Iran War Widens

0:00This is CNN Breaking News. Breaking News today, a fresh barrage of strikes on Iran in just the past few hours. I'm Adi Cornish. It's day six of this widening war with Iran. There's a lot going on right now. I'm going to start with explosions in Tehran, another wave of Israeli strikes underway. New video showing smoke rising over the skyline. Now Israel is saying that they've taken out dozens of Iranian missile arrays. And Iran hitting back. The IDF says Iran launched missiles towards Israel. Iran also targeted three Amazon data centers in Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. Here at home, the U.S. Senate rejected a resolution to force the president to end the Iran strike. Today, we're going to find out where each representative stands on that. And we are learning the identities of the two remaining service members killed in the early days of this war. They include a loving husband and father and a blue eyed blonde farm kid.

1:04And we have live team Cudret across the region here at home. But we're going to begin with CNN's Bajan Hussaini in Doha, which of course has been facing many missile attacks just this morning. Can you talk about how this is breaking out? Hi, Adi. Just a little more than an hour ago, the team here witnessing and seeing interceptions taking place directly above us. These were very loud, it lasted probably 20, 30 minutes. We've been live from this location every day for the past six days. I think today I can say this was the loudest and the longest kind of series of interceptions that took place, at least from our perspective. We're calling it a missile attack. And we're saying that because that's what Qatar's Ministry of Defense just said a little more than an hour ago. They came out and said that they were being attacked by Iran, calling it a missile attack. And this also comes after Ministry of Interior last night, around two o'clock in the morning ordered evacuations of residents near the U.S. Embassy in Doha.

2:06One of our CNN staff members getting caught up in that. They received a knock on their door at about three o'clock in the morning from police here after them to evacuate. They later returned to their home. That was about two hours after they had to evacuate. Police they were saying that they were safely outside of that security perimeter. They live around four kilometers away from the U.S. Embassy there. That last night was a safety precaution and the people around that embassy know, no witnesses hearing or seeing any interceptions taking place last night, but clearly a different story taking place today in this morning. Okay, that is Bajan Hussaini. Thank you for that latest reporting. And now I want to bring in retired Army Brigadier General Steve Anderson. You've been following this all very closely. And I just ask you about the current strikes. I was curious about why Iran would go after Amazon data centers. Well, what they're trying to do, Audis, they're trying to expand the war as best they possibly can. They want to expand the war to all the GCC.

3:07They want to make it painful for them to be able to participate and support the United States and their bases in the region. So what we've got going on right now, Audis, is really a war of attrition. The ability of Iran to continue to launch strikes against the regional threats and the GCC versus the United States ability to take down those threats, to use the munitions and use the air coverage, the air superiority they enjoy right now, to be able to take that. You've got a war of attrition. How long can this last? Well, then hold on one second because General Dan Cain, US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chairman, he was talking on Wednesday about the next step. And I think this is going to fall on what you're saying, so I'd like to get your response. Here he is. We will now begin to expand inland, striking progressively deeper into Iranian territory and creating additional freedom of maneuver for US forces. So we're moving into another phase here and you're saying it's a war of attrition.

4:08So does that mean they feel like they have the air dominance, they have the ability to continue? Without a doubt, they have air superiority. They've had it and that's never been a question. But I remind you Iran and Afghanistan, excuse me, Iraq and Afghanistan, same thing. We had total air superiority. The ability to overfly and now to use directed weapons is going to be a powerful thing and maybe it might take it to a new level. But I remind you, the center of gravity is still the IRGC and they've adopted a decentralized mosaic strategy. They're hunkering down. They're going inland. They're not relying upon centralized command and control anymore. And they're just going to try to wait out the Americans. So yes, we're going to have air superiority. We're able to hit them and hit them hard. But they're going to be able to hunker down and stay out of, and they're going to try to outlast us as best they possibly can. Okay. So to that point, thinking about who is on the ground that can take on Iranian forces, CNN reporting on Wednesday, the potential for the CIA wanting to arm Iranian Kurds

5:16to help so a rebellion for people who may not remember about the Kurds population in Iraq. They were a fighting faction. They are a community of people in the Middle East that have long wanted independence. If you arm them, does that change the calculus in Iran? Yes, it does. And I think, though, that it would be a bad calculus. I mean, don't get me wrong. I've been to Kurdistan several times. These are great, resourceful people. Even during the war that we had in Iraq, it was like going to a meditating country with all the security and safety they had up there. They're great people, but given their arms and then expecting them to go in with all the competing factions that are within Iran, I mean, we're talking about 92 million people there. I mean, that's the size of Texas, New York, and California combined. And it's two and a half times in terms of geographic area larger than Texas. I mean, they're not going to be able to achieve those kind of, I think it's a mistake to give them arms. We need to generate internal change within Iran. That's the only way that we're going to have effective political change.

6:18One last thing I want to ask you about because Defense Secretary Hegseth has been coming on TV in the mornings to talk about the war. He had this moment where he basically accused the media of focusing on the deaths of soldiers rather than the success of the operation. I wanted to get your reaction to that. It's ridiculous his reaction. I mean, you know, our job, the media's job is to report the truth as they see it and to report the coverage of how the administration addresses the deaths of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines is imperative that the American people know that. And so for them to make that kind of accusation was ridiculous. And I think at which you saw there, this is what happens. When you kick out all the real media and you have, you know, people within that press conference yesterday, like from Lindell TV, you know, I mean, you don't have the kind of professionals

7:19that we need to in there to ask the tough questions. They don't want the tough questions. And unfortunately, I think his reaction was completely unjustified and irrational. Okay. Brigadier General, Steve Anderson, thank you so much for being here. I'm sure you will be back. Coming up on CNN this morning, you know, lawmakers, they're going to have a chance to go on the record about this war with Iran. So are they going to choose to reign in the president? Plus, we're learning new details about the U.S. soldiers killed after that Iranian strike. We're going to hear how the president plans to honor them. And CNN is now in Iran. We have the first report from inside the country since this war began. Hey, everyone, it's Audi. And I've got another special episode of the assignment for you. I was at the podcast festival known as On Air Fest. That was in Brooklyn just last week. And for this, I knew I wanted to bring along a friend because we're going to talk about

8:20workspouses and mine for a very long time was Ari Shapiro of NPR. You heard us on the radio being very serious. And during the eight-minute segment when our mics are off, we would cackle about the latest thing that we had found on Reddit or on Instagram or whatever was bubbling up in the culture. And we never really got to laugh like that with each other and finish each other's sentences on the radio in quite that way. No. Listen to the assignment with me, Audi Cornish streaming now on your favorite podcast app. I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy this week on the podcast Terms of Service. I often hear questions about how to keep our parents and grandparents empowered with access to technology to help us out with ways to protect our older loved ones online. I have to zine Khan here with me. She is the founder and CEO of a nonprofit called Cyber Collective, which helps make people internet street smart. These scammers do a lot of high volume rinse and repeat.

9:23Scrubbing through these lists to see who has a vulnerability, who never changed their password. The biggest one is slowing down. If you're getting an email or a text message from UPS and you don't have a package that you ordered and you're not expecting anything from UPS, probably shouldn't click that link. Listen to CNN's Terms of Service wherever you get your podcasts. Do you think the Congress would need to authorize any military action against Iran beyond the 60 day or 90 day window? No. Senate Republicans showing no appetite for checking President Trump's war powers. On Wednesday, they went on the record in support of the war in Iran by rejecting a bipartisan war powers resolution. The vote was 53 to 47. Kentucky's Rand Paul is the only Republican who voted with Democrats to reign in the President. Now, one Democrat, John Federman of Pennsylvania, voted with Republicans.

10:26I'm open to a better opportunity for more peace and prosperity for the Iranian people, for more security that Israel deserves. So that's a point and this was not an illegal war based on terms of what the war powers acted with this. Today, representatives in the House get to go on the record when they vote on the war powers measure. Joining me now in the group chat, Aaron Blake, CNN's senior political reporter, Mike Dubkey, former Trump White House communications director, and David Sanger, CNN political and national security analyst, gentlemen. I wanted to talk about this because we don't necessarily think these votes. We're going to pass it, but suddenly in the middle of strikes, lawmakers would say, actually, you went too far. However, when I look back at the vote, 2001 for Afghanistan, one no vote, 2002, 23 no votes in the Senate, these records get remembered of where you were

11:27in a moment that is a big decision for the country. So what's that stake for lawmakers? Well, and I'd also point out that we had similar votes on the military action in Venezuela, and we actually saw more crossover where Republicans were more willing to check the president's war powers in that case. I think when you're talking about Iran, this is an issue where the party is much more hawkish or much more on the president's side, but I don't necessarily think that that means the party is sanguine about where this is headed right now. And you saw that in some of the comments from members who wound up voting against this measure, the moderates like Susan Collins, Todd Young from Indiana. They basically said, I don't want to check the president on this right now, but that doesn't mean they don't have concerns about where this could be headed. And it's probably because some of the polling, when I look at the poll that we did earlier this week, the opinion of the U.S. air strikes against Iran among U.S. adults right now, it's 59 percent disapprove. Also, when we break that down by sort of Republicans' independence Democrats,

12:27as always, I tend to look at the independence number and I see that disapproval number at 68 percent. So, they do have to answer two constituents soon. They do. And this vote was really more about November of 2026, I think, than it was about what has been happening over the last week. So, this was a messaging vote. I think the Democrats really were desperate to get Republicans and others on the record so that they can use this in the next midterm elections. Yeah, I think I have an example of that actually. Let me just play one. It'll help your point, Democratic Senator John Hickenlooper of Colorado, him talking about Trump's motivations. Every strike, every military escalation, every headline, is a distraction. It pulls our attention overseas from the urgent economic struggles that Americans face at home. It distracts from the hard, less glamorous work it takes to make life more affordable for the American people. Iran

13:32is only the latest and a long line of distractions. Following up on this, because I heard a similar argument from Andrew Schultz on his podcast. So, there's kind of like a range of people to look at this and say, what is the U.S. voter getting out of this? In terms of message discipline, I will give this to Democrats right now. They keep coming back to affordability. Whatever the president does, they keep coming back to affordability. So, somebody must have gotten the memo from the DNC that that's our pathway forward. But specifically on this War Powers Act and this vote, this is being set up if this action in Iran goes terribly wrong for the president, they're going to get off of affordability and they're going to talk about the unchecked powers of the White House. So, that's where we're headed with this one. I want to play for you, David, the Israeli president, Ertsag, who was on CBS. And he was asked about making the case and I believe the anchor said, because this is not a popular war. And let's see if we have that. I understand it's not a popular war in America because, you know,

14:41usually people do not know the intricacies of the war and they also compare it to previous and other wars. This is a unique war. Well, all wars are unique wars. But if we just pull the politics out of this for a moment, which I realize is virtually impossible in Washington or in any place else, what was the War Powers Act enacted to do? It came out in 1973. And the concern was that we had gotten into a whole series of wars after World War II, including Korea and Vietnam, without Congress exercising a constitutional duty of a declaration of war or not. It set a category of moments where the president could act by himself or herself if the US was attacked. No answer then. No problem there. And that explains, for example, why presidents have unilateral capacity to deal with nuclear weapons, right, if we're under attack.

15:43But in a case like this, essentially a war of choice. The president didn't need to go at this particular moment. The War Powers Act is pretty clear that Congress has got to act. And it has in the past it acted in the Persian Gulf War. Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't a formal declaration of war, but it was an authorization to use military force. With this vote, everybody who votes no on this, separate from the politics is basically saying we are willing to go seed that congressional power. And that strikes me a little bit strange because it's not something in the Senate they usually want to do, which is give up their own capacity and power. That is their one lever here. Although if people look at the last couple of months, whether it's tariffs, whether it's a variety of things, it does not seem this is a Congress that is interested in taking back its power. I want you guys to stay with us. We have more breaking news. We're going to

16:45follow up this morning on what we are seeing in the Middle East because trapped overseas. You've got the first charted flight bringing Americans home. Many people still have no way out. Plus, we're about to take back Texas. Ever hopeful, Democrats want to turn Texas blue, but who does James Tolerico have a better chance to run against? To have I got news for your ears, the podcast. I am your host, Michael Ian Black. Because you know what? Here comes the clip. He said, Wang. Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime. He did say eminent as opposed to imminent. So well respected, well respected threats. The bombs are very, very highly regarded. Some of these bombs have multiple degrees. Have I got news for your ears releases new episodes

17:48every Wednesday? Don't miss an episode. Follow us wherever you get your podcasts. An affair, an ad campaign, accusations of aggressive tactics, homeland, security, secretary, Kristi Nome, got a grilling on Capitol Hill. What we've seen is a disaster under your leadership, Ms. Nome. We're safe American media headquartered. I don't know. I don't know either. Madam Secretary, we can't find it. We can't find a website. Based on what you know today, we're Renee Good, in Alex Freddie Domestic Terrorist. There's ongoing investigations. Okay, Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha joins the group chat for a couple of reasons, because we also want to talk about the race in Texas, because all of these conversations lead back to how will voters respond in the fall. So Kristi Nome had to be on the Hill. And I was honestly, it was a wild mix of things she got asked about. I like to follow the money. And we heard a clip there where she was asked about

18:50this no bid contract for $143 million that went to a company that has never done federal work. And came into existence like multiple days just before the contract was launched. Can you talk about this? Just because ICE, Homeland Security, they have been a massive amount of money is going to them. And Congress seemed to be asking, are we verging into slush fun territory? Yeah, and the shocking thing here was that a lot of it came from Republicans. You know, we played the clip from the House hearing yesterday, but on Tuesday, we had Senator Republicans. In some cases, going after her pretty hard, including on this issue, Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana was really forceful on this. Basically, said that he did not agree or he did not think that the answers that she was giving were adding up. So I think that signals that they are going to make this an issue moving forward. This is a bipartisan issue to some degree. John Kennedy, I think, really sent a message that to the extent that the Homeland Security Department is going to continue with Christy Nome as its leader, it's going to be painful. I think some of these members want her out because

19:54they believe it's a problem. Tom Tillis went after her about FEMA money because his state, North Carolina, had been gotten it and lo and behold on Wednesday, money released. So clearly, do you just was funny how Washington works that way? We don't want it to work that way. Tom Tillis is retiring. So, I mean, to your point about Kennedy, I think that one is a little bit more telling because he's going to stick around past November. But with Tom Tillis retiring and with the situation with FEMA and North Carolina, that made some sense going after Secretary Nome. This is really, we're starting to see a bit, if you want to talk about cracks in like Republican support of the administration, you know, this is where it's starting to form. Or Americans, starting in headline. Half of Americans back abolishing ice and Trump cracked down. That was in a u-gov poll. This used to be an untouchable phrase. And now here I am looking at a headline with it. And I think this is why you're seeing what you're seeing. So this was the one

20:56issue that they could write high on, which was immigration law and order. Everybody can agree on that. Christie Nome is making that difficult for Donald Trump. If Donald Trump just comes in and closes the border and goes sit in the White House and eats McDonald's, his approval ways will go through the roof. But because of this agency and what we've seen on our TVs in America, she's going to be the fall woman for this administration because as you can see, lots of folks are fed up with what they're seeing. Let me stick with you for a second because border security, this is all about border security. As you said, there should be a winning issue. And in Texas, Democrats are feeling themselves, including you because you, of course, were part of the Tel Rico campaign. One of the things I want to ask is in going after white and Latino voters, there are black voters who feel like, are we about to be alienated? Is the search to bring Latinos back to Democrats? Gonna mean we're left in the cold. I think respect is the word we're all looking for here. And if you watch what James Tel Rico said last night at 7 o'clock in

21:57Austin, Texas, the first thing he did was honor Jasmine Crockett, the second thing he did is say, I know I wasn't your first choice with black voters across Texas. He said, I'm looking forward to earning your support. And that starts with respect and understanding what this campaign's about. And that's bringing us together to breed, to be a common enemy. Meanwhile, Mike, you were raining on my thesis on Republicans who have a major grudge match with a runoff with John Kornin and Paxton. And that race has gotten very nasty, which you, as a consultant, says, is the way things are. Well, it's very good. However, my thesis is, if the border is secure, which it is, are you just left fighting each other on other things? Because there isn't actually a meaningful difference in your policies. That's kind of what primaries are generally all about. This is my argument with your thesis is that there are these grand issues that we need to talk about on the public policy front, except within party primaries, whether they be Democrat or Republican,

22:57a lot of times this goes down to personalities and personal issues, because you are already agreeing on 90% of the issues. So I'm not surprised this one, personal, and I'm also not surprised, given all of the indiscretions, infidelities, and what not with Ken Paxton, that that is what the Kornin team felt was going to get them across the finish line, and they finished up one point. So it must have done some good work. Look, everybody on this program knows I never wrote a thesis, but I'll tell you this about the primary. In the last primary, we just had a couple of days ago, 12% of the folks that voted in the Democratic primary had voted in a Republican primary in their history. That's a problem for the Republicans in Texas. Okay, Chuck, thank you so much. You guys stay with me. We have a lot more to talk about. We want to return to this breaking news coverage that's coming out of the Middle East. We're going to talk about why the defense secretary is saying the media is spending too much time talking about the first U.S. casualties. Plus, CNN is the first U.S. network to report from inside of Iran since the U.S. strikes began.

23:57We're going to bring that to you next. The relationship between the FBI director and the president has always been complicated. Unravel the complex dynamic in the CNN original series. Stand off the FBI, power and paranoia from your Sunday, March 22nd on CNN and next day on the CNN app. This is CNN breaking news. Welcome back. We have breaking developments on a number of fronts in this war with Iran. Good morning, everybody. I'm Audit Cornish and I want to get you up to speed. First, explosions and terror on over the past several hours. Smoke can be seen here over the Iranian capital. Israel claims that it took out several Iranian missile systems. It also had Hezbollah targets in Beirut. Just this hour, a CNN team saw a barrage of missiles intercepted over Doha. Qatar has endured days of Iranian counter strikes. We have no word yet on damage or injuries.

24:58And Iran is mourning dozens of young students killed in the bombing of a school in the first hours of the war. Days later, it's still unclear why the school was hit or which country fired at it. All I know, all I can say is that we're investigating that. We, of course, never target civilian targets, but we're taking a look at investigating that. The school is reportedly located about 200 feet from an Iranian military base. And our senior international correspondent, Fred Pleikin and his team have actually crossed the border into Iran. CNN is the first U.S. network allowed into the country since the start of U.S. strikes. We have to point out that CNN operates in Iran only with government permission. And here is Fred's report. We just crossed the border and are now inside of Iran. The Iranian government has granted us a visa to come here and to report from the Islamic Republic of Iran. We're now trying to make our

26:00way to the capital, Tehran as fast as possible. But of course, the distances in this huge country are immense. And we know it's going to take many, many hours for us to get there. We also don't know what the situation on the road to Tehran is going to look like. How many checkpoints there's going to be. And of course, we know at the same time there are massive combat operations also going on. The United States and Israel are continuing their huge aerial campaign against targets inside of Iran. At the same time, the Iranians continue to retaliate not just with their ballistic missiles, but with their drones, mostly hitting Israel, but then also American military installations, especially in the Gulf region, but in general, in the Middle East. In total, the Iranians are saying that they can continue this campaign for a very long time. They say that their missile arsenal is still immense and they haven't even used some of their most modern missiles. But we also, of course, know that the place that we aim to go to, Tehran has been under almost sustained

27:03attacks with massive airstrikes going on there and also huge damage being caused. Of course, many people also having been harmed. Okay, we'll hear more from Fred Pleikin who's now in Iran. In the meantime, in Saudi Arabia, they intercepted multiple drones overnight. And Italy says it plans to send air defense aid to Gulf State. CNN's Nick Robertson is in Riyadh. Can you talk about the significance of the strikes that the Saudis are dealing with? What would it mean if they're drawn further into this war? Yeah, it could potentially mean an escalation in the war in this region here, if they get drawn in. They're trying not to get drawn in, but we learned that the Pentagon press briefing yesterday with the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that in fact, Iran had launched very big and very serious missiles, ballistic missiles at Saudi Arabia's energy facilities. They were intercepted. But if one of those was to impact, that really could change the calculus here in Riyadh. What has happened in the hours this

28:10morning? Three cruise missiles were fired. It appears at Prince Sultan Air Base, which is just outside of Riyadh, the Ministry of Defense here, indicating that they were shot down in a town near that base. No one's saying that they were fired at that base, but it appears to be the case. And then a couple of hours later, three drones shot down in the same area. That is an Air Base, Prince Sultan Air Base, that has historically been used by the US Air Force at times, not quite clear what is happening there. At the moment, there was a drone strike in the north of the country here as well in the last hour or so. And I think to that point that we've been hearing about the expansion of this conflict, whether it's the sinking of that Iranian Navy ship, yesterday in the Indian Ocean, or whether it was the missiles that were intercepted on the way to Turkey, we've heard today from the European Union for a policy chief, Kayakalis,

29:13saying that Iran is trying to export its war. But very significantly, we've also heard today from Mark Rutter, the NATO Secretary General being quoted on the wire services saying, Iran is close to becoming a threat to Europe as well. Those are very significant words from this very senior and prominent figure, heading NATO, very significant. Okay, that's Nick Robertson speaking to us from Riyadh. I don't want to leave without talking about this today. The Pentagon identifying the remaining two soldiers killed in a drone strike in Kuwait. Major Jeffrey O'Brien and chief warrant officer three, Robert Marzhan, were among the six U.S. service members killed in the early days of U.S. strikes on Iran. Now all six were assigned to an Army reserve unit out of Iowa. CNN's Brian Todd joins me now. First, I want to start with just the process, dignified

30:14transfers. What do we know about what happens next? Well, we do know already that President Trump is planning to attend the receiving of those of the bodies of these service members when they are transported by a dignified transfer, where it's not quite clear when those remains will arrive in the United States. But we are told that President Trump does plan to attend the ceremony when they do arrive. As Audi mentioned, the Pentagon now identifying all six U.S. service members killed on Sunday in the Iranian strike. That strike occurred on a makeshift operation center in the Kuwaiti port city of Shueba. The latest to be identified, Audi just mentioned their names, but a little more detail on them. One is Major Jeffrey O'Brien. He is 45 years old from Indian Ola, Iowa. The other one is chief warrant officer Robert Marzhan, 54 years old from Sacramento, California. Previously identified as being killed in that same strike, Captain Cody Cork, Sergeant Declan Cody, Sergeant First Class Nicole Amor, and Sergeant First Class Noah Tegens.

31:17All six of these service members were assigned to the same unit. That is the 103rd Sustainment Command, a U.S. Army Reserve unit out of Iowa. Now in a Facebook post, Elizabeth Marzhan, Marzhan, the sister of Robert Marzhan, well she described her brother this way, quote, a strong leader who lived by example, very loyal, my hero, my baby brother, you are loved. Also in a Facebook post, Mary Melcher, she is the aunt of Jeffrey O'Brien. She said this, war is real, loss is real. He was the sweetest blue eyed blonde farm kid you'd ever know. He is so missed already. Now also a little more detail about the strike and question which killed these six U.S. service members, a source familiar with the situation telling CNN that the operation center that they were in, excuse me, in Kuwait was a triple wide trailer. The source said it was surrounded by concrete barriers that are supposed to protect U.S. military structures from things like IEDs and car bombs, but the source saying there was nothing overhead which could shield the

32:22building from drones and missiles so you're getting kind of a picture there of how that attack might have unfolded. All six service members apparently being killed basically at the same moment of that one strike in Kuwait, Audie. Okay, Brian Todd, thank you so much. I want to follow up on this because we're hearing more from the families of the soldiers who were killed in the early stages of these U.S. Israeli strikes in Iran. The sister of Sergeant Declan Cody says that she's having a hard time accepting the fact that her 20-year-old kid brother is gone. I still don't fully think it's real and I didn't think it was real when they told us. I just remember all of our conversations about what he was going to do when he came back and so we'll just be sitting and thinking about it. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, lashing out at news outlets for focusing on those U.S. military deaths. This is what the fake news misses. We've taken control of Iran's air space and waterways

33:23without boots on the ground. We control their fate, but when a few drones get through or tragic things happen, it's front page news. I get it, the press only wants to make the president look bad, but try for once to report the reality. Okay, since you all just heard that, I want to play one more thing for you. Carolyn Levitt, she was asked about this comment because a lot of people felt like it sounded dismissive and here is how she defended it. That's not what the Secretary said, Caitlin, and that's not what the Secretary meant, and you know it. You know you're being disingenuous. There is not. We've never had a Secretary of Defense who cares more. Let's get through or tragic things happen. It's front page news. I get it, the press only wants to make the president look bad. Yeah, the press deaths of U.S. servicemen are under every president. The press does only want to make the president look bad. That's a fact. Can you talk about this response? Well, first of all, it was a little bit shocking

34:24when you first heard this. The press is there to cover this war, to cover it by the facts. Those facts aren't going to include what the U.S. is accomplishing. It's going to include what the U.S.'s motivations were in going in and choosing this moment to go to it, and it's going to include casualties. When the president has said multiple times, right, that can happen, which people have also questioned the tone. And think about what happened right after Secretary Hegseth spoke, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Stan Cain, got up, and before he gave any kind of war discussion about what progress they've made and so forth, he went and named those who have been identified already. Thank them for their service. He wanted to honor the fallen. That's right. Put that at the beginning of his briefing. I'm not sure that the U.S. Press has done a single thing different than what the chairman of the Joint Chiefs did, nor what's he thinking we should

35:28do, that we should try to pretend that, along the way, that there aren't casualties here, it's actually been astounding to me that there have only been six so far. And that is a significant accomplishment. And I don't want to get too tangled up in making us the story, as you said, we just heard from someone's sister. This is going to hit home. Earlier in the week, I think the president said something like, Starmer, you know, we're not dealing with a Winston Churchill. And I thought about that when I was watching Hegseth, and I thought we're not dealing with the Donald Rumsfeld. What is he doing? I think both of these things can be true at the same time. First of all, Hegseth, I'm just going to call it out. Hegseth was on a line with his comments. He was. I also, though, at the same time, think the media is being a little thin skinned about being called the task by the Secretary of Defense War, whatever we're calling it right now, for these comments. In the past, there has been, I think, to Hegseth's point, and over emphasis

36:29on the media of trying to denigrate President Trump. That having been said, these are six people we should honor. Yes, it is amazing. I think that only six American service members have perished so far in this war, and it was in one strike. And yes, it is important for us to talk about superiority in the air and the sea. But at the same time, we need to honor those who are defending our country. So both of this can be true. I just wish. It feels like a no-brainer. Let me, we'll get to cover it. Both sides seem to have a little thicker skin. Yeah, go on. What are you hearing? Yeah, so when I saw that press conference on Tuesday, I thought back to 2015 with the first kind of major controversy of the Trump campaign, which was saying that John McCain was not a war hero because he likes people who weren't captured. There are a number of instances over the past decade of Trump talking awkwardly, not very empathetically, in strange ways about dead and injured service members. I think the main

37:32example we talk about is the Atlantic story about the suckers and losers during the trip to the the cemetery in Europe. But there are many other examples of this. And I think what we're seeing now is we are in a war that is more of a war of choice. This is a situation where Donald Trump has decided to send American troops to fight a battle that is of his own volition. And that creates a situation where he has to account for those casualties in a way that he hasn't before. And given the past, that's going to create some awkward situations. I think that's what happened with Hegseth. Let me bring up one more thing because when Hegseth is up there, I don't feel like I'm looking at an architect of this war, so to speak. And I know David, you have done some reporting on the decision making of how we got here. What have you learned in the last day or two? So the president is obviously somebody who operates largely from instinct. And he said it himself yesterday. He said that he had a feeling that the Iranians were going to attack the US first.

38:33Well, it's interesting he had a feeling because the intelligence that we have seen does not suggest that the Iranians who are weak economically, weak politically and certainly weak militarily after the last June's war, were about to go give the United States the chance they wanted by striking out first. Why do we see so many people in the administration rushing to make an argument that this was a war of preemption? Because wars of preemption are considered internationally illegal, right? If I see that you're getting ready to strike me, there's sort of an understanding in international law that I can strike first. But if you don't have that, then it's a preventive war. Sounds like I'm just splitting hairs here. Very different thing. It means it is a war of a strong nation against a nation that they consider to be weaker. And if you had nothing but preventive wars, if every time a strong nation wanted to go after an adversary that was weak, you would have

39:37a world of continuous war. That's more like putting going into. And to add to that, I think, for the U.S., if it is a war of choice, then it is the war of President Trump. There will be no other person to blame, even though I know people have said, look, going back 47 years, Iran is a problem. The choice made here is a choice he will have to own, regardless of what happens next. I want to stay here with this breaking news coverage coming up on CNN. The House is going to vote on an effort to potentially reign in war powers when it comes to Iran. We're going to talk about what Democrats could do next. If it fails, like it did in the Senate, Democratic Congressman Joe Morelli from New York is here after the break. So in just a few hours, the House will vote on a war powers resolution on whether to curb the President's actions in Iran, a similar effort actually failed last night in the Senate in a largely

40:37party line vote. One Republican in the House is co-sponsoring the resolution that they'll be voting on today. If American lives are to be risked and American blood is to be shed, that decision must be debated and voted on by the representatives of the American people. I have a theory. I think my colleagues don't want to go on record because we have a terrible track record of meddling in the Middle East. They don't want their name associated with this when it doesn't turn out well. But Congress cannot be bothered with its constitutional duty because for many in this chamber, it's easier to simply allow someone else's sons and daughters to be sent to combat without their vote. Joining the group chat now, Congressman Joe Morelli, Democrat of New York. What do you think of that theory? I agree with my Republican colleague from Kentucky. Look, the framers put Congress in a position not because they cared about an institution having to sign

41:38off, although I think they did. But this is more to Congressman Massey's point. We represent the American people. In November, zero presidents will be elected, a third of the United States Senate, every member of the House of Representatives. So between now in November and next several months, we're going to hear every single day from people we represent and what they think about spending the kind of money, the kind of blood, treasure, American lives, when they're very concerned about health care in the United States. We're worried about the cost of taking care of the money. Well, let me get to the money because you're on House Appropriations. Yes. Not just any part of Appropriations, right? You are actually looking at defense. Here is Tom Cole talking to our own Manu Raju about what you guys are hearing. How much is it going to cost a lot? I mean, these are expensive operations, but we still haven't gotten an estimate from the Pentagon. We haven't gotten a formal request yet, but I would expect that those things will be here before two.

42:38Do you have a sense of what it will cost to continue strikes and an attack on Iran? Yeah, I think if you're looking back at the envelope and again, like Tom, waiting to hear from the Pentagon, they've been completely unresponsive in requests. Meaning you've asked. People have asked. Yes, we have asked repeatedly, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's a billion dollars a day. I want to say a billion dollars a day. A day on the American side, yes. What can you guys do? Are you going to be demanding like a kind of classified estimate or something? I asked because Senator John Thune in talking about the war powers vote, sort of said, look, we think the president is within his legal authority right now, and then he said that thing lawmakers often say, but we have the power of the purse. Which is only a power if you choose to utilize it. So if they're just going to accept what the president says as they have done, it's not really much of a power. You have to employ it. So when they make a request, we'll make a decision on whether or not we think and whether the American

43:40people, by extension and most importantly, think this is a good investment of their money. David? You know, a year ago on this show, we were talking every day about Doge, right? They'd just come in, closed USAID, other parts. Nobody was discussing saving even anything close to a billion dollars a day. In fact, it's not clear Doge saved very much at all. And so, you know, when we look back at this era, are we going to say the end that we closed USAID, we closed other parts of the government that maybe they did or maybe they did not need to be cut back, but that the money essentially was moved for the war. But larger case beyond this itself is, we've heard from Secretary Hegseth that he wants to increase the defense budget to 1.5 trillion dollars. It hasn't point five for them. Let's just let Joe say that. Not quite in a trillion. Yeah, is that a number you're hearing? Yes, yes, we've heard a repeal. We haven't seen any formal requests. But it's important to remember, too. This administration has increased the

44:42federal debt by 4.5 trillion dollars largely for tax cuts. Now, we're going to be spending money that we clearly do not have. Okay, if it's a national emergency, we do what we have to do. But is the American public okay with this kind of expenditure? I'm not getting that sense back home. Different communities are different. They'll have different perspectives. But right now, I think the fact that there has not been a clear rationale by the White House. In fact, the keeps changing the reason why we did this and why we're there and what the mission is. How do we know when the mission ends? I think the American people are going to be incredibly unsettled and unwilling to give license to the president to conduct the announcement. Give me intel about appropriations, though. Thomas Massey is always saying things that the administration doesn't like. Are there any other Republicans who are starting to raise at least an eyebrow? Well, I don't know because we haven't met formally when appropriations start to meet when we consider the request from the president should it come? You'll start to hear. I think largely Republicans have agreed with whatever President Trump says. I mean, this is the the history. The ones that speak out are actually an active revolt against the president or are

45:46retiring. Yeah, but our Democrats actually against this war or just against President Trump and the way he got into it. Oh, I think right now what Congress wants is an understanding of what we're doing, what the mission is. How long is this going to last? Expect and look, it's war, so you never know. And what's the rationale? And it has just been all over the map. And the president himself doesn't say, hey, look, I was acting on actionable intelligence, and I got this from reports around the world and my national security advisor. He just said, as he said, again, yesterday, it's just my gut and my feeling. Okay. Well, thank you for being with us because we are all going to be watching if that information comes out of the defense department. I want to thank you guys for being with me. Great context today. I want to thank you for waking up with us. I'm Adi Cornish, and the headlines are next. Ryan Reynolds here from Mitt Mobile, the message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please for the love of everything goodness world stop. With Mitt, you can get premium wireless for

46:48just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpay no judgments, but that's weird. Okay, one judgment. Anyway, give it a try at MittMobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required, intro rate for three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra, see full terms at MittMobile.com.