Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

War with Iran Continues; Hegseth Criticizes Media for Covering Fallen Soldiers; Trump Urges Candidate He Doesn't Endorse to "Drop Out of the Race"; American Comedian Stuck in Middle East. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired March 04, 2026 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00]

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, Trump's war with Iran, where it's headed, and the one question the administration still can't answer. Fareed Zakaria will be my guest. Plus, is Secretary Pete Hegseth suggesting that covering fallen soldiers is somehow an attack on the commander-in-chief? Congressman Eugene Vindman, a veteran who served in Iraq, standing by to respond. And later, Trump's Texas-sized ultimatum in the Senate race that might spell big trouble for both Democrats and Republicans. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live".

We're on the eve of day six of the president's war against Iran. A war that's end remains, well, open-ended. Could be eight weeks, Secretary Hegseth said today. Maybe less. Maybe more. But one thing was made very clear today. This war is going to get far more intense.

You know, I can't help but look at it as a former prosecutor. I mean, I'm trying to understand the administration's theory of their case, the motive, the intent, the timeline of events that led up to the very moment in question. There's a lot we don't know.

Let's just take this one for tonight. What was the exact trigger? It's a basic question. And yet after six days, I got to tell you, it has been difficult to get a clear answer. Here's the president's latest explanation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Somebody said, on a scale of 10, where would you rate it? I said about a 15. And we're going to continue to do it. We have the greatest military in the world by far. And that was a tremendous threat to us for many years, 47 years. They've been killing our people and killing people from all over the world. And I think we have great support. And I think if we didn't do it first, they would have done it to Israel and give us a shot if that was possible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: So, what exactly did the president see? What was he told to let him to think Iran would strike imminently? Imminently. If we were assessing a defendant's claim of self-defense, imminent would mean something very specific. It's about to happen. It's close in time, not some hypothetical future moment. You couldn't claim, for example, that you acted in self-defense because someday, they might hit you, right? Something some of the lawmakers who've been briefed don't really seem to know the imminent trigger either.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): I mean, I'm not sure I've heard a strategy. And I think I've heard, I think at this point, four different rationales for why we started these operations.

REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): This administration can't even give us a straight answer as to why we launched this preemptive war.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Another important word, preemptive. Speaker Mike Johnson, he has come up with an answer of sorts. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE JOHNSON, SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: They continue to advance their conventional missile systems at a speed and a scale that greatly outpaced our regional allies' ability to respond. That is what made it imminent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, that's where questions are raised because Iran's missile program has been an issue for years. You heard the president articulate as much. So, what was it about this past weekend that suddenly made it so dire to preemptively strike?

Well, here's the new that caught our eye. Axios reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Trump last Monday to give him a tip, that the supreme leader and all of his top advisors would be meeting in one location. Essentially, the opportunity to take them out would be too good to pass up. Now, CNN has not confirmed this, but a reporter asked the White House press secretary whether that was indeed the catalyst.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): How important was that information in the president making the decision to strike where and when he did?

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I think it was important with respect to the timeline. But I think the president prior to that phone call had a good feeling that the Iranian regime was going to strike United States assets and our personnel in the region. And the president was faced with a choice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: You heard her say that the president had a good feeling. Feeling. And the more she spoke, I mean, the more that word kept coming up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: The president had a feeling, again, based on fact, that Iran was going to strike the United States. No, again, these decisions are not made in a vacuum. They are made by the president's feeling that Iran was going to strike the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Well, it should come as absolutely no surprise that most Democrats on the Hill are not satisfied with the president's feeling as being good enough to launch a war. They feel the Constitution and the War Powers Act require President Trump to go to Congress first to seek their approval or at the very least to make the case. Senate Democrats, well, they tried to get a War Powers Resolution passed tonight to stop President Trump's actions, but it failed 47 to 53.

[23:05:02]

Only one Republican, Senator Rand Paul, voted in favor.

With me now, Democratic congressman from Virginia, Eugene Vindman. He's a retired U.S. Army colonel and served in the Iraq War. Congressman, thank you for being here. I mean, the White House -- the White House says that President Trump's decision to strike Iran was driven by a -- quote -- "good feeling." The regime was planning to attack the United States. How do you feel about that?

REP. EUGENE VINDMAN (D-VA): Laura, thanks for having me back. Look, this is not a time for bluster. It's a time from sobriety -- for sobriety and for professionalism. And we don't go to war as a country on feelings. Kings do. Dictators do. Our Constitution is clear. Congress declares war because we don't want kings, and our founding fathers didn't want a king declaring war on a whim as a vanity project.

This president has declared a war. It's a war of choice in violation of international law and U.S. law based on hope. A hope that American air power without any ground troops is sufficient to bring the Iranians to their knees and hope that the Iranian people rise up. And hope is not a plan.

COATES: Did the administration show you any kind of evidence of an imminent threat in any briefings that you've gotten?

VINDMAN: No, absolutely not. I was -- actually, we were lied to by the administration. Eight months ago, the strikes in Iran were supposed to have destroyed, obliterated was the terminology, Iranian nuclear capabilities. And now, the president and his administration, senior administration officials, are talking about a breakout capacity within a couple of weeks. There was no eminent -- they used buzzwords like eminent, without any facts or evidence to show that there was, in fact, a threat.

This -- again, this war is a war of choice. It's based on hope. And I don't know, I don't think the president knows, I don't think the secretary of defense knows exactly what victory means. What is our objective? When have we achieved our objective? Is it regime change? Is it destruction of some sort of the military capacity? I don't think anybody knows.

COATES: Well, on one issue of this and, obviously, the war is getting expensive quickly for the Pentagon, lawmakers anticipate the president will seek emergency funding. Should Congress approve given the concerns you have just laid out?

VINDMAN: Look, the first choice we have is the War Powers vote, which we're going to take tomorrow. And in my opinion, it's the most important vote that I will have taken, will be taking during my tenure here. We've had a lot of important votes that have meant a great deal to the American people. But this one is about committing American blood and treasure to a conflict without a clear endpoint. And so, to me, I am laser-focused on the War Powers Resolution. I will be voting yes on the War Powers Resolution to have the president come back to Congress and justify it in a real way.

President never went to the American people. Even in 2003, when we had the Iraq War, at least, back then, there was a coalition of the willing, there was a debate in Congress of the president completely dispensed with that. This time around, he decided to go in unilaterally, never made the case to American people, never made the case to Congress, and that is what I want accountability for.

COATES: And Senate Republicans rejected an effort to rein in the president based on the War Powers, but we'll see what happens in the House, obviously.

I want to turn to the Pentagon. They've identified two remaining soldiers who were killed in a drone attack in Kuwait on Sunday. I want to say their names. Major Jeffrey O'Brien and Chief Warrant Officer 3 Robert Marzan. Secretary Hegseth, he claimed the news media is highlighting the deaths of U.S. troops to -- quote -- "make the president look bad." Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: This is what the fake news misses. We've taken control of Iran's airspace and waterways without boots on the ground. We control their fate. But when a few drones get through or tragic things happen, it is front page news. I get it, the press only wants to make the president look bad, but try for once to report the reality.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The reality is that we honor our service members, and we should. What message is he sending to troops by making that statement?

[23:10:00]

VINDMAN: That was absolutely disgusting and despicable, and something I'd never thought I would hear from a secretary of defense. This is not about the president and his vanity, but even the secretary of defense. This is about the tragedy of those soldiers, those service members that were killed, and the families that will have to deal with those consequences for the rest of their lives. And, oh, by the way, they're wounded as well. And so, for the secretary of defense to make this about whether the president looks bad or not is absolutely disgusting.

COATES: Congressman Vindman, thank you.

VINDMAN: Thank you.

COATES: I want to turn to CNN military analyst and retired Air Force colonel, Cedric Leighton, and CNN global affairs analyst Kim Dozier. Glad to have both of you.

I can't get this out of my mind because you heard Congressman Vindman just speaking and his remarks about Secretary Hegseth's comments just earlier today. Were you surprised that the secretary of defense would make such a statement?

KIMBERLY DOZIER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: I'll let you --

(LAUGHTER)

I mean, look, Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, opened his remarks right after Hegseth, talking about the fallen and honoring them. That is what we do. That is part of the compact of U.S. soldiers going to war for their country. When they give the ultimate sacrifice, and you've got six Gold Star families now, you honor them. It's not about politics.

CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST, RETIRED AIR FORCE COLONEL: Yes. Exactly. I mean, when you look at it from the standpoint of those who are serving, they expect their chain of command to take care of them and to help them also in their grief. And that includes everyone from the platoon leader all the way to the secretary of defense and to the president of the United States. So, anything that deviates from that is not helpful.

DOZIER: Yes.

COATES: Important words. I mean, Hegseth also said something else today, in addition. He said the United States and Israel will soon take control of Iran. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HEGSETH: In under a week, the two most powerful air forces in the world will have complete control of Iranian skies, uncontested airspace. B2s, B52s, B1s, Predator drones, fighters controlling the skies, picking targets. Death and destruction from the sky all day long.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Now, he said Iranian skies, not Iran completely. But can the U.S. stockpiles, can they actually keep up with that particular pace and that timeline he has given?

LEIGHTON: It depends. It depends on which weapon systems they're actually going to use. They've implied that they're going to be using weapon systems that are not as precise as some of the ones that they've thrown at Iran right now.

So, what could happen is they would use -- because they've declared air superiority over Iran, that means that they can basically fly more or less with impunity over Iranian airspace or at least parts of Iranian airspace.

So, what that means, Laura, is that they can go in there and instead of doing this from a standoff position, like from a ship and launching a Tomahawk missile, they could go in with an airplane directly overhead and hit a target that way. That requires a less precise weapon than what you would have with a standoff weapon. So, it is possible.

We do have stockpiles throughout the inventory of our weapon systems that would allow for that to go on for quite some time. What we don't have is unlimited quantities of anything. There's always a limit to something. It's a basic law of economics.

And it's also, quite frankly, a moment where our defense industrial base needs to basically meet that moment because there are a lot of things that could be produced that they should have been thinking about in terms of the needs, not just because of Iran, but because of Ukraine, because of other possible contingencies like China, Taiwan, and that's the kind of thing that's missing at this point.

COATES: You know, Kim, there's an interview with Erin Burnett and a former CNN journalist who's based in Iran, who really underscored the complexities of knowing who might be in control and who would eventually run Iran and who is doing it today. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REZA SAYAH, JOURNALIST BASED IN TEHRAN: You have in each province, forces in each province, granted autonomy and independence. So, if one of them is neutralized, the other ones keep going. In other words, there is no head of the snake to cut off.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And that might suggest that this is a prolonged endeavor. Does the administration understand that?

DOZIER: Not from Hegseth's remarks this morning. Look, I've covered the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I've seen press conferences like this before where they're like, we're winning from the air.

[23:15:01] War looks different on the ground. The Iranian military had time to plan for this. They planned to be out of communication with each other and to carry on the war. We could take out their missile capability, their drone capability, their Navy. You haven't taken away their will or their tens of thousands of personnel. They've got a nearly million man standing army. And a large part of that army, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, is trained in how to carry on the fight with unconventional means.

And also, through things like terrorist attacks. That is likely why we're seeing this panic warning for all Americans to get out of the area. And I have to say in terms of planning, you know, Secretary Hegseth this morning talked about how they got 90 percent of the U.S. troops out of harm's way before this assault began. How about American citizens? Why was no one thinking ahead?

That's just one of the many questions I have in terms of what sort of planning for the long term, for a tough fight went into this. Iran is not a paper tiger. We will likely end up going back again and again to bomb a country that is now determined to rebuild and make us pay.

COATES: Let's talk about the Kurds, colonel, because you know this area very well and the paradigms (ph) at play. I mean, there's a thought that they would be able to help provoke some sort of an uprising if they were inclined to do so. Number one, would they be inclined? And two, what are the risks of their involvement?

LEIGHTON: Well, locally, they might be inclined, Laura, because the Kurds are basically an oppressed minority within Iran.

COATES: But not a monolith.

LEIGHTON: Not a monolith. Exactly. They're not a monolithic group. There are lot of different groups, different political groups within the Kurdish minority in Iran, which are, by the way, different than the Kurdish groups in Iraq, for example, or in Syria and in Turkey. So, what we have to consider here is this is one group.

And the idea that we're going to leverage the Kurds in Iran to change the dynamic for the other 90 or so million Iranians of various ethnic groups, including Persians, that is not going to work. They will not be able to leverage that rebellious quality or whatever you want to call it in Kurdistan. That potential rebellion in Kurdistan, they won't be able to leverage that throughout Iran.

The only other thing that this could be good for would be to foment the kind of unrest within Iran that would potentially break up the country in the future. Now, that's a really long haul, and that might be too much. That would be such a dangerous thing because it could really portend a breakup of a state that has been in existence for really well over 2,500 years.

COATES: What is that future timeline? You're talking about distant future?

LEIGHTON: Well, no, I'm talking about immediate future because what you're dealing with here is the fact that, you know, if that country breaks up in the near term, that could then result in a completely different power dynamic in the region, and that could really adversely impact the Gulf states.

DOZIER: Yes. If I could just jump in, Hegseth spoke disparagingly of nation building in Iraq and saying we're not doing that this time. What it does is maintain stability. It's a selfish thing that the U.S. does. It's not for the good of the country, it's for the good of the world. You don't want Iran to become another Libya.

LEIGHTON: Exactly.

COATES: Colonel Leighton, Kim Dozier, thank you both so much.

Up next, is Trump paying any attention to the lessons of Iraq? And what happens if the next leader of Iran is just as bad or worse? You know what? Fareed Zakaria weighs in with his perspective, next. And ahead, Marjorie Taylor Greene is accusing President Trump of stealing people's opportunity to elect their leaders. We'll tell you why.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLIN POWELL, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I'm the one who said to President Bush, if you break it, you own it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That famous phrase from the late Colin Powell about the Iraq War, it continues to reverberate throughout foreign policy, especially today as President Trump leads the United States into another war in the Middle East.

After some mixed messages, the White House seems to have settled on these goals of the war with Iran: Destroy Iran's ballistic missile program and its naval presence in the region, dismantle Iran's terror proxies, and stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon.

But will the U.S. only broke and help rebuild Iran? The White House isn't so sure yet.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Has the President considered at all kind of how he views a U.S. role, if any, in Iran post-conflict?

LEAVITT: I think it's something the president is actively considering and discussing with his advisors and his national security team. But again, right now, the focus, minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day, is on ensuring the quick and effective success of Operation Epic Fury. (END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to bring in the host of CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS," of course, Fareed Zakaria. Good to see you, Fareed. I'm eager to talk about the war aims because the White House says it's focused on four pillars, but regime change is actually not one of them, even though Trump said he wanted to create the conditions to allow Iranians to rise up. Are those objectives the White House outlined, are those enough?

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST: Well, clearly, it's a shift. As you say, the president, when he announced the military action, explicitly called on the Iranian people to overthrow the regime, which is very unusual. It's a rare occurrence. And, therefore, you have to assume that was in many ways the object of the whole exercise.

[23:25:02]

Remember, Iran has already been substantially defanged before this operation. America and Israel bombed it for 12 days solid in June, last June, at the end of which the president said that Iran's nuclear program had been completely and totally obliterated, which was largely accurate. So, the question is, what further obliteration is being sought?

And you laid out the pillars as they put them. Look, those can easily be achieved because the United States has complete dominance in the air, can keep bombing. The question is, to what end and what does that leave Iran with you?

I think you very intelligently played that quote from Colin Powell because what is happening is Iran is being destroyed as a political structure. Is that the intention? Is the idea to destroy Iran's ability to function as a state for that to be, you know, for it

control its borders or to exercise power within this population? If that's the case, that is a kind of regime change operation except that you have no alternative. You are simply trying to get chaos.

The Israeli government, and sometimes you hear this from unnamed spokesmen, admit that that is part of -- that may be their goal. They just want the ayatollah regime to gone. And if what follows is 10 years of chaos like Syria, that's fine for Israel. Is that fine for the United States? We haven't figured that out. You know, it does seem yet that step by step, that is where we are heading.

COATES: You know, there are unconfirmed reports that the ayatollah's son will be the next supreme leader. The White House says it will -- quote -- "wait and see." But Trump, well, he made an ominous comment today. Listen, Fareed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: So, we're in a very strong position now. And their leadership is just rapidly going. Everybody that seems to want to be a leader, they end up dead.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: What happens if the next leader is the ayatollah's son?

ZAKARIA: Well, I think it's a foolish move on the Iranians part. They -- remember, they did the revolution to get rid of hereditary monarchy. And here, you have the ayatollah's son becoming the leader, another one of many bad miscalculations and mistakes the Iranian regime has made. This will not endear them to the Iranian people.

But it gets back to the question of what is President Trump trying to accomplish if he is not going for regime change. And, as you pointed out, Laura, they have now backpedaled off that goal. If they're going for this degradation of Iranian power, then at the end of the day, they need somebody to hand over the country to govern. And yet they say that they're killing each of, you know, people who are perspective to govern. So, then, what is the plan? What is the end goal? Is it just bomb everyone who leads until you get complete chaos? In which case you will get a kind of civil war.

Remember, the Revolutionary Guard in Iran are tens of thousands of people. They are very well well-armed. They will fight to the bitter end. They will fight any attempt to have some outsider come in. So, is that what the United States is trying to accomplish? This is the part where we don't understand. You know, what is the goal behind this? And if we don't have that goal, where is this -- where is this bombing campaign leading?

We have already massively degraded Iranian power. You know, naval power, air power, ballistic power nuclear power mostly gone. So, where is it heading now? It does appear to be heading toward the collapse of the state and, therefore, anarchy.

COATES: You know, there's the question of what now, but also why now that is still very much overhead. And Trump says that the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, did not force his hand to attack Iran. But Netanyahu has seemingly wanted to go to war with Iran, you know, for decades. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL: If you want to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power, the only way -- a military nuclear power, the only way that you can stop them is with a credible military threat.

As you know, my view is that in order to stop Iran's nuclear programs peacefully, diplomacy and sanctions must be augmented by a clear and credible threat of military action.

Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is something that is dangerous to Israel and dangerous, in fact, to the world. And I think we have to find the ways which could include diplomatic and other ways to prevent that from happening.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That's back to all the way 2006 at that point. I mean, no president attacked Iran until Trump.

[23:30:00]

How much do you think Netanyahu influenced his decision?

ZAKARIA: I think that it's clear that Netanyahu has had this dream, as he has put it in a video of his, for 40 years. This is way before Iran had nuclear weapons. This is about getting rid of the ayatollah regime, the Islamic Republic itself. And he has -- he's a very persuasive man. He's very -- clearly, President Trump admires him and likes him. You know, he has asked the Israeli president to pardon him.

I don't think that -- I think it's important to make a distinction. This is not some kind of nefarious plot, that Israel has some kind of, you know, its tentacles into America and dragged America into the war. No. Prime Minister Netanyahu is a powerful, persuasive politician whom Trump admires. He has persuaded Trump that if Trump wants to go down as a man of history, a man of destiny, take on this threat once and for all, exterminate it, and Trump was persuaded. I think that's probably the real story.

And as for the timing, I don't think Netanyahu would force anyone's hand. The president decided when he wanted to go to war. And he has done this in the past, where he's negotiating with somebody one day and then bombs them the next day. That part, I think, is very Trumpian in a way, to keep everybody guessing and to do something that seems very unexpected and unpredictable.

COATES: Trump has said as much. Fareed Zakaria, thank you.

ZAKARIA: Pleasure.

COATES: Up next, Democratic voters pick Talarico for Texas. But as for his November general election opponent, it seems President Trump will get to pick the Republican nominee, the major ultimatum he is now making. And ahead, we're on the ground in the Middle East where the stories of Americans being told to leave, but can't find a way out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: The State Department has been very clear to the American people traveling within this region not to travel to these regions. We gave notices to leave immediately the countries where these Americans were.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Just call it a Texas two-step. After no Republican won the primary outright, the race for a Texas Senate seat is heading to a runoff. But President Trump wants to stop the dancing before it even begins. He posted on True Social -- quote -- "I will be making my endorsement soon. I'll be asking the candidate that I don't endorse to immediately drop out of the race. Is that fair? We must win in November."

Now, the question is, who will get that critical endorsement incumbent? Senator John Cornyn or Texas Attorney General and MAGA firebrand Ken Paxton? And a reminder, this is a race Democrats are hoping to flip now that State Representative James Talarico is the nominee.

Let's talk about it more with former senior advisor of the Trump 2024 campaign, Bryan Lanza, and Democratic strategist Sawyer Hackett. Glad to have both of you here. Bryan, I'll begin with you. Trump wants this runoff over before it begins. What does that say to you? Is this about the amount of money and resources that would be needed to have this sort of bloodbath?

BRYAN LANZA, FORMER DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR TRUMP 2016 CAMPAIGN, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR TRUMP-VANCE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Listen, it's not just Trump's, it's every Republican wants this race over with focus on the general. We're going to a tough general. I mean, Talarico is a good candidate, but I think --

COATES: You think it's a tough general?

LANZA: Yes. I do think it's the environment that is going to be tough. You know, voters have wanted more progress in the economy. They want it faster. Trump promised faster. It's just going to take a little bit more time. I think you heard the vice president talk about that, that people just need to be patient.

But I think the challenge -- you know, the reason why Trump gets involved in this is he definitely wants to save money. It's going to be a hundred-million-dollar runoff. That's a lot of money that donors are going to spend. I suspect he's going to come out in favor of Senator Cornyn and tell, you know, a long-time supporter Ken Paxton to pack it up, it's time to move on.

COATES: Well, if he does that, is Paxton going to say, OK? He doesn't strike me as the kind of person to just be like --

LANZA: The money will run out. The money will run out fast for him. There will be limited funds, and then he'll see no growth and no momentum. I mean, he'll see the writing on the walls. I mean, when Trump endorses in the primary, it matters a lot. Even when he doesn't endorse, look at Dan Crenshaw in Texas. He didn't endorse Dan Crenshaw, left it open. Crenshaw lost his incumbency last night.

COATES: He did. I mean, former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, she criticized Trump, saying -- quote -- "This is wrong and the people of Texas should be able to vote for whoever they want. Not the candidate Trump demands." Does she have a point?

SAWYER HACKETT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, CONTENT CREATOR: She keeps making some good points, actually --

(LAUGHTER)

-- which is shocking. But, you know, I think it's interesting because on the Democratic side, you hear this all the time, about how the DNC is putting their thumb on the scale and how, you know, the establishment is keeping these insurgent candidates from rising. And here you have Trump essentially just waiting until the end of the primary, waiting until $70 million of ad spending was launched, waiting after all of these attack ads, and then just deciding, I'm going to pick -- I'm going to pick who the nominee is and I'm going to tell the other guy to drop out, you know, maybe with some sort of consolation prize as, you know, cabinet position or something like that.

But I think it's funny. You know, his involvement in this race, I don't necessarily think plays into Republicans' benefit. I think if he, you know, puts his weight behind John Cornyn, it's just more evidence of John Cornyn being kind of this Washington insider, kind of following the same playbook that he has followed for the past however many years that he has been there.

If he gets behind Paxton, you know, it's kind of getting behind this very toxic creature within the Republican Party who has been, you know, impeached by Republican legislature.

[23:39:59]

He has been indicted on felony counts, fraud, and bribery. So, I think, you know, James Talarico got to be looking at these two options and looking at Trump weighing, getting involved in this race, and he's kind of licking his chops.

COATES: I mean, the faith-based statements he has made would be quite the juxtaposition between himself and, say, Paxton. But our team talked to some voters who were casting their ballot for Paxton yesterday. Listen to what some of the things they had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN CALANDRO, VOTER: I think we've seen Cornyn for a long time. I didn't like the way he didn't support our president on a few issues firmly. I think Paxton does. And I support our president.

MATTHEW LIPAS, VOTER: Senator Cornyn has kind of been there like a piece of furniture. Not very active for us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Hmm, not particularly complimentary. OK. How about these voters? If Trump says, here's my endorsement, is there faith that these voters and particular others, would actually fall in line?

LANZA: Yes. I mean, even if you look at the voters, they say, you know, they say Cornyn wasn't sufficiently enough with Trump. So, they're clearly driven by Trump's endorsement by how he's going to play. Listen, I'm a partisan. I want Republicans to win. The reality is if Cornyn is our nominee, we have a much stronger chance to beat Talarico. He's just like another Beto O'Rourke or whoever the Allard guy is. Texas has these moments, but they never deliver. And that's what Talarico is if we're running against Cornyn.

COATES: Is Talarico another Beto O'Rourke, to his point?

HACKETT: I think Talarico is his own man. You know, he is looking at, I think, essentially perfect storm in Texas. You know, Texas has become this kind of boy who cried wolf situation where every cycle, we get whipped up about Texas flipping, and when it doesn't happen, voters are disappointed. But, right now, you're looking at a Democratic Party that's extremely enthusiastic, extremely, you know, involved in politics.

COATES: But they always are. There are other races, too. What's different now?

HACKETT: But you also have a wedge within the Republican Party. I mean, you saw a four-term Republican senator spending $70 million to run against a, you know, criminally indicted adulterer and barely squeaking it out into a runoff.

The Republican Party is deeply unhappy. They're not enthusiastic. There's a 14-point gap in enthusiasm between Democrats and Republicans in Texas. That combined with, I think, the enthusiasm behind Talarico as well as independents, you know, kind of moving in Democrats' direction and Democrats reassembling that winning coalition of Latino voters and Black voters and young voters that we kind of had some attrition with in 2024, that's a recipe for a victory in Texas if there ever is one.

COATES: Latino voters, I mean, Politico reports that Talarico won the majority of Latino counties by 22 percentage points. Is that a warning for Republicans going forward in the general?

LANZA: Listen, Texas is a red state. I don't think any of it is warning. I think the only ones who lose that are going to be Republicans. I think Cornyn has a tough job because he has been there so long. People, you know, view him as sort of, you know, stale furniture. And he has to sort --

COATES: They said they literally called him furniture.

LANZA: Right. It's how they feel. But listen, the numbers are on our side, right? You know, the Republicans are there on our side. The voters are -- you know, the voters align with this more than anything else. They certainly don't align with Talarico. But I think --

COATES: You don't buy that. Hold on.

HACKETT: There are more registered Democrats in Texas than there are registered Republicans. It's one of the most unaffiliated states in the country.

LANZA: Look, 30 years, they voted for Republican U.S. senator and governor. And the vast majority of the congressional delegation is Republican. The Democratic delegation is shrinking. So, you're right, they have a chance in Texas.

COATES: But, right now, they can't decide between Cornyn and Paxton, and they do fit very different roles in terms of their policy. So, there is some wedge, as you talk about.

HACKETT: And I think -- I mean, it shows that Donald Trump is afraid of losing this race, of losing the Senate. The fact that he would get behind somebody like Cornyn rather than somebody like Paxton who spends his weekends traveling down to Mar-a-Lago and kind of following around Trump like a lap dog.

I think it's interesting that Trump would make this endorsement of Cornyn, if that's what happens, given the kind of posturing he has been doing around these races. He has been sort of unabashed in who he's supporting and what he's doing, and not really kind of looking at the consequences of his actions before he does them. Here, I think you see him making a very calculated decision.

LANZA: He supports the winner. You know, yesterday was proof that the winner was going to be Cornyn. I think he supports the winner. He looks at Paxton as a guaranteed loser in November.

HACKETT: Without Wesley Hunt in that race, I mean, mean those voters are running to Paxton, not to Cornyn.

COATES: The plot, it thickens. Bryan, Sawyer, thank you both.

Next, the comedian stuck in Dubai coping with humor amid a whole lot of stress.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NASSER AL-RAYESS, SYRIAN-AMERICAN COMEDIAN STUCK IN THE MIDDLE EAST: You're joking with me. You know, you're messing with me. Leave now. When? Where? What? Who? Wow! No, honestly, if I could do a magic carpet, I'd leave. If you have information, which you might, tell me how to turn this carpet, and I'll whole new world back to California.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Some hopeful news for the thousands of Americans stuck in the Middle East. The State Department says a charter flight full of U.S. citizens has left the region tonight, adding that more flights are on the way. This comes just days after Americans were urged to leave the Middle East immediately. Those Americans who need help getting out have been advised to call the 24-7 State Department hotline at 1-202- 501-4444.

[23:50:01]

But as recently as yesterday, people calling that number heard this message telling them, well, you're on your own.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): If you are calling about the crisis in the Middle East, please press 1. If not, press 2. Please do not rely on the U.S. government for assisted departure or evacuation at this time. There are currently no United States evacuation points.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, to be clear, that message has since been changed. And Americans in need of help are still advised to call that number. But the incident has only added to the anxiety of those people who are still stuck overseas. My next guest, though, is turning to levity to try to get through it all.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AL-RAYESS: America just brought a statement that if you're an American in the Middle East, you need to leave now, ASAP. I'm in the Middle East right now. Tell me, please, how am I supposed to leave. You want me to hop on a magic carpet and get back home? You think this is Aladdin? The airports are closed. The airspace is closed. You couldn't tell me this last week?

You're messing with me. Leave now. When? Where? What? Who? Wow! No, honestly, if I could do a magic carpet, I'd leave. If you have information, which you might, tell me how to turn this carpet, and I'll whole new world back to California.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That comedian, Nasser Al-Rayess joins me now from Dubai. Nasser, I mean, you have been in Dubai for over a week. I understand you go there every year during Ramadan to visit family and friends. But can you tell me, at what point did it become clear that you wouldn't be able to leave?

AL-RAYESS: It was very clear around, like, 4 p.m., Saturday. When I heard the first explosion there, I was, like, oh. I called my mom. Mom, I'm not coming home. And she was not happy to hear that, to say the least.

COATES: I'm sure she wasn't. I mean, we've kind of walked through this journey with you. You actually recorded your experience calling that hotline just yesterday. I want to -- I want to play that moment for people.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AL-RAYESS: Do you know what happened when I called the number?

UNKNOWN (voice-over): If you're calling about the crisis in the Middle East, please press 1 --

AL-RAYESS: One. UNKNOWN (voice-over): -- not press 2. Please do not rely on the U.S. government for assisted departure or evacuation at this time. There are currently no United States evacuation points. Please continue to check the embassy's website for updated information.

AL-RAYESS: What the (INAUDIBLE) does that mean? Am I in a "Hunger Games" movie now and I didn't choose to be in it? Huh? What do mean I have to figure it out? You put me in this situation!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I mean, I have to smile because the way you present it makes me do it, I got to tell you. But I take that you're not thrilled with how they have handled this. I mean, have you been able to get in contact with them since?

AL-RAYESS: No. Honestly, after hearing that message once, the trauma that you get and the gaslight feeling that you have, you kind of just don't want to pick up the phone ever again.

I used to have some stress and anxiety from the explosions and the interceptions out here over the head. But now, I have more stress and anxiety towards how the U.S. government really is not caring about American citizens. It's not a pleasant feeling when you call the hotline and says, you're on your own.

And so, I'm not sure what to do at this point. My mom is calling me almost every two hours, wanting me come back home. But I'm doing all right. I'm safe, which is the most important thing.

COATES: It is. I mean, I know that we're learning that charter flights facilitated by the U.S., they have begun evacuating citizens. State Department says there are more on their way, but they wouldn't commit or comment on when these flights would take off, citing, of course, security concerns. Have you been given any indication on a timeline or any kind of timeline of how soon you might be able to return home?

AL-RAYESS: If you've heard something, please, Laura, let me know because I have heard nothing. The situation at this point is that I watch the news and I'm being gaslit by the press secretary of the United States saying it's my fault that I'm in this situation when, honestly, the actions of the government put me in this situation.

And now, there's no information at all about when there's going to be a charter flight. I'm consistently looking on Twitter or X, whatever they call it, to see if there's information, but there's not anything that I've heard so far.

I've literally had to book. I think I book like six flights, and they've all gone canceled around four hours before I get to the airport. And so, I'm not really sure what to do. But I'm doing fine. I was walking on the beach today. I saw a proposal to a lady. It shows that if a man wanted to, he would, even during a war.

(LAUGHTER) So, I'm enjoying my time as much as possible.

(LAUGHTER)

Someone got married. We're doing OK.

COATES: I love that you could find this silver lining because I can imagine how stressful and scary it has been for so many people who are still stuck. But, of course, you are doing what you do best and finding humor. How have you been able to find the humor in these moments?

AL-RAYESS: You know, as a comedian, it's my job. I'm immediately inclined to think of humorous situations in very tough situations, how I was raised. And there's nothing else I could do. I'm not going to stare at a wall and just, you know, try to like be very somber by my situation.

[23:55:00]

I got to, you know, make light of it. It's the only way I can cope through it, to be honest with you. It's not a pleasant experience to hear explosions. I'm a privileged kid in California. I haven't had to live this. My family left Syria, you know, in order for me not to hear these things. And now, I came back, and my mom is, like, I'm so sorry. I'm, like, it's not your fault, it's the government's fault.

And so, you got to use humor, you know? There's -- you're being tested in different ways. I was praying in the mosque the other night. I literally heard an interception overhead. I get scared. And then the uncle next to me breathes his un-infested breath into me. I'm, like, God just tested me in different ways, and you got make a joke out of it. It's the only thing you can do because if you sit there and sulk, it's only going to get worse.

COATES: Well, Nasser's mom, as one mom to another, I agree with you. Stop laughing, Nasser. Also, we want you home. Thank you so much.

(LAUGHTER)

AL-RAYESS: Please, get me home.

(LAUGHTER)

COATES: Thank you so much. Stay safe. Hey, thank you all for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)