C (4:01)

Well, to borrow from Congressman Seth Moulton, who was on CNN earlier today,

D (4:09)

this

C (4:09)

is a war of choice. And it is when you look back to what we did in Iraq, this is Iraq 2.0, and we have embarked upon a, a serious war. The outcome, we don't know, the level of planning for the phase four, ultimately, the, the branches and sequels that we do, this hasn't been done to my knowledge. So we're in a serious situation here, and we don't know where this is going.

B (4:46)

When you write about men who know more about war than he ever will, it certainly is in line with the pattern that has revealed itself of Trump clashing with men like former Chairman of Joint Chiefs Mark Milley, who know more about war than Trump ever will and others. What do you think the men and women inside the military think today about the lack of congressional authorization and the lack of a story being told to the American people about why this happened in the early hours this morning?

C (5:24)

Nicole, as you know, the co equal branch of government, our Congress, they are empowered to authorize wars of choice. The conversations that happen by our senior leadership in the civilian world are required, are necessary. They're more Socratic than anything else. When you start asking generals and secretaries of defense how they're going to prosecute, what they've thought about doing, you get down to the nitty gritty pretty quickly. I have great faith in our elected leaders, our congressmen, our representatives, our senators. And when you do that, and I, I have a very close friend, I refer to him as my Socratic sounding board. When you do that, you get into the nit and the grit of everything that is going to happen and you cause the people who are responsible to make clear to the people, to the moms and dads of every young American who is going into harm's way, that our leadership, military and civilian, know what they're doing.

B (6:38)

When you look at the recent history of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the scars on the hearts of the American people who turned against those wars almost completely, what do you think the American people will think of this action today that Donald Trump promised would, again, I want to quote him accurately, continue as long as necessary.

C (7:06)

Again, we elect men and women to Congress who represent us and have our best interests at heart. We are their constituents and they provide the leadership to challenge single person governance that we have going on in this country. Madisonian democracy does not allow one man rule. But in this case we have, in fact, because the Republican Party has surrendered all of their leadership requirements and their oversight requirements and have abdicated all of that to allow Mr. Trump to do what he will. And that outcome reduces the trust factor that we have in our armed forces, our armed forces actually trust the men and women in leadership to do the right thing, to make sure that our volunteers who, who volunteered for service in our armed forces, but they didn't volunteer for stupid. And right now we've got something going on that is, that requires a whole

B (8:22)

lot of explaining, explaining that so far has not happened. Robin Wright, your headline today is donald Trump launches a war of epic fury on Iran. Let me read from that piece. Quote, president Trump has launched a capricious and personal war on Iran. Iran that is more ambitious politically and militarily than any past US campaign in the perpetually volatile Middle East. In an eight minute video released in the wee hours of Saturday morning while most Americans were still asleep, he announced that his goals are the abolishment of the theocratic regime, total capitulation by his Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or else the death of its members at US hands and an end to the country's controversial nuclear program. He has confirmed all of that in a subsequent post on Truth Social, suggesting that the IRGC quote somehow merge with the people in the streets. I guess that's the protesters. In terms of his public utterances, it seems pretty clear that his stream of intelligence on Iran doesn't mesh what most people understand the nature of the IRGC to actually be your thoughts of what you're seeing out of his public statements?

E (9:40)

Well, you know, I think that at the moment that President Trump really has no deep insights into what Iran is, what it has gone through, the wars it has fought defensively, the numbers it has lost historically when others have attacked it, and how far the irgc, for example, is willing to go to defend the country. I've been to the IRGC headquarters in Tehran. Iran has developed significant capabilities militarily, and I think Trump doesn't really understand that you don't just kill a supreme leader as the trigger to catapult or collapse a regime. This is Iran has a very deep bench, politically and militarily. And I think that the danger for all Americans and those particularly fighting for us in the Middle east is that, sorry, is that there is no end game. There's no explanation what the United States is really trying to do. How far is it willing to go to engage in regime change? And that's. That's truly frightening for me. I've covered Iran since 1973, and, you know, I know that there is a strong sense of nationalism in the country. And while there will be many celebrating the death of the supreme Leader, there are those who also feel great pride as a Persian nation.

B (11:13)

What is the impact, if the reports from Donald Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu are true, we should say Iran is denying that the ayatollah has been killed. What is the impact, Robyn, of his death, of his killing?

E (11:29)

Well, as I said, Iran has a deep bench, and they had already designated three possible successors to the supreme Leader in the event that he was killed. There are also reports that he has called on the military leaders to designate four people to succeed each one of them if they were eliminated. Iran has the largest military in the Middle east, not the most capable. Israel has nuclear weapons, but Iran has vast numbers, more than 150,000 in the revolutionary Guard Corps, almost a half million when you consider all the various arms of the Revolutionary Guards and the conventional military. So the idea that this can be over in a matter of days, I think is an illusion.

B (12:17)

Robin, I want to focus on the people who have taken to the streets and read some more from your piece. Trump called for Iran's 92 million people to rise up in popular resistance and form a new government. Quote, for many years, you have asked for America's help, but you never got it. He told the Iranian people, quote, now you have a president who is giving you what you want. So let's see how you respond. America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force. You write. It's an audacious gambit undertaken in coordination with Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel that has no clear outcome. For a man who hungers for the Nobel Peace Prize, this war of choice borders on delusion. Again, it is a fascinating window into what Donald Trump has been led to believe, that the bombing would lead the people to take over their country. How close to likely is that in your view, and from your time there

E (13:16)

covering it, Totally unrealistic. The reality is that the regime has vast tools, as it has demonstrated, in putting down the protests across the country, killing thousands, arresting tens of thousands. And the danger is that there isn't the kind of institution, infrastructure, coordinated opposition that could step in quickly and create an alternative to the current regime. You know, there are several young Nelson Mandelas in Iran, but it doesn't have the kind of infrastructure of the African National Congress that. That there's no one easily to merge the diverse factions in Iran, to organize people, to, you know, to step in. I mean, how long is it going to take, as we've seen elsewhere in Iraq and Afghanistan, to have even a temporary government, then to hold elections and then to install a government? And that didn't work out so well in either Afghanistan or Iraq. And so doing it in Iran, which is a far larger population, much more important geostrategic property, I think is going to be even harder. And this is where Trump doesn't seem to have a plan for who are you going to tap? Are you going to rely on the son of the former shah who doesn't have the kind of support, I think that will rally all Iranians around him? This is, again, thinking long term, and as I think everyone has been saying all day, who knows anything about Iran, you know, what is that plan? Who is the alternative? How are they going to protect it? How are they going to be organized or supported? And what does the US Expect to happen next? And this is where we've had no language from the administration explaining that to us.

B (15:22)

Even Margot Rubio on January 28 said that they hoped that something else would rise up in its place if the regime were to be removed.

D (15:32)

They don't have a plan.

B (15:33)

And I'm sorry, let me bring Eamon and hang on one sec.

D (15:37)

I was saying they don't have a plan. You know, I've been speaking to sources in the region all afternoon, some of whom have been on a call with President Trump as of late this afternoon. And one of the things they asked him was, how long is this going to last for, what is the goal and what is the plan after? And the response that I got from one official was basically zero. Plans they don't have or they are not at least telling. I should say, to be more accurate, they are not telling their counterparts in the region what if at all the plan is for the day after. And the way that it was framed to me was to think about it in the form of, you know, three days, the day of the attack, the day after the attack, and the decade after the attack. And this is the greatest uncertainty in all of this, as Robin was mentioning, the monarchists or the Iranian diaspora who has rallied around the former son of the Shah will be the first to also acknowledge that he doesn't have any organizational capabilities inside Iran. It's one thing to be able to say he has the support, he has legitimacy, but he also has organizational capabilities inside Iran that you can take him from outside, put him inside, and he'll be able to get the government up and running. Because a country of 93 million people the day after a regime collapses, if it does collapse, needs services, needs energy, needs electricity, needs very basic commodities in the market for people to survive and live. And. And who's going to be able to provide that for the Iranian people the day after you've killed the Supreme Leader? Now, as Robin mentioned, we've known for months that some contingency plan has been put in place for a succession plan for the supreme leader. And the way that the Iranian regime has always operated is that although he was the most important figure, power had been diffused among very different power centers. And within that, you've also had a lot of factions. And below that, you've even had more ethnic divisions and sectarian divisions that all could come to the surface if indeed the apparatus of the state is collapsed. And if there's one thing we learned in the 2003 war is that it's easy to replace a regime and a government and a leader and his supporters within that government. It's another thing to reconstitute a state and then try to get that state to actually function by providing these services and. And then transition to a democracy while protecting the territorial integrity of the country. Not every Iranian is on that same page. And we just saw what happened about a month ago when the Iranian regime killed, by the US's assessment, close to 30,000 Iranians. They didn't do it the way the Syrians did it. They didn't do it the way the Libyans did it. They didn't carpet bomb these areas. They didn't use planes. It was protesters on the street that were shot by the besieged, the security services and the Iranian police forces. It was small arms. What is the US Plan to try and get these low rank file police officers who were loyal to the regime a month ago, willing to kill 30,000 people a month ago? What are you gonna get them to do today when they see the regime is collapsing and their own survival now is at stake? These are people who have killed other Iranians and are now being asked, as the President said, you can be granted immunity, as said in this comment, do you think that these Iranians are just going to simply, who have been loyalist to the regime, walk into a police station, hand over their weapons and say, hey, I was a regime loyalist and now I'm going to hand over my weapon and support whatever transitional leader you impose on me? We know that didn't happen. And what we saw in Iraq was that the regime, once it collapses, the civil servants, the members of the police, the members of the military, all melted away very quickly into Iraqi civil society, only to reconstitute themselves and as an insurgency, as militias, as sectarian forces that descended that country into civil war for the better part of 15 years.

B (19:32)

Let me ask you a more basic question. You're all so expert. I mean, the American people went to bed last night, the vast majority of them either opposed to or unaware of this possibility. What do you make of the lack of a coherent conversation with the country?

D (19:49)

I mean, I think for me, this is the most jarring thing as an American. Right. The irony in all of this is that the Iranian regime is probably the most despised regime in the world. There's not a single Arab country that is in the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Gulf or across the broader Arab world that would come up and say, hey, this regime is good for us and we want it to stay in its current form. There's not a European country that would do that. There's really no one left on the planet who would come to the defense of this Iranian regime and say, it's legitimate, let's keep it in place. So the idea that the United States President, who is about to embark on this war, rather than going to Congress and seeking an authorization, that would have the support of the country, that would have the support of Arab allies that have already shown their willingness to go along with US Operations, as we saw last year, and letting oversight capabilities happen and being willing to take a hit like the way Qatar was with Central Command last year and the European allies in the UN Security Council, you can make that attempt, at least try to provide the legitimacy for the international operations as opposed to just say, I'm doing this alone, really, with no approval other than Trump and the Israeli prime minister. And it certainly doesn't help that our president has spent the better part of the year attacking our allies, some of whom have died with us in war in Iraq. When you're talking about invading Greenland and saying, well, the Danes never really fought with us in Iraq, when the Danish military has lost troops in Iraq and

B (21:18)

in Afghanistan more per capita than us.

D (21:21)

Exactly. And you could make the argument to say, hey, you know what, instead of alienating my allies and leaving them out to dry and insulting them and telling them that they're not dying with us, why don't you bring them into the fold and say, let's build a coalition to bring an end to this regime once and for all. But that hasn't happened.

B (21:38)

It's interesting. I mean, the Iranian regime is hated and there is very scant public support for military action in Iran. I'm going to ask everyone to stay with us. We'll have much more with everybody coming up. We'll also be joined by former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall. Also ahead for us, new questions today about how secure we are here at home in the event of retaliation from Iran after the Trump administration's purge of national security experts inside the FBI and the Department of Justice. Our special breaking news coverage continues after a very short break. Stay with us. And we are back with Amen Robin and General Eaton. I want to show you a social media post from the ayatollah's official keeping in mind, Iran continues to say that the ayatollah is, quote, safe and sound. It's not totally clear what that means. What do you deduce?

D (22:37)

I think this is a tacit acknowledgement that the supreme Leader has been killed. This is a religious reference to one of the most important figures in Shia Islam, the prophet's son in law. And I think in reference to what the imagery suggests. I don't read Farsi, but I think what the image suggests is that he is no longer here. Obviously, that particular figure, Ali bin Abi Talib, is a person who is very well respected in Shia Islam, was seen as a courageous leader and a pioneer of the faith. And so ultimately I think there's a reference to try and draw a similarity between the supreme Leader, who saw himself as a spiritual figure in Iran and his demise.

B (23:17)

And what are you hearing what is happening right now inside Iran?

D (23:21)

There's a few things that are happening right now. I mean, I've been speaking to Iranians who have family in Iran, and some of them have actually shared with me videos of people celebrating the killing of Khamenei, the supreme leader. And so there's certainly no doubt that there's going to be a lot of relief and happiness that he has been killed. And perhaps this will be the beginning of the end of the regime. But I've also spoken to a lot of people who are extremely worried and extremely concerned about what this means, because they believe that the regime has demonstrated it has an amazing ability to replenish its ranks and also be very redundant. And you can see that in various parts across the region, whether it's in Gaza or Yemen or what have you. These organizations that have taken such heavy blows over the course of the last two years have been able to replenish the leadership and reconstitute itself once again. And so the concern right now is that the regime and the Americans are fighting two different wars. The Americans are fighting a war to destroy the regime and to create regime change. The regime is fighting a war for survival. It's not trying to win this war. The Americans want to win this war. The Israelis want to win this war. And it's not clear what that looks like, but they're fighting to topple the regime. And the regime is not fighting a war to simply defeat the Americans or try to inflict casualties on the Americans. They're fighting to survive. And they want to try to regionalize this conflict with the hopes that what we saw today in places like Kuwait and Qatar and Saudi Arabia is that that diplomatic pressure would come back against the United States by getting places like downtown Dubai, the financial center of the region. I mean, Dubai is the most important financial city in the entire Arab world. It is an international market now. It has about 11 million expats that live in the United Arab Emirates. That area being hit is the equivalent of our World War I hit.

B (25:10)

Soft targets.

D (25:11)

Soft targets. So there's a report that the Fairmont Hotel has been hit, where a lot of international guests, guests and tourists are obviously there, but also Dubai Financial International center, dfic, which is their equivalent of the Wall street area in that surrounding area. And what that does is it just makes everybody very jittery, and it destabilizes the region. And obviously, the growing concern is that once these countries start feeling the result of this attack, they will then turn around and put pressure on the United States to try to end the war. And that's why they're fighting two different wars. What the United States is fighting and what the Iranian regime are fighting are very different. Iran is willing to regionalize this war and willing to use force against its own people to preserve the regime to whatever extent that it can.

B (25:55)

General Eaton, I don't want to give the MAGA movement a lot of credit for intellectual honesty or consistency, but since 2015, Donald Trump has assembled a coalition with some high profile military figures inside of it. People like Mike Flynn and more recently Pete Hegseth and JD Vance. As an anti war coalition, as isolationism is its sort of oxygen, nativism and racism seem to flow through that coalition pretty fluidly as well. But I glanced at the reaction today, and there is a hot war of words going on between figures like Mark Levin and figures like Megyn Kelly, with one calling the others traitors. I mean, we're not just talking about a lack of public support for a war that, in Donald Trump's telling, quote, could result in American casualties. Donald Trump's own coalition, which has shrunk to about 34 to 36% of the American public, based on the best current polling available, is fighting amongst itself. What does that do to the men and women of the military and their families?

C (27:11)

The trust in your chain of command is paramount for every men and women in the armed forces, any armed forces, but particularly our own, because of the nature of our government. And when they lose faith in their leadership, when they suspect, and these are very, very bright young men and women, when they lose faith that they don't believe that the senior leadership will have their back, that the senior leadership understands where all this needs to go, then they see themselves as extremely vulnerable, and they start looking left and right and they start looking for who's in charge. And if you can't answer that question properly, then you've got a real morale dilemma on your hands. Now, the chain of command down to the first sergeant level, the squad leader level, the company commander, and on all that's going to function very well. But our very bright young men and women in uniform look at the big picture. They are strategic thinkers. And if they don't believe that the United States knows what they're doing, that's a real problem for the chain of command.

B (28:25)

Robin, you write this, quote, recent polls have shown that Trump does not have broad support for this war, which arrives at a time when Americans are focused most on their own economic woes. There are also growing questions about the war's legality, whether it violates international laws, the UN Charter, or the US Constitution. Your thoughts on the lack of public support, even deep within Donald Trump's most prominent supporters in the MAGA media ecosystem?

E (28:54)

Well, all the polls recently, even before this campaign began, indicated that Trump did not have support for a military operation against the Iranian regime. At the same time, I think. I think Americans don't support the idea of the continuation of Iran. But in many ways, Trump faces the same problem as the Iranian regime, that the majority of support people don't necessarily support its actions. And I think that's the dilemma going forward. How do you convince Americans that it's worth this investment? Remember, this is going to be a very costly war. The general will have a much better specific idea. But this is likely to cost billions. When you consider the deployment of two aircraft carriers, 15 destroyers, almost half of the US air fleet, this is something that each day the cost mounts. And for Americans who are focused on their own pocketbooks, the idea of engaging in a military conflagration that cost us another one that had cost us trillions during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is likely to, I think, lead to even more questioning. We've seen today Republicans as well as Democrats challenge President Trump. What is he doing? What is his end game? What have you gotten the United States into?

B (30:19)

Yeah, it is striking to see all of the vocal dissent. It is ideological. They have been isolationists from the inception of the MAGA movement and its takeover of the Republican Party and its sidelining of figures like Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell. And it is also a sign of his deepening political crisis to be at, I think, 12 to 15 percentage points more unpopular today than he was a year ago.

D (30:46)

There's one central tenet in the Trump administration while he was campaigning that I think was so pivotal to getting people who were, I would call independent voters, and certainly people who were disappointed with Joe Biden about Gaza. And I say this really quickly, that it was about the fact that he promised no more wars in the Middle East. Right. He was not going to get America involved in anything involved in the Middle East. He was promising to end the war in Gaza, and that was it. And then we're done with the Middle east, and here we are bombing Yemen, involved in Nigeria, and now engaged in a regime change war in Iran. No central tenet of the MAGA movement has been betrayed as so profoundly as the promise that Trump made to the American people. No more wars in the Middle East.

B (31:32)

Major General Paul Eaton, Robin Wright, thank you both so much for being so generous with your time on a day like today. We're really grateful Eamon sticks around with me. Ahead for us, how the Trump administration's all out purge of national security expertise inside the Department of Justice and FBI is raising new questions and concerns today about our vulnerability in the event of a retaliatory attack by Iran. There's new reporting on that. We'll share with you on the other side of a short break. We are back with ongoing coverage of the U. S. Israeli strikes on Iran. Donald Trump has said on Truth Social that Iran's supreme leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, is dead. Iran has not confirmed that the Ayatollah has been killed. The Iranian Red Crescent reports that at least 200 people have been killed and another 700 injured. Iran has launched a wave of retaliatory strikes across the Middle east, in Israel and on US military bases across the region. So far, no US casualties have been reported. Haaretz is reporting one person has been killed and 20 more injured in a direct hit on a building in Tel Aviv. The prospect of further retaliation by Iran is raising alarming new questions and it comes as America's national security apparatus is far, far weaker than it was one year ago. Our next guest, New York Times reporter Glenn Thrush, puts it this way, quote, if Iran and proxies expand violent or cyber terrorism, DOJ and FBI national security units have lost dozens of experienced agents and prosecutors to purges and resignations. Pam Bondi proudly fired one respected official because he forgot to take down Biden's picture. I want to bring in New York Times Justice Department reporter Glenn Thrush and former secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall. He's the senior fellow at the center for American Progress. Glenn Thrush, you've been coming on my show for the better part of a year with 1, 2, 3 on Friday, it was 10 FBI agents that had been purged. And just explain who they were targeting. I mean, the people that worked on the cases into Donald Trump in a lot of instances were the people most experienced in national security and counterterror issues.

A (33:45)

Absolutely. And look, I think there was a pool of talent at the top of the bureau and at the Department of Justice that really was from the September 11 generation. And also many of these people either served or worked in an intelligence capacity or investigative capacity in Afghanistan and Iraq, a real well of talent who'd been winnowed away. These were the most senior people in both agencies. And as such, they were those who were in supervisory positions. And oftentimes they were the people who could afford to leave because they were senior enough to get decent outside jobs. But in general, what we're seeing here in the Justice Department is a total 8% reduction in headcount, which doesn't sound like a tremendous amount, but we're Talking about roughly 2 to 3,000 potentially support workers and prosecutors. And I can tell you the National Security Division based in Washington, was one of the hardest hit. When Trump's team came in, they essentially winnowed out between one quarter and one third of the senior personnel in that office.

B (34:54)

Secretary Kendall, your thoughts on everything that we're covering today, but particularly that at a time of war, which is what is taking place in Iran, there are parallel concerns and national security experts that protect the homeland in the best of times. And I don't think anyone would argue that this is that.

F (35:18)

Well, Nicole, Donald Trump has launched a war of choice without approval of the Congress. So he owns this. The death of Ayatollah. If it's true, nobody's going to miss him. But there is going to be a strong motivation to extract revenge of some kind on the United States and on Israel. We have a number of bases in the region that you mentioned. They're subject to attack by a variety of means, but there could be simply terrorist attacks even in the United States. And the weakening of some of our counterterrorism capabilities, justice and otherwise, I think, is going to be a problem for that. There are cyber attacks. There are a number of attack vectors, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis. They've been weakened by the war in Gaza, basically, and the effects of that, but they're still there. And I think we're going to have to be on a very high state of alert and a high state of awareness of possible threats for the foreseeable future.

B (36:06)

Now, Glenn, the political appointees atop the Department of Justice and the FBI have worn as a badge of honor of these purges. Are you hearing any backpedaling today?

A (36:21)

We're not hearing anything really, other than the FBI is, you know, the standard stuff that you would hear about beefing up surveillance and probably standing up some of these task forces and calling people in. We've heard about that. But over the last couple of days, I have to say, in the build up to this, I've a bunch of people from NSD and both former, former people from the National Security Division, both the FBI and the Justice Department have reached out with real concerns about this. Look, as, as your guests have said both in this segment before, there's a lot of capability. So the bench is very Very deep. But the other thing here is morale is, is suppressed, certainly at the FBI. Doj, there a lot of the people who, who would have been in these businesses gone. So there's a hole. And you really only have to make one mistake. One set of eyeballs has to miss something for something to go terribly wrong. So we're not, I'm not a harbinger of doom here, but I'm just saying these, these structures that we've created in the post 911 era that were supposed to safeguard against us at these times of crisis are at the moment significantly weakened and they're not able to recruit people. That's the other thing. Both DOJ and the FBI are having real difficulty getting people to work for them right now.

B (37:42)

All right, I need all of you to stick around. I have to sneak in a very short break. Our breaking news coverage continues on the other side. Stay with us. We've been discussing Iran's retaliatory strikes. That, that's one of them. That's new video of a drone strike on a building in Bahrain. We're back with Glenn, Secretary Kendall and Amen. Secretary Kendall, let me read you this and just sort of focus my mind, and I wanted to get your thoughts on it from the New York Times. Quote, General Kenneth McKenzie, Jr. Former head of the Military Central Command, said the next 72 to 96 hours will be crucial to determine whether Iran can sustain a heavy barrage of retaliatory missile strikes against U.S. bases and partners in the Middle east against the U.S. efforts to destroy those missiles and their launchers before Iran can fire them. Quote, it's a race, General McKenzie said in an interview on Saturday. I guess my question is, do you agree and just take us through what these next 72 to 96 hours may usher in?

F (38:54)

It's very hard to predict. The thing we don't know is, have there been any conversations between the US and possible alternatives to the current regime in Iran? There may have been, but that's not obvious. We may get a ruler who is even worse than the one that was just killed. The next few days will tell us whether we're going to be in a prolonged bombardment campaign, if you will, and what that might accomplish. There's only so much that we can get on by dropping weapons onto Iran. At the end of the day, the Iranian people are going to have to take over and change the regime if that's going to happen. So it is going to be a very tense, I think, few days as we see how this evolves from here.

B (39:39)

Glenn Tulsi Gabbard was most recently seen publicly by the American people at an elections office in Fulton County, Georgia. Kash Patel was most recently seen by the American people chugging a beer at the Olympics in Milan. Pam Bondi was most recently seen by the American people refusing to turn around when asked to, to address the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Mac Maxwell's sexual abuse and child rape. This is not a national security team that has been seen publicly by the American people in particularly strong capacities. Is there any effort to put forth anybody else to reassure the American people at this moment when everyone believes we are at great risk of potential retaliation?

A (40:22)

I think the short answer to that is no. Look, I think you have a situation in which and others have said this, and I'll say it as well, this is less of an administration than it is a court. And the three individuals you just described behave as courtiers. They play to an audience of one. They care most about the optics in terms of what they do in terms of the president. But there is a layer of folks under them. Todd Blanche, the deputy Attorney General who has absolutely no national security experience. I want to contrast that to the last deputy Attorney General, Lisa Monaco, who an official with two decades both, both on the Hill and in the executive branch on anti terrorism and, and national security. That's the kind of decision. Todd Blanche is Donald Trump's lawyer, a criminal defense lawyer. And, and there was a hire recently at the FBI that has encouraged folks. Chris Rea, who is a very well regarded agent who had served, a supervisory agent who served stints in New York and elsewhere, is believe a, a very competent and trusted operational person. He was brought in when Dan Bongino, the podcaster who served under Cash Patel, left a couple of months ago. But the answer is no. This is, this is a, this is a leadership in both the FBI and Department of justice that were chosen for their complacence, complacency and their compliance with directives coming out of the White House from Stephen Miller and Donald Trump.

B (41:59)

You've been covering this for us since 2am has anything surprised you that you've seen play out?

D (42:04)

No, There are some questions that I have that are still not answered. And that has to do with how much of the Iranian response was preplanned. Right. Because it gives us some insight into how they interpreted the strike against them. And that is, it's an existential moment. And because it is an existential moment for the regime, basically no rules, no red lines, everything all holds go. So it means that the regime now is targeting allies of the Americans in the region, particularly the Arab countries, who may have thought they were going to be immune from this if they said, hey, we're not going to allow the Americans to use oversight or basis for striking Iran. And so now it is a race against time between how much the United States can provide our allies with interceptor missiles, the Thaads and the Patriots, versus how many ballistic missiles and command and control structure the Iranians can replenish to be able to sustain this, sustain this war.

B (42:58)

Remarkable moment. So grateful to all of you for joining us on a Saturday. Glenn Thresh, thank you. Secretary Frank Kendall, thank you. And Eamonn, thank you for being part of our coverage and really all of ours all day long. Thank you. And you'll be on into the night in Korean at 10 o' clock and on all hours in between. And thanks to all of you for joining us on a Saturday. During this special breaking news. Ari Melbourne picks up our coverage after a short break.

A (43:26)

There's a reason Chevy trucks are known for their dependability. It's because they show up no matter the weather, push forward no matter the terrain and deliver. That's why Chevrolet has earned more dependability awards for trucks than any other brand in 2025, according to J.D. power, because in every Chevy truck, like every Chevy driver, dependability comes standard. Visit Chevy.com to learn more. Chevrolet received the highest total number of awards among all trucks in the J.D. power 2025 U.S. vehicle Design Dependability Study awards based on 2,022 models. Newer models may be shown. Visit jdpower. Com awards for more details. Chevrolet together, let's drive.