U.S. and Israeli airstrikes that began over the weekend have reshaped the region and U.S. planning, with senior officials and journalists warning the confrontation could last weeks and may produce 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 public statements link the strikes to preempting Iran’s growing missile and drone capabilities and to a joint U.S.-Israeli effort to degrade Iranian leadership and weapons production.
Reporting from Tel Aviv described the scale and intensity of the campaign: U.S. and Israeli forces struck mobile launchers and facilities, while Iran responded with attacks on U.S. assets and regional targets. Israeli assessments say they have neutralized many launchers and expect a significant reduction in Iran’s mobile launch capability over days, even as Iran appears to be rationing missiles and drones to sustain pressure over a longer period. Prime Minister Netanyahu, long an advocate of hard measures against Tehran, now faces the question of what comes after Iran’s current leadership is weakened or removed—an outcome that U.S. and Israeli officials are increasingly treating as a likely near-term possibility.
At the White House, senior officials told Capitol Hill the strikes aimed to stop Iran from reaching a scale of missiles and drones that would be harder to counter in the future. Administration sources argue intelligence showed that if Israel struck Iran unilaterally, Tehran would likely retaliate against U.S. assets, prompting coordinated U.S.-Israeli action. Public messaging has at times been inconsistent: comments about “boots on the ground” have varied among the president, vice president, and defense officials. Still, the president has said he will keep all options open, including the possibility of deploying ground forces.
Military analysts on the program emphasized both the campaign’s capability and its risks. Retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery described the opening strikes as extensive—combining U.S. Navy and Air Force operations, Tomahawks and ATACMS, and Israeli air power—and said battle damage assessments will likely show high effectiveness against many targets. He cautioned, however, that deeply buried or hardened facilities remain difficult to destroy and that the political outcomes on the ground will be the decisive test: military action can degrade weapons, but the region’s political dynamics will determine whether the result is stable or chaotic.
CBS analysts noted the administration views the operation as a decisive policy response intended to remove a nuclear or missile threat and to signal U.S. resolve. The president has framed the campaign as focused on Iran’s nuclear, missile and drone capabilities rather than an open-ended ideological war. Still, analysts pointed out how quickly such interventions can broaden and become prolonged, and both Congress and the public are wary about extended commitments.
The program also reviewed the public release of ten hours of former President Bill Clinton’s and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s closed-door depositions in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. Bill Clinton denied knowledge of minors on flights or of a visit to Epstein’s island, saying he would have been uncomfortable if he had known of any underage people. He acknowledged writing a note in Epstein’s “birthday book” at staff request and said he was friendly with Ghislaine Maxwell while denying sexual misconduct. Hillary Clinton said she did not have a relationship with Epstein, described Maxwell as an acquaintance, and was asked whether Epstein might have been an intelligence asset; she also expressed support for strengthening human trafficking laws and offered to help if requested.
Domestic politics and the primary calendar also featured. In Texas, a crowded Republican Senate primary has incumbents warning against complacency while challengers push for change. Democrats are focused on turnout among women, younger and Black voters. With a statewide runoff threshold of more than 50 percent, large candidate fields could create unexpected nominees and alter general election dynamics.
A debate among veterans and authors explored whether the strikes and their objectives justify the risks. Elliott Ackerman, a former Marine and CIA officer, supported goals that truly degrade threats but warned that toppling a regime risks messy political consequences that could destabilize the region and extend the conflict. David Bellavia, an Army veteran and Medal of Honor recipient, argued for decisive action and praised the initial effectiveness of the air campaign, saying current military dominance might yield strategic advantages. Both stressed the need for political planning to accompany military operations.
Congressional reaction is building: lawmakers from both parties have demanded briefings to justify the strikes and to explain legal authority, while some propose measures to constrain prolonged or unauthorized use of force. Administration officials maintain they have sufficient statutory authority, citing prior authorizations and counterterrorism powers, and have not ruled out further military steps. Democratic efforts to pass war powers resolutions face challenges in the Senate but reflect a broader push to reassert Congress’s role in decisions about sustained military action.
The program included a personal angle: Daniel Levinson, son of retired FBI agent Robert Levinson who disappeared in Iran in 2007 during an unauthorized mission, hopes current pressure on Iran will finally produce answers and accountability. Levinson’s family has long sought information and remains hopeful that shifting dynamics could prompt insiders to come forward.
Legal reporter Katrina Kaufman summarized key moments from the Clinton depositions, reiterating Bill Clinton’s denials about alleged conduct on Epstein’s plane and island and noting staff involvement in the “birthday book” note. She also noted Hillary Clinton’s statements that she did not know Epstein and that she supports stronger anti-trafficking measures.
The broadcast closed with updates on primaries and broader political sentiment: the Texas Senate race tests incumbency, turnout and shifting demographics, while polling shows public caution about major U.S. conflicts—concerns include casualties and economic effects like energy prices. Veterans on the program disagreed over whether the opportunity and timing justify the risks.
Across the coverage, anchors and analysts agreed the immediate campaign appears to be degrading Iranian assets, but the strategic and political aftermath is far less certain. Key outstanding questions remain: how long will the campaign continue, will it produce enduring political change inside Iran, and can the U.S. and its allies manage wider regional repercussions without expanding the conflict?