UAE moves to freeze Iranian assets

Welcome to Morning Joe.

On this Friday, March 6th, and we begin with breaking news in the war with Iran.

The push to punish Iran is expanding from the battlefront to the banking system.

Morning Joe has learned that the United Arab Emirates moved forward early this morning

on its threat to freeze billions of dollars in Iranian assets.

And according to a top official in the region speaking with Joe, the UAE has long been

a financial hub for Iran and its business interests seeking to avoid western sanctions.

The Wall Street Journal had reported that such a move by UAE officials would sever a

key economic lifeline for Iran and cut off its access to foreign capital and trade.

The Iranians who have fired over 1,000 missiles into the UAE have suffered a sharp economic

downturn that was responsible for public demonstrations that led up to the American and Israeli attacks

on that country.

The United Nations are going to get into the specifics of the military side of the war.

But the journal had reported that if the UAE went through on this, it would have a crippling

effect on the economy because they've used the UAE as a conduit to avoid western sanctions

that this would severely limit currency, their ability to get foreign currency and trade.

I'm curious now that the UAE has moved forward with this, what impact do you see it having?

So Joe, I think it will have both political impact and economic impact.

The economic is obvious.

The UAE holds enormous volumes of Iranian assets.

It's the place where Iran does business.

And so just in economic terms, it will squeeze Iran at a time when it needs to have access

to its money and assets.

Politically it's significant as a sign that Iran's strategy of attacking the UAE and other

Gulf countries is totally backfired.

The Iranians were hoping that by launching missiles and drones at key U.S. UAE cities

early in the war, there now been over a thousand drones launched on the UAE.

They would intimidate the Emirates into basically stepping back from the war, not supporting

the U.S. and Israel.

And the opposite has happened.

Emirates have gotten angrier.

They've talked about their willingness if pressed to take offensive action.

So on both fronts, the actual economic squeeze on Iran and the demonstration of the political

impact of unwisely choosing to attack the UAE and these Gulf countries, it's significant

on both levels.

And Willie, it's just fascinating to me that as poor as the economy has been doing in

Iran and with them obviously suffering these military attacks to launch the most missiles

at any country other than Israel to launch it at the country that is responsible for

your economical lifeline seems more than short-sighted.

That is just extraordinarily stupid and the Emirates, my reporting, is that the Emirates

let the Iranians know.

Like if this continues, we're going to freeze your assets which again, as Wall Street

Journal reported last night, if they were to follow through on this, it would cripple

them economically and the Iranians kept going.

Yeah, Iran has fired more than a thousand drones and missiles at UAE, which is you and

David just laid out very well.

It's frankly the country that keeps Iran afloat allowing it to avoid Western sanctions,

it's been a haven for their businesses, for them to park oil money that funds the IRGC

and these military operations.

So effectively, they attacked one of their main benefactors in a very, very curious and

I'll use the word dumb move perhaps now because UAE perhaps they didn't think the UAE

would take this step but according to your reporting this morning, they have gone that

route.

David Ignatius, I wonder, would we see more of this across the Gulf region?

Because the UAE is not alone in having been attacked by Iran, this appears, this move

to have further isolated the Iranian government right now.

Well, they've been strong statements over the last two days, stronger than I would have

expected from both gutter and from Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia has seen its oil facilities

at Ross to Nora Hitt, direct strike and gutter has seen attacks on some of its natural

gas delivery facilities leading to an enormous spike in the price of natural gas.

I mean, the gas impact is even higher than the oil impact coming out of the Gulf.

So both countries have issued statements making clear how angry they are and again, suggesting

that they might be prepared to take action themselves against Iran.

So across the Gulf, you have an unusual unity of these countries which had been trying

up until the beginning of the war to ease their relations with Iran, to find ways to

de-escalate in general the confrontation, not anymore, now they're angry.

And the UAE has even mentioned taking maritime action against Iran and those oil ships.

We will see there.

The Wall Street Journal also reporting this morning on Iran's effort to widen the conflict

using low-cost drones after suffering significant setbacks in its ability to unleash massive

barrages of its most powerful weapons.

The regime has hit at least 11 countries in six days.

Iran also fighting with jets that date back to the Vietnam War, many acquired before

the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

As the journal notes, the planes could be museum pieces and none of Iran's air fleet

has stealth capability making the jets easy targets, Joe.

So you put all this together in terms of military capability and isolation in the Middle East.

It shows a further weakening Iran.

And certainly does.

And John Meacham, just let's talk about this historically.

I account myself as one of those people who along with most Americans after the first

month or two of Iraq thought things were extraordinarily successful.

I remember John Stewart had been a loud voice against the war in George W. Bush joking

at one point.

So I guess I'm going to have to take my kids to middle school, named after George W. Bush

and made a joke about it, and then we saw the mission accomplished then or so.

I say that just to talk about it, I want you to talk about the humility that we should

have in trying to predict where a war is going.

I've heard a lot of people on the left saying, oh, everything is bad, everything is doomed.

This is going to fail.

I've heard people close to the president saying this is the most successful military invasion

ever.

I mean, the truth is, we own the skies over Tehran, and one Intel officer told me yesterday,

that's just something nobody ever imagined, uttering those words, that we own the skies

over Tehran, the Navy is crippled, according to the president and others.

So we really don't know where this is going, and give us some sort of historical parallels

about the foolishness of predicting an amazing success, our failure, which again, a lot

of people did, even during the surge with Patreus, I think Iraq proved everybody wrong

on every side, every time.

Yeah, when Dwight Eisenhower was coming along as a mid-level officer, he had a mentor,

great general, lost a history named Fox Conner, who made him read Klauswitz, Baron Bonn

Klauswitz, the German officer who book had been published posthumously called On War.

And the line we all, it's frequently quoted, is war is the continuation of politics by

other means.

The book is largely about war being the province of chance, that the wise commander knows that

there is going to be failure, there will be success, you often won't be able to predict

either one until it happens, and it's just the art of managing the unknown when you project

force.

And one of the interesting things for the United States and Iran, in this may seem overly

facile, but I think it's worth thinking about, is two generations of Americans saw Iran

as a central part of what our national security posture was, what our position in the world

was.

In the early 1950s, the CIA is involved in installing the Shah.

If you wonder why Iran keeps coming up, look at a map.

It's a vital gateway between East and West, as we call it.

So the Shah goes in as a Cold War maneuver to have a friendly regime.

And then of course, and I don't need to tell Mika about this in the late 1970s, the Islamic

Revolution, signals to be the rise, the new relevance of Islamic fundamentalism, and

demonstrates over the Iranian hostage crisis a concern that we were no longer the giant

we felt we had been back when we'd installed the Shah.

Here we have a third chapter and an open question, which is can America project force at

will, in order to, and I'm just trying to follow the administration's lines here, first

to try to disrupt a nuclear program, to stop nuclear proliferation, to protect that

neighborhood and our allies there.

Can we do this in a way that seems improvised?

Perhaps it has not been militarily, and I'm not making any comment whatever on the effectiveness

of the military operations, but politically this is an improvisational exercise.

And so the question I think is going to be, what is the extent of our power in the first

quarter of the 21st century?

How will we use it?

And will after this, will we be able to bend people to our will more easily with simply

the threat of force?

And so these are open and important questions that will define I think a certainly a key

period of time here.

And your summation is in line with everything, all my reporting, from yesterday that the

military operation has been a stunning success from all angles, even with the tragic loss

of life.

But the political side of it will be improvised and causing grave concerns, not only with

Intel community here, but also in the region.

If I could just two quick comments about John Meacham.

First of all, he certainly had to go long and deep, explaining who Clauswitz was.

Thank you John so much for that.

Secondly, I am curious, I mean it shows you what he thinks of us.

But secondly, Willie, I'm not so sure that what he said was overly facile.

Do you think what he said was overly facile?

I think nothing John Meacham says is ever remotely facile.

And that's an opinion rendered by a member of the Vanderbilt student media Hall of Fame.

There it is.

They got their 10 minutes into the show.

BOOM!

Hall of Fame, Willie.

Really?

Really?

Hall of Fame.

The student media Hall of Fame.

It's a very special thing.

Yeah, I'll explain what that's actually an insult, I'll explain to you in the break.

It's always an insult.

Okay, great.

Good stuff, good stuff.

Okay.

All right, moving on now.

Go ahead Willie.

Yeah, well I'm just talking about, we're on the one hand talking about the military side

of this, but also then the political side and the what comes next side.

President Trump told Axios he needs to be involved in the selection of Iran's next

leader.

That's about reports that the son of the now deceased Ayatollah may be picked to lead

Iran.

Trump called the Ayatollah son a quote, lightweight who would force the U.S. back to

war in five years.

President then compared the situation to Venezuela saying he needs to be involved in picking

the next leader like he did with the now acting president of Venezuela, Delce Rodriguez.

Speaking of overly facile, Jonathan Lamir, that seems like a pretty simplistic way to

look at that.

Wow.

Certainly the difference in between Venezuela.

He's getting silent.

He's getting silent.

He's getting silent.

He's getting silent.

He's getting silent.

He's getting silent.

He's getting silent.

They've given him Willie like 12.

Always.

Hall of Fame like trophies from his high school in Massachusetts.

No one thinks that's what he was talking about.

Oh no.

You know what?

Maybe it was poorly, the sentence was poorly formed.

I meant the argument.

No.

What are we talking about?

President Trump was, oh, what is that picture?

What am I looking at there?

I don't know.

That's it.

Hey, wait.

Come on, man.

No.

The mayor just grabbed it.

They had that one ready, didn't they?

Grab the baton.

Lamir, grab it.

Great job.

That is incredible how fast that came up and embarrassing too.

Yeah.

That was me and I.

That was me and high school.

Willie was standing to silence.

Let's change back to Iran here.

Yes, the president is continuing his wave of phone calls with reporters, a few things

to note.

First, what Willie just said.

Yes, he wants to say, it doesn't quite work like that.

Iran has not picked a new leader yet.

What they do is they gather what's known as the assembly of experts and then they will

select the new Ayatollah.

I don't think President Trump is going to get an invitation to the assembly of experts

to have a say there.

The Ayatollah son is considered the front runner.

He also, to the point about what John Meetsham just said about the concerns about what

could be next, after the stunning military success in everyone with our friend, Jonathan

Carl.

President Trump literally said the words, forget about next.

He only wanted to revel in the military operation and this I think is telling about the lack

of plan as to what the future of the Tehran will look like whenever the fighting does

stop.

Again, the phrase forget about next and an interview with Time magazine that's now part

of their cover story, he was asked about, well, what about the repercussions here?

Could there be perhaps terror attacks on U.S. soil?

We saw the one in Austin last weekend, murky as to what motivated that, but believed

to be connected, could there be more?

He acknowledged the possibility of an attack at home with this phrase, I guess, simply saying

I guess at the possibility of Americans losing their lives goes on to say, like I said,

some people will die when you go to war.

Some people will die.

This says, basically a lot of blowback for those comments today, Joe and Mika, but I

think two things can be true at once.

The military operation has been stunningly successful.

The news this morning from the UAE will only further weaken Iran in the short term, but

the long term, the future of the conflict, the future of Iran seems like the U.S. doesn't

have much of a plan, making up as they go along.

Joe and Mika as we proceeded with this conversation, a clarification, when I said, overly facile,

I meant the comparison by the President of the United States of Venezuela to Iran, certainly

not that Jonathan Lamir was overly fast on the board, that he's not out of the historic

track career in Massachusetts.

Right.

Well, look at this.

I mean, I got to happen to say this if we can put the picture up that T.J. apparently

has, like, it's button number B right there.

Yeah.

He won a Hall of Fame for track, then he won a Hall of Fame for like everything.

I don't know.

It's cute.

I mean, they, they, they, they, they just have a lot of news to talk to.

They're just a pork chop into my room at Catholic high and tap me to it and say, stay

out of here.

I never had anything like that.

All right, David Ignatius, we're going to make a quick turn here.

So a lot of talk yesterday about Donald Trump saying that he was going to pick the next

leader.

And while other people are quite skeptical of it, looking at what happened in Venezuela,

you saying time and again that Iran was going to be sort of his blueprint, Venezuela would

be his blueprint for Iran.

Think the president saw that he, the military went in, moved swiftly.

You talked about that Viking style attack.

They sat back, waited and then Donald Trump went in and actually did shape the terms of

Venezuela's future for a, for 90 million different reasons.

Iran is different than Venezuela at the same time.

This president is telling people, I'm going to fight this war as long as I need to fight

this war.

It's up to Iran and they're going to have to accept on my conditions.

Given the history and given the way this president has operated, I'm, I'm not so sure that he's

not going to keep this war going until he has a say.

Like, like your input and what you hear from your reporting.

So he seems absolutely determined.

He's still in the, in the flush of presidential use of military power, which we saw in Venezuela

and again with Iran, animates him as nothing else does.

The initial US approach working with Israel was what we called decapitation, just knocking

off the senior tier of leadership.

And as President Trump himself said, the people he was expecting to be able to make a deal

with are dead now.

They were among the groups that was killed.

And a new group was coming along and he said the other day and they're dead too.

But he does have the sense that that he wants to be selecting somebody pliable that US can

work with from everything that I know about what's happening in Tehran.

There has been surprising, continued cohesion of the leadership group, even as the top leaders

are knocked out, new replacements come in.

You'd expect fragmentation.

It hasn't happened so far, according to my intelligence sources.

Secretary of State Rubio, briefing members of Congress this past week said basically,

we're going to continue with this military campaign, which as we've said has been fantastically

successful.

They're operating basically at will now above Iran, taking out whatever targets they want.

And then Rubio said, and then when it's done, you know, basically when the country has

been, the country's institutions have been reduced to pretty much to rubble, we'll

see what's possible, we'll see who emerges, we'll see about what strategy we might have

for the future.

So it's that, as we said, that parallel military success, political, I think uncertainty, lack

of clarity.

Right.

And, and, and, and make a right now, there seems to be a standoff you have President

Trump saying we're going to see this to the end.

It's up to the Iranians decide when to pull back.

And you have Iranian leadership that's making the gamble that if they can keep gas prices

up high enough, if they can keep the US bogged down long enough, at some point they have

just out and out said, we're waiting for Donald Trump to declare victory and go home.

So they think they can wait him out.

And right now, that's, that's a big question on how long can the Iranians actually wait

the US and Israel out?

And as we follow these breaking developments still ahead on Morning Joe, what we're learning

this morning about President Trump's decision to oust Homeland Security Secretary Christy

Nome and a look at the person President Trump has tapped to replace her.

Right.

The tough guy act and these Senate hearings, you know where to find me.

Any place.

Any time.

Cowboy.

So, this is a time.

This is a place.

You want to run your mouth.

We can be too consenting adults.

We can finish it here.

Okay.

That's fine.

Perfect.

You want to do it now?

I'd love to do it right now.

We'll stain your butt up.

Yeah.

You stand your butt up.

Oh, hold on.

Oh, stop it.

Is that your solution?

Every problem.

Oh, no.

Sit down.

Sit down.

Thank goodness.

Oh.

The police.

Republican Senator Mark Wayne Mullin, the potential next head of DHS.

Morning Joe is back in a moment.

You know, you know, because this is a gorgeous shot from Liberty Island, New York, from the

torch of the Statue of Liberty.

You know, TJ has, he's like, he's always holding five aces in his pocket.

Like he has this.

Mm-hmm.

Right.

I love this.

He has a little mirror.

He has a little mirror running shot.

Like he just pushes that.

He's got, he's got that one up, the Hall of Famer.

He's got Arnold the King.

Well, he's always got to have that.

If you ever talk about chief legal counsel for, for Comer, and then just because he knows

how much I love the Atlanta Braves, from the 60s and 70s and 80s, 90s, he, he, he has

Biff Polkareva.

And that's, that's for, for Braves fans, for Braves fans, that suffered through,

the Pat Rockett era, when, I love Pat Rockett, but when they couldn't even grow grass at,

at, at, at, at Fulton County Stadium, but then Phil was filled with chickenweed, Willie.

Biff Polkareva, he, he, he was, he was one of the thousand points of lights for us Braves

fans, like that.

I also just love baseball cards.

Biff Polkareva was just crouched in front of a mobile home that appears and got his headshot

taking for his baseball card.

It's perfect.

It's just perfect.

Fantastic.

By the way, Joe, I'm hearing a lot out in the street.

Right.

You, out on the street from your fans about Arnold the Pig.

He's become a really important part of this show.

He's kind of become a reference point of touchstone for our winning Joe family here.

They love him.

And for those who don't know, Arnold the Pig is John, John meets some of those.

No, they know.

He's always the smartest character in green egg acres and maybe the only one that Eddie

Albert could relate to.

And weirdly enough, he goes from that TV career me get to actually being James Cumberstee

Fliego Council who, the second Hillary Clinton walks into the room.

Yeah.

He's like, screw it, guys.

I'm going home.

And he gets out because he knows what's going to happen.

Well, yeah, that was so unbelievably that backfired, but you could see it coming nice bit

little long.

Let's get on to the news now.

President Trump has fired Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Nome, making her the first

cabinet secretary to leave the administration during Trump's second term.

Her aster comes after two contentious days of testimony before Congress where she faced

scrutiny from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

The president didn't offer an explanation for the firing, but a costly day, just add campaign

is believed to have been a factor.

So, no, way more than $220 million, $220 million, and the ads are on horses with her cowboy

hat and full hair and makeup, any who, the advertisement, of course, encouraged undocumented

immigrants to self-deport weird.

So what you thought, the president approved ahead of time, you spending $220 million

running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently.

Yes, sir.

We went through the legal processes.

Did it correct?

Did the president work with OMB?

Yes.

He did.

Yes.

Okay.

And one thing, Senator, I think would be helpful to know is how effective that communications

has been.

Well, I'm over-effective in your name, recognition.

I mean, I personally just, I mean, to me, it puts the president in a terribly awkward

spot.

Yeah.

I mean, it certainly did, and John Lamir, I mean, you just look at those ads, you're like,

really?

They spent $220 million on those campaign ads.

Like movie shoes.

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

I thought I was seeing, like, a scene out of North by Northwest with, yeah.

Like, so help me out here.

Was this the fun, there we go, there we go.

Pan off into the sky.

And there you go.

Yeah.

There she is.

Oh, representing America at its best.

Yeah.

It's great cinematography.

I wonder how much that cost.

Oh, wow.

It cost $220 million.

The hockers.

And she blamed Donald Trump.

Oh, look.

We got rockets, assassination attempts.

It's her way of saying.

Don't call them.

I am America.

I don't even know what that was.

Is that a scene from the shining?

It's all so scary.

Jonathan Lamir.

Take this down, DJ.

Take this down now.

I feel bad for the horse.

I did, man.

We all do.

What about the dog?

I mean, she got a shot at him.

I don't know.

A bad day.

It's the horse with misbehaving.

What was the dog's name?

It was cricket.

And I think cricket got the last laugh.

Just different things.

Yeah.

So, John Lamir, the last straw, there were many straws.

And as you reported back at the end of the year, the president was thinking about replacing

her in a couple of other officials anyway, but he wanted to wait for the new year.

Then Minneapolis happened.

Then the two killings happened.

Then you had just one bit of bad news after another.

And then, apparently, you think this may have been from your reporting, the straw that

broke Christy Dome's horse's back, that she blamed the president for this $220 million

political ad campaign for her.

It looked like a political ad campaign for her.

Yeah.

She said the president approved it.

That is not the case.

The White House is denied it.

And in fact, Senator Kennedy, who we just saw in that clip, talking to the secretary about

it, later revealed, after the news came out that Secretary Dome was being fired, he told

reporters that he actually heard from President Trump that night.

He got a call from the president that night.

And Trump was furious, saying, no, I had nothing to do with this.

She lied.

Now, she was already on thin ice.

There was some momentum in the administration to make some changes, as the administration

hits its second term.

It was a real point of pride to not have much turnover in the first year, unlike the first

term.

We've talked about the no-scalps policy that Trump put into place.

But this got too much.

This ad, he was furious about the ad campaign, furious at the suggestion that he signed off

on that amount of money.

But it wasn't just this.

And of course, was the killings of the two American cities in Minneapolis.

It was known being the face of that, and also lying about the circumstances.

She was pressed during the hearings this week about her characterization that these were

domestic terrorists who were gunned down, when, certainly, they were not.

Their question surrounding her relationship with Corey Lewandowski, her top aide, Willie,

and also, just, there are the polls, and the president can see them.

Immigration was his signature issue and a real strength when he took office.

Now he is badly under water on this.

And in his estimation, those around him, Nome and her tactics are to blame, and she is

now the first to go.

For some more reporting on this, let's bring in MSNOW White House reporter Laura Burone-Lopez.

Laura, you've been digging into this story, and what ultimately was the final straw for

Christy Nome.

President Trump, we heard reports here at MSNOW and also outside reporting that he'd

been calling around Capitol Hill this week, and we actually heard from Senator John Kennedy.

Yesterday, he said, yes, he got a personal phone call from the president himself saying,

should I get rid of Christy Nome?

Senator Kennedy said the president was furious, apparently, according to your reporting

as well, about this claim that he had approved, that the president had approved $220 million.

So Christy Nome could put on costumes and ride around on horseback.

What was the final straw, according to your sources?

Well, the final straw appears to have been this statement by her in the committee saying

that, yes, he approved this $220 million ad.

And sources told me and my colleague, Jake Trailer yesterday, a White House official

and someone with knowledge with the decision that the president made, who's very close

to the White House saying that this didn't sit well with the president, that he was not

happy at all, that she made these statements to Congress, that she said that he signed

off on it and a White House official telling us, quote, this really upset POTUS.

So ultimately, this ended up pushing the president over the edge.

I reported in December, along with some of our other colleagues here at MSN, that the

president was considering replacing Nome.

And at the time, a lot of what was feeding that was Stephen Miller.

Stephen Miller was not the top, the architect, as many of you know, of a lot of these

hard-line immigration policies.

And he was not happy with the way Nome was spending all of that money that was the billions

that have been provided to DHS, the billions that have been provided to ICE alone.

Miller was not happy with the pace of her spending on especially detention centers because

they've been trying to build out all of this detention capacity in order to hold tens

of thousands of immigrants.

So back at the end of last year, Miller wasn't happy with the way she was handling that

money.

Again, at the end of the day, even though it was this statement to the Senate Judiciary

and her back and forth with Kennedy that seems to have done her in, I think what's key here

is that Christy Nome was not pushed out because of the tactics that ICE was using or because

of the hard-line policies of the administration or because of all the immigrants that are

being rounded up legal immigrants as well, it was because of this self-promotion that

she was dealing in and ultimately the president didn't like the headlines and didn't like

the scrutiny that she and Cory Lewandowski, her right-hand guy, were facing.

So because he was very happy all along with the way ICE and DHS was conducting themselves

as they've been carrying out his mass deportation campaign, Willie.

Also reports from Axios and others that some $300 million in taxpayer money were spent

on the purchase of new Gulf Stream luxury jets, at least of another one so that she

could fly wherever she needed to be personally.

You mentioned Cory Lewandowski and Christy Nome.

I guess the question now is, are they moved out of government completely?

President Trump has a long relationship getting back to the 2016 campaign with Lewandowski.

Is he trying to push them out altogether or would they reassign somewhere in the government?

So the sources that we talked to yesterday said that Cory Lewandowski is out.

They said he's completely out, but of course, they also were saying, look, the president

does have, as you mentioned, this really long relationship with Lewandowski.

He's been an advisor to the president for a long time, has always stuck by his side.

And so because of that, he could very well end up landing somewhere else in the administration,

despite the fact that sources inside the White House are saying that he's out.

I texted Lewandowski yesterday, didn't get a response.

I know that he seemed to respond to a different reporter, I believe, saying that no decisions

are final.

Christy Nome is about to head this new, be a new envoy for the shield of the Americas,

which we don't have a ton of details on.

What exactly that means or what exactly that position is going to entail, but the president

is going to be meeting with Latin American leaders this weekend down in Florida.

And that's where he's expected to provide more detail about what exactly this new position

for Nome is going to entail.

And it seems to be part of this initiative that they're launching, that the president

and the White House says is about combating drug trafficking.

MSNOW White House reported Laura Burone, low-press, great reporting this morning for us.

Thank you, Laura.

Meanwhile, President Trump has tapped Republican Senator Mark Wayne, Mullin of Oklahoma,

to serve as the next homeland security secretary, Mullin, a longtime Trump ally, who's been

a vocal defender of the president's border policies in particular.

Also, a former MMA fighter has drawn attention for his brash combative style.

As we've played for you before the break during a congressional hearing in 2023, he challenged

the president of the teamster's labor union to a physical fight after he criticized Mullin

online, standing up, beginning to take off his ring for the fight before Bernie Sanders

sat everybody down.

Mullin will need to be confirmed by the Senate and his nomination will go through the

Homeland Security Committee.

That panel is chaired by Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, a twist there, Mullin

recently called Rand Paul a quote, freaking snake during remarks to voters in Tulsa.

So Joe Nmika, there's a lot there.

By the way, an interesting twist to that almost fight inside the Senate chamber between

Senator Mullin back in 2023 and the teamsters president Sean O'Brien, they since have become

friends.

And yesterday, Sean O'Brien said quote, if anyone is willing to stand their butt up to

protect America, it's Mark Wayne Mullin.

That's from Sean O'Brien.

Apparently president Trump back then brokered a meeting between the two, said you'd like

each other and now their buddies just like this moment.

Well, because the Senator was a gentleman and took off his ring before he was going to

fight him.

That's maybe that.

I don't know what's going on there.

I do know though that calling the chairman of the committee that's going to be reviewing

you a freaking snake may be interesting.

And I will say the hearings may be interesting because of course when the middle of a shutdown

based on what the demands of Democrats and you know, small government Republicans like

Rand Paul expect the HS to do.

So expect some fireworks there could be coming up as the war with Iran continues questions

are still circulating about the United States motive in the conflict.

While president Trump consistently claims Iran was going to strike for some Americans remains

skeptical.

Given the US past actions in the Middle East, we'll discuss what led the US back to Tehran.

And as we go to break, a look at the moment Republican Senator Tom Tillis confronted

Christie Nome at a congressional hearing this week.

I read your book last week and honestly some of the parts of it impressed me but some

of it distresses me and I'll give you a good example of one that does.

The passage where you talk about killing a dog that was 14 months old.

I trained dogs, all right.

And you are a farmer.

You should know better.

You should know that if you're going out to a hunting lodge and you're putting pheasants

out and you're putting dogs out, you don't take a puppy out there.

A 14 month old dog is basically a teenager in dog years.

You decided to kill that dog because you had not invested the appropriate time in training

and then you have the audacity to go into a book and say it's a leadership lesson about

tough choices.

Welcome back to Morning Joe, it's 47 past the hour, live, look at the White House.

Justice Department has released more Epstein files this time involving uncorroborated

accusations made by a woman against President Trump.

The department previously said it was working to determine if any records were wrongly

withheld.

After several news outlets reported the massive public collection did not include a number

of files documenting interviews conducted in 2019 with the woman involved.

The DOJ said yesterday those files had been, quote, incorrectly coded as duplicative.

And were accidentally not published along with other investigative documents related

to Epstein.

The accusations against Trump date back to the 1980s when the woman involved was a teenager.

Her account of the alleged assault is among the number of unconfirmed accusations in

the documents released by the DOJ.

President Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein.

Justice Department officials have defended their handling of the files, saying they strived

to release documents as quickly as possible under the law while also protecting victims.

Although it turns out that a lot of victims' personal information and pictures were actually

released, and information about some men actually redacted, and, of course, this information

that mentions President Trump and an accusation not released at all.

Meanwhile, Lindsay Halligan, the former US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia,

is now under investigation by the Florida Bar Association.

The probe was confirmed in a letter last month to the Watchdog Group campaign for accountability

that had filed complaints to the bar about Halligan's actions while she was working for

the Department of Justice.

In a very brief response, the bar explained an active investigation was already underway.

The complaint filed by the group focuses on her action as interim US Attorney.

Halligan, who left the DOJ back in January, was elevated to that position to oversee the

indictments of James Comey and Leticia James, two named targets of President Trump.

Both cases were later dismissed after a judge ruled Halligan's appointment was unlawful.

The administration is appealing that ruling.

MSNOW reached out to the Florida Bar yesterday, and they did confirm the probe into Halligan

is, quote, an open case.

The New York Times reached out to both Halligan and the DOJ, but both declined to comment.

We'll follow that story, and still I had on Morning Joe, more of our new reporting that

the UAE has moved to freeze billions of dollars in Iranian assets held in the Gulf State

a development that could cripple Tehran's economy.

We'll get a live report from Dubai straight ahead on Morning Joe.

The lives of over 50 innocent people are at stake.

The foundation of civilized diplomacy is at stake.

The integrity of international law is at stake.

The credibility of the United Nations is at stake.

And at stake, ultimately, is the maintenance of peace in the region.

President Jimmy Carter in December of 1979, emphasizing the outcome of the Iran hostage

crisis would have consequences far beyond those who were involved directly.

Carter's own presidency also was at stake.

He later acknowledged the failed rescue attempt of the 50 Americans being held at the US Embassy

in Iran, which left eight U.S. service members dead, likely contributed to his loss to Ronald

Reagan.

Tim Barnacle, Tim's latest sub-stack piece, is titled The Road Back to Tehran in

at Tim writes this, quote, as his domestic agenda fails, the beginning of 2026 has seen

President Trump use his powers to decapitate nations not because they pose an imminent threat

to Americans, but simply because the opportunity presented itself.

More so than in 1953, the decision this week to force a change in Iran's leadership

has no clear answer to what comes next.

As Americans learned in Iraq, removing a murderous autocrat does not alone provide a stable

future and often results in the opposite.

Six Americans already have been killed and yet another war in the Middle East.

As President Trump said on Sunday, there will likely be more before it ends.

That's the way it is.

Perhaps the best summary of his plans so far writes Tim Barnacle, Tim, good morning, great

to see you.

You kind of give us a brief history of the 20th century now into the 21st century of

the American relationship with Iran.

How far back do you trace it and how do you see glimpses of what was happening back then

today?

Well, every story has a first sentence and from the United States and Iran, that story

kind of starts in 1953.

That's when the CIA conducted Operation Ajax, which employed Kermit Roosevelt Jr. Teddy

Roosevelt's grandson, who besides having one of the great names of all time, actually deposed

the democratically elected prime minister of Iran and kind of raised up the Shah.

Now over the next 16 years, the Shah in Iran was pretty much a pro-Western pro-American

autocrat and in doing deals with the United States, he gave us 40% of the oil kind of

causing resentments within the Iranian people and then also in 1957, the United States

and Eisenhower was on the, right there on the TV screen, actually through his Adams of

Peace program, gave Iran its very first nuclear reactor, kind of planting more of the seeds

we have seen today.

So from 1953, when there was the coup to 1979, when there was a revolution kind of partially

caused by that coup, all the way to 2026 and this war starting in Iran, there's a complete

straight line.

Tim, explain it if you would, our national interest in Iran.

Professor Meetson, wow, this feels like I'm being deposed of sorts.

Our national interest in Iran is one that is confusing to the American people.

We see Donald Trump who in 2016 was elected for some of the similar reasons Barack Obama

was in 2008 and that was running against these kind of forever wars in the Middle East.

And we see now a story that keeps changing.

History is teaching these lessons to us again and again.

We have, you know, in Greenland, we tried to buy Greenland in 1868.

We have, where we have troops there for over 80 years.

We have Venezuela, which the story of Maduro is very similar to the story of Panama where

we took down Noriega in 1990.

So again, history is repeating these stories to us again and again and again.

But for Donald Trump and for the Trump administration, there is no straight through line for them.

There is no coherent story.

There's just, as he says, the way it is.

You know, John Meetson, you've been living with Dwight Eisenhower for quite some time

and studying him.

You know, here's a president who can engage in sort of brinkmanship, threat reportedly with

North Korea.

But during his eight years, he didn't get involved in hot wars.

He certainly managed a Cold War.

But I always thought from my reading of Eisenhower's history that it was interesting that 1953,

if not a one-off, because, I know, we did some other things.

But it seemed to be almost out of character in the Eisenhower presidency.

Is that your take or did it, what, let me ask, what lessons did he take away from, from

most of the day and what happened in 53?

The covert action could work.

In fact, the success in Iran and our action in Guatemala in the 50s in sort of a very thirty

thousand footway set up the affection for, not fetish for, covert action that came back

to bite us in a significant way in the 1960s.

You're exactly right about his avoidance of hot wars.

He did not want what he called brush fire wars.

He was relentlessly logical.

He fell in love with a plain geometry at Abilene High School.

He loved, you know, A to B to C. And to him, really from 1941-42, when he was summoned

from Texas to come up and run the war plans division, which became the operations division

under General Marshall before he went over to, before Eisenhower went over to Europe.

He was defining, as we were just talking about with Tim, America's national interest in

those first months of World War II, and a significant one.

And this is a perennial force, right, was oil.

He did not want the Middle Eastern oil to end up in the hands of the Axis.

And that was one of the two or three things that's in every letter, right?

Every diary entry about how they have to secure that.

Because the loss of that source of energy could be so devastating.

And so one of the things about Eisenhower and I think many successful presidents is, yes,

there were doctrines, yes, there were principles.

But he really did react to facts as they developed.

He did not go in with grand and inflexible plans.

And he also surely never went in someplace without knowing how to get out.

And that seems to be the difference here, as the president Trump, Tim, doesn't have a

clear, at least he has not that he's announced any clear exit strategy, any clear goals.

And no doubt, to this point, the military operation has been a huge success.

The same time, politico is reporting right now that Pentagon officials are preparing

for this war to last, perhaps to September or longer, underscoring the idea, we don't

know what's next.

Is there anything else you've learned from your examination of the history of the US

relationship with Iran?

Are there any other lessons that if President Trump were listening, he should take?

Well, I would say to President Trump, I would just repeat his words back to him in May,

in Riyadh.

He said that the so-called regime builders wrecked more than they built.

Now there's a history lesson that's probably correct.

That was to the Middle East leadership in May.

And now we have him yesterday, just yesterday saying to Axios, I believe, that I have to

be involved when it comes to picking the next leader of Iran, just as he had to be involved

in picking the next leader of Venezuela.

Why?

Because to him, this is not a history lesson.

This is not something to thumb through the pages of John Meacham's book or anything

like that.

It is an episode of the Apprentice.

It is something that is all about him.

And in this case, it's not about one of the thousand explanations they seemingly have

had as to where their facilities were obliterated in June and yet now they're back up.

What's happening is an opportunity for Donald Trump and opportunity for Bibi Netanyahu.

All right, author Tim Barnacle.

Thank you very much.

You can read the rest of his latest piece, available right now on Substack and John Meacham.

Thank you as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.