be a political price for him if things go badly. At the same time, this, this constant machination within the press, even on the right of all the. Is it going to be Rubio, Is it going to be Vance? Odds are it's going to be Vance, Rubio out of the gate. But people want it to be more exciting and have more drama than really there. Yeah.

[Mark Halpern]

Melissa does for you and for Democrats in general who are open to a Republican president, potentially. I'm not saying you are, but just for you. And then slash for Democrats who are, does Vance seem to come across as a credible commander in chief at this point?

[Melissa DeRosa]

You know, the thing that I found the most dangerous about J.D. vance during the, during 2024 was when I watched him on the debate stage. And I disagree fundamentally with so many of his positions, but I really liked him. And he came across as credible. He came across as sincere, he came across as empathetic, he came across as knowledgeable, and he presents well. And so I think that, I think that J.D. vance is going to be a formidable, you know, person in the.

[Mark Halpern]

But does it come. But does he come across to your ear and eyes, a credible commander in chief?

[Melissa DeRosa]

Yes, I think he could come across as a credible commander in chief, depending on who he's running against. If Democrats put up somebody in the far left, crazy wing of my party, then, yes, I think he could come across as a commander in chief. But the more tethered he continues to be to Trump, the closer we get to 2028, the more it's easy to paint him as Trump part two. And then, you know.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah. All right, one more thing. The Clinton's video testimony was released late yesterday, and it proved one thing conclusively, that Mark Halpern was right about Chairman Comer's competence in running this investigation. If you're chairman of that committee, you need to talk to every member of the committee, every lawyer, every staffer, and say, let's coordinate our questions. Let's ask good questions. Let's make sure this investigation comes off as credible and serious. And instead, they asked her about Pizzagate and they nothing came out of it. Go read all the news roundups at 5 Things We Learned from this. They're all ridiculous. They have nothing to do with the legitimate investigation, did no damage to the Clintons whatsoever. After all that buildup, massive waste of time. Here's one thing I want to show you. In the run up to these depositions, President Trump said when asked, oh, I don't think the Clinton should have to testify. They're great. I love the Clintons. They're really unfortunate. They're testifying. So Trump's view seems to be, don't investigate the Clintons. Hillary Clinton does not have a reciprocal point of view. This has not gotten a lot of attention, ladies and gentlemen. It's jaw dropping to me. 121, please.

[Melissa DeRosa]

And finally, do you think that Donald Trump should be deposed by this committee?

[Legal Expert]

You know, I was a lawyer, and as a lawyer, you would look for pattern and practice. If you were deposing a witness in a case that you were trying, if you were in court, what did you know about this person? What you knew could influence how you question that person, how you tried the case. Donald Trump has been held civilly liable for sexual assault by a jury of his peers. Nine members of a jury found him liable in the sexual assault of E. Jean Carroll. That is behavior that fits a pattern, if one were looking for a pattern. He has also been convicted on 34 felony counts for attempting to hide his relationship with a escort and then to commit business fraud to prevent it from becoming public in the 2016 campaign, which was ultimately election interference. So 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. And 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, of time. So 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.

[Mark Halpern]

So, Melissa, I don't read the chat, but I glance at it and some people are pointing out if you're talking about prior conduct, President Clinton might not be a bad person to call in as well. But why would Hillary be doing this? Why wouldn't she just have a implicit peace accord with Donald Trump and say, yeah, no one, no one, neither of us should be investigated because neither of us had any evidence we knew about Jeffrey Epstein's crimes or committed a crime,

[Melissa DeRosa]

well, what good was the peace accord to her if, you know, his, his alleged, you know, olive branch of, I don't think they should be doing this didn't seem to influence the Republicans in Congress, which may be a first time ever. And they walked into a trap. The idea that they sat down with a woman that smart, that savvy, that articulate, who has been staring down Republican members of Congress since the early 90s, and they thought that they were going to walk out of that room with anything but that clip to show for it shows the naivete and frankly, stupidity of Comer and that entire crew. And whoever let Lauren Boebert open her mouth should be fired.

[Mark Halpern]

Eric, I get, I hear from people on the Hill all the time when I say I don't think Chairman Comer, I've got nothing against him personally. I just don't think there's any evidence on the Hunter Biden investigation on this one. I don't think there's any evidence he knows what he's doing. Is that unfair?

[Eric Erickson]

No, it's. He's trying to run for governor of Kentucky with these things, and I would question his competence to be governor of Kentucky. Listen, I've spent an entire career in politics on the other side of the Clinton, she got the better of them, whether you like her or not. She did. She ran circles around them. And every single investigation Colmer has done, he's gotten mud on his face. On the other side of it, this is a waste of taxpayer money to keep letting Colmer have these sorts of hearings that always blow up in the Republicans face. He is Wile E. Coyote of Congress.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah. As Bill Clinton used to say when I covered him in 1992, insanity's definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I don't understand why this speaker lets Chairman Comer run these investigations. He's not. All he's doing is setting his own party back.

[Melissa DeRosa]

I have to say, watching the clips on Twitter of Lauren Boebert asking about Pizzagate, all I could think of was, I want my tax dollars back. I want them back. You're not spending them well, so you don't get them anymore.

[Eric Erickson]

The photo in the committee made gave a moment of sympathy to Hillary Clinton when they weren't supposed to do this. It was such a clown show.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah. All right, quick words, sponsors, and then to your questions, please raise your hand. If you've never raised your hand before, today'd be a good day to do it. You want to get meals at home that are healthy, affordable, taste great, no preparation of any consequence and easy cleanup. Got a solution for you. The folks at Factor Meals, a subscription service, delivers fresh, fully cooked meals to your house. They're delicious. They're healthy. I'm eating them all the time now. And makes a huge difference. Two or three minutes in the microwave or in the oven and then you eat them and then you just throw the packaging away. You can specify the kind of things you want. Keto, high protein, vegetarian, whatever you want. Calorie, smart. It's all great. And right now, 50% off your first box of Factor Meals, plus free breakfast for a year. Go to factor meals.com 2way50OFF. Promo code 2way50OFF. And again, 50% off your first box. Try them. It make a huge difference for you. These are healthy. No refined sugars, no artificial sweeteners. It's all just good stuff. And it comes to your door and you just put them in the refrigerator. Pick one. You want Take it out. Make your meal free breakfast for a year plus 50% off your first box. Go to factorymeals.com two way 50 off and then finally Old Reliable. Our longtime sponsor, Cozy Earth wants to give you 20% off everything on the site cozyearth.com using the promo code morning this allows you to buy 20% off the bubble cuddle blanket. As hard as that is to believe, they'll give you 20% off a bubble cuddle blanket, the Baja bedding set, the luxe bath towel set, the famous pants that will change your life forever. All 20 off right now. Go to cozyearth.com use the promo code morning for 20% off cozyearth.com it's a way to refresh your routines with comfort that makes every day feel like a brand new year. And I continue to hear literally every day at least one of you contacts me and says I didn't do it. I just, I tuned out. I played Wordle while you were reading the Cozy Earth at but then I changed my mind. I bought one thing and now I'm buying a bunch of stuff. Or the pants have changed my life or my pets have stolen my bubble cuddle blanket. Nothing I can do about that. In any case, right now go to cozyearth.com use the promo code morning for 20% off. Give it a try today. Ladies and gentlemen, here we go. Come on in. Tell us where you are, what's on your mind after you unmute for Melissa and Eric, we start with Wayne. Wayne, floor is yours, sir. Yeah.

[Wayne]

Okay, so I'm from Cynthiana, Indiana, a little town north of Evansville, right in the Midwest. So I wanted to make a comment and just see what you guys thought. I wanted to say, Melissa, it's refreshing to see a Democrat that's not just knee jerk against everything that that Trump is for. I appreciate a lot of your comments. So I was thinking about it seems to me, well, first of all, when I heard several people last week saying that everyone is against this war, the polls are against it and most of the most of the wars that we've been in, the major wars, it seems to me in my lifetime that the people were against it until they actually started happening. And we tend to go into a war with a bad taste in our mouth from a previous situation. I was thinking about the Gulf War in 1991 and remembering that we were, I think there was still a bad taste in a lot of people's mouth from Vietnam and colored a lot of the way that people looked at it until the war happened and then it was so spectacularly successful that it changed a lot of people's mind. I think that could be a template for today. I think Iraq and Afghanistan has left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouth. And if this one goes as well as, for instance, the 91 Gulf War, it could change a lot of people's mind. I'm not saying being for war always, I'm certainly not.

[Mark Halpern]

But thank you. We got, we got to win. Thank you for that, Melissa and then Eric, thoughts on Wayne's premise that this, this could end up in a different place than the public seems to think now?

[Melissa DeRosa]

Yeah, I think it depends on the next several weeks and months if we're able to successfully get out of this thing where it doesn't turn into a forever war where we can bring stability to the region where oil prices don't spike. You know, that's a lot of ifs. But if we're able to land this plane, then, yeah, I think that people will come around and have been supportive of it and understand its place in history.

[Eric Erickson]

ERIC I would agree with Melissa there that the public's gut reaction always tends in these initial pollings or things you should probably ignore because they haven't digested all the information yet. It's a, it's a gut level reaction from the public that they don't want to be a part of this and then they see it going well and the position changes and that does have the strong potential to help the Republicans moving forward.

[Mark Halpern]

Okay, Wayne, thank you. Jim, welcome in. Tell folks who don't know where you are what's on your mind for Melissa and for Eric.

[Jim]

Thank you, Mark. I'm from Chicago, Illinois. I'm wearing my Cubs W jersey here. If you've never been to Wrigley Field, you are missing a great moment of your life. It's a bucket list thing. But I do want to ask you, I want to follow up on the last thing that Matt Walsh said and I want to ask you about what I've been thinking about. And that is the worst possible reason that we went to war is because Israel was going to go first. I remember 20 years ago, 25 years ago during the Iraq war, that when Iraq was firing Scuds at Israel, they were told not to respond because if they did, every Arab country would attack Israel. Now Israel starts this according to Marco Rubio, and every Arab country is joining with Israel against Iran. And it seems like the Europeans are the only people that are blocking this right now. Spain has kicked US out of using their basis for refueling the UK won't let us use Diego Garcia. Is the world turning upside down now that the Jews and the Arabs are now collaborating against Iran? And it's the Europeans that are basically what Iran is hoping for and maybe the progressives in the United States? And isn't this going to be the big legacy of this war, is that somehow we found a way to get the Arabs to agree with Israel to attack another country in the Middle East? Thank you.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah, thank you for that, Jim. Eric.

[Eric Erickson]

Yeah. You know, just to give you a wild, wild idea of what the progress here. When I grew up in the Middle east, we weren't allowed to go to Israel. Phone calls to Israel didn't exist. You literally couldn't connect a phone line to Israel. Our books and our encyclopedias in our library at our school, it was an American school. Everything on Israel was either redacted or ripped out. Our geography textbooks said Palestine, not Israel. Now you can make a phone call. You can fly from Dubai or Abu Dhabi to Tel Aviv. And there has been this quiet building of relationship in large part due to Donald Trump's efforts. And now Iran, which the other Arab nations have always hated, has now indiscriminately fired upon them. And yeah, it is interesting to watch the Middle East, I would say I'd be careful on emphasizing European opposition. The French today are now flying missions in the UAE helping the UAE shoot down Iranian drones. The Greeks and the. The English are now in the Mediterranean shooting down drones and missiles flying over Jordan. Spain is, is the outlier here compared to the others, but I think there's more unity than people want to recognize.

[Mark Halpern]

Melissa?

[Melissa DeRosa]

No, I agree with everything that Eric just said. You know what I more take is in the last five years, the loss of support in the United States for Israel, which, especially as a New Yorker and someone who's been in New York politics since I'm 15 years old, I still can't wrap my head around. And it's been an erosion over the last five years, but it's feels like it's gotten much more rapid. So I actually think that what's gone on in the last 72 hours has sort of gotten Europe to the table in a way that they were reluctant to. And obviously what you said, I mean, seeing the Arabs and the Jews dancing together in the streets in New York and LA and them coming to their defenses and everyone together is a real sight to be seen. But the bigger story to me continues to be the lack of support for Israel out of the United States.

[Eric Erickson]

Yeah.

[Mark Halpern]

Jim, thank you. Great question. You speak for tens of millions of people. Appreciate that.

[Eric Erickson]

Also good cup.

[Mark Halpern]

Also. Go Cubs, always. Ladies and gentlemen, we have the second top voice in all of Georgia joining us now along with Eric Erickson. Chris, welcome in. Good Morning Atlanta Metroplex. Thank you for being here, sir. What's on your mind?

[Chris]

I'm extremely disappointed with Melissa.

[Mark Halpern]

Let's talk about that.

[Chris]

She has missed the most obvious reason to criticize what's going on. I believe I must have heard Trump say about 2,000 times there would be no new wars. And I would like to know how she thinks. The parents, you know, he's been bragging about the increased recruitment, but I think a lot of increased recruitment in the military. It's a lot easier to sign up for the military when you've been promised you won't have to go to war. I wonder how a lot of those young men, those young rural white men, especially because that's who he's been signing up. I wonder how they feel about the fact that now he's starting wars and six people already dead. Melissa, that was your much better argument. The Democrats don't have to hide and. No, let me finish. The Democrats don't have to cheer on whether he is successful at beating up on a weak, defenseless little Iran. Furthermore, if he really wants to start a war, let's go get Putin. If he likes bad dislikes bad people, let's go get the Russians. But the Democrats don't have to say anything about this other than he lied to y', all, he told you there'd be no wars and he's starting them. And his people can't even explain why. That's all I have to say.

[Mark Halpern]

All right, Chris, hold on. Melissa, I'll give you a moment to answer. Remind people the State Department's trying to help Americans who are trapped in some of these Middle Eastern countries get home. And I've heard from a number of you asking me for advice about what to tell your loved ones if they're there. Go to my Twitter account. I just retweeted the State Department instructions for what folks can do. The numbers you can call, the emails, addresses you can go to, the websites you can go to if you are trying to get home because domestic air travel is pretty much stopped. Melissa, response to Chris, please.

[Melissa DeRosa]

Chris, I mean, respectfully, I'm not here to spew Democratic talking points. If you want that, I think you can turn on Ms. Now, I'm trying to analyze more thoughtfully. I think the situation for, for what it is globally, the global impact, the historical role Iran has played around the world in terms of death to Americans, in terms of devising terror attacks, in terms of instability in the region, and the fact that I think the world is a safer place without nuclear, their new nuclear capability. I'm also not saying I'm supporting what Donald Trump is doing. I'm saying that I think that he has botched the rollout of this and history time will tell whether or not this was the right decision. But I don't, you know, just regurgitate Republican talking points. And I'm not here to say why Democrats should say what Trump did was wrong. How come Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer are doing that just fine on the Hill? I don't know how successfully, but I'm rooting for America at the end of the day and analyzing the situation as it is.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah, Chris, sorry. Unmute again. Chris, real quick. I got some news I want to share, but unmute and finish, if you would.

[Chris]

Hey, Mark, you know I'm always quick. There's some other folk you need to talk about.

[Melissa DeRosa]

No. And I appreciate the feedback.

[Chris]

No, here's my point. You were very critical of how the Democrats might not handle it properly. I think you were being asked to comment as to how the Democrats should handle it. So you may not be here to, to spew Democrat talking points, but you could at least come up with some logic that supports a real Democrat's view, which I sometimes wonder if you really are.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah. Eric, Chris, thank you. Appreciate it. Some news from the Israeli government. As always, I urge people, you got to be skeptical of governments during times of war. Even, even if you're an American citizen, you have to question the American government. That's our job. I said it immediately after 9, 11. I said, you know, I'm an American, but I'm also, my job is to hold the government accountable. So whenever you're reporting information about a war where it's very hard to get information except from governments, you got to be skeptical. But here's what the Israeli government is saying, that just earlier today there was a meeting of Iran's Council of Experts, and they were meeting to vote on a new, a new government. And the Israeli Air Force says during the vote counting, during the counting or during the voting, during the votes were being counted, they killed everybody in the room. The Israelis bombed the vote counting. So as the Iranians were trying to vote for a new government to replace those who've already been killed, the Israelis say they bombed the place and killed Some number. There are 88 members of the council. Not clear how many of them are there, but they bombed the vote. And the Israeli official says, quote, we wanted to prevent them from picking a new supreme leader. End a little bit early so I can get over to Sirius xm. Eric, what do you, what one or two things are you looking for next? Beats in the story today that people should pay attention to.

[Eric Erickson]

What is the escalation that Rubio and Trump have both said it's going to escalate now as the Iranians move into schools and mosques and raise arms there. How do we get our Arab partners to take those on so we're not accused of blowing up mosques?

[Mark Halpern]

Melissa, what are you looking at?

[Melissa DeRosa]

Sorry, I was just looking at Twitter to see what you were talking about.

[Eric Erickson]

Yeah, the video is impressive, by the way. They've already released it.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah, it is. While we wait for Melissa. Well, you go. What are you looking for, Melissa?

[Melissa DeRosa]

No, I'm sorry, I don't, I don't have anything to add.

[Mark Halpern]

Okay. Last night on two Way tonight, John Fowler of International Intrigue said we're in the very beginning of a 40 day mourning period for the Ayatollah. And he made a very convincing argument that even if you want to support regime change, that it's very difficult to go out on the street now in opposition to the government because there's so much, you know, energy on the street in support of this 40 day mourning period. I don't know if he's right or not, but it's an interesting point. So what I'm looking for continue to be this is going to be settled by elites in Iran and by the people of Iran more than anything else. And I'm just looking to see what can we learn about what's actually going on the ground. Remember, this all started this phase because there was real questions about the Iranian government and the economy. And the economy can't be doing particularly well right now under these circumstances. Thanks to Melissa. Thanks to Eric. We love having you both here. Looking forward to having you back. I'm jumping over to Sirius XM Channel 111 right now if you want to call me 833-446-3496, the back half of the show. I'll be back at 5 o' clock for 2A tonight and this program will be on again in 23 hours. We look forward to you joining. Very grateful to everybody in the community. And again, Eric, thanks to you. Melissa, thanks to you. We'll see you. See you at 5. And then we'll see you tomorrow. Have a great day, everybody.