After President Trump’s speech at the Israeli Knesset on Monday, MSNBC contributors tag-teamed a critique of his actions against Iran and his international diplomatic capabilities. This included affirmation for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a failed Obama-era treaty that primed Iran for nuclear weapons capabilities.
After playing a few clips of Trump mentioning Iran, Ana Cabrera stand-in Erielle Reshef asked former deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes about the impact of Operation Midnight Hammer (Click “expand”):
RESHEF: Did the use of force against Iran's nuclear capabilities lead to a changing dynamic in the region? And do you see a path where Iran actually comes back to the table because it is so cowed by what has happened?
RHODES: Well, again, this is another good example of how you can do something that has a short term impact, but it doesn't solve the long term problem. I mean, look, the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal was — had permanent prohibitions on Iran getting a nuclear weapon, had 10 to 15 year restrictions on their nuclear program.
Fact-check: the JCPOA was not properly enforced, which Iran abused by continually refusing independent overseers full access to their uranium-enrichment facilities. Trump withdrew the U.S. from the deal during his first term because it was a farce, and employed a “maximum pressure” campaign on the Ayatollah by ordering heavy economic sanctions and the assassination of Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani.
Rhodes then discounted Trump’s strike on Iranian nuclear plants back in June, which apparently only “accomplished a few months setback for the Iranians, but the only way to have a lasting guarantee that they're not going to develop a nuclear weapon is a nuclear deal. So, there are two — I think we see, you know, you're kind of putting a lid on a problem, but you're not solving it, right?”
The Obama tool turned MSNBC political contributor reiterated the falsehood of Iran’s nuclear activities being completely monitored:
And, look, I would support if he was able to negotiate that kind of lasting restriction on the Iranian nuclear program. That would be great. But the reality is, under a diplomatic agreement, they were shipping all their nuclear fuel out of the country, there were inspectors all over their facilities. Now, that's not the case. And so, again, he likes the pageantry, he likes the optics. But it takes kind of sustained attention to actually get these things done.
That was just a blatant lie. Again, Iran continually evaded inspection procedures and came dangerously close to becoming a nuclear power. Obama enabled Iran, and Biden was complicit. Trump actually did something about it. Rhodes even had to admit, “It is the case that Iran's proxies across the region are set back significantly.”
Reshef then queued up New York Times correspondent Peter Baker to doubt Trump’s commitment to achieving meaningful peace (Click “expand”):
RESHEF: Peter, to Ben's point about, you know, the President needing discipline here and to pay close attention and continue the pressure. You've told me that Trump can take his eye off the prize in scenarios. He can lose focus. How committed do you think that the President is in this moment to this full, lasting peace and all of the implications and the work it will take to get there?
BAKER: Yeah. You know, patience has never been a word associated with Donald Trump for very much in terms of diplomacy. No question about that.
Oh, so waiting around for evil mass-killers to pick themselves back up was the diplomatic thing to do? Unbelievable.
Baker then came awfully close to making the case for a third Trump term:
You know, at the same time, he has a vested interest at this point in making this last. […] he's gonna have to, you know, apply more sustained interest […] and pressure to get something that will last. Otherwise, three years from now, when he leaves office, you know, it may not look as positive as it does right now.
That’s an inherent weakness of four-year presidential terms in the 21st century — modern foreign relations efforts are less effective now that the world has been globalized. Succeeding presidents can easily undo positive changes at the flick of an executive order.
What will never change is MSNBC’s willingness to criticize Trump, even in the face of a widely-praised peace deal brokered between Israel and Hamas.
The transcript is below. Click "expand" read:
MSNBC’s Ana Cabrera Reports
October 13, 2025
10:45:34 a.m. EST
(…)
ERIELLE RESHEF: And you took those painstaking steps to try to engage with Iran on a nuclear deal. President Trump specifically blasted the JCPOA, that nuclear agreement that you helped forge with the Biden administration. Trump withdrew from it. He also mentioned wanting Iran to come back to the table for peace during his speech to the Israeli parliament. Let's listen to that.
[Cuts to video]
PRES. DONALD TRUMP [on 10/13/25]: This was a disaster for Israel, it was a disaster for everyone. And I remember that Bibi Netanyahu came to the United States and worked so hard to try and get Obama not to do that deal. [Transition] The Iran nuclear deal turned out to be a disaster. And by the way, I terminated the Iran nuclear deal, and I was very proud to do it. [Transition] Yet even to Iran, whose regime has inflicted so much death on the Middle East, the hand of friendship and cooperation is open. I'm telling you, they want to make a deal.
[Cuts back to live]
RESHEF: [Scoffs] So, ultimately, I think we're talking about carrot and stick here. Did the use of force against Iran's nuclear capabilities lead to a changing dynamic in the region? And do you see a path where Iran actually comes back to the table because it is so cowed by what has happened?
BEN RHODES: Well, again, this is another good example of how you can do something that has a short term impact, but it doesn't solve the long term problem. I mean, look, the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal was — had permanent prohibitions on Iran getting a nuclear weapon, had 10 to 15 year restrictions on their nuclear program. Trump's strike on Iran set their nuclear program back, based on the estimates that have leaked out, maybe a few months, right? And so, that accomplished a few months setback for the Iranians, but the only way to have a lasting guarantee that they're not going to develop a nuclear weapon is a nuclear deal. So, there are two — I think we see, you know, you're kind of putting a lid on a problem, but you're not solving it, right?
And, look, I would support if he was able to negotiate that kind of lasting restriction on the Iranian nuclear program. That would be great. But the reality is, under a diplomatic agreement, they were shipping all their nuclear fuel out of the country, there were inspectors all over their facilities. Now, that's not the case. And so, again, he likes the pageantry, he likes the optics. But it takes kind of sustained attention to actually get these things done.
And look, I don't think that the — I really don't see a correlation between, like, a — the U.S. bombing the Iranian nuclear program and this deal. Again, I think this deal was because of the leverage they applied on the Israeli government. It is the case that Iran's proxies across the region are set back significantly. And the question is, can that lead to a changed dynamic, not just in the Palestinian territories, but in places like Lebanon and Iraq? Again, that too is going to require the kind of leaders that are meeting today to stay on this and to really work through some really complicated, difficult issues for a long time to come here.
RESHEF: Peter, to Ben's point about, you know, the President needing discipline here and to pay close attention and continue the pressure. You've told me that Trump can take his eye off the prize in scenarios. He can lose focus. How committed do you think that the President is in this moment to this full, lasting peace and all of the implications and the work it will take to get there?
PETER BAKER: Yeah. You know, patience has never been a word associated with Donald Trump for very much in terms of diplomacy. No question about that. He tends to, as you rightly said, get interested in something and then lose interest in something and maybe get interested in it again. So we'll see.
You know, at the same time, he has a vested interest at this point in making this last. If he wants to win that Nobel Peace Prize, which he seems to covet so much, if he wants to make a mark in history, which seems to matter to him as it does to many presidents, then he's gonna have to, you know, apply more sustained interest and pleasure — and pressure to get something that will last. Otherwise, three years from now, when he leaves office, you know, it may not look as positive as it does right now. So that's, you know, that — Ben makes that point, that diplomacy is not easy, it's not quick. And it does require patience. That has not been his strength. But he does have a vested interest here.
(…)
