Jim Acosta

0:00Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing. Another checkered flag for the books. Time to celebrate with Jamba. Jump in at JambaCasino.com. Let's Jamba. No purchase necessary, BTW Group. Boy, we're prohibited by law, CCNC, 21 Plus, sponsored by JambaCasino. Hurry, Slider. All right, welcome to a special edition of the Jim Acosta show. We are coming to you live to report on the latest developments coming out of the Middle East. The United States and Israel have joined forces to attack Iran. And Iran is retaliating with strikes of its own. The information is not coming in as fast as we would like. But according to the Associated Press, of course, this began overnight. And this is how the Associated Press was at the US and Israel launched a major attack on Iran. And Trump called on the Iranian public to, quote, seize control of your destiny by rising up against the Islamic leadership.

1:02That has ruled the nation since 1979. These strikes opened a stunning new chapter in US intervention in Iran and marked the second time in eight months that the Trump administration has used military force against the Islamic Republic. This is all according to the Associated Press. I've got a great group of folks to talk about this. The wonderful Barbara Star, longtime Pentagon correspondent, Elise Labet of Cosmo Politics on Substack, veteran, Global Affairs correspondent, and of course, political analyst Matt Lewis. Barbara, let me go to you first. I mean, this is your stock and trade. I mean, this was sort of, this was not exactly the best kept secret that this was maybe coming down the pike. Maybe we didn't know the timing, but it certainly felt as though this was coming. Your thoughts, as we're seeing this overnight, I mean, this couldn't get out of control quickly. The elements that we're talking about here that are in the mixing bowl right now. Well, I think that's right. There needs to be an awful lot of caution.

2:02I would think, I think the thing obviously to watch right now is Iranian-backed retaliation. Where are they striking back in the region? We have seen the reports that they have struck the US Navy fifth fleet headquarters in Bahrain. They may have struck in Qatar. Some missile remnants falling in Jordan. If they strike inside Saudi Arabia, that changes the picture. Again, the Saudi regime will not take to that without getting into the so-called action themselves. So that's something to watch. And I think very important to watch the quality if you will of their response. Their missiles are having increasing accuracy in recent years. They have a significant ballistic missile inventory. They're not the least bit concerned about using it throughout the region.

3:03We've seen them attempt, I believe, some strikes into Israel. So this is not just about the US and Israel striking Iran. Of course, this is the wider regional implications and what Iran may do in retaliation in either outright missile strikes or perhaps sleeper cells, terrorist attacks, things we don't even yet see coming. Yeah, and Elise, I mean, the AP is saying that the first strikes appeared to hit areas around the offices of the Iranian Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Kaminay and Iranian media reported strikes nationwide. And apparently, Iran is retaliating. The Revolutionary Guard of Iran said it launched a first wave of drones and missiles targeting Israel. So we'll have to see how quickly this is going to, if this is just one chapter in a wave of strikes and counter strikes, we don't know, but it does have the potential to unravel in a big way.

4:05What's your sense of it right now, Elise? Well, exactly, and Barbara said, Iranian missiles are growing in sophistication. The Iranians knew this was coming, even if they knew they were trying to negotiate and stop for time, you can see the response was immediate. So they already had a response prepared. And what the US is trying to do right now with Israel is try to, Barbara knows more of this than me, but shape the battlefield in the sense that, you know, try to eliminate the Iranians' ability to have their air defenses, to respond, you know, part of what, and again, Barbara could talk more about this, that, you know, the US is kind of stretched in right now. And so it's not that they can't walk and chew gum at the same time, but what about, you know, missiles, what about interceptors, like Israel after October 7th and all of its attacks, you know, you know, kind of defenses and missiles and munitions and everything, like everyone's just stretched a little thin, but then Barbara also talks about

5:07the asymmetric possible response. You saw, you know, in 2012 maybe, Iran responded from some attack from Israel with a terrorist attack on an Israeli bus of tourists in Bulgaria. So those, you know, those asymmetric attacks, there could be a cyber attack, as the Iranians are experts at that, they're experts at disinformation, and those type of things, you know, election interference, who knows what, as these attacks limit the Iran's conventional response, those asymmetric response and soft targets become more important. I'd also say that, you know, the President's speech was kind of lacking in terms of what is an end game, what is, you know, the exact strategies, talking about freedom for Iranians, calling on the Iranians to rise up, and we could talk more about that. But, you know, I think the attack

6:08on this Supreme Leader was symbolic, you know, between the US and Israeli intelligence, they probably knew he wasn't there. I don't think they're gonna kill him. That's my own personal opinion, but it was very symbolic, but they're not, I don't think, I think they're hoping that the Iranians will launch for Zingham change, not like these, he's trying to say, we're doing everything we can, and then it's up to you to change the, you know, get rid of the regime. But lastly, I'll say the President said something that was, you know, very small, but he said, there could be casualties. This is always possible in war. So he called this a war. Wow. What does that mean in terms of getting authorization from Congress, declaring war, those type of things we're not talking about, but I think on Monday, I think on Monday, members of Congress are gonna be talking about this.

7:09Yeah, no question about it. And at least teed it up just so perfectly, Matt, let's listen to a little bit of what Trump said. I think we have some of that video of Trump saying there may be casualties. If we have it, let's play it and talk about this. The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties that often happens in war, but we're doing this, not for now, we're doing this for the future, and it is a noble mission. We pray for every service member as they selflessly risk their lives to ensure that Americans and our children will never be threatened by a nuclear armed Iran. Yeah, I mean, Matt, I mean, just in the last few months, we've removed the leader of Venezuela. Yesterday, Trump was talking about, I think a, quote, friendly takeover of Cuba. Overnight, we launch strikes on Iran,

8:11triggering a global, maybe not a global conflict, but at least a regional conflict for the moment. And I'm sorry, but maybe I'll just refer to the discourse. There are a lot of folks reminding us of what Trump tweeted back in 2012 about Obama and his poll numbers and what he might be tempted to do. He said, watch for Obama to attack, if we have the tweet we can show it, watch for Obama to attack Iran or Libya because his poll numbers aren't doing well. I mean, that's kind of the elephant in the room right now, isn't it? Yeah, it really is, Jim. Look, Donald Trump, this is a guy who ran for president in 2015, 2016, partly on the message that he wasn't going to be like George W. Bush and the Iraq war loomed very large. And as recently as last year, the RNC put out a tweet saying, you know, vote for the pro-peace ticket. And it was a picture of Trump and Vance. So this was a part of their messaging. And look, I think obviously any time that you go

9:14into a war situation, it is fraught with danger. But from a political standpoint, there's really two different things to keep an eye on here, I think. Number one, just the general public. And my feeling here is that I actually don't think the American public are anti-war. I think they're anti-castle. If Trump could go in and do something, get out, there's no fallout, there's no dead Americans coming home in body bags, there's no terrorist attack, then I think the American people are generally fine with that. But if it gets messy, if it starts to look like a quagmire, obviously that's a different situation. But Jim, even putting that aside, there's also another problem is within the Trump coalition, there are people who were specifically attracted to Donald Trump, people who joined his coalition who were not normally Republican voters because of his anti-war, anti-forever war stance. Right. And you know, what is going to happen to them?

10:15Trump already has a problem with his coalition coming unglued, right? There were Hispanics who joined his coalition in 2024 and say young podcast pros who have fleed because of what's happening with ICE and affordability. This is just one more example of how Donald Trump really didn't have a coherent philosophy. It attracted this disparate group of weird coalition of supporters. And it was obviously going to be mutually exclusive at a certain point. You can't be all things to all people. And so there's a lot to watch here just from a political standpoint. And also just super quick, Jim. Also from a messaging standpoint, I think the president had just hasn't been good about any messaging anywhere, but on this, I think, you know, whether it's George W. Bush, you're going back to Johnson and Vietnam or Roosevelt and World War II, like they go to the American people, they go to the Congress, they have that national debate and this is just not happening. Hey, it's Cole Swindell.

11:15After I give everything I've got to land a perfect vocal, I usually take five before jumping into the next track. And I've learned exactly how to recharge in that time. Some folks grab coffee. I hit a quick, good looks, Jim. Next thing you know, the break is just as fun as land down the track. A better break makes for a better take. Need a break? Let's chumble. No purchase necessary. BGW Group void were prohibited by law, 21 plus TNC supply. Sponsored by Chamba Casino. Yeah, and Barbara, I mean, you know, we know that the US military is capable of doing some incredible things. We saw the precision, you know, with which they carried out the removal of Maduro and Venezuela, but this is a different, this is a horse of a different feather. Toppling the Iranian regime, which has long been a goal of the Neocons that, as Matt Lewis said, Trump used to savage back in the day. I remember being on those rallies when Trump would go after the bushes and the chanies

12:16and he campaigned on no new wars and so on, he's got this board of piece that he was just meeting with. I think a week ago, you know, not exactly, you know, a stellar cast of pro-democracy governments there with him on that, on that board of peace, but this is just, this has a huge potential for what they used to call mission creep, Barbara. It seems to me. Well, I think we're already there. I mean, look at what's happened since this war, as Elise said, began, we have them going after potentially Iran's nuclear capability, nuclear potential nuclear targets, weapons targets, Iranian military targets, you have them going, but also after leadership targets, bombing government buildings, according to reports, bombing the homes of Iranian leaders, whether they're there or not, issuing statements, you know, that basically are the equivalent to, you know,

13:17rise up, go out in the street, and overthrow your government. So first of all, we have a multi-headed goal by the president here. We don't have a strategy and a methodology of carrying out the strategy. We don't know, when will it be successful? Clearly, you cannot obliterate as the US ones claimed Iran's nuclear program because they can rebuild it. You can't obliterate an entire leadership because are people going to go out in the street? Who are they going to rally behind? Who will be the new leader? Will that leader last, you know, more than five minutes in the face of the regime capability that still exists? It's, you know, it's important to remember, everybody knows Iran is a huge country, massive population, massive land mass. This is not a small undertaking. What you achieve in one part of Iran,

14:19you may not achieve in another part. So I think there's an awful long way to go in both understanding this, understanding how the administration thinks they're gonna carry it out and do they even have a plan to carry it out? Yeah, at least, I mean, the other thing that we have to mention in all of this is that, I mean, even in the run up to this weekend when, you know, the conversation in Washington seemed to be around, you know, this is coming, this is coming to a theater near you. I mean, one of the questions that I think was raised, and I think it's a good question is, you know, Donald Trump and his administration said that they had decimated Iran's nuclear program with the previous round of strikes that occurred last year. And, you know, Trump was asked, and I think, you know, the Pentagon was asked, you know, running up to this weekend. Hey, wait a minute, we thought that, you know, why is this even necessary? You said you decimated their nuclear program. I mean, it just calls into question the kind of information that we're getting

15:20out of this administration regarding all of this. But I mean, I know you covered the, you know, the big multi-national effort that the Obama administration, I covered it too, to rid Iran of its nuclear program. Trump abandoned that, and he's abandoned that in favor of military action, and he's going into Iran again. So I don't understand what the goal of this is, is it to cripple their nuclear program again, or is it to topple the regime? Because toppling the regime, as we saw in Iraq, you know, you know, the, what was it? The Rumsfeld, you know, phrase there, there are known, knowns, known unknowns, I think something a lot, Barbara probably remembers it better than I do, but at least, there's the colon box. Yeah, and then there's the colon pal ad, add the colon pal phrase, you break the pottery barn rule, you break it, you bought it. And especially if you're calling on the Iranian people to overthrow their government, what if the Iranians start taking it out on the people?

16:23Yeah, even more than they have. And that's why Barbara said, what's Barbara saying is so key, that there's no strategy. So what's the end game? Because is it deterrence? Is it getting rid of the nuclear program? Is it getting rid of the missile program? Is the regime change? Each of those have a different US commitment, a different US investment, a different duration, a different risk, different consequences. Like it's not just, oh, we're going in there, and we'll see what happens. Like, I was just on C span a few minutes ago, and this one caller called in and said, President Trump said, we'll see what happens, and let's just see what happens. But you can't just throw the dice and see what happens. My understanding is there was some planning going on, I'm not sure Barbara might know more, like the extent of what planning for the day after is happening, but as we said,

17:25we still don't know what the end game is and what the objectives, what we call and diplomacy, the strategic objectives. And so we don't know what the risks and the long-term mission creep and for how long this could go on and how the appendora's boxes, you said that open. And look, we don't know what would have happened if President Trump never pulled out of the JCPOA, as we call it, the nuclear deal. But you know, also look, the Iranians, let's not make the Iranians out to be these innocent victims here. They are trying to reconsultate their nuclear program. I've never thought that they would actually use a nuclear weapon against Israel or the United States. I think they always wanted or an ICBM, they're nowhere close to an ICBM, miniaturizing a weapon and putting it on a nuclear warhead to launch it against the United States.

18:28I think there may be a little bit more rational than that, but you know, look, this, this administrative, this regime has a couple of things, regime survival and resistance, they would never capitulate to the United States. So, you know, I just don't know that these negotiations were ever gonna lead anywhere. Yeah, Matt, I mean, you know, there's the political dimension to all of this. And, you know, people like Senator Tim Cain of Virginia, you know, he's been for years, saying that, you know, if the president of the United States wants to go to war, he's got to come to Congress. And his colleague in Virginia, Mark Warner, put out a statement just a little while ago, we can show some of that on screen. And, you know, forgive some of the cut and pace quality here, folks, we're just coming on the air. And everybody's sort of reacting, you know, quickly to all of this, but Mark Warner put out a statement saying the American people have seen this playbook before claims of urgency, misrepresented intelligence and military action that pulls the United States into regime change and prolong costly nation building.

19:30You know, it's to our service members and every American family to ensure that we are not repeating mistakes of the past. The president knows the country, clear answers, what is the objective, what is the strategy to prevent escalation, how does this make Americans safer? You know, and he goes on to say this should require congressional authorization. Matt, we're all old enough to remember the Iraq war and the hell it put this country through, the multiple deployments, the U.S. service members had to go through the strains that put on the military, how the Iraq war emboldened Iran. I mean, one of the reasons why the Iranians are such a pain in the neck is because of the misadventure in Iraq. And so, I mean, this thing can just go with so many different directions. And I saw, you know, I think Democrats have made, you know, their feelings pretty clear and all this. I think I saw Jack Schlossberg, John F. Kennedy's grandson, or yeah, grandson who's running for Congress in New York

20:31said he wants to see regime change in Washington. That was his tweet, they put out this morning. So I think Democrats are gonna, you know, they're gonna go right after a President of the United States and Donald Trump, who claims he has this board of peace, who wants a Nobel Peace Prize, who's campaigned against no new wars and so on, who's launched the United States into something that we just don't know what the end game is. Where is this going? Yeah, it's almost like that fight for Peace Prize means nothing, Jim, you know, that was supposed to be prestigious. Look, I do think Donald Trump learned the lesson of Iraq, which is don't try to do nation building, don't get bogged down. The problem is that now he's sort of been rewarded for doing these limited-air strikes and, you know, sort of surgical, you know, take Maduro, kidnap Maduro, whatever. And sometimes things don't go as planned and the enemy gets to vote too. And so you can effort-rounded find out and that may happen.

21:32Look, Donald Trump a couple of days ago, when he was lamenting the Supreme Court blocking his tariffs, did something, and I'm paraphrasing, but he said something to the effect of, I can destroy a country, but I can't impose tariffs. I think he sees, he's learned, he likes to have sort of, you know, carte blanche authority to do whatever he wants. And he's learned that foreign policy is an area where he can pretty much do what he wants without congressional approval. So if something good comes from this, it could be that Congress begins to claw back some of their prerogatives and some of their authority, not only as it pertains to tariffs, which they haven't done, but as it pertains to foreign policy. Jim, let me say something else too that I think is an important possible political fallout that could be part of this. It's gonna be more of a long-term problem, I think, than a short-term problem. And that is the nation of Israel. This is a nation that once enjoyed strong bipartisan support within the United States of America.

22:32And I think in recent years, thanks largely to Benjamin Netanyahu. It has been perceived that it is an ally, not so much of America, but of Donald Trump. There's a sense out there, fair or not. And some of this may come from anti-Semitic corners, others of it may be legitimate. But there's a sense that Israel and Netanyahu senses that there is a brief window of opportunity that this is a president that they can manipulate, that this is the best chance they're ever going to have to have the U.S. kind of do their bidding as it pertains to Iran. If that takes hold and metastasizes, I think one of the kind of sad long-term implications or fallout from this could be that it's bad news for Israel and the long-run. Yeah, there may be this narrow window of opportunity where these Israelis are looking at the American political calendar and saying, okay, we haven't told about November to do this. And that may be what's taking place right now, with Barberstar, I mean, some of the expensive public,

23:34of American public support, which that's exactly right. That's the problem. And Trump is in this phase right now, this mentality right now where he's just going to go for it, reminds me a little bit of the scary moments around January 6th when the generals over at the Pentagon were trying to prevent Donald Trump from just doing what, just going wild and doing crazy stuff because he wanted to cling to power. And I just, I throw that out there as, you know, as my own observation is what we may be seeing over the next several months. But Barber, when the Iranians are saying, quote, there are no red lines. We were just showing that quote a few moments ago. That appears to be how the Iranians, the revolutionary guard, how they're responding to this. They're saying, quote, there are no red lines. So that means going after targets in the region. That means going after the Israelis. That means potentially going after American targets really anywhere if they can pull it off, I suppose. Is that how you read, read into it? Well, I think that's what everybody has to be prepared for.

24:36Yeah. You know, and yes, there's no real challenge in the world to American military power. It's the best there is, but it has limits, if you will. I mean, a aircraft carrier can't stop a terror attack. It can bomb targets. It can bomb terrorist camps. It can do all of those things. But if the Iranians are out there planning these so-called asymmetric attacks, all they have to do, you know, as they say, you just be lucky once, Evan, for a bit, get through American military power and strike their targets. And I would say one other thing as we're talking through all of this, the US has assembled a vast, if you will, air power armada out there, Navy ships, aircraft, fighters, bombers, missiles, but it all is delivered by air. So it's an air campaign, if you will. Air campaigns, as we have all learned in Iraq

25:39and Afghanistan, they work, but they have limited utility and especially over the long run. How long are you going to be able to leave that vast fire power out there? They'll have to rotate, they'll have to come home. Other troops will have to go in. I would think that the US Red Line would be ground forces in Iran, because that would be extraordinarily difficult and risky and what would it really achieve. But I'm not sure you can get to regime change solely through US air power and White House rhetoric go out there in the streets. Iranians are going to have to coalesce around some political force that's greater than the regime that's there right now and that's a really long road. Yeah, and at least, I mean, I covered the Iraq war in Baghdad in 2004 for CBS News. And this is a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. But I mean, I do remember that to Farber's point,

26:39it's exactly right, that if Donald Trump thinks he can somehow carry out regime change in Iran purely through air strikes, I think he has another thing coming to him. And this is only achievable. I mean, the people of Iran don't have the weapons. The government has the weapons. And I just don't see how, you know, because we launched some air strikes that this is somehow going to spur a revolution that can overtake the government. Maybe Donald Trump, who is, you know, I would say without a doubt the luckiest politician I've seen in my lifetime, maybe there's some way that it can happen. But my experience covering Iraq is that to topple a regime, it is bloody. It is violent. It involves street to street, house to house, town to town battling on the ground with US boots in theater. And at least that, that is something I'm not sure that the public is ready for, that the world is ready for.

27:40Hello, it is Ryan. And I was on a flight the other day playing one of my favorite social spin slot games on chumbacaceno.com. I looked over the person sitting next to me. You know what they were doing? They were also playing chumbacaceno. Everybody's loving having fun with it. Chumbacaceno's home to hundreds of casino-style games that you can play for free anytime, anywhere. So sign up now at chumbacaceno.com to claim you're a free welcome bonus. It's chumbacaceno.com and live the chumbac. Sponsored by chumbacaceno. No purchase necessary VGW group void were prohibited by law on 21-plus terms and conditions apply. Yeah, I mean, we, it's not enough. Barbara says it exactly right. And maybe he's just, again, his military leaders must have advised him of that. And so maybe he's just saying it, you know, I think Donald Trump has always lived in his own kind of world and believes what he wants to believe. Military planners, you've seen all these reports

28:40about the raising cane, the chief of the joint chiefs, the chairman of the joint chief of the staff had some reservations about, you know, the kind of long slog that this could become. Not that you can't, you know, not that it wouldn't be possible to launch these strikes, but what, you know, what is the US getting itself into? And maybe even he didn't get that kind of clarity from the you from the president about what the end game was. So I don't, you know, when the president talks about rise, take over your government like, you know, when the US says that, you would think that there is a plan and a strategy behind it of what the US is going to do to make that happen, you know, there, there isn't here. So, and again, the Iranian, what if, what if the Iranians hear what the president said and takes it out on the American and the Iranian people?

29:41You know, it starts launching more attacks on the Iranian people because the president, you know, did that and tried to, you know, get the Iranian people against the president of the United States. I just don't think there's been enough discussion, certainly not publicly, certainly not with Congress, but maybe even within the administration itself about what we're trying to achieve, what's the end game and what is our, you know, cost-benefit analysis, what are our red lines in terms of not what we're willing to do, but the cost in blood and treasure that the Americans are willing to bear. Yeah, and Matt, I mean, the thing I come back to with Donald Trump is that he only cares about his own political survival at first and foremost. And that makes me wonder whether we are going to,

30:43you know, see a situation where perhaps he's going to carry out these strikes over the next several days. And then that might be it for a while. I, you know, I question whether he's going to go whole hog here and put boots on the ground because he, I think he understands full well. I mean, if you're, if you're the Republicans up on Capitol Hill right now, apparently John Thune has said that regime change should happen. He is not Republican leaders are rallying around Trump's military action right now. But if this cracks on for months and months, I cannot imagine that's going to go over well with Republicans who are leading through the majority as we speak. I mean, it seems to me that that is going to be a difficult proposition for the Republicans to stomach. Absolutely. Look, one could imagine he declares Victorians says, hey, we have obliterated their nuclear program mission accomplished and leaves. Again, except this time he just totally leaves and a lot of people would believe them. They would just say, oh, I guess we did it. We did it.

31:44And in a way, that creates a false sense of security for American citizens. They believe that we have taken on Iran and that we have dismantled their nuclear program and it's a fool's paradise. So that in a way is maybe possibly a worst-case scenario. It also supposes that Iran is going to let that happen and not have some sort of response, even if revenge is a dish, best served cold. Look, Jim, we've seen that the best and brightest can get us in, whether it's Vietnam, can get us involved in Quagmires. Or, I mean, look at the George W. Bush administration. I mean, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, highly experienced, competent, serious figures who got us involved in Iraq. And so it's not really true that smart, competent, experienced people always are the right move. But we're not experimenting. Will they be opposite end of that? We don't know what trouble. I'm sure some of these generals are very great.

32:45But is he even listening to him? This is a guy who's gotten where he is by doing things based on his own gut instinct. He has surrounded himself with political advisors who are really yes men. And so we're flying blind here. And does he have, maybe he's simply not communicating the exit strategy on the mission, or maybe it doesn't exist, right? And so that's a truly scary scenario. No question. And I'm going to go ahead, Barbara. If I may, so follow what Matt's saying. And he would have a lot of insight into this. So let's just look ahead a few days, maybe week, 10 days down the road. How will Congress seek accountability from the administration and transparency from the administration about what they're doing here? Typically, you might see the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of State come before Congress in open hearings, submit to a public Q&A

33:50from senators, from congressmen, and talk as much as they can in a non-classified way about what is happening and what they're doing. This, however, is an administration where the Pentagon resists wholeheartedly coming before Congress and explaining itself. And who are we not talking about here? Pete Hegseth, I'm not sure we've heard the Secretary of Defense, and it is the Defense Department, still not the war department. I'm not sure I've heard his name mentioned. He's sort of the Pam Bondy kind of official testifying before Congress. He's quite easy with hurling the insults back. Yeah, that's not going to cut it, I don't think. I don't think that's going to cut it. My probably be Ruby El, maybe. Well, I think that they're going to want to hear because what the person they really want to hear from is the Chairman. Chairman. And someone who's very sober-minded. I'm not sure Pete Hegseth wants to sit there at the Chairman's right hand and stay silent

34:53while the Chairman candidly answers questions. So I think there's something to watch. Congress can only go so far unless they're able to perhaps get public hearings and have this explain to the American people. Yeah, I'm also very curious to see what happens to Tucker Carlson's, to Joe Rogan's, the New Lawns, the Glenn Greenwalds. Do they kind of go along with this, look the other way, blame Israel? Or does it actually start to pose problems for Donald Trump and Republicans going into what already looks like a very tough midterm? That's a great point. And to Barbara's point, Elise, this is not a cabinet with the likes of Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice and so on. This is a Fox News cabinet of not very serious people. Maybe you could argue Marco Rubio is a serious person from a Washington standpoint, although lately he's really

35:54gone full blown mega in terms of his policy. But he is very much an influential force in that administration right now. So I would have to think just as Stephen Miller is sort of running the show on the domestic side that Marco Rubio is running point in a big way on this. I don't know if they're necessarily consulting with Pete Hegseth that much. These guys do know which strikes they should take. It's pretty clear that the chairman has an influential voice here, although I don't think they were happy with his, you know, the right thing about, I think what I heard, I don't know if this is true, but what I heard is that he raised these concerns. They were kind of alleviated after they started talking it out. And then it was leaked about his concerns. So maybe that was leaked by someone in the administration that didn't want this action. And there is a camp in the administration as we've been discussing led by JD Vance

36:57that is anti-military action. And I think the whole point about the Tucker's and everybody, there is a big kind of division on Israel in particular, which has a lot of the traits of anti-semitism. And isolationism in this whole Maga crowd. But I think Rubio is the adult in the room, but he's pretty stretched in in Venezuela and such. But it does concern me. He wants to win a flag in Havana, it seems. Right. It does concern me that there are not enough people in this administration that really understand Iran that understand the region. And when you look at the president's closest advisors, I'm not saying there aren't people in the administration that are working there that don't know it. But when you look and you say, OK, Jared Kushner

37:58is the one that understands the Middle East, the most out of that coterie, when Steve Wickov said, well, I don't understand why the Iranians aren't capitulating. It just goes to show you that he doesn't understand Iran. He doesn't understand the regime. And maybe the negotiations would have gone better if they understood this isn't a real estate deal. This is a negotiation about pride and culture and history and decades of animus towards each other. It does concern me that there are not enough people in the administration kind of. Bubble Wall is here from 2311 Racing. You know what's slower than a pace car waiting at the car wash? That's when I fire up Chamba Casino. It turns those slow minutes into fast fun. With new games every week, you'll never get bored. Next time you're stuck in the slow lane, speed up with Chamba.

38:58Play now at chambacasino.com. Let's Chamba. Sponsored by Chamba Casino, no purchase necessary, VGW GroupFord, where prohibited by law, 21 plus terms and conditions apply. You know, raising these weightier issues. No question about it. Yeah, and you have a commander in chief who is perpetually looking at things through a political survival lens that seems to me and he's making these gut decisions based largely on a lot of that, but. Is that Barbara? Is that tough? Can you just quickly, like what do you think about the chairman? I mean, obviously he wasn't like a major forest or general with all the kind of experience that you would expect from a chairman, but what are your perceptions about him? And I mean, there's a lot that's not known about this chairman, bro. Yeah. Well, I think he is operating in a very cautious manner, which I think you all understand why he's doing that.

40:03This is what a chairman does. This is what you do. You present the commander in chief with options. Usually, hypothetically, there's three options, the high option, the low option, and the middle option. And you tell them, OK, you don't say we can't. They never say we can't do it. We can do it. But here's the risk to you. What's the benefit you hope to achieve? They want to hear an endgame. They want to hear a strategy so they can build a force of capability that directly addresses what a commander in chief wants to achieve. But they always, always, always put the risks there. They are very careful, any military commander. This is the potential risk you face. This is what we, you know, the known unknowns. This is what we don't know. Well, go ahead, at least. Yes, sorry, no, finish the thought. Sorry about that. That's right. And that's what Kane has done. It's very appropriate. It's the way it all works.

41:05I think the fascinating question, very inside baseball, remains Pete Heggseth. You know, what I want to see this week, is he going to be out there with more of his workout videos with the troops while this war is going on? Pete Heggseth may find that it's time to get a little more serious about his job. Yeah. There's no time to do squats with RFK Junior, at least, right? On Kane, I think what you're saying is, and I think that that might be why he kept demanding so much firepower in the region, like, as much at any time since the Iraq War, because he doesn't, it seems like he doesn't know what the president's ultimate endgame is. So he wants to be prepared with any possible scenario. And so he wants, you know what I mean? If it was a limited strike and we just wanted to maybe go after the nuclear, he would know what he needed. And here, they just keep throwing assets in the region

42:06because maybe they don't know what they need, because they don't know what he wants. It's one of the classic military problems. They always advise their political leadership of, you know, to paraphrase. It's really easy to get into something. It's much harder to get out of it. How do you know when you're done? How do you know? How do you know when you've achieved victory? And is there any kind of victory to actually achieve? That's the big question. Well, an amazing panel to wake up on a Saturday morning with to talk about this. Barbara, Elise, Matt, thank you so much for jumping on. I was pestering all of you last second. And all of you, like the super friends, or something, just sort of, you know, radically appeared in your capes and your super star outfits. Well, now it's time to put on the second pot of coffee. Now it's time to put on the second or the third. That would be very helpful in my case. Which, guys, thank you so much. Really appreciate it. It's a very important issue, very important topic. So, appreciate the time.

43:07Thank you. Thank you. Excellent. Oh, thank you so much. Really appreciate it. And just a recap where we are right now, I believe we have a full screen graphic that can kind of walk us through where we are at the moment. It's unclear where the Supreme Leader of Iran is, despite Iranian claims that he is safe in the midst of this operation. Epic fury as the Trump administration is calling it. We'll see how epic it is or how ferocious it is. Iran is launching counterattacks across the Middle East. That has the potential for some major spillover and the potential to inflame this even further into a regional conflict. We don't know where that's going to take us from here. And US citizens in the region have been warned to shelter in place. Obviously, there are US military assets scattered throughout the region. The Iranians know this. They are attempting to hit those targets. And it looks from initial reports that they're having not great levels of success,

44:10of various levels of success. We'll say to put it safely at this point. But I think the question has to be asked before we go is what the political motivations are of Donald Trump. He is up against it right now. And as I've talked about this on this program so many times, this is somebody who likes to think of himself as the TV host and chief, as the executive producer and chief, doesn't like what the stories are leading the news. Let's change the newscast. Let's change the rundown. Let's change what's front and center in the minds of the American people. And I think the question has to be asked with his poll numbers, tanking with the Epstein files, those questions swirling around his head. He has made it very clear he's not even keeping his thoughts secret anymore, or to himself anymore as to what he thinks about the midterm election cycle. He has talked about wanting to nationalize elections. He has sent Tulsi Gabbard down to Atlanta to see these ballots from the 2020 election cycle.

45:14This is somebody who is thinking deeply about his own political survival at this point. And I think we can't go without acknowledging the elephant in the room. And that is Donald Trump as a political animal who is worried about his own survival at this point. He is a wounded political animal who is worried about his survival at this point. And the question is whether or not those motivations are coming into play in taking this action that the United States military has taken over the weekend. And for the folks who are tuning in late to all of this, I do want to play if I can't one last time before we go. The sound of Donald Trump telling the American people, again, this was, you know, not a lot of Americans were awake, but telling the American people that there might be casualties in all of this. Let's play this one last time. It seeks to kill the lives of courageous American heroes may be lost. And we may have casualties that often happens in war. But we're doing this, not for now.

46:15We're doing this for the future. And it is a noble mission. We pray for every service member as they selflessly risk their lives to ensure that Americans and our children will never be threatened by a nuclear armed Iran. I mean, there's Donald Trump saying, American lives may be lost. There may be casualties. This is a war. And these are the words that he's using right now. Why has the Trump administration not gone to the Congress and made this kind of case for war? They go on Fox News, they go on conservative media, talk about how the Iranians are doing this or that. But this is an administration that a year ago said that the Iranian nuclear program had been decimated, had been, had been basically wiped out. So what is the rationale for going in and striking Iran now? If it's regime change, that case needs to be made to the American people.

47:16And I just keep coming back to this question, whether or not Donald Trump is basically doing this for his own political survival. And I think it's a fair question to ask at this grave hour. And for somebody who has received draft deferments in his own past, the president of the United States should not be so cavalier with the lives of American soldiers, of the lives of American men and women for those of us who are old enough to remember what took place in Iraq during the 2000s and how there were multiple deployments that put American families through hell for the better part of a decade as the US attempted to put a lid on the instability that was unleashed in the Middle East after George W. Bush took out Saddam Hussein. And as Barberstar was just saying a few moments ago,

48:17and I think it's the perfect way to end this, it's a lot easier to get in than it is to get out. I do want to thank Barberstar for joining me, the amazing veteran Pentagon correspondent, the incredible lease lab at Veteran Global Affairs correspondent, and of course, longtime political analysts, the great Matt Lewis, some really terrific minds helping us sort through this this morning. I'll let everybody get back to their weekend, but in the meantime, really appreciate everybody tuning in for this special report of the Jim Acosta show, still reporting from Washington. Yes, I'm back in DC, I'm Jim Acosta. We'll stay on top of this. We'll see you next time. Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing. Victory Lane? Yeah, it's even better with Chamba by my side. Race to chambacasino.com, let's Chamba. No purchase necessary, VTW Group, voidware prohibited by law, CTNCs, 21 plus, sponsored by Chamba Casino.