The media hall monitors will undoubtedly boo and hiss and shout “MAGA-CODED” into their screens after watching Tony Dokoupil’s latest commentary to close out the CBS Evening News. Instead of sticking to Elitist Media narrative, Dokoupil gave viewers an honest assessment of Iran’s long history of aggression against the United States. Watch the segment in its entirety, as aired on the CBS Evening News on Monday, March 2nd, 2026: The media hall monitors will be sorely vexed tonight: CBS's Tony Dokoupil lays out a partial timeline of Iranian hostilities, and (CORRECTLY) cites the 1979 hostage taking as the start of Iran's war against the United States. A refreshing alternative to the mindless parroting of… pic.twitter.com/Z16UJB7Goy — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) March 3, 2026 TONY DOKOUPIL: If you're looking for an origin point of this current war, don't look to the earliest hours of this Saturday. Look back to November 4, 1979. That was the day Iranian revolutionaries stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, capturing 52 Americans and parading them in blindfolds for the whole world to see. WALTER CRONKITE: A new and daring element was disclosed today in the Iran crisis. DOKOUPIL: For the next 444 days they were held captive, the tally kept nightly by Walter Cronkite. Finally, the hostages were released but that wasn't the end of the story either. Far more bloodshed was to come. In 1983, 241 U.S. service members were killed in their barracks by an Iran-backed suicide bomber in Beirut. Americans can argue, and they are, over whether this is a war of necessity. But what's clear from the history is that the fuse of this explosion is 50 years long. And has included the loss of thousands of American and Iranian lives. Every president since Carter has tried to end this conflict. In 2015, President Barack Obama announced a deal to stall Iran's nuclear ambitions, a deal that President Trump replaced with a campaign of maximum pressure, and now military might. DONALD TRUMP: Today the United States military continues to carry out large-scale combat operations in Iran, to eliminate the grave threats posed to America by this terrible terrorist regime. DOKOUPIL: That history is why the president’s allies in Congress say he hasn’t started a war with Iran- he is finishing one. This recital of facts was surprisingly fair. It was a serious recital of history for the purpose of informing the viewer on the history between the Khomeinist regime and the United States. This runs counter to the media’s multi-front narrative attack, front-loaded with catchphrases meant to evoke Iraq, such as “war of choice” and “no clear plan.” It wasn’t that long ago that Dokoupil’s predecessor would deliver overbearing editorials on the short-lived CBS Evening News Plus. These were little more than self-righteous invocations of history, stuffed to the brim with pompous piety, that ultimately served little purpose beyond informing viewers that Orange Man Bad. This was thoughtful, tonally neutral, and free of narrative. The media hall monitors will shriek, as they always do. The new and, yes, improved CBS Evening News is still a work in progress. They don’t get everything right, as we often point out in this very space. But they got it right this time.

On Monday’s Morning Joe in the aftermath of the Strikes on Iran and Pentagon Press Conference, co-host Jonathan Lemire was fixated and seemingly rooting for a scenario where President Trump’s approval would go down if there was a prolonged war or deaths of more American Troops. Then, guest Elise Jordan, co-host of The Weekend: Primetime, naively wondered why the military and Secretary Pete Hegseth have not shared all their classified war plans with the public. The Morning Joe hosts and panelists also had a special focus on how the actions in Iran were supposedly not “America First,” even though the President has talked about Iran not being allowed to have a nuclear weapon since the 2016 election. In his line of questioning to a panel comprised of Jordan, John Heilleman, and noted Iran expert Al Sharpton, Lemire had an overwhelming focus on how Trump’s approval would fall in the case of more American troop deaths and a prolonged war: I think the consensus, of the people I've talked to, is if this does just last a few days or a week or so, it's something that the president gets through. But if this does extend three, four, six weeks and the American death toll really accelerates, this is not just a defining moment for this president, but a real problem for his party in a midterm election year. Panelist John Heilemann agreed with Lemire’s assertion but also added, "President Trump's political strength over the course of his time in public life, how much of that has been rooted in his - the consistency of his posture about no more endless wars.”     Lemire then turned to Jordan to respond to Hegseth’s press conference and his reluctance to share classified war plans with the media. She exclaimed how nobody knows what the war is about: Well, beside his - behind his condescending demeanor, that aside, notice how he says constantly “mission,” “clear objectives”. He repeatedly says, “we have a mission,” “We have objections” -  what are they? He can't put them out there. That is the whole problem here. We don't know what this war is about.  (...) No one has any idea what this war is about and it is a problem because they don't have a strategy and they don't have a plan. And you look at the politics of this, it's only going to get worse with time if this is how it's starting. (...) Jordan comments differed from the media’s obsession over Signal-gate where there was an outcry of sharing of war plans in an encrypted chat. With their logic, maybe the Department of War should just publish all their classified war plans now. Once again, Lemire continued his assertion of more troops being killed, almost giddy when finishing Jordan’s thoughts. JORDAN: Only one out of four Americans , today, supports this war. It's only going to get worse. LEMIRE: How about if more Americans are killed in it (...) Lemire seemed to almost root for more military deaths in order for there to be a lower Trump approval ratings.  Paired with the rest of the panel, there seemed to be a constant denial of the reasoning for a fight with a terroristic Iranian regime, paired with a want of the situation to go out of the control to finally “get Trump.” The transcript is below. Click "expand": MS NOW’s Morning Joe March 2, 2026 9:23:20 AM Eastern   JONATHAN LEMIRE: So, let's get into some of the politics of this now. Joining us, MS NOW national affairs analyst John Heilemann, he is a partner and chief political columnist at Puck. The host of PoliticsNation on MS NOW, the Reverend Al Sharpton is here, he, of course, also the president of the National Action Network. And co-host of The Weekend: Primetime here on MS NOW, Elise Jordan. A great group, our thanks to all of you for being here.  John Heilemann, I'll start with you on the politics of this. Mika just went through - there are a few, the usual cast of characters on - among Republicans who are, at least for now, publicly objecting to this war, although many more have shared reservations privately. We're also seeing a lot of heavy hitters in MAGA universe, whether it's Tucker Carlson or Steve Bannon, others expressed reservations about this conflict, saying this is not the America First we thought we were getting with this president.  I think the consensus, of the people I've talked to, is if this does just last a few days or a week or so, it's something that the president gets through. But if this does extend three, four, six weeks and the American death toll really accelerates, this is not just a defining moment for this president, but a real problem for his party in a midterm election year.   (...) 9:25:33 AM Eastern   JOHN HEILEMANN: I do think that there's a tendency on the part of a lot of analysts to sort of talk about the resistance to this that we're seeing in these small corners of the MAGA sphere. Whether it's the online corners of that, the Tucker Carlson's of the world, or whether it's Thomas Massie and Rand Paul, and sort of try to isolate that and sort of say, well, that's part of Trump's kind of online base or the MAGA, the America first quadrant of the of the Republican base.  I just - I think it understates the degree to which President Trump's political strength over the course of his time in public life, how much of that has been rooted in his - the consistency of his posture about no more endless wars. And to your point, Jonathan, I think, you know, Venezuela shows that Donald Trump was able to get through that without incurring a lot of political damage because it was quick and seemed to be painless, and was deemed a success and didn't have a lot of high body count.  I totally agree, and I think that the depth of the problem that he would face would be enormous if this incursion, if this conflict lasts any degree of time and we suffer any degree of casualties going forward, I think the amount of political impact it would have on him and on the Republican party would be hard to overstate.   LEMIRE: Completely agree with that.   (...) 9:28:30 AM Eastern   ELISE JORDAN: Well, beside his - behind his condescending demeanor, that aside, notice how he says constantly “mission,” “clear objectives”. He repeatedly says, “we have a mission,” “We have objections” -  what are they? He can't put them out there. That is the whole problem here. We don't know what this war is about.  Donald Trump said, from the get go, it was about encouraging the Iranian people to stand up, regime change. Then you hear through so many different interviews that he does so many different options. This could go a month, it could be a couple of days, I don't know, maybe I'll negotiate. No one has any idea what this war is about and it is a problem because they don't have a strategy and they don't have a plan. And you look at the politics of this, it's only going to get worse with time if this is how it's starting. It's exactly what the Republican base doesn't want, the MAGA base. But more than that, the American people. Only one out of four Americans, today, supports this war. It's only going to get worse.   LEMIRE: How about if more Americans are killed in it. And, Rev., certainly a commander in chief is supposed to outline to the American people, to the military in harm's way, why we're doing this. What are our objectives? The talk of the Iraq war, your candidacy for president back in 2004 came amid some of the blowback to that conflict. And eventually Bush was reelected then, eventually it would consume his administration. What parallels do you see here? This seems like a lot of political risks for President Trump at a moment where, to Elise's point, most of the public doesn't want this.   AL SHARPTON: When I ran for president in 2004, it was around saying that we didn't believe there were weapons of mass destruction that Bush was engaged in, that was the campaign. He ended up winning, John Kerry was defeated, but that was the issue. So here we are some 22 years later where we don't know why we're there. There are no apparent threats, direct threats of a nuclear attack to the United States. We don't know who - when the president saluted people for marching in the streets in Iran and all, and no one’s supporting the supreme leader, Khamenei, but no one's talking about who is the opposition, who are we dealing with now. And then,  if I was running tomorrow in Arkansas or Texas or in North Carolina primaries, I'd be concerned with the escalating oil prices. How does that affect my campaign? Because people may be concerned now more about my gas is going to go up than some of the issues I've been campaigning on. So, there's a lot of uncertainty here that Trump has put into this whole process that could be impacted in various ways.   (...)

Writing Monday for our friends at the Washington Free Beacon, Ira Stoll took a blowtorch to longtime Deep State New York Times reporter David Sanger for his cartoonish “news analysis” story that ran in Sunday’s print edition under the headline “Trump’s War of Choice, With a Key Question: Why Now? Citing Grievances Like 1970s Crisis, Not an Imminent Threat.” Stoll stated that Sanger was “playing a political role rather than functioning as an honest broker” in rather “breathtaking” fashion as he asserted the U.S. military undertook “the ultimate war of choice” as “[i]n international law, the difference between a war of necessity and a war of choice is huge.” He went onto insist Iran was nowhere near capable of delivering dangerous blows to the U.S. “thanks largely to the success of the president’s previous strike on Iranian nuclear enrichment sites, in June.” Here was where Stoll really dropped the hammer on Sanger by quoting back his own reporting from last summer and others from his Times colleagues that not only cast doubt on the success of Operation Midnight Hammer, but repeatedly covered the litany of threats Iran and its proxies have posed (click “expand”): Now the Times wants to describe Trump’s previous strike as a "success." Yet back in June 2025, the Times marshaled six of its biggest star bylines—plus "David E. Sanger contributed reporting"—for a front-page story claiming, "A preliminary classified U.S. report says the American bombing of three nuclear sites in Iran set back the country’s nuclear program by only a few months, according to officials familiar with the findings. … The report also said that much of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was moved before the strikes, which destroyed little of the nuclear material. Iran may have moved some of that to secret locations." The Times is going to attack Trump whatever he does. In June 2025, they were saying that the Iranian nuclear program hadn’t really been obliterated. Now, they are criticizing Trump for unnecessarily attacking Iran, because after all, he had essentially obliterated the nuclear program the last time around. Sanger also writes, "While Mr. Trump claimed Tehran was ultimately aiming to reach to the United States with its array of missiles, even his own Defense Intelligence Agency concluded last year that it would be a decade before Iran could get past the technological and production hurdles to produce a significant arsenal." Yet Iran need not develop an intercontinental ballistic missile to hit America. It could send over a drone from Canada or Mexico or Cuba. It could launch a medium- or short-range missile from a boat or a submarine. Or it could use terrorists to deliver the blows. Before the United States launched its preemptive attack, the New York Times was trying to panic readers about Iran’s capabilities against American targets. A Times article from February 22 was headlined, "Iran Could Direct Proxies to Attack U.S. Targets Abroad, Officials Warn." A June 2025 article in the Times said, "Carlos Fernandez, a former senior F.B.I. agent in charge of New York’s counterterrorism division, said the agents had to take seriously the possibility of sleeper cells in the United States, especially since Iran has been accused of plotting to kill President Trump before the election and a human-rights activist in Brooklyn. Indeed, the bureau has also uncovered members of Hezbollah, who trained in Lebanon but then moved to the United States, where they were eventually arrested in Michigan and New York and charged with terrorism. ‘It’s very real,’ he said. ‘It’s a legitimate concern.’" A July 2025 article in the Times quoted Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, who told the paper that, as the Times paraphrased him, "Iran and Hezbollah have long sought to position agents within the United States for potential terrorist attacks with at least some success."  Stoll even blasted Sanger for not conceding “these distinctions between wars of choice and necessary wars actually go far back in Jewish and Christian traditions,” specifically the Babylonian Talmud, the Mishneh Torah, a St. Augustine letter to Boniface, and a 1625 letter by Dutch scholar Hugo Grotius. Having explained what each stated about wars of choice vs. necessary wars, Stoll observed the documents alone put Sanger’s partisan quackery to shame: It does not seem to me as if it’s a war of choice in the sense of territorial expansion or enlarging borders. Neither Israel nor the United States is planning to capture Iranian territory on a permanent basis and colonize it. If this were a joint U.S.-Israeli operation to seize Greenland from Denmark, I might be in favor of it, but I wouldn’t be here defending it as a war of necessity rather than a war of choice. As to whether modern day Iran is Amalek, there are certainly ample parallels, and the timing with Shabbat Zachor is something. Yet I don’t even think one has to go there. There’s plenty of ground to place the U.S.-Israel action in the terrain of Maimonides—delivery from an enemy who has attacked. And Augustine—war waged in order that peace may be obtained. And Grotius—certainty that Iran "has not only Forces sufficient, but a full Intention to injure us." Later, Stoll also trained his eye on Sanger’s fellow Deep State denizen Richard Haass, who insisted to The Times reporter the Trump administration has failed to give “diplomatic under military pressure, economic embargoes, [or] interceptions of Iranian ships” a chance before waging war. Of course, Stoll stated in so many words that each of this had been tried before to little or no success. To see Stoll’s full takedown, click here (or the link at the top of the post).

EXCLUSIVE: Did you know that a historic and symbolic landmark of the nation’s capital was recently vandalized by an individual currently sought after by the FBI? If the story escaped your attention, thank the Big Four News Apps — Apple News, Google News, Microsoft’s MSN and Yahoo News — which largely ignored the attack, only featuring one article on the story over four days. On Feb. 20, Fox News exclusively reported that the Trump-Kennedy Center had been subjected to an alleged act of vandalism after a suspect poured a “toxic,” dark substance onto an outdoor ice rink earlier that morning. The attack marked a major escalation of violence on a federal property, particularly one that holds national significance. The Media Research Center examined the Big Four News Apps to determine whether they featured the vandalism story among their top 20 headlines during the mornings of Feb. 21 through Feb. 24. The results were telling. MRC’s Findings:  In the four days following the Trump-Kennedy Center vandalism story, the Big Four News Apps featured only one story on the attack in their top 20 morning editions. None of the digital news gatekeepers featured the original Fox News bombshell. Google News was the only digital news gatekeeper to feature a story on the attack. It elevated radical, left-wing outlet The Daily Beast. The Big Four News Apps devoted 70% of their featured coverage to left-leaning outlets, while right-leaning outlets were nearly shut out at just 5% in their top 20 morning editions.   Big Four News Apps Snub Fox News Report on Center’s Attack — Largely Ignore Widespread Coverage What the Big Four News Apps largely ignored: On the evening of Feb. 20, Fox News reported that the Trump-Kennedy Center had been targeted in a “calculated, malicious attack” earlier that morning. An unidentified suspect damaged the center’s outdoor ice rink by pouring what officials described as a toxic chemical onto the surface. The rink, installed for a limited run of Canada’s Le Patin Libre: Murmuration and worth thousands of dollars, was so damaged that the show was canceled, as reported by Fox News.  The U.S. Park Police and the FBI launched an investigation and processed the chemical container for DNA, according to the Trump Kennedy Center Vice President of Public Relations Roma Daravi. The probe underscores the seriousness of attacks on federal property. Fox News’s reporting sent shock waves across Washington, D.C., as several outlets, primarily right-leaning ones, also reported the story, including Just the News, New York Post, RedState, The Daily Mail and OANN. Left-leaning outlets like The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Independent and The Daily Beast, as well as at least one center-rated outlet, NewsNation, also covered the attack. Yet despite the attack’s severity and growing coverage, Apple News, MSN and Yahoo News ignored the story entirely. Google News did feature one story on it, only through a left-leaning lens. (More about this later in this story.) MRC spoke with Daravi, who condemned the blackout:  “The media's blatant disregard for a targeted attack on the Trump Kennedy Center is disappointing but no surprise, given their constant stream of verbal attacks on us for over a year now. As activist journalists ignore this crisis, we are working closely with authorities to identify the vandal and bring them to justice.” Trump Kennedy Center President Richard Grenell, who has called the suspect a “terrorist,” echoed that sentiment on X: “You know what’s NOT shocking? The number of fake news outlets ignoring the vandalism attack on the Trump Kennedy Center because they like it.” Google News Covers Attack — But Only Through a Leftist Outlet Americans using Google News may have seen coverage of the attack, but only through a left-leaning lens, courtesy of none other than The Daily Beast, an outlet independent media bias firm AllSides rates as “left.” On Feb. 22, Google News featured The Daily Beast’s write-up while bypassing the original Fox News exclusive. Notably, AllSides rates Fox News as “right,” making Google’s editorial decision difficult to dismiss as neutral. True to form, The Daily Beast framed the attack through criticism of President Donald Trump and the board of the center’s decision to rename the Kennedy Center. First, The Daily Beast’s subtitle immediately tied the vandalism to the renaming. “A dark liquid dumped across the ice forced a cancellation at the high-profile venue amid ongoing controversy over its renaming,” wrote the article’s author, Olivia Ralph. [Emphasis added.] Directly beneath that framing, the left-wing outlet embedded a video of anti-Trump author Michael Wolff attacking the center’s new name under the headline:  “The Real Reason Trump Is Wrecking The Kennedy Center.” Even in describing the damage, The Daily Beast injected sarcasm, calling images from the scene “less high-stakes heist, more clumsy clean-up aisle five.” The outlet also cast doubt on the center’s description of the substance as “toxic,” noting that “the exact chemical has not been publicly identified.” The Daily Beast then returned to the renaming controversy, noting: “For the new name to be officially adopted requires an act of Congress, but that did not stop Trump from adding his name to that of the building last year.” Big Four News Apps Overwhelmingly Promote Left-Leaning Outlets During Review Period It was perhaps unsurprising that the Big Tech News Apps left no trace of the Fox News report. Over four days, a combined 70 percent of featured stories came from left-leaning outlets, while just 5 percent came from the right. MRC reviewed 320 stories promoted in the top 20 slots in the morning editions across four days on the Big Four News Apps. MRC researchers then used AllSides, an independent media bias ratings firm, to classify the outlets behind those stories. Of the 320 outlets reviewed, 266 were rated by AllSides: 187 (70%) came from left-leaning sources 65 (24%) from “center.”  14 (less than 6%) from right-leaning sources.   For every outlet rated “right,” the Big Four News Apps promoted more than 13 from left-leaning outlets. Notably, the Big Four News Apps overwhelmingly reserved their most prominent slots for left- leaning outlets, with left-leaning Yahoo.com appearing 25 times, followed by unrated BuzzFeed (14); left-leaning CBS News (13); right-leaning Fox News (13); left-leaning The Washington Post (13); left-leaning USA Today (13); unrated ParadePets (12); center Reuters (11); left-leaning CNN (11); left-leaning The Associated Press (10); and left-leaning NBC News (10). MRC Free Speech America Contributor Catherine Salgado assisted with this report.  Methodology: MRC researchers examined the top 20 stories on Apple News, Google News, MSN and Yahoo News at approximately 8:30 AM ET from Feb. 21 to Feb. 24. They specifically looked for the inclusion of a Fox News report revealing that the Trump-Kennedy Center had been targeted by vandalism on Feb. 20, or for any coverage related to the attack. MRC only found a write-up from The Daily Beast. A total of 320 stories were reviewed (top 20 stories per app × 4 apps × 4 days = 320). MRC used AllSides media bias ratings, which classify outlets as “left,” “lean left,” “center,” “lean right,” or “right,” to assess the overall bias presented by the Big Four News Apps.

The U.S. strikes on Iran that gave Ayatollah Khamenei a killer headache were also giving much of The View “anxiety,” during the Monday edition of the ABC News show. In addition to claiming that toppling the Islamic regime would not help women in the country, the liberal ladies compared the strikes to Russia invading Ukraine and predicting over one million U.S. casualties. They also accused Trump of having no plan what so ever and of wanting to conquer the world. Luckily, co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck was back at the table and put them in their place, in the most polite way possible, of course. Claiming the strikes gave her “such anxiety,” fake Republican co-host Ana Navarro whined that Trump “thought Venezuela was incredibly successful” and wanted to try something similar with Iran. Ignoring how obviously different the one-night raid and arrest of former Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro was compared to the massive air and missile defense campaign of the current conflict, Navarro invented her own reason to be bad at Trump by falsely suggesting he was treating them the same: I don't know Iran. I know Venezuela. Maduro was a piddly little third-world dictator. Venezuela is not Iran. Iran has terrorist cells all over the world that they can activate. Venezuela was one and done. They went in there, they extricated Maduro and that was the end of that. This certainly -- this is not that. He's already told us it could be four or five more weeks of strikes. We are seeing retaliation by the Iranians that the Venezuelans didn't have the ability to do.   On The View, Ana Navarro claims the strikes on Iran are about Trump trying to conquer the world and to distract from the Epstein files: "I also have such anxiety, I am furious that we are going into war yet again without congressional approval. I am furious that the American… pic.twitter.com/3st4x3Edbi — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) March 2, 2026   Navarro also suggested Trump was trying to conquer the world. “So I think that -- that he's in love with this idea of being the conqueror and the emperor after Venezuela. He has this Napoleon complex! He thinks he's Alexander the Great!” she exclaimed. Hasselbeck responded by complimenting Navarro on her ability “to broadly think about it and have heart in it,” but argued that she might have a “political concussion,” where “you can't see the depth of what is going on because you are just being constantly barraged by information or political opinion and now war.” She proceeded to actually acknowledge all the good that could come from regime change in Iran, like women being free (which the show supposedly stood for) and how this continued to threw a wrench into China’s plans, possibly preventing a full military confrontation (Click “expand”): I do think it's threefold. One, we have 47 million Iranian women who now have the hope of freedom. That's a good thing. Okay. We have a disgusting, disgusting terrorist regime ended and the people finally have hope to create their own nation again. Okay. So that's the hope. When we zoom out into geopolitical realm, okay - which is not my specialty, either, but I have a ton of friends in the military who specialize in this - we see that this is actually avoiding a boots-on-the-ground war with China when we are able to choke their oil supply and the president and our military are exemplary in doing so right now. They've cut the oil supply from Venezuela and they have now reduce it had and choked the oil supply to China in Iran. And now what that does is presumably prevent China from having an absolute stronghold on the globe. So this is a strategic move, geopolitically, that we may not fully understand, but I absolutely trust that this is best for our nation and we should be America first.   Elisabeth Hasselbeck is back on The View and she brings a voice of reason, pointing out that Iranian women will have freedom again and this helps the U.S. with a possible confrontation with China: "I do think it's threefold. One, we have 47 million Iranian women who now have the… pic.twitter.com/BUNTHVyRC1 — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) March 2, 2026   Chronically aggrieved co-host Sunny Hostin raged about how “this is an unconstitutional war, it's an illegal war” because “He didn't go to Congress, didn't go to the U.N.” First off, Trump did inform the Gang of Eight earlier last week. Second, nowhere in the Constitution did it say the U.S. needs to get approval from the U.N. Hostin shrieked about how there was supposedly no plan in any form and equated the U.S. striking Iran (a decades-old enemy who had repeatedly killed our people) to Russia invading Ukraine and invoking that war’s casualty numbers as something that could happen to U.S. forces: Also, what I will say is it's very easy to start a war, right? Without a plan. It's very difficult to end a war. We've seen in Russia, invading Ukraine, thinking that it was going to be over. It's five years later, 610,000 Russians are either maimed or killed. No. 1.2 million Russians maimed or killed. We’ve got 600,000 Ukrainians maimed or killed. That war is not over.   Sunny Hostin equates the U.S. strikes on Iran to Russia invading Ukraine and they'll be over 1 million casualties: "The bottom line is that this is an illegal war, this is an unconstitutional war. Only Congress can wage war... (...) Also what I will say is it's very easy to… pic.twitter.com/wRiy4Knzo6 — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) March 2, 2026   Given the important nature of the current event they were discussing, the Iran strikes spilled over into the show’s B-block. Shaking her head at Hasselbeck, moderator Whoopi Goldberg tried to rain on her optimism that eliminating the Islamic regime would improve things women in Iran: Well, I just think we all have to remember that because we don't know what's coming next, we don't know how safe women are going to be. We don't know. We don't know. The key here is we don't know because it would be great if it happened and it happened the way we want it to happen and people found that freedom, but I'm not -- I'm not optimistic because, you know, when you have -- when you throw in religion and you throw in male dominance and sometimes when you -- you know, all kinds of stuff. You have to surf a lot of this. And if you don't know what's going on all you can do is -- all we can do is talk about what we see.   Whoopi dismisses the mass anti-Islamic sentiment in Iran and claims even after the regime is overthrown the Iranian men will still want to subjugate their women: "Well, I just think we all have to remember that because we don't know what's coming next, we don't know how safe… pic.twitter.com/lRe6kr9qAQ — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) March 2, 2026   Hasselbeck came prepared and had producer Brian Teta show a side-by-side image of how free the women of Iran used to be before the Islamists took over. “[T]his is now the time for the Iranian people to stand and do what they need to do,” she said. “And right now, these women have hope. 47 million women have hope. Women -- people who are gay are not being thrown off buildings. Women will not be mutilated and murdered.” Toward the end of the B-block, Hostin started going off again on how Trump didn’t consult Congress, but co-host Sara Haines interjected with some facts: “Sunny! Sunny, just to mention. The other presidents that have gone in without congressional approval, Biden, Obama, Clinton, George H.W., Reagan. I would be more upset that Congress ceded this power than mad that the president didn't check with Congress.”   Hostin whines that Trump didn't get approval from the U.N., which he doesn't need to do. She also claims Trump "doesn't have any sort of plan" for the strikes and Sara Hanes jumps in to note Democratic president hadn't gotten congressional approval either: HOSTIN: That's why at… pic.twitter.com/BTvQhnQPCe — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) March 2, 2026   The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View March 2, 2026 11:07:22 a.m. Eastern (…) ANA NAVARRO: But I also have such anxiety! I am furious that we are going into war yet again without congressional approval. I am furious that the American people have not been brought into this. I am furious that we are doing this alone. Yes, Israel is part of it, but, you know, I look at Donald Trump and I look at Netanyahu and I see two leaders who I think – think politically they benefit from war. (...) 11:08:02 a.m. Eastern NAVARRO: I think that's where a lot of Americans are. That, you know, we're happy that the ayatollah is dead, he's brutal, brutal regime. And let me just say one more thing. Trump has, I think, changed since Venezuela. I think Venezuela -- I think he thought Venezuela was incredibly successful; and he's been making comparisons with what happened in Venezuela with what's happening in Iran. I don't know Iran. I know Venezuela. Maduro was a piddly little third-world dictator. Venezuela is not Iran. Iran has terrorist cells all over the world that they can activate. Venezuela was one and done. They went in there, they extricated Maduro and that was the end of that. This certainly -- this is not that. He's already told us it could be four or five more weeks of strikes. We are seeing retaliation by the Iranians that the Venezuelans didn't have the ability to do. So I think that -- that he's in love with this idea of being the conqueror and the emperor after Venezuela. He has this Napoleon complex! He thinks he's Alexander the Great! WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Right. Right. NAVARRO: But Venezuela is not Iran. ELISABETH HASSELBECK: I mean, I respect – I so respect where you come from, Ana, on this and your ability to broadly think about it and have heart in it. I also think it's very easy to have political concussion at this point where -- and I actually had a concussion a year ago, one of the side effects was losing depth perception where you can't see the depth of what is going on because you are just being constantly barraged by information or political opinion and now war. Understandably, the Americans are fatigued with the idea of war. We get that, right? We sit here and we know the repercussions including the death and I want to say our hearts are with the families of those fallen soldiers. Your sacrifice will not be squandered. This war will be won. I do think it's threefold. One, we have 47 million Iranian women who now have the hope of freedom. That's a good thing. Okay. We have a disgusting, disgusting terrorist regime ended and the people finally have hope to create their own nation again. Okay. So that's the hope. When we zoom out into geopolitical realm, okay - which is not my specialty, either, but I have a ton of friends in the military who specialize in this - we see that this is actually avoiding a boots-on-the-ground war with China when we are able to choke their oil supply and the president and our military are exemplary in doing so right now. They've cut the oil supply from Venezuela and they have now reduce it had and choked the oil supply to China in Iran. And now what that does is presumably prevent China from having an absolute stronghold on the globe. So this is a strategic move, geopolitically, that we may not fully understand, but I absolutely trust that this is best for our nation and we should be America first. (...) 11:11:02 a.m. Eastern SUNNY HOSTIN: The bottom line is that this is an illegal war, this is an unconstitutional war. Only Congress can wage war and declare war. And so, that's the first thing. I think we have to call a thing a thing. So, this is an illegal war. This is a presidential war. I will also say I think what Ana was about to say, did the regime really change? No. At this point, Donald Trump has come out and said I had some choices for who would lead, but they are dead now, too. And so, now you have people that are in Iran pick their own people. So, you don't have a regime change, just like you don't have regime change in Venezuela. Also, what I will say is it's very easy to start a war, right? Without a plan. It's very difficult to end a war. We've seen in Russia, invading Ukraine, thinking that it was going to be over. It's five years later, 610,000 Russians are either maimed or killed. No. 1.2 million Russians maimed or killed. We’ve got 600,000 Ukrainians maimed or killed. That war is not over. I thought this was going the president of peace. I thought this president wanted to win a Nobel Peace prize for peace. That is not what I'm seeing. I am not seeing America first. (…) 11:18:50 a.m. Eastern GOLDBERG: Well, I just think we all have to remember that because we don't know what's coming next, we don't know how safe women are going to be. [Shakes her head at Hasselbeck] We don't know. We don't know. The key here is we don't know because it would be great if it happened and it happened the way we want it to happen and people found that freedom, but I'm not -- I'm not optimistic because, you know, when you have -- when you throw in religion and you throw in male dominance and sometimes when you -- you know, all kinds of stuff. You have to surf a lot of this. And if you don't know what's going on all you can do is -- all we can do is talk about what we see. But I -- I am cautiously watching to see who is going to end up becoming the leader. And it is not somebody I think we need to appoint. This is up to the Iranian people to make that decision. We can't just drop somebody in because then we're back with the shah. HASSELBECK: Without a doubt. And I think Whoopi, just as a point that even the President himself has said and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has said that this is now the time for the Iranian people to stand and do what they need to do. GOLDBERG: Yes. HASSELBECK: But when you look at what women looked like and were treated like, we have a before and after - [side-by-side image of how women were treated before and after the Islamic regime took over] - before this regime and after, this is before and here is after. And right now, these women have hope. 47 million women have hope. Women -- people who are gay are not being thrown off buildings. Women will not be mutilated and murdered. GOLDBERG: I hope you're right. HASSELBECK: Ad I think there' such hope and it takes strength to find peace and America should be first at that always. GOLDBERG: Yeah, well - [Gets cut off by crosstalk from Navarro] NAVARRO: Here’s the thing, though, I remember -- and I hope you're right. I hope for the sake of the Iranian people and for the sake of the world, for America's sake, I hope you're right, but I remember 1989 when the Ayatollah Khomeini died and we thought this over and this is going to be great and a worse guy came up. (…) 11:21:03 a.m. Eastern NAVARRO: Here's a lot that Donald Trump has to say and do and I think it starts with Congress. I just think that they are our elected representatives and he needs to give them the respect of giving them the information and making them part of the decision. [Crosstalk] HOSTIN: That's why at this point this is an unconstitutional war, it's an illegal war. He didn't go to Congress, didn't go to the U.N. he didn't go before the American people. And that’s why, at this point, 27 percent of Americans – only 27 percent of Americans approve of these actions. And I don't believe -- I don't have any confidence that Donald Trump has any sort of plan. Maybe he has concepts of a plan, but he does not have any sort of plan -- [Applause] HAINES: Sunny! Sunny, just to mention. The other presidents that have gone in without congressional approval, Biden, Obama, Clinton, George H.W., Reagan. I would be more upset that Congress ceded this power than mad that the president didn't check with Congress. GOLDBERG: I'm mad about all of it, quite honestly. We will be right back.