But the war in Iran intensifying President Trump this week delivered conflicting messages on when it could end.

And attacks here in the U.S. prompted a wave of anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

To discuss that and more, we turn to the analysis of Brooks and K-Part.

That's the Atlantics David Brooks and Jonathan Kpart of MS Now.

It's always great to see you both.

So Jonathan, on Iran, if the goal was to weaken Iran and stabilize the region, the early picture

looks complicated. You've got a new Supreme Leader in Tehran, who is the son of the original

Supreme Leader who was killed in the initial attack. You've got higher oil prices, a widening regional war, and more than a dozen U.S. troop casualties. What, in your view, has been achieved so far? I don't know. I really don't know. And I'm glad you mentioned the casualties, because I was going to do something that the Secretary of Defense refuses to do when he,

immediately when he gets before the microphones and acknowledge right now the 13 killed in action,

including the six who lost their lives when they're refueling aircraft crashed in Iraq.

I am still trying to understand what the end game is here.

The president says a lot of happy talk about, you know, this will take a short period of time,

and we had to do this because they were going to attack us.

But we have not heard a single coherent rationale since this war started, what is it, two weeks

ago tomorrow.

David, how do you see it?

Yeah, well, this was not a good week.

I mean, I think things were achieved in the first week with the weakening of the regime

and taking out some of the ballistic missiles and all that.

But this week, two big things happened

and not good for the U.S. The first is every intelligence agency on Earth seems to have

concluded that the odds of regime change, the odds that the Iranian people have any opportunity

...