‘The View' co-host Joy Behar wants Trump's Iran strikes 'to have been successful'
Print Close
By Gabriel Hays
Published June 26, 2025
Fierce anti-Trump personality Joy Behar told her co-hosts on "The View" Thursday that she wants President Donald Trump to be successful in debilitating Iran's nuclear weapons program.
While discussing the feud between Trump and the press over coverage of his ordered strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities last Saturday, the co-host admitted she wanted Trump to have succeeded because of the threat a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to the world.
"I personally would like it to have been successful," she said.
TRUMP THRASHES CNN AS 'GUTLESS LOSERS' FOR COVERAGE OF US STRIKES ON IRAN
Behar's statement came after she played clips of Trump calling CNN and MSNBC "scum" for reporting that the strikes may not have done as much damage as intended, according to leaked early intelligence estimates that have been harshly criticized by administration officials as misleading.
Earlier this week, a handful of media outlets cast doubt on administration assertions that the strikes fully destroyed the Iranian facilities, including CNN publishing an exclusive Tuesday claiming, "US strikes on Iran did not destroy nuclear sites," while the New York Times reported the Fordow nuclear facility was "severely damaged" but not "destroyed."
Behar weighed in, first rebuking Trump for blasting the media.
"First of all, why does he call them scum? Why does he have to do that – speak like that? It's so not presidential," she said.
Behar went on to wonder if Trump was spinning the success of the strikes before an accurate assessment of the damage could be made.
TRUMP ADDRESSES NATION ON 'SPECTACULAR MILITARY SUCCESS' OF US STRIKES ON IRANIAN NUCLEAR FACILITIES
"Anyway, this was just a preliminary report and Trump's CIA director is backing their claim that the damage was severe. But if Trump was already – had made up his mind about this – he already made up his mind before he knew, and we knew what really happened. So is he obliterating the truth?"
Despite bashing his behavior, Behar admitted she hoped Trump's attacks did destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program because of how dangerous the Iranian regime is.
"I think Iran, a rogue state like that, having a nuclear bomb – I've been worrying about nuclear war since I'm a child hiding under a desk," she said. "I mean, I used to say, 'Why do I have to take my library books back? We're all going to die anyway.' That's when I was a child. So, I hope — I wanted him to be successful, but he lies so much that you never know what the truth is."
CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE
Co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin agreed with Behar's point and expressed dismay over people who are against the strikes just because Trump ordered them.
"Seventy-nine percent of Americans agree that Iran shouldn't have a nuclear weapon," she said. "There's obviously debate over these strikes. Many people oppose the strikes, but I would say this, if they were successful, that is the most likely outcome to keeping us from getting into a bigger war with Iran."
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Griffin added, "We, as of now, are not on the cusp of World War Three, and I would encourage people to walk that language back." Print Close
URL
https://www.foxnews.com/media/view-co-host-joy-behar-wants-trumps-iran-strikes-successful
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
10 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Wind, Solar Credits Face Shorter Phase-Out in GOP's New Tax Bill
Key tax incentives for US wind and solar projects would face a more aggressive phase-out in the Senate's latest version of President Donald Trump's spending package. The tweak, which follows pushback by Trump on the Inflation Reduction Act credits, would sharply limit the number of solar and wind farms that qualify for incentives, appeasing opponents while risking the ire of moderate members who argued for a slower phase-out.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Court Fans Fear of State Patchwork in Birthright Citizenship
(Bloomberg) -- A US Supreme Court ruling is stoking fears that the babies of many noncitizen parents could be treated differently depending on the state in which they're born, as legal challenges unfold against President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship. Philadelphia Transit System Votes to Cut Service by 45%, Hike Fares US Renters Face Storm of Rising Costs Squeezed by Crowds, the Roads of Central Park Are Being Reimagined Sprawl Is Still Not the Answer Mapping the Architectural History of New York's Chinatown The justices didn't rule on the constitutionality of Trump's restrictions. But in a divided decision Friday, they paused nationwide injunctions in three cases that had blocked the policy from taking effect. That opens a potential path for Trump's ban on birthright citizenship to be enforced in the 28 states where no court order to block it is currently in place, many of them Republican strongholds from Texas to Florida and Wyoming to Oklahoma. State officials and legal experts warn the arrangement could lead to a patchwork quilt of outcomes, in which the children of people in the US unlawfully or on temporary visas would be recognized as citizens in some states but not in others. 'What we have is an unworkable mess that will leave thousands of babies in an untenable legal limbo,' said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who joined officials from 21 other Democratic-led states in suing to block the order. 'Will babies born in Connecticut have different citizenship rights than those born in Texas or Florida?' Nothing will change immediately — the justices said Trump's restrictions can't take effect for 30 days. Much will be in flux during that period as lower courts revise their rulings to align with the new precedent set by the high court. Justices also left open an avenue for opponents to continue trying to block Trump's order through a class action lawsuit. And they left key questions unanswered about the scope of relief that certain challengers — particularly individual states — are entitled to receive. Trump celebrated Friday's ruling as a 'monumental victory.' His administration has long sought to limit the ability of a single judge to block a federal policy across the country. Organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Defenders Fund and CASA Inc. have sued to block his order on birthright citizenship. They're already adjusting their legal strategy in light of the Supreme Court ruling, refiling their cases as class action lawsuits and seeking fresh court orders to block Trump's policy while their lawsuits proceed. 'Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead attorney in this case, said in a statement. 'The Supreme Court's decision did not remotely suggest otherwise, and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child.' Litigation will also proceed in cases filed by the 22 Democratic-led states that sued to block the order. Those states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, emphasized the legal uncertainty and said lower courts will now have to determine the scope of relief available to states that sued in order to avoid running afoul of the Supreme Court. 'There's lots of unanswered questions,' she said. Some state attorneys general said language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion leaves open the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. 'The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution belong to everyone in this country, not just those whose state attorneys general had the courage to stand up to this president's anti-democratic agenda,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. 'We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable.' America's Top Consumer-Sentiment Economist Is Worried How to Steal a House Inside Gap's Last-Ditch, Tariff-Addled Turnaround Push Apple Test-Drives Big-Screen Movie Strategy With F1 Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Erreur lors de la récupération des données Connectez-vous pour accéder à votre portefeuille Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données
Atlantic
17 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The Anniversary That Democrats Would Be Wise to Forget
Yesterday marked one year since Joe Biden's debate meltdown against Donald Trump. Happy anniversary to those who observe such things, or are triggered by such things. Please celebrate responsibly. For Democrats, the debacle was a harsh awakening and the start of an ongoing spiral. Prior to that night, they could hold on to the delusion that the party might somehow eke out one last victory from Biden's degraded capacity and ward off another four-year assault from Donald Trump. But that all exploded into the gruesome reality of June 27, 2024. Every interested viewer that night remembers where they were, their various feelings (depending on their perspectives) of revulsion, grief, glee, or disbelief. I was watching at home, thinking for some reason that Biden might exceed his humble expectations. He had managed to do this periodically on big stages during his presidency—including the feisty State of the Union address he'd turned in a few months earlier. But by the time Biden walked to his podium in Atlanta, it was clear that was not happening. Something was off. The elderly president looked visibly stiffer than usual, like he was wrapped in cardboard. As co-moderator Jake Tapper of CNN unfurled his opening question—about rising grocery and home prices—Biden's eyes bugged out, as if he was stunned. His face was a drab gray color. I remember thinking there was something wrong with my TV, until the texts started rolling in. A friend observed that Biden looked 'mummified' on the stage. 'Is he sick?' my wife asked as she entered the room. Not a great start. And this was before Biden had even said a word. Then he spoke—or tried to. Biden's voice didn't really work at first. It was raspy; he kept stopping, starting, dry-coughing. After a few sentences, everything was worse. 'Oh my god,' came another text, which was representative of the early returns. 'My mother told me she's crying,' read another. (This person's mother is evidently not a Trump supporter.) My wife left the room. Mark Leibovich: Where is Barack Obama? Now here we are a year later. Democrats have been battered by events since. First among them was Trump's victory in November, in which traditional Democratic constituencies such as Black, Hispanic, and young voters defected to the GOP in large numbers. This was followed by the onslaught of Trump's second administration. Democrats keep getting described (or describing themselves) as being 'in the wilderness,' though at this point 'the wilderness' might be a generous description; it at least offers peace and quiet—as opposed to, say, your average Democratic National Committee meeting in 2025. Or, for that matter, the aftermath of this week's Democratic primary in the New York City mayor's race. Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist state assemblyman from Queens, became an instant It Boy with his upset of scandal-soiled former Governor Andrew Cuomo. As happens with many progressive sensations these days, Mamdani's victory was immediately polarizing. New York Democrats seem split over the result: On one side are lukewarm establishment titans such as Senate and House Minority Leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries; on the other are progressive demigods such as Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders. The usual Democratic divides revealed themselves: insurgent versus establishment, socialist-adjacent versus moderate, young versus old (except for Bernie, the ageless octogenarian forever big with the kids). The deeply unpopular incumbent, Eric Adams, who was elected as a Democrat in 2021, is running for reelection as an independent; despite getting trounced in the primary, Cuomo plans to stay in the race—running on something called the 'Fight and Deliver' ballot line. Mamdani is the clear favorite to prevail in November. But no one knows anything for sure, except that everything feels like a muddled mess, which has pretty much been the Democrats' default posture since the Abomination in Atlanta a year ago. The party's grass roots are showing genuine energy these days. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez drew five-figure crowds at their 'Fighting Oligarchy' rallies this spring. The nationwide 'No Kings' protests two weekends ago were indicative of a galvanized protest movement eager to be led. Yet these signs of Trump resistance are mostly happening separate from the Democratic apparatus. As my colleague David Graham recently wrote, the 'No Kings' spectacles were themselves, paradoxically, a sign of how rudderless the party now finds itself. With a few exceptions, the Democratic leadership ranks have been largely AWOL. They toggle and flail between quiet paralysis and loud frustration, especially with one another. Mark Leibovich: The week that changed everything for Gavin Newsom Democrats have spent an inordinate amount of time and energy relitigating Biden's tenure in the White House—whether he was fit to be there and how frail he had become. The phrase cognitive decline still comes up a lot, for obvious reasons, none of them fun or especially constructive. The 2024 campaign has also come in for a spirited rehash —especially among factions of Biden world, the Kamala Harris–Tim Walz campaign, and the various PACs and outside groups ostensibly designed to support them. Republicans have of course relished every chance to revisit Biden's deterioration. The media have hammered this theme as well, most notably Tapper and his co-author, Alex Thompson of Axios, whose blockbuster autopsy, Original Sin, has been at or near the top of The New York Times ' nonfiction best-seller list for several weeks. The surest way for Democrats to move on would be to jump straight to the future: Look to 2028, as quickly as possible. Presidential campaigns at their best can be forward-looking, wide-open, and aspirational. Yes, local elections—and certainly the 2026 midterms—are important, and maybe even promising for the party. But not as important as picking a new national leader, something the Democrats have not really done since Barack Obama was first elected in 2008. Among the many tragedies of Biden's last act was that he delayed his party, indefinitely, from anointing its next generation. Trump himself might not be on the ballot in 2028, but he's still giving his opposition plenty to run against. So Democrats might as well take the show national and start now, if for no other reason than to escape from fractures of the present and circular nightmares of the recent past. Which began, more or less, on June 27 of last year. When Democrats stop dwelling on that disaster and what followed, that might signal that they're finally getting somewhere.
