Host/Anchor (2:22)

casualties and perhaps even higher those killed. And then we would all be here

Mark Mazzetti, Washington investigative correspondent for the New York Times (2:26)

answering questions about why we knew that and didn't act.

Host/Anchor (2:30)

Rubio's comments right there sent shockwaves across the political spectrum. Here's how the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner, summed it up.

Senator Ruben Gallego (2:40)

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

Retired US Army Brigadier General Steve Anderson (2:50)

There was a threat to Israel. And if we equate a threat to

Angelo Carusone, President of Media Matters for America (2:57)

Israel as the equivalent of an imminent

Senator Ruben Gallego (3:00)

threat to the United States

Retired US Army Brigadier General Steve Anderson (3:03)

Then we

Senator Ruben Gallego (3:04)

are in uncharted territory.

Host/Anchor (3:07)

Now, as I said, the reaction is not tied up in the typical partisan confines of our normal political debates. On the right, the reaction was more swift and more furious. Even Steve Bannon has questions. Watch.

Mark Mazzetti, Washington investigative correspondent for the New York Times (3:23)

If we knew they were going to be that Iran was going to be attacked and they would attack us, is there no coordination in this? I think that has to be explained.

Host/Anchor (3:32)

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

Angelo Carusone, President of Media Matters for America (3:35)

It's to look out for us.

Host/Anchor (3:37)

What is happening to the man that. That I supported. You supported the man that. That denounced what happened in ira, that said no more foreign wars, no more regime change. And we're a year in, A year in, and we're in another war and we've got American troops being killed. Doing cleanup on aisle nine, Donald Trump listened to what he had to say. Did Israel force your hand to launch these strikes against Iran? Did that Yahoo pulled the United States into this war?

Donald Trump (4:11)

No, I might have forced their hands. You see, we were having negotiations with these lunatics. And it was my opinion that they were going to attack first. They were going to attack. If we didn't do it, they were going to attack first. I felt strongly about that.

Host/Anchor (4:30)

It was my opinion. Again, Senator Mark Warner said after a briefing by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the CIA director, there was no imminent threat to the United States by the Iranians. End quote. Meanwhile, in the Middle east, the war shows no signs of de. Escalating. Quite the opposite. More than 800 people have been killed across the Middle east, including six United States service members. The US embassies in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have closed after Iranian attacks. The US Embassy in Lebanon is also closed. In the last few hours, a drone struck the U.S. consulate in Dubai. No injuries have been reported. The Trump administration is urging all Americans in the Middle east right now, in 16 countries in total. Look at that map. Any American in any of those countries is being urged to evacuate. The same government is not offering any means by which to help them evacuate. The BBC reports that somewhere between 500,000 and 1 million Americans live in that region and they have been left stranded by the Trump administration. The U.S. embassy in Jerusalem said this, quote, the. The U.S. embassy is not in a position at this time to evacuate or directly assist Americans in departing Israel. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy tweeted this quote, so the State Department is forcing everyone to immediately leave the region, but is also refusing to help people leave the region. The strike itself is illegal and disastrous. But their lack of readiness for what comes next is unforgivable as well. Incompetence everywhere. After a significant backlash, the State Department announced today that it is facilitating charter flights from the uae, Saudi Arabia, Arabia and Jordan. Adding to the tensions, Donald Trump announced a few hours ago that the US May deploy the Navy to escort ships through the Strait of Hormuz. That's the narrow channel through which one fifth of the world's oil supply goes through. Iran has threatened to attack any ships that cross the strait, sending oil prices spiking. Donald Trump's war against Iran, a war of choice turning into a cascading economic, political and foreign policy crisis is where we start today. And Appelbaum is here. She's a columnist for the Atlant. Also joining us, retired US Army Brigadier General Steve Anderson is here. Plus, Washington investigative correspondent for the New York Times, Mark Mazzetti is here. And with me at the table for the hour, the president of Media Matters for America, Angelo Carazone, is here. Mark Mazzetti, you were here on Friday with some incredible reporting about the three rationales that have been offered up as potential predicates for war in Iran were untrue, false. And I think the last thing I asked you was, are we going to war tonight or this weekend? And you said, I don't know, just tell me how we got here.

Mark Mazzetti, Washington investigative correspondent for the New York Times (7:21)

Well, right. As we said last week, the administration was in this sort of 11th hour mode of trying to sell the idea of why there needed to be a war now. And it centered around the idea that Iran was on the brink of having a nuclear weapon and on the brink of having missiles that could hit the United States. And as we discussed, the intelligence didn't support that at all. It was unfounded. The claims were unfounded. So it was clear, you know, it's clear now that this was done at the very end when there was a preparation for a strike over last weekend. The interesting thing about Rubio's claims that you showed a clip of about him saying that ultimately United States moved because they were afraid Iran would strike first because Israel was about to strike. Right. This was not just a off the cuff remark he made. It's the same logic that he used with the Gang of Eight last week when arguing about, you know, the possibility of a war and why it might be necessary. The Democrats at the time in the Gang of Eight, as we reported, saw this as circular logic. And Rubio repeated it yesterday and, as you say, drew a lot of criticism for it.

Host/Anchor (8:41)

Ann Applebaum, let me ask You, I think you were also here at the end of last week, and we talked about how Europe has changed because of the political vacuum America created in Ukraine and beyond. Trump's, to put it generously, indifference toward NATO. What is the response from our allies about America's Secretary of State essentially saying we are at war because we're responding to what Israel was about to do.

Anne Applebaum, Columnist for The Atlantic (9:15)

So alongside not explaining to Americans what the war would be about, the US Also didn't explain to allies. I think it did warn some allies. So people were aware that there might be something happening in the Middle east last weekend, but there was no effort to build support for the American position. There was no effort to get European countries who have actually had a lot of interaction with Iran and who know Iran well and who have troops or military capabilities in the region to be involved. That includes France, Britain, Germany, and others. The suddenness of the announcement actually led to the Spanish government refusing to allow Americans to use bases in Spain. You know, it's almost impossible for Europeans really to react in a consistent way because they weren't included in the conversation. And so mostly they're staying on the sidelines. I would hope that at some point down the road, some will start to offer help with some kind of Iranian transition, if we ever get to that. It's something Europeans know about and could do. But there, you know, the lack of building consensus, allies, process, expectations, I mean, that's not just an American domestic issue. It's also an issue with the. The countries that. Who could, as I say, be helpful to America in a crisis.

Host/Anchor (10:44)

General, let me show you what Trump is saying, and what he's had to say has not really meshed up tonally or narratively with what the Secretary of State has had to say. But let me play for you what Trump has had to say. What's the worst case scenario that you have planned for in Iran?

Donald Trump (11:07)

Well, I don't know if there's a worst case. I guess the worst case would be we do this, and then somebody takes over who's as bad as the previous person. Right. That could happen. We don't want that to happen.

Host/Anchor (11:18)

You have someone in mind right now

Anne Applebaum, Columnist for The Atlantic (11:19)

because you said all the people you

Host/Anchor (11:21)

did have in mind have been taken out.

Mark Mazzetti, Washington investigative correspondent for the New York Times (11:23)

What do you think?

Donald Trump (11:23)

Well, most of the people we had in mind are dead. So, you know, we had some in mind from that group that is. Is dead. And now we have another group. They may be dead. Also, based on reports,

Host/Anchor (11:39)

your thoughts about where we are as a military and where the conversation with the country stands right now as being led by Donald Trump.

Retired US Army Brigadier General Steve Anderson (11:51)

Well, I mean, the goal, this is obviously turning I think into a major disaster. But the point that he was making about taking out senior leaders, I mean, I remember very vividly my time in Iraq. You remember the decks of cards that we had with all the bad guys listed, you know, from the ace of spades to the two of clubs, whatever. And how every night we were trying to take out bad guys, senior leaders in the Iraqi military, Al Qaeda and the like. And I remember the impact on the ground was pretty much negligible, that every time that they killed a bad guy, another one would jump up. These are not stupid people. They've known that this attack was coming for quite some time. We had an 86 year old Khomeini that was leading this country who had cancer and he knew that his days were numbered. He had at least four levels, I believe, appointed of succession plan. So, you know, to think that these people are going to be taken away, that we're going to execute regime change merely by killing off the top 40 or 50 senior leaders in the IRGC, I mean, that's pretty, pretty rich to go to that, to make that kind of an argument. These people are smart, they are dug in, they're well equipped and they're going to hold out for quite some time despite the fact that they've lost a lot of senior leaders. The military has done a superb job. I'm very, very proud of that. But Donald Trump is taking advantage of their incredible competence and their ability to get the job done because they've been taught to respond. Yes, sir. When a civilian leader gives a command. And they've done it very, very well. But he's been taking, what he has essentially done is he's turned America's military into Trump's militia to execute his plan and his, you know, to feed his ego, make him look like the tough guy. This is not going well. It's only going to get worse. And we're only four days into this.

Host/Anchor (13:59)

Trump's latest public communication about where he will use the military is to deploy the navy to lead ships through the Straits of Hormuz. What risk does that present to the men and women of the Navy?

Retired US Army Brigadier General Steve Anderson (14:14)

Well, a tremendous risk, obviously. I mean, if they're going to go into the Persian Gulf, a very small area in a 21 mile strait of Hormuz, as we pointed out earlier, I mean, they put themselves at tremendous risk. You know, the, there are landmine or there are, there are mines in the sea that have been placed out there. And of course they do have a navy. Donald Trump claims that we've degraded quite a bit of it, but there's lots of threats that the Navy will definitely encounter in trying to support the movement of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.

Host/Anchor (14:51)

Let me come back to what Marco Rubio has put before the Congress and the country. This public narrative that we went to respond to. What would be the response from Iran knowing that Israel was going to go? It presupposes that we had no sway or no influence over what Israel would do, which if that is the sworn testimony of Secretary of State, that's shocking in and of itself. But this is where the most dramatic rupture is within Trump's movement. Since I've known you, since I've laid eyes on you, since you've been having these conversations. And this is a tweet from right wing influencer, the Daily Wire host Matt Walsh, quote, so he is flat out telling us we are in a war with Iran because Israel forced our hand. This is basically the worst possible thing he could have said.

Angelo Carusone, President of Media Matters for America (15:47)

Yeah, that's, I mean, that's an important point to consider because one of the things that Rubio did is that there was a bunch of people that were tepid, but they were still saying, look, I'm not sure I'm here. But they're not full throated attacking Trump or the Trump administration. Like Walsh when he said that, he basically kicked a hornet's nest. Because this has been a major fault line in the larger MAGA coalition for a while. That big dust up back in October between Nick Fuentes and the Heritage foundation that created that pile on where all these right wingers then started taking aside, where J.D. vance had to essentially say, no, no, we're going to let the gripers in. Because he couldn't say, no, we're not going to let them out. It was all because of this. How much power and influence do we actually want Israel to have over our politics? And then separate from that, how much tolerance are we going to have for the mere perception of that, that narrative thread? And what Rubio said is he confirmed for a large part of the MAGA coalition something that they've been saying for a while, the Alex Jones of the world, the Nick Fuentes, the Matt Walshes, that actually this is all about Israel and that Trump was not really. Trump did not have his hand on the wheel, the sort of the strong man that you've been fully supporting and carrying all this water for, backfilling all the lies for. He wasn't the one that made this decision, we are now doing it for someone else. And that created, that opened up a massive fault line. And it had been percolating beforehand. There was already tension, but that was the difference maker. And there's no way to walk that back. He can claim that wasn't what he was saying. It's too late because there was a perception that was percolating, a feeling they had been soaking in that narrative for such a long, long time. That is where the growth has been in the maga media has actually been around that thread. The reason that the Gripers and these other figures have so much influence is because they always tie everything back to that. Candace Owens ties everything back to that. And so that is the major sort of theme. And they're America first is what they say they are. But at the core, they're isolationists. And this fear not only fuels anti Semitism and feeds into that, but also runs against their isolationist tendencies. So what Rubio did was not just validate and confirm for them one of their biggest fears, but he basically said, this is now the fight. This is actually what this fight's about. And so now when he's calling the question as to whether or not we're going to talk that they're going to tolerate Trump being as closely aligned with Israel as he's been.

Host/Anchor (18:03)

I mean, Mark Mazzetti, this, this, it is so such a shock to the system, I think, for Americans to hear that we have launched a war against Iran with sort of a paragraph from the wildly unpopular doctrine of preemption from the Bush era, of which I worked in that administration, but only to follow and be led by Israel's foreign policy decisions. Is it true that we had, I mean, did we have any capacity to influence or weigh in with Israel? I mean, just tell me, with all of your knowledge of the US Israeli relationship, where does that relationship stand? And is it as Rubio describes? They were doing this with or without our, our, our approval or our buy in. And so we had to strike Iran at the same time to what? I mean, just, just fill in the blanks of what Rubio has said publicly. So I understand.

Mark Mazzetti, Washington investigative correspondent for the New York Times (19:04)

So we did a story that published yesterday that got into basically what led Trump to war. And it kept coming back to Benjamin Netanyahu, where if you go back to late December, Netanyahu makes a visit to Mar A Lago. And during that meeting, he kind of plants the seed of an idea of that Israel was probably going to have to strike Iran sometime during the first half of 2026. He would like American support, he would like protection. But Netanyahu was basically saying, we're gonna need to do this. And over the weeks that followed, as Trump was taking this sort of circuitous path, is he going to protect the protesters? Is he going to knock out the nuclear program throughout or cut a deal? Right throughout. Behind the scenes, there was this push increasingly by Netanyahu that led to what we now see, which is a joint US Israeli military operation. And Trump was not getting any advice of his own advisors against doing this, but he was getting strong advice from Netanyahu that he needed to be part of that. So Netanyahu kind of filled the vacuum there. And the one other thing I think it's important to say is that Trump came off the operation in Venezuela in early January quite confident about how quick and easy US Military force can be. And I think got into the idea that, well, maybe something as clean as Venezuela can be done in Iran. So it's these combination of forces that kind of led us to where we are right now.

Host/Anchor (20:46)

It's important to note, though, since we've been covering Rubio so closely. Rubio described the operation in Venezuela as a, quote, law enforcement operation. So again, all these public discrepancies, they may well be singing Kumbaya from the same sheet privately, but publicly, Rubio and Trump do not seem to be emphasizing or saying similar things. I want to share with all of you some reporting in the Wall Street Journal about Trump's openness to supporting armed militias inside Iran. I have to sneak in a break before I do that. Also ahead for us, Donald Trump's Secretary of State, Marco Rubio is right now once again publicly defending the US Strikes against Iran. He's briefing senators. We'll talk to Democrat Reuben Gallego when that briefing routes wraps up to see if his message is consistent with what he said publicly yesterday. Plus days before the U.S. military operation in Iran began, FBI Director Kash Patel's politically motivated firings included agents specializing in Iranian counterintelligence. We'll talk about that reporting. And later in the show, an unbelievable moment on Capitol Hill when a Republican senator called for the resignation of Kristi Noemi, comparing her disastrous decision making in Minneapolis to the murder of her 14 month old dog, Cricket, something we have covered here extensively after she reported on it herself in her own book. We'll play you that stunning moment, all those stories and more when Deadland White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere today.

Senator Ruben Gallego (22:17)

Why have I asked my electrician? I found on Angie.com to bury my pet hamster. I was so moved by how carefully he buried my electrical wires. I knew I could trust him to bury my sweet nibbles after his untimely end.

Mark Mazzetti, Washington investigative correspondent for the New York Times (22:27)

This is very strange. Angie the one you trust to find the ones you trust. Find pros for all your home projects@angie.com tonight's meal tilapia surprise with boiled cabbage. Begin cooking steps one through 50 now.

Blue Apron Advertiser (22:38)

Are you kidding me? Making dinner shouldn't feel like doing a thousand piece puzzle with Blue Apron's new one Pan Assemble and bake meals. The hard part's already done. Pre chopped ingredients, zero stress. Just assemble, bake and enjoy. No complicated steps. No mountain of dishes. Try assemble and Bake today. Get 20% off your first two orders with code APRON20. Terms and conditions apply. Visit BlueApron.com terms for more a Better

VRBO Care Representative (23:03)

Help ad International Women's Day is this March time to celebrate all women, the leaders, the caregivers, the problem solvers, the hype friends, the how do you do it? All types. Therapy can be a space to reflect, reset and reconnect. And BetterHelp makes it simple by matching you with a qualified therapist based on your needs and preferences. No pressure, no guesswork. Visit betterhelp.com for 10% off.

Mark Mazzetti, Washington investigative correspondent for the New York Times (23:33)

I can't think of anything more dismissive and arrogant than this President not directly addressing the American people and explaining this war more thoroughly. Well, good morning.

Senator Ruben Gallego (23:45)

This is not a so called regime

Mark Mazzetti, Washington investigative correspondent for the New York Times (23:47)

change war, but the regime sure did change. Oh for God's sakes.

Host/Anchor (23:54)

I stand corrected. We're back with Anne, General Anderson, Mark and Angelo. Ann, there's been so much over the last 13 months that people like Jon Stewart have talked the country to through in part because of their unique courage at the moment when so many powerful people have capitulated from law firms to universities to business leaders, civic leaders and electricity elected officials. But this lack of believing that a conversation with the American people, especially especially the families, the kids, the parents and the members of the military is an outlier. The New York Times had some great reporting on Sunday that even with the fracturing of our media system, it is completely unprecedented in our country's history and really around the world. For a leader not to address the country when he takes the country and uses the mil military to wage war now that six service members have lost their lives, so six families will not see their sons or daughters or moms or dads again. That feels even more negligent in terms of our leadership. What do you make of that? As part of A pattern or practice of how Trump sees himself as an autocratic leader.

Anne Applebaum, Columnist for The Atlantic (25:13)

So one of the strange things about Trump's presidency, and this is actually even different from some. I mean, there are a lot of dictatorships, before they go to war, would do a propaganda campaign, as the Russians did, for example, before attacking Ukraine. They would spend months talking about the enemy and so on. But Trump's method of leadership is often called personalist. So he does what he feels like in any given moment. His main aim is to win the current moment, whatever that is. So whether it's a confrontation with a journalist or whether it's a confrontation with a foreign enemy, to be seen as the dominant person or the dominant figure in the room or the conversation or of the moment. And it looks like that's what he did here. In other words, there was no particular plan, there was no clear goal, but he felt that this was a moment when he could demonstrate his dominance and he could win somehow. Of course, he doesn't win, then. He'll walk away and say he won anyway. But the consequences of that for Americans, for anybody in the Middle east, and actually for Iranians, the Iranian people don't seem to have been put at the center of this operation at all. There's been no attempt to think about who might rule Iran next or how the Iranian democratic opposition might come to power or might at least have influence inside the country. Instead, he's speaking about, oh, well, there were some other military leaders, there were some other members of the Islamic Republic who he imagined they would take over, as in, as in Venezuela. So it's this personalist way of running the country. You know, there's no policy process. There's no presentation of different points of view. There's no consideration of alternatives. There's no internal debate inside the White House. And then there's no external debate in the country. There's no public debate, there's no debate with Congress, as we've already, as I've already said, there's no debate with allies. In other words, there's no attempt to create any kind of consensus or movement or agreement, even if it's a minority consensus. And that's very unusual, actually, not just in American history, but anywhere. I mean, the whims of an individual leader would make these life and death dramatic decisions without any input from anybody else, which is certainly what it looks like from the outside. This is very strange, and it's likely to produce very erratic and unpredictable outcomes.

Host/Anchor (27:53)

General, even Trump's. I mean, to Anne's point, Trump, Trump has told US that, quote, most of the people we had in mind to run Iran are dead, end quote. It suggests that regime change is not the goal. Because if he also killed, all the people that he, quote, had in mind to run Iran are dead. They were close enough to the Ayatollah to have been in the same blast radius. And so what have the military families been told they are doing?

Retired US Army Brigadier General Steve Anderson (28:23)

Well, that's a very good question. I don't think they really know what they're doing. There have been no real clear cut military objectives. I mean, regime change is not something that the military does. I mean, that's done in our lexicon of things that we can do. There's lots that we can do and lots that we have do. But the military, and back to my point about Trump's militia versus America's military is that he's found in the military people that salute smartly and say, yes, sir to almost everything that he asks them to do. He asks them to have a parade in Washington, D.C. and they say, yes, sir. They ask him to deploy National Guard troops to Los Angeles and Portland and the southern border. They say, yes, sir. They send him down to Colombia, to Venezuela rather, to grab Maduro, execute a mission down there. Superbly done, superbly executed. Yes, sir, once again. And here we are now we're in Iran. And I'll tell you what, I mean, I remember what General, Marine buddy of mine reminded me, what General Zinni had said back in 2007. He said that if you like Iraq and Afghanistan, you're going to love Iran. It's three and a half times the size of Iraq, 92 million people. It would take 500,000 troops in six months to deploy if we were to have some kind of a ground invasion. So we need to know what we're going to do. Military families deserve to know that, to know that. Unfortunately, Donald Trump never served in the military. In fact, he tried to avoid it five times. President bone spurs and all that. He's never had a family member. He doesn't know what military families go through in the sacrifices. There are over 50,000American families now back in the United States that are on pins and needles waiting to see what happens to their sons and daughters in the Middle East. He doesn't understand that. And it's really, really sad.

Host/Anchor (30:15)

Let me read one more piece of reporting. Wall Street Journal reports Trump open to supporting armed militias in Iran. According to U.S. officials, quote, Trump is open to supporting groups in Iran willing to take up arms to dislodge the regime. According to U.S. officials, an idea that could turn Iranian factions into ground forces, at least rhetorically backed by Washington. Trump spoke Sunday with Kurdish leaders, officials said, and is continuing to engage with other local leaders who might leverage Tehran's weakness to make gains. The Kurds have a sizable along the Iraq Iran border, Israel has bombed positions in western Iran, leading to speculation that it's paving a path for a Kurdish advance. Donald Trump has also not ruled out, quote, boots on the ground. And Marco Rubio has testified to, quote, the worst bombing as being yet to come. Marco Rubio is right now briefing the Senate and we will have one of those senators join us on the other side. But there is certainly more public rhetoric that suggests escalation is what is ahead, as opposed to a Maduro style one and done kind of operation. Mark Mazzetti, does any of your reporting suggest that this is what was considered by any sort of formal NSC process?

Mark Mazzetti, Washington investigative correspondent for the New York Times (31:36)

Oh, I'm not sure there was much of an NSC process. It was very opaque to us that the decision making had actually any kind of process. Certainly President Trump was briefed on military options. But I mean, even this report, you just quoted this question of, you know, what they're considering now that the war has started about what the end game might be. It sort of certainly gives the impression that this is to a degree being made up as they go along. And, you know, just look at what the last five days have brought us. On Saturday, you heard President Trump in his video message. He didn't say regime change, I don't believe, but he certainly left the impression that this is the goal of the mission, is to change the leadership. And then that was certainly considered an unpopular option by many after it was announced. And yesterday you heard Marco Rubio try to go out and narrow what the objectives were. He had said four specific things. It's missiles, it's the nuclear program, it's the proxy militias that Iran uses, and it's its navy. Okay. So they're trying to say this is narrowly focused and once they achieve these objectives, it's over. However, again, as has just been said, this is now the can of warrants has been opened. And so the question is just how much the US And Israel are going to have to own the outcome.

Host/Anchor (33:01)

Yeah, that is the question. Anne Applebaum and Mark Mazzetti, thank you so much for your time today and for starting us off. General Anderson and Angelo, stick around a little bit longer after the break. As we've mentioned, Senator Ruben Gallego will join us on what he's learned in his latest briefing where the Trump Cabinet is briefing members of the Senate on the justification for war with Iran. We'll be right back.

Mark Mazzetti, Washington investigative correspondent for the New York Times (33:24)

It's tax season, and at Lifelock, we know you're tired of numbers, but here's a big one you need to hear. Billions. That's the amount of money and refunds the IRS has flagged for possible identity fraud. Now here's another big number. 100 million. That's how many data points LifeLock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it. Guaranteed. One last big number. Save up to 40% your first first year. Visit lifelock.com specialoffer for the threats you can't control.

Senator Ruben Gallego (33:54)

Terms apply why have I asked my electrician I found on Angie.com to bury my pet hamster? I was so moved by how carefully he buried my electrical wires, I knew I could trust him to bury my sweet nibbles after his untimely end.

Mark Mazzetti, Washington investigative correspondent for the New York Times (34:04)

This is very strange, Angie. The one you trust to find the ones you trust. Find pros for all your home projects@angie.com

Senator Ruben Gallego (34:09)

tonight's meal tilapia surprise with boiled cabbage.

Mark Mazzetti, Washington investigative correspondent for the New York Times (34:13)

Begin cooking steps one through 50 now.

Blue Apron Advertiser (34:15)

Are you kidding me? Making dinner shouldn't feel like doing a thousand piece puzzle. With Blue Apron's new one pan assemble and bake meals. The hard part's already done. Pre chopped ingredients, zero stress. Just assemble, bake and enjoy. No complicated steps. No mountain of dishes. Try assemble and Bake today. Get 20% off your first two orders with code APRON20. Terms and conditions apply. Visit BlueApron.com terms for more

Retired US Army Brigadier General Steve Anderson (34:43)

most people

Donald Trump (34:43)

feel I'll tell you what, I have never had more compliments on something I did, people felt it's something that had to be done. So if we have a little high oil prices for a little while, but as soon as this ends, those prices are going to drop, I believe lower than even before.

Host/Anchor (35:01)

I mean, every now and then the truth seeps out. We're back with General Anderson and Angelo. As soon as this ends, prices are going to go back down. That that might be true, but it is also true, as he said there, that quote will have high oil prices for a little while. The pressure on the American people from his tariffs even before the Supreme Court ruled them illegal. The pressure on the American people from his lack of interest in dealing with inflation. The pressure that people feel will now also be felt at the pump.

Angelo Carusone, President of Media Matters for America (35:39)

Yeah, and I think the fact that he acknowledged them is revealing in a significant way because it shows partly how we're in this mess is that why he acknowledged that is because that's the coverage on Fox News. So if you look at Fox News, they're all acknowledging that the oil prices are going to go up. Now they're spinning themselves in knots to try to run sort of COVID for their audience. You know, Ainsley Earhart is saying, well, you know, they're going to go up, but they were so low to begin with that that's okay.

Host/Anchor (36:04)

Which isn't true.

Angelo Carusone, President of Media Matters for America (36:05)

You know, Maria Barta, Ruma Rumo saying, well, you know, but we're a rich country. We can find a way to deal with it. Or Jesse Waters, Trump was basically quoting what Jesse Waters was saying. You know, Jesse Waters glibly acknowledging that prices are gonna go up, blah, blah, blah, but saying, don't worry, in the end, it's all gonna balance out because the prices are gonna end up even lower, and so the average is gonna cut in your favor. Trump obviously latched onto that defense, which is that somehow there's gonna be something you get out of it. But part of the reason we're in this mess is because he's been pickled in the narrative about Iran from fox news since 2010. You know, I mean, they're the ones that were driving toward this war. They're the ones that really wanted this. They were the ones that advocated. He's not looking at Joe Rogan. He's not looking out the podcast. They're saying that's his worldview. That is the lens through which he sees the world, whatever is happening on his phone from these random phone calls and then what he sees on Fox News. And, you know, he's just not connected to the Zeitgeist in the way that he was anymore. He's not looking at what's happening in these online spaces. So that's it. And he relies on that.

Senator Ruben Gallego (36:59)

So.

Angelo Carusone, President of Media Matters for America (37:00)

So when it does break through, he then acknowledges it and responds to it or incorporates it into his thinking. But it does sort of show you that the fact that they're on this early about it already, sort of teeing it up, that this is going to happen, shows that they are worried about the political ramifications here, in some ways are trying to do them a favor by getting in front of it. And I think that's the significant part ahead.

Host/Anchor (37:22)

General, I'm not suggesting causation, but I do want to cover aggressively the correlation between Fox News aggressive coverage of the rising gas prices and Donald Trump's decision today to deploy the Navy to escort ships through the Straits of Hormuz. Your thoughts?

Retired US Army Brigadier General Steve Anderson (37:38)

Well, I Mean, obviously you're talking about a president who really doesn't care about military service, soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, and doesn't understand the risks that are intended with, you know, conducting operations. We've already had six soldiers killed and he kind of blew it off as well. This happens during war, you know, and there'll be probably more to follow. I mean, it just shows that he's totally out of touch with what goes on in the military lifestyle and military service, in fact, any kind of service. He's all about service of himself and whatever can get him power and glory is something that he's going to pursue. And if he can use the military, you know, as competent and as professional as they are, if he could take advantage of that and show the world what a tough guy he is, he's going to do it every single time. Despite the fact that it's totally contrary to the things that he ran for president on, you know, eliminating those forever wars and doing something about the price of gas and cost of living in America. These are all things that he doesn't seem to really care a whit about anymore. And he's completely contradicted himself by virtue of this unprovoked war that he's initiated in Iran.

Host/Anchor (39:05)

It just brings to mind something he also revealed about himself and his foreign policy. He recently said in an interview with my colleague Joe Scarborough about Iraq that, quote, I would have taken the oil. So he does not disentangle another country's natural resources with the use of the US Military. Brigadier General Steve Anderson, thank you so much for starting us off today and sticking around for most of the hour. We are grateful. Quick break. We'll be right back. A closed door Senate briefing has just wrapped up with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Dan Kaine, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. As the Trump administration continues to shift its public story about the reasons for attacking Iran and their timing for doing so or what happens next, we want to bring into our coverage Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona. He sits on the Homeland Security Committee and was a Marine combat veteran who served in Iraq. Senator, I know it's a busy day and that you zipped out to the camera to talk to us. We're really grateful for that. We wonder if you could just, just take us through what you heard.

Senator Ruben Gallego (40:18)

Well, look, there's a certain amount that I can't say because it's in the classified in nature. But I can tell you what I did not come out feeling Better. Number one, there is still without any dispute the fact that we ended up going into this action, going into war because we had to follow our subordinate allies lead when it came to, to Israel. That is very, very concerning, especially considering on timing, considering what the repercussions of that are. Number two, I still don't know what the end game is. There still is no clear indication what is success, what is victory, what is Iran going to look like when this is done and what the timetable is. And I think that's also very concerning. We should all be concerned because, like, we have been very clear, you know, I think the American public has been very clear, clear that we don't want another forever war. And we are currently engaging into something that is potentially going to just keep on evolving. And again, you know, who ends up paying for this are the men and women of this country that serve us and the whole public right now because again, government is distracted for what they really should be doing, just focusing on what people are worried about, the cost of living and everything else that's really hurting everyday Americans.

Host/Anchor (41:28)

Can I just throw out for you some of the things they've said publicly and ask you if, if you heard these contradictory things or if they were able to narrow them down. Senator, so you broke up.

Senator Ruben Gallego (41:44)

Can you say that?

Mark Mazzetti, Washington investigative correspondent for the New York Times (41:45)

Yeah, now I can hear you.

Host/Anchor (41:46)

Yeah, I just want to. So Donald Trump has talked about, quote, boots on the ground and Marco Rubio has talked about how the bombing campaign against Iran and inside Iran will, quote, escalate in the coming days. Is that are both those things on the table?

Senator Ruben Gallego (42:03)

Well, certainly what I've been told is that they're not off the table. So, you know, that that can be a concern right there. And again, part of this is there is no real understanding of what victory looks like. They have a mixture of reasonings of what we want to do while we're there. Now they've kind of landing on the reason why we ended up going. And the reasoning in terms of why they didn't have to come and get authority, you know, authorization from Congress before is because their interpretation of a preeminent attack is entirely based on this idea that if Israel had attacked Iran, Iran was going to attack them back. And so therefore we had to go in with Israel before the attack actually happened. That would have been the counterattack to us. That is their definition of a preeminent situation that was able to basically go against, you know, standing policy of actually coming and talk to Congress. That is a very scary policy situation that they're making because it Basically dictates our standing of whether we're going to go to war or not and leave it to other partners and other allies. I don't think any American wants to give that type of power to anybody else. I think especially in dangerous areas. And again, you know, we're burning through a lot of ammunition right now. At some point we're going to start dragging in ammunition from other parts of the world. What is that going to do to that and what is existing to cost us? The amount of money we're burning through right now could have paid for a lot of health insurance, could have paid for the food stamps, could have paid for it to help people buy their first homes, whatever it is. But we ended up following an ally, a sovereign ally into a situation that's just going to burn our time, our cash, our money.

Host/Anchor (43:35)

Did they describe this as a new doctrine that we followed Israel into war inside Iran because Israel was going to attack anyway and we had to attack also? I mean, does that extend if Poland decides to attack Russia, will we follow Poland into war in Russia or if Taiwan decides to attack China, will we follow Taiwan? Is it, is it a doctrine that they've adopted or is it specific to Iran and Israel?

Senator Ruben Gallego (44:03)

No, I don't want to mischaracterize that this is somehow a new doctrine. You know that that's not correct. But I will say that the reason they give us is exactly what you just which mentioned and it does scare me. If this is going to be a consistent pattern and or logic that we're going to be able to, that they're going to use in the Middle east this time it's Israel. Is the next time going to be Saudi Arabia or Qatar or one of these other countries that have long term beef with Iran? I don't think that's what the American public wants. When you talk about places like Poland, Poland, they are part of NATO. But it's very clear in our treaty with NATO and NATO countries that we do not have to. And Article 5 is not invoked if you are the offending country, if you're the invading country, that is so we could avoid situations like this where we end up being embroiled in other people's messes.

Host/Anchor (44:58)

What would you want to hear if you were a family, military family right now, if your son or daughter or husband or wife or your dad were deployed? Why is it so important to understand both why we went, why we went when we went and what the end game and objectives are?

Senator Ruben Gallego (45:18)

Well, from what I wanted to hear when I was in Iraq in 2005 is why am I here? What am I still doing here? What is the mission and when am I going to be done? Or when is this mission going to be done? And right now, the President has not been very clear what the overall reasoning why we went. He has backtracked on, you know, in terms of the preeminent attack vis a vis Israel, but his staff has not, his cabinet members have not. We don't know what the timeline is of how long we're going to be engaged. We don't know what we can define as victory. And those are the three things that would really scare me because you already have, for example, sailors that have been on rotation or on board of ship for almost 10 months, right? Something that is unheard of. You know, they have not seen their families have not, you know, been able to to port at all. This is the kind of thing that. That is, you know, very deteriorating to a family. Like, it's, you know, not only is it stressful, it's scary, you know, you know, hearing from, from my, for example, from experience of her waiting to find out if I was alive or dead or when I was coming home. Imagine what we're doing to families right now. And look, we already had six deaths. This is a very serious situation that we find ourselves. And the President needs to treat this in a serious manner by actually having a press conference. He's had more time talking to mar a Lago, you know, rich dudes than he has to actually sit in front of the American public and explain what is going on and why we ended up going to Iran.

Host/Anchor (46:46)

Your voice is so important right now, and we really appreciate you taking the time to talk to us today. Senator Rubengayago, thank you. Thank you, Angela. Thank you for spending the hour with me. We'll continue to call on you because I think it's impossible to overstate the sort of hot political war going on on the right right now. And we'll continue to rely on you to cover that. Thank you so much. We have to sneak in one more break. We'll be right back on the other side. As much as we'd like to get home, we feel like we're not the priority and we'll just kind of keep hoping for the best when it's time for us.

VRBO Care Representative (47:23)

We definitely haven't gotten any information from our airline about flights. We checked in with the US Embassy and all. All that they said was to shelter in place. I've been here since the 23rd, and everything has just went left in the last I would say three days. So my main focus is just making it out. It's just a very out of body experience and I just wouldn't wish this on anyone, honestly.

Host/Anchor (47:47)

Four days after the first U. S. Israel attacks on Iran, thousands of Americans are stranded in the Middle East. The Trump administration says it is now organizing military aircraft and charter flights and also urging US Citizens in more than a dozen countries to leave now, quote, due to serious safety risks using, quote, available commercial transportation. But the problem with that is many airports are shuttered and US Embassies are acting in survival mode amid attacks that Donald Trump warns could continue for days or weeks or, quote, far longer. Coming up for us, this sounds like a good idea. Kash Patel gutting an FBI team with a specialty in tracking threats from Iran that reporting behind the story when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Stay with us

VRBO Care Representative (48:36)

day or night. VRBoCare is here 247 to help make every part of your stay seamless. If anything comes up or you simply need a little guidance, support is ready whenever you reach out. From the moment you book to the moment you head home. We're here to help things run smoothly because a great trip starts with the right support. And hey, a good playlist doesn't hurt either.