Brooks and Capehart on Trump struggling to contain economic fallout of Iran war

William Brangham:

With the war in Iran stretching on for almost a month and President Trump struggling to contain the economic fallout, now is a good time for the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.

That's "The Atlantic"'s David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart of MS NOW.

Good evening, gentlemen.

Jonathan Capehart:

Hi, William.

William Brangham:

Jonathan, as you talked about here last week, the president has given all sorts of conflicting ideas as to why we got into this war, how the war is currently going and what might happen to get out of this war.

The thing that's not unclear at all is the toll, the lives lost, the infrastructure damage, the economic toll, with the Pentagon now saying that they might need an extra $200 billion to continue fighting this. What does this say about the ongoing -- about this ongoing conflict?

Jonathan Capehart:

Where to begin, William.

I'm still trying to understand what the president's true objectives are. Is it regime change? And, if so, who comes next? What comes next? He wants them to surrender, but in the same breath says there's no one to talk to. We've killed everybody.

Just before we came on air, there's a long TRUTH Social post from the president saying, basically, we're almost there and here are all the things we've been able to do, and then said to the allies, if you guys want to open the strait, that's on you. And he said, we don't use the strait, we don't need it.

OK, so then what does that mean for oil production? What does that mean for Americans here at home, who have seen their -- have seen gas prices rise? By tomorrow, it could be that gas has increased a full dollar since the start of the war.

William Brangham:

A huge jump.

Jonathan Capehart:

A huge jump since the war started on February 28. And so, I mean, I would just love it if the president would do an Oval Office address and talk to the American people formally about why he did what he did, what he sees his objectives are, or his accomplishments, and then tell us what's next.

That would be infinitely more helpful than what we've seen over the last four weeks.

William Brangham:

Let's say he did that. Would it matter?

David Brooks:

I think so. I was pleased that he said in this TRUTH Social post that he was thinking of winding it down.

Jonathan Capehart:

Right, winding it down.

David Brooks:

And he said we've achieved the love of our mission. He's at this moment of decision, where they either decide we're going to clear the Straits of Hormuz or we're just going to try and negotiate a settlement right now.

And clearing the Straits of Hormuz is a multiweek, maybe multimonth operation. And that's where the $200 billion and the Marines were going in, would come in.

William Brangham:

Right.

David Brooks:

And that could involve all sorts of things. And that is just an ugly proposition. If we could clear the Straits of Hormuz in a week, I'd say go for it. But that doesn't seem to be on offer. So we're looking at a lot of economic turmoil, a lot of death, probably boots on the ground.

And so that's an unattractive option. Right now, he can say, the region's language is mowing the grass, that Iran tries to build up terror capability, terror capability, and every once in a while you have to mow the grass, which -- to reduce their terror capability. And this would be the mother of all mowing the grasses.

William Brangham:

Right.

David Brooks:

But he could say, we have -- basically, the key thing is we have reduced their ability to be a regional power. And we may have eliminated their ability to be a regional power. And that would be a total win for the region.

William Brangham:

And that is a legitimate argument, that they have genuinely done that.

David Brooks:

They have. They've decapitated the regime. They've gotten rid of a lot of the Hamas and Hezbollah. They've taken out a lot of the weapons capabilities. Most importantly, they've taken out the factories where they make the weapons. So that takes a long time to build all that stuff back.

And so that would be somewhat of a win. It would not be a total win. It would be a very ugly win, because we'd basically be telling Iran, you intimidated us. You close the straits and we can't -- you sort of beat us on that front. And so it would not be good. But it might be -- of all the bad options in front of us, that might be a decent one.

William Brangham:

Yes.

But in the interim, Jonathan, we're still in this position where Iran, although the president says their military has been utterly destroyed, they are showing, in that zero percent that they allegedly have left, remarkable tenacity to punish other Gulf states, to destroy critical oil and gas infrastructure.

I mean, analysts have been arguing that what's been done in Qatar recently has be -- could be years undoing. The Iranians don't seem to be ready to give up this fight yet.

Jonathan Capehart:

Right.

And that's why there seems to be this dissonance and disconnect, certainly for me here in Washington, but I'm sure for the American people who are just loosely watching. The president says one thing, such as, the straits are open, everything is great, and then the split screen tankers on fire.

The words that are coming out of the president's mouth and out of his administration don't seem to match the facts on the ground, which is why I think it would be really important for the president to come to the American people and explain what's happened.

The problem that he has, and the problem, admittedly, I would have watching such an Oval Office address is, I would not know how much of what he says I can trust.

William Brangham:

Right.

Do you think that the rising energy prices, David, are going to force his hand in this?

David Brooks:

Not necessarily. I mean, it's not great to have the gas above up a buck, as you say.

But if you look at his base, we had the numbers on earlier in the show, he's not losing his base.

William Brangham:

Right.

David Brooks:

And he could say, if there was a plausible idea that you could really change the regime, it would be worth a couple weeks of economic hardship.

William Brangham:

Right.

David Brooks:

But there's probably no plausible possibility of that. And then the economic hardship is the economic hardship.

So, to me, it's not a killer, but it's certainly pressure on him. And he's the guy who follows the stock market. Affordability is a number one issue. It doesn't seem to bug him, particularly.

William Brangham:

Right.

David Brooks:

Which is interesting to me. He's not, like, trying to make a case about it.

William Brangham:

Right.

David Brooks:

So he seems to have decided, this is worth doing. And you could say, I don't -- any war is not worth doing if it's being led by Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth.

William Brangham:

Right.

David Brooks:

So that would be where I would share some of Jonathan's concerns.

But if they could reduce the power of Iran for the next generation, that would not be good for the people of Iran, because they'll still be stuck with this regime, but it would be good for the region. And you're seeing the Gulf states, you're seeing the Saudis basically fighting alongside Israel and saying, what Iran did in bombing all these states was a true atrocity that's altering the landscape of that region.

William Brangham:

Right.

David Brooks:

And that too is -- the more we can get a grand coalition against Iran, not bad.

Jonathan Capehart:

However long that lasts.

William Brangham:

Right.

I mean, what do you make of this argument, though, that some in the Trump administration are making, Israel's making, and certainly some foreign policy hawks, that, as David is describing, that it might be worth it, even if you put aside your feelings about Trump and Hegseth and the way he's operated this and the way he's communicated about this, that what they have done to a regime that so many people do argue is an awful totalitarian regime, that it could be worth it?

Jonathan Capehart:

Might be worth it. Could be worth it. If it were possible, why didn't previous presidents of both parties do it? Why did they always seem to stop?

There is always something that stopped them. And, look, I would be 100 percent behind you, David, if I knew what day two was and if I trusted the people who were doing all the planning. I can't trust the folks, simply because their words don't match what's happening on the ground.

But, also, the way the president launched into this, great, you can start a war, but what's the game plan? What is your end goal? How achievable is it? And then, once you're done or while you're doing it, what does the rest of the neighborhood look like?

The idea that the president was told by military leaders, they're going to probably close the Strait of Hormuz, but you've got to be prepared for that, he got that intel and decided, I don't care about that.

I mean, so, Mr. President, what is your day after or two days after or a week after? Let's say that this very rosy idea of what the region could look like, let's say that is possible. Mr. President, how are you going to make the Brooks vision real and tell us the truth?

And the fact that we don't know what that answer is should be alarming to more than just me.

David Brooks:

I would just say one thing about it, that what Trump has done has made the previous presidents look bad because they should have done something.

Iran has always been the central threat and George W. Bush went after Iraq. What the heck? Right. Barack Obama abandoned the red line in Syria, gave sort of a green light there in Syria. Joe Biden didn't do much. Trump didn't do much in the first term.

And so the problem built. Now, is the problem solved? No, it's not solved. And I think -- I don't know if -- this is where U.S. and Israeli interests really diverge. We have a much stronger interest in trying to wind down.

William Brangham:

Yes.

David Brooks:

The Israelis do not have that interest. And so that will be a tension.

But if you can get a weakened regime, I don't know, it looks not as pessimistic as I was last week about it.

William Brangham:

Oh, call that progress.

All right, let's take it to Friday night.

William Brangham:

David Brooks...

Jonathan Capehart:

Yes, you didn't ask me.

(Laughter)

William Brangham:

Sorry.

Jonathan Capehart:

But that's OK. We're out of time.

William Brangham:

We will come back next week. We will talk about it then.

Jonathan Capehart:

Great.

William Brangham:

David and Jonathan, so nice to see you both.

Jonathan Capehart:

You too, William.

William Brangham:

Thanks. Thanks.