Joe: Maybe for Trump the affordability crisis is over but it's not for everyone else

Start your day with the MSNOW daily newsletter. Sharp insights from voices you trust. Standout moments from your favorite shows. And fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news. Sign up at MSNOW. I added $9 trillion and your retirement accounts and 401ks are at the highest level they've ever been. and then I have to listen to the fake news talking about affordability affordability you notice what word have you not heard over the last two weeks affordability because I've won I've won affordability I had to go out and talk about it affordability mission accomplished why don't you get a banner behind you next time see all Americans agree or not. That was Donald Trump saying he's won the affordability crisis for working Americans over. Isn't that a sense of relief for people that haven't been able to afford their health care, haven't been able to afford to pay rent, have a hard time getting cars new or used, having to worry about groceries still up higher than they've ever been in people's lives. You know, maybe for the president, the affordability crisis is over, but it's certainly not for so many people that was in that that was in the crowd last night in Rome, Georgia, to hear the president speak. We'll be talking about that and much more. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's February 20th and happy Friday with us. We have co-anchor of the weekend and a Washington reporter for MS Now, Jackie Alomany. We have the host of Pablo Torre finds out, MSNOW contributor Pablo Torre, MSNOW national analyst John Heilman. He's a partner and chief political columnist at PAC, also columnist and associate editor of The Washington Post, David Ignatius, and U.S. national editor and columnist at the Financial Times, Ed Luce. We have so much to talk about. Really quickly, John Heilman, you could almost sense Republicans across Congress, across Washington cringing when Donald Trump once again goes out on an affordability tour to prove that he gets it, that he can connect with working Americans who are suffering from this affordability crisis, who can't pay for their health care, who can't pay for their rent, who can't afford to even buy new homes. And Donald Trump said, affordability, it's a hoax. I've already beaten it. Mission accomplished. Once again, doing exactly the opposite of what the White House wanted him to do. And not just the White House, Joe, to your point, every Republican who's running for re-election in the House, in the Senate, anyone who has to stand before voters in November, every time the president goes out on one of these trips, they just they're praying, please, dear God, either. I mean, an economic message that that addressed the issue in a in a in a forthright way. That's what they would most hope for. But in the absence of that, just not talking about it, just not even saying the word affordability, because he's not going to have a positive message. He's going to call it a hoax. If he's going to call it a hoax, it's going to hurt them. And there it was. I think you could almost feel them cringe. I could think you could, you know, the deep sigh of resignation. What could be heard? There's a shot heard around the world. Yeah, you know, Jackie, he is what he is. Republicans have decided that, unfortunately, what he's doing right now, again, is certainly hurting their cause when he goes out and says affordability is a hoax and says that he's already won the affordability fight. You look at the poll numbers that the president's carrying on what used to be his two strongest issues. One, the economy to, of course, immigration. He's badly upside down in both of those both of those issue areas. The White House political team and Republicans desperately want him to get out and help their cause. But he gets out and he talks about how affordability has been taken care of and things are better than they've ever been before. Again, it's so hard not to harken back to the Bidenomics campaign where Joe Biden and his team looked at a lot of macro numbers, said things were going great. Let's go out and tell people how great Bidenomics is. And, you know, even the Biden White House admitted it was a crushing failure. Here we have the same thing where we have a president looking at the macro numbers in the stock market and saying things are going great when most Americans don't feel that way. That's exactly right, Joe. it's a lot of deja vu here. I mean, there were two decent data points that the president obviously held on to pretty strongly this week, and that was that inflation numbers were softer than anticipated and also that employment growth in January was up by more than double than economists had anticipated. But he skimmed over a bunch of other negative numbers, primarily that U.S. imports had grown and also that trade deficits in goods had hit a record high. And along with all of the lived experience of his constituents, of people who voted for him, who have said time and time again that things are just too expensive, that grocery prices in Rome, Georgia, where he went to yesterday, are now more than they were a year ago when he went to Rome, Georgia. Actually, it was two years ago now in 2024 when he said that before the election that it was his job to lower those grocery prices. So, you know, Trump huddled with his campaign team and people in the White House who are trying to redirect his strategy on affordability this week and basically given him a talking to that this is going to dramatically hurt Republicans in midterms if he doesn't get on message. But we had on MSNOW White House reporter Jake Traylor just a little bit earlier who said that they have sort of acquiesced to the fact that at the end of the day, Trump is just going to be Trump when it comes to these talking points. And it seems like he's still not taking it very seriously. And the Democrats cheer where every time he says affordability has been taken care of, you look at December prices, the last one. And the way he says affordability. Right. Affordability. Exactly. China, China, China. Very mocking. But again, you look at in December, you had grocery prices go up the fastest clip at any time since 2022. People aren't feeling like the affordability crisis is over. Now, of course, when the president was flying back, he was asked about Prince Andrew. And as you know, British police arrested Prince Andrew. Yesterday, they released him after taking him into custody for quite a few hours on suspicion of misconduct in public office. That arrest yesterday came up in reports that he shared confidential information with Jeffrey Epstein while serving as a British trade envoy. Police haven't disclosed the details of his questioning, but experts say he likely spent hours in a standard custody cell with no special treatment. For years, Britain's royal family has faced ongoing scandal over separate claims that Andrew sexually abused a young woman, prompting King Charles to strip his brother of his royal titles, privileges and housing in an effort to protect the monarchy's reputation. Charles issued a rare statement yesterday affirming that unlike here in the United States, 250 years after we left Britain's monarchy, Charles said the law must take its course. How novel. Underscoring the Bellas' effort to distance itself from the scandal. Andrews consistently denied any wrongdoing and hasn't faced any charges. Meanwhile, reaction poured in following the news of that arrest yesterday. The family of Virginia Giuffre, who alleged she was trafficked by Epstein to Andrew, shared a statement reading in part, he was never a prince for survivors everywhere. Virginia did this for you. Giuffre's brother also shared his reaction on MS Now last night. it was just a sense of joy and like um and pride of like oh my god it's another vindication for our sister and for survivors out there we i remember going to breakfast this morning and i just i just like started crying i just like this the emotion of like we're so proud of her you know this it's even though he's getting arrested on charges that may not be affiliated directly with the sexual allegations that my sister had brought against him, it's still a form of justice. These are the things that our survivors are waiting for. And we have to give survivors, my sister, the day here and give them that win. Well, I mean, make no mistake, it was, it may not be directly on those charges, but those charges that Virginia and other survivors stepped forward with, obviously led to these investigations, the release of documents, and again, his ultimate arrest. Now, yesterday morning on this show, journalist Emily Maitlis, who conducted a bombshell 2019 BBC interview with former Prince Andrew, shared her shock. I was stunned. This doesn't happen in our country. It is unheard of. The last time a royal was arrested was King Charles in 1647, and that was briefly the end of the monarchy. He remains eighth in line to the throne. He still lives on a royal estate. So the fact that this actually happened is something that honestly, as a nation, we are kind of having to to sort of say out loud to actually believe. And Julie Kay Brown, the Miami Herald reporter whose 2018 story reopened the Epstein investigation and led to his final arrest, posted on social media, never in a million years did I fathom when I resurrected this Epstein story in 2018. She went on to write about the arrest on Substack saying, quote, it's astonishing how much accountability seems to be possible once you cross the Atlantic. Meanwhile, yesterday aboard Air Force One, President Trump was asked about the arrest. Do you think people in this country at some point, associates of Jeffrey Epstein, will wind up in handcuffs too? Well, you know, I'm the expert in a way because I've been totally exonerated. That's very nice. I can actually speak about it very nicely. I think it's a shame. I think it's very sad. I think it's so bad for the royal family. It's very, very sad. To me, it's a very sad thing. When I see that, it's a very sad thing to see it and to see what's going on with his brother, who's obviously coming to our country very soon. And he's a fantastic man, the king. So I think it's a very sad thing. It's really interesting because nobody used to speak about Epstein when he was alive, but now they speak. But I'm the one that can talk about it because I've been totally exonerated. I did nothing. In fact, the opposite. He was against me. he was fighting me in the election, which I just found out through the last three million pages of documents. Huh, that's interesting. Well, totally exonerated. I maybe Pam Bondi should release all the documents. Maybe Pam Bondi should actually stop redacting as much as she's right. So then we can actually see as a country and as Americans who is totally exonerated and who is not totally exonerated because right now nobody's totally exonerated. The administration keeps dragging their feet. It would have been great if instead of hanging up banners yesterday with the president's face on it, we would have actually seen more work done on releasing documents. So there could be more justice for the survivors of this pedophilia ring while rich and powerful men just sort of seem to walk away laughing. I mean, my God, just stunning. The Republicans, just two different forms of justice. Democrats, of course, get attacked. Republicans walk. No accountability. We're seeing it time and again, but we'll see how voters respond to that in the fall. We don really have to guess It not going to be good But Ed Luce Instead of talking about the elections of the fall let talk about what has happened in London over the past couple of days Shocking obviously for anybody that was was born and raised there This is just not something that you see, do you? No. I mean, as you showed with that clip from Emily Maitlis, it's been 379 years since the royal was arrested. Now, that royal, Charles I, was executed for treason. That's not going to happen in this case, and we don't even know whether he's going to be charged. But the simple fact of his arrest, I think, is a huge milestone. And the fact that the investigation is ongoing is a really big milestone. It should be sort of mentioned that the way that Prince Andrew got to know, that former Prince Andrew got to know Epstein was when he became a trade envoy for the UK in 2001 for about a decade. And at the time, his brother, the Prince of Wales, Charles, strenuously lobbied Tony Blair not to appoint Andrew as a trade envoy, because I think he knew that he was known as a playboy by the tabloids. He knew he'd just jet around the world, hang out with autocrats, people and golf courses and gin palaces, etc., and misuse it. And Blair overruled and appointed him, and we saw what happened. And the person who was lobbying for Andrew to get that trade envoy role was Peter Mandelson, Lord Mandelson, who is, it seems pretty clear, is the next in line to be taken in for questioning. And he, of course, was Britain's ambassador to Washington until last September and was then fired by Keir Starmer, the prime minister, for his own Epstein revelations. Yeah. You know, Pablo, Julie Brown, the words cut so much because it is true that if you actually cross the Atlantic, you can get accountability when it comes to Epstein. You look in America, though, as I said before, there are two systems of justice. You have Democrats who get prosecuted. You have Republicans who get protected. You have at the same time, Jeanine Pirro is trying to indict six United States senators for repeating what's in the military manual. at the same time she's trying to prosecute him for them. You have people like Howard Lutnick and others who just get a walk. Lutnick, forget about being investigated. Lutnick still has his job at the Commerce Department. And you can go down the list. Wexler, like the guy that invented, many people say, the guy that invented Jeffrey Epstein and made Rape Island possible and made the Lolita Express possible, according to Robert Garcia, who was at the deposition yesterday. That guy just, oh, I don't know. I was duped. I was conned. Not a single Republican showed up. They don't care about justice. They don't care about justice for victims. Pam Bondi would even turn around and look at those victims that were five feet behind her. They don't care about justice. All they seem to care about is protecting Donald Trump and people around Donald Trump. Well, and the question in America is, is there even the last guardrail on shame, which is accountability for pedophiles? Joe, this is like the last test we have to take as a civilization, you might think. Right. Does this still matter? Does this move the needle? Does this puncture what feels like the greatest market efficiency you can seize in politics, which is maybe we don't just we don't just answer anything. Maybe we don't have to pretend to care. And if that's the case, we can avoid what is all over the cover of the New York Post. Look at this photo. Joe, this is the Prince of Darkness headline, right? With Prince Andrew right there. The angle, the Crypt Keeper slash Ghost of Christmas Future angle on this photo, which is also, of course, on the cover of the Wall Street Journal because the Murdochs know what they're doing. Right. Like, look, this is this is what you look at in America. And you think, is that something that we can opt out of? And so far, that's the strategy. What if we just close our eyes and pretend that this isn't us? And you look at the photographs, by the way, this is a whole story about photographs. Prince Andrew is not some ancillary side character. Look at the other photographs. There he is in the late 90s and early 2000s with the president, with his wife, with the president's wife. at Mar-a-Lago in England, right? These are all published photos as he has previously, the president has, said, I don't know him, right? And so this is the thing they're trying to deny. And the through line in all of these things, right, affordability in the Epstein files is, what if we just tell people, like we're a bad hypnotist, you know, waving the pocket watch, you know, you are getting sleepy, you are getting richer, this isn't us. And it's an insane strategy when you have the evidence right in front of you. Yeah, it's insane when you have an attorney general testifying on victims that have been raped, a pedophile who has just created an extraordinarily powerful network of the richest, most powerful people in America. And she says, don't worry about the rapes. Let's not talk about the rich and powerful that have gotten away with everything. Let's talk about the Dow, which is what Donald Trump said yesterday. You can't afford your grocery bills. You can't afford your rent. Let's talk about the Dow. Working Americans don't believe it. And I've got to say, one of the president's biggest problem, one of the Republicans' biggest problem is that the Epstein files, that wasn't a Democratic issue. That was a Republican issue. That's all Republicans talked about for years. And so it's Donald Trump's own base. It's the Republican Party's own base that is the most upset at the fact that they continue to drag their feet and they continue to cover up and protect the Epstein class, protect rich, powerful men. Well, President Trump yesterday, while he was giving a speech, while he was answering questions with Epstein files, also juggling what's happening in Iran. And he signaled a decision on whether to carry out strikes against Iran will be made in the coming days, is what he said. So now we may have to take it a step further, or we may not. Maybe we're going to make a deal. You're going to be finding out over the next probably 10 days. Now is the time for Iran to join us on a path that will complete what we're doing. And if they join us, that'll be great. If they don't join us, that'll be great too. But it'll be a very different path. They cannot continue to threaten the stability of the entire region and they must make a deal. Or if that doesn't happen, I maybe can understand if it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. But bad things will happen if it doesn't. David Ignatius, a massive military armada now positioned off of Iran. the talks on Monday. There apparently was there were some advancements still a long way to go. What can you tell us about the state of the negotiations and the state of a possible strike, which many people believe could happen this weekend? So, Joe, two things. President Trump is doing his usual negotiating process of putting a lot of force in play, a lot of chips on the table to try to threaten, intimidate Iran at the same time that he holds out the possibility of making it. Maybe we'll have a deal. Maybe we won't. Back and forth. But just looking at the military assets that have been put into the region, and I don't just mean the armada at sea, the two aircraft carrier task forces, but the actual instruments of war, the refueling tankers that will refuel U.S. fighter jets in the air, the electronic warfare planes that are being sent that are part of any serious combat mission, those have all been put into the region. So you have to take these threats of war seriously. I think what's concerning people is the president's still unable to articulate clearly to the American people articulate, let alone go to the Congress, which is what our Constitution provides for, to discuss the grounds for entering into a war with Iran and get Congress's approval to do that. That's the way our system is supposed to work. And we've moved into something very different with this authoritative, sometimes authoritarian figure, deciding when we will and won't go into military action. But I think there's a growing recognition that if war comes, it's going to be significant. It may be protracted. The Wall Street Journal last night had a good article saying that some in the administration were saying, let's start slow. Let's have a limited initial push at a few military targets and see how the Iranians react. In my experience of writing about covering wars over now more than 40 years, that's not how it works. unfortunately, once you begin these process like this, you lose control of it. The other side has a vote. Things happen. Wars tend to escalate, not de-escalate when they start. So we're in a very delicate period. What I'd like most from the President, if he's serious about going forward, either with the negotiations or with military action, is a clear explanation of the American people. What is he trying to achieve? What are the potential costs? and then build a coalition of support for it among the American people. Change in Iran would be a good thing. Iranians say that in the streets year after year. Nobody should make any mistake. But that's not the job of the United States. We won't do it very well with military force. And we just need a better debate about it. Well, obviously, more and more concern about the possibility of striking Iran. And make no mistake, Iran is not Venezuela. If anybody in the administration is laboring under that false assumption, it would be far more difficult. But like you said, David, we need an explanation. What are the goals? What's the triggering point to get out? What comes the day after? And we'll keep talking about this on the other side of the break. And still at a morning show. We're going to talk exclusively with Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs, following those comments from President Trump about potential U.S. strikes on the country. And as we go to break, a quick look at the Travelers forecast this morning from AccuWeather's Bernie Rayno. Bernie, how's it looking? All right, Joe, this one's for you. The Rayno foghorn today because the low clouds fog and drizzle from Washington, D.C. toward New York City, one to three inches of snow in Boston. Slippery travel in Portland today. Southern tier of the United States, it stays warm, just some spotty showers. But the only delays today we're projecting are going to be in the northeast with the snow in Boston and the rain and drizzle in New York City and Philadelphia. Stay tuned to AccuWeather.com all weekend as we track that storm off the mid-Atlantic coast. To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, download the AccuWeather app today. The U.S. military deployed on the streets of America. Whole communities targeted for removal. And when accountability finally came knocking, the burn order to cover it all up. Rachel Meadow presents Burn Order. All episodes available now Hey Welcome back to Morning Joe Ed Luce, what is Europe's reaction right now to the buildup of troops in the Persian Gulf? I mean, same as Congress, I think. They've been kept in the dark. They're extremely worried. They've seen movies before where, you know, wars of choice are embarked upon without fully laying out the conditions for them. But there is a British angle here, too. Keir Starmer has denied Trump permission, apparently, although this hasn't been confirmed, to use Diego Garcia, the air base in the Indian Ocean, and to use an RAF base in the UK because there is no international, the international legal case for war in Iran has not been made. And Trump, this explains why Trump went on a rant, a social meat, truth social rant two days ago, saying that Britain had sold itself down the river by leasing that Diego Garcia base and that they should just take control of it, like sort of he wanted to do with Greenland. But I think the general European feeling is, even though Europe is often where these bombers take off from, or some of them take off from, the case for war, the rationale for going in has not really been made. Remember, it started with the protests, December, January. That's when Trump said America was locked and loaded. We're not hearing much about that rationale. we've switched, we've sort of pivoted back to the nuclear, the uranium enrichment. So confusion, I think it would be the best description. All right, let's bring in right now for an exclusive interview, the foreign minister of affairs for Iran, Abbas Arachi. Thank you so much, Mr. Foreign Minister, for being with us. I know you've been in talks over the past few days. I'm curious, yesterday, we played a clip of the president yesterday saying that a deal with Iran would be a good thing. Then he went on to say not getting a deal with Iran would also be a good thing, suggesting perhaps a possibility of war. What can you tell us about how far apart the United States and Iran are right now on striking a deal that could avert a war? well thank you so much for having me a very good morning to to you well we had a very good talks a few days ago in in geneva and we were able to discuss the questions related to our nuclear program and to the u.s sanctions and we agreed on a set of principles or guiding principles for our negotiation and how a deal can look like. And we then were asked to prepare a draft of a possible deal so next time that we meet, we can, you know, go into that draft, start negotiating about its language and hopefully come to a conclusion. That is the, you know, the way ahead of us. And I think that is a normal way of any international negotiations. And we agreed to go into that path. One thing I have to emphasize is that there is no military solution for Iran's nuclear program. That has been tested last year. And there were a huge attack on our facilities, on our, you know, they killed and assassinated our scientists, but they couldn't kill our nuclear program. Why? Because it is developed by ourselves, by our scientists. This is a technology developed by us, belongs to us. and it cannot be destroyed by bombings militarily. The only solution is diplomacy. This is why the U.S. is back in the table of negotiation and is seeking a deal. And we are prepared for that. We are prepared for war and we are prepared for peace. We are prepared for diplomacy and we are prepared for negotiation as much as we are prepared for war. And I think the last time it was proved that Iran is capable to defend itself in the best possible way. And after 12 days of war, our enemies had no way but to ask for an unconditional ceasefire. So that would be the case if they try it again. If they want a deal, if they want a solution for Iran's nuclear program, if they want to ensure that Iran's nuclear program is peaceful and would remain peaceful forever. The only solution is a diplomatic negotiation and coming to a diplomatic solution. So so let me ask you this, Mr. Foreign Minister, obviously, again, reports from the U.S. delegation as well as Iran's delegation. And some of your interviews suggested that you all did move in a positive direction together on many issues. There is one issue that continues to be a sticking point. The United States is demanding permanent suspension of your enrichment program. I know, Ron, you offered two to three years, but the United States is demanding that Iran ceases enrichment permanently. Is there a possibility that Iran will ever get to that position, that maximalist position of permanent suspension of your enrichment programs? The U.S. military deployed on the streets of America. Whole communities targeted for removal. And when accountability finally came knocking, the burn order to cover it all up. Rachel Meadow presents Burn Order. All episodes available now. Well, I think the speculations that you just made are not true. We are now working with each other. Both of them. We have not offered any suspension and the U.S. side has not asked for zero enrichment. Let me stop you there. Let me stop you there because I'm just that has been reported. So I just want for for people that are watching the show that have read that your position is that the United States didn't ask for a permanent suspension of enrichment. Is that is that what you're telling me? Yes. What we are now talking about is how to make sure that Iran's nuclear program, including enrichment, is peaceful and would remain peaceful forever. And in return, and, you know, Iran, you know, does some confidence building measures to ensure that its program would remain peaceful. and in return sanctions. What are those measures, Mr. Foreign Minister? What are those measures? What are some of the things that, because obviously that's the pressure that the president may be feeling politically about making sure that the program always remains peaceful. That's been at the center of negotiations between the United States and Iran for well over a decade. Now, what are some measures that would guarantee that Iran's nuclear program always remain peaceful? Well, there are both technical commitments and political commitments and technical measures to be taken in order to make sure that this program is only for peaceful purposes. And we are now working on those technical questions. This is why Rafael Garousi, the Director General of the IAEA, was in the recent negotiations. He played a very constructive role by suggesting, you know, technical proposals which can help this problem being resolved. So there are certainly technical measures which can be taken and can ensure that Iran's program cannot even be diverted to non-peaceful purposes. This is what we have already done in 2015. And I believe that we can do it again, even a better one. So this is what we are working on at the moment. I have instructed my team my technical team and my diplomatic team to work on the different aspects of a possible deal I am in direct contact with Rafael Garoussi seeking his advices and I am also in contact with my interlocutor Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and whenever needed we will sit together once again to see how we can come to a fair and equitable deal. As President Trump also mentioned, a fair and equitable deal, I believe is achievable, but we need some sort of creativity and flexibility by both sides so a deal is at our reach. And there is no any other solution for this question. Mr. Foreman, I want to ask about, there seem to be two different timelines going on here that seem to be in conflict with each other. There has been chatter. There's been a lot of speculation in media in the United States and across the West that an attack may be coming as early as this weekend. And yet what you're telling me is that that what you're doing now is you're going back. And again, I've read these in reports and had U.S. officials telling me this. So if this is incorrect, also let me know. But after your meeting on Monday, you said you're going to go for two weeks and tried to put together another counter proposal to get back to Mr. Whitcoff and Jared. Tell me if those timelines are correct, if the timeline for you coming back with a counter offer is going to be in a few weeks. Well, I have to say that, first of all, there is no ultimatum. We only talk with each other how we can have a fast deal. And a fast deal is something that both sides are interested about. You know, we are under sanctions. Obviously, any day that sanctions are terminated sooner, it would be better for us. So we have no reason to delay a possible deal or buying time. Not at all. On the other side, for the US side also, President Trump and his team are interested in a quick deal. So we agreed to work with each other to achieve a deal as soon as possible. The only question is how to make it a fair deal, a win-win deal, an equitable deal. And that is the difficult part of that. Obviously, both sides have their own interests and concerns. And our job is to find a solution which accommodates both sides' interests and concerns. So we are doing our job. I hope that those who are seeking war and want to drag the United States into an unnecessary and disastrous war once again, I hope they won't prevail and let us, diplomats, work with each other and find a diplomatic solution. which I believe is at our reach and can be achieved in a very short period of time. What is a win-win deal as you see it? And from your discussions with Whitcoff and Kushner, as they would see it, what do you think getting to a win-win deal that could avert war would look like to Iran and the United States? You know a win deal is when U is absolutely confident that Iran nuclear program is peaceful and would remain peaceful and for Iran sanctions are lifted I'm not, you know, referring to military buildup around us because that is absolutely unnecessary and unhelpful. A diplomatic solution is at our reach. we can easily achieve. And I have, you know, I have been in this business in the past 20 years and negotiated with different parties. I know that a deal is achievable, but it should be fair and based on win-win solution. Military option would only complicate this, would only, you know, bring about disastrous consequences, not only for us, perhaps for the whole region, And for the whole international community, which is, you know, fed up of different, you know, escalations and wars in our region and beyond. Mr. Foreign Minister, the president early on and David Ignatius mentioned this earlier in the program, the president early on had suggested that he was going to send the United States military to Iran if protesters were were killed in the streets protesting against the Iranian government. reports across the West and across the world suggest that as many as 30,000 Iranians have been killed while protesting against your government. I'm curious, did you all discuss the Iranians killed in those protests and your negotiations or did it stay on the issues of enrichment. And just what is the official number, according to the government of Iran, on how many protesters have been killed in the streets of Iran? Well, I have already explained what happened in my different interviews. You know, we had protests and demonstrations in the streets of Iranian cities from 28 December to 7th January. For 10 days, we had peaceful protests and it was completely tolerated. Even the government started to engage with their leaders to see what is the problem and how the problems can be resolved. But for two and a half days, 8th, 9th and 10th of January, we faced something completely different. And that was a very well-planned terrorist operation led from outside. And there were, you know, armed elements which came into the streets, you know, in amongst the protests, and they started shooting at our police and security forces. And you know that 200 police officers have been killed in this, you know, operation. They started to set fires in public buildings, in buses, and then they started, you know, they tried to, you know, go into the police sessions. And they behaved like Daesh fighters. They have beheaded some of our police officers. They buried them alive. But so we have our police had no way but to, you know, confront them. The images that now you are showing is mixed of those 10 days and three days. So you have to know that those three days are completely a different story. The number of people who were killed in those three days are exactly 3,117. And we have published the names of all those people. All names have been already publicized. So those who claim that the number is bigger than that, so please add only one name to the list of the names that we have already published. If they can add one more name, they are right. But the number is exactly as we said, and nobody has been able to add any names to those lists. 2,500 of which are considered by us as martyrs because they were ordinary people who were killed by the bullets of those terrorist elements. And 200 of police and security forces also are amongst them. So you're saying three? From 10th January till now, there is complete calmness and peace in all cities of the country. And everything has been finished. So you're saying 30,000, despite the widespread reports, you're saying 30,000 have not been killed. that number is 3,117. Exactly. All right. Let me ask you, what is the next step for Iran as you see the buildup? Will you get back to the U.S. negotiators more quickly on trying to figure out how to get to a deal? Are you still on a two-week timetable for that? well the next step for our armed forces is something else i'm not dealing with that i do my job the next step for me is to present a draft of a possible deal to my counterparts in the in the in the u.s i believe that in the next two three days that would be ready and after final confirmation by my superiors that would be handed over to Steve Witkoff and perhaps we would be in need of another session to talk about that and then start working on that draft to hopefully come to a good conclusion. That is You know, the roadmap in front of me. And I don't think it takes long, perhaps in a matter of week or so, we can start real serious negotiations on the text and come to a conclusion. obviously since 1979 Iranians have chanted in the streets death to America burned the American flag have considered the Americans to be their enemy I'm curious is it the position of the government of Iran right now that the United States is its enemy well you are seeing what the United States is doing against us and the hostilities they are showing against us and the military buildup they have made around us. So what do you expect us to consider them? Obviously, that is a hostility shown to us by the United States. And that has been since the beginning. This has been going on since 1979, though, what you've been saying. So and again, it's not a hostile question. I'm just asking for clarification because, you know, I've grown up during, just as you have, I've grown up during this era. And as an American, that's what I'm I'm curious, though, if we're in a position in 2026, if there is a negotiation here, if we move beyond the point where Iran considers the United States its enemy and leaders talk about death to America? Are we possibly getting to a stage for the first time since 1979 where the two countries move beyond that? So let me explain. You know, in 1979, because of the revolution by the Iranian people, the U.S. lost its ally in the region. And that was Shah of Iran, who was at the service of American interests. And people saw him as a puppet in the hand of Americans. So that is why the revolution happened. You know, a dictator, corrupt family, you know, ruled the country, and they were supported by Americans because they served their interest in the Persian Gulf. Americans failed to understand why the revolution happened in Iran. So they started hostility against that since day one. And this is why we are in this position, that the Iranian revolution was not against the United States at the beginning. It was against a corrupt family who governed Iran, ruled Iran in a dictator. I understand the history in 1979. I understand the history pretty well since then. I'm just asking about where we are right now and where is it possible as we move forward in these negotiations for Iran to move to a position where they don't consider the United States their enemy? First of all, we don't consider the American states, you know, the Americans as our enemy. We consider the American government's policies as hostile against Iran. And when those hostilities are stopped, then we can perhaps consider having a different kind of relations. This is why, my friend, what we did in 2015, we made a very good deal with then U.S. administration, together with six more countries. But unfortunately, it didn't turn into a good experience. Last year, in 2025, again, we tried United States, the current administration. We engaged into negotiation, and then they attacked us right at the middle of talks, at the middle of negotiations. So, you know, it is very unfortunate that we don't have any good experience of dealing with Americans, with American administrations, the moment that this perception is changed, the moment you can come to a good conclusion, a deal which is respected by the U.S. administration, which is respected by American people, and being implemented in good faith, I think things would start to change. So I believe that everything depends on the other side. President Trump often watches this show. He may not admit it, but he often watches this show as to members of the Senate and the House. I'm curious, before you go, what would your message be to the president and the members of Congress? The message is that previous U.S. administrations, even the current US administration have tried almost everything against us a war you know sanctions snapback you know anything everything but none of them worked if you talk with the Iranian people with the language of respect we respond with the same language but if they talk to us with the language of force, we will reciprocate with the same language. I think Iranians have proved to be very proud people. We only respond to the language of respect. So this is the way that they can talk to us and they would see the result. All right, Minister of Foreign Affairs for Iran, Abbas Arachi, thank you so much for being with us. I hope to talk to you again soon. Thank you for having me. Thank you, indeed. All right. And we'll get reaction and analysis from David Ignatius and Ed Luce and the rest of the panel right after the break. Perspectives from experts shaping the news. It's everything you love about MS Now. Delivered to your inbox. Sign up at MS.now.