This Sunday, striking Iran. President Trump says Iran's Supreme Leader is dead and a large amount of Iranian leadership has been killed. After the U.S. and Israel launch major combat operations targeting the regime.
Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished take over your government, it will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations. This is a lot of choice by the United States.
Is this the beginning of a wider war? The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost and we may have casualties that often happens in war. My guest this morning, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, and Democratic Congressman Rokana of California, joining me for insight and analysis are NBC News National Security Editor Carol Lee, Jonathan Martin of Politico, former Homeland Security Secretary Jay Johnson, and Stephen Hayes, editor of The Dispatch. Welcome to Sunday, It's Meet the Press.
From NBC News in Washington, the longest running show in television history, this is Meet the Press, the Kristen Welcome. Good Sunday morning. The world is on alert with the United States together with Israel launching a war with Iran, with airstrikes across the country starting Saturday and continuing into Sunday morning, targeting military and nuclear sites, killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Kamani. And as President Trump told me on a phone call Saturday, a large amount of leadership in Iran was also killed in the attacks.
This morning, Israel says at least 40 military commanders were killed. Iran responding across the region, hitting a high rise in Bahrain, a strike against an iconic hotel in Dubai, civilians running from an incoming missile and cutter, all home to U.S. military bases. And this morning a new warning for Iran.
President Trump posting that if Iran strikes back today, quote, we will hit them with a force that has never been seen before. And joining me now is Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Senator Graham, welcome back to Meet the Press. Thank you.
Thank you for having me on such a historic day. Thank you for being here on an historic morning. Senator, let me start with the big question, is the United States at war with Iran? I think the eye told would say, yeah.
I don't know if this is technically a war, but we're here's what I can say the headline is for me Sunday. The mothership of terrorism is sinking. The captain is dead. The largest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, is close to collapsing.
The leader of the largest state sponsor of terrorism in his inner team or dead. The mothership that fuels the proxies is in is in sinking mode. The goal of this operation is to change the threat, not the regime. When this operation is over, no matter who takes over in Iran, they will not have ballistic missiles to hurt us, Israel or the region.
They will not have the capability to be the largest state sponsor of terrorism, whether it's a cleric or a group of representative of the country where there's an election. It doesn't matter right now. Iran in the future will no longer be the largest state sponsor of terrorism. They cannot reign terror on the region.
They cannot commit mass murder. That's the goal of this operation. Again, the mothership of terrorism is sinking. The captain is dead.
Well done, President Trump has been the policy of this country for decades to eliminate this regime. President Trump did it. Admiral Cooper came up with the military plan. This unbelievable.
We're not done yet. But when when it is done, Iran will no longer be capable of being the largest state sponsor of terrorism. That is the goal and that goal will be achieved. Senator, let me ask you because as you are saying, the leader, the Ayatollah Supreme Leader is dead.
Will the United States pick the next leader of Iran or will the Iranian people pick the next leader? No. I talked to the ground prince. He's got some ideas about transition.
There will be no American boots on the ground. This is not Iraq. This is not Germany. This is not Japan.
We're going to free the people up from the terrorist regime. And the goal is not only to help the Iranian people to chart a new destiny, but make sure no matter who takes over in Iran, no matter who it is, no matter who the people pick, they cannot become the largest state sponsor of terrorism. They can't fuel Hezbollah, the hoodies and Hamas. They can't have ballistic missiles.
They can't have a nuclear weapon. They will be out of the terrorism business. So the people will pick as to the people, choose wisely. We want to be your friend.
We'd like to have a good relationship with you going forward, but that is up to you. Now, what am I going to do next? When this regime can no longer threaten the region, I'm going to build on what I did with President Biden to try to get Saudi Arabia and Israel to normalize. If the fall of this regime would lead to normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel, the center of gravity for Islam is Saudi Arabia, the one and only Jewish state.
If they could make peace and have a normal relationship, because this regime failed, it would be historic. Taking the regime down is a big deal. Normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel is a historic deal. That's where I'm going to spend my time in energy to President Trump.
You did something everybody talked about. You took Maduro down. Everybody talked about it. You did it.
You took the Ayatollah down. Again, the goal of this operation is to make sure there will never be an Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism to reign havoc on us in the region. That's the goal. I hope the people will choose wisely.
Senator, history tells us just how complicated regime chain is. We saw that when Saddam Hussein was ousted in a terror threat and group moved in. How will the United States make sure that the next Iranian government isn't worse than the current regime? It's not our job to pick the next Iranian government.
I don't remember being attacked by Iraq any time in the past. Iraq is complicated, but we have a relationship with Iraq. It's up to Iran to pick your leader. It's not my job.
It's not President Trump's job. We're not going to occupy the country. We're going to give the people of Iran a chance to do something they've ever had before, chart their own destiny. We're going to take away from any future regime the ability, any future government, the ability to have a ballistic missile program, a nuclear program, or support terrorism.
That's what we're going to do. And if out of this comes a new government that we can do business with, great. But having Iran no longer the state sponsor of terrorism opens up historic opportunities. It's the one irritant in the region.
It's the one impediment to real peace. We'll never get to where we want to go as long as Iran is the state, largest state sponsor of terrorism. And I'm here to tell you, the largest state sponsor of terrorism, the mothership of terrorism, is sinking and the captain is dead. And a lot of good things are going to follow.
Senator, let's talk about the strategy moving forward in a social media post Sunday. President Trump wrote this quote, hopefully the IRGC and police will peacefully merge with the Iranian Patriots and work together as a unit to bring back the country to the greatness it deserves. Is hope the plan for the future of Iran? No, the future of Iran is going to be determined by the Iranian people.
The new Iran, whatever it is, for this a cleric or a representative democracy, our goal is to make sure it cannot become again the largest state sponsor of terrorism. That's a win for us. Is there a plan to make sure that happens, Senator? Is there a plan?
Does the president have a plan to guarantee that that happens? No, it's not his job or my job to do this. How many times I have to tell you, our job is to make sure Iran is no longer the largest state sponsor of terrorism to help the people reconstruct a new government, no boots on the ground. We don't own, you know, this idea, you break it, you own it.
I don't buy that one bit. It's an America's interest to make sure the Ayatollah is dead. He's dead. It's an America's interest to make sure that Iran can no longer be the largest state sponsor of terrorism.
We're close. Once the people decide what they want to do next, I don't mind helping them. But I know what they're not going to be allowed to do next, regenerate the largest state sponsor of terrorism. I'm going to focus on having Iran off the map as the largest state sponsor of terrorism and see if we can build a new new mid-east.
All right. We've got a lot more to get to. President Trump said the objective is, quote, to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime. What specifically were the imminent threats that justified this operation, Senator?
They were building ballistic missiles that could eventually reach the United States. They have been trying for decades to build a nuclear weapon. They did not hammer work, but they were right back at it. The Ayatollah is a religious Nazi.
His regime was founded around three principles to purify Islam, to dominate Islam, to take over Islam, to do away with Saudi Arabia as the center of gravity for Islam and let it be Iran, to kill the Jews, to annihilate the Jewish state and come after us, drive us out of the region. That's what he said. He can't do that anymore because he's dead. And anybody who wants to do that in the future, you got to be dead too.
So the point is the Iranian threat to the United States, to ballistic missiles, to a nuclear program, the proxies have killed a lot of Americans. Hezbollah has American blood on its hands, so does Hamas. None of that is going to be able to happen again. They were threats to us.
President Donald J. Trump, you eliminated one of the largest threats in the United States by taking this regime down. We're not there yet, but we're close. And when this regime goes down, I'm going to work my ass off with Democrats to build on what Biden tried to do, get Saudi Arabia to recognize Israel, which would be the biggest change in a thousand years.
And we can't do it until the terrorist regime in Iran is replaced and we're very, very close. Senator, let me ask you because the President's opposition to regime change and work, quite frankly, was central to what he described as his America First Agenda. On Saturday, former Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote this, quote, we said, no more foreign wars, no more regime change. We set it on rally stage after rally stage, speech after speech.
Trump bans basically the entire administration campaigned on it and promised to put America first and make America great again. Did the promise, did the President strikes on Iran go against everything that he promised the American people, Senator? Quite the opposite. He promised to keep us safe, to stand up to people who would hurt America.
She's a former congressman for a reason. What is it? America First is the following, make sure that no regime who wishes to hurt America can, to make sure that they don't have a ballistic missile capability to attack our country. They have American blood on their hands.
We destroyed their missile program, the nuclear program, they were coming right back at it. America First is not isolationism. America First is not hit in the sand. America First is not to get entangled.
We're not going to have any boots on the ground in Iran. But America First is to kill people who wish us ill with a record of trying to destroy us in the region, to take them off the table. Celebrate today, please, my Democratic colleagues, that the most evil man on the planet is no more. He terrorized his own people, 32,000 people at least at Minkhill protesting a better life.
He was trying to get a nuclear weapon. He was building missiles to hit the United States. He was a religious Nazi that had a horrible agenda for the region in the world. He has no more.
Well done, President Trump. Well done to your team. This is something to celebrate. Senator, let me follow up with you on this point because on Friday Vice President Vance says there's quote, no chance of a long conflict in Iran, but President Trump said a drawn out war is quote, always a risk.
So which is it? Could Iran in fact become another forever war, Senator? Give me a break. We're going to beat Iran.
The Arabs are now joined with us. When the Iranians attacked their Arab neighbors, they made a fatal mistake. We're going to have Arab countries use military force to take this regime down. The Arab world is living for the day that Iran is no more.
The Iranian regime has terrorized the region. They killed Americans. They terrorized the entire region. You're going to see Arabs join the fight.
So this is a historic moment where the Arab world and the United States have joined together to take down the largest state sponsor of terrorism, a truly evil man, a religious Nazi who no longer can reign terror on his people or the world. You know, when Obama took bin Laden out, I clapped like a seal. I gave him credit. It was a great thing to do.
It was the right thing to do. This is the right thing to do. We negotiated with these people over and over again. They were not interested in giving up their nuclear program because they're religious Nazis.
They have a religious agenda. I don't think everybody in Iran is a religious Nazi. Let me get this final question in because it's an important one. As a member of the House, you voted to give former President George W.
Bush approval to go to war with Iraq back in 2002. Does Congress now need to vote to approve this war with Iran? No, I have no desire. I think the War Powers Act is not constitutional.
What are we doing here? What's the difference? You voted to give George Bush authorization to go to war with because he came and asked. He came and asked.
They wanted the authority. No, that's what I'm trying to tell you. This is a military operation designed to eliminate threats that have existed against our country. What are the threats?
Ballistic missile programs that were getting bigger, not smaller, an effort to re-establish a nuclear program that could threaten us in the region, an effort to keep the proxy network alive that has American blood on its hands. He was justified doing this. Every president before him talked about doing it, he actually did it. He has the legal authority to do it.
And these operations will continue until the threat is no longer there. The new Iran will not be allowed to threaten America. It will not be allowed to be the largest state sponsored terrorism ever again. And that opens up historic opportunities.
All right, Senator Lindsey Graham, thank you for starting us off this morning. We really appreciate it. Thank you. When we come back, Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona joins me next.
Welcome back and joining me now is Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona. Senator Kelly, welcome back to meet the press. Thank you for having me on, Kristin. Thank you.
It is a monumental Sunday. Thank you for being on, Senator Kelly. We really appreciate it. Let me start with what you just heard from Senator Lindsey Graham.
You heard him argue the world is now safer because the Supreme Leader of Iran is dead. Do you agree with him? Is the world now safer, Senator? Well, I agree with that part.
I mean, it's a good thing that the Supreme Leader is gone and some of the folks around him. And I have to give a shout out to the young men and women of the U.S. military who, you know, by their skill and, you know, focus on the mission and determination and patriotism, we're able to conduct this operation. So that part's a good thing.
But what I also heard from Lindsey and we saw in the President's tweet earlier today is they're talking about hope. You know, the President said, hopefully Lindsey, a number of times, said, we hope. Hope is not a strategy. We got to have a plan here.
I mean, what is the, what is the strategic goal and how do we achieve it? And my job here in the United States Senate is to make sure that this administration, you know, has a plan and doesn't put Americans, especially U.S. service members at further risk. Well, and you, of course, flew combat missions during the Gulf War.
Broadly speaking, do you support this military operation? Well, I want to see a strategy. And I mean, broadly, no. Again, comedy being dead is a good thing.
But what is this about? I mean, the President said the Iranian nuclear capability was obliterated last summer. And so is this about that? Or is it about ballistic missiles?
Lindsey talked about ballistic missiles being able to range the United States, you know, reach the continental United States. They don't have that capability now. He was not implying that. But they're trying to achieve it, which is true.
But that's going to take a long time. So what was the imminent threat? Or is this about, you know, getting rid of the entire regime, which is really challenging? There's not an armed opposition in Iran.
My concern here, you know, going forward is what happens now. We saw in Iraq that in 2006, Saddam Hussein was finally killed. And then over more than a decade, we lost 1,500 Americans. I don't want to see a wide conflict in the Middle East.
Well, Senator Lindsey Graham says it is possible to carry out this military operation without putting U.S. boots on the ground. The President has said that. Do you accept that?
Do you think it is possible to continue with this military operation without putting U.S. boots on the ground, Senator? That is incredibly challenging. I mean, for somebody, you know, myself, I've, you know, used air power in defense of this country after 39 combat missions, we could take out targets.
You could destroy a building. You could even, you know, based on what happened, you know, previously, you could this summer, you know, you can even hit underground targets but eliminating things and fully taking out a capability is really challenging without putting people there on the ground. Well, you know, let me ask you, because you think about how long this military operation might be. President Trump effectively said, look, it's going to last at least the week ahead of the strikes.
Vice President J.D. Vance said, quote, there is no chance the U.S. will be drawn into a prolonged war with Iran. Do you accept that or do you think it's possible that this could become a prolonged military engagement, Senator?
Well, absolutely it could be. And that's the concern here. And that's why we need to get back in Washington and have a discussion with the White House on this and have a vote. Hey, you got the president and the vice president saying things that are 180 degrees out, right?
In one hand, not going to be prolonged, the other it could be a drawn out conflict. Which one is it? And what is your plan going forward? And by the way, Kristen, I mean, if the Iranians decide to shut down the straits of poor moves, what is the plan there?
Because you're going to put a huge number of service members at risk. And on the other side, if you don't do something about it, we could wind up with significant economic hit to the worldwide economy. So these are complicated scenarios and complicated decisions. And I think this administration, my sense is that they did not go into this with any kind of strategic plan.
It was an operation with no discussion about what comes next. Let me ask you speaking of the plan and the reaction from Capitol Hill. This is what Democratic Senator Jackie Rosen had to say about the strikes on Saturday. I'm going to read it to you, get your reaction on the other side.
She says Iran can never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. Ron's support for ballistic missiles and terrorist proxies are some of the leading national security threats to the U.S., Israel, and the region. Now, she does believe Congress should authorize any military action. But do you agree with her central point, which is that Iran's military program and nuclear program did, in fact, pose a threat to the United States?
It has posed a threat. And we can't allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. But you got to remember, this president tore up the Iran deal in his first administration. And they were not close to what we call breakout capability with the enrichment of uranium.
They weren't that close to getting a weapon. After that was torn up, they went further. There was some damage done this past summer. It wasn't obliterated.
We have a lot of information about where their programs are. This week, Iran was not an imminent threat to the homeland. Again, I'm going to reiterate, comedy being dead is a very positive thing for the region. But we have a lot of service members.
There are a lot of equities. We've got embassies all over the place. They have a large terrorist network. They've got the Houthis and Hamas that are in the region, Hezbollah.
There are options that the Iranian regime, whoever comes next, has to target U.S. citizens. Two more quick, critical questions for you. If there is a war powers vote, Senator, will you be a yes?
Well, I'm going to have to take a close look at it. I want to hear from the White House with their strategy is going forward. I would say at this point, it's rather unlikely that it would be. They went into this without any discussion with us ahead of time.
And by the way, why on Tuesday, during the State of the Union, didn't the president make a case to the American people on why he is going to conduct an attack on Iran? And then just finally, Secretary Haggseth has had you in his cross-airs. He's targeted you and other lawmakers. He tried to downgrade your military ranking.
That was blocked by a judge. Do you have confidence in Pete Haggseth's leadership to lead this war? Well, I didn't vote for him. And I've had previously said and I maintain that he's the least qualified Secretary of Defense we've ever had in our country's history.
So no, I don't think he is the person to be leading this, but he is who Donald Trump shows that he's Secretary of Defense. So he's in less, he's fired. He's going to remain in that job. So yeah, sure that concerns me.
All right. Senator Mark Kelly, thank you so much for being here today. We really appreciate it. Thank you.
When we come back, Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna joins me next. Welcome back and joining me now is Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California, Congressman Khanna. Welcome back to me, the press. Thank you for having me on today.
Thank you so much for being here. Let me start off with this critical question. You heard what Senator Lindsey Graham had to say. The world is in fact safer.
Now that the Supreme Leader is on, you heard Senator Kelly agree with that part of his assessment. Do you agree? Senator Graham now has become the face of Republican foreign policy. He's been consistent, but he's been consistently wrong.
Let me say this. Commandee was a brutal dictator, but Americans are not safer today. Look, Senator Graham cheerled us into the Iraq war. He cheerled us into the effort with Libya.
And Trump ran against him in 2016. He said regime chains, wars are absolute, absolute failures. And that has escaped Donald Trump. And now you have a situation in Iran where the IRGC is still in power.
The assembly of experts are going to pick the new leader. By the way, they were picking the new leader before we killed Ayatollah. The Ayatollah was 86 and the question is, is the country going to descend in civil war? Are billions of her dollars going to be spent there?
Are American troops going to be at risk? And Senator Graham arguing that the IRGC is at war with the U.S. Democratic leaders are obviously you are cosponsoring a bill with Congressman Massey to force a vote on the war powers resolution. Congressman, do you think you have enough votes for this to pass?
It's going to be very close, but I believe we will have every Democrat. I can't believe that there's going to be a Democrat who wants to vote for another war in the Middle East. And then you have not just Congressman Massey, you have Congressman Davidson, Congressman Biggs. There are a number of people on the Republican side who agree with Marjorie Taylor Greene.
You know, Donald Trump said that the Iraq war was a disaster. He said Libya was a disaster. He ran because a big part of the MAGA base did not want another war in the Middle East. They rejected Lindsey Graham.
And yet here we have Lindsey Graham being the face of Republican for policy as is evidenced by the fact that he was your lead guest. I mean, I believe this is a betrayal of a decent chunk of the MAGA base. But you believe that you ultimately can eke out enough votes for the War Powers resolution, which would require the White House to go to Congress for more military action in Iran? You think you can get this passed?
It depends if we can keep several Democrats in line. Josh Gottheimer, Congressman, Congressman Markowitz, folks who have been on the fence. But I believe that this is a disastrous vote for any Democrat to vote for Donald Trump's war in the Middle East. So I hope we will hold the line.
And then, like I said, there are a few Republicans who share Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tucker Carlson and others, Rand Paul's view. And we've got to make the case of them. It'll be a close vote. Right now, it's at 40-60 to pass, but we've got a few days to work on it.
Some House Democrats, as you know, have actually already come out against this resolution in the aftermath of the strikes. Here's what Democratic Congressman, you just mentioned him. Greg Lansman said, I don't support the resolution, which would require us to completely abandon our allies. The strikes are in attempt to prevent further war, not start one.
Does he have a point, Congressman? Just look at it with common sense. I mean, Lindsey Graham said we're at war. Of course, the we're at war where they're on.
We kill their leader. We have over 100 of our fighter jets bombing them. The point of this resolution is to say, we do not want another war in the Middle East or at least Congress should opine on that, should vote on that. And if you're not voting for this war powers resolution, you basically have Lindsey Graham's view, which is that the president gets to decide wars.
I admire this part about Lindsey Graham. He's at least intellectually consistent. He doesn't believe in the war powers. He believes the president has authority to go into war.
He has cheer led for the war in Iraq, for the war in Libya, for 20 years in Afghanistan. And he's basically, that's his viewpoint. So either you are on the side of no more Middle East wars or you're on the side of Lindsey Graham. That's what this vote is about.
Congressman, what would a war powers resolution do at this point to limit the administration, given that they've already launched this military offensive? Well, that's exactly when the war powers resolution is supposed to kick in. If the president launches an attack, the Congress can say, no, you need to stop unless you have Congress's authority. It actually should be an easy vote now.
It would be a harder vote if the president hadn't taken action because people could say he's just bluffing, he's building up support so that we can get a deal. But now that he's taken action, this is exactly when you need the war powers resolution. If we pass it in the House and the Senate, it would be an enormous message to the president. And of course, if it passes and he signs it, it would restrict his action.
Let me talk about one of the big headlines before this strikes against Iran this week, the fallout over the Epstein files. As you well know, former president Bill Clinton testified before the House Oversight Committee behind closed doors saying, quote, he had no idea of the crimes that Epstein was committing. Do you have any outstanding questions for president Bill Clinton about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, Congressman? When the transcript comes out, I think people will see that he answered every question.
I actually think they'll see that some of the Democrats asked him tougher questions than even the Republicans. And he sat there. He didn't take the fifth. He answered every question fully.
And the American people will be able to decide on what they believe. The point, though, is that President Clinton has set a precedent, a new Clinton rule. That means that Donald Trump should do the same, answer the question, Howard Luttnick should do the same. I'm working with the Republican actually to subpoena Howard Luttnick next week.
And I believe he will come before the committee. And every person who went to that island or who corresponded with Epstein about going to his mansion should be called under oath to tell us what they knew. So you're going to subpoena Howard Luttnick. Do you plan to subpoena President Trump and do you believe you have the votes to subpoena President Trump to testify before the committee?
We have the votes to subpoena Luttnick. I don't believe we have the votes right now to subpoena President Trump because the Republicans control the House. And I don't think they would vote with us on that. But when Robert Garcia is chair of the oversight committee, we will have those votes.
And the Clinton rule means that Donald Trump and his family members should testify. By the way, he should do it voluntarily. I mean, he should look at what President Clinton did. He answered every question.
Why can't Donald Trump do the same? There's this question of these three FBI interviews. There's someone who made allegations against Donald Trump that she was actually abused as a minor. I want to be very clear.
There's no evidence whether that's true or not, but they were allegations made. One of those witness interviews was released. Three of them are hidden by the Justice Department. Why are they hidden?
When will they be released? These are the types of questions Donald Trump needs to answer. All right, Congressman Rokana, thank you very much for being here today. We really appreciate it.
Thank you. And when we come back, Richard Engel with a live report from the Middle East next. Welcome back and joining me now is NBC News Chief Foreign correspondent Richard Engel in Beit, Jenish Israel. Richard, you're the site of an Iranian missile strike.
We can see some of the damage behind you. Tell us what you're learning this morning. So the attack took place here a short while ago. This was a single ballistic missile according to an Israeli official.
And at least nine people were killed here. They are still looking through this site, trying to secure the area. There was so much damage. They do not they do not know if the victims were men, women or children, the bodies were that disfigured.
This is just one of the ballistic missiles that managed to get through the Israeli and American air defense system. But that does not mean that this war is is slowing down from Israel's perspective. In fact, the Israeli defense minister just announced a short while ago that Israel has achieved what is describing as air superiority over Iran, meaning that Israeli jets, personally American jets as well, can stay over Tehran, that they feel safe in the air and can conduct attacks at a time and place of their choosing. And mostly what Israel is firing on right now are Iranian missile systems and Iranian leaders, but specifically they want to stop the incoming strikes so that there aren't more scenes like this.
According to Israeli officials, they have been able to kill about 40 senior Iranian leaders in addition to the Supreme Leader himself. And Richard, tell us about the strike in Tel Aviv. You've been tracking that as well. So this strike happened.
It was a direct hit on a house just a few hours ago. The strike in Tel Aviv happened last night around 10 o'clock local time is very close to where we were at the time. We watched this this incoming ballistic missile managed to get through the Israeli defensive network and slammed right into an apartment building. At least one woman was killed there.
But when I spoke to people on the scene, like I'm speaking to people here, they still support this effort. They say that they want Israeli United States to do more to stop Iran and topple the regime. All right, Richard Engel, please stay safe. Thank you for your incredible reporting.
We really appreciate it. When we come back, what will the Iran war mean for politics here at home? The panel is next. Welcome back.
The panel is here. Carol Lee, NBC News, national security editor, politics bureau chief and senior political columnist for Politico, Jonathan Martin, Jay Johnson, former Homeland Security secretary, under former president Obama, and Stephen Hayes, editor and CEO of the dispatch. Welcome to all of you. Carol, let me start with you.
This is the biggest foreign policy decision that president Trump has made in both administrations, quite frankly, you have new reporting about what brought him to this decision. What do you know? Well, first we'll step back. There was months of deliberations, intelligence gathering, military planning, going through the different options and testing diplomatic negotiations.
There's questions about whether that was serious on either side. But after saying on Thursday, they just held a round of negotiations on Thursday coming out of that it was positive. There were good vibes coming out of that now, administration officials are saying, hey, those talks actually were a disaster. And that confirmed for the president that it was time to take military action.
The president's team are also saying that there was this imminent threat. They're saying that there were concerns that Iran would hit the US first or US interests in the region first. And there's real pressure on the president who heard that from Senator Kelly to explain what he means by that. Because in the run up to this, that he did not lay out a case to the American people for war with Iran, what that would mean, what it could mean for Americans.
The first time we heard the president say that US troops could die as a result of this decision was when the bombs were falling. It was not even during the State of the Union, which he addressed, which he had just given several days earlier. So there are real questions about the justification for this, how long it will go on. And what happens next?
Jim, Art Carroll lays out all of the critical questions, this idea about what exactly was the imminent threat you heard me try to push Senator Graham on that. And what's the strategy moving forward? I'm not sure that's been laid out. Does the president need to make his case as Carroll said?
Does he need to go before the American people and explain exactly what the plan is here? Well, last time we had a major war in the Middle East, President Bush did that. There was a public campaign. There was obviously a vote in the Congress for authorization.
There was none of that this time. I think that's vital if this war does spiral. If you don't have the buy-in up front from the American people for the why, it creates profound political challenges down the road. If this becomes a protracted war, of course, that's the big F.
A couple of things. First, there has been this long tension question, as you know, between the hawks and the doves within Donald Trump's orbit. Well, guess what? Lindsey Graham and the hawks won.
And they won big. This has been the prize for years taking down the Ayatollah. Secondly, it's important to remember what drives Donald Trump. He craves a big legacy.
He wants to be a historic consequential figure. He wanted to do that through the Nobel Committee. Didn't go so well. He thought he could end all these wars around the world.
And he'd be recognized. It didn't happen. So now he's taking the hawks approach, going into Venezuela, going into Iran. And he's obviously looking for a legacy that way.
The challenge is this is very different from Venezuela. It's a larger country, a more religious element, obviously there. And you can't just install somebody from the old regime who will say, we'll do a deal on the oil and just move on. Or say, oh, you have a Nobel Peace Prize winner in the wings.
We can have a free and fair election next month. This is a different country in a different region. Yeah, Stephen, pick up on that point. And the fact that we heard from Senator Lindsey Graham, this isn't as much about regime changes.
It is about changing the threat, which was a new line on it. Very interesting argument from Lindsey Graham, presumably he's coordinated with the White House on this. And you know, I think this is part of the president's efforts to get away from this idea of regime change. I think it's very, very difficult for President Trump to make a case for sort of the Venezuela model here.
And there won't be regime change, but we're changing the nature of the threat. I think he's likely to have Republican support. When you look back at where we were a decade ago, when you had the Obama administration sending pilots of cash, you had John Kerry lobbying Western nations to do business with the leading state sponsor of terror, Republicans are thrilled that that's over. A lot of people are thrilled that that's over.
And that the eye told is gone. Having said that, when you look at what President Trump has said, the lack of case that was made, the lack of strategy that he's laid out, when he says things like he said in his truth social post, that he hopes that the IRGC, which is the terrorist arm of the Iranian regime, will quote, peacefully merge with the Iranian people, suggests a level of naivety that should have people worry. Secretary Johnson, the root of this question, was this legal way in on that argument that is now going to be raging on Capitol Hill? Right.
So I'll tell you how the state of the law is and not which should be. What we did was an act of war, plain and simple. I'm quite sure that Lindsey Graham and others would say, if a foreign government launched airstrikes on our nation's Capitol and took off the U.S. government leadership, we'd say it was an act of war without a doubt.
Article one, Section 8 of the Constitution assigns to Congress the authority to declare war. That basically is now a nullity. The War Powers Resolution is close to being a nullity. What's happened over multiple administrations is the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, which is like the Supreme Court of the executive branch, has issued opinions that say the president can deploy the U.S.
military into hostilities anytime it's in the important national interest. So long as it doesn't rise to a war in nature's scope and duration, that is virtually a limitless test. No court, no lawyer is going to second guess what the president says is in the national interest. Congress may buy a majority vote, an act to push through a resolution under the War Powers Resolution saying that he needs to stop in Iran.
In order for that to have any legal effect, it has to be attended to the president for a signature. If he vetoes it, I seriously doubt there will be a two thirds vote in Congress to override. So that's that's the state of the law right now. And the court of public opinion, Jonathan Martin, is going to weigh in because primaries get underway in earnest and Tuesday in two, three critical states were looking closely at Texas in North Carolina where this is going to loom over what voters decide.
And look, the last time that we had a major midterm that was held against the backdrop of of America at war, of course, was 2002. Very different than the exact aftermath of the U.S. homeland being attacked on 9-11. This is clearly a war of choice and what the war prosecuting offensively oversees.
Look, I think the Democratic base was already galvanized against President Trump, and I think this is only going to inflame them further. The question I have on the Republican side is if this war does become a matter of weeks and months and Iran becomes messier than the Venezuela, does that create fissures? You said MTG's quote earlier. Does it create fissures among the Republican base, the MAGA base in which they were already having trouble jing up turnout with Trump not on the ballot?
Boy, does it get harder if you've got 25, 30% of the MAGA crowd? The more isolationist Rand Paul crowd that is unhappy and they're staying at home. That could really deepen the challenge that the GOP has this fall. Carol, what about that?
And does the White House have a strategy heading into the midterms to address what could be those fissures? Well, I think it depends. A lot of this depends just on how it plays out. I think that we're very with what on day two of this.
And so we just, from their perspective, ideally, the best case scenario, this reshapes the Middle East, worst case or from their perspective, apps in that, this effort would degrade Iran's ability to do harm in the region and to the US. Now, the problem is there's a lot of risk, a lot of uncertainty, Iran retaliated very quickly and broadly in the region. You have protesters who are trying to storm US embassies and Pakistan and Iraq. You have US law enforcement here who are worried about potential threats that could come.
And so all of those things have to continue to play out and it really, it may remain to be seen what exactly is going to happen in the coming days a week. Stephen, that speaks to the, this divide and the MAGA base and part of what Morgan Taylor Greene was arguing that that's why she says President Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance campaigned against regime change because of the messiness, because of the uncertainty that Carol lays out. Yeah, I think what you would hear from the White House is the president said he was always been put in national interest first.
This is international interest to keep the, to defang the world's greatest state sponsor of terror. And that's what he's doing. He does, I mean, I think it's hard for us to imagine a president who spent three minutes of his hour and 47 minutes at the union who within 12 hours of the strikes was talking about off ramps, sending boots on the ground in Iran. So I think they will say this is going to be a limited engagement.
The real question is, I was like, can you do it? Can you Secretary Johnson, if you're in the situation room, what's your advice to take one of those off ramps? That's the goal. I would.
It seems to me that once a decade or once a generation, we have to relearn the mistakes of history. Saying to the 93 million people in Iran, okay, I decapitated your leadership, take your country back. Sounds an awful lot to me like we will be greeted as liberators. That was the prediction in Iraq.
I worry about the public mood now in Iran, now that the so-called Great Satan has taken out their Supreme Leader, who was Supreme Leader since 1989. What will be the public mood there? Or is it going to be chaos? Lindsay said he rejects the pottery barn analogy, but where's the opposition?
Who's going to put this country back together again? I also worry and I'm interested to know, should we be on any type of heightened threat alert here in the homeland, the department that is responsible for telling us that is defunded right now? Well, this is an important point actually, is the DHS right now. And I think the Republicans in Congress who have very little faith in they see an opportunity here that we are now at risk potentially, and you have to get something more serious there at the department and for the department at the same time.
Yeah, I thought that pottery barn reference was fascinating. Guys, great conversation. Thank you so much. Before we go, we here at Meet the Press want to take a moment to acknowledge our dear friend and colleague Savannah Guthrie and the entire Guthrie family.
It has now been one month since their beloved mother Nancy Guthrie was abducted from her home in the middle of the night. The Guthrie family is offering a reward of $1 million for information leading to Mrs. Guthrie's recovery. We urge you to please call the tip line.
Here it is, 1-800-Call FBI. If you have any information to provide to authorities, again, 1-800-Call FBI. We are thinking of and praying for Savannah and her entire family every day. Please, please help us bring Nancy Guthrie home.
That is all for today. Thank you so much for watching. We will be back next week because if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press. When I'm Dylan Dryer, co-host of the Third Hour of Today and Mom to Three Wild Boys.
I've learned a lot in my years as a parent, mostly that I don't have it all figured out yet. And I'm not the only one. This is my new podcast, The Parent Chat. Each week, I sit down with someone new for honest conversation and real-world advice about parenting.
I am over here just like winging it. Hey, I'm just trying not to screw my own kids up. I'm not giving you advice on how much through yours up. Search Parent Chat on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.