The war involving the U.S., Israel and Iran widened this week, producing embassy closures, evacuations and mounting questions about how the conflict began and where it could go.
Officials reported expanding strikes across the Middle East. An Iranian drone hit the U.S. consulate in Dubai; the U.S. indefinitely closed some embassies and issued “depart now” advisories across several countries. The State Department said it was in contact with hundreds of Americans in Israel and preparing aircraft to evacuate thousands, while President Trump announced U.S. escorts for commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz. As regional military infrastructure and energy facilities were targeted, oil prices rose and global markets grew volatile.
Timing and decision-making have become central controversies. On Capitol Hill, Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio said lawmakers anticipated Israeli action and that U.S. forces expected retaliatory attacks; he described coordinated preemptive moves with Israel to minimize U.S. casualties. That account contrasts with President Trump’s public assertion that his actions “might have forced Israel’s hand,” claiming he believed Iran would strike first and saying the U.S. acted to preempt those attacks. Iran’s foreign minister accused the U.S. of joining a “war of choice on behalf of Israel,” and parts of the MAGA base questioned Trump’s judgment.
In Tel Aviv, CBS’s Matt Gutman reported that Israeli leaders feel confident they’ve degraded Iran’s missile and drone capabilities and hope to reduce attack tempo in days rather than the weeks the U.S. has forecast. Israeli goals, Gutman said, emphasize eliminating offensive launch capacity and command-and-control, not necessarily regime change; U.S. objectives and endgames remain less clearly defined, which complicates operations run from a shared command post.
At the White House, Nancy Cordes asked the president whether Israel forced U.S. action; Trump reiterated he “might have forced their hand” and emphasized U.S. assessments that Iran posed an imminent threat. He also voiced concern about worst‑case scenarios following regime collapse in Tehran — namely, the risk that a successor could be as bad or worse than the prior leaders.
Former CIA deputy assistant director Joe Zacks, speaking to CBS, assessed that U.S. and Israeli strikes have been effective in degrading Iran’s ability to attack, but he cautioned that defining “victory” matters: degrading missile and drone capabilities could be accomplished relatively quickly; shaping or producing regime change would be far more complex and protracted. Intelligence assessments provided to the White House list regime consolidation and the potential rise of hardliners among possible unintended outcomes.
CBS polling director Anthony Salvanto reported new survey results showing Americans largely feel they haven’t been given a clear explanation of U.S. goals in the conflict; 62% said the administration has not clearly explained its objectives. Many respondents expect a lengthy conflict, and views about whether the action makes the country safer skew negative among independents and most non‑MAGA voters. Republicans remain strongly supportive.
Primary voting under way
Primary voting began in several states — including Texas, North Carolina and Arkansas — with record early turnout reported in Texas. CBS’s Ed O’Keefe described high early voting and localized administrative issues in Dallas and Williamson counties caused by changes to precinct voting centers. The early surge included many voters without recent primary history, boosting uncertainty about which candidates benefit from the turnout patterns.
In Texas, the Democratic Senate primary featured progressive candidates Jasmine Crockett and James Talarico. Political consultant Chuck Rocha said Crockett’s path required turning out infrequent primary voters or bringing fresh voters into the Democratic primary; Talarico’s campaign emphasized broad-based appeal. Immigration and economic concerns are shaping voter motivation; turnout trends suggest Democrats are energized, though Republicans show mobilization too.
Gerrymandering and a party switch
North Carolina saw an unusual headline: Kate Barr, a self‑described progressive who had run as a Democrat for state legislative office and lost badly in a gerrymandered district, filed in the Republican primary for the 14th Congressional District to challenge partisan redistricting’s effects. Barr says her move is tactical: in a heavily gerrymandered state, the primary often decides the eventual seat holder; by running in a GOP primary she hopes to expose the undemocratic effects of map drawing. Critics called her a “fraud,” but Barr says she is transparent about her positions and would caucus with Democrats.
Samuel Wang of Princeton’s Gerrymandering Project, who helped craft maps in New Jersey, described how mid‑decade redistricting — rarely used historically — has become common and can lock in outcomes, reduce competition and freeze voters out. He argued that partisan control of redistricting can produce skewed delegations that don’t reflect statewide preferences.
Politics beyond the war
On Capitol Hill, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem faced questioning from senators of her own party about taxpayer‑funded advertisements featuring her and about aggressive ICE tactics during a DHS funding impasse. Senators John Kennedy and Thom Tillis pressed Noem on ad spending and ICE deportation practices; Tillis warned he might withhold committee actions if responses are unsatisfactory. The unusual criticism from Republicans reflects public concern over ICE operations and the political sensitivity of immigration enforcement, particularly after high‑profile incidents that drew bipartisan scrutiny.
Hillary Clinton’s legal deposition in an unrelated matter produced a heated moment when she abruptly walked out after procedural disputes and apparent breaches of deposition rules. House Oversight announced a voluntary deposition from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick in connection with related documents, and the episode fueled partisan exchanges about transparency and the handling of sensitive files.
Economy and markets
Investors reacted nervously to the conflict’s escalation. Oil prices rose, triggering swings in U.S. stock indices and renewed inflation concerns. Market analysts said the main risk is sustained higher energy prices that would complicate the Federal Reserve’s path and delay interest‑rate relief. Insurers initially hesitated to cover vessels in the Gulf; the White House’s offer of escorts and risk insurance aims to keep shipping lanes open and limit price shocks.
What to watch
– Evacuations and U.S. consular operations across the region
– The degree of U.S.–Israel coordination and any public split over objectives
– Pace and scope of strikes against Iranian military assets and command nodes
– Domestic political reactions, including congressional hearings, polling trends, and primary turnout patterns
– Energy markets, shipping insurance steps, and investor sentiment as the conflict evolves
The Takeout covered regional reporting from Tel Aviv and the Gulf, White House developments, national security analysis, fresh CBS polling on public views of the conflict, and the first day of key primary contests as the 2026 midterm season begins.
