Brooks and Keyhart talk about Trump’s struggle to contain the economic fallout from the Iran war

William Brangham:

With the war in Iran lasting nearly a month and President Trump struggling to contain the economic fallout, now is a good time for Brooks and Keyhart’s analysis.

These are The Atlantic’s David Brooks and MS NOW’s Jonathan Capehart.

Good evening, gentlemen.

Jonathan Capehart:

Hi William.

William Brangham:

Jonathan, as I talked about here last week, the president has presented all kinds of conflicting ideas about why we got into this war, how the war is going right now and what might happen to get out of this war.

What’s not at all clear is the casualties, the lives lost, the damage to infrastructure, the economic losses, with the Pentagon now saying they may need an additional $200 billion to continue combating this. What does this say about the ongoing conflict – about this ongoing conflict?

Jonathan Capehart:

Where do we start, William?

I’m still trying to understand what the president’s real goals are. Is it a regime change? If so, who comes next? What comes next? He wants them to give up, but at the same time he says there is no one to talk to. We killed everyone.

Before we went live, there was a long social media post from the president saying, basically, we’re almost there, and these are all the things we’ve been able to do, and then he said to the allies, if you want to open the strait, that’s on you. He said: We do not use the strait, and we do not need it.

Well, what does this mean for oil production? What does this mean for Americans here at home, who have seen gas prices rise? By tomorrow, the price of gas may have risen a full dollar since the start of the war.

William Brangham:

Huge jump.

Jonathan Capehart:

It is a huge leap since the war began on February 28. And so, I mean, I would love for the president to give a speech in the Oval Office and speak formally to the American people about why he did what he did, what he sees as his goals, or his accomplishments, and then tell us what’s next.

That would be more beneficial than what we’ve seen over the past four weeks.

William Brangham:

Suppose he did so. Does it matter?

David Brooks:

I think so. I was glad he said in this TRUTH social post that he was thinking about calling it quits.

Jonathan Capehart:

Right, finish it.

David Brooks:

We have achieved love for our mission, he said. It’s at this moment of decision, where they decide either we’re going to evacuate the Strait of Hormuz or we’re going to try to negotiate a settlement now.

The process of clearing the Strait of Hormuz will take several weeks, and perhaps several months. This is where the $200 billion and the Marines will go.

William Brangham:

right.

David Brooks:

This can include all sorts of things. This is just an ugly suggestion. If we can clear the Strait of Hormuz within a week, I would say we should do it. But that doesn’t seem to be on offer. So we’re looking at a lot of economic disruption, a lot of death, and probably boots on the ground.

This is an unattractive option. Right now, he can say that the language of the region is to mow the lawn, and that Iran is trying to build terrorist capabilities, terrorist capabilities, and every now and then you have to mow the lawn, which is — to reduce its terrorist capabilities. This will be the mother of all lawn mowing.

William Brangham:

right.

David Brooks:

But he could say, we have – basically, the main thing is that we have reduced their ability to be a regional power. We may have eliminated their ability to be a regional power. That would be a complete win for the region.

William Brangham:

This is a legitimate argument, which is that they really did.

David Brooks:

They have. They cut off the head of the regime. They got rid of a lot of Hamas and Hezbollah. They extracted a lot of weapon capabilities. More importantly, they controlled the factories where weapons were manufactured. So it takes a long time to rebuild all that stuff.

That would be a bit of a win. It won’t be a complete win. That would be a very ugly victory, because we would be saying to Iran: You terrorized us. You’re closing the straits and we can’t, you’ve kind of outmaneuvered us on that front. So it won’t be good. But it might be–of all the bad choices we have, this might be a good one.

William Brangham:

Yes.

But in the meantime, Jonathan, we’re still in this situation where Iran, even though the president says its military has been completely destroyed, is showing, with the zero percent it allegedly left, a remarkable determination to punish other Gulf states, and to destroy critical oil and gas infrastructure.

I mean, analysts have been arguing that what happened in Qatar recently may have been undone for years. The Iranians do not seem ready to give up this battle yet.

Jonathan Capehart:

right.

And that’s why there seems to be this dissonance and disconnect, certainly to me here in Washington, but I’m sure to the American people who are loosely watching. The president says one thing, like: the straits are open, everything is fine, and then the oil tankers catch fire.

The words coming out of the president’s mouth and from his administration don’t seem to match the facts on the ground, and that’s why I think it’s going to be really important for the president to come to the American people and explain to them what happened.

The problem he has, and the problem I would watch a speech like this in the Oval Office, is that I don’t know how much I can trust what he says.

William Brangham:

right.

Do you think that rising energy prices, David, will force him to do so?

David Brooks:

Not necessarily. I mean, it’s not great to have gas that’s $1 higher, you say.

But if you look at his base, we had the numbers earlier in the show, he’s not losing his base.

William Brangham:

right.

David Brooks:

And he could say, if there’s a reasonable idea that you can really change the system, it will be worth a few weeks of economic hardship.

William Brangham:

right.

David Brooks:

But perhaps there is no reasonable possibility of that. Hence, economic distress is economic distress.

So, to me, it’s not fatal, but it definitely put pressure on him. He is a guy who follows the stock market. Affordability is the number one issue. It didn’t seem to bother him, particularly.

William Brangham:

right.

David Brooks:

Which is interesting to me. He’s not trying, for example, to make an issue of it.

William Brangham:

right.

David Brooks:

So it seems he decided this was worth doing. And you can say, I don’t think so – any war isn’t worth having if it’s led by Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth.

William Brangham:

right.

David Brooks:

So this will be where I share some of Jonathan’s concerns.

But if they can diminish Iran’s power for the next generation, it will not be good for the Iranian people, because they will still be stuck with this regime, but it will be good for the region. And you see the Gulf states and the Saudis fighting alongside Israel and you say that what Iran did by bombing all of these countries was a real atrocity that changes the landscape in that region.

William Brangham:

right.

David Brooks:

And that’s also – whenever we can get a big coalition against Iran, it’s not bad.

Jonathan Capehart:

No matter how long it lasts.

William Brangham:

right.

I mean, what do you think about this argument, even though some in the Trump administration, are making Israel, and certainly some foreign policy hawks, as David describes, that it might be worth it, even if you put aside your feelings about Trump and Hegseth and the way he’s managed this and the way he’s communicating about this, that what they’ve done to a regime that a lot of people argue is a terrible totalitarian regime, could be worth it?

Jonathan Capehart:

It might be worth it. It could be worth it. If that were possible, why didn’t the previous presidents of both parties do it? Why do they always seem to stop?

There is always something stopping them. And look, I would be behind you 100%, David, if I knew what day two was like and if I trusted the people who were doing all the planning. I cannot trust people, simply because their words do not match what is happening on the ground.

But, also, the way the president started this, great, you can start a war, but what’s the game plan? What is your ultimate goal? How feasible is this? And then, once you’re done or while you’re doing that, what does the rest of the neighborhood look like?

The idea that the military leaders told the president that maybe they’re going to close the Strait of Hormuz, but you have to be prepared for that. He got that information and decided, I don’t care about that.

I mean, so, Mr. President, what’s your next day, or two days after that, or a week after that? Let’s say this is a very rosy idea of ​​what the area could look like, let’s say it’s possible. Mr. President, how are you going to make Brooks’ vision real and tell us the truth?

And the fact that we don’t know what that answer is should be more worrying than just me.

David Brooks:

I would just say one thing about that, which is that what Trump did made previous presidents look bad because they should have done something.

Iran has always been the central threat, and George W. Bush attacked Iraq. What the heck? right. Barack Obama abandoned the red line in Syria, and gave a kind of green light there in Syria. Joe Biden hasn’t done much. Trump didn’t do much in his first term.

This is how the problem was built. Now is the problem solved? No, it is not resolved. And I think – I don’t know if – this is where American and Israeli interests really diverge. We have a much stronger interest in trying to calm down.

William Brangham:

Yes.

David Brooks:

The Israelis do not have this interest. This will be stress.

But if you can have a weak system, I don’t know, it’s not as pessimistic as I was last week about this.

William Brangham:

Oh, we call that progress.

Well, let’s take it to Friday night.

William Brangham:

David Brooks…

Jonathan Capehart:

Yes, you did ask me.

(He laughed)

William Brangham:

Sorry.

Jonathan Capehart:

But that’s OK. We’ve run out of time.

William Brangham:

We will be back next week. We’ll talk about that next.

Jonathan Capehart:

great.

William Brangham:

David and Jonathan, nice to see you.

Jonathan Capehart:

And you too, William.

William Brangham:

Thanks. Thanks.