PBS News Hour - Full Show - March 2, 2026 - PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: March 3, 2026

Monday on the News Hour, the U.S. and Israel's bombing campaign and Iran's retaliatory attacks roil the region as President Trump vows to keep the war going as long as it takes. Views from on the ground in Iran and in Lebanon, where the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah has reignited. Plus, the global economic fallout and surging energy prices. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Good evening. I'm Amna Nawaz. Jeff Bennett is away. On the news hour tonight. The U.S. and Israel's bombing campaign and Iran's retaliatory attacks royal the region, while President Trump vows to keep the war going as long as it takes. We continue this mission with ferocious, unyielding resolve to crush the threat. This terrorist regime poses to the American people. Views from on the ground in Iran and in Lebanon, where the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah has reignited. And the global economic fallout, starting with surging energy prices.

We should see relatively little impact in the U.S. in less things estuil. Welcome to the News Hour. We're in the third day of the American and Israeli war against Iran, and the U.S. State Department is now calling on Americans to evacuate. more than a dozen countries in the Middle East. Today was marked once again by punishing air strikes across the Islamic Republic. In response, Iran continues to widen the war, sending volleys of missiles and rockets across the region targeting most of its Arab neighbors and Israel.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon announced that at least six U.S. service members have been killed in reprisal attacks. Nick Schiffran begins our coverage. Today in Tehran, the epicenter of this widening war, the plume of the plume of the plume of Rooms of smoke were massive and the explosions thunderous. Some of the capital streets engulfed in debris and dread. Entire buildings collapsed, a police station converted into a carcass. The Iranian Red Crescent Society says the war has killed more than 550.

One explosion hit one of Tehran's most prominent hospitals. Nurses evacuated babies and incubators. The campaign is the largest in Israel's history, targeting leadership and military. And American Tomahawk missiles and air strikes are targeting Iran's missile infrastructure. We continue this mission with ferocious, unyielding resolve to crush the threat this terrorist regime poses to the American people. The war also threatened service members. Three American F-16s accidentally shot down by Kuwaiti air defense.

No problem. You're safe. One female pilot met by grateful Kuwaiti civilians. No problem. Thank you for helping us. But U.S. service members were killed on this Kuwaiti base when U.S. officials say an Iranian ballistic missile evaded its air defense. Oh my God. In total, Iran has launched more than a thousand drones in military.

thousand drones and missiles into Arab countries, including its first ever attacks on Gulf hotels and residences. And today it expanded those attacks to energy infrastructure, including Saudi Arabia's largest oil refinery. And there was another attack today on a tanker off the coast of Oman. Today Iran vowed to shut down the crucial strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of the world's oil is traded. And Israel expanded its own strikes into Lebanon after Iranian ally Hezbollah launched an attack into Israel.

Israeli jets pounded Beirut, killing dozens and setting fire to residential buildings. Iran has launched hundreds of missiles and drones at Israel, including this attack on Saturday west of Jerusalem that killed nine. Today Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the site and reiterated his goal, the elimination of the Iranian threat. And if this regime, this terrorist regime of the kind we've never seen in the world, if they get nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, ballistic missiles, intercontinental ballistic missiles, they will threaten all of humanity. At the Pentagon today, Secretary Pete Hegeseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Dan Kane made clear the U.S. military objectives were limited to Iran's missiles and drones and Navy. This operation is a clear, devastating, decisive mission.

Destroy the missile threat, destroy the Navy, no nukes. Our mission is to protect and defend ourselves and together with our regional partners, prevent Iran from the ability to project power outside of its borders, and be ready for follow-on actions as appropriate. They're never going to have a nuclear weapon. But at the White House, President Trump listed maximalist goals, including the destruction of Iran's missile capabilities, quote, annihilating their Navy,

preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon, and blocking Iran's arming, funding, and directing regional proxies. Whatever the time is, it's okay, whatever it takes, we will always, and we have right from the beginning, we projected four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that. We also projected four weeks to terminate the military leadership. And as you know, that was done in about an hour.

So we're ahead of schedule there. But in multiple interviews since the weekend, the president provided varying timelines and goals. He called the Venezuela model, where the U.S. military captured President Nicolas Maduro but left intact his entire government, the quote, perfect scenario in Iran. He said he had multiple choices to lead Iran. But then he told ABC News, it's not going to be able to be. to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead.

He told the Atlantic he'd agreed to resume negotiations, but a senior administration official later clarified the president would negotiate, quote, eventually. Simultaneously, Trump said Iranians would, quote, obviously have an opportunity to overthrow the government, the exact opposite of negotiations, to keep the regime. This evening, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said there were no contradictions between limited military goals and expansive long-term vision. The objectives of this operation are to destroy their ballistic missile capability and make sure they can't rebuild it and make sure that they can't hide behind that to have a nuclear

program. That's the objective of the mission. That said, abundantly clear, we would love for there to be in Iran that's not governed by radical Shia clerics. And tonight, President Trump warned in an interview with CNN that the biggest wave of U.S. strikes, Omna, is, quote, coming soon. Nick, tell us more about the goals of this war and some of those varying, contradicting statements you just laid out.

What are U.S. officials telling you? So the key is what you just heard there from Rubio. The U.S. military is destroying Iran's missiles, drones, and Navy. Their mission stops there. U.S. officials reject the Kohl and Powell pottery barn model. If you break it, you own it. But the long-term goal is still regime change. So how do you square that circle?

U.S. officials tell me by focusing on a change in the regime rather than a change of the regime. So if Iran gave in to all of the U.S. demands of the negotiating table, that would achieve U.S. goals. or if the Iranian people overthrew the government and some kind of insurgency after the U.S.-Israeli military campaign, that would also achieve the goals. And here's the thing.

U.S. officials, I talk to, say, they don't have to choose between these two things. And that's extraordinary, because on the one hand, you have relatively limited military goals for an operation. And on the other, you have this vision that would require some messy, likely long-term, very difficult insurgency, frankly, that the U.S. or Israel would have to keep going and fomenting.

So that's the reality, though, Amna, of the Trump era. The president wants options, and so they believe they do not have to make the choice. And the criticism of that, of course, is that Iran shows no willingness to negotiate. And unless there's some kind of plan to help Iranians rise up, the mission will fail. Meanwhile, you have some new reporting on a key question in all of this, which is why the war started when it did. What have you learned? U.S. officials confirmed to me the U.S. intelligence community provided the Israel, the location of the Supreme Leader on Saturday morning alongside some of his most senior leaders. And so Israel started the war with an

initial strike that hit that compound that we saw on Saturday. But Secretary of State Rubio today also argued essentially the opposite, that the U.S. didn't have a choice when to start the war because the military had to go when it did because of both Israeli and Iranian plans. We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces. And we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher those killed. And then we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that and didn't act. So to underline Omna, this is now a war simultaneously started to American intelligence provided to

Israel and a war that Israel would have started anyway so the U.S. had to act. Meanwhile, as we reported earlier, the U.S. tonight has issued evacuation orders for more than a dozen countries? What more do we know about that? Yeah, let's take a look at this graphic, this tweet that was just posted by the State Department. Depart now from the countries listed below using available commercial transportation

due to serious safety risk. Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, UAE, and Yemen. That is 14 countries. I just talked to a former senior official. As far as this person knows, this has never

ever been done before. We are talking about hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans who are getting this message tonight, and we're certainly stay on this to figure out whether there's going to be any facilitating either by the military or the State Department to get them out. But clearly the message is take civilian transportation, but as we've been talking about, many of these airports in the region, already closed. Nick Schiffran, beginning our coverage once again. Nick, thank you. Thank you. Well, for more now on how the White House and Congress are responding to the I'm joined now by our White House correspondent Liz Landers and our congressional correspondent, Lisa Desjardin. So, Liz, kick us off here. We saw President Trump make his first public appearance today since the war began over the weekend.

What did he say? Right. This was the first public event that the president has had since this started. It was a medal of honor ceremony that he had in the east room of the White House. And as Nick pointed out in his reporting there, we really heard for the first time the objectives that the administration that the president is laying out here for these. attacks on Iran. However, the way that the president has gone about explaining this to the public has been non-traditional. He and his allies like to say he's a non-traditional president. We've seen these truth social videos that he has recorded and posted over the last few days. He's also done a number of phone calls with journalists. He's talked with CNN, the Atlantic.

And earlier today, he spoke with the New York Post and saying something that would impact a lot of people, of course, is he was asked if he would send U.S. troops on the ground. there to the region and he said if they were necessary so not ruling that out reporters in the room trying to ask questions of him as he left I tried to ask a question of the president he did not talk to reporters today at the White House as you know Liz this is a president who ran on an America first platform no new foreign wars how is all of this resonating with his base this was a huge part of why people liked him and when I you know reported on the 2016 2020 and

2024 campaigns a lot of the MAGA base said that they really supported this part of the president's agenda. Today we're seeing some backlash from some of these MAGA conservative voices and commentators. People like Tucker Carlson called the attack, quote, absolutely disgusting and evil in an interview over the weekend. We also heard from former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green, a very close former ally of the president's no longer. She said on X, she said, we voted for America first and zero wars. He is getting some defense. He is getting some defense. though, from far-right activists like Laura Lumer, who we know she does talk to the president

occasionally. She is defending these actions. But when you also look more broadly at how the American public is responding to this, we're starting to get some polling. Roiders and Ipsis did a poll post these attacks. It's showed that only 27 percent of Americans approved of the U.S. strikes that killed Iran's leader. 43 percent disapproved of the Iran strikes. Twenty-nine percent said that they were not sure. More than half. Fifty-six percent of the Iran's leaders. of Americans said that they believe that the president is too willing to use military force. So, Amna, the president definitely still has some selling to do to the American public. So, Lisa, that's where the American public is.

What about Congress, the branch responsible for war? Where are they on the U.S. attacks in Iran? As Nick reported, Secretary of State Rubio was up on the hill talking to the top eight leaders today. And I want to point out something he said to the press before he went in. He made the argument that the president not only doesn't need authority from Congress, but he didn't even need to notify all of Congress. Listen.

There's no law that requires the president to have done anything with regards to this. To begin with, no presidential administration has ever accepted the War Powers Act as constitutional, not Republican presidents, not Democratic presidents. That said, we have followed the notification at 48 hours, and we're here today. Now, the War Powers Act is not just significant

because of the notification requirement, but because it limits presidents to having this kind of conflict power for just 60 to 90 days. And what Rubio is saying here is what other president said before. They're ignoring that, that he's going to keep this up as long as they want. Now, as for Congress themselves, it was remarkable that he said this, just days before we expect a vote in the House over whether Congress should block

action in Iran without congressional approval. It is a tough vote, especially for some Democrats. There are some very pro-Israel Democrats that are nervous about the situation. They want to support Israel. There are others who are Article I. kind of constitutionalist Democrats that are not sure what to do and on the front line right now I don't think that has the votes to pass the House but it is going to be a vote to watch and while we know DHS funding is a question right now there's a

government partial government shutdown will the Iran action impact that at all the short answer is no it doesn't seem to be Democrats are still digging in they say we may have something overseas that we need to pay very close attention to that's significant but that doesn't change the issues that we have now what could change is when more people start missing paychecks. That is still a week and a half away. Lisa Desjardin, Les Landers. Thank you so much. Let's go now to special correspondent Reza Seya in Tehran. Reza joins us on the phone. Reza now this third straight day of U.S. and Israeli strikes in Iran, just give us a sense of what

you're seeing and what you're hearing on the ground there. As I'm talking to you right now, I'm hearing the unnerving sound of jet fighters flying over Tehran and massive earth-shaking explosions. They started around 12 midnight local time, and they've continued for the next 90 minutes. So again, multiple explosions and what sounds like anti-aircraft. And one other thing that I need to point out is around 1.30 a.m., the Internet access was cut off, and that's kind of unusual. When this war started, the government cut off the internet.

There was only access to the national network. It was a closed network. But using VPN, virtual private network, I was able to get access to the international network. That stopped around 1.30 a.m. local time. Was it related to these latest airstrikes that started around midnight? It's not clear. But no internet. That's why I'm talking to you.

on the phone. Earlier today, more air strikes, intense airstrikes, targeting the heart of the city. Israeli officials have repeatedly said they're targeting the security apparatus, buildings related to the military, Revolutionary Guard. But increasingly, we are seeing on the ground non-military targets either being hit or severely damaged hospitals. We had a school on Saturday. Earlier today, I went to a major square here where a police headquarters was hit. The police station was destroyed, but surrounding it were scores of residential buildings. Day two, they were either destroyed or severely damaged. I went to a cafe across from the police station, talked to a patron there who was there during the airstrike.

He was smoking a hookah. When the missiles hit, he showed me some gruesome video. of a fellow patron with his head severed. And he described what sounded like a double-tap strike, where he said the initial strike wasn't much, wasn't much of an explosion. Few minutes later, massive explosion. And that gives you an idea of the cycle of violence

we're experiencing. Professor, let me ask you about what we've heard from U.S. officials, because President Trump claimed yesterday that Tehran had reached out to talk to talk and to negotiate today, he warned of a quote-unquote big wave of strikes yet to come, and he didn't rule out U.S. troops on the ground. What's been Tehran's response to all of this? Tehran's response is no talks, and they're going to keep fighting. Just keep in mind, from Tehran's point of view, there's no trust. This is the second time then in the middle of

negotiations without warning. They've been under attack, and they've tried to project of resists. resilience. Ali Larry Johnny, the secretary, the National Security Council in a statement saying they're not going to negotiate with terrorists, the foreign minister Abbas Arafqi, saying that they've learned lessons from U.S. defeats in the region and they're going to use these lessons in this war. They're going to decide how the war ends. So they're projecting resilient, toughness, and seemingly in the region, they're carrying out an aggressive. campaign targeting U.S. bases, U.S. assets, Gulf states, military bases. And they're also saying they're targeting hotels because they have intelligent that U.S. servicemen have left the bases to go to the hotels. That is our special correspondent, Reza Seya, joining us tonight on the phone from Tehran, Iran. Reza, thank you. Now for a look at the wider region, let's turn to our special correspondent in Lebanon,

a country being dragged back into conflict as Hezbollah has resumed attacks on Israel. Simona Fultean is coming to us from the outskirts of the capital city of Beirut. And Simona, we know those Hezbollah attacks on Israel come more than a year after a ceasefire deal that went into place after the 2024 war. A war that left Hezbollah very much weakened. Why would they decide to attack now? Well, Amna, Hezbollah would have weighed its domestic interests with its desire or duty to support. its main regional ally and backer, Iran. And based on this reaction, it seems that the latter interest prevailed.

Now, there is a big question mark about the military value of this attack. It was pretty symbolic. The rockets were intercepted and inflicted, very limited, if any, damage on the Israeli side, whereas the IDF's response was much more devastating. Now, of course, as you mentioned, Hezbollah has been significantly weakened in the last full-scale war with Israel. You mentioned that IDF response to the Hezbollah latest attacks. They've killed more than 50 people in and around Beirut. Tens of thousands of people, again, being displaced from southern Lebanon and Beirut's southern suburbs.

Tell us a little bit more about the impact and also the reaction from inside Lebanon. Well, the impact has been quite devastating, especially for Hezbollah's own constituents. There has been, again, another wave of displacement, large-scale bombardment of villages in the south, as well as Beirut, southern suburbs. So it has caused once again displacement, once again panic. Once again, a lot of uncertainty about whether this country will once again be plunged into full-squale war. But what is perhaps most noteworthy is the government's reactions.

Earlier today, following an emergency cabinet session, Prime Minister Nawafzalam announced a ban on Hezbollah military and intelligence activities. And this is quite unprecedented in this country. because previously the group was somehow recognized as the so-called resistance, as being part of the country's defenses. So essentially with this government decision, Hezbollah has become somewhat of an outlawed group, at least when it comes to its military wing. Simone, we know you also lived in Dubai for many years. Of course, you reported from the region for years. These fears of a widening regional war.

How big are they? How real are they? Well, this is quite an unprecedented situation in the region, and especially in the Gulf countries. If you look at places like the United Arab Emirates or Qatar, these are countries that were considered safe havens for Arabs and Muslims that were fleeing conflict elsewhere in the region. So this is something that these countries have not really seen. Now, so far, the air defense systems that have been supplied by the United States have managed to intercept most of the Iranian missiles that have been. targeting these places. So the human casualties have been relatively low, but these countries are being hit where it hurts the most, and that's their economic engines. Just to give you a sense,

so for example, Dubai's airport is the second largest in the world. It's Jebel Ali port is the ninth largest shipping port in the world. And now essentially all of the economic activity in the Gulf region has come to a whole lot of airspace. closed. We have seen footage of five-star hotels being hit with debris. We have seen ports being targeted. We have seen oil installations being targeted. So all of that is quite significant. That is special correspondent, Simone Fulte, joining us from outside Beirut, Lebanon. Simone, thank you. Let's shift our focus now to the war's impact on the global energy market. Oil and gas prices spike today as the regional conflict escalated and shipping was disrupted in the

Strait of Ormuz. About 20% of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas flows through the strait every day, making it one of the most crucial oil supply routes on the planet. William Brangam joins us now with more. Umna, at least five tankers have been damaged in the vicinity of the straits since Saturday, and traffic slowed dramatically there over the weekend. Separately, Iranian drones continue to attack energy infrastructure in different Arab Gulf states. Today, those attacks damaged an oil refinery in Saudi Arabia and halted the production of liquid natural gas or LNG in Qatar. So to help us understand these impacts and implications, we are joined by Dan Pickering.

He's the chief investment officer at Pickering Energy Partners, which is a financial services and advisory firm that is focused on the energy industry. Dan, thank you so much for being here. Let's pick apart some of these different impacts. First, on the markets. What happened with oil prices today? Yeah, William, we had a strong rally at oil price up 7%. WTI, the U.S. benchmark, was about $72 a barrel. It was actually up less than many people expected.

So the markets did better, the broad stock markets did better, and oil didn't rise quite as much as expected, but still up strongly. And we mentioned the importance of the Strait of Hormuz and the attacks and the trickiness of what's going on there right now. What do we know is the latest happening in the Strait? Now, the latest is essentially tanker traffic has slowed to almost nothing. Some vessels, primarily Iranian vessels, are continuing to move through the Strait. But because it's dangerous, because there have been attacks, there's not a lot of oil moving through there. And as we know, it is a big choke point for global supply.

20% of global supply comes through the straits. And it's essentially shut down right now. I mean, obviously this is the main route. That's why everyone has been using it for so many years. Is there or are there any alternate routes to get that oil to market? For oil, there are some other pipeline export routes, maybe 5 million barrels a day. So remember, 20 million through the straits, perhaps 5 million of it can get to market other ways. So 15% of supply is trapped behind the straits on the gas side of the equation.

There really is no other output for Qatar's liquefied natural gas. And so that is kind of 100% blocked right now. Do you have a sense of what Iran could do to both increase the pressure on the limited traffic that's going through and what might the Americans or allies do to alleviate that choke point? When we think about what could happen from here, if Iran wants to ratchet up the tensions, it probably wouldn't be in the Straits of Hormuz where they've already had a big effect, slowing traffic.

It would be lashing out at the energy infrastructure of the other Gulf states. So attacking Saudi Arabia's capabilities, attacking Kuwait, Oman, the United Arab Emirates. So I think that the actions that the U.S. and the Allies would likely take will be to try and safeguard the straits, whether using that militarily with escorts and or aerial support and potentially creating a financial backstop

that would allow tanker traffic to move through without fear that the damage would be uninsured. Right. I mean, you mentioned some of these other potential attacks. We have seen some of those already. What does this say about the state of the conflict that Iran is right now reaching out to trying to attack those other states and other refineries? I think it says this is clearly different than what we saw in June. Obviously, a much bigger conflict in one in which Iran is prepared to fight back and fight back aggressively. would say, though, that the first 48, 72 hours are very important, and no significant infrastructure damages happened across the Middle East. And so I think we have to feel good that there hasn't been more damage or more impact. And my expectation is we'll probably fix the Straits of Hormuz

within the next 10 days. And so this is absolutely a flashpoint in time, but one that is probably going to ease in terms of risk as we move through the next week to two weeks. I want to ask you about this one. There was one attack on an LNG facility, a liquid natural gas facility in Qatar, and European gas prices surged quite dramatically after that. How significant is the loss of that one facility or an attack on that one facility? Yeah, Qatar. There are 20% of global LNG supply, and it all flows through the straits. And so when you take 20% offline, which has happened now, not damage to the facility per se,

but just forced to shut in because they can't export their gas, 20% is a big impact. So European prices escalated. A lot of that LNG goes to Asia, and so those shortages will be felt, you know, in the next, call it, month or so. But European prices react because the whole, global market has now tightened not a lot of excess LNG capacity around the world to offset

those shut-ins. I mean, I know we are in early days, and all of these things are predictions at this point. Do you have any sense as to whether or not and when American consumers might feel the ripple effects of this conflict? Yeah, I think we're very lucky here in the United States from the perspective that, that because of the shale revolution, because of the fact that the U.S. has become the world's largest oil producer at 14 million barrels a day and a very significant gas producer, we're pretty self-sufficient here. And so we should be relatively insulated from what's happening.

Global prices will impact U.S. prices. But oil in the 70s, gasoline prices should stay relatively muted. So unless things escalate from here, we should see relatively little impact in the U.S. unless things escalate. All right. That is Dan Pickering of Pickering Energy Partners. Thank you so much for being here. Glad to be here. For additional perspective on all the latest developments, we turn now to our panel of experts. Holly Dagress is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. That's a Washington think tank. She spent her teenage years in Tehran and now curates the Iranist. That's a weekly substack newsletter.

Alan Eyre served in the U.S. government for four decades. He was part of the Obama administration's negotiating team for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA deal with Iran. He's now at the Middle East Institute. And retired Colonel Joel Rayburn served in the Army for 26 years. During the first Trump administration, he was on the National Security Council staff focusing on Iran in the Middle East. He's now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Thank you all for being here. Holly, I'll begin with you because we've seen in our reporting an evolution of messaging from the administration. President Trump calling for regime change a couple of days ago, Secretary of Defense Hegset now saying it's not about regime change. What's your reaction to that? And how is all that resonating in Iran? Well, the messages that are, they are conflicting and it is a bit disturbing because, you know,

the sense that some Iranians on the ground got was that they were actually going to see some sort of change inside the country. And this was started, of course, with that unprecedented massacre in January. And President Trump's saying that help is on the way, take over your institutions. And it seems that we're hearing from senior U.S. officials that they do want the Iranian people to take control of their own future. But at this juncture, much of the clerical establishment is still in power. So it's hard to envision that. And just on the note that President Donald Trump said that he would very much like to see a Venezuela model.

And granted, he said three of his top choices were killed in the past three days. But in January, Iranians were really worried about that prospect because they do not want this regime. So any kind of deal of that sort with a different face of the Islamic Republic would be contrary to what most of the anti-regime Iranian population stands for. Colonel Rayburn, what do you make of that? The prospects of someone in the current regime stepping up to take over, is that a potential plan and is it a good one? Well, whether it's a good one or not, I think it would depend on the way the next several days, a couple of weeks goes, in terms of whether that could result, whether you could actually have the remnants of the current regime that actually had the credibility and the capacity to stabilize the country on terms that would be acceptable to the United States and our allies. I think that's a serious question. And militarily speaking, though, the outcome of this confrontation, I think, is a foregone conclusion. So you're going to wind up in any case with the remnants of a regime there in Tehran that I think don't have the military wherewithal to do anything other than capitulate at some point on the terms that the president is going to offer.

Ellen, what do you make of that? And also the prospects of people in Iran rising up. Do you see that happening? I think it's a mispossibly, I wouldn't characterize it as the remnants of the regime. The regime is more than just the individuals, some of whom may live through this, many of whom will not. It's institutions, and I see no indication that currently those institutions are weak or fraying or that you can destroy these institutions from the air. So in terms of regime change, for that to happen, two things would have to happen.

The current institutions, interlocking institutions like the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, would have to be destroyed kinetically from the air, which I think is improbable. And then you would have to have a substitute interlinking, functional series of institutions to plug in its place, and I think that's even more improbable. So I think the most likely outcome is after four weeks or so, you'll have a vastly degraded command structure in the Islamic Republic, but the core institutions in one way or another will still remain.

Colonel, the U.S. President has not ruled out U.S. troops on the ground. Is that a good idea? Well, I think, you know, President Trump is somebody that likes to keep his options open. He likes strategic ambiguity. He wouldn't like to rule out, I think, a military option this early in a campaign. But I think the objectives that have been laid out so far by the president, by Secretary of State Rubio, and then very clearly today by General Dan Cain, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Those are some very clear military objectives of finishing the elimination of the Iranian regime's nuclear program,

eliminating its ballistic missile capability, eliminating the IRGC Navy, the part of the regime that has the mission of potentially disrupting the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, and then severing its ties with its militant proxies. And as Chairman Kane put it, very interestingly today, I think it's the first time someone stated what the mission of the theater commanding is, the operational command, U.S. Central Command, he said it was essentially to prevent the Iranian regime or Iran from having the ability to project power beyond its borders. That's a very clear kind of in-state. So it says the military phase of that, you could have, as Alan wouldn't say, the remnants of a regime in Tehran that are still there somehow, somewhat intact, but have no ability to damage the region beyond their borders or international security.

Colleen, we have heard more from U.S. officials about justification in the original U.S. and Israeli attacks. Does that line up for you in terms of what they're saying that there was a potential imminent threat that the U.S. is acting both defensively and proactively? I mean, we're getting a lot of mixed messaging right now, and it's just I'm not entirely sure what exactly led to this because essentially, if we remember, there was a massacre in January, and it was that reason that Trump wanted to respond to that, and he sent assets into the region for that very reason. You're referencing the regime cracking down on protests.

Yes, the anti-regime uprising in January. And before that, we heard in December Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his meeting with President Donald Trump saying that ballistic missiles were a very big issue. So it seems like the goalposts are moving around frequently about what the modus operandi of this war was. And it seems like it's very different from why assets removed in January to where it is now. Ellen, is it clear to you, three days in now? And as the president projects that this is a campaign that could go on four to five weeks, what the objectives are. I think this administration is trying to justify the war the same way Jackson Pollock used to paint.

You just throw a bucket of reasons up against a canvas and hope the result looks good. It said, for example, there's an imminent threat to the U.S. Well, the intelligence community said that the Iranian nuclear weapons program stopped in 2003. President Trump said the underlying Iranian nuclear energy program was obliterated June of last year,

and it's still under rubble. Okay, missiles. Iranian missiles are a threat to the United States. that falls short of the truth by about 4,000 miles. Okay? So you then go to the other set of reasons. This is a preventative war because Iran is hostile and might one day be a real threat.

Well, if that's the case, if we're doing preventative wars now to prevent countries that might one day be a threat, is North Korea in line, is China in line, is Russia in line? I don't think so. So as Holly said, I can't make head or tails

out of the reason this administration has put forward for this war. Colonel, I'll ask you to respond to what we just heard from Allen. Are there other countries in line if this is the reasoning? Well, no, look, as I've said before, we're in a post-October 7th environment here. The Iranian regime posed a very real concrete threat to the region around it, to Israel and other of our allies,

by joining that war on October 8th. And really, Hamas used on October 7th a capability that the Iranian regime equipped it with over a course of more than 15 years. So I think, you know, October 7th, October 8th, then the missile attacks in 2024, 2025 by the Iranians on Israel, this is the culmination of what was Ali Khamene's very aggressive,

very hostile foreign policy in the region and beyond. They continued to intervene in European security by providing the Russians with the military means to attack Ukrainian cities. So this is a regime that was, opposing a threat to U.S. interests, U.S. allies, not just in the region, but beyond. So I don't think they were just sitting there not doing any harm, and then, you know, the Trump administration decided out of nowhere to attack them.

Lots more to cover in the days and weeks ahead, it looks like. Alan Eyre, Colonel Joel Rayburn, Holly Degress. Thank you very much. Thank you, Abda. We start the day's other headlines in Texas. Authorities are investigating a deadly shooting at an Austin bar this weekend as a potential act of terrorism. The accused shooter, a 53-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, was wearing a sweatshirt with an Iranian flag design and the words, Property of Allah. At least two people were killed and 14 injured when he allegedly opened fire from a car window shortly before 2 a.m. on Sunday. Law enforcement said today they're working with federal officials to determine a motive and whether there are any direct ties to the U.S. war in Iran.

We're thinking about events and what's occurring in the country as well. And so in addition to the fact that this was a huge complex scene, we're calling in those federal partners to take a look at that as well. Police shot and killed the gunman with the mayor of Austin saying their quick response helped to prevent further bloodshed. The Supreme Court today seemed to lean towards loosening a federal law that bars drug users from owning guns. During oral arguments, both liberal and conservative justices appeared to support a Texas man who argued he shouldn't have been charged with a crime because he owns a gun and uses marijuana. It's the same law that led to Hunter Biden's conviction in 2024 before he was pardoned by his father, then-President Joe Biden. Critics fear such a ruling could put guns in the hands of serious drug users. A decision is expected by the end of June.

In New York today, a court battle got underway that could have a major impact on the music industry. The Justice Department claims that concert giant Live Nation is running an illegal monopoly after merging with rival ticket master in 2010. Officials claim the combined company uses its power to limit competition and drive up ticket prices. Live Nation denies this saying that the market is more competitive than officials have claimed. The lawsuit was filed during the Biden administration in 2024. making this a rare instance of the Trump DOJ following through on a Biden-era case. The trial is expected to last at least a month. The Trump administration is reportedly planning to abandon its efforts to target a number of law firms seen as foes of the president.

That's according to multiple media outlets and represents a dramatic U-turn for the government. The Justice Department is expected to drop its appeals in four cases after the firm successfully sued to have punishing measures against them blocked. The order signed by President Trump last year would have severely hampered their ability to do their work, sending shivers through the industry. A number of firms struck deals with the administration rather than fight back. French President Emmanuel Macron says his country will increase the size of its nuclear arsenal for the first time in decades. Speaking at a military base that hosts his country's nuclear-armed submarines, McCaugh also said France will temporarily allow the deployment of nuclear-armed jets, to allies like the UK, Germany, and Poland.

His announcement comes amid growing concerns about Russian military aggression and ongoing political tensions with Washington. To be free, one must be feared, and to be feared, one must be powerful. This increase in our arsenal attests to this. As for our American allies, their recent national security and defense strategy shows a re-errant, of American priorities and a strong encouragement for Europe to take more direct care of its own security. France currently has fewer than 300 nuclear warheads, which ranks it fourth worldwide and far behind the likes of the U.S. and Russia. Macaunt did not signal how many more France will be adding,

but it will be the first increase since at least 1992. Officials in South Sudan say at least 169 people were killed after insurgents raided a remote village in the countries far north. The attack took place yesterday in Abinom County near the Sudan border. Local officials say 90 civilians were killed, including women and children. The U.S. U.N. mission in South Sudan says that some 1,000 people sought shelter at its base after the attack. The killings are part of an escalating wave of violence between forces loyal to the current president and those backing an opposition leader, putting the country on the verge of an all-out civil war.

On Wall Street today, stocks erased their earlier losses to end largely unchanged. The Dow Jones Industrial Average posted a modest loss of just 73 points. The NASDAQ managed a small gain of around 80 points. The S&P 500 closed the day roughly flat. This is the PBS News hour from the David M. Rubenstein studio at WETA in Washington, headquarters of PBS News. And we'll be back shortly, but first take a moment to hear from your local PBS station. It's a chance to offer your support, which helps to keep programs like this one on the air.

For those of you staying with us, tomorrow voters head to the polls in Arkansas, North Carolina, and Texas. But it's in the lone star state where competitive races on both sides of the aisle have fueled unprecedented spending. Political correspondent Lisa Desjardin has more on what's at stake in Texas's U.S. Senate race. Welcome to the race for the U.S. Senate, Texas side. with two larger-than-life primaries, one in each party. Character is on the ballot. I believe voters still care about their elected officials, and they want people who will tell them the truth. The incumbent Republican John Cornyn faces two other Texas lawmakers, Attorney General Ken Paxton and Congressman Wesley Hunt. It's the fight of his 24-year career.

He's tried and true in the minds of many voters in Texas. Tony Plehetsky is a a journalist with the Austin American statesman. Cornyn is running as experienced and battle tested. However, while he was once ranked among the most conservative senators, now Paxton and his voters and his supporters have really been able to nurture this idea that John Cornyn has not been been hard right enough. Paxton's policies are ultra-maga. I want you to know, I'm not going up to Washington, D.C. to join the Swamp Club. As AG, Paxton emphatically enforced the state's abortion ban and filed the lawsuit challenging the 2020 presidential election results. Terry General, Paxton, please rise.

But he has faced sharp scrutiny. In 2023, the Texas House passed 20 articles of impeachment against Paxton for bribery and abuse of power, with charges that he had an affair and got the woman a job. as part of a quid pro quo. The state Senate narrowly acquitted him, but his wife filed for divorce, and Cornyn has put out this new ad. Crooked Ken Paxton cheated on his wife. She's divorcing him on biblical grounds.

It is personal, and Paxton responded so. My dad is a really good guy. Loves God. He loves his family, and he loves this country. With his daughter, son-in-law, grandkids, and him on FaceTime. Le Hedsky says it may work. He has successfully dodged and overcome so many allegations, and yet the MAGA base in particular has continued to support him.

But what about the MAGA chief? Well, thank you very much, everybody. I'm thrilled to be back in the great state of Texas. President Donald Trump seems to be endorsing everyone. We have a great attorney general, Ken Paxton. Where's Ken? Hi, Ken. Hi, Ken.

And we have a great senator, John Cornyn. Hi, John. Thank you, John. For example, Friday. And another friend of mine who's doing very well, Wesley Hunt. Where's Wesley? Wesley Hunt. Doing a good job.

As for Hunt, his dogged crisscrossing of the state may mean neither Paxton nor Cornyn can get a majority, which would force a runoff in May. All that is again raising Texas. Democrats' hopes, even as they face their own brutal battle between electeds, Austin State House Representative James Talleyco, and Dallas Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett. You're spending more taxpayer resources arresting journalists than you are prosecuting pedophiles and creeps. On Capitol Hill, Crockett is a rhetorical brawler, known for not pulling punches, as seen with A.G. Pam Bondi.

I completely don't get how it is that you're sitting at the top of DOJ because you don't seem to be good at your job. argues Democrats in Texas and across the country want a fighter. Right now, people are not happy with the Democratic Party. I've seen the polling. What they want is someone who is going to be unafraid in the face of what we are facing right now. We have to win in November. I think she and I are committed to that. Talariko differs little from Crockett on policy, but enormously on style. He leans into God and does not throw elbows. My faith teaches me that love is the strongest force in the universe. Tala Rico rose to national prominence when he and other state

Democrats left Texas to delay GOP remapping efforts. It's not the first time you've caused some drama. More recently, he benefited after CBS blocked his interview with late night host Stephen Colbert. It went on YouTube instead, and Tala Rico raised more than $2 million the next day. For Democrats, it's an important decision about who is stronger and who is more electable. and it could offer guideposts for Democrats nationally, including with Hispanic voters, with whom Trump saw major gains in 2024. We've seen President Trump's very aggressive immigration policies. What we know is that a lot of those Hispanic voters appear to be shifting and walking away from the president.

But in addition to even the immigration issue, they say is that the president has not delivered in the way that they were hoping in the economy. Democrats are raising cash and economic. expectations in a high stakes year. I'm hopeful that the country is going to decide and Texans will decide that this has gone too far and that there'll be a change in the direction of our policies. But that does not change their recent reality. No Democrat has won statewide in more than 30 years. There is so much hope and enthusiasm going into this race that this may be the time. But keep in mind, Democrats in Texas are consistently used to having their hearts broken. They think that every race, it could happen.

Yes, there is a path, but that path is certainly not a straight path. To win, both parties are pushing the opponent they won. The governor and Republican interest groups are sending texts and ads to boost Crockett. Speaking with Democrats, they largely think Paxton gives them the best chance. Cornyn, the Republican incumbent, agrees. If Kim Paxson is at the top of the ticket, we risk losing the Senate seat, losing the majority in the House of Representatives, and it will take a toll on everybody on the ballot. It is a five-way race in Texas that blares out a signal for 2026. It will be a rugged and rough road to November. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Lisa Desjardin.

We return now to our top story of the day with an update with Nick Schiffen. So Nick, the news this is. evening that the U.S. government is calling for mass evacuations of Americans for more than a dozen countries. What's the latest? Yeah, 14 countries, and we're going to bring up this graphic again. This has been posted on Twitter because not only is it the countries that people have to leave, but also numbers and whatnot of how to get some information. Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, UAE, and Yemen, 14 countries. A former senior official who worked on these issues tell me, and this person called multiple people who worked with this person over the years.

Unprecedented. Never been done before on this scale. A U.S. official tells me tonight, safe to say this is more than a million people across the region. Now, this official also says that we shouldn't read into too much, the language that we just saw there about safety risks, that this is more about the momentum of the war, what we're seeing kind of crescendoing across the region,

the Iranian attack spreading throughout the region, and the counterattacks as well. Also, that U.S. officials have given this guidance to diplomatic families, and so they have to, by law, give it to all American citizens. But, again, what appears to be an unprecedented request for all Americans leave across the region, and some of these airports are already closed. Nick, Schiffen, with the very latest for us this evening, Nick, thank you. Thank you.

And while that is the News Hour for tonight, I'm Amna Navaz. On behalf of the entire NewsHour team, thank you for joining us.