Why Trump Backed Down on Iran as MAGA Revolts

Instagram teen accounts default teens into automatic protections for who can contact them and the content they can see. Explore teen accounts and all of our ongoing work to protect teens online at Instagram.com slash teen accounts. Watch Disclosure Day at Home Now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out we weren't alone, if someone showed you proved it to you, would that frighten you? While now the truth belongs to 7 billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg from a screenplay by David Kep starring Emily Blunt, Josh O'Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson, and Coleman Domingo. Find Disclosure Day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required, also in theaters. Welcome to the beat. I'm Ari Melburgh. We begin with news that actually broke exactly 24 hours ago in our hour, this ceasefire and possible de-escalation in Donald Trump's war that he started with Iran. The U.S. is pulling back from the brink. Trump announcing that two-week ceasefire. after extreme, unusual and quite possibly criminal threats to literally annihilate, I should say, the civilization of Iran. The agreement's also an open question here. This would be day one. Trump and Pete Hegseth have been trying to spin it, but we're going to go through exactly what the facts are here. We don't have a lot to show for the agreement yet. With our Israeli partners, America's military achieved every single objective. On plan, on schedule, exactly as laid out from day one. No, and very few people actually believe that. There's a lot of facts here that get in the way of those kind of claims. The war's not obviously over. There's no... permanent victory on the energy issues or even the long-term capabilities and weapons systems in Iran. This is a ceasefire of sorts, and a lot of folks think that's better than the alternative, whether that was continuing this war the way it was going, or worse, if you took anything Donald Trump posted and said at face value, having the U.S. go into this war crimes assault. Now, when you look at the actual terms, there are... some big sticking points today. Israel has resumed attacks on Lebanon. Iran has invoked that or claimed that as a violation of the ceasefire. There are reports that they have closed the strait in response to those very attacks. This is the AP reporting. Iran also accusing the U.S. of violating the truce, which could bring into doubt these hastily scheduled upcoming talks. And then there's the question of what the U.S. strength and leverage is here, because the talks could start as soon as this Friday. The Iranian Navy this morning was reportedly trying to still restrict the traffic at the street. Now, nobody's trying to rush to count against progress if there were progress, but it would seem that on day one...

Iran is not exactly doing what Trump claimed they would do 24 hours ago. The journal reporting on this recording that was played to ships in the region there in that area, saying you must receive permission from the Iranian Navy from passing through the strait. If a vessel tries to transit without permission, they will be destroyed. Iran's government signaling its intention to continue asserting influence over the waterway the journal reports and noting that as of this report, which was just a few hours ago today, most ships aren't moving. At a minimum, that is less than what Trump promised. At a maximum, it would suggest that Iran continues to do some of what it wants to do. Mind you, they've been bombed and attacked and hurt, but they are wielding huge geostrategic and energy power. And if they're spending today restricting those ships and tankers, then they're continuing to do that. Prices that had been rising since the beginning of the war did fall we should note below $100 a barrel because of the announced reopening of the strait. But to move on from day trading, that still raises a question of whether the strait will be meaningfully reopened on a long-term basis. Otherwise, the day trading can go back up. There's also been the erratic, erratic shifting deadlines and then the caving from Trump. In March, remember, 48 hours, five days, 10 days. On Easter Sunday, we got this very extreme threat, which understandably drew a lot of concern across the Middle East and a lot of attention. But that didn't mean that people thought it would happen. That was the two weeks or face war crimes. Politico reporting that Iran's leadership structure is intact since, of course, the decapitation. So the Trump attacks did kill Iran's leaders, but they have been replaced with a hardline government. And those hardliners have control. Some sanctions have been lifted. The enriched uranium is in Iran. So we have the full force, the American military, which as we've reported and experts have mentioned, has done what it has been asked to do. But that doesn't mean it can prevent Iran from turning one of the world's most important shipping lanes into, as political puts it, a de facto parking lot. Now, you could look at all this and say, oh, maybe it's bad news, maybe it's not perfect, but is everyone just out to criticize Trump? And by the way, he earned his share of criticism in threatening war crimes and attacking a civilian population. The very things that the Western world and the United States and our allies have long bemoaned about dictatorships and terrorists. Remember, the big thing that divides us and terrorists we say, and have said for years, is that they target civilians. We don't, except the president was. Now, take that all together and his criticism, and you can still say, but is this just a habit of this discourse? Or if you talk to people in the White House, they will tell you the media just starts out negative. Well, even take a look at how the agreement was received at Fox News.

We have not reached any of those objectives. There are serious questions about the future of this agreement. It's met all major nuclear facilities. That has not happened. Iran wants control of the Strait of Hormuz. They never had control of the Strait. They have not suspended their ballistic missiles program. They're still firing them all. It can't be just peace in our time. We have a 10-point deal and they've agreed to this, this, this. I just think it's going to be very, very complicated. That's a laundry list of non-starters. Non-starters, failures, objectives not achieved against Trump and Pete Hegseth saying everything is achieved. And that just doesn't wash because we're still in a ceasefire, not the end of the war. If everything were achieved, you wouldn't have a ceasefire, you'd have it over. So even if you want to grade on a curve of Trump's hyperbole, nobody really believes what he's saying, which is a problem for the credibility of the United States, even as people take a chance to exhale that he didn't make good on what were likely impeachable illegal threats to attack civilians en masse. The journal also reporting that Gulf states are grappling with how to survive next to what is now an emboldened Iran, which as of now retains control over what we've been discussing, the quote, Strait of Hormuz, and seeks to become a regional hegema. As we have done throughout this story and other stories in the Middle East, we want to bring in an expert who is known for his experience and nonpartisan views. Ambassador Dennis Ross served as a diplomat and peace negotiated in a Clinton administration. He also served in the Bush administration and that of Obama. Welcome back. Good to be with you. Your view on what we've learned now in these 24 hours and the state of this ceasefire. Well, A, I would say that it's a fragile ceasefire because one of the problems in any mediation is to be sure that everybody understands the same points the same way. Pakistan, I think, has been acting in good faith. doesn't necessarily have a long history of being a mediator. And oftentimes when you're trying to produce a ceasefire, you want each side to hear the best possibility, not necessarily exactly what the other side is hearing. And the danger of creating misunderstandings is, I think, quite real here. So that's point one. I think I'm not sure that both the Trump administration and the Iranians understand the same things, the same way on the same points. But that's what you have a negotiation about, a direct negotiation about, and maybe that can sort it out. Two,

There's some issues, which the vice president says, just an honest misunderstanding, is Lebanon in included in this or not? Well, that's a pretty big hole. That's not just a misunderstanding. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says this does not apply to us. And clearly today, Israel carried out very extensive set of bombing across a major part of Lebanon. I suspect that was done to try to demonstrate they're not bound. The ceasefire doesn't limit them as it relates to Lebanon. One other point, just to keep in mind, one of the reasons I think there's pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to do that vis-a-vis Hizbollah is unlike October 7, 2023. when the people who lived in the northern part of Israel were all evacuated, this time they were not evacuated. And they've been getting missiles from Hezbollah. So these are people who've been living in their shelters, not just off and on, but pretty extensively. I almost want to push you deeper. When you look at those issues and this effort to do major war developments and policy through posting online, clearing out all the other experts and folks and diplomats like yourself, and then you have the problem the next day. I mean, is the process broken and was the president? in a deadline of his own making. I mean, he acts like, oh, I'm going to scare everyone, and there was reaction we've covered. But then, because of his own deadline, he seized on what the journal called, the 10 sort of, quote, maximalist points from Iran. It would seem that do you believe that we're basically on the back heel, despite the military progress that the Pentagon says they've made? Yeah, look, I... I think we have to divide what has been extraordinary operational progress and operational success by both the US military and the Israeli military. We have to divide that from what are the political objectives and whatever political process we're now talking about. What emerges on day one of this is that there are clearly very different understandings of what has been agreed to. The result of that has been actually 11 ships today made it through. the Straits of Hermoose. That's not normal. The normal shipping is 150 ships a day. So we don't have an opening of the Straits of Hermoose, which was supposed to be open, timed with the ceasefire. So that's point one. Point two. What clearly has happened with Lebanon, even if the vice president's right, this is honest mistake, that's a pretty big honest mistake. Because one of the rationales that the Iranians used today was to say the reason they're limiting what's happening through the straits is because of the Israeli attacks against Isabella. Pakistan's prime minister said, this is included in the ceasefire. The President of the United States said it was not.

And the Prime Minister of Israel said it was not. Well, this is one that's going to have to be sorted out pretty quickly, or you undercut what was the central element of this was not a ceasefire, but a ceasefire tied to the opening of the Straits. And even here, I would say, with regard to the opening of the Straits, the Iranians are still controlling it. Right. They're allowing, if they allow others to go, it's still under their egos. I just want to point out something else here. This is an international waterway. You can't compare it to the Suez Canal or the Panama Canal. Those are both man-made waterways dug through independent sovereign states. This is an international waterway that has always been respected as an international waterway, and which, by the way, Iran has never sought to do what it's doing now. Right. When we anticipated in the past, when I would be involved with all sorts of contingency planning, we would say, look, we end up in a war. They may try to close. This was the risk that they... The New York Times reported that the Pentagon did tell President Trump that and fresh off Venezuela and everything else. He thought, well, we'll work it out. In that sense, you're worse off. I want to show one more thing before I lose you, which is this MAGA pushback. You know, a lot has changed. And we have a lot more folks on the right who are what you would traditionally call doves when it comes to Middle East intervention these days. And that's catching up with Trump quickly. To send out a tweet with the F word on Easter morning promising the murder of civilians and then saying praise be to Allah without explaining any of it, that is evil. How do we 25th Amendment is asked? He can't be a dignified, strong leader without threatening a bunch of war crimes. I don't know about you, but I am sick of this. I'm just, I'm sick of it. Can he just behave like a normal human? Ambassador Ross, I have about one minute left. It would seem this issue has revived things that are well known and documented about Donald Trump, that he doesn't behave that way, that he doesn't have a propriety of decorum, that he does lie with great ease. That's been established. And yet this now seems to be the gateway drug for his right-wing detractors. And I'm just curious, given the policy of it all. What it means do you think if the United States, for all of its military power, doesn't necessarily have a long runway where the president and his party want to stay deeply enmeshed in this going into the election? Look, I would take a step back and just offer the following observation. From the very beginning of this, there should have been an explanation to the country. Why is this necessary? the issue of imminence, for me, was not so much an issue as the nature of the ongoing threat. You should have explained there's an ongoing threat. We are trying to resolve it diplomatically. We tried and we failed because they're really not prepared to give up a nuclear weapons capability. They're not prepared to give up a ballistic missile threat to the neighborhood. They're not prepared to...

walk away from blocking international waterway, and that's why we've had to deal with this threat. And then you explain, here's what we're trying to achieve. Why? what and how. That should have been what it was explained from the very beginning. And then people even on the right who are not enthusiastic about this at least would have an explanation. The fact that this is shifting from day to day makes it much easier for everybody to question, well, what's going on? Well, yeah, they didn't make the case. They didn't level with the public. So you have that issue for sure. Ambassador Ross, thank you. Let me tell folks what's coming up. We look at the war crimes problem with an expert by the end of the hour. Pam Bondi, now trying to duck testifying because she lost her job. We'll see whether that works. And warning signs for Republicans in those midterms I just mentioned. We've got the new numbers. Democrats surge it, including in red areas. That's next.

Instagram teen accounts default teens into automatic protections for who can contact them and the content they can see. Explore teen accounts and all of our ongoing work to protect teens online at Instagram.com slash teen accounts. Watch Disclosure Day at Home Now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out we weren't alone, if someone showed you, proved it to you? Would that frighten you? Well, now the truth belongs to 7 billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg from a screenplay by David Kep starring Emily Blunt, Josh O'Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson, and Coleman Domingo. Find Disclosure Day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required, also in theaters. Join me, Cindy Lauper, with Chef Michelle Bernstein and Dr. Panico to talk about psoriasis and psoriotic arthritis, the potential connection and risk of developing permanent joint damage. Cossentic secucinumab is prescribed for adults with moderate to severe plaque psorias as 300 milligram dose and adults with active soriatic arthritis 150 milligram dose. Don't use if you're allergic to cosentics. Before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. An increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur, like tuberculosis or other serious bacterial, fungal, or viral infections. Some are fatal. Tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms like fevers, sweats, chills, muscle eggs, or cough. Had a vaccine or planned to or if inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen. Serious allergic reactions and severe eczema-like skin reactions may occur. Learn more at 1844-Cocentics or cossentics.com slash Cindy. A lot going on, but we also just had more elections with Democrats outperforming last night in Wisconsin. A liberal Chris Taylor won a seat on the state Supreme Court by a smashing 20 points. Remember, Trump won Wisconsin in 24. Liberals there have an edge now of about three votes on that court. Georgia's a battleground state. The Trump endorsed candidate Clay Fuller did win the seat to replace Marjorie Taylor Greene. But here's what's really big when you look at the midterms. That is Marjorie Taylor Greene. That's one of those big MAGA districts. And the Democratic candidate actually shifted. The voting in that district by not five or ten or fifteen points, which in most districts would be the margin of victory, but by 25 points from 24. Experts calling this a wow moment for Democrats. Republicans panic the gains of the latest in a wider series of victories since 24. Americans are mad about the high prices, about the war we've been covering, and other failed campaign promises, including the Epstein of it all. This is not an isolated incident or data point from last night. This is what we've been seeing last year and this year. Democrats won three high-profile races. The winner of the New York City mayor. Oh, wow. There you go. Will be Zohran Mamdani. Mikie Sherrill.

will be elected the next governor of New Jersey. In a major upset, Democrats flipped a Lancaster County Senate seat in a district that President Trump easily won. Susan Crawford beating conservative Brad Schimel. Democrats have flipped a state health seat in the closely watched election in Iowa. Democrats flipping a seat in the state Senate. Emily Gregory, the Democrat. who has upset John Maples, the Republican. In Wisconsin, liberals strengthened their hold on the state Supreme Court. The Democratic candidates better than expected showing in the race to replace Marjorie Taylor Greene represents the single largest shift toward Democrats in Trump's second term. We're joined by Democratic strategist Juanita Tolover, the author of a more perfect party. Welcome, and what do you see in this trend line? A lot of pissed off people, Ari, pissed on people, especially in red districts. I appreciate you highlighting Georgia 14 and the swing from Wisconsin. I also want to throw out there, Tennessee 7 and Florida 6, which also saw 20 and higher point shifts. And I think the margins reflect voters who are angry about the ways Trump has made their lives worse with his actions and his policies. And that, of course, is trickling down to impact the Republican Party generally because they're the ones largely in Congress sitting back and watching him take these actions and not asserting their own authority. And so a lot of voters are probably looking at the party like, what's the point? What are you here for? I think the other thing when I see these margins is I want to know, Ari, is this Democratic surges and Republicans staying home or are Republicans also voting Democrat and how that could show up potentially in the November midterms? Because, honestly, based on this trajectory and the races that you highlighted covering from 2025 to present day, I don't see any change in between Donald Trump's actions between today and November 26. It's a great point because being critical of Trump doesn't mean just resistance or no kings or what you might call coming from the left. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie and others, they're coming from whatever you want to call it. Their populist conservative credentials, MAGA, the right, or the down-up. plot we've heard about, which is, oh, when you have elites acting one way and then they, they, Trump tells you he's going to care about your prices, doesn't do anything about it, makes it worse, raises gas prices. I don't think it's a leftist or a rightist concern. It's just an American concern. What do you think about that in a district like MTGs? Where to move that many points, yeah, you, as you said, it's, it's turnout, but also you got to move some people who live there, who ain't exactly the resistance usually. They're not the resistance, but they're hurt just as much as anyone else by Trump and Republicans ending health care subsidies and taxes. And now they can't afford their premium. They're just as hurt by the high cost of basic goods from shoes to cars thanks to Trump's tariffs, which congressional Republicans did nothing to stop. They're seeing those rises at the gas prompts due to Trump's unnecessary war in Iran.

So it comes back to the fact that this transcends age, race, gender, political identity as well. And the reality that they are struggling. The other part that I think is going to continue to play a part in this are is the fact that we are due for an economic downturn. Economies run in cycles. We are due for a downturn. And that is going to exacerbate what Trump is already created through his bad policies. And so what I'm curious to see again is if we try. these numbers, how much we can parse out, how many of those Republicans are just saying, forget this, I'm staying home, or forget this, I'm voting for a Democrat who can actually change, which presents an opportunity for the Democratic Party, because just a few days ago, wasn't Donald Trump just saying, we don't have money for daycare, we don't have money for Medicare, we don't have money for Medicaid? This is where Democrats need to invest because people are struggling. So filling the gaps of Trump and Republican could be a viable strategy for their party. Yeah, and as you say, with the war, Democrats are the ones with an America first budget, if you want to call it that. If it means spending at home instead of abroad, there you go. When you look at the messaging, our colleague, Al Sharpton, was hosting some of these top names at the conference this week, and I want to play some of what we heard. Something is wrong with our president and we are less safe and sound here in America with him being the commander in chief. We have to do more to ensure that when we celebrate black history in the city, we also ensure that it can keep being written in this city. We have an opportunity to have a real debate within our party about what we stand for, about what our affirmative vision is. Just briefly, your thought on what we are hearing there, the affirmative side from Democrats running this year. I think it's a good start, and we're going to need a lot more of it, laying out how they're going to edit, undo all the harm that Donald Trump has done and quickly in a substantive way that people can feel. Because if these are 2028 contenders, like I think that was Governor Josh Shapiro in that last slip, then he's going to need to put a lot of meat on the bones to show the people what he plans to deliver for them and what he will invest in to make their lives better. Yeah, Juanita, thank you as always. I'm going to fit in a break. I'm going to tell folks. Absolutely. We have a breakdown on these war crimes issues, which is important. That's later tonight. And the Pam Bondi replacement. Joyce is here. What would you do if you could get more? More dinner parties with friends. More gear for your garage band. More places to discover. What would you do if you could get more at Shell this summer with the Phil Lucky sweepstakes? Stop by Shell. Scan the QR code at the pump and enter for a chance to win $100,000 or free fuel for a year. No purchase necessary ends 11.59 p.m. Central time, August 28, open to U.S.D.C. Residence 21 plus. Visit shell.com. You better eat your Wheaties today because there's a lot of news to cover. Money. Time for the business. All eyes on the new Fed chair. The economic fallout from the war. Is it temporary power? The president is now a major crypto industry operator. Is this White House for sale? Politics. Is there an energy to respond to this aggressive gerrymandering? It has never been more important.

to be informed and engaged. Money power politics with Stephanie Rule, weekdays at 9 a.m. Easter on MS now. Pam Bondi lost her job at DOJ, and now she's trying to use that as an excuse not to comply with a legal subpoena. The ousted Attorney General says she won't show up next week for her Epstein deposition. Congress is looking to negotiate with her. Of course, former attorneys general and citizens and former President Clinton have all provided Epstein testimony, so she doesn't have strong legal footing here. Her replacement, the acting attorney general, gave the first briefing of his new tenure and said this about Pam Bondi's firing. Pam Bondi is a trusted friend of President Trump's will remain so. And no, nobody has any idea why the Attorney General is no longer the Attorney General, and I'm the acting Attorney General except for President Trump. She'll be with me tomorrow. We've been regularly communicating over the past several days for an appropriate transition. If he chooses to nominate me, that's an honor. If he chooses to nominate somebody else and asks me to go do something else, I will say thank you very much. I love you, sir. I love you, sir. You don't usually hear that from the acting attorney general in the United States, but these are people who are trying to play to Trump's demands, which of course don't involve the literal belief that there is a strong emotional bond, let alone the L word, between the two men, but rather an almost intense obsequiousness as a type of loyalty, sometimes embarrassment. We've seen at the cabinet meetings. Typically, it's had no place at the Independent Justice Department. Meanwhile, in terms of strategy, the reports are that Trump's not in a hurry to replace Pam Bondi, Bloomberg looking at that. And one reason is that Todd Blanche could greenlight charges against people identified as the so-called weaponizers. They have played other games with... vacant U.S. attorney positions, so they continue to try to test what they can get away with, which, remember, is a way of evading the constitutionally required Senate role in advising and consenting on top positions, including AG and prosecutors. Trump DOJ, of course, has leaned on some of those prosecutors who've been ousted as illegal by judges. to go indict enemies that otherwise might not even have had had valid cases. The DOJ Civil Rights Division is doing that against Cassie Hutchinson. You see these other cases that we've been following. And there's new cases that show that in the last weeks of Pam Bondi's tenure, she was trying to shore up her standing with Trump, which had proven shaky. Hutchison being, of course, one of these individuals who worked at the Trump White House, who by all accounts had testified honestly, but seeing her as another enemy to be pursued. I am joined by Joyce JD Vance, former federal prosecutor. Welcome. Good to see.

Your views on Todd Blanche, his love for his boss there, and what's happening in a DOJ that has been rocked not only by demands that no attorney generals were able to meet. I showed the list. There's zero for 23 on those cases when it comes to indicting foes, but a wider problem where apparently to get this job, you have to be willing to pursue those losing or potentially selective prosecution cases. And that says it all, Ari. This is a tough moment at the Justice Department. It's tough for people who used to work there to watch this because DOJ has become a captive of the Trump presidency. This is now the president's former criminal defense lawyer. serving as the Attorney General. And that's an utterly unprecedented situation that in so many ways speaks for itself, a justice department that seeks revenge on behalf of this president instead of justice. Yeah. With regard to sort of what Todd Blanche is doing, I mean, this is a very important post, so you have a lot of reporting on it. The journal also noting the Trump kind of handed Todd Blanche his greatest high wire act yet. They described the DOJs in turmoil, but he must continue to pursue what they call the president's demand for retribution. Todd Blanche staff members refer to Trump as a, quote, client whose directive must be followed, according to people familiar with the calls. As you know, Joyce, From foreign policy, we discussed all week, the threats of war crimes, to this kind of detail of DOJ, people might be accustomed to it, but it's not normal. It's not okay. Can you walk us through why that conception of serving a client is not upholding the oath at DOJ? Todd Blanche's client is the American people, not the president of the United States. He's not Donald Trump's lawyer anymore, or at least he's not supposed to be. And so the oath that he takes is one to uphold the Constitution to serve the people. And that's the... history and tradition to borrow from the Supreme Court that the Justice Department acts on. The whole goal is to make communities safer to ensure that the rule of law flourishes so that America can flourish. And when you corrupt that purpose and begin to use the Justice Department for other purposes as here to serve the president, then... We lose confidence in the integrity of the system. You know, the cases that you and I are focused on, Ari, this is maybe 0.1% of the Justice Department's portfolio, these political cases. All across the country, there are federal prosecutors doing bread and butterwork, drug cartels, bank robberies, even a little bit of white-collar crime is still sneaking through. Violent criminals who are in this country without legal immigration status.

We are living through an extremely unusual brazen set of threats by the sitting president. And while the world's looking very different tonight than it might have when we started this program 24 hours ago because Trump had yet to back down off his threats, we are in this. And it's very important that people understand it. And one of the problems these days is when we're in the breaking news and we're in the standoff. you kind of don't even always have the time and space to deal with what the standoff is about. That's kind of a Trump specialty. And so we are not taking our cues from him or the government tonight. Even though the president has backed down from this, I want to walk through and we have a special guest waiting to get into this, what it means when the sitting president threatens to target or annihilate a civilization and its civilian population. Trump said, Quite literally, that he would end the whole civilization. He would bomb Iran back to the Stone Ages. That, if enacted would be a war crime, then as you're about to see, even threatening it can violate international law. Those threats do more than just terrorize foreigners. They also put our U.S. military in a real legal and moral quandary, as the Washington Post reports, because soldiers have a duty to resist illegal orders. And while if you want to be simple about it, you might say that the tie goes to the commanding officer, if it's a close call, if you are asked to commit acts of terror or wipe out a civilian population, or as one military expert put it this week, a Trump-sponsored genocide, you are well past a tie or a close call. And there are reports that Trump is reveling in these threats. No other recent president has talked so openly about committing potential war crimes. the Times reporting from their accounts and people around him that he basically enjoys this. Now, it's above my pay grade to figure out what that really means. Does he merely enjoy the power and the attention of it, or does he quite literally enjoy the psychopathic act of terrorizing those people? You could say a more benign interpretation is the former. That it's the energy and the attention of this, that it's a misbegotten version of his trade war tariff threats and not the worst possible version. That goes to the president's intent and how other countries deal with what he's doing. The international law, though, binds the U.S. against these actions. There is a protocol in the Geneva Conventions. It states quite clearly. acts or threats of violence where the primary purpose is to quote spread terror among the civilian population such acts are prohibited banned barred no can do there's also a body of international humanitarian law and while the united states is not a signatory to every international court that enforces this. If you're curious about the baseline, it states countries can exert their influence to stop violations of the laws of armed conflict rather than encourage them.

This is a huge deal around the world, even if in the United States people have gotten used to coping with Trump or tuning him out or hoping that this various post this week or statement next week won't actually come to pass. That is a kind of a sad coping mechanism for our leader. But across the world, over 100 legal experts and international lawyers warn this kind of rhetoric and the conduct can raise concerns about the violations of international human rights law, and that includes war crimes. Here's what Trump said just months ago. Do you see any checks on your power on the world stage? Is there anything that could stop you if you wanted to? Yeah, there's one thing. My own morality, my own mind. It's the only thing that can stop. Not international law. I don't need international law. I'm not looking to hurt people. That is a president in his second term with no more racist left to run musing that way. Remember, he didn't spend his life studying the presidency or foreign policy. He never served in public office, public service, or war prior to his first term. And so he is coming at these things with the body of his life experience. But no other serious person, including all of the brave men and women in our military and the generals, would ever say that it's up to their personal views. That's the wrong answer. The generals would tell you we have a uniform code of military justice. We have a constitution we uphold in this country. And when dealing abroad, we have laws of war. There are experts and critics who say that the way Donald Trump is talking sounds like a terrorist. Hopefully, he will never ask the United States government and military to act like a terrorist. I'm trying to be as precise as possible. But if your goal is to wipe out a civilization or terrorize the civilian population specifically, well, that gets pretty close to the definition internationally of terrorism, something the United States has claimed to wage a war on for decades. Now, I mentioned what the generals say, and we don't have all the details on what they are warning or saying in private. Many people in government have found that it is better to try to reason with Trump in private than call him out in public because of ego and vanity, etc. But it's not like the top of the Pentagon. Secretary Pete Hegseth is helping. We will keep pressing. We will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies. No mercy is also not the standard. While the United States military is highly effective, currently the mightiest military on earth and probably in world history, if you want to measure it, it is not a no mercy military. Again. There are the laws of war, the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A contrast in the United States to other places and other enemies like al-Qaeda or ISIS is that it actually has treatment rules for enemy combatants, for those that it detains, for those who are disarmed in war and then have to be treated as human beings. And that's a long ways from no mercy. Mr. Pete Hegseth should know better.

I have an expert on all of this because it matters when we're back after this break. Our guest is Jeffrey Korn, retired lieutenant colonel, former U.S. Army expert on the laws of war and a law professor at Texas Tech University. Welcome. And what's important to understand about where war crimes fit into the president's threats this week? Well, I think the most important thing to recognize is that under the laws of war or international humanitarian law, those two terms are synonymous. The legality of attacking a target has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. to determine whether attacking that target will offer a definite military advantage in relation to a particular military operation. So out of the gate, when the president basically drew a circle around Iran and said, I am going to direct an attack on every element of the energy infrastructure, every bridge. every oil producing facility, that was legally overbroad and was, in essence, a threat to engage in indiscriminate attacks. Now, many of those assets may actually qualify as legitimate and lawful military objectives in the particular circumstance of the campaign. The problem, as I see it, is that at that point, even if our commanders, our operational commanders, went through the proper analysis, identified lawful targets, and attacked them, it would carry the perception that they were executing this excessively broad order and would undermine substantially the legitimacy of U.S. operations. Do you think that military experts or leadership should try to reason with the president about not doing this?

Well, my sense is that these bombastic statements are filtered out at the operational level. I still have significant confidence in the integrity and the honor of the senior military commanders that were conducting this campaign and the staff officers that are advising them, both legal, intelligence, operational. They hear this noise and they stay focused on their... operational mission, and there is a very detailed and well-established process of assessing the legality of every target that ended up on that joint targeting list that CENTCOM was working through. But again, this type of rhetoric muddies the water. It makes their job harder. And I think one of the tragedies is that it undermines the sense of moral clarity. And when we ask men and women of our nation to fight our wars, to engage in mortal combat, my view is that they are entitled to moral clarity. And moral clarity is premised on legal clarity. So anything that senior political leaders do to undermine that legal clarity is harmful ultimately to the moral integrity of our forces, not just the legitimacy of our operation. Yeah, you put it clearly and bring in the impact on our military, which is also important. Jeffrey Korn, thank you. We'll be right back. Thanks for watching The Beat with Ari Melba. Saturday, September 26th, join MS Now Live in Texas for our biggest event yet with Rachel Maddo, Chen Saki, Michael Steele, and more for a day of powerful conversations and timely insights in a crucial state for the midterms. Democracies heal and advance themselves by engaging everybody where they are. Plus exclusive community experiences. MS Now Live together in Texas. September 26th, get tickets today. at MS. Now slash together.