David Rothkopf (6:43)

Whatever it takes, we will always

Ari Melber (6:46)

and we have.

David Rothkopf (6:47)

Right from the beginning, we projected four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that.

Ari Melber (6:57)

There is not a consistent asserted foreign policy goal here, let alone some wider doctrine. There is not a clear representation to the American public what the one or more objectives are. And that's important because as just about everyone remembers from the United States, last operations in the Middle east without a clear objective for what you're trying to do and when it's over, it can take a very long time. I want to bring in experts who have lived through and been practitioners in this type of foreign policy and military policy for the better part of a generation. General Barry McCaffrey, retired four star general, Mississippi now analyst who was part of our break in coverage as soon as all of our colleagues were reporting this here and abroad on Saturday. And Ambassador Dennis Ross, a widely renowned Middle east expert. He served as a diplomat and a peace negotiator in all of the top administrations of both parties, basically prior to the Trump era, Clinton, Bush and Obama. Welcome to you both. General McCaffrey, I want to just give you the floor. I showed some of what we're hearing from the United States government which has been at times clearly inconsistent. But compared to where we started Saturday morning. First, tell us what you're seeing out there. What is the state of play militarily?

General Barry McCaffrey (8:15)

Well, you can't get beyond starting with an assessment that this is a terrible political mess. The president is ruling by decree it's policy. By whim, he made no effort to go out and gain the legitimate support of the American people. We have no allies essentially in this fight, not just the European NATO allies, but also the Gulf region. And finally, Congress has been completely left out of the loop. He, at the final moments informed the gang, so called Gang of Eight, what was going on. But there was literally no attempt to gain legitimacy from the US Congress. From a strictly military point of view, operationally, the war is going quite well. Iran is in a very bad situation. Not just in the general sense that they just finished murdering as many as 30,000 of their own citizens. They're widely despised. They're in economic collapse. They have lost much of their senior leadership, some of it for the second time in eight or nine months. And we've hit, as you reported, literally hundreds of targets throughout the country. US Air power has dominance over Iran. We can fly where we want and attack what we want with relatively little risk. Now the bad news for Iran is even further. They've alienated all the Gulf coast coded states by attacking them from the air. And we're also seeing, I think, a decrease in their ability to even fight. They've lost a good bit of their Gulf Navy now. Seven major ships, they have have been sunk. So operationally it's pretty good. Where's it all going to go? Nobody knows. I think this war has got a month to run at most. It's politically a disaster at most.

Ari Melber (10:21)

In your view?

General Barry McCaffrey (10:23)

I think the Iranians we're going to run out of targets, for starters. Now, what we're hopeful now, I think, is to get a political negotiation that will have the Iranians let inspectors back in on the ground. And in terms of regime change, which can't be done from the air, there may be some effort, covert or international, to get a fracture in the security forces. The IRGC are going to stay brutally engaged in support of the leadership. And they're also a corrupt giant business inside Iran. But there's a 400,000 man army, poorly equipped. Perhaps we'll finally see the security forces respond to the dismay and horror of the Iranian people.

Ari Melber (11:12)

Hmm. Appreciate all of that precision, General, Ambassador, I want to play what Secretary Rubio said today in a clear contrast to other administrations. Something that people have seen the Trump administration do on matters small and domestic also is playing out here on the grand theater of Mideast, multi country airstrike war, which is the President says things and posts things and then other people come along and try to make the best of it clean. It up, narrow it. And again, I'm not speaking critically, I'm just reporting what we've observed, sort of say, well, he didn't mean that and we're only doing this. So here's how Rubio tried to, I believe, narrow some of the many things Trump has already said. Take a listen. I don't understand what the confusion is. Let me explain it to you and I'll do it once again as clearly as possible. Perhaps you'll report it that way. The United States is conducting an operation to eliminate the threat of Iran's short range ballistic missiles and the threat posed by their navy, particularly to naval assets. Ambassador,

LifeLock Representative (12:20)

excuse me, that's the first I've heard that those are our objectives. Those objectives are quite narrowly stated. The navy and the short range ballistic missiles, by the way. Short range ballistic missiles threaten our Gulf partners. That's, by the way, not the concern of the Israelis. The Israelis were the medium range ballistic missiles. So he's introducing what is a very narrow set of objectives, by the way. If those are the objectives, what Barry was just saying, we'll achieve those objectives this week. So if that's all we're talking about, then you obviously are going to be able to curtail this sooner rather than later. I would say, just as a general observation, I think the objectives of the administration are not regime change, they're regime weakening. And they are a combination of regime weakening on the one hand and on the other, destroying, to the extent we can, the Iranian ability to threaten their neighbors, whether it's their immediate neighbors or it's Israel. That's the essence of what our objective seems to be. The idea of, you know, we're creating a possibility for the Iranian public, here's their chance. If they succeed, great. If they don't, well, that was their problem. The problem with such an approach is, and Barry was getting at this, there's 150,000 IRGC, there's 200,000 Beseech. Now, it is true that we and the Israelis are hitting their headquarters, both central headquarters, regional headquarters, some of the provincial headquarters, and we're disrupting their command control. And maybe that is weakening them. But the most it might be doing is disrupting them to the point where maybe there could be some defections. Barry made a reference to the fact maybe the military, which is separate from the besieged and the irgc, would see that ultimately their role is to protect the Iranian public. That would be desirable. We have no way of knowing that that's going to be the case. But regime weakening means maybe they're less a threat to their own population, that remains to be seen, but certainly they've become much less of a threat within the region.

Ari Melber (14:40)

General, how do you view that? And this idea of constraining Iran as a threat means facing how Iran is both a state actor with all of those powers and the military figures mentioned, and one of the greatest sponsors of non state terror, mostly against our allies. Allies, not against us. I mean, by Donald Trump's original policy of no more forever wars, you don't want to do big regional war to stop the non state actors, whether, you know, whether that's Hezbollah or whomever, if it doesn't have a direct impact on U.S. security interests. So how do you assess that or critique that, given the shifting objectives we're hearing?

General Barry McCaffrey (15:23)

Well, I clearly support Ambassador Ross's assessment of the situation. It's such a mess. It's hard to coherently respond to some of these questions. It is clear to me that at the end of the day, what Trump actually is trying to do is to delay the nuclear program. I applaud that. I think he was getting nowhere in negotiations. He thinks that a massive air attack on Iran may well bring them back to the table with a more realistic assessment. Since we've killed a bunch of their political and military leadership, including the Ayatollah himself, it's hard to know how that will play out, but it's possible. In which case, I would say we've achieved an adequate goal. But in the meantime, what we're seeing is really a lack of clarity in the part of the administration. I don't think they actually know that what they're up to, except the military is running a splendid campaign in coordination with the Israelis. This is remarkable. Thousands of sorties and we've only lost three aircraft that we know of and those that are friendly fire.

Ari Melber (16:34)

So we have, and I imagine you would relatedly say it's also been effective use of intelligence.

General Barry McCaffrey (16:42)

Oh, yeah, that's amazing. I mean, half the country of Iran isn't Persian. So the Israelis have penetrated them at will. It's astonishing what they got away with. And then our technical intelligence, as Ambassador Ross knows, is simply unbelievable for us to be able to identify three concentrations of senior leadership at hour one of the war. But again, I think there's a lot of thrashing around. This is a giant, sophisticated country, 90 million people, giant landmass, by and large, despised by all and feared by all of its neighbors, all of whom secretly are applauding this ongoing military operation. But I think the President's got a limited amount of time. So does the US Military. You know, we got a shortage of Thaad patriot missiles, Navy SM3s, Tomahawks. We gotta keep a deterrence effort going in the Pacific Rim against China and also in Europe. So I don't anticipate this is gonna be a long war, nor do I see anyone stupid enough to try and get US or Israeli forces on the ground to dominate the country. They're going to sort this out on our own.

Ari Melber (17:58)

Really. All important details for us as we. Again, the country's still making sense of the surprise attack from Saturday. I want to thank General McCaffrey, who was a big part of our coverage. And we'll be coming back to you. Ambassador Ross, I have some diplomacy to get to with you. In a moment, I'll tell folks that the MAGA base, the independents, a lot of folks are mad because Donald Trump has flatly, clearly broken one of his core vows, which is not starting wars like this. Senator Dick Durbin is here, a very pivotal member of Congress who's going to join us on some of these questions. This break is the shortest of the hour. I'll see you in 90 seconds.

LifeLock Representative (18:36)

LifeLock, how can I help?

Customer (18:38)

The IRS said I filed my return, but I haven't.

Ari Melber (18:40)

1 in 44 taxpaying Americans has paid the price of identity fraud.

Customer (18:44)

What do I do?

Ari Melber (18:45)

My refund, though. I'm freaking out. Don't worry. I can fix this. LifeLock fixes identity theft, guaranteed, and gets your money back with up to $3 million in coverage.

Customer (18:53)

I'm so relieved.

LifeLock Representative (18:54)

No problem.

Ari Melber (18:55)

I'll be with you every step of the way. One in four was a fraud. Paying American. Not anymore. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com Special offer terms apply. Why have I asked my electrician I

David Rothkopf (19:07)

found on Angie.com to bury my pet

Ari Melber (19:09)

hamster Nibbles in our yard for me? Because I was so moved by how carefully he buried my electrical wires, I knew I could trust him to bury my sweet Nibbles after his untimely end.

LifeLock Representative (19:19)

Huh?

Ari Melber (19:19)

Nibbles gone too soon. May he scurry in peace. Hey, sorry about your pet, but I just wire stuff. Nibbles would have loved you like a brother. 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

Customer (19:36)

when I need to impress someone with a gift, I go straight to 1-800-FLOWERS. There's a reason they've spent 50 years as the floral authority. Every stem is hand selected by a vetted florist and with same day delivery nationwide, 100% satisfaction guaranteed. That's why millions go to 1-800-flowers to celebrate life's most important moments. Order now for up to 40% off. Don't miss out on this limited time offer. Act now and save up to 40% at 1-800-flowers.com sxm that's 1-800-flowers. Com sxm.

Ari Melber (20:07)

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, six weeks. It could move up, it could move back. Secretary Hegseth today pushing back on questions about the timeline. We are back with longtime Middle east expert and diplomat Ambassador Dennis Ross. When you look at the diplomatic piece of this, which would involve some non war long term plan, how should we understand that in the history of US Dealings with Iran, there were periods where there was of course no talk. There was the Obama effort to have both diplomacy and it backed on the ground with inspection type dealings. And there is what we were just discussing, but only briefly with you in the general about, well, yeah, if you use enough force in the right way to change reality, you might then get a weakened opponent that adheres to diplomacy they otherwise would not. That's the best hawkish case. Can you speak to us about that in plain English with regard to where we've been with Iran? Because folks remember President Obama saying, yeah, if we can get to X, then we'll call that a good enough holding pattern.

LifeLock Representative (21:27)

I think the way you just described it is actually quite good. What the JP JCPOA was an agreement that bought you with the JCPOA were not that it bought you 15 years. The problem I had is I didn't see a strategy to take advantage of those 15 years. The 15 years bought you time to do something much more fundamental. The Iranians were not giving up the right to enrich. On the contrary, they were going to be enriching even more. After 15 years. There were no limits whatsoever on the scale or size of their program. There were no limits as to how much they could enrich. So what you really had to do was work out a JCPOA2 to build on that, to really shape differently their approach to the whole question of their nuclear enrichment, but also ensuring they couldn't have nuclear weapons. When President Trump says I want them to say we won't have nuclear weapons, it's easy for them to say they won't have nuclear weapons, the question becomes, what kind of a nuclear infrastructure are they permitted to have? And they're right to say zero enrichment is the best way to ensure that. If they're not able to create their own enrichment and when you enrich, you do one of two things with it. You can turn it into a fuel to power a nuclear reactor to create electricity, or you can turn it into a core of a bomb. The problem with independent enrichment is unless you have complete controls over this and unless you can ensure it's never enriched above a low level, anything above 20% is considered highly enriched uranium, then you run the risk that they can have a covert program. They could do something you wouldn't be aware of, and that's what you want to be able to rule out. Now, the question you're posing about where we are today, I don't know who we would negotiate with right now. I mean, is there someone in this regime who a can speak for the regime? Which is unclear. But if there is someone in the regime who can speak for the regime, could they feel, okay, the consequences of this war, if it continues, will threaten the regime? It is true. We can weaken them to the point where they become so weak that they really can't withstand, because maybe you see all sorts of defections within the besieged and the Revolutionary Guard to save themselves, to save the regime. If there's that sense that they are getting to the point where they're weak enough and you have someone who can speak for the regime and they say they pass a message. My view has been I can see Putin coming in because they have a relationship with him. He would want to show his relevance. And he also wants to show Trump how he can give him a way out and then have Trump reward him with his posture on Ukraine. I could see him coming in and saying, look, there's no way I can go to Trump unless you agree that you'll have zero enrichment. I'm ready to go to him, but you got to give me that. You got to give me that in my pocket. Now, if that happens, then you have a basis on which to deal with the nuclear program in perpetuate and to distill.

Ari Melber (24:35)

I'm only jumping in to distill it. Is it too much a simplification to say that this current Trump policy is risky to the point of reckless in the views of its critics, but there is a non zero chance that it lands with something that the Obama administration would have cheered, that other Western allies welcome, that it could eventually land with they're weak and scared. And you've got more people in those layers of leadership in Iran worried about their own survival than what was the goal of the prior thinking, which was to continue to be bellicose, both because it was part of their theocracy, but also because they viewed it as a position of strength.

LifeLock Representative (25:21)

Absolutely. Plus, Supreme Leader is gone. And emotionally, ideologically, he couldn't handle this. This would be too much of a capitulation. It would be too much of a defeat of the ideology. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't people in the regime who reflect that there are, but there may now be others who say, you know what, the whole, the whole hassle is going to come collapsing on us. What's different today than when President Obama was negotiating was the Iranians had some signs of weaknesses, for sure, but nothing like today. Internally, you go back from 2017 until today, almost on an annual basis, we have seen demonstrations, in protests after the Women Life Freedom, the killing of Mahsa Amini. After that, the whole social base of this regime was eroded because the strength of this regime politically lied in the countryside where they were socially religiously conservative. They've lost that. They had lost the urban areas already. Now they've lost.

Ari Melber (26:29)

So let me ask you one more because we benefit from your wisdom and I'm running out of time. What portion of that shift that you're describing and that that is a more weak Iran that might be plian for external goals unless you push it so hard that, you know, you cut the head off the snake and you have three snakes and it's the worst outcome, which is also possible. But what portion of that is for those internal reasons you're mentioning, including the, of course, the protests we've all seen. And what portion is what Israel has done post October 7, which is fight a different kind of regional war dealing with Iran's proxies and of course, the unrest in Syria. What part of it is the chessboard finally changing?

LifeLock Representative (27:08)

It's a combination of both. The question is exactly right. It's a combination of both. Because what feeds the disaffection on the inside, even within parts of the regime, is a sense that you had a strategy that completely failed. You invested huge amounts in a regional proxy network that completely was washed away. The Israelis basically dramatically weakened that proxy network to the point where, where have they been when Iran was being attacked? Nowhere. So a huge investment, which is funny.

Ari Melber (27:38)

And I'll let you. Then I'm going to really give you the last Word. Nothing's funny about it. It's all very serious with lives lost. But the old fear which was sometimes expressed by American doves was be careful. You rattle Iran and they unleash these other folks that are all over and like it or not, you have to deal with it. And it seems that that is less true today. Those terrorist groups.

LifeLock Representative (28:01)

Look, one of the realities is those, quote, American doves had the sense that you could never use military force for any favorable positive effect. And you basically had to find ways to accommodate the Iranians and their regional proxy network. That proved to be wrong. It proved that in fact, these were highly defeatable, not particularly effective in the end, lacking any real legitimacy where they were. And Iran, the sort of mothership of all this also was much weaker than was understood. This notion that you could never attack Iran directly because the sky would fall. Well, one of the things we found was that when they lost their sense of impunity, they also, we saw how weak they fundamentally.

Ari Melber (28:46)

That's really interesting. I'm over on time, but some people say you are one of those American doves. Even if you might be more hard headed about the details. I don't know if that's a fair assessment or not.

LifeLock Representative (28:58)

Well, look, do I believe that you use diplomacy?

Senator Dick Durbin (29:01)

Yes.

LifeLock Representative (29:02)

Do I believe you can use diplomacy to achieve objectives? Absolutely. But I always believe that diplomacy works best when you have real leverage and real leverage sometimes come with coercive backing. The idea that you can negotiate without leverage is an illusion.

Ari Melber (29:20)

Yeah. Okay. We went long for good reason. Ambassador Dennis Ross, a longtime peace negotiator and expert here in these tough times. That's why we call on you. Thank you. I'm gonna tell folks coming up we have a fact check on the shifting rationales. And Senator Durbin next. We are back with Senator Dick Durbin, senior Democrat, member of the Appropriations Committee. He's the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee. And in contrast to much of the Democratic Senate leadership at the time, he voted against the Iraq war. Welcome, Senator. Your view of the President's attack on Iran.

Senator Dick Durbin (30:01)

Ari, let me tell you, if the American people are bewildered as to what this is all about, they're in good company. It started off by saying we're going to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Well, I agreed with that years ago and still think that is proper. And then came the second explanation. No, it isn't about that. It's about ballistic missiles. They are developing ballistic missiles that threaten the United States. Then came the whole argument about whether or not we were going to do something to stop them from developing terrorism around the world, an imminent threat to the United States. Today, Secretary of State Rubio put in a fourth idea. And the fourth idea was we did it because Israel was going to attack anyway and we were going to be vulnerable after that attack. So we have all these rationales, and this president and his administration failing to come to Congress, as required by the Constitution, to clearly explain to the American people the reason for this war.

Ari Melber (30:59)

Yeah, I want to play some of your colleagues. Take a listen. I think the president has started a war of choice. There was no imminent threat to the United States. It posed no imminent threat of attack to the United States. He sought no authorization from Congress. All of the intelligence I've seen in 13 years on the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees tell me there was no imminent threat from Iran that justifies sending our sons and daughters into war. Many of you consisted. On this point, there doesn't even seem to be an assertion of an imminent threat by the Trump administration. But there are Trump allies who point to Obama's drone strikes and the basic drift of American power abroad. And they say, like other past presidents, including Democrats, he can do an air war. What do you say to that?

Senator Dick Durbin (31:59)

Well, I can tell you it will reach a point where an air war is not enough. Remember that in the explanations of why we went to war, one of them was regime change. They actually used that phrase. That phrase was politically lethal for a long period of time because it was regime change that dragged us into Iraq and made us stay there for year after year and lose all those American lives as military. So from my point of view, when it comes down to the imminent threat, there is no imminent threat from Iran. Are they bad actors? Yes. Do they need to be contained? Yes. But imminent threat to the United States to precipitate a war involving many other countries, I never saw it.

Ari Melber (32:40)

When you look at this opposition, what happens? What do you view the purpose and the likely outcome of the congressional vote?

Senator Dick Durbin (32:50)

Well, I can just tell you, look at the pattern of voting with the Republican majority and Trump administration. They never, ever, virtually never defy him on anything. They're scared to death of this president politically, and as a consequence, they not approval, no matter what he's done.

Ari Melber (33:08)

And my final question, less important, but does it matter that the president has not addressed the nation or done any of the normal effort to explain and presumably seek informed support for what is a potential war?

Senator Dick Durbin (33:28)

It's a dangerous thing for a president to start a war. It's easier to get into war than it is to get out. The president needs, and the military deserves public support for the risk that they're taking, the danger that they're facing because of the president's orders. And if the American public is bewildered as to why we're doing this, it's not a good start.

Ari Melber (33:49)

Senator Durbin at a busy time on the Hill. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. I want to tell folks what's coming up. We've talked a lot about national security, what's actually happening out there. Next, we turn to the broken promise. Donald Trump caught lying to the public, to his supporters, to his fundamental vow not to do exactly what he did on Saturday. And the war we are entering. That breakdown is next.

Customer (34:18)

Why have we asked our contractor we found on Angie.com to be our kid's legal guardian? Because he took such good care when redoing our basement that we knew we could trust him to care for our kids, all eight of them, should something happen to us.

Ari Melber (34:30)

Are you my dad now? No, sorry. I do basements. Connecting homeowners with skilled pros for over 30 years. Angie. The one you trust. Define the ones you trust. Find pros for all your home projects@angie.com

Customer (34:46)

when I need to impress someone with a gift, I go straight to 1-800-FLOWERS. There's a reason they've spent 50 years as the floral authority. Every stem is hand selected by a vetted florist and with same day delivery nationwide, 100% satisfaction guaranteed. That's why millions go to 1-800-flowers to celebrate life's most important moments. Order now for up to 40% off. Don't miss out on this limited time offer. Act now and save up to 40% at 1-800-flowers.com sxm. That's 1-800-flowers. Com sxm.

Ari Melber (35:16)

Looking for a little extra fun? Chumba Casino lets you play for free with daily login rewards and a cheeky little welcome bonus when you sign up. Explore hundreds of online social casino games and jump in whenever it works for you. No routines, no pressure, just entertainment on your terms. That's Chumba. No purchase necessary. VGW Group void. We're prohibited by log. See terms and conditions for details. 21/plus if truth can be one of the first casualties of war, this is a time, especially against an administration that has been caught lying a lot and uses propaganda, has been caught putting up false statements, videos, even at times, misleading AI. We want to make sure we touch on that dynamic. The truth and Donald Trump's long history of lies and deceit. In addition to the other War reporting we're doing tonight, President Trump attacking Iran is the opposite of what he claimed he would do. And while some people might say, well, these images are of course war and here we are and let's move into it, the American public has a right to understand about why we are waging the opposite of what Donald Trump claimed his foreign policy would be in the most recent election where he was elected and promised no forever wars, his campaign promises were against exactly this kind of war of choice in a complex region where America doesn't have an urgent U.S. interest. One report noting that no president in the modern era has ordered more military strikes against as many different countries as Trump. That's in this term alone. Did you know that? Axios noting as we get into this Iran war that Trump authorized more individual airstrikes last year than Biden did in four years, I want to show you tonight, Trump has now bombed seven countries in over a year. Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, of course, where like Iran, we were a part of an effort that removed the leader. Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. I'm going to leave this up on the screen for a moment. What you are looking at is unilateral, unbridled American war power under Donald Trump without the Congress. Whether any of these become his so called forever wars is a matter of risk, something not in our control. Because once you start taking out leaders and bombing different places, all sorts of things can happen. This is just in the beginning of the second term alone. The normally MAGA friendly Wall Street Journal notes. Trump spent years denouncing U.S. intervention. Now he's toppling foreign leaders.

David Rothkopf (38:03)

I will tell you, you're not going to have a war with me and you're not going to have a third world war with me.

Ari Melber (38:08)

I will also restore peace through strength

David Rothkopf (38:10)

and I will prevent World War III from happening. These globalists want to squander all of America's strength, blood and treasure, chasing monsters and phantoms overseas. Our current strategy of nation building and regime change is a proven absolute failure.

Ari Melber (38:31)

I'm not going to start a war.

David Rothkopf (38:32)

I'm going to stop wars.

General Barry McCaffrey (38:35)

False.

Ari Melber (38:36)

He is starting wars, risking wars, because there are some countries like Venezuela, that are in a position where they may or may not fight back. And he said regime change is the goal. He just urged the Iranian people to rise up and change their regime this weekend. Americans are now dying in this war. There are some who might say, oh, it seems quaint to hold a politician or this politician to his words, but that is exactly what we do. And sooner or later in American history We have seen even powerful at one time popular presidents, and this one isn't. We've seen people in those positions have it all burn up over the exact thing Donald Trump is doing, thinking that because we have the power and we have the nukes, we can, quote, get away with anything. Indeed, George W. Bush and LBJ found that what started with wide support ended with a kind of ignominity in history for their war failures. It is early days. We are seeing some objections on the right. It's bad. You know, it's really bad. I was promised that this wouldn't turn into a larger regional conflict. It's hard to believe it. It's hard to believe that at this point. It's like, why do we do this? Like, why are we helping?

General Barry McCaffrey (39:55)

I'm not happy about the whole thing. I don't think this was in America's interest.

David Rothkopf (39:59)

He was the no more Endless wars candidate in 2016 and 2024 particularly. And this looks like an open betrayal of the base.

Ari Melber (40:07)

We're back with foreign policy veteran David Rothkov. Your thoughts on this hypocrisy?

David Rothkopf (40:14)

Well, you've summed it up right. It's not no more wars. It's more wars than anyone else. He has launched attacks on seven different countries. Eight if you count the troops he's deployed in the United States. That's eight more countries than he's actually solved wars in. He claims he's the peacemaker president, but he's clearly not. It's the opposite of that in several of these wars are ongoing at the same time. Right now, he can't say he's against endless wars because from day one, practically, of entering this administration, he has been fighting wars. This administration thus far has been an endless war. And of course, it's alienating his base. But I would say to the base, stand by. Because for all the reasons that were described by your previous guests in the show, this is an incoherent war undertaken not by choice but by impulse. And we don't know what's going to happen next. What if the war means prices are

Senator Dick Durbin (41:14)

going to go up?

David Rothkopf (41:14)

What if the war means markets will be unstable? What if the war triggers terrorism around the world? What if the war means troops on the ground? What if the war means alienating more of our allies? There are a lot of ways that what we've seen in the past couple of days and throughout the past year could turn real bad for average Americans. And so that's when the anger or the brewing discontent that you talked about gets turned up a Lot of notches. And of course, it's an election year.

Ari Melber (41:51)

How does the US Factor this in? Because you want to have maximum Runway and leverage. Without a congressional authorization and public approval, that becomes a real world problem. Even if Trump would like to wish it away as an autocrat, there are those today speaking out, calling this quote disgusting and evil. That's not an aoc. That's a quote from longtime Fox host Tucker Carlson.

David Rothkopf (42:18)

Well, it's not often that I come on your show and agree with Tucker Carlson, but it is disgusting and it is evil, and indeed, it's illegal. It's contrary to the Constitution. There was no imminent threat. It's contrary to the interests of the American people. It's contrary to the interests of our allies. There are already hundreds of civilians who are dead. Many of our friends in the region are hunkering down and in trouble. It is clearly a war that was fought in defense, not of the United States, but perhaps of Bibi Netanyahu. And as far as disgusting goes, look, you know the movie Wag the Dog from 1997, a movie that talks about a fictional president choosing to have a war to distract from domestic problems. I think a lot of people think, and I think for good reason, that Trump is trying to change the subject with this war, away from Epstein, away from plummeting poll ratings. And changing the subject is one thing. Changing the subject by upsetting the entire Middle east, putting world peace at risk, putting hundreds of lives at risk. We're already, I believe six members of our military are already dead as a consequence. That is disgusting.

Ari Melber (43:46)

David Rothkopf speaking clearly. Thank you very much. After the break, we turn to tomorrow's election and where Rachel will be next. In U.S. news, the first primary elections of the midterm year are tomorrow in Texas, North Carolina and Arkansas. Voters talking to our reporters in the field,

David Rothkopf (44:13)

do you feel safer than you

General Barry McCaffrey (44:15)

did a week ago? No, absolutely not. I feel more endangered than ever.

Ari Melber (44:19)

Why do you think President Trump is doing this?

David Rothkopf (44:23)

Because he can. Nobody's stopping him. Nobody's doing anything about it.

Senator Dick Durbin (44:30)

He.

David Rothkopf (44:30)

I mean, he didn't get Congress's approval, but nobody's stopping it.

General Barry McCaffrey (44:34)

It's a good thing that we have

Ari Melber (44:36)

the power and ability to kind of

LifeLock Representative (44:37)

spread peace through war.

Ari Melber (44:39)

I think that we are the laughingstock of the rest of the world. Foreign policy immediately becoming a big domestic question. Rachel Maddow leads our team coverage of these primaries. We'll all be there together. Watch the beat tomorrow at 6 and keep it locked because the special coverage begins at 7pm Eastern. And will take us through the night.

David Rothkopf (45:02)

Why have I asked my electrician I

Ari Melber (45:04)

found on Angie.com to bury my pet hamster? I was so moved by how carefully he buried my electrical wires, I knew I could trust him to bury my sweet nibbles after his untimely end. This is very strange, Angie. The one you trust to find the ones you trust. Find pros for all your home projects@angie.com.