C-SPAN’s Washington Journal dissects the 2018 U.S. military strikes on Iran, where Sen. Mark Kelly argues the 2015 nuclear deal’s termination lacked strategy, while callers clash over "radical Christian nationalism," civilian casualties (including a school bombing), and $80/barrel oil spikes from Strait of Hormuz disruptions. Pentagon’s "Operation Epic Fury" targets Iranian missiles and naval assets—no regime change—but faces skepticism over legality under the War Powers Act, Israeli lobbying ties (citing Kushner’s role), and accusations of hypocrisy in bombing civilians while ignoring Russia or China. A Democrat proposes a general strike to defund the war, while a Republican frames it as biblically justified, exposing deep divides over interventionism amid stalled congressional oversight and Trump’s veto threats. [Automatically generated summary]
Well, I'm going to have to take a close look at it.
And I want to hear from the White House what their strategy is going forward.
I would say at this point, it's rather unlikely that it would be.
You know, they went into this without any discussion with us ahead of time.
And by the way, why on Tuesday during the State of the Union didn't the president make a case to the American people on why he is going to conduct an attack on Iran?
And we were incredibly effective about destroying the Iranian leadership.
And there wasn't any kind of outcry from parts of the left after Iran executed about 30,000 of their young people that were just simply just protesting for democracy.
And Iran would be able to be perceived as a strong military presence in the region.
Turns out it really wasn't effective.
So here we are.
We're in a much better place now.
If anyone wants those things that they claim that they do, like peace and they can never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb when someone actually did that, that could actually make sure that's possible.
And I'm open to a better opportunity for more, more peace and prosperity for the Iranian people for more security that Israel deserves that.
So that's a point.
And, you know, this was not an illegal war based on terms of what the war powers act is.
We are getting your reaction to the combat operations in the Middle East.
And we will go to Eric in Damascus, Pennsylvania, Independent Line.
Eric, good morning.
unidentified
Hey, good morning.
And just want to make a quick comment about the wisdom and the common sense approach that this administration has compared to previous administrations and the fact that the Democrats and the news propaganda seemingly are for everyone except America.
And one last comment is it's not that I'm totally for Republicans, but I think Republicans and independents need to come to realization that the Democrats really are falling short and have something against America as we are trying to become less divided.
And finally, just I would have only voted for two Democrats, and now they're Republicans.
But now I would have to say I would include one more Democrat, and that's Fedderman.
Just a couple points that I think we need to discuss is this administration has been all over about what the objective is.
You know, is it about regime change or it's not about regime change?
And then we go to, oh, we're just going to, you know, bomb the hell out of their country and let the citizens figure it out.
What really worries me in this time, you know, there might be such a thing as radical Islam, but I tell you what, there's also such a thing as called radical Christian nationalism, and that's what's at play here.
Israel, these so-called Christians that called in, who are we?
It just boggles my mind that America doesn't put a mirror to its face.
And look what we do.
Look how many bombs we dropped on innocent people.
And we're some, and I'm a veteran too, and I love this country.
But, you know, look to the people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima what we did to them.
This is Chris in Kansas City, Kansas, Independent Line.
unidentified
Good morning.
I want to start by saying I'm a historian.
My specialty is propaganda and its use in doing a genocide.
And I also wanted to say that after listening to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegset today on your show, no strategic objective was laid out that matches the strategy that is being used.
In the opening salvo of this conflict, we bombed a school.
You know, whether that was us or the Israelis is unclear, but it was a school.
It was during school operation hours.
How is that going after the nuclear issue?
I also have a quote here, which I'm not 100% sure is true.
It's from a man named Jonathan Carl that said he talked to Trump and said, Trump said the attack was so successful, it knocked out most of the candidates regarding possible leaders of Iran, including opposition leaders, people who were against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
It's not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead.
Second or third place is dead.
And I can confirm that they did kill opposition leaders, people who were more pro-American.
What is the goal of this?
If it is to destroy their nuclear capacity, why are we wiping out their leadership?
The Ayatollah was a terrible human being, but he also had a fatwa, which I would suggest our listeners look up, against nuclear weapons, which means that the Ayatollah didn't want nuclear weapons.
We are stumbling into the same conflict we did in 2003.
We have no clear objective.
We have no clear way out.
What is the purpose of this and what is our angle?
What is the actual line where we stop?
This is the greatest republic that has ever existed in the world, and I see it falling apart because of people, and I mean all offense with this, like your previous caller.
Chris, you said that the Ayatollah had a fatwa against nuclear weapons, against themselves, Iran getting nuclear weapons.
Do you trust him, to be telling the truth?
Because they have always said this was a peaceful program.
unidentified
I have to understand that in the internal Iranian government, the Ayatollah is not the supreme, he is the supreme leader, but he's not necessarily the supreme leader of the secular government.
The president of Iran and the Ayatollah are two separate figures.
What I will say is that even if you don't trust him, if he is supposed to be this religious fanatic, if he believes in all this stuff, he wouldn't have made a fatwa against it.
So what do you think of the, when you say the transitional government, what do you think of the Shah's son as a transitional figure?
unidentified
He's been living in the United States for decades.
He is not prepared to take over leadership in Iran.
There is no indication he has popular support here.
He might have popular support among American expatriates in the United States.
People might have fond memories of living under the Shah's regime.
Many people, many expatriates flourished under the Shah, but in Iran, that's a different story, and there's no indication he has any popular movement behind him.
Let's talk to Sergio, Chicago, Illinois, Independent Line.
Go ahead.
unidentified
Good morning.
Sorry.
Good morning.
It's been a while since I called in, and I just want to give you a compliment first.
You are very striking, and I just want to let you know that.
I think I gave you that compliment last time.
I just want to say that when he came on Hegseth, he mentioned rules of engagement.
We always had and have rules of engagement.
I'm a military veteran.
I'm a Deathstorm veteran.
And my commanders, all the way up to Colin Powell, we always have rules of engagement.
We are the United States of America.
And us going, this was not a war war.
This was a preemptive strike on Iran, period.
And we have to have rules of engagement, because if we don't have rules of engagement, then, you know, I mean, then if they capture our guys, then they could torture them.
What do you think of what Secretary Hegseth said about this not being Iraq?
Referring, of course, to the 2003.
So we are back and talking about the combat operations in the Middle East.
What your thoughts are on that.
We're taking your calls until the end of the program.
You can call our lines right now.
Democrats are on 202-748-8000.
Republicans, 202748, 8001.
And Independents, 202748, 8002.
Sergio, in Chicago, we were talking about, you said you were a combat veteran, and what Secretary Hegseth said was, this is not Iraq.
This is not an endless war.
What did you think about that?
unidentified
I think that was ridiculous.
Any American that has any kind of sense, especially that served in the military, and also, you know, not everybody serves a war, you know, but that is ridiculous to say that.
The generals know that.
The admirals know that.
Joint troop staff know that.
But you know what's going on, Mimi?
There's no no.
It's a yes men.
And that's what's dangerous.
You have to have no.
You have to have some type of pushback and then criticisms going towards Trump.
I know it's hard for him to hear that in the White House, but you have to have pushback.
And there's no pushback.
And that's what's so dangerous going into these type of conflicts because if you do say no to him, he's going to fire you immediately on the spot.
Right, that's the first sort of live briefing we've gotten from the Trump administration since this operation began.
It was very significant to hear from Pete Hegseth and Dan Kaine about what they believe to be the scope of this operation.
They both indicated, interestingly, or Hegseth indicated, that they don't see this as a regime change war, despite the fact that one of the earliest victories from this operation was the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has been Iran's supreme leader for over 39 years.
Hegseth said this is not a regime change war, which kind of conflicts with the president's remarks on this operation, where he has encouraged the Iranian people to sort of take over now that that void has been opened up.
What is the White House, are we expecting anything more out of the White House?
What are you expecting from President Trump?
Do you know what his schedule is going to be for this week?
unidentified
Yeah.
The President Trump's schedule just shows that he has one open press event today where he will be at a Medal of Honor ceremony.
The press will be in attendance.
However, it's unclear whether or not he'll take questions.
There are no briefings or press conferences on the schedule that we know of so far.
So it's impossible to say whether or not we'll get some live press time with the president.
Commentary from the White House has been really limited to updates on the progress of the engagement via videos that he's posted on YouTube and Truth Social, plus also posts to Truth Social.
So maybe we'll get some time with the President this week.
It's difficult to imagine that he wouldn't address the public in some way as this continues, but we'll see.
Well, House and Senate Democrats are planning to force a war powers vote sometime this week.
What is the White House expecting as far as GOP support?
Are they expecting solid across the board support from Republicans?
unidentified
Yeah, so we've even seen some Democrats in the House signal that they intend to vote with Republicans on this war powers resolution.
I don't think we've seen any significant breaks from Republicans saying that they would vote against the White House.
It's a difficult vote, especially ahead of a midterm election season, but I think it would be surprising if either of these measures in the House or the Senate were successful.
And even if they were, President Trump could veto them, and it's unlikely that the House or the Senate would have the votes to override a veto.
And CENCOM announced that four U.S. service members have been killed in this operation.
Anything about how they'll be honored or when their remains will be returning to the United States?
unidentified
I'm not aware of any, I have not heard myself of any plans for that, but I'm sure that's something that will be happening.
Both President Trump and Secretary Hexettz have said that they're mourning these losses, though they have also said they expect that there will be more casualties as this continues.
I'm certain that's something that this Trump administration that really sort of values our soldiers will be planning in the near future.
Department of Homeland Security has these strikes in Iran changed the calculus at all for the White House or for Congress?
unidentified
Yeah, at least for Congress, it definitely adds a new dimension to those negotiations.
With some Republicans saying that DHS funding is critical now more than ever, now that we are sort of engaging with Iran overseas, it's unclear whether or not Democrats will continue to sort of dig their heels in and resist DHS funding if they don't get the concessions they're looking for.
So that's going to be one of the biggest dynamics on the Hill this week.
Let's talk to Joe, Independent, Crownsville, Maryland.
Go ahead, Joe.
unidentified
Thank you.
I'm responding to Chris, who called earlier and talked about the FATLA against nuclear weapons.
And I just, it's interesting to me that people take Iran and Iranian leaders at their word when they spend so much time lying and talking about one side of their mouth and doing something different.
Iran's foreign leader has said to the Security Council that they wanted them to take immediate action to confront violations of international peace and security, which is all that Iran has done for the last 40 years is violate international peace and security.
They can't help but lie about what they're going to do next.
They use it as a weapon.
And President Trump is the only one who has been willing to confront that truth that it doesn't matter what they say.
It matters what they do.
And what they've done is undermined peace and security throughout the world.
This is a Reuters Ipsos poll that was just released on Sunday with the headline, More Americans Disapprove Than Approve of U.S. strikes against Iran.
This is, it was conducted between February 28th, which is when the attack started, until March 1st.
43% of Americans disapprove of U.S. military strikes against Iran, while 27% approve.
Three in 10 say they are unsure.
That's at ipsos.com if you want to look into the details of that poll.
Kenny Laurel, Maryland, Republican line.
Good morning, Kenny.
unidentified
Good morning.
Yes.
Thank you for taking my call.
I just want to say that Congress has been missing in all of this.
And as a Republican, we need to return back to constitutional order.
And I feel like this administration has some level of truth that they can do what they want and get away with it.
And I think Congress has been deloquent in their duties.
And this administration, you know, when I supported Trump, I didn't, you know, one of my main goals was to get us out of foreign entanglement.
And he promised that.
He riled against Biden and Obama's endless wars and Libya and other places.
So seeing this now, I'm kind of torn, trying to see, but there needs to be a check and balance on this president for us to have any chance of continuing as a democracy.
And on top of that, I appreciate C-SPAN staying on top of this.
And they say C-SPAN is one light bulb away from being a radio station.
And a lot of us do listen in the radio to C-SPAN.
So when you mentioned the numbers and who's online or who's in the studio with you, I want you to kind of reinforce that for some of us who don't have TVs in front of, you know, looking through the television, listening through the radio.
So I appreciate what C-SPAN is doing, and God bless the U.S. Thank you.
And Time magazine just put this out with the headline, after Khamenei, who could lead Iran next.
It says there's no clear answer.
Even President Trump admitted that his administration had ideas about potential successors to the Iranian leader, but they were also killed in the attacks.
It says, quote, the attack was so successful, it knocked out most of the candidates, Trump told ABC News on Sunday.
Quote, it's not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead.
Second or third place is dead.
One of our callers did mention that, and the article continues by saying, according to Iran's constitution, the supreme leader must be a Shia Islamic jurist chosen by the Assembly of Experts.
It's an 88-member elected committee of clerics.
In the meantime, a temporary council will oversee the country per its constitution.
The question of transition comes at a pivotal moment for Iran as the country reels from widespread domestic unrest and faces sustained U.S. and Israeli military attacks aimed at collapsing the revolutionary order that has been in place since 1979.
Let's hear from Tim, McCleansville, North Carolina, Republican line.
And it's going to be like that from now on until our Savior comes back and do you think that this is intentional, though, to bring about the end times by the United States?
I mean, do you think that that's part of their thinking as far as why they're going to war in Iran?
If you read your scriptures, you'll find out the United States never mentioned in war.
We're not a part of it.
I think this is one last chance for Christianity and for the United States to stand up alongside God's chosen people, which is Israel, and stand beside them.
That's one reason we've been so strong throughout history is because we've stood by God's chosen people, which is the nation of Israel.
That's the reason, you think about it.
They're a small country, but they have a lot of force.
Harold in Ohio, Independent Line, you're on the air.
unidentified
Yes.
I've been watching you here, and back when Trump took Venezuela, they cut the snake head off air for the oil.
Now they went to Iran, which they cut the snake off of Khomeini, the head off of him, and them people send oil to China and Russia.
And so they're going after the oil just as much as anything else to keep China and Russia from not getting the oil so they can get so the United States can stay ahead.
The mission of Operation Epic Fury is laser-focused.
Destroy Iranian offensive missiles, destroy Iranian missile production, destroy their Navy and other security infrastructure, and they will never have nuclear weapons.
We're hitting them surgically, overwhelmingly, and unapologetically.
With every passing day, our capabilities get stronger and Iran's get weaker.
We set the terms of this war from start to finish.
Our ambitions are not utopian.
They are realistic, scoped to our interests and the defense of our people and our allies.
Speaking of people, we hope the Iranian people take advantage of this incredible opportunity.
President Trump has been clear.
Now is your time.
To Iranian security forces, choose wisely.
President Trump has also been clear about your fate in either direction.
To the media outlets and political left screaming endless wars, stop.
This is not Iraq.
This is not endless.
I was there for both.
Our generation knows better, and so does this president.
He called the last 20 years of nation-building wars dumb, and he's right.
This is the opposite.
This operation is a clear, devastating, decisive mission.
Destroy the missile threat, destroy the Navy, no nukes.
Israel has clear missions as well for which we are grateful.
Capable partners, as we've said since the beginning, capable partners are good partners.
Unlike so many of our traditional allies who wring their hands and clutch their pearls, hemming and hawing about the use of force.
America, regardless of what so-called international institutions say, is unleashing the most lethal and precise air power campaign in history: B-2s, fighters, drones, missiles, and of course, classified effects.
All on our terms with maximum authorities.
No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy-building exercise, no politically correct wars.
We fight to win, and we don't waste time or lives.
As the president warned, an effort of this scope will include casualties.
Here's CNBC about that oil soars amid Strait of Hormuz shipping fears as Iran war drives prices to nearly $80 per barrel.
It says that it surged today, Monday, as the unfolding conflict in the Middle East intensifies.
It says that Saudi Arabia has contingency plans to move its oil through the East-West pipeline via the Red Sea as investors focus on the Strait of Hormuz.
Francesca, Baltimore, Maryland, Democrat, you're on the air.
unidentified
Hi there.
I think the war, I think the war is senseless.
I disagree with it wholeheartedly.
I don't think we have any business.
Pete didn't say any, he didn't give any real reason as to why we're even doing this.
You're laser-focused on destroying a country who has the right to defend itself against any invader.
That's like somebody telling us not to protect ourselves.
But if we're not in agreement with this war as Americans, because it sounds like most of us are not, then General Shrey, let's stop giving the government our money, all of us collectively.
Don't buy, don't go to work, don't pay any bills, stop paying taxes, stop doing everything, stop making the money move in this country.
You're in another country bombing people, and in this country, you are taking people out of their homes, pulling them out of cars, putting them in concentration camps.
And this administration continues to lie to the people of America about why they do anything.