← Meet the Press
Meet the Press
Meet the Press NOW — March 2
00:52:29
The military conflict in the Middle East escalates into a full-blown regional war with Iran targeting several countries with its retaliatory strikes. Oil markets and global markets react to the U.S. war on Iran. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) joins Meet the Press NOW to react to the conflict and the administration’s military objectives. NBC News Chief Data Analyst Steve Kornacki previews tomorrow’s midterm primaries.
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:01]
A
With the Venmo Debit card. A taco in one hand and ordering a ride in the other means you're stacking your rewards. Nice. Get up to 5% cash back with Venmo Stash on your favorite brands when you pay with your Venmo debit card. From takeout to ride shares, entertainment and more, pick a bundle with your go tos and start earning cash back at those brands. Venmo Stash Bundle terms and exclusions apply. See terms at venmo me stashterms max $100 cash back per month America, America, you used to be so fun but now you go to bed at night scrolling on your phone. Well listen up America. Carnival is here with world class crew and ropes, car stew and comedy and snorkeling and dining like everything from sea to shining sea. Find your fun again@carnival.com Carnival is calling ships registry Bahamas in Panama. Washington and that of course, the closing bell on Wall street as markets staged somewhat of a comeback to close mostly flat on the first day of trading since the start of the U.S. s war on Iran. Oil prices, however, jumped more than 8%. We'll have more on the potential economic fallout in a moment, but we're going to begin with with the intensifying military conflict, which has spiraled into a full blown regional war, raising major questions about how long U.S. combat operations will last and whether it will require U.S. boots on the ground. Right now, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Kaine are all on Capitol Hill briefing congressional leaders behind closed doors. We're going to keep a close eye on what lawmakers are saying as after they are briefed. Now, moments ago, though, we did hear from Secretary of State Rubio, who emphasized the administration's position as to why these strikes had to happen now and the explicit purpose of this mission is to destroy Iran's ballistic missile capabilities. The purpose of this is to destroy that missile capability. Why does Iran want that ballistic missile capability? What they are trying to do and have been trying to do for a very long time is, is build a conventional weapons capability as a shield where they can hide behind, meaning there would come a point where they have so many conventional missiles, so many drones, and it can inflict so much damage that no one can do anything about their nuclear program. That is what they were trying to do is put themselves in a place of immunity, where the damage they could inflict on the region would be so high that no one can do anything about their nuclear program or their nuclear ambitions now. Already, the US and Israeli strikes have pounded Iran's military infrastructure, taking out Iran's supreme leader along with multiple senior Iranian leaders. At least four American service members have died. President Trump telling cnn we haven't even started hitting Iran hard. The biggest wave hasn't even happened. The big one is coming soon. The President also addressing the war at a Medal of Honor ceremony at the White House today, laying out his military goals and notably not ruling out the possibility of a protracted conflict. Our objectives are clear. First, we're destroying Iran's missile capabilities and you see that happening on an hourly basis and their capacity to produce brand new ones and pretty good ones they make. Second, we're annihilating their navy. We've knocked out already 10 ships. They're at the bottom of the sea. Third, we're ensuring that the world's number one sponsor of terror can never obtain a nuclear weapon. And finally, we're ensuring that the Iranian regime cannot continue to arm, fund and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders. We're already substantially ahead of our time projections. But whatever the time is, it's okay. Whatever it takes, we will always. And we have. Right from the beginning, we projected four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that. Now. This all comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said this morning, that the US Will not be engaged in an endless war. Take a listen. We set the terms of this war from start to finish. Our ambitions are not utopian. They are realistic scoped to our interests and the defense of our people and our allies. Speaking of people, we hope the Iranian people take advantage of this incredible opportunity. President Trump has been clear. Now is your time. This is not Iraq. This is not endless. I was there for both. Our generation knows better and so does this president. He called the last 20 years of nation building wars dumb. And he's right. This is the opposite. But as questions swirl over why the administration decided to take these actions at this time, especially in the midst of an ongoing nuclear talk and after last summer's strikes, quote unquote, obliterated Iran's nuclear facilities. Per the White House, President Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth today suggesting Iran posed an imminent threat. An Iranian regime armed with long range missiles and nuclear weapons would be an intolerable threat to the Middle east, but also to the American people. Our country itself would be under threat and it was very nearly under threat. Iran was building powerful missiles and drones to create a conventional shield for their nuclear black male ambitions. Let me say that again, a conventional shield for their nuclear black male ambitions. Our bases, our people, our allies, all in their crosshairs. Iran had a conventional gun to our head as they tried to lie their way to a nuclear bomb. Notably, the president and the defense secretary also not ruling out the possibility of US Boots on the ground as this war continues to escalate, with Defense Secretary Hegseth saying, quote, we'll go as far as we need to go, and President Trump telling the New York Post, quote, I don't have the yips with respect to boots on the ground. Like every president says there will be no boots on the ground. I don't say it. I say probably don't need them or if they were necessary. Despite the rhetoric out of the administration, the images on the ground throughout the region have been striking, showing scenes of chaos as Iran carries out a wave of retaliatory strikes against several countries across the region, including Qatar, Dubai, Israel and Bahrain. Joining me now is our team of reporters, NBC News White House correspondent Monica Elba. NBC News senior national security correspondent Courtney Kuby. NBC News international correspondent Matt Bradley is in Tel Aviv. And also with me, NBC News chief international correspondent Keir. So let's start on the North Lawn. Monica, we just heard from Secretary of State Rubio. He is at the Capitol now briefing the Gang of Eight and an extended group of Capitol Hill leaders. What more are we learning about the president's decision making when it comes to launching this military operation? Well, it was notable, Ryan, just now in fielding those questions from reporters. Secretary Rubio sort of seemed to try to clarify some of the confusion that he acknowledged there has been around this question of a possible imminent threat that led the president ultimately to order Operation Epic Fury more than 60 hours ago. And that is, he says, intelligence that suggested that if Iran was attacked by Israel perhaps, and then they decided to retaliate, Iran decided to retaliate that that threat to U.S. interests, to military assets, to U.S. service members in the region with would be so high that there would be a level, according to Secretary Rubio, of mass casualties, that that is what led the president ultimately to hit the green light and say this needed to be done in a more preemptive fashion because it was unclear and there were sort of competing accounts of what that imminent threat had been, whether it was something that Iran was preparing to do itself or whether now, as Secretary Rubio seems to be explaining, it would be in the form of some, some potential retaliation, again for a strike that he says the US Was aware of so we are getting a few more details, Ryan, about how that all happened. The president ultimately said he wanted to go forward with this military action when he was on Air Force One on Friday, traveling to Texas, where he gave a speech focused on energy in Corpus Christi. And then, of course, it was later that night into the early hours of Saturday morning when the bombs actually started to fall in conjunction with with Israel. But you laid out a lot of questions that are still completely unknown at this time. In terms of the timeline, we're getting a little bit more indication. But this other major question of whether there could be U.S. troops on the ground is also a very persistent question I'm sure lawmakers will have as those briefers from the administration get ready to speak with them. Here's a little bit more of what Secretary Rubio had to say on that. Do you anticipate putting troops on the ground and how long will we anticipate the conflict to last? Well, we don't. Let me say two things about it. Number one, the president always has the options to undertake whatever operations he decides to do as the commander in chief. That said, the we believe the objective that we have set for this mission, which is the destruction of the ballistic, ballistic missile capabilities, both launch capability and manufacturing, can be achieved without ground forces. Right now we're not postured for ground forces, but obviously the president has those options. He's never going to rule out anything. But right now our focus is on the destruction of their ballistic missile launchers, their ballistic missile stockpiles and their ballistic missile manufacturing capability, as well as their one way attract drones and their navy because of the threat it poses to global shipping. So Secretary Rubio saying there, Ryan, that the US has not postured for ground troops, but the president not ruling it out, saying if necessary he might need to do that. Okay. And Monica, obviously this forces the administration to adjust its diplomatic presence to a certain degree in the region. How have they done that amid this military escalation? Yeah. And you are seeing security alerts from many different embassies in the region, certainly with an elevated risk, with an elevated level. There are many dozens of personnel that have been evacuated that have basically left their posts for now, given that. And then you are continuing to see these conversations about how that may shift. Remember, Secretary Rubio a couple of days ago thought they had signaled he was going to be traveling to the region, to Israel, to today and tomorrow. Obviously that is not the case as they continue to monitor the many developments coming out of there. Ryan. Okay. Monica Elba at the White House Monica, thank you for that. Let's bring in Courtney Kuby now, who was in the room during Secretary Hegseth's briefing. And Courtney, there's going to be a lot of talk about the human capital that could be lost as a result of this conflict. And we're learning that even more American service members have died. What? Can you update us on that? Yeah, we know almost nothing. This has literally happened in the last minute that we found out that there have been now six US Service members who've been killed. This one strike that occurred early on, it was the first sort of wave of Iranian retaliation strikes that occurred in Kuwait, where there were initially there were three individuals, three US Service members who were killed. A fourth one has now succumbed to his or her injuries. And then there were a number of other serious injuries. We know also that there are now at least 18 individual servicemembers across the region who have been seriously wounded in these Iranian retaliations. Now, as I said, we have six individuals who were killed as well. We're, we'll work on more details on that. But we literally just learned this. Okay, so let's talk more about the Pentagon's perspective on this. Are they giving any sort of timeline as to how long this could take? No. And you know, it's a fair question to be asking about a timeline, but the reality is when you're talking about a military mission, unless it's something like Midnight Hammer, where it is sort of a one and done, right, you had these very distinct targets leading up to the nuclear facilities. Then you have the facilities themselves. That's not the case. We just heard from Marco Rubio and we've been hearing from the President, frankly, in these social media videos that the goal here is to take out their entire ballistic missile program. Well, it is dispersed around the country. We're not just talking about the launchers, we're talking about the stockpiles. We're talking about the production facilities. Some of those are in hardened underground bunkers. That is a big undertaking in and of itself. And I suspect the reason that President Trump keeps talking about four to five week projection here is because when the military presented him with what are a somewhat finite number of targets here, right, to go after the missile program, to go after the Iranian navy, they said, we believe that we can destroy all of these targets within four to five weeks. The problem with that is sometimes you move a lot faster than that. Sometimes they're able to take out fewer munitions, fewer runs on each one. Other times you don't you get a battle damage assessment about a facility and you realize we have to go back and hit that again. So I suspect that's why we aren't getting a real sense of the timeline here. Also, of course, no one wants to box the president in, but the reality is there are times where President Trump just puts these things out right in plain sight for us to see. The four to five weeks he's talking about didn't come out of nowhere. So I imagine that was one of the original projections that he got here. And then the question is, are they going to add additional missions or objectives to this? That's another question. We did bring this up in the briefing today and it got somewhat contentious with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. We specifically asked him about the president's comments of this 4 week timeline and here's a little what he had to say. I heard the question about four weeks. It's the typical NBC sort of gotcha type question. President Trump has all the latitude in the world to talk about how long it may or may not take. Four weeks, two weeks, Weeks. It could move up, it could move back. We're going to execute at his command the objectives we've set out to achieve. Not sure what was gotcha about a very simple, straightforward question about the timeline. But a quote from the president, right? Yeah. I mean, but does it give us any insight into perhaps the fact that there is a degree of uncertainty as to how long this could take? And in fairness, that's military operations. You know, I mean, there's a phrase that no operation ever survives first contact. And so in fairness, it is almost impossible to be able to project the amount of time that an operation will take again, especially one like this. That is, it's complex. You know, they start, they have to start with the air defense systems and sort of pave a way so that they can bring in the bombers and the manned aircraft. And we don't really know President Trump was talking about this next big phase that's going to come. We don't really know what that is going to encompass. But presumably it will mean more strikes further inside the country with manned aircraft. And that's why he talked about it as this big wave. Okay, Courtney, thank you for that. Nice job in the briefing room today getting the answers to those very important questions. Let's go now to Israel, which of course is playing a major role in this operation. Matt Bradley is standing by in Tel Aviv. Matt, we've heard the Trump administration say that this could last weeks, maybe even longer. Does Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli government share that perspective? Yeah, I mean, more or less, Ryan. I mean, what we've been hearing from Netanyahu and some other senior military officials is that this could be a long trial. There could be sacri. This could be a major ordeal for the Israeli people. They have stopped short of putting numbers on it or putting timelines on it, like weeks or days or anything like that. And to Courtney's point, I mean, this is basically because they don't know any more than the Trump administration would know. This is going to be a complicated operation and one that the Israelis are going to be trying to execute from a much closer proximity than the US Is doing and with a large level of intelligence. But they're still not able to evaluate how long the this is going to take. And we were showing a video of attacks on Tel Aviv from over the weekend. We know that Israel and Hezbollah have also been exchanging fire. Does it seem at this point that Israel has the capacity to defend against what could be a multi front war? Yeah, well, we definitely know that Israel has the capacity to execute a multi front war because they've been doing it for the past two years and in fact doing it at a much higher level than they're doing it now. There are no real ground operations in this effort. So that really frees up a lot of soldiers. That was the real challenge before when they were fighting both in Lebanon and in the Gaza Strip with huge military operations in the west bank and the threats of war looming elsewhere. So Israel can definitely handle it. The question is for how long? Over the past two years, those wars that I was describing, multiple theaters, put a massive strain on Israel's capacity to fight on the soldiers who, many of whom are reservists who have been called in just for the occasion. So as I mentioned, this fight with Iran, it's not as labor intensive as what was going on in the Gaza Strip or the ground invasion in Lebanon. For that reason, it's not a ground invasion or not yet. So while it is taking a lot of that missile repelling capacity, and that really could be a constraint, maybe even sooner rather than later, the idea of soldiers fighting, of calling up reservists, which have been such a problem in the past here, that might not come come up again if this all gets wrapped up in a bow as the Trump administration and others are hoping it will be. Okay, Matt Bradley, thank you for that. Let's go to Kir now. And Matt talks about this being all wrapped up in a tidy boat here, but you're taking A look at how it's affecting the region beyond just Israel and the fact that this war and the effects of Iran's retaliation are being felt in other countries like UAE and Bahrain. What's the sense there? How are the nerves in these other countries that are kind of caught up in this conflict? It's been nervous. It's been a difficult few days. I will say Dubai, you can see behind me there is defiant getting flight started again tonight, even just hours after Shahi drones were flying across this city missiles. I will just answer question Ryan, that you've been asking the other folks there with two pieces of sound. I want to play you to this question of who's dominating this war and how are they trying to dominate it, how are they trying to win and then also how long is it going to take? The first one is from a former commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Iranian fighting force, if you like. So he's very close. We spoke to him from Tehran. He's very close to the Iranian government. And I put to him the idea, as President Trump says, that they've knocked out so much leadership it's going to be hard for them to replace Ayatollah Khamenei, who was killed obviously over the weekend and was the supreme leader of Iran. And he was scathing about that notion. Take a listen. Very easy, very easy because we have lots of. Member of the this council is maybe suitable instead of the supreme leader. Now of course he would say that, wouldn't he? However, it does point to the what's happening here, which is that both sides are trying to control this, trying to get the upper hand. And that's really what trying to win a war is about. And on the American side, they are nowhere near done yet. And I can tell you that not from the Americans, but from someone who basically is an independent observer. I got the chance today to talk to Rafael Grossi, who is the head of the atomic agency and he at the International Atomic Energy Agency. And I asked him about how what he's seeing on the ground in Iran. And interestingly he told me that as far as he can see, the pounding of Iran hasn't even got to the nuclear program yet. Take a listen. We have seen since Saturday morning that the targets are not necessarily or mainly the nuclear facilities to so two conclusions, Ryan. One, that both sides are battling in this war to get the upper hand. Two, that it's nowhere near over yet. Yeah. And we saw in the lead up to this armed conflict thousands and thousands of Iranians protesting against the regime. We now have President Trump and the Defense Secretary calling on the people of Iran to rise up against their government. How likely is that to happen? I don't know. I don't think anyone honestly knows. I mean, I guess, okay, if you're sitting in the CIA or in MI6 or any of these intelligence agencies, Five Eyes in particular, I'd imagine very likely the French intelligence, you know, you're going to, and by the way, very likely intelligence agencies in this region where I am, then you're going to maybe have some, some better ideas of what might be happening and what might be possible. But are the people going to rise up, are they going to rally around the flag because of the attack on Iran that we've been seeing? There's some skepticism among many who look at Iran closely that there is that rally around the rally around the flag effect because people are so fed up with, with the government, many people inside that country and with how the economy has been going. But I think, I think we have to take the Trump administration at its word that that's really not the point. They say, you know, Secretary Hegseth, President Trump, Secretary Rubio, they're all saying the same thing, aren't they? Which is we are determined to defang turning to the economy and national security fallout here at home as the war against Iran reverberates across the nation and the globe. Plus, breaking news. The House Oversight Committee just released video. The world of business is constantly evolving. And Comcast business keeps you totally in step with secure AI backed networking in more than 100 countries. They're powering over 90% of the Fortune 500 and millions of small businesses. That's a lot of muscle. And behind it all, thousands of experts answering your call at 2am like it's 2pm One partner powering how business gets done for companies around the globe. When you add it all up, no one does business like Comcast Business. A KFC tale in the pursuit of flavor. The greatest insult the colonel ever suffered was being served a wrap that was just a snack by a friend. So he took two crispy tenders, lettuce, tomatoes and pepper mayo and wrapped them in a soft tortilla. It wasn't a snack, it was a meal. He called it a twister and never called that friend again. The colonel lived so we could chicken the twister. Now back at kfc, Classic or with bacon. Also try it spicy. It's finger licking. Good prices and participation may vary. Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows homes. So you don't have to don't know the difference between matte paint, finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is with thumbtack. You don't have to be a home pro, you just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app. Download today. Welcome back. Now, more on the fallout from the war against Iran with energy prices. Gas prices have ticked up a few cents according to GasBuddy following the jump in oil prices today amid concerns about potential disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz. A senior commander in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warning today that any vessel moving through that strait will be set on fire. And as we noted at the top of the hour, a turbulent day on Wall street ended with stocks relatively flat on the day. Meanwhile, US Cities have stepped up security, as have federal law enforcement. And police are investigating a shooting this weekend in Austin, Texas, as an act of terrorism. They say a gunman opened a fire in the Texas capital's entertainment district, killing two and injuring more than a dozen others. Law enforcement officials tell ABC News the gunman. I'm sorry. Tell NBC News the gunman who was shot and killed by police was wearing a sweatshirt that said Property of Allah and a shirt underneath it with an Iranian flag theme. We should note any potential terrorist ties, though, have yet to be confirmed. NBC News senior business correspondent Christine Romans joins me now along with NBC News national law enforcement and intelligence correspondent Tom Winner. Christine, let's start with you. I was a bit surprised that the markets did not overreact to this first day since the war in Iran began. Are traders kind of getting used to the volatility with America's government right now? Is that why they don't have these knee jerk reactions that send the market all over the place after something like this happens? So a couple of things here. I mean, I think there's an oil market reaction and there's a stock market reaction on the stock market. You did have a turbulent day. That's exactly the right word to describe it. I mean, you had the Dow down sharply earlier in the day, really across the board selling earlier this morning. And then you saw buyers nibbling to get back in here. And here's a couple of things that traders have been telling me. Last week was kind of a tough week in the markets, markets in part because of some anticipation that there were ramping up concerns about what's happening in the Middle East. And so that's selling already Happened, you have people buying. Also when you look at where there was buying in the market, it was defense contractors, it was energy companies, and it was tech stocks. And some of these areas actually are going to benefit from unrest in the Middle east, not necessarily be hurt by it. And so you mentioned the oil prices. We saw those jump today. How soon will we see that at the gas pumps? And how high could they get? Yeah, it's already happening. You're already seeing gas stations pass along these higher prices in anticipation of their prices going up as soon as that next tanker comes in and starts filling up their tanks. So you've got a penny, two pennies, not all service stations, but they're starting to write gas. But he says they're already starting to see these prices ticking up. The how much higher it goes, honestly, depends on how long. The Strait of Hormuz. There it is, the Strait of Hormuz, that narrow passageway on the southern coast of Iran where 20% of global energy supplies move through there. The Iranian state media saying that the Iranian national, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, says they will set on fire any ships that try to go through. When you look at the marine mapping, mapping what we look at to see where these ships are, it's just essentially a humongous parking lot right now with all of these ships just sitting there trying to figure out what to do next. That those ships have oil. That oil is not getting on the market. That's why. That's why prices go up. Yeah. Okay, Tom, let's turn to you now and talk about the national security concerns. What have investigators learned about this gunman who opened fire in Austin this weekend? Yeah, so they're still looking into what specifically to kind of suggest is the exact motive of this. Obviously, the individual has that sweatshirt that you pointed out, Property of Allah. There's a T shirt on, apparently has underneath it has an Iranian flag or depicts the Iranian flag. There was a Koran that was found in the car, some writings. You know, I know people are going to look at that and say, well, you know, is that all evidence of terrorism? That's what authorities are trying to look into. But what we've seen over the last decade or so is kind of an increase of a mishmashing of different ideologies and reasons for the attack. Is it anti Israeli, anti Jewish? Does this person hate America specifically? And that's the reason why they acted out. Is this specifically derived from a somebody that is upset because of what has happened in Iran? It is somebody who supports the Iranian regime? Or is this somebody who has some sort of a mental health issue and has a mental health history, who heard the news and saw what happened over the weekend and decided to conduct this mass shooting. Either way, we know a number of people have been killed as a result of this. This happened overnight Saturday into Sunday into Austin. And so this is obviously concerning for authorities. But the thing that they have said so is that in the course of their investigation, this individual appears to be a sole actor, not somebody who's been directed by the Iranian regime. And what are law enforcement agencies doing around the country more broadly in response to the war in Iran? Yeah, Ryan, it's a perfect piggyback on what I just said, which is this idea of Iran supporting attacks. We know through their terror proxies, specifically Hezbollah and Hamas, that they have in the past encouraged attacks, finance attacks, attacks enabled attacks to occur that have had deadly consequences, particularly for the United States, that they have tried in several instances to have murder for hire plots here on the US Soil, that there was a broad desire to conduct attack, an attack against then candidate Donald Trump. So you put it all together and the US has had to be concerned about Iran's ability and reach to direct and directly sponsor attacks against Americans both here in the United States and abroad. And so that's something they continue to look at. But they put point out and they've noted in the past last 24, 48 hours, there's no current specific plot that they're looking at or specific group of individuals here in the country that they're examining for a potential attack. But obviously that's something that they keep an eye on minute to minute. Ryan okay, Christine and Tom, thank you both. Up next, the politics of war. A key Republican senator on the Armed Services Committee reacts to the new wave of violence roiling the Middle east and how the president's foreign policy agenda is shaking up the battle for control of Congress. Stay with us on MEET THE Press. Now, avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows homes so you don't have to don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is. With thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro, you just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app. Download Today, the same Monday.com designed for every team. The same Monday.com with built in AI scaling your work from day one. The same Monday.comwith an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free. This is not a so called regime change war, but the regime sure did change and the world is better off for it. That of course. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth earlier today. Joining me now, Republican Senator Mark Wayne Mullen. He sits on the Armed Services Committee. To get more on his take on this situation in Iran. Senator, thank you so much for joining me. I want to take you back to 20. I want to take you back to 2013. That's when you opposed President Obama's request for authorization of force against the Syrian regime. You told a constituent during a town hall quote, we have to take care of our own backyard before we can take care of anyone else's. President Trump, of course, ran on an America first policy saying that he will end wars, not starting. What are you telling your constituents now who want to know about why another war in the Middle east has started and is that America First? Well, first of all, Syria I didn't feel was a direct threat to the United States. That was during the Obama administration when they were doing the Arab Spring where we destabilized Libya, Lebanon and Syria. We created a civil war that took place in some places still taking place. There is no question Iran has been attacking us for 47 years. I mean, from the day the Ayatollah came into power by taking 47 or 44 hostages to the attacks they've had on our ships, bases and all their proxies with the terrorist organizations because we also know they're the number one sponsor of terror around the world. So this is a Syria and Iran isn't even close to being the same. And anybody that would want to compare that they're just not being factual. Okay, so do you feel from what you've learned from the administration that there was an imminent threat? I understand your argument about the broader four decade situation that we dealt with Iran, but was there a necessity for this strike to happen now because of a concern of an imminent threat? Absolutely. There is a reason why Iran was buying time. We have have tried to work diplomacy. You know, during the 12 day war, the president gave the Ayatollah multiple opportunities. He said, we even know where you're at. We're choosing not to take you out because we want diplomacy to work. This wasn't about regime change. This was about keeping our assets and our personnel, be it US Citizens or army personnel, safe home and abroad. They had continued to attack us over 47 years that have either injured or killed thousands of American citizens or military personnel through either themselves or through proxies. And their missile program was just growing. Their missile program was able to reach every one of our assets, which we have a tremendous amount of bases and assets in that region. They were able to reach assets, even nuclear sites that we had in Europe. And they were aspiring to try to get a nuclear or a missile that would be able to deliver a nuclear warhead to our shores. After 9, 11, we made it very clear, never again, never again will we turn a blind eye to someone like Osama bin Laden. Never again will we be reactive instead of proactive. And in this case, the president is the first president in 47 years to take out this murderous regime that had been killing and maiming our men and women in service for decades now. Okay, I want to follow up on two points there. First, first, I understand the missile capability. You're concerned about the missile capability, but didn't President Trump give us the impression that their nuclear program had been completely obliterated with the targeted strike that had happened a couple of months ago? Why is it necessary then to go through a second strike and a more complicated and involved process targeting a number of sites if there was no nuclear program to worry about? Well, we had 100% obliterated their nuclear program, and we warned them not to build it back. You've seen the satellite imagery images that they were trying to rebuild. We had warned them not to do that. As far as their nuclear or their missile ability, they were already striking our assets. They were already going after the strait by mining the strait, and we were having to clear it constantly with their navy. And so without even the nuclear weapon, they were a threat to our assets, our military personnel, and our civilians home and abroad. But their nuclear program, they had ambitions to start rebuilding it, and they did. And I compare it like this. You can oblivion your leg and you can put rods in it and you can walk again. You can rebuild a lot of stuff once something is completely destroyed. And in this case, there was no question they were actively trying to rebuild it. Okay, so then to your argument about regime change. If you don't change the regime, couldn't they then just build up their missile arsenal, rebuild their navy? All these things that you're saying that were taken out and were required to be taken out. You said it wasn't about regime change, but the regime was taken out on some level. How do you have one and not the other? Well, we tried not to take. We didn't want regime change, but we knew immediately when the ayatollah would negotiate in good Faith. We knew that they were trying to rebuild the system. While they were telling us they weren't meaning their nuclear system. We knew that the only way to stop this guy, because keep in mind, he's been saying he wanted to be a nuclear power since 1979. You can go back to his talking, to what he said in print and what he said publicly that he wanted to bring Iran into nuclear power for stability, for his purpose. So we knew as long as he existed, he would never give up on this dream. Even though we was hoping it wouldn't. Even though President Trump said was hoping it wouldn't, the fact is that he had to be removed. And as a lot of his leadership had to be removed, we're hoping that the Iranian people now, not us, but the Iranian people, will choose to get their country back. Listen, before 1979, the Iranian public was more westernized than I would say even we in the United States. They had more women elected in public office in the United States. They had more women in professional business than we did in the United States. And we had a good relationship with them. There's nothing more than we would love to have a good relationship with Iranian people and moving forward. But this is their time. This is their time to be able to get their country back. And President Trump is given that opportunity. What leadership they choose will be up to them. Whoever they choose, though, we want to have a good relationship with. Yep. Okay. Well, I want to ask you now about another important stage, a potential stage of this war. And that would be active duty American military on the ground in Iran. And if it's one thing that the President's most dedicated supporters in the MAGA movement have been opposed to issue, it's foreign intervention that involves boots on the ground. And right now the administration is not ruling that out. This is what the President told CNN today. We haven't even started hitting them. The big wave hasn't even happened. The big one is coming soon. In another interview with the New York Post, he said that he isn't ruling out US Boots on the ground. What is your position right now, Senator? Would you support boots on the ground in Iran if this conflict were to extend? I don't. I don't think the President should be limiting his ability for whatever he needs to keep us safe. And as long as Iran is still a threat, we need to use whatever assets we have. And now I believe that the President does need to keep Congress informed, which he's done that he informed us within the 48 hour window. He's coming in he's bringing his team in tomorrow, not the president, but his team's coming in tomorrow to brief the House and the Senate as a whole. And I think he will continue to make that case moving forward. These Democrats that are out there saying that it's illegal or unconstitutional, they were the same ones that were turned a blind eye when Barack Obama dropped 26,000 bombs in 2016 in six different countries. And they said that AUMF covers that. Nancy Pelosi said that again in 2011. And so the president does have an obligation underneath Article 2 and the authority to do it underneath Article 2 to be able to keep our assets safe. But do you think that if it gets to the stage of boots being on the ground, that that would require some level of constitutional, I'm sorry, congressional approval, not just a notification, a green light from Congress to take that stage of a conflict like this? I believe that depends on the direction and the purpose of the boots on the ground. We have boots on the ground in many different countries around the world and we're there for a stabilizing force. And so I think it depends on what the direction is and that that decision will be made as the president continues to go forward. But I believe right now the president is still within his 60 to 90 day window. Remember, even committing troops, the president has within 60 or 90 days to come back and inform Congress if he's asking Congress for additional authorization or if he's asking Congress to declare war. But we're within that 60 to 90 day window and the president has a lot of leeway and that's been litigated in court and been brought up multiple times in front of Congress. Okay. All right, Senator, I know you're busy, so we're going to let you go. Thank you so much for joining us. Senator MARK WAYNE Mullen, thank you. We are now we're going to talk more about this with our panel. Tia Mitchell is here. She is, of course, the Washington correspondent for the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Also, Republican strategist Mark Bednar is here here as well, as well as Congressman Joe Crowley. They went to the cameras differently before I introduced you. Two bald guys, but both good looking, one Republican, one Democrat. All right, Tia, let's start with you. We're in a kind of an interesting position here because the Trump administration, President Trump ran on this idea of America. First, no foreign intervention, and now you have senators like Mark Wayne Mullen saying, well, except for this particular instance, has he done enough, has the president done enough to sell this to the American people? I Don't think so. I mean, we are supposed to be, you know, the people who are plugged in. We're journalists, former elected officials, former strategists on the inside, and we're having a hard time making heads or tails. There have been a lot of mixed messages from the president, from his top advisors, from the Secretary of Defense. So if we, the people in the know, don't have a clear understanding, then what do we expect the regular average American at home to understand while we're telling them their sons and daughters could be sent to war? I think that's the biggest issue for President Trump, is that we are looking at war. We are looking at a rising number of young people most likely being killed on foreign territory, and people don't have a clear understanding as to why. So, Mark, you're the Republican at the table. Tell me, what's your impression of what the purpose of this conflict is? Well, to say that this is somehow contrary to what the President promised on the campaign trail. I don't really agree with that assessment. Because. Because he's always been about swift, decisive action. We saw that in the Soleimani killing in his first term. We saw that in the first go about in Iran last summer. So the fact that this is kind of a already swift and decisive action, that's a good thing. And the idea that they don't want to have a long, protracted war and that that is a stated goal that they publicly stated, that's really important, too. So I think that this completely conforms to the President Trump's idea of decisive, fast action in order to keep Americans safe. So, Congressman, you've been around this a couple of times. There's always the hope that these situations are quick and seamless and you get in and out and it's over with. It often doesn't play itself out that way. Quite often, more likely than not, it doesn't work out that way. We know that this has the potential of growing in terms of confirmation that could happen here, regionally, the instability there. I think really what the problem the President has done is putting aside the American people. He hasn't really communicated to his base to MAGA as to why we have to be going into another endless war potentially in the Middle East. I think that's his real issue here. And I think, you know, we all like lapdogs. I would love to have a lapdog that would stay on my lap. But the Republican led House and Senate are giving a bad name to lap dogs. I mean, they are just kneeling down to the President, every authority that they have or any authority they have in terms of oversight. And now we're just stretching that out now to this. This was an act of war. You know, you decapitated the leader of this country. The president himself has said this is about regime change. Iranians, take control. Take back your government. This is your only chance. That's what he's basically saying to them. It's notyou know, I'm not saying that he's saying that, Mark, but what's super helpful here by the Trump administration, and I say this as a article, one guy just like you, Joe, but the fact that they briefed the Gang of Eight prior to the strike, that they're today briefing the Gang of Eight, which is weird, by the way, in the Capitol, the skiff, the classified area where you get all briefings, there's near a bunch of rooms that reporters all congregate in. So that, to me is weird. But aside from that, it's on a different floor, though. Yeah, yeah, but it's in a funnel. It's on that staircase. But the fact that they're keeping engaged with Gang of Eight with the House and the Senate tomorrow, that's important. And as we've seen, the Congress does deserve to be informed. They want answers. And the fact that they're staying engaged on this, that's a really big plus up by the Trump administration. Ti I wonder, though, politically, there's kind of a weird Venn diagram of opposition to this type of forward intervention, right? I mean, you've got far righties and far lefties that hate this idea of the United States going into these foreign conflicts. And you already have a situation where the president's approval rating has taken quite a bit of a hit. If you're a Republican and you're running in the 2026 midterms, do you want to run on this idea of regime change in Iran? Is that something that is going to be a good sell for voters in the midterms? Not if you look at just about any polling. When you ask voters what they care about the most and how they're making their decisions on election Day, it has been affordability, top of mind, and maybe second is immig. But that even, you know, those two top issues have nothing to do with bombing, you know, in the Middle East. And so I do think candidates in these tough races, particularly Republicans, who do know their base is split, they are going to have a tough time again explaining it. We know that, yes, foreign intervention, a lot of times presidents have been able to get Americans on board. George W. Bush did it with the war in Iraq. You know, he did it with selling the shock and awe campaign, even. And years later, it came back to not be a great justification, but in real time, voters were behind him. We don't have that happening right now, and it's already showing up in the polls. Let's change topics now, because in just the last half an hour or so, the Republicans on the House Oversight Committee have released every minute of the depositions of both Bill and Hillary Clinton that took place in Chappaqua last week. I was in Chappaqua while this all took place. Congressman, I wonder, do you think that the Clintons and what came out of this more than 10 hours of deposition between the two of them, will this help move the Epstein investigation forward? I haven't reviewed or heard or seen the release of the transcripts. But what I can determine as of last Friday, it seems to be a nothing burger at this point in time. No big revelations at this point. Again, without having seen what they released today on how they released it, in what context they've been released. I do think, though, that the call by the former president and the former first lady to release all the documents is something that will never go away. If the Trump administration thinks that somehow what they're doing now is going to some way obscure the need to release, it's not going away. People want to see what has not been released so far. So, Mark, the fact that we have video of a former president sitting in front of a congressional deposition under subpoena, does that put pressure on President Trump that he could find himself in a similar situation somewhere down the road? Well, I mean, if. Should Democrats, for instance, should they take over the House in November? Jamie Raskin, who's gonna be oversight chair, he wanted. He promised to impeach President Garcia, will be oversight chair. Raskin's on Judiciary now. Right. But Raskin, he'll be a part of any sort of impeachment push, oversight in general. And he. Yeah, and he wanted to impeach President Trump before he was even inaugurated. So to say that last like Democrats are gonna try to leave any stone unturned. I think they're gonna be very aggressive no matter what. I don't think that the depositions that had occurred over the past weekend, that I don't think changes how Democrats posture towards President Trump will be over the course of the next couple years and even when he's out of office. Okay. All right, we're gonna have to leave it there. Tia. Mark. Joe, Sorry about the ball crack at the beginning, that was me. I shouldn't have done that. Yeah, I'll take it. All right. Thank you guys for being here. Still to come war and the march to the midterms. It is Election Day eve. We are live in Texas previewing tomorrow night's high stakes primaries in key House and Senate races that could decide control of Congress in November. Plus, Steve Kornacki is at the big board, breaking down what to watch for as the results start coming in. Keep it right here on MEET THE PRESS now. Welcome back. The 2026 midterm elections officially kick into high gear tomorrow with the first primaries of the cycle in North Carolina, Arkansas and Texas, where all eyes are on a high stakes Senate race. On the Republican side, incumbent John Cornyn is facing challenges from State Attorney General Ken Paxton and Congressman Wesley Hunt, while Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett and State Representative James Talarico face off on the Democratic side as the party hopes that this is their chance to flip that seat blue for the first time in over three decades. Joining me now from Houston, Texas, is NBC's Ryan Chandler. And NBC's chief data analyst Steve Kornacki is at the big board for us. So first, Ryan, the Lone Star State set the table for us here. We mentioned that we're watching these big Senate races. President Trump declined to endorse any of the Republican candidates on Friday. So how are they making their final pitches to voters? Well, right, Ryan, without the explicit endorsement from the president, or at least the exclusive endorsement. He seemed to heap praise on all three of these men at his event in Corpus Christi, Texas, last week. But the pitch from all candidates is still their proximity to the president. They want to impress upon voters that they are a friend of Donald Trump and they have helped get his agenda across the finish line every chance they can. You cannot watch TV anywhere in Texas right now without being bombarded with action ads from all of the candidates. But every time you see an ad from Senator Cornyn, it makes sure to hammer home the point that at least their claim that he has voted with President Donald Trump 99% of the time in Congress repeating that claim over and over to make sure that while a lot of primary voters here in Texas on the Republican side see Cornyn as more of a moderate, even maybe a little too liberal for their preference, they want to make sure they know that he's been a friend to the president at every turn. Now, Paxton's argument is that Cornyn is a creature of the Senate that's been there for 40 years and it's time for a more MAGA minded senator. So we know President Trump's not going to be weighing in, but we did see a big last minute endorsement on the Democratic side. Tell us more about that. Right. Former Vice President Kamala Harris sticking her neck out for Jasmine Crockett with a last minute endorsements, I believe on Friday. That's a big deal. The biggest name to wade into the Democratic side of this primary. I sat down with Jasmine Crockett earlier today here in Houston. She's feeling very confident with a lot of momentum with an endorsement like that. I think the concern though is that did it come too late? Keep in mind in Texas, the election isn't on Tuesday. It ends on Tuesday with a long period of early voting. By Friday, a lot of people had already voted, although we are seeing some polling that among those who have not voted, they break for Crockett by a significant margin. And you've talked to some voters. What do they seem to be focused on as they head to the polls? Well, you know, voters here in Texas, like across the country are by and large focused on two things. It's the economy and it's immigration. Now I think you get the sense that these campaigns maybe don't want to end with their closing message being this war in Iran. They want to stay focused on on those two bread and butter issues. Of course, here in Texas that is certainly on the top of our minds. Ryan. Okay. All right, Steve, let's go to you now and talk us through where the numbers stand at this hour. How likely is it that we see a runoff in the Republican primary? Yeah, I think that's the expectation that, you know, Wesley Hunt, the third candidate in this race, Congressman, you know, from the Houston area, he's going to draw enough support that's going to have this go Cornyn and Paxton into the runoff there. And you're talking about that dynamic of, you know, Cornyn hoping get an endorsement from Trump, Trump being on the sidelines. I think maybe that's kind of what tomorrow is all about. If the conventional wisdom is right, this becomes a runoff between these two. What does Cornyn look like coming out of this? Is he a weak second to Ken Paxton then trying to make the case somehow that he can overcome that, you know, a 20 plus year incumbent can overcome that in a runoff period, or does he do a little bit better perhaps than expected tomorrow? Could he out finish Ken Paxton, make tomorrow a show of strength, have some momentum going into that run runoff? Maybe that would make him a more viable option to get a Trump endorsement that may end up being the make or break thing in a runoff. Okay, and then how are things looking on the Democratic side? Could there be a runoff there as well or no? Technically there could. There is a third candidate in that race who's really not polling anything. But if it were super tight between the top two candidates, the third candidate here getting 1 or 2% could kick it over there. But look, there's a lot of suspense here in this Democratic race. There has been polling that's shown Crockett ahead. There's been polling that's shown her ahead comfortably. There's been polling that has shown Talarico ahead here. So no one really knows what to expect here. But a couple dynamics are pretty clear in the polling. One is that Crockett is doing extremely well with the Black vote. About 1 out of 5 votes in this primary are going to come from black voters. Her political base is around Dallas. That's where her congressional district is. And there's a lot of black votes in that area in particular. So can she run up the score there? Talarico's political base is right here around Austin. He's in the state legislature. He's doing well, very well with white voters in polling, particularly white college educated voters. So, you know, a lot of the area around Austin there you see a lot of those types of voters. I think Houston, the Houston area is going to be a big sort of swing area in this primary tomorrow. And I think it's Hispanic voters. There's been polling that has shown Talarico way up with Hispanic voters. There has been polling that's shown Crockett ahead with Hispanic voters. That's, I think, the big wild card here. How is the Hispanic vote going to break? Take a look at El Paso. You know, a good chunk of votes out there. Take a look all in South Texas along the border, you know, up into the coastal bend here. I think how the Hispanic vote breaks may end up being what determines this primary tomorrow. And you can watch Steve on YouTube all night tomorrow night as he breaks down these results. We're looking forward to that. Ryan Chandler, thank you as well. You'll be a part of our coverage tomorrow night. We'll see you both tomorrow on Meet the Press now and for our special primetime election night coverage as the first primary results start to come in. It all kicks off at 8pm Eastern. You're not going to want to miss it. There's more news ahead, though on NBC News. Now why have I asked my H Vac guy? I found on Angie.com to change my grandpa's trachea to. Because I was so amazed by how quickly he replaced our air ducts, I knew I could trust him to change Pop Pop's tube while I was on vacation. Make it quick, young man. Aw. See? Pop Pop trusts you. I think we should call a doctor. Connecting homeowners with skilled pros for over 30 years. Angie. The one you trust to find the ones you trust. Find pros for all your home projects@angie.com.