Maybe President Trump will order strikes against Iran, or maybe he won't.

Maybe he'll invoke the insurrection Act against anti-ICE protesters in Minnesota, or maybe he won't.

Maybe he'll try to buy or conquer Greenland or not.

If you have the feeling that we're all just living in Trump's world.

You're not alone.

No president in our lifetimes has made himself the center of everything, the way that Trump has.

Next.

this is Washington Week with the Atlantic.

Corporate funding provided by in 1995, 2 friends set out to make wireless coverage accessible to all.

with no long term contracts, nationwide coverage and 100% US-based customer support.

Consumer Cellular, freedom calls.

Additional funding is provided by Ku and Patricia Ewens for the Ewan Foundation, committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities.

Sandra and Carl Delay Magnusson.

Rose Herschel, and Andy Shreeves, Robert and Susan Rosenbaum.

Charles Hamawe to the Charles Hammoee Fund.

Steve and Marilyn Kerman.

Leonard and Norma chlorine.

and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.

Thank you Once again, from the David M. Rubenstein studio at WETA in Washington, editor in chief of The Atlantic and Moderator Jeffrey Goldberg.

Good evening and welcome to Washington Week.

It seemed inevitable earlier this week that President Trump will be ordering military strikes on Iran, but then he pulled back after getting pressure from Israel and America's Arab allies to hold off.

But that doesn't mean he won't attack Iran next week or tomorrow or right now for that matter.

Very often unpredictability is a useful leadership tool, but we're in a whole other reality now.

President Trump doesn't recognize the guardrails that were visible to previous presidents and self-restraint isn't his specialty, which is why Denmark is preparing for the defense of Greenland.

Joining me tonight at the table to discuss all of this, Jonathan Carl, the chief Washington correspondent for ABC News.

David Sanger, the White House and national security correspondent at The New York Times.

Nancy Yousef is a staff writer at The Atlantic, and Nick Schifrin is the Foreign Affairs and defense correspondent for PBS NewsHour and the moderator of the new program Compass Points that debuts this weekend on PBS.

Welcome all of you.

Thank you, Nick.

Big weekend, big weekend here at PBS, everybody, the juggernaut, new juggernaut is coming your way.

Uh, we'll talk a little bit about what you, what you'd be talking about on, on Sunday, but let me just start, David, with you and, and get a little, um, get a sense of what the current state of play in Iran is.

Jeff two completely separate dynamics underway here.

One, a rotting regime increasing frequency of these protests.

We've all been through this before.

The protesters come out this time in much larger numbers.

It wasn't just students, it was the middle class, it was people protesting the devaluation of the real um and so the sense of heightened crisis, but some things are the same.

The protesters still have no guns, no arms, and the Iranian regime does, and they use them as ferocious pace.

They did use them at a much more ferocious pace here, and you've got to think that any regime that's got to try to shoot its way out of this, isn't gonna last forever, uh, but may last for a while.

And then the other side of this, as you were suggesting in your opening, Jeff, is the president who said we're going to come to the rescue of these protesters.

But you know, this is not an operation like taking out 3 nuclear sites as he did in June.

There you had to find targets.

You could go in, you could bomb, you could bury the uranium, and you could leave.

If you are in a situation where you're trying to support protesters, you need to know what it is you're trying to do, regime change, trying to promote democracy, trying to just stop the killing, and we never heard that from this White House, right?

Let me read you something.

This is an extraordinary truth social post by Donald Trump, even by the extraordinary standards that we're getting used to.

I greatly respect the fact that all scheduled hangings, which were to take place yesterday, over 800 of them have been cancel ed by the leadership of Iran.

Thank you.

Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America.

I mean, it has this kind of very dark, almost Monty Python-esque, uh, all the hangings are offered.

The truth is that they didn't stop the hangings, but Nick, talk, talk about this for for a minute.

The is this just evidence that Trump is trying to find himself an off-ramp from this and his using what might be bad data as an excuse.

Well, the US military officials who I talked to earlier in the week did predict that the president was going to attack Iran, and then we were all by Wednesday it seemed like we were all this is the night it's gonna happen exactly and then by the afternoon or whatever it was, suddenly it wasn't, and one official told me, yes, he's looking for an off-ramp.

So what's the explanation?

Well, perhaps there was this idea that, oh, maybe if they don't hang a protester, and there was one specific protest er who the activists were all saying going to be hanged tomorrow.

If they don't hang that protester, then, OK, they're moderating somehow, but I think clearly that as you said, right, Israel and the Arab states were not into a US strike, you know, Nancy's been reporting and we'll talk more about the idea that the US military didn't have the assets they wanted and all of that meant that the president was looking for an off-ramp to a war that frankly all of his advisors said wasn't an easy win, right?

You didn't have a Caracas option in Tehran.

You didn't have a way to take all these protesters and let them or create an extra momentum so that they could overthrow the regime and given that that was the answer and given that the pressure that he was on diplomatically, there was no easy way to choose any option and actually get what he wanted, assuming that we actually even knew what he wanted.

Nancy, let me ask you two questions.

One is jumping off something that said you wrote earlier this week um until last fall, commanders in the Middle East could count on having an aircraft carrier strike group nearby that was either in the Persian Gulf or could reach it quickly.

Not this time.

The USS Gerald R. Ford, which had been closest to the Middle East, left the shores of Europe last fall for the US pressure campaign on Venezuela.

It would take at least 2 weeks for the Ford to move back within range of the Middle East.

You've been writing about the overstretched quality of the military.

Is that the reason that we didn't have the strike that they had been promising on Monday and Tuesday.

I think it's certainly a factor and one evidence of that was that the USS Abraham Lincoln, one of two carriers operating now is moving from the Western Pacific to the Middle East, which had signaled that they needed the presence there.

Remember that the carrier gives the military a lot of options in terms of its defense of its forces there.

It also allows them to launch strikes from there in a region where allies were saying we don't want you to do launch strikes from our country.

We fear that the other thing that moved out of the Middle East was drones, and so you lost a lot of the capability.

What do you mean moved out of the Middle East?

So those drones that were in the Middle East went through the Western Hemisphere as well, and so we lost the carrier, we lost air capabilities, and so when you're talking about striking a regime on its last gasp that's already threatening the US, threatening its allies.

You want the most defenses you can in the region, and a lot of the ones that they're used to having weren't there.

John, was it a mistake then from a strategic standpoint to to focus on Venezuela, which does not pose as much of a threat to American interests as Iran clearly does.

I mean, now you have what moved into Venezuela and you're now moving assets out of the South China Sea to the Middle East, which is counter to what we've been told that they're trying to do, which is focus on the real threat they see ultimately long term threat from China.

But look, in terms of how this all turned around.

You, you have a couple of factors.

By the way, one, the Iranian Foreign minister went on Fox News, which was a very interesting move, and it was the Iranian foreign minister who announced, I mean it announced it was with Q&A with Bret Baier, that there were going to be no hangings.

We're not there, there are no hanging, no hangings scheduled.

So Donald Trump learned that by watching Fox News at 6 o'clock on Wednesday, the Iranians know enough to know how to communicate directly to the president, and there's another thing.

Tucker Carlson has been at the White House twice over the past week.

Um, and we know at Tucker Carlson you know, feels generally about not getting involved in the Middle East and not doing anything that would remotely something that the Israelis would favor.

I mean, Bibi Netanyahu was at Mar a Lago in mid-December encouraging Trump to take another military strike at Iran, this time over the ballistic missile program, and you know, it did look like he was moving in that direction.

And now I think there's this whole con, you know, Trump is not particularly strategic on this stuff.

It's very much in the moment.

I want, I want to go to David in a minute to talk about the Israelis who were telling him this week, please don't have a strike on Iran, but in December we're talking about something else, but John, you've hinted at maybe the largest question.

Can you make it all make sense.

Well, look, he went and said, help is on the way to the Iranian protesters.

Time after time over the last, mostly over the last 10 days or so.

He has been encouraging the Iranian protesters and at the same time the Ayatollah has come out and the Ayatollah called him a tyrant.

I mean, that's really something the Ayatollah called him a tyrant and called for him to be overthrown.

So it's, I mean, you can kind of see that Trump's got all of these factors going on.

He's feeling strong.

He's feeling like he's the most powerful president ever.

He's just taken Maduro out of Venezuela.

He's pushing around Denmark over over Greenland.

He feels he has the power, but he truly, I think he still does not want to get dragged into something.

Look, I'm asking you as my friends.

I'm, I'm just on the hunt for coherence and the way you're describing just the movement of aircraft carriers.

I have to imagine that there are people in the United States Navy who said, Oh, we're not going to be near China.

We're going to the Middle East.

Oh sorry, we're going to the Caribbean.

Nope, we're going back over.

If you're in the hunt for coherence, you're covering the wrong administration, OK, but this is the only administration we've got.

It's the one you got, you got.

You covered the administration you have.

You go you go to war with the administration you have.

You read the national security strategy that they turned out back in November, and it talks about which the main enemy is England, I think you read it carefully there's a lot of, a lot of discussion of Europe, but the main focus suddenly is the Western Hemisphere.

So yeah, we could fit Maduro into that and we could fit the run for the resources there, but all of a sudden he's getting involved in a uprising in Iran, setting out red lines.

Imagine for a moment that Barack Obama had said, we are coming to the aid.

He is on is on the way.

You will remember that in, well, he did, in effect, issue a red line, said to the Syrian which which became one of the rallying calls of what he did wrong in foreign policy, right?

He doesn't believe that.

He believes to this day that that was a fine moment.

I think he said that to you and in one of your interviews, but it was certainly part of the Trump critique of of that administration.

And uh so the president is feeling emboldened, but you'll notice that he pulls back when it looks like he could be in a confrontation with a nuclear armed country, China or Russia, or get involved in something on the ground that he can't control, and that's what these uprisings were.

The critique of Obama was you set the red line and then they crossed it and you did nothing.

That's right.

And that's where you're in the position you're seeing Trump do.

He set a red line.

It's clearly been crossed.

What's he going to do?

And there's a Go ahead.

I can I add to that list?

He doesn't want anything protracted either.

Yes, I mean, since Christmas, which was less than a month ago, the US has conducted strikes in Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, but one and done.

That's right, all one and, and the bombing of the Iranian nuclear program was literally take off from America, fly halfway around the world, drop your payload, go back, come back, never touch ground.

The only exception was Yemen.

which went on for several weeks.

and was inconclusive at best in terms of outcomes.

So but they declared victory anyway, I think with Iran we also have to remember if we're going to give the benefit of the doubt here that, you know, at the at the at the bare minimum, right?

He was given 3 options.

You can help the protesters by giving them a signal by hitting the people who have been killing the protesters.

So hey, we know who's killing you.

Second option was we're going to go wider, take out the IRGC, take out the Basieged forces, try and destabilize the regime.

I see the revolution That's the core of the right, or 3, go after the missiles that we do expect Israel at some point this year to try and go after her again, but neither of them, all three of them did not really achieve any one goal, right?

Did did not achieve one victory, as he put it, you know, to CBS because most of the weapons he was looking at were weapons, and it was only when they were discussing dropping Starlink in, that you had something that made sense or broadcasting in Persian language back in something that they were dismissing.

Well, we dismantled that.

I want to, I want to keep moving around the world a bit, but, but David, answer that one quick question about um what the Israelis want, what the Arabs want right now, because that's going to give us a fairly big clue about what's going to happen next week or the week after on Iran.

The Arabs want some stability out there and while the Israelis ultimately, as Nick said, want to go after those missiles and so forth.

They are not in the position right now to go uh do anything to which the Iranians might respond with missile attacks of their own.

And there was a US assessment this week that the Iranians would launch a larger strike against a US strike, Nick, so on your show this week, the upcoming show, you're going to be talking about splits in the Republican Party on these ideological questions, and I, you know, I do find it hard to believe that JD Vance is looking to have yet another foreign military intervention.

I forgot until you mentioned, you know, Nigeria and Somalia.

We just sort of dismissed those.

Take us inside the Republican fight.

It's not even a Republican fight, it's a White House fight, right?

I mean, to me, the core foreign policy debate, and I'd like to think that, you know, on Compass points, we're going to reflect this is that was a nice plug.

Oh thank you that was slick, you know, on one side you get a traditional, well, let's call it a traditional Republican approach.

What Marco Rubio was perhaps right muscular interventions, right, and Kori Schake from, from the American Enterprise Institute kind of represents that on our show.

And so we want to help the Iranian protesters, especially if we've created a moral red line.

We want our friends in Europe to be our allies and our friends and not threaten them, right?

Then you've got, if you will, the JD Vance, Steve Witkoff has been on this side, certainly in the argument the restrainer, let's call it, right?

Why are we focused on Latin America?

Why are we bombing Iran?

Our focus should be China.

Donald Trump was elected in 2016 to be a restrainer president.

What happened to that?

Defense priorities, a think tank in DC has Jen Kavanaugh.

as their representative, and she's on the show.

And then somewhere in the middle, as we've been, you know, basically acknowledging the president goes either way or not, and that's Heritage Foundation.

That's heritage, Nancy.

This is an interesting question because it's not that it's Trump might have all of these thoughts at different points in the day.

Is that a fair statement that he encompasses all of this, which is why there's so much confusion.

I think that's absolutely fair.

And so I think what's astonishing is he came in as an America first president that he wasn't going to get involved in international affairs.

I think the shock is not that he has so many different ideas, but that it's so um at, at odds with what he promised the administration would be.

remember he campaigned on fixing the economy, bringing removing illegal immigrants from the country and now at the start of 2026, we're, we're focused so much on foreign policy and intervention in the US military might overseas, right, David, I want to turn to you.

You spent a very large number of hours with the president just last week, UN 3 colleagues.

I'm going to ask you this question because you were just in um the gold showroom that the Oval Office now is.

I'm going to ask you a gold-related question.

So, so Machado, the Venezuelan, uh, uh, Nobel Peace Prize laureate, the Venezuelan opposition figure literally gave her physical Nobel Prize to Trump as a way of saying thank you and also encouraging him to help her become president of Venezuela, one assumes.

Tell us about that episode and and and why he took it.

So, strange episode, he um has made no secret of his desire for the Nobel Prize.

He's made no secret of his anger that President Obama got one, as he said, you know, after just being here a few weeks, right?

And there was some element of, you know, embarrassment that, that he had not even done anything yet when he when he got that.

um, but along the way, there was something strange happened where the president seemed to mix up having the metal itself with being named the laureate and at some point, the Nobel Committee came out and said once Nobel Prizes are awarded they're awarded.

That's it.

They are not be given away.

They can't be right for all time.

People have given away, some have sold.

the actual metal, but that doesn't mean that the person who buys the metal or receives it as a gift is the Nobel laureate.

Wait, are you telling me that if I eat lunch and Pulitzer Hall at Columbia University, that does not make me a Pulitzer winner.

It may not.

Vladimir Putin, this is a very disturbing Vladi Putin stole Bob Kraft's Super Bowl ring.

I mean, he's got the Super Bowl ring.

What does that say to you about a type of person?

Well, it tells me that he's not a Super Bowl champion, though.

I, I, you know, but, but, but, but go, go to your interview, you know, in the interview, um, the interview was remarkable for a couple of reasons.

I mean, first, when we asked him, why do you feel you need to own Greenland, since under the treaty that we have with uh Denmark, you can open up the 15 or 16 bases that the US used to have and closed down, and he said, you know what's psychological.

I just feel like I need to own it.

This was the New York real estate guy in the president basically saying, I know the difference between at a building and says I want that.

And in to some degree, I think there's a bit of that going on with the Nobel Peace Prize here as well, right?

He wanted to show off and own the the medal.

Now, he does have a medal down the hall.

It was won by Teddy Roosevelt in, in, uh, 1906, uh, but that doesn't seem to, doesn't seem to quite do it.

The amazing thing when we also did the interview was that was the moment where he said, nothing can stop me, even international law, depends on how I interpret international law.

No, but he also said his morality, his morality's the only restraint own morality.

Yeah, that was an interesting statement, John.

I want, speaking of which, let's pivot to some domestic issues.

The president is threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act in Minneapolis.

We just saw uh uh today that they're in the Justice Department is investigating the mayor of Minneapolis, and the governor of Minnesota now for maybe obstruction of justice.

Tell us what it means to invoke the specter of the insurrection Act.

Well, look, he came very close to doing this in 2020.

Uh, he wanted to invoke the Insurrection Act to crack down on the George Floyd protests in 2020, and he was largely stopped from doing so.

uh by his defense secretary at the time and his attorney general, who both tried to convince him and also tried to kind of do a little bit of, you know, distracting him from actually going through with something that he really did want to do.

There's nobody around to make that argument now.

Look, it's it's a perilous situation because I, there is, there are absolutely provocations on all sides in Minneapolis.

And if it gets violent again, uh, I, I don't think that he would hesitate to send in active duty US military, which he would have to invoke the Insurrection Act to do.

Nancy, your Pentagon correspondent Is there any sign to you that anyone in the civilian or military leadership in the Pentagon right now would argue against this if the president said the 802nd Airborne is going to Minneapolis.

I think there would be objections to it.

I don't know how, how aggressively they would make the argument, but what you're talking about then potentially, you know, the insurrection Act allows the military to detain people, to conduct arrests.

If you, I think if you look at ICE, many people see it as a political force on behalf of the Trump administration.

What happens when you have members of the 82nd smashing windows, detaining Americans alongside those forces, so I don't know how aggressively they'll they'll make the case inside the Pentagon, but I know that it goes against the very ethos of the military that is so desperate to not be politicized.

That would be the most demonstrative display of the politicization of the military if it happens.

Yes, I mean, Nancy, I'm sure maybe you agree with this but I don't know a single service member, whether enlisted or an officer, senior junior who wants this to happen, right?

Civilian leadership, fine, you know, maybe they'll have debates with the president, but no soldier, no marine, no airman, no sailor wants to be seen as a political arm.

They took their oath.

They take their job seriously, and there is, at least among the people I talked to, a great fear and reluctance to take that step, but again, the Secretary of Defense, and one of the other key things here is you have seen the top ranks of of this administration, make it clear they believe that ICE officers have, in the words of the vice president, absolute immunity, right, you know, there's this criticism we've heard again and again of government officials, former current members of Congress, leaders of Congress, that they don't call out what many people would see as this administration's excesses.

But here's Jerome Powell, chairman of the Federal Reserve, pushing back on his own threat, the threat of criminal investigation.

Just watch this for one second.

The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public rather than following the preferences of the president.

Nancy, you talked to a lot of ex-military leaders, ex-Defense secretaries, you're familiar with all these people.

Jerome Powell, very frankly comes out and says this is, this is nonsense, what they're doing.

I've been struck, going back to what what Nick said.

I've been struck by the fact that there's very little said in public by people who obviously feel as if the military should not be used in various ways that Trump is thinking of using them.

What is the breaking point for them?

You hope it's a if, if they're asked to do something illegal.

I would note that Senator Mark Kelly has been charged.

If that that has a chilling effect.

The service members are being threatened to be dropped and ranked, that they lose their retirement.

There are real tangible threats that they can make.

I'm not justifying silence, but when you talk to people and ask them why haven't you said more?

They come back to you with real fears that they that they could experience and you see that I'm sorry I have to wrap it up, but it's a we'll have you back to good point to make the next point.

This is not a 4 hour Trump interview.

We're going to have to leave it there.

I'm sorry, but I wanna, I wanna thank our guests for joining me and I want to thank you at home for watching us.

And you could read Nancy User's story on the overstretched military by visiting theatlantic.com, and this weekend you should watch Nick's show.

Uh, I'm Jeffrey Goldberg.

Goodnight from Washington.

Corporate funding for Washington Week with the Atlantic is provided by Consumer Cellular Additional funding is provided by Co and Patricia Ewens for the Ewan Foundation, committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities.

Sandra and Carl Delay Magnusson.

Rose Herschel and Andy Shreeves, Robert and Susan Rosenbaum.

Charles Hammoway through the Charles Hammoee Fund.

Steve and Marilyn Kerman.

Leonard and Norma chlorine.

and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.

Thank you.

Watching PBS