Brooks and Keyhart talk about Trump’s mixed signals on the Iran war

Jeff Bennett:

As the war in Iran intensifies, President Trump this week sent mixed messages about when the war could end. The attacks here in the United States sparked a wave of anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

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

Always great to see you both.

So, Jonathan, on Iran, if the goal is to weaken Iran and stabilize the region, the early picture looks complicated. You have a new Supreme Leader in Tehran, the son of the original Supreme Leader who was killed in the initial attack. You’ve got high oil prices, a widening regional war, and more than a dozen US casualties.

From your point of view, what has been achieved so far?

Jonathan Capehart:

I don’t know. I really don’t know.

And I’m glad you mentioned the casualties, because I would have done something that the Secretary of Defense refused to do when – right when he stands in front of the microphones, and now admits that 13 people were killed in action, including the six who lost their lives when their plane crashed refueling in Iraq.

I’m still trying to understand what the endgame is here. The President has given a lot of — he says a lot of happy talk about this would take a short period of time, and we had to do it because they were going to attack us.

But we have not heard a single coherent logic since this war, what is it, began two weeks ago tomorrow.

Jeff Bennett:

David, how do you see it?

David Brooks:

Yes. Well, this has not been a good week. I think things were achieved in the first week by weakening the regime and taking out some ballistic missiles and all that.

But this week, two big things happened that were not good for the United States. The first is that every intelligence agency on Earth seems to have concluded that the prospects for regime change, and the chances of the Iranian people having any chance of rising up any time soon, are extremely unlikely. This means that we are in a war of containment.

It looks like the Cold War, where whatever happens in this military phase, there will be a long period that we will need to contain Iran. The second bad thing that happened was the actual closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Now, I don’t know what went through Pete Hegseth’s head or Donald Trump’s head, whether they expected this move or not, but it’s certainly impossible that the US military didn’t anticipate this, because we’ve been talking about this for 47 years, and closing the Strait of Hormuz has always been on the table.

The Iranians have been preparing for this for decades, and they have the effective ability to do so, at least in part, even now, as we see what has happened to oil prices. See what happened to the global economy. The problem is that the United States doesn’t have really good options here.

Ending the naval blockade and getting rid of naval mines is not easy. Back in 1991, during the first George H.W. Bush era, the war in Kuwait and Ukraine – I mean Iraq – Iraq had about 900 mines, and it took us almost two months to remove them. Pre-war estimates of Iranian mines were closer to 5,000, and then they have all these things that didn’t exist in 1991, like underwater drones.

So, trying to open the Strait of Hormuz is a really long struggle. But if the United States does not do that, then Iran is the actual victor, because it can say that we are able to pull the economic string that will always deter another American attack, and we are in charge here, and we have won this war.

Jeff Bennett:

It shows how a weaker opponent can impose significant costs.

Jonathan, up front here, we talked about the president’s mixed messages. He had previously said that the war would last four to five weeks. Earlier this week, he said she was — quote — “pretty complete, and she actually won.”

In an interview released today, he said it will end — and here’s a quote — “when I feel it, I feel it in my bones.”

Your reaction?

Jonathan Capehart:

This — that — when I read that comment, I immediately thought that where we are now, this war with Iran, is not as serious as it is dangerous.

David just talked about the danger involved in this. You would think that the President of the United States, with a capable Department of Defense, would have thought all of this through. If we go after Iran, and we overthrow the regime, what will they do in response, and then how will we respond to that?

I don’t think that’s in anyone’s interest. David was saying that perhaps the best thing we did was create a situation in which Iran had to be contained. I don’t know. To me, this sounds like we, the world, are in a much more dangerous place than we were two weeks ago tomorrow.

Jeff Bennett:

And, David, one of the unusual features of this conflict is the White House’s online messaging. They were posting meme-style videos, these pop culture montages celebrating American hits. There are some of them now being displayed on the screen.

What is your assessment of this? I mean, does this reflect modern political communication or is there something more troubling here about how this war is being framed to the public by the White House?

David Brooks:

You know, pastors come to the White House. They go there to eat breakfast to pray. They talk a lot about Christianity and upholding Christian values.

At the core of Christianity is the belief in the dignity of every person, and that every human being is created in the image of God. This applies to all humans, not just those you love. What is happening here, in Lebanon and in Iran, is death, it is human death. I don’t care who dies, good guys or bad guys, innocents or presumed guilty. It’s death.

And the people who fought in World War II, who led our struggle in World War II, whether it was Franklin Roosevelt to George Marshall to Omar Bradley, they understood the gravity of this, that killing human beings is not a video game. They are not pixels on the screen.

Whatever your opinion of the war – and I am probably more optimistic than most – the way it is described is almost barbaric. There is a great tradition of just war theory. Sometimes wars are just, but they are never good. They are never a terrible thing. Treating them differently is an insult to the American people and truly disturbing.

It must be alarming for everyone to see this level of triviality.

Jeff Bennett:

Well, we had two attacks here in the United States yesterday, a shooting at Old Dominion University that is being investigated as an act of terrorism, and a car crash into a synagogue in Michigan. President Trump was asked about this.

He said the perpetrators were sick. Then, in an interview with FOX’s Brian Kilmeade, he added:

President Donald Trump:

They are sick people. Many of them were allowed to enter here. They should not be allowed in. Others are very bad. They get worse. Something wrong. There’s something wrong there. So, genetics isn’t exactly — it’s not exactly your genes — it’s one of those problems.

Jeff Bennett:

says genetics.

Jonathan Capehart:

Genetics.

No one should be surprised to hear this kind of language from Donald Trump. He ran, and his second presidential campaign was a racist and xenophobic white nationalist campaign. So the fact that he’s talking about genetics in these circumstances is not surprising.

But, again, this is the President of the United States. If we hope to put a lid on some of the sentiment and hatred that exists in this country, we usually look to the president to be the example, to come out and say, this is not who we are. We stand together. People are hurting. Say all the reassuring words to bind the country together.

Instead, he and many of his supporters are tearing apart our American society. It’s really — it’s as disturbing as it is infuriating.

Jeff Bennett:

Well, in the remaining time, I want to get to the law of savings, which you both know. It is this bill that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. It will require stricter voter ID rules. Supporters say it’s about election integrity. Critics say it could make voting more difficult for millions of eligible Americans, including Republicans.

David, for years, there’s been this theory in Republican politics that high turnout benefits Democrats. The recent elections proved that this is not the case. But how much of this is still rooted in this old political thinking?

David Brooks:

Yes.

Yes, it is now true that high turnout benefits Republicans and low turnout benefits Democrats because they are more partisan than college graduates who vote in low turnout elections. But what the Republicans are doing is they are playing on this pure electoral politics.

You may agree to the conservation law. You may not agree with the conservation law. It is very popular. You take every group in American society and you get 70 or 80 percent approval. It seems to people that if you can hand in your driver’s license to get on a plane, you should be able to hand it in to show that you’re voting.

There is some truth to that. The problem is that it’s not a problem. Studies that have been done to look at how often US non-citizens vote – or how often non-citizens vote in US elections – have been less than 100. In the past 25 years. This is not a problem.

And the idea that we’re going to paralyze the Senate from a solution looking for a problem, and the idea, especially terrible, that we’re going to get rid of the filibuster, which to me is the only thing left that gives us a shred of hope for bipartisanship in the next few years, that just seems wrong.

Jeff Bennett:

Jonathan?

Jonathan Capehart:

The idea that you can have a law that says it’s okay–you can prove your ability to vote, for example, with a gun permit, but if you have a college ID, you’re not allowed to vote, or turn over voter rolls to DHS, for what purpose?

When I look at the SAVES Act, I look at it as an attempt by the president, who has made it very clear that he doesn’t want Republicans to lose the 2026 midterms, and that’s what this is all about.

Jeff Bennett:

Jonathan Capehart and David Brooks, thank you, as always.

Jonathan Capehart:

Thanks Jeff.

David Brooks:

Thank you.