This Week with George Stephanopoulos Full Broadcast - Sunday, June 21, 2026

[0:00] Vice President Vance is meeting with the Iranians in Switzerland but is the peace deal in jeopardy? [0:07] This week starts right now. Shaky agreement. [0:10] Just as long as they're behaving, I really don't care that much. [0:13] The vice president touches down in Switzerland to meet face to face with the Iranians. [0:19] I think we're hopefully making progress on the nuclear issue. [0:22] This after Iran said it has closed the Strait of Hormuz, [0:26] blaming attacks by Israel into Lebanon. The U.S. says the Strait is open. [0:32] So which is it? We'll ask Energy Secretary Chris Wright. Bipartisan backlash. [0:39] Giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is an exceptionally bad idea. [0:45] What Trump has done in Iran is the art of the disaster. [0:49] Jaw-dropping, horrific surrender. That's what Obama's national security adviser, [0:54] Susan Rice, is calling the deal. She joins us live. A This Week exclusive. [1:00] We need a Democratic Party with backbone. [1:04] The roundtable on calls for a Democratic Party shakeup. Revolutionary beer. [1:11] So we're here on Fifth Avenue in New York to give you a look [1:14] at a piece of American history more than 250 years old. [1:17] Brewers in Brooklyn have dusted off George Washington's beer recipe. [1:22] We check out the new Liberty Lager. You made George Washington's beer, [1:27] but you also wanted to make a variation that was a little bit more modern. [1:30] Correct. From ABC News, it's This Week. Here now, Jonathan Karl. [1:39] Good morning. Welcome to This Week. As we come on the air this morning, [1:43] Vice President J.D. Vance is meeting with the Iranians in Switzerland. But even as that meeting [1:49] gets underway, there are real questions about whether the President's 60-day peace deal [1:54] is already in jeopardy. Iran's state-controlled media said late yesterday that the Strait of Hormuz [2:01] is closed. They said that was in retaliation for Israel's attacks over the weekend on Lebanon, [2:07] which Israel says were in response to attacks from Hezbollah, which, of course, [2:11] is supported by Iran. The Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire, which is a requirement of this Iran deal, [2:18] appears to have been broken and then reinstated twice over the past 48 hours. [2:25] As for the deal itself, President Trump is declaring the 60-day Memorandum of Understanding [2:31] a triumph, suggesting that if he didn't end the war, the world could have faced a global depression. [2:37] He has slammed Democrats for attacking his deal. But some of the harshest criticism has come from [2:44] Republicans. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy called it the worst foreign policy blunder in decades. [2:51] Senator Ted Cruz said giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is [2:58] not a good idea. And the chairman, Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, [3:04] said that the deal, quote, negotiates away the victories of Operation Epic Fury in ways that are [3:09] completely out of step with the president's goals. And then there's the New York Post, owned by Rupert [3:15] Murdoch, which called the deal worse than Obama's. We will hear in a moment from Susan Rice, who helped [3:23] craft President Obama's nuclear deal, and from Trump Energy Secretary Chris Wright. But we begin with [3:28] ABC's Tom Sufi Burge in Switzerland, where the Iran-US negotiations are just now underway, and ABC's [3:35] Brit clinic in Israel, where the incredibly tenuous ceasefire could derail the whole process. So, Tom, [3:42] let's start with you. We saw Vice President Vance arrive, the Iranians arrive. What's going on right now? [3:48] Yeah, John, I think we had some pretty bold and big language from the vice president as he kicked off [3:54] those talks at a luxury resort just around the corner from here, calling it a historic day, asking whether [4:00] Iran and the U.S. can turn a new leaf, transform their relationship, change things in the Middle East. [4:05] But I think there was also recognition, John, from the vice president about the more pressing [4:10] issues at hand, namely reopening the Strait of Hormuz and also securing a ceasefire [4:15] in Lebanon. Take a listen to part of what the vice president said just moments ago. [4:20] The opening of the Strait of Hormuz, the ending of the Iranian nuclear program, [4:24] all of these things have already been accomplished. The question before us now is how much more can we [4:29] accomplish together? Can we turn over a new leaf? Can we change relations in the Middle East permanently? [4:34] And John, of course, looming over everything right now is the fact that Iran Saturday [4:42] announced that once again it was shutting the Strait of Hormuz. So even before these much more [4:47] complicated negotiations begin on the future of Iran's nuclear program, that memorandum of [4:52] understanding signed by President Trump less than four days ago appears to be at risk of falling apart. [4:57] John? All right, Tom, thank you. Let's get to you, Britt, because it doesn't, [5:01] it looks like that ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah is tenuous at best. What is going on right now? [5:07] Yeah, John, you could argue this ceasefire in southern Lebanon never actually really began. [5:13] The fighting is ongoing between Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah. At least 28 people killed since the [5:20] ceasefire was announced on Friday. Israel saying it targeted Hezbollah positions in response to [5:25] incoming fire, while Hezbollah accuses Israel of striking first. Both sides clearly showing a little [5:31] restraint, a little restraint rather, threatening to unravel these talks. The U.S. accused of not fulfilling its [5:37] commitment in the memorandum to pressure Israel to stop its attacks in Lebanon. All eyes on [5:42] President Trump to see if he can push Israel to comply. The focus on Lebanon as a pressure test [5:49] where this whole deal could collapse, John. Sure doesn't look like a ceasefire, right, Britt? [5:54] Tom, thank you very much. I am joined now by Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International [5:58] Peace, Kareem Sajipour, and New York Times White House and National Security Correspondent, [6:03] David Sanger. All right, David, let me start with you. First of all, it was extraordinary to see [6:09] Vance there with the Iranians. No handshake that we saw yet. But is this deal already falling apart? [6:16] Well, first on the handshake, I don't think either one of them really wanted to see that. Vice President [6:21] Vance wouldn't want that photograph repeated if he runs for president, as seems likely, and the Iranians [6:28] have some significant elements to that. Second, the premise of the agreement, which is that you're [6:35] going to reopen the strait in return for a broad ceasefire, including Lebanon, that's showing to be [6:41] increasingly tenuous. And we could be in a situation, we don't know yet, where access to the strait just [6:47] gets turned on and off by the Iranians or pushed up and down in its level, depending on what's happening [6:57] in Lebanon and elsewhere. But then the vice president said something in that clip that really did kind [7:03] of astonish me. He said that the ending of the Iranian nuclear program, all of this has been accomplished. [7:10] Actually, none of this has been accomplished. There's 14 paragraphs of a deal. It has one paragraph [7:18] on the nuclear program. It deals with one of the four big nuclear issues. Further enrichment isn't [7:24] discussed. Closing nuclear facilities isn't discussed. Inspection isn't discussed. [7:29] The one thing that's in there is saying that Iran will not obtain or develop a nuclear weapon, which, [7:35] of course, was in the Obama deal in the first paragraph. And in 1970, when they signed the [7:40] Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Kareem, you are out just now with a very interesting piece in The [7:45] Atlantic. I want to read a quote from that. Embedded in this document, this Memorandum of [7:51] Understanding, is a new gamble that if Iran's revolutionaries can't be dislodged by force, [7:57] they might instead be bribed to abandon their identity. What did you mean by that? [8:02] So Trump's first big gamble was the hope that you can bomb Iran into submission. That didn't work. [8:09] The second big gamble now is can you bribe Iran's revolutionaries to essentially give up their [8:16] long-time ideology of death to America and death to Israel in exchange for economic concessions, [8:22] in exchange for economic integration and prosperity. And the reality is that this is a regime which [8:28] actually fears global economic integration. It believes it stays in power because of its [8:33] revolutionary ideology, which is the glue that keeps the security forces together. So that is a big [8:39] bet. Now, Vice President Vance has said behind the scenes there actually there actually are signs [8:44] that Iran's revolutionary guards are rethinking the revolutionary ideology, but we don't see any [8:50] public evidence of that. I mean, Trump has said more than that. Trump, President Trump has said that [8:55] this new regime, which he says is new because the supreme leader was killed and his son is now in charge [9:03] and some of the other leadership has been killed. But is there any evidence that this new regime has [9:08] moderated the way that the president has said? Zero evidence that this is a regime which has [9:14] moderated its internal conduct or its external conduct. And I think the great challenge that both [9:20] President Trump and Vice President Vance have is that four months ago they argued this regime is so [9:25] dangerous we have to bomb them. Now they're arguing that it's changed so profoundly that we can offer them [9:32] billions of dollars in concessions. And let me ask you, David, the president has pushed back hard on the [9:37] notion that Iran has emerged from this stronger than they were before the war started, as some have [9:43] said. Does he have a point? I mean, the Navy's been damaged. He says the Air Force has been eliminated. [9:48] He says the Air Force has been eliminated. The missile program has been taken out not entirely but [9:53] significantly. Does he have a point? He certainly has a point that the nuclear program, the conventional [10:01] military program is much degraded. The nuclear program is not at this point. He did that a year [10:08] ago, a year ago this weekend when he bombed them. And it's under rubble. But the objective of this was [10:16] not to cripple Iran's conventional military program. It was to get them to give up all of their nuclear [10:24] capability and the missile capability surrounding it. And that's what has not happened yet. By the way, [10:31] the president called you just before this was signed, which I found extraordinary because just a month [10:37] earlier he had accused you of treason. But what I mean, what was the point? He wants people to believe [10:43] this is this is the greatest deal. Does he believe it himself? I think he does. You know, I think he believes [10:48] this the way I think he believed in the first term that his negotiations with Kim Jong Un would eliminate [10:54] the North Korean nuclear program. Now, the North Koreans still have 60 nuclear weapons or more. [11:01] In the Iran case, I think he believes that he has so crippled their military that they will now fold on [11:08] all of the rest of these issues. And that's what we're about to discover in the talks in Switzerland. [11:15] But these are not technical talks, as the vice president referred to them. These go to the core [11:20] of the program. All right, David and Kareem, thank you both. Thank you. And I'm joined now by Energy [11:26] Secretary Chris Wright. Secretary Wright, thank you for being here. As we sit here now, the vice president [11:32] is in Switzerland for meetings with the Iranians. What do you expect to come from this first round of [11:37] talks? I think this first candid dialogue will set out what the Iranian goals are and what they think [11:47] the tradeoffs they might have to make are. We've just never been in this situation before. The U.S. [11:52] military, both in the actions to destroy the Iranian military capabilities and to force a way [11:59] through the Strait of Hormuz without any dialogue, have just put the Iranians in a massively different [12:04] situation. They don't have the leverage they've always had in talks before. [12:08] Well, let me ask you about the Strait, because the vice president said the Strait is open. [12:13] The Iranians said it's closed. And we heard that 55 ships came through yesterday. What is the status? [12:18] Are we partially opened? Is there really – when do we get back to the levels that we had before the war? [12:25] Well, 55 ships two days ago, as you said, 67 went through yesterday on an oil and oil products [12:35] volumes about equal to where we were before the war. But there's three channels through the Straits. [12:42] There's the middle normal navigational channel that, unfortunately, the Iranians have mined. So that [12:49] needs to be demined. Then there's a separate route up north by the Iranian islands that they've tried to [12:55] force ships through. And then there's a southern route that the United States military has been [13:01] escorting ships through for several weeks. And I think it's that returning the flows back towards [13:07] normal without any cooperation at all from Iran. That's the leverage President Trump used to get the [13:14] Iranians to come to the table and realize they're going to lose all the cards in their hand. Maybe they [13:20] can make a deal that brings some benefit to Iran. Maybe they can't. [13:24] So we've seen oil prices have come down pretty significantly even before the reopening started. [13:30] How soon do you expect gas prices to get down to the levels that we saw before this war? [13:38] Oh, I've got long out of the business of predicting oil or gasoline prices. But they will continue to head [13:44] down. Flows of oil and natural gas through the Straits have already returned to normal, and they will [13:51] continue that way, whatever happens with the negotiations with the Iranians. We've got growing [13:57] American production, surging production in Venezuela. We've got cooperation with all the other [14:03] energy producers of the world. So I think Americans can expect continued declines in energy prices. [14:09] But let me the other question. What happens if it falls apart? You just said if it falls apart, [14:14] we'll still see declining prices. But I want to play you something that President Trump said [14:19] at the G7. He seems to have President Herbert Hoover on his mind. Take take a listen. [14:23] The one president I did not want to be was the late, great Herbert Hoover, rather than possibly going [14:33] into a depression, rather than having your favorite president be Herbert Hoover. I was always the one [14:41] I didn't want to be. I mean, what he's saying there, and he has said a few different times, is that [14:46] if we go back to a state of war with Iran, we face the risk of global depression. Is that not true? [14:55] Look, the president... No, I don't... Well, look, the president has been advised all along, [15:02] despite the media proclamations, that there was enormous risk to energy flows to engage the Iranians [15:10] on their nuclear program in a military fashion. But he simply was unwilling to leave to his successor [15:18] a nuclear-armed Iran. That's just... There's just no greater risk to energy prices, to the economy of the [15:24] world, than a nuclear-armed Iran. He knew he was going to drive up energy prices in the short run. [15:31] He had the courage to take the action anyway, to destroy their Air Force, their Navy, most of their [15:38] nuclear program, and a lot of their military industrial complex, I think, to massive benefit [15:44] to future generations. But he knew that was a risk to energy prices. We've paid the price with higher [15:49] energy prices in the midterm. And then we have worked with our military focused on restoring flow, [15:55] with or without the Iranians, to reduce their leverage and get to a good answer. But he knows the [16:00] risk he's playing with. He took those chances, and the Americans win by it. And he seemed to be saying [16:06] he didn't want to... He couldn't go further because the risks would have been even greater. But let me [16:11] move to another thing. When he first engaged in this, when he first launched this war, [16:16] he said that one of the key objectives, and this was repeated by Marco Rubio several times as well, [16:21] was to obliterate Iran's missile program. Take a listen. [16:25] We are going to destroy their missiles and raise their missile industry to the ground. It will be [16:34] totally, again, obliterated. He's saying this. [16:39] If other countries have them, it's a little bit unfair for them not to have some. A ballistic missile is [16:49] not the same thing as what we're talking about when we talk nuclear. But if Saudi Arabia and Qatar, [16:55] and they all have some, I would say in relative proportion, I think it's okay. [17:00] So how did we go from saying that the objective of the war was to destroy their missile program [17:06] to saying that they've got a right to have missiles? Why the change? [17:11] Well, look, I think it's a matter of degrees. We've probably degraded their ability to make [17:17] missiles by 90 percent. That is a massive, I think you could call that an obliteration [17:23] of their missile making industry. But the president recognizes if they have, if they become a normal [17:29] nation and they become a citizen of the, of the Gulf community, for them to have a modest amount of [17:36] missiles, as he said, proportional to their neighbors, that's not, that's not an unreasonable [17:42] end to aim for. But in the meantime, they have been just massively more armed than all their neighbors. [17:48] They've spent all of their money and their earnings from their energy industry [17:52] to arm themselves to the teeth. That has been degraded massively. But need it go to zero? No, [17:58] it probably doesn't need to go to zero, is what the president is saying. [18:00] But let me ask you about what critics of this deal say that this is a windfall for the Iranians. [18:07] I mean, they're, they get to sell their oil now in the open markets using the banking system in a way they [18:12] haven't been able to do for years. They're going to get frozen assets on, on, unfrozen. And they [18:17] have the possibility of something much, much more if the nuclear agreement comes forward. What, what [18:22] do you say this is really a gift to the Iranians and they really haven't given up much of anything? [18:29] Oh, the Iranians have been selling oil most of the last 47 years. The first Trump administration [18:38] crimped that down to only a half million barrels a day. They exported over one and a half million barrels [18:43] a day during the entire Biden administration, which is what they're going to rebound to today. [18:48] That's all they're getting is the ability to yet sell their oil again. We proved to them for two [18:54] months, we could cease them from selling a drop of oil. And that's important leverage. Now that's [19:00] going to return back to where it was, but they're not going to get any of the other funds released, [19:06] their own frozen funds released, unless there's progress, meaningful and provable progress in the [19:12] nuclear talks. And the large numbers that are thrown around, that's simply the carrot President [19:17] Trump talks about. If they become a normal nation again, will their neighbors invest to build [19:23] infrastructure and welcome them to the community? Of course they will. But that's only if they return [19:29] to a normal nation. They're a long way from that today, but you got to put that carrot out there. [19:33] That's the aspiration. All right, Secretary Wright, thank you very much. [19:37] Thanks, John. Appreciate it. And I'm joined now by former Obama national security advisor [19:45] and ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice. Ambassador Rice, thank you for being here. [19:49] Good to be with you. Happy Father's Day, John. Thank you. And to all the dads out there today. [19:53] Thank you very much. I want to, you called this memorandum of understanding a jaw-dropping horrific [20:01] surrender. With reparations. So what, why is it so egregious? [20:05] It's egregious, John, because so many concessions were granted up front in this flimsy two page [20:13] memorandum of understanding that wouldn't normally and shouldn't have been granted until after there [20:20] was not only a fully comprehensive deal to at least deal with their nuclear program, but also that those [20:28] provisions that were negotiated had been agreed. So let me just explain to you some of the things [20:33] that were conceded up front. As the secretary just acknowledged, Iran, as of the signing of the [20:40] agreement, so on Thursday, is now able to sell all of its oil and all of its oil products on the market [20:47] unimpeded and use that money to rebuild itself. And use the banking system. And use the banking system. [20:53] Under the Obama nuclear deal, they couldn't have relief from oil sanctions until the deal was fully [21:00] implemented, not just preliminarily agreed. Secondly, they get access to tens of billions of dollars [21:09] of frozen assets in the very near term, within the next 60 days, contingent only upon the memorandum [21:17] of understanding this flimsy two page document being implemented. That means essentially once they've [21:23] opened the strait, they get all the access to their frozen assets without any constraint on how they spend it. [21:30] In the Obama era deal, they could only spend those frozen assets on humanitarian things, food and medicine. [21:37] Now they can use it to fund their terrorist proxies. Iran, thirdly, will now be able, after 60 days, [21:45] to charge fees for the transit of ships through the Strait of Hormuz, something they could never have done [21:52] before. They get 300 billion dollars from the United States and our Gulf partners. [21:59] Now, now the administration says once the deal is says none of that's going to come from the United States. [22:03] That's not what the agreement says. It says the United States with our Gulf partners will ensure that they [22:09] get that money when there's a final deal. And then two other things. When the deal is done, they say all sanctions [22:18] against Iran. Bilateral and multilateral will be lifted. Under the Obama deal, after they had fully [22:25] implemented everything, it was only the nuclear related sanctions that were lifted. And one last [22:30] point. The other crazy thing about this memorandum of understanding that sets us back enormously is that [22:37] we commit to withdraw U.S. military forces from the vicinity of Iran. That means our base is in the Gulf. [22:45] Are we walking away from the Middle East as a result of this deal? The administration would say no. And [22:51] they would say that those frozen assets, although I know exactly what it says, the memorandum of [22:56] understanding, they say there has to be progress on the nuclear talks first. But let me ask you. [23:01] But that's not what the document says, John. I understand. Most of our allies in the region seem to [23:08] welcome this because it meant an end to the war. Isn't a weak peace agreement better than a resumption [23:17] of a war, which I know you opposed from the start? I opposed this war because it was a stupid war. [23:21] And it was obvious that when you wage a stupid war, that every prior president had the wisdom to [23:28] avoid that you were going to end up with either bad outcomes or worse outcomes. So this ends what you [23:34] saw as a stupid war. It ends a stupid war. You get bad outcomes or worse outcomes. This is a very bad [23:40] outcome. I obviously think we shouldn't have been in this war in the first place because it was obvious [23:45] for decades that the only way to resolve this problem is through diplomacy. And now we're back to [23:51] diplomacy with a far weaker hand. Yes, their military has been degraded. But Iran has now figured out [23:58] they can use the Strait of Hormuz to hold us and the global economy hostage anytime they want. And [24:04] they've been playing that game over the last 48 hours. But just to make that fun because Ro Khanna, [24:08] Democrat Ro Khanna said that he supports this agreement, even though he says it's a shadow of [24:12] the one you helped negotiate with for President Obama, helped put together for President Obama. But [24:18] he says he supports this because it ends the war. And that's the important thing. We shouldn't be in [24:23] this situation, John. This was an extraordinary strategic blunder. We are in this situation and [24:29] we have suffered enormously. The American people have suffered. We've lost 13 servicemen and women. [24:35] We have paid over 50 billion dollars of taxpayer money for a war we never should have waged. The [24:41] American consumer is paying more than 50 billion dollars in increased costs. Our standing in the world [24:48] is weakened. And we've shown that when the United States, the greatest military on the face of the [24:54] planet and the Israeli army and the Israeli military throw the kitchen sink at Iran, they can be left [25:00] still standing, which weakens us globally. Let me ask you, one of the little tragic things in all of this [25:04] is the Iranian people, the Iranian opposition, which rose up while you were in the Obama administration [25:12] and rose up again now and have just been have just been brought down and see no hope. Do you think [25:18] we'll ever actually see reform and regime change or political reform? Certainly further. We're certainly [25:26] further away from that now than we have been for a long time. First of all, the suffering of the Iranian [25:30] people has been horrific in the context of this unnecessary conflict. And now we have a supreme leader [25:37] who's 30 years younger than his father, radical, in power indefinitely. And we've walked away. [25:45] President Trump said help is on the way to the Iranian people when they needed it most. And now we say [25:51] we don't care. So before you go, I want to ask you about the way President Trump and Vice President [25:56] Vance have been talking about Israel and the Israelis. Here, let's take a look at just what JD Vance said last [26:04] week. Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation [26:13] of Israel at this moment in time. And he happens to be the head of state of the world's superpower. [26:18] If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally [26:25] that I have anywhere left in the entire world. First of all, is that is that an accurate description [26:29] of the state affairs? That's an extraordinary statement. You said Trump is the only head of state [26:34] sympathetic to the nation of Israel that the United States is the only powerful ally that Israel has [26:39] in the entire world. Is that is that true? You know, I think that was an extraordinary statement. [26:44] And and I'm sure it's shocked a lot of people, particularly in Israel. But, you know, one of the [26:51] the outcomes of this is, you know, as President as Prime Minister Netanyahu has himself publicly [26:58] acknowledged on many occasions, he has tried to persuade many prior presidents to engage in war [27:05] with Israel against Iran and promising that that would result in regime change and an end to Iran posing [27:13] any threat. What we've got as a result of that war, which President Trump was the first to take the bait [27:20] on what is a strengthened Iran in terms of its geopolitical stature in the region, not militarily, [27:26] conventionally in the short term, but its nuclear program is fully intact. There is nothing in that [27:31] agreement that requires that the nuclear material, the dust, as the president likes to call it, can stay [27:37] removed from Iran. It will or destroy there. It has to be and stay in place. But the Israelis have suffered the most [27:43] because now, you know, this administration, if you take the president and the vice president's words, [27:50] has basically said to Israel, your concerns are not ours. All right. Ambassador Rice, thank you very much [27:55] for joining us this morning. When we come back, a feud between the U.S. and one of America's top allies [28:02] intensifies all over a supposed photo request with the president. We'll come right back. They have a new [28:12] group of leaders that I think is actually I think they're smarter. I think they're very smart. I think [28:19] they're far less radicalized. And I think they're I think they're really good. They love their country. [28:28] Frankly, I think it's regime change. I think they're going to behave much differently. I think they [28:33] see a different way of life that they were never exposed to. All right. Welcome back. The Roundtable is [28:41] here. Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former DNC Chair, Donna Brazile, Bernie Sanders, [28:46] 2020 campaign manager, Faz Shakir and SCOTUS blog editor, Sarah Isger. All right, Chris, I want to start [28:53] with something that the national Jim Garrity of the National Review said about J.D. Vance and his [28:58] predicament as he's here meeting with the Iranians. Garrity writes a vice president who apparently never [29:04] wanted to start the war now gets the job of selling the country on a deal with one of the world's most [29:10] untrusted or the treacherous regimes. You almost have to feel sorry for Vance almost. I mean, this [29:17] is a tough position for him. Well, let's let's put all this in context. Right. I give the president [29:23] all the credit the world for the June bombing of the nuclear sites. But now we get to February. [29:28] He tells us this is about regime change, unconditional surrender, eliminate the nuclear threat and [29:33] eliminate their missile capability. That's what he tells us. He then does five weeks of war less than [29:38] what the Pentagon wanted him to do. And then he stops and he stops and fills the air with a whole [29:44] bunch of empty threats about when he's going to restart. Then he gets to the point where the [29:50] Iranians have him in a corner because of the economic calamity that's caused by something that [29:55] apparently his geniuses in his national security team didn't anticipate that they would close the [30:00] Strait of Hormuz. How they didn't anticipate that, John, I don't know. So now he has to make a deal [30:06] because he feels the economy in the United States crumbling beneath him. And what's he do? He gives [30:12] them the option of opening or closing the Strait of Hormuz based upon their interpretation of whether [30:18] they have to work it out with Oman. Right. Us and Israel are complying. Us and Israel, [30:22] not a party to the agreement. He gives them a $300 billion bribe offer. He unfreezes all of their assets. [30:31] He gives them their oil profits back, which is $35 to $50 billion a year. On top of it, [30:37] he doesn't prevent them from charging service fees to go through the Strait, which JP Morgan [30:43] says could be $60 to $90 billion a year. And now to end it up, to end where you started, [30:49] he hands over the negotiations to a naive and inexperienced vice president and two other guys [30:56] who would be better buying you an office building in Alexandria than negotiating this. And let me say [31:02] this. He's gone from America first to Iran first. All right. But Faz, let me ask you. I talked to [31:09] Susan Rice about what Ro Khanna said, which Ro Khanna said, I support this. I mean, I don't think it's a [31:14] good deal. This is what Obama did. But it's better than continuing the war. Well, he's in a box canyon [31:19] and he's trying to find a way out. And this is the best he can do. So in my mind, you know, war that never [31:24] should have started. Of course, we should have some accountability over the judgment of this war. [31:29] This should play into the elections. We know that AIPAC is going to spend probably something like [31:33] $100 million that they're sitting on right now. In their efforts, they are trying to take on Bernie, [31:38] AOC, Zoran Mamdani, a whole bunch of progressives, because they don't want to see a vision that is [31:45] America first. That says, hey, instead of spending money in Iran, how about we have Medicare for all? How [31:49] about we have affordable housing in America? How about we talk about building affordable, good [31:54] transportation and infrastructure in America? These are choices. And one of the choices that's [31:58] been left on the tables, we've spent money elsewhere. And the democratic socialist movement [32:01] and populist left is increasing in support because there's an integrity of saying, hey, [32:05] America first, there it is. This is a vision. And, Don, on some breaking news, [32:10] just while Faz was talking, the president out on True Social posting that Iran must immediately [32:16] stop their highly paid proxies in Lebanon from causing trouble. If they don't, we will hit Iran very hard [32:22] again. So even as Vance is sitting down for these peace talks, he's threatening more war. [32:30] Yeah, because if you look at the memorandum of understanding, and Lord knows I read it, [32:36] there's nothing about the proxies. There's nothing about the drone capability, Iran's capability, [32:42] drone capability. There's nothing about the missile capabilities. And so now the president is [32:46] reinterpreting something that he's already signed and did not include that in the beginning. So what is the [32:52] point? As Chris said, we go to war because, once again, we can. Thank God we have a strong military. [32:59] Bless the families of those 13 servicemen and women who lost their lives and those who are [33:04] continuing to heal from this war. But everyone knew from the beginning that Donald Trump did not [33:09] have a good rationale to take this country into war. And now, out of desperation, they signed a [33:14] memorandum that doesn't include all of these important points. But as every time he talks about that [33:19] memorandum, or three times that I've counted in the last few days, he has invoked the name Herbert, [33:24] Herbert Hoover, which I don't usually hear presidents talk about. But saying basically that if [33:30] we didn't do this, however, whatever you think of this memorandum, he thinks it's wonderful. But [33:34] even if you don't like it, he's described the alternative as going back to war and plunging [33:38] the globe into a depression. Do you know what's really missing from all of this? Any talk of Congress [33:46] and how this is all supposed to work on foreign policy? We have focused so much on the unilateralism [33:51] of Donald Trump's domestic policy. We actually haven't talked about how the exact same thing is [33:56] happening on the foreign stage. Remember, majorities of Congress voted against this war. But because it [34:02] was not enough, it wasn't a veto-proof majority, the president has basically been able to ignore [34:07] Congress. This memorandum of agreement arguably violates a statute, the Iran Nuclear Agreement [34:14] Review Act, which says that you cannot waive sanctions. You can't give the money back [34:18] without Congress having the ability to review that over 30-plus days. But no one's talking about [34:24] that, because we have accepted through Obama, through Trump, through Biden, through Trump, [34:29] that presidents now do domestic policy by executive order, and they do foreign policy [34:34] unilaterally. So we have this pendulum swing on Iran. We have a pendulum swing on the Paris climate [34:40] agreements. You can't run a country this way. It won't last. How much is this going to hurt [34:46] Republicans in the midterms to pick up FAS? Well, at least before this, they had a rationale. [34:53] Our rationale was Iran's a nuclear threat. We're going to eliminate that nuclear threat. That's good [34:59] for the world. Now you have the same people who are arguing that, arguing that this is okay. I mean, [35:05] look, J.D. Vance is sitting over there now, and you just read the true social post. You know what the [35:11] Iranians think of that? They don't care. How many times? This is the same guy who said he was going [35:16] to eliminate their civilization. He was going to bomb every bridge. He was going to bomb every [35:21] power plant. He did nothing. I mean, he did hit them pretty hard. John, towards what end? [35:28] Well, that's a question, but he did. Well, your job as president is not to just flex your muscles. [35:35] It is towards an end. There was no strategy here, John. There was no strategy at all. He [35:41] won in Venezuela. And as a result, he thought he could do this. [35:45] I want to ask, Donna, I want to get you on something else, and then we're going to have [35:49] to take a quick break. But while he was praising the new regime he calls new regime in Iran, [35:55] he was saying things about the Italian prime minister. He said that she begged him for photographs, [36:03] and highly critical of her for not allowing the U.S. to use Italy's bases. And she said that this is [36:09] completely fabricated and pointed out that Trump was saying harsher things about his friends, [36:15] about America's allies, than about America's enemies. She was absolutely right to rebut everything [36:22] he said, because it was clear that the president was walking around at the G7 looking for friends, [36:28] and everybody was like, huh? So I don't know what that's all about. Look, the bottom line is, [36:33] the president made a huge mistake in going into Iran, and now we're going to pay the price because [36:37] it was a deal based on desperation and not no real strategy for moving forward. [36:42] I had an Italian mother. He's out of his depth. She's picking a fight there. [36:46] She was pretty tough. Did you see her getting his face? [36:48] Let me tell you, John, I live that. That's the way I was raised. See that look like that? That's [36:52] the way I was raised. I'm married to an Italian. I don't know what you're talking about. [36:55] Up next, Democrats are still talking about 2024. The roundtable is back with why Hillary Clinton came [37:03] out blasting Joe Biden this week. All right, the roundtable is back. So, Fas, let me ask you what [37:12] we just heard before the break from Mayor Mamdani, saying that basically the Democratic Party needs [37:18] backbone. Is the Democratic Party heading in his direction, Democratic Socialists of America? I mean, [37:24] we saw another DSA candidate win the primary here in D.C. They got to the runoff in Los Angeles. [37:30] Is that where the energy in the party is now? Yeah, and populist left candidates, Graham Plattner, [37:34] Abdul Al-Sayed, a bunch of people who are doing very well right now. And the reason you have to ask [37:38] why. Why are they doing so well? And part of the reason what Mayor Mamdani is saying is you have to [37:41] have an agenda. So we're living in a period of scarcity. Donald Trump is saying 132 billion for Iran. [37:46] That's great. We should spend that. Instead, we can't have Medicare for all. We can't have we have to cut [37:51] Medicaid. Can't have affordable child care in this country. Got to cut food stamps. Can't do anything [37:56] about decency of raising the minimum wage to a living wage. No, none of those things are possible, [38:01] according to Trump and according to most conservative, you know, center left and center [38:07] right politicians. Status quoism. And here you have a movement that is building support because saying [38:11] here's an affirmative agenda of a vision that is improving the lives of working class people in this [38:15] country. But Donna, can that agenda win nationally? Look, the affordability agenda has many [38:21] voices. And at a time when the Democratic Party is still searching its way out of the 2024 campaign, [38:27] I feel like every week we're in the coroner's office reviewing another autopsy. It's not just about your [38:31] spine or your brain or your heart. It's about making sure that you have an agenda that inspires the [38:36] American people, whether you live in Washington, D.C., Seattle, New York, that, yeah, they may be moving [38:41] in that direction. But most Democrats are pragmatic. They're centrist. They're also bold in their solution. [38:48] They understand that progressives want a voice within the party. But I don't believe that this [38:53] this so-called energy is is going to carry us forward unless we can build coalitions and coalitions [39:00] that can earn us the votes of the American people. Chris, look, this is fine. You know, in this post [39:09] 2024 period for the rise of folks like Mom Donnie, they have to show they can actually do the job. [39:16] He's in the easy part right now. He gets to give speeches. He gets to wear a Knicks jersey. [39:21] He gets to, you know, run a parade, which I was there. It was sketchy in terms of the way the [39:27] city helped him run that. He's off to a pretty good start, though, isn't he? But, John, [39:31] he's off to a pretty good start. What does that mean? He has not yet accomplished any of what [39:36] he talked about in his campaign. Well, he's been in office. Child care expansion has occurred. [39:41] Potholes are being fixed. No shoveling occurred. Oh, really? You've driven to New York. Potholes are [39:45] being fixed? Of course. Of course you haven't. And that's why, you know, you want to believe [39:48] the rhetoric that Mom Donnie people put out. They're fixing things. He hasn't done anything [39:52] yet. I'm not saying he can't. He has not. So to say he's off to a good start means he hasn't thrown [39:58] up on his shoes. Well, congratulations. That's a great thing. And he can run a rally for a team that [40:03] wins the NBA championship. Great job. What he's saying right now is all rhetoric and no accomplishment. [40:09] And I think what Democrats have to show, especially if they get Congress back this fall, [40:14] is that they can accomplish some things. And the Sanders wing of the party [40:19] has never shown that they can accomplish anything. Big speeches, no accomplishments. [40:23] There's a finger wag here going on of elites who say, hey, look at these dumb people. Look at this [40:28] Mayor Mom Donnie not doing anything. Look at the people of New York. What are they saying? His [40:33] in popularity has been increasing. Why? Just be curious about it. Why do regular working-class [40:39] New Yorkers? Some people who voted against him are saying, hey, I like this guy. What's he doing? [40:43] He wakes up every day with a sense of integrity of saying, I'm going to improve your life. I'm focused [40:46] on you. Yeah, I could be worried about Ken Griffin. I could be worried about private equity. I could be [40:50] worried about Michael Bloomberg. But I'm worried about you. And I'm going to try to work on things. [40:54] And you and I know, like, you've had a tough job as mayor or governor of New Jersey. It is hard to be a [40:59] person in charge. And yet, while he does it with integrity, a desire to improve working-class people, [41:05] he's focused on the underdogs. And I think it's working. And let me ask you. So he's talking about [41:10] the party getting together. I want to play what Hillary Clinton said this week. Let's listen. This [41:15] is about Joe Biden. He made a terrible mistake. He made a terrible mistake for himself, his legacy, [41:21] and for the country. We would have had a real contest. And very sadly, I believe whoever emerged from [41:29] that contest, whether it was the vice president or a governor or a senator or anybody else, [41:34] would have beaten Donald Trump. Back at the coroner's office. December 1st, [41:39] 2022, I was there at the DNC meeting when Joe Biden announced that he wanted South Carolina to go [41:44] first. That was the early sign that Joe Biden was running. We spent most of 2023 arguing about it. [41:50] And then we went into 2024. We can look back all we want at what happened. The fact is Kamala lost. [41:59] President Trump regained the White House. And Democrats have to really figure out how to move forward [42:04] and how to rebuild a party in a coalition that can govern. This is a very dangerous time for the [42:09] Democratic Party. I would compare it to the Republican Party in 2012 when Mitt Romney loses. [42:14] And what the Republican base learned from that. And when you were at the RNC. I was at the RNC for that [42:20] autopsy. They did not learn to build coalitions. Instead, it fuels the Tea Party movement on steroids. [42:29] That is what is going to give rise to then Donald Trump defeating the Republican Party before he [42:34] defeats Hillary Clinton in 2016. The Democratic Party is at a turning point where it could cease to [42:40] be the Democratic Party. All right. We've got to take up next. Scottish soccer fans drank Boston's [42:46] Sam Adams taproom dry this week. That's right. They literally ran out of their flagship beer [42:52] while celebrating their nation's first World Cup game since 1998. Although Sam Adams is one of [42:59] America's most popular beers, the Boston Brewer wasn't the only founding father with the title [43:04] Brewer Patriot. We're back in two minutes. The archives of the New York Public Library are filled with [43:12] treasured artifacts from American history. Some of those treasures are now on display on an exhibit [43:18] called Declaring America 1776 and beyond, including one of the first copies of the Declaration of [43:25] Independence. But we got a look at one of the most prized items in their collection and one that is [43:31] still behind closed doors, a little known piece of American history. So we're here on Fifth Avenue in New [43:38] York to give you a look at a piece of American history more than 250 years old from America's founding [43:44] father that is just now being brought to life. George Washington is a man of many titles, but there's [43:50] one you might not know about George Washington's notebook. That's right. On the very last page of a [43:59] notebook older than America itself is a special recipe. This is the notebook that he wrote in during [44:05] the year 1757. So this is George Washington as a British loyalist long before Washington was the commander [44:15] in chief of the Continental Army. He was a brewer. It says to make small beer. And then the question [44:23] is what is small beer? What is small beer? So small beer was a sort of a lower ABV version of beer. Yes. [44:31] It's not a malt liquor. No, it was one of those IPAs that's 11% alcohol. Not a lager, not an ale. It was not [44:39] something that you drank with the goal of being intoxicated. What this is, is a safe method of [44:48] being hydrated. When the New York Public Library acquired Colonel George Washington's notebook more [44:54] than a century ago, at first they were unaware of the uniqueness of what they had purchased. [44:59] The amazing thing about this, I mean, this is Washington's recipe. This is in his handwriting. [45:06] This is what he made as a 25 year old colonel. And this has been in the library's collection for over [45:12] 100 years. To begin making the beer, you first boil the water and in the process ensure it is safe to [45:18] drink. This would have really been an essential public health tool, which is not really how we think [45:23] about beer these days. And you don't want it. You don't want a drunk army either. But this was a low alcohol [45:28] beer. This was like a 1% or something. To mark America's 250th birthday, the library decided to [45:36] put Washington's recipe to the test. To make it happen, they turned to Talaya, a women owned and [45:42] founded brewery based in Brooklyn. We made the trip across the East River to check it out ourselves. [45:48] You decided to make George Washington's beer? Yes. Because when the New York Public Library asks [45:54] you to do something, you do it. They can be very intimidating. Yeah, right. But in the 269 years [46:02] since Colonel Washington put his recipe down on paper, a lot has changed about the brewing process. [46:09] Our brewing team definitely dug in, especially on the technical side and the different variations of [46:16] fermentable sugars that could be used. Washington's recipe used molasses as the fermentable ingredient, [46:22] something that's not used today. This recipe also left some specifics to be interpreted. [46:27] I think he says to use like a quarter of yeast. Like what? A quarter of what? Correct. A quarter [46:36] pinch, quarter handful. Sticking to Washington's recipe creates a beer that tastes and looks [46:43] different from beers today. It doesn't really look, you know, like... Appetite thing? Yeah, right. [46:48] Looks like it could have been left over from one of George Washington's collections, but this is fresh. [46:54] It is fresh. All right, George Washington. Not bad. I mean, unusual. I will say, a little bit unusual. [47:02] As expert brewers with access to beer making tools Washington couldn't have dreamed of, the women of [47:09] Talea knew that they'd have to tweak that recipe to make something more palatable to the modern drinker. [47:15] You made George Washington's beer, but you also wanted to make a variation that was a little [47:19] bit more modern. Correct. So... So kind of a cousin of George Washington's beer. [47:23] A more modern approach. Now that's a good beer. Fantastic. Appreciate it. [47:30] That's all for today. Happy Father's Day. Check out World News tonight and have a great day.