Trump’s gamble in Iran

Summary

Post Reports: Trump’s Gamble in Iran – Detailed Summary

Published on June 23, 2025

Overview

In this gripping episode of Post Reports, hosts Martine Powers and Elahe Izadi delve deep into President Donald Trump's strategic decision to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. The discussion analyzes the motives behind the strike, the execution of the operation, the immediate aftermath, and the broader geopolitical and domestic ramifications. Through insightful interviews with White House reporter Natalie Allison and national security expert Alex Horton, listeners are provided with a comprehensive understanding of this high-stakes move and its potential consequences.

Background

The episode opens with Colby Ikowitz setting the stage for a pivotal moment in U.S.-Iran relations. President Trump had been deliberating whether to join Israel in targeting Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Initially suggesting a possible two-week delay to decide, Trump’s rhetoric was later revealed to be a strategic maneuver, as the U.S. conducted a bombing mission against Iran within days.

Execution of the Strike

Alex Horton provides a meticulous breakdown of the military operation:

“It started some hours before the bombs actually fell... seven B2 stealth bombers took off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri at midnight.” ([03:58])

These bombers, nicknamed the "Dorito of Death" for their distinctive shape, were supported by fighter jets, electronic warfare planes, and refuelers to ensure the mission's success. The strike targeted three key sites:

1. Fordo Facility: Focused on uranium enrichment, the operation involved dropping two massive ordnance penetrator bombs, followed by an additional dozen over 25 minutes.
2. Second Nuclear Facility: A submarine in the Gulf launched 24 Tomahawk cruise missiles targeting another site.
3. US Military Base in Qatar: Responding to these strikes, Iran retaliated by targeting at least one U.S. military base in the region.

Alex emphasizes the precision of the attack:

“The bombs hit their targets. There was no shot taken on the American planes, as far as the Pentagon knows.” ([05:06])

However, he cautions about the uncertainty regarding the full impact beneath the surface:

“What we don't know is what happened underneath those facilities... It's a more complicated thing to understand.” ([05:06])

Behind the Scenes Decision-Making

Natalie Allison sheds light on the internal dynamics leading up to the strike:

“Little did we know that at that point, you know, the president had already essentially signed off on the attack plans.” ([06:21])

Despite Trump's public statements indicating indecision, insiders revealed that the administration had been preparing the strike meticulously. The White House employed a two-week delay as a feint to mislead Iranian intelligence, keeping them uncertain about the U.S.'s real intentions.

Iran's Response and Capabilities

Alex discusses Iran's immediate reaction and long-term capabilities:

“Their military said that any attacks on their nuclear facilities would prompt a response... They have backed it up with their influence and their experience in the region.” ([10:34])

Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, a critical passageway for global petroleum traffic, indicating the potential for widespread economic ramifications. The episode highlights Iran's evolved capacity to project power, not just through state mechanisms but also via militias in Syria and Iraq.

Political and Domestic Implications

The strike has ignited a debate within Trump's base and the broader political landscape:

Natalie points out a fissure within the MAGA movement:

“There certainly is a vocal faction of the MAGA base that are saying, this is not what we signed up for.” ([23:24])

Prominent figures like Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene have voiced criticisms, expressing concerns that the strike contradicts Trump's long-standing "America First" agenda aimed at reducing foreign entanglements. However, other segments of the Republican coalition, including more traditional Republicans, have expressed support for the decisive action.

Comparisons to Past Interventions

Drawing parallels to the 2003 Iraq invasion, Alex Horton reflects on the similarities and differences:

“The feeling of this broadening discussion of intelligence and what comes next and the most dire picture taken feels similar.” ([25:44])

He warns of the potential slippery slope:

“It's a slippery slope... Starts with the feeling that this is inevitable... We’re on a moving train that won't stop.” ([28:18])

This comparison underscores the dangers of preemptive strikes based on uncertain intelligence and the long-term consequences that can ensue from such unilateral military actions.

Potential Paths Forward

Natalie and Alex explore possible scenarios following the strike:

Natalie emphasizes the need for Iran to comply with U.S. demands to prevent further conflict:

“Iran would have to agree to end its nuclear program... But I don't see any indication thus far that that's something that they're willing to do.” ([15:29])

Alex cautions about the escalating risks:

“It could just keep going up the ladder with every moment... the enemy gets a vote.” ([17:19])

Both agree that without effective diplomatic channels and mutual willingness to de-escalate, the situation could spiral into a prolonged and devastating conflict.

Conclusion

The episode concludes with a somber reflection on the precarious state of U.S.-Iran relations following the strike. While the immediate objective of hindering Iran's nuclear ambitions may have been achieved, the broader quest for peace remains uncertain. The hosts underscore the importance of vigilant reporting and informed public discourse as the situation continues to evolve.

Notable Quotes

• Alex Horton ([03:58]): “Seven B2 stealth bombers... took off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri at midnight.”
• Natalie Allison ([06:21]): “Little did we know that at that point, you know, the president had already essentially signed off on the attack plans.”
• Alex Horton ([05:06]): “The bombs hit their targets. There was no shot taken on the American planes, as far as the Pentagon knows.”
• Natalie Allison ([23:24]): “There certainly is a vocal faction of the MAGA base that are saying, this is not what we signed up for.”
• Alex Horton ([25:44]): “The idea of the preemptive strike...the Bush administration and his lieutenants throughout the cabinets, they all got on the same sheet of music about this is going to be worth it.”

Final Thoughts

Post Reports effectively captures the complexity of President Trump's decision to strike Iran, offering listeners a nuanced perspective on the intersection of military strategy, political maneuvering, and international diplomacy. As the situation develops, the Washington Post continues to provide in-depth coverage and expert analysis to keep the public informed.

Transcript

[Colby Ikowitz]

President Donald Trump said he needed more time. For days, he had been weighing whether to join Israel's fight against Iran with a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. On Thursday, he said he might need two weeks to make that decision, but that was apparently a ruse. Strike plans were already in motion. Two days later, on Saturday, the United States bombed Iran. Here's Trump addressing the nation after that attack.

[Alex Horton]

Iran, the bully of the Middle east, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.

[Colby Ikowitz]

Trump says the goal was to keep Iran from building a nuclear weapon. He warned Iran not to retaliate. But today we're already seeing Iran fire back, targeting at least one US Military base in the region. This is a fluid situation, but what happens next and how Trump responds will determine whether the US Becomes mired in another protracted conflict. From the newsroom of the Washington Post, this is Post Reports. I'm Colby ekowitz. It's Monday, June 23rd. Earlier today, I spoke with White House reporter Natalie Allison and national security reporter Alex Horton about how the US Strike in Iran was carried out and the gamble Trump is making by inserting the US into another possible war in the Middle East. Natalie. Alex, hi. Thanks so much for being here.

[Natalie Allison]

Hey, thanks for having us.

[Alex Horton]

Yeah, pleasure to be here.

[Colby Ikowitz]

So, Natalie, it's 10:00am Monday morning. Obviously, this is a very fast moving story, but take me back to the weekend. You see the news. What was your first thought?

[Natalie Allison]

There was a lot of surprise among us who had been watching this closely throughout the week and the weekend. You know, Donald Trump had just landed back from being at his golf club in New Jersey and he, you know, had walked into the White House and a lid was called. That's the term that the White House uses to tell the the press pool that there's not going to be any more events to report on that evening. Typically, it's it's to tell them that the president isn't going to be going anywhere or there won't be any public events. And a lot of people took that to mean that, you know, it was not the night. Of course, the context here is that the president had said just a couple days before that he was going to wait as many as two weeks. But as we'll discuss the there certainly had been plans underway the whole time for this to happen when it did.

[Colby Ikowitz]

And Alex, you cover national security and the military for the Post. So let's just talk about the strike itself. Can you give us kind of a play by play of how this all went down over the weekend.

[Alex Horton]

It started some hours before the bombs actually fell. With a decoy flight, some B2s and their refueling tankers flew west over the Pacific towards Guam. But meanwhile, seven other B2 stealth bombers, effectually known as the Dorito of Death because of its shape like a bat wing, you know, very advanced stealth bomb, seven of them, took off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri at midnight. The seven B2s flew over the Atlantic with a pretty robust support network of fighter jets, electronic warfare planes, and probably the most important of all, refuelers, which allow the B2 to stay in the air for long periods of time and refuel without needing to stop. But before they started their attack run to drop some bombs, they had to clear the way of all other kinds of obstacles. Fighter jets, air defense networks, radars. So some of the fighter jets accompanying the bombers went ahead of that force, took those targets out, was mindful of other planes, enemy aircraft in the air, and in a way, mowed the grass all the way up to these sites.

[Colby Ikowitz]

And so these planes, they get there in the middle of the night, and they strike three different sites in Iran. Right? What did they actually do at these three sites?

[Alex Horton]

So the first opening salvo of this whole operation were two massive ordnance penetrator bombs, commonly known as bunker busters. They're specifically designed to penetrate deep surface and with a delayed fuse, explode something underneath. In this case, at the Fordo facility, where the Iranians do uranium enrichment for nuclear material. They dropped the first two and then over the course of the next 25 minutes, dropped another dozen there. And at a second nuclear facility in Iran, meanwhile, a submarine in the Gulf fired 24 Tomahawk cruise missiles to strike another target. And those took some time to get there. So those were in the air as the B2s and other aircraft were heading towards their targets.

[Colby Ikowitz]

And do we know, Alex, were they successful? Did they destroy the targets they were seeking to destroy?

[Alex Horton]

The bombs hit their targets. There was no shot taken on the American planes, as far as the Pentagon knows. So that's all good news. That's what we know. What we don't know is what happened underneath those facilities. When you blow up a missile launchpad in Yemen, you know what happened to it pretty quick. When you send a bomb, the tunnel a couple hundred feet and then blow up below the surface, it's going to take some time to understand what happened. And it's a more complicated thing to. And just looking at the surface, because we've already seen the satellite imagery, these are just holes in the side of a mountain, can't tell anything. So we did the big Top Gun blow stuff up and do the freeze frame jump in the air. Yeah, mission accomplished. And then the hard part is knowing what comes next, knowing what kind of effect that had. And it might take some time to understand that. So we have no idea what the effect is or the effect of Iran to continue its program if they have the desire to.

[Colby Ikowitz]

And Natalie, we talked about this a little bit, but I'm really struck by the fact that Trump was saying he was going to wait to make a decision about whether or not he was going to involve the United States in Israel's ongoing strikes in Iran. What was going on behind the scenes here with Trump and his advisors?

[Natalie Allison]

You know, I keep thinking back to Wednesday of last week. I was in the White House press pool that day. And for anyone who was following the news that day, Donald Trump made a big to do about installing two new flag poles on the White House law. And he brought the press full out to the South Lawn and basically was out there talking to us for about 45 minutes. And in between talking about the proper way to erect a flagpole and why this is the greatest flagpole ever, he was, of course, facing questions from us about what he was going to do about Iran, whether to engage in the form of US Military attack on the country. Cubans answered questions about whether you are moving closer, you believe the US Is moving closer to striking Iranian nuclear facilities. Where's your mindset on that?

[Alex Horton]

Say that. Right. You don't seriously think I'm going to answer that question?

[Natalie Allison]

And he was, of course, being very coy about it.

[Alex Horton]

I mean, you don't know that I'm going to even do it. You don't know. I may do it, I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do. I can tell you.

[Natalie Allison]

Little did we know that at that point, you know, the president had already essentially signed off on the attack plans. And on Wednesday, he was continuing to project that he hadn't made a decision yet. In fact, later that day, he explicitly said he hadn't made a decision. And the White House officials would say that that was true, that yes, he had signed off on the attacks, but of course, he reserved the right to call off the mission until, you know, the final moments. And that is true. But the President at that point, despite saying he wasn't sure which direction he was going to go, now we know that he already had okayed those plans. And on Thursday, there was, of course, the announcement by White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt, where she was reading a statement that the president had dictated directly to her moments before she walked into the press briefing room. And it said that because he thought there was the prospect for significant negotiations, that he was going to wait up to two weeks to make a decision. And the White House advisers, of course, tell me over the weekend that that was part of the ruse, that was part of the effort by the United States to throw the Iranians off. How well they succeeded with throwing them off, maybe that's something Alex could speak to, but it certainly was part of the effort to keep them on their toes about what they were going to do and of course, distract them from the attack that was going to happen Saturday.

[Colby Ikowitz]

And Natalie, do we know like, who was in the president's ear at this time when he's making these decisions?

[Natalie Allison]

The president has been hearing from across the ideological spectrum on this. You have on the one hand, of course, the people, the very hawkish pro Israel people like Mark Levin, he's a well known conservative commentator who is on Fox News. And on the other end, you know, the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who, you know, basically went so far as to criticize Trump's consideration of attacking Iran, that he ended up calling the president this past week to apologize because the president had put out essentially some true social post saying that Tucker Carlson was kooky and he was going too far in his criticisms. We have people on, on Carlson's side like Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk, who tried to be a bit more diplomatic than, than Carlson and, and how they were talking about it, saying they trusted the president's instincts. But, you know, he needs to know that this could be really risky to attack Iran and it could lead us into the type of war has long said he would not get the United States involved in and which drew a number of new voters into the president's coalition over the last decade because they were against wars like the ones we saw in the Middle east previously.

[Alex Horton]

I did want to note real quick that Charlie Kirk, Tucker Carlson camp of conservatives that are skeptical of Middle east entanglement. Defense Secretary Hegseth and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard come from that same school of being against Middle east conflict and US Operations there and that the US should focus more on things like China and home defense. They come from that camp too. But they're in a very different position now when it comes to their philosophy and how they advise the president who has made up his mind.

[Colby Ikowitz]

I mean, obviously they did not persuade him and he did go ahead and authorize these strikes. Alex, what was the response from the Iranian government this weekend after this occurred?

[Alex Horton]

So they've already said that the US should expect a response. Their military said that any attacks on their nuclear facilities would prompt a response. And it described any retaliation as, quote, legitimate self defense. They've also threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, which is a pretty narrow passageway that's vital to commercial traffic, especially when it comes to petroleum. So that will have ramifications across the world. And it's important to take stock of Iranian capabilities. It is different in the last few weeks because of the Israeli attacks. They have focused on ways for Iran to project power that includes ballistic missiles, their launch sites. So Iran's ability to affect consequences on the US in the region is fundamentally different than it was two, three months ago. The second thing is they have been good at it in Tehran in moments. Not just themselves, but also the militia networks they control in Syria and Iraq. There are 40,000American troops in the Middle east right now. And when you look at past military operations Against Iran in 2020, during the first Trump administration, Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, which then caused a retaliation from Iran. They fired ballistic missiles at American bases and by a host and a string of miracles, no one was killed. They were intended to kill. This wasn't just a tit for tat. You know, let's find a way to off ramp this thing. It was, we're gonna try to kill Americans. And an Iranian backed militia sent a drone into living quarters at a U.S. base in Jordan last year and killed three Americans, wounded dozens of others. So it's important to take a step back and say this isn't just bluster on their ability. They have backed it up with their influence and their experience in the region. They have done it before. The question is, how capable are they now that they've been stung by the US And Israeli strikes over the past few weeks?

[Colby Ikowitz]

After the break, we'll talk about the risks of the US Getting further involved in another war in the Middle east and what could happen next. We'll be right back.

[Advertisement Speaker 1]

These days, everything's getting more expensive. Groceries, gas, prescriptions. So when it comes to your meds, finding ways to save really helps. That's where Goodrx can come in. Goodrx lets you check prices for prescriptions, whether it's for allergies, heart health, diabetes or even pet meds. And sometimes you can save up to 80% before you even head to the pharmacy. It's easy to use. Just search your prescription on the website or app and show the free coupon to your pharmacist. You can use it at over 70,000 pharmacies, including CVS, Walgreens, Walmart and more. Allergy meds are expensive, so I look to Goodrx to save me money and you should too. Remember, GoodRx is not insurance and you don't need insurance to use it. In some cases, the GoodRx price might even beat your copay. Beat high prices at the pharmacy and save up to 80% with GoodRx. Go to GoodRx.com reports that's GoodRx.com reports.

[Advertisement Speaker 2]

As the temps start rising, I feel that familiar urge to refresh my closet. But I'm not wasting money on pieces I'll only wear once or just for one season. Quince changes that their clothes are timeless, lightweight and far more elevated than anything else. At this price, it finally feels like my wardrobe matches my standards. By working directly with top artisans and cutting out the middlemen, Quince gives you luxury without the markup. And Quince only works with factories that use safe, ethical and responsible manufacturing practices and premium fabrics and finishes. For me, a linen shirt is a wardrobe staple, especially for the humid D.C. summers. But quality linen at an affordable price is hard to find. The ones from Quince are made from 100% European flax linen, so they're lightweight, breathable and get softer every time it's worn. Exactly what I want in a summer shirt. Give your summer closet an upgrade with quince. Go to quince.com reports for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q U I N-E.com reports to get free shipping and 365 day returns quince.com reports.

[Colby Ikowitz]

So Natalie, you wrote over the weekend that President Trump was making, quote, an extraordinary bet that he could destroy Iran's nuclear program without getting sucked into a long term conflict. What would have to happen for him to get what he wants here?

[Natalie Allison]

Well, Iran would have to agree to end its nuclear program. And you know, as Alex outlined earlier, we don't really know how much of their capabilities were completely destroyed. Of course they've been set back. That's the kind of language we heard from JD Vance on Sunday when he was talking about what the ramifications were.

[Alex Horton]

I think that we have really pushed their program back by a very long time. I think that it's going to be many, many years before the Iranians are able to develop a nuclear weapon. But again, our goal is that they're never able to develop a nuclear weapons program. And that is.

[Natalie Allison]

But even, you know, besides Trump, even top officials aren't saying that they have a guarantee that the program was obliterated. And so, you know, based on what we know from history, it's probably not going to be easy to get Iran to agree to not have any enriched uranium remaining. And so what we would have to see is that they would have to agree to put that up. You know, that was the condition from the US Side going into this that Iran refused to agree with was that there would be no enrichment of uranium. And it remains to be seen what they're capable of. But, you know, for Trump to come out of this feeling like he was able to do this one and done strike and bring about world peace, as he is saying, and, and this, this strike would prevent further conflict. That's the messaging that's coming from the White House. In order for that to happen, you know, Iran would have to get on board with these negotiations and agree to the terms that Donald Trump wants to set for them. And I don't see any indication thus far that that's something that they're willing to do.

[Colby Ikowitz]

Right. And, Alex, if Iran doesn't agree to de escalate and doesn't agree to disarm, Trump has said, quote, there are many targets left. So that seems to indicate that the US could keep striking Iran. What does that path look like? What does that send us down?

[Alex Horton]

You know, Trump is a businessman, so he understands that negotiations aren't unilateral in one way when it comes to this. So there is not just a responsibility and a consideration for de escalation in Tehran. It's also in Washington and Tel Aviv. There are ways for every country to find off ramps in the next few days and weeks. The posture right now coming from the White House is it's limited. It's directed at these facilities for the nuclear program, but maybe not, you know, and that's a very precarious situation to be in. So it could just keep going up the ladder with every moment. If the parties don't find a way to find moments to kind of stop reassess what's going on and how to kind of contain this thing so it doesn't go into a water war, that's a lot easier said than done. Even though it sounds pretty complicated, but those are the risks, that once you start going down the path, you know, it's like driving at night. You know, you can only see as far as your headlights. And we don't know what's around the bend because the enemy gets a vote. They get a vote in Tehran of whether they will continue instead of the Israelis, for that matter. So that's important to keep in mind.

[Colby Ikowitz]

I mean, it's one thing for Trump and the Trump administration to say that we're not at war right now, but does Iran see this as a declaration of war? Do they think we're at war right now?

[Alex Horton]

What is war? We bring ourselves to that philosophical question. When it comes to Congress, they would say, this isn't war because we haven't said so. And certainly going back to Iraq in 2003, they sure were anemic in doing anything about that in the run up to the invasion and afterwards. So there's still open questions of legality. Is this allowed on the UN Charter? Is the US Party to this war, or is it a common defense? How are they framing this in the White House as a preemptive strike against what we know to be a threat from them, which, of course, they don't know. The intelligence needs to be scrutinized by the nsc, which is the National Security Council, the White House, the agencies, and also us, you and me. How we got into this in the first place in 2003 was people in our position listening to officials say, you don't know what's coming. This is bad. We got to prepare. We have reasons to do this. And then those vaporize really quick. And then everyone said, why did we do this? That's how skeptics like J.D. vance and Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth are born. Were the catastrophes of being so sure about what the US Was doing? That's how those people made their bucks fighting the establishment. But we're in that same situation right now.

[Colby Ikowitz]

And during Iraq, it ultimately became about regime change. Right? The US Trying to topple Saddam Hussein's government. So is that the ultimate goal here for Trump? I mean, he says that it's to take out these nuclear weapons, but ultimately, does he and obviously Israel want new leadership in Iran? Because that would indicate a bigger scope of engagement.

[Natalie Allison]

Well, the president has sort of put out some mixed messaging on this. Certainly his top cabinet officials, people like J.D. vance and Marco Rubio, have been saying regime change is not the goal. And then, as we see often with Trump, that he will come out some hours later and say something that seems to contradict that. And we saw him posting on True Social about, if that's where things are headed, why shouldn't there be regime change? And then we saw Press Secretary Caroline Levitt sort of coming behind him Monday morning and not exactly trying to clean up, but trying to clarify the president's posture.

[Colby Ikowitz]

And our military posture has not changed. The president was just simply raising a question that I think many people around the world are asking. If the Iranian regime refuses to give up their nuclear program or engage in talks. We just took out their nuclear program on Saturday night, as you all know. But if they refuse to engage in diplomacy moving forward, why shouldn't the Iranian people rise up against this brutal terrorist regime?

[Natalie Allison]

But, you know, Donald Trump has not at this point suggested that the United States would go in and try to bring about regime change by force. That's not something we've heard from him. But I will note that there has been a bit of mixed messaging from some of his top officials going out and say it's not about regime change, to the president saying, well, if that's where things lead, if that's what the people there want, then why shouldn't that happen?

[Alex Horton]

We know this, that there is no bomb that affects regime change that would require direct U.S. involvement on the ground. U.S. troops taking over cities, going into places, holding terrain, forcing out the government a la Iraq in 2003, you can't do it from the air. They couldn't even defeat the Houthis from the air. You know, guys in sandals launching 50 year old rockets. They couldn't defeat those guys despite their efforts. So you can't just snap your fingers and send in the B2s and say, okay, now they're a democracy. So it's going to require something that makes this operation look like small potatoes and that increases risk for sure. And I also hope we don't get we, as in the media in Washington and others, don't get drunk off the success of this run. A fuel line problem, ejector seat malfunction, one plane getting shot down. These are the little things that could have turned us into a much different conversation than we're having right now.

[Colby Ikowitz]

And Natalie, we touched on this a little bit at the beginning of our conversation. But as myself, a longtime politics reporter, I can't stop thinking about the politics of this decision and the fact that Trump has campaigned for such a long time as a peace president. He wants to pull the US out of foreign entanglements. The whole MAGA movement is about America first. This seems like the antithesis of that. And you've seen some kind of MAGA diehards like Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Republican from Georgia, really criticize him over this action, is this a betrayal of his MAGA base?

[Natalie Allison]

There certainly is a vocal faction of the MAGA base that are saying, this is not what we signed up for. If you go into the live chat feature of Charlie Kirk or Steve Bannon or, you know, Jack Posobiek on these conservative streaming platforms over the weekend over the last few days, you would have seen a lot of very angry people saying, you know, where's the Trump that we voted for? Where's the Trump who said, no more endless wars. I pledge not to send your sons off to war in the way that they were, you know, 20 years ago? And so there are certainly people who are upset at this point. There's no evidence that there is some irreparable fracture in Trump's base. His coalition, of course, is made up of some of these diehards who are consuming shows like Steve Bannon. But there are a lot of other people in the Republican coalition who got Behind Trump in 2024, even more traditional Republicans who sort of came around to him, even though they weren't the biggest fans of him previously, who were very much in favor of the action he's taken. But we are seeing a rift among some of those most vocal MAGA leaders, and I think it's still too early to say what's going to happen. I think it's still too early to say the young Trump supporters are not gonna show up in the midterms because they're angry with him about this action. I think it all sort of depends on what the Iranian response is. And then in response to that, what the United States ends up doing. Is this something that's still ongoing next year when people are going to the polls in the midterms, and then after that, as Republicans are deciding whether J.D. vance will be their nominee or someone else? So there's a lot to watch, and there's a lot that could unfold depending on where things go. But at this point, the situation is that there are some angry MAGA leaders and MAGA commentators. There are others who are very much defending the president. And at this point, I think everyone is sort of waiting to see where it goes from here.

[Colby Ikowitz]

And, Alex, it's important to note that you're a veteran and that you served in Iraq yourself. And it's hard to not make comparisons to George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003. I've seen a lot of people saying that this moment is reminiscent of that. So how is it similar, and in what ways is it different?

[Alex Horton]

It was after 9 11. So it was a different political climate. In the case of Republicans getting their way with national security, unfortunately, there's a lot of similarities, the first of which is there is a Congress that does not seem willing or able to to affect any pressure on the executive branch when it comes to shaping policy. They have the power theoretically to declare wars. I would say the feeling of this broadening discussion of intelligence and what comes next and the most dire picture taken feels similar. Just pulling some quotes from back then. We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. We don't know. But it's best to be sure. The idea of the preemptive strike, the Bush administration administration and his lieutenants throughout the cabinets, they all got on the same sheet of music about this is going to be worth it. This will be limited. This will be something we need to do because the alternative is such more severe than what could happen. That's what it feels like now when you have again, anonymous intelligence assessments coming out either through the media or White House officials talking about Arend's desire to continue the nuclear program, I feel like, given the last 20 years, we should probably be in the show me what you're talking about. That's what led us. When you talk about a slippery slope, it starts with that. It starts with the feeling that this is inevitable. And that's how it felt in the last few weeks when everyone, including myself, started googling, what is a massive ordinance penetrator? What is this thing that we're talking about? All of a sudden it just felt like we talked about how it could be done and what could be done with military force and with the tools that we have instead of the why are we doing this? What cause and effect will happen in the region to civilians, to American service members, to our standing in the world, to the greater geopolitical consequences that are pretty fragile right now and pretty combustible. What effect will that have? And in the discussions now so far and in discussions in the lead up to 2003, it was, don't worry about it, we can have a singular vision of how this is going to go. And, you know, we can control the narrative. And of course, that did not happen with disastrous consequences. And what's been rattling around my brain not just since Saturday, but just in this run up that kind of feels like we're on a moving train that won't stop.

[Colby Ikowitz]

Well, thank you both so much for your reporting and for taking the time with us today. We will continue to follow this.

[Natalie Allison]

Thanks, Colby.

[Alex Horton]

Thanks for having us. Colby.

[Colby Ikowitz]

Alex Horton covers national security and the military for the Post. Natalie Allison covers the White House. Later Monday, Trump posted on Truth Social that Iran had given the United States a heads up about its plans to strike a US Military base in Qatar. Trump Trump said that no Americans were harmed and that there wasn't much damage done. He wrote, quote, most importantly, they've gotten it all out of their system and there will hopefully be no further hate. Several minutes later, Trump posted in all caps. Congratulations, world. It's time for peace. This is obviously a developing story. You can find all of our Latest [e-mail] that's it for Post reports. Thanks for listening. The tape you heard of J.D. vance in today's episode came from NBC's Meet the Press. Today's show was produced by Laura Benshoff and Emma Talkoff. It was edited by Maggie Penman and mixed by Sam Baer. I'm Colby Ikowitz. We'll be back tomorrow with more stories from the Washington Post.

[Advertisement Speaker 2]

As the temps start rising, I feel that familiar urge to refresh my closet. But I'm not wasting money on pieces I'll only wear once or just for one season. Quince changes that their clothes are timeless, lightweight and far more elevated than anything else. At this price, it finally feels like my wardrobe matches my standards. By working directly with top artisans and cutting out the middlemen, Quince gives you luxury without the markup. And Quince only works with factories that use safe, ethical and responsible manufacturing practices and premium fabrics and finishes. For me, a linen shirt is a wardrobe staple, especially for the humid D.C. summers. But quality linen at an affordable price is hard to find. The ones from Quince are made from 100% European flax linen, so they're lightweight, breathable and get softer every time it's worn. Exactly what I want in a summer shirt. Give your summer closet an upgrade with quince. Go to quince.com reports for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com reports to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com reports.