Stunned MAGA turns on 'warmonger' Trump over 'humiliating' Iran deal: 'We didn't sign up for this'

[0:00] bipartisan outrage over Donald Trump's Iran deal. Ironically, after a costly and very polarizing [0:06] war, the only thing every political faction seems to be able to agree on is that nobody likes this. [0:13] It's an agreement that ends hostilities, reopens the Strait of Hormuz, and boosts Iran's economy [0:18] by unfreezing assets, granting oil waivers, and more, while guaranteeing nothing about Iran's [0:24] nuclear program. Today, the condemnation is coming from across the political spectrum. [0:29] Obama and Biden official Susan Rice, calling it a, quote, jaw-dropping horrific surrender [0:35] document. GOP Senator Ted Cruz warning it rewards, quote, theocratic lunatics. The New York Times [0:42] writing, Iran gets major economic lifeline for minimal concessions in initial deal. Quote, [0:49] Iran emerged from a confrontation with the world's most powerful military, having proved they can use [0:55] economic chaos as a weapon. Axios pointing out that Trump initially demanded total surrender, [1:02] the full dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program, no enrichment, no ballistic missiles, and a say in [1:09] picking Iran's supreme leader. Trump got absolutely none of the above. Now the administration is moving [1:16] the goalposts, though, and trying to sell victory here. Listen for yourself to what Secretary of State [1:21] Marco Rubio said about Iran's ballistic missiles during the war and what Trump is saying about [1:26] them now. The purpose of this is to destroy that missile capability. Why does Iran want that [1:34] ballistic missile capability? Can I follow up quickly on something you said in the press conference? You said [1:38] you don't mind Iran having ballistic missiles. Can you elaborate on that? I want to make sure we understand [1:42] your position first. No, I'm saying that if other countries have them, it's a little bit unfair for them [1:48] not to have some. Mind you, this was one of the administration's top objectives for this whole [1:56] war. But now never mind, it would be unfair to deny Iran ballistic missiles. And this about face, [2:04] it is not going over well. The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board writing that Trump [2:08] signed a quote, recipe for the surrender of the Strait of Hormuz to the dictates of Iranian foreign [2:14] policy. The conservative drudge report showing Lady Liberty herself covering her face with her [2:19] hands in shame. The Times digging into the way the deal is driving a rift among Republicans. [2:27] History demonstrates that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us [2:33] is an exceptionally bad idea. Unless you were homeschooled by a day drinker, [2:40] no one's confident that Iran's going to do anything. $300 billion, obviously a lot of money. [2:46] Who's paying this money? And why? Why would they do this? [2:51] If we give billions of dollars to Iran, that money will be used to murder Americans. [2:56] I didn't believe it. I thought somebody was spoofing me. [2:59] The idea that we would have effectively a Marshall plan for Iran and come in and rebuild [3:06] Iran after they've been the leading state sponsor of terrorism for 47 years, [3:11] they've murdered nearly a thousand Americans. I don't think that makes any sense. [3:15] Yesterday, Trump said if the deal with Iran goes south, quote, blame J.D. It sounded like a joke, [3:22] but today the administration sent Vance to face questions from the press all by himself. [3:29] And joining me now to break all of this down is Richard Stengel, who served in the Obama State [3:34] Department that struck the initial 2015 Iran nuclear deal. He's now an MSNOW political analyst [3:40] and Basil Smichel, professor at Columbia University School of Professional Studies. [3:45] He's also an MSNOW political analyst. It's great to have both of you guys with me tonight. [3:49] So, Rick, I'll start with you. I think this is sort of the central question people are [3:53] scratching their heads with this week, which is, is there a single thing in this deal, [3:58] as it stands right now, that required us to go to war, that could not have been achieved [4:05] through conversation, through diplomacy, anything that justifies all the people who lost their lives, [4:11] the bombs that were dropped? [4:13] You know, Antonio, that is the issue. I mean, it was an, it was an unforced war. It was a war of [4:19] choice. There was no existential threat to America. And that was the initial mistake. That's the original [4:26] sin. I do think we need to, you know, carve out a difference between why some people are objecting [4:31] to it and others. Conservatives, some conservative Republicans are objecting to the treaty because we [4:38] haven't continued bombing the heck out of it. Right. I mean, I'm not in favor of that. And [4:42] progressives are not in favor of that. Progressives are unhappy because the war was started without a [4:47] reason. And then it was settled with this incredible windfall to the Iranians. And so I don't ever like [4:55] to, you know, rejoice on America capitulating to somebody else and the mistakes that Donald Trump [5:01] made. But again, it was an initial mistake and it was compounded by the settlement, which was driven [5:06] by economic factors. And, you know, it turns out that the Iranians do have a nuclear weapon. It's [5:11] called the Strait of Hormuz. Basil, how do you see Republicans now dealing with this mess that the [5:17] president has put out? They're obviously reacting very publicly, but they are going to have to go back [5:21] to their constituents and answer for the fact that 13 Americans have died. More than 3,000 Iranians [5:27] died. That doesn't even include people in Lebanon. And as we are finding out here, Lebanon is very [5:32] much a front in this war. The military spent nearly $30 billion. Some analysts actually have it higher [5:38] than that. And this has cost the U.S. economy $132 billion. If you're a Republican and you go to a [5:45] constituent and they're asking you about all this, what do you even say? Well, if, you know, on the one [5:49] hand, you would say, believe in your president, but the voter is not going to have a lot of evidence [5:56] or opportunity to really have that feeling and engagement with their president because [6:01] there's an inconsistency that comes from this White House that is astonishing. I listened to Susan Rice [6:09] the other day explain the Obama deal. She was incredibly bright, brilliant. It was smart. It was [6:18] evidence-based. It was thoughtful. It's exactly what you would want to hear from an administration, [6:23] everything that this administration is not. So what the Republican voters are hearing is just a lot [6:30] of noise. And from that, an inability to make sense of the path forward. And to pull a thread from [6:37] something that you said, there are multiple constituencies within the Republican Party on [6:42] this, right? You have the isolationists that didn't want this at all. You have some populists who [6:50] want America to be strong and want the president to be strong. So they don't like the fact that there [6:55] seems to be some capitulation here. And then there were others that would probably want him to do so [7:00] much more damage, right? And one of the things that you, one of the things, the points that you made in [7:04] the tease is that he, they wanted a say in who becomes the next leader. That sounds like regime change to [7:10] me. And when you bring that to the voter, right, particularly his base, who was largely isolationist, [7:17] they're going to be like, wait, we didn't sign up for this. And I don't think there is a response [7:21] that comes from this White House that either A, makes, assuages their concern, or B, is able to take [7:29] away from the economics of this that seem like they impact the president more than the country in a [7:36] positive way. Well, there's the people who may be kind of wondering about the regime change piece [7:41] of it, because it was so much a part of the drumbeat leading up to this moment. But there are also [7:46] Iranian Americans who were very much, they believed that they came on our air. And they said they [7:52] actually did believe that all this was a good idea. They were hoping for regime change. We saw our, [7:57] our government, also the Israeli government, send signals to people in Iran, rise up. This is your [8:02] moment. You know, there's all the reporting around an effort to arm people. And so you can't even [8:07] blame them for believing that something there was going to change. Rick, when you, when you look at [8:12] the facts now, did any part of the Iranian political system change for the better? You know, you brought [8:19] up a good point, which we haven't heard enough about in the last few days, is that the other victim [8:24] here is the Iranian people, right? We have kind of betrayed them. We, we, we, you know, said, look, [8:32] we're going to support you in your democratic efforts. And what has happened, and this always [8:36] happens when, when a country is bombed from afar, is that the, the very conservatives band together. [8:44] And so the, the, the, the revolutionary guard now is even more conservative than it was before. [8:50] And so it's just, it's put the Iranian people in a, in a, in an impossible position. They saw us as an [8:57] ally. And as you say, lots of Iranian Americans were saying, yes, please, please do this. And now [9:02] they're in a worse position than they were before. And that is, that goes not only for the Iranian [9:06] people, it goes for our other allies. It goes for our Gulf allies are in a worse position. [9:11] The Israelis are in a worse position. And of course, we are in a worse position. [9:15] If I, and just an important piece to that too, because we had that same conversation with [9:19] Venezuela, right? That yes, you had a lot of Venezuelan Americans that were saying, you know [9:25] what, the guy was bad. He should probably go. And so they were cheering what the president did. [9:30] That's all well and good. But the question is how many more of these conflicts will America enter [9:36] into haphazardly or half-assed, right? How, how often are we going to be able to do that and still [9:43] focus on what's happening here at home? Well, I can tell you, as someone with family living in Cuba, [9:47] they are watching everything that's happening in Iran very, very closely right now. And there is [9:53] a community here in the United States, of course, that seems to believe that what could happen there [9:57] would be just as simple as what happened in Venezuela. And even while that is cleaner sort [10:01] of on the surface, the reality is the Venezuelans don't have democracy either. No elections yet. [10:06] Delcy Rodriguez was a crook too. She's now running the place. She's elevated a guy who used to torture [10:12] people into a key position in the government. I mean, the idea that we've really done regime [10:16] change there hasn't quite worked out either. And in the agreement, I mean, it was kind of an [10:20] amazing, it's amazing to read the agreement. In the agreement, we also say, we're not going to [10:24] meddle in your affairs. We do. Yeah. No, we've already, you know, Trump has already betrayed that, [10:30] but you know. What do you make of J.D. Vance in this moment? And just, I mean, the messaging he's [10:37] done. He's been on this media tour, but it's part of that's because he has a book out. The other part of [10:40] it seems like Trump and Marco Rubio have kind of shoved him out there. Like, you clean this mess [10:45] up. Well, and the irony, as you know, Antonia, is that he was the one person who objected to us [10:52] invading Iran. He was the one person in the situation room who said, hey, let's not do this. [10:57] He has always been a kind of isolationist. Let's not get involved in foreign wars. You know, [11:02] he's being a good soldier. He's being a good soldier because he wants to have the endorsement of [11:06] Trump when he runs for president. But it's a complicated position for him to be in. [11:10] So, let's go. [11:11] Let's go. [11:12] Let's go. [11:13] Let's go. [11:14] Let's go. [11:15] Let's go. [11:16] Let's go. [11:17] Let's go. [11:18] Let's go. [11:19] Let's go. [11:20] Let's go. [11:21] Let's go. [11:22] Let's go. [11:23] Let's go. [11:24] Let's go. [11:25] Let's go. [11:26] Let's go. [11:27] Let's go. [11:28] Let's go. [11:29] Let's go. [11:30] Let's go. [11:31] Let's go. [11:32] Let's go. [11:33] Let's go. [11:34] Let's go. [11:35] Let's go. [11:36] Let's go. [11:37] Let's go.