8 hours ago
KRISTEN WELKER: This Sunday: Oil Shock.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Prices are coming down very substantially. Oil will be coming down. It’s just a matter of war. That happens.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Energy prices surge. Markets tumble. And the risks to the global economy are rising as the war with Iran triggers the largest oil supply disruption in history. I’ll talk to Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of California. And key details from my exclusive phone interview with President Trump. Plus: Mixed messages.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You know, you never like to say too early you won. We won. We won the bet. In the first hour, it was over.
KRISTEN WELKER:
President Trump declares victory over Iran while also saying the fight must continue.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
We don’t want to leave too early, do we? We’ve got to finish the job, right?
KRISTEN WELKER:
What comes next in the Middle East?
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER:
If you ask Donald Trump if we’re at the end of the war or the beginning, he says it’s both.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I’ll talk to New York Times Columnist Tom Friedman. And: Under pressure. Ahead of the midterms, President Trump pushes Republicans to pass his proof of citizenship voting bill.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
This is the number one priority — It should be for the House.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Will the Senate break the filibuster to pass it?
LEADER JOHN THUNE:
We don’t have the votes. There isn’t anything I can do about that.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Joining me for insight and analysis are: NBC News Capitol Hill Correspondent Melanie Zanona, Sam Jacobs, Editor-In-Chief of TIME, Faiz Shakir, former campaign manager for Senator Bernie Sanders, and Lanhee Chen, a fellow at the Hoover Institution. Welcome to Sunday, it’s Meet the Press.
ANNOUNCER:
From NBC News in Washington, the longest-running show in television history, this is Meet the Press with Kristen Welker.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Good Sunday Morning. With the war in Iran entering its third week President Trump told me in a phone interview Saturday that Iran has been “defeated militarily.” He also said Tehran is ready to make a deal, but “the terms aren’t good enough yet,” declining to say what those terms are. The president added that he is “hearing” the new supreme leader is dead, but did not provide evidence. And all eyes are on the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most vital shipping lanes for oil. Iran has all but shut it down, pushing oil prices over 100 dollars a barrel. The president telling me the U.S. is working with other countries to try to secure the strait, while acknowledging Iran could still “make trouble” by dropping mines to try to blow up ships in transit. With Iran vowing to keep the strait effectively closed, President Trump ordered strikes Friday on Iran’s Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil hub. The president telling me Kharg island has been “decimated” though he may hit it again, quote “just for fun.” He said he does not expect to send U.S. troops onto the island to secure the oil. So far, the conflict has claimed the lives of 13 U.S. service members. With Americans worried about rising prices at the pump, President Trump told me gas prices will drop “precipitously” as soon as the war is over, reiterating his message earlier this week in Kentucky.
[BEGIN TAPE]
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
But oil prices are already coming back down, and it’s going to come down, but we’re not leaving until that job is finished. And it’s going to be very fast, going to be very fast.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
And joining me now is Energy Secretary Chris Wright. Secretary Wright, welcome to Meet the Press.
SEC. CHRIS WRIGHT:
Thanks for having me, Kristen.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Thank you so much for being here. I want to start right there on gas prices, top of mind for Americans. Since the war began, the national average price for gasoline is up 24%, and diesel prices have jumped 32%. Mr. Secretary, when can Americans expect to see the price of gas come down?
SEC. CHRIS WRIGHT:
Yeah, after the conflict is over, you’ll start to see prices come back down. But Iran immediately going to impede flow through the Strait of Hormuz and launching attacks on all of their neighbors — even those completely uninvolved in this conflict — just illustrates why it’s so important to defang this regime. It’s been the greatest supporter of terrorism in the world. The greatest killer of American soldiers over the last 20 years has been Iran. And we haven’t fought a conflict against them until this. It’s just this president did not want to kick this can down the road to the next administration. The world simply can’t see a nuclear-armed Iran. And so I’m proud of his actions. But yes, it is a short-term disruption to the flow of energy. Americans are feeling it right now. Americans will feel it for a few more weeks. But at the end, we will have removed the greatest risk to global energy supplies. We’ll go to a world more abundant in energy, more affordable in energy, and less risky for American soldiers and commerce in the Middle East.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You say a few more weeks. Are you suggesting this war could be over, will be over, in a few more weeks?
SEC. CHRIS WRIGHT:
I think that’s the likely timeframe, yes. I think the president came out early on saying he expected the need for four to six weeks to completely defang Iran’s military capabilities. We started focused on the projection of distant power. So their navy has been destroyed. Their air force has been destroyed. Their long-range missiles have been destroyed. Their ability to construct and build long-term missiles has been destroyed. And the effort continues now on more their short-term threats, short-range missiles, drones. The military performance has been outstanding. But it’s just critical for the world and critical for the United States that we remove this just growing threat from Iran, defang their ability to rain terror on their neighbors and the world.
KRISTEN WELKER:
We’re going to get to the military response, the Strait of Hormuz, momentarily. But let me just pin down a couple of questions here. Are you confident that gas will be back under $3 a gallon by the busy summer travel season, Mr. Secretary?
SEC. CHRIS WRIGHT:
There’s a very good chance that’ll be true. You know, there’s no guarantees in war. The timeframe’s still not entirely clear. But I think that’s certainly a goal of the administration and very possible.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay, well, the price of a barrel of oil closed above $103 on Friday. And the Iranians are warning of prices hitting $200 a barrel. Mr. Secretary, should Americans be bracing for — should they be worried that this war will actually drive the price of oil above $200 a barrel?
SEC. CHRIS WRIGHT:
So Iran for 47 years has called the United States “the great Satan.” So because they call us the great Satan, I don’t think we are the great Satan. In fact, clearly we’re not. So I don’t listen much to Iranian projections of what’s going to happen.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So that’s a no?
SEC. CHRIS WRIGHT:
But there is disruption to the flow –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is that a no?
SEC. CHRIS WRIGHT:
– in a very important waterway. I would pay no attention to what Iran says. But there is a lot of energy that flows through the Strait of Hormuz, and depending upon the timing and the manner in which this conflict comes to an end, we’re going to see some elevated pricing until we get there. Where it’s going to go? We have done many, many actions to mitigate that price rise. You saw the announcement of a coordinated release of 400 million barrels of oil with over 30 nations of the world participating in that. We’ve had allies in the Middle East that moved oil overseas before the conflict started. Heck, we just announced yesterday bringing on a meaningful amount of oil production in the state of California from offshore that California has fought foolishly to prevent new American oil to go into their own state. And we said, “Enough is enough,” and we’ve got new oil production coming on in California. So lots of actions we’re taking to mitigate this price rise.
KRISTEN WELKER:
In a post on Thursday the president wrote, quote, “The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World by far. So when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money.” But Mr. Secretary, previously, the president had argued that consumers benefit from lower oil prices. So which is it? Which is better for Americans, lower oil prices or higher oil prices?
SEC. CHRIS WRIGHT:
Oh, in general, lower oil prices. This president has been committed to low gasoline prices, low diesel prices, low travel prices. He ran on that agenda. He worked on it for four years in his first administration. So he’s committed to low oil prices because 100% of Americans are affected by that. But he’s just making an economic point that we’re such a large producer of oil. It does bring a lot of money into the U.S. economy. It doesn’t have the same impact on us as it does the other nations of the world when oil prices go up. But he’s all about low gas prices, low diesel prices, low energy prices.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You referenced the Strait of Hormuz earlier. Let’s talk about it. It is one of the world’s most vital shipping lanes. Shipping traffic in the strait has slowed to a trickle, if that. Is the Strait of Hormuz safe for shipping right now, Mr. Secretary?
SEC. CHRIS WRIGHT:
No. No, it is not. That’s one of the objectives at the end of this conflict is to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Since the conflict began, Iran has impeded flow through the Strait of Hormuz. And that is still the case today. We have focused initially on their ability to project distant power. Impeding flows in the Strait of Hormuz, which is right next to Iran, that’s near broad power. So that’s going to be an increasing focus of our military going forward.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You know, President Trump told me on Saturday he’s reaching out to other countries to enlist their help to secure the Strait of Hormuz. And then in a post later in the day he named some of the countries, China, Japan, U.K., France, and South Korea. He told me some countries have committed to aiding the United States. Can you be specific with me, Mr. Secretary? Which countries specifically are going to help secure the Strait of Hormuz?
SEC. CHRIS WRIGHT:
So I won’t get in front of the president or announcements on that. But I have been in dialogue with some of those notions so I know that to be true. But, you know, I’m not going to leak any news in front of the president. But the world depends on the flows through Hormuz. And most importantly the Asian nations — Japan, Korea, China, Thailand, India — a meaningful part of their total energy supplies come from the Strait of Hormuz. So of course the whole world will be united on the need to open Hormuz. And clearly we will have the support of other nations to achieve that objective. But in the short term, we have to end Iran’s ability to kill American soldiers, terrorize their neighbors and continue to put global energy supplies at risk as they’ve done for 47 years.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Look, China was one of the names mentioned which got a lot of attention, notable because they’re a strategic partner of Iran. Is the U.S. prepared to share intelligence with China for helping to secure the waterway?
SEC. CHRIS WRIGHT:
The United States is always in dialogue with the Chinese. They’re the second largest economy in the world, and they’re a very important nation in the world. Opening the Strait of Hormuz is even more important for China than it is for the United States. But we care about the global economy. We care first about Americans, but Americans live in a globalized world, so we care about all the nations. There of course are tensions with China as well, but we will continue our productive dialogue, and I do expect China will be a constructive partner in reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. Is Iran laying mines in the Strait of Hormuz?
SEC. CHRIS WRIGHT:
Look, you see flow through the Strait of Hormuz right now. There were five tanker ships that went through the strait last night carrying liquid petroleum gas, liquefied natural gas and crude oil. So we know flow through the Strait of Hormuz is possible. The risk is if Iran fires on those ships. A convoy flew through last night. Iran did not fire on them. Probably they made a deal with India.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Very quickly, Mr. Secretary. There’s a big debate over whether you all were prepared for what’s happening in the Strait of Hormuz. If you were prepared, why is the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed right now?
SEC. CHRIS WRIGHT:
Because it’s right near the Iranian shoreline. The world is abundantly supplied with oil and energy. We knew there would be a short-term disruption in energy flows. And to hear Chuck Schumer say that we didn’t, is just so — he knows how foolish that is. And to say stuff to try to undermine the United States in the midst of a world-changing conflict just boggles my mind. But this mission was carefully planned out. It’s been superbly executed. On the other side, we’ll be in a much better place.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay.
SEC. CHRIS WRIGHT:
The greatest driver of terrorism in the world, the greatest threat to global energy supplies will be defanged. Yes, we have disruption to get there. But we’re going to be in a much, much better place in the not-too-distant future.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Mr. Secretary, let’s talk about Russia. The Treasury Department temporarily lifting sanctions on Russian oil this week amid reports that Russia is giving Iran intelligence to target U.S. assets in the region. Why is the United States rewarding Russia?
SEC. CHRIS WRIGHT:
So this is not rewarding Russia. I understand that it can be seen that way.
KRISTEN WELKER:
How else can it be seen –
SEC. CHRIS WRIGHT:
But almost all of Russia’s oil is –
KRISTEN WELKER:
But Mr. Secretary, how else can it be seen if the U.S. is lifting sanctions on Russia?
SEC. CHRIS WRIGHT:
Because the oil we’re lifting sanction on is already on the water waiting to unload in a Chinese port. But it’ll wait there for six or eight weeks, So instead of letting that oil sit there idly, we told the Indians and then the broader nations of Asia, “Go ahead and buy that oil. Bring it into your port now. And keep your refineries running.” That oil was already exported, already going to be sold. We’re just changing the destination of where it’ll be sold. And by doing that, we’re keeping a little bit of a lid on oil prices and helping our allies across Asia.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Mr. Secretary, when I pressed the president on lifting these sanctions, on the phone he told me that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy is, quote, “Far more difficult to deal with than Russian President Vladimir Putin.” Do you agree with that statement by President Trump?
SEC. CHRIS WRIGHT:
I have not been involved in the peace negotiations there. All I can say is the president and the administration are deeply committed to trying to find a way to end this over four-year war. It takes a moderator like the United States and two nations to agree. I sure hope we can end that just murderous war that’s been going on for over four years. Russia’s lost over a million men, injured or killed in action in that battle.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But Mr. Secretary, as a member of the cabinet, what do you think? Do you think that President Zelenskyy has been more difficult to deal with than Vladimir Putin? Does that ring true for you?
SEC. CHRIS WRIGHT:
Look, I think President Trump is referring to peace negotiations. President Zelenskyy has fought valiantly, as the Ukrainians have, to save their nation. We have worked with them to help energize their nation under these withering attacks from Russia. So my engagements have been on the Ukrainian side, not the Russian side. The Ukrainians have been hard-fighting patriots to prevent the takeover of their nation, keep their people energized in war. That’s all I’ve seen. But President Trump’s agenda is to try to bring a war to an end. That’s all he’s speaking about there.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right, Secretary Chris Wright, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it.
SEC. CHRIS WRIGHT:
Thanks for having me.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And when we come back, Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of California joins me next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back. And joining me now is Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of California. Senator Schiff, welcome back to Meet the Press.
SEN. ADAM SCHIFF:
Good to be with you.
KRISTEN WELKER:
It’s good to have you back. Let me ask you about the big picture argument that we are hearing from the Trump administration with top officials. You just heard Secretary Chris Wright argue that the threat from Iran is so significant, not just to the world, but to the United States, that invading now will ultimately make the world more secure. Do Trump officials have a valid point there, Senator?
SEN. ADAM SCHIFF:
No, I don’t think they do. And I don’t think the President has really leveled with the American people. First, by promising the American people he wouldn’t bring us into another foreign war. Then, being unwilling to tell us what the real costs of this war are going to be. And we still don’t hear from the Secretary, don’t hear from the president with the real cost of this will be, how long it will go on. Already we spent billions and billions of dollars. And more significant, we’ve lost 13 service members as a result of the war. And we still haven’t heard a clear articulation of why we’re at war. What was the imminent threat we were facing? They’ve said it was the nuclear threat, but the intelligence doesn’t back that up. They said it was the threat of being hit in the United States by ballistic missiles. That is years and years away. They want regime change, but then they say they don’t want regime change. And when you ask how long this war’s going to go on, the secretary can’t tell you, the president won’t tell you. And it’s because not having a clear object in mind when we began this war, it makes it very difficult to tell when its objectives have been accomplished. This is why I think the president was so vague with you when he wouldn’t describe to you what kind of a deal is he looking for with Iran — because it just isn’t clear. And now there’s the prospect with the 31st Marine Expeditionary force going to the region, that we have boots on the ground. And I don’t think they’ve leveled with us about that either. So I don’t think the war is worth the costs, and it has already unleashed a lot of things that should have been foreseen, like the closing of the strait, like Iran’s attack on its neighbors. But it’s not clear that the President had a plan for any of this.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You did here Secretary Wright say he anticipates the conflict will be over in the next few weeks. Do you accept that timeline? Do you think that’s realistic, based on what you’re seeing?
SEN. ADAM SCHIFF:
Well, the one thing I agreed with the secretary on is when he said there are no guarantees in war. It may very well have been that when they began this war they expected it to be over very quickly, that they thought it would be like Venezuela. Except Iran isn’t like Venezuela. You can’t simply pick the number two mullah to replace the number one mullah and expect things to be any different. So the bottom line is they don’t really know when this war is going to end. And I hope and pray that it does end very soon. But as we have seen, our enemy also has a vote in when things end. And if Iran keeps blowing up ships, or trying to blow up ships in the strait, and gas prices continue to go up and up for Americans, then it is very foreseeable we could become even more entrenched in this, to try to keep the strait open. I have a very hard time believing that China and the other countries the president listed to you are really going to be escorting ships through the strait. That just doesn’t add up to me. So the bottom line is, we simply don’t know how long this war is going to go on. But we know the costs to the American people are already too high. For a president who promised to bring down the cost of living for Americans, this is doing exactly the opposite, and raising the cost and the difficulty of Americans to be able to afford simple groceries, and lodging, and rent, and energy prices. It’s simply unsustainable.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you. David Boies, who’s of course the Democratic attorney who argued Bush v. Gore before the Supreme Court, argues that President Trump ultimately had no choice but to act on Iran. And he writes this: “If he hadn’t acted, his successor would’ve been left with an even more dangerous choice than his predecessors left him. Three or four years from now, the Iranian missiles now hitting Iran’s neighbors could be hitting Berlin or London, perhaps even New York or Washington, perhaps with a nuclear device, or at least a dirty bomb.” Do you agree with Boies’s assessment that the threat from Iran needed to be dealt with now?
SEN. ADAM SCHIFF:
I certainly concur that Iran is a terrible actor, that it engages in state-sponsored terrorism. But let’s remember, we had a nuclear agreement with Iran that put serious constraints on the Iranian nuclear program, and Donald Trump tore up that agreement. And you know, when you do that, when you essentially say that diplomacy is not the way to resolve this, then that leaves war. And that’s what we are encountering now. But the president promised us he wouldn’t engage in this, and there was nothing imminent about the threat from Iran. The nuclear program supposedly was obliterated just about nine months ago. The missile program is incapable of reaching the United States for years and years, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency’s own estimate — it’d be nine years before that is true. And unless the United States is prepared to continue to bomb Iran year after year, after year, how do we respond when Iran starts to rebuild their missile program, as they will? Are we going to be in an endless state of war with Iran? And the administration simply has no answers for this. And I don’t think that leaves the American people better off or safer.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you about these Russian sanctions. You obviously supported Russian sanctions. The administration has scaled some back, arguing removing them on Russian oil exports will ultimately help lower prices for consumers. My question for you, senator, with Americans feeling pain at the pump, as you know, is easing pressure on Russia — which is temporary — worth it?
SEN. ADAM SCHIFF:
I think this is a terrible decision, but it is one of the things that comes about as a result of the unpredictability of war. We are now giving Russia, essentially, $140 million a day by releasing these — Russia — from these sanctions. $140 million a day when Iran is providing intelligence — when Russia’s providing intelligence to Iran to better attack and kill American troops. And you’re darn right when you asked the Secretary about this: it is rewarding Russia and it is punishing Ukraine. And for the president when he’s criticized about lifting the sanctions on Russia, to somehow turn around and blame Zelenskyy, blame Ukraine. No, Russia is the problem here, and we’re enriching our adversary, Russia, at Ukraine’s expense, because the administration didn’t properly foresee how much this war with Iran was going to raise oil prices and gas prices for Americans. So terrible and tragic decision, which only empowers Russia to make war more fully against Ukraine.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Couple more questions here, Senator. I want to talk about the cost of the war. It’s cost more than $11 billion in its first six days. Now, some of your Senate Democratic colleagues have said they are open to reviewing requests for additional funds, arguing it may be necessary for overall military readiness. Would you consider voting for or approving more funding for the military during this conflict?
SEN. ADAM SCHIFF:
No. The military has all the funding it needs for this conflict, unless this conflict goes on for years. There was an extra $150 billion for the — the military in the big ugly bill that passed last year. So the Pentagon has all the resources that it can use in the current conflict. Now, the future is something different and we’ll have to figure out what the future needs of the military are, because we’re depleting so many of the stocks of the military, another huge cost of the war. But let’s think about what is being lost right now. And that is all of these billions, this $11 billion just within the first few days, that’s money that could’ve gone into new hospitals and new schools. It could have gone into health care for people. It could’ve gone into meeting the needs of the American people. A hospital costs about $100 million. That means that if we’re spending $1 billion a day in Iran, we’re effectively dropping ten hospitals a day on Iran, and destroying the potential we would’ve had to make that kind of investment in our country. That’s money we’re never going to get back. So the Pentagon doesn’t need more money right now for this war. It doesn’t need to open pipelines off the California coast. And by the way, Kristen, that was something the administration was pushing even before the war. So they’re just using this now as a pretext to try to open pipelines that have resulted in terrible spills in California. This is the cost, the human cost, of this mistake by the president to bring us to war again.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Senator, I do have to ask you just finally about this partial government shutdown, DHS not being funded for a month now. Just this week, we saw terror attacks in West Bloomfield, Michigan, in Norfolk, Virginia. This morning the CEOs of the nation’s major airlines and cargo carriers have written a letter to Congress, calling for them to end the shutdown, talking about the importance of American security in the airways. Is it responsible for Democrats to hold up DHS funding with the threat of terror attacks looming during this conflict?
SEN. ADAM SCHIFF:
So Kristen, as you know, we offered vote after vote, resolution after resolution, even as recently as this week to reopen those agencies, to fund them, and the Republicans voted it down. We said, “Let’s wall off ICE funding. Let’s fund these other agencies that protect the country,” and the Republicans, one after another, voted them down. Voted down funding TSA, voted down funding the Coast Guard, voted down funding FEMA. So Republicans are controlling both houses and the presidency. They can’t very well blame the minority party for their own inability to govern, particularly when they’re voting down Democratic motions to reopen these agencies.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right, Senator Adam Schiff, thank you very much for being here. We appreciate it.
SEN. ADAM SCHIFF:
Thanks, Kristen.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And when we come back, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman joins me next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back. And joining me now is New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. Tom, welcome back to Meet the Press.
THOMAS FRIEDMAN:
Great to be here, Kristen. Thank you.
KRISTEN WELKER:
It’s wonderful to have you here for some perspective about where things stand right now. I did have the opportunity to talk to President Trump on the phone yesterday for about a half hour. And I asked him to characterize the status of the war. He told me Iran is, quote, “completely defeated militarily.” How would you characterize where things stand in Iran right now?
THOMAS FRIEDMAN:
Well, what strikes me about your conversation with the president, Kristen, is everyone wants to declare we won or we lost. You know? And we’re two weeks and a day into this, and this is a hugely complicated problem. What I would say what we’re seeing right now is the power of the strong versus the power of the weak. So on the one hand, the United States has the power to inflict terrible damage to Iran’s military and infrastructure. At the same time, Iran has the power, the power of the weak, that with just one drone or one cruise missile, we can cut off the Strait of Hormuz, 20% of the world’s oil and natural gas. There are 600 ships bottled up there right now. So the balance of power between the power of the strong and the power of the weak is what I’m watching. And I think how that levels out is going to be, I think, the determinant.
KRISTEN WELKER:
It was interesting because the president said that one of the things that surprised him most was the fact that Iran is, in fact, taking aim at its Arab neighbors. And the president indicating that that was something that they were not anticipating. How have those attacks by Iran complicated the dynamic of this overall conflict? It’s become a regional conflict.
THOMAS FRIEDMAN:
Well, you know, one of the strategies the Iranians have employed against America, now for 40 years, in various different conflicts, is what I call the strategy of out-crazy. “We will out-crazy you.” Okay? The reason the Israelis have probably done better than any other country against Iran is they will not be out-crazied. And so that’s always been an Iranian strategy. I did not expect them to attack their Arab Gulf neighbors. But you can understand why. They thought that’s where they’re most vulnerable. The American bases there are vulnerable. And they hope to create a lobby of Arab Gulf states to pressure the president to end the war. It will have long term implications, though, for Iran’s relations with those states. Remember, Iranians, a lot of them bank their money in those Gulf states. A lot of them treat them as a sort of valve to go release a lot of their energy, so the long term implications of that are going to be profound.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, and the implications of the leadership. Obviously, one of the biggest questions that we’re watching right now: is this war about regime change? Based on what Iranian state TV is saying, the leader right now is the son of the supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei. And we know that he was injured. He put out a supposed statement that was in writing. President Trump telling me he’s heard he might be dead. It
was notable that the statement went out, wasn’t on camera. We didn’t hear the voice of this new supreme leader. What do you make of that, and is regime change possible, Tom?
THOMAS FRIEDMAN:
Well, the way I look at this is, basically, in these Middle East wars, Kristen, there’s the morning after and there’s the morning after the morning after. Now I think a lot of our strategy, and what I’ve been advocating, is kind of take the win now. The military defeat, what you’ve done. It’s set Iran back. And I would be offering them a ceasefire right now. Why? Because the morning after any ceasefire, the Iranians will come out and say, “We defeated the big Satan and the little Satan.” The morning after the morning after, millions of Iranians are going to be saying to the leadership, “Come here. That’s my house there on the ground. That’s my factory. That’s my school. What the hell were you thinking? Okay. What are you going to do about that?” That’s when real politics will begin inside Iran. Politics will only happen inside Iran when we stop the bombing. And that politics is the only thing that will change the character of the regime. I think that’s all we’re going to see in the short run. But that politics could also create fissures within the regime, because this regime is not going to break from the bottom up. It’s going to break from the top down. But it’ll only happen when politics can happen. We already saw when Iran’s president came out and basically apologized to the Arab Gulf states for bombing them. Right away, he got slapped down by the Revolutionary Guard. That tells you the kind of fissures that are there. But politics only happens the morning after the morning after.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You know, the president told me, to this point, about a potential ceasefire, “Iran wants to make a deal and I don’t want to make it because the terms aren’t good enough yet.” Now I know you are actually highly skeptical of the deal that the Obama administration struck. Is a good deal possible? What would that even look like, Tom, under these –
THOMAS FRIEDMAN:
I’m actually not skeptical of the Obama administration deal. I thought that that was a reasonable deal at the time. Let’s remember. When President Obama –
KRISTEN WELKER:
It wasn’t an ideal deal.
THOMAS FRIEDMAN:
Right. It –
KRISTEN WELKER:
But it –
THOMAS FRIEDMAN:
– wasn’t perfect, but it was the best you can get at the time. Remember, when President Obama left office, Iran was a year away from a bomb. Iran now is weeks away from a bomb. And that’s something President Trump will have to take responsibility for and answer for one day. Now maybe we’re able to actually eliminate, as a result of this war, Iran’s, you know, fissile material, over 400 kilograms that it stored up and its ability to enrich more. I don’t know. It’s still way too early for this. But it’s only going to happen, I think, in stages, Kristen. The first stage would be ideally, to me, Islamic Republic 2.0, where you get some more reformers in there, some balance. You maybe get a deal with Trump. God willing, that would be great. But the idea that we’re going to go from this to the Iranian revolution of the people running the country like Les Miserables, I find that highly skeptical.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, the other conflict, of course, that we are watching is the war in Ukraine. I thought it was very notable that when I was asking President Trump about Russia, about the decision to lift sanctions, he pivoted to the war in Ukraine and made this claim: “Putin wants to make a deal. Zelenskyy is far more difficult to deal with.” You heard both Secretary Wright and Senator Schiff weigh in on that. What do you make of that response by the president?
THOMAS FRIEDMAN:
Well, there’s always been something bizarre that none of us have understood or I certainly haven’t understood about the president’s relationship to Putin, the fact that he’s always ready to put maximum leverage on Zelenskyy and little leverage on Putin. And that’s a real problem, because we have a chance for a deal in Ukraine, I would say, Kristen. But there’s a difference between a dirty deal and a filthy deal. And I don’t know which President Trump wants. Does he want a dirty deal or a filthy deal? And a dirty deal says Russia gets to keep what it has. But there will be an American-backed peacekeeping force on the ground in Ukraine to prevent Russia from coming back and Ukraine gets to be in the EU. That’s a dirty deal. A filthy deal says there will be no secure guarantees for Ukraine. And it may not even be in the EU. That’s a filthy deal. And if President Trump is responsible for a filthy deal in Ukraine, shame on him.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Finally, Tom, I want to ask you about your column that you have. It is out this morning. It is called “How Minnesota Beat Trump.” You spent time in Minnesota, which is your home state, and I want to read a little bit of what you had to say. You say, “[T]he world looks more like Minnesota today than ever before. And so the great governing challenge in Minnesota, to my mind, is a microcosm of the great governing challenge facing America today: Can we make ‘out of many, one’ — our great national project since our founding — when the ‘many’ is now so much more diverse, even more than it was just 10 years ago?” Of course, this coming against the backdrop of the crisis with ICE. What did you learn in Minnesota?
THOMAS FRIEDMAN:
Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
What were your takeaways?
THOMAS FRIEDMAN:
It was actually the most remarkable act of civic courage by men and women — not in uniform — than I’ve ever seen in this country. Moms donating breast milk, Dads emptying ATMs to help people who lost their jobs. People driving one another all over the place, strangers, to get their kids to school, because their parents were afraid to go out. But for me, Kristen, it’s part of what I call America First, my version. And my version of America First is not America alone and America selfish, which is Trump’s version. My version of America First is that we be the first country in the world that demonstrates how to make out of many one, when the many is now so radically diverse. Okay? And why is that important? Because all the problems we face as a country today, as a global community, are all planetary in scale. Managing AI, managing nuclear weapons, managing migration, managing pandemics. And so either we do that together or we’re going to have a really bad century. You know, my friend and teacher Dov Seidman likes to say, “Interdependence is no longer our choice. It’s our condition.” Okay? We’re going to rise together, baby, or we’re going to fall together, baby. But, baby, whatever we’re doing, we’re doing it together.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Well, on that very powerful note, we will leave this conversation. Tom Friedman, thank you so very much.
THOMAS FRIEDMAN:
Appreciate it. Thanks.
KRISTEN WELKER:
We really appreciate it. It is a fantastic read. And when we come back — he took the message of the civil rights movement into presidential politics, urging America to keep hope alive. Our Meet the Press Minute is next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back. The late Reverend Jesse Jackson was honored with memorial services across the country after the pioneering presidential candidate passed away at the age of 84. Former Presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Joe Biden joined thousands in praising Jackson as an ambassador of hope, and a champion for the poor and the dispossessed. Jackson joined Meet the Press in 1984 on the heels of his first presidential campaign, just days before his now iconic address to the Democratic National Convention that helped shape the party’s future.
REV. JESSE JACKSON:
We must put one foot in the system and one foot outside. We must fight for change. We cannot adjust to the party; we must change the party. Got that right to vote 18 years ago after much bloodshed and — and death, and yet 18 years later, with this great brotherhood, there are 512,000 elected officials, about 5,200 are Black. We’ve got about 1% of the elected officials. We are about 12% of the population. At this rate, it would take us 198 years to achieve parity. My generation is restless. We must change the system and not adjust to it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
When we come back, the growing political fight over the war with Iran and its impact on the midterms. The panel is next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back. The panel is here. Melanie Zanona, NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent. Editor-in-Chief of TIME, Sam Jacobs. Lanhee Chen, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Faiz Shakir, chief political advertiser to Bernie Sanders. Welcome to all of you. Thank you for being here. Sam, let me start with you. President Trump told me that Iran wants to make a deal but that the president doesn’t think that the terms are good enough. Where are we with this war? What are you watching for?
SAM JACOBS:
Well, I want to jump right off your interview with Secretary Wright in talking about the Strait of Hormuz. I couldn’t help but remember this morning the famous, if inaccurate, Pottery Barn rule from Colin Powell, who said, “If you break it, you own it.” It turns out, in this situation with the Strait of Hormuz, if we break it, we co-own it with the Chinese. I mean, it’s not clear to me how we ended up here. What will I be watching for? Messaging. Can the president and the administration strike one simple, clear note on what’s going on? He said to you yesterday, “We’re ready to make a deal. And the new supreme leader might be dead.” Who are we making a deal with? There’s kind of an improvisational, blithe way that they’re handling this. When we asked him — when TIME asked the president, “Are Americans going to die? “Will there be retaliatory attacks because of this war?” His response was, “I guess.” When I was last with you we talked about, is affordability a hoax? That’s where the White House was in December. If you drive by your gas station today where prices are up 25%, I don’t think affordability is a hoax. And the last thing I would point to are external events. This doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It exists inside a larger foreign policy. What’s going to happen with Cuba, and what’s going to happen with the meetings in Beijing at the end of the month? Is the president going to want to be traveling to China while there are dignified transfers airing here on television?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah. Such great points, Sam. And Mel, it really illustrates why you’re seeing these divisions across the country over the war. Quite frankly, on Capitol Hill largely along party lines. But that issue of messaging is a big one, and the fact that the president hasn’t really laid out an argument for what he is doing there in a fulsome way to the country. What — what’s the discussion on Capitol Hill that you’re hearing?
MELANIE ZANONA:
Well, Republicans right now are willing to give the president a runway on the war. But it is not unlimited, because they are getting spooked about those gas prices. The secretary even said to you, Kristen, he thinks the prices are going to come down but it’s not a guarantee. And in 2024, Republicans ran on the gas and groceries election. Every press conference up until recently, GOP leaders would kick it off by touting low gas prices. So this is really undercutting what is supposed to be a key pillar of their affordability message. And meanwhile, I talked to several frustrated Republicans just on Friday who said they wish the president would put as much political capital into passing cost of living bills as he would on this SAVE America Act, the voting restrictions bill. In fact, the Senate just passed a housing bill that has a top-term priority. But he hasn’t tweeted about it, he’s not leaning on the House to pass it. And according to our reporting, he in fact told the speaker that no one cares about the housing fight.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, it’s so interesting, Lanhee, because I asked President Trump if he was worried about the price of gas on the midterms. He said, “Absolutely not. It’s going to come back down.” Are Republicans worried? What are the potential impacts here?
LANHEE CHEN:
I think anybody who has to face an election this year is going to be worried about this issue. Look, this war represents in my view the single biggest challenge to the president’s electoral coalition from 2024. Because what you have is you have a lot of Independents right now who are very concerned about both where the war is headed but also these affordability issues. And the longer this goes on without a definitive sense of what the endgame looks like, I think there are two challenges: One is the challenge around affordability, which Republicans, Democrats, and Independents together have all said will be the top issue that voters consider when they go to the polls this November. But the other issue is just the very real human toll that this war could take and the concerns about loss of American life. I think that is one thing that — the military has done an exceptional job in prosecuting this war so far. But as these two issues, the affordability issue and then the human cost of the war drag on, I do think they put pressure on this electoral coalition, particularly around those Independents who came out and supported Donald Trump in 2024 on what was a slightly different vision than what we’re seeing today.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Faiz, the Independents helped President Trump win the White House in 2024. How do Democrats message around this given the war? Do they weave that into their argument?
FAIZ SHAKIR:
Right now you look at the winds and the way they’re blowing, there’s so much of a desire for a check on Donald Trump. And that no blank check for Donald Trump is, I think, going to deliver the House, and I think even the Senate, for the Democrats.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Even the Senate? Okay.
FAIZ SHAKIR:
And — and you think about a political realignment in America, the possibilities that they exist. I believe that they do right now because of the fact that many Independents are wanting a different sense of leadership and integrity. The opportunity for Democrats, come forward with an agenda. Not just merely say, “Hey, I’m going to be a check on Donald Trump.” Among the many losers of this Iran conflict, sadly, there’s one clear winner: That’s Texas oil men. The people in the oil companies are going to make huge amounts of profits. I would love to see a Democratic Party that says, “We’re going to take a windfall tax, and we’re going to give a rebate to all Americans.” Clearly also stating that, “If you put us in charge we’re going to end this war.” We haven’t heard that in very explicit terms. But I believe that you start making a case with integrity, people are hungry for a different vision and direction in this country.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And Mel, with the few minutes that we have left, there’s a big battle brewing on Capitol Hill, the backdrop — legislative backdrop over the SAVE America Act, President Trump’s proposal for stiffer voting restrictions. How is it playing out? John Thune says there aren’t the votes to pass it. Trump says it’s his top priority.
MELANIE ZANONA:
There is no magic wand on Capitol Hill. You either have to get the votes to overcome a filibuster, which would require Democratic support, or you can change the rules, but that requires 51 Republicans. And right now, they don’t have that. But if Trump really wanted to pass something, he could focus on a more narrow bill that just has voting ID laws. Those are actually quite popular. There are some Democrats that support that. Instead, Trump has turned this into more of a Christmas tree. So they added a requirement that you have to show citizenship to register. And now he’s calling for anti-trans provisions as well as some bans on mail-in voting, which is actually quite popular with Republicans.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Sam?
SAM JACOBS:
It’s — it’s bad news for the party in power when we need people like Mel to explain what is happening in the Senate, okay? When we’re talking about filibusters, and talking filibusters, every moment that those are the stories being told, rather about how we’re making your life better, is a bad moment for the Republican Party.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And the fascinating backdrop to that is that Senator John Cornyn, who’s in a run-off battle in Texas, looking for an endorsement from President Trump, opposed to getting rid of the filibuster, now supports it in order to get the SAVE Act passed. Could that win him Trump’s endorsement?
LANHEE CHEN:
Well, I — I do think it’s crucial for the president to endorse Senator Cornyn if Republicans want to hang onto that seat in Texas. I think the reality, though, is that the affordability issues, that is going to be where Republicans are unified, that is where the energy’s going to come from. And remember, in an election year what we’re really concerned about is energy, the energy of the respective bases. And right now, the danger for Republicans is that the Democratic base is more energized and more unified. So Republicans have to figure out a way, a set of issues is probably, you know, I think the SAVE America Act does energize Republicans. I think it does energize the base. But affordability energizes everybody.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Faiz?
FAIZ SHAKIR:
But this is why the Republicans are concerned, and they’re trying to restrict the voting around the SAVE America Act. And I don’t — I think they’re backfiring here, because to his point, Democrats are fired up. So you want to put some barriers up? Democrats are going to run through them. It is the Republicans right now who probably will stay at home because they’re not enthused. And I look at the map and I say, “We got opportunities in Maine, Alaska.” You look at Texas with James Talarico, a fantastic candidate, speaking in Christian moral terms about wealth and income inequality in America. And I see opportunities for picking up the Senate. Huge, huge deal.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. All eyes are going to be on Texas, that’s for sure. Guys, thanks for a great conversation. We really appreciate it. That is all for today. Thank you for watching. We’ll be back next week, because if it’s Sunday, it’s Meet the Press.
Follow here for more Meet the Press transcripts
