Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Agrees To Two-Week Ceasefire, Subject To Strait Of Hormuz Opening; Democrats Urge For Trump's Removal Over Threat To Destroy Iran's "Civilization"; Oil Prices Go Below $100 After Ceasefire Announcement. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired April 07, 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]
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I once said to one of the pilots he looked like central casting. He looked like Tom Cruise, but maybe better.
Guy has central casting. Let's put him in a movie. Look at him.
He was a central casting guy. Looks don't mean anything, but he's got the look.
He's central casting. Even the glasses are perfect.
The head of the CIA. And he is a man who -- he's central casting. OK?
Is he central -- is he central casting?
We call it central casting if you are doing a movie for location.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: And thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
UNKNOWN (voice-over): This is "CNN Breaking News."
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Good evening. I'm Laura Coats. After 39 days of war with Iran, tonight, there's word of a ceasefire. The U.S. and Iran have both confirmed that they have agreed to a two-week pause. The announcement came just 90 minutes before President Trump's threat to destroy Iran's whole civilization was set to come due. There's a lot to learn, including the exact timing of when the ceasefire is fully in effect.
So, I want to walk through exactly what we know as of now. So, in his announcement, the president conditioned the ceasefire. He said that he would suspend the U.S. bombing campaign only if the Strait of Hormuz was reopened.
And a short time later, Iran confirmed it. The Iranian foreign minister weighed in on that critical piece Trump was looking for. He says for two weeks, safe passage through the strait will be possible by coordinating with Iran's armed forces. The other parties in the war also appear to be on board. The White House says Israel has agreed in the temporary troop supplies to Lebanon. Now, the administration is getting ready for in-person talks with Iran in the coming days. We're told that Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Vice President J.D. Vance are all expected to attend.
So, the big question is, how did all of this come together? Well, it seems that a frantic diplomatic scramble by Pakistan played a huge part. The White House says that's likely where negotiations will take place. And those negotiations will not be easy because what Iran's Supreme National Security Council is claiming goes a lot further than President Trump or Iran's foreign minister.
Now, for one, Iran's National Security Council claims the United States has, in principle, agreed to lift all primary and secondary sanctions. It also says the United States agreed to accept Iran's nuclear enrichment and recognize Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump, he put it this way. He says they're very far along with the definitive agreement and that Iran's 10-point plan is a -- quote -- "workable basis on which to negotiate." And the days ahead will tell us whether this is a true off-ramp or just a temporary ceasefire.
But the markets, for now, they are optimistic. Stock futures are up, way up, in fact, more than 2 percent. And perhaps more importantly, crude oil on the decline, under a hundred dollars a barrel.
On the ground to our discussions, we begin with our CNN political analyst and White House correspondent for "The New York Times," Zolan Kanno-Youngs, retired Army major general, Randy Manner, he facilitated the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2010, and former associate counsel to President George W. Bush, Jamil Jaffer, he was the lead architect of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. Sounds like the perfect group of people to unpack what has been a dubious 24 hours, if not 30 plus days.
Zolan, I want begin with you because the administration is getting ready for possible in-person talks, and that will involve the vice president of the United States. How confident is this White House that a peace deal will actually be achieved within this window?
ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, look, I mean, I think we have to remember that just earlier this morning -- right now, we're talking about a potential peace deal. Just earlier this morning, we had another maximalist, maybe the most maximalist threat that we've seen from the president, talking about wiping out a civilization, right? So, now to already make that turn to now negotiations. I think just that arc, you know, we have to actually capture.
Just hours ago, the president was saying that, basically, he was prepared to launch attacks that many international law experts would say would amount to war crimes, right?
COATES: The annihilation (ph) of civilian infrastructure, bridges, power plants, etcetera.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Civilian infrastructure, bridges, power plants. Right. And now, throughout this day, you have seen now, with Pakistan involved and our reporting does show a last-ditch effort by the Chinese as well, this diplomatic breakthrough, at least for now, right, for this now two-week delay. This is also a cycle we've seen before, right, when it comes to this president.
[23:05:01]
We often --
COATES: More than one deadline. Multiple five deadlines now.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Just even in this war.
COATES: Yes.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Right? Just even in this war. But I'm talking beyond that. Just when it comes to the president's approach on the global stage, tariffs, Greenland. Now, with Iran, you have basically a vague thread, a demand, ambiguous benchmarks, a maximalist demand, and then a deadline, and then extension as well.
The difference with this is that from like tariffs or something is, you know, tariffs, that impacts the market. This is life or death consequences, right? It's something that is war. It is intractable. And you're seeing the president can't just sort of yell or talk his way out of this. So, you are seeing now the threats get even more alarming like we saw with this morning.
COATES: But he is talking, and he's talking tonight. In fact, moments ago, general, the president spoke with AFP tonight, and he is declaring victory. I'm going to quote him. "Total and complete victory. A hundred percent. No question about it." He also goes on to say that Iran's uranium would be perfectly taken care of. What's your reaction?
MAJ. GEN. RANDY MANNER, RETIRED MAJOR GENERAL, U.S. ARMY: I think it's rather to be expected, quite frankly. The president has been all over the place about what the objectives of this war are and, therefore, we really never know have we achieved them or not. I think that the points that Iran has put forward in this possible ceasefire are rather shocking: The idea that we would accept providing them reparations, the idea that we might remove all sanctions, the idea that we would allow them to continue their uranium enrichment program.
COATES: Which puts us back to zero in terms of the progress of what the war was supposed to be about, right?
MANNER: Yes. So, I think this is something where the president just had a way out once again and, therefore, the opportunity to declare victory and hopefully let this sort itself out. Unfortunately, this is -- the art of the deal is not taking place here. Our president is not a good negotiator. And it's very clear that the Iranians are, quite frankly, in control of what the situation is moving forward. COATES: Well, you know, to your point and Zolan as well, earlier, as that arc of what has happened, including the threats to sort of obliterate a civilization and the threats as of yesterday, this 8 p.m. deadline that was supposed to happen, it came and went about the civilian infrastructures. I mean, he would not answer this evening when asked if he would go after Iran's civilian infrastructure like he threatened to -- again, just this very morning, he said -- quote -- "You're going to have to see."
Now, you're talking about negotiations. There's got to be some expectation of good faith and some trust in terms of what would happen next. What would that do in terms of the wait and see aspect for the duration of a ceasefire?
JAMIL JAFFER, FORMER ASSOCIATE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, obviously, it eliminates the ceasefire if he's going to go after any of their infrastructure, civilian or otherwise. The ceasefire premise on the idea that they're going to reopen the straits, we're not going to bomb them, we and Israel are not going to bomb them, and that for two weeks, we're going to negotiate to some sort of a settlement. If that --
COATES: What I mean is his statement about you're going to have to see. Having that sort of Damocles, sort of looming --
JAFFER: Yes.
COATES: -- that got to have an impact on one's trust in negotiations.
JAFFER: Fair enough. But, I mean, it will, hopefully, cause negotiations to come to some sort of resolution, right? The Iranians have to know that if they don't come to a deal in two weeks, there will be some sort of an attack. Now, look, you -- there -- it is acceptable to bomb bridges. It is acceptable to bomb power plants. It's not acceptable to bomb all of them, right? Some of them may have ties to military facilities. That's appropriate in a war.
COATES: But give me the contingency there. It's appropriate if --
JAFFER: That's right. If there are connections --
COATES: On case by case.
JAFFER: On case by case basis, you can't wipe out a civilization. That's not a thing. You can do a war. We've agreed to not do things like that. And so, those statements are obviously problematic by the president of United States publicly making them.
But we're here now at a deal of some sort. I agree this 10-point plan that the Iranians have put out -- I mean, we put out a maximalist 15- point plan. They put out a minimalist five-point plan. This 10-point plan is actually worse than their original five-point plan. It's a disaster. We've seen rumors all over on what the 10-point plan has. The U.S. hasn't confirmed any of it.
The Iran National Security Council is making claims about it. If any of their claims are true, it would be worse, dramatically worse than the Obama-negotiated nuclear deal that President Trump walked away from. That would be a train wreck. That is hopefully not where we're headed because if we are or anywhere near that, that is a bad, bad outcome for the United States.
COATES: Well, let's talk about, Zolan, because the president also revealed, this is coming in tonight as well, that he thinks China was behind Iran, even agreeing to a ceasefire. What more do you know?
KANNO-YOUNGS: We do know that Pakistan was working on this throughout the day. And yes, we do have reporting that also China got involved with trying to bring about some sort of agreement to at least delay this for two weeks. The details of exactly how they got involved is still unclear at this point. This is all just happening now.
COATES: Their incentive to maintain the instability of the region has been reported on quite extensively. Why would China want to have this moment?
[23:10:00]
MANNER: I think it's -- go ahead, please.
KANNO-YOUNGS: No, no, please.
MANNER: It's important that the world understands that China has the most to gain from this, in addition to Iran. So, any influence that they could have over the president to allow him a way out will be rewarded for China. So, I think this is something where China will in the end benefit.
We have to remember, of course, this war has been very costly for the United States. We've expended almost two years of production of interceptor missiles and those are not easy to replace. So, even though we are the most powerful military on the planet, the reality is our defenses are now much weaker than they were only 30 days ago. And so, we have to look at our own national defense policy as well.
COATES: Let's talk about what another country has gained in terms of strength, and that is Iran in terms of having the control over the strait. Now, they have not physically controlled the Strait of Hormuz. They know that it's obviously a huge chokehold, extraordinary leverage. But it is international waters. But now, based on what we are learning from these ceasefire discussions, they would essentially be the people who control it and they have to be acquiesced to that. So, what is that reopening, that power do?
KANNO-YOUNGS: Right. I mean, well, and they would base off of, I think, the original sort of plan, the 10-point that has been submitted here. I mean, when I talk to officials familiar, like this is a framework and a launching pad for negotiations. So, I don't know if you're ever going to have an actual agreement where they agree to have -- to allow Iran to maintain control. I just don't know if that would be the case in terms of the final outcome after these two weeks.
But, look, right now -- I mean, when you have a chokehold on this corridor -- I mean, you're talking oil. Energy prices are set globally. You have a ripple effect right now when it comes to how Iran is treating the Strait of Hormuz. This is exactly what's contributing to the economic anxiety in the U.S. It's exactly what's resulting in higher gas prices throughout. You know, the globe at this point. So, there's absolutely, I mean, substantial impacts when you come to the strait.
COATES: What about Israel? Because there has been reporting. A source telling CNN that Israeli officials have concerns about the ceasefire agreement. What role would they be having in the duration of this ceasefire or, of course, the negotiations going forward?
JAFFER: Look, remember, Iran -- Israel has been very involved in this conflict. They've been leading from the front in this effort. They've been bombing Iran regularly. They're the ones who eliminate Iran's air defenses at the outset before, even on operation to take out their nuclear infrastructure. So, Israel has been leading forward on this. And so, they have a big role to play on whether this deal gets done and how it gets done.
And so, it would be very surprising to me if they agreed to the deal that we've got right now or the framework that's out there. Even as a starting point for negotiations, it is a catastrophically bad starting point for framework of negotiations. No American president previously has accepted Iran having any amount of control on Strait of Hormuz. In fact, every time they try to exert control, American presidents have forced their hand, have escorted ships through the strait, the tanker wars from the 80s.
President Reagan talked about peace through strength. This is not what peace through strength looks like, giving Iran control of Strait of Hormuz, allowing them to take taxes or tolls of you coming to the strait, or having to negotiate with the Iranian navy to get through.
I realized that is today, the practical effect of where we're at. That is not an acceptable end state for the United States. Hopefully, that is not where the president ends up. If he does, he will have given away another major win to the Iranians in a war that should have resulted in wins for the American people, for American national security, and for the Iranian people. That's going to be a real bad outcome for us.
COATES: Well, general, the counter-productivity is mind-boggling based on what Jamil has described as well. I mean, the idea that we're still hearing about reports of missiles, that are reporting across the Gulf states, we don't have a specific timeline of when the ceasefire officially begins. I recognize the impact in different time zones, the messaging through Truth Social and beyond. But the word getting around to stop attacks, that what happens in the meantime can also be very catastrophic going forward.
MANNER: Yes. For the United States, we have clear lines of command and control through CENTCOM.
COATES: Right. MANNER: And so, we can actually, other than for self-defense purposes, we can put out the word we're not going to fire any missiles. The problem is many of the command and control infrastructure in Iran has been decimated. It's still somewhat intact, but it has been greatly reduced. So, like in any combat situation, not everyone may get the word. And that includes, of course, in Lebanon and many of the Iranian-controlled militias that there are.
COATES: But even getting the word, is there expectation that there is going to be essentially a uniform response or is it splintered?
MANNER: It probably will be splintered. But we would hope that over the next few days, this would iron itself out to everyone's satisfaction to end the hostilities in all directions. That's what I hope.
COATES: Wow. Hope. Thank you all.
[23:15:00]
I appreciate it. Meanwhile, while all of this is happening, Congress, well, they're on vacation, literally on vacation. Now, Democrats are demanding to be called back into session to hold votes to end the war and also to debate impeachment. Congressman Eugene Vindman, a veteran of the Iraq war, will join me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Democrats in Congress furious tonight of the president's threats to Iran. They're calling for his removal from office either through impeachment or by invoking the 25th Amendment. And they want to be called back from recess to deal with it. Now, as for the two- week ceasefire that was just announced, the top Democrat in the House, Hakeem Jeffries, just told Anderson Cooper, that's not enough.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): A two-week ceasefire is insufficient. We need a permanent end to Donald Trump's reckless war of choice, which is why House Democrats have demanded that Speaker Mike Johnson immediately reconvene the House back into session so we can move a war powers resolution that will end this conflict permanently.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:20:11]
COATES: Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Eugene Vindman. He's a retired Army colonel, veteran of the Iraq War, a former JAG officer, and a member of the House Armed Services Committee. Congressman, thank you for joining us. I'm eager to hear your opinion here because before the ceasefire, there were some Republicans who appeared willing to join Democrats in voting to end this war. Do you think that this ceasefire has changed their minds?
REP. EUGENE VINDMAN (D-VA): Look, the president's remarks this morning were outrageous. Threatening to end a civilization sounds more like Genghis Khan or Thanos than an American president. I never thought I would hear an American president say that. I think the president has forgotten that America can never be great if America is not good. And so those comments were completely outrageous and I think rightly started to draw condemnation from Republicans.
Why did the president do this? He did this because he didn't have a plan going into this conflict. And so, he saw this as an escalation. I don't believe that the Iranians thought that he would follow through. And if you look at the 10-point plan, it is nearly a capitulation. It puts us in a much worse strategic position than we were when the conflict started.
And so, I think this whole thing, this whole conflict, war of choice that the president started, has left the United States and the American people in a much weaker position, paying higher costs, and it's very unfortunate.
COATES: Well, congressman, I mean, Iran is claiming this ceasefire is a victory for them. Now, Trump is saying otherwise. The United States, he says, has accomplished its military goals. Do you trust that this pause could actually lead to a deal? He says it's essentially a jumping-off point for negotiations, maybe not the final say. And according to you, it would be problematic if it were. But do you stress that this pause might lead to a deal that would be advantageous?
VINDMAN: Well, advantageous for the United States and America's allies, I am highly skeptical. Look, this is the conflict that involves the U.S., Israel, and Iran. And missiles have continued to fly tonight, even after the announcement. So, you know, even understanding that there may be a lag before the orders go out to units, I am not confident that Israel and Iran will not continue to trade missiles and strikes.
And, in any case, the strait, for all intents and purposes, if it opens, there is now a $2 million fee for boats transiting across the strait. That was not the case before this war started. Iran has had sanctions lifted. They insist, as part of their 10-point plan, that sanctions are removed. Oh, by the way, Russia has also had sanctions removed from its oil exports. And, you know, the United States and Western Allies, especially those in the Middle East, are in some ways left holding the bag.
I think it's just a very unfortunate situation that the president has gotten us into. And we do need to come back as Congress and vote to restrain this president's powers. There's one thing that we've learned from this conflict. The president cannot be trusted to deal with these matters in a reasonable way, that he will either make outrageous threats that are unacceptable for a U.S. president or negotiate in such a way that weakens the United States and weakens our allies.
COATES: Well, you know, based in part of how you described it, you have dozens of House Democrats that have called for the president to be removed from office because of his threat to wipe out Iran. Either they're asking for an impeachment and, of course, he has been successful in the past in part in that realm for very different reasons, or by the invocation of 25th Amendment, which you know would require either a voluntary decision to delegate his power or the vice president and the majority of his cabinet to agree to do so. Many believe that would be unlikely. So, do you think that impeachment or some other effort to remove him is even worthwhile to pursue or is it symbolic?
VINDMAN: Look, obviously, the president has not followed through on his threat to wipe out the Iranian civilization.
[23:25:00]
Neither has he followed through on his threats against Iranian infrastructure, the destruction of which, if it was purely civilian, would constitute a war crime. So, you know, I think what we need to do is we need to come back to work. We need to have the speaker call us back to work so we can vote on a war powers resolution, so we can exercise our function as a Congress and restrain some of the president's worst impulses.
He cannot be trusted to lead this country in wartime. He's, frankly, not very good at his job. He's negotiating away elements that no president has in the past allowing Iran to control the Strait of Hormuz. And, oh, by the way, there's no mention whatsoever in the 10- point plan on Iranian nuclear program and the highly enriched uranium. So, we're in a much worse position than we were just 40 or so days ago before this conflict started.
COATES: Congressman Eugene Vindman, thank you for joining.
VINDMAN: Thank you.
COATES: Up next, well, the markets ready to rip after the ceasefire, futures pointing up, oil prices pointing down. But has the economic damage already been done? Plus, MAGA's loudest online voices pushing back on the president as Republicans on the Hill sit quietly by. So, who has a better pulse on the party? We'll debate that, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Plenty of skepticism about this ceasefire. But you won't find it on Wall Street. Not tonight, at least. So far, investors like what they see. The price of oil plunged the moment Trump announced the deal on Truth Social. It dropped almost 15 percent and flipped below a hundred bucks a barrel. And stock market futures are surging before tomorrow's opening bell. And it's not just the United States markets around the world. They're all rallying as well. But much of these hinges on whether the Strait of Hormuz will open up and allow the world to regain access to one-fifth of the global oil supply.
I want to bring in an economic expert and a voice many of you may recognize from social media. Adam Kobeissi is the founder and editor- in-chief of the Kobeissi Letter, which follows every move the market makes, including this one, and he joins me now. Adam, good to see you. I want to ask because the markets, they're clearly relieved that there is talk of a ceasefire. But tell me, what is making investors so confident that this is the beginning of the end?
ADAM KOBEISSI, FOUNDER AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, KOBEISSI LETTER: Yes. So, you know, when -- over the last couple of weeks, we've been kind of going back and forth with -- it was like -- it was like a ping pong match, right? The U.S. would say something. Iran would reject it. Iran would say something. The U.S. would reject it. And we kind of kept going back and forth. So, the market was really pricing in uncertainty, right? Beyond anything, the market does not like uncertainty. The market likes certainty. The market likes to know what's going to happen.
So, this is really the first point in, you know, the 38-day war where there is some sort of an agreement. I mean, the degree of which that agreement is really going to be fulfilled to is still subject to, you know, a lot of different factors.
But there is some sort of an agreement. And what that means is that what we call the geopolitical risk premium, right, which is this sense of uncertainty that is priced into markets is now being priced out. That's good for stocks. It's actually been good for gold, surprisingly. And that's good for bonds. But then that's also bad for oil prices, right, because oil prices trade on supply and demand. And when supply is low, demand is high. Obviously, oil prices rise. Now, that's being priced out.
But, you know, it's important to know, before this war began in December, oil prices were at about $50 to $5 a barrel. Now, even after these headlines, we're at about 95. So, that's still about, you know, $40 higher than where we were before.
And bringing oil back to the market is not something that just happens overnight. There's a long process, right? When these rigs shut down in what they call force majeure, sometimes, it takes three to six months, if not longer, to restore production to its full capacity.
So, I think the market is still kind of going to see some volatility and there's going to be some back and forth that still happens. But, at its core, we're starting to price uncertainty right now, which is bullish for stocks.
COATES: But one prominent economist said investors thought today was taco Tuesday, and they didn't believe Trump's threat to wipe out Iran because if they did, stocks would have been lower and oil higher. So, I mean, does it indicate that investors just no longer maybe are believing what the president says and looking at the certainty or unpredictability instead?
KOBEISSI: Yes. So, you know, it's interesting because stocks really -- I mean, right now, even before this headline, the S&P 500 was only about 5 percent below its record high. It's up. Large. It's up a lot since last year this time. And the market kind of has come to this point where it views geopolitical conflicts or just general conflicts that result in volatility and downside in the stock market as something that is in a way limited by Trump, right? Because we've seen so many times in the past that when equities start falling, when stocks start falling, he always intervenes, right? And clearly, that became the case this time, right? When the bond market, more particularly when interest rates were rising and oil prices were rising, President Trump started teasing these headlines of a potential peace deal.
[23:35:01]
That wasn't a coincidence, right? The pressure -- really, what resulted in the ceasefire is pressure through markets. So, markets have this notion that if we do reach this point where the market is falling so sharply, Trump will intervene. And simultaneously in the background, obviously, this is a big macroeconomic headwind.
But the whole A.I. narrative, the A.I. revolution as we call it in our work, is only accelerating. You know, the largest seven tech companies in the U.S. alone are investing $600 billion in 2026 alone in A.I. That's a theme that investors can't look past. Even if oil prices are up, even if there's more volatility, people are looking at these tech stocks and saying, maybe this is the time to buy these names when they're at a little bit of a discount for something that has less of an impact on tech than maybe people were pricing it initially.
COATES: You know, I hadn't factored in A.I. and the role it would play, particularly and given on a day like this. I'm fascinated to think of what impact it could have. Adam Kobeissi, thank you so much.
KOBEISSI: Thank you for having me.
COATES: You know, the day started with the president's bellicose threat to end Iran's civilization. For some members of the MAGA movement, those threats crossed a bright red line.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER FOX NEWS HOST: Those people who are in direct contact with the president need to say no, I'll resign. I'll do whatever I can do legally to stop this because this is insane. If given the order, I'm not carrying it out. Figure out the codes on the football yourself because everything hangs in the balance right now. This is not hysteria. This is a hundred percent real.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Democratic strategist Sawyer Hackett and former Louisiana Republican congressman, Garret Graves, join me now. Congressman, I ask you because some of the loudest online voices from the MAGA movement and Tucker Carlson, you know, not the least of them, by the way, they're infuriated by this war. Is the war fracturing the MAGA movement in a way that Republicans can recover? GARRET GRAVES, FORMER LOUISIANA REPRESENTATIVE: Look, I think Adam Kobeissi just made a really good point. Markets like stability. What we've seen is we've seen the Houthis, we've seen Hamas, we've seen Hezbollah be able to come in, launch a rocket overnight, caused instability in the Middle East. What President Trump is doing by undermining Iran, by taking away their weapons, by neutralizing their military, is creating stability in the Middle East. That is --
COATES: In the long run.
GRAVES: In the long run, it is. Look, there was a politician in Greenland who gave a quote whenever President Trump was talking about coming in and taking over Greenland. He said, look, he said, you don't need to take President Trump literally, but you need to take him seriously. And I think this is exactly what we're seeing right now. Look, was he literally going to go in and blow up Iran? I don't know. But the bottom line is that we now have a peace deal in place that we didn't have yesterday.
And so, I think that things are moving in the right direction. I think you're helping to stabilize the Middle East. You're helping to stabilize markets long term. And I think it makes sense.
COATES: I don't know if your optimism is warranted in full only because, well, for two reasons. One, Sawyer, is that there is unpredictability in terms of whether the ceasefire is going to last and be sustained. I know you obviously realize. And the second part of it is there has been a shift in power to Iran in terms of Strait of Hormuz, and that predictability aspect of it and the cost and who controls it now has been impactful.
You know, Republican congressman, former congressman, Adam Kinzinger, had this to say. He said, good Lord. If we cede control -- that was a good (INAUDIBLE), good Lord -- if we cede control of the strait to Iran and agree to reparations, this will be the biggest humiliation in American history. What do you think this is going to do with voters who are hearing former Republican congressman like Kinzinger or even Tucker Carlson describe their views today? Does that benefit the Democrats? Will they overplay their hand?
SAWYER HACKETT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, CONTENT CREATOR: Well, I think Trump has definitely overplayed his hand. I would argue that we don't even have an actual ceasefire in this deal. We have -- in the best- case scenario, we have a plan to reopen the strait that was opened five weeks ago before the president started this reckless war, and he has not given us any certainty on that. I mean, as of just a couple hours ago, there was missiles dropping in Israel and Iran. And Israel was not a part of those negotiations for this temporary ceasefire which, again, I don't think is justified in calling it --
COATES: Well, some associate those continued reverberations as part of the lag of giving the -- I have no idea, but I hear your larger point.
HACKETT: Right. And, I mean, even if -- even if he does secure some sort of deal to reopen the strait, this was something that was opened just five weeks ago before he started this war. And now, we're going to put a toll booth on it and pay billions of dollars in reparations back to Iran to reopen it.
And I think you're seeing this reaction from the MAGA right or, I guess, kind of the America First right, and I think they're really kind of channeling the voice of everyday Americans right now who are pissed at what they're seeing on T.V. I mean, you may not see members of Congress kind of diverging from Trump in this moment, but you do see a lot of those prominent MAGA voices with megaphones that they want to keep after Trump is gone. I think that they're looking at the horizon and they're seeing Trump in his final waning days.
[23:40:01]
COATES: Let me ask you quickly. Do you think that Democrats are in line with the voters when they call for the 25th Amendment?
HACKETT: I think Democrats would be wise to echo more of these MAGA, you know, megaphone stars when they speak out because when they speak out, they don't just say, you know, this is -- Trump is threatening genocide. This is abhorrent. We should absolutely abhor this.
Also, the cabinet should invoke the 25th Amendment and Congress should reconvene to stop this war and it should maybe even consider impeachment. That's what Republicans do when they're, you know, pissed at Trump.
I would like to see more Democrats do that. I think you did see something like 86 Democrats kind of step into that messaging today. But I'd like to see more.
COATES: Well, here's a Republican I'm sure you'd love to hear from right now. Chris Christie. Why don't we have that for you? Because he is calling out members of his own party who he thinks are defending Trump too much. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS CHRISTIE, FORMER NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: But the real lack of principle is on display every day in the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. These people have become lemmings. They only do what he tells them to do. And not only that. They don't even criticize him when he deserves to be criticized.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I will say, if you count at that point what Dan Crenshaw has to say, Texas congressman, he said that President Trump speaks in terms of power, which is the only language our adversaries understand. Carefully worded diplomatic statements make the U.N. feel nice and cozy but also don't get anything done. When it comes to voters, who's right?
GRAVES: President Trump. There's no -- there's no question this is an unconventional approach to presidency. It is. But one of the things that he has really thrived on is unpredictability. Look, you go back, President Biden, you could predict every move he was going to make. With President Trump, you can't predict what he's going to do. And he uses that to his advantage with adversaries like Iran and other countries because they're sitting there going, is he really going to do this or is he not?
COATES: So, he needs to threaten the civilization to get that point across?
GRAVES: Look, I think that it's pretty clear that President Trump uses a lot of adjectives in his statements.
HACKETT: We're talking about nuclear holocaust here.
GRAVES: Well, he didn't -- he didn't say that. He didn't say nuclear holocaust.
HACKETT: Genocide.
GRAVES: He did say that he was going to go after bridges and go after power plants. You did see the reaction from Iran.
COATES: Civilization.
GRAVES: Putting women and children surrounding these facilities. I mean, these are disgusting tactics by the Iranians, putting folks like that at risk.
The reality is, and I'm going go back to my initial point, here, you had an incredibly unstable Middle East that was funded by proxies, that was carried out by proxies funded by Iran. President Trump is working to demilitarize Iran, working to pull their power, pull their financial stream. He has decimated much of their key infrastructure. He has decimated their military. This is incredible, what he has done. No one had the power to do this in the past. What a courage.
COATES: Well, or they thought it wasn't prudent or that it would have the consequences it does.
HACKETT: Or it would lead to $4 a gallon gasoline, $200 billion spent on a foreign war that he pledged not to get into, 13 American service members losing their lives, the global economy stuck, you know, in a complete chokehold.
And I think the Iranians are leaving -- if we get out of this mess, if there is ultimately a peace deal, I think the Iranians are leaving actually stronger than they started this war. Yes, their military has been decimated in parts, their missile capacity has been absolutely decimated, but they are still do have missile capacity, they still do have that uranium that has not been extracted, they still have the ability to go after Gulf allies, they still have the ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz.
Ultimately, Trump taught the Iranian regime, that they have something more powerful than a nuclear weapon, and that's the ability to shut down global trade whenever they have a gripe.
GRAVES: We effectively demilitarized Iran in about two days. And Iran knows that today. We went in and pulled out Maduro in a couple of hours. They know the power of American military. Iran will be petrified to go out there and make moves like that.
HACKETT: They didn't seem very petrified of him today.
GRAVES: They didn't seem petrified. They put women and children at risk in front of key facilities, and they just agreed to a peace deal.
HACKETT: And Trump tacoed it, like we expect.
COATES: Well, they did -- they did call that. They believe a whole victory. And, obviously, I don't need to show anyone a map to show you where Venezuela is compared to Iran. Sawyer, Garret, thank you both.
Up next, the Iranian uprising that wasn't. New reporting on how the U.S. and Israel miscalculated on the prospects of a rebellion and what this new ceasefire means for the Iranian people that Trump vowed to help.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I call upon all Iranian patriots who yearn for freedom to seize this moment, to be brave, be bold, be heroic, and take back your country. America is with you. I made a promise to you, and I fulfilled that promise. The rest will be up to you, but we'll be there to help.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That was President Trump at the beginning of this war telling the Iranian people the United States is coming to, well, help. Now, cut to this morning when President Trump posted a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. What happened to America is with you? And what happens to the people who were told to rise up? Well, tonight, we are and we've been seeing images of people burning U.S. and Israeli flags in Tehran and protesters pledging to take the regime's lead.
We're going to talk about the implications of this and what is happening with the Iranian American and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracy, Miad Maleki. Thank you so much for being here. Obviously, there has been an arc and an evolution as the war has progressed from the president's statements and beyond. Even tonight, I mean, hour by hour, there were changes. There's now a two-week ceasefire that's on the table. What do you think that means for the people of Iran and the people the president has said he is about to help?
[23:50:01]
MIAD MALEKI, SENIOR FELLOW, FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY: Sure. Thanks for having me. I think what I've been hearing from most Iranians that I've been contacted or talked to inside the country, whether they're relatives, you know, family members, friends or contacts that I have or kind of broadly speaking from the sentiment that I'm getting out of Iran, is that, you know, for the most part, Iranians were supportive of the strikes.
You know, the reality is that the strikes have started shortly after the Iranian regime really killed this way out of the protest that it was, the demonstrations that it was facing. You know, killing tens of thousands, over 30,000 of Iranians.
And it's really -- there was a strong sense of unity against the Iranian regime. You know, I remember seeing folks who were believers of reforms as a part of the Iranian regime that had turned anti- regime. I've seen Iranians that were part of that small group, you know, 10, 15 percent of Iranian regime supporters who had really doubts against this regime, whether it was legitimate or not after the massacre in January.
Now, what was really, I would say, the division, the divisive message that I've seen really changing that unity was the message from President Trump kind of threatening the civilian infrastructure in Iran. You know, there were group of Iranians that were saying, listen, we've been dealing with no electricity, with no clean water, with no internet or censored internet for years. Targeting of these power plants is not going to really change the reality.
COATES: Well, in fact, they were also -- I don't want to cut you off, but there were protests and civilians making human change around power plants. I mean, we're told at the behest of a government official. I mean, the regime continued executions, as you well know as well. And so, the last one, the last known one, I should say, became just less than a week ago. So, can you just reconcile, if you will, the way you described it, the idea of being supportive initially of the regime being taken down, and yet also the realization that there has been a threat by an American president to obliterate a civilization?
MALEKI: Yes, I think there was. I think the message, that was what President Trump sent out. Again, there was a group of Iranians that really considered that message or that the actual targeting of Iranian civilian targets not really changing the reality for them. But at the same time, the regime supporters who were now doubting the regime's legitimacy, that this message rattled around the flag. So that did happen. I think there were concerns within folks who were supportive of reforms, had turned against the regime in January. But now, they were kind of have their doubts about this campaign by the U.S. and Israel in Iran.
COATES: Let's talk about the Israelis because "The New York Times" reports that the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, told President Trump -- quote -- "Mossad's intelligence indicated that street protests inside Iran would begin again and -- with the impetus of the Israeli spy agency helping to foment riots and rebellion -- an intense bombing campaign could foster the conditions for the Iranian opposition to overthrow the regime." Now, obviously, that did not happen. Why not?
MALEKI: Well, I mean, the reality is Iranians have been under an airstrike campaign for weeks now. I think there was no expectation. I wasn't expecting a kind of an uprising in the middle of an airstrike campaign. As a matter of fact, CENTCOM commander came out and asked Iranians to stay in homes --
COATES: Yes.
MALEKI: -- and wait until the end of their strikes to take it back, to take back to the streets. You know, the reality of this regime is just not going to stay around much longer. Sooner or later, it's going to go back to the reality that it has created a bank corrupt economy, extreme social restrictions. I mean, they're coming out of an internet that has been cut off for about, you know, now 37, 38 days.
These are the realities on the ground that this regime is going to have to face. And at the end of the strikes, very soon, Iranians are going to have to think about employment, the inflation rate that is skyrocketing. I mean, 40 percent, 50 percent Iranian rial value has, you know, dropped to $1.4 million. So, the economic reality is something that they're going to have to face with very soon.
COATES: What now and what next? Miad Maleki, thank you so much.
MALEKI: Thanks.
COATES: Up next, the Artemis II mission and what may be the greatest free advertising moment in U.S. history.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: It's almost midnight here on the East Coast. Let's get ready to hand things over to Elex Michaelson over there on the West Coast, who is also going to be doing a CNN debate in May for the California gubernatorial race. Can't wait to hear that. Let's talk about the Artemis II, though, because the Artemis II astronauts sent back some stunning pictures of the moon.
But the internet, my type of people, far more interested in this. A jar of Nutella floating through the spacecraft. Now, Nutella, of course, going with it, saying -- quote -- "Honored to have traveled further than any spread in history. Taking spreading smiles to new heights." This is a great free advertising moment, Elex.
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Oh, my God. Can you imagine how much would you have to spend for that kind of advertising?
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: I thought it was A.I. first, right? That's --
MICHAELSON: How mad is like JIF that they're not doing peanut butter or something else, that it's Nutella? What would be your choice if you could pick something that you could take as a sort of dessert and you're flying around the moon for 10 days? What are you taking with you?
COATES: You know what? I'm so basic about this. I would have brought my Froot Loops and like a big, giant like mixing bowl that's the size of my Froot Loops cereal bowl.
MICHAELSON: Froot Loops, like flying in all Froot Loops?
[00:00:00]
COATES: Flying with milk to it. I'm not like young. I want milk with the cereal.
MICHAELSON: But there's no gravity.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: Look, you asked what I wanted. What would you want?
MICHAELSON: Something that probably doesn't have a million people seeing things (ph) flying all around.
(LAUGHTER)
It's not so easy. There's no vacuum.
COATES: This is why I'm a lawyer, not an astronaut. All right, sue me. I want -- matter of fact, I'm going to eat Froot Loops right now. Have a great show, Elex.
MICHAELSON: OK. Enjoy, Laura. Thanks so much.
