Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

U.S. Official: "Major Uptick" In Attacks On Iran Coming In Hours; Democrats Slam Trump On Iran; U.S. On Alert As FBI Probes Texas Shooting As Potential Terrorism. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired March 02, 2026 - 23:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JASMINE CROCKETT (D-TX): People are dying every single day and it's illegal. And we need Congress to do their job. Declaring war is exclusively within the power of the Congress, not the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:00:05]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: And here is what Republican voters in the state had to say ahead of primary today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LINDA JOHNSON, REPUBLICAN VOTER FROM WACO, TEXAS: I think that Trump takes the real tough stance on a lot of things that people don't agree with. But I feel like it's necessary.

KURT KRAKOWIAN, REPUBLICAN VOTER FROM HEWITT, TEXAS: We need to make sure that the Iran war is taken care of. You know, that's right now at the top of the shelf. Plus, my thing is we cannot have this state turn blue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: All right, thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): This is "CNN Breaking News."

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Good evening. I'm Laura Coates with the breaking news. It will soon be day four in the war with Iran. A war that we're learning tonight is about to intensify. A senior U.S. official is telling CNN that the U.S. is now preparing for a -- quote -- "major uptick in attacks in Iran over the next 24 hours." This comes just hours after the president warned that a big wave of attacks would be on its way.

The war already spilling beyond and far beyond Iran and Israel's border. The U.S. embassy in Saudi Arabia was hit by two suspected Iranian drones just this very evening. One source tells us that there were no reports of injuries. But the State Department is telling Americans in more than a dozen countries to get out now. Six U.S. service members have been killed so far. Officials said they were hit by Iranian attack on a facility in Kuwait yesterday.

Just a short time ago, President Trump was asked how he plans to respond. He said, you'll find out soon.

In a moment, my military and foreign policy experts will be with me to discuss the administration's motivations, their tactics and their timing behind this war. But first, CNN's Nick Paton Walsh live in northern Israel. Nick, what are Israel and Iran saying tonight about this war?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, clearly, we have a set of quite expansive goals being laid out by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a series of appearances essentially suggesting that they believe they can enact regime change inside of Israel and that a democratic future is likely to follow.

Israel also, too, finding itself in the recent day involved now in another front here behind me in its north with Hezbollah, the Iranian ally inside of Lebanon. Now, Hezbollah, during -- yesterday put out a statement saying that they would avenge the death of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, launched missiles, drones.

But that gave Israel essentially the opportunity it has been looking for months, to pursue the remnants of a heavily-weakened Hezbollah from their last confrontation in late 2024. And we've seen a series of strikes inside of Beirut in the southern suburb where Hezbollah are based and a series of evacuation orders, too, now for the south of Lebanon, telling people to get out of their homes and head north essentially as the Israelis begin a series of attacks across there.

Earlier today, they say they'd hit 70 targets alone. Just in the last two hours, we've heard of two drones potentially crossing over the border from Lebanon, but they've been intercepted by the Israeli Air Force. So, Hezbollah's capacity to respond back, limited so far, but Israel seizing this opportunity to fight to the north. And Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, cleared that this operation in Iran ongoing, that may pick up in the hours ahead, is not an endless war. Here's what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL: I hear the people telling you, you're going to have an endless war here. You're not going to have an endless war. This terror regime in Iran is the weakest point that it has been since it hijacked Iran from the brave Iranian people 47 years ago. So, this is going to be a quick and decisive action.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PATON WALSH: The hope that perhaps, somehow, they can incapacitate the Iranian regime to the point that there is some kind of proper uprising. The American objective here, it seems, to take out the long- range, and if you listen to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the short- range missiles of Iran, prevent a nuclear weapons program that Iran was already very far away from, and disable the Iranian Navy, which is already pretty heavily damaged. This may pick up in the 24 hours ahead. But strikes against American allies spreading across the region. Laura?

COATES: President Trump has said that the biggest wave of strikes hasn't even happened yet, Nick. Is there any side signaling how this might end?

[23:05:00]

PATON WALSH: No at this point. And I think if indeed we see an uptick in the 24 hours ahead of American activity inside of Iran, that may be designed to cripple what remains of their military powers here.

I think, you know, given what we've seen across the region here, Iranian drones hitting the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the fire incident which took down three American F-15s near U.S. airbase in Kuwait, it seems like an age ago, frankly, but it only happened yesterday morning, local time, these are all a sign of an escalation across the region, which is going to be costing Iran's arsenal of weapons dearly right now. It's not infinite, it's not limitless. So, they face that obstacle, too.

And they also face a leadership problem where, ultimately, we are now two days since Ayatollah Khamenei was assassinated, killed by an Israeli airstrike, and we don't have a clear successor running that country that is so autocratic and desperately in need of one person calling the shots. So, that's the Iranian issue here. How much more fight do they have?

And the United States clearly running increasingly into political complications, explaining how it got itself into this and how it's going to get itself out of it as well. Their goals we've heard today relatively limited, and President Trump saying this could be four or five weeks. But I suspect probably in the days ahead as we keep hearing American officials suggesting that the goals they've set themselves, limited as they are, may be getting closer. That's recent comments from President Trump as well. Possibly that we're looking for an off-ramp.

But we're seeing now unintended consequences, spiraling impacts across the region here, notably behind me where what Israel is doing in southern Lebanon is something they've sought to do for months. But the impact of all these different tentacles of the conflict is going to be felt in the days and weeks ahead in unpredictable ways. Laura?

COATES: Nick Paton Walsh, thank you so much for your reporting. The big question is, what exactly triggered all of these and why now, exactly? Because the administration's answer has been constantly shifting. I mean, is the goal regime change or stopping Iran's nuclear program even though Trump spent months claiming it was obliterated in strikes just last June? Is it taking out their missile capabilities? Frankly, Trump has alluded to all of them. And now, he's trying to put a finer point on it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Our objectives are clear. First, we're destroying Iran's missile capabilities, and you see that happening on an hourly basis. Second, we're annihilating their navy. We've knocked out already 10 ships. Third, we're ensuring that the world's number one sponsor of terror can never obtain a nuclear weapon. And finally, we're ensuring that the Iranian regime cannot continue to arm, fund, and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Notice what's not on that list. Regime change. Trump's team, well, they appear to be backing off that particular line even as they say they wouldn't mind if the Iranian people overthrew their government. But why take an action now? What made the administration feel the threat was so imminent? Secretary of State Marco Rubio, well, he answered something today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: The imminent threat was that we knew that if Iran was attacked, and we believed they would be attacked, that they would immediately come after us. And we were not going to sit there and absorb a blow before we responded because the Department of War says that if we did that, if we waited for them to hit us first after they were attacked and by someone else, Israel attacked them, they hit us first, and we waited for them to hit us, we would suffer more casualties and more deaths.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The administration's view of the nuclear threat? Well, that hasn't been consistent. This is what Vice President J.D. Vance said tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: What the president determined is he didn't want to just keep the president -- excuse me, keep country safe from an Iranian nuclear weapon for the first three, four years of his second term. He wanted to make sure that Iran could never have a nuclear weapon, and that would require fundamentally a change in mindset from the Iranian regime.

So, he saw that the Iranian regime was weakened, he knew that they were committed to getting on that brink of a nuclear weapon, and he decided to take an action because he felt that was necessary in order to protect the nation's security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: But his timeline doesn't match with what we were just hearing days before the strikes. Trump's Middle East Special Envoy Steve Witkoff was claiming Iran was a week away from being able to build a bomb. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE WITKOFF, U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY: They've been enriching well beyond the number that you need for civil nuclear. They're probably a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Then on Saturday, the first day of this current conflict, a senior administration official claimed that Trump's decision to attack was influenced by the belief that Iran was preparing to potentially launch preemptive strikes.

[23:10:06]

There are a lot of different stories the administration will have to explain to Congress tomorrow when it begins its briefings. Let's turn now to global security experts, CNN national security analyst David Sanger and retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery for more than three decades. Glad to have both of your minds here with me as we try to unpack really all the different inconsistencies, frankly, but yet this conflict is presently here.

David, Rubio said the U.S. had to strike because Israel was going to and Iran would retaliate against the U.S. Tonight, Iran is seizing on that very thing and their foreign minister posted this. "Mr. Rubio admitted what we all knew: U.S. has entered a war of choice on behalf of Israel. There was never any so-called Iranian 'threat.'" So, is there a clear why to that and what's the risk of this having been expressed?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, first, well, no one is going to miss the supreme leader who did huge damage across the Middle East, was the source of huge amounts of terror and instability, and ran Iran either as president or as supreme leader since 1981.

But that said, this was a war of choice because back in June, the president was pretty effective in at least burying, if not obliterating, that stockpile of nuclear fuel that could have been turned into a bomb. So, what you heard Steve Witkoff say would have been true in June, but isn't true today because of the earlier action that they took.

All of this churn we've been hearing, I think, sounds to me like they're trying to develop a rationale for an imminent threat because just doing a preventive war, they're weak, we're strong, is considered illegal under the U.N. Charter, most international laws. So, they're struggling to get there.

The problem with Secretary Rubio's statement is he wasn't arguing there was an imminent threat of attack from Iran. He was arguing that he had to put the interests of the Israelis first, and he couldn't contain them if they were going to attack and then the effects of that would redound on the United States. COATES: That's what's between the lines, right? His statement of essentially the U.S. would be harmed, would become Iran's target if Israel did attack. And so, there was that sort of chain -- that causal connection there. But is that a reasonable assumption to make and that how the U.S. military would normally operate?

REAR ADM. MARK MONTGOMERY, RETIRED REAR ADMIRAL, U.S. NAVY: We would want to take a -- if we knew someone was going to attack us, we'd prefer to be preemptive. You have less of your forces exposed. You can knock down more of the enemy. I will say though that --

COATES: There's an intermediary. That's the issue.

MONTGOMERY: Yes. And with Israel involved, clearly, this is a well- integrated strike campaign. This is -- it kind of belies -- it puts the lie to that story because clearly, our planners and their planners work very carefully. You don't do this kind of suppression of enemy air defense randomly. So, we had worked a plan ahead of time. Whether the timing was being pushed by Israel, that could be true, but the permissions to do this and the overall leadership desire to do it was clear.

COATES: So, if that's true and there was this coordination and, obviously, it took some level of planning, what does that say in terms of the ability of the United States to convince Israel otherwise if they were the intermediary that would be attacked, that would trigger our own attack? So, that suggests the United States didn't have control over Israel in some way that was meaningful?

SANGER: Well, at other times in recent history, the president has had pretty good control over Israel's actions.

COATES: Well, obviously not now.

SANGER: Not now. During the Gaza ceasefire, the president basically forced the prime minister to agree to the American peace plan. But in this case, they were so integrated, as Mark indicated, that it was the CIA that determined that the supreme leader and his council of national security aides were going to be on at 9:30 in the morning at the supreme leader's compound and the Israelis struck it. So, that's how deep in they were with each other.

The U.S. can say it didn't pull the trigger, but it certainly provided the intelligence that allowed that trigger to be pulled. So, it's not as if they were concerned simply that Israel was going to drag them into the war. They were planning this together, as Mark suggested.

COATES: Speaking of the integration level of this, I mean, they're saying, the administration is saying that their goal is to remove the threat of Iran's short-term ballistic missiles and destroy their navy. Their timeline seems to be four to five weeks. One, is that reasonable?

[23:15:00]

And can that be done without United States boots on the ground? MONTGOMERY: Well, for this kind of attack plan, I think it is the facilities, the equipment, and the actual production of ballistic missiles and drones, and the destruction of not just the naval ships, as the president said, but their mining capability and their anti-ship cruise missile capability so they can't threaten the straits. That is a, you know, probably a three-week plan, and then you assess how you did, you do battle damage assessment, and then you selectively re- attack for a fourth or fifth week.

To me, that's the right level. My concern is the president will prematurely start this, get it really going, and then pull the hook, you know, early.

COATES: Before that four to five weeks?

MONTGOMERY: Before that four to five weeks. That's what happened with the 12-day war. That 12-day war should have gone on another eight to 12 days. But after he did the photo, he pulled it. In fact, Israeli planes were in the air for more strikes and had to be called back. So, yes, it is a four-week air campaign and at a minimum, in my mind, and we need to actually do it at this point.

COATES: With boots on the ground?

MONTGOMEY: The only boots on the ground would be the kind of Title 50 intelligence community special operators that help with really selective targets. And I assume that has already happened. It certainly happened from the Mossad, from the Israeli point of view, in my mind. So maybe from ours, but not the traditional boots on the ground of Army and Marine Corps units you associate with that.

COATES: I do have to say Netanyahu was responding tonight to allegations that he dragged the president of United States into this with the -- with his thoughts. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NETANYAHU: Iran is committed to your destruction. And whether people understand it or not, the leader has to understand it. Donald Trump understands it. You don't have to drag him into anything. And nobody would do it, anyway. He does what he thinks is right, and this is right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: What do you see at the dynamics between Netanyahu and Trump now?

SANGER: Well, they're pretty joined at the hip on this one, at this point. The president has not really explained terribly well what his ultimate goal here is, and that's maybe where the split with Netanyahu becomes clear further out. It's, as Mark suggested, when it's time to end this.

Now, this is part of the problem with the president having so many different goals, and you tick them off at the beginning. But he made it pretty clear in that video that he released on the Saturday morning just when the fighting began that he wanted the Iranian people to stay in their homes until this was over and then come out and rise up and overthrow their government. That's the definition of regime change.

But how is he going to engineer that if the Iranian -- if the Islamic Revolutionary Guard comes out and fires on the protesters? Is it the U.S. that will come in on the ground to help them?

COATES: David Sanger, Admiral Mark Montgomery, thank you both. One of many big questions tonight, who, if anyone, will take over after Ayatollah and what happens in the meantime? My next guest has been reporting on Iran since the 70s, even had breakfast with Ayatollah once. Award-winning reporter, columnist, and author Robin Wright is next. And later the rupture within the MAGA movement explodes and it's not just the president facing the heat.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE, FORMER GEORGIA REPRESENTATIVE: He's lying. He has gone back on what he promised. No more foreign wars. No more regime change. And I want to know where the hell is J.D. Vance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: We are following the breaking news out of the Middle East where U.S. and Israeli forces have dealt a crushing blow to Iran's leadership, killing its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, multiple high-ranking regime officials and counting. What next? And what now? What kind of changes in store for Iranians without its longtime leader?

My next guest met the late Ayatollah in 1987, then president of Iran, and she has a new article titled, "What Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Meant to Iran, and What Comes Next?" New Yorker columnist Robin Wright joins me now. Robin, I'm glad to have you here. Your insight is so valuable at this point, especially. And you have said that the late Ayatollah, he struck you as arrogant, defensively furious. He held power for nearly 40 years. So, can the Iranian regime even survive without him?

ROBIN WRIGHT, NEW YORKER COLUMNIST, AUTHOR: Well, after 47 years, Iran has a deep political and military bench. And there is an array of people who could step in as the supreme leader. The question is, will the system so weakened have a regime that had the kind of pull over its people, the kind of tools that it used to stay in power next, or will you find that the new supreme leader expected to be announced this week is so weakened that the Revolutionary Guards, the military in Iran, becomes the power behind the throne? And the question, of course, is, if there is any kind of regime change, who steps in?

Having lived in South Africa for many years, I can tell you there are many young Nelson Mandelas in Iran, but there's no African national Congress, there's no infrastructure, no united leadership, no manifesto in terms of defining what comes next. So, you know, the future is looking at best. There are a lot of different scenarios.

And I think if the United States make clear what it wants to see in terms of regime change or end to Iran's, you know, repression of its own people or attacks on the west, then we might have a better sense of where this war and how this war ends.

[23:25:05]

COATES: President Trump told my colleague, Jake Tapper, this is me quoting him, "We don't know who the leadership is. We don't know who they'll pick. Maybe they'll get lucky and get someone who knows what they're doing." I mean, obviously, he is unsure, as you've articulated as well, about this power vacuum, but are there concerns about the meantime and the meanwhile of what comes next during the power vacuum?

WRIGHT: I think that's a big question. And yes, even though the United States has taken out major military facilities in Tehran and other big cities, the reality is that the military has been deeply decentralized now that the military leadership of some of the key military leaders have been eliminated.

And so, you may find the kind of whether it is forces arrayed along the Persian Gulf, across the border from Iraq, and many of its other strategic locations acting on their own, and that's more difficult to eliminate or to target.

COATES: Secretary of State Marco Rubio says that there is a possibility that the United States plays a role in a government transition. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): No plan for the U.S. to at least play a role in whatever government comes next?

RUBIO: I mean, we might. We'll see how circumstances play out. If there's something we can do to help them down the road, we'd obviously be open to it. But that's not the objective. The objective of this mission is the destruction of their ballistic missile capability.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: May not be an objective, but it might likely, perhaps, be a consequence. I mean, is the U.S. involvement necessary to change the regime in Iran?

WRIGHT: Well, it reminds me very much of what the Bush administration said in going into Iraq. It was to destroy weapons of mass destruction. And we ended up on the ground eight years left only to trigger an insurgency that ended up as ISIS and seized a third of Iraq and Syria.

Now, there are lots of different analogies here. But, you know, this is a real danger. What is the United States thinking about how to protect those people in Iran if they do decide to rise up against the government? We urge the Shiites and the Kurds in Iraq to do that, only to lead to, you know, thousands being slaughtered.

So, you know, I don't think Washington has really thought this through in terms of the political end game. And who takes power, who might be allied and, you know, what would the relationship be like with Iran afterwards?

COATES: Robin Wright, thank you so much.

WRIGHT: Thank you, Laura.

COATES: The breaking news continues next with the war over the war. Democrats on the Hill say Congress was illegally cut out of the process and that it's time to reign in the president's power to take the country to war. Ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Gregory Meeks, will make the case, next. And later, a rupture in MAGA world. The president's supporters throwing around words like betrayal with one former top Trump advisor warning the movement is about to bleed support.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Tomorrow, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and other military intelligence officials will brief all members of Congress on the war with Iran. Many Democrats want Congress to have a voice and a vote on the war through the War Powers Act. And the Constitution makes it clear that Congress -- quote -- "shall have power to declare war."

The War Powers Resolution, well, that goes a step further. Passed in 1973 to stop the Vietnam War, it requires that the president -- quote -- "In every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities."

The White House argues it did notify Congress, but it's a small group of lawmakers, not the whole body. And as for a vote on the War Powers Act, well, House Speaker Mike Johnson calls that foolish.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE JOHNSON, SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: I think the idea that we would move a War Powers Act vote right now, I mean, it will be forced to the floor, but the idea that we would take the ability of our commander in chief, the president, take his authority away right now to finish this job is a frightening prospect to me. It's dangerous. And I am certainly hopeful and I believe we do have the votes to put it down. That's going to be a good thing for the country and our security and stability.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Joining me now, Congressman Gregory Meeks, Democrat from New York and ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Congressman, thank you for joining us. You obviously heard how Speaker Johnson criticized the idea of even holding a vote on the War Powers Act which, as you know, from time to time has been controversial as to its own constitutionality, depending on the president. Should there be a War Powers vote?

REP. GREGORY MEEKS (D-NY): Absolutely. You get rid of a War Powers vote, then you might as well have a king. You don't have to deal with Congress. The War Powers vote is so that one man -- in the Constitution, it says that only one body can declare war. And clearly, we know we're at war. The president said it is war. We've heard today where the secretary of state and others have said we're at war. So, war has to be declared by Congress. And the administration should bring to us the reasons why they want to go to war, not just leave it up to a single person to make that determination.

COATES: If there is a vote, will it pass?

[23:35:00]

MEEKS: I hope it does. But I know the voices of each member of Congress will now be on the record. I think the constituencies of each member needs to know where the members stand.

And this vote is simply saying that Congress should have a voice and the president should justify taking the American people to war because the American people are the ones that are going to pay for it, the American people are the ones that are going to have to make the sacrifices for it, and the American people's reputation of working with their friends and allies across the nation and making sure that we're standing for the right thing is at line. This is a war of choice, not a war of necessity.

COATES: Thank you for clarifying that. That was an important point that Secretary of State Marco Rubio was asked about, was discussing in broader context. And he argues that the administration, well, they did go to Congress because they notified the Gang of Eight. And they -- also, the War Powers Act is essentially not relevant here. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: Look, that's fine. If they want to take a War Powers vote, they can do that. They've done that. They've done that a bunch of times. But there's no -- people keep saying that we have -- there's no law that requires the president to have done anything with regards to this. To begin with, no presidential administration has ever accepted the War Powers Act as constitutional. Not Republican presidents, not Democratic presidents.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: There has been the issue and the arguments raised that this infringes on the flexibility that a president would need as commander in chief. Obviously, the War Powers Act tries to guard against that very flexibility. But realistically, what can Congress do here? There's already been the actions taken. Tell me why this would be more than performative.

MEEKS: First, let me just say this. I was in Congress in 2003 during the Iraq War. And George W. Bush and the members of his administration came to Congress. There were hearings held on the House Financial Services, on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The president is not a king. The Congress has to be included therein. It has been done time and time before. The only one that's trying to avoid that, as he has been trying to avoid Congress on a number of other issues, is Donald J. Trump.

COATES: As you know, presidents Obama and Biden, they argued that it was necessary to go around Congress in other instances for different factual reasons, it seems, but they felt it was necessary to defend the United States. Curiously, the Trump administration says that these attacks were to stop an imminent threat from Iran. And you heard from Rubio today. Tell me, based on what you have learned, was there an imminent threat from Iran to the United States?

MEEKS: There was not an imminent threat to the United States at all. Fact of the matter, what we see is that every day or sometimes twice a day, somebody from the administration gives a different reason for the attack. So, we heard today from the Secretary of state the reason why Israel was going to strike first. So, therefore, we had to strike. There was not an imminent threat directly to the United States of America.

The fact of the matter is what I'm questioning now, whether or not the negotiation that was taking place, whether that was ever for real, because if it was, then we've had individuals from Oman and others that said there was progress being made.

And that was abruptly stopped and halted to go straight to war without going to Congress, without a case being made to the American people, and without a plan. There's no plan now as to what takes place afterwards. And, as you know, if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. And I think that's where we are right now.

COATES: You see those negotiations, if they existed, as near performative pretext just to get to this moment?

MEEKS: Yes. It seems that way to me. I've heard Prime Minister Netanyahu said they had planned this for months. And the president said at one point that if the negotiations, when they were, had taken place a year ago, he probably would have made a deal.

COATES: Congressman Gregory Meeks, thank you.

MEEKS: Thank you for having me.

COATES: You know, it's not just Democrats that are upset with Trump's war. It's former diehard MAGA supporters, too. Well, here's Marjorie Taylor Greene.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GREENE: -- what he promised. No more foreign wars. No more regime change. And I want to know where the hell is J.D. Vance. Where is he? Where is Tulsi Gabbard? Because if they stand by and are silent and they're -- they're turning back on the same words they said.

[23:40:00]

It's all on video. All of them are on video saying it just like I'm on video saying no more foreign wars, no more regime change. I'm on video, on campaign stages, and at Trump rally saying the exact same thing. But where's J.D. and where's Tulsi?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Let's talk about it with former Obama White House senior director and State Department spokesperson Nayyera Haq and CNN political commentator and Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton. Well, Shermichael, can you answer that question in terms of obviously what was campaigned on versus what the reality is today?

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Sure. I think dynamics in real time forces politicians to ultimately change their strategic outlook. And with that said, Marjorie Taylor Greene, she's making a case about consistency. That's not something we typically see coming from Republicans on the left or the right, to just be quite frank. And a lot of Republicans, particularly those who support the president, they don't hold her in high regard much anymore. And so, while her plea -- her pleas may be rhetorically sound, I think they're going to fall on deaf ears.

COATES: It's not just her though, right? Who has complained. Even among people who have been traditionally pro-MAGA. I mean, this is happening eight months before the midterms. And although, obviously, politics is often infused into everything we do, I mean, this, politically speaking, is problematic.

NAYYERA HAQ, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, it comes right on the heels of Trump having lost in the Supreme Court on his tariff case. And people are becoming aware that companies will be getting money back. But we all still play more for the goods in the meantime. There's no refund coming our way. So, there's that question out there about the domestic economic situation.

I mean, you've got folks in the Middle East talking about America not holding pedophiles accountable. Then you can clearly see that maybe calling it Operation Epic Fury and opening up the door for an E for Epstein, Operation Epstein Fury, wasn't a very smart idea there either. So, there's a lot of --

COATES: I hadn't made that connection there.

HAQ: There's a lot -- oh, that's all over the inter-webs. Trust me. Yes, all over there. But the idea that, you know, to wag the dog kind of moment, that somebody underwater, it politically and domestically, you know, find a case to go to war. And that's also frankly a direct connection with Netanyahu and how he has frankly said that he needs to continue to keep, you know, keep the fight going, whether it's in Gaza or the West Bank, and now with Iran. So, that's something he and Trump seem to really connect on.

SINGLETON: Do I think the administration needs to notify and brief Congress on this, all members, House and Senate? I do. I think they should do that. I think they should make the case to the American people as well. And I think there is a sound argument to make similar to Venezuela. This isn't necessarily about getting into protracted, long, expensive, costly wars.

But this is really about diminishing China's role internationally as our greatest adversary. And I'll tell you why. Thirteen to 14 percent of China's oil is exported from or imported rather from Iran. From the Iranians perspective, that's 80 percent of their exports going to China, a significant amount of capital that they were utilizing for the past several decades now to fund their ability to fund terrorist groups. You're familiar with this spending time in that part of the world. And so, I think the question becomes --

COATES: You look on moves by that.

HAQ: Yes, because there's so many better ways to counter China. When you've lost John Bolton, Mr. Regime Change, when John Bolton has said that this -- the way that the United States has approached Iran is going to create chaos, a power vacuum, and destabilize entire region. When you've lost Erik Prince, Mr. Blackwater, who made billions of dollars off of the war in Afghanistan, and he's talking about how poorly planned this is.

I mean, the argument about China, sure, that's one of maybe five arguments that we've been given in the last 48 hours to understand why now and what is the plan here.

SINGLETON: Well, I haven't heard that argument.

COATES: Well, I'm wondering about the lack of consistency in terms of messaging alone. You had people criticize Rubio to Vance to Trump.

SINGLETON: Sure.

COATES: There is not one through line. How problematic is that in terms of being able to understand the justifications for it going forward?

SINGLETON: Sure. I mean, I think it gives credence to Nayyera's overall premise, which is it appears that there isn't a strategic through line. What are the ultimate aims? You know, removing the regime is one thing, but are we willing to do what's necessary for the people of Iran to form their own government? And how difficult and tedious will that process be? And can we do it without a robust number of troops on the ground? Perhaps maybe we can do it through CIA and working with Israel and other allies in the country? Perhaps. Right?

But I do think creating a strategy to diminish China is key number one. The surrounding neighboring countries in that area have also stated that they support this for the most part because the Iranian regime was problematic.

HAQ: They do not support the fact that it is very obvious that Iran was going to retaliate and that they were all set up, that they were not alerted in advance. The fact that Kuwait accidentally shot down three F-15s goes to the point of we have not been coordinating with our allies who are hosting bases in the region. So, this is kind of in the hot mess territory, not in the strategic landscape.

[23:45:01]

SINGLETON: I actually don't -- Laura, just really quickly. I don't have anything to push back on against what Nayyera is making. All sound, valid points. My simple point is that there is a logical and reasonable argument to make for why we're doing this, but you have to have a strategy.

COATES: Well, I'd like to hear that from the commander in chief. Nayyera, Shermichael, thank you.

SINGLETON: Mr. President, if you hear me, I'm here. Talk to Shermichael.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: Up next, smoke billowing in Beirut as the war with Iran spills into Lebanon with Iranian-backed Hezbollah now getting involved. Matthew Chance standing by live in Beirut tonight. And later, the security fears here at home after a deadly shooting in Texas. What the FBI is now investigating as possible terrorism.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: You're looking at live pictures out of Lebanon right now.

[23:49:58]

Large clouds of smoke rising and explosions heard in Beirut as the Israeli military issued evacuation warnings saying they've begun attacking Hezbollah targets.

Let's go to CNN's chief global affairs correspondent Matthew Chance, who's live on the ground in Beirut. Matthew, what are you seeing?

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, it has been a very intensive night, Laura, with Israeli airstrikes pounding areas of this city of Beirut in the southern suburbs, which are known to be a Hezbollah stronghold. Elsewhere in the country as well. Israel carrying out various military operations, targeting what it says are things like Hezbollah weapons, storage facilities, and command and control centers. But it's also hitting areas that are populated with ordinary people as well.

And Lebanese authorities say, over the course of the past 36 hours or so, as part of these very intensive Israeli strikes, several people, dozens of people, more than 50, in fact, have been killed, more than 150 have been injured. And thousands have been forced to flee their homes, particularly in southern Lebanon, to areas out of the line of fire to relative safety. Some of them, in fact, have come here to Beirut where it is a little bit safer than in the south.

Now, there has been condemnation of Hezbollah from the Lebanese government. They're very concerned that this Iranian-backed militia, which has been a traditional and reliable proxy of Tehran, is drawing Lebanon into the Iran War, something it desperately wants to avoid. It has taken the sort of unprecedented step over the course of the past day or so of formally outlawing Hezbollah military activity. Now, that sounds like a symbolic move and it is, but it's also a potentially very risky one that could fuel tensions between Hezbollah and the Army, the national Army of Lebanon.

So, very tense, very difficult times here as it seems that Lebanon is slowly getting drawn more and more into that Iran war.

COATES: Matthew, we want you safe. Please keep your reporting. Thank you so much, Matthew Chance. There are fears the United States strikes on Iran could prompt security threats right here at home. Over the weekend, FBI Director Kash Patel says he instructed counterterrorism teams to be on -- quote -- "high alert."

And this comes as the FBI is investigating whether the suspect in Sunday's mass shooting in Austin might have been motivated by the events in the Middle East. As of now, no motive has been confirmed. Three people were killed, including two college students. Thirteen others were wounded.

Joining me now, former chief of Homeland Security and Intelligence for Washington, D.C., Donell Harvin, who's also a professor of terrorism studies at Georgetown University. Donell, everyone is wondering. Are there serious concerns about retaliatory attacks in the United States for these strikes in Iran?

DONELL HARVIN, FORMER CHIEF OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Yes, this is an intelligence exercise that we actually went through in 2020 with the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, if you remember, the Quds Force commander.

And I was in the SCIF, which is a security room, getting briefings. And the determination at that point was, yes, Iran has ability to strike us on the homeland or U.S. assets or people overseas. But they wouldn't use that for a general. They would only deploy that type of attack if there was an existential threat to the regime, like the regime was about to fall. And we may be seeing that right now.

COATES: You know, a law enforcement source telling CNN that the suspect in Austin this weekend was wearing a shirt with an Iranian flag on it underneath a hoodie that read, "property of Allah." How will investigators, though, determine whether this was, in fact, motivated by the strikes in Iran?

HARVIN: Yes. So, what they're going to do is they're going to go through what they normally do, go through the individual's social media. They're going to interrogate their electronic devices, cellphones, laptops, talk to individuals that knew him or associated with him to get an idea of what happens. Often, we've seen this over and over. These individuals are radicalized. They're lone actors. They may not even share information about what they're trying to do. And so, they may hit a dead end.

But I think that investigators are still looking at what's going on in his background, and we'll have a better idea in the next coming days. But, once again, it is concerning that an individual like this could be potentially radicalized or inspired by what's happening.

COATES: Kash Patel is saying the FBI's counterterrorism units should be on high alert. So, what does that mean in effect?

HARVIN: Yes, it means that they have to be on their toes. I mean --

[23:55:00]

COATES: But what are they doing?

HARVIN: Well, you know, we've talked about this. I've been very critical of the administration over the last six or seven months because they've actually turned away from this type of transnational terrorist organizations or forced terrorist organizations to look at some of these transnational criminal organizations that are designated like Tren de Aragua and some of these other ones. Antifa.

And so, now, they have to kind of swing their gaze back to the true threat, which are radical Islamist and these types of groups. And so, what that means is closer state and local coordination, closer coordination with DHS, sharing information and intelligence, and making sure they have confidential informants, what we call human intelligence or human in place.

COATES: As you know, we're currently in a partial government shutdown. There is no agreement still on funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Does this make us more vulnerable in terms of our national security apparatus?

HARVIN: You know, I think that that's a political talking point. As far as the funding, the DHS got a huge amount of funding in the big, beautiful bill. They'll be able to operate. The question is, do they have the mandate? Do they have the leadership? We're going to hear from Kristi Noem tomorrow, and we're going to find out if they're able to do the job.

COATES: I'll be interested in your insight on that as well. Donell Harvin, thank you so much. And thank you all for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)