Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Says No Deal With Iran Until 'Unconditional Surrender'; Sources: Russia Giving Iran Intel On U.S. Military Targets; Remembering Jesse Jackson. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired March 06, 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, President Trump's bold, new demand in the war with Iran. Is it achievable? And can it be done without boots on the ground? Plus, Russia enters the picture, providing support for Iran to target American troops. What will the U.S. do in response? And later, President Obama's message to the nation as he eulogizes the late Jesse Jackson. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
Seven days of the war against Iran and President Trump's list of objectives and demands, well, they're getting longer by the day. The newest one, unconditional surrender. He says it will be no deal with Iran if that doesn't happen, adding -- quote -- "After that, and the selection of a great and acceptable leaders, we, and many of our wonderful and very brave allies and partners, will work tirelessly to bring Iran back from the brink of destruction, making it economically bigger, better, and stronger than ever before" -- unquote.
So, if you're keeping track, for this war to end and be successful, the United States has to destroy Iran's ballistic missile capabilities, take out their entire Navy, make sure Iran can't ever pursue a nuclear weapon, dismantle all of Iran's abilities to support their proxy groups, get Iran's forces to lay down arms and surrender unconditionally, and have Trump pick a new leader that can get along with the West. All in a country of 90 million people that is four times the size of Iraq.
And you may be wondering, how long is that going to take? Well, the president told Time magazine, "I have no time limits on anything. I want to get it done." The reporter who got that quote from the president is going to join me later tonight to tell us about that very important conversation.
Now, the Pentagon keeps promising they can outlast Iran. No problem. But the U.S. and Israel can essentially bomb the regime into submission. And by all accounts, the strikes have not let up. This is new video from the IDF today. They say it shows them striking the supreme leader's hidden underground bunker.
But Trump might have a new problem on his hands because Iran may not be fighting this war on its own. Sources tell CNN that Russia is now providing to Iran with intelligence about the location and movements of U.S. troops, of U.S. ships, of U.S. aircraft. Sources also tell us the U.S. has intelligence suggesting that China may be getting ready to provide Iran with money, spare parts, and even missile components.
CBS News got to ask Secretary Pete Hegseth specifically about Russia's reported involvement.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAJOR GARRETT, CBS NEWS CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: The average American might hear that and think that's a big and dangerous deal. Is it?
PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well, we're tracking everything. Our commanders are aware of everything. We have the best intelligence in the world. We're aware of who's talking to who, why they're talking to them, how accurate that information might be, how we factor that into our battle plans, our CENTCOM commander. So, we know what's going on. The president has an incredible knack at knowing how to mitigate those risks.
GARRETT: Does this put U.S. personnel in any more danger than they otherwise would be?
HEGSETH: Well --
GARRETT: Russia's involvement?
HEGSETH: No one is putting us in danger. We're putting the other guys in danger. That's our job. So, we're not concerned about that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: As for the president, well, he was at a college sports roundtable today when Fox News asked him about Russia's role. This was his answer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: What a stupid question that is to be asking at this time. We're talking about something else. Can we keep this maybe a little bit -- go ahead, please.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Why talk about a war? Let's begin with former Black Hawk pilot and senior director on military and political power at FDD, Brad Bowman, and founder of the National Security Institute and former associate counsel to President George W. Bush, Jamil Jaffer.
Good to have both of you, gentlemen, here on a night like this, especially -- I'll begin with you, Jamil, because Russia reportedly helping Iran. China maybe as well. The White House insists it does not matter because the U.S. has obliterated Iran's capabilities. Should that matter? Are they wrong?
JAMIL JAFFER, FORMER ASSOCIATE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, of course, it should matter. I mean, we know that Russia and Iran have a close relationship. We saw Russian generals on the ground in Ukraine, Iranian generals on the ground in Ukraine helping Russia with their drones, helping them build those Shahed drones that they're now using against our allies in the region. So, we know they've had a close relationship. We know that Russia has long provided weapons to Iran as well. So, it's no surprise they're now providing intelligence.
The right response from the president would be to ignore it or avoid it.
[23:05:01]
You'd be like, you know, what I'm going to do? I'm going provide intelligence and weapons to Ukrainians to kill Russian troops on the ground in Ukraine. Of course, the president can't do that because he walked away from that months ago.
COATES: Let me ask you, Brad, because defense secretary, you heard him say that no one is putting us in danger, we're putting the other guys in danger. Seems a little bit nearsighted given that you've got the intelligence report saying and suggesting that there are images, there's intel of American troops being provided by Russia. That is a dangerous and precarious situation for our troops.
BRAD BOWMAN, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF CENTER ON MILITARY: It's a serious development. At our think tank, we've been studying how China Russia, Iran, North Korea have been cooperating for over 20 months now, and we've identified over 600 instances of cooperation.
And sadly, what we're seeing between Russia and Iran is not new. In 2023, let's remember Russia and Iran worked together to target U.S. troops in Syria. And then in 2024, again, Russia provided intelligence through Iran to the Houthis to target shipping in the Red Sea.
So, this is not new. I would have preferred the president to say -- to warn Russia not to do this or to face serious consequences.
COATES: Will that fall on deaf ears when talking about Russia?
JAFFER: Well, it's hard to know, right? We don't know what the president will do. We've seen at times him get spicy with Vladimir Putin when Vladimir Putin didn't back off on Ukraine. But in truth, in the long run, the president hasn't really pushed back. He hasn't really done anything in Ukraine. And I worry he won't, like Brad does, I think they won't do anything here.
But China is a big problem as well. They have long been supplying the Iranians with weapons. When the Israelis took out a significant portion of their ballistic missile energy capability, we saw China come in and start to deliver that. Now, luckily, there was an interdiction that happened along the way before it got to Iran. But it's no surprise they're trying to do that. They might do that.
And the question is then, what is the U.S. going to do? President Trump is going to Beijing. He's trying to do a deal with President Xi. Is he going to put the pressure on Xi to not do this and really shut down this Iran, Russia, China, and to Brad's point, North Korea pipeline? It has been going on for a long time.
COATES: The Treasury Department is looking to ease the rising price of oil. Secretary Bessent, well, he has this idea.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT BESSENT, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY: We may un- sanction other Russian oil. The other thing Treasury can do here, Larry, is there are hundreds of millions of sanctioned barrels of sanctioned crude on the water. And in essence, by un-sanctioning them, Treasury can create supply.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Does this make sense at a time when Russia is helping Iran?
BOWMAN: It makes zero sense. When Russia and Iran are able to sell oil to China, money goes the opposite direction, obviously. Where does Putin use that money for? He uses that money to continue this war of conquest in Ukraine where they're murdering Ukrainian men, women, and children. And Iran uses that money to oppress the Iranian people, advance their nuclear weapon program, advance their ballistic missile program, and support terrorism.
So, this is a bad idea, and we should be doing the opposite, doing everything we can to stop the flow of oil out of Russia and Iran so they don't get the money coming back that they're using for clearly bad purposes.
COATES: Seems so obvious. Why is it not instructive?
JAFFER: Well, I'm not sure. But the real answer is let's produce more American oil, right, if we're worried about the flood of Russian oil that might be needed to reduce prices, or with our friends in Saudi Arabia and other parts of the Middle East that are being attacked by Iran right now to produce more oil.
And the interesting thing Brad said is it's not just being used to fund Russian troops in Ukraine, it's apparently not being funded -- used to fund Russian intelligence going to Iran in the very war we're fighting. It's crazy.
COATES: Well, what might seem crazy to people as well are these two new conditions: One about unconditional surrender and the other about promising total immunity to Iranian military officials if they step down. And the question, of course, is, how could the president of United States grant full immunity without jurisdiction, number one? What does that look like? And also, I mean, is it achievable for the U.S. troops to -- who are on the ground or a special mission to have an unconditional surrender?
BOWMAN: I would just say, on the ballistic missile threat, you mentioned that as one of the focuses of our military strategy, we have seen a 90 percent reduction between day one and day seven in Iranian blister missile strikes. We've also seen an 83 percent reduction in drone attacks between day one and day seven. So, we're making real progress there. And also, we've sunk about 43 -- sunk or damaged about 43 of the naval vessels.
But at the same time, the question of regime change is a whole other ball of wax, and it's my view that putting American troops on the ground in Iran would be an absolute disaster. And a quick comment on unconditional surrender thing, if I may?
COATES: Yes.
BOWMAN: I understand that the president is trying to cast a shadow power over the bargaining table to see if he can get a big deal. But I'm not sure it's really helpful for the president of the United States to be playing Douglas MacArthur here. You know, as someone who served in the U.S. Military, I rather -- we just let our military do the acting and save the bombast for something else.
COATES: Is it even -- I mean, when you say unconditional surrender, the larger point he's making as well, is that -- what would that look like? How would that actually play out?
JAFFER: It's hard to imagine that a siege (ph), the Iranian state police --
COATES: Right.
JAFFER: -- or the -- or the Iran Revolutionary Guards or the Quds Force even engaging in unconditional surrender. More likely to melt into the background and conduct if we did replace the government, which is going to very hard to do without boots on the ground.
[23:10:01]
And to Brad's point, I think the president understands, and I think everyone thinks it would be disaster, special forces or otherwise. But we'll see how this plays out. But the real answer is no, they're not going to engage on unconditional surrender. They're going to melt in the background, and they're going to conduct an insurgent campaign like we saw in Iraq except in a much more aggressive way because this is an even more capable, even more professionally-trained military.
COATES: Why not rule it out? I mean, if it sounds really unfeasible, why, why have it as a condition, or is it sometimes protectoral (ph)? The whole point is not to be able to achieve it.
BOWMAN: I would advise the president not to put ground troops in Iran for all kinds of reasons, we can discuss, but I wouldn't necessarily suggest he rule it out because you want them to be fearful of things even if you're not going to do them, to be honest with you.
COATES: Because if you're saying unconditional surrender, it would require troops to be there?
BOWMAN: Well, on the question of ground troops. But I totally agree with your point, is that, you know, if we don't have to guess about the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps -- I mean, the IRGC Quds Force, they were responsible for killing over 600 American service members in Iraq. They developed these explosively-formed penetrators. They smuggled them into Iraq, specifically designed to penetrate our armored vehicles. And more than 600 U.S. service members did not come home as a result. They're stone-cold killers. They're armed.
The Iranian people are oppressive, they're educated, and they're unarmed. We don't have to guess what the IRGC is going to do. They are going to murder Iranians by the thousands if they rise up, as the president said. We don't have to guess because they did that from December to January. The president said, come out and protest. They did. The president warned them. The regime shrugged, and then murdered more than 30,000 of them. So, that's who we're dealing with here. We need to be clear-eyed about it.
COATES: Evidence compiled by CNN of an elementary school strike, which killed at least 168 children on just this past Saturday, it suggests the United States is likely responsible. And Secretary Hegseth has said that the Pentagon is investigating the incident. Does it sound like there was bad intelligence in terms of the target location?
JAFFER: Look, we know that that school used to be on a military base. It's right next to a military base. There was a wall that was built recently. But that facility is only about 600 yards from valid military targets. Mistakes happen in war. Now, nobody is going to forgive the loss of 168 children. It's obviously terrible. Mistakes happen. Intelligence errors happen. Bombs fall in the wrong places.
We saw a friendly fire incident just this past week where a Kuwaiti F- 18 shot down three American F-15 fighters. Six pilots survived. They were able to parachute out.
But friendly fire and mistakes happen on the battlefield. It's a horrible tragedy. Nobody should forgive it. At the same time, the reality is that these things happen.
BOWMAN: Laura, I would just say it's heartbreaking. These are students and teachers who are not going to return home to their families. These are empty chairs at kitchen tables. This is horrible.
But I would just say that, you know, the CENTCOM, U.S. Central Command, is doing an investigation to see how that turns out. If the United States was responsible for this accidental strike, then we should make it right. We should own it. We should try to provide restitution to the families, learn what happened, make sure it never happens again.
But I would just end with this: Let's be careful not to confuse a military like ours that does everything in our power to avoid things like this, and then owns it when we make the mistake versus the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism that deliberately targets civilians and supports things like what we saw on October 7th.
COATES: No ambiguity there. Thank you both. Next, what if you could just call the president and ask him, how long will this war last? Well, my next guest, he did just that and got that answer and a whole lot of others, too. And ahead, the effort to make Iran great again, dividing the Make America Great Again coalition.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE, FORMER GEORGIA REPRESENTATIVE: It is absolutely America last.
TUCKER CARLSON, CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER FOX NEWS HOST: The public doesn't support it. And it's terrible for the United States.
UNKNOWN: I've got serious doubts about what we're doing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: It is not knowable if force will be used. But if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. it could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That was then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld back in 2003 predicting the Iraq War wouldn't last long. A conflict that went on for almost nine years. A not too distant memory for Americans hearing similar predictions about Iran from current defense secretary, Pete Hegseth.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HEGSETH: We can say four weeks. But it could be six, it could be eight, it could be three. Ultimately, we set the pace and the tempo.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: But what is President Trump's timeline? Well, in a new interview with Time magazine, the president says he -- quote -- "has no time limits on anything. I want to get it done." And when it's done, he promises Iran will have a great future, make Iran great again.
Time magazine correspondent Eric Cortellessa joins me now. He spoke with the president this week. A really compelling piece, I would say, Eric, on this. The White House says the war will last several more weeks. The president gave you an open-ended answer. I mean, is he realizing the mission may not be as clear-cut as he hoped?
ERIC CORTELLESSA, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, TIME MAGAZINE: I think he recognizes that there's a growing public perception that the mission itself is not clearly articulated, that there have been competing, at times contradictory explanations from members of his administration about why we're doing this and the timing. I think when it comes to not wanting to put any timetable on the operation, he wants to leave as many options available as possible, and he doesn't want the Iranians to think that he may let up without achieving his objectives even if there remains a lack of clarity among some out there what those objectives are.
[23:20:06]
He told me it was to dismantle any possibility for Iran to be able to acquire a nuclear arsenal or to develop a nuclear weapon. He does not want them to have any ballistic missiles or any capability for ballistic missile firing. And he wants to be able to choose the next leader of Iran.
COATES: You know, there are questions about why and why now and what precipitated the attack. A lot of lack of clarity, frankly, on that. What did he tell you?
CORTELLESSA: Well, you know, his answer to me was that he was worried that Iran was getting ready to attack the United States, our assets in the region. You know, he had been planning this alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for months. This was the product of a very long process of collaboration and coordination between the two countries.
I think the exact timing came about because of two reasons. One was they had just had a series of negotiations in Geneva led by President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and special envoy Steve Witkoff. And they left those negotiations, those talks, with nothing in hand. And Trump said, look, we just deployed these carrier strike groups to the region, we are in sight, they should have a lot more urgency to want to cut a deal right now. The fact that they don't have that urgency, that made me think that they're getting ready to attack us.
The other thing was that they had intelligence that had suggested they knew where Ayatollah Khamenei would be that early Saturday morning in Tehran, the start of the work week, and said, this is our opportunity to get him and to finally launch this attack plan, which they had drawn up months in advance. And so, last week, early Saturday morning, they did it.
COATES: There are a lot of people who would fear potentially retaliation on American soil. And you asked the president if Americans indeed should feel that way. And he said, "I guess. But I think they're worried about that all the time. We think about it all the time. We plan for it. But yes, you know, we expect some things. Like I said, some people will die. When you go to war, some people will die."
But what was the sense of his tone when he said that? I'm curious, number one, because it can read as dismissive of the possibility. What do you evaluate in terms of his tone and how he said that? And also, does that possibility really weigh on him?
CORTELLESSA: I think so. I think he seemed a little bit resigned to the fact that this is just something that happens when you embark on a war, is there are casualties, there are civilian casualties, there's risk involved, and that he wasn't going to rule out the possibility of an attack on the homeland. He clearly would not want to, in his view, launch this kind of a massive, you know, high-scale attack against the Iranians if he didn't believe they pose a threat to Americans at home and abroad.
So, I would say he was just kind of resigned to, hey, this is part of what goes into a war, and I'm going to try and limit casualties to as many as possible, but that it's also not going to stop him from going forward.
COATES: I'm curious, his take, given that there has been, obviously, a visceral reaction from many. There are some who have supported. There are -- I can't think of anyone who is supportive of the ayatollah and his reign, frankly.
CORTELLESSA: Right.
COATES: But there are longtime Trump allies, including Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly and Candace Owens, who say this war goes against his America First mantra, and some would say his mandate. He tells you this intervention is true to America First. Did he explain why he felt that way?
CORTELLESSA: Well, it's interesting. I mean, there's no question that it sorts of betrays the sort of three-pillared plank of the MAGA ideology, which is, you know, protection on trade, restriction on immigration, and a commitment to limited entanglements overseas. That was the core of his platform going back to 2015 when he first ran for the presidency.
I think his explanation was that it was in defense of America. He is saying it was a preemptive, preventative strike to stop Iran from attacking the United States. So, he wants -- you know, he said to me in this conversation that America First is about keeping America healthy and not letting others hit us first. And so, that's the way he is framing it as he's trying to make the case to the public for why he did this and why he is very clearly doing something that runs contrary to the sort of professed principles of MAGA doctrine going back more than a decade now.
COATES: Eric, thank you so much. An excellent interview.
CORTELLESSA: Great to be with you. Thanks.
COATES: And next, if they rise, they rise. The president's response to gas prices amid his war with Iran. As for the other economic warning signs going off, well, the White House says --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN HASSETT, DIRECTOR, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: I think it's consistent with everything else we're seeing, which is that the economy is really strong.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: We're going to fact check on that from our favorite economist, Justin Wolfers. Plus, war is not a movie. Ben Stiller's message tonight on the administration's controversial war hype videos.
[23:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: A double whammy for President Trump on the economy today. First wham? The February jobs report revealed that U.S. lost 92,000 jobs and the unemployment rate ticked up to 4.4 percent. Second wham, the war with Iran sent oil prices surging past 90 bucks, hit the highest level since September 2023.
None of this is good news for a president trying to bring down costs for consumers. The White House tried to assure Americans any economic pain will be temporary.
[23:30:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: It is the president's belief and his economic team's belief that the economy continues to be very strong. It's robust and will be able to weather any of the temporary impacts of Operation Epic Fury.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, let's ask our favorite economist if the White House is right, professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan, Justin Wolfer. It is good to see you, professor. So, tell me, why did job growth plunge? And why do you think this is a sign the economy could be close to a recession?
JUSTIN WOLFERS, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS & PUBLIC POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Right. So, it is not just that we had one bad monthly number. That's what I want people to understand. We also learned the last few months were worse than we thought. And so, there had been a touch of optimism that's all gone away.
And here, I think, is the most telling statistic, Laura. Since Liberation Day, the president's last big, bold set of promises when he told us everything was about to be magical, we've lost jobs, we've gone backwards. So, when you're losing jobs, I'm going to call that a jobs recession. This is not just one bad month. We've been having bad months, every second month now, pretty much throughout the president's term.
COATES: You know, one of Trump's top academic advisors, Kevin Hassett, he shrugged off any concerns about the economy. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HASSETT: If you take the average over a few months, we had a surprisingly positive one last month and a surprisingly negative one on this one. But on average, it's about what we expect to be seeing because immigration has gone down by so much that break-even employment is probably in the sort of 30 or 40,000 jobs a month range. And so, yes, I think it's consistent with everything else we're seeing, which is that the economy is really strong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, both of you can't be right on this. I know enough about that. Is it just a blip?
WOLFERS: Mate, I'm not paid to lie for a living. He might be. No, it's not just a blip. I see that. And to be honest with you, Laura, I'm upset. I'm upset because his job is to look after the welfare of regular Americans that -- we've actually been losing jobs. He said, let's average over the numbers. Well, let's go all the way back to April, and we're losing jobs. To call that strong is an insult to each and every one of us. It's honestly -- it strikes at my core, mate. We deserve better than this.
COATES: You know, the war -- the war has essentially halted oil production and shipping also in the Gulf. And today, oil prices soared above 90 bucks a barrel. And Qatar's energy minister told the Financial Times oil prices could hit a hundred and fifty bucks. I had to sit up in my seat to even say that number. What would that mean for drivers at the pump?
WOLFERS: Mate, I'll sit up with you. It would mean that when -- here's the basic rule of thumb: If oil prices go up 10 percent, prices at pump go up 10 percent. So, we've already seen prices at pump go up 30 cents, maybe even a little bit more. We now have oil prices up 50 percent. So, what that means is gas prices are going to rise 50 percent.
There are the possibilities of things being much worse. But basically, at the moment, what markets are saying is that 50 percent rise is round about where we'll see that. So, that'll put gas between four and five bucks a gallon.
But I still want to emphasize one thing. Yes, that hurts at the pump. Yes, it sucks. But you know what's worse? War. And so, we shouldn't trivialize the big issues here, which is, you know, we're at war with Iran. Big deal for young American troops, big deal for the Iranians, and big deal for sort of our global economics and politics.
COATES: Thank you so much for saying that. Don't lose sight of the big picture. War is hell. Justin Wolfers, thank you.
WOLFERS: Pleasure, mate.
COATES: This economic double whammy could not come at a worse time for President Trump as he tries to rally Republicans before the midterms. I want to talk about the political impact with radio and podcast host Ben Ferguson and former Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania, Conor Lamb. Welcome, gentlemen. Let me begin with you here, Ben, because Trump says that the U.S. can fight this war forever. But will he have the stomach to do that if the economy turns negative? BEN FERGUSON, RADIO AND PODCAST HOST: Look, I think the president has been pretty clear about this war. He's going to be very, very, very hardcore, all in 24-7 strategy, and get this thing done quickly. He does not want this to be prolonged. He doesn't want troops on the ground. He doesn't want to invade a country. And he has been very clear about that.
And so, I think what the president said here, when you look at oil prices that you were just talking about, this will be temporary. And it also goes back to the other reason why the president has talked about being energy independent when something like this happens and 20 percent you have going through the Strait of Hormuz when it comes to oil. This is another reason why you can't be held hostage by a terrorist regime like Iran. This is part of the president talking about national security. I think the American people understand that.
[23:34:57]
If you look at this issue, what the president said on his foreign policy, he has made it clear, I'm not going to allow a state like Iran to be a nuclear power to the rest of the world, a threat to the Middle East. And that's the reason why the president is doing this right now. I think it will be temporary. I think that is why most of you behind him are saying the same thing. They're not worried. They like his leadership and do your job.
COATES: Well, Connor, let's talk about one of the jobs of Congress because the power of the purse is with them. And there's talk that Congress may need an emergency funding bill to pay for the war with Iran. Polls show this war is, unlike what Ben just said, highly unpopular with Democrats at the very least. Will Democrats have something to fight that funding bill?
CONOR LAMB, FORMER PENNSYLVANIA REPRESENTATIVE: I certainly hope so. I mean, because they didn't even get a chance to declare war the way they're supposed to under the Constitution, which means for me and you, the average citizen, we never got to hear a debate about why we're in this war. People don't know. And so, to your point about the gas prices, all of a sudden, everybody is losing a lot more of their hard-earned money at the pump.
And, you know, the economy is continuing to be sluggish in places like Pennsylvania, at least. We are among the states with the highest number of layoffs. You know, Justin talked about how we started losing jobs last month.
No one knows why. There was no threat to us. And they didn't have a nuclear bomb. Trump said last summer they destroyed the nuclear program. So, it's just so confusing as to why we're even in this situation. Congress has to stand up because no one else will.
COATES: Some people are confused --
FERGUSON: You don't think Iran is a threat. You just said you didn't think Iran is a threat. You don't think Iran is a threat. I mean, they did kill more than a thousand American troops just when we were in Iraq. They have killed countless Americans in multiple attacks around the world. Hezbollah and Hamas, you're saying that's not a threat to the United States of America?
COATES: Conor?
LAMB: And don't use the memory of those people to try to claim that there was an imminent threat.
FERGUSON: I'm not. You just said that a terrorist regime is not a threat to America. We have dead bodies.
COATES: I would like to hear --
FERGUSON: I'm not using them.
COATES: Ben, hold on. Conor, I want to hear your response. You asked a question. Conor, what's your response?
LAMB: My response is that there was no imminent threat to us right now, which this administration admits. You can't use the memory of dead Americans from the past to try to justify this day, which is a disaster.
FERGUSON: They killed them.
LAMB: There's a reason that Trump ran for president, promising not to do exactly this because it is not what Americans want.
FERGUSON: Who killed them? You should be able to answer this question. Who killed them?
LAMB: I don't even know who you're talking about.
FERGUSON: And now, you're acting as if their lives don't matter. You want to know why the president attacked? This is the number one terrorist regime in the world that sponsors more terrorist attacks than any other country. And then you don't like the fact that I mentioned that Iran is responsible for one out of every six American lives that were killed in Iraq. That is a fact. The Biden administration admitted that, by the way.
And then you act like that stat doesn't matter. That's the reason why Americans didn't trust the Democrats on this issue of national security. That's why they voted for Donald Trump. Donald Trump has made it clear. He sees a threat to American soldiers. And there are hundreds of them that have been killed by the Iranian regime.
COATES: Well, Ben --
FERGUSON: He will go and protect and defend --
COATES: Ben, excuse me. I think Conor's larger point to the question you actually raised was about the imminent nature of the threat, which precluded whether Congress could actually decide to authorize it in some way --
LAMB: He know that, Laura. He knows it. He knows it isn't there.
COATES: Well, that was your larger point on this issue. I want to go a different point on this because the White House is using highly-edited videos like this to drum up support for the war. And this video used a clip of the Ben Stiller movie, "Tropic Thunder," which you know is part spoof, by the way. And Stiller asked the White House to take down the clip because they didn't ask for permission. He added -- quote -- "War is not a movie."
So, when you put together what you have described, Ben, in terms of what you think the obvious reasons you find to have this war, and Conor, your views about the idea of Congress not having a role in it, and we can all agree that war is hell, I mean, should the White House be putting out videos like this? What do you think? Are they insensitive, Conor?
LAMB: They're just beside the point. This is not a game. This is so serious for the young men and women who are in harm's way right now for their families, for the 175 people, mostly children that were killed at that school, which it's looking like the United States did that. This is not a game. And these videos are just insulting to what's really going on.
COATES: Ben, what's your reaction to the fact that the White House told "The Washington Post" -- quote -- "The legacy media wants us to apologize for highlighting the United States Military's incredible success, but the White House will continue showcasing the many examples of Iran's ballistic missiles, production facilities, and dreams of owning a nuclear weapon being destroyed in real time." What's your reaction to the way that it's being described?
FERGUSON: Yes, I have no problem celebrating our men and women who do an amazing job protecting and defending this country. I also think it's pretty rich from Ben Stiller. Hollywood has no problem making money off of war films. They've done it for decades. Ben Stiller has been a part of those films.
[23:40:00]
And then to somehow say that, you know, this is inappropriate, are you kidding me? You literally make a living off of making movies about war.
And when the president puts a montage together of the movies that Hollywood made to make money about war, to celebrate actually men and women in uniform and their bravery, they then criticize it. Fine, Ben, never make another movie about war. I will love for you to just, you know, own that and go to Hollywood and demand no more movies are ever made about war. It's hypocrisy at its worst.
COATES: You think just that what's described and what is done by a commander-in-chief is the same standard by a Hollywood actor? You can't -- you don't think that.
FERGUSON: No. I think the president -- I think the president is much more brilliant than Ben Stiller, and I think he's not filled with hypocrisy. The president put out a video to celebrate our men and women in uniform and to say that we are proud of you.
And Ben Stiller wants to make it about him. Like that's narcissism of Hollywood 101. Every time they don't like something, they make it about themselves.
And I'm sorry, the president was celebrating our men and women in uniform. He's encouraging them. He's proud of them. What we've done in Iran is unbelievable. How many leaders we've taken out? Every time they name a new leader, we take them out. We're taking out the leadership of Hezbollah and Hamas. Like this is incredible. And you know what? It's OK to celebrate that.
COATES: Conor -- I'm going to suggest to you, Ben, you should watch "Tropic Thunder" and actually see what was highlighted. But Conor, what's your reaction?
LAMB: Look, Trump is not going to be able to kill his way out of this problem. This is a country of 90 plus million people with a sophisticated military. And Trump's political problems here at home are not going away. They're only getting worse. So, I think they want to distract us and, you know, make people go rah-rah and feel all enthusiastic. The truth is what it is.
FERGUSON: That's what you're reading against America.
LAMB: He has no idea how to deal with it. And, you know, all the talk about what happened in the past in Iraq and everything is not going to change what's happening on the ground right now, which is a horribly dangerous situation, and we don't have grownups in the room to take care of it.
FERGUSON: It's amazing that we're winning right now at the way we're winning, and yet you're acting like we're losing. It's like straight up un-American, but good luck with that.
COATES: Well, good luck with trying to end your statements with a statement that's so hyperbolic and hoping no one will respond. Thank you both. I appreciate it.
Up next, former presidents gathering today to honor the late Jesse Jackson with powerful words about his legacy and some choice ones for President Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If we don't step up, no one else will.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JESSE JACKSON, CIVIL RIGHT ICON: We must never surrender. America will get better and better. Keep hope alive. Keep hope alive. Keep hope alive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I remember watching that. That was the late Reverend Jesse Jackson's closing message at the 1988 Democratic Convention, promising a better, hopeful future for this country. He passed away last month at the age of 84. I had the honor of interviewing him on my radio show years ago, and I was humbled by his humility and his continued singular focus on improving the world.
Today, everyone from former presidents, friends, and faith leaders, and music legends gathered in Chicago to pay farewell in their respect to the civil rights icon at his funeral, dubbed the People's Celebration.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We did not always agree. But I'll tell you one thing. He made me a better president when I got in office.
KAMALA HARRIS, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Reverend Jackson was impatient. He did not waste time waiting. Even when the doors in front of him were barred and bolted, even if those on the other side hesitated or even ignored him, he always devised a way through.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: But the person who really brought down the House is perhaps the greatest beneficiary of Jesse Jackson's political legacy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: It was because of that path that he had laid, because of his courage, his audacity, that two decades later, a young Black senator from Chicago's south side would even be taken seriously as a candidate for the presidential nomination.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I'm joined now by someone who was at today's service, a new Jesse Jackson, well, Michael Eric Dyson, distinguished university professor of African American and Diaspora Studies at Vanderbilt University and co-author of the book, "Unequal: A Story of America."
Michael, thank you so much for being here. I mean, you're an educator, and when you think about classrooms, 20 or 30 years from now, what is the first thing you want those kids, those students to know and learn about the Reverend Jesse Jackson?
MICHAEL ERIC DYSON, PROFESSOR OF AFRICAN AMERICAN & DIASPORA STUDIES, VANDEBILT UNIVERSITY: That a poor Black man from the South, born under American apartheid, rose high enough to redefine American government, American society, changed the rules and laws that made it easier for the first Black president of the United States of America to ascend to that office, but did so much more. He dealt with automobile industries, financial services. He dealt with Wall Street. He talked about democratizing capital.
So, I want them to understand this was what he called himself a country preacher, but he was able to become a public intellectual, a public moralist. He debated William Buckley. He debated David Duke. He was a man who once when he told me he was going to Harvard, I said, well, what are you doing? He said, I'm debating. I said, who? He said, it really doesn't matter.
[23:49:57]
So, this man was well prepared and capable of leveraging his incredible talent to the benefit of the people whom he loved, and that was Black people, but also poor people, white people, Latin, those Asian folks, gays, lesbian people. He was the man of the people.
COATES: I mean, this loss was very personal for you. You traveled the country with him. You were a friend for 30 years as well. And you know, he ran for the presidency twice in the 80s. And he won millions of votes in the primaries, even though he ultimately fell short. And you heard President Obama say that he wouldn't have even been taken seriously as a candidate had it not been for Jackson. In what ways did Jesse Jackson make it possible for the country to even elect its first Black president?
DYSON: Well, first of all, he got the rules changed in 1988. Instead of winner take all in the primaries, if you got 15 percent or above, whatever you gained was equally distributed among those candidates who scored at least 15 percent. That meant that you could do well in many states and accumulate votes. And as a result of that, Barack Obama likely would not have become president of the United States of America or Hillary Clinton won her party's nomination or, you know, Kamala Harris after that. That's one way you change it.
But he also changed it because of his commitment to a rainbow coalition. We are now assaulting DEI, diversity education, diversity and, you know, diversity and inclusion and equity as well. And he was the living embodiment of that because he had a big tent where everybody was included.
COATES: Many of the speakers today, they did not hold back when it came to criticizing the current administration, even if not by name. Listen to what President Obama said at one point.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: Each day, we wake up to some new assault on our democratic institutions. Another setback to the idea of the rule of law. Each day, we're told by those in high office to fear each other and to turn on each other, and that some Americans count more than others, and that some don't even count at all. Everywhere, we see greed and bigotry being celebrated, and bullying and mockery masquerading as strength.
Because if we don't step up, no one else will.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: You were in the room where that happened. What did you make of this moment?
DYSON: That was beautiful. It was a full circle moment for me. I think President Obama and Reverend Al Sharpton presented the most biting, intensive, insightful, rhetorically-sophisticated presentations of what Black rhetoric can do at its best. And when you saw Obama, you saw the Black Baptist tradition, you saw the Black rhetorical mastery along with presidential discourse and his ability to be both a folksy and homespun and yet eloquent.
And what I thought of is here is a man who is speaking out in defense of the legacy of Reverend Jesse Jackson to tell the truth about the inequities that prevail and what this president is doing.
And I tell you, I hugged him, and I said, I feel that this was a healing moment because of Reverend Jesse Jackson and him sometimes facing some difficult patches in their relationship. And for him to provide a posthumous affirmation of Reverend Jesse Jackson's greatness, that upon his shoulders he stood, was a beautiful full circle moment for me and the best of Black love.
COATES: I encourage everyone to read your op-ed as well. Really, really powerful. And we can't even -- there's not enough time in this show to talk about Jennifer Hudson. So, call me later. OK? Michael Eric Dyson, thank you so much.
DYSON: She did her thing. She did her thing. She did her thing. Sam Cooke is proud in his grave of what she did with that song.
COATES: We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: It's almost midnight here in Washington. Let's check in with our friend, Elex Michaelson, joining us from Atlanta tonight, East Coast time.
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Yes.
COATES: Good to see you, Elex. Listen, I don't know if you saw this, but United Airlines now says they have the right to remove and even ban passengers who don't use headphones on their flight. Fair rule? I think so.
MICHAELSON: Yes. I mean, who wants to listen to your random conversation or all the rest of that? I think that is a fair rule. Get them off the plane.
COATES: I mean, I don't know if I'm banning them for life. Give them one more chance.
(LAUGHTER)
Look, if it were up to me, the new rules would be longer, a longer list. Here's mine. OK? You get one armrest. You can only use one part. You can't use both with your two elbows. You get one armrest. The other rule I have is if you're in the window seat, you're keeping the window open. OK? Otherwise, you get the aisle. Tell me what rules Captain Alex would enforce on the flight.
MICHAELSON: Keeping the window open?
COATES: Yes.
MICHAELSON: So, what about like an overnight flight or something where the sun is coming down?
COATES: Well, it's dark outside.
MICHAELSON: OK. I guess an overnight flight. There you go.
COATES: One caveat, if we're all trying to watch movies and the glare is a problem --
MICHAELSON: Yes.
COATES: -- put it down. But you can't come in and be like, a window, shut it down. OK?
MICHAELSON: As somebody who's on the taller side, I would say maybe if you're like 6-3 or above, you don't ever have to sit in the middle seat. People should just give you one of the two because I literally, at 6'5", I do not fit. I can't fit in the seat. And so, that would be a selfish rule for me.
COATES: Meanwhile, I'm the 5 foot 3 and a half person who's in the exit row, like, what? What's going on?
(LAUGHTER)
MICHAELSON: We look at you with disgust.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: I will stop.
[00:00:00]
Listen, we're going to swap right now because you're about to wrap up a very busy week of war coverage at CNN's Atlanta headquarters. What's coming up?
