General Mark Hertling (5:21)

Well, it was a sort of a chaotic eight days from the time that Israel first struck more than a week ago inside of Iran to the American strike Saturday night in Iran. And it was this period where the president sort of was projecting publicly that he hadn't made a decision. But increasingly, as the days went on, he moved closer and closer to making a decision. And by early last week, he had pretty much decided that he was going to authorize an American military strike on Iran. And that was the time when American military planning was sort of ramping up. Obviously, the military had been looking at these sites for years. There had been plans on the shelf to attack Forte and Natanz and other places, but obviously they had to refine the attack. And this sort of played out in amidst a time when the president was posting on Truth Social, these very provocative statements, for instance, about the, you know, everyone in Tehran needs to evacuate. And this was causing angst at Central Command and the Pentagon that he seemed to be signaling that something was coming and that might be potentially damaging to the attack.

Mark Mazzetti (6:39)

Mark, what is your understanding of the facts of the attack? We were on the air together Saturday night. Thank you for coming in late with us. But Trump's statement to the country at 10:00pm Eastern was that the U.S. had, quote, obliterated Iran's nuclear program. His own term of the Joint Chiefs was moredidn't say that. He said that they're still assessing what damage was done. What is your understanding of the success of the bombings?

General Mark Hertling (7:12)

Right. When we spoke on Saturday night, you know, was saying how surprised it was that the president would sort of so make this blanket statement immediately after the strike that the nuclear facilities have been totally obliterated. Obviously, the Pentagon generally wants to take some time to assess the damage before making any kind of judgments. And then, you know, sure enough, by Sunday morning, there were more tempered statements about just how much damage there was. Now, we still are trying to learn more about just the extent, and I think the United States and Israel are also trying to learn as much as they can. They're still trying to assess the damage of those sites. That could take some time. But it was the message of American officials on Sunday, hours after the president had made those statements. Saturday night was certainly different and certainly more measured, indicating that, you know, Iran obviously has some capabilities remaining for its nuclear facilities, but also the suggestion that there were there were efforts by the Iranians to relocate a lot of the enriched uranium from the sites that were the most obvious targets of an American attack.

Mark Mazzetti (8:19)

General Hartling, let me ask you to come in as our sort of arbiter of what is true. It's such an extraordinary moment where it's always a solemn moment. But when a president takes the country into war, into a military operation, and then addresses the nation, what's so stunning is that as Marcus puts pointing out, by the next morning his chairman of the Joint Chiefs was communicating something different about the mission. What is your understanding of the facts of what has transpired since Saturday night?

Courtney Kuehy (8:58)

Well, a couple things on the facts, and it's a great point to bring out, Nicole, because obliterated, first of all is not a doctrinal term. I don't know what that means. Truthfully, it's hyperbole. Secondly, whenever you're doing bomb damage assessment, the so called bda, you underplay it until you have more facts. And even if you have something like a small explosion somewhere that is under the control of a commander, only the inexperienced and those who are swaggering will say that it created something more than they know it did before they had experience and a good look at what had happened. So something like this in an area where there's no one around, that it's 90ft underground under granite and concrete, where the bombs enter a hole and you see perhaps the concussion Russian, but not the explosion. You're guessing at where the facilities are and you don't quite know what you're going to hit, even though the warhead is extremely powerful. Truthfully, you know, as an inexperienced commander, I would never say something like it's been obliterated. I wouldn't even say it was defeated or destroyed until you had evidence of that happening. And truthfully, Nicole, I gotta admit that I've been the victim of that on several occasions during my military career where we overhyped something that didn't turn out to be true. So you know that that was the first touch when I heard the President say that, I winced when I heard General Kaine the next morning back away from that and say that it would take several days, perhaps even weeks, to determine the real bomb damage assessment. I said, okay, we've got a guy that understands this, especially an Air Force guy who has probably been involved in launching weapons systems from 30,000ft and can't really tell until there's more evidence on the ground what's there. So that entire dynamic of the initial press conference doesn't give facts. It doesn't allow for the citizens to trust what is coming out of a press conference. And that's my thought about the whole thing. Because truthfully, facts matter in situations like this, especially when you're sending Military forces off to war.

Mark Mazzetti (11:13)

Well, and I do. The events are unfolding as we have been on the air. Trump is tweeting, and I'm going to bring our viewers all that information. But I wanted to back up to Saturday night because I was on the air as it was unfolding and it wasn't clear to me what the facts were. Let me ask you one more factual question. Do you understand or do you believe the military understands what the objective of the raids were? Because even since it happened, Trump and his own VP seem to be on different pages about regime change.

Courtney Kuehy (11:46)

Yeah, that's also a great point because I was involved in the 2003 planning for the invasion of Iraq. And when the mission set is given to a military force, you want it in a clear, understandable, concise statement. What am I supposed to do? Eisenhower probably got the best ever one when Marshall told him, enter the continent of Europe and defeat the Nazi war machine. I can do do that as a military guy. What I can't do as a military guy is regime change. I certainly can't do it with a bombing campaign. So, you know, I'm sure the mission set that was passed through CENTCOM to the US to the Air Force and the Navy was hit these specific targets. It was a target synchronized matrix. So they knew what they had to hit, they knew when they had to hit it. They were looking at the headquarters, the Central Command headquarters, for effects of the weapons system. But that has nothing to do with the changing dynamic from striking a nuclear facility all the way to the next day talking about regime change. Because, you know, I got to tell you, the military don't do regime change and we certainly don't do it very well. Sorry for my grammar there.

Mark Mazzetti (13:01)

Well, I appreciate your candor. I want to pull your piece into the conversation and bring it back to what's happening this hour as we come on the air, which is Iran's retaliation. Let me, let me read from what you're in the bulwark. When war becomes an extension of politics, everyone must be involved. The treasury and Commerce Departments must anticipate sanctions blowback, global market disruptions and energy shockwaves. Homeland Security must raise alert levels and defend our borders. Cybersecurity agencies must harden our networks against Iranian retaliation. The intelligence community must monitor Iranian proxies from Beirut to Buenos Aires, not to mention the other rogue state on the verge of deploying nuclear weapons, North Korea. Were those players and others involved in the strategic deliberations and long term planning before the Iran strike or since many of those very Institutions through politicization, distraction or deliberate erosion are not fully focused today. Several key agencies have seen personnel cutbacks, leadership turnover or an extreme focus on a political agenda over the last few months. This undermines coordination, agility and trust. I would just add my own reporting to that analysis is even starker. That former intelligence officials feel that we have really trashed our capabilities. The brain drain in the intelligence communities through firings and early retirements leaves us incredibly vulnerable to the kinds of ways that Iran is likely to attack. What are you hearing today in response to your piece and everything that you know about a moment like this?

Courtney Kuehy (14:39)

Well, some of this comes from experience, Nicole. Again, I hearken back to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I was involved in war planning at the Pentagon at the time, actually putting the contingency plan together for the agencies within government that General Franks, Tommy Franks was putting together at CENTCOM headquarters. What you have to understand even as a young officer is war is not just the military. When you're talking about invading another country or going to war with another country, every element of the United States government needs to be involved. And that's what I was trying to point out in that argument. The reason why that is is because we take a whole of government approach to conflict. It is politics by other means, as Clausewitz once said. So what you're talking about is does the Homeland Security secretary know exactly the threats that might happen and conduct a what if drill and even a red teaming where you play the enemy and say where would the enemy like to strike in the homeland, in the economic sector, in the commerce sector, in State Department? What other nations are getting involved outside of the area of the map that we're looking at right now? What is Russia going to do? China, North Korea? What are our allies going to do? It is a very complex situation. And when you have a decision maker that is bouncing between things and making snap decisions as opposed to coordinated decisions with other agencies of the government, you end up with a whole lot of confusion in the very complex situation that is warfare.

Mark Mazzetti (16:20)

Courtney, you have joined us and I'm so glad to get to ask you about this. I started reading some of Mark's reporting and you and Mark Mazzetti and I were on the air together Saturday night. I mean, the backstory and the picture of how we arrived at this moment is in the category of shocking but not surprising. Let me read a little bit of that reporting to you. Trump was closely monitoring Fox News, which was airing wall to wall praise of Israel's military operation and featuring guests Urging Trump to get more involved. Several Trump advisers lamented the fact that Mr. Carlson was no longer on Fox News, which meant that Trump was not hearing much of the other side of the debate. What is your sense of the backstory to how we got here? Where now I know that building you cover. They're all on high alert and bracing for retaliation.

Sue Gordon (17:10)

Yeah, I mean, we know about this meeting that occurred now. It was two weeks ago. I guess the days are running together a little bit. Nicole at Camp David, where the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Daniel Kaine, presented the options for what Israel was going to do in these initial when they were to begin this bombing campaign against Iran. As part of that presentation to the President, to the senior national security team members, General Kaine also presented options for what the United States could do to either support Israel or frankly to do nothing. And that was everything from the basic level of support. So providing, continuing to provide intelligence, logistics support, like refueling everything to kinetic support. So that would be bombing, helping them bomb the nuclear facilities, as we saw happen over the weekend, with the US Taking their military strikes there. That was the beginning of what we later learned was a series of meetings that occurred. U.S. officials, national security officials, and the Trump administration providing the President with a number of different options for what to do. And it all led to, just after midnight on Saturday morning, those B2s taking off out of Whiteman Air Force Base and ultimately conducting those strikes. But between them, we're still sort of putting together the pieces of exactly who it was that was in the President's ear. What's become pretty clear is that he definitely listens to and trusts the counsel of his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dan Kain. He likes to call him Raisin Cain. He's known him for several years, but he's relatively new to the job here. He's proven to be this steady hand in the Pentagon at a time where there has been a lot of upheaval in this Pentagon, both in the leadership, but then also in the world on the world stage. General Kaine is definitely one of the officials who we are hearing that he's been talking to. In addition to that, the inner circle, Nicole, seems to also include Vice President J.D. vance. Marco Rubio is of course, dual hatted right now as Secretary of State and the acting National Security Adviser. And then Stephen Miller, who is more on the domestic side, but still seems to be deeply involved in a lot of these conversations.

Mark Mazzetti (19:10)

And Courtney, as we came on the air, we were digesting the reporting about the retaliation. What is the sort of footing that military personnel in the region are on right now. What are they prepared for?

Sue Gordon (19:24)

So they're at the highest state of alert. They've been there for some time. So this day has evolved very quickly and developed in various ways. We started out with a warning that there was an imminent threat against a number of different US Military installations in the Middle East. It included Al Udid and Qatar. That was one of them. But it also included several others. Well, we then soon got word that there had been some short and medium range missiles fired from Iran and all knocked down. We're starting to get a little bit more detail, but even the details now that we're getting directly from the president seemed to be a little bit fuzzy. He said both in the last several minutes actually, that Iran fired 14 missiles, that 13 of them were shot down and one of them simply landed in an open space and didn't present any kind of danger, that there were no casualties, that there was very little damage to anything. He also said that this was, this is a truth social posting. He also said that Iran has hopefully gotten this out of their system now. But then he also spoke saying that there were 19 missiles fired. So we're working through that. Military officials not telling us which one of those two is the accurate answer, but they are saying that they do believe that all of the missiles were either intercepted or didn't impact the base. They're also saying there were no casualties. They're still going through the assessment to make sure if there was actually any infrastructure damage, if the base was actually impacted in any way, even if none of the missiles actually impacted the base. Nicole, remember, if there's an intercept, there can be debris that will fall that can cause damage below. We've seen that happen in other cases. Military officials also telling us they believe that at this point, this salvo, this, this attack is over. But they are stopping short of saying that they believe this is the full, full scope of any Iranian retaliation. It's just, they seem to say that it's just too early to know that for sure.

Mark Mazzetti (21:13)

I want to press all of you on the reaction from Congress. I think it was maybe even before Trump addressed the nation that some Democrats were calling for his impeachment. He's got bipartisan opposition to what's happening. And we've all talked together about the big, big fissures within his own political coalition. I'm going to ask all of you to stick around. We'll have much more on this story. Also ahead for us, one of those Republicans who isn't Taking Donald Trump at his word at all is named Thomas Massie. He's calling out the White House for what he says is an unconstitutional strike against Iran. How he's feeling the full weight of the Trump political machine against him is another story we'll cover and get reaction to. Also ahead, markets today are waiting and wondering the same thing everyone else is. What is going to happen next? Trump demanding that energy costs stay low by typing words in all caps on social media may work. We'll ask Steve Liesman if that's a thing. And later in the show, Donald Trump's break with his own intelligence experts has been very public and glaring and unsettling. We'll talk about how it factored into his decision making over the weekend. All those stories and more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

Nicole Wallace (22:27)

Today it's conversation. It's perspective. It's the weekend on MSNBC with three new Dynamics dynamic hosts, Jonathan Capehart, Eugene Daniels and Jackie Alemani. And in the evening, it's the weekend Prime Time with Eamon Mohadeen, Katherine Rampel, Elise Jordan and Antonia Hilton join them as they offer analysis on the week's most important events and set the agenda for the week ahead. The weekend at 7am eastern and the weekend primetime at 6pm eastern Saturdays and Sundays on MSNBC.

Chris Hayes (22:58)

Hey everyone, it's Chris Hayes.

Mark Mazzetti (22:59)

This week on my podcast, why Is this Happening?

Chris Hayes (23:01)

Progressive grassroots group Indivisible's co founder and co Executive director Director Leah Greenberg.

Courtney Kuehy (23:07)

If there's anything we know about successful.

Mark Mazzetti (23:09)

Movements to defeat autocracies around the world, successful movements to take down dictatorships is that they build broad coalitions and the coalition may not be united by anything other than their opposition to what is currently happening.

General Mark Hertling (23:21)

And that is okay.

Mark Mazzetti (23:23)

That's this week on why Is this Happening? Search for why Is this Happening?

Chris Hayes (23:26)

Wherever you're listening right now and follow.

Nicole Wallace (23:28)

Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access. Add free listening and bonus content to all of MSNBC's original podcasts, including the chart topping series the Best People with Nicole Wallace, why Is this Happening? Main justice and more. Plus new episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows ad free and ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddows original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Mark Mazzetti (23:59)

We're back with Mark Courtney and Jermil Hartling. I mean Gemma Hartley. I want to pull the curtain back a little bit on what our process is. We have more posts from Donald Trump As Courtney was just sharing one of them, we are trying to fact check them, frankly, before we platform them and share them with our audience. And I want to show you the other end of that. He is trying to do the opposite and make sure that the facts don't get out to the American people. This is something that Trump said today, only the fake news would say anything different than that. The sites that we hit in Iran were totally destroyed. He then singles out a journalist at cnn, head of my company, a journalist at abc. I mean, he's very, very, very triggered by what always happens when the men and women of the military put their lives on the line on a mission ordered by the country's commander in chief. What do you make of this moment and what are the consequences for the military having a president trying so desperately to control the information flow?

Courtney Kuehy (25:06)

Nicole, the military works in facts. You know, at the military academy, we're taught not to lie, cheat or steal. That's not just because of integrity violations. It has to do with if you lie, people will die on the battlefield. If you cheat at things, people will die on the battlefield. Hyperbole brings you to a point that you really don't trust and it could cause problems. And what we're talking about is a marketer, someone who's been in marketing and business all of his life, making things much better than they are, using hyperbole to launch things up. You know, the army had a campaign that was so successful about be all you can be. What I used to tell my soldiers is be more than you appear to be. No such thing as swagger. You know, have a little bit of humility. And what we're seeing is a marketer's view toward hubris, making their product the best. Unfortunately, that just doesn't work when you're talking about the profession of arms and what soldiers and sailors, Marines, airmen, space Force, Coast Guard are asked to do on the battlefield. It just doesn't compete with that.

Mark Mazzetti (26:16)

Mark, there is Mark Mazzini. There is still an effort in even trying to read through the lines of what Trump is trying to communicate in his statements and in his posts of conveying this is one and done one off. And I wonder if your reporting suggests that is his personal aversion to taking the country to war or if that is an awareness that his own political coalition has fractured over this.

General Mark Hertling (26:44)

Well, I think that certainly that was the impulse for his statements on Saturday night. Was this was it. It is a done deal. There is no need to go back because he knew that was pulling some members of his own coalition further than they wanted to go. But if he could couch it as a one and done strike, what I call a drive by the other night, then that might be less politically damaging. There is also this, you know, the impulse of saying it's completely obliterated and sticking to that would also, you know, be, be part of that strategy. Right. You don't have to go back if it's entirely done. The problem, as General Hertling just said, is if that doesn't comport with the actual facts and there would be some need for follow up strikes or based on an Iranian retaliation, the US Goes back, then you lose credibility at the White House because the people, because people would say, well, if it was entirely obliterated, why are you going back? So this is where the hyperbole could come back to haunt the President. We'll see what happens. But I think there was a lot of different impulses for him to make such hyperbolic statements on Saturday night. And we'll see if he has to reap what he sows, you know, in the coming days. Based on what happens with the intelligence and what happens with the Iranian response.

Mark Mazzetti (28:05)

What does the Israeli response mean for our involvement? I mean, you had J.D. vance and Donald Trump seeming to take different positions around regime change, but Israel has a lot more clarity on that. And if they proceed, they continue to escalate. What does that mean for the US.

General Mark Hertling (28:27)

Well, one thing that's been shown in the last week or so is that Israel has pretty much free reign over Iran in terms of what they want to do. They can hit where they want to hit. There is very little risk right now to the Israeli military. And so that is something that if they keep pushing to expand beyond the initial scope of the strikes, which were aimed at the nuclear sites.

Courtney Kuehy (28:52)

Right.

General Mark Hertling (28:52)

That could then once again box the White House and President Trump into a corner. If Israel keeps pushing it, then the question is, well, what is the United States going to do? Benjamin Netanyahu said, I believe it was today, that Israel was reaching at the end of its war aims that it was indicating was going to wind down. However, again, based on an Iranian response, response, that could change. And you know, as we know, Netanyahu ultimately does want to see a different government regime in Iran. And if he decides to keep pushing the campaign towards that end, the big question is, well then what does the United States do? So Israel is certainly a wild card as we go forward in terms of what Netanyahu does from here.

Mark Mazzetti (29:36)

Courtney, what are your Armed Services Committee sources on the Hill saying, where are the divisions there?

Sue Gordon (29:45)

I mean, there are the isolationists who've been against the idea of any kind of US Military involvement here pretty vocally from the beginning. But I mean, candidly, look, the mission over the weekend was successful in that the military covertly got in 125 aircraft used. They maintained the element of surprise. Iran never fired a single shot back at the US and they were able to strike three major nuclear sites. And again, we don't know exactly how much damage was done, but there's no question that damage was done here. So we're not hearing a whole lot of opposition to the military mission beyond the people who are still, excuse me, critical of the fact that the president did this without congressional notification or even corruption, congressional authorization. I think the big question here is how does this continue to carry out? Right. Israel is still striking sites inside Iran. Iran has conducted this retaliation against the United States today. If it doesn't go on, if this is sort of the one and done, if the United States doesn't respond anymore, I'm not sure how much more opposition we will hear to this, to the military strikes over the weekend. But if this continues to escalate, if the US in some way is pulled in in a larger way, then we're going to, we'll start hearing, definitely start hearing more opposition. The reality is, Nicole, while the B2s very openly came back, we saw video of them arriving back at Whiteman Air Force Base yesterday. There's still a lot of military power forward based in the region. If the US Wanted to respond again or have any kind of additional military action in the region, they could respond very quickly and they could respond with a lot of. Of force.

Mark Mazzetti (31:29)

General, what is the, you know, if a president came out and wanted to really prepare the country for everything that could happen next, and I'm not saying that the one I worked for did that, but I think I've tried to internalize the mistakes that were made. What would be in the military's best interest in terms of keeping support for the military? As Courtney said, they did their part of the job perfectly and efficiently and without any loss of American life, which, if you're in the military and you're a military family, that was your prayer on Saturday. It feels like Trump's politicization of the Pentagon and intelligence in some ways dominates the conversation. But what, from the military perspective, would the military want the American people to know could happen next?

Courtney Kuehy (32:21)

Well, the first part I would say, Nicole, is that when the military is tasked to do a mission we do it, but we put a lot of effort into doing it. The planning, the preparation, the red teaming, the risk mitigation, walking through it, the rehearsals, what you saw on Saturday night with this strike package of not only the B2s, but also the other aircraft as well as the submarines, Marines shooting, the submarine, launched cruise missiles, Tomahawk missiles. It was a very well rehearsed planned operation that, as Courtney said earlier, this has been on the books for a while. I would say not just months or weeks, but probably years, if not decades in terms of what do you do in a contingency operation against Iran. So we planned that out. What is difficult to do is knee jerk and go from one thing to another. We also have to, as we do red teaming, see what are the potential threats that we're going up against. When those bombers. Not to take anything away from the strike package that went into Iran on Saturday night, but Israel had declared that the Iranian air force was grounded, that they had no air defense capabilities. Israel has not only had air superiority over the last couple of days, they have had air supremacy over Iran because of the way they conducted their attacks early on. So the package going in from the United States, it's always tough to do a combat mission, but it was a little bit more from a contextual standpoint, a little bit easier than it otherwise would have been going into hostile airspace. When you take a look at the defensive posture of a place like Al Udid, and if you don't mind me talking about that for a second, Al Udid is one of our major bases. It's the closest one to Iran. Iran can hit it with its minimal range weapons. It's the place where CENTCOM headquarters Forward is. That's the same headquarters that planned the attack on Iran. And it was the place where President Trump went to speak about a month and a half ago and said, hey, watch out, enemies, we're out to get you. So it would be what the military calls the most likely target. Those guys had targets painted on their back and they better be defending themselves. There are other ones that are most dangerous targets around the globe. Those are the cyber attacks, the sleeper cells, things like that. So from a military stand, you just have to understand there are multiple missions for the military. You've got to give clear guidance. And you can't politicize the military because what they will do for President Trump today, they will do for a Democratic president tomorrow. If that happens. We do the nation's biddings. We take legal orders and execute plans with a lot of rehearsals and a lot of competencies.

Mark Mazzetti (35:27)

Thank you so much for making those points. I think it's really important. General Mark Hertling, Mark Mazzetti, Courtney Coey, thank you all so much for spending time with us today. I'm sure we'll be calling on all of you often. Thank you very much. Up next for us, Trump's decision to attack Iran was made without consulting anyone in Congress, the Democrats or the Republicans. And the Republican Party by and large is fine with that, except for one how Trump is responding to one time Trump supporter Thomas Massie. We'll bring you that story next. I wouldn't call my side of the MAGA base isolationists.

Nicole Wallace (36:08)

We are, we are exhausted.

General Mark Hertling (36:10)

We are tired from all of these.

Mark Mazzetti (36:12)

Wars and we're non interventionists.

Courtney Kuehy (36:14)

I mean, this is what this was.

Mark Mazzetti (36:16)

One of the promises. I mean, are you going to call President Trump's campaign an isolationist campaign?

Nicole Wallace (36:22)

What he promised us was we would put America first.

Mark Mazzetti (36:27)

As we continue to monitor events in the Middle east, it is worth noting a political phenomenon here at home because the last 48 hours or so have served to highlight significant strain, it would seem, inside and at the seams of Donald Trump's political coalition. Even before the strike on Iran, the so called America first movement that has taken over the Republican Party described to us just now by Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie, was openly critical of American intervention abroad and any totally allergic to any suggestion of regime change in Iran, to which Donald Trump today responded calling the libertarian lawmaker a quote bum. It's literally how the vast majority of his supporters feel. But he called the lawmaker articulating that sentiment a quote bum. Now, two key advisors are in the process of launching an anti Massey, that's the congressman super pac, to try to run him out of the party by primarying him. While Massie has been vocal in his objections, he is far from the only one. As we speak, lawmakers and conservative influencers are in the process of a MAGA loyalty stress test, pitting long held non interventionalist ideals against loyalty to Trump, no matter the consequences. Joining our coverage is MSNBC political analyst, host of the Bulwark Podcast, Tim Miller. I feel like you and I have traveled this journey with an unhealthy amount of interest in the sort of weak seams of the MAGA movement. It's where my obsession with the Bannon Musk feud came from. But this is primal. I mean, this was where Trump's hatred for your former boss and mine, Jevin George W. Bush, emanates from. It is his hatred which is a feeling shared by a lot of Americans, including most MAGA voters, who for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ben Rhodes (38:26)

Yeah, I guess I would say that my obsession with this only borders on unhealthy with regards to JD Vance in particular, because he is really the person caught in the middle of this MAGA civil war. And I do have to say that I've been relishing watching him squirm and all of that. I think as far as the broader war is concerned, I guess I put it this way, politically, Trump is in the right in the sense that his base has shown that they're going to stick with him no matter how much he abandoned Severna, no matter how much he goes against what he had promised initially. And this is not the first time this has happened. Whether it was not building the wall or this tax bill that's going through Congress that's going to cut taxes for the rich and hurt working class people, cut Medicaid on a number of verticals. He's doing this and he's seen loyalty from the base. I think that that is potentially he could lose that if they suffered real consequences. And I think that's where the reality of what happens with the economy, what happens over in the Middle east, will impact whether or not this fissure turns into real political problem for Trump. But I do think it'll be a political problem for JD and whoever wants to succeed him going forward. Because you're right that the base, if it was not Trump doing this, the base would be opposed this. If this was Mitt Romney going into Iran, the MAGA base and the MAGA media would be united. There would be no fissure because everybody would be against it. And so I think outside of the context of Trump, the battle will wage on, and I guess I would say one other thing. On the actual merits of the policy, the people who have the maximalist view on both sides have turned out to be lying, which tells you a lot about maga. Right? Like Trump and his defenders on this attack have been saying that they took out everything of the Iranian nuclear material. And then we found out that isn't really true. And then the people in the Tucker Carlson wing were saying, this is going to lead us into World War 3 and BRICS is going to get into the Bat War and et cetera, et cetera. And that hasn't borne out, at least at this date. So a lot of this is kind of also an inch deep. It's a battle taking place on the.

Mark Mazzetti (40:33)

Internet, not in real life, but in real life. This is a betrayal in a way that even tariffs aren't. I mean, tariffs are about doing this fetish, right? Tariffs are a fetish for Trump. And so their betrayal in that his promise to all voters was that, quote, the grocery would go down on day one. Now he's reversed and said, no, no, no, things are going to have to go up. But this feels different because I think what he said to his base since 2015 is, I see what you see in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, no role for America. I see what you see in the uselessness of lame allies in NATO. And so he has been both the pot stirrer as well as the vessel for the impulses of isolationism. And now he's turned his back on all that. And I mean, David Ignatius basically writes that he abandoned his own controversial intelligence head and relied on Israeli intelligence. It is so anathema to America First. I don't even know how you draw distorted dots to get back to America First.

Ben Rhodes (41:41)

Oh, well, that is absolutely true. I know, on the merits, it is a betrayal on the merits, not America First. And it's impossible to even make a cogent argument that there was a urgent American national security interest at play here. Right. I mean, like, maybe, you know, down the line or maybe, you know, within the context of geopolitics. Right, let's would. What would, you know, national security minded folks on both sides of the aisle would say, but like within the America first rubric, there isn't any rationale for this. It has been a betrayal. And I think that what they're pushing through on the Hill is a betrayal. Like, the question is, can those betrayals penetrate the cult, like following? Can they penetrate the media environment that these folks are swimming in, where they're getting a lot of pro Trump propaganda? And I think those questions are kind of unanswerable, but, like, on the actual merits of, of the policy. You're certainly right, Nicole.

Mark Mazzetti (42:32)

Yeah, I don't know, maybe I spend too much time like an upside down land trying to see it the way they see it. But I think the politics being so tricky are why Trump is tweeting incessantly. Like, I haven't seen him tweet this much. I don't know, ever, ever. Elections since he lost the 2023 elections into the allegations. That's right, that's right, that's right. That's exactly right. See, we do spend the same amount of time at the bottom of the barrel. Thank you very much, my friend, for being part of our coverage today. Up next for us, we're going to turn to the economic impact and talk about how people are watching everything that happens next for how it's going to impact the bottom line, our pocketbooks. That's next. The news out of the Middle east is like many other of Trump's early moves. It has a potential massive consequence for the US Economy in the near end long term, it is unclear what the full impact will be on the US Market and our consumers with investors spending most of it most of today in wait and see mode. What is certain though is this is uncertainty on top of uncertainty in Donald Trump 2.0 on top of the chaos created by his self manufactured global trade, war and tariff policy, Trump today is proving he doesn't understand how much of this works. This morning he demanded that, quote, everyone keep oil prices down and said, quote, I'm watching exclamation point, like a parent would say to a young child. He called on the US Department of Energy to do this, quote, drill baby, drill, end quote. You should note the Department of Energy doesn't do any drilling that we know of. Production is up to private companies. Let's bring in CNBC senior economics reporter Steve Leesman. Steve, you can help us understand those things or just tell us what's on your mind at a moment like this. How do just markets but business leaders watch these events.

John Brennan (44:34)

Well, let's talk about the market today, which was pretty extraordinary. I mean, stocks rose, oil prices fell. It was a very backwards reaction. I was thinking this is not your father's oil price shock. The only thing I could think of is that the market had been baked in a lot worse. And they were very relieved when a couple of things happened today. The first thing that happened was the, what would you call it, the rather weak response of Iran. And also the idea that Fed officials now seem to more Fed officials seem to be talking about rate cuts this summer. So those are two things that happen that the market like to see. However, on a broader basis, I would say that what's going on in the Middle east, depending upon how much involvement there is in the United States, should exactly add to the same issues that are present when it comes to tariff. First is the uncertainty factor and the second is the inflation factor. If we don't get the inflation factor, there's going to have a minimal economic effect if we, but the uncertainty factor I think is going to remain. And so these are two things that are working together. And, and we have testimony tomorrow from the Fed chair on the Hill over two days and it's going to be pretty Important to see what he says and how he's processing all of this. But you've got a couple of Fed officials that say, you know what, I think this tariff effect is going to be one time. And so they're ready to cut rates, are willing to cut rates this July if inflation behaves.

Mark Mazzetti (46:04)

What happens to the consumers in this country if Iran decides that the Straits of Hormuz won't stay open?

John Brennan (46:14)

Well, you will have a rise in the price of oil and a rise in the price of gasoline. But I have to caution you that the kinds of things that we saw, at least when I was growing up and I used to work at a gas station in 1979, 1980, and I had my pockets full of, I don't know, three or four thousand dollars on any given day with a line down the block for gas, gasoline, this was unlikely to be a supply shortage. And that's because in today's environment, we produce an awful lot of oil in America. Not all of what we need, but a good chunk of what we need. But there will definitely be an effect. Now, the key is whether or not we reignite that inflation psychology that we had from the pandemic. Look, this is not good, put it that way. From an economics point of view, do you want military action at hot wars in the Middle East? Absolutely not. But right now, the effect is relatively muted. It's, of course, comical to hear President Trump order people to raise the price of oil when oil, of course, is a globally traded commodity. But I don't know, Nicole, in the list of things that we raise our eyebrows about, that's kind of like, I don't know, way down there.

Mark Mazzetti (47:21)

We've gotten used to it. The insanity on Twitter is now baked in. I don't even think it's on Twitter. I think it's on his other site. Let me ask you about the cumulative impact in terms of instability and uncertainty, something we've talked about a lot. The tariffs have been around. Now, there is one deal I think we were promised 90 in 90 days. Taco seems to be something that Trump has accepted about himself because it seems to be, again, well received by the markets. The ICE raids and the specter of military roaming the streets is another thing Trump's trying to make normal. And we now have the announcement by Donald Trump that Trump led the country to war to military action in Iran. Is everyone, I mean, is industry or the markets just adapting for the second Trump era? Are they wishcasting that it'll all in all those areas work out fine or are they in support of those things?

John Brennan (48:24)

I think the way I'd like to describe it is if you've ever been on a boat in choppy seas, it's very rough at the very beginning, then you get used to the up and down and the sideways, and I think that's where people are right now. There was certainly some relief that the worst possible tariff impact hasn't happened, but there's still pretty bad tariff impacts to come. There's been a, what's the way to say it? Score one for the optimists about this because it didn't show up in the May data. However, there is June data, so I'm going to give you a bunch of dates that are super important right now. July 6th is the day that we get the employment report for June and we'll see if that's weakening. July 9th is the day that the President has told us what he's going to do. He's going to tell us us what he's going to do with the reciprocal tariffs and then the fed meets on July 30th. So if you were thinking of taking off the month of July, as an economics reporter, I wouldn't do that.

Mark Mazzetti (49:22)

You just ruined my summer. It's great to see you, my friend. Thank you so much for taking some time. I think this is sort of a reassuring, at least moment in all this, but with your help, we'll stay on top of all of it. We have much more news to come for us. How Donald Trump broke with his own intelligence community. We'll talk about that with someone who knows better than just about anyone what that means and what that feels like. Our friend Sue Gordon will be here. Don't go anywhere.

Nicole Wallace (49:52)

MSNBC presents a new original podcast, the Best People with Nicole Wallace. This week, hosts of the Midas Touch podcast, the Micellis Po Brothers. I think just speaking truthfully on on these issues and leading with humanity over gamified politics, both sides to me, that's the Midas way. The Best People with Nicole Wallace listen now. For early access and free listening and bonus content, subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Stay up to date on the biggest issues of the day with the MSNBC Daily Newsletter. Each morning you'll get and analysis by experts you trust, video highlights from your favorite shows.

Mark Mazzetti (50:31)

I do think it's worth being very clear eyed, very realistic about what's going on here.

Nicole Wallace (50:37)

Previews of our podcasts and documentaries, plus written perspectives from the newsmakers themselves, all sent directly to your inbox each morning. Get the best of MSNBC all in one place. Sign up for msnbc daily@msnbc.com.

Mark Mazzetti (50:55)

What intelligence do you have that Iran is building a nuclear weapon? Your intelligence community has said they have have no evidence that they are at this point. Well, then my intelligence community is wrong.

Nicole Wallace (51:04)

Who in the intelligence community said that?

Mark Mazzetti (51:06)

You're Director of National Intelligence. Tulsi Gabbard. She's wrong. She's wrong. Hi again, everybody. It's five o' clock in the East. Just one day before Donald Trump struck Iran's nuclear sites, he was openly saying that, showing the world all of the daylight that exists right now today between the American president, him and the head of his own intelligence community. It is concerning. It is a very public break between a president and his intelligence head and team, considering questions are still swirling about the answer to that question. What intelligence then did lead up to Trump's decision to strike Iran? And what danger the US could be in amid Iran's bows to retaliate? Already today, Iran fired missiles at a US Airbase in Qatar, which stations thousands of US troops. Qatar's government confirmed that, confirmed the strike and said there were no casualties. The New York Times reports that this may have been a way for Iran to save face without escalating any further. We hope that's true. The Times also reports this, quote, there were signs that Iran might be looking for an off ramp. Three Iranian officials said their government had given advance notice that attacks were coming as a way to minimize potential casualties. At the same time, NBC News is reporting that Iran also threatened attacks even before Saturday's strike. NBC reporting this, quote, iran sent a communique to Trump in the days before the strikes on its nuclear facilities, threatening to activate sleeper cell terror inside the US if it were attacked. Sources said the message got to Trump through an intermediary at the Group of Seven summit in Canada last week. Yesterday, the Department of Homeland Security released a new bulletin warning of, quote, a heightened threat environment here at home. It says this, quote, low level cyber attacks against U.S. networks by pro Iranian hacktivists are likely and cyber actors affiliated with the Iranian government may conduct attacks against US Networks. The likelihood of violent extremists in the homeland independently mobilizing to violence in response to the conflict would likely increase if Iranian leadership issued a religious ruling calling for retaliatory violence against targets in the homeland in the wake of Donald Trump strikes. David Ignatius of the Washington Post writes that the aftermath of this operation could be very messy. He writes this, quote, it showed that the US military, even during the chaotic Trump presidency, still performs with unmatched power, precision, and reach. But despite his talk after the raid of seeking a peaceful diplomatic settlement with Iran, Trump has marched America onto the slipperiest slope in the world. That slippery slope is where we start today, with the best person we know to talk to about all of this. Former Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Sue Gordon is back with us. Thank you so much for being here.

Dara Lind (54:06)

Hey, Nicole, it's so good to see you. What?

Mark Mazzetti (54:11)

Wow, wow, wow. Where to start? Tell me what you thought. I emailed you Saturday between hearing the news and going on television as I was trying to wipe some makeup onto my own face and get down here. You were one of the only people I wrote and your note back to me, I've quoted to everyone I know. It don't impress me much. Explain.

Dara Lind (54:35)

So just to remind, the president sets policy right? He does. The American people elected him on the basis of the policies he said, and it was a legitimate decision not sitting in that chair. Have everything, but actions are easy and outcomes are impossible. And I think we don't talk enough about why intelligence is important, why talking to Congress is important to the American people. It's because the second and third order effects of any action are liable to be messy. And if you don't want to hear that, you have the circumstance we have now, which is it does not seem that. And brief digression, because I'm the mom of combat Marines, and so those who serve their turn are my heroes. And I'm the mom of two combat pilots. And so I'm so glad they all came back safely. But now the hard work starts and we've showed our hand. It doesn't seem like they're obliterated. So now we have choices. Peace is a little harder because we have increased the distance between those we seek to engage and us. And one of the truths about trying to come to an agreement is you can't be too far apart at the start because the person winning doesn't want to give up very much and the person losing doesn't want to hold where they are. So even if you're going to pursue peace, this has made it a bit harder. And if it isn't going to be peace and there is going to be combat action, how is that going to unfold? What do you see coming? What coalition do you have built? What conversation have you had with the American people to say this is actually in their interest? So my first reaction is, you can absolutely choose this action. And today that's where we are. Because Iran is a sovereign nation. And H.R. mcMaster in his book Battlegrounds, really talks about this issue of strategic hubris, particularly when it relates to the United States. We are so used to being the big power that we still think we can dictate the terms, that everyone else is going to fall in line under some auspices of protection. So after this action, I don't know Iran's a sovereign nation. I could come to the conclusion that we have to have a nuclear capability. And I don't know that that was on our interest. So that's really kind of my, my reaction on the action. And then we can talk about intel, because I'm gonna take some personal privilege and talk to DNI Gabbard and say, we've been here before. Nicole, do you remember in December, or I guess it was January of 2019, Dan Coats came out with our threat assessment. And then President Trump, who appointed me and appointed Dan, lost his mind when we said North Korea wasn't going to give up their nukes and Iran was not pursuing weaponization. It didn't matter that we briefed him on that. He lost his mind. This isn't the end for her. Director Gabbard, there is so much more role of intelligence to be plagued. There are all these decisions again, whether it's peace or whether it's conflict, you have the wherewithal to work. The allies and partners work with the experts in the intelligence community to look at them. Some of those second, third order effects. And the reason why I'm so confident that if you put your nose down, trust your community and keep doing the incredibly inconvenient job of intelligence, which is always sealing a leader's decision space. If you go back to the summer of 19, after we got in trouble with former president, former and Iran was trying to bait us into an action that would get us to be the adversary. Europe was so against us and it felt like we were being suckered in intelligence was what kept us and what kept President Trump from over committing. So I. Director Gabbard, you have so many things to do. Play your role as hard as you can. Yes, you're going to scoriate. Yes, he gets to set the policy he wants, but you have the ability to talk to the SecDef and the Secretary of State and the Department of Homeland Security to give them intel so that they can prepare. So just be of good cheer, buckle down. And if you want to talk to former, give me a call. I would, I would always leave. Tell those who are trying to do this really hard job, would you, if.

Mark Mazzetti (60:36)

She called you, after seeing this or hearing about this conversation, what would you say to her?

Dara Lind (60:42)

I'd say, happy to come in. And, and, and here's. And part of it, Nicole, you know, this is one of the great lies I think being told is those of us who are professional cadre, even those who were lucky enough to serve at the highest levels we serve America. If my country asked me to do something today, I would do it. I'd offer the best I have, not trying to achieve my objective, but rather achieve the American people's objective and just kind of pushing off that because you're giving me a chance to chat with you and I've missed you and I'm just talking to America about what I think they don't see.

Mark Mazzetti (61:36)

What don't they say.

Dara Lind (61:37)

During, during my first two years, two years I got as Trump's principal deputy, as President Trump's principal deputy, Congress was dysfunctional. They were hyper partisan. The two parties wouldn't meet any impact on intelligence and national security of a Congress that was not our oversight partners, but it somehow fallen into policy was really difficult. So I know there's a lot of conversation about whether the President had to go to Congress. I'll leave whether he had to go to Congress to other people's conversations. But the reason you go to Congress is because you're trying to talk to the American people about how something that will affect them, whether they're pocketbooks, their economic security, their cyber or their physical.

Mark Mazzetti (62:43)

Health.

Dara Lind (62:46)

Is actually in their interests. And to my friends in the Gang of Eight, Senator Cotton, Chairman Crawford, it isn't disloyal to put policy through its paces. And it would not have been appropriate for you to invite your Democratic co chairs into those conversations. Again. The policy gets to be chosen, but the conversation always makes for better decisions when the outcome is likely to be far different than you want. And does Secretary Rubio work the heck out of coalition? Because whichever way it goes, America first can never be America alone. And those allies and partners are the ones that distinguish us from authoritarian regime have throughout history. Then what Keep us strong. This is a really consequential moment when you listen to the conversations that you should expect to be hearing so that we have the best chance as a nation of getting where we want to go. And I haven't heard those yet, but they could be had.

Mark Mazzetti (64:20)

Sue Gordon, you are here. We love that you are here. But you are here because of your love for the country. And just listening to you talk just moves me and takes my breath away. And that chair and this Time slot is yours. Every day that you want to join us, your voice and your words pierce through this moment like nothing else. Thank you so much for starting us off and setting us straight. Please come back. Miss you, too. We'll see you again soon. I want to add into our conversation former CIA director, now MSNBC Senior National Security Analyst John Brennan, and former deputy National Security Advisor to President Obama, MSNBC contributor Ben Rhodes. There's only one Sue Gordon. But to hear from someone who went through what Tulsi Gabbard is going through right now and has the humility and has the patriotism to still be in the arena, not just fighting for the country and respecting a president's prerogative to set policy, but reaching out to someone whose qualifications were, I think, to put it most generously, controversial and debatable, to put it more frankly, obviously not on par with anyone who'd ever had that position. Just says a lot about how different Trump 2.0 really is. That was the person who was in charge of intel last time. And I wonder, Director Brennan, your thoughts on what was Trump's very public break with the U.S. intelligence community.

Nicole Wallace (66:10)

Well, Sue Gordon is such an accomplished intelligence professional, and she fulfilled her obligations to that profession nobly during the first Trump administration. And despite the fact that he has his own very unique style, she made sure that the intelligence voices, the intelligence assessments, were being heard, just like she referenced Dan Coats, the director of National Intelligence also at the time. And so therefore, it just demonstrates the importance of intelligence. And unfortunately, we have fallen so far with somebody like Tulsi Gabbard who didn't have the background or experience and didn't have the commitment to the profession of intelligence that I think is so necessary. And so we're at a very dangerous time right now in terms of what happens next in this saga with Iran and with Israel. And so we need to have those voices heard in the National Security Council meetings in the White House situation Room to make sure that there is an understanding, irrespective of whether or not Donald Trump wants to hear it. We need to make sure that those voices are heard. And again, Sue Gordon was the. The epitome of an intelligence professional who, despite the strong headwinds that were coming from the Trump Oval Office, she fulfilled her responsibilities with great valor and great professionalism.

Mark Mazzetti (67:24)

Ben, one of the most helpful frames for covering this second Trump presidency is something you and I talk about all the time, the progress as it tracks with Orban and other autocrats toward autocracy, in a way, from democracy, but also Comparing Trump's impulses, as we see in real time in his social media posts, and Trump's policies. I mean, the impulses, I think, are the same from 1.0 to 2.0. He was tweeting @Little Rocket man in 1.0, and with people like Sue Gordon and John Kelly and others around him, there wasn't escalation. There ended up being this bizarre love between Trump and North Korea. But this all feels different, and the actions and the policies are very different. What is your make, what do you make of the relationship between Trump and Israel? How open he is about not believing his own intelligence community and the reaction in Israel to Saturday's strike.

Chris Hayes (68:30)

Underscore here, Nicole, is something Sue's.

Mark Mazzetti (68:32)

Oh, there you are. I'm sorry.

Chris Hayes (68:35)

Well, yeah, I think what's really important to underscore here is something that sue said said, which is the difference between Donald Trump's impulses, his announcements and even his actions and the outcomes. And I think part of what is so unsettling to a lot of people right now is we don't know exactly what's going on and why, nor do we know that we can trust what we're going to be told about those outcomes and whether what we're being told is going to foreshadow what's going to happen. So to answer your question directly, you know, what's pretty clear is to roll back the tape. Donald Trump was in a negotiation, showed every incentive or every motivation to get a deal done with the Iranians to get that off his plate. Prime Minister Netanyahu wanted to press the envelope. He attacked Iran. He called for the United States to come into a conflict, which was not a surprise. Anybody who's watched scenarios of how this might unfold has thought that, that Israel would want the United States to try to get at some of these nuclear facilities like Fordo, that are deep underground. And the US Intelligence community disagreed with Prime Minister Netanyahu said. Prime Minister Netanyahu said, without really any evidence that Iran was weaponizing, Iran was taking a step towards a nuclear weapon, and therefore they had to act. As John knows as well as anybody, the US intelligence community since the 2007 Bush administration national Intelligence Estimate has not concluded, in fact, has concluded, that Iran has not made the decision to weaponize its nuclear program. So therefore, it's a huge step for an American president to bomb several nuclear facilities in Iran, essentially go to war with Iran without the kind of imminence, without the urgency of needing to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But instead of leveling with the American people about that. He just said his, his intelligence movie was wrong. And he no evidence, didn't even feel the need to put out wrong evidence. Now, the one other thing I want to add to this is now we don't know what happened to those facilities. Donald Trump says they're obliterated. I don't think people are looking at this and thinking that they look like they're obliterated. Fordo is deep, deep underground. Is there nuclear fuel that was moved or there's still advanced centrifuges deep underground? Could Iran do what North Korea did and say, you know what? I don't trust any diplomatic deal. The United States States, we're going to go deep underground and try to weaponize our nuclear material out of sight. And I don't know that anybody can trust Donald Trump's words about the battle assessments of what those strikes achieved or about the state of the Iranian nuclear program. We usually would trust the US Intelligence community, but now Donald Trump seems to want them on the tightest possible leash. And it's very unsettling on matters of war and peace and nuclear weapons to not be able to know that you can trust the word of the government on this.

Mark Mazzetti (71:23)

And I have to say, it's not only not normal, it's a place we haven't been before. As we all struggle for the right ways of framing every news cycle, this exact place is a place we've never been before. I'm gonna ask both of you to stick around. We have to sneak in a quick break. We'll have much more with John Brennan and Ben Rhodes about this question of what happens next and who do we believe and what think you do. The facts really are. After Iran fired missiles at an American base in Qatar in retaliation for the US Strikes against its nuclear facilities and threatens. More later in the hour. The owner of a California landscaping business and the father of three US Marines was pinned to the ground and beaten by a federal immigration agent. One of his sons says he feels, quote, betrayed. But his father, who he says is undocumented but has no criminal record, was treated this way by the US Government. How Donald Trump's deportation agenda and tactics are going well beyond what he promised and the political cracks that are starting to glare. Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. We're back with Director Brennan and Ben. John, I want to read you something David Ignatius wrote about in today's Washington Post and drill down a little bit on the future for Tulsi Gabbard. He writes, a more urgent question for me is why Trump apparently chose to believe Israeli intelligence over America's own. Trump sparred with reporters over this issue Friday when one asked, what intelligence do you have that Iran is building a nuclear weapon? Your intelligence community said they had no evidence. Trump said, well, then my intelligence community is wrong. On what basis did Trump make that remarkable statement? Congressional intelligence committees are likely to investigate the issue closely. Senior member of Congress told Ignatius Sunday. If our intelligence community got it wrong, we need to know why. If our president took another country's intelligence ahead of ours, then why? The Helsinki reaction right when Trump came up and took Putin's word over his own intelligence community was cataclysmic. It was a break. It caused even Trump's closest allies to say, huh, maybe there is something with Russia. I wonder if you think this moment is akin to that and what you believe the appropriate response is to Trump breaking with Tulsi Gabbard. And this story feels different because Tulsi Gabbard is a handpicked MAGA figure who.

Dara Lind (73:51)

He broke with Nicole.

Nicole Wallace (73:54)

I think we're going to be seeing more and more fractures within the Trump camp. We've already seen it in terms of Else Musk and Trump. We see it with Steve Bannon and even Tucker Carlson and Trump. And so it's unsurprising that we're seeing this. But I must say that, you know, the repercussions of what has happened over the past several days are going to be felt for many days, weeks, months and years ahead. And Donald Trump owns it all, especially since he's disrespected and dismissed US Intelligence. Donald Trump was the one that got the US out of the nuclear deal with Iran that had put a real halt on Iran's enrichment capabilities. He is unlike his predecessors, President Bush, President Obama and President Biden. He didn't stop Bibi Netanyahu from striking Iran, and he, Donald Trump was the one that decided that US Military would strike Iran. So this is clearly all on him. And there are a lot of scenarios ahead in terms of what the fallout is going to be of this. And as Sue Gordon said, it's easy to take actions, but you can never be certain of the outcomes. And the outcomes here, I think, are really quite dangerous in terms of where we go forward, especially since Donald Trump and, and it seems as though his minions, his sycophants, are also not going to take into account US Intelligence, and they're going to go on Donald Trump's gut. And for somebody who has so little understanding of the world events and world history and the Middle East. It is a really dangerous time, I think, for the United States.

Mark Mazzetti (75:23)

Ben, what happens to Tulsi Gabbard? I mean, she purged senior, highly regarded, non political, nonpartisan intelligence officials because they wouldn't manufacture the predicate for his invoking the Alien Entity act, the role of the Venezuelan government in the trend gang. But she's now been thrown under the bus by Donald Trump. What is her existence like ahead of the intelligence community?

Chris Hayes (75:51)

I mean, I think what's pretty clear is that her existence is dependent on her willingness to tell Donald Trump whatever he wants to hear and to say that in public as well. And the way that you saw her do a 180 on her own assessment and with no information behind it, indicates that she gets the message that if she wants to survive in that position, then her job is to tell Donald Trump what he wants to hear and tell the world what Donald Trump wants to hear and to surround herself with people who do that. And that is so dangerous for the United States because again, we talk about the response today in Qatar. Well, yes, the Iranians are trying to do something to save face, buy themselves some time, make their public think that they're hitting back, but not really trying to pick the fight there in the Gulf where they've actually cultivated relationships and improved relationships with those countries. The question is, what are they going to do in the long run? Are they going to pursue asymmetric terrorist attacks? Well, we've replaced the professionals at the FBI with Dan Bongino, right. We've replaced people at the National Counterterrorism center with people that will go forward with Trump's agenda. We need assessments again of the Iranian nuclear program. Does anybody think, think that Donald Trump is going to be looking for, you know, bad news? The bad news is the real news. And I think you were pointing about authoritarianism earlier, Nicole. Donald Trump wants the reality to be whatever is on his social media feed, whatever he wants to tell his people at a given time. But that is not the reality in the world. And where intelligence is so important, particularly in matters of life and death and natural security, is not to tell you the good news, it's to tell you the bad news. That's what you need to hear. You know, as someone who I was in rooms with President Obama when John Brenn had to tell him some really bad news. And that was his job. He was doing his best job when he was delivering the hardest news, not when he was coming in saying, everything's going great, you know. And I think what we've learned is that whether it's Tulsi Gabbard, whoever comes after her, nobody's going to be in that role who doesn't do what and say what he wants. And he's going to try to create a reality that may not be the reality in the world. And that's, that's, that's what's so profoundly unsettling. Whether it's natural security or anything that's happening in the United States is having, again, this is an autocratic tendency. Someone who wants to impose what they want to be reality on what is actually happening.

Mark Mazzetti (78:12)

It's just so amazing. I just keep thinking about the consequences and the long, long tail of a reality TV president and the non reality he's created for his own base of support in our country. A stunning moment. Thank you both for joining us to talk about John Brennan and Ben Rhodes. Thank you. From the strikes in Iran to the ongoing fear facing people living in communities in every state in our country, here at home, outrage over another violent immigration arrest as the Supreme Court allows one of the most incomprehensible aspects of Trump's deportation agenda to proceed. We'll bring you those stories next. A brutal new video shows just exactly what mass deportation looks like under the Trump administration. Alarming footage of approximately seven masked men wearing U.S. customs and Border Patrol vests pinning down and beating the father of three U.S. marines while others watched before forcing him into an unmarked vehicle. Take a look for yourself. It goes on and on. It's excruciating to watch. That man has a name. His name is Narciso Barranca. One of his sons, Alejandro, told the Orange County Register that his dad, who was just beaten and arrested and put in the back of that car, has no criminal record. His dad works as a landscaper. He was working outside of an IHOP when he was approached by several masked men. We saw them in the video. He was terrified, according to his son. So he began to run toward his truck to grab his ID before those men that you saw in the video threw him to the ground. Ground. The LA Times adds this reporting that Barranco was then, quote, pepper sprayed and beaten and that his shoulder was dislocated. After speaking with him Sunday at about 6pm his son Alejandro said his father had not received medical treatment, food or water after more than 24 hours in a detention facility in Los Angeles. Quote, I don't think it was just, I don't think it was fair, he said of the use of force against his father, quote, I don't think they need four 200 pound plus guys to hold down a 5, 6 or 5 7, 150 pound guy. Alejandro served his country in Afghanistan and he had this to say about his father's treatment by Donald Trump's ICE agents. Quote, I feel betrayed. My dad has no criminal history. He wasn't doing anything bad. He was just working the way they attacked him. I don't think it's right. I'm honestly really hurt because I love this country a lot and I love my parents a lot. I gave up four years of my life to serve this country and to show that I am a patriot. Just in the last hour, in a 6, 3 decision by the United States Supreme Court, they allowed the Trump administration to remove immigrants convicted of crimes to countries other than their own country of origin. In a scathing dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that, quote, thousands will suffer violence in far flung locales. Joining our coverage, senior fellow for the American Immigration Council, Dara Land is here. Plus, Princeton University professor MSNBC contributor Eddie Glad is here. Also joining us, NBC News correspondent Jacob Soboroff. Jacob, we texted about the video as soon as it surfaced. Some great local and national reporting has confirmed the facts. But Narciso's story reminded me of the story you brought us on Saturday of Ross the Marine. I mean, just talk about the fact that this is happening and now we see their faces and know their names.

Jacob Soboroff (82:21)

This story is playing out, Nicole, every day all over Los Angeles. That's what I want to emphasize about this. I met Ross the Marine Corps veteran on the steps of the federal building in downtown Los Angeles during the protest. He served in the Marines. His parents were undocumented. He got them status because of his service to and for this country as the US Citizen child of undocumented parents. When you watch what played out in Orange county, how can you not not be sickened by that? Alejandro said, and you read his statement that you've got four heavily armed, and I'm paraphrasing here, 200 plus pound men kneeling, just watch it. Beating a man who was out there cutting grass. He was cutting grass. And these heavily armed masked agents who don't identify themselves to people who are alleging that he tried to attack them with his weed whacker, when in fact, if you watch the video that DHS has put up, he was being sprayed with some kind of pepper spray as he ran away. They're ubiquitous all over the city right now. And the tactic is deliberately to terrorize, to scare people. That's the Whole stated goal, it's deterrence. This is U.S. immigration Policy 101 supersized. It's what family separation was. Stephen Miller didn't want to just take 5,500 children away from their parents. He wanted to do tens of thousands of them. And now every day in la, as you and I have talked about for months since Donald Trump was elected, again, mass deportation is family separation just by another name. And that in every corner of the county of Los Angeles, the county with the most undocumented people in the country, the most populous in the country, where people are preaching tolerance and acceptance of their neighbors and their friends and their fellow parishioners and classmates. Every day people go out on the street worried that this is going to happen.

Mark Mazzetti (84:30)

I want to show you what Joe Rogan said, not because he's more important than anyone gathered here today, but because Donald Trump, Trump seems to listen to him because he controls a big part of Donald Trump's political coalition. So here's his statement.

General Mark Hertling (84:46)

If they, the Trump administration, if they're running and they said, we're going to go to Home Depot and we're going.

Nicole Wallace (84:51)

To arrest all the people at Home.

Mark Mazzetti (84:52)

Depot, we're going to go to construction sites and we're going to just like.

General Mark Hertling (84:54)

Tackle people at construction sites, I don't.

Nicole Wallace (84:56)

Think anybody would have signed up for that.

General Mark Hertling (84:57)

They said, we're going to get rid of the criminals and the gang members first.

Mark Mazzetti (85:02)

Right.

General Mark Hertling (85:03)

And now we're seeing like Home Depots get raided.

Ben Rhodes (85:06)

Like, that's crazy.

Mark Mazzetti (85:11)

I'm going to play that every day until it is acknowledged that, quote, I don't think anyone would have signed up for that. The political reality is that 15, 12 and 9, those are the numbers of Americans that support deporting people who have American born children, as this person, as this gentleman, as Narciso does, three American, three kids who served in the Marines, who served their country in combat. I think it's important to say that people like Joe Rogan didn't think they'd be deporting people at Home Depot. They don't support deporting people jobs. So all of the raids are taking place. Where are they taking place? At Home Depot? Parking lots, at restaurants, in agricultural. Those are all people at work. Those are. They're only looking for people with jobs. There is very little evidence that they are pursuing the actual adjudicated criminals. Where does that leave us, Jacob?

Jacob Soboroff (86:04)

We don't even know that they actually have targets for these enforcement operations other than going like someone who wanted to hire a day laborer. To come fix something at their home, to pull up and show up at a Home Depot or a Lowe's or in the case of Narciso, who was cutting grass outside of an ihop. That's the people that they're going after. And, you know, Joe Rogan may be surprised, but I can tell you that I wasn't. As I stood on the floor of the convention and they held up signs that said mass deportation now, modeling it after DWIGHT D. Eisenhower's 1954 program that deported a million Mexicans and some Mexican Americans, this is what they said they were going to do. Now they're doing it, and it is tearing apart the fabric of the largest county in America.

Mark Mazzetti (86:49)

We're going to turn to some new reporting about child separations and bring in the rest of our panel on the other side of it. Very short break. Don't go anywhere. We're back with Dara, Eddie and Jacob. Dara, your thoughts on everything we're seeing spill into full view. I mean, I understand where Jacob is coming from. And I, too, when I saw the.

Sue Gordon (87:13)

Mass deportation now signs, understood that that.

Mark Mazzetti (87:15)

Wasn'T compatible with what they were saying. But the fact of the matter is.

Sue Gordon (87:19)

That the Trump administration came into office.

Mark Mazzetti (87:21)

Promising that there were millions of billions of criminals who were invading the United States. We knew that wasn't accurate. Many of the people who voted for Trump did not.

Sue Gordon (87:30)

And so what we're seeing now is.

Mark Mazzetti (87:32)

The inevitable consequence of you can't promise.

Sue Gordon (87:34)

Millions of deportations and care about the.

Mark Mazzetti (87:37)

Conditions of people who you're keeping in detention.

Sue Gordon (87:39)

You can't promise millions of deportations and wait to have target lists. You can't promise millions of deportations and.

Mark Mazzetti (87:46)

Only go after convicted criminals, much less.

Sue Gordon (87:49)

Quote, unquote, invaders, because they're simply.

Mark Mazzetti (87:52)

That simply doesn't describe the overwhelming majority.

Sue Gordon (87:54)

Or really any unauthorized immigrants in the United States.

Mark Mazzetti (87:58)

So this is, you know, mature policymakers make decisions based on weighing competing factors. And this is what happens when you allow your desire to get the numbers.

Sue Gordon (88:09)

Up to eclipse every other consideration you.

Mark Mazzetti (88:12)

Might have in making decisions for the American people. Yeah, I mean, Eddie, Glad. At its root, it has the problem with the numbers and the problem with the fact that Trump has purged everyone based in facts, based in reality from his inner circle for nine years. The people who told him he actually got his butt kicked in 2020 by Joe Biden, gone, burned primary, not even Republicans anymore. The people who told him the truth about COVID gone, gone. I mean, Dr. Fauci now has security for the rest of his life. I mean, the facts don't line up with the frenzy to do this. Absolutely. I mean, he's on earth too, with enablers. I think this is clear. But I also want us to be very, very honest with ourselves. This is part of the great replacement theory. This is for the base, for some of these folks. This is exactly what they want.

Courtney Kuehy (89:04)

And we need to understand that and.

John Brennan (89:05)

Name it for what it is.

Mark Mazzetti (89:06)

Think about it, Nicole.

Dara Lind (89:07)

Service in sacrifice.

Mark Mazzetti (89:12)

We saw with what we saw with the men cutting grass outside of the ihop, what we saw with Saeed Nazid.

Courtney Kuehy (89:19)

Who actually served in Afghanistan alongside US Troops.

General Mark Hertling (89:23)

They don't.

Mark Mazzetti (89:23)

Service and sacrifice do not matter. It all depends on whether or not these folk view you as other and if you're consistent, if you look like the country that they want the country to look like.

General Mark Hertling (89:33)

And I think if we're honest with.

Mark Mazzetti (89:35)

Ourselves about that, then we'll understand the cruelty of it all. I think, Jacob, what, if anything, is the friction point for them? They've just had a victory in the Supreme Court for one of the most heinous. I don't even know who thought of the idea of sending people to countries from which they don't even come or have any relationship. Where are we heading?

Jacob Soboroff (89:59)

I think the friction point is that they want. They are so desperate to look strong. And just watching that video made me think of what Gavin Newsom, I've heard him say. I've spent a lot of time with him since the fires and now during this, he has a line about Donald Trump where he says his weakness masquerading as strength. And when I watch armed border patrol agents crush a father of three Marines because he was cutting grass outside an ihop, I think of that phrase, weakness masquerading as strength. What is the goal here? I feel sorry for everybody involved. That's how I feel.

Mark Mazzetti (90:36)

Wow. We'll pick this up. I feel like we have much deeper to go here. Dara, Jacob and Eddie, thank you so much for spending time with us today. When we come back, how to build a pro democracy juggernaut. A preview of my conversation with the Midas Touch brothers after a very short break. My guests on this week's episode of the Best People are amazing. They have completely cracked the code on how to build a formidable and sticky and lasting pro democracy fact based coalition to push back against everything that's happening. I spoke to the real life brothers behind the digital news, Goliath Midas, Tucker, Ben Brett and Jordi Meisellis. Here's how Ben describes how we build a pro democracy force made for these times.

Nicole Wallace (91:34)

That goes back to listening to people and hearing what the concerns are out there right now. People can't afford homes. They can't afford to pay their rent. They're worried they're about to be kicked off of health care. They feel psychologically tortured living paycheck to paycheck. They care about the climate. People care about the climate. They're worried that FEMA isn't going to be there for them when hurricane season hits. They're seeing FEMA not there for people during disasters already. They're seeing a deranged and unhinged person in the Oval Office who's like painted the whole thing gold, attacking foreign leaders there and destroying our alliances and, and people are scared and they're worried and they don't hear people talking to them about those things.

Mark Mazzetti (92:24)

You can hear the entire conversation with the brothers behind Midas Touch by scanning the QR code on your screen. They're amazing. I hope you listened to everything they shared with me and let me know on Blue sky or Instagram what you thought. Quick break for us. We'll be right back. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes on this Monday. We are grateful.