Donald Trump And The Future Of Foreign Intervention

0:07Donald Trump made a clear promise on the campaign trail. I will tell you, you're not going to have a war with me and you're not going to have a third world war with me. That I can tell you. And then as president, he doubled down in his inaugural address last year. We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end. and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into. These were key promises for much of his MAGA base who applauded his domestic policy focus. But since taking office, President Trump has ordered military action in Venezuela, Nigeria, Syria, Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, and now Iran.

0:45I'm Jen White. You're listening to the 1A Podcast. After this quick break, we'll talk about what this change means for Trump supporters and GOP lawmakers who've stood by his side. Stay with us.

1:00This message comes from WISE, the app for international people using money around the globe. You can send, spend, and receive in up to 40 currencies with only a few simple taps. Be smart. Get WISE. Download the WISE app today or visit WISE.com. T's and C's apply. Let's get into the conversation and meet our guests. Joining us to discuss is Tolu Oloronipa. He's a staff writer at The Atlantic. Tolu, welcome back to the program.

1:27Joshua Johnson:It's great to be back. And Reena Shah is with us. She's a strategist and former Republican political advisor. She's with us in studio. Reena, welcome back to the program. Hi, nice to be here. So, Tolu, we're on day 11 of the U.S. and Israeli military operation in Iran. What was the White House signaling about the move before it happened, especially to Trump's base? Well, they weren't really providing much of a clear and consistent set of messaging even before this operation started. We did see a large number of military assets moving to the region. The president talked about wanting to do a deal and putting focus on diplomacy with Iran.

2:06Joshua Johnson:And it seemed like maybe there would be some momentum on that front as they were, you know, in multiple rounds of talks with the Iranians. But the president was also very fervent saying, you know, we can never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And if they don't agree to a deal very quickly, then I am ready to bring the full force of the American military against the Iranian people. Now, that was in the run up to this war. But much earlier, the president was saying that there was no reason to have a war with Iran even last year after Operation Midnight Hammer, in which the U.S. bombed Iran's nuclear facilities.

2:43The president said we had obliterated Iran's nuclear capabilities and there was no reason to fear Iran anymore because they had been completely obliterated as a nuclear power. We did see that messaging start to shift as the weaponry started to move to the Gulf and to the range in which it could strike Iran. And we started to see the president using much more bellicose language talking about the desire that he had to bring Iran to heel, and if they did not agree to a deal, to know that they would be facing the full force of the American military. According to a PBS News NPR mayorist poll from last week, 56 % of Americans oppose the war in Iran.

3:25But Reina, support for the war among GOP voters is strong. 79 % of Republicans polled say they support the president's approach. 84 % support the strikes themselves. So where, if at all, are we hearing Republican opposition to this war? Well, like you indicated, Republican reactions really show broad party support right now. The polls I've seen show approximately 77 percent of Republicans approve of these strikes. But it's the MAGA base that is visibly divided. And if you look at the hawkish pro-strike voices there, you see many traditional Republicans, some who are Trump-aligned like certain U.S.

4:00senators. They back decisive action against Iran's nuclear ambitions and proxies. But it's the America First isolationist wing. And I'm talking key MAGA figures like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who actually, I should note, identifies more as America First. And then former Congressman Matt Gaetz, Tucker Carlson, and others who strongly oppose any escalation. They called it a bait and switch. They've said that President Trump has betrayed the voters of that no foreign wars promise. And he's also risking economic pain here, oil prices, midterms, and then the quote-unquote forever war-like past intervention.

4:39So this creates real fractures. Polls are showing, again, the majority of Republican MAGA voters are backing Trump. But vocal influencers are also warning of political vulnerability, coalition cracks, and backlash if this war drags on or the costs rise with it. Talou, where are you seeing those divides? How are you hearing the president perhaps trying to make a case to those who are adamantly opposed to U.S. foreign intervention?

5:10Joshua Johnson:Well, at first, the president didn't feel that he needed to make a case. He's talked about how, in his words, MAGA is me and how he knows what's better for his MAGA base than anyone else and how MAGA loves everything that he does. And he also has said, I love everything that I do. And so he's been very sort of proud and unrestricted in saying that he has full control over his MAGA base and he doesn't really feel the need to sell the war or anything that he's doing to them. He believes that no matter what he does, they will support him. But as we've seen some of these defections, he has lashed out against some of the people that have spoken out, like Tucker Carlson.

5:48He's talked about how he feels that Carlson is wrong on this issue. But we've also seen him try to message this as a complete victory, as something that is very different from the wars of the past, the forever wars, for lack of a better term, that the president campaigned against and that many of his voters said that they did not want to be involved in. And he's talked about how this would finish very quickly, how he would have total victory, how this would be easy, how he would have a role in choosing the next Iranian leader. And so he's tried to present this as a very easy and quick operation, one that he said will be over in a matter of four to five weeks.

6:27He's even said that we're ahead of schedule. So he's tried to calm the nerves of not only the markets but his own base by saying that this is not going to be a long war. We've already achieved many of our objectives and that this will be something that is over quickly. And that's something that his voters are listening to very closely. And some of them are holding their tongues to see if this is a shorter operation. And if it's not, I think we will hear more division and more people speaking out against this. Well, the House and Senate each rejected a War Powers resolution last week aimed at reining in presidential power over military actions.

7:00The resolution required congressional approval for continued operations in Iran. Republican Representative Warren Davidson of Ohio was one of the few Republicans who spoke in favor of that War Powers resolution last week. For me, the debate is more fundamental. Is the President of the United States, regardless of the person holding the office, empowered to do whatever he wants? That's not what our Constitution says. Is he empowered to do whatever he wants for 60 or 90 days? That's not what the War Powers Act says. Is there any limit to executive authority whatsoever? ever. Toluse, first, how were those votes split?

7:37Joshua Johnson:Well, the Republicans largely stuck with the president. The Republicans in Congress are also giving the president a bit of a leash here and not really wanting to tie his hands. There were a few Democrats that crossed over and also did not want to limit the president's ability to engage in this operation or tie the hands of the war fighters until you saw people like Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania and a few Democrats in the House also crossing over and voting alongside Republicans. But for the most part, it's in part because this is an operation that is depicted and portrayed as something that will be a short-term operation with no boots on the ground or very limited U.S.

8:28engagement and limited casualties on the U.S. side that this has not caused more consternation among Republicans in the Senate, at least publicly. Some of them privately are saying that they do not want to support something that's going to be costing billions and billions of dollars and it's going to last for months on end. But in the short term, with the president saying this will be a four to five week operation and that the goals can be achieved in that time frame, The president continues to have support of the members of Congress, at least publicly for now. But Reena, I hear Davidson asking a bigger question there.

9:06Is there any limit to executive authority whatsoever? And this has been a theme throughout Trump's second presidency about Congress's role in running the government. Are you hearing that question bubble up more among Republicans, perhaps quietly, But especially as we are seeing U.S. casualties, the current number of U.S. service members who have died in this war, it's at seven right now. Is this a question more congressional members are asking themselves? Well, I can tell you in private conversations with members of Congress that I'm not advising, one said to me that the president can do what he needs to do here until the two-week mark.

9:50Now, I don't know what basis this member was taking that from. This is a member who's served and put on the uniform as well. So I don't know, again, are they just finding excuses to sort of let the president do what he needs to do because they are, you know, they're a hawk like many Senate Republicans are. People who view this as finally confronting Tehran decisively. No more appeasement. And I'm part of that group, actually. I was delighted that we were able to knock off Khamenei. I thought that was great. But now again, we see his son anointed. And so this creates a problem. And everybody said, well, if you look down the pike, you could see this problem coming.

10:28I say, well, on the one hand, it was bold, again, decisive action, but it was a knee-jerk reaction. And that does go back to the original question is when the executive overreaches like so, are we allowed to – should we give him this runway? I actually think, no, we shouldn't. So I'm not happy with the impetus of how this came to be. And then also I'll say, I think the administration has really messed up the messaging here. Had they continued to call this a combat operation, I get it, we're past day 10, and in not a war, then maybe they could have that increased buy-in there from folks who could say this is a dangerous departure from the no more endless wars.

11:09You mentioned messaging, Rina, and the messaging around this war has been confusing, I think, to say the least. But we also know that intelligence, U.S. intelligence agencies said this kind of military operation would not unseat Iran's regime. And so if that was the goal, then the Trump administration was not acting in alignment with what our own intelligence said would work. in the country. So are you seeing any additional clarity around the purpose of this war at this point? No more clarity, but a sense that hanging on to our relationship with Israel here is worth it and could lead to a greater success than if we went this alone.

11:55And this is, again, from members of Congress that I have private conversations with. There is a sort of ease that we did this with Israel and that this has been operationally as successful as it's been because we've done it in tandem with them. This is a joint operation. But even that messaging was confusing because who actually drove this operation, whether it was the U.S. acting in support of Israel or as the president said, it was the U.S. acting ahead of Israel. Even that part of it hasn't been clear. They're not on the same page on that. And that is a genuine issue because then it looks like to people like I mentioned earlier, the Tucker Carlson's of the world who've warned that, you know, this is not draining the swamp.

12:40It's refilling it with another Mideast quagmire. Those people then become right as every day passes on and as the administration looks like they're not on the same page. But I will say that, yeah, the administration could do better. they could admit to anything that's gone wrong, such as civilian casualties, which is something I was so worried about the minute I heard that we dropped bombs on Iran with Israel. This is a situation where we do not have any boots on the ground yet. Our brave men and women who wear the uniform, certainly, you know, we've lost seven lives. They're certainly in harm's way any minute.

13:16And Trump not even, I think, giving any kind of consolation to the country to not sort of alleve our fears is really a moment where he's truly derelict of leadership in this role as commander in chief because he has to make us feel safe. And by not ruling out a draft even, that is actually probably, I think, the biggest place the administration has put its foot in its mouth. Well, you want to note that Iran's deputy health minister says the Iranian death toll at this point is over 1 ,200. Tolu, when we look at criticisms from right-wing media figures like Megyn Kelly, a former Fox News host, or Tucker Carlson, they are both criticizing the U.S.'s entry into this war, but also criticizing the role Israel plays in U.S.

14:09policy. And I'm curious whether you're seeing, what you're hearing around that from Republicans and around this broader question of whether the U.S. was pulled into this war by Israel, whether there's concern about that.

14:24Joshua Johnson:For sure. And this definitely connects to a long-running split within the Republican Party between folks on the right who have already voiced some skepticism towards the U.S. relationship with Israel. They've questioned how much money the U.S. sends in taxpayer dollars to Israel. The the military partnership, the willingness of the U.S. to arm the Israelis. This has been a major concern for several Republicans and especially folks on the far right. And obviously it's important to know that there is a strain of anti-Semitism that feeds into some of this that is often sort of conflated with this question or this skepticism towards Israel.

15:05But it is something that has been supercharged by the messaging around this war, especially the messaging from some administration officials who said that the U.S. entered into this war only because Israel was going to strike Iran no matter what the U.S. wanted, and that would lead to a retaliatory strike from the Iranians. And that really created this vision that Israel was the one calling the shots, that Israel was bringing the U.S. into a fight that the U.S. did not want to be in or did not otherwise feel the need to be in. And we've seen the administration try to clean up that messaging as we saw the blowback to it.

15:41But it is a big part of the split on the right with a number of people skeptical of the U.S. relationship with Israel, questioning whether the U.S. is getting dragged into a broader conflict in the Middle East by Israel and by the thirst that the Israeli president or the Israeli prime minister has for striking Iran. He said this is something he's wanted to do for 40 years. And obviously there are concerns about the way that both Israel and the U.S. are carrying out this operation. And I do think that we are going to continue to see that split play out as long as President Trump continues to align himself with the Israeli leadership.

16:25And it's something that he has not really addressed directly other than saying that he's standing with Israel and he believes his supporters want him to do that. And I would be very curious to see sort of how that plays out as this war continues for the next several days and potentially weeks and months. Well, we have to take a short break. Still to come, the price tag for the Iran war continues to climb. How could that affect Republican support for the operation? We'll be right back.

16:55This message comes from WISE, the app for international people using money around the globe. You can send, spend, and receive in up to 40 currencies with only a few simple taps. Be smart. Get wise. Download the WISE app today or visit WISE.com. T's and C's apply. Welcome back to the 1A podcast. We're discussing the Republican rift over the Iran war. Republican Representative Thomas Massey of Kentucky has been an outspoken voice against the U.S. and Israeli war in Iran. He said this to reporters on Friday about the cost. People back home, they're already feeling it in gas prices and then they're going to feel it in grocery prices and eventually housing prices and interest rates as our debt goes up.

17:39It's bad financially, but it's also I just don't think we have clear policy. After we obliterate the Iranian government and the Iranian military, then what? What do you do after that? So this is a midterm year. The cost of food, housing, energy, health care, pretty much everything, they're all major issues for voters. Gas prices have been rising since the war began. On Monday, they reached$3.48 a gallon, and that's a 17 percent increase since February 28th. If the U.S. economy takes a big hit, Reena, have Republicans talked to you about how they'll defend the war and the related price increases to their constituents at home?

18:22I have actually not heard that talk because right now everything is so short term. And it's coming from the top because the White House is treating everything so short term. We have heard the president already almost declare victory. That was probably the most puzzling moment. And of course, the Republicans have gathered together in Florida to retreat. And I'm almost certain that this is the type of perplexing messaging that frustrates members who are on the hot plate this fall. because they know that this is not just online noise. It risks midterm damage. And when we're talking about economic fallout from higher oil prices, disrupted shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, which means, again, we can't get the products we need, and then voter fatigue, if the casualties mount here of our own brave soldiers, or if the war drags on again past, like even now we're past the one-week mark, but the two-week, three-week mark, President Trump has come out and said four to five weeks, A lot of experts have estimated far beyond that, six to eight weeks to get, again, what the objectives are accomplished.

19:28Well, and we've seen reporting that the Pentagon is preparing for this to stretch into September. So there really isn't an off-ramp at this point. With that context, how much does it matter that prominent right-wing media voices like Megyn Kelly, like Tucker Carlson, are speaking out against the war visibly? visibly. And these are people who the president has turned to for policy advice to talk strategy. If these are the people his base is listening to, how much does it matter that they're vocally opposed to this war? It is huge. I cannot overstate that impact because the staggering direct costs are what these, again, influencers know.

20:09And they also know about the oil shock and everyday impact here. And then people like me, we talk about the broader economic impacts here, the risks that the president has. This isn't just about bombs. It's a potential recession trigger. And it's economics who've warned that this prolonged conflict could really shave the GDP growth by something like half a point. And that disrupts, again, everything that I think Trump has tried to get right in his first year and hasn't succeeded with at the end of the day. But I also think a lot about the political price tag for these Republican members who we're trying to save, who are more moderate in nature.

20:52They face a very tough sell, as you alluded to earlier. I mean, backing a war that's costing billions while voters are grappling with these rising costs of living, there is no way to go out there and justify it all. I mean, there's think tanks like CSIS who have estimated the first 100 hours alone cost$3.7 billion, nearly$900 million a day. And you're talking about the Center for Strategic and International Studies. It's a D.C. think tank. They estimate the cost per day is over$890 million at this point. And that's based on information the Pentagon has shared about targets it struck and the assets involved.

21:30Tolu, how is the White House viewing the price of this war? And I'm not talking about casualties because that's a separate price that you can't really quantify. but the actual dollars and cents, it's costing the U.S. to carry out this operation.

21:48Joshua Johnson:Well, the president is sticking to his message that this will be a short war. This is an excursion, he has said, which is a really sort of lighthearted way to talk about war. But he has said that this will not last long, that the impact of this on the economy will not last long. He said it's a small price to pay for the objectives being met. And so they have tried to message this as something that will not last long and will not have an overall long-term effect on the American people. But every day the cost is going up, and at some point they are going to need to ask for more taxpayer dollars.

22:21They are already talking about a supplemental that they're going to need to ask Congress to approve to fund this war effort. About$50 billion. That's right. And this is at a time of great belt tightening in this administration, saying that we don't have money for things like Medicaid and other and SNAP benefits and other social safety net things, as well as, you know, cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs from the federal workforce to try to have more government efficiency. It is a difficult message for them to now come and say we need more money for this war that has not very much support among the American public.

22:59and does not have a clear objective that has been provided and explained in a consistent way from the administration. So they are in a very difficult place when it comes to messaging around the cost of this war, the dollar and cents cost to the taxpayer as well as the cost to the American family's budget with higher prices for gas and potentially groceries and other things that flow from the cost of energy. And that's not even to talk about the cost of lives, both the American lives that have been lost as well as the civilians in Iran. As we've seen the story of the school that was struck potentially by an American missile that's under investigation.

23:41But a lot of the independent media reports suggest that it was an American missile that struck the school, killing more than 150 schoolchildren, more than 175 people altogether. And so that is a very difficult message to try to provide when you haven't provided a clear rationale for why this war is needed in the first place. Rena, a group of anti-deficit Republicans were holdouts for passing President Trump's domestic policy bill last year. The bill passed in July with three Republican holdouts, Senators Rand Paul, Tom Tillis, and Susan Collins. How could that issue of mounting debt compound as this war continues?

24:20And what are you hearing from Republicans about how they address that? This party typically sees itself as fiscally responsible. Many years ago when I was on Capitol Hill as a young staffer, that was my first sort of lesson I absorbed. was that we are the party that is going to rail about the rising national debt. We will always talk about it, and we'll talk about it responsibly, and we will rein in federal government spending. Where is that, I think, rhetoric now even? You don't even hear it. It's just almost as if we have figured out that there's a scramble for everything, how to force Congress to do its job on whether it's supplemental funding while also taking care of domestic priorities like health care and infrastructure that are also getting squeezed.

25:02And now here in this moment of this war, I think what maybe many members of the House feel that are on the right is that we were on an economic recovery path. And what we're risking right now is dagflation that could stall that economic recovery. So they're kind of in a holding pattern right now. They're not talking much. And because they know that anything they say becomes fodder for these isolationist voices in the party who are already grumbling about fiscal hypocrisy. I mean, these are the people that wanted to cut social programs at home, but want to pour money overseas. Those kinds of people have always kind of taken the oxygen of the party.