Elise Labbitt and callers dissect Trump’s overnight U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran, framing it as an undeclared war under the War Powers Act after killing senior IRGC commanders, including a false claim of Supreme Leader Khamenei’s death. Critics like Joanna accuse war crimes, while supporters like Ray demand decisive action against Iran’s nuclear progress—now weaponizing warheads but not yet ICBM-capable. Labbitt warns of asymmetric retaliation (cyberattacks, proxy strikes) and regional fallout, as Saudi Arabia and Israel exploit the chaos to weaken Iran’s proxies post-October 7th, while Trump’s "immunity" offer to IRGC members backfires amid skepticism over regime collapse without boots on the ground. The UN Security Council scrambles as the president’s predawn address bypasses Congress, echoing past interventionist missteps. [Automatically generated summary]
And that should really guide our moral compass to tell us that if there is any group of people who are targeting children, that can't be right.
Those people can't be moral.
They can't have the right mindset.
And I think this is very important where we come in as alternative media, as independent analysts to make ordinary people understand what is going on.
It's in full scale.
And welcome back to the program.
If you're just watching us, as you just heard from the president, the U.S. and Israel have begun massive strikes on Iran that started overnight.
Our time here in Washington.
It is ongoing now in Iran.
There have been retaliatory strikes against Israel and U.S. bases in the region.
And joining us to talk about that and to take your calls is Elise Labbitt.
She is a global affairs journalist and founder of the Cosmopolitics substack.
Elise, thank you for joining us today.
Just want to get your reaction real quick to the president's address.
Well, I think it is the kind of address in some ways that the American public and allies around the world were looking for.
There was a lot of rhetoric, a lot of tweets, a lot of threats about taking action against Iran.
But, you know, the argument for action is pretty clear, right?
Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism.
Iran is amassing a nuclear weapon.
They have long-range missiles.
They're a threat to the region.
They're a threat to allies and to U.S. security.
But I think the American people are accustomed to a debate before, you know, we're going to war with Iran.
This is not, you know, a little pinprick strike and this is done.
Do we know that at this point, though, Elise?
I mean, it could be a few strikes and then it's over.
You know, look, what do we call, what do we consider war, right?
Is war when we spend a long time bombing somebody?
Iran is already retaliating in the region against U.S. interests.
So war is, you know, two countries fighting one another, no matter, you know, we had a 12-day war in June.
So in the sense that the argument, and he made his case for why he struck Iran.
But I think what Americans want to know, and I think what's been kind of lacking is what's the strategy here?
What's the end game?
Is this just to destroy the nuclear arsenal that he said that we obliterated in June?
They did make a lot of damage.
Let's be clear.
There was a lot of damage, but clearly there was more work to be done.
Is the goal regime change?
Is the goal containment?
Is the goal just going after those nuclear missiles?
Each of those actions has specific risks and consequences and durations and resources that the U.S. needs to put in.
And I think this kind of reminds me a little bit of, you know, Raleigh.
He's got the USA hat.
He's, you know, really kind of trying to rally the American public and the troops behind this mission.
But what I think we also need to have is, you know, I would have liked to see him in the Oval Office.
This is a very somber decision.
It's the most serious decision a president could take to send military action against another country.
And he did, we can talk a little bit more about what he was saying about, you know, this is time for freedom for Iran, talking to the Iranian people.
So you did say, you know, you questioned, is regime change an objective here of the United States?
I mean, didn't he make that clear that this is time for the, and this is the only time for the Iranian people to take it.
It's time for the Iranian people to launch regime change.
He didn't say we're targeting, and he wasn't even talking really about the targets.
You've heard from Israeli officials a little bit more about the targets, and you see that they went after the Supreme Leader's compound.
U.S. sent Israel a pretty good intelligence.
He probably wasn't there, and they probably knew that, but still, it's a very symbolic gesture.
I think what they're trying to do is get rid of as many generals as they can so that it's hard for the Iranian military to respond.
Again, we could talk a little bit more about what the campaign could be, but he wasn't saying the United States is seeking to get rid of the Iranian regime like he did say, although it wasn't really regime change in Venezuela.
He said to the Iranian people, it's time for you to rise up, when we're done, take over your government.
We're prepping the battlefield for you.
Let's see how you respond.
This is the time for action for the Iranian people.
Not for us, necessarily.
And, you know, history shows that military action in strikes and drones and so forth is really not enough to get rid of a regime.
You're going to need boots on the ground.
And I think the president has been pretty clear that he doesn't want to put U.S. troops at risk here.
Now, there were supposed to be diplomatic talks with Iran on Monday, day after tomorrow.
I'm assuming those are off.
I mean, I think they're probably off, but we had heard in the days leading up to the talks and the strikes that the president could launch a little strike to, you know, get the motivate the Iranians, give them, you know, an incentive, the carrot and the stick.
I think the talks are probably off.
I think the president realized that the Iranians are not really serious here about negotiating an end to their nuclear program and along with Israel decided to make the decided to go for it.
I don't think this is about coercion.
I think it's more about deterrence and really eliminating the Iranian threat, which is something this president said he wants to do.
Well, Elise Labbitt is with us in the studio and we are taking your calls.
We will start with Charles, who's calling us from North Carolina on the independent line.
Hi, Charles.
Charles, are you there?
Yeah, I'm here.
First of all, I'd like to bring about the fact that according to the War Powers Act, the President has 60 days to do with the military whatever he wants.
He has to notify Congress after 48 hours.
And there's nothing they can legally do about that.
Now, he can also have it extended another 30 days after that to remove the troops safely.
But these people coming on and whining about why Congress doesn't do anything, it's because they can't.
They cannot legally do anything for 60 days.
All right, Charles, let's get a response.
Well, you know, Charles has a really good point.
You know, there's about what he could do and has to do, and then there's about what he should do.
And I think he did notify what they call the Gang of Eight, which are the senior leadership of both chambers and the intelligence, foreign affairs, military committee, you know, the relevant national security committees.
I think he did notify them.
But this goes back to what we were talking about earlier.
And, you know, Charles raises the War Powers Act.
Is this a war?
Is this a military campaign that's going to be done?
Or is he looking at an extended deployment of U.S. forces in the region?
So far, this president has not notified Congress, sought congressional approval.
And he's not alone.
I mean, not many people in this modern age do.
Roosevelt did before World War II.
Johnson did when he escalated in Vietnam.
President George W. Bush did when he was going to Iraq.
But President Obama, President Biden, President Trump have not really consulted with Congress in the way that I think Congress would like.
And I think this is not going to be enough for many members of Congress, including even the Republicans, I think, that are happy about.
I don't think anybody that understands the Iranian threat thinks that there's no cause for action against Iraq, but how you do it, how long you do it, consultation with Congress, again, what's the end game, what's the strategy.
So Charles makes a good point that Congress is limited about military action.
But if this is a long-term war, then maybe he should talk to Congress and have more consultations.
And I'm sure Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, and others will be on the Hill this week.
On the Republican line in Akron, New York, this is Michelle.
Hello.
Hi.
Where to start here?
I have a few comments because it's relevant, but I do support exactly what he's doing for various reasons.
First of all, I remember the Carter years, and I remember Terry Anderson coming home and us all waiting.
That was one thing.
And Terry Anderson was one of the ones that was captured.
It was horrible.
And I support people.
I don't mean to be all over the place.
I'm a little flustered.
First time calling.
It's morning.
It's also morning, Michelle.
Yeah, that's right, huh?
You're telling me, and I've been watching this up for a few hours to try to find out facts right from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
People keep wanting to attack him for everything, and he doesn't want to go any longer.
And I'm no Trump lover himself.
I do agree with the one caller, too, with civics that you said it should be taught more in school.
And, oh, God, I'm all over the place.
This is horrible.
And we had the Lackawanna Six here, which was a problem, which most of America doesn't know.
But I guess I'm just trying to say the most common Americans are only having today's view or listening to gossip and cherry-pick different facts and stuff like that.
My point is, I am a little bit savvy in civics and global stuff.
It's just not coming out right.
People don't understand that Russia is part of helping fund Ukraine, which is indirect with that, or Iran.
And they need to be put in their place.
It's not going to be a lengthy thing.
I really don't feel it's going to be because of the way it's already set up.
And everyone's making more out of everything than it is.
Netanyahu and all this money grabbing.
All right, Michelle.
Well, let's get to the point.
A lot to unpack, as Michelle said.
And she's right about the civics.
Like, there is a big movement now to increase civics and about the things we're talking about, like Charles said, or, you know, how does government work?
What are the powers of the Congress?
What are the powers of the executive?
And things like that.
I think that this president, more than most, has been very decisive about he doesn't make threats.
And if he says he wants to do something, generally he does it.
You know, there's a lot of talk about Trump chickens out.
But I think when he made pretty clear that he was going to go after the Iranians, and he's done it.
He hasn't gone after Vladimir Putin as of yet, but he has gotten much tougher and given the Ukrainian weapons that they want.
So I think a lot of people are going to be, I think the American people will be genuinely happy about this.
But again, I think they would like a little bit more than what they saw on TV.
It'll be interesting to see how the American public reacts.
Well, let's hear from Joanna Fresno, California, Democrat.
Good morning, Joanna.
Hi, how are you?
Good.
Well, I kind of got a few things to say on Iran.
You know, we need, in my opinion, we need the rural court to step in because I feel like a lot of things recently that Trump has done really constitute a lot of war crimes, you know.
And, you know, Congress, as far as the Republican Party, I don't feel that they're stepping in and stepping up and putting checks and balances on Trump.
I don't feel like they're taking their responsibility as part of Congress to tell and enforce their part of our Constitution.
I feel like it's whatever Trump says goes, and nobody is standing up to stop him.
You know, they're barely even starting to speak out.
But more so than that, I feel like the head of the state and the problem is our Supreme Court.
I feel like from the head down, we need to go and have an independent investigation on Roberts, Thomas, Barrett, Kavanaugh.
They're all in those Epstein files, but more so than that.
All right, Joanna, sticking with Iran, she mentioned war care.
I'll just say on the Supreme Court, just to kind of put that away, I mean, I think we saw that with the tariffs that, you know, and Kavanaugh as well, like, you know, I think this Supreme Court feels very strongly about executive power, but, you know, they just snapped him down on, you know, the tariffs.
So I don't think it's 100% that they're in, you know, a lot of people think that, you know, Trump tells them what to do and they do it.
I don't think that's 100% the case.
But on the Iran aspect and, you know, what she said, what Joanna says about, you know, world court, if you think he doesn't listen to Congress, you know, the ICC, I think when she means the World Court, the International Criminal Court, the U.S. is not party to the ICC.
It doesn't accept the legitimacy of it.
In fact, when you saw what they did with Israel in indicting Prime Minister Netanyahu, they launched sanctions against the court.
Several people of the court can't even come to the United States.
Father Figure's Influence00:04:20
So, I mean, I think, you know, we are where we are in terms of there are a lot of concerns about that the president is using extrajudicial power, abusive power.
And it's really up to, you know, Congress and the courts to that's why we have those checks and balances.
And I think we're starting to see a little bit more of that.
And as we move towards November, and members of the Republican Party get a little bit more kind of self-preservationist, if you will, and then after the midterms, I think there'll be a little bit more of the Congress holding him to account.
Here's an update from Idris Ali, a Reuters reporter, who says several senior Revolutionary Guards commanders and political officials have been killed in the U.S.-Israeli strikes.
What impact do you think that could have?
Well, I think it could have a lot of impact because don't forget they killed a lot in June.
And so what I think they're doing right now is they're going, they're shaping what they call shaping the battlefield, right?
They're launching a lot of strikes against commanders, against air defenses, against runways, all the stuff that the Iranians can fight back with and retaliate, including personnel, and including strategists like commanders.
And then they're going to assess how much damage did we do.
We're shaping the battlefield for further attacks.
It doesn't have to be long, but this could be a pretty significant attack.
You did see that the Iranians were ready with a response, right?
They went after the UAE where their bases in Qatar.
They're going after U.S. allies in the region where the U.S. has interests.
So they were ready.
They're also striking back against Israel, not significantly, and Israel has been able to intercept those.
But the goal for what's going on in this first day is for them to kind of open the door and break down the door and do as much damage as they can so that Iran can't come back and then go again.
Well, so somebody who is positioning himself to walk through that door is the former crown prince.
This is the eldest son of the last Europe right now.
In fact, yes, he is.
And what do we know about him and what kind of a leader could he be?
Would the Iranian people accept him as a leader?
Listen, I mean, he's a controversial figure and also because of him or because of his father.
Because of his father and the whole history behind the Shah's rule.
But what he has been is you've seen over the last many years, the Iranian people can rise up against their government, but there's no unifying figure in the opposition.
It's always kind of been leaderless, unorganized, headless.
And they've done a lot of, they've shown a lot of resistance to the regime, but there's never been this unifying figure.
It looks as if Reza Pahlavi can be that unifying bridge figure.
I don't think he's the future leader of Iran, Mimi.
But I do think he's someone that people can rally around in terms of this is someone that could get us to that next phase.
Kind of like it should have been Hamid Karzai ended up being the president of Afghanistan for quite a long time.
But I think that's how people saw Hamid Karzai after the war in Afghanistan.
He could take the Afghans from war to this next phase and help them rebuild.
And then, you know, Afghanistan was hopefully going to be a democracy.
We saw what that happened.
You know, a lot of people say that they like him.
A lot of people say that they don't.
But I do think he's seen as somebody that people can look to to see a future without this regime.
Everybody Feels Time Pressure00:06:22
And I just want to correct something.
I do think that he's in the United States.
I don't know where he is currently.
Well, he was exiled to the U.S. after leaving.
Oh, yes.
And also, I mean, listen, he, I think today he may be.
I mean, I know he's been in the United States.
Look, he's been at Mar-a-Lago.
He's met with a lot of U.S. officials.
I think he's met with Steve Witcoff.
And I don't know if he's met with Jared Kushner.
He's in with, you know, he's in with this administration.
I think it's possible that the administration looks to him if they're able to do something that the regime is toppled.
And again, I think it's going to be up to the Iranian people to topple the regime.
I don't think that the U.S. is going to do an Iraq-like occupation of Iran.
You're going to need troops and what we call boots on the ground for that.
I don't see that happening.
Let's talk to Ray in Illinois, Independent Line.
Hi, Ray.
You're on the air.
Hi.
Yeah.
I'm watching all this and everybody is saying, you know, we shouldn't do it.
We should do it.
I don't agree with a bunch of stuff Trump does, but this one I actually do.
Because if you put Iran on the border of the U.S. and they have the capability of putting a bomb somewhere, everybody, in my thinking, would say we can't let that happen.
So I am in total support of this.
Other things, no.
But we've been dealing with this for, what, 40, 50 years.
And sanctions, we all know, look at Putin.
We all know sanctions don't work.
They find ways around it, you know, negotiations.
Oh, this, this, this, and that, you know.
And this was a good call to me around the world that when our president or our government says something and says you have a limited time to do the right thing, now they know that you have a limited time, and if you don't do it, stuff like this happens, and stuff like this needs to happen.
I mean, we are the global peacekeepers, not Europe.
We are.
So, Elise, I just want to talk about the timing because, you know, Iranian negotiators are known to just stall and to use diplomacy as a way to stall so that they could advance their nuclear.
I will say that the Imani foreign minister and the Imanis were leading, kind of mediating the talks, was just meeting with the vice president yesterday in Washington.
And I think today he's feeling this is not a show of good faith.
But he was in the room and he knew the negotiations weren't going bad, going well.
I mean, Steve Witkoff said the other day, I don't know why the Iranians just don't capitulate.
I think there's a lack of understanding in this administration about the Iranians themselves and why they don't capitulate.
And why don't they?
I mean, what's the misunderstanding?
The regime's whole essence is about not capitulating to the United States, not capitulating to the great Satan.
It's regime survival.
Those are a little bit antithetical because if it's about regime survival, they would not want this.
But they also not capitulating to the United States is really ingrained in them.
And that's why I think the old Iran nuclear deal that the Obama administration negotiated in some ways was very artful because a negotiation is about giving each party something that lets them walk away feeling, okay, I got something here.
The Iranians got a lot of sanctions lifted.
They did destroy some of their nuclear material.
We don't know what would have happened if President Trump didn't walk away from that deal.
It's possible that the Iranians would be able to rebuild.
The Iranians clearly were not willing to do what the administration wanted them to do in this deal, which was a total capitulation, a surrender.
Well, here is El Jazeera English posting on X that Iran's deputy minister of foreign affairs condemned U.S.-Israeli strikes, saying they came during negotiations on a nuclear deal and cast doubt on Washington's commitment to peace.
He said Iran reserves the right to self-defense and will respond to what it calls aggression.
Let's go ahead and play that video that he posted.
Iran strongly condemns these aerial strikes.
From our perspective, they constitute a clear violation of the UN Charter, especially the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and prohibition of use of force.
Military attacks on Iranian territory undermines international law and threaten regional peace and stability.
Iran has always emphasized that disputes should be resolved through diplomacy, not through force.
You know, the timing is deeply troubling.
Iran entered diplomatic contacts in good faith because we believe that dialogue and diplomacy are the most responsible ways to reduce tensions and avoid conflicts.
When military attacks take place through diplomatic engagement, it damages trust and raises serious doubts about the commitment to peaceful solutions.
Iran's response is based on the inherent rights of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
When a state faces an armed attack, it has a right to defend itself and its people and territory.
At the same time, we deeply regret that human suffering caused by for the human sufferings caused by this escalation.
Iran is wrongly.
And that was the Iranian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs speaking to El Jazeera English.
Iran's Defense Dilemma00:15:18
Elise Labbitt is with us, and we're taking your calls throughout the program.
We will go to Chris in Catooza, Oklahoma, Republican line.
Chris, you're on the air.
Yes, so I'm calling in as a Republican, and something that I believe is believing is a strong national defense.
But I also believe that accountability is needed and clear objectives when it comes to military action.
I'm a younger person, so I grew up watching, of course, the aftermath of the Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush administration.
And we were told that there were weapons of mass destruction that didn't ultimately hold up the way they were presented, which then led to a conflict that lasted for most of my childhood.
So when new military action begins, I don't think it's unreasonable for Americans, especially younger Americans, to ask for solid evidence, transparency, and a clearly defined goal.
If the objective is deterrence, that's one thing.
But if it moves towards a regime change, that's something that the American public has shown deep skepticism towards after the last two decades.
And when there are still unanswered questions in cases involving the powerful elites like Epstein, it contributes to a broader distrust in institutions.
I'm not saying that everything is connected, but when transparency feels inconsistent, people start questioning whether they're getting the full picture.
For my generation, trust isn't something that's automatic.
It has to be earned, especially when lives and long-term consequences are involved.
Elise, I can't argue with any of that, Chris.
I think that This administration is very big on, we did this, trust us.
There's very, you know, look at what happened with Venezuela, right?
There was very little evidence about these Fisher boats, any of these people that they killed in those boats, who they were.
We just have to take it on faith, basically, and trust that this administration was going after drug traffickers.
I'm not saying that they weren't, but they provided very little evidence.
They said they had it, but they didn't provide it.
And so I think, look, I think on Iran, the evidence is pretty clear.
I don't think it's what they're saying in terms of the contours of the Iranian nuclear program and how far, you know, some, was it the president that said that Iran is like two weeks from a nuclear weapon?
That's not true.
How much do we know about that, though, Elise?
As far as the United States in general, our intelligence in their program.
Intelligence is that they're still building their nuclear weapons.
They have a huge nuclear stockpile still.
They are working on what we call weaponization, which is fitting a miniature nuclear warhead on a long-range missile, an ICBM, if you will, intercontinental ballistic missile that could hit the United States.
They're nowhere near that yet.
That's not that they're not working for it.
So the threat, I wouldn't say the threat is imminent, but the Iranians are working on it.
And, you know, the Israelis have always said, we want to do it before the train leaves the station.
And clearly, President Trump is in that.
You know, there are, I think, as I said, I don't think a lot of people are saying that Iran is this innocent country that didn't deserve military action.
But I think, as Chris said, you know, that transparency about what we're doing, why, what the end game is, what the potential consequences are.
You know, President Trump wants to reduce oil prices.
Oil prices are going to spike now, I would bet, on Monday.
You know, how is this going to affect your own prices?
What about if I have a person in the military?
Are you putting boots on the ground?
I don't think he is, but I think the Americans, as Chris said, are looking for that transparency.
They want to trust their government.
There are a lot of reasons why they don't trust this administration.
I think this is one where they could if the president were willing to have that conversation with the American people or have Marco Rubio or another people in his administration have that conversation.
Well, we are taking your calls throughout this program on U.S. strikes on Iran that are currently underway in the region.
Tehran is responding on U.S. military bases in the region.
And President Trump did address the nation early this morning.
This is hearing his comments in their entirety.
Short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran.
Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people.
Its menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas, and our allies throughout the world.
For 47 years, the Iranian regime has chanted death to America and waged an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder, targeting the United States, our troops, and the innocent people in many, many countries.
Among the regime's very first acts was to back a violent takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, holding dozens of American hostages for 444 days.
In 1983, Iran's proxies carried out the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut that killed 241 American military personnel.
In 2000, they knew and were probably involved with the attack on the USS Cole.
Many died.
Iranian forces killed and maimed hundreds of American service members in Iraq.
The regime's proxies have continued to launch countless attacks against American forces stationed in the Middle East in recent years, as well as U.S. naval and commercial vessels in international shipping lands.
It's been mass terror, and we're not going to put up with it any longer.
From Lebanon to Yemen and Syria to Iraq, the regime has armed, trained, and funded terrorist militias that have soaked the earth with blood and guts.
And it was Iran's proxy, Hamas, that launched the monstrous October 7th attacks on Israel, slaughtering more than 1,000 innocent people, including 46 Americans, while taking 12 of our citizens hostage.
It was brutal, something like the world has never seen before.
Iran is the world's number one state sponsor of terror and just recently killed tens of thousands of its own citizens on the street as they protested.
It has always been the policy of the United States, in particular my administration, that this terrorist regime can never have a nuclear weapon.
I'll say it again.
They can never have a nuclear weapon.
That is why in Operation Midnight Hammer last June, we obliterated the regime's nuclear program at Ford, Natance, and death to America.
We take it seriously.
We believe them and we act.
Our objectives are clear.
First, to eliminate the immediate threat posed by the Iranian regime.
Second, to dismantle its nuclear program.
Third, destroy its ballistic missile production and capabilities.
Fourth, neutralize naval threats.
Fifth, break the terror proxy network.
Today, unfortunately, we have heard condemnations from some members of this Council and from the UN Secretary General.
That is hypocrisy.
We all know when the real escalation began.
It began when the Iranian regime armed proxies across the region, when it expended missiles and drones, when it advanced its nuclear program in violation of all its commitments, and when it brutally slaughtered its own people.
Now, Israel and the U.S. act to prevent an irreversible and immediate threat, and the condemnation is immediate.
Some call this aggression.
We call it necessity.
We call it survival.
To the brave soldiers of the U.S., the IDF, our Air Force, intelligence and security services, you are defending our people with courage and resolve.
You stand like lions.
Our entire nation stands behind you.
To the brave people of Iran, we stand with you.
We admire your courage.
Our war is not with you, but with the murderous regime that continues to plan attacks against us and has crushed the Iranian people for almost 50 years.
History has taught us what happens when declared threats are ignored, when leaders openly call for our destruction and build the means to carry it out.
We do not dismiss it.
We do not gamble with our survival.
We act.
Thank you.
Thank you.
It's Pamela Fall from U.S. News and World Report.
Thank you, Ambassador, for the briefing.
Since you're talking about regime change, can you confirm whether or not this Iran supreme leader has been killed and what happens next, if so?
We will continue to target the leadership of this radical regime and we will do whatever necessary to enable the right conditions for a new future for the people of Iran and stability for the region.
Thank you.
How long is this going?
One hour.
As long as it will take to achieve the goals I just mentioned.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Ambassador, the Prime Minister told the Iranian people that he will let them know when it's time for them to come on the screen.
What's the end goal here for the Israeli people?
I think everyone sees what's happening on the ground and understand that the time for the Iranian people to take control of the future is very soon.
Thank you.
Mr. Ambassador.
Mr. Ambassador.
Thank you.
face certain death.
So, lay down your arms.
You will be treated fairly with total immunity or you will face certain death.
Finally, to the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand.
Stay sheltered.
Don't leave your home.
It's very dangerous outside.
Bombs will be dropping everywhere.
When we are finished, take over your government.
It will be yours to take.
This will be probably your only chance for generations.
For many years, you have asked for America's help, but you never got it.
No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight.
Now you have a president who is giving you what you want.
So let's see how you respond.
America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force.
Now is the time to seize control of your destiny and to unleash the prosperous and glorious future that is close within your reach.
This is the moment for action.
Do not let it pass.
May God bless the brave men and women of America's armed forces.
May God bless the United States of America.
May God bless you all.
Thank you.
That was President Trump early this morning from Mar-a-Lago, and we are taking your calls throughout this program.
We've got Elise Labbitt with us.
She's a global affairs journalist and Substack founder, the founder of the Cosmopolitics Substack.
Elise, real quick, a reaction to that.
Anything jump out at you from that address?
Well, we were talking earlier in the hour about is this war and should the president go to Congress to declare, you know, only the Congress really can give the president the authority to declare war.
He just called it a war.
He said people could be killed, troops could be killed.
This happens in war.
So he's calling it a war.
And if that's the case, there should be more involvement by Congress here.
I think declaring, you know, this administration, again, kind of does a lot of things, but doesn't do them by the book.
That's fine in some cases.
But if you're actually considering a country at war with another, you know, just the president can't be involved in that.
So according to the War Powers Act, that means he's got 48 hours to notify Congress and then somewhere between 60 to 90 days to finish up unless he gets authorization by Congress.
Right, but is there a declaration of war?
He just declared it in that speech.
All right.
And so I think it was also interesting.
The other thing I think is interesting here is about what he's saying to the IRGC, which is lay down your weapons.
You'll have total immunity.
What does that mean?
Does that mean total immunity from the U.S. killing you?
Does that mean total immunity from prosecution by a future Iranian government?
It's not really clear what that means.
Which he can't necessarily promise because the Iranians will have to make that decision.
I would say you're not going to see, you might see one or a couple of IRGC.
Generally, the IRGC is pretty militant and will not, I don't see a lot of defections from the IRGC right now.
Glenda On Israel And Dictatorship00:09:24
All right, let's go to calls, and we'll start with Glenda in Dallas.
Line for Democrats.
Good morning, Glenda.
Good morning.
I have had a time listening to everything before I came on, but I'm not going to be distracted.
I first want to say good morning, America.
I love America.
I love C-SPAN because they allow us to hear things all around what's going on around the world today, globally.
But my concern is I want to go back a minute to when our president, it goes back when he taken our embassy out of Gaza and put it into Israel, which allowed Israel to be able to bomb Palestine.
Wait, hold on, hold on.
We never had an American embassy in the West Bank or in Gaza.
We had an embassy, Glenda, in Tel Aviv.
And during his first term, the president moved it to Jerusalem, which was very controversial because that's technically contested territory.
And he was recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of an Israeli state when that's still an issue technically that the Israelis and Palestinians are supposed to negotiate.
But I did see that now, getting a little off topic, the administration is now issuing passports for West Bank settlements, which is quite interesting.
Maybe a topic for another day.
All right.
Well, go ahead, Glenda, with your comment.
Yes, that's my point.
I appreciate you correcting that because truth is so important.
And how Netanyahu has really treated, you know, is it Palestinians, the Palestinians, the Palestinian people?
Okay.
And like a dictatorship.
And he's now moving on.
They said he has bombed more people over there than anyone.
He's bombing.
He acts like a dictatorship.
And it's supported by the America, by our government, our president here.
And what really concerns me and amazed me is that how our president talks so much like a dictator himself, the way he has just started talking to Iran like he has, when he has seemed to have favor, you know, like interest in the dictatorship.
And like Putin and him not standing up, Putin, him not doing more for Ukraine.
All right, well, Glenda, let's not get off the topic and talk about Israel's involvement in this, in the strikes and in the decision, if we know anything about the decision to strike Iran.
So let's go back to October 7th, okay?
And when that happened, that was the largest attack against Israel since the Holocaust.
And the Israelis said, we are not going to leave ourselves vulnerable again.
And so not only did they go after Hamas in Gaza, but they went after all the Iranian proxies.
They went after Hezbollah in Lebanon.
They went after the Iranians.
They went after Hamas, which is also less so 100% fully supported by Iran, but still a proxy of Iran.
They went after the Houthis in Yemen.
And then they went after Iran.
So Israel really wanted to not just respond for October 7th and protect the border with Gaza.
They wanted to reshape the Middle East with a new battlefield to weaken Iran and its proxies from doing anything to Israel and to present a threat to Israel again.
And so they see this as their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to finish the job against Iran.
And so the Israelis have been wanting to do this for years.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has wanted to do it for years.
Unfortunately, it took something like October 7th for him to say, this is the time.
And Iran has never been weaker.
You know, we've seen the regime has been weakened by these protests, and President Trump is like, I'm going to help us on the way.
It's a little bit questionable as to whether, you know, how much this had to do with the protests or just gaining leverage for negotiations or what we're seeing now.
But Israel has weakened Iran and its proxies in the region significantly.
It used to be that Iran was the dominant power in the region.
I would argue that Israel is the dominant power in the region right now.
What about Saudi Arabia?
Because they have historically had a very big problem with Iran.
You know, one is Sunni, the other is Shia.
And they've said, you know, you need to cut the head of the snake talking about Iran.
What do you make of where they are right now?
Well, it's kind of a mixed message.
They definitely are not fans of Iran, although they have, I think it was China that helped negotiate kind of a détente between Saudi Arabia and China a few years ago, between, sorry, between Saudi Arabia and Iran a few years ago.
And relations have improved a little bit, and there have been some talks between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
They're getting along a little bit better, but no doubt about it.
Everyone sees the threat posed by Iran in the region.
The Saudis faced attacks by the Houthis in Yemen, which are supported by Iran during President Trump's first term.
And you saw this morning that the Saudis have made statements more in favor of the United States than criticizing this action.
I think the Saudis and all of the Gulf partners are not unhappy about the action.
They just want to make sure they're in the blast radius.
They don't want Iran to retaliate against them.
And they want this to be done in a way that minimizes the risk to them.
All right, let's talk to Keith, who is in Dallas, Independent Line.
Hi, Keith.
Good morning, folks.
How's it going?
You know, I've been listening to you guys all morning.
I've been listening to Alicia.
I've been listening to Gary, who called in before.
And he had a good point here.
Americans don't want another foreign intervention somewhere else in the world like we saw earlier in 2003 with Iraq.
Israel's been saying this for the past 35 years.
Netanyahu, who stood in front of the world at the UN in 2012 and told us that Iran was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons.
And 16 years later, even today, it's the same exact story.
I'm sure the Iranian regime is horrible.
And whatever adjective you choose to say that, you're absolutely correct.
Nothing good comes out of there.
But I do have to say, this president, he loves his tweets.
And one of the ones that I went back to was from October 9th, 2012.
Now that Obama's phone numbers are in the tailspin, watch for him to launch a strike into Libya or Iran.
He is desperate.
This president, the timing of all this, I'm not saying it's fishy, but it's right in front of you.
You know, I support the Jewish people and I support their right to exist.
But going after Iran in the fashion that they have and the U.S. joining alongs, you know, I just can't get behind that.
Well, Gary, you kind of are saying that it's fishy, right?
I mean, it's, look, I don't think the timing, we knew it was going to happen.
You don't, he's been putting all this man.
You don't put that kind of firepower in the region unless you're ready to use it.
So it was just a matter of time, I think, before he would use it.
But, you know, Gary makes an interesting point.
And this president campaigned on, I'm going to end forever wars.
You know, his base, this MA.
I'll be interested to see what his base, the MAGA bait part of the Republican Party says about these strikes.
They don't want, and they originally were not so happy about, you know, the idea that President Trump would launch a military action against Iran.
But then after it was so successful, they were kind of supportive about it.
But, you know, there is a wing of the Republican Party, Trump's MAGA wing, that doesn't that is more, you know, this America first, more isolationist, if you will, not against very against foreign interventions.
I'm looking to see what what they say, what they say about this, because we can hear what they say on our airlines, on our president.
But President Trump did say, I'm going to end forever wars.
We don't know what the blowback of this is going to be.
Let's talk.
I want to ask you about that because El Jazeera is reporting that multiple Arab states that host U.S. assets have been targeted in retaliation.
Multiple Arab States Targeted00:05:22
It mentions Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE.
It says that at least one person was killed in Dubai.
It says that in Qatar, they have thwarted several attacks on the country.
And it says that Syrian state media reported that a missile explosion killed four people and injured numerous others.
Besides hitting these bases around the Middle East, what else could Iran do to retaliate against us?
Well, especially if the administration launches these devastating launches these devastating attacks against the military sites and the missile sites and the nuclear program, Iran has a lot of what we call asymmetrical power.
That's not about conventional weapons or missiles or anything like that.
They're very good at cyber attacks.
We could see cyber attacks against the United States.
Iran are masters of disinformation and spreading through bots and stuff.
And we may not see it immediately, the Iranian hand in what happens, but it could be a cyber attack.
It could be a disinformation kind of psychological attack.
And it could also be meme terrorist attacks against Americans.
You've seen what Israel, a lot of terrorist attacks against Israelis have been at the hands of Iranians.
Several years ago, about 10 years ago or so, there were attacks against an Israeli bus of tourists in Bulgaria that is believed to be done by the Iranians.
So there are cells.
I don't know that there are cells in the United States, but there are cells around the world.
And what they do is they could be looking for what we call soft targets.
And soft targets are targets that are not hard military or government fortified facilities, but American tourists, American schools, American organizations around the world.
And so American interests are not just military or government facilities.
They're people and interests around the world.
Let's hear from Louise, a Republican in Fredericksburg, Virginia.
Good morning, Louise.
Good morning.
First, I want to say that I hope that the soldiers, the Navy, the pilots, I hope they're all safe.
And God loves them.
And my thoughts are with you.
Second, I want to ask about Kosovo.
Is that war still going on?
There's still wars going on there.
And didn't the Clintons bomb Kosovo?
I mean, bomb Serbia.
And let's see.
How about Libya?
Let's get into Clinton.
Didn't the Obama decide about Libya?
And how about Biden?
Didn't he make the decision to go into a forever war with Ukraine and Russia?
I mean, come on.
Let's give this a chance.
Let's see what happens.
And let's don't prejudge it because we're very good at prejudging and speculating and postulating that this could happen and that could happen.
But forget this.
Let's just wait and see how it plays out, period.
And that's a favorite expression of President Trump.
We'll wait and see.
We'll see what happens.
And that's it.
Thank you so very much and God bless the soldiers.
Well, like Louise said, you know, a lot of times people criticize the military action, but you have to think about American soldiers and American families of military.
And, you know, like what happened with Venezuela, like, you know, you could criticize the move, but the actions of U.S. military and their families are very heroic, and we often remember that.
Louise makes an interesting point about Serbia.
If you remember, the Clinton administration was kind of supportive of the Serbian people overthrowing Milosevic.
That wasn't really military action that they, you know, and I mean, although they were, I think, behind the scenes helping out.
Kosovo is a little bit different.
The Kosovo's were fighting, and the U.S. was not interested in regime change there.
And that's still going on, by the way.
And then in Libya, look, the U.S. took action in Libya during the Obama administration, supposedly to protect hundreds of thousands of civilians from being slaughtered.
It did end up being regime change.
They were supporting those Libyan opposition forces.
But, Louise, look at what happened in Libya, like you didn't anticipate what happened is it became this like hotbed of extremism, and then you saw the Benghazi attack.
So you don't really know when you open up this can of worms, like when you say the president says, we'll see.
Context Matters00:06:09
You know, my grandma used to just be like, we'll see.
And, you know, you have to think of the we'll see.
You can't just be like, all right, well, whatever happens, happens.
I don't, I think what's really missing from this conversation is a real understanding and discussion with the American people about the potential consequences.
That doesn't mean that at the end of the day, the American people feel that it's worth it.
Maybe they do.
But, you know, we need more information about what the end game is here because that'll determine the length, the scope, and the kind of resources and commitment of the U.S. On the Line for Democrats in Birdstown, Tennessee.
Daniel, good morning.
You're on with Elise Labbitt.
Good morning, Mimi.
Always an honor to speak with you and a privilege to speak on Washington Journal.
I'm listening to Elise.
She sounds like the perfect journalist for this program this morning, a true journalist.
A little context here, 71 years old, military family, proud military family, going back to World War II.
What we have here is the biggest shiny object I've seen in my 71 years on this earth.
I mean, I remember Lyndon B. Johnson and the general over there in Vietnam who was anyway.
I remember them lying about Vietnam.
Then I remember Colin Powell and George Bush lying to us about weapons of mass destruction.
So I just want to know, I just want my MAGA callers that are some of the callers seem to be gung-ho for war.
I just don't want their sons and daughters to be the pat Tillmans of this war.
Now, I wanted to also jump over to Jimmy Carter and the situation back when he lost his election.
Do people understand that Reagan had his political operatives over there in Iran delaying the release of the hostages so it would look good and sway the election that year?
Now, he who leads by tweet is a twit.
All right, Daniel.
Daniel, how do you really feel?
Look, thank you for your service and for your family's service.
You know, again, really have to have that discussion with the American people about what it means to go to war, what the consequences are, And, you know, trust and accountability is a big thing, as one of our callers said earlier.
Michelle said earlier about civics.
Like, you know, there's so much trust and accountability issues right now.
And so we do need more, you know, kind of forthrightness and honesty with the American people.
You know, the president doesn't seem to trust the American people that they'll understand why he's doing what he's doing.
I think when it comes to Iran, it's going, in my opinion, covering Iran for 30 years.
I'm going to date myself here.
Iran is the biggest impediment threat to stability, to peace, security in the Middle East.
At some point, the threat needed to be dealt with.
This president said he wanted to deal with it.
Let's hope and pray that he deals with it in the right way and with minimal casualties and minimal disruption to the region.
But the timing, you know, I think you could question the timing, but I think if it wasn't President Trump, it would be another president.
And I think he did come into this administration regardless of the timing.
And he did try during his first administration to deal with the Iranian threat.
So I think this has been something in his crosshairs for a while.
All right.
Well, that is Elise Labbitt.
She is a global affairs journalist and founder of the Cosmopolitics Substack.
Thank you so much, Michelle.
Get on with your day.
Thanks very much.
President Trump has announced the death of Iran's supreme leader.
His post reads in part, Hamanei, one of the most evil people in history, is dead.
This is not only justice for the people of Iran, but for all great Americans and those people from many countries throughout the world that have been killed or mutilated by Hamane and his gang of bloodthirsty thugs.
He was unable to avoid our intelligence and highly sophisticated tracking systems.
And working closely with Israel, there was not a thing he or the leaders that have been killed along with him could do.
The president went on to say, the heavy and pinpoint bombing, however, will continue uninterrupted throughout the week, as long as necessary to achieve our objective of peace throughout the Middle East and indeed the world.
And we want to hear your voice on the situation in Iran.
Join us tomorrow on Washington Journal to continue the conversation.
We're live tomorrow and every day, starting at 7 a.m. Eastern here on C-SPAN.
The United Nations Security Council met following U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran.