← Morning Joe
Morning Joe
Morning Joe: 'Trump should make a good-faith effort at diplomacy in Iran': Richard Haass
00:50:35
President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he was still considering a U.S. military strike on Iran’s nuclear sites. “I may do it. I may not do it,” he said. “Nobody knows what I’m going to do.” The Morning Joe panel discusses the president's options in the region. This episode aired June 19, 2025, from 6-10 AM
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
Joe Scarborough
Your new beginning starts now. Dr. Horton has new construction homes available in Ellensburg and throughout the greater Seattle area. With spacious floor plans, flexible living spaces and home technology packages, you can enjoy more cozy moments and sweet memories in your beautiful new home. With new home communities opening in Ellensburg and throughout the Seattle area, Dr. Horton has the ideal home for you. Learn more@drhorton.com Dr. Horton, America's builder and equal housing opportunity builder. 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. How many people live in Iran, by the way? I don't know the population at all. No, I don't know the population. You don't know the population of the country you seek to topple? Why? Because if you don't know anything about the country. I didn't say I don't know anything about. Okay. What's the ethnic mix of Iran? They are Persians and predominantly Shia. Okay, you don't know anything about Iran. So. Okay, I am not the Tucker Carlson expert on Iran. You're a senator who's calling country. No, you don't know anything about the country. The rift between Republicans over Iran on full display right there as Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who has been a strong supporter of military action, and Tucker Carlson, who has been very much opposed sparring during an interview there that went on for quite some time. Well, as you know, though, I mean, there is, there's precedent to this because, you know, before Jonathan Lemire, you will remember that before Dwight Eisenhower launched the D day attacks on June 6, 1944, Ike got him on a transatlantic phone call and was actually peppering him with Trivial Pursuit questions about the ethnic makeup of Germany, their population size and which soccer clubs were having the best seasons over the past three years. Also, we see it in popular culture all the time. I remember Joe, as I'm sure you do as well, before Luke Skywalker got on the X Wing and went after the Death Star run, he was asked how many Imperial troops were on that space station at that time. You have to know these things. You have to know these things. Good for Tucker. Yeah. It was, though, to make his point, a very contentious interview that did lay out the divide in MAGA world right now. Well, sure did. And I will say for left wingers watching that, it was kind of like staying with the Star wars analogy. Are you for Darth Vader? Are you for Emperor Palpatine? And you know, it's a tough call for a lot of them. They did not now speak. What, what, what? I'm gonna move on. What's this transition? Watch this transition. Speaking of baseball, there it is. That's it. Yankees lose again. Speaking of the evil Red Sox win again. Yeah, Red Sox win again. And the Giants, who I randomly started checking in the standings, how many games have they lost in a row? So the San Francisco Giants have lost four straight, including the first two with their prized new acquisition, Rafael Devers. Okay, a lot of these, that's $125 million per loss. Okay, good. Okay, back there is a second to the issue at. Meanwhile, President Trump continues to consider possible attack plans. Telling reporters yesterday, quote, nobody knows what I'm going to do. That a lot of people say that you can't trust anything Donald Trump says. Well, a lot of people say nobody said that here, of course, but this, this is a, one of the most truthful statements he has ever made. Nobody knows what I'm going to do and they really don't. It could break in either direction. We're to bring you the latest reporting out of the White House, A good thing, by the way. And on Capitol Hill yesterday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was grilled about possible plans for the Middle east as well as the deployment of U.S. troops in U.S. cities. Did you see he threw Jesus under the bus? I. It was, they all throw Jesus under the bus. It was very patient. It's like you get, you get put in the corner and Jesus is your get out of jail free card or. Well, I don't believe anything except the Bible. Yeah. Okay. Well, great. Yeah, we all do. But that really, that's the only thing. Also I have. This is a big story out of Boston. We're going to go through the verdict in the high profile retrial of Karen Reed, who had been accused of killing her police officer boyfriend. Danny Savalas will join us with analysis on that case outside of Boston that has really gripped much of the country. So let's go back to our Boston correspondent, Jonathan Lemire. Jonathan, it's hard really to explain to people that follow true crime trials like this or aren't in the Boston area just how huge this case was for those two sects for New England and also for people who follow True crime stories, they have been locked on this case. I've heard, heard them talking sort of in the periphery for several years now. Yeah. And it's broken through to the point where it's even on the front page of New York Post today. Not the main headline, but it is here as well. Yeah, this is, this was the story up there. I remember being a few months back or it was last year during the first trial, being on the Mass pike and driving by like an overpass. One of the above the highway signs were being flown on both sides of the Karen Reid trial. There was crowds. We'll show them later, I'm sure of hundreds of people gathered outside the courthouse waiting for the verdict. It had become this sort of, for someone who's not a celebrity, it was being covered like a celebrity trial. And then we had the retrial this weekend, last couple of years, this last couple weeks with a split verdict. But she was acquitted of the larger, more serious charges. All right, let's get to our top story this morning. President Trump still weighing his options on how to deal with Iran. Yesterday morning, he told reporters he has not yet made a final decision, saying Iran has suggested coming to the White House for talks, but it might be too late. Iran's got a lot of trouble and they want to negotiate. And I said, why didn't you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction? Why didn't you go? I said to people, why didn't you negotiate with me two weeks ago? You could have done fine. You would have had a country unconditional, sort of. That means I've had it, okay, I've had it. I give up. No more. Then we go blow up all the military. You know, all the nuclear stuff is all over the place. Look, nothing's finished until it's finished. You know, war is very complex. A lot of bad things can happen. A lot of turns in that. So I don't know, I wouldn't say that we won anything thing yet. I would say that we sure as hell made a lot of progress. And the next week is going to be very big, maybe less than a week, maybe less. We've got David Ignatius here. We're going to be going to him in a second. But I will say you, you parse through all of that and what you see is somebody who still may be looking for a deal and who is acknowledging what everybody, everybody who's seriously looking at this knows that as David said yesterday, it just starts with the bombing of Iran. The spinoff from this. I'm not going to even say would be it most likely would be just as messy as what happened after he replaced a regime in Iraq. Well, Iran denies ever asking to meet at the White House, writing in a statement, quote, iran does not negotiate under duress, meaning that is not true. They will negotiate under duress. Meanwhile, their regime, if they can. The president did meet with security advisers in the situation Room yesterday. As for the situation on the ground, Iran and Israel are still trading fire. Earlier this morning, an Iranian missile struck a hotel in southern Israel, though Iranian officials say they were a hospital. Sorry, not a hotel. Though Iranian officials say they were aiming for a nearby military site. The direct hit caused extensive damage to the facility and seriously injured at least six people. Several residential buildings in Tel Aviv were hit as well, injuring at least 47 people. According to the Times of Israel, the Israeli military says Iran launched roughly 30 ballistic missiles this morning in Iran. Israel hit a heavy water reactor early this morning. At a news conference yesterday, an Israeli military spokesperson said the IDF had launched three waves of aerial attacks from Tuesday into Wednesday. The waves involved dozens of warplanes dispatched to strike over 60 targets in Tehran and in western Iran. Citing a Washington based Iranian human rights group, the Associated Press reports at least 639 people have been killed in Iran since last Friday. With us, we have the the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, columnist and associate editor for the Washington Post, David Ignatius, managing editor at the Bulwarks, Sam Stein, thank you for doing way too early. And national security reporter for the Wall Street Journal, Alex Ward is with us this morning. You won't be thinking, Sam, after we talk about the Red Sox for five minutes. So, David Ignatius, we've had four and a half years to study Donald Trump and actually to be able to pick out some patterns, as disruptive and random as it may be. And I would say the one area where he seems to be conservative with a small C, and perhaps the only area that I can think of is actually the use of military force. And I'm just curious what you're hearing after he spoke on the White House lawn yesterday talking about all of the possible complications that are sure to follow a strike against Ron and how he balances that, which is extraordinarily important. And I'm glad he's thinking about that with, you know, people in his ear saying this is your chance to take out a regime that's been the epicenter of anti American terror since 1979. What are you hearing? So, Joe, I think you describe it accurately. This is a Moment of high drama. President Trump is surrounded by AIDS. Some arguing, you got a bomb, Mr. President? Others arguing, let's try to negotiate. I'm told that he made the decision Monday that he's prepared to use the US Bunker buster bomb over Fordo, but is not yet prepared to actually deploy it and still hopes that he can somehow find a path to negotiation. He said as much yesterday, talking about the Iranians wanting to come to the White House. A deal is still possible. He loves the drama of this. He said yesterday he won't make a decision until the last second. So I think negotiation is still possible in some ways is Trump's preferred course. His problem, I'm told, is that there's just a lack of trust on the Iranian side. They see him as the person who basically chucked the the Iran nuclear deal when he was president in his first term. They think that maybe he's been stringing them along in the negotiations so far. The Iranian condition, I'm told, is the bombing must stop and then they're prepared to sit down and talk with Trump or some group. The Europeans are meeting Friday to talk about diplomacy. I just would add one detail that I was thinking about last night about a somewhat similar moment in 1962. President Kennedy was surrounded by advisors during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Some of them said, bomb Cuba. Many were preparing an invasion of Cuba. Some wanted to sink the Soviet ship that was steaming toward Cuba. And Kennedy, surrounded by all these competing voices, stepped out of what was called the excomm, the Executive committee that was making decisions. He needed some time alone and he went with his brother and he came up with the most unusual sort of double speak deal with the Russians where he said one thing publicly and did something quite different privately. And he ended up with a deal that solved the Cuban Missile Crisis. And I couldn't help thinking last night, this is a similar situation. I hope President Trump, in the hours, days remaining to make this very difficult decision, can step away from, from all these competing voices and think creatively. We say JFK stepped out of the box. If it's possible for Donald Trump to step out of his box, he might get to a point where he sees a way to resolve this that serves our interests, serves Israel's and leaves Iran not completely obliterated in a kind of mess that would be hard to put back together. Yeah. Richard Haassel, like you to, to weigh the two competing, two competing scenarios here and offer what advice you would give to the president. On one side you have the opportunity to finish or to, to deep to Finish the nuclear program, most likely, or, or certainly dent the nuclear program of again a country that's been the epicenter of terrorists since 1979. That's on one side. On the other side, of course, is what we all remember following the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, where for a month or two everybody was celebrating America's extraordinary success and it turned into a decade long nightmare that we still haven't seen the final consequences of that invasion, of that regime change. What advice, with these two competing interests, what advice would you give the President or any president in this situation? I'll tell you in 30 seconds what I'd tell this president. But the first thing I think to recognize, Joe, is we've got to get rid of words like solve this once and for all, finish off the Iranian nuclear program and the rest of the it's just not going to happen. It's not the way history works, it's not the way these things work. Second of all, neither option is particularly attractive right now. If we use military force, we get tied down in the Middle east again. Quite possibly we'll see how Iran retaliates against US troops in the region, what have you. It normalizes the idea that great powers can use military force. I bet the Chinese and the Russians and some others might be taking notes. Everybody sees gathering threats out there they might want to act against. So the downsides of using force are real. The elements of the Iranian program will survive. If you read the Economist this week on the dossier, you understand that there's all sorts of things we still don't know completely about. The Iranians have squirreled away all sorts of equipment and material all over the country, I would expect. So we will, as you used the phrase, make a major dent in it if we use military force. But one, they'll be able to reconstruct it. And second of all, they'll be determined to. Indeed, they're probably already determined to. They've lost their problems proxies for the most part, Israel's acting with impunity over their territory. So my guess is most Iranians will say the lesson we need to draw is that we actually need nuclear weapons in order to prevent this sort of thing from happening. I actually think the best thing at this point the President could do is do a sequential approach, go to the Iranians and say we'd like to work this out through negotiation. He should stop tweeting, by the way. It's not unconditional surrender. The Iranians are going to have to compromise significantly. But there Might be some things they don't. We're not going to get everything we want. But I would certainly try an ambitious diplomatic approach. And that way, if he does have to use force, it seems to me it's always better to have tried the diplomatic. The parallel I'll Give is George H.W. bush and David used the Cuban Missile Crisis. Let me use the Gulf War. We had resolution 678. We gave Saddam Hussein every opportunity to get out of Kuwait through diplomacy and so forth. And then when it didn't work, then we used force. And because we had tried, we had the country and the world behind us. So I think if I were Donald Trump, I would make a good faith effort at diplomacy to get the Iranians to give up their enriched uranium, to agree to inspections and so forth. You'd offer them sanctions relief. You wouldn't attack their country. The regime would survive. If that doesn't work and you have to use military force, that's a much more better way to do it in terms of managing the domestic, the regional and the international reaction. Alex, I want to pick up on that because as David mentioned, one of the issues here is do the Iranians trust our diplomacy? The jcpoa, Trump pulled out of it. It's very hard to then go and say, hey, let's cut a deal. Secondarily, I want to ask you about. I know we kind of glossed over it and made fun of it, but the Tucker Cruz debate, what was at the epicenter of the debate was, should we have regime change? It's not just should we attack the Iranian nuclear capabilities, but what would a regime change look like? And Joe alluded to this. It's easy to do. The first wave of attacks. It's what comes next that I think is really bothering or at least troubling this administration. People in the MAGA movement. Can you do regime change? And if so, what does it look like and what kind of American commitments are there? From your reporting, to what degree is that question vexing the administration and how are they working through it? So on the trust issue, there's no question that the Iranians don't really trust the US Right now. Right? Not only leading the jcpoa, but Trump was leading a diplomatic effort. In fact, even up until the Israeli strikes, they were saying, hey, Steve Witkoff, the, you know, the peace envoy, we'll meet you in a couple days in Oman. And the strikes hit before then. And now the US has been helping defend Israel throughout this whole time, including up until that Sunday day when they were supposed to meet. And so if you're the Iranians, you're going, okay. Can't trust the Americans anymore. Why would we do so? However, it does seem like the Iranians are trying to reach out a little bit to have some talk. So that could be happening. In terms of the regime change so far, seems like the president is against it, right? He's vetoed. If we can say that the strike on Khamenei, the supreme leader, it's possible that still happens, that the Israelis go ahead without the U.S. but say the regime were to collapse in some way, or there's strong protests that lead to this. Okay, fine. Well, the basic scenario that people are considering is it would be like Assyria, pockets of instability, basically warlords, people in charge of certain areas, but large sectarian ethnic divisions, and it's a massive country, and that would be really an ungovernable situation. Or we could also have a moment in which the regime is very weak, but they're trying to retaliate in large ways and. Or in unconventional ways. Some of those you could do is you could try to shut the Strait of Hormuz, which would disrupt global trade. You could start attacking tankers in the Red Sea. You could have a network of proxies or cells all around the world, attack US Embassies or global hotspots. And there are some really weak embassies or not as strongly secured embassies that the US has in Latin America, Western Africa, Western Africa, particularly, weak spot. So let's not, like, pretend that the Iranians have no cards here. Right? Right. They do. They are weakened. Right. A lot of their proxies are decimated in Hamas and Hezbollah, but they have cards to play here, and they are signaling that they will retaliate in some major way if the US Were to get involved. And that, of course, would include bombing forward out of that large uranium enrichment facility inside the mountain. And. And if there are attacks on embassies like there were in the late 90s, if an American is killed, one American is killed by the Iranians in any military procedures, that ups the ante for the president, for this administration, for military leaders. Suddenly we aren't sitting back as dispassionately as we are right now in the Ukrainian and Russian conflict as we are here. When Americans start dying, the costs go up, the stakes go up. And what is expected of this White House and our military goes up. That's when we cross the line, it becomes far, far more dangerous. I'm curious, Jonathan Omir, as we were talking about, how when it comes to the use of military. The president actually has been conservative with a small C, at least over the first four and a half years of his time in the White House. I'm curious about leverage. Does the president see everything that's unfolded over the past two weeks, past week, week and a half? Does he see that as giving him the sort of leverage he didn't have in his first 60 days of negotiating with the Iranians? Yeah, the equation has changed and the answer is yes. This is still about the president hoping to have leverage. This is still about him hoping to get a deal. There are a couple of things at play here. Remember his first term, we talked when he was blustering against Kim Jong Un and others. There was a sense that it was the, quote, madman theory of diplomacy. So in chaos, he was unpredictable, you know, frustrating allies, to be sure, but also potential adversaries. They simply didn't know how to test him. They weren't sure what to do because they weren't sure what his response would be. Leaning into that again a little bit here now, sort of all over the place sometimes, just because that's who he is, but also because it's sometimes deliberate in terms of sending mixed signals, mixed messaging. And yesterday certainly he seemed a little cooler on the idea of a military strike than 24 hours prior. That's part of the plan here. But there's no question they wanted to get a deal before it got to this point. But now that we are here, I am told by a number of people in the administration there is a sense with Iran taking these terrible losses, Iran really weak, potentially desperate President Trump. Trump now does think he has more leverage to get to that deal and that includes these threats here about the bunker busting bomb. That is still, he's got that card to play. He's got it to loom over the Iranians saying, look, I'll say yes. And as Alex and others have reported, he's given that preliminary okay already, but still holding off because he wants to give there more time for a deal. It seems situations are fluid. We know that things can change. But at least for now, the president and his team are signaling they want to give this a little more time over the weekend into next week even to see if Iran will come to the table in a real meaningful way. Not just lip service, but a real meaningful way. And maybe a deal can be struck that way before using this military force. Let's bring in NBC News chief international correspondent Kir Simmons live from Erbil, Iraq. Kir, what are you hearing well, Mika, just to pick up on your conversation, we're just hearing that the Israeli defense Minister has engaged in the debate again, saying that a dictator like Khamenei cannot be allowed to continue on the question of regime change. Of course, we're here in Iraq where they know a thing or two about regime change and about how regime change is just the beginning, is what comes afterwards that really counts. Just in terms of the news, as you've been reporting, continued strikes both in Iran and in Israel. That hospital in Beersheba, the Sorak, the Soroka hospital that was hit, the Iranians saying that they were targeting a military site across Israel. More than 65 have been injured in Iran. The, the. No, no longer. Apparently no longer working a heavy water reactor in Iraq. Iran that has been hit. Clearly the Israelis think that that may well have been part of Iran's nuclear program. But as I mentioned, we are here in Iraqi Kurdistan in northern Iraq. Let me just get our cameraman Moose to pan over there to the base that is in the distance there. That is the American base here in Erbil. That is, of course, one of the targets that you've been talking about that we worry about. About 30 miles from here this morning, there are reports that an Iranian drone went down. There are reports too, of Iranian drones around the US Bases in Syria. But it is relatively calm here. This again, this is a. The Kurdish region of Iraq, neighboring the Kurdish region of Iran. And the messaging that you're hearing from the Israelis to the Iranian people to rise up, that in part will be directed at the Kurdish people. Here's one of the issues on that, though, aside from the question of what happens after regime change, what happens if there is some kind of a revolution? Here's one of the issues. You guys will know the history here, that in the past the Kurdish people have been encouraged to rise up under Saddam Hussein, for example, for that they were subject to gas attacks by Saddam Hussein that killed huge numbers of Kurds. There was uprising in Iran just a few years ago over the death of Mahsa Amini, the woman who was apprehended by the Iranians because of the clothes she was wearing. No one came in to help the Iranian people who stood up then, the Iranian women. So it's understandable that the message we are getting, we've just arrived here, is that if you want the Iranian people to rise up, you may need to do a little more than just talk. I guess that's what the Israelis are trying to do as well as hit the Iranian. That's what the Israelis are trying to do as well as hit the Iranian nuclear program. But there are huge questions and I think doubts about whether that's really going to happen. And my gosh, when you talk about the Kurds, nobody, no group has been more used, more lied to, more abandoned than the Kurds over the past 20, 30 years. Here we were obviously talking about the United States going into Iraq. One of the reasons that people who oppose that, one of the few people who oppose it, like Dr. Brzezinski, they talked about it was a Shia dominated country and that it would actually accrue to the benefit geopolitically of the Iranians in the long run. I'm curious. Here we are 22 years later, Iran's facing an existential crisis. How is the Shia majority in Iraq, where you are right now, responding to this conflict? Have there been strong condemnations? Are they sitting back like Syria and other Middle Eastern countries with muted responses? The Iraqi government is condemning the Israeli attacks on Iran. The popular mobilization forces here in Iraq, who are the Shia pro Iran militia, if you like, they are making noises. They're not doing very much at this stage. Why? I'll let you guys discuss why that might be, whether they're waiting to see what President Trump does, whether they are holding for whatever reason. I'll let you guys, you know, dig into that. But I will say one other thing, to Richard's point about those bunker busting bombs that might hit Fordo, the 30,000 pound American bombs, I think we're getting into a little shorthand on, on that now. The reality is that it's not absolutely clear that those bombs work in Fordo. They are the most powerful bombs able to go deep into the ground. But it doesn't necessarily do the job, if you like, it is a kind of trump card to eradicate the Iranian nuclear program and all is well. And I think the story of Iran and of intervention in Iraq here where we are now, that tells the story of how predictions of military intervention that they're just going to be a solution don't necessarily play out that way. Well put. NBC's Keir Simmons live in Iraq. Thank you very much for your reporting and analysis this morning. And as Kier pointed out, not the end there. There are estimates that the nuclear facility is half a mile deep. Right. So the idea that, that this is a sure thing. There are no there once you put whore, there are no sure things. All right. Still ahead on MORNING joe, we're going to play for you more of that really testy interview between right wing media personality Tucker Carlson and Republican Senator Ted Cruz as they clash over President Trump's Middle east policy. Plus, we're going to go through the verdict in the Karen Reed case that's gained national attention. Now acquitted of murdering her police officer boyfriend. And a reminder, the Morning Joe Podcast is available each weekday featuring our full conversations on the latest news. Also, analysis. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts. You're watching Morning Joe. Change your life in 90 seconds. I tell you, it reverses male pattern ball. MSNBC presents a new original podcast, the Best People with Nicole Wallace. This week she sits down with NBA coach Doc Rivers. The resiliency that you have to have in life and in sports is what eventually will get you to the top. The best people with Nicole Wallace listen now. For early access ad free listening and bonus content, subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hey everyone, it's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, why Is this Happening? Progressive grassroots group Indivisible's co founder and co executive director Leah Greenberg. If there's anything we know about successful 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 by anything other than their opposition to what is currently happening. And that is okay. That's this week on why Is this Happening? Search for why Is this Happening? Wherever you're listening right now and follow Stay up to date on the biggest issues of the day with the MSNBC Daily Newsletter. Each morning you'll get analysis by experts you trust, video highlights from your favorite shows. I do think it's worth being very clear eyed, very realistic about what's going on here. 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 oh, a gorgeous shot of lower Manhattan just now. 6:36 in the morning. We've had days worth of rain that's finally over. And now we fast forwarded to summer because Tempe is hot and humid today. Temperature is going to be 100 degrees next week. We got there and we got there quick. Back to the news now. And Karen Reid, as mentioned, whose widely watched murder trial ended with a hung jury last year, was acquitted yesterday of second degree murder after prosecutors retried her in the 2022 death of her Boston police officer boyfriend. NBC News correspondent Emily Ikeda brings us the details. Karen Reid walking Out of court with hand over heart and a major win in her murder trial. Redo. I just want to say two things. Number one is I could not be standing here without these amazing supporters who have supported me and my team financially and more importantly, emotionally for almost four years. And the second thing I want to say is no one has fought harder for justice for John o' Keefe than I have. She was accused of hitting her police officer boyfriend John o' Keefe with her car in a drunken argument and leaving him to die in the cold back in 2022. But her defense has insisted there was no collision and Reid was framed. And after three and a half days of deliberating, the jury of seven women and five men agreed to acquit her of the most serious charge, murder in the second degree. What say you? Is the defendant at the bar guilty or not guilty? Not guilty. Also clearing her of manslaughter and fleeing the scene of a deadly accident, prompting hugs and tears inside the courtroom, cheers even heard from crowds gathered outside. So say you, Mr. Foreman. So say you all. The jury did convict Reed of a lesser charge, operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, after considering nearly eight weeks of testimony and mountains of material, including crash demos, vehicle and phone data, and Reid's own words. I mean, I didn't think I hit him, hit him, but could I have clipped him? Reid acknowledging she shouldn't have been driving the night o' Keeffe died. I felt like I was. Was. Her defense tried to point the finger at law enforcement. But in a new interview with Dateline, the lead investigator fired for his misconduct on the case. Now speaking out. What do you want to say to anyone who believes the narrative, the defense's narrative, that you are corrupt, that you framed Karen Reed? I laugh because it's such a ridiculous accusation. There's not one piece of evidence or fact to support that because it did not happen. I would never do something like that. Did you frame Karen Reid? Absolutely not. This is the second time a jury has deliberated Reid's fate since her first trial last year ended in a mistrial. Declaring a mistrial in this case, the case since, garnering intense public interest both online and in person, with a sea of supporters in pink erupting in cheers at word of the jury's verdict today. It feels wonderful because we got a non guilty verdict. It feels great. It's worth everything. Every minute of travel, every penny we paid to get here was worth it for the verdict. But a much more somber tone from Okeeffes loved ones, his Mother had testified in the Reid trial. I hear Karen Reid yell, peg, is he dead? Is he dead? Peg? Peg, is he dead? Some of those at the center of the case who testified against Reid writing in a statement today, we mourn with John's family and lament the cruel reality that this prosecution was infected by lies and conspiracy theories going on to say the result is a devastating miscarriage of justice. Joining us now, NBC News and MSNBC legal analyst Danny Savalas. Danny, good to see you. I mean, it can't be overstated what a national phenomenon this trial became. I mean, from people I know who grew up in New England and Massachusetts, but it spread beyond that. So considering all the attention and plenty, what went different? Why would you get a different outcome in this retrial? First, this case has completely divided the nation in half into two categories. Those who have either never heard of this case, and I suspect that is a lot of people at this table right here. Richard Haass raises. Richard Haas, president emeritus of the Council of Foreign Relations. He doesn't have time for the Karen Reid case. I do. All right. Most of the half the country never heard of the case. The other half, it has completely shut down their lives as they watch this case gavel to gavel. I probably fall into the latter category, but within that group, it further divided the nation into people who believe this was a massive cover up by local and state police and others who think Karen Reed probably was guilty. It has divided my own household. My wife wife is an investigative journalist and a crime reporter. She firmly believed there was a conspiracy and a cover up. I was not so inclined, but I believed that this would likely be a not guilty. And that's exactly what happened in this case. What the defense did differently this time, they didn't push the conspiracy so hard. They instead took a more conservative approach. Their theme was there was no collision. That's a reasonable doubt theme. At the end, they argued the commonwealth did not prove that there was a collision. And if you don't believe there was a collision, then the only thing you can convict of is operating under the influence. And frankly, that was a foregone conclusion. You can see when the verdict's read, Karen Reid is happy with her oui conviction because she knew she pretty much admitted it herself on camera. There was plenty of evidence of that. But if there's no collision, she had to be not guilty of every other crime charge. All right, Danny Savellos, thank you very much. We appreciate your having time for that. Thank you. Coming up on Morning Joe, MAGA divided more on the rift, the clash really, between Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson, what it means. Also, more with Richard Haass and David Ignatius on what comes next in the Iran Israel conflict and the growing rift inside the Trump administration. Also ahead, to understand what ails the Democratic Party, our next guest points to the mayoral primary unfolding in New York City. New York Times opinion writer Mara Gay joins us to explain why she says Andrew Cuomo's candidacy is a symptom of a bigger Democratic problem. Morning Joe will be right back. As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda, follow along with MSNBC's newest newsletter, Project 47. You'll get weekly updates sent straight to your inbox with expert analysis on the administration's latest actions and how they're affecting the American people. The American people are basically telling the president that they are not okay with any of this. Sign up for the Project 47 newsletter@msnbc.com Project 47 Bob Menendez is the first U.S. senator to go to prison in more than 40 years. It is, to me, an inexplicable and tragic way for him to go. I'm Nancy Solomon. Join me as I take a look at the senator's bribery scheme involving Egyptian spies. That's pretty unusual. And the woman that dazzled him. Hi, it's me calling my very handsome senator. Listen to Dead End, the Rise and Fall of Goldbar Bob Menendez from wnyc. Wherever you get your podcasts, a lot of short daily news podcasts focus on just one story. But right now you probably need more on up first from NPR, we bring you you three of the world's top headlines every day in under 15 minutes because no one story can capture all that's happening in this big crazy world of ours on any given morning. Listen now to the Upverse podcast from NPR. 42 past the hour. The prospect of U.S. involvement in the conflict between Israel and Iran is creating a deepening divide among President Trump's inner circle. Some of the president's most devout supporters, including his former advisor, Steve Bannon, spoke out against military action this week. If we get sucked into this war, which inexorably looks like it's going to happen on the combat side, it's going to not just blow up the coalition, it's also going to thwart what we're doing with the most important thing, which is the deportation of the illegal alien invaders that are here. The public rift reflects what is unfolding inside the administration as well. NBC News reports the national intelligence Director, Tulsi Gabbard appears to have fallen out of favor with Trump. Gabbard has long used her public platform to oppose US Military action against Iran and has been working behind the scenes to try and find a diplomatic solution, according to administration officials. Gabbard's allies say that although there is some tension in the White House, some of the public blowback is overstated, and none expect her to leave her position in the administration. So at the top of the hour, you saw part of Tucker Carlson's interview with Senator Ted Cruz of Texas as they went back and forth on the issue of Iran. Here's more of that intense exchange. How many people live in Iran, by the way? I don't know the population at all? No, I don't know the population. You don't know the population of the country you seek to topple? How many people living around 92 million? Okay. Yeah. How could you not know that? I. I don't sit around memorizing population tables. Well, it's kind of relevant because you're calling for the overthrow of the government. Why is it relevant whether it's 90 million or 80 million or 100 million, why is it. Because if you don't know anything about the country. Country. I didn't say I don't know anything about. Okay. What's the ethnic mix of Iran? They are Persians and predominantly Shia. Okay. No, it's not even. You don't know anything about Iran, So. Okay. I am not the Tucker Carlson expert on Iran. You're a senator. Who's calling. You're the one who claims anything about the country. No, you don't know anything about the country. You're the one who claims they're not trying to murder Donald Trump. You know, I'm not saying that. Who can't figure out if it's a good idea to kill General Soleimani. And you said it was bad. They're trying to murder Trump. Yes, I do. Because you're not calling for military strikes against them in retaliation. If they really believe that carrying out military strikes today. You said Israel was right with our help. I said we. Israel is leading them, but we're supporting them. Well, this. You're breaking news here because the US Government last night denied. The National Security Council spokesman Alex Pfeiffer denied on behalf of Trump that we were acting on Israel's behalf in any offensive capacity. We're not bombing them. Israel's bombing them. You just said we were. We are supporting Israel. Senator, if you're saying the United States government is Iran right now, people are listening. Growing up in Sunday school, I was taught from the Bible, those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed. And from my perspective, I want to be on the blessing side of things. Those who bless the government of Israel. Those who bless Israel is what it says, doesn't say the government of. It says the nation of Israel. So that's in the Bible. As a Christian, I believe that. Where is that? I can find it to you. I don't have the. The scripture off the tip of mine. You pull out the phone and use the. It's in Genesis. But. So you're quoting a Bible phrase. You don't have context for it. You don't know where in the Bible it is. But that's like your theology. I'm confused. What does that even mean? Tucker, I'm a Christian. I want to know what you're talking about. Where does. Where does my support for Israel come from? Number one, because biblically, we are commanded to support Israel. But number two. Hold on, hold on. You're a senator and now you're throwing out theology. And I am a Christian. I am allowed to weigh in on this. We are commanded as Christians to support the government of Israel. We are commanded to support Israel. And we're. What does that mean? Israel. We're told those who bless Israel will be blessed. But hold on. Define Israel. This is important. Are you kidding? This is a majority Christian country. Define Israel. Do you not know what Israel is? That would be the country you've asked like, like 49 questions about. So that's what Genesis. That's what God is talking about, the nation of Israel? Yes. And he's. So does that. The current borders, the current leadership. He's talking about the political entity called Israel. He's talking about the nation of Israel. Yet nations exists. And he's discussing a nation. A nation. Was the people of Israel is the nation in Genesis. Is that the same as the country run by Benjamin Netanyahu right now? Yes, it is. Wow. Well. Well, okay. Okay. So much to say there. What's the big story out of it? Well, I mean, there's a big story, but I just. I just have to say. I just. There's. Don't say it. There's a lot. There's a lot of. Lot of holding up. Jesus, like, you had the secretary of defense cornered, and he said, I believe the Bible. Nothing. Only believes. Believe the Bible. And when he. When he got cornered. And now you have. That's the fallback. Getting cornered. And we go back to the. I'm just saying this administration and this Republican Party they throw Jesus under the bus an awful lot or they use Jesus as a political shield, nowhere else to go. Much like Martin Sheen used a child as a political shield in the end of the Dead Zone. Watch the movie again. I just ruined it for you. So let's rise above this, my my brothers and sisters, let's rise above this. And David Ignatius, I want to talk actually what's going on here ideologically, because it's something that actually divided Republicans when I was in Congress in the 1990s, whether it was on Kosovo, Bosnia, et cetera, et cetera, we weren't as much of an interventionist as, say, Republicans were during the Cold War. But, but of course, you had Republicans, you had conservatives strongly opposed to Wilson's League of Nations. After World War I, you had them interventionists leading to World War II, you had Mr. Republican Robert Taft and a lot of other Republicans opposing the entrance into World War II. Afterwards, they reluctantly got on board. But post Cold War, which seemed to shake up that whole dynamic of Republicans and being isolationists and then becoming interventionists, now we're back, it seems we're back to where we were in the 90s, where there is a pretty strong split between the interventionists and the non interventionists in the Republican Party. I'm curious your thoughts. You've seen this unfold over the past 40, 50 years. Where is the party right now and what are the political risks for Donald Trump if he goes in or if he stays out? So, Joe, we're struggling in a, I'd say a real national debate about where our national interests are. And I must say, as somebody who lived through the pre Iraq period, that was the kind of debate we needed back then. We needed in 2003 to be talking about what was in our interest as a country. Did this make sense? What would happen after we invaded? Wasn't enough of that. Nika's dad, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was a rare example if somebody was asking those questions. So the more debate that I'm hearing, the better. I think one thing that's likely is that President Trump will learn in this debate, noisy, sometimes fractious, who he trusts and who he doesn't. He'll make up his mind better. You know, he's often all over the place map in terms of his views. One day says something, next day the next day. That's one reason I think the Iranians mistrust him in these negotiations. They just aren't sure where he is. But over time, that'll shake out better. There are reports that it's a different group now in THE Situation Room than it was initially. So I think that's also good for a president to have this kind of shakedown cruise on a really big issue like this. Final point that I'd like to make is because we're all focused to a surprising extent on Washington and what we're talking about here in Washington, but the cockpit in this war is in Tel Aviv, in Jerusalem. The Israelis won't wait forever. They have embarked on what they see as an absolutely critical existential campaign to take out Iran's nuclear capability while they can. They have other options besides waiting for the US Bunker buster. They're not good ones, but there's more and more talk being leaked about commando operations, other ways to get deep underground at Fordo and have some of the same effects they could get from the US So the idea that we can take as long as we want, make up our minds two weeks from today. Not necessarily. This is, in the end, going to be an Israeli decision primarily. So, Richard, I promise I won't quiz you on any facts about Iran or its demographics or population, but I, I do want to hear your thoughts. Picking up where David actually was, just where I was going to take you anyway. This idea, the relationship with Israel, the what, what Israel may or may not do without the US Support. We know that the, the bond between Netanyahu and Trump, once very close, has definitely frayed in recent, in recent months. You know, Trump is clearly going to take some time here. He's signaling to make a decision, and that's certainly his right. But let's get you to weigh in on this as to how long is Israel willing to be patient? 30 seconds, Russ. Just for Ted Cruz, one of his staffers ought to help him. In Semitic languages, there's a fundamental difference between the word for nation and state in English. We tend to use the two interchangeably in the Middle east, very different things. So when one speaks of the nation of Israel, it's about the Jewish people thousands of years predating the Jewish state, separate words and all these languages to them. So they're not interchangeable. Just a slight aside. Look, I think part of Donald Trump is America first in a half dozen ways. He has differentiated himself from Bibi, Netanyahu, did his own thing with the Houthis and so forth. He's not waiting on this. On the other hand, as David pointed out correctly, Israel is driving events. But no, I can imagine the president, if he decides that he preferred not to have the United States enter the war directly he'll make that decision. And even Bibi Netanyahu, as much as he's driving policy, he has to be wary of going too far out in front of Donald Trump. Any Israeli prime minister, his principal priority is to manage the relationship with the United States. He's got to be wary of that. And when he gets that wrong, it's dangerous for Israel, also politically dangerous for Bibi Netanyahu. He actually brags that he's able to deliver Donald Trump. What if he can't? So I think he's got to be really mindful. And Bibi has another problem here, Jonathan. He has set out on this war and he's got two goals, neither one of which he can achieve. He can't denuclearize Iran. He needs the United States to help him. And he can't bring about regime change because no leader can guarantee if you do certain things, regime change will be the result. So as is the case in some ways in Gaza, Bibi Netanyahu has bet the farm on a set of objectives that I do not believe he can unilaterally realize. That's why he needs Donald Trump here. Richard, I don't think Sam really cares for that distinction, but we'll pass it along to him. Alex, what's the population of Israel? No, I want to pick up on something that you and I talked about yesterday, which is Trump's process here to a degree that's expected, I guess, of Trump, but certainly unprecedented. We are seeing sort of real time deliberations through his truth social feed and then even on the White House South Lawn as he's putting up flag poles, saying, well, you know, I may do it, I may not. I'm sort of convinced that he basically will go where public opinion tells him to go. If it looks like what Israel's doing is going to be successful in Iran, he will align himself with that success. But you know more because you've reported on this dynamic a little bit. Tell us a little bit about what you know about how he views this, what his decision making processes and the degree to which public opinion itself drives the type of strategic decisions that he makes. Well, in terms of the process, there is no process. Usually it used to be that at the National Security Council level there would be multiple interminable meetings and eventually options get up to the presidential level. And then the president a decision, in this case, there are advisors telling Trump to his face, here's what you should do, here's what you should not do. And then at some point he'll make a call. And as we reported, you know, he's already made, he's already approved of attack plans for Iran. He's just waiting for the final order, waiting to see if maybe Tehran will solve this issue diplomatically in terms of public opinion. I mean, if you're Donald Trump, you're remembering your first term, you basically threatened nuclear war with North Korea and you ended up getting a diplomatic process going and you were lauded for that. You were told, oh, don't start a big conflict with isis, because that's basically the US Getting involved in wars in Syria and Iraq. And you were able to really weaken isis and you got applauded for that. Now, this is obviously a much bigger situation in terms of, you know, the U.S. bombing Iran and trying to dismantle its nuclear program and it is fracturing the coalition. But if you're Donald Trump, you're feeling, I have been here before, I have had people follow me, been re elected, despite my actions in the first term, including on its foreign policy. And so maybe as long as I make the case here for why this is in the American interest, for why this actually helps us with Israel, maybe I can get MAGA on board. So I think what the worry is here is that Trump is going to be dragged in. Well, one is going to be dragged in, which it seems more and more likely as of now, but also that they're worried that this could lead to a regime change war, that there will be unintended consequences that Trump cannot control. But for right now, Trump, I think by taking his time and being very clear that if we get involved, it will be basically just to destroy Fordow as of right now, that's the thinking, then maybe he can ward off those forces against him. National security reporter for the Wall Street Journal, Alex Ward, thank you so much. David Ignatius and Richard Haass, thank you both as well.