Brooks and Keyhart talk about Trump’s decision to launch strikes on Iran

Amna Nawaz:

Well, it’s been about a week since the US and Israel launched those attacks on Iran. Meanwhile, new job numbers add to the economic uncertainty.

To discuss all this, we now turn to Brooks and Capehart’s analysis. These are The Atlantic’s David Brooks and MS NOW’s Jonathan Capehart.

It’s great to see you both.

Jonathan Capehart:

Hey, safe.

Amna Nawaz:

So, before we get into how Americans view this war, which we need to talk about, I just want to kind of step back. It’s the first time we’ve talked since the war started.

We have seen increasing justifications from management about why now and what they hope to achieve.

So, David, let’s start there. What is your understanding of why this war was launched now and whether it was justified or not?

David Brooks:

Well, I hate the way the decision was made, which seems so random.

I shared everyone’s reservations and fears that there was no exit strategy, that there was no plausible way to change the system, not to mention the deaths that were occurring. So I share everyone’s concerns.

It is also true that the Iranian Revolution of 1979 was one of the worst events of the 20th century. And 47 years of terrorism, extremism and theocratic fascism began. It started with the killing of one to two million people in the Iran-Iraq war in 1980. 241 Americans were killed by Iranian supervision in Beirut.

And it continues. Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas have destabilized the Middle East. They killed people in Syria. A few weeks ago, they killed 10,000 to 30,000 people in Iran who were protesting. This is a destructive and brutal regime that has destabilized the Middle East.

It is also a system in an unprecedented vulnerable state. It has lost the trust of its people. Its economy is in tatters. Her army was destroyed. Its regime has been decapitated. So I’m conflicted. I hope the Iranian regime falls. This could happen.

What bothers me, frankly, is the people who are certain, the people who are certain that this is a terrible thing and the people who are certain that this is a good thing. We don’t know. But people who ignore the atrocities Iran has committed in the world over the past 47 years should hope this works. We don’t know.

Amna Nawaz:

Jonathan.

Jonathan Capehart:

So – given what we went through in the second Gulf War, given what we went through in Afghanistan, why on earth are we now at war with Iran?

This is what I’m trying to understand. And I would feel better if the United States – if the President and his administration provided us, the American people, with consistent, logical justifications. Instead, we got multiple justifications within the first 24 or 48 hours.

And I still don’t really understand why we do what we do. And really, what is the endgame? If you’re going to go out there and break Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn rule, well, what’s the plan then? I don’t know what the plan is.

The thing that bothered me about all of this was the level of disrespect. The President has shown Congress, he has shown the American people, and he has shown the military by doing what he does without a clear plan, and talking rather blissfully about the potential loss of military service members’ lives.

But today, in an interview with Time magazine, when he was asked about that, he said — about possible reprisals on American Americans at home, he said, “I think,” and he said that this is a war, and there will be loss of life.

No, Mr. President, you owe the American people more than superficial talking points on a matter of great importance. Yes, the Iranian regime was terrible, and great if it fell, but only great if there was an actual plan for what would come next if it fell.

Amna Nawaz:

The American public seems to have a lot of questions about this topic as well. Here’s a look at how the war resonated back home, according to some questions from the latest PBS News/NPR/Marist poll.

Only 44% of Americans support US military action in Iran; 56 oppose it. This includes 66% of independents. Only 36% of Americans approve of the way President Trump is dealing with Iran in general. This is down from 42% in January 2020, when the United States assassinated Iranian General Qasem Soleimani.

So, David, a man who has not been involved in any new foreign wars, faces an audience that does not want to see this happen. How does this end?

David Brooks:

Yes, first, I would like to say that the reason for our war is that Iran declared war on us 47 years ago. And we were in a perpetual war with Iran that continued until last week, when they were trying to rebuild their nuclear weapons.

As for the American people, America has learned the lessons that Jonathan mentioned. I even learned lessons from the Iraq War and the lessons of imperial expansion. It is good for us that we have learned this lesson. The second thing causing the war’s low poll ratings is Donald Trump’s low poll ratings and distrust of the way civilians seem to be running the war, but certainly not the military.

But third, Donald Trump did not market the war. We had — whether you liked the outcome of the Iraq War debate, we had a year-long debate before George W. Bush went to war in Iraq. We had nothing. We spent a few minutes on the State of the Union address, which was quick.

Thus, if the President is going to spend the money and blood of Americans, he really owes it to the American people to sell it to them. And he did nothing. I–it would be nice to go to Congress, but it’s been decades since Congress has declared war on anyone. This is for both parties.

But he should sell it and explain what the hell he’s doing. And they didn’t, which is why people are so worried and nervous about it.

Amna Nawaz:

Jonathan?

Jonathan Capehart:

These poll numbers kind of shed light on an AP/NORC poll that was done a week before we went to war with Iran, which asked people whether they – what they thought of the president’s handling of, well, not just foreign affairs, but his military actions, the way he thought.

Most of them disagreed. That was before he took action against Iran. So, I can only imagine what the American people now broadly think about the way they conduct military operations and foreign affairs.

But, again, I come back to this, if the president wants these numbers to improve, if he wants the American people to see what he’s doing and support him, he’s got to do more than just post videos on his social media platform and happily talk about something that’s very serious.

Amna Nawaz:

David, can I ask you briefly, how do you see this ending? Do you think the goal is to change the regime and what does that mean? Because the Ayatollah is dead now? They can vote for an equally hardline successor. How do you see this ending?

David Brooks:

Well, I mean the short answer is: no one knows. It’s possible we could have a more hardcore successor, which seems to be on the show now. But it is possible that we will have a successor who is not a democrat in any way, but is less extreme, less attached to the nuclear program, and less attached to spending money on terrorist armies, unlike the Iranian people.

On the other hand, the collapse of the system. I’ve seen systems collapse. I was there when the Soviet Union collapsed. It seems impossible to imagine its collapse until the fall of the regime. He collapses from loss of faith and loss of trust.

The Iranian experts I’ve been reading from Iran say that 10 to 20 percent of people in Iran actually support the regime. So there are a lot of enemies. And now you have Israel fighting alongside the Gulf states and the Saudis. So there is an alliance against this regime. And so all three of these things seem possible.

Amna Nawaz:

I want to turn to the jobs numbers, because that’s the number one issue for American voters.

And, Jonathan, I’ll start with you, because all the uncertainty out there is reverberating here. Now, it’s been a really volatile week for the markets. We just reported a net loss of 92,000 jobs in February and downward revisions to prior months.

The president says this is all part of the plan, the agenda is working, and the disruptions will be short-lived. What do you see here?

Jonathan Capehart:

He’s been saying that ever since he ran for president and was inaugurated.

This is bad. And when we were talking about this on a previous call, because I was flying, I asked, has there been a revision to the jobs numbers for January? Because – those numbers…

Amna Nawaz:

It was unexpectedly high.

Jonathan Capehart:

Unexpectedly high. And because of Heather Long, my former colleague at the Washington Post, now Marine Federal Credit Union, I’ve been paying attention to this, because she’s long written about the fact that if you take away health care and maybe hospitality, there’s going to be no job creation in the United States since April of last year.

She calls it an employment stagnation. So the fact that the January numbers were revised downward, and the February numbers were actually down, is more true to the argument she was making, and also further evidence to the American people that whatever the president is doing, he thinks he’s doing to improve the economy, it’s not working.

Amna Nawaz:

David, the argument that this is the process, is going to take some time, do you believe that?

David Brooks:

Well, it’s been a year. There was no job growth. Everything has been done to maximize uncertainty for the American people, whether it’s about tariffs, Iraq, or whatever else Donald Trump wakes up and does that day.

Thus, people lost confidence in the future. That’s why they don’t quit. That’s not why we don’t hire them. That’s not why they invest. And that’s the frenzied uncertainty out there – the economy’s not bad. Wages rose 3.8% year over year, which is very good.

But no one does anything. Nobody moves. Not yet arrived AIAI is not the thing here. That might be the thing next month. But that’s just rabid uncertainty.

Amna Nawaz:

The thing could be next month or next week. We’ll see.

David Brooks, Jonathan Capehart, thank you very much.

Jonathan Capehart:

Thanks, Amna.