.jpg%3Fwidth%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
‘Morning Joe' stands up for Trump on Iran strikes and says even Hillary Clinton would have bombed nuke sites
MSNBC star Joe Scarborough came to the defense of his one-time pal Donald Trump on Monday morning, insisting that the president's decision to drop over a dozen bunker-busting bombs on Iran's fortified nuclear facilities would have been made by his predecessors — and Trump's 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton.
On Saturday, the United States joined Israel's military campaign against Iran that is aimed at destroying the Middle Eastern adversary's nuclear program, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claiming Tehran was just weeks away from developing a nuclear bomb — an assertion he's made for decades now.
'Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term!' Trump boasted on Truth Social about 'Operation Midnight Hammer,' though experts say satellite imagery reveals the nation's nuclear program is 'far from destroyed.'
Meanwhile, after Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth both insisted on Sunday that America wasn't looking for a protracted war that would include toppling Iran's government, the president sang a different tune just hours later.
'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Trump posted on his social media platform on Sunday afternoon.
While a new poll shows Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of Trump's decision to bomb Iran and worry that it will make the US less safe, Scarborough – an early and vocal cheerleader of the Iraq War – said on Monday's broadcast of Morning Joe that any other president would have handled the situation the same as Trump.
'The president had no good options,' Scarborough declared. 'What would Monday look like if he hadn't have moved, if Iran wasn't already at 60 percent, and an ability to create nuclear weapons in a short matter of time, right? … I'm not championing either side of this.'
Turning to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, the Morning Joe host asserted that the president had enough buy-in from the international community to take military action against Iran, adding that other Republican and Democratic commanders-in-chief would have felt obliged to do the same thing.
'I ask you, how difficult would it have been for any president to not take that shot if they knew that Iran was even being attacked by the United Nations?' Scarborough wondered. 'I find it hard to believe that Bush 41, Bush 43, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, you know, go down the list, any president wouldn't have felt compelled to take that strike.'
Agreeing with the host, Ignatius said that Trump 'inherited' the war plans with Iran from his predecessors, adding that this would have been what they considered if they found 'diplomacy wasn't working.' At the same time, he said Trump's 'choices were debased at the moment' and the president 'had to make a decision.'Elsewhere in the show, Scarborough also invoked former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to observe that the president had only 'difficult choices' in front of him when it came to Iran.
'Henry Kissinger famously said that when you're sitting in the White House and trying to make a decision on foreign policy, the possibility of war, you're never handed a good decision and a bad decision. You're handed two very difficult choices,' he stated. 'And the president made that choice.'
While Scarborough and his wife/co-host Mika Brzezinski have been loud critics of the president for years now, that wasn't always the case. Considering him a longtime personal friend, the couple provided Trump a hefty boost in the nascent days of his 2016 presidential campaign, giving the then-reality TV star free rein of their program while promoting his candidacy.
Though there would be a bitter split between the Morning Joe hosts and Trump prior to his winning the 2016 election, which would include the president peddling wild conspiracy theories about Scarborough killing an intern, the icy relationship may have begun to thaw in recent months.
The couple traveled to Mar-a-Lago for an off-the-record huddle with Trump after his electoral victory in November, prompting viewers to briefly boycott Morning Joe over the perceived 'kissing the ring' trip.
As for Scarborough's own foreign policy views, the former GOP congressman was a fervent supporter of invading Iraq over the George W. Bush administration's claims that the country was developing weapons of mass destruction.
Though he has tried over the years to selectively criticize other cheerleaders of that war without pointing that finger at himself, Scarborough spent the early months of the Iraq War raging at news outlets, media figures and politicians he felt were too negative and critical about the US-led invasion.
'These leftist stooges for anti-American causes are always given a free pass,' he ranted in April 2003 to then-MSNBC colleague Michael Savage. 'Isn't it time to make them stand up and be counted for their views?!'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
22 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Iran launches missile attacks on US bases in Qatar and Iraq
People in Doha, Qatar's capital, stopped and looked up as missiles flew and interceptors fired and struck at least one missile in the night sky. Iran announced on state television that it attacked American forces stationed at Qatar's Al Udeid Air Base. A caption on screen called it 'a mighty and successful response' to 'America's aggression' as martial music played. Iran also targeted the Ain al-Assad base housing US troops in western Iraq, an Iraqi security official told The Associated Press. The attacks came shortly after Qatar closed its airspace as a precaution amid threats from Iran. Just before the explosions, Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian wrote on the social platform X: 'We neither initiated the war nor seeking it. But we will not leave invasion to the great Iran without answer.' In the past, Iran has threatened American forces at Al Udeid Air Base, which hosts the forward headquarters of the US military's Central Command. Qatar, across the Persian Gulf from Iran, maintains diplomatic relations with Iran and shares a massive offshore natural gas field with Tehran. Earlier in the day, Israel expanded its war against Iran to include targets associated with the country's struggling theocracy, striking the gate of a Tehran prison notorious for holding political activists and hitting the headquarters of the military force that suppressed recent protests. As plumes of thick smoke rose over Tehran, Israel was attacked with yet another barrage of Iranian missiles and drones. The persistent fire has become a reality for civilians in both countries since Israel started the war to target Tehran's rapidly advancing nuclear programme. On the 11th day of the conflict, Israel said it attacked 'regime targets and government repression bodies in the heart of Tehran', but Israeli officials insisted they did not seek the overthrow of Iran's government, their archenemy since the country's 1979 Islamic Revolution. The Israeli military warned Iranians that it would continue to attack military sites around Tehran over 'the coming days' as its focuses has shifted to symbolic targets as well. The military issued the warning on the social platform X, though Iranians are struggling to access the outside world as an internet shutdown has crippled the country. The latest strikes unfolded only hours after President Donald Trump openly raised the possibility himself after just a day earlier inserting America into the war with its unprecedented stealth-bomber strike on three Iranian nuclear sites. 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' he asked on his Truth Social website.
Times
24 minutes ago
- Times
Sleeper cells: threat of Iranian attacks in US ‘has never been higher'
The threat of attacks by Iranian sleeper cells inside the United States has 'never been higher', officials said, after Tehran warned it would activate agents if President Trump bombed its nuclear sites. The Iranians are believed to have sent a message to US diplomats during the G7 meeting in Canada last week, raising the threat of terrorist attacks on American soil in retaliation for any military intervention. Trump left the meeting a day early, returning to the White House to plan his response to the conflict in the Middle East. On Saturday night seven B-2 stealth bombers, using 30,000lb bunker-busting bombs, struck nuclear sites in Iran. Other warplanes and submarine-launched tomahawk cruise missiles were also used in the attack. • Operation Midnight Hammer: how the 'brilliant and bold' strikes unfolded The Department of Homeland Security warned in a statement after the raids that the 'Iran conflict is causing a heightened threat environment in the United States'. The department said there could be an increased possibility of terrorist attacks in the US, especially 'if Iranian leadership issued a religious ruling calling for retaliatory violence against targets in the homeland'. It also warned of less lethal measures the Iranians could use, such as cyberattacks on American networks and companies. In a post on social media after the US airstrikes, Trump said 'Any retaliation by Iran against the United States of America will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight.' Amid growing concern, the Customs and Border Protection agency said at the weekend that Iranians were among those that have illegally entered the country in recent years. Rodney Scott, the CBP commissioner, said in a memo on Saturday that 'though we have not received any specific credible threats to share with you all currently, the threat of sleeper cells or sympathisers acting on their own or at the behest of Iran has never been higher'. The memo urged CBP personnel to remain vigilant. It said: 'Thousands of Iranian nationals have been documented entering the United States illegally and countless more were likely in the known and unknown got-a-ways.' Days after the presidential election in November, the US brought charges over an alleged plot by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to assassinate Trump. The charges detailed allegations that Farhad Shakeri, a 51-year-old Afghan national, had been ordered by Tehran on October 7 to devise a plan to kill the president. Tehran has been eager to avenge the killing, ordered by Trump in January 2020, of Qasem Soleimani, commander of the IRGC's Quds Force and the mastermind of Iran's regional expansion. Soleimani was killed near Baghdad airport in a US drone strike. The Iranians are known to have plotted attacks in the US against other targets. In recent years, prosecutors have charged suspects with plotting to kill John Bolton, Trump's former national security adviser, and the Iranian-American journalist Masih Alinejad. Both have been strong critics of the theocratic regime in Tehran. JD Vance, the vice-president, told US news networks on Sunday that the White House was monitoring the possibility of attacks inside America 'very closely'. He blamed the previous administration for allowing millions of migrants to enter the US. 'We know that some of those people were on terrorism watch lists,' he said.
Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump comes, not to bury Nato, but to save it
This week Nato will mark its first 76 years at its summit in The Hague. All eyes will be on Donald Trump and his robust 'America First' approach on the world stage, which has already involved the use of decisive military force against Iran's nuclear facilities. The US president has been a firm critic of Nato, but has also been responsible for a dramatic revival of the alliance. Trump has made it clear that Nato's survival depends on America's fellow members stepping up to fully participate in burden sharing with the US. The Russians have clearly viewed Nato as weak and divided and are increasingly willing to test its resolve. The US presidency must apply concerted pressure on America's allies to do far more to foster partnership rather than dependency, especially as the United States must increasingly focus on the immense threat in the Indo-Pacific presented by Communist China. In 2024, only 22 Nato members spent the 2 per cent of GDP on defence agreed to by the alliance in 2014. This is unacceptable. It leaves the alliance dangerously vulnerable when it should be projecting strength and resolve. Countries that spent less than 2 per cent of real GDP on defence last year included Italy (1.5 per cent), Canada (1.4 per cent), Spain (1.3 per cent), and Belgium (1.3 per cent). In contrast, Poland (4.1 per cent), Estonia (3.4 per cent), Latvia (3.2 per cent), and Greece (3.1 per cent) all spent above 3 per cent of GDP. Justin Trudeau's now departed Canadian government was among the very worst Nato slackers, consistently underinvesting in Canada's military with shockingly low figures for a nation with the 10 th largest GDP in the world. His successor as prime minister, Mark Carney, has vowed to raise Canadian defence spending to 2 per cent, but this is simply not enough. Ottawa needs to be serious about Nato's mission, and playing a full part in the alliance in the coming decades. As Heritage Foundation research has shown, 'European Nato members have collectively underfunded their own defence by $827.91 billion since 2014 – nearly equal to the entire annual US defence budget.' This is a staggering figure – a damning indictment of a culture of complacency and dependency in many Nato allies over the past decade. Not only should every Nato member immediately invest the minimum agreed level of spending on their own defence, they should also commit to matching the current US level of 3.5 per cent of GDP, and pledge to reach 5 per cent of GDP, which is expected to be the new benchmark set at the forthcoming Nato summit according to Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte. President Trump's pressure on Nato partners to spend more on defence is already having a major impact. After decades of reckless underinvestment, Germany, the world's fourth-largest economy and the biggest in Europe, has announced plans for a dramatic increase in defence spending, and has accepted in principle that German spending must eventually rise to 5 per cent of GDP if it is serious about defending its own borders from a potential attack by Russia. France, which has barely reached the agreed minimum 2 per cent of GDP on defence in recent years, has announced that it will push European defence spending levels to 3-3.5 per cent of GDP ahead of the Hague summit. Even Belgium, one of Nato's most lacklustre members, has declared it will boost defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP. The UK has just announced a $20 billion investment in its nuclear warhead programme, and the construction of 12 nuclear-powered attack submarines, as part of its new Strategic Defence Review, released this month. The Baltic States and Poland are already building on their robust records by pledging significant further increases in the years ahead. Poland will spend 4.7 per cent of GDP on defence this year, while Estonia has committed to spending 5.4 per cent through until 2029. Lithuania will spend 5-6 per cent on defence from 2026 to 2030, and Latvia will spend 5 per cent by 2026. The positive developments in Europe should be warmly welcomed in Washington. In just the first few months of his presidency, Donald Trump has already significantly strengthened Nato. President Trump is not the alliance's destroyer, as his critics have alleged, but is in fact its saviour. Previous US presidents had urged European allies to do more, but their entreaties fell on deaf ears. It took the no-nonsense straight talk of Donald Trump to make European leaders sit up and take notice. In many ways the Trump presidency has been the antithesis of the weak-kneed Biden presidency. The humiliating debacle of Biden's reckless Afghanistan withdrawal would not have happened under Donald Trump, and nor would Russia's reckless invasion of Ukraine. With bold US leadership at the helm, Nato still has the vision, capacity and energy to thrive and prosper for another 76 years. American exceptionalism is the most powerful force for liberty in the world today. It is greatly strengthened by America's alliances with key partners, and Nato is at the very heart of the transatlantic partnership.
