Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
Participants
Main
j
john mcardle
cspan44:01
p
paul rieckhoff
39:08
Appearances
benjamin netanyahu
isr01:21
brian lamb
cspan00:49
jd vance
admin01:09
j
jim himes
rep/d01:27
karoline leavitt
admin01:51
margaret brennan
cbs00:46
pete hegseth
admin01:35
thomas massie
rep/r01:05
tim kaine
sen/d01:36
Clips
barack obama
d00:02
bill clinton
d00:02
donald j trump
admin00:12
george h w bush
r00:02
george w bush
r00:04
jimmy carter
d00:03
kristen welker
nbc00:03
patty murray
sen/d00:04
rachel maddow
msnow00:07
ronald reagan
r00:01
steve pieczenik
00:08
Callers
charles in new orleans
callers00:07
?
Voice
Speaker
Time
Text
Defense Secretary on Protracted War00:07:05
unidentified
Your calls and comments live.
We'll talk about U.S. military action against Iran and the Trump administration's militarized response to domestic protests with Independent Veterans of America founder and CEO Paul Rykoff.
Then, Christian Daytalk, White House correspondent with the Washington Examiner, updates on the latest news out of the White House.
And we begin by asking you what you think the U.S. objective should be now that the United States has carried out military strikes in Iran.
Should the goal be preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon?
Should it be regime change?
Should it be avoiding another war in the Middle East, or should it be something else?
Here's the phone numbers for you to call in: Republicans, 202-748-8001.
Democrats, 202-748-8000.
Independents, 202-748-8002.
You can also send us a text, that number, 202-748-8003.
If you do, please include your name and where you're from.
Otherwise, catch up with us on social media.
On X, it's at C-SPANWJ.
On Facebook, it's facebook.com/slash C-SPAN.
And a very good Monday morning to you.
You can go ahead and start calling in.
It's a morning for headlines, and they are banner headlines.
Here's a few of them from the Washington Times this morning.
World on high alert.
Midnight Hammer destroys Iran nuclear sites.
Iran threatens to retaliate after U.S. strikes.
To the front page of the New York Times this morning, U.S. claiming severe damage warns Iran not to strike back.
The banner headline in the Wall Street Journal: U.S. Ways Strikes Damage in Iran.
This is the front page of USAID today.
U.S. bombs Iran, troops on high alert.
And this is the front page from today's New York Post.
Don't even think about it as their headline: A Chance to Remake the Middle East with Peace and Prosperity for All.
We're asking you this morning on the Washington Journal what you think the U.S. goal should be when it comes to Iran.
It was yesterday that the Vice President JD Vance went on Meet the Press, and he talked about the United States being at war with Iran's nuclear program and not the country itself.
And let me just say, Kristen, that we're incredibly grateful and proud of the American Air Force pilots who did an incredible job last night.
The operation was really extraordinary.
These guys flew from Missouri.
They didn't land a single time.
They dropped 30,000-pound bombs on a target the size of a washing machine and then got back home safely without ever landing in the Middle East or ever stopping other than to briefly refuel.
And of course, they did that in the air.
So it's really an incredible operation, a testament to the power of American military.
And I think what shows what can happen when you have that great American military in the hands of capable presidential leadership.
What we did is we destroyed the Iranian nuclear program.
I think we set that program back substantially, and we did it without endangering the lives of the American pilots.
That's an incredible thing.
And I think we all should be proud, whatever our politics, we should be proud of what these guys accomplished.
A very, very high-impact mission under a lot of pressure.
That was the vice president yesterday focusing on Iran's nuclear program.
But it wasn't eight hours later that President Donald Trump sent out this on his Truth Social account saying it's not politically correct to use the term regime change, but if the current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again, why wouldn't there be a regime change?
M-I-G-A make Iran great again is what the president sent out to his followers yesterday.
Also yesterday from the Pentagon, Pete Hegset, the Defense Secretary, was asked about the possibility of a protracted war when it comes to Iran.
This is what he had to say.
unidentified
The president may not want an open-ended conflict.
With the capabilities of the American military nearly unlimited.
So Iran, in that sense, has a choice.
But we've made it very clear to them, this is nuclear sites, this is nuclear capabilities, this is the line that the president set, and we set that back.
Now is the time to come forward for peace.
But we, I think one of the takeaways from this as well is the unprecedented level of ongoing cooperation.
I can't speak highly enough of the chairman and his staff and General Carrilla in CENTCOM, what they've done to look around the corner, to pre-position, to understand how an operation like this comes together.
The scope and scale of what occurred last night would take the breath away of almost any American if you had an opportunity to watch it in real time.
And I think Tehran is certainly calculating the reality that planes flew from the middle of America and Missouri overnight, completely undetected, over three of their most highly sensitive sites, and we were able to destroy nuclear capabilities.
And our boys in those bombers are on their way home right now.
We believe that'll have a clear psychological impact on how they view the future.
And we certainly hope they take the path of negotiated peace.
But I could not be more proud of how this building operated, of the precision, the sensitivity, and the professionalism of the troops involved in this.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, that was yesterday.
We're taking your calls this morning asking you what should the U.S. goal be when it comes to Iran.
As you're calling in on the phone numbers that are on your screen, here's just two more sets of headlines from the political media, from both the right and left online.
From the right, it's Breitbart with these headlines, A Midnight Hammer's Dream, Trump a Very Successful Attack is the quote they use.
And then inside the B-2 Spirit Bomber's Mission to Cripple Iran's nuclear program.
And then from the left, it's the Huff Post, a few of their headlines.
Trump off the rails on regime change.
Vance, lawyer-like on war.
Rubio ridiculous, how Trump got to yes in the military's stealth moves.
In terms of Iran's response, the New York Times gets into that in the second graph, the third grasp of their lead story today.
They write Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps threatened to retaliate, possibly by attacking the vast number of U.S. bases and forces in the Middle East.
In a statement carried by Iranian state news media, it said, quote, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interests, and people, a statement from the Iranian foreign minister after those strikes.
This is Tom in Fresno, California, Independent.
Good morning.
unidentified
Good morning, John.
Look, I got three quick comments on the gamble.
If our president can attack a country without the approval of Congress and send our Navy into harm's way by spending God knows how much time keeping the straits of Hormuz open with three battle groups, how do we keep China from invading Taiwan?
And the second is, can we supply Ukraine and our forces, Israel, all at the same time?
And the third, is American and its citizens ready for war and all that comes with going to war?
World War II and what Americans had to go without.
Tom, in Fresno, California, you mentioned war without congressional authorization, a concern raised by Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, yesterday on CBS's Face the Nation.
Congress needs to authorize a war against Iran, this Trump war against Iran.
We have not.
Congress should be consulted with it.
We were not.
And Congress needs to be notified, not after the fact, but in advance.
We were not.
That's why I've filed a war powers resolution that will ripen and be brought to a vote on the floor of the Senate this week.
Senator Schumer is working with Leader Thun to make that happen.
The United States should not be in an offensive war against Iran without a vote of Congress.
The Constitution is completely clear on it.
And I am so disappointed that the president has acted so prematurely.
The Foreign Minister of Israel said Friday night that its own bombing campaign had set the Iranian nuclear program back, quote, at least two or three years, close quote.
There was no urgency that suggested while diplomatic talks were underway that the U.S. should take this unilateral action by President Trump's orders yesterday.
It's Susan Page in the pages of USA Today this morning writing about the War Powers Act and what it means for President Trump and Iran.
This is what she writes: for better or for worse, this will be Trump's war.
For one thing, he didn't seek the approval of Congress, which under the Constitution has the right to declare war, though the president does have broad authority to order the use of military force.
The War Powers Act passed after President Richard Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War requires presidents to notify Congress and limits the length of deployments.
These will be the elements of the debate ahead in echoes of the Iraq war.
How serious was the Iranian nuclear threat, and how will voters weigh the stakes and the costs?
Susan Page writing in the pages of today's USA Today.
This is Deepak out of California, Independent.
Good morning.
What should be the U.S. goal when it comes to Iran?
unidentified
Well, we are trying to change every country's religion.
We're trying to make everyone Jewish or Christian.
I think we should change our constitution, not a freedom of religion, just Jewish and Christian.
So, in response to Pete Hedsis, what took my breath away when I heard the report was that the United States Air Force bombed three nuclear facilities in Iran.
That is a level of, that's not some normal military act that our Air Force would bomb three.
The impact, the consequences of that.
Right now, they're damaged.
They don't know if radiation is leaking.
It could be years before they understand is the groundwater affected.
The impact of this to not just Iran, but to the region and to the world could be catastrophic.
You don't do that.
I mean, I thought that there was a code of treaties of nations, that there are some things that are off limits.
And the U.S. military, I tell you, I'm so disappointed.
General Raven Kane, I mean, come on.
I just want to understand: is there no limits now to what the code of honor for military, for the U.S. military, what is that line that they will and will not cross?
Iran, let's assume Ira's nuclear program is set back for two, three years.
Well, if we go on on a regime change, that is another ballgame.
Iranians now are much more united than ever.
We saw it.
People, Iranians are very nationalistic.
They don't like the government, but they don't want to be told to set up a government somebody else wants for them.
So let them leave them alone.
Let Iranians solve their problem.
And we hope the Iran regime will not shoot back United States or Gulf countries and then start another conflict.
They should behave and let them give time for the Iranian people to sort out their problem.
I don't want a regime change because regime change, we have seen it in Iraq, in Libya, wherever we go, regime change brings a disaster for the United States.
So I hope Iranians will learn.
I know it's a sovereignty issue, but you don't want to lose your country as a whole.
You are defeated, but let's calm down and let them sort out their problem.
We should not go on hitting back and forth and that will bring a disaster because the Gulf will be engulfed in flames.
Because I know that they can hit the Saudi and Emirates targets, the oil and refinery, they can destroy it.
I think that the course, which is a very difficult decision and difficult one to take, was almost the only best option for the president to remove the threat, which at almost every chance, the threat was pronounced by the Khomeini.
So by isolating and removing those three main targets, plus the other ones previous, they have basically minimized, if not removed, that threat.
At this point, hopefully dialogue with Iranians and their partners, Russia, China, will hopefully lead to something that will be non-combative.
If that's the goal, if non-combative and de-escalating is the goal, what did you think about Donald Trump's true social post yesterday talking about regime change in Iran?
unidentified
I did not see that.
I thought the speech that he made in the evening, excuse me for not remembering what evening it was.
It's not politically correct to use the term regime change, but if the current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again, why wouldn't there be a regime change?
That was from the President of the United States yesterday afternoon.
unidentified
Okay.
So I think that most parties, and I'm going to use basically all of the Middle East, would like to see a change in the governance of Iran.
They would probably like something more on the democratic side as opposed to the theocratic side because the theocratic side has been so combative, so difficult to work with for the last four decades.
It is up to the Iranian people, which I think what most entities in the Middle East, especially Israel, with America's help, is trying to create the position where the Iranian people could hopefully replace the theocratic government.
Mike, if the Iranian people somehow decided to rise up en masse and try to replace the regime in charge of Iran, should the United States actively help those people if and when they do take the streets?
unidentified
You know what?
That I have not given that any consideration way above my pay grade.
I don't know enough about it to even comment on that, to be honest.
I'd like to say first, there's a price to be paid for incompetence and stupidity, and we're going to find out what that is.
The president's multi-million dollar birthday parade was a failure.
It was an embarrassment.
And this was him redeeming himself, using our military for a big PR move, because everything he does is about his brand and preserving his brand.
He sees the military as his personal corporation, his corporate empire that he's turned our government into.
And how would you feel if your son or daughter was stationed in the Gulf right now?
You know, we have military might.
We have a very brave and competent service members who unfortunately are at the mercy of this incompetent administration and his bumbling staff, including Pete Henson and JD Vance.
It's embarrassing that the vice president would make a statement that we are at war with a nuclear program, not the country of Iran.
Catherine, on Americans in the Gulf, the numbers, according to the Washington Times, about 40,000 American military personnel are currently stationed across the Middle East.
unidentified
Yeah, and 20,000 of them are floating out there on ships.
And you can bet it won't be his family or their lives in the Gulf.
No, Trump's sons are busy launching their new cell phone brand.
They won't be out there.
And the idea that the president thinks Iran will come to the negotiating table after this, that just shows his ignorance of their culture.
And finally, you know, how does the president, who's bitten here tearing down our democracy, going around Congress every chance he gets, doing away with Miranda rights, doing away with due process, the blah, doing away with asking Congress before you attack another country.
Kentucky Congressman's Impact00:15:21
unidentified
And he's claiming that he's going to make Iran great again.
Do you think he's going to go over there with a bunch of baseball caps with make Iran great again?
I mean, that shows you how out of touch, it's really frightening this president is.
You heard from Mitch McConnell, the former Republican leader, the senator, say it was a bad week for the isolationists.
He was talking about Tucker Carlson and he was talking about Steve Bannon.
Do you think that the president is making a choice here or is he trying to have it both ways?
Both saying, I'm going to please the hawks of the party by bombing, but then I'm going to say I want a peace deal and make the isolationists happy by saying, you know, I'm not committing to anything more than one and done.
Kentucky Republican Congressman Thomas Massey on Face the Nation yesterday, and that appearance appears to have struck a nerve with the president.
It was about five hours, four hours later that President Trump took to Truth Social for an extended post focused specifically on Thomas Massey.
This is part of that post.
Congressman Thomas Massey of Kentucky is not MAGA, even though he likes to say he is.
Actually, MAGA doesn't want him, doesn't know him, and doesn't respect him.
He is a negative force who almost always votes no, no matter how good something may be.
He's a simple-minded grandstander who thinks it's good politics for Iran to have the highest level nuclear weapon while at the same time yelling death to America at every chance they get.
It goes on.
Iran has killed and maimed thousands of Americans and even took over the American embassy in Tehran under the Carter administration.
We had a spectacular military success yesterday taking the bomb right out of their hands and they would use it if they could.
But as usual, and despite all of the praise and accolades received, this lightweight congressman is against what was so brilliantly achieved last night in Iran.
Massey is a weak, ineffective, and votes no on virtually everything put before him.
And that's just about half of the post from President Trump on Truth Social.
You can go to his page if you want to read the full post.
But it was Thomas Massey who then took to X and responded to the Truth Social post saying that the president declared so much war on me today, it should require an act of Congress.
Thomas Massey yesterday, and that wasn't his only post yesterday, in terms of the president talking about potential regime change in Iran.
Thomas Massey also posted this at about 5.35 p.m. Eastern yesterday, saying it's not America first, folks.
The exchanges between Thomas Massey and Donald Trump were looking for your exchanges this morning as we ask you simply what should be the U.S. goal when it comes to Iran.
This is Eileen out of New Jersey, Republican.
Good morning.
unidentified
I just want to tell you that I back Trump all the way and Rubio and Band and Hedge because I think that we need to do this.
And I think you should sit there as an American and back them too instead of having all your newspapers that are negative and Democrats that are always negative.
I need about two minutes here because this is a real deep subject.
First of all, we're giving them an ultimatum like I see an old Western movie where the bad guys come in and they want to get their brother prisoner out of the prison.
And they tell the town marshal, if you don't release them, we're going to come in and kill everybody in the town and burn down your town.
Now, this is the ultimatum we gave to Iran.
Now, how the hell did you accept that as a condition of, well, you don't want to accept peace?
So we got to start thinking.
Now, go back a little bit more.
The United States has been meddling with Iran ever since we installed the shawl.
Okay?
We keep meddling and meddling.
And these people also don't have a centralized rock-to-banking system.
All the Arabs that we destroyed had no central banking system by the Rothschilds.
So, what are we doing here for Israel?
We're establishing the United States of Israel for the entire Middle East.
And there's something else.
Why is it that we forget if there was a country between those two, Iran or Israel, who attacked the United States?
In 1967, Israel and their commandos attacked the U.S. liberty.
Did we forget that?
They killed 34 sailors and they wiped out about 172, what do you call it?
They destroyed.
And when the Sixth Fleet wanted to leave to come to their aid, President Johnson said, no, no, no, you go back.
And I have kudos to the Trump administration for keeping this particular operation as quiet as possible so that it would be a success.
My thought is: certainly, you know, in the past, we've had so many times administration there would be leaks about certain things.
And I just wanted to make this one comment: that loose lips sink ships and the fact that they were able to keep this operation quiet until after the fact.
What did you think about the statement from the press secretary and from the Trump administration about a decision would be made in two weeks when it came to what the Trump administration would do?
And that has since been acknowledged as not true that the Trump administration was actively making those plans to bomb Iran, a sort of a head fake, as you will, when it comes to the military operation side of this.
unidentified
I would concur in that this was planned well in advance.
You don't have an operation bringing the Navy, the Air Force, and all the military personnel together within a short period of time.
This was pre-planned, and the exact date was probably not established until Trump had the wherewithal to say, now is the day, now is the time.
Iran has had their opportunity.
They refuse to acknowledge any opportunity to advance peace.
So, George, when you say loose lip sinks ships, I imagine then you are okay when it comes to the lack of a pre-strike heads up to Congress informing Congress about what the intention was here.
unidentified
For sure, for sure.
Personally, when you have 400 people in Congress and you know past administrations, leaks get out.
And if you don't know who to trust, you have to do what's necessary.
This is what the Congress say: You know, we don't even know at this point in time whether the nuclear material, the highly enriched uranium, was actually still at Fordo or at Natan's, right?
This raid was signaled many days in advance.
It's not inconceivable that the Iranians, not being dumb people, might have put this stuff on a truck and taken it elsewhere, in which case we just, you know, closed a bunch of, you know, tunnels in a mountain.
So it's way too early to tell what the actual effect on the nuclear program is.
And of course, it's way too early to tell how this plays out, right?
I mean, we've seen this movie before.
Every conflict in the Middle East has its senator, Tom Cottons, who promised us mushroom clouds.
In the Iraq war, it was Condoleezza Rice promising us a mushroom cloud.
Jim Himes, yesterday on the Sunday shows, talking about Iraq and the Iraq war and the consequences of that war when it comes to what's happening today.
That was the exact topic that Peggy Noonan, in her column in the Wall Street Journal, took up late last week.
This was before the attack actually took place on Saturday night.
This is the headline of her piece: Iraq's Shadow Over the Iran Debate.
Many Republicans felt they'd been fooled back in 2003 and they are far less trusting of the government today.
Peggy Noonan writing before the attack was carried out.
This is Lee in Lynnbrook, New York, Independent.
Good morning.
Lee, you with us?
Then we head out to Long Island.
Steve, Democrat, good morning.
unidentified
Yeah, good morning there.
I just want to say we've come full circle.
We started off by overthrowing the government in 1953.
We sold chemical weapons to Iraq so they could bomb them.
And now we're taking them out again.
We've been duped by Israel for so long.
There wasn't any chance Iraq was going to bomb us.
I mean, Iran was going to bomb us.
Or even them.
I mean, Israel has a couple of hundred nuclear warheads.
We have probably thousands of them.
I mean, and we would have rained down on them pretty quick.
If that's true, Steve, if that's actively happening, do you think that's a good thing?
unidentified
No, I don't, because they're going to put in someone like the Shah last time, who was a brutal dictator and killed people and robbed and did everything else.
They're hoping real hard that there is no blowback and that everything falls into place.
Personally, I think it was a publicity stunt because his numbers aren't doing too good and everything else with the economy, immigration.
Dr. Raid was a bust.
I mean, we got the, you know, towards the end of Bush's administration, we found spies or double agents in the intelligence community in Washington, D.C., who were falsifying information about how strong Iran was.
I mean, as a woman said earlier, if you're a neocon, if you're a Dick Cheney, you are really happy today.
It was yesterday that Iran's foreign minister, he was in Turkey reacting to the U.S. strikes against his country.
This is yesterday.
unidentified
The Islamic Republic of Iran calls on the Security Council to convene an emergency session to unequivocally condemn the criminal act of aggression by the United States against Iran and to hold the administration in Washington accountable for its violations of fundamental principles of United Nations Charter and of norms of international law.
The responsibility of the IAEA and its Director General, who through evidence by us in favor of warmongering parties paved the way for the current violence and bloodshed, is now clearer than ever.
We call on the IAEA Board of Governors to immediately convene and carry out its legal responsibility in response to the dangerous U.S. attack on Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities, all of which have been under the agency's full safeguards and monitoring.
The world must not forget that it was the United States which, in the midst of a process to forge a diplomatic outcome, betrayed diplomacy by supporting the genocidal Israeli regime's launch of an illegal war of aggression on the Iranian nation.
Not content with such malain actions, the United States itself has now also opted for a dangerous military operation and aggression against the people of Iran.
In doing so, the U.S. administration holds sole and full responsibility for the consequences of its actions, including the Islamic Republic of Iran's right to self-defense under the principles of the United Charter.
In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its security interests and people.
This morning on the Washington Journal, we're asking you what should be the U.S. goal now when it comes to Iran in the wake of these strikes on Saturday.
We want to hear from you on phone lines for Republicans, Democrats, Independents.
About 15 minutes left in this segment, though we'll have plenty of time today to get your phone calls throughout our program.
Okay, I just wanted to say, let's stop with the hypocrisy.
People want to say Congress should have approved this.
Presidents And Impeachable Offenses00:15:46
unidentified
Congress did not approve when President Obama droned three American citizens, bombed a wedding, and now everyone wants to scream that Congress didn't approve Trump.
Well, you know, Congress hasn't really approved anything.
Nobody ever goes to Congress anymore because the presidents know that Congress isn't going to do what they want them to do.
So let's just stop with the hypocrisy.
If it was okay for President Obama to go and skirt around Congress to bomb three countries, American citizens, and a wedding, let's not overreact that President Trump took out three nuclear sites.
He did not bomb the people of Iran, unlike the predecessor.
So here's what Marjorie Taylor Green had to say in a very long post on her ex-feed.
It ended up being close to 640 words.
We'll just read a couple graphs from it.
It begins by saying, here's my thoughts on bombing Iran.
I don't know anyone in America who has been the victim of a crime or killed by Iran, but I know many people who have been murdered or have been victims of crime committed by criminally illegal aliens or murdered by cartel and Chinese fentanyl and drugs.
Almost everyone in our country can relate to that fact.
However, America has not dropped bunker busters on the cartel's sophisticated drug tunnels, launched tomahawk missiles on massive cartels poisoning poisonous drug operations or gone to war against the cartel's international terrorist network.
It goes on from there, but she says later in the very long post, I can support President Trump and his great administration on many of the things that they are doing while disagreeing on bombing Iran and getting involved in a hot war that Israel started.
That's not disloyalty.
Critical thinking and having my own opinion is the most American thing ever.
Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene.
This is Gilbert in Ohio Independent.
Good morning.
unidentified
Hi, good morning.
I'd just like to make a comment.
I was glad that they did that all quietly so the news media nor the Democrats, Republicans, and what I call the swamp get involved with it.
Or you'd be talking for the next six months.
This is just going to be another write-up or another conversation and that another police action.
Since World War II, we haven't won anything.
We've been involved as a police action in North Korea, Vietnam, you name it.
It's just been a big police action.
Are we always going to be just the big policemen of the United States of America?
You might be interested in reading David Ignatius' column.
Here it is as it's printed today in the Washington Post.
Welcome to the world's slipperiest slope.
He begins by saying, despite his talk after the raid of seeking a peaceful diplomatic settlement with Iran, Trump has marched America onto the slipperiest slope in the world.
Three previous presidents considered striking Iranian nuclear sites, but none did so.
That's because no American military campaign in the region has turned out well, dating back to the 1980s.
Near the end of his column, he writes, Democrats will protest why Trump didn't seek congressional authorization for the military attack, but a more urgent question for me is why Trump apparently chose to believe Israeli intelligence over America's own.
Trump sparred with reporters over the issue on Friday when one asked, What intelligence do you have that Iran's building a nuclear weapon?
Your intelligence community said that they have no evidence.
Trump answered, Well, then my intelligence community is wrong.
On what basis, David Ignatius asked, did President Trump make that remarkable statement?
Joe in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, Democrat, good morning.
unidentified
Good morning.
I want to thank you for this forum and for us to be able to express our opinions.
In these years, Trump seems to have a script.
He performs some outrage, then people clutch their pearls.
He then becomes a victim of himself, and then he goes after the victims.
I just wish that the people would not let Trump become, let him become, let himself become a victim and move forward with that.
And there are people that I would hope that they realize that the outrage is a scam.
Trump likes money.
Everything he does is money.
He'll put, he'll, with one hand, here's the outrage.
This political garbage of you're a Democrat, you're a Republican, you're an Independent.
I'm an American, okay?
And what Trump just did is an impeachable offense.
You people need to wake up.
When Chernobyl went down, the uranium was only enriched for power.
And look what it did.
And now we have taken and bombed against not just, he didn't just not go to Congress.
He didn't go to the UN.
Everybody in the UN, most of the countries in the UN, are condemning us for his actions.
It states in the charter.
They broke the charter that says that we cannot bomb a nuclear installation anywhere in the world, anybody, because of the danger to all the countries around it when they release that uranium.
If it was at 60%, he could have killed everyone there.
This is Robert out of the Garden State of New Jersey, Democrat.
Good morning.
unidentified
Yes.
Well, I must say, first of all, I actually supported a lot of Donald Trump's policies, and I was an independent and kind of crossed the aisle in order to support him last election because of what one of the people who was joining his administration was Tulsi Gabbard.
And I truly believed at the time that he was going to be a president of peace.
And I have to say, I think he should be impeached.
Democrats, if you're listening, this is an impeachable offense.
This is something that this man should be impeached over.
I didn't agree with it when Obama did it.
I didn't agree with it when Bush did it.
Congress is the power that represents the people of all states in the United States, and that's where the power of war should be decided, not by presidents on their own, and especially not by intelligence gathered from Israel.
The other caller was right.
B people aren't dropping dead in Iran.
It looks like these nuclear sites are leaking.
So the target wasn't even hit.
We just bombed Iran.
I think that they flew those over Iran as a target.
They wanted them to get hit to draw us into war on behalf of Israel, who's losing right now when they started this war against Iran.
Robert, come back to Tulsi Gabbard and her performance in the first six months of the second Trump administration, and what you think happened here in terms of her relationship with Donald Trump, in terms of the intelligence community, and him openly disagreeing with her assessment of where Iran was when it came to a nuclear missile.
unidentified
I think that she's fighting for her pension.
I think that he, I mean, listen to what he said.
I don't care what she says.
The intelligence was clear.
Iran does not have weapons-grade uranium to process a nuclear bomb.
She said that.
But now she's going along with it just like they all do.
You know, this is what happens.
Every business knows it.
You know, this CYA, everyone knows what that stands for.
You said you voted for Donald Trump because he brought Tulsi Gabbard into his administration?
unidentified
Yes.
Yes, I did.
And I think it's a disgrace.
I think she should have resigned.
I think she should have resigned out of this, and she should have voiced her disgust of this to the American people.
I think this is absolutely disgusting.
I crossed the aisle.
Sure did she.
She used to be a Democrat as well.
I thought that Trump would have been a peace president despite all I saw in Gaza.
And I don't think that this is going to be a win for the country with all the money that we're going to spend in this and all the people who could possibly die, especially in the region.
Good morning, and thank you for your program, John.
You're my favorite next to Greta.
Anyway, I want to go on and say how proud I am of President Trump and the military.
I've served in the military, and I'm just so impressed with that airstrike.
Now he needs to follow it up once we've shown them what we can do.
Now he needs to make them an offer they can't refuse.
Because tell them the next time we have to do this, we're going to take out their oil refinery, which, as you pointed out earlier, is how they support themselves.
I'm just trying to say that, first of all, while Trump is over there worrying about what trying to regulate and being a bully of somebody else's crunch, he needs to be worrying about what's going on here.
What's going on here?
What are he doing to us?
Now, he didn't start a war.
First of all, a killer is a killer.
Now, them Iran people, he thinks like he didn't already declare the war.
Like, we ain't got nothing to do with that.
Why is he over here trying to regulate somebody else's?
Like, leave them people alone.
Let them regulate their own.
Like, stay out of it.
You need to be worried about what's going on in America while you're trying to take from the poor and put it in your pocket.
And I ain't trying to be funny or nothing like that.
Like, you did that to the Capitol.
Look what you did down there.
I don't try.
I would have never.
I didn't vote for him.
No, I sure didn't.
But the people that did vote for him, look what he did to them.
They all losing their jobs.
The former people, all of that.
And they voted for him.
They stood up 10 toes down for them.
Went to the Capitol and disecrated that and all that.
So I can't understand why he's over there worried about what's going over there.
He needs to be worried about what's going on over here.
Last caller in this first segment of the Washington Journal.
But there's plenty more time this morning to continue to talk about the U.S. strikes on Iran.
Up next, we'll be joined by Independent Veterans of America CEO and an Iraq War veteran, Paul Rykoff.
We'll talk about his take on the U.S. military action against Iran, and we'll be right back.
unidentified
This week on the C-SPAN networks, the House and Senate are in session.
The House will consider several bills aimed at reducing undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Members will also consider funding for military construction projects and the Veterans Affairs Department as the first of 12 federal spending bills for 2026.
The Senate continues to vote on President Trump's executive nominations and may consider Republicans' tax and spending cuts bill if it is ready for floor action.
C-SPAN continues live coverage of Cabinet Secretary's budget hearings.
New Normal Engagements00:11:06
unidentified
On Monday, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before a House Appropriations Subcommittee.
Tuesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifies before a House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell will testify before two committee hearings on the Federal Reserve's semi-annual monetary policy report, first on Tuesday before the House Financial Services Committee and then on Wednesday before the Senate Banking Committee.
Wednesday, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vogt, testifies before the Senate Appropriations Committee on President Trump's $9.4 billion rescission package request.
Watch live this week on the C-SPAN networks or on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app.
Also, head over to C-SPAN.org for scheduling information or to watch live or on demand anytime.
c-span democracy unfiltered it's a story from the 1920s 30s and 40s The book by Claire Hoffman is called Sister Center, Miraculous Life and Mysterious Disappearance of Amy Semple McPherson.
FSG, the publisher, further emphasizes that the story is, quote, the dramatic rise, disappearance, and near fall of a woman called Sister Amy, who changed the world.
Author Claire Hoffman, who has a master's in religion from the University of Chicago, says Amy Semple McPherson may not be known to many today, but she was a global star at the inception of global media.
unidentified
Claire Hoffman with her book, Sister Center, The Miraculous Life and Mysterious Disappearance of Amy Semple McPherson.
On this episode of Book Notes Plus with our host Brian Lamb.
BookNotes Plus is available on the C-SPAN Now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Well, that's an old adage that I think is true, especially in times like this where the president hasn't had a conversation with Congress or really the American people.
I'm somebody who served in Iraq.
We can all remember times like Vietnam.
And I think what we need most of all to remember is that our sons and daughters, young men and women in uniform, are in harm's way.
And anytime you commit them in harm's way, I would argue whether it's for strikes in Iran or even deploying them into the streets of Los Angeles, you need to get the country behind them.
You need to talk to the American people.
You need to try to get bipartisan support because when things drag on, if they go sideways or even if they go well, you want the country behind those young men and women.
And when they're not, that creates a very divisive, very politicized environment.
And that's what we had before these Iran strikes even happened, with the deployment of National Guard troops in an unprecedented way into California, with the activation now of the Marines in California, active duty in three other states.
Trump has been blowing through the guardrails of the norms of how the president's supposed to have an open and honest conversation with the American people before we go to conflict, war, whatever they want to call it.
And that hasn't happened here.
And I think over time in American history and over multiple military engagements, it doesn't turn out well often.
I mean, this is another area of deep water that we haven't been in before.
I mean, again, if I were counseling the president, if I had my drothers, the conversation that he had after the strike where he laid out what was the threat in his view, what the plan was, what the next steps were, that should have happened beforehand.
He could have also counseled with the Gang of Eight, brought in a bipartisan group of leaders in Congress to lay out at least the scope of what he was considering.
Of course, you don't have to share operational details and secure information, but having that conversation up front, I think, would have set him and others up for success.
But this is our new normal, especially after 9-11.
I'm coming to you from New York, where just a couple blocks away I was activated for 9-11 at ground zero.
After 9-11, we got sent to Afghanistan, we got sent to Iraq, and there was no declaration of war.
There was no formal conversation and commitment on behalf of the Congress and the American people, as I believe the Constitution and our country was intended.
So it's become, unfortunately, I think, a new normal after 9-11 with the expanded use of the AUMF, with engagements around the world.
The country's kind of gotten used to forever war.
And while folks may be tuning out at times over the last decade or so, our men and women have been continuing to be in conflict.
There have been strikes by the Houthis.
There are other engagements in other countries around the world.
And frankly, most Americans don't even know they're happening.
So every time we have an engagement like this, a high-emotion strike point, I think it's an important point for Americans of all backgrounds to reflect and talk about how we engage in conflict and how we can do a better job of it and how we can be more transparent with the American people.
Does Congress, there's been obviously individual members who have been very vocal saying that they want this responsibility, that the president has to come to them and seek authorization.
But do you think the majority of the 535 members of the House and Senate want this on their heads?
I mean, what's interesting is the pushes recently to repeal the AUMF have come from bipartisan post-9-11 veterans, you know, folks who served in my time who said, you know, this has gone on for too long.
Congress has abdicated their responsibility.
They're derelict in their duty.
They need to step in here.
And I would argue, no matter what party you're from, or if you're an independent like me and most Americans at this point, you have a duty as an elected leader to flex the power of Congress, to hold the president accountable, to have a conversation, and most of all, to represent your constituents.
Some folks watching right now may support this action.
Many don't.
But their elected leaders didn't even get a say.
And when the president circumvents Congress and Congress abdicates that responsibility, that's not only bad for our democracy, it's bad for our military.
It's bad for our men and women in uniform.
It's bad for our allies.
It's bad for our international standing.
And we are coming into this Monday, John, with some very, very deep waters.
We think it can't get deeper, but almost every day we've got a new national security issue that is unprecedented and drags us into deeper and more unprecedented waters.
I think what we don't know is if this operation was successful, if it was the right thing to do.
I think we do know now that it was done the wrong way because the president didn't engage Congress, didn't engage the American people, didn't get any authority, didn't even have real counsel with the American people.
So I think we're starting out on the wrong foot because of the way he decided to execute this mission.
We're going to probably debate this over the next couple of days.
There's also going to be classified information that we don't have that the military and the Pentagon has.
But I think we're also entering another new normal, John, which is important to emphasize.
The world doesn't wait for America anymore.
The world doesn't have to wait for Donald Trump.
They don't have to wait for the American military.
And that's what Netanyahu and Israel have done here.
It was clear that they were going to proceed with this operation, whether America was on board or not.
Trump jumped in late, and now in some ways he's playing kind of public policy catch up.
But I think we have to also appreciate that the Israelis don't have to ask for our permission.
And they've made it clear that they're going to pursue any nuke elements inside Iran until they're eliminated.
Whether they can get other allies around the world to support that or not, I don't think they're holding out for that.
They're clear that they're going to move forward, especially when missiles are falling on Tel Aviv.
And that's also a reflection of our different global standing.
And frankly, I think the challenges we have with President Trump where some folks don't trust him, some folks don't trust our intelligence leaders, and they're going to move forward whether America supports them or not.
You know, I think it's an important time to explain this mission to the American people.
I've worked with veterans for over 20 years.
We've been advocates, and I've been on your program and others, as we fought for a new GI bill, for an improved VA, to improve care for suicide, expand care for women veterans.
Most recently, we helped lead the expansion of support for veterans exposed to toxins like Agent Orange and burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And there's been really a 20-year movement of veterans who want to step up to lead in this country in different ways.
But most of them aren't Democrats or Republicans.
They're really frustrated, and I think sometimes outraged by the partisanship that dominates our country.
And there's no finer example than right now what's happening in America every single day.
They want to continue to serve.
They want to lead for this country.
They want to put country over politics, but they don't want to pick a party.
And there wasn't really an organization focused on that.
So we created one.
We've had a wide support from folks like Ken Birds and Admiral Mike Mullen, Yemi Mobilate, who's an independent mayor of Colorado Springs, in creating the support for these young men and women who want to run for office, whether it's for school board all the way up to U.S. Senate.
We founded the organization on Independence Day last year.
We ran 11 candidates, all independents, from Senate all the way down to school board.
We had four victories, and that was really our test case.
Now we've got over 300 men and women who are independent veterans who want to run for public office.
We want to help them.
We want to help support them.
We want to help them train, train them, and want to help them win.
Because right now, if you want to run as an independent, not as a Republican or a Democrat, it's pretty lonely.
But our men and women in uniform are up for hard fights.
They've done it before.
And most of all, John, they want to continue to serve.
So I think it's in the best interest of all Americans.
All three of those call lines, I think, should support our efforts at IVA to help elect more independent veterans.
Because especially right now, as we're talking about Iran, we're talking about deployment of National Guard troops.
We need veterans who understand the cost of war.
But we also need folks that are politically independent, who aren't aligned to a party but put their country first.
My question is: since they close the strait, or at least the Iranian parliament has decided to close the strait, do you think that Iran will strike that physically, or do you think they would try to cripple us economically?
And also, my last question is: do you think that perhaps D D has influenced Trump and has him in his, you know, under his control and that anything else that happens to Israel that we'll also be involved with because D D is also talking to Trump.
You know, I think what we really have to recognize, you know, and I think we sometimes forget is war goes sideways, right?
It's easy to start war, it's hard to stop it.
I would anticipate, and I know the folks in the Pentagon who are planning or anticipating all contingencies, I think it's important to underscore the Iranian proxies have been hitting Americans since I was in Iraq in 2004.
They were launching projectiles into Humvees and killing Americans when we had them in Iraq.
They've been firing on U.S. military bases in Syria and Iraq.
The Houthis have been lobbying attacks for years now.
So Iran is a bad actor here, and they are no friend of America.
Whether or not this strike is justified and effective is, I think, a different conversation, but we have to underscore that Iranians are trying to actively kill Americans before this happened.
I would be very surprised if they didn't escalate that now.
The strait is obviously an area of concern.
There's been a lot of reporting and talk about Iranian sleeper cells across the Middle East, across Europe, and across America even.
We're going to find out how real those are.
And there's another point that I want to underscore, John and Renee, that I think is really, really important.
I mean, we just got through this weekend of tremendous tension.
We got through last weekend's protest and the military parade in Washington, D.C., and there were very few security incidents.
That's a testament to our national security folks.
That's a testament to our intelligence folks, the FBI, local law enforcement, all the folks that are standing watch on buildings and tunnels and roadways.
They're not political.
And no matter who's president, no matter what's happening in Washington, those folks are keeping us safe.
And I think they've done a pretty miraculous job since 9-11 keeping us safe.
But right now, the threat level is going to be even higher.
And with regard to the relationship between Trump and Netanyahu, I'm not going to predict anything in that area.
I think those are two extremely unpredictable guys.
They are definitely aggressive in their national security posture and their deployment of military forces.
And they're also, you know, really cognizant of their domestic politics back home.
President Trump is now under tremendous pressure from within his own movement, within the MAGA movement, because he promised no wars.
We all know that.
That's not a partisan thing to say Trump promised no wars.
And now we've got a new war.
I do think we have to be really vigilant in holding public leaders accountable to their language use.
You know, I saw the vice president this weekend on television saying, well, it's not war.
You know, it feels like war to the people in Iran.
Feels like war to the people who are flying those planes and to our military forces around the world that are on guard.
So, whether you call it war or not, it's conflict, it's combat.
And I don't want to let politicians get away with semantics games at the expense of the truth and transparency, especially when it comes to American lives.
I'd just like to say that I'm a veteran from the United States Navy, and I really do resent a draft to represent me in Congress as president.
But what I'd really like to say is I don't think that we accomplished anything.
They said that we bombed the nuclear facilities, yet there's been no evidence that any radioactive material was even touched.
From what I understand, the Saudis have people doing radiological tests, and there has been no, if you blow up 800 pounds of radioactive material, there has to be some sort of radioactive waste, I would imagine.
And I haven't heard of anything like that.
And it makes me think that they bombed an empty place, that they moved to stuff, and there's no radiological evidence that they destroyed anything.
Look, I'm a guy who spent a year running around Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction.
I understand your skepticism.
And I think our generation of veterans, especially, understands that skepticism.
We remember the testimonies before the UN and the presentations of Yellow Cake.
I mean, some folks are young enough now not to have been born for that time, but I think it's important for folks to know that the American people are right to be cynical.
They're right to question their leaders.
And there's no more important time to do it than in times of war.
That's patriotism, in my view.
Vigilance is the price of freedom, and we've all got to be vigilant right now and ask those tough questions.
And yeah, I mean, you've got to ask them even more so when the president's somebody who has not personally experienced the cost of war.
This is not like having a John McCain or a John Kerry or someone else up there who served in uniform.
That's why I've been so committed to trying to help elect veterans, because it is important to have that firsthand experience.
It's important to know what the costs of war are, to know what it's like to see your buddies wounded and die.
This is also a test for some of the younger generation of folks that serve in this cabinet.
The vice president is himself an Iraq war vet.
I mean, he's a Marine vet.
Pete Hegset is also, the SECTEF, is also a post-9-11 veteran.
Tulsi Gabbard is another one who's a post-9-11 veteran.
And although we disagree on politics oftentimes, I know two out of the three of them.
And I hope that they will answer this moment with their experience and educate the president and inform the president and speak from their heart and on behalf of the millions of men and women who can't be in that office.
We need those veterans and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Kane, to flex that experience and make sure the President fully understands the stakes of what we're facing here.
What are your thoughts on President Trump publicly contradicting Tulsi Gabbard and the state of that relationship between the Director of National Intelligence and the President?
I mean, anytime our leadership is not on the same page, our enemies are celebrating, John.
I mean, and I've underscored this throughout the last couple of months.
All this conflict, all this political division, the ability, the inability of America to work together with one voice has our enemies celebrating.
This is somebody he picked himself just a couple of months ago when Tulsi Gabbard was in Congress.
I worked with her pretty closely on issues like burn pits.
She led some bipartisan legislation.
That was a very different political iteration of Tulsi Gabbard.
She's gone, you know, left the Democratic Party, become an independent, and now joined Trump.
So look, if I was a betting person, I would say that the most likely person to be fired by Trump would be the person who used to be a Democrat.
But it's clear that they're not on the same page right now.
And part of what they should do, if they were doing the right thing, is show that they're on the same page, stand forward publicly, speak with one voice, and ensure that our intelligence community, especially, isn't caught in the middle of this political squabbling.
There were a lot of, I think, understandable reservations about Tulsi Gabbard in this role.
And if she's not on the same page with the Commander-in-Chief, those concerns are exacerbated.
We've also seen the Secretary of Defense under tremendous pressure from within folks that he hired.
There's been a lot of chaos at the Pentagon.
Anytime there's chaos, anytime there's division, they can try to clean it up on the airwaves or on Fox News.
But we can all see what's happening.
And when they're not united with one voice, we're less safe.
Look, I mean, even if you hate Donald Trump, it doesn't mean that this was necessarily the wrong move.
And that's the hard part about our politics right now.
It's no secret that Trump is unpopular in many parts of this country, but he still has a responsibility as commander-in-chief to do the right thing and keep us safe.
And everything that I'm saying to you right now, assuming it was a different president, a Democrat in office, I would be pretty consistent.
And I think most folks who consider themselves politically independent, who are focused on national security first, would also be consistent.
I think all presidents over the last two decades, especially, should have consulted with Congress, should have asked for authorization, should have had more transparent conversations with the American people so that it doesn't become a political chew toy for years later on cable news.
I mean, every major national security issue, if you think back to the withdrawal from Afghanistan, now the deployment of troops into LA and other places, it's become so divisive.
And I do think that Trump has to take responsibility for that.
He's politicized the military, in my view, in ways that's never been done before.
Most recently in his speech at Fort Bragg, where he asked the 82nd Airborne to boo the media and boo his political enemies.
We don't do that in America.
And I think that's very dangerous territory to drag our troops into.
And what I also deeply worry about is the popularity of our military.
After Vietnam, you know, the popularity of the military was not in a great place.
And my generation, the Vietnam vets and so many others, worked hard to get people to separate the war from the warriors.
We got this country to understand that the politics are separate from the warfighters.
This has blurred all that.
And I think it's really dragging down the popularity of our troops.
And I hope folks will remember that no matter what Trump says or any Democrat says, we've got to stand by our troops because they're not picking their battles.
They get sent where they go and they do their mission.
And they're the men and women that deserve our support, especially when they come home.
Because every time a president engages in a new round of warfare or combat, they never talk about what they're going to do at the VA.
They never talk about the plan to take care of these men and women when they come home.
Now, right now, thankfully, there have been no casualties.
There's no boots on the ground.
But I would encourage everybody, every time you hear a politician say they're going to deploy troops, even if it's to a place like Los Angeles, it doesn't come without risk.
And it should be complemented with a plan for veteran support at the VA and beyond.
So it's in the Washington Times and it's calling for expanded privatization.
That's where the Choice Act was a very skillfully labeled piece of legislation that increased the percentage of privatization that was happening at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
It came out of the Shinsecki scandal when Eric Shinsecki resigned during the Obama administration.
And John McCain and Bernie Sanders at that point hashed out a deal that became the Choice Act, which created the largest expansion of privatization at the VA since the VA was created and made into a federal agency.
And here's the reality, in my view.
It sounds good.
Yes, you know, send them out into the private market and they should have whatever options that they want.
But it doesn't always work out that way.
There's not always specialized care.
Sometimes better care is at the VA.
The execution of integrating all those different networks is hard.
And the truth is, most veterans rate the quality of their care at the VA pretty high.
Access is often a problem, and it's very, very irregular.
But there's often this battle between folks on the left who say that the VA is absolutely perfect and can do no wrong and should be a model for nationalized health care.
And there are folks on the other side that say we need to privatize the whole thing.
And I think, like so many other issues, the best course of action is probably somewhere in the middle.
It doesn't make for good talking points.
It doesn't allow politicians to dunk on each other in newspaper columns.
But the reality is we need an innovative VA that can blend those things and deliver veterans the best care possible.
And sometimes that's going to be VA, sometimes it's not.
But to assume that it's some kind of ideological purity test, I think is really fraught with danger.
And I think it also underscores how the VA has become politicized.
The VA, the House Veterans Affairs Committee, Senate Veterans Affairs Committee used to be an oasis of bipartisanship.
It used to be one place where Republicans and Democrats get along.
That's not true anymore.
Like every other part of Washington right now, unfortunately, it's become extremely partisan, too often ideologically driven.
And, you know, a group of folks, in this case, veterans, are caught in the middle.
I mean, these are deep waters, and I think there's a lot of manipulation happening, and we're not even talking about Putin and Ukraine and so many other elements that are on the national security chessboard here.
I think all presidents need the truth, especially around national security issues.
We don't know a lot about the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Kane.
He hasn't been a public figure.
He hasn't been as well known to members of Congress and the public as other nominees.
So I think he is really the lynchpin right here.
I mean, we know how important General Milley was in the first Trump administration.
Trump came in and replaced C.Q. Brown, and he's gone with Kane.
And I think Kane is maybe one of the most important links in the chain of our democracy right now.
He's got to stand up to Trump every single day when necessary.
He's got to be an advocate for our men and women in uniform.
And I personally would like to hear from him a lot more often.
The Pentagon used to do weekly press conferences.
The Pentagon would open the doors, and the Secretary of Defense every Friday, pretty much, would do a press conference.
You'd have access to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
We don't have that right now.
And I don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent.
I think you should have a problem with that.
Anytime men and women are being sent into harm's way and there's not an opportunity for the press to ask hard questions on behalf of the American people and also on behalf of the mothers and fathers who have their kids in uniform.
That is a very dangerous place we've come right now with the way this administration and the Secretary of Defense are approaching national security.
They didn't do press conferences while they were deploying troops into Los Angeles.
They didn't do press conferences when they sent the Marines in.
And that's a very basic part of the American expectation that I think is a healthy one.
And, you know, I think we'll probably go deeper into the deployment of troops in Los Angeles and now in three other states.
But especially as they're blowing through guardrails that have been designed to protect our military and protect our democracy, we need to hear from them every single day.
I think we should hear from the SECTAF or the area commander in Los Angeles, which is still ongoing every single day.
If you think back to the Gulf War, where you'd have General Schwartzkopf and others would brief the American people, here's a graph.
Let me tell you what happened on the battlefield today.
We should get that every day from these areas of operation, especially in the places where they're deploying U.S. troops on U.S. soil.
About 25 minutes left with Paul Rykoff this morning.
I did want to note, and it's news to you as well, Mr. Rykoff, that we're hearing that the Press Secretary, Carolyn Levitt, is expected to come out to the camera that's positioned on the White House lawn and speak to reporters sometime in the next couple minutes.
We will take that live and then come back and get your reaction to it and finish our conversation when that does happen.
So we'll monitor that camera as we continue to hear from callers with Paul Rykoff.
It's the Independent Veterans of America, Independent Veteransofamerica.org, and his podcast as well, the Independent Americans podcast.
You can get wherever you get your podcasts.
And this is Ron out of New Hampshire and Independent.
Go ahead.
unidentified
Yeah, thank you for taking my call.
I want to remind everyone that a nuclear power plant that generates electricity competes with oil and gas because oil and gas would normally be used to produce that electricity.
All of these wars are oil wars.
Iran, Iraq, the Gaza Strip, Afghanistan, they're all oil wars.
Right now, Iran is creating a bunch of nuclear power plants that compete with oil and gas.
The Gaza Strip, that war broke out just months after the Palestinians got approval to begin developing the Gaza Marine gas field.
Afghanistan, Russia, and the U.S. take turns attacking Afghanistan to keep their huge oil reserves off the market.
I mean, we've seen that most recently with the so-called minerals deal in Ukraine.
I think it's really important for folks to understand, especially in the context of that, that for the most part, when Americans have stood on the side of freedom, the only thing we've asked for is a place to bury our dead.
And in my view, that's how it should be.
I have a problem with the minerals deal because I just don't think we should be in a position where it seems like we're doing a quid pro quo.
I believe we should stand with Ukraine because they're fighting for freedom and they're fighting against the bad guys in Russia who are abducting children and raping people and committing war crimes.
But I think we're in a place where America has to constantly explain ourselves.
If the president doesn't say we're not there for the oil, we're not there for the resources, and sometimes even says the opposite, I think that undermines our national security priorities.
It undermines the global trust in America.
And it undermines kind of the soul of what it means to be American.
We shouldn't be asking for anything to do the right thing.
And that's where so many generations of Americans have stood on the front lines in defense of freedom without asking for anything except a place to bury their dead.
Oh, I wrote this back in 2006 to try to give people an understanding of what it was like to be on the ground in Iraq.
I was an infantry rifle platoon leader.
I think I was on C-SPAN to talk about it at least once or a few times.
And I was one of the earlier versions of first-person accounts.
When I think Americans were still trying to understand what it was like on the ground, I think maybe most of all what I tell you is that some of the stories of war are eternal.
All the way back to the Romans.
I mean, the commitment and the cost of war is exceptional.
And I think that sometimes in America we can be removed from that, especially this time where we've got an all-volunteer military and there's no draft and less than one half of 1% of folks have served.
So for the most part, when folks watch this Iranian engagement this weekend, it wasn't their kids.
And I think that's a really important challenge and issue that America has never really fully faced in this modern age of warfare since 9-11.
We've got an all-volunteer military where very few folks serve and they serve over and over again and at great cost.
And most Americans live life uninterrupted.
And that's great for our military.
We've got an awesome, exceptionally professional military.
But I would argue it's not great for our democracy.
And now, you know, over 20 years after 9-11, we see those examples.
As you deploy folks in the Middle East and here at home, it's better for America when the military represents all of us.
And that's part of what I tried to communicate in Chasing Ghosts, just the complexity of the human beings.
The 38 men that I served with in Iraq, awesome dudes, and I love them all.
But also, you know, they came home to a country that wasn't ready to receive them.
And some of them, you know, over 20 years later, are doing well.
Some are not.
We've lost a couple friends to suicide.
We've had a couple folks that are wounded that are still struggling.
So I think, especially in times like this, it's easy to start war.
It's really hard to end it.
And the costs live on for generations.
It's not just the men and women who are in harm's way.
It's their families, it's their children, and it's the entire ecosystem that's around them.
We've got over a million now, and they span all across this country.
I think if I can, John, this is a really important time for our community because they continue to graduate from college.
One of the things I'm most proud of in our time at IAVA is we passed a new GI Bill, a bipartisan bill.
Folks may remember we had Senator Warren and Senator Webb, right?
We had a Democrat and a Republican working together to pass that GI bill, and we got it done in 2008.
And now, years later, we've had, I think, almost a million folks use it.
Some of their, it's been passed on to their kids.
But every time around May and June, I want to take a minute to celebrate the fact that the GI Bill works.
And there's a lot of incredible men and women who graduated this year, who've graduated over the last couple of years, who are going to grad school, they're doctors.
And often in my show and my work, I say, look for the helpers.
Times are tough right now.
Everybody who's watching knows that, especially.
And I think sometimes folks can feel down or lose hope.
And I take the line from Mr. Rogers: look for the helpers.
And I think the men and women who've served of all generations are often the helpers.
They're the ones who run in when others run out.
They're not just B-2 pilots, but they're ambulance drivers and they're teachers and they're little e-coaches.
And no matter what's happening in our politics, and especially when things are hard, they continue to step up.
And that's maybe the most important part of my work is advocating and reminding people that there are awesome leaders in this country.
And independent from our politics, they're serving and leading every single day in ways that don't end up on C-SPAN and don't end up in the newspapers.
And I want to salute them, especially this time of year.
Congratulations to all the veteran graduates who use the GI Bill, especially in their families and everybody who supported them.
The president's posture and our military posture has not changed.
The president was just simply raising a question that I think many people around the world are asking.
If the Iranian regime refuses to give up their nuclear program or engage in talks, we just took out their nuclear program on Saturday night, as you all know.
But if they refuse to engage in diplomacy moving forward, why shouldn't the Iranian people rise up against this brutal terrorist regime?
That's a question the president raised last night.
But as far as our military posture, it hasn't changed.
unidentified
What is the timetable the President has given Iran right now to come to the negotiating table?
On regime change, that question of if the president was supporting that idea of having Iraq Supreme Leader assassinated, he's now voting this idea of an idea that we'll consider.
Has there been any communications at all between the U.S. officials and the Iranians in the strength and any indication that they are open to negotiating?
The Secretary of Defense said yesterday there has been both public and private messages sent to the Iranians since the very successful operation on Saturday nights, and that remains the truth.
unidentified
Speaker of Hormuz, if Iran shuts down the Spanish Hormuz, is there a plan by the U.S. to add oil to the global market?
Salified administration is strategic patrol neighborhoods.
I can assure you the administration is actively and closely monitoring the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, and the Iranian regime would be foolish to make that decision.
Speaking with reporters on the north side of the White House as she's going in for her day, Paul Rykoff, just your immediate reaction to some of her statements there.
She was explaining the Truth Social post last night.
That was the first couple questions that she got on the president talking about the idea of regime change, saying that the president's posture has not changed.
Our military posture has not changed, saying he was raising the question, but that his posture has not changed.
Also, saying that he's closely monitoring the situation in the Strait of Hormuz and oil markets.
This is a very hot environment around the country and around the world, and we need him to be at his best and to lower the temperature, to de-escalate the situation whenever possible.
He can still be tough.
He can still be strong.
He can still stand with our military.
But I think he has to do everything possible to de-escalate the situation in the Middle East and especially here at home, you know, where we've still got U.S. troops on U.S. soil.
We've got protests happening.
We've got a lot of folks who are very concerned about the immigration raids and ICE.
He's got to bring the temperature down and not bring it up.
And the World War II Korean War veteran that we were just talking to before we went to that clip maybe probably has a lot of perspective on that.
But we need them to be more like the World War II veterans who were honorable and kind of quiet in their service, and they spoke softly and carried a big stick.
And thankfully, James, the World War II veteran, did stick around.
And I appreciate it, James.
Let me bring you back on the line.
Go ahead with your comment for Paul Rykoff.
unidentified
Okay, it's nice to speak to you this morning.
I'm a World War II veteran of 16 million.
Then I was called back to Korea in 1950 for a little session.
And I want to recall to the people of the United States of America that on the 7th Fleet in May the 14th of 1948, I was on the flagship of the USS Rochester, and Israel became a state.
And he said that this generation wouldn't pass.
And I just happen to have a nice little birthday coming tomorrow.
I'll be 96 years old.
And I want to tell you one thing.
God is still on the throne.
And we don't need to be worried.
He said there would be rumors of wars and earthquakes in diverse places.
And this is happening.
And I am waiting on the return of the Lord Jesus Christ, my Savior.
And that's about all I have to say.
Blessed be the States of America.
And you better not doubt because don't forget, Israel belongs to the Almighty.
Yeah, I mean, thank you for your leadership and your service, sir.
I mean, there's a reason why they call you all the greatest generation.
You know, you set the tone and help take this country to another level.
And unfortunately, there aren't enough of you around anymore.
And happy birthday to you, and all the best to you and your family on your 96.
And I think your wisdom is what we need in times like this.
And I actually posted a message about this on Memorial Day, especially that, you know, there aren't too many World War II vets left.
We've lost a lot of them.
They're in their 90s now and further.
And if there's one in your area, if there's one in your family, reach out to them.
And maybe most importantly, listen.
Hear their stories, learn their perspective.
Let them know that they're appreciated because a lot of them are also concerned about the state of this country right now.
But they can help us get through it.
Even in their later years, they have such tremendous wisdom and power.
And I think we need a lot more of that.
I wish the president would sit down with, you know, maybe a 90-plus-year-old World War II veteran every day and ask for their counsel because they've seen a lot.
Post-World War II, we had a lot of veterans who served in Congress, who worked up here on Capitol Hill.
I wonder what your thoughts are about the number of members of Congress who have military experience, who have served in the armed forces today, and what this new generation of veterans could contribute to that.
Well, unfortunately, it's dropped tremendously as a percentage of the overall Congress, right, as it has as a percentage of the overall country.
You know, I started doing this work back in 2004 and 2005, and I've been honored to work alongside Republicans and Democrats who are World War II veterans, Vietnam veterans, and everywhere in between.
I was honored to know folks like Bob Dole and then folks like Frank Lautenberg, you know, Jim Webb and John McCain and so many others in between.
And, you know, we continue to lose them.
Charlie Wrangell just passed here in New York City.
And if you haven't heard his Korean War stories, I was honored to hear them in person.
And he basically said, if I ever live through this, I'm going to dedicate the rest of my life to helping others and to America.
And I think that's the spirit that was really here for so many generations, and especially post-World War II.
They had dinner together.
Their family spent time together because they had that common experience of serving in the military.
And that's not there as much anymore.
So, I think we need more veterans.
That's why we created Independent Veterans of America, so we could get more veterans in Congress, but also at the local levels.
I mean, there's an exciting opportunity for local mayors, for community leaders, for governors.
We think we'll have at least six members, six candidates for the Senate next year who will be independent veterans.
We could see the same number of governors.
Maybe one day we'll see a candidate for president.
I think that's very exciting because sometimes they are still proxies for the parties.
I think too often that's the case where they can be as extreme as any other politicians, but oftentimes they're also moderate and they work together.
And you see that on issues ranging from the AUMF to burn pits to VA reform to now, I'm sure, even on Iran.
We look to the bipartisanship that happens, especially among post-9/11 vets.
I've said this before.
I think we'll have a couple presidents that come out of our generation.
We've already got the first vice president now in JD Vance, and Tim Walsh was also a post-9-11 veteran himself, so he had both VP candidates who had served post-9/11.
I think you're going to see a lot more of them.
And I think that'll be a good thing for America, whether or not they win.
But as they serve in the cabinet, as they continue to serve across government, I think that's going to be a good thing for our military, but more importantly, a good thing for America.
And just to put a cap on this conversation, for our visual learners, I want to show them this chart from the Pew Research Center.
In the early 1970s, a full three-quarters of the House and 81% of the Senate had military experience, were veterans.
By the year 2023, it was just 18% of the House and 17% of the Senate that had military experience were veterans.
Again, the Pew Research Center numbers.
Less than 10 minutes left with Paul Rykoff this morning.
Want to get more of your calls.
DeAndre in Baltimore, Republican.
Thanks for waiting.
unidentified
Thank you for taking my call.
So I'll make it quick here because I'm at work to the gentleman that's here as a guest.
Let me make it quick: three points.
The first one: why is the president ignoring the reports and info provided by the director of national intelligence and all the intelligence agencies stating that there are no nuclear weapons being built in Iran since 2003?
Second thing, how does it benefit us going forward with diplomacy in the Middle East and our military when we literally helped install in Syria a former leader of ISIS in Jabat al-Nasr, al-Julani?
And third, how can we get justice?
Because you're here from behind veterans.
How can we get justice for the 34 U.S. sailors who were killed and the 173 who were injured on June 8th, 1967?
It was the only time that the U.S. military was attacked and never responded.
And that was done by our greatest ally.
So that was the three things I just wanted you to point out for me.
Yeah, yeah, I mean, I think, you know, maybe most importantly, in the context of what we're discussing now around Iran and intelligence, this is not happening in a vacuum.
This is the unfortunate downstream impact of the Iraq war conversation, where Americans, in my view, were misled.
The information was inaccurate.
And when I got sent to Iraq in 2004 in my book, the first line I wrote was: George Bush had better be F and right, because we were getting sent into Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction.
If they weren't there, I thought that the impact for America would be devastating for decades, if not generations.
That's true.
I think that's where we are now.
I think Americans are right to question the intelligence, their rights to question their commander-in-chief, and he's got to go above and beyond to make a case and explain it.
And that's what he's, I'm sure, trying to do today and throughout the next couple of days.
And Congress needs to step up.
They need to flex their muscle.
They need to flex their authority and in a bipartisan way.
I think that too often the Republicans have been taking us off a cliff and the Democrats can't stop them.
And I think that's why more and more Americans are becoming political independents.
60% of young people are declaring themselves as political independents or unaffiliated because they don't trust either party.
And that's a reality right now that I think comes to a head most urgently around issues of national security.
Americans, understandably, don't trust elected leaders.
They don't trust the Republican and Democratic Party.
And they're looking for leaders that can transcend that.
Traditionally, they have come from the military community.
Those are the people that have had the highest level of trust.
That trust has been unfortunately eroded because of the politicization and because of this confluence of events.
But I still think it's a place that we can look to for truth, for justice, for patriotism, for real patriotism.
And I think, frankly, John, and to all of us, we're going to find out who steps up.
We need the real patriots to step up right now and put country over party, be brave.
And they're doing it at tremendous risk to themselves and their families when political attacks and assassinations are happening at an increased rate.
This is a dangerous new environment we're walking into, but we need our leaders to lead the way and lead with truth and honesty, and most of all, real patriotism, not jingoism or party patriotism, but the true patriotism this country was founded and built on.
Less than five minutes left with Mr. Rykoff this morning.
Doug in Toronto, Ohio, writes in as we've been having this conversation: I tuned in as you were saying that the president must get the people behind him before going to war.
You seem to suggest that the USA should be run on popular decision.
Social media has given every American a voice, whether informed or not.
We have to trust that our leaders make the most prudent decisions, and in the freest nation on earth, we can choose to either agree or disagree with those decisions, ending by saying, God bless America.
I don't think social media, voicing yourself on social media, is enough.
And I don't think it's truly holding people accountable.
You know, everyone can decide whether or not they trust in their leaders, but I'm always going to be skeptical.
I'm always going to be vigilant.
I'm always going to try to hold them accountable because that's how I was taught by my World War II grandfather, who spent three years in the South Pacific after immigrating to this country.
So that's how I was taught, and I think that's how many people were taught.
I'm not going to buy anything from any politician without some level of scrutiny.
And I don't think enough folks are involved.
I don't think enough folks are voting.
There are plenty of folks who are watching every minute of this coverage and watching C-SPAN every day, but there are more and more folks that are tuned out.
They've been driven away by the divisiveness of our politics.
They've been driven away by the violence and the energy, the negative energy that too often surrounds our politics.
And we need more folks involved.
We need more accountability.
And we need more folks to run.
That's a big reason why we started IVA as well, is because a lot of veterans have been fired recently.
The federal government has fired tens of thousands of veterans.
I think that that is something that's not getting enough attention.
Doge and Elon Musk and ultimately the president has fired tens of thousands of veterans.
They didn't give them an off-ramp.
They didn't give them a jobs program.
They didn't hire them at Tesla.
And many of them are now trying to figure out what's next.
And to the ones that are listening, we hope you consider running for office.
You can go to our website or you can explore other options, but we need you.
Many of you are the most patriotic, and some of them have been purged.
One last call for you, and it's on that line for current and former military Doug in South Dakota.
Thanks for waiting.
unidentified
Yes, good morning, Paul.
I wanted to comment a couple things on the Fort Bragg situation.
I was there 65 years ago, serving with the 82nd Airborne Division, and I remember President Kennedy showing up.
He had something to do with the Green Berets at that time.
But secondly, he did a Jeep tour around the trade field, dust, you name it.
And there was no political speeches that I can remember whatsoever.
Anyway, then fast forward, I have a grandson who's a captain in the artillery unit in a guard outfit, and he's presently in Port Polk, Louisiana, preparing to ship out.
Honestly, I'd tell him to talk to you because I think you do probably know what to tell him.
And he needs to have a conversation with you.
And I tell this of all young men and women who are considering joining the military.
You know, don't just talk to your recruiter.
Don't just read the books and watch the movies.
Sit down with men and women who've gone down that road because they're going to give you the no BS.
They're going to give you the ground truth.
They're going to tell you what you really need to think about.
And I think your story about Kennedy at Bragg is one I've heard before.
And I think what's absolutely true is that presidents of both parties have not crossed the lines that President Trump crossed at Fort Bragg.
This hasn't been now.
I've been critical of Obama at times, of Trump in the past, of Biden, anytime they crossed that line and put troops behind them in a way that could be even considered political.
But what we saw at Fort Bragg was way beyond anything we've seen in modern American history since the creation of the all-volunteer military.
It is a dangerous place for the president to be using them as political props to encourage them to engage in political conversation.
Every unit commander knows the rules.
If those young troops didn't know the rules, they're going to find them out now.
And I think it's a very important wall that exists between our politics and our military.
And when those two things get blurred, it's bad for everybody.
So I'm grateful that, you know, folks like your grandson there are stepping up and continuing to serve.
We need them.
But we also, we all need to advocate for them because they're getting sent to some of the hardest missions possible.
I think Iraq and Afghanistan were very hard, very complex, very daunting.
But to get sent into Los Angeles in between ICE agents and protesters, that's a whole new level of danger and risk and difficulty.
And it's not what many of them signed up for.
So we didn't get a chance to talk enough about that.
But I do think what's happening in Los Angeles is an abuse of power.
I think it's an overreach.
Even if it's not declared illegal, I don't think it's smart for the president to deploy U.S. troops in this way.
I was a member of the New York Army National Guard.
I was deployed here in New York stateside, but that was for 9-11.
That was after we were struck and they knocked down the towers in 9-11 not far from here.
That was, in my view, a warranted response to deploy the National Guard to secure New York City, to secure Washington.
This is not 9-11.
A group of rioters that the LAPD, for the most part, had under control, I think, is a different situation.
And I would encourage everybody to be vigilant in watching those deployments, asking hard questions, because now they've also deployed federal troops in three other states, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida, I believe.
And that could be expanded over the next couple weeks at a rate that most Americans aren't paying attention to.
You know, whether, especially for folks who are Second Amendment folks, who are always concerned about government overreach, this, in my view, is what government overreach looks like.
We've got American troops on U.S. soil, and we have not had enough of a conversation with Congress and with the American people about what that really means for everyone, but especially for those young men and women who are out there holding a rifle in the sun right now.
This is also a massive victory for democracy and for freedom.
unidentified
There are many ways to listen to C-SPAN radio anytime, anywhere.
In the Washington, D.C. area, listen on 90.1 FM.
Use our free C-SPAN Now app or go online to C-SPAN.org/slash radio on SiriusXM Radio on channel 455, the TuneIn app, and on your smart speaker by simply saying play C-SPAN Radio.
Hear our live call-in program, Washington Journal, daily at 7 a.m. Eastern.
Listen to House and Senate proceedings, committee hearings, news conferences, and other public affairs events live throughout the day.
And for the best way to hear what's happening in Washington with fast-paced reports, live interviews, and analysis of the day.
Catch Washington today, weekdays of 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern.
Listen to C-SPAN programs on C-SPAN Radio anytime, anywhere.
In about 50 minutes left here before the end of our program, in that time, we are returning to the question that we began with this morning on the Washington Journal.
What should be the U.S. goal when it comes to Iran now that the U.S. has carried out military strikes in that country?
Two days after those strikes and with Congress headed back to Washington today, the House and Senate are both in.
What is the message coming out of the White House today?
unidentified
The message from the White House is that this was an incredibly successful strike.
The United States and President Trump specifically himself have touted the role that not only those B-2 bomber pilots, but also the hundreds of other aircraft pilots who took part in this operation.
And look, President Trump has been simple.
He does not want to see Iran retaliate against either Israel or U.S. forces, and he is adamant that this regime cannot obtain a nuclear weapon.
If they take actions towards either of those aims, I would expect to see additional U.S. military actions here in the coming week.
And C-SPAN viewers saw and heard Carolyn Levitt's comments this morning when she spoke to reporters.
It was about 20 minutes ago there at the White House saying that the president's posture has not changed despite the true social post last night in which he was talking about the potential for regime change in Iran.
She said our military posture has not changed, said that she was closely monitoring, that the White House is closely monitoring the Straits of Hormuz and Iran's actions.
Are you expecting we're going to hear more from President Trump himself today?
unidentified
It's certainly a possibility.
Look, the president has been hunkered down this past week.
He loves to speak to us in the Oval Office, but given the fluidity of this situation, I do not expect him to speak right now.
Again, he gave that speech 10 p.m. on Saturday night.
That was a sort of a victory moment in the crosshair.
And again, we do not know just how Iran will interact right now.
If there is some dealing behind the scenes, perhaps we get an optimistic, positive President Trump in the afternoon.
But right now, they want to see where the chips fall.
At this point, what do we know about President Trump's schedule today?
The Vice President, Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio.
What are you expecting at the White House today?
unidentified
Well, they're keeping things clean.
And like you mentioned earlier today, Caroline Levitt already spoke to reporters.
The president will convene his National Security Council.
Again, we do not know if that will be in the Situation Room or perhaps in the cabinet room.
But again, the schedule is light.
We know VP Vance flew out to California late last week, but I imagine all of the top players are going to stay close to home here in D.C. to be able to react to any situation that might arise here in the next few hours.
And then how does this all change the calculus for the NATO summit that's kicking off in Brussels tomorrow, I believe?
And what will be the representation from the Trump administration there?
unidentified
As of right now, President Trump will travel to Belgium to attend the NATO summit.
Again, will this be like a G7 stop, a just stop in, and then a quick return back to Washington?
The president is slated to depart on Tuesday and return on Wednesday.
But as so far as potential for meetings with leaders on the fringes of the summit, whether it's Zelensky or other European leaders about this conflict in the Middle East, we do just not know right now, again, because of the fluidity of the situation.
And then finally, the House is back at noon Eastern time today.
The Senate returns at 4.30 p.m. this afternoon.
How does this weekend's events, the strikes in Iran, how will it impact the work of Congress in the days to come, especially when President Trump has been looking for the Senate to deliver a vote on the One Big Beautiful bill and hoping for passage of that legislation in the House and Senate by July 4th was what the original timeline was.
unidentified
I'm not so sure it actually changed the calculus that much, but does it make the White House and President Trump's job getting this bill through the Senate and back to the House with minimal changes any easier?
And we even heard from Caroline Levitt and Donald Trump over the weekend amidst these strikes in Iran.
They are pressuring Congress to pass this so-called one big beautiful bill.
And he still wants to see it on his desk by July 4th.
That's in just a little over two weeks.
And that's a tough timeline to meet right now.
Again, given concern from budget hawks and folks in the Senate about the overall scope and size of this tax incentive package.
Well, I am 100% behind Donald Trump and him putting people inside the United States because we don't know how many people, sleeper cells are out there on the streets.
We know how many are out there outright just trying to destroy our people in the United States.
He needs to put more people in the United States, in these cities, to protect the people.
That's what they're there for, to protect the people.
Wendy, you're saying you want more of a military presence in U.S. cities?
unidentified
Yes.
And what he can do to save Israel and save the world is just do some more flyovers and bum whatever needs to be bummed because they from what I saw they are very good at it in and out Wendy in Florida.
These are some of the headlines, and they are banner headlines today in the front pages of national newspapers, including the Washington Times, World on High Alert.
Midnight Hammer destroys Iran nuclear sites.
Tehran threatens to retaliate after U.S. strikes.
To the Washington Post this morning, U.S. claims limited strike met its goal to the front page of the New York Times.
U.S. claiming severe damage and warns Iran not to strike back.
And the Wall Street Journal this morning, the United States weighs the strike's damage in the country of Iran.
Nuclear program is likely set back, but the fate of enriched uranium is not clear, is the sub-headline there.
One more for you.
This is the New York Post front page this morning from Donald Trump's hometown in New York City.
Don't even think about it is the headline, A Chance to Remake the Middle East with Peace and Prosperity for All.
This is David Flemington, New Jersey, Independent.
Good morning.
unidentified
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
This, instead of looking like it does now with the catastrophic world consequences it presents, could have looked like Osiris in Syria, which was a surgical strike by Israel that took out a Syrian nuclear plant.
Instead, what happened was during President Obama's administration, President Obama continued to Benjamin Netanyahu not to strike the nuclear production facilities in Iran.
And Israel kept saying they're going deeper and deeper and deeper, and we won't have anything to take them out.
The irony of that is no one disrespected President Obama more than Benjamin Netanyahu.
He went around him to the Congress.
So why on earth, the one time when Netanyahu should have been aggressive, he wasn't, nobody will know.
In the wake of these strikes that happened on Saturday, less than 48 hours ago.
What's our goal right now?
unidentified
What should the U.S. goal be?
Our goal, our goal right now, our goal right now is to stand in the middle of a situation, kind of like a nuclear reaction that's taking on a speed that really nobody can control.
We've ignited something in Iran that's going to have absolutely uncontrollable consequences.
People in Israel are going to continue to be hit.
Innocent people in Iran will continue to be hit.
Innocent people in America will continue to be hit.
And it was all avoidable.
It's uncontrollable now.
It's like a nuclear reaction itself.
It's taken on a speed of its own.
And I'm not sure what we can do.
It's going to push us to do things that are absolutely, unbelievably inhumane.
And it's going to result in terrible consequences for Israel.
David, you should perhaps take a look at the op-ed in today's New York Times.
It's by W.J. Hennigan.
We have no idea where this war will go is that headline.
He writes that Mr. Trump's decision holds the potential to transform not only his presidency, but U.S. standing overseas as well.
He was elected to the White House on a platform of turning away from foreign conflicts with nebulous goals.
A little more than seven months later, he's brought the U.S. military directly into conflict with Iran in an act of war that was meticulously planned and detailed, but entirely unauthorized by Congress.
W.J. Hennigan writes that the world's eyes now shift to the American troops inside Iran's range of fire via missiles and drones and other kinds of attack.
A response may not come for days.
He notes that when Mr. Trump ordered the drone strike in January 2020 that killed Major General Qasim Suleimani, who led Iran's powerful Quds force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, it was five days before Iran launched salvos of missile strikes on U.S. forces stationed in bases in neighboring Iraq.
That column is in today's New York Times, if you want to read it.
This is Jean in Pennsylvania, Republican.
Good morning.
unidentified
Good morning.
I am the widow of a 30-year military officer who always said, know your enemy.
And I would like to get someone across to President Trump that you cannot trust the Arabs.
I don't know if this is man-made or science, but all I know is it doesn't make sense that in January we've got wildfires in California and South Carolina at the same time.
Lake Meade is drying up, so they're building more ramps so people can get the boats in.
About 30 minutes left in our program this morning.
It's 202-748-8001 for Republicans.
202-748-8000 for Democrats.
Independents, 202-748-8002.
The question we're asking in the wake of the strikes on Saturday: what should the U.S. goal be when it comes to Iran at this point?
House is back in today at noon Eastern Time.
The Senate returns at 4.30 p.m.
You can watch them here on C-SPAN and C-SPAN 2, respectively.
Some of our other programming today that you can see on the C-SPAN networks this afternoon, House Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill will discuss his committee's agenda for the banking system and housing and insurance.
It's hosted by the Brookings Institution.
That's live at 1:30 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 2.
You can also watch on the C-SPAN Now mobile app.
2 p.m. Eastern today, Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies on the President's 2026 budget request for the Justice Department, a budget that includes nearly $3 billion in proposed cuts.
She's also likely to face questions about the President's response to the immigration protest in Los Angeles.
We'll be carrying that before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on C-SPAN 3 today at 2 p.m. Eastern.
You can also watch that on C-SPAN.org and the free C-SPAN Now mobile app.
Hope you stay with us all day and especially for the next half hour or so and hope you call in.
Eric did out of Tucson, Arizona, Independent.
Good morning.
unidentified
Good morning, sir.
I've called in before, and I've always said Trump lost playing war when he was a child.
Growing up, he continued to be a loser.
But meanwhile, back at the ranch, let's talk about the UN.
What is the UN doing?
What is the UN for?
They're not doing anything.
Trump needs to go to the UN and get scolded by the countries of the world because this guy is not there.
Hit List Bombings00:05:06
unidentified
He is not there.
And we get what we paid for, and money talks and bullshit walks.
I only call when you're hosting the show, but the only goal that I see for the United States with Iran is no goal.
Leave them alone.
Trump had no right to bomb there.
This has been part of the hit list that's been going on now for quite some time.
Wesley Clark even blurted it out by mistake that there were seven, eight countries on a hit list and Iran was at the end.
So this has been a plan in the making for a long time, and Trump is a criminal.
They're all criminals.
Biden didn't help this when he continued to facilitate and fund the genocide in Gaza, and it just lit it on fire.
And now we're going to have to suffer the consequences of irresponsible warmongering and the complete destruction of the American people's lives and everybody on the globe.
And the bottom line is that until we stop funding Israel, stop funding these wars, we will never have health care.
We will never have anything because they're just a bloated military.
How do we know that when they bombed the nuclear sites, how do we know that we hit the target that the targets, that those facilities, that they weren't empty before they hit them?
I mean, how do we know that they didn't hit an empty facility, that they didn't move the stuff before they hit them?
Iran's Sentiment Before Strikes00:15:26
unidentified
You know, before they bombed them.
You know, if the rather, you know, they need to get some spies in there.
It was about 50 minutes ago that White House Press Secretary Carolyn Levitt came out to speak with reporters on the north grounds of the White House.
One of the questions she was asked was about President Trump's truth social post late yesterday, the one in which he said it's not politically correct to use the term regime change.
But if the current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again, why wouldn't there be a regime change?
It's that post that generated several questions this morning.
unidentified
Caroline, when the president is floating the idea of regime change, how does he believe that should be accomplished through the Iranians, the Israelis, or the Americans?
The president's posture and our military posture has not changed.
The president was just simply raising a question that I think many people around the world are asking.
If the Iranian regime refuses to give up their nuclear program or engage in talks, we just took out their nuclear program on Saturday night, as you all know.
But if they refuse to engage in diplomacy moving forward, why shouldn't the Iranian people rise up against this brutal terrorist regime?
That's a question the president raised last night.
But as far as our military posture, it hasn't changed.
unidentified
Caroline, what is the timetable the president has given Iran right now to come to the negotiating table?
One regime change that question of if the president was supporting that idea of having Iraq Supreme Leader assassinated, he's now voting this idea of change.
The Secretary of Defense said yesterday there has been both public and private messages sent to the Iranians since the very successful operation on Saturday nights, and that remains the truth.
unidentified
Speaker of Hormuz, if Iran shuts down the Strand of Hormuz, is there a plan by the U.S. to add oil to the global market?
Saw the Biden administration's strategic petroleum release.
I can assure you the administration is actively and closely monitoring the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, and the Iranian regime would be foolish to make that decision.
Caroline Levitt, speaking with reporters, that was about 50 minutes ago from the White House lawn.
And this morning on the Washington Journal, we've been asking you this question: What should the U.S. goal be now in the wake of these strikes when it comes to Iran?
Phone lines for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents on your screen.
About 25 minutes or so left to take your phone calls.
Sharon, thanks for waiting in Hanover, Pennsylvania.
Line for Democrats.
Good morning.
unidentified
Good morning.
Thank you.
I agree with some commentators who say that, number one, this action may have been partly to divert attention from our own country's problems mounting every day.
Number two, this unethical president may go so far as to have included the goal to actually trigger rogue attacks from Iran into Europe, maybe America, whatever.
This would bolster his constant claim of emergency powers, emergency situations, with God knows what fallout for any of us.
So I preferred negotiations.
I can't blame Iran for worrying when we have gone into Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan with bloodshed as a result.
If you don't know your history, you're bound to repeat it.
Less than 100 years ago, we had the Nazis slaughtering millions of Jews, and no one did anything.
The Islamophases in Iran, the people in Iran are great.
Remember that they tried to have a green revolution.
Obama didn't back them.
He backed the Malos.
So we have a real, I mean, we have a situation here where Sunday morning quarterbacks can't really do anything about it.
If we do nothing, it's because we don't want to offend anybody, we don't want to do this, we don't want to do that, we just want to negotiate with the people who are exactly maniacs.
We're going to wake up one day with a nuclear bomb in Israel and in New York City, Los Angeles, and Dallas and Chicago.
You cannot deal with these people because they're complete maniacs.
But, John, support comes in a lot of different ways.
Are you talking about giving words of encouragement via social media posts?
Are you talking about supplying people if they have to?
unidentified
All you can cut off the financial, I mean, bleed the mullahs dry where they don't have any money to do anything, make the country basically go bankrupt until they cede power and give it back to the people.
The Iranian people are great.
It's these crazy people who are just throwing people off the roof.
And remember, they funded October 7th massacre against Israel.
So, yeah, we need to promote every way we can the change in regime, get the people, get Iran back to the people, the great people, and get rid of these people who want to kill us in Israel before it's too late.
Because if you don't have it, is there a point at which you would be okay with American boots on the ground?
unidentified
no we don't need american boots on the ground we need to give the people there's currently pilots in the sky Well, pilots in the sky, but that's different.
But if we decapitate the leadership, then it gives the people a much better chance to do something we want to do.
Remember, we rose up against the English.
We didn't say much of a chance, but we did it, right?
So you have to give the people a chance to do what's right for them and not, you know, be against Trump so bad with TDS that he won't want to do anything until these people blow us up.
So yeah, support the people, support democracy as much as we can.
That's what we're supposed to do anyway.
We're supposed to be a beacon of the world for democracy.
I wish we could have this on at 9 o'clock in the morning instead of 4 o'clock.
But, you know, I see that Donald Trump and Netanyahu, who are twins, they both have criminal convictions in the countries.
And I believe this is another diversion by Donald Trump to take the focus off of him and his administrations and their ultimate failures across the time that he's been in office, not only this term, but the first term as well.
We are grateful to have Paul Rykoff on this morning.
He spoke some very, very clear messages to veterans and to the American people.
I was Prime Minister Netanyahu late Saturday after the U.S. strikes on Iran.
We're asking you this morning on the Washington Journal, this Monday morning, as Congress returns to town, what should the U.S. goal be when it comes to Iran?
This is Mohamed out of Los Angeles, Democrat.
Good morning.
unidentified
Good morning.
Thank you.
I am Iranian, and I just returned from Iran back to the state.
I was there for a month.
I came back to Los Angeles about three weeks ago.
And so I'm very lucky, first of all, to be back here to the U.S. Where did you go?
I was in Isfahan, where there was a nuclear site that they bombed.
And I also was in Tabriz that they've excessively bombed there because Tabriz is a very industrial city.
I was there because I have family there in Tehran.
And then I'm in the Iranian rug business.
You cannot really import anything from Iran right now due to the U.S. sanctions.
But Isfahan and Tabriz, they make really nice rugs there.
So I was there visiting factories, but I couldn't make any purchases.
So first of all, I would like for people to know that prior to the Israel attack on Iran, the sentiment already in Iran when I was there for a month was negative towards Israel as a result of what has happened in Gaza for the last two and a half years.
And especially what the Iranian news agency ARNA shows on TV every night, the brainwashing that they do.
They solely blame Israel for what has happened in Gaza.
So in that respect, Iranian sentiment, what I could understand there, what I saw, was very negative towards Israel.
So at this point, I've been in touch with family since the war began, and that sentiment has increased.
So even though Mohamed, just to clarify, since the war began, you're talking about the Israeli strikes on Iran.
Or are you talking about since are you referring to the United States and Iran being in a state of war?
unidentified
Since the Israel attack, the negative sentiment towards Iran has increased.
You know, 80% of the population is against this regime.
But at this time, because of the Israeli attack, even when I talk to family, they're on defense.
They're really, even though they're against the regime and they hope for a regime change, but at the same time, they're not very happy about the fact that Israel is attacking Iran.
And I have to give kudos to Mossad of Israel that from eight months ago to a year ago, they had sent operatives into Iran.
They had sent parts for over 2,000 drones into Iran.
The drones were assembled in Tehran and in Isfahan and in other cities.
They hired workers to do these for them.
This is just amazing.
And I think this military operation, Rising Lion by Israel, will go down in history as one of the greatest military operations ever.
It'll be a case study.
Simultaneously, they killed nine Iranian scientists on the first day of the operation, five military generals.
But the thing that is very important, and I know Israel realizes this, and people are saying that we can't send boots to the ground, the Iranian, what is this?
This IRCG, you know, the Iranian Revolutionary Corps Guard, IRGC, they are extremely strong.
They have almost 200,000 active members and I think about 400,000 reservists.
They control banks.
They control what comes into Iran, what goes out of Iran.
It's like a mafia organization.
In order for a regime change to Iran, IRGC needs to be eliminated, which is a very, very huge task.
So the fact that people are saying that we shouldn't have bombed Iran, you know, I was 13 when we immigrated to the states in 1979 when the revolution happened.
Almost 47 years goes by, eight U.S. presidents since Jimmy Carter, and nothing done with Iran, just appeasing these mullahs, putting sanctions on them.
So, Mohamed, what are you saying that you, and thank you for letting us know about the people that you talked to who are there, but what are you saying that you want?
Are you saying you want a stepped-up bombing campaign targeting the Revolutionary Guard Corps as a way to allow the people to take to the streets without facing the teeth of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard?
Is it the United States that you think needs to do that bombing, or do you want Israel to step up its bombing campaign?
What do you want for our country?
unidentified
I think that Israel should do this.
The United States did what it had to do with those B-2 bunker buster bombs.
It has the GU-57s.
This is enough for the U.S. for now.
Let's see what happens.
And, you know, there's a lot of talk about the Shah's son going back to Iran.
I don't see it.
He doesn't have the infrastructure to do that.
It has to be somebody from within Iran who maybe has a military coup and will come and say, you know, hey, I'm peace-loving.
We're going to abandon our nuclear ambitions.
You know, India and Pakistan, if you guys remember, when they went nuclear back in the 90s, nobody's after Pakistan trying to destroy Pakistan's nuclear capabilities because they haven't said they want to obliterate Israel or any other nation.
So let's be, I don't like President Trump.
I did not vote for President Trump.
I used to be a Republican when Donald Trump became the Republican nominee 12 years ago.
I voted, I changed parties and I went to Democrat.
But in this instance, Donald Trump was right.
Status quo had to be over.
Something has to be done with these mullahs.
Enough negotiating, enough sanctioning the Iranian people.
I said, well, that's what they're hearing from state media over there.
unidentified
Yes.
And then when you, the other day, yesterday, when there was the news conference, when Pete Hegseth and the Joint Chief of Staff gave the assessment of the damage caused during the news conference at the Pentagon yesterday morning, which I watched on C-SPAN Live, you know, Hegseth said that the entire nuclear facility operations of Iran has been obliterated.
The president has said the same thing, but the chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff said that they need to do a battle assessment damage.
So I didn't hear it from him saying that they have completely eradicated Iran's nuclear capabilities.
And I think that's a very important question: whether the U.S. is going to have to do another round of bombing or did they get everything.
So the chairman left it open.
That's what I told them, my family also this morning.
Thanks for wanting to say that U.S. goal for Iran, keep on the track at the moment.
All my life, I've been living with the fear that, one, we're going to be blown up, that we will always be attacked by Iran for nuclear weapons.
Okay.
No one, no other president has had the guts to take care of the situation.
In cooperation with Israel, okay, one of our, if not the best allies that we have, has stepped up.
They did a flawless plan.
The problem that I see here is that the false narrative that goes out there, Schumer, Jeffries say that they didn't get notifies.
That is complete BS.
And if these folks don't get called to account, okay, that yes, they are filling in just as much bad information to people in the United States and the worldwide, saying we weren't told, we weren't told.
This is the statement from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
This was 9.29 p.m. Eastern after the strikes were announced.
Hakeem Jeffries saying, Donald Trump promised to bring peace to the Middle East.
He has failed to deliver on that promise.
The risk of war has now dramatically increased, and I pray for the safety of our troops in the region who have been put in harm's way.
He goes on to say, President Trump misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force, and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.
First, he says, the Trump administration bears the heavy burden of explaining to the American people why this military action was undertaken.
Second, Congress must be fully and immediately briefed in a classified setting.
And third, Donald Trump shoulders complete and total responsibility for any adverse consequences that flow from his unilateral military action, the statement from Hakeem Jeffries.
About five minutes left this morning.
We showed you some headlines from the U.S. papers.
I wanted to show you some headlines from international papers as well this morning.
It's the Gulf News with this headline based out of Dubai.
The headline there, U.S. strikes on Iran spark global pleas for diplomacy from the Daily Mail out of the United Kingdom.
Fears that the United Kingdom will now face Iran terror backlash is the headline there from a newspaper out of Barcelona, ARA.
The headline there translates to roughly, the U.S. joins Israel in the war against Iran.
The Fiji Times this morning is a headline there.
Now make peace, says Trump.
U.S. forces strike Iran nuclear sites.
And one more from the Edmonton Sun out of Canada.
Mideast Tinderbox is that headline.
This story making headlines around the world.
We've been getting your reaction and asking you this morning, what should be the U.S. goal on Iran in the wake of these strikes?
This is Alex in Alexandria, Virginia, Independent.
Good morning.
unidentified
Good morning.
I'm frankly surprised by a lot of these reactions.
I think that, you know, war should be avoided whenever possible.
However, I think a lot of this opposition to the American strikes is very short-sighted and very naive.
Let's not forget that Iran has been the foremost global sponsor of terrorism against the Western world as we know it.
Yes, the regime is horrible and oppressive, and the Iranian people deserve better.
But the bottom line is a nuclear Iran is just not an option.
It puts the entire Western world at risk.
So, what should our goal be?
I think that Donald Trump needs to get on his knees and start making amends with NATO.
I think there needs to be a unanimous opposition to Iran, support of the U.S. strikes, and a clear posture of this type of nuclear development and facilitation is unacceptable.
They won't be able to participate in the world economy as we know it unless they step back.
And if a regime change is the result, I think even better.
But as far as safety, I think that should be our number one security concern.
Let's take a clear stance against it with the entire Western world.
The goal of the U.S. in Iran is very simple: to make sure that they do not have a nuclear weapon.
You can't let a religious fanatic Muslim who thinks nothing of destroying people, beheading people, you can't let that fella have a nuclear weapon because there's no idea what he would do with it.
So, no boots on the ground, no extended war, but they will not have a nuclear weapon.