WSJ What’s News - Trump Says It’s Unclear Who Will Lead Iran

Episode Date: March 3, 2026

P.M. Edition for Mar. 3. Three days after the U.S.-Israeli strikes killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, President Trump isn’t sure who he wants in power in Tehran. WSJ national security reporter Vera Bergengruen discusses the options he’s presented. Plus, Trump said Iran's military has been largely neutralized, which, as markets reporter Hannah Erin Lang describes, helped markets regain their footing from their earlier drop early today. And the case for going to war with Iran comes under growing scrutiny. We hear from WSJ reporter Alexander Ward about how the administration is talking about why it went to war, and why it matters. Alex Ossola hosts. Sign up for the WSJ's free What's News newsletter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you're early in your career and looking for insight, inspiration, and honest advice, listen to the Capital Ideas podcast. Hear from Capital Group professionals about leaning into the differences that make you unique, making decisions that last, and what it means to lead with purpose. The Capital Ideas Podcast, from Capital Group, available wherever you listen. Published by Capital Client Group, Inc. Trump says much of Iran's military is knocked out, and he seems to be deciding what to do about the country's future in real time. He's trying to make a deal with the regime that he's encouraging people to overthrow, which really shows that there isn't a clear, defined endgame. Plus, scrutiny is growing over the Trump administration's case for war. And the Middle East conflict sends stocks spinning.

It's Tuesday, March 3rd. I'm Alex O'Sullough for the Wall Street Journal. This is the PM edition of What's News. the top headlines and business stories that move the world today. It's been three days since the U.S.-Israeli strikes killed Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali-Hemeni. President Trump today told reporters that who comes next in Iran isn't obvious, and many of the country's would-be leaders have been killed. We had some in mind from that group that is dead, and now we have another group.

They may be dead also, basically. on reports. And he suggested that someone inside the regime should be in charge. It would seem to me that somebody from within might maybe would be more appropriate. I've said that. U.S. officials are also saying that President Trump is open to supporting groups in Iran who could fight to dislodge the regime. Journal National Security reporter Vera Bergen-Gruin joins me now from Washington. Okay, Vera, on a functional level, who is actually running Iran right now? So after the death of the Supreme Leader, the country formed an interim council, and there's basically three people. They're still heartline clerics, and they're waiting to select a successor,

but obviously they're in the middle of this massive military assault. And we have a little visibility into who's actually running a lot of those decisions, because besides the Supreme Leader, a lot of his inner circle, a lot of the very top officials that the U.S. kind of looked at as power brokers have been killed as well. We just heard a few clips from President Trump here about who he thinks should be in charge of the country. What role is the U.S. going to play in the successor to the Supreme Leader. Trump has floated quite a few options, and he's offering really contrasting visions into how that could work. He obviously, on Saturday, when he launched the military operation, called on Iran

to rise up to take over their government, basically encouraging a coup or a revolt. At the same time, he has been very clear that he would love what he calls the Venezuela model, which is working with an insider in the regime to keep most of it in place, keep it stable, and declare victory because he took out. the top bad guy, basically. So, you know, these are obviously very different things. He's trying to make a deal with the regime that he's encouraging people to overthrow, which really shows that there isn't a clear, defined endgame. What is the best case scenario for the administration? What are they looking for in a successor? It really depends who you ask, the president. He's been quite clear that he

does not want boots on the ground. He does not want to do nation building. The best case scenario is finding someone who is already has authority in the country, who can take over, who can manage all this mess, and he can get out, say that he's deposed the foreign leader of this brutal regime and declare victory. A lot of other people in the administration disagree with that. A lot of the heartliners who have been pressing Trump to take action, you know, really want the entire repressive structure dismantled. But several people I spoke with who were in Trump's first administration said he had two rules. One was military action had to be one and done. You do one overwhelming show of force. We saw this in Venezuela. We saw it in Nigeria. We saw it in Iran last year. And then you get out and you

declare victory. He broke that rule now in this extended military engagement. We have six dead American troops. And, you know, he said this could last for four weeks. The second rule was no boots on the ground, no U.S. invasion. He basically built his whole political career on saying that he had learned the mistakes of the post-9-11 war on terror, and he wasn't going to commit U.S. troops to any extended quagmire's in the Middle East. This is the closest he's ever come to really testing that. That was WS.J reporter, Vera Bergen-Gruin. Thanks, Vera. Thanks so much. President Trump said today that much of Iran's military has been, quote, knocked out. Meanwhile, U.S. embassies and diplomatic missions remain under fire in the Middle East, with two attacks today on the U.S. embassy in

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The U.S. has shut down embassies in Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon indefinitely, and consular operations are largely suspended in several countries. The State Department says it's working on getting military and charter flights for American citizens who want to leave the region. Meanwhile, back in the U.S., President Trump's reasons for striking Iran are facing growing scrutiny. He's made a number of accusations about the regime's threats to its neighbors, American troops, and the U.S. itself. Speaking from the Oval Office today, President Trump said he ordered the strike because he was afraid that Iran would attack first. I thought we were going to have a situation where we were going to be attacked.

They were getting ready to attack Israel. They were getting ready to attack others. But experts and U.S. officials with access to classified information say the administration's assertions are incomplete, unsubstantiated, or flat out wrong. WS.J national security reporter Alex Ward joins me now with more. Alex, ahead of the strike, President Trump had said a number of different things about why the U.S. should attack Iran. He threatened strikes over the crackdown on anti-regime protesters. Then in negotiations, Iran was refusing to dismantle its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Trump also mentioned Iran's decades-long aggression towards the U.S., but in the lead-up to the attack,

senior administration officials argued that Iran was developing intercontinental missiles capable of reaching American shores. What's behind that claim? And what does other evidence show about this? So the U.S. was receiving intelligence that the Iranians were trying to really go whole hog on building up a missile arsenal. They believe some of the material they found in Iran's possession could be used for more missiles or even do ICBM work

in an air-neconab ballistic missile, which is an ocean-spanning missile. And they've been testing satellite launch vehicles, so they've literally put satellites in the space, which is like directly conducive toward making an ICBM. But the question for basically all the administration's arguments are, you know, was this looming threat, an imminent threat? I rattled off a bunch of different stuff. Does that mean that the Trump administration was shifting its justification or that all of these things were kind of taken together?

The administration had multiple arguments for why this needed to happen. You did list them. Then they were really trying to make the case for the wine now, Friday, night, Saturday morning. Basically, their case was the Iranians are weak and they're making these moves towards nuclear development and missile development. and they might strike Americans, they're basically making a defensive case saying that they're doing this out of self-defense because the American homeland was going to be

or was nearly going to be directly targeted. Look, the Iranian regime is odious, and they did crack down on protesters in January. They had killed American service members over many decades. They were responsible for terror and destruction throughout the Middle East. But the case they're making is that somehow this Iranian threat, which has existed,

a long time was going to attack Americans or was near achieving this exquisite missile capability, it's just not what is in the intelligence. It's not what the security officials that we talk to are saying. That was WSJ National Security Reporter, Alex. Thanks, Alex. Thanks for having me. Coming up, it was a roller coaster day in markets. That story and more after the break. How are the U.S. businesses of Philip Morris International invested in America. We're invested in advancing science, giving adults who smoke better options. We're invested in American manufacturing, helping local economies thrive. We're invested in community, supporting military veterans and their families, disaster relief, and economic

empowerment. Because we're proud to be invested in America. See how at uspMI.com. The Dow went on a wild ride in today's trading, dropping more than 1,200 points in the morning and then clawing back some of those losses to end about 400 points lower. All three of the indexes finish the day down roughly 1%. Journal Markets reporter Hannah Aaron Lang says investors are reacting to different signals from the Trump administration. If this conflict is brief, if it's relatively contained, then the idea is that markets can digest that risk a little more easily than Trump and other officials made some comments that seem to indicate that this would be a much,

more prolonged conflict, that these attacks would continue for weeks rather than days. Then President Trump made some comments that Iran's military had largely been neutralized, he said. And I think investors might have gained some confidence there that, again, there's maybe some evidence that this won't last as long as they had feared, and therefore what kind of impact, how large of an impact is this going to have on the entire global economy? Oil prices continue to soar. Futures for Brent Crude, the Global Oil Benchmark, briefly topped $85 a barrel for the first time since the middle of 2024. The average U.S. price of a gallon of regular gasoline rose 11 cents to $3.11 today. That remains far off records of more than $5 a gallon from back in 2022. President Trump said today that oil prices will be high, quote, for a little while, but should drop after hostilities with Iran end. Tanker traffic in the the strait of Hormuz is at a virtual standstill with more than 3,000 ships waiting to get through. President Trump said this afternoon that the U.S. Navy will escort tankers through the strait if necessary.

Target's comparable sales fell 2.5% in the most recent quarter. It's 13th straight quarter of weak or falling sales. The retailer's new CEO has a plan to pull the company out of its funk. Target's merchandising, shopping experience, and technology are all up for improvements. For this year, Target expects net sales to grow around 2%. Shares closed up more than 6.7%. The Justice Department told a court today that it plans to press forward with the defense of President Trump's executive orders sanctioning law firms. Less than 24 hours ago, the Justice Department asked to drop the cases. The executive orders punishing the firms included stripping security clearances and restricted their access to federal buildings. Several firms then sued and won in court.

the Trump administration appealed. And today is the primary election in Texas and North Carolina. The winners of the closely watched races will compete in November's general election, and the outcome could tip the balance of the Senate. Go to WSJ.com tonight for results and analysis. And that's what's news for this Tuesday afternoon. Today's show is produced by Pierre Bienname, with supervising producer Tali Arbel.

I'm Alex O'Sullough for the Wall Street Journal. We'll be back with a new show tomorrow morning. Thanks for listening. Enterprises are already creating efficiencies with agenic AI, particularly in areas like finance, HR, and IT, says Jason Gersadis, CEO of Deloitte, U.S. Those will continue to proliferate and strengthen, and it will change the work that gets done, and work will increasingly be delivered through agentic capabilities. Grizadas believes the most transformative impacts of agentic systems are still to come.

It will fuel innovation. It will fuel the pivot into market creation, market diversification strategies that will open up new markets to clients and to organizations who are looking for growth and looking for differentiated access to new markets, which I think is the most exciting thing. Visit Deloitte.com to learn how your enterprise can help successfully leverage agentic AI. The views and opinions expressed by podcast speakers and guests are solely their own and do not reflect the opinions of Deloitte or its personnel, nor does Deloitte advocate or endorse any individuals or entities. featured on the episodes. Custom content from WSJ is a unit of the Wall Street Journal advertising department. The Wall Street Journal News Organization was not involved in the creation of this content.