Nancy, staying on the subject of things that divide the Republican.

Party.

Things that divide the Republican base.

Iran Iran just fired on a tanker.

because the tanker apparently wasn't following the rules of the road or the rules of the Strait of Hormuz that Iran believes are now in place.

How did we get to this point now where Iran is regularly asserting its control over the Strait of Hormuz even after this preliminary agreement.

It just seems as if you melt away everything else.

before the war started in February, the strait was open, and now Iran believes that it's it's theirs, and, and, and the Trump administration isn't doing very much about that.

So the way it started was the US in February when it launched its war on Iran said that it was going after its leadership, that this was a threat to Iran's existence itself.

And so Iran said if that's the case, we're going to use the most important card we have, the one that we've held for this situation, which is threatening passage through the Strait of Hormuz, knowing that it's critical to the world economy because 1 50% of oil went through there as well as key um resources traveled through that strait.

And so it brought the strait into the war.

The US then um was unable to make the regime fall, but with the regime learned was that by using that leverage it gave itself a strategic advantage in not only the war but then subsequently the talks.

We heard it from Trump himself.

Why did he want to end the war now?

He said in France because of the threat to the economy, not because of Iran's missile strikes on Gulf partners.

The primary issue is that stockpiles were running low, and we had to reopen the strait.

So that's, that's how we got here.

Then they signed a memorandum of understanding, a memorandum of understanding doesn't deal with the core issues around this, and in some ways we all were waiting for this moment when Iran would try to leverage again its power over the strait because by doing so, what Iran is saying is you can agree on whatever you want.

You, we can make any kind of deal we want.

There can also be unofficial ways that we control the strait.

In the days leading up to this, they were there's a lot of chatter to ships traveling through, you need to check with us first.

You need our approval first.

You need to pay first, potentially going down the road.

So they're trying to set the conditions on how the strait's going to operate going forward.

Outside of these, what could be months-long talks about key issues like proxies, ballistic missiles.

and, and eventually the Straits.

So that's, that's how we got to the point that they are now using their drones to create enough intimidation such that they continue to have a say over how the strait operates despite what the president says.

Steve, that does not sound like winning.

does it?

No, it's, it's definitely not a winning and, and to add to to Nancy's list.

I mean, there's we we haven't settled the big things in the memorandum of understanding is a punt, and it's unclear whether there will actually be a deal, in part because Iran got a lot of the things that Iran was seeking through the memorandum.

Explain why it's a punt just for a moment.

Well, it's a punt because the Iranians knew what they wanted to get, and they got a lot of those things.

I mean, the first, the first paragraph says no more fighting in in Lebanon.

Lebanon is mentioned 3 times.

They wanted to protect Hezbollah, the Trump administration effectively shrugged their shoulders and said, OK, we'll do that.

Um, they've gotten free flow of oil, of goods.

They're getting more money.

We're talking about a $300 billion recovery fund that the administration sort of in the memory of memorandum of understanding itself suggests that they're going to help with, but then when they're asked about it, they sort of shrug their shoulders and say, we haven't made any commitments, but Iran is now going to be getting this money that they've long sought.

uh, one way or the other, whether it's the reef of sanctions, whether it's through a recovery fund, and the administration's basically tied its tied its own hands to negotiate further.

Can I just add quickly, because I think those are all important points.

If nothing happens, Iran now has the capability to sell their oil at market value.

There are tankers in the water right now that they can start selling to China.

There are silos in China filled with oil that they can start making hundreds of billions of dollars off of right now, if nothing else changes and replenish their weapons stores with that money.

They replenish their weapons storage.

They could they could rebuild their proxy network.

There's all sorts of funding that that that comes into play, even if nothing else happens because of just the memorandum of understating.

So you can imagine what's at stake for the United States and for Iran as we go through the details of things like proxy groups, their ballistic missile capability, and other factors.

Hezbollah's also gotten more than a billion dollars by the Institute for Study of War Analysis.

More than a billion dollars since 2024, and Iran's already signaled that it will be replenishing its funds and increasing those based on what they're getting here.

I think the other issue here as we get closer to the midterm elections.

Iran's ability to affect the US economy again and affect the political standing of the president grows, and they've shown that there was never a settlement.

There's not a, there's not a flip switch that says, OK, we're now in agreement pieces at hand and so I fully expect, I don't, you know, know their thinking.

I don't report on it, but that that Trump remains vulnerable.

If we go into September and there's another 10% spike in oil prices, that's a news cycle.

Everyone knows what the, the price of gasoline is.

That hurts Trump and he doesn't who controls the price of gas at the pump 2 months before a midterm.

especially as extraordinary power over an American election because Trump has said, I don't want to go back to military action.

He has signaled that and so if the Iranians know that the president is reluctant to use military force again.

They have incentive to sort of challenge the control of the street and by extension, the price of oil.

What is notable about that obviously is that President Trump, among other Republicans, was highly critical of President Obama for signaling in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

We're going to do X, but we're not going to do y. Telling the enemy ahead of time this is what we're not going to do, and now they seem to be doing the same exact thing.

Steve, you mentioned something that struck me, and I want to ask the broader question about the debate inside the Republican Party, inside the administration, but you, you basically alluded to the fact that in this last round, the United States, the Trump administration, more or less took the side of Iran on the Lebanon question and not Israel.

Its partner clearly in the war that was launched in February, right?

That seems like a plot twist.

Yeah, I mean, it's what, look, I think you can say without hyper hyperbole, without exaggeration, that this is a pro-terrorism deal that the memorandum of understanding as it stands right now, because it makes clear that the IRGC, the, the Iranian regime is going to be flush with cash, the same thing that Republicans, as you pointed out, objected to in the most strenuous terms under Barack Obama.

I think correctly, that's not going to happen at scale in orders of magnitude, more money we're talking about.

Money is fungible.

This is, this is one of the things Republicans went nuts on, and that means that Has Hezbollah's gonna be stronger.

So Leanne, you have a lot of people on the Hill, Republican senators on the Hill who are hawkish on these Middle East questions in the style of their former colleague, Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State who runs one branch of American foreign policy.

JD Vance seems to run another.

What are, what are you hearing?

Uh among um that sort of national security crowd among Republicans about these not completely coherent twists and turns in Trump's policy.

The national security Republicans are many of them are mostly privately beside themselves with this MOU does.

Um, they don't like it, um, but they're not willing to do much about it.

We saw that for the first time at the beginning of the week that for Republicans joined with Democrats and to vote in favor to end the war, essentially a war powers resolution.

Um, you know, it had passed really because two Republican senators were gone.

There was an attendance issue, but still it passed.

Donald Trump comes to the Senate, has his lunch about the Voting rights or the voting bill, but also is furious about this Iran vote, even though it's symbolic, it doesn't sign it into law.

It doesn't have any binding properties.

He understands that this is a bad message that is being sent to Iran, and then, you know, later in the day, Senator Bill Cassidy, the same senator who got into a shouting match with the president be over Iran, flips his vote in a new version of this bill, and votes decide with the president.

He says it's because he finally got a briefing from on the issue.

He went to the vice president's house, talked to the Vice President Steve Witkoff.

Great.

Maybe he has a better understanding now of what the intentions are, but he really got bullied into this, and the reality is, is what's happening on the Hill.

Pete Hegseth has given a briefing to conservative members of the House of Representatives about this MOU, uh, select few number of Republican senators got a briefing from JD Vance and Steve Witkoff on the MOU.

There's been some, you know, national security, smaller group briefings, but there has not been any sort of all member understanding of what's happening there and so half the Congress is being left out of these discussions.

Can I quickly add, I think of the war in Iran splitting the Republican Party between MAGA and neoconservatives, the way the war in Gaza split progressive and centrists on the Democratic side, and I think that's I want to get to that in a minute before we, before we do, um, I want to talk about JD Vance.

He's had an interesting week, um, uh, here's something just watch this for a second.

Here's something that he said about Richard Nixon just the other day.

I think that his historical legacy is enjoying a bit of a renaissance, but I think deservedly so, as I joked with Robert backstage.

If Watergate happened tomorrow, it would be like a 12 hour news story.

Like the idea that it would have taken down a presidency as crazy.

I'm perplexed why someone would, someone who works for Donald Trump, say that.

Michael, you, you, you're just broke another story about a corruption related issue today.

What is, what is Vance doing there?

I think, I mean, if you talk to a White House advisors and other Trump world advisors about van.

They'll mention he's just really green.

He hasn't been in politics very long.

He was only just elected to the Senate before he became vice president.

He just doesn't have a lot of experience, and I think he's too online.

I mean, the idea that Republicans defend Nixon is one thing.

It's pretty normal at this point.

Trump has been very favorable about Nixon.

The idea that um the Watergate scandal, which basically destroyed the Republican Party for 5 years in the 1970s, um, is, is somehow something you should embrace now.

Only works on social media.

It's not, that's not a political argument, right?

And then to say that oh, compared to what we see today, it's nothing.

It's like you're not an online commentary.

You're the Vice President of the United States in an administration that you seem to be accusing of committing corruption.

I just, I just found this whole week a little bit incoherent for my for my taste, but we'll we'll move on from that.

I want to ask about Democratic politics.

New York City, Democratic Socialists, on the rise, um, uh, Mayor Mamhani showing his muscle.

The question is, is this gonna lead to a split in the party, the way that as Nancy was eluding, you see different kinds of splits in the Republican Party.

It's causing a lot of heartburn among Democrats.

This could, if Democrats take control of the House of Representatives and if it's a slim majority, this could cause a lot of problems for Hakeem Jeffries and his ability to govern.

No, this in there are less concerned with Democrats are less concerned with Republicans trying to tie the entire party to these Democratic socialists, and they point to, look, yes, this happens.

This was in a blue seat, the seat we care about more is the one in upstate New York where we got our candidate, and that's a majority New York City, so all bets are off, but, but it matters, right?

I mean, Steve, let me ask you this.

They're one of the candidates coming into Congress because she won a Democratic primary and overwhelming Democratic district.

Daria Lisa Chevalier said all kinds of things.

This is the sort of thing that apart from being ridiculous and appalling, this kind of quote could be an albatross around the necks of the Democrats.

She, she tweeted once, I forgot to get napkins, so I just wiped my hand on the American flag behind me.

Leanne is making the case that this doesn't really matter nationally, but I would have to imagine the Republicans are going to try to attach that to the reputation.

No doubt.

Look, one of the reasons that Donald Trump was elected was because he would say, look at how crazy they are, and you know there was grounds for him to say some of that, but this is Donald Trump's dream.

If he can point to those kind of quotes, and they can make ads about this broadcasting all over the country, and it is concerning enough to other Democrats that you're seeing moderate and centrist Democrats step up and say nothing to do with this.

That's not us.

Nancy, in the last minute that we have, you and Missy Ryan Broke's story this week about General CD Donohue, one of the most esteemed army leaders of this generation, former Delta, former everything, um, would be retiring prematurely after running into opposition and Pete Hegseth's Pentagon.

What does it mean So he's at least the 20th general or admiral to be pushed out of office, and the fact is we don't know why the secretary is going this way, but I think what young officers are taking from this is that disagreeing under Pete Hegsad's Pentagon is a form of disrespect and so what it portends is a military officer unwilling to give their candid military advice because they fear it will be career ending, and that's why it's having such a big effect inside the Pentagon this week, right, right, and we've seen a lot of generals, ex - gen er al s and admirals now push back against this particular firing.

I'm sure we'll talk about this more as as we as we continue, but for now we're going to have to leave it there