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.