Brooks and Capehart on the tradeoffs of a possible U.S.-Iran deal

Another political fight in Congress, a mixed martial arts fight at the White House, and a potential deal to end the fighting with Iran.Time now for the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.That's The Atlantic's David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart of MSNOW.It's always good to see you both.So the White House says it's increasingly confident that a deal with Iran is within reach.David, what should Americans make of the administration's stated confidence?

Well, this is somebody counted.This is the 40th time Donald Trump has said, we're very confident.40 is a good biblical number, so maybe it's true.You know, it's too soon to really know how this all turns out.But I think you can say some things.One, the Iranian military is degraded.

So that's a plus.Two, the Straits of Hormuz will be in worse shape after this action than before.Before, it was an open waterway.Now it's an Iranian and Omanian lake.Three, it seems extremely unlikely to me, despite what the administration is saying, that Iran is going to want to give up.or is going to be willing to give up their nuclear power.

This has been a core of their whole regime for decades.Or that they will give up supporting Hamas and Hezbollah.This has been a core.And so unless they're really in economic struggle, worse than we think, and they're going to be moved by that trouble, then I'm a little dubious.I think we'll end up significantly worse off than before the war.One final point.

All these bombs got dropped.What actually pressures each side?In each case, it was an economic sanction.It was Iranians closing the strait and us imposing a blockade and sanctions before that.So it was actually economic pressure that moved people, not all these bombs that got dropped.And that should be a lesson for leaders going forward.

And Jonathan, I mean, is there a broader lesson here about American foreign policy that no matter who occupies the White House, presidents discover that the bargain with Iran is ultimately always the same?It's constraints on its nuclear program in exchange for economic relief.

And that's what we had as the United States with the JCPOA.which President Trump riffed up and is now trying to get a JCPOA -like agreement at February, March, April, May, June, four months into a war he started with Benjamin Netanyahu.They got to the JCPOA not through, you know, two people zooming into a capital and then leaving and saying, we've got a deal.They got the JCPOA by hunkering down in Switzerland every day for years, Switzerland and other places, for years across from their counterparts and interlocutors with other nations involved to hammer out that deal.We have seen nothing like that.whatsoever when it comes to bringing about a resolution to this current war with Iran.

David, what's the bigger risk for President Trump, arriving at a deal that basically mirrors the Obama -era Iran deal, or failing to negotiate a deal after promising that he could do something better, find something better?

Well, I wasn't a fan of the Obama deal.By the way, I think it's sunsetted too soon, so making it a little unreliable.But the danger for President Trump is that we walk away with face covering, so we don't admit that we lost the war, but we lost the war, and everybody in the region knows we lost the war, and everybody in America knows we lost the war, and everybody around the world knows we lost the war.And that hurts American prestige, and it will hurt American interests long term.

We have seen examples recently of Republicans breaking with President Trump, whether the anti -weaponization fund to the fight over the FISA section 702.This is a warrantless surveillance tool over his selection of Bill Pulte as the acting director of national intelligence.Are these isolated disputes, Jonathan, or are we starting to see a Republican Party that feels more comfortable challenging the president?

I mean, yes and no.I'm loathe to sayreached a pivot point.This is the moment.We don't know.I think we'll know as time goes on.

But as we get more of these things like this, like the rising up against Pulte, like bringing down the FISA law, that Republicans are finding their courage.We should also keep in mind that a lot of them are finding their courage because they've been primaried and lost, they're retiring, or their primaries have not happened yet, and so they're keeping their powder dry.But each time they take a stand against the president, I think, for once, claws back some congressional authority as a co -equal branch of government.

One of the Republicans who was primaried and lost is John Cornyn, and in an interview with the New York Times, he predicted that the two years after the November midterms will be the most miserable two years of President Trump's life.He says he's going to have the most miserable two years of his life in the last two years of his term, I think, because I think November is going to be a disaster.Historically, dissent inside the Magiverse has been short -lived.Do you see that changing?

A little.I was thinking when I read that quote that it'll be miserable for them, but it won't be as miserable as for us.I do think there is some sort of leakage here.I wouldn't say it's a turnaround, but there's been some sort of leakage.The Trump thing is just weird.I mean, he's just weird.

Like, he points Bill Pulte, who's clearly not even close within the Pacific Ocean of being qualified for this job, and then he turns around and points to make the permanent acting director, not acting, but the permanent director of DNI, Jake Clayton, who's totally like superstar level by Trump standards.So how does the same guy pick two people, one with such radically different qualifications?The one thing I should add is that I don't like what the Democrats are doing here.I understand you don't like Bill Pulte.I understand you think he should not have been appointed.And you're absolutely 100 % correct.

But the FISA program works well.We are now, as Speaker Johnson made the point, we've got the World Cup here.We've got the Iranian thing going on.We need all the intelligence I can get.And that FISA program supplies I'm told, half the president's daily intelligence brief.That's a lot of information and valuable information.

It's a very well -working program.And the Democrats are not repealing or not renewing it, sort of, in my view, out of spite, but they're making us less safe.

How this became the Democrats' fault is curious to me.A couple of things to keep in mind.even though the law has expired, it was reauthorized by a FISA court in March of 26, this past March, which goes through March of 27.So Congress has time to come back and reauthorize it, do whatever they need to do, because it's not just Democrats who have concerns about the law, it's Republicans as well.So I just don't think it's right to say, It's all the Democrats' fault, especially when they're not even in the majority in either house.

In the time that remains, David, do your Sunday night plans involve being at the White House for a UFC match by chance?

Well, I'm actually an active participant.I'm gonna be fighting with Jonathan.That I would like to see, could you imagine?

What do you make of this?

Well, I first thought of like, who are the artists John F. Kennedy brought to the White House?It was like, W .H.Auden, Robert Frost, Jerome Robbins, Leonard Bernstein, and now we've got cage fighting.Don't anybody say America's in cultural decline?So, I just...

To your point, presidents have traditionally sought validation from established cultures.institutions and artists.As I'm saying this, I'm looking at what people have called the claw on the South Lawn.President Trump has created this alternative cultural establishment around combat sports and podcasts and influencers and social media stars.How significant is that shift and what does it suggest?

Well, it's a significant shift because it's the president of the United States who's anointing it.Whenever a president invites someone from the culture into the White House, it's giving the imprimatur of the president.You know, excuse me, President Obama brought in Lin -Manuel to do what then became Hamilton, so there, you know, you're talking about Auden, and now you got Lim, I cannot remember his name, Miranda, because I'm so close to calling him Noriega, and I know that is not right.But this cage fight on the South Lawn of the White House, the People's House, that also has corporate sponsorship that you can see inside the ring, this, talk about degrading the culture, this is degrading degrading the White House, degrading the People's House.And it's just unconscionable that this is happening.

Part of me thinks, though, that there were people who said that about Obama when he had rappers in the East Room, right?I mean, it's just, are we just in a different time, a different?

He wants us to be talking this way.Because he's saying, look, you get looked down upon by people I believe in cage fighting just like you.Yeah.

Final word.No, we are out of time.And we don't have enough time for me to thunder righteous indignation about all of this.We'll pick it up on your sub stack.

Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, thank you both.Thank you.Thanks, Jack.

Support journalism you trust.Support PBS News.Donate now, or even better, start a monthly contribution today.