Alex Ward (2:57)

I mean, effectively he's telling AIDS to like, you know, have the military get ready, you know, be ready for. If the final order comes to provide some. To do some sort of attack on Iran. I should note at the front, I don't know what the attack plans are. That was.

Sam Stein (3:12)

Right.

Alex Ward (3:12)

You could not get as. As part of this reporting. But what we got was in the Situation Room on Tuesday, Trump, and he's around with. With senior aides, you know, effectively says, okay, I might. I'm like, this. This is. We're sort of good to go. Like, I'm, you know, I select these or I select this. I can't tell you exactly with clarity, but basically what he's saying is, get this all readied for if. And if. If I say go, we can go. But he's clearly also thinking about this in terms of leverage. Right? He doesn't. It's not clear. And he's been very open today that, you know, he's like, I may do it, I may not do it. I don't want to make a decision. You know, I only make a decision only at the final moments. So he was kind of already explicitly telling us this out in public, but it's just interesting that he's already made sort of the. The.

Sam Stein (4:00)

Well, yeah, letting his own team know, I'm a go. I'm a go on this. If Tehran doesn't come to the table is another step. And I guess I just want to kind of stay in this one. One element here, which is maybe, you don't know, uh, when he says, I approve of the plans, do we know if they actually have plans? Or is he just saying in concept, I approve, now go build me plans?

Alex Ward (4:24)

I mean, there are plans. We should know. The Pentagon is a planning organization. Centcom has plans. DoD has plans.

Sam Stein (4:29)

But I'm saying, has he seen specific plans? He's like, I approve of that plan.

Alex Ward (4:33)

That I can't be that specific, unfortunately. I tried to figure out what the plans were or precisely, you know, how many plans were. Were shown to him and if he picked a specific one or he just said, yeah, good, get all these ready to go. I can't. We weren't that specific. Unfortunately, we couldn't get that. But we do know he at least said, I'm a go on an attack, and you get ready for me to give the green light.

Sam Stein (4:52)

Now, the subtext, or maybe just the text of the story, is that he does still want to have some wiggle room for a diplomatic solution. Like you said this just today. He said, I may or may not. And the story makes clear he's holding off on a final yes, because he's open to the idea of some sort of diplomatic solution. You also know in the story, notably, that Russia, a real ally of Iran, has been urging a diplomatic solution. Do we have any sense of how long Tehran has here?

Alex Ward (5:23)

Not long. I mean, Trump's basically been like, you know, by the end of the week, maybe sooner. He's. He's constantly criticizing Iran for not having made a deal earlier. So it doesn't feel like there's a lot of time. Now. There's a, you know, if you're Trump, you're, you know, this story's out there, but you also know what your language has been, I may or may not. And you're trying to see if Iran does reach out and goes, okay, fine, you know, I mean, Trump has called for unconditional surrender. So the Iranians go, we're going to stop attacking Israel, and we might also, you know, give up any enrichment here. So it's pretty clear what the president wants. If he doesn't get that, he might go ahead and give the green light on these options.

Sam Stein (5:57)

You think it's clear what the President wants?

Alex Ward (6:00)

I think it's clear what he wants out of Iran. Will he. Which is no enrichment and no nuclear program. Now, does that mean he doesn't, you know, there's some wiggle room? Like, he might go, okay, you can cap at 3.67% enrichment, right? Yeah. Like, I don't, like, I don't know. But I'm not saying he's like, no enrichment or, or not. I mean, he may be, but I think it's clear that he. What he does want with Iran, which is just an indefinite, no ability to have a nuclear program at all.

Sam Stein (6:26)

What's your sense of the mood outside of Trump, but in his orbit, and maybe not even just the top echelon, the senior advisors, but within the Pentagon and the national security apparatus. Is everyone kind of on board with going ahead? Is there dissension? If there is dissension, where is it coming from? Are there people who are worried about what involvement at this scale might look like, and if so, why? That's four questions. We don't need to do them all the time, but you get the general gist.

Alex Ward (6:58)

Yeah, I mean, I, I don't know like specifically like, you know, is Hagset against and Rubio for sure? I don't know that. But I mean, we do know that the split in MAGA world is real over this. Right. There are a lot of people that want the President to not get involved in another Middle east war. And there are some people in the MAGA coalition, but more specifically in the traditional Republican hawk establishment that have wanted to attack Iran for a long time. Like right now, if you're Mike Pompeo, John Bolton or Mike Waltz, you're wondering what you did wrong, right? Because you were pushing Trump to do this for quite some time. And you know Trump, he seems pretty close to doing it now. He may, again, I want to be very clear, he may pull back. But, but it's, you know, the people around Trump, I think we got kind of two things. One, they are generally more hawkish, Right. Outside of like say Director of National Intelligence Kelsey Gabbard, they're a bit more hawkish and particularly when it comes to Iran. And two, there isn't a real policy process underneath Trump like there are usually are with other presidents. It's whatever the President wants, then everyone executes.

Sam Stein (7:57)

Yeah, that's sort of what I was trying to get at. Is this really as top down as it seems from the outside?

Alex Ward (8:03)

100%, this is pure. I mean, they kind of decimated. Not kind of, they did decimate the NSC National Security Council. I mean, it's that, that whole process underneath where like they just have multiple, you know, meetings ad nauseam. One could argue too many meetings and it takes too long.

Sam Stein (8:15)

Sure.

Alex Ward (8:16)

But until it gets to the President, they offer three options and then the president chooses one. Like that doesn't exist now. The president, people advise the president directly and, and he goes, I'm doing this. And then everyone underneath executes. So they're really, I mean, look, is it around? We also know that Trump likes when people kind of occasionally push back or he likes strong debate. So is it Possible in the Situation Room, you know, real views are coming out, and then Trump kind of makes up his mind. That's all that's possible. But I don't, you know, the debate is within Trump himself, really. Like, at one point he kind of wants to do this. At another point he want. He'd prefer. I think he'd prefer a diplomatic solution, but he feels like, you know, that time has run out, in a sense.

Sam Stein (8:55)

And maybe I'm playing too much theater critic here or maybe overanalyzing it, but it's been notable to me how little there's been in terms of kind of leaking from within, around, like, the planning process here. And I guess that gets to your point, which is that they're kind of following his beat. And if there was someone who was really worried about, for instance, getting involved in, you know, giving the Israelis the bunker buster bomb and what that might mean or even regime change, like, you know, you would theoretically see some sort of, like, leaked dissension or, you know, analysis that, you know, would maybe box in the administration. But we don't see that right now.

Alex Ward (9:32)

Not necessarily. But I mean, we did see, you know, Tulsi Gabbard put out that nuclear video in Hiroshima.

Sam Stein (9:39)

Yes, that. That's true. That was. That predated the Israeli attack. But it was. Maybe.

Alex Ward (9:44)

But there was discussion about, I mean, Trump had been pretty clear, Right. Like Iran makes a deal or. Or we do this or this or this.

Sam Stein (9:51)

Right, right, right. And we had that. We had that report in Politico yesterday that he was not happy with that. So maybe there is. Maybe I misstated it.

Alex Ward (9:58)

Yeah. Or like, you know, that. I mean, that could also. It could be. It really could have been also about defense of Ukraine versus Russia. Right. There's always been concern about that going nuclear, I think unlikely, but that there was that concern. So, look, I mean, I think that some of that dissension is out in the open and there are maga, not, you know, non interventionists in the government who are somewhat resistant to that. But at the end of the day, this administration is run by really a handful of people, Trump's inner circle. And we'll go with whatever Trump wants. But. So I. Dissension might matter, might not. But I think ultimately, really, it's like the eight people around Trump.

Sam Stein (10:37)

What do you make of. I have two more questions, at least, but what do you make of Trump's very sort of public mean, it's very Trumpian. Right. But also, there's a purpose, I think, to it and in how he's kind of posting through it and being very open with his thoughts and, you know, even today being like, well, I may or may not do it, but, you know, unconditional surrender and, you know, the aola, I wish, you know, good luck and, and stuff like that, where it's like, it's live commentary. But is there a, is there a larger purpose to this, or is this just kind of him being guttural and doing his thing?

Alex Ward (11:10)

I mean, outside of, you know, Trump liking the theater of it and enjoying speaking out in front of the press, I mean, he does see the power of the bully pulpit to a certain extent. Right? He, and in this case, he's basically, I mean, when he doesn't need our story to get what the message is, the message he said even before he went out was, I may.

Sam Stein (11:29)

Yeah, well, that led me to, that leads me to my other question that leads me, which is like, and I don't think this is why. I don't think I, I think I know the answer is. But like, you know, in a story like this where you're writing that he may, you know, he signed off on or he's told AIDS that, you know, I'm comfortable with attack, but I'm not going to give the final order because I want to have a diplomatic option here. The story itself is part of the, you know, toolkit. Right. Like, I, I'm not saying you were used by the administration, but there is some value for them to say, hey, you know, we've signed off. But then again, Trump could just say that himself, right?

Alex Ward (12:02)

I mean, he kind of did, right, when he was like, I have ideas on what to do, but I haven't made a final decision. And look, I mean, I, I can, you know, say that as part of this reporting, it wasn't like, you know, we had to go to the White House and be like, hey, here's what we got.

Sam Stein (12:17)

You know, it wasn't them handing it to. Yeah, right.

Alex Ward (12:19)

So, but, but to your point, I mean, like, there, there's all. And this is always true for any administration, sometimes the story that they didn't provide as a handout could still be useful to an administration. And I think Trump, you know, Trump, who is clearly trying to build some leverage here by I may or I may not or I, you know, it depends up till final moment could, could use. Be like, hey, all right, it's true. So some reporter could ask him, have you actually approved plans? He might say, yes, but I want to wait and see. In which case, again, that's more Leverage. So I think that's how Trump is sort of seeing this. I think he's really doing. He wants to solve this problem, you know, problem diplomatically. And I think this is actually somewhat of a diplomatic opening gambit, just as one quick, you know, parallel.

Sam Stein (12:59)

Yeah, sure.

Alex Ward (13:00)

Remember, in the first term, Trump was threatening, like, actual nuclear war with North Korea. And what ended up happening, he and Kim Jong Un ended up meeting and, you know, that resolved, quote, unquote, in a diplomatic fashion. So Trump may have that similar kind of idea in mind.

Sam Stein (13:15)

No, it's really fat. It's. It's fascinating. It's also, like, scary. Right. I mean, we could wake up tomorrow and it could be that we are totally engaged in Iran, or we could wake up tomorrow and there could be some sort of diplomatic agreement. It's very high stakes, and it's happening all out in the open. It's unfamiliar for me, at least I'm sure for you, too. I just don't recall this type of uncertainty around, like, what happens the next two hours.

Alex Ward (13:39)

Yeah. My understanding is it's not like tomorrow or like today or tomorrow. I mean, who knows? You know, perils of prediction.

Sam Stein (13:44)

Sure.

Alex Ward (13:45)

My understanding is that, you know, Trump is basically trying to get things in line so he has options. And one of those, as we know, with military hardware moving into the region, one of those could be go, you know, green light. But he also could be just really trying to kind of wait this out. Here's another sort of, you know, term. One note. It is nowhere near at the scale, but it's still Iran related and it's important. Iran had downed a US Unmanned drone. And at the time, his advisors, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo were pushing him to strike Iran, and he actually ordered that strike, and the planes were in the air, and then he, you know, someone gave him a battle damage assessment of, okay, when the bombs drop, it'll kill about 100, 150 people, something like that. Whoa, whoa, whoa.

Richard Karn (14:32)

That's.

Alex Ward (14:32)

That's not proportionate. And then the planes turned around.

Sam Stein (14:35)

Right.

Alex Ward (14:35)

So it's also possible that Trump is, like, might be in this mindset, and then once the plane's in the air, he might decide against it. I mean, once those bombs drop, and if they are American bombs, then it becomes a wholly different conflict.

Sam Stein (14:48)

Totally. All right, well, listen, we love you. We want to have you back on. Your reporting has been tremendous. Seriously, I'm dead serious. Like, you've been doing tremendous work. Send our best to Laura, too, who's been doing tremendous work. Laura Seligman's also on the byline there. We'll be in touch. Thank you for all you're doing and thank you for jumping on quickly to talk about your story again. Check out Wall Street Journal's Alex Ward, who has an exclusive tonight. Not read the headline because I don't know if it changes, but we'll see. Alex, take care, man.

Alex Ward (15:16)

All right. Thank you, buddy.

Richard Karn (15:17)

Hi, I'm Richard Karn and you may have seen me on TV talking about the world's number one expandable garden hose. Well, the brand new pocket hose Copperhead with Pocket Pivot is here and it's a total game changer. Old fashioned hoses get kinks and creases at the spigot, but the Copperhead's pocket pivot swivels 360 degrees for full water flow and freedom to water with ease all around your home. When you're all done, this rust proof anti burst hose shrinks back down to pocket size for effortless handling and tidy storage. Plus your super light and ultra durable pocket hose. Copperhead is backed with a 10 year warranty. What could be better than that? I'll tell you what an exciting exclusive offer just for you for a limited time. You can get a free pocket pivot and their 10 pattern sprayer with the purchase of any size Copperhead hose. Just text water to 64,000. That's water to 64,000 for your two free gifts with purchase w a T E R to 64, 000.

Unknown Speaker (16:11)

By texting 64,000, you agree to receive recurring automated marketing messages from Pocket host. Message and data rates may apply. No purchase required. Terms apply. Available at pockethost.com terms.