Washington Week with The Atlantic

ASHLEY PARKER: Tension between Israel and Iran has escalated into a war and there is a lot to discuss.

So, let's just get straight to it.

Joining us tonight are Eugene Daniels, a senior Washington correspondent and a co-host of The Weekend on MSNBC, Tyler Pager is a White House correspondent at The New York Times, Matt Viser is the White House bureau chief at the Washington Post, and Nancy Youssef is a national security correspondent at The Wall Street Journal.

Thank you guys all for being here.

Full disclosure, this is my first time guest hosting.

So, Eugene, you actually do have your own T.V.

show, so if things go totally awry, just jump in and save us all, yes.

EUGENE DANIELS, Senior White House Correspondent, MSNBC: I got you.

ASHLEY PARKER: But I'm going to start with you, Nancy.

And I think this sort of question is normally a cop out, I will admit.

But there's so much happening and it is happening so quickly.

Can you just bring us up to speed on the latest and on what it all means?

NANCY YOUSSEF, National Security Correspondent, The Wall Street Journal: So, on the latest.

Today, we saw Iran launch hundreds of ballistic missiles across Israel, and the reason that they did that is that Israel launched a massive and surprise attack the day before, going after Iran's ballistic missiles, its nuclear program, its scientists, its air defense capabilities, it's military generals, and one of the largest strikes we've ever seen by Israel on Iran.

And they're doing it now because they have concerns about Iran's nuclear program and believe that there's an urgency to going after it now.

This comes as the Trump administration's trying to negotiate a deal.

And so what does it mean broadly?

It means that Israel's lost confidence in Trump's diplomatic efforts to try to reach a nuclear deal, such that it would reach an outcome that they feel is satisfactory.

And more immediately, it means that the region's on edge, because you're now having tit-for-tat battles between these two nations at a time when the region's already been fraught with instability.

ASHLEY PARKER: To sort of follow up briefly, it does a bit beg the question of why Israel felt this preemptive strike was necessary when Iran had not actually closed the doors on talks.

NANCY YOUSSEF: I think it's because they saw that the prospect of a deal, the sixth round of talks were going to be held in Oman, that the deal, as it was being framed, was not one that looked out in their interest, that didn't guarantee that Iran wasn't on the path of a nuclear program as they saw fit.

And so rather than sort of allow a potential deal to go through, I think this what their effort to say, we need to get ahead of this and signal that the way to go after their program is not necessarily with this diplomatic deal, but really crippling them across not only their nuclear program but their ability to launch strikes on Israel.

I think it's why they go went so aggressively after their ballistic missile program.

ASHLEY PARKER: Now, I want to briefly go back to Thursday, which is before Israel had launched their preemptive strikes.

President Trump was asked if he was going to try to talk Netanyahu out of attack in Iran.

Let's take a listen at what the president had to say.

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. President: I'd much prefer an agreement.

As long as I think there is an agreement, I don't want them going in because I think that would blow -- it might help it actually, but it also could blow it.

ASHLEY PARKER: So, a little convoluted there.

So, Matt, was this done over the objection of the United States or was this done with tacit approval?

How did this come about?

MATT VISER, White House Bureau Chief, The Washington Post: So, there's no indication that there was objections from the U.S. side on this, and, in fact, quite the opposite.

I mean, President Trump spoke today about how he talked to Netanyahu yesterday and sort of praised the strikes today.

And we and others have reported that the U.S. military is actually helping Israel as ballistic missiles are heading their way from Iran are helping shoot those down.

So, there may not have been coordination ahead of time, but there's certainly coordination now.

But as that clip points out, there's been a lot of inconsistencies from President Trump.

For months, he has warned Israel to not do anything, to disrupt the talks that they were doing and the diplomatic relationship he was trying to build with Iran.

There was talks, as Nancy was pointing out, scheduled for Sunday in Oman -- ASHLEY PARKER: Which are now off, obviously.

MATT VISER: Well, Witkoff, I think, is still potentially -- ASHLEY PARKER: True, but Iran has -- MATT VISER: Iran, you're not going to have somebody on the other side in part because some of those people have been killed through these strikes.

So -- but it raises a whole host of questions now about how to move forward toward this next phase and how much entanglement the U.S. is going to have in it.

EUGENE DANIELS: Well, what's the off-ramp is the biggest question, right, because you have these two nations that are going after each other.

You have the United States kind of assisting Donald Trump and Netanyahu.

Neither of them are people who usually take the easiest off-ramp.

So, it's like what does the international community kind of create as an off ramp?

Because you have Israel saying we're going to do this for what was like 14 days is what we're planning.

And Iran obviously is doing strikes that we have never seen before, right in Tel Aviv.

And depending on how Donald Trump feels in the morning, when he wakes up or when he goes to bed for the four hours or five hours, everything changes here.

So, it's like, what is the off-ramp?

How does this stop?

How does it move backwards, if possible, because will there ever be a deal?

Who knows?

But at the end of the day, these two nations going back and forth with the military capabilities, that they do have with or without the nuclear capability is not good for the region.

NANCY YOUSSEF: Could I add real briefly?

You know, if you're, if one off ramp would be that Iran reached the deal.

EUGENE DANIELS: Right.

NANCY YOUSSEF: But to do so, one, we could argue that is a form of surrendering (ph), which the Iranian regime has not shown a propensity to do.

And so to your point, there's not a one that's sort of face-saving for the Iranians, at least at this point, involving accepting the deal as the president would like.

TYLER PAGER, White House Correspondent, The New York Times: And if you look at what the president posted on true social, it was exactly that, blaming Iran for not taking the deal.

And so, you know, we played that clip of the president saying, I don't want Israel to attack.

And then less than 24 hours, he's changed his course and blame the attacks on Iran not taking the deal.

So, I think that's exactly right.

That's what the president was trying to do.

And I think when you look at what the project of this president is trying to achieve, he wants a diplomatic victory.

He tried to get it in Russia and Ukraine.

He's tried to get it between Israel and Hamas.

Then he put a lot of his focus on trying to get a deal with Iran.

And he has -- that has alluded him.

And so now we see him sort of changing course again and saying, you know, if these strikes didn't do it, well, there would be more, so Iran should get back to the table.

ASHLEY PARKER: And I want to just read a little bit more from that Truth Social post the president put out on Friday about what he told Iran in their negotiations.

He said he told them, quote, the United States makes the best and most lethal equipment anywhere in the world by far and that Israel has a lot of it with much more to come.

Certain Iranian hardliners spoke bravely, but they didn't know it was about to happen.

They're all dead now and it will only get worse.

Iran must make a deal before there is nothing left.

So, this sounds like someone, Eugene, who wants to make a deal with Iran, who is also threatening Iran, but he also kind of makes -- wants to make a deal, but it was also kind of threatening him.

Where do we go from here?

EUGENE DANIELS: This is also the second time, we should remind people, that he got rid of a deal that was exactly kind of what they were trying to hammer out here, right?

The Iran deal that he -- when he came into the office, there was one.

He got rid of it.

He came to the office again this time around, he got rid of that one.

So, you're right, this is -- when Donald Trump has his back against the wall, one, he wants to make clear to people that he's the strong one.

So, when you're seeing him say, if you guys aren't careful, we're going to blow everything up.

That's how he operates because he doesn't want us to seem weak.

And to your point, when he was saying 24 hours ago, you know, Bibi -- I don't think Bibi's going to do it, and then Bibi does do it, it proves, to Nancy's point, that Israel is operating on their own, right?

They're moving without, you know, feeling the need to ask the president of the United States if they do that.

They did some of this with Joe Biden, so they don't really trust the United States as a full partner in some of this stuff.

And they also don't see any repercussions to going against the United States and this president when they do something like this.

ASHLEY PARKER: Well, Matt, Eugene mentioned the president's relationship with Netanyahu, and I know you have been working on that all day and have some new reporting.

Can you take us inside that very complicated relationship?

MATT VISER: It is complicated and sometimes they're very close friends and sometimes they're bitter enemies.

And I think you can see over the last couple of months, our reporting shows that Netanyahu has been very open with President Trump publicly and privately about preemptive strikes, and he's in favor of that.

And the message back from Trump officials to Bibi is, hold off.

Wait.

Steve Witkoff is negotiating this.

Not now.

That started to change a little bit over the course of this week and traded with the Iranians.

Getting was not made.

He had set this 60-day timeframe and today's the 61st day after he set that timeline.

So, the timeline suggests that he gives the green light and is okay with Israel doing this, even though for the past 60 days, publicly and privately, he's been very much against it.

ASHLEY PARKER: And, Nancy, we now know that the U.S. is at least helping Israel shoot down some of Iran's missiles.

So, what are you hearing about that and more importantly, about how far the U.S. is willing to go?

NANCY YOUSSEF: So, right now, the U.S has roughly ten ships in the region and some of those ships are providing air defense capability.

The U.S. has also put ground based interceptors that are designed to bring down some of those missiles being shot at Israel.

The challenge is that far fewer ships than the U.S. had in the region in October, the last time these two nations went at each other, and again in April.

And so for the U.S., I think the primary effort is to help Israel's defense but not do anything or be drawn in into a larger conflict.

Some of the ways that could happen, for example, is if Iran believes that the U.S. has been involved in the strikes in some way.

Another could be if Iran were, for example -- excuse me, if Israel were to go after Iran's energy infrastructure, you could see Iran responding by going after the Gulf's energy infrastructure, which would put the U.S. much, much closer to a conflict.

And, thirdly, I think the scenario that I think some U.S. officials are worried about is if Israel were to go after Iran's civilian leadership, because at that point, Iran has less to lose and is maybe potentially willing to take more risks.

And so the U.S. is using fewer resources than they had before to try to help bolster Israel's defense and protect its own forces to not inadvertently be drawn into a wider conflict.

ASHLEY PARKER: And one more question on that.

You mentioned Iran not necessarily having as many resources, but Israel has struck them.

Again, it was preemptive strikes to begin with, but we are seeing right now Iran still retaliating.

Does this mean that Israel didn't get exactly what they wanted, that there's a lot more to come from the Israeli side?

How should we read that?

NANCY YOUSSEF: It's a great question, because just to back up, one reason that people see Iran as weaker is, over the last year, we've seen many other proxies in the region weakened, if not eliminated.

We've seen a number of strikes that have gone after their air defense capability and their ballistic missile defense.

But to your point, we -- ballistic missile strikes today as we did in October.

I think that was a window into what Israel has and hasn't been able to achieve while they've gone after their ballistic missiles.

They haven't done it such that they weren't able to really pose a true threat to Israel today.

A notable number of those missiles were able to land in Israel today.

And so I think the initial read is that while Israel has done a great job of going after air defense, they haven't been able to fully weaken their ability to launch attacks at Israel.

Remember, these strikes, as amazing in terms of the scale and scope, they, in of themselves, don't -- it takes a lot to eliminate a program like this, and I think we saw a demonstration of that earlier today.

ASHLEY PARKER: I mean, one thing that is so different about this conflict is all of us here remember President Trump saying that if he had been President, Russia would have never invaded Ukraine.

But this is happening very much on his watch.

So, Eugene, I'm curious, how does this change his thinking and what tensions is he grappling with this, that this, in some ways, may be more his war than stuff that preceded him?

EUGENE DANIELS: Yes.

I mean, one, the biggest tension is that he sees himself as someone who can make deals, right?

So, we've seen that go away with Iran, for one.

He said that he was going to come in and obviously he was being facetious, but that the Russia war was going to be over, that Gaza would be over on day one.

Those things -- both of those things are still going on.

And so he's dealing with, and his team is dealing with all of these promises they -- for years really saying that we're not going to be entangled in wars.

I'm going to make peace -- and that is not happening anymore.

So, that tells all of us who've covered him this entire time when he feels like his -- like I said earlier, his back is against the wall, he lashes out.

And even if you talk to some of his closest aides and allies, they would agree that at times that makes him make decisions that maybe that aren't always in his best interest.

And so that's the thing that we're kind of watching, right, like what happens next?

ASHLEY PARKER: And, Tyler, Eugene mentioned Trump, the deal-maker.

We're all familiar with that self-conception.

But I'm curious, knowing what you know about Trump's desire to be a deal-maker, how is that going to make him more likely to try to keep working towards a deal, like towards a deal, or how will this affect his conception of himself not wanting to be seen as weak?

TYLER PAGER: Yes.

I think one of the things here is that Trump has shown, he's not all that interested in the details, right?

He wants to be able to say, I solved this, I did this.

He wants some talking points that he can celebrate his success as the president, as a world leader, as someone who brought peace.

He talked about this on the campaign trail.

He talked about this in his inaugural address.

That's what he wanted his legacy to be.

So, it is clear in the 24 hours since he attacks, he's still very committed to trying to get the deal.

He has now reframed the narrative from the attacks were going to be problematic for getting a deal to the attack, show why a deal is necessary, and using the threat of additional military attacks from Israel as part of that package.

ASHLEY PARKER: Right.

So, to some, Trump begins the week saying he does not want the attacks, telling Bibi not to launch these attacks, and he is now ending the week celebrating these preemptive attacks.

Matt, can you take us through that arc and explain what changed?

MATT VISER: It's been a week.

Well, I think the -- one aspect that I think is interesting and worth stepping back a little bit is we think of him as a deal-maker, but he has increasingly thought of himself as a peacemaker.

And he's talked about that a lot.

He said on the campaign trail in September, we will have peace in the Middle East.

He said in his inaugural address, if anything is part of my legacy, I want to be known as a peacemaker and a unifier.

I was with him on the Middle East trip recently.

And on that trip, he said, I will tell you that the world is a much safer place right now, and I think it'll be even safer in two or three weeks.

That was four weeks ago.

So, I think that there's a part of him that is the salesman and trying to sell peace but is not able right now to actually achieve that.

And as you were pointing out, like now he has something that is happened on his watch that he has had some responsibility for in pursuing this Iran deal, which aggravates Israel, which then leads Israel to attack Iran.

He's been a primary factor in this whole thing and now owns it in a way.

TYLER PAGER: And I think one of the interesting things just to look at is how his base is reacting to these attacks.

He stitched together this coalition of hard line hawks in the Senate who are eager for Israel to attack Iran, people like Lindsey Graham, who I spoke to this today, and he told me, you know, this is something that most Republicans want.

They think that it's a good idea that, you know, Israel attacked Iran because Iran was getting closer to nuclear capabilities.

But then you look at this sort of MAGA online influencer, younger men crowd who were very supportive of President Trump in large part because he promised an end to wars.

And Charlie Kirk, one of the most prominent of the group, said last night on his podcast that he fears that this is going to cause basically a civil war in the MAGA community because this is the U.S. getting more involved in another foreign conflict, and Trump, a big part of his America first foreign policy was ending those conflicts.

ASHLEY PARKER: So, Eugene, when Trump is pulled between these competing factions, which we see from time to time, not a ton, he has the party behind him, but where does he go to that more hawkish part of his base?

Israel is, of course, a huge ally.

Or does he retreat to what the MAGA men want?

EUGENE DANIELS: Typically the MAGA men, right?

Because those are the people, when you are looking at polls, if he is good with the MAGA folks, he feels good about that and he doesn't care what the rest of the polls say.

But this is going to be a little bit different, right, because he is also someone who said, and has said, we stand with Israel.

There's no better friend to Israel than Donald Trump.

You know, his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is very close to Israel, right?

And so all of these things make this much more complicated than he's had to deal with before in dealing with those tensions, but he typically moves toward the MAGA base.

What the MAGA base wants though right now, and, Nancy, you would know better than me, impossible, it seems, for the United States to stay out of this completely because of what's going on, and more importantly -- as quickly as we know that it possibly could.

NANCY YOUSSEF: Well, it does put a tremendous strain on the force, right?

You have thousands of troops there.

We had the U.S. moved families out earlier this week.

It had to evacuate some personnel.

And you'll remember that the Navy, for example, had ships in the region just a few weeks ago to come combat the Houthis, and they are still recovering from that.

So, the prospect of moving forces back into a region, it seems old news now, but there was once to talk about a pivot towards Asia, this takes away from that, right, and it puts in a strain on the force.

And in an environment where Iran miscalculation, an Israeli miscalculation could inadvertently get the United States involved in something that it's not looking to be involved in.

EUGENE DANIELS: And one American, whether it's a citizen or a force member, die or be injured, then we're talking about something completely different.

NANCY YOUSSEF: It's a great point because there are tens of thousands of U.S. citizens living in Israel, and so it's not just a threat to personnel, but actually American citizens in the region as well.

ASHLEY PARKER: And, Nancy, what are some of the things that could draw the U.S. further into this conflict in a way, as Eugene was saying, where they would have no choice but to get more involved?

How much harm are the troops who are already in the region, about 40,000 to 50,000 right now?

How much are they in harm's way?

And how long do you expect, based on your sources in the Pentagon, this to continue?

NANCY YOUSSEF: So, right now, there are fighter jets, F-15s, F-16s, that are repositioning themselves to defend U.S. troops and interests in the region.

You have carrier or two destroyers moving in, according to the Pentagon earlier today, to try to defend U.S. troops.

And you have air defense capabilities around military installations.

I think the expectation is that, as of now, that Iran is not looking to draw the United States in because they're already in a perilous situation, their own defense and aren't looking to sort of escalate it.

However, I think the concern is a miscalculation, a strike that, for example, that goes after an energy supply that's near Saudi Arabia, and now you have U.S. troops literally at the doorstep of a strike risks the United States getting involved.

But when you go through the Pentagon today, there isn't a heightened, I think, fear as of yet of the U.S. being drawn on.

Having said that, at bases right now, there are drills happening right now of where people need to go, should they come under attack.

And so if you're on the ground, I think you're preparing for that possibility, but there isn't a feeling as of yet at the Pentagon that U.S. forces are at an imminent risk.