Meet the Press NOW — June 23

Drive off in a new Hyundai launcher today with $0 down during the Hyundai Advantage sales event. Take advantage of the $1,000 spring drive bonus and lease the 20-60 launcher essential for just $73 weekly at 4.99% for 60 months. And you're covered by your launcher's best-in-class five-year new car warranty. Now that's the Hyundai Advantage.

Conditions apply. Offer includes 1% loyalty rate reduction for qualifying customers. Visit HyundaiCanada.com or your local dealer for details. Hi there and welcome to Meet the Press Now.

I'm Ryan Nobles in Washington. Following breaking news after Iran launched retaliatory strikes just a few hours ago, targeting a key U.S. base in Qatar in response to U.S.'s attacks on its nuclear facilities over the weekend. Videos captured missiles in the skies over Doha after Iran said it launched the strike.

According to two U.S. defense officials, the Al-Yudid airbase in Qatar came under attack by short and medium-range ballistic missiles launched from Iran. White House officials say that President Trump and members of his national security team were in the situation room monitoring the incident as it unfolded. Moments ago, we got our first reaction from the president saying in a post on social media that no Americans were harmed during the attack and writing, quote, I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice which made it possible for no lives to be lost and nobody to be injured.

Earlier in the day, President Trump did post on social media moments after the attack, doubling down on his claim that Iran's nuclear sites were totally destroyed by the U.S. Now, the Pentagon is still waiting on a final battle damage assessment, but initial assessments indicate there was severe damage and destruction at those sites. Now, Iran's military response today comes after President Trump warned Tehran on the night of the U.S. strikes, and, quote, any retaliation by Iran against the United States of America will be met with far greater than what was witnessed tonight.

But I meet the press, Vice President J.D. Vance, downplayed concerns that the U.S.'s involvement could cascade into an all-out war with Iran. We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program.

What we did is we destroyed the Iranian nuclear program. I think we set that program back substantially and we did it without endangering the lives of the American pilots. We have the story covered from all angles all around the world. NBC's senior national security correspondent, Courtney Cubius, at the Pentagon.

NBC's Monica Elba is at the White House. NBC's chief international correspondent, Keir Simmons, is in Erbil, Iraq. I'm also joined by NBC's law enforcement and intelligence correspondent, Tom Winter. NBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent, Andrew Mitchell, and retired four-star general Joseph Fotal.

Thank you all for being here, Joseph, of course, the former commander of the U.S. Central Command, now a distinguished senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. Courtney, let's start with you. What do we know about this attack and the base that was targeted?

Okay, so we're just learning a little bit more via social media from President Trump. Well, one question that we've had is exactly how many missiles were fired from Iran. He's now saying, again, be it true social that 14 missiles were fired. 13 were knocked down and one was apparently not a danger to the base, which was allowed to just carry on and impact somewhere.

We're still told, according to defense officials, that there are no reports of any casualties. There's no reports of any damage to the base at this point. The belief here is that this attack is over, at least this one, this wave against Al-Yudid. I mean, you know, General Fotal is the expert on this, but I can tell you a little bit about Al-Yudid.

That is, it's the forward command headquarters for U.S. Central Command. Of course, the main headquarters is in Tampa, Florida. But Al-Yudid, at Doha, is where the forward base is.

It's also the home of the chaos, the combined air operations that are essentially the hub that runs all air operations for the Middle East. This base has upwards of about 5,000 U.S. airmen, U.S. service members there, and then on any given day, as many as 5,000 additional civilians and contractors.

So it's an enormous base, sprawling base. You'll recall, Ryan, that as the tensions have increased in the region, the U.S. has moved some people and some assets out to get them out of any potential harm's way. But a defense official is telling us that the number of people moved and the aircraft and things were relatively small, given the size and the scope of what's actually generally base there at Al-Yudid.

So again, at this point, what we know is that those 14 missiles, 13 of them were shot down, still no reports of any casualties, Ryan. And of course, the question now is, what comes next, Courtney? Do we think this is the extent of Iran's retaliation, or could there be more retaliatory strikes on U.S. bases in the region?

So officials were telling us earlier today that there were potential threats against other bases and assets in the region. At this point, no one is saying, hey, this is it, where all of the Iranian retaliation is done. I think that it's just too early to say that right now, but there's definitely some hope that maybe this is the Iranian response. Remember, we've been hearing from Iran themselves.

They are saying that they fired the same number of missiles as what were the bombs that were launched against two of their nuclear facilities, as the 14 massive ordnance penetrators that U.S.B. two bombers struck two of their nuclear sites with over the weekend. But at this point, it's just too early to say whether this is really the extent of the Iranian retaliation. Remember, there are additional U.S.

bases, there are U.S. Navy ships. There are definitely more targets if Iran were to decide to do so. And of course, side of it is one part of this, but there's obviously the United States and the possibility of retaliation there.

President Trump said previously that if Iran attacked it, they would be met with even greater force than of the original attack. Are there any plans right now to Pentagon to respond to these strikes? So, Ryan, I guarantee before the U.S. even began these military strikes last over the weekend, I guarantee that they also had plans ready for what to do if and when Iran were to respond or retaliate.

And that would probably run the gamut of everything from Iran not retaliating at all or not doing anything kinetic to a large-scale Iranian retaliation that could lead to some sort of a mass casualty event. I suspect that a large part of the conversation that's been going on in the situation room today has been going through the options that the U.S. has ready for President Trump to look through and see. But, you know, past this prologue here, if in fact this is really the extent of the Iranian retaliation, it's very possible that this back and forth just sort of fizzles out with this.

And according, the President seems somewhat annoyed by the way people have been assessing the damage that it took place after this attack. But we still have yet to get a full readout from the Pentagon as to just how effective this strike was, correct? Yeah, I mean, a battle damage assessment is not an instant thing. And especially when you don't have men and women on the ground there to get eyes on the target and to see exactly what was done.

And this is only compounded by the fact that the targets were deep underground. So, they're going to be looking at satellite images, they're going to be gathering other intelligence. Generally, it could take days or even weeks for them to get a solid assessment of exactly whether the facilities were not just damaged. I think there's no question that just the firepower that was unleashed on these three sites.

They're had to have been damaged to the facilities. But as far as whether they were actually destroyed or how far they made it and then set back, that is just likely to take some time. The reality is here, there's been a lot of reporting. We've been talking nonstop about these strikes since they occurred, Ryan.

And there is no question about the fact that this was an extremely well coordinated covert military action coordinated across multiple services, multiple platforms here. No one is questioning that. But when it comes to the actual assessment of just the extent of the damage, it's simply according to officials we're talking to, it's just simply not completely ending. The Iranian nuclear program is a very, very difficult task.

So we'll have to see if that's exactly what happened here. According to the Pentagon, thanks for that. Let's now go to the White House at Monica Alba standing by there. We just got our first reaction from the White House on these retaliatory strikes in Monica.

It does seem a bit muted from President Trump. Well, look, it's also notable, Ryan, that this is a day where the President could decide to speak to reporters, to take questions on all of this, to talk about the strikes from over the weekend, extrapolate on this retaliation that we did see today. But instead he's choosing to do so on his social media platform, as he so often does. And you're right, he is now trying to pivot the conversation to this idea of, in his words, he says, now it's time, quote, for peace.

And they are trying to tout this idea that the President is approaching this as peace through strength, of course, given the military intervention that we saw on Saturday, now coupled with what we're seeing, which is the President urging some restraint here and saying, hopefully he feels that now this can be put to the side, as long as there aren't any additional retaliations. He said he was also very pleased to see that no Qataris were injured or worse killed in these intercepted missiles on the U.S. airbase. And he says simply that now he feels, again, that this is the time to perhaps resume some of these diplomatic talks that seemingly appear to be very difficult in the rails, really, in the last couple of days, as we all know, but that now he may be pushing for some kind of return to those.

But again, he's not appearing before the cameras to, as he also often does, take questions on all of this. He is just issuing these statements, and we know that he was in the situation room for several hours monitoring this all in real time from the White House today, but then he'll be on the world stage tomorrow, where certainly this will be top of mind. Obviously, the reaction, I think, is fair to say, in parts of Europe has been mixed to this, the way that this conflict is developing, and we see President Trump expected to head to NATO for the summit there tomorrow. I have to imagine that the situation in the Middle East is going to lose a large of those talks.

And it already was with the instance of the G7, as we saw just a week ago, if you can believe it Ryan, it feels like an eternity, but just a week or so ago, the President was in Canada for those meetings with leaders, and then he cut the trip short to return here to the White House because of what was unfolding in the war between Israel and Iran. So tomorrow he does head to the Hague in the Netherlands to have these talks with world leaders, and we can expect again, yes, this approach that there's still some hope for some kind of diplomatic avenue here for what could be left. Now, again, the President argues that everything was completely obliterated when it comes to Iran's nuclear program. Experts have raised questions about some of the enriched uranium that either could or was or was not moved from certain nuclear sites or more enriched uranium that was not a part of the calculation that could still exist and be out there.

And I think that's what so many leaders have expressed concern over, that certainly it's not like the threat from there has been completely contained, but perhaps now there is a little bit of a window for some of these talks to resume between world leaders between intermediaries, and we just confirmed some reporting that Axios had over the weekend that the President even discussed having a back channel with Iranian officials through officials in Turkey, traveling perhaps to Istanbul himself to attend those last week. That was one of the last ditch efforts that was made, and ultimately that was scrapped because the Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khomeini couldn't essentially authorize any kind of such meetings, so that was put to the side, but he was willing to even send his Vice President, his Special Envoy Steve Wyckov to perhaps take part in some of those talks. Again, that was all sidelined, obviously, and we'll see now what kind of communication could or could not continue with the Iranians indirectly or directly. Okay, Monica Alba, the White House, thanks for that.

Let's end with the region now. We're here standing by. You are in Erbil, which is near a US airbase. Obviously, this is one of the bases that could potentially be targeted by Iran.

What are you seeing and hearing on the ground there? Yeah, I've run that bases right behind me there. You can see the lights are twinkling in the distance in the other direction. We're about two hours away from the Iranian border.

So this base is one of the closest US bases to Iran. And for some time tonight, we did think that Iran could be targeted. We also thought Bahrain might be targeted where, of course, the fifth fleet is based. And yet, ultimately, we had this one target against that base in Qatar.

And, effectively, you heard J.D. Vance at the beginning, Vice President Vance at the beginning of the show there saying, we're not targeting Iran. We're targeting Iran's nuclear program. Well, really, the Iranians are saying, we're not targeting the Arab neighbors.

We're not targeting Qatar. We're just targeting a US base in Qatar. And that's effectively what they said in a statement saying, you know, that our aim is not to send a message to Qatar, it is to send a message through the White House. Significant, though, that it was intercepted.

Significant, too, that the Qataris were given advance notice. In fact, they were the first to close their airspace as if they heard about it first. And you might think that in Tehran and the capital of Iran, they calculated that they could fire these missiles, that they would get stopped because it's a very well-defended base, and that they would be able to kind of symbolically say something, but not have to do something that might cause further escalation with President Trump. President Trump actually just posting saying that he did get a heads-up from Iran on this.

I know you have already described it, perhaps, as a symbolic attack. Could this mean that Iran is looking for an entry to get to the negotiating table? Well, yeah, I think it's a symbolic attack except for the very important caveat, of course, that when you fire missiles in another country, you can't be absolutely confident that something won't happen. So to say that it was dangerous is an understatement.

That being said, people are going to be picking over this indefinitely to consider to think about whether Iran wants an off-ramp. They have indicated previously that they did, you'll remember. I mean, we're only days from when Tehran began to indicate that they would like to negotiate. So it is possible that's what's happening, but really the question is, is Iran prepared to give up on its nuclear program and to give up on the uranium that it has enriched to 60 percent?

An important piece of reporting today, too, right? We don't know publicly where that enriched uranium is. Now, it's very likely possible that the Israelis do, that the US does, the Iranians must do, that it's theirs. But the question of how to get it out of the country, how to ensure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands, those are questions that are still looming, despite the attack over the weekend by the US on Iran's nuclear program.

Okay, your Simmons, you know, Rock, here, thank you for that. Let's move now to Tom Winter. And Tom, you have some reporting on a communique to President Trump, where Iran threatened to activate sleeper cells in the United States. What more do we know about this?

Of course, and that reporting is quoted back by our own, Carol Lee, Courtney Kubi, and Monica Alba. I think when you look at it, Iran leading up to this had to communicate some sort of response to the US. It's kind of the drums started to be louder that the US might get involved in what Israel had already launched against Iran. And so they communicated to the US effectively saying, look, we have sleeper cells in the United States.

It will turn them loose and conduct tax in the United States if the US decides to bomb Iran. Well, that's what Iran says. What they actually have the capability of doing could in fact be an entirely different thing. And right now, we have no indication that Iran has any sort of quote unquote sleeper cells.

We'll throw back to the early 2000s terrorism environment here in the United States. That doesn't mean that they haven't tried things in the past. They most assuredly have. We've seen multiple plots here in the United States, including plots involving an attempt to assassinate then President Elect Trump now.

Obviously, President Trump. We've seen efforts twice to hire hitman and criminal organizations to go after an Iranian journalist and activist here in New York City. And so that's the type of thing Iran has had some success in at least starting in the past. Is an effort to communicate and work with criminal gangs and organizations.

The State Department, just as we're coming down the air here, Ryan issued an alert based on press reports in Sweden saying that it was their indication in that country that Iran was trying to work with criminal groups there to try to affect some sort of attack against US or Israeli interests. So that's the type of thing Iran has tried. Obviously, Ryan, I'm not talking to you about any sort of successful attacks. And that's something the US is trying to keep their record up with.

And of course, we know that you have to be 100% when it comes to keeping the country safe, when it comes to terror attacks. Even one sneaking through could be deadly and dangerous. So how would we describe the state of US security at this moment? Yes, I think they're doing all the things you might expect, right?

So an additional police presence in some of the cities that have significant not only Israeli interests, not only Iranian interests, Jewish interests and Islamic interests. So cultural sites, diplomatic sites, religious institutions, the NYPD outside of Moss outside of Jewish synagogues here in New York City is an example. They have a continuous presence of the Israeli consulate not far from the UN in New York City. We're seeing that activity, as I mentioned, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.

And there are a number of other smaller departments and smaller parts of the country that particularly after that bolder attack against a group of members from the Jewish community in that city protesting against the continuing holding of hostages by Hamas that they were attacked. That's something where, again, law enforcement agencies are focused on. Okay, Tom Winter, thank you for that. Let's turn now to Andrew Mitchell, one of the few people in the United States who talked directly to an Iranian official in the past week or so you just interviewed the Iranian Foreign Minister.

What do you make of Iran's response in light of what the Foreign Minister told you? This was, of course, before the U.S. attack. This is such a calibrated response.

And I'm really struck by the President's truth social post in response to it, which is really very carefully worded. He points out, as Courtney Cooby did, that there were 14 missiles, 13 were knocked down, one went awry, so didn't have to be knocked down. It was not threatening. I'm pleased to report.

He says that no Americans were harmed, no damage to our base. It's the largest base in the region. As you know, 5,000 service members and another 5,000 civilians. We don't know how many were drawn down.

And he says, it looks like they've gotten it out of their system and they will hopefully be no further hate. I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice. So they gave us the heads up that it was coming. And we know that throughout the region Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE and Qatar, of course, all close their airspace.

So they had that early warning from the U.S. Intel as well. The president to that point was in the situation with his whole team and they were in constant communication visual as well as other communications with everyone in the region. Obviously, and he says, perhaps Iran can now proceed to peace and harmony in the region and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. That is a very calibrated and calm response. So it seems as though he wants to get back to the negotiating table judging by that post. Do you think there's any chance Tehran wants to get back to the negotiating table?

I think that there could be an off ramp here and that they could want an off ramp because they took a very, I mean, the foreign minister who went to Moscow today and met with Vladimir Putin. It took a very hard line with me. This was only on Friday. So all of this was in quick sequence.

And as we know, the planes were already in the air, but the final go had not been given. At that point, when he gave me that very hard line message, which was that he felt betrayed, that the U.S. had betrayed diplomacy, that diplomacy was a cover for permitting the Iranian, excuse me, the Israeli strike against Iran. So perhaps that added to the impression that Steve Whitkov had taken, which was what the president said that Iran is stringing us along, tapping us, not taking us seriously.

So perhaps Iran has learned a lesson that if there's going to be diplomacy, they have to bargain. They can't just take that hard line of no uranium, whether no offsite uranium, uranium has to be enriched. But one very hard line message that also came today was Iran's threat to get out of the non-proliferation treaty to stop permitting inspections by the international inspectors. And if they were to stop cooperating with the IAEA, that would seem to be an unstarter from the rest of the world's perspective.

And especially because the IAEA has confirmed that they had enriched to 60%. That's just below the 90% that is weapons-grade. And there is no explanation that he could give me or any other Iranian has been able to provide for why they need more for civilian use, which is what they claim they have always insisted upon for the past 20 years, almost 20 years. There's no reason to get beyond 3.7% to 5% for civilian reactors.

And even if the tensions de-escalate if there are talks, is regime change still on the table, or is that something that is always off? I mean, you saw yesterday that the Vice President and the Secretary of State both took it off the table on the Sunday shows on Meet the Press to Christian Welker, the Vice President, and then the President went in a different direction in one of his posts last night, suggesting that Iran could be great again with a different regime. And we still have not heard from the Supreme Leader, who is not communicating clearly because they do have concerns of a targeted assassination if there's any communications from Israel. Okay.

All right, Andrew, I think he was always really reporting. We appreciate it. All right, let's bring in General Hotel now in general. Let's first talk about your take on Iran's retaliatory response.

Based on the scope of the Iranian strikes, was Tehran looking to inflict serious damage, or was this really just a face-saving exercise? Thanks. It's great to be with you. I think this was largely an exercise in face-saving and communicating to the Iranian people that they took action as a result of the U.S.

strikes the other evening. We've seen this before. This is a little bit of a feature of the region where when you are confronting a much more powerful adversary that you do what you need to do to save face and move on. I think their intention here is to try to de-escalate and at least de-escalate this current cycle of escalation that's taking place over the last 48 hours.

And how would you compare today's strikes by Iran to those when we saw Iran retaliate after the strike that killed Soleimani? Well, those ones actually, many of them made it to the base and landed and as I think we all know, inflicted some TBI injuries on our soldiers and service members were located there. So that was a very serious threat. And I think it's pointed out by these 20 reporters here.

I mean, you have to take the seriously 14 ballistic missiles from Iran towards Qatar. It is a serious, serious threat now. This is our largest, our most important base in the region. It's the most protected and well-defended.

So I think it was Iran had a fair, a reasonable amount of confidence that we would be able to intercept these and none of these would have any particular facts. But the fact of the matter is 14 ballistic missiles launched towards the U.S. base. In addition to the hundreds of others that have been launched across the region over the last couple weeks.

I think we have to take this seriously, even as this seems to de-escalate in this current cycle. And I would imagine it would also mean that the military should not in any way, shape or form, take its guard down, right? This could be all for show, right? And provide an opportunity to seek weakness in other parts, and perhaps some of these other bases that are within their range.

Yeah, Iran has a lot of capabilities here. They have the remnants of proxy organizations out there. They have very powerful cyber capability. They have a very capable coots force maritime element.

They can get out into the Gulf and cause problems. And of course, they have more missiles. They have drones that they can continue to employ. So yeah, we have to remain vigilant here.

It's good that this first episode is ending this way, but again, I think we have to remain vigilant as we move forward. And we talked about this new social media post from the president from a few minutes ago. It seems as though he's essentially calling for an end to the war. Do you think this provides an off-ramp and a path towards de-escalation and the resumption of negotiations between Iran, the United States, and even perhaps Israel?

I do. I think this certainly provides an off-ramp to the current escalation. Now, what will be important is that there has to be earnest efforts back and forth here to try to get all the parties to the table, and particularly the United States and Iran. So they can begin to have a discussion and eventually move into some types of negotiation over the principal issues that we're concerned with, that Israel's concerned with, so we can get to a resolution.

I don't think this is going to be a quick process, but it can be a progressive process, meaning that we can move forward. We can actually make some progress on this over time. I think from my perspective, that would certainly be good. One of the open questions remains just how much damage these strikes did to Iran's nuclear program.

I want to play for you with the head of the IAEA set. Take a listen. At this time, no one, including the IAEA, is in a position to have fully assessed the underground damage out for though. Given the explosive payload utilized and the extreme vibration sensitive nature of centrifuges, very significant damage is expected to have occurred.

So that's an expert saying it could take some time before we have a complete picture of what happened. How long would you expect it would take for us to determine if Iran was able to move its uranium before the U.S. strikes? And if that's the case, should the administration consider additional strikes?

Well, I think as the chairman and the secretary communicated during their press conference yesterday morning, they were conservative in terms of their assessment. I mean, I think the initial estimate was that it was successful. Our bombs went where they were supposed to go. They performed as they were intended to perform.

They were delivered with precision at the right locations. So I think there's some confidence in it. We will be collecting intelligence for the coming days and weeks here. That is John, not just the imagery and intelligence like you're showing right now, but also signals intelligence, measuring intelligence and human intelligence.

All of this will be very, very important. Of course, as the gentleman just spoke a few moments ago, getting eyes on this to make an on the site assessment is going to be absolutely critical to make sure we understand exactly what happened. And of course, once that's all compiled in days or weeks, then the U.S. government can make a decision about what might happen next, if we didn't achieve the effects that we're looking for.

Okay. General Votel, thank you so much for being here. We very much appreciate your expertise, sir. Iran threatens to shut down a vital shipping route that controls one-fifth of the entire world's oil supplies, the likelihood of that happening and the potential economic consequences.

We'll break it down. You're watching the press now. Drive off in a new Hyundai launcher today with $0 down during the Hyundai Advantage sales event. Take advantage of the $1,000 spring drive bonus and lease the 20-2060 launcher essential for just $73 weekly at 4.99% for 60 months and you're covered by a launcher's best-in-class five-year new car warranty.

Now, that's the Hyundai Advantage. Conditions apply. Offer includes 1% loyalty rate reduction for qualifying customers. Visit Hyundai Canada.com or your local dealer for details.

Welcome back as we continue to monitor Iran's retaliatory strikes against U.S. interests in the Middle East. Israel's continuing to strike targets inside Iran. And IDF spokesman says Israeli forces completed what he calls the most extensive wave of attacks it has ever carried out into Iran, among the targets struck the notorious even prison in the Iranian capital.

This is the scene. Meanwhile, in Tel Aviv where Iranian strikes have caused significant damage, but Israeli officials say there have been very few injuries. And we see news international correspondent Matt Bradley joins me now from Tel Aviv. So a matter of people there bracing for the potential that this conflict could expand.

Yeah, they are bracing for the potential, but they've been bracing for that potential for the past ten days. Ever since Israel started off this latest round of fighting by attacking Iran preemptively. The fact that the United States has weighed in so far has been taken here with a lot of cheer. You know, Israelis are very pleased with the president's decision.

They were expecting it in many ways. Some of the folks that I were speaking to here, they were basically saying Israel wouldn't have done this in the first place. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister, wouldn't have attacked Iran. If he didn't have some level of assurance that President Trump would weigh in with those heavy American bunker buster bombs to finish the job.

Now, whether or not that's true, whether or not there was some assurance we haven't gotten that reporting yet. But the fact is, is that Israelis are not necessarily concerned this is going to expand any further. Because the fact is, too, all of Iran's so-called axis of resistance over the past year and a half, Hezbollah and Lebanon, the militant groups in Syria and Iraq that are backed by Iran, Hamas and the Gaza Strip, and even the Houthis and Yemen have all been dealt serious blows, almost totally crippling blows by the Israelis ever since October 7 attacks back in 2023. So if there are to be more reprisals, more retribution, it's unclear where that would come from.

As far as many Israelis are concerned, they've already seen the worst of Iran's retribution. Yeah, and maybe expand on that a little bit, Matt. There were more strikes on Israel today. Normally, their Iron Dome does a pretty good job of keeping these missiles from hitting the ground.

What's the latest there? Yeah, I mean, we had more strikes this morning, we had more strikes late last night, and we've been seeing still with some regularity the sirens going off, everybody in Israel rushing to those shelters. Now, the fact is, we're still seeing strikes coming in, but the number of projectiles in each of the parages fired by the Iranians has, and this is according to the IDF, been decreasing regularly since the Iranians first started their retaliation back last Friday. And remember then, that just went on for hours, and it looked as though there were hundreds of bombs in each of these salvos.

Now, it's looking like more like dozens, but quite a few of them. Quite a few of them, alarmingly many of them are getting through compared to what we were seeing last week, when it looked as though, again, that there was these huge numbers of missiles, and most of them were shot down now. We're still seeing some slipping through, even though the number of projectiles has decreased dramatically. Okay, Matt Bradley, thank you for that update.

President Trump also acknowledging the potential economic impact of a conflict with Iran. The President, most multiple social media posts, urging oil companies to quote, keep oil prices down and directing the Department of Energy to quote, drill baby drill. There has been no disruption to the oil supply as a result of the US attack on Iran, and oil prices actually fell after Iran's retaliatory strikes today were perceived to be largely symbolic. But another way that Iran could retaliate against the US would be to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most important passages for oil and gas.

Vice President Vance downplayed concerns when he spoke with Kristin yesterday on Meet the Press. Well, I think that would be suicidal, Kristin for the Iranians themselves. I mean, their entire economy runs through the Strait of Hormuz. If they want to destroy their own economy and cause disruptions in the world, I think that would be their decision.

But why would they do that? Let me see who's senior business correspondent Kristin Romans joins me now. So, Kristin, why did we see a spike at oil prices before today, but now we seem to climb after the retaliatory strikes? Yeah, you had senior oil prices rise $10, $11, $12 a barrel in the past eight to ten days, and that's largely because you had Israel and Iran firing rockets back and forth at each other over and over again, and that really caused some big concern about how big the conflict could be and who else would be pulled into it.

And then the US enters the conflict, and the retaliation from Iran happened seen as largely symbolic, and so you have this rise up in energy prices, and then today a relief. I would call it a relief move in energy prices, but Ryan's still very volatile here. I mean, sentiment can turn on a dime, and this is a really, you know, a unique and dangerous situation, quite frankly, right there in a very important part of the world for oil transfer. Yeah, and talk to us about the Strait of Hormuz.

Why is it so important? Well, you know, after a week of concerns about whether this conflict could, you know, impinge supplies from moving through the Strait of Hormuz, now the feeling is a little bit more reality. Like, this has never happened before. Iran has never shut it down.

Even during the Gulf Wars, it wasn't shut down, but just even the threat of that very narrow straight being shut down or somehow these energy, these tankers rerouting and taking longer to get to their destination, all of that, frankly, is something that could drive up energy prices. About a fifth of the world's daily oil that's traveling through the Strait of Hormuz. A lot of that, by the way, is destined for Asia. So if you had Iran, for example, shutting down or trying to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, it would hurt Iran and Iran's allies, too.

Okay, Christine Roman, thank you for that. After the break, Washington's wartime tensions. I'll talk to a Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee about the bipartisan divide over President Trump's decision to strike Iran without congressional approval. You're watching The Press Now.

Get the best of NBC News with a subscription. Fewer ads, deeper access, and exclusive content. And now, during the XFINITY member celebration, members can get an exclusive 50% off an annual subscription. Head to XFINITY.COM slash membership to learn more.

XFINITY. Imagine that. Subscription automatically renews each year at $65.99 plus taxes and fees that will cancel. Order ends May 20th, 2026.

Price is subject to change. Visit NBCNews.com slash XFINITY for full offer terms and details. As the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening. With Here's the Scoop.

Put a podcast from NBC News with Meet or Host, Gazzly D'Sougee. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News' trusted journalist. It's a fresh take. And now, unlock even more with a subscription.

It's the best of NBC News with fewer ad interruptions, including ad free articles, podcasts, and full NBC News shows. Plus, deeper access and exclusive content. Let's just take a step back. It's more context and clarity from the reporters you trust.

Download the NBC News app now and subscribe for more. Thank you so much for joining us. We've seen Iran's initial retaliation against U.S. forces.

Do you feel encouraged that the response was not more forceful or are you concerned that Iran's retaliatory strikes could start to intensify? For more than 40 years since the regime took power. They attacked our Marine barracks in Lebanon in Saudi Arabia, a blow up to Cobra Towers. So we always have to take those threats seriously.

I am hopeful at the same time that this effort to attack our air base, Al-Yuday, in Qatar is their response. And we can move towards escalation. We are at this fork in the road. My hope is we can move to de-escalation and move to getting to the negotiating table and permanently closing Iran's nuclear pathway through the clear bomb at the negotiating table.

And you of course were just in the region. In fact, I believe your delegation was not able to make it into Israel because of what was happening with the conflict there. What did you hear though from the countries in the region before the strikes took place? Sure.

So we were actually left the day after the strikes in Iran began on Friday the 13th. We visited Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and United Arab Emirates. What we heard in all of those countries was grave concern about the prospects of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Nuclear armed Iran is considered an existential threat to every Arab country in the Gulf region to Israel.

And it's a threat to the United States, Europe and the world as well. So definitely concerns about Iran's program in March towards a nuclear weapon, but also a keen desire to quickly move to de-escalation because they understood that every day this war goes on, the threat of whether it's intentional or accidental, the war expanding to other nations grows. So to that end, do you think that Operation Midnight Hammer was the most effective way to eliminate Iran as a nuclear threat? Well, they say the proof of the puddings and the pacing.

And I think the strike on Fordot was where Iran had the bulk of its centrifuge operations, their enrichment of uranium. They had enriched more than 400 kilograms, 900 pounds to 60 percent. They had enriched about 90 percent of the threshold for a nuclear weapon. So we are very concerned.

So I think we needed to stop Iran's program and strike on Fordot with that advanced stat. If that was justified, we'll have a classified briefing tomorrow. And I'm anxious to hear what the administration shares with us. I wish they had shared that information earlier.

But short of that, I'm going to wait and reserve my judgment until I see the actual classified information. So how concerned are you, though, that this could potentially widen and this conflict could end up turning into a protracted war? We're obviously concerned about the prospects. The nation can decide when to start a war.

They don't get to necessarily determine when or how that war ends. But I can tell you this. The battle between Israel and Iran, which, as I said, has been going on. It didn't start last week.

It's been going on for years. The threats from Iran to the Middle East and to the broader world, including the United States, I would much rather be fighting Iran under these circumstances and the prospect of fighting a nuclear armed Iran. So we have to block their path and permanently close every path Iran has to a nuclear weapon. And I'm hopeful that the staff's taken and opening the door to negotiations as the administration has done.

We'll bring Iran back to the table. We'll force them to get back into compliance with the nuclear and off-theration treaty to allow inspectors in. And we can ultimately achieve our primary goal, or actually our only goal, which is to end Iran's nuclear program. Now, one of your fellow Democrats, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, called the president's decision to conduct the operation without congressional consent, a quote, impeachable offense.

You tweeted, the president's disastrous decision to bond Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and congressional war powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment. Do you agree with her, sir?

I don't. Look, the War Powers Act requires that every administration, if they're going to take military action to notify Congress within 48 hours, I believe that the president should have notified congressional leadership, both the Democrats and the Republicans, not only Speaker Johnson, but Leader Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Schumer and Leader Thum. They should have been notified. They should have notified the intelligence committees as well.

There are ways to do this. These are safeguards to make sure that we are always putting American national interests first and foremost. But the president is in line with the War Powers Act. We can have a long debate about that.

Now, as we move forward, the War Powers Act requires Congress to vote and to decide whether or not this is actually what I take. My hope is, as the administration is playing, this is a single strike and they are not pursuing war. They are open to peace. My hope is that we open the door to negotiations.

And as I said before, that through the actions taken first by Israel and under the United States, joined by our allies in the region around the world, that we can compel Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, compel Iran to join the family of nations and stop. They're the number one sponsor of terrorism, stop supporting terrorism. They have supported the Houthis, the Hezbollah, Hamas. They are undermined and tried to undercut the nations around the region.

They can be a positive player or they can choose to continue down the path of nefarious activity and they're going to pay the consequences. Speaker Johnson indicated today, though, that he does not think it's the time to bring a resolution to the floor, authorizing the use of military force against Iran. Should you and your fellow Democrats push more forcefully for Congress to be directly involved as this conflict moves forward? 100% we should push to be directly involved.

The Constitution gives only the Congress the right and the power to take the nation into war. Not the executive branch or anybody else. We have to exercise our constitutional responsibilities and protect our constitutional prerogatives. I disagree with the speaker 100% on this.

I imagine that if it wasn't a Republican president in the White House, you might go differently. I will tell you, I feel the same way, whether it is a Republican in the White House or a Democrat in the White House, only Congress has the responsibility on the right to take the nation into war after debate, after consideration, and after a vote. Okay, Congressman Brad Schneider, we covered a lot. Thank you as always, sir.

We appreciate it. Thank you. We'll have much more on the political fallout to get to get to with the panel, but that's after a quick break. You're watching with the press now.

All right, welcome back as we continue to follow the fallout from President Trump strikes on those Iranian nuclear sites in Iran's retaliation. We're also tracking the political fallout from his decision. But most Republicans, and even if you Democrats have praised the president's actions, others, including Republican Congressman Thomas Massey, and Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have called it unconstitutional. They say the president should have gotten congressional authorization before acting.

Joining me now is Washington Bureau Chief for the Economist, Idris Caloon, former communications director for Vice President Kamala Harris, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Ashley Ettin, and American Enterprise Institute senior fellow and NBC News contributor Danielle Pletka. Thank you guys all for being here. Danielle, I want to start with you. What do you make of this effort by a horseshoe coalition of hard-read Republicans and progressive Democrats, saying the president did this too quickly, and Congress should have been involved?

Yeah, I mean, this is what Congress always says. I tried to explain to people, I spent 10 years up on a hill having these same arguments. When a Democratic president gets involved in military action, whether it's just a strike where it's something longer, Republicans on Capitol Hill scream without the War Powers Act. When a Republican president gets involved, Democrats scream, Democrats and Thomas Massey, who, well, I won't use the word I'd like to use to describe him, but they start screaming about it.

The bottom line is, this is a fight between two branches of government, not two political parties, and if Congress wanted to do something about it, it has the power of the purse. To bring up a resolution, defunds what it is the president's going to do. We've had five declarations of war ever. How many military conflicts have we been involved in?

Five? Maybe a few more. So this is, Congress should either put up or shut up. Well, I understand where we're coming from on that, but actually, I want to play a little bit of what Massey had to say about this.

And it comes more from the perspective of Donald Trump ran on a promise, and he's not delivering on that promise. Listen to what Massey said. It's a good week for the neocons and the military industrial complex who want war all the time. I wouldn't call my side of the megabase isolationists.

We are exhausted. We are tired from all of these wars, and we're non-interventionists. I mean, this is what, this was one of the promises. I mean, are you going to call President Trump's campaign an isolationist campaign?

What he promised us was we would put America first. So Massey's arguing Trump said America first, and this isn't America first. And what does it say about the divisions among, not necessarily the Republican Party, but the Megawing of the Republican Party? Well, I mean, Donald Trump went further than to say he went so far as to say that he would not get the country into a war in the Middle East.

He made that promise to the American people. I think he violated that promise. And the trust of the American people, I think at this stage, I could care less about the politics of it all and how you split the baby and who's where and who says what. But the reality is he now owes the American people answers.

When you have Iran saying that they're going to activate sleeper cells in the United States, I mean, that means to some degree, we're all sitting ducks. I mean, remember 9-11, attacks come in a way that you don't expect them to. So the President owes us not just answers to that particular question, but whether or not the strikes were even effective. We don't really know the answer to that.

So at this stage, I think the President, let's put politics aside. The American people need to wake up and start to wait in and lean in on the President and the administration as a whole, asking for the answers to the questions. Is what's the strategic objective? Is it regime change?

Is it to prevent the development of weapons? Because if that were the case, why did he back out at JCPOA? I mean, there's all these unanswered questions right now and the President deserves. The American people deserve it.

So to ask this point, I mean, there is a question about whether or not this is resonating with the American people. The early polling and it is very early shows that people are nervous about the President taking this step. But when he was on the campaign trail, he promised to end the two existing awards. He avoided and to avoid getting into another.

So if you're somebody who voted for that message, how might you be feeling today? So before these strikes happened, the majority of Americans were opposed to military action, including narrow majority of Republicans. But I think that the American people are much more sensitive to actual troop deployments than they are strikes. If you remember, in 2020, when Donald Trump killed Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian general in Baghdad, you can see that as a violation of the pledge against forever wars, but that wasn't treated as a big condemnation.

So I think that if America doesn't escalate any further, I think his base will get over. You saw Steve Bannon say exactly that. And to what Danny was saying, Barack Obama didn't notify Congress before striking Libya. Bill Clinton didn't notify them before the operations in Kosovo, which lasted for a long time.

When the shoe was on the foot of the Democrat, it often operates a little bit differently. Yeah, Congress has a long history of kind of advocating this responsibility over to the executive branch. Danielle, I want you to take a listen to what Vice President Vance told Kristin on Meet the Press this weekend. Mr.

Vice President, can you rule out that getting involved in this conflict won't eventually lead to U.S. boots on the ground? Well, the president's been very clear, Kristin. We have no interest in a protracted conflict.

We have no interest in boots on the ground. The president has actually been one of the fiercest critics of 25 years of failed foreign policy in the Middle East, which is why he did what he did. Very precisely, very surgical strike tailored to an American national interest. And so this is to an interesting point, right?

Boots on the ground is very different than a targeted strike, but I want to then follow this up with what Trump said in a post over the weekend. He said it's not a politically correct term to use the term regime change, but if the current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again, why wouldn't there be regime change? And he said, mega, which I assume is make Iran great again. How do you get to regime change without boots on the ground?

Can you do that? And is regime change perhaps not the right goal? Well, it's a dreadful euphemism that was created by the Clinton administration when they didn't want to talk about overthrowing people. But the main way you see people overthrown leaders' tyrants like the regime in Tehran is the same way you saw the Assad regime overthrown, the same way you saw the Soviet captivations, Soviet proxies, overthrown.

And that is by their own people. So, you know, I have to guess, because I also listened to Donald Trump on the campaign by President Vance, I have to guess that he is not interested in affecting regime change in Iran, but he recognizes that the Iranian people are extraordinarily poorly served by this tyrannical, murderous regime that spent much more money on nuclear weapons and killing Jews than it has on the well-being of its own people. And so, you know, some top Democrats say that they weren't meaningfully informed about the plans to make these strikes in advance. Republican leaders said they were informed.

The House Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffery, said in a statement that President Trump misled the country about his intentions, failed to see congressional authorization for the use of military force and risk American entanglement and potentially disastrous war in the Middle East. Do you think that President Trump mishandled the communication that he had with folks on the Hill leading up to it? Should Democrats, Democratic leaders in particular, be more involved in these conversations before these strikes happen? Listen, we all know Donald Trump to be incredibly petty, but the reality is we're in the midst of an active war now.

And so, this teeters on being dangerous, playing politics when we're in the middle of an active war. We need to add this, though. Bombing is a tactic. It is not a strategy.

We need clarity on what the President's strategy actually is to effectuate long-term change here. If the idea is so that Iran will not enrich and move closer toward an actual Obama, again, how do we get to that point? How is the President planning to take us and arrive at that moment? We have no clarity on that.

The President say that he's the negotiator in chief. He can create a deal. The pressure now is on him to create a better deal than what Obama created, and that's where we need to remain focused. And it's just I'm going to let you have the last word here.

And we remember President Bush, I guess, launching that war in Iraq after alleging that Iraq was a possession of weapons of mass destruction. If it turns out that this targeted drug doesn't do the full job, is that a huge political risk for Donald Trump? You know, I don't know. I don't think he's going to commit troops.

I don't think he's going to ask for an authorization of military force in Congress. I think that we might think of them in the same way that we think of Obama's strikes on Libya or even President Trump's strikes on Syria that we saw here. I think that there is actually a real disinclination from this President to commit troops to the ground. And so, you know, hopefully this doesn't spiral any further.

Hopefully, hopefully. I think we all around that. We all around that. We all around that.

I mean, again, we need some assurances and some clarity. The American people are going to start over that. I'll give it to you. Thank you.

We're not going to commit troops. We're not going to commit troops. Sorry. Are we?

I'm going to the Prime Minister. No one knows what you're going to do. Exactly. The administration is going to pick.

Okay. Just actually thank you all for being here. I appreciate it as much. And before we go, we do have an announcement.

Here's a scoop. It's a new daily NBC news podcast that breaks down the day's top stories. All in 15 minutes or less. It launches today at 5 p.m.

Eastern, which is a minute away. Just scan the QR code on your screen. We're back tomorrow. Time for Halle Jackson now.

I'm Craig Malef. Cheers. Cheers. I've always been a glass half old kind of guy.

And now I'm talking to people who look at the world that way too. Really fascinating books who share their defining moments, their triumphs, their challenges, their stories are funny. And I can. So I hope you'll join me each week.

Who knows? You might just come away with your own glass half old. Search glass half old with Craig now food from today on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.