Hello, I’m Major Garrett. We come to you from New York. U.S. and Israeli airstrikes against Iran have changed the region: skies over Iran are contested, battlefields have appeared across Gulf states, global oil markets are unsettled and the U.S. and Israel have pursued decisive strikes. President Trump spoke of regime change; the regime has been altered and something will follow. The Iranian military has fired back in various directions. Six U.S. service personnel have been killed so far. How long will this continue?

From Tel Aviv, Matt Gutman: The Middle East is unusually turbulent with many nations involved. Iran is lashing out across neighbors—Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia—with Lebanon and Jordan also affected. Hezbollah and Iran’s proxies have launched drones toward Cyprus; the British are involved. The Iran of a week ago is not the Iran of coming weeks. Israel reports success removing mobile missile launchers and assesses Iran is metering missile launches to conserve for a longer campaign, possibly four to five weeks. Netanyahu has long sought action against Iran; questions now include whether regime change will occur and who would fill the vacuum without ground forces.

At the White House, Nancy Cordes: President Trump has said boots on the ground remain an option though he does not currently foresee needing them. He has talked of an operation timeframe of four to five weeks with capability to go longer. Secretary of State briefly justified strikes by saying Iran’s production of missiles and drones could soon create immunity to strikes and that U.S. action might preempt Israeli strikes that could provoke immediate strikes on U.S. assets. Lawmakers will press for rationale, timing and whether Congress should be involved; the administration argues it has existing authorizations.

Retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery: The U.S. and Israel likely planned combined operations with multiple lines of effort. Timing may have been driven by Israeli intelligence on leadership movements that presented a unique targeting window. Overhead collection (imagery, MASINT, Signals) will provide a good battle damage assessment for many targets, though deeply bunkered facilities are harder to assess without human intelligence.

Robert Costa: This is a crossroads for the president’s foreign policy. The administration sees Iran as a nuclear threat to be eliminated and believes now was a window to act. The president did not frame this as a traditional ideological war but as addressing a specific security problem. Fallout remains possible; history shows regional interventions can become prolonged.

Video released: House Oversight Committee posted closed-door deposition videos of Bill and Hillary Clinton about Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton denied ever seeing minors on flights with Epstein and disputed claims he visited Epstein’s island; he said staff asked him to write a birthday message. Hillary Clinton said she had no relationship with Epstein and viewed Ghislaine Maxwell as an acquaintance and would help strengthen human trafficking laws and assist inquiries.

From Tel Aviv and the region: Iran’s retaliatory strikes have included ballistic missiles and drones. Israel reports eliminating many mobile launchers; Iran has tried to conserve missiles for weeks of pressure. Six U.S. personnel killed so far. The conflict’s duration and whether it expands remain central questions.

Veterans debate the campaign: Elliott Ackerman (former Marine/CIA officer) and David Bellavia (Medal of Honor recipient). Ackerman: If effort succeeds in preventing Iran’s nuclear capability and weakens proxies, he supports it, but regime change is risky and politics in Iran are complex—war is political, not merely military. He doubts a short, clean campaign. David Bellavia: He supports decisive use of military power, applauds rapid air dominance, and argues the U.S. should not tolerate Iranian threats and proxy attacks that killed Americans over years. He trusts U.S. military technology and leadership to limit casualties but acknowledges risks and messiness in the region.

Daniel Levinson, son of Robert Levinson: His father, a retired FBI agent, disappeared in Iran in 2007 during an unauthorized mission and the U.S. concluded he died in Iranian custody. Daniel described Iranian stonewalling and the family’s long effort to obtain answers. He hopes recent U.S.-Israeli pressure on Iran may create opportunities for defections and answers, including recovery of remains and information about who ordered his father’s detention. There remains a $25 million reward for information; Levinson urged accountability.

Politics and Congress: Members of Congress are briefing and will debate war powers and oversight. Some Republicans demand the administration explain the rationale; a few House Republicans signaled support for congressional measures to restrict action. Democrats, broadly, want a check on the administration’s authority and insist on consultation, arguing past practice provided checks and balances. Administration officials cite existing authorizations and deny the need to seek new congressional approval, which some lawmakers contest. There is likely to be partisan division over any war powers resolution.

Texas primary preview: In the Republican Senate race, four-term incumbent John Cornyn warns against complacency and urges turnout to avoid a more conservative nominee in a crowded field including Ken Paxton and Wesley Hunt. Cornyn lacked a presidential endorsement; his critics call him out of step. Democrats see an opening in Texas with candidates like Jasmine Crockett and James Talarico arguing for working-class outreach, noting the state’s changing electorate. With a majority threshold required to avoid a runoff, the primary may head to a late-May runoff.

Lawmakers, briefed by the administration, will receive closed-door updates and seek answers on intelligence, proportionality, civilian risk and oil market impacts. Debates on funding do not aim to deny dollars yet but to demand more oversight and a legal basis.

Summary of key points:
– U.S. and Israeli strikes have degraded Iranian capabilities; Iranian command and control, weaponry and proxies remain threats. Six U.S. service members killed so far.
– The administration frames strikes as preventing Iran from reaching a point of “immunity” where its missile and drone inventories would hold the region hostage; it emphasizes joint U.S.-Israeli planning and readiness to pursue objectives over weeks if necessary.
– The potential for regime change raises difficult questions about post-conflict governance and the risks of prolonged instability without boots on the ground.
– Congress is preparing oversight and debate; some lawmakers want limits on continued military action, others support the administration’s authority under prior authorizations.
– Political dynamics at home include primary fights in Texas and scrutiny over the use of force and its timing.
– The release of Clinton deposition videos in the Epstein investigation revealed denials and limited knowledge; questions remain, and legal teams and committees continue review.
– Family members of Americans harmed by or missing in Iran, like Daniel Levinson, seek accountability and hope the changing environment yields answers.

That concludes the main reporting and discussion covered on The Takeout for this program.

U.S. and Israeli airstrikes that began over the weekend have transformed the region and U.S. planning, with senior officials and journalists describing a confrontation that could last weeks and may amount to de facto regime change in Iran. President Trump has signaled a willingness to continue strikes for “four to five weeks” or longer if necessary; administration briefings to Congress and repeated public comments tie the strikes to preempting Iran’s growing missile and drone capabilities and to a U.S.-Israeli plan to degrade Iranian leadership and weapons production.

From Tel Aviv, Matt Gutman described the scope and intensity: Israel and the U.S. have struck mobile launchers and facilities, and Iran has responded by launching strikes at U.S. assets and regional targets. Israeli assessments indicate they have eliminated many launchers and expect to reduce Iran’s mobile launchers substantially over days, while Iran appears to be rationing missiles and drones to sustain pressure over weeks. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, long an advocate of hard measures against Iran, is now facing the question of what comes after Iran’s current government is weakened or removed—an outcome the U.S. and Israel are implicitly owning in the near term.

At the White House, Chief White House Correspondent Nancy Cordes reported on messaging from senior officials. Secretary of State Marco Rubio (as briefed to Capitol Hill) argued the strikes were needed to prevent Iran from reaching a scale of missiles and drones that would make it harder to counter in the future; administration officials also say intelligence showed that if Israel struck Iran independently, Iran would likely retaliate against U.S. assets, prompting combined U.S.-Israeli action. The administration’s public rhetoric has sometimes been inconsistent—comments on “boots on the ground” have varied among the president, vice president, and defense officials—but the president has said he will keep all options open, including the possibility of ground forces.

Military analysts on the program emphasized both capability and risk. Retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery said the opening strikes were extensive—mixing U.S. Navy and Air Force operations, Tomahawks and ATACMS, and Israeli air power—and that battle damage assessment will likely show high effectiveness, though deeply buried or hardened assets remain challenging. He also warned that political outcomes on the ground remain the real test: military strikes can destroy capabilities, but the politics inside Iran and across the region will determine whether the result is stable or chaotic.

CBS analysts including Robert Costa noted the administration views this as a decisive policy response intended to remove a nuclear or missile threat and send a message about U.S. resolve. The president has framed the action as a campaign against Iran’s nuclear and drone/missile capabilities, not an open-ended ideological war. Still, past U.S. interventions show how quickly these situations can broaden and become prolonged, and Congress and the public are wary.

The program also addressed the release of video depositions from Bill and Hillary Clinton regarding Jeffrey Epstein. The House Oversight Committee made public ten hours of previously closed-door depositions. Bill Clinton denied knowledge of minors on flights or of a visit to Epstein’s island, and said he would have been uncomfortable if he had known of any underage people. He admitted to writing a note in Epstein’s “birthday book” when staff requested it, and said he was close to Ghislaine Maxwell but denied sexual misconduct. Hillary Clinton, who said she did not know Epstein, was asked about whether he might have been an intelligence asset and offered support for strengthening human trafficking laws; she expressed interest in helping if asked.

Domestic politics and the midterm landscape surfaced in reporting from Texas. With the Texas primary underway, Republicans face a crowded Senate primary in which incumbents warn about complacency and opponents argue for change. On the Democratic side, candidates emphasize turnout among women, younger and Black voters. With a statewide runoff threshold at 50% plus one, crowded fields could produce unexpected nominees and shift general election dynamics.

The show featured a debate among veterans and authors on whether the strikes and their objectives are worth the risks. Elliott Ackerman, former Marine and CIA officer, said he supports objectives that successfully degrade threats but warned toppling a regime risks messy political outcomes that could destabilize the region and lead to a protracted conflict. David Bellavia, Army veteran and Medal of Honor recipient, argued for decisive action and praised the rapid air campaign’s initial effectiveness, saying the military dominance shown so far could achieve strategic gains. Both emphasized the importance of political planning for post-strike outcomes.

Congressional reaction looms: members of both parties are demanding briefings to justify the strikes and to explain legal authority, while some lawmakers propose resolutions to constrain unauthorized long-term use of force. Administration officials maintain they have sufficient statutory authority, citing prior authorizations and counterterrorism powers, and refuse to rule out further military measures. Democratic efforts to pass war powers resolutions face an uphill battle in the Senate but are part of a broader push to reassert congressional role in decisions about sustained military operations.

The Takeout spoke with Daniel Levinson, son of retired FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared in Iran in 2007 during an unauthorized CIA mission; the family hopes current pressure on Iran may finally yield answers and accountability. Levinson’s family has long sought information and remains hopeful that shifting dynamics in Iran could prompt insiders to come forward.

Legal reporter Katrina Kaufman summarized key moments from the Clinton depositions, noting Bill Clinton’s denials of alleged conduct on Epstein’s plane or island and his staff’s involvement in writing a note in Epstein’s “birthday book.” Hillary Clinton said she had no relationship with Epstein, considered Ghislaine Maxwell an acquaintance, and expressed a desire to strengthen human trafficking laws.

The program closed with dispatches on primaries and politics: the Texas Senate race is a test of incumbency, turnout and changing demographics. Polling suggests voter caution about major U.S. conflicts—concerns about casualties and economic impacts such as energy prices were highlighted—and veterans on the program argued over whether the opportunity and timing justified the risks.

Throughout the broadcast, anchors and analysts underscored that the immediate military campaign appears effective in degrading Iranian assets, but the strategic and political aftermath remains uncertain. Key questions persist: how long will the campaign last, will it achieve enduring political outcomes inside Iran, and can the U.S. and allies manage the broader regional fallout without expanding the conflict?