On last Sunday's State of the Union, CNN co-host Dana Bash interviewed New York Times journalist David Sanger and CNN correspondent Natasha Bertrand to discuss the recent attacks on Iran, with both insisting there was “no imminent nuclear threat” from Iran, suggesting the strikes amounted to a “war of choice.” Bash began by asking Sanger for his opinion on President Trump’s “ultimate war of choice” to which he confidently replied that “there was no imminent nuclear threat.” Echoing a piece he wrote for The Times, he argued Trump’s missile strikes in June had already “neutralized a good deal” of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. He added that Trump’s claim Iran could soon strike the U.S. with missiles was contradicted by the Defense Intelligence Agency, which reported last year that the Iranians were “probably a decade away from having something intercontinental.”   David Sanger and Natasha Bertrand both claim Iran Was "Not an Imminent Threat." Thoughts?#iran #israel #usa #cnn #war #trump pic.twitter.com/bBb5gwCg3K — Sarah (@scbpoli) March 6, 2026   Sanger acknowledged the Iranian military “can certainly reach American bases, American allies in the region,” but emphasized that there was “no imminent threat.” He assumed that Trump decided to attack Iran at this time because Iran was in a “moment of weakness” politically, economically, and militarily. Sanger added “wars of choice are illegal under the UN Charter” unless you have an “imminent threat.” Bertrand -- who wrote the infamous article claiming Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation -- chimed in and noted that “administration officials said the Iranians had missiles essentially pointed at U.S. bases and U.S forces.” She added that officials wanted to “take action first to take out these missiles” to ensure that there would not be a “mass casualty incident.” Regardless, Betrand claimed that there is “no intelligence to support the idea that the Iranians were going to take a first strike against the U.S. or against Israeli assets.” Betrand concluded that the administration will not only need a justification for the attacks but will also have to vote on a “war powers resolution to say that the U.S. was under imminent threat that there was an imminent attack coming, and so they had to act quickly.” Click "Expand" to view the transcript: State of the Union with Jake Tapper and Dana Bash 3/1/2026 8:20:16-8:23:20 AM DANA BASH: Welcome back to State of the Union. Iran's Islamic revolutionary guard corps said it has launched another wave of missiles and drones on countries across the Middle East. This comes after Israel's defense forces said it had killed 40 senior Iranian commanders, calling it a historic strike. Here with me now, David Sanger of the New York Times, CNN's Natasha Bertrand and CNN political analyst Barak Ravid of Axios. Starting here at the table, David, I want to start with you because you wrote in a great New York Times piece this morning that President Trump has embarked on the ultimate war of choice. DAVID SANGER (NER YORK TIMES CORRESPONDENT): Right. There was nothing, Dana, that forced him to act and act now. There was no imminent nuclear threat. He had actually neutralized a good deal of that back in June when he hit Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan and most of the nuclear fuel that is closest to bomb grade is buried at Isfahan and there's been no evidence that anyone was digging it up. His claim that they were soon going to have missiles that could reach the United States is contradicted by his own defense intelligence agency which reported last year that they were probably a decade away from having something intercontinental. They can certainly reach American bases, American allies in the region - that's been true for a long time and there was no imminent threat. So, the question is, why did he choose to go do this now? And I think the answer, which I think you touched on talking to Senator Coons before, was this was a remarkable moment of weakness for the Iranians politically, economically certainly militarily. He saw his chance. The CIA you know, came in with intelligence about where they'd been tracking the supreme leader, and they've been sharing that with the Israelis. But the fact of the matter is that he did not need to go do this and wars of choice are illegal under the UN Charter. They're illegal by most international law unless you have imminent threat. NATASHA BERTRAND (CNN NEWS CORRESPONDENT): And I think that's where we're going to see the legal justification start to take shape and we already saw it starting to take shape yesterday in a call with reporters. Administration officials said the Iranians had missiles essentially pointed at U.S. Bases and U.S forces, and they were prepared to use them preemptively and so we had to take action first to take out these missiles, take out the launchers to prevent a mass casualty incident. We're told that that is not true, that the Iranians actually there was no intelligence to support the idea that the Iranians were going to take a first strike against the U.S. or against Israeli assets, unless the U.S. and Israel acted first. But of course, going back to your point they need a justification not only, you know, under international law, but also to lawmakers who are coming potentially coming back to the Hill this week to vote on a war powers resolution to say that the U.S. was under imminent threat that there was an imminent attack coming and so they had to act quickly.

The New York Times clearly loves Mayor Zohran Mamdani more than Democrat Rep. Daniel Goldman -- because they're more sympathetic to Hamas terrorists than they are to Israel. Look no further than two stories by local political reporter Jeffrey Mays.  Mamdani’s wife Rama Duwaji engaged with offensive social media posts celebrating the October 7, 2023 massacre of Israeli Jews by Hamas, as exposed by Jewish Insider. The Free Press found more, including one that referred to the attack as a “mass rape hoax.” Meanwhile, Goldman's wife Corinne Levy Goldman was put on the defensive by the left over his wife’s pro-Israel “likes” on social media.  On March 4, the New York Times ran a piece by Mays claiming Mrs. Goldman engaged with posts “that used what some saw as insensitive or hateful language directed at Palestinians and groups or people who supported them or criticized Israel,” after the Hamas terrorist invasion of Israel on October 7. That story, headlined “Dan Goldman Faces Questions About Wife’s Social Media Stances on Israel,” made the Times’ March 5 print edition.  Some of the supposedly “hateful” posts? Take it away, Mays: In one instance, she liked a post from @EndWokeness that showed people holding a “Jews for Palestine” sign with the message, “Chickens for KFC.” She also liked posts suggesting that people supporting “Free Palestine” be sent to Gaza, to live under its rules. Yes, those were apparently the very worst examples Mays could find. The next day Mays, writing with Sally Goldenberg, covered the controversy over Instagram “likes” by  Zohran Mamdani’s wife Rama in support of the vicious murders, kidnappings, and rapes of October 7. Yet those posts weren’t characterized as “hateful” or even offensive, but whitewashed as merely “supportive of the Palestinian cause” under the headline “Mamdani Defends Wife Amid Criticism of Her Support for Palestinian Cause.” The headline currently reads: “After Social Media Scrutiny, Mamdani Says His Wife Is a ‘Private Person.’”  Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Friday sought to create a wall between his leadership of New York City and the private views of his wife, Rama Duwaji, after being asked about her social media activity surrounding the Hamas-led attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Ms. Duwaji liked posts on Instagram that were supportive of the Palestinian cause immediately after the attacks, in which roughly 1,200 people were killed and 251 were taken hostage, according to the Israeli authorities. Israeli military forces responded with military action in Gaza that has killed more than 70,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s health ministry. .... “My wife is the love of my life and she’s also a private person who has held no formal position on my campaign or in my City Hall,” Mr. Mamdani said during an unrelated news conference Friday morning…. (The same “private person” who posed for the cover of the fashion magazine The Cut.) Mr. Mamdani was responding to a Jewish Insider article that highlighted a handful of instances in which Ms. Duwaji had liked Instagram posts supportive of the Palestinian cause immediately after the Oct. 7 attacks. One post, shared by an account called The Slow Factory, a social justice nonprofit, on the day of the Hamas attack, showed a bulldozer that appeared to breach the barrier between Israel and Gaza. The caption read, “Breaking the walls of apartheid and military occupation” with the date of the attack beneath. Mays quoted only leftist Jewish sources, who naturally defended Duwaji. Sophie Ellman-Golan, director of strategic communications at Jews For Racial & Economic Justice, a progressive organizing group for the Jewish left, said that Mr. Mamdani has been clear about his views regarding Israel and the war in Gaza. Using identical language from his hostile story on Rep. Goldman, Hays again took the anti-Israel side by smearing Corinne Levy's benign social media posts in support of Israel as “hateful or insensitive toward Palestinians.” Mays' article on Duwaji ended with a defense of its subject, using left-wing Ellman-Golan as his mouthpiece. Ms. Ellman-Golan said it was unfair to equate Ms. Duwaji’s social media likes with those of Ms. Goldman’s, in part because Mr. Goldman’s wife serves as his campaign treasurer while Ms. Duwaji had no official role in Mr. Mamdani’s campaign for mayor. It is true that the “likes” cannot be equated. After all, Duwaji was liking posts celebrating murder, rape and massacre of Jews by Hamas. Conservatives on social media recalled that the Duwaji-excusing Times tried to make a huge scandal of Mrs. Sam Alito's choice of flags in 2024. They were more upset by the Alito flags than the foiled Brett Kavanaugh assassination plot. Wall Street Journal movie critic Kyle Smith took to X to vent outrage over the Times’ framing of Duwaji’s social media acts: "This framing….it’s breathtaking. I’m speechless. Hamas murdered over 1000 people on Oct. 7.”

There are times when the Elitist Media Sunday shows will staff their talking head panels in such a way so as to at least present the pretense of viewpoint diversity. Not so today, with the war in Iran being the focal point of coverage on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos.  Watch as ABC’s Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce, at her Mary Bruciest, dumps all over the ongoing operation and its underlying rationale: WATCH: ABC's Sunday panel on Iran kicks off with Mary Bruce at her Mary Bruciest, dumping all over the administration's stated reasons for attacking Iran. pic.twitter.com/3FTb0PIIJ8 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) March 8, 2026 MARTHA RADDATZ: Mary, I want to start with you. You’ve heard the explanation from the president and his cabinet about why they started this war, why it will end, and how. But is anything clearer now? MARY BRUCE:  Martha, the explanations from this administration and the president have been absolutely head-spinning this week. I mean, I think the clearest explanation from the president is probably the broadest at this point, which is him saying that this was an evil regime and that something had to be done. He said, quote, “Somebody had to do it”. But we have heard vastly different explanations and contradictions about why now, was -- what was the imminent threat? The president said it was his opinion -- quote, “his opinion” -- that Iran was going to strike first. But we have seen no evidence of that and they’ve offered wildly different explanations for what comes next. Of course, initially, the president said that the change had to come from within. He was encouraging the Iranians to overthrow their government. But now, the president says that he has to have a say in who the next leader of Iran is, though it is not clear who that should be. And he is now calling for that "unconditional surrender," Martha. The rationale seems murky because the media have muddied it up. And the media have muddied up the administration’s rationale because the administration has so far denied the media their usual targeting opportunities. With no formal Oval Office address and no formal press conference, and President Trump granting multiple phone interviews to reporters, the Elitist Media have not been able to cobble together a unified talking point.  But the fact is that there were many stated reasons to carry out this operation, starting from the ballistic missile threat and going back 47 years. And a nonzero portion of the media’s handling of this war is due to the fact that many presidents passed on countering Iran’s aggressions. The other part of this equation is basic Trump derangement. There are any number of individuals within ABC’s collective Rolodex who could’ve come on the panel and articulated the case for the operation, pointing out the regime’s many aggressions against the United States and the many dead left behind in their wake. This was not the case. Instead, we got a panel loaded with varying degrees of opposition or skepticism against the operation, further proof evident that the Elitist Media seem to have decided to side with Iran. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned segment as aired on ABC’s ‘This Week’ on Sunday, March 8th, 2026: MARTHA RADDATZ:  And I’m joined now by our panel in Washington. “New Yorker” staff writer Susan Glasser, “Atlantic” staff writer Anne Applebaum, and ABC News chief White House correspondent Mary Bruce. Mary, I want to start with you. You’ve heard the explanation from the president and his cabinet about why they started this war, why it will end, and how. But is anything clearer now? MARY BRUCE:  Martha, the explanations from this administration and the president have been absolutely head-spinning this week. I mean, I think the clearest explanation from the president is probably the broadest at this point, which is him saying that this was an evil regime and that something had to be done. He said, quote, “Somebody had to do it”. But we have heard vastly different explanations and contradictions about why now, was -- what was the imminent threat? The president said it was his opinion -- quote, “his opinion” -- that Iran was going to strike first. But we have seen no evidence of that and they’ve offered wildly different explanations for what comes next. Of course, initially, the president said that the change had to come from within. He was encouraging the Iranians to overthrow their government. But now, the president says that he has to have a say in who the next leader of Iran is, though it is not clear who that should be. And he is now calling for that "unconditional surrender," Martha. RADDATZ:  To Mary's point, Susan, you said in your column that the urgent question is, can we win a war without a clear 'why we got into it'? SUSAN GLASSER:  Yeah, Martha. I think the history of war suggests the answer to that is, it's very, very hard to do objective shift as Admiral Mullen pointed out. I think that in this particular case, the president seems to want to leave his options open as a way of being able to declare victory because he's outlined so many different possibilities. But Martha, one thing that really stands out here that's different from previous conflicts of recent years is that the American people start out the conflict not really supporting President Trump, according to the polls. That is a really tough position for a commander-in-chief to be in, especially with oil prices growing by the day and other consequences. That may change the timeline for President Trump as well. RADDATZ:  And let's talk about choosing the supreme leader, that he wants a voice in that, as Mary pointed out. How would that really work? ANNE APPLEBAUM:  I don't see that it can really work. Iran is a country of 90 million people. It's had -- there have been multiple democracy protests. There have been multiple eras when leaders have emerged. Most of them have been jailed or exiled or arrested or even killed. But if Iran is to be at peace, if it's to be part of a peaceful future Middle East, then the Iranians need to have their own say over who leads them. There needs to be self-determination and there needs to be a pluralistic government that includes a lot of different kinds of Iranians. And if we don't have that, there is a terrible risk of civil war, which could have consequences for us and for all of our partners in the Middle East. RADDATZ:  Mary, the president doesn't seem concerned about that. He said last night, we've already won the war. But back to Susan's point about the polling, are they not concerned about that? BRUCE:  Well, Martha, I think no surprise here. Officials I talked to are quick to dismiss the polling, but they certainly are well aware of the pushback. I mean, as Susan noted, he is taking a country to war without their backing. And that is a huge risk, especially for a president who promised to stop wars and to not start them. There was no big campaign to message this and to rally support ahead of this military operation. And certainly, the mixed messagings that we have been receiving all week aren't helping the situation. I think what does seem to be causing some concern, certainly, though not publicly from the White House, are the cracks that we are seeing from the president's longtime supporters. I mean, some real leaders in the MAGA movement are now raising serious questions about this operation. And, of course, Martha, we know that what voters want is for the president to be focused on the economy and domestic issues, especially as we barrel toward the midterms. RADDATZ:  Susan, as we look at this, there are comparisons being made to the invasion of Iraq. GLASSER:  You know, Martha, let's hope the answer is no to that, because we all covered that conflict. And we know that what started out as a short, victorious war and George W. Bush's mission-accomplished moment, just a short period into the conflict, was actually only a beginning of a years-long disaster, really, not only for the United States and the region, but, of course, for the people of Iraq. And I'm struck by the fact that they've already changed the timeframe here. And there's been a clip that's been going around this week of Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at the beginning, before the Iraq war, saying, "Well, maybe it will last for six days, maybe it will be six weeks, but it definitely won't be six months." And you know, I think history is something to look to here as a guide for how this war might go on in ways we don't expect at the moment. RADDATZ:  And what are your thoughts about that and these comparisons and these forever wars? I read a column the other day, Marc Thiessen saying, we are not starting a forever war, we're ending a forever war. Does he have a point? APPLEBAUM: I think the trouble is that when you start a conflict, you don't know what the longer-term implications are. For example, today, we see that the Americans and the Israelis have been bombing the Iranian oil industry. That will raise oil prices. There will be echoes of that all over the world. That could also create other kinds of conflicts, economic crises in our country or in other countries. And so you set off a chain of events that you can't control. And I would also say, you know, whatever happens at the end of this week or at the end of next month or at the end of six months from now, that doesn't mean that the war is over or the, you know, the -- that we've concluded some kind of action and then we'll move on to the next phase. What we've done in these days will continue to echo over many months in Iran, in the Middle East, and in the rest of the world. RADDATZ:  Mary, we just have about a minute left here But before we go, I want to touch on President Trump firing Kristi Noem and the reverberations from that. GLASSER:  Yeah, the first big shakeup of his cabinet, Martha. It is a notable change from his first term. In the second term so far, we haven't seen this constant revolving door. The president had stood by her for months despite a string of controversies. He was often citing, you know, her work at the border, fulfilling his promises there. But it seemed that she was garnering too much negative attention for the administration and especially its immigration crackdown of that glitzy $220 million ad campaign that she featured in heavily seems to be the last straw. Sources telling us that that she was fired because of her many unfortunate leadership failures though, of course, in classic Trump fashion, she's not been completely fired from the administration. She's just been reassigned to this newly created position, Martha. And Markwayne Mullin, at the end of the month, will now take over as the DHS Secretary. A longtime loyal supporter of the president, he is someone who has shown on the Hill that he is willing to do what the president wants and needs. RADDATZ:  And of course, Tom Homan will remain as well. I want to thank all of you this morning for your excellent commentary. Thanks to our panel. We'll be right back to remember those six service members who lost their lives in the very early parts of this war. We'll be right back.  

Another Sunday, another softball interview for Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. With it, more proof that the Elitist Media appear to have sided with Iran in this latest engagement within a conflict that was started by Iran 47 years ago.  Watch as NBC’s Kristen Welker opens her interview of Araghchi quite collegially, with horserace speculation on who the next Supreme Leader of Iran might be: TERRIBLE: his exchange between NBC's Kristen Welker and Iranian FM Abbas Araghchi on Supreme Leader succession is indistinguishable from the usual Sunday show horserace patter. They might as well be talking about a Senate vacancy. pic.twitter.com/Uu2AmxcUH9 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) March 8, 2026 KRISTEN WELKER: Welcome back. Joining me now is the Foreign Minister of Iran, Abbas Araghchi, Mr. Foreign Minister, welcome to Meet the Press. ABBAS ARAGHCHI: Well, thank you so much. Thank you for having me. WELKER: Thank you very much for being here. I have to ask you the big question on everyone's mind: who is in charge in Iran right now? ARAGHCHI: Well, it is already known. The council of- the interim leadership council is now in charge. And they are doing their act in absence of the leader while a new Supreme Leader is going to be elected soon by the Assembly of Experts. And the president and the cabinet are also in there- are doing their duties, the parliament there, everything is in its place. WELKER: Well, there are reports this morning that the Iranian Assembly of Experts has come to a decision on a new Supreme Leader for Iran, many have suggested it would be the son of the late Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei. Will he be the next leader of Iran? ARAGHCHI: Well, nobody knows, actually. There are lots of rumors around, but we know we have to wait for the Assembly of Experts to convene and vote for the new Supreme Leader and- the one who is elected by them. WELKER: Do you think he should be the next leader of Iran? ARAGHCHI: Anybody who is elected by the Assembly of Experts will be the next Supreme Leader of Iran. As you know, the members of the assembly of- the members of the Assembly are already elected by- elected directly by the people. WELKER: All right, well President Trump says he should pick the new leader of Iran. Will Iran allow President Trump to have any role in picking its new leader? ARAGHCHI: We allow nobody to interfere in our domestic affairs. This is up to the Iranian people to elect their new leader. They have already elected the Assembly of Experts and the Assembly of Experts will do the job. It is only the business of the Iranian people and nobody else business. The interview goes downhill from there. Welker went on to ask about what terms might Iran accept in order to enter into some form of ceasefire, Iran’s aggression against neighboring countries, the disputed strike against a girls’ school located just 650 yards from an IRGC base, and Iran’s missile capabilities.  At no time did Welker seriously push Aragchi. At no time did she cut him off mid-answer or point her pen at him as she routinely does when interviewing GOP officials. It’s not unreasonable to say that Aragchi got far better treatment than Senator Lindsey Graham, a frequent Meet the Press guest. In tone and tenor, Araghchi came in with the benefit of the doubt and with all deference. For the most part, he was allowed to speak freely. The follow-up questions were not particularly thorny, and he was never in a situation where he was pressed on anything. It is not unreasonable to say that Iranian officials appearing on Elitist Media are drawing the same deference that was given to Ukrainian officials at the outset of the Russian invasion. To be clear, this is to say that the Elitist Media consider America to be the hostile aggressor, and Iran the victim of hostile aggression. This interview is just the latest instance of an ongoing and irrefutable trend.  Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned interview as aired on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, March 8th, 2026: KRISTEN WELKER: Welcome back. Joining me now is the Foreign Minister of Iran, Abbas Araghchi, Mr. Foreign Minister, welcome to Meet the Press. ABBAS ARAGHCHI: Well, thank you so much. Thank you for having me. WELKER: Thank you very much for being here. I have to ask you the big question on everyone's mind: who is in charge in Iran right now? ARAGHCHI: Well, it is already known. The council of- the interim leadership council is now in charge. And they are doing their act in absence of the leader while a new Supreme Leader is going to be elected soon by the Assembly of Experts. And the president and the cabinet are also in there- are doing their duties, the parliament there, everything is in its place. WELKER: Well, there are reports this morning that the Iranian Assembly of Experts has come to a decision on a new Supreme Leader for Iran, many have suggested it would be the son of the late Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei. Will he be the next leader of Iran? ARAGHCHI: Well, nobody knows, actually. There are lots of rumors around, but we know we have to wait for the Assembly of Experts to convene and vote for the new Supreme Leader and- the one who is elected by them. WELKER: Do you think he should be the next leader of Iran? ARAGHCHI: Anybody who is elected by the Assembly of Experts will be the next Supreme Leader of Iran. As you know, the members of the assembly of- the members of the Assembly are already elected by- elected directly by the people. WELKER: All right, well President Trump says he should pick the new leader of Iran. Will Iran allow President Trump to have any role in picking its new leader? ARAGHCHI: We allow nobody to interfere in our domestic affairs. This is up to the Iranian people to elect their new leader. They have already elected the Assembly of Experts and the Assembly of Experts will do the job. It is only the business of the Iranian people and nobody else business. WELKER: President Trump says there will be no deal with Iran, except for, quote, “unconditional surrender.” Will Iran agree to unconditional surrender for the sake of bringing this war to an end, Mr. Foreign Minister? ARAGHCHI: Well, this is what he asked a previous time, last year in June, that when Israel started to attack us, we know, President Trump used the same phrase, “unconditional surrender,” that was the tweet he made- and that didn't happen. We resisted, and after 12 days, Israelis asked for unconditional cease-fire. So, we never gave up, we never surrendered and we continue to resist as long as it takes. We continue to defend ourselves and we are defending our territory, our people, and our dignity. And our dignity is not for sale. WELKER: Well, let me ask you, because what conditions would Iran accept to bring this war to an end? ARAGHCHI: Well, actually, we are not at that point yet. Obviously, this time is different from the previous time. Last time, we accepted the cease-fire. But you know, this time is quite different. And the reason is obvious, you know, last time they attacked us, they made aggression against us, they killed our people, they destroyed our places and then asked for a cease-fire and we accepted it out of good faith because we were only exercising the,  you know, the act of self-defense and when the aggression was stopped, we stopped, too. But, you know, it didn't brought- it didn’t bring about peace, and now this year, they again started to attack us and again they have, you know, they are killing our people, they are killing, you know, girl students, you know, they are attacking hospitals, freshwater desalinations, refineries you know, everywhere, people have been killed. Places have been destroyed, and now, they want to ask for a cease-fire again? well, this doesn't work like this. So there should be a permanent end of the war and unless we get to that, I think we need to, you know, continue fighting for the sake of our people and our security. WELKER: We are going to get to the reports about some of the deaths in just a moment. But just to stay on this topic: would Iran ever agree to a cease-fire to get back to the negotiating table- to end all of this military conflict? ARAGHCHI: Well, they have to explain why they started this aggression before we come to the point to even consider a cease-fire. Of course, nobody wants to continue this war, this is not our war, this is not our- you know, the war of our choice. This is imposed on us by the United States, by the Israelis. They have, you know, started this war, unprovoked, un- warranted, illegally, and what we are doing is an illegal- is legal act of self- defense and we have every right to do that. So it is not fair that if only it stops the aggression and asks us to stop, too. You know- as I said, this time is different. WELKER: Let me ask you about some of what Iran has been doing. Iran has launched hundreds of missiles at 13 other nations in the region. On Saturday, the Iranian president apologized for those strikes on neighboring Gulf states. Was it a mistake for Iran to attack its neighbors? ARAGHCHI: Well, it is a mistake if you consider that Iran is attacking its neighbors. No, we are not attacking our neighbors. We are attacking American bases, American installations, American assets which are unfortunately located in the soils of our neighbors. So we are not attacking our neighbors, we are attacking Americans who are attacking us. We are retaliating. We have not started this war. It's Americans who started this war against us, attacking us, and we are defending ourselves. So our- it is obvious that our missiles cannot reach the U.S. soil. What we can do is to attack American bases and American installations around us which are unfortunately in the soil of our neighborly countries. WELKER: But Mr. Foreign Minister, if you're not attacking your neighbors, why did the Iranian president apologize? ARAGHCHI: First off, apology in our culture is a sign of dignity and strength. Secondly, he apologized for the people of the region for the inconveniences that they have faced because of this aggression by the United States and retaliation by us. So as a matter of fact, it is in fact, the President of the United States who should apologize to the people of the region and the Iranian people for the killings and distractions they have done against us. WELKER: Let me ask you, because NBC News is reporting that Iran is receiving help from Russia to help locate U.S. forces. Are you receiving any help from Russia? ARAGHCHI: Well, we have a strategy partnership with Russia -- WELKER: So that's a yes? ARAGHCHI: Well, military cooperation between Iran and Russia is nothing new. It's not a secret. It has been in the past, and it's still there and will continue in the future. WELKER: Is Russia helping you locate U.S. forces, I just want to be very clear here. ARAGHCHI: Well, I don't have exact military information. As far as I know, we have a very good partnership with Russia. WELKER: So they are helping you, they are providing intelligence? ARAGHCHI: Well, they are helping us in many different directions. I don't have any detailed information. WELKER: Okay, let's move to the strike on the elementary school in southern Iran. It killed more than 170 people, including many children. President Trump said Iran is responsible for that strike. What is your response to what the president said? ARAGHCHI: Well, it is you know, funny. It is our school, these are our students, our girls, and they are attacked by an American fighter- jet fighter, and they have been killed. Why Iran is responsible? Have we started this war? Have we attacked our own people? No, we've been negotiating with the United States, and in the middle of negotiations, in the middle of diplomacy, they decided to attack us. And they have attacked so many places, including the schools and hospitals. And there are all evidences that this school was attacked by an American, you know, jet fighter. WELKER: Where is the Iranian evidence that this was a U.S. attack, a jet fighter as you say? Will you provide -- ARAGHCHI: If it was not U.S., then who was it? Maybe Israelis, but it's obvious. Who else is attacking us? WELKER: Well, let me move on to this question about potential ground troops. You said earlier this week on U.S. ground troops to my colleague Tom Llamas, quote, “we are waiting for them.” But President Trump says the condition for sending troops to Iran would be that Iran would be quote, “so decimated that they wouldn't be able to fight at the ground level.” Is the president right, would you not be able to fight at the ground level Mr. Foreign Minister? ARAGHCHI: Well, at least it is not the case right now, for the time being, we are capable enough, we have very brave soldiers who are waiting for any enemy who enters into our soil to fight with them and to kill them and destroy them. So, and that would be the case in the coming days and the coming years, and always in our, you know, in Iran. We are brave people, we have a great civilization, we have defended our land for thousands of years and we will continue to do that as much as it takes. WELKER: Let me ask you, because you have said that this was a war of choice. President Trump said one of the reasons for launching this war was that Iran, quote, “already had missiles capable of hitting Europe and our bases, and would soon have missiles capable of reaching America.” Was Iran planning to directly attack the United States? ARAGHCHI: Well, this is not true. This is in fact, misinformation. You know, we have capability to produce missiles but we have intentionally limited ourselves to below 2000 kilometers of range because we don't want to be felt as a threat by anybody else in the world. We have not started any plan to increase the range of our missiles more than what it is right now. So, there is no evidence, there's no intelligence, nothing to indicate that Iran is going to long-range missiles, let alone missiles that can reach the United States soil. WELKER: All right, and of course U.S. officials say that negotiations over this came to a halt and that is part of why they moved forward with this action. Minister Araghchi, thank you very much. We will obviously be tracking everything that unfolds very closely. We appreciate you being here. ARAGHCHI: Thank you so much. Thank you for having me.

On Sunday’s The Weekend on MS NOW, the very partisan co-host Jonathan Capehart accused President Trump of displaying a “blasé attitude" toward war deaths. The curious part: Capehart had just aired a clip in which Trump described such deaths as “the sad part of war” and “the bad part of war.” Capehart was reacting to Trump’s appearance Friday at Dover Air Force Base, where the president attended the dignified transfer of six Americans killed in the war. Asked by a reporter whether he might have to return to Dover for additional transfers, Trump said he would “hate” to do so, while acknowledging the grim reality of wartime casualties. REPORTER: Are you worried you're going to have to end up coming back to Dover for more of these dignified transfers? TRUMP: I'd hate to do it. But it's a part of war, isn't it? Who are you with? REPORTER: The Washington Post. TRUMP: Would you say it's part of war? REPORTER: Deaths are a part of war, yeah. TRUMP: It's a part of war. It's the sad part of war. It's the bad part of war. Despite that clip, Capehart insisted: CAPEHART: That response is consistent with the blasé attitude Trump has often shown when talking about the costs of war. If Joe Biden had said the same thing—that deaths are the “sad” and “bad” part of war—liberal media commentators would likely have hailed the remark as Churchillian candor. MS NOW Host: Trump ‘Blasé’ on War Deaths—But Watch What He Actually Said pic.twitter.com/pztk8CH0Zb — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) March 8, 2026 The segment then shifted to questioning Trump’s broader war aims against Iran. Co-host Eugene Daniels cited a typical Washington Post report loaded with anonymous insiders dropping rhetorical bombs that Trump is "unlikely to oust the Islamic Republic's entrenched military and clerical establishment." Daniels suggested Trump had laid out “an unachievable goal,” asking former Biden deputy national security adviser Jonathan Finer: “At what point does his . . . strategy become a fantasy?” Finer, who worked as a Washington Post reporter before working for Obama and Biden, replied that it appeared the administration had set “a pretty unrealistic goal.” The most absurd Breathalyzer-begging moment came when co-host Jackie Alemany, noting that Biden withdrew U.S. forces from Afghanistan and did not commit American ground troops to the Middle East during his presidency, asked Finer: “I mean, was Joe Biden more MAGA than Trump?” The remark drew laughter from the panel. But they were laughing with her, not at her.  Here's the transcript. MS NOW The Weekend 3/8/26 7:01 am EDT JONATHAN CAPEHART: Yesterday, in the United States, President Trump joined grieving families at Dover Air Force Base for the dignified transfer of six Americans killed in the war.  Here's what he told reporters when asked about the possibility of more American deaths.  REPORTER [on Air Force One]: Are you worried you're going to have to end up coming back to Dover for more of these dignified transfers? PRESIDENT TRUMP: I'd hate to do it. But it's a part of war, isn't it? Who are you with? REPORTER: The Washington Post.  TRUMP: Would you say it's part of war? REPORTER: Deaths are a part of war, yeah. TRUMP: It's a part of war. It's the sad part of war. It's the bad part of war. CAPEHART: That response is consistent with the blase attitude Trump has often shown when talking about the costs of war.  --- EUGENE DANIELS: Jon, the Washington Post reported that on an intel report completed a week before the war.  It said, quote, a classified report by the National Intelligence Council found that even a large-scale assault on Iran launched by the United States would be unlikely to oust the Islamic Republic's entrenched military and clerical establishment.  The findings, confirmed to The Washington Post by three people familiar with the report's contents, raise doubts about President Trump's declared plan to, quote, clean out Iran's leadership structure and install a ruler of his choosing.  The president has been saying that he is demanding an unconditional, total, surrender anyway, despite this report.  At what point does his, kind of, what feels like an unachievable goal, stop being a strategy and become a fantasy and entrench everybody in the region in that?  JONATHAN FINER [former Biden aide]: So, I don't get to read intelligence reports anymore. But to be honest, I'm not sure how closely the president and the people around him are reading intelligence reports either at this point. Because it does feel like they have set a pretty unrealistic goal. Although it honestly depends on when you ask them. There have been moments when the president seemed like he was ready to stop or negotiate and then would come out a few hours later and say, actually, I have this maximalist goal.  . . . JACKIE ALEMANY: Jon, before we are out of time, it is really hard to ignore the ideological shape-shifting of Trump right now and the MAGA movement.  When you are comparing the administration you served in versus Trump, Joe Biden obviously pulled out of the Afghanistan, pulled American troops out of Afghanistan, did not commit any American troops to the ground in the Middle East during his time.  President Trump has taken a number of military strikes so far and not followed a lot of the promises that he made on the campaign trail to end our foreign entanglements.  I mean, was Joe Biden more MAGA than Trump? [Laughter off camera] FINER: Well, look, I will say that the Biden administration, in which I served, did twice help defend Israel from Iranian ballistic missile attacks in 2024, quite successful defenses, but did not take offensive action against Iran. That was a significant difference.  And to me, though, the more apt comparison is between Trump's second-term approach to the Middle East and Trump's first term and his campaign promises related to the Middle East, in which he said, I'm going to be the president who avoids another Middle East war. You know, vote for Kamala Harris if you want to end up in war in the Middle East. I'm going to be the president who avoids the dumb mistakes of the past when we got involved in these quagmires, mainly focused on the Iraq war in 2003.  And yet here we are, a president who has totally abandoned those principles.