'He lost the war': Trump’s retreat fact-checked by general

[0:00] Truly big world news. The United States and Iran have a tentative agreement to end [0:06] this long-running now, several months-long-running war. The details are not all sketched out, [0:12] but we are seeing everyone take this seriously, including other countries around the world, [0:17] the global markets, particularly energy supplies. So this is one of those developments that comes [0:23] with Donald Trump's credibility problems, and we'll touch on that, but also very clear signs [0:28] that a lot of people believe what they're being told, that we are on the precipice of ending a war [0:34] that so many Americans opposed from the start. Now, like I said, it's been four months or so. [0:41] There was, of course, fighting. There was loss of life. There was the energy crisis. This could be [0:45] the major step towards ending the conflict. And as a reminder, 13 Americans have died, [0:50] thousands of Iranians have died, and global markets and energy supplies and your gas prices have all [0:55] been upended with Donald Trump's unilateral war of choice. In other words, he just started this war. [1:00] He didn't run it by Congress or the public, and now he's trying to get it basically finished, [1:07] finished with or without the goals that he and his allies and aides had talked about in the beginning. [1:12] Now, the presidents in France today, U.S. officials say he and J.D. Vance have essentially signed by [1:17] proxy, digitally signed a framework ahead of what will be the actual formal signing of a deal on [1:21] Friday. The reports are that this would reopen that key Strait of Hormuz, which, remember, [1:26] was open before Trump started the war, but that's crucial to oil prices. And we are here [1:31] in reality where everyone wanted to eventually find a way to get that reopened. The ceasefire that [1:38] has been tenuous will be extended for 60 days, and then there will be a framework for Iran to discuss [1:44] its nuclear program. If that sounds familiar, Iran's been discussing it with United States [1:48] diplomats, proxies, cutouts, middle people for many years. So, again, we're kind of back to where [1:54] we were in some sense, although this could be good news if the deal holds. It's also unclear whether [1:59] Iran will continue to try to use this conflict and its disruptions to exert additional control [2:05] over the Strait more than it had in the past. We don't know what assurances the U.S. has about [2:11] those coming talks and whether they think it would actually constrain Iran's nuclear stockpile. [2:17] But Trump is winding down this war, and he is doing so, as the Times summarized it, [2:24] with his goals unmet. Trump gave a range of rationales when he started this war. [2:32] There were big demands. There was big talk about changing the regime, about using force to somehow [2:38] have an uprising, perhaps, or change the structure of the government there. But he failed to achieve [2:44] anything like the unconditional surrender that he promised. There is no regime change. There is [2:49] actually a younger hardline regime in place. And although there was, of course, progress from [2:54] the U.S. and allies' perspective at degrading aspects of Iran's military, they have not destroyed [3:00] its capabilities. They have also not destroyed or eliminated Iran's nuclear stockpile and potential. [3:08] So what you have here is a war that has been mostly waged with a lot of U.S. regret, regret on the energy [3:19] side from anyone living in America who says, we don't want to pay for this. Why is our gas more [3:23] expensive? Regret among military experts who said, well, if you actually knew everything that we know [3:28] now, would you have even started this war? Because a young, hardline strength and set of leaders might [3:33] be even worse than the situation they had. And for anyone who thought there might have been a more [3:37] incremental path to a democracy movement in Iran, well, now they've reset the table. The U.S. [3:42] sleeves, don't expect that movement to be very fortified. Republican Lindsey Graham says he's [3:49] concerned about this deal. Over on Fox, they're saying this. This 60-day period, sir, if we reach it, [3:59] this is precarious. It's tough stuff because Iran's history is to get to that table and just drag this [4:08] thing out month after month and eventually year after year. I just went, like, what do you think [4:17] about us getting suckered back into a long stalemated negotiation? [4:23] What you're hearing there is a concern based on the actual history, a kind of regretful hawk's view [4:32] of what could happen next because most people are busy living their lives and the way Donald Trump [4:37] is governing America. People have got a lot of different problems to deal with, including the [4:41] high prices. But if you have studied the Iran history, there is a reason that this is a country [4:46] that is so opposed from UAE and Saudis to Israel to the United States to Western Europe. Iran has [4:56] bedeviled the region. It has never been straightforward, honest, or easy to deal with. And so while it is [5:02] true, on the one hand, that nobody has high hopes for a long, protracted negotiation process that [5:08] will magically result in Iran backing off all of its very well-established military goals, [5:13] on the other hand, remember where the status quo was. We knew all this. The military briefs saw this. [5:18] The CIA tells the president all this. And previous presidents have looked at the situation and said, [5:24] it's bad, but adding a war won't help. It's tough, but you have to just engage them and go forward. [5:31] Indeed, a president who dealt with this, Barack Obama, because he's speaking out in interviews [5:35] about his library, ended up also discussing the issues of trying to get improvement out of this [5:41] type of regime. It is doubtful that any agreement that arises is going to be significantly different [5:53] or a significant improvement from the deal that we had in the first place and had worked for [6:02] for a long stretch of time before we, the United States, pulled out of it. [6:11] That deal had worked. What does working mean when you're dealing with this kind of country, [6:19] a country that's a state sponsor of terror, that has waged war on its neighbors for years, [6:25] that oppresses and kills its own people? Worked doesn't mean it's great or you're happy with this [6:30] regime. But worked had meant that they were constrained and contained. Those are principles of [6:35] foreign policy that are distinct from shooting first and then finding things get even worse. [6:40] And then the U.S. under Trump being brought back to the negotiating table to get what? [6:47] The strait reopened like it was before the war was started? Don't mishear me. I'm telling you, [6:52] the news tonight is incremental progress because we are further away from escalation and a longer war. [6:59] A lot of people say that's pretty much obviously a good thing. And the price of oil is receding, [7:05] is sliding. So those are things that could affect you and your pocketbook here in America. And they [7:09] are welcomed. And the markets are cheering them and welcoming them. The Dow hitting all-time highs [7:12] on this news today. That's the good part. But did we have to get here this way under this [7:17] president? Well, that's the foreign policy question. And for that, we bring in David Rothkoff, [7:23] Clinton administration official, foreign policy expert, host of Deep State Radio podcast, [7:27] also a member of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations, and retired four-star Army [7:31] General Barry McCaffrey, an MSNOW military analyst who has been with us, guided us through so much [7:35] coverage. General, we talked about this from day one of this conflict. I tried to walk through with [7:41] all fairness why a lot of folks think this sounds like a good step rather than more war, and yet [7:47] there's so much criticism about just getting back to maybe status quo. Could you give us your breakdown [7:53] tonight? Well, first of all, Ari, that was a terrific opening assessment of where we are. [7:59] Let me add the perspective of Senator Jack Reed. I've had a lot of respect for him over the years [8:05] with his decades of foreign policy and national security experience. His characterization is, [8:11] we got a deal to make a deal. So in the coming 60 days, we may or may not see any significance to [8:18] the continued dialogue. The good news, as you say, is stopping fighting is the right thing to do. [8:24] So the ceasefire is positive and may well allow us to pull back major U.S. naval forces and air power [8:33] from the Mideast, where they've been deployed for a long time. It's also true the Straits will [8:39] probably open, although they may be impaired in free transit of commercial shipping by the Iranians. [8:45] They may try and continue to charge tolls. And finally, I don't think to be underestimated, [8:52] there has been devastating damage to Iranian conventional military capabilities. That's a [8:59] good thing, vile regime. I would personally assess, though, the only cause worth fighting for [9:06] was the Iranian nuclear program. And that, I do not believe, will be significantly constrained in the [9:15] long run by this war. It's more likely that they'll take those 10 tons of highly enriched HEU [9:23] and turn them into a dozen nuclear weapons in five years. [9:28] And so I'll ask you, and then I'll bring in David. But General, on that point, is it fair to say then [9:34] that it might only be a face-saving technique for the Trump administration to say, well, we'll get [9:40] this going now. We'll talk about that later. And you seem to be in agreement with what other critics [9:46] have said, which is, well, later means never to them. Well, I personally, I think it's been a [9:51] strategic disaster for the United States. I mean, we've had tactical, incredible power over the [9:56] Iranians. We lost two aircraft in 21,000 sorties against Iran. But we didn't change the strategic [10:05] situation for the better. I think we're more vulnerable. We've lost a lot of credibility. [10:10] Our allies in the Persian Gulf and Europe hate us for what we got them into. So I think this has [10:18] been a largely a strategic disaster for U.S. foreign and defense policy. David, your views? [10:24] Well, exactly the same. And it's hard not to come to those conclusions. We entered into this thing [10:32] ostensibly to produce the changes that you listed at the outset. We didn't produce those changes. [10:38] And in fact, here we are suing for peace. The president wants to turn the page. And so he's [10:46] celebrating an agreement that will not actually get us back to the status quo and will not actually [10:53] produce the results that he wants to achieve. You know, for the average American who's saying, [10:57] well, my gas prices will go down because of this, not so fast. First of all, we have 60 days of [11:03] negotiation. That's likely to be extended. There could be starts and stops in the Persian Gulf with [11:09] regard to that. But the impact of opening up the Strait of Hormuz now on gas prices will take months and [11:19] months to be felt. Fertilizer ships and things like that will come after the oil ships. So the impact [11:26] on food prices will take even longer to be felt. The Iranians right now are in a better position with [11:35] regard to gaining a nuclear weapon, as the general said, than they were when we struck the deal, [11:40] the JCPOA, that the Obama administration struck in 2015, because they have this enriched uranium, [11:47] much of which they gained after President Trump, in his first term, tore up the JCPOA.