David Brooks of The Atlantic and Ruth Marcus of The New Yorker joined Amna Nawaz to review key political stories of the week. Their conversation covered the mounting economic and human costs tied to the Iran conflict, a fresh nuclear energy agreement with Saudi Arabia, and the wins by Trump-aligned candidates who challenge past election results in Republican primaries across the country.

Amna Nawaz opened by noting current national gas prices at 4.11 dollars per gallon according to AAA data. A recent Politico survey showed that 37 percent of self-described MAGA supporters favor continuing the conflict even amid higher costs, a drop from 50 percent recorded in May. Casualties have also climbed, with four service members lost in the past week alone on top of 14 earlier Pentagon figures. Just before attending the dignified transfer for those four, the president posted a comparison of death tolls from this conflict and prior ones, urging that the facts be reported accurately.

David Brooks suggested the fighting could still be active by January 2029 when the current term ends. He pointed to a focus on long-term legacy in the Middle East rather than midterm outcomes or fuel costs. Recent reports of cabinet talks about a major escalation were noted, though material limits such as missile supplies make large expansion unlikely. Instead, the pattern of limited exchanges and stalled talks might persist indefinitely, turning the effort into the sort of prolonged engagement that supporters once vowed to avoid.

Ruth Marcus agreed the situation echoes a repeating cycle of threats followed by pullbacks. She questioned whether public patience would last that long, citing personal experience with higher pump prices and broader economic pain. Even without direct midterm concerns from the president, lawmakers focused on self-preservation could eventually move to restrict funding if the burden grows too heavy for households and global markets alike.

Nawaz then turned to a nuclear energy agreement signed this week allowing U.S. firms to provide reactors and fuel to Saudi Arabia. The president stated the pact prevents enrichment for weapons use and linked it to future ties with Israel, though Saudi officials have conditioned any such step on progress toward a Palestinian state. Brooks observed that the president favors commercial deals with the kingdom yet the added condition may block progress unless dropped. He added that reduced U.S. security guarantees worldwide are prompting more nations to consider nuclear options for their own protection.

Marcus called the arrangement unwise because it risks further nuclear spread. She recalled past U.S. assistance to Iran under the shah and warned that similar technology transfers have backfired before. The erratic addition of last-minute conditions was compared to routine business negotiations, and she suggested the deal's likely failure might be fortunate under current circumstances.

Attention then shifted to Arizona primary results where three prominent election skeptics secured Republican nominations for governor, secretary of state, and attorney general. Brooks noted that one party now operates with a clear organizational structure and activist base that reliably delivers primary victories, while the opposing side lacks comparable cohesion and has seen mixed success with its preferred candidates.

Marcus countered that such primary successes may prove costly in general elections. Despite a sizable Republican voter edge in Arizona, Democrats currently hold both Senate seats and the top three statewide offices. She argued that nominating figures tied to past election challenges makes it harder to regain power, even if those candidates adjust their messaging for the general campaign.

In the remaining time, Nawaz asked about the lack of follow-through on recent claims of Chinese election interference in 2020. Brooks described a focus on immediate events that allows prior accusations to fade without consequence, which in this instance helps preserve necessary diplomatic channels. Marcus viewed the original statements as aimed mainly at eroding domestic trust in the electoral process rather than addressing any foreign actor directly.