Israel tells U.S. that Iran cooked up new plan to assassinate Trump

[0:00] 90 seconds really goes fast. I wasn't ready for that. Israel told the U.S. that Iran cooked up [0:05] a new plan to assassinate President Donald Trump. That is according to new reporting from The Wall [0:09] Street Journal. Earlier this week in Turkey, Trump referred to threats on his life. For years, [0:14] Iran has vowed retaliation against Trump for the killing of General Soleimani during Trump's first [0:19] term. Joining me now to discuss one of the reporters on that story, a dear friend of this [0:23] show, one of my favorite reporters, Alex Ward, national security reporter for The Wall Street [0:28] Journal. Laura and Jake and his punch bowl still here. Alex, break this down. What happened? [0:35] Yeah. So right now you have Israel presenting intelligence to the United States that in [0:40] Israel's assessment indicates that there is some fresh plot to kill President Trump. Now, [0:45] one thing we should note is that the U.S. officials who receive this aren't exactly, [0:51] you know, in line with the Israeli assessment here, right? I mean, there's been tons of [0:55] threats on President Trump's life, not just from Iran for a while, but in front of [0:59] Iran for years now. So, you know, how serious this is is still a bit of a debate. But you do [1:06] have some U.S. officials wondering, you know, why would Israel send this intelligence to the U.S.? [1:10] Now, part of it is because, of course, there's a longstanding intelligence cooperation relationship [1:15] between the U.S. and Israel. There are others who speculate, you know, that Israel is trying to [1:20] maybe coax President Trump back into major combat operations against Iran. And then there are others who [1:26] think that, hey, it's just a very, you know, there are some U.S. officials who genuinely did worry [1:30] about what they saw and rang some alarms. So there's still some aspects of this we still and [1:35] context we need to get into. But in terms of what we for sure know, Israel does believe or at least [1:40] assesses based on the intel they received that there is a new, fresh and somewhat legitimate threat [1:46] on President Trump's life. [1:47] Trump wants out of this war, right? A U.S. official told our network that the United, [1:52] despite what you, what Alex has just reported, that the U.S. will continue talks with Iran. [1:59] How much real optimism is there in the White House, Laura? Or are they just trying to push this out [2:04] because in many ways they are backed into a corner? What is the White House telling you? [2:08] Every time the White House has talked about this, including senior officials, they always caveat [2:15] and say that while they're trying to keep negotiations going, while they're trying to [2:20] keep conversations and those channels open, that ultimately any little thing can knock these [2:27] negotiations off. And they always add those caveats. And even when I would say they were [2:32] probably more optimistic when they were announcing this memorandum of understanding in the beginning [2:37] of these talks, they kept adding those qualifiers. So I think that, yes, even though they are [2:44] telling us that they want to continue these conversations and negotiations, they are [2:50] incredibly far from any kind of end deal here. And the president, meanwhile, continues to threaten, [2:58] strikes continue to be made. And he also is talking about the war in a way as though he's fine if some [3:07] of his main objectives that he laid out when he announced this war are not met, including that just [3:13] this week. He said that we already got the nuclear dust that enriched uranium. He said the U.S. already [3:21] has it because it's so far underground. That's a bit of, you know, expectation setting, one could argue, [3:27] because of the fact that the president may end up saying, well, we don't need to we don't need it [3:31] anymore. OK, then two questions. Alex, is there any evidence backing up that we've got the enriched [3:38] dust? Because remember, when he launched the first strike, it was they've got a nuclear weapon. It's going to be [3:43] done in two weeks and they're going to use it. He didn't prove that. His latest claim, A, has he [3:48] proven it? And B, this ceasefire, do you consider it a turning point or just another bump in a very [3:54] long road? Well, in terms of the nuclear dust, you'll be surprised to hear that President Trump [4:00] doesn't always speak fully and with clarity. I think what he means by we got it is that the enriched [4:06] uranium is buried under many mounds of rubble after Operation Midnight Hammer last year to destroy the [4:11] three Iranian nuclear sites. And in Trump's estimation, or at least new comments, he's [4:16] basically saying Iran can't get to it. The only way to get to it would require American or even [4:21] Chinese excavation equipment. And so, in a sense, Iran has no access to that enriched uranium, which [4:27] therefore will make it hard for them to make a nuclear weapon. That seems to be what President [4:31] Trump is saying. And if that is indeed his claim, then it brings into question the whole reason for [4:36] this war now. Because if it is to be that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon, then right now, [4:40] they're pretty far from it, especially as President Trump is in office. So, what is the rest of this [4:45] for? And in terms of the ceasefire, I mean, it's a bunch of fires that aren't ceasing. [4:49] I have continued to say that basically, you know, this is a war that has just been continuing. The [4:56] ceasefire is one in name only. They've been doing tit for tat. Now, in the history of warfare, [5:00] we've seen ceasefires have these skirmishes throughout. But there's really never been, like, [5:06] an actual stop to this. There have been some times in which there are no fires. But the war [5:12] has continued because the aims have not been met, because the forces have not really stood down for [5:18] extended periods of time. So, we can call them ceasefires. We can call them pauses. But this war [5:22] has been going on since February 28. And there's no sign that it's stopping any immediate time soon. [5:27] A bunch of fires that aren't ceasing. I'm definitely stealing that line. Jake, [5:31] is the cost of this war, is it going to become one of, if not the biggest issue in the midterms? [5:37] MSNOW is reporting that Republicans on the Hill are getting more and more worried that [5:42] a deal is getting farther and farther away and gas prices could, in fact, soar. [5:47] There's two different costs. There's a political cost, which is very high. I mean, [5:54] you've seen slippage in these war powers resolution votes on the House floor in recent weeks. And Trump [6:01] has lost them when it comes to limiting his ability to prosecute wars in the Middle East. There's that [6:07] cost. There's also the cost that the Pentagon has asked for $67 billion in fresh money now, like not [6:15] in the future. Now they want it. And Trump has said, actually, I want $350 billion. That's a monetary [6:21] cost, which I think it's going to, that the Congress, when they return next week, is going [6:25] to have to begin to, or continue to seriously grapple with. I think that's going to become [6:30] very, very difficult. Voting for that supplemental spending bill is going to be seen as a proxy vote [6:38] for this war, period, the end. That's not something that a lot of Republicans, certainly no Democrats, [6:44] but a lot of Republicans are not going to want to be involved in that. [6:47] Okay. And you know who a lot of those Republicans talk to behind closed doors off the record? Fox [6:52] News and Fox News hosts, which is why this quote or this soundbite stuck out to me. A prominent Fox [6:59] News host called out some of America's negotiators in Iran by name. I think that's noteworthy. Watch this. [7:09] I also don't think that Witkoff and Kushner should be the ones doing this. They're business guys. [7:14] They have not been effective in Ukraine, not been effective in Gaza. They have not been effective [7:18] in this. They can't have three portfolios to begin with. We have a State Department for a reason. [7:25] Okay, Jake, combine that with an anonymous, brave, anonymous Republican lawmaker who said, [7:31] what in the world has Trump been doing? Why are things going so poorly? Is there any real plan for [7:35] how we're going to get out? How's the White House dealing with the questions coming from its own [7:39] party? This to me does feel like somewhat of a wow. Yeah. And I think the thing here is, [7:47] Steph, that they never really did the coalition building in the Capitol that they needed to. I [7:51] mean, this was avoidable. Well, in the Capitol, for sure, they never even really, I mean, they did [7:56] brief people. I want to be fair, but they never briefed people to the extent they actually needed [8:00] to, to bring people on their side and to say, here's what we're doing now. Here are the interim [8:06] steps that are going to need to happen. And here's what we're trying to achieve. Instead, [8:09] they just did the whole, like, Trump is great, blah, blah, blah. We should be able to beat Iran [8:14] and overthrow the regime and do all the stuff that we want to do. That's not, that's not useful for [8:19] members. I mean, Trump is not going to face reelection again, but there are dozens of House [8:23] Republicans this year who are, and who are facing an onslaught of democratic attacks from people who [8:30] are saying that the president entered an illegal war, is spending your money on a war in Iran instead [8:36] of on healthcare, where he let subsidies expire. Costs are high. They're getting higher. Gas prices [8:42] are up and down. That's not a great political argument. Remember, members of Congress are out [8:47] for themselves. They want to see themselves reelected. Donald Trump is going to be gone in two [8:52] years. They hope not to be. And I think to that end, they want to know what the plan is. And they [8:59] want, they want some sort of, you know, conclusion, at least in the, in the, in the near term to be [9:04] on the horizon. Well, then perhaps they might want to start, stop being so bold anonymously and start [9:12] speaking on the record. Jake, thank you. Laura, thank you. Alex, awesome reporting.