Welcome to the beat. I'm Ari Melbert, and we are going to keep you covered on everything going on.

Right now, we're following this foreign policy development, which the world is taking seriously,

tops many front pages, even as its core premise is unsurious and would be costly for the U.S.

and is rejected by experts and leaders in the United States

in both parties. The U.S. has played a large military role in the Middle East since invading Iraq

and Afghanistan. Those costly occupations all began when hawkish conservative Republicans

initially started the Iraq war. And it was first opposed by some liberals, you might recall, like Howard Dean, who actually

joins us later tonight, later by top Democrats like Obama, and then after the United States

majorities did turn on that war in occupation, which is back in the news tonight, only then

did Donald Trump start following the lead. In fact, he attacked his

rivals, the Bushes on that point and the hawkish Republican foreign policy over the years.

Ultimately, Trump did shift GOP foreign policy against some of those hawkish records. By the 2024

campaign, he was routinely vowing to end foreign wars and U.S. spending blood or treasure abroad and especially in the Middle East.

Let me just tell you up front, because I try to keep it very direct here.

Many voters believed him.

Many Trump voters believed that.

They accepted his claimed policy against U.S. involvement occupation as a positive. And we heard that

in surveys and interviews. Now, two weeks into returning to the White House, President Trump is

floating a plan, however unsuriously, which breaks that vow. His comments alongside the Israeli leader

about plunging the U.S. into another Mideast occupation

in an area that everyone knows, a region that could be as dangerous and complex as Iraq, if not

more so, is the story that matters, even though I'm going to show you why it is not exactly

...