Jane Coaston: It’s Monday, June 23rd. I’m Jane Coaston, and this is What a Day, the show that says break out your System of a Down albums and juicy couture sweatpants. It’s the early 2000s, and we’re doing regime change in the Middle East again. [music break] On today’s show, a federal appeals court sides with the Trump administration over the deployment of national guard troops in Los Angeles, and Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil is released from federal detention. But first, let’s talk about the United States going to war in the Middle East again maybe. On Saturday night, Americans learned via social media, in this case, Truth Social, that the United States had bombed three Iranian nuclear facilities. President Donald Trump posted, quote, “Congratulations to our great American warriors. There is not another military in the world that could have done this. Now is the time for peace.” He also spoke in a televised address later that evening.
[clip of President Donald Trump] Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror. Tonight I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success.
Jane Coaston: The massive strikes, dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer, included the use of seven B-2 bombers carrying massive ordinance penetrators, so-called bunker buster bombs, capable of reaching underground targets, like Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities. The strikes came after Trump’s announcement Thursday that he would take two weeks, you know, that demarcation of time that means nothing to Trump, to decide whether to strike Iran. Israeli officials have been pushing for American involvement after launching their attack on Iran on June 12th. And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was pretty pumped.
[clip of Benjamin Netanyahu] Congratulations, President Trump, your bold decision to target Iran’s nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history.
Jane Coaston: But the crowd at a rally with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders in Tulsa, Oklahoma Saturday seemed to mirror how I’m feeling right now, and maybe you too, when they heard the news from Senator Sanders.
[clip of Senator Bernie Sanders] This is a statement, a statement from Donald Trump, quote, “We have completed our very successful attack on the three nuclear sites in Iran, et cetera.” [clip of an audience booing]
[clip of audience chanting] No more war! No more war! No more war!
Jane Coaston: That reaction could be why multiple members of the Trump administration spent Sunday explaining that we are not actually at war with Iran, despite doing something which many people think is an act of war. Here’s Vice President J.D. Vance speaking with NBC’s Kristen Welker on Meet the Press.
[clip of Kristen Welker] Is the United States now at war with Iran?
[clip of Vice President J.D. Vance] No, Kristen, we’re not at war with Iran, we are at war with Iran’s nuclear program.
Jane Coaston: Sure. Vance denied the U.S. was looking for a regime change in Iran, a claim echoed by other cabinet members in the wake of the strikes, and he added, quote, “I empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East. I understand the concern, but the difference is that back then we had dumb presidents.” But our very smart president apparently didn’t get the memo. He posted on Truth Social late Sunday, quote, “it’s not politically correct to use the term regime change, but if the current Iranian regime isn’t able to make Iran great again. Why wouldn’t there be a regime change?” MIGA. I leave that for you to contemplate. So now what? After Trump claimed that Iran’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons had been eliminated, Israeli and U.S. Intelligence officials scaled back those statements. And then there’s the fact that Democratic members of Congress say they learned about the strikes the same way I did, from scrolling Twitter. One of those people who didn’t receive a briefing ahead of the strikes was Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner, Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. We spoke on Sunday afternoon. Senator Mark Warner, welcome to What a Day.
Mark Warner: Jane, glad to be back on your show.
Jane Coaston: Thank you so much. To start, we’d like to quickly clarify something. Were members of the select committee on intelligence consulted or even briefed on the attack ahead of time?
Mark Warner: I can tell you, no, I’m part of the gang of eight, you know, that’s the majority leader, minority leader, house speaker, minority leader and the heads of the committees. Um. And no, we were not contacted. I think there was a perfunctory call made to Senator Schumer’s office, but there was no traditional outreach or briefing that goes on. Pretty when, it appears that this action had been planned for some time, if we’re talking about 125 different aircraft being used.
Jane Coaston: You are well into your third term in the Senate and you headed the Select Committee on Intelligence. Is Trump’s behavior surrounding notification here different from past presidents you’ve worked with?
Mark Warner: It is different. I’m going to begin, and let me be you know give appropriate credit, and Trump, the first term, when he thought about also bombing Iran after a drone had been shot down, he literally brought into the White House all the senior leadership of not just the intel committees, but the armed service and appropriations committees. He did better outreach. Um. This time, I guess I’m not totally surprised because there’s been virtually no outreach from the administration uh to our committee, or for that matter, I think to, I’m not even sure, to most of the republicans.
Jane Coaston: On Saturday night, the president made it sound like three nuclear-related facilities were basically taken out altogether, eliminated. But on Sunday, the Department of Defense made it sounds like the extent of the damage to those three nuclear facilities was still unclear, and that at least one of those facilities might not have been destroyed. What’s your best understanding at this point of what’s going on?
Mark Warner: Well, that’s that’s my understanding as well, and that’s why, let me be clear, the Iranian regime are bad guys. They have terrorized the Middle East, they’re obviously anti-Israel to the extreme, they’ve called for deaths of the United States, and we should not let them get a nuclear weapon. But this these are the kind of questions that are normally asked before an event takes place. What happens if you can’t take out all the nuclear sites? What next? What will be the preparation that our 40,000 troops will have in the region to protect themselves? And if Iran strikes back, what will then be our next step of retaliation? And if we don’t have all the answers, um I think we’re gonna demand the answers this week, but a little bit of this is after the fact now.
Jane Coaston: So what do you make of the conflicting messages that are coming out of the White House and the Pentagon about the extent of damage? Because from you know millions of Americans heard on Saturday night the president say that these facilities have been destroyed and now you’re hearing both Israeli and American officials saying, maybe not.
Mark Warner: I think it’s important to have your facts straight. And you know I would have been shocked if if the president’s claims last night were 100% accurate, because one of the things that we’ve looked at for some time is that these are facilities, many of them in Kansas, in solid rock. And there was always a question, could we actually even take them out with the bunker buster bombs? I am glad that the Pentagon did not stretch the truth in terms of their reporting, but it begs the question now, if we didn’t take them out, are we going to go back in? What does that mean? What does it mean in terms Iran’s ability to retaliate? Is there any evidence that some enriched uranium, for example, could have been removed at the beginning of this whole conflict because could the Iranians have tried to disperse their assets? These are all questions that I think it would be awfully good that we had a full pledged plan, not just that we’re gonna bomb, but what happens after that.
Jane Coaston: Right. I think that that’s been what’s really getting to me is when you ask, and now what? You don’t get any response whatsoever. Now, in the run up to the president’s decision, there has been a lot made of Iran’s intentions to build a weapon. Back in March, national intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard said that Iran’s supreme leader, quote, “has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.” Trump recently told reporters, I don’t care what she said. And then on Sunday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told CBS News that, quote, “it doesn’t matter if the order was given, they have everything they need to build nuclear weapons.” Do the president and Rubio have a point here that regardless of whether someone said build a nuclear weapon, the Iranians were still getting too close for comfort?
Mark Warner: Okay. Clearly, Iran has enriched a lot of additional uranium. Um. But enriching uranium is one step in this process. The next is creating literally a bomb with that enriched uranium, and the next step is having a delivery mechanism, usually a rocket, that can deliver that one. Literally six days ago, on last Monday, we asked the community, the intelligence community, had they changed their conclusion, and they said no. I think if the president had made the case in a clear way to Congress and the American public. Um there might still be questions, but at least we kind of go in knowing um what the consequences might be. Right now, before this action was taken, I didn’t have the foggiest idea what the American policy was, because when the Israelis first attacked Iran, it was clear the American government’s position at that point, about almost two weeks ago, not even full two weeks, was that, all right, the Israelis are on their own on this, and we’ll help defend Israel, which we should. But we weren’t gonna take take part in their action. And we’re now sitting where we don’t know exactly how much damage was inflicted. We don’t know um where all the Iranian enrichment facilities, if any of them have been dispersed. And the most important question is, we don’t know what the Iranian regime is going to do next in terms of striking our forces or for that matter Americans anywhere in terms of potential terrorists or for that matter cyber or other type of attacks.
Jane Coaston: So if, as of a week ago, the intelligence community hadn’t changed their assessment that Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon wasn’t imminent, why do you think the president authorized this strike in the first place?
Mark Warner: I don’t know, but there’s been reporting that the president had been convinced by the Israelis that they had reached a different conclusion. But I worry, you know, as somebody who’s we’ve seen this movie before when intelligence is not followed or intelligence is corrupted, um in many ways that got us into the circumstances in Iraq 20 plus years ago. So I think this is very dangerous. And I’m, you know, one of the critiques I’ve had of this administration has been their politicization of the intelligence, where if um Ms. Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, has literally fired people, if they don’t reach the conclusions that would be favorable to the administration, that’s really dangerous. I don’t think that happened in this case. It’s clearly, at least as of six days ago, the intelligence community said Iran was not making this movement forward. And you know if I give the president the full benefit of the doubt. If we missed it, I want to know why and how we missed it, but I have no evidence at all that our intelligence community missed this one.
Jane Coaston: Right, right. This is very much giving me early Iraq War vibes, and I don’t like that at all. You released a statement arguing that the president hadn’t consulted with Congress, but now these attacks have been made already. What should Congress do now?
Mark Warner: Well, Congress can still have a War Powers Act. Many times, you know, we’ve seen an American attacked, the president has to respond quickly. Again, he’s the commander in chief. But in this case, where it appeared the decision was made in advance, the War Powers act requires within 30 days, the ability to get approval from Congress. So my friend, Tim Kaine, the fellow senator from Virginia, he’s going to ask that we vote on the War Powers Act. Whether my Republican friends will go ahead and find their voice on this one or whether they will simply bend the knee again, time will tell.
Jane Coaston: How realistic is it that Iran would return to the negotiating table at this point?
Mark Warner: Well the Iranians are very unpredictable, and if they really are decimated, they may have no other option. My fear is, you know, we’re talking about a nation, 90 million people, that has proxies in the region, that unfortunately has networks of trying to support terrorists. Um. I would hope they would return to the negotiating table, but that is a hope more than an expectation.
Jane Coaston: Senator Warner, thank you so much for taking the time to join me.
Mark Warner: Thank you, Jane.
Jane Coaston: That was my conversation with Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner, Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. We’ll get to more of the news in a moment, but if you like the show, make sure to subscribe, leave a five-star review on Apple Podcasts, watch us on YouTube, and share with your friends. More to come after some ads. [music break]
[AD BREAK]
Jane Coaston: Here’s what else we’re following today.
[sung] Headlines.
[clip of unknown judge] [sound of gavel hitting] The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is now in session.
[clip of unknown speaker] We have one case on the argument calendar today, Governor Gavin Newsom et al versus President Donald J. Trump et al.
Jane Coaston: For now, the Trump administration has the legal power to deploy the National Guard on Los Angeles. That’s after a federal appeals court late Thursday agreed with Trump that he could use troops to protect federal agents while they deport undocumented residents around LA. And that he can do so despite the objection of California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom. The three-judge panel ruled unanimously. They said the president could use those troops because he was sufficiently impeded from executing the laws of the United States with quote, “regular forces.” President Trump called the latest ruling a capital G great, capital D decision for our capital C country in a post on, you guessed it, Truth Social. On Friday, Newsom pledged to continue his legal fight against the Trump administration.
[clip of Mahmoud Khalil] The U.S. government is funding this genocide, and Columbia University is investing in this genocide. This is why I was protesting. This is what I will continue to protest with every one of you. Not only if they threaten me with detention, even if they would kill me, I would still speak up for Palestine.
Jane Coaston: On Friday, Columbia University international grad student Mahmoud Khalil was released from federal immigration custody. He addressed reporters at Newark Airport, where he condemned the Trump administration’s efforts to silence pro-Palestinian voices and dehumanize immigrants. Khalil had been held in central Louisiana since March. The Trump administration had claimed his protests against Israel’s war in Gaza threatened U.S. Foreign policy. Khalil was released on bail after a U.S. District Judge, Michael Farbiarz, ruled that the U.S. government did not have sufficient grounds to keep him detained. Less than 10 minutes after Khalil’s release, the Trump administration filed a notice of appeal. Khalil was the first of a number of foreign students to be caught up in Trump’s crackdown on campus protesters. The New York Times reported on Friday that Harvard and the Trump administration have restarted talks to end their months-long feud. Sources tell the New York Times that top Harvard officials worry the university will have to shrink its student body and lower its academic ambitions if it remains at odds with the president. And there’s a lot that they’re at odds over. The Trump administration froze more than $3 billion in federal grants and contracts, it threatened to revoke the university’s tax exempt status, and it investigated Harvard’s diversity and admissions policies. The administration also tried to stop it from enrolling international students. Harvard president Alan Garber addressed that head on during last month’s commencement.
[clip of Alan Garber] Members of the Class of 2025, from down the street, across the country, and around the world. [audience cheering and applause] Around the world just as it should be.
Jane Coaston: And speaking of that international student issue, on Friday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the administration from terminating the university’s student and exchange visitor program. Texas will require all public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments under a new law signed by Republican Governor Greg Abbott Saturday. The Texas Legislature approved the measure late last month after months of debate. It’s expected to be challenged in the courts and it may not fare too well there. The day before Abbott signed the new Texas law, a panel of three federal appeals court judges ruled a similar law in Louisiana was unconstitutional. A federal district court judge in the state had reached the same conclusion in a decision late last year. And that’s the news. [music break]
[AD BREAK]
Jane Coaston: That’s all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review, relax in the knowledge that the main person in charge of the government’s anti-terrorism efforts is 22 years old and graduated from college last year, and tell your friends to listen. And if you’re into reading, and not just about how Thomas Fugate, a massive Trump fan who graduated from the University of Texas San Antonio like ten seconds ago, is now in charge of the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships. A division of the Department of Homeland Security that oversees terrorism prevention, like me, What a Day is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and subscribe at Crooked.com/subscribe. I’m Jane Coaston, and I’m sure that’ll work out fine. [music break] What a Day is a production of Crooked Media. It’s recorded and mixed by Desmond Taylor. Our associate producer is Emily Fohr. Our video editor is Joseph Dutra. Our video producer is Johanna Case. We had production help today from Greg Walters, Matt Berg, Sean Ali, Tyler Hill, and Laura Newcomb. Our senior producer is Erica Morrison, and our senior vice president of news and politics is Adriene Hill. Our theme music is by Colin Gilliard and Kashaka. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. [music break]
[AD BREAK]
