Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
U.S. Destroys Iranian Ships And Minelayers In Strait; Russia Denies Supporting Iran; Race For Marjorie Taylor Greene's GA House Seat Heads To Runoff; Laura Coates Interviews Historian Douglas Brinkley. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired March 10, 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]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: The president's pick to replace Marjorie Taylor Greene will now head into a runoff against a Democrat. Former prosecutor Clay Fuller was Trump's choice in the Georgia's special election race, but didn't secure an outright win, so he and Shawn Harris will face off next month for that seat.
Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me any time on your favorite social media X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: The focus of the war with Iran is turning to what is now being described as "death valley," but not on land, I'm talking about at sea, the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow stretch of water where a huge chunk of the world's oil is supposed to go through, but right now is not.
And tonight, on day 11 of this war, the Pentagon released this video saying it shows U.S. forces eliminating Iranian naval vessels, including 16 minelayers in the strait. It was posted shortly after President Trump's new threat to Iran. He wrote, "If for any reason mines were placed, and they are not removed forthwith, the military consequences to Iran will be at a level never seen before."
Now, this isn't hypothetical. Sources tell us that Iran has already begun laying mines, and they can cause serious damage. Take a look at this. It's the shredded hull of the USS Samuel B. Roberts hit by an Iranian mine in 1988. It blew a 20-foot hole and started a major fire, costing $90 million to repair.
Now, imagine that kind of destruction to a tanker carrying 2 million barrels of oil, not a Navy frigate built for combat. Imagine what this does to Trump's plan for a shorter conflict because Strait of Hormuz is the world's most important energy chokepoint. About 20 percent of all crude oil goes through it. It's effectively closed since the start of the war, after Iran threatened to attack any ship passing through.
So, you can see why Trump is telling Iran, stay out of the Strait or else. He even floated the idea of the U.S. Navy escorting oil tankers because if Iranian forces cause prolonged havoc there and keep it shut down, it would have catastrophic consequences for the economy. We're talking one-fifth of the world's oil will be stuck, and I mean indefinitely. Gas prices would skyrocket even more than already have, up 43 cents in just the last week. And the White House claims they'll fall back soon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Rest assured to the American people, a recent increase in oil and gas prices is temporary, and this operation will result in lower gas prices in the long term.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: But temporary is a dangerous bet, especially when it's not clear how long Iran could threaten the strait.
You know, my first guest warned about the threat to Strait of Hormuz last week, headlined "Iran Can Turn the Persian Gulf into a Minefield." The author of that piece joins me now, CNN senior military analyst and former NATO supreme allied commander, retired Navy Admiral James Stavridis. He's also the vice chair of the Carlyle Group. Retired Admiral, thank you for being here. I am curious as to how sophisticated you think the Iranians are in mine warfare.
JAMES STAVRIDIS, CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST, VICE CHAIRMAN OF CARLYLE GROUP, FORMER SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER OF NATO: Oh, they're very, very good, Laura. They've been practicing it, thinking about it. Going back to the late 1980s when as a young Navy officer with a lot more hair in those days, I was driving ships in and out of the Persian Gulf. The Iranians even then were putting mines in the water. That was the late 1980s. You're showing the picture. It's a very narrow strait. The Iranians have 5,000 mines in total. They can turn it into a hellscape in a few days with those mines. They've been thinking about it, preparing for it for decades.
COATES: So, does the U.S. have any ability to neutralize that threat? How long might that even take?
STAVRIDIS: We do have that ability, and we do it with partners, allies, and friends, always the best way to conduct war if you have to. So, we have mine sweepers in the gulf. We have mine hunters, very advanced electronic systems. We can do it with helicopters from the air. The British have mine sweepers.
[23:05:00]
The Saudis have mine sweepers. That's the good news, Laura. Here is the bad news: It takes time. So, to clear a couple of hundred miles of a couple of hundred mines over maybe 10 miles would take you days, and the Iranians can put thousands in the water. So, it could take weeks, if not a month or two, to clear it of the mines. So, the global economy needs to be prepared for a month or two shut down. That's going to be very problematic for the global economy.
COATES: And that's for the existing mines. Some say they might put more on, the more that you're removing. You never know what's going to happen there about their stockpile that might be.
Look, the president says the United States will escort ships through the strait. Iran continues to say the strait is closed. You took part in a similar operation during the Iran-Iraq wars back in the 80s. Is that plan plausible?
STAVRIDIS: It is plausible. In 1987, for example, I was third in command operations officer on a Navy cruiser in something called Operation Earnest Will when we reflagged tankers, put a U.S. flag on them, then we escorted them in and out. Reasonable plan in 1987.
Here's the problem, Laura. In addition to the mines and the level of mining, today, we have drones. We have much more sophisticated anti- ship missiles. The Iranians, if we don't take out all of their offensive capability, could saturate that Strait of Hormuz in ways that potentially could get through to these tankers. So, yes, we can escort. It's not a panacea. It's not going to completely solve that problem.
COATES: The White House is not ruling out using troops on the ground. And some reports suggest the president may use a team of special forces to secure Iran's enriched uranium. We got the former defense secretary, Mark Esper, for Trump. He calls that idea -- quote -- "perilous." Do you share that concern?
STAVRIDIS: I do. That's the right word. It's a huge roll of the dice. And by the way, it wouldn't be like a small team of 12 highly-trained special forces. This is thousand pounds of highly-enriched uranium, and it's guarded by very elite Iranian units. You would need not a squad, not a platoon, not a company. You'd need at least a battalion, seven or 800 special forces, Army Rangers to go in there. A very complex operation, very dangerous.
COATES: Admiral James Stavridis, thank you.
STAVRIDIS: You bet, Laura.
COATES: A lot more to discuss with lead global security analyst at "The Washington Post," Josh Rogin, and CEO of the Foundation for Defensive Democracies, Mark Dubowitz. Glad to have you both. I mean, the word "battalion" is going to stick in my mind. I'm thinking about the way in which this goes forward.
But Mark, the Democratic senator, Chris Murphy, who was in the classified briefing today, he posted on X this: "On the Strait of Hormuz, the administration had no plan. I can't go into more detail about how Iran gums up the strait, but suffice it to say, right now, they don't know how to get it safely back open, which is unforgivable because this part of the disaster was 100 percent foreseeable." Does that concern you?
MARK DUBOWITZ, CEO, FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: So, I think Admiral Brad Cooper, who is the commander of CENTCOM, got a plan, and they're executing on that plan. I don't know about the rest of government. I wasn't obviously part of that classified briefing. The senator could share the details if he could. But I think that the military has got a plan, and they've also actually created some backstops to this.
So, about a third of that oil actually goes through pipelines. It's the east-west pipeline that the Saudis use and the Fajr pipeline that the Emiratis use. So, about a third of the oil is actually moving as we speak. We're talking about the rest of the oil, which is actually stock and needs to get unstuck. In the meantime --
COATES: That's two-thirds we're talking about.
DUBOWITZ: Yes, no, no, absolutely.
COATES: It's a significant amount.
DUBOWITZ: Absolutely. It's a significant amount. I don't want to minimize that. I mean, the prices have not shot up. We're not at 120. We're not at 150. It's about a 25 to 30 percent increase, which is actually much lower than we've seen in the first Gulf War, the second Gulf War, the OPEC crisis, the Yom Kippur War, the Six-Day War. So, we're not yet there in danger zone territory, but we could get there.
In the meantime, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air Force are hunting drones, they're hunting missiles, land-based missiles, anti-ship missiles, and they are demolishing them in real time. That's going to be an essential precondition for then the U.S. Navy to be able to do these kinds of escorts which, as the admiral said, have been done before.
[23:10:00]
COATES: I wonder about the timeline of that. I also wonder about, obviously, gas prices are going to be part of it. I'm thinking about the safety of our troops as well and the execution of what has been described. But, I mean, you have Senator Murphy also suggesting that a key conclusion of his briefing, Josh, is that -- quote -- "The war goals do not involve destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program. This is surprising since Trump says over and over this is a key goal." He also says that the goal is not regime change. So, what are we missing here? What is the goal?
JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, WASHINGTON POST INTELLIGENCE: Right. I mean, I agree with Admiral Stavridis. I think it's pretty clear that the administration is scrambling to come up with a Strait of Hormuz strategy after the fact, even though it was completely predictable that the Iranians would put that trade at risk.
COATES: But what about his statement, that he thinks that the military has a plan?
ROGIN: Yes, the military can have a plan, but it's just not a military mission. It's a mission that includes a lot of economic diplomatic factors that don't seem to be put in place in advance. It's pretty obvious.
And now, what we have is essentially a situation where we're going to have a prolonged conflict because the Iranians are going to make sure that the strait is too risky for businesses to insure ships to go through. And that's the game here. What they're doing is they're making it so risky that no insurance company, no actual business would send their ship into the strait because it might get blown up.
And the idea of Navy escorts is perilous because we know that those ships would be sitting ducks no matter how much we bomb the Houthis and bomb the Iranian missile sites because they can always put those ships at risk. So, I think it's a huge problem that's going to last for a long time.
But to answer your question directly, the problem with everything that's coming out of the administration is that it changes all the time. And Chris Murphy is reflecting, in a way, what he heard in that briefing. But that could change from day to day, from hour to hour.
The way that we know that is because the president of the United States has been amazingly transparent. He says one day that it's just like Venezuela, and we're going to find another regime guy who is going to make a deal with us because we're going to hit them so hard. And then the next day, he says we want the Iranian people to rise up and fight the regime although we're not going to give them any political or economic support to do so. And then the next day, he said something else. So, you have so many shifting objectives and shifting goals and shifting justifications.
It's impossible for anyone, much less the U.S. Congress, to understand what the strategy is. That's the mission creep and strategic drift that has nothing to do with the U.S. Military. The U.S. Military is great. They're going to do what they're told, and they're going to do it well. But without a larger strategy to deal with the regional economic and diplomatic fallout, we're going to constantly changing our explanations and drifting deeper into what looks like a prolonged quagmire, which is exactly what the Iranians want.
COATES: Multi-tiered, obviously. Senator Lindsey Graham arguing, one of the biggest supporters of this war, with Iran. He's drawing a line on how you even define victory. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): There's no way you can say you won this war with an ayatollah in charge. No way you can say that. If anybody like him is in charge, we've degraded their capability, but we have not gone to the source of evil. The source of evil is the ideology itself. That will reemerge. It will come back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I mean, the source of evil, Mark, is suggesting almost going to the root of an entire organizational structure, which tells me, given how elaborate and multi-tiered it is, you're talking about a lengthy amount of time. Does that give you pause in terms of whatever timeline could even be feasible?
DUBOWITZ: Look, Senator Graham has been one of the most outspoken and vociferous supporters of regime change in Iran. I think he's reflecting certainly his view and maybe the view of others.
But I think the president has been very clear in defining his aims. Now, the president is not a disciplined speaker. He speaks to the media all the time, speaks to lots of reporters, doesn't give set speeches. But if you actually listen to what he has been saying, General Caine has been saying, who is a disciplined speaker, is the goal of this is to eliminate the most deadly capabilities of this regime.
And what I find astounding is the extent to which we are decimating the Iranian missile program which for many years, I've been working on this for 20 years, Laura, the nuclear program and the missile program are always the two major threats. We always had perhaps some diplomatic options and military options on nuclear side, but it was always very unclear how we were going to defang Iran's military program --
COATES: But can defang it if the head is the same philosophically?
DUBOWITZ: Well, you can certainly -- I mean, your enemy has capabilities. And if you can destroy those capabilities, you still have the same enemy, but that enemy is not as dangerous at least for now.
And fact of the matter is we're decimating not only their missile inventories, the largest in Middle East, their launchers which is the key bottleneck, is the choke net (ph). If you have no launches, you can't launch missiles. But we're now going after their missile production facilities and the defense industrial base. I mean, it's pretty extraordinary between the United States and Israel. We are absolutely decimating that.
So, I think that's an important military aim, which should be clearly articulated, and we should be getting serious briefings on how we're doing.
[23:15:00]
And I think the Pentagon is doing a pretty good job, maybe the president less so. I think the second thing is --
COATES: But one, he's the commander-in-chief.
DUBOWITZ: I get it.
COATES: I don't want to quibble with the idea but yes, there are certainly military successes. One concern that keeps coming up, I'd love you to address this, is the idea of are these temporary successes --
DUBOWITZ: Yes.
COATES: -- that would then lead to -- I mean, unless the United States maintains this foot on the pedal --
ROGIN: Yes.
COATES: -- along with Israel, is it foreseeable that there is almost a reconstitution of the regime? ROGIN: Well, it's not a reconstitution. The regime is still in place. They've elected a new supreme leader. What's more important is that on the streets of Tehran and the streets all over Iran, the regime is still in control. And, you know, there's a huge --
COATES: You say that by the fact there is no --
ROGIN: By all of the evidence that we see from all of the people in Iran who are giving us lots and lots of first-hand accounts. And, you know, the people who went out in January got killed. They killed 30,000 maybe of their own people. And they told everyone that if you come out again against the regime, you'll get killed again.
And what we've done is we've called for these people to rise up against the regime without providing them any political or economic support whatsoever. And that essentially is calling them to the slaughter. And that's a huge disconnect between what we're telling these people and what we're actually doing for these people.
COATES: Well, Trump did say, that was part of the disconnect last week, the idea of, on one hand, saying to have an uprising, on other hand, telling them to stay in their homes. That was that disconnect --
ROGIN: For now.
COATES: For now.
ROGIN: But what he on Tuesdays and Thursdays says is that there will be a time when we'll have cleared out the regime, and you can go and take your government back. But that's not actually connected to our any economic diplomatic support strategy that would actually make that happen on the ground.
And that's -- you know, the Iranian people are not stupid. They know that. They know that they're getting bombed. Some of them really like the fact that the ayatollah was killed. A lot of them really like the fact that the regime is getting weakened. But without international support to actually take the reins of power, they're essentially being led to the slaughter, and that's essentially what's going to happen unless something --
COATES: Well, Netanyahu gave a message to Iranian people, saying that Israel will soon create the conditions for a chance to overthrow the regime. There's more ahead. I want to hear from both of you on this next point. So, stand by. There's so much more to talk about, including the eyebrow-raising comment from Steve Witkoff about Iran's ally, Vladimir Putin. Should the U.S. really trust what he has to say about Iran? And later -- quote -- "more dangerous to do nothing," the new push for a U.S. special forces mission in Iran.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: Breaking news out of Iran. Explosions have been reported near Tehran's airport. This comes as the Israeli military said it begun a new wave of strikes. Soon as we learn more about this, we'll have it more for you.
And in the meantime, sources telling CNN Russia is playing a key role in the war with Iran by providing the regime intelligence on the location and movements of U.S. forces in the Middle East. But according to U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Russia says they are staying out of the conflict.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE WITKOFF, U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY: On the call with the president, the Russians said that they have not been sharing. That's what they said. So, you know, we can take them at their word. Jared and I had a call with Ushakov, who reiterated the same. So, you know, that's a better question for the intel people, but let's hope that they're not sharing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Josh Rogin and Mark Dubowitz are back with me. I mean, let's hope that they're not sharing, Mark. I mean, why would the administration trust that they would not be?
DUBOWITZ: I don't know how you say B.S. in Russian, but B.S. And I think this is what Josh and I are probably going to wholeheartedly agree on this. I mean, the Russians are absolutely helping the Iranians. They provided intel to try to kill American soldiers. The Iranians have been providing Shahi drones and missiles to Putin to kill Ukrainians. So, this is a very strong military, economic, and political partnership. And I think the administration is either being mendacious or delusional about Vladimir Putin.
And the other thing that we haven't done is the Ukrainians, who are our model ally in fighting and dying against one of our most formidable enemies, have offered for many, many months to help us defeat Iranian Shahi drones because they have a lot of experience with it. Finally, they're in Washington presenting their anti-drone plans. And finally, we're adopting them. But these should have been adopted months ago.
And unfortunately, the people on the right side of the aisle who have been demeaning when it comes to Ukraine's ability to help the United States, uncritical of that wholeheartedly.
COATES: You know, there's a briefing on the Hill, as you both know. Senator Richard Blumenthal says the United States appears to be on a path to have ground troops -- deploy ground troops in Iran. And the Wall Street editorial -- "The Wall Street Journal," excuse me, argues that if a ground mission is the only way to truly end the threat, then it's worth it. Quote -- "The only option more dangerous is to do nothing, leaving it for the regime to enrich uranium behind a shield again." Is that a wrong rationale? ROGIN: No. That's a complete strawman. It's a false choice, right? I mean, no one is saying do nothing. And sending U.S. troops, men and women, on the ground in Iran seems crazy risky and crazy reckless. And there are a lot of things in between, obviously.
COATES: For example?
ROGIN: Well, how about negotiating? How about adding pressure on sanctions? How about using any of the tools of American power that don't involve sending American men and women into a crazy, risky situation in the middle of a war that is being fought without a clear justification, a clear objective, a clear angle or a clear plan for the day after?
[23:25:11]
And, you know, the fact that we have people in charge of our policy like Steve Witkoff, who doesn't understand or doesn't want to admit that the Russians are lying. He's the negotiator with the Russians. He doesn't understand the Russians are lying. He's the negotiator with the Iranians. He doesn't have a detailed understanding of Iranian interests and Iranian negotiation and the history of that. And you drop these real estate guys into these negotiations, and then you wonder why negotiations don't work.
Well, it's pretty obvious that we've got a lack of focus on diplomacy, lack of focus on dealing with our allies, dealing with our partners. That's why the Gulf countries are so upset with how we're dealing with this. That's why the European countries are so upset with how we're dealing with this.
Now, you could say, I don't care about any of that and screw all of them, but the fact is that if we want to wage a sustained campaign to fight Iran, it would be nice to do it with some allies on board. But the way that this administration goes about diplomacy is they shoot first and ask questions later.
COATES: Well, Mark, let me ask --
ROGIN: And this has imperiled our strategy and made this much, much more difficult than otherwise has to be. And until there's some sort of realization that -- not only is this unpopular with foreign leaders, in foreign countries, but with Americans. If you look at the polling, Laura, you'll see that about 50 percent, a little bit more than 50 percent of Americans opposes this war in Iran. OK?
COATES: Well, hold on --
ROGIN: But when it comes to ground troops, it goes to three quarters right away.
COATES: I want to talk about the troops because that's extremely important, not just theoretically talking about them. And the Pentagon announced at least a hundred and forty U.S. troops have sustained injuries so far in this war, eight severely wounded, and we know there's already been casualties as well. The polls, the idea of the allies, and the different issues there. But if boots are put on the ground, will Americans be OK with the growing toll?
DUBOWITZ: Look, 85, 90 percent of Republicans support the president, and his MAGA base supports the president. So, the president cares about his base. Then, right now, he's got the wind at his back. Obviously --
COATES: There is some fraction --
DUBOWITZ: I would look at that. Just hang for a second. Let me talk for a second. I think the president, the way the president assesses that is I've got my base, I've got the Republican Party, Democrats will never be with me on anything. I think he assesses it that way.
Second is I think on the ally side, I think Josh is right, it would be good to build this coalition earlier. But the president wanted the element of surprise, and that was very useful in taking out Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader. So, you don't stop briefing all your allies because they start leaking. He actually is picking up allies.
I'm in conversations with our Gulf allies every single day. And right now, they are furious with the Iranians. And they are supporting us, and we are supporting them with air defenses.
COATES: Will they do it financially? Will they do it with their troop members as well?
DUBOWITZ: Well, I don't want to get into confidential conversations about their offensive military contributions but, certainly, economically, the Emiratis have frozen all Iranian funds in Dubai. We've been trying for years to get them to do that. They finally did that. The Qataris, the Omanis, the Kuwaitis, obviously the Saudis, they are furious with the Iranians. We're also getting significant support from the Europeans, from the Australians, from the Canadians, from the Japanese.
I mean, countries that are understanding very well that -- they may be upset with President Trump, they may not like the tariff wars and all the other things the president does unilaterally, but they understand the Islamic Republic of Iran is a significant threat, and they understand that they've been killing and maiming not just thousands of Americans over the years but Europeans and Latin Americans and Middle Easterners. So, they understand how dangerous an enemy the Islamic Republic is, and they want us to confront it and deal with it and yes, wrap this up as quickly as we can.
COATES: Well, the latter is perhaps the most important aspect for the American voters who our president answers to as opposed to the allies. But we'll see. Thank you both so much.
DUBOWITZ: Thanks very much.
COATES: Still ahead, does the president's endorsement still carry weight? Georgia just might have given the answer. We will get the results in the race to pick Marjorie Taylor Greene's successor. And later, remember these signs from the Trump campaign? Looks like the White House suddenly wants them in the trash. We'll explain, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Tonight, Georgia is on the minds of Republicans and Democrats as they battle to fill the seat left vacant by former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. The special election to fill her seat is now headed to a runoff. The Trump-backed Republican candidate, former prosecutor and Air Force vet, Clay Fuller, will face retired Marine and Democrat Shawn Harris, who lost to Greene in 2024.
Now, since the race is headed to a runoff, House Speaker Mike Johnson will have to deal with the vacant seat in his slim majority for at least another month. And then there's no rest for the political weary because after Fuller and Harris face off next month, the winner will likely run in the May 19th primary for the November general election.
Let's bring in our election experts, Kurt Bardella, former advisor to Republicans on the House Oversight Committee, and CNN political commentator and Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton. Good to have you both here. Glad to see you.
I'll begin with you, Shermichael, because there were 12, count them, 12 Republicans who were running this race. Trump could have endorsed a 2020 election denier. He did not. He also didn't endorse the MAGA candidate in the Texas Senate race as well.
[23:35:01]
I mean, is Trump changing his endorsement strategy?
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Oh, there's definitely a difference this time around compared to the past. And I think because if you look at the track record, some of those candidates were not the best candidates in the world, from Georgia to Pennsylvania as another example to New Jersey where we got close, but not close enough.
This time around, I think the margins are far too close for Republicans, specifically on the House side. I think everybody for the most part agrees that we're not going to keep the House just looking at the numbers, looking at history, and pressing it in general.
And so, the question for us becomes, how do you minimize whatever those losses are going to be? That's the focus. You want to support and endorse candidates who are more likely to win versus those who may be more in tuned and like the president that doesn't always mean electoral advantages.
COATES: Should -- I mean, is Georgia in play? Because, I mean, Marjorie Taylor Greene, she won that district by 30 points in 2024. Thirty points against the person who has the most points right now, most votes in this particular race. I mean, the Democrats realistically have a shot at flipping and winning there. KURT BARDELLA, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER OF HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE REPUBLICANS, PUBLISHER ON SUBSTACK: Hey, there's not a place in this country right now that Democrats don't have a chance at flipping. When you look at the fact that even with Donald Trump's endorsement, the handpicked candidate didn't get 50 plus one, there isn't -- There is going to be a runoff, that tells you that Donald Trump's endorsement even isn't what it used to be. It used to be you get his endorsement, the election is over, primary is over, put it to bed.
Now, if you're Democrat, you're like please, Donald Trump, please endorse somebody, please go campaign in their district because you have a situation where Donald Trump's numbers are upside down, economy is taking, oil prices going up, affordability is the issue, and everything that this guy does keeps making it worse and worse and worse, and that's why people like Shermichael here, very smart guy, is saying Democrats are going to take back the House.
COATES: I'm wondering how the war is going to impact that even further because Marjorie Taylor Greene, she's against obviously the war as are a lot of Trump supporters, frankly, including podcaster Joe Rogan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE ROGAN, PODCASTER: It just seems so insane based on what he ran on. I mean, this is why a lot of people feel betrayed, right? Ran on no more wars and these stupid senseless wars. And then we have one that we can't even really clearly define why we did it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I mean, is he right, his betrayal on the rally?
SINGLETON: It has certainly created some division in the party. Personally, I support some type of conflict with Iran, regime change, because of regional interests of the United States. I also think there's a China angle to this that the administration should quite honestly be articulating a bit more to the country and also to Congress. I think in a limited strategic way, you can somehow diminish the regime thus diminishing one of China's closest allies in the Middle East.
That said, Rogan is not necessarily wrong that there are some Republicans who are very, very anti, very foreign, expensive, long- term entanglements because we've been there before. So, the question becomes, what were the net results overall after what, $2 trillion, thousands of American lives? There's not a whole lot we had to show for Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, if you want to get a little closer to President Obama, and even Afghanistan, President Bush or President Biden rather.
And so, I think for Republicans, the question becomes, if we're going to be there, for how long, what's the cost, how many American lives are on the line? Can we quickly pivot soon enough, Laura, to get back to the economy, those kitchen table issues where most voters, specifically those independents who lean to the right, really want to hear from Republican candidates? COATES: Well, Republicans are hearing from at least Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson today. There's a bit of a split going on about the war and the future trajectory of the Republican Party for the voters. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): I have seen more antisemitism in the last 18 months on the right than at any point in my lifetime. It is being spread by loud voices, the most consequential of whom is Tucker Carlson. I believe Tucker Carlson is the single most dangerous demagogue in this country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: What's your action to that? That's not something you would predict would have happened, say, a few years ago.
BARDELLA: Well, who's Tucker Carlson close with J.D. Vance? Who is a potential rival for Ted Cruz in would be presidential primary in 2028? J.D. Vance.
COATES: That's how you see this going.
BARDELLA: So, I think this is all about presidential posturing for who will succeed Donald Trump. But this is also why this has been such a challenge for the White House and messaging. Up to this point, when Donald Trump says he's going to do something, everybody gets in line. The entire right wing MAGA media machine gets behind. And this time, it's fractured. And that's why you're seeing the White House jump around from message to message, trying to find something that will appease everybody.
But there are very loud, substantial voices within the Republican Party that are saying, hold on, you spent an entire campaign talking about no more Middle East wars, no more spending money, no more conflict. It was a disaster for Obama, a disaster for Bush.
[23:40:00]
I mean, this has been one of the hallmark points, tendencies, of Donald Trump's political identity. And he has done not just a complete one, it is the biggest foreign policy flip-flop we have seen from a Republican, maybe in history.
COATES: Well, you know, there is a powerhouse. White House team is reporting that there is one phrase the administration wants Republicans to stop saying.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We are delivering mass deportation and it's happening.
GRAHAM: You should want mass deportations of people here illegally that represent threats to our country. SEN. ERIC SCHMITT (R-MO): Trump ran on the very idea that that mass kind of migration needs to be met with mass deportations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, this is now a liability statement. I mean, we've heard war, then we heard -- well, it wasn't a fraud. What was the word he used yesterday? Excursion.
SINGLETON: Excursion.
COATES: Then there was discussion of other -- I mean --
SINGLETON: Conflict.
COATES: -- conflict. Why would this now be the liability?
SINGLETON: Look, the issue of immigration has typically been a very strong talking point for Republicans, specifically Donald Trump. But if you look at the assessment from Tony Fabrizio, the president's long-term chief strategist, he has reminded the administration and Republicans alike, going back to the economy, Laura, that that is the issue that voters care the most about.
And so, I would argue that there is a potential out here for the president to be able to come out in the next couple weeks and say, look, we've been successful. Militarily speaking, the operation has certainly --
COATES: He tried that yesterday, by the way.
SINGLETON: And just walk it back and pivot back to the economy, cost of living. Gas prices is really sort of that moniker that most people look at to determine if they're doing well or not. And the last thing we want is to have that to be a negative for Republicans going into August, which is when we start to see some of that early voting.
COATES: Real quick, do you think that -- I mean, everyone hopes for political amnesia among voters, but will this carry to November, what has happened at the war already?
BARDELLA: Yes, it will because they're going to see the sticker shock of it. Like we're coming up here on spring break. My kids got spring break starting next week. That's when people are going to start traveling. The combination of long lines at TSA and airports, the rising cost of gas prices.
Like there are reminders in everyday life. And that's why this is so potent, because it cuts through to everyday life of working families, parents, parents taking their kids on spring break. Like we will get that reminder, and we're not going to forget it because this part, you say, you know, get back to affordability.
He has never been talking about affordability. We've been talking about Epstein, we've been talking about taking Panama, we've been talking about annexing Greenland. He has never concretely talked about affordability in any real compelling way. You can't go back to something you never were at.
SINGLETON: I would just say quickly --
COATES: The Democrats made up the word, right? He thought it was a discussion of affordability as a --
BARDELLA: They call it a hoax.
SINGLETON: But I would say quickly though, despite the successes, what, 40 plus seats in the special elections last year at Democrats, one, congressional Dems don't have a great high net approval. So, while candidates and their individual specific races are doing very well, I wouldn't get too confident there, my friend.
BARDELLA: Every election that Donald Trump has been on the ballot since 2016, Republicans have gone down, Democrats have gone up.
COATES: Yet you both agree, you think that Democrats will take the House. Interesting.
BARDELLA: Well, Sherm is very smart.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: Kurt, Shermichael, thank you both. Still ahead tonight, you know the saying, those who can't remember the past are doomed to repeat it? The endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, all casting a shadow in the debate over Trump's war in Iran. Is he repeating mistakes or learning from them? Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley joins me, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: That race to a nuclear bomb, President Trump will never allow it. Not now, not ever, not on our watch. On day 10 of Operation Epic Fury, we are winning.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Secretary Pete Hegseth once again trying to rally Americans behind the war with Iran. But the administration's P.R. campaign doesn't seem to be working. Now, you've seen this CNN poll taken at the start of the war, which found that just over 40 percent of Americans approve of the strikes, while nearly 60 percent disapprove.
Let's put those numbers into context, shall we? The 41 percent who approve of this war is lower than support for nearly every major U.S. war in recent history when they first began, way down from the percentage who initially approved of both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, we should note, there was no polling the early days of Vietnam. Let's talk about it with presidential historian Douglas Brinkley. Douglas, I'm so glad to see you. I've been wanting to pick your brain because, as you know, unpopular wars have often defined presidencies. I mean, for the worse. Do you suspect that that might be the case here for President Trump?
DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, you know, there's such a thing as, you know, wars of necessity like World War II. You know, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Germany declared war on us. We're all in it together. We have to go into a joint session of Congress.
Conversely, there were some choice starting, you know, like the Spanish American. In 1998, Secretary of State John Hay called it a splendid little war even though it divided the country because it lasted a relatively brief time. America came out with Puerto Rico and, you know, won in the Philippines and Cuba.
But in modern times, it's very quick. We want things instantaneously. So, there's not a public appetite for long drawn-out war, particularly if the word "troops" are brought up. Like in Afghanistan and Iraq, nobody wants to send American troops into the Middle East over this right now.
And then why are we there? President Trump hasn't told us what we're doing right now. So, the low poll numbers aren't surprising and it seems to be a feckless moment.
[23:50:00]
President Trump has to lead restraint, not just (INAUDIBLE).
COATES: That's an interesting comparison point given that the president didn't take the time to educate or persuade Americans to get into the war. President Bush spent what? An entire year doing that ahead of Iraq. And he had a strong 76 approval in the beginning. Now, that changed by the end. Forty-eight percent of Americans still thought using military force in Iraq was the right decision. The fact is wars don't tend to get more popular over time.
BRINKLEY: And they create a protest culture famously. Harry Truman couldn't run for reelection in 1952 because it was said to Harry Truman he had like 27 percent approval rating during the Korean War.
George W. Bush, though, as president during 9/11, had about a 90 percent approval rating. American flags everywhere. By 2003, he hung in there and up to get reelected in 2004. And our commitment to Iraq was front and center of Bush versus John Kerry. But alas, second term, Bush, the public turned on the war in Iraq and turned on George W. Bush's legacy.
This term of, you know, wars of -- you know, why are we in Afghanistan? Why are we in Vietnam? Why are we in Iraq? There is kind of public sentiment often. And yet, at least, there's not a draft like in Vietnam that made that wedge even deeper.
COATES: You've written about the Carter presidency and the 1979 oil crisis, which led to massive shortages and sent prices soaring. Could the rising oil and gas prices alone, could that do a lasting damage not only to President Trump but also to the Republican Party?
BRINKLEY: Yes. It was, you know, Richard Nixon, president in 1973, Yom Kippur War. You know, the oil and embargo issues going on, and then Carter inherited that. But then you have a second wave of problems with Iran in 1979, which Jimmy Carter couldn't quite shake out of. When you have double-digit inflation, long gasoline lines, and then American hostages in Tehran, Carter tried to maneuver through all that, but it was just too much. In many ways, oil really did damage to Nixon, Ford, and Carter in the 1970s. And by the 1980s, started doing a comeback.
The states that usually aren't hit the most in the oil thing are the oil pats. You know, Texas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, et cetera. But for most of America, the spike in gasoline paying at the pump causes big political headaches for the party in power. In this case, it's the Republicans. They got to keep their eyes on that.
COATES: Certainly, those who plan to run to become the president of United States will have their eyes on what happens now. Douglas Brinkley, thank you so much.
BRINKLEY: Thank you.
COATES: Still ahead, NBA history made tonight with an incredible performance we haven't seen since Kobe Bryant.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: It's almost midnight here on the East Coast, which means it's almost time to toss it over to Elex Michaelson on the West Coast. But Elex, let's talk about the Lakers for a second because they have their great legacy and guess what? Tonight, the Miami Heat's Bam Adebayo, he made history. He just became the second highest score in a single game in NBA history. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): (INAUDIBLE) NBA history --
COATES: And guess what? He then beat the record. He has 83. I mean, the person who had the record before, Kobe Bryant. Can you imagine? What's your reaction?
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wilt Chamberlain has the record at 100 points.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Yes. MICHAELSON: Kobe was number two at 81. Well, Lakers fans are little frustrated because they feel like they were playing against the Wizards who were trying to lose. They were -- the Heat were intentionally fouling at the end of the game, which was kind of B.S. to try to get more points for him. And he hit 36 free throws. So, that's the Kobe fans, not just Laker fans who are saying that.
That being said, unbelievable accomplishment. Eighty-three points, even with all those free throws, is amazing. Nobody would have thought that Bam Adebayo, who is a great player, would be the guy though to get 83 points. It was amazing to see his mother there --
COATES: Yes.
MICHAELSON: -- in tears, to see his girlfriend with the embrace. And congratulations on unbelievable accomplishment.
COATES: I mean, you know, when I was dropping 90 points a game in high school varsity, you know, I mean, my mom was crying, too. Oh, I'm sorry, it wasn't about me. OK, fine.
(LAUGHTER)
All right. Well, look at it. Will anyone actually beat, obviously, the goat? Wilt Chamberlain's record, that was back in 1962. Are we thinking this is the year?
MICHAELSON: Well, between the ways that they're shooting threes and the bad defense that they're playing now in the NBA, maybe we will get to that point.
COATES: (INAUDIBLE).
MICHAELSON: It's hard to imagine that somebody would. But nobody would have thought that that Kobe's record would be beaten.
[00:00:01]
So, good. And certainly not by Bam Adebayo. You would have gotten very good odds on that today. But good for Bam.
COATES: Well, you know what? And he mentioned that Kobe makes me smile, even if it's relation to him getting bested even for a moment. Great players. Have a great show, Elex.
MICHAELSON: Bam will be booed by Lakers fans with an asterisk next to that for a while.
(LAUGHTER)
Anyways, poor guy. Laura, have a great night.
COATES: You, too.
