[0:00]The big wave is coming. We've knocked out 10 ships. Whatever it takes. We're ahead of schedule. Direct quotes from President Trump on war with Iran. We
[0:09]examine all the angles. Was this the time to topple the Iranian regime? Do the opportunities outweigh the risks? On those questions, we give you two
[0:19]distinctly different opinions. The Texas primary is tomorrow. Absent war, this would be our big focus. But Ed O'Keefee never loses sight of big political
[0:28]stories. He joins us from Austin. Hello everyone, I'm Major Garrett.
[0:40]Welcome to the Takeout. We come to you tonight and quite probably for the remainder of this week from New York. US and Israeli air strikes which started Saturday and continue a pace have done
[0:50]the following. decapitated the Iranian theocratic regime, unsettled global oil markets, made battlefields of several Gulf states, and least consequentially
[1:00]of all, altered my work assignments. So, New York it is, and quite obviously, war it is. In interviews over the weekend, President Trump said regime change was
[1:12]part of this endeavor. He even implied there was some sense within the US government of who might come next in Iran. Those references, interestingly, were scrubbed today at the Pentagon and
[1:22]the White House. But absence of reference does not erase the result. The regime has been changed, and something will come next. What that is and what
[1:33]becomes of it is now a US and Israeli concern and project. Details to be filled in later. For now, the US and Israel own the skies over Iran. The
[1:44]Iranian military with whatever remains of its command and control structure has fired retaliatory strikes in many directions. Six US service personnel
[1:54]have been killed so far. So the question, how long will this continue? >> We're already substantially ahead of our time
[2:06]projections, but whatever the time is, it's okay. Whatever it takes, we will always and we have from right from the be beginning, we projected four to five
[2:16]weeks, but uh we have capability to go far longer than that. We'll do it. Whatever somebody said today, they said, "Oh, well, president wants to do it
[2:26]really quickly. After that, he'll get bored." I don't get bored. There's nothing boring about this. >> Nothing boring at all. Danger lurks across the region. In Iran, though
[2:38]teetering due to internal instability, is not powerless. Its terrorist proxies are most definitely weakened but not vanquished. We begin tonight with that as a backdrop with our Matt Gutman, who joins us from Tel Aviv. Matt, set the
[2:49]scene. Major, I think you just hit the nail on the head. I don't think in recent history we have seen the Middle East in so much turmoil or so many nations
[3:00]involved in a single conflict, right? We have not only the pugilists of Israel and the US against Iran, you have Iran lashing out against basically all of its neighbors. Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi
[3:12]Arabia, uh Lebanon is involved, Jordan is involved. Hisba's proxies or Iran's proxies in Lebanon, Hisbala have launched drones towards Cypress. Now
[3:23]Cypress is involved. The Brits are involved. We are talking about a conflict that is incredibly broad at this moment. I don't think we've seen anything like it in history. And the one thing that we can safely say at this
[3:34]point that the Iran that existed a week ago is not going to be the Iran that exists a week from now or a month from now or a year from now. Clearly, there is going to be some sort of change. We don't know how major it's going to be.
[3:46]And the biggest question, of course, is the one that President Trump just talked about. What is the staying power? How long does this conflict continue? He's talked about it lasting for four weeks, maybe five weeks. He's also talked about
[3:57]offramps and maybe talking and uh pausing those air strikes. We don't simply know, but I think everybody right now here in the Middle East, particularly in Israel and particularly
[4:07]in Iran, are digging in for a longer conflict of many weeks. Major >> Matt, what does it look and feel like in Israel based on your observation? And what is the Netanyahu government telling
[4:19]the Israeli population about what to expect? >> Very different tonight than it was last night. tonight. And there are a couple of reasons for that. Yesterday, there about 34 uh sirens that sounded in the
[4:30]greater Tel Aviv area. People going up and down to bomb shelters. Today, very, very few. And what I'm being told from Israeli military sources is they are being very successful at eliminating
[4:42]Iran's mobile missile launchers and the ones that are buried wherever they are. They've taken out at least half of them uh over the past year or so, and they believe that 70 to 80% of them could be
[4:52]obliterated by the end of this week. So, we're seeing fewer launchers, but there's something interesting that Iran is doing also. They are watching what President Trump is saying. And so, I am told that the assessment is that they
[5:03]are metering their missile launches as well to make sure that they have enough missiles and enough launchers to last for four or five weeks to continue the pressure on Israel. And you mentioned
[5:13]Netanyahu. He has been pushing for this very event for the entirety of his career. And now it is happening. But the question as you mentioned it is what
[5:23]happens in the day off after. Do they topple the regime? Do they install someone who is more favorable to the US? If there is regime change, who is going to do it? And that could be a very very
[5:33]difficult thing, especially without boots on the ground. So um everything is very much still in turmoil. Hill Major >> Matt Gutman. Excellent stuff. Thank you very very much. We turn now to the White House and CBS News chief White House
[5:45]correspondent Nancy Cordis. So let's pick up on what Matt just mentioned there, Nancy. this idea about boots on the boots on the ground. Lots of administration officials said, "No, no, no. There's no reason to talk about that." But interestingly, today in an
[5:57]interview with the New York Post, the president said he doesn't have yips about boots on the ground. Other presidents have. He doesn't. Didn't say he was going to deploy anyone, >> but he certainly opened up that door,
[6:08]>> right? He said it's a possibility. He said he doesn't foresee needing boots on the ground, but that he is certainly willing to keep that door open. Um and that is just one of the things that he
[6:20]has said today that indicate that this is going to be a longer term prospect this conflict than he had perhaps initially signaled. As recently as this
[6:30]past Saturday, Major, the president said, "Maybe I'll only strike Iran for two to three days and then I'll pause if they're willing to talk and make new concessions." today in the East Room of
[6:41]the White House. He said that actually the plan all along has been to strike Iran for four to five weeks and that uh he's open to going on longer than that
[6:53]if it's necessary. He said, and you played a bit of that sound, that he knows that some people think he'll just lose interest and kind of move on to the next thing. He said uh he doesn't get
[7:03]bored and he's all in. Nancy, I want to play for you in our audience sound from the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who was up on the hill today to brief significant members of Congress about this operation and its underlying
[7:15]rationale. And he said this, let's listen. >> This operation needed to happen because Iran in about a year or a year and a half would cross the line of immunity, meaning they would have so many short-range missiles, so many drones
[7:26]that no one could do anything about it because they could hold the whole world hostage. Look at the damage they're doing now. And this is a weakened Iran. Imagine a year from now. >> That sounds to my ear, Nancy, more
[7:37]explicit than we even heard from the president or the defense secretary earlier today. >> It is. Uh we heard a couple of new uh and more wholesome ration from the
[7:47]secretary of state this afternoon. He's there on Capitol Hill knowing that he's going to get a grilling from lawmakers who have a lot of questions about not just the why of striking Iran, but the
[7:58]why now. And so he offered up a couple of explanations. Number one, and you heard it there, he said that they were um building missiles and drones at such
[8:08]a rapid clip that if the US didn't strike Iran now, it would be much more difficult to control them in a year. He also argued that the US had analysis and
[8:20]intelligence that if another country, say Israel, were to strike Iran, that Iran would then immediately strike US
[8:29]assets in the region. And so therefore the decision was made that the US should just go ahead and strike Iran first side by side with Israel. The question is uh
[8:40]will lawmakers accept those explanations? Will they buy those explanations? Will uh certainly get an earful from them as they emerge from those closed dooror briefings on Capitol
[8:52]Hill. >> And certainly just a year ago there was an analysis the US government that did not paint such a dire picture of Iranian ballistic missile capabilities. I'm sure members of Congress will follow up on that. Nancy Cordis, North the White
[9:03]House. Thank you. >> You got it. >> I'm joined now by retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery. Admiral Montgomery, it's a pleasure to have you. I want to talk to you about something that Secretary of State Marco Rubio just said
[9:15]moments ago on Capitol Hill. He said the Israelis were going to attack Iranian targets and therefore the United States knew that if it didn't do something preemptively, it would have been
[9:24]vulnerable, so it joined those attacks. Is that how you understand how this progressed? And do you think that in any way changes the way we should evaluate the root preemptive cause for this
[9:36]action? You know, I mean, there's a chance that's true. I I think I'd watched General Kaine's, you know, 20-minut discussion today and recognized that the
[9:46]United States had a pretty good operational plan for a combined US-Israeli attack on like six different lines of effort. Um, I don't think we
[9:56]like picked this up, you know, in a in a three-hour uhoh moment when we realized they were going. So, my gut reaction is we and the Israelis planned did significant planning. I think what is
[10:08]fair to say is that the exact timing was driven by Israeli intelligence that said our number one target plus four to five
[10:17]of the top 10 in addition to him were at a meeting and we weren't going to have this easy an IRGC leadership targeting
[10:26]um uh period again for you know days, weeks or months. So maybe the exact moment of the attack was driven by Israeli intelligence and decision-making, but the agreement to do
[10:37]a combined aggressive multiple line of effort attack is something we and the Israelis had agreed to ahead of time. >> And when the president says, as he did to Jake Tapper of CNN, that the big one
[10:49]is coming, that the biggest of the aerial bombard hasn't arrived yet, what does that suggest to you? Um, I think that might be a little
[10:59]hyperbolic. The 900 dimpy, the 900 strike event on day one was pretty big because you're mixing in not just US Navy and Air Force
[11:10]air with Israeli air, but in addition the Tomahawks uh attackums, the Lucas drones. I think that what you're going to see over the next few days are significant
[11:22]um airto ground attacks executed against multiple lines of effort um you know including continuing the IRGC leadership
[11:31]in their facilities including the um ballistic missiles production stowage and facility you know and the actual missiles in the field and drone missiles
[11:41]in the field and production facilities. Um so what I think he might mean is the next two weeks will be uh the most impressive you know cost of position air
[11:52]power that you know anyone's seen possibly ever in terms of just amount of accurate ordinance placed on target. >> Can we assess simply through satellite
[12:03]imagery how much these ballistic missile sites have been damaged or do we need some kind of covert or overt eyes on? So uh our overhead im our overhead
[12:15]collection is is imagery um massent you know measuring signals of you know what happened during the strike um signals intelligence of how they talk about it
[12:26]right afterwards people tend to be extremely frank and honest in the moments after a strike um you know so you collect all of that and do I think we'd have a very a good battle damage assessment yes do I think that we'd have
[12:38]enough BDA battle damage assessment to say we need to restrike that Yes. If we said it was 97% destroyed and it end up being 92% destroyed, would I be surprised? No. I mean, well, you know,
[12:49]there'll be mistakes, but they'll be in the margins, not in the main. In the main, we'll know what we hit. Now, the one exception of that is deeply bunkered stowage of nuclear weapons where they
[13:00]spent a lot of money to be able to do that. So, we don't we don't know that till someone till you get real human intelligence. and uh and as in Fordo and
[13:10]some of the the other things we struck uh LA during the 12-day war. >> Retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery. It's been a pleasure, sir. Thank you. >> Thank you for having me.
[13:20]>> Chief Washington analyst and CBS Sunday Morning national correspondent Robert Costa joins me now. Robert, your thoughts on this day after the weekend when you spoke to President Trump when
[13:30]this had just begun. >> Good to be with you, Major. This is clearly a crossroads for the president as he moves forward on foreign policy. He's not seeing this, I'm told, by his
[13:41]allies and those close to him as some kind of debate he's navigating inside of the administration. He's comfortable with his decision. He believes that the United States has to eliminate any
[13:52]possibility of Iran securing a nuclear weapon. So, this was not exactly about the day or the time of the attacks. It was about making a decision that would wholesale address his policy.
[14:04]>> Do you think any of this, Robert, based on your reporting, was precipitated by the sense the president has that not only was compared to, let's say, his first term, Iran is weaker, its proxies
[14:15]are weaker, so it was more easy to go after. Point one, but also point two, this is a midterm campaign year. And if he loses control of Congress, things become more difficult. He's more hamstrung with a Democratic majority
[14:26]possibly in the House. not probably but long shot in the Senate that now was a better time than any of the others to do this. >> Major, on your latter point, I have not
[14:36]heard any about a midterm calculation in terms of this attack at all. On your former point, there is a belief inside of the administration that Iran was somewhat weak. In fact, the president
[14:48]told me on Saturday that he was somewhat surprised at the extent of the retalatory response from Iran. they expected a little bit more and so far yes it's been aggressive on numerous
[14:59]fronts but it's not exactly in terms of the scope of it what the United States expected so there was a a chance here in his view to try to achieve his aims
[15:09]Robert there also seems to be some if not debate within the administration at least some rhetoric that is hard to align Vice President Vance said no way
[15:19]would we be be involved in a longunning war there in Iran have been references to boots on the ground. The president has made a reference. He's open to that. He doesn't get the yips from that. And
[15:30]yet others have said, "No, it's not about that at all. It's about a very specific set of military objectives." Is the administration at any level having a hard time creating
[15:41]rhetoric and explanations that fundamentally align? >> Uh, not in my view, based on my reporting major. I see is a president
[15:51]who when I asked him over the weekend, do you define this as a war? He said, I don't want to answer that question. I don't need to answer that question. And that's revealing to a point because it
[16:02]shows you a president who's looking at this as a response to what he perceives as a threat from Iran, not as some sort of ideological mission or a war he wants to see the United States become
[16:13]entrenched to in the region. And this is a president who's building a policy of eradicating nuclear threats and also sending a signal that he does not like what he often says behind the scenes to
[16:25]people who who he works with. Don't play games with me. He thought the Iranians were playing games in terms of the negotiations. So he took this aggressive action. Now it could have fallout. We've
[16:35]seen presidents before deal with Iran and other issues where they believe they can have a certain objective in the Middle East. And whether it's President Carter with Iran or President George W. Bush with Iraq and Afghanistan. Things
[16:46]have a way of turning corners and having twists. But for the moment, this is not being conceived as something that's longunning. Rather, it's a way to get Iran to a position where it does not
[16:56]have the capability to have a nuclear weapon or develop a nuclear weapon and it has the ability to come back to the negotiating table and set up a government that's more favorable for the United States security in the view of
[17:08]the Trump administration. >> Robert Costa, always a pleasure. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. The House Oversight Committee has released the videos of Bill and Hillary Clinton's depositions about Jeffrey Epstein. The former president
[17:19]and first lady sat for these extraordinary closed doorors last week. Legal reporter Katrina Kaufman joins me here at the table in New York. Katrina, great to see you. Let me play you from
[17:29]the audience, Bill Clinton in reference to a question about him, Jeffrey Epstein, and relatively young girls. >> Were there anybody on the flights that
[17:40]you can recall under age 18? To the best of my knowledge, there was not. If there was and I knew it, I would be uncomfortable.
[17:50]>> Okay. Best of my knowledge, there were not. And if there were, I would feel uncomfortable. All right. Not necessarily direct, but uh at least nominally responsive. Anything else? And I know it's early. We've been plowing
[18:02]through this collectively here at CBS News. It's about, I think, 10 hours between the two of them >> about that. >> Yeah. Anything else that jumps out to you? >> Yes. I mean, he's asked a lot of pointed questions. He is asked about allegedly
[18:13]Virginia Dufrey testified that she saw Bill Clinton on Epstein's island and wrote about that in her diary. They said Bill Clinton said emphatically that's not true. I've never been on that
[18:24]island. Um he was asked about the letter in the birthday book that we've seen of Jeffrey Epstein and he did say that he wrote that. He said that his staff had asked him to do so. Um and he was asked
[18:34]a lot about his relationship with Galain Maxwell. He admitted that they were close and it was hard for him when he learned about what she had done. But he also said when asked that he never had
[18:44]sex with anyone, that he met through Galileain Maxwell. Um, as we heard, he he denied ever seeing anything suspicious when he was asked whether Jeffrey Epstein was creepy. And something that I thought was
[18:55]interesting, too, is he was asked about his time on the plane with Jeffrey Epstein and the conversations they would have, Major. And he said he really seemed to be like a vacuum cleaner. He really wanted information.
[19:06]>> Interesting. He did collect a lot of things in life. Information, wealth, friends in high places, and lots of other terrible and criminal things. What about Hillary Clinton? Anything there? >> Something that stood out to me, and
[19:18]we're still going through it, but at the very end of the deposition, they were actually asking for her advice. They were asking her, "How do we determine whether Jeffrey Epstein was an asset, whether he was a spy?" You >> mean an intelligence asset?
[19:30]>> Yeah, an intelligence asset. um and also with her all the work that she did with sex trafficking and human trafficking. They were asking for her assessment of Jeffrey Epstein, whether he was engaged in human trafficking. And so she was
[19:41]sort of answering that and she said that she hopes that they will strengthen the human trafficking laws and that she would like to help in any way that she can. Um let's take a listen to what she had to say.
[19:51]>> Had no relationship, no knowledge of, never met or talked to uh Jeffrey Epstein. I viewed uh Galain Maxwell as
[20:01]an acquaintance. Um someone that um I might see but had no real uh relationship with. >> Yeah. And as we heard, she said she did
[20:11]not know Jeffrey Epstein. She really had no information directly about him, but that women and girls were abused here and she hopes that the laws are strengthened and they figure out what happened here, how he misled all these
[20:22]people so that this won't happen again. >> And we will continue to go through the depositions and if there's more, I'm sure you'll bring it to us tomorrow. Katrina, thank you so very much. >> Thank you, Major. >> Still to come, recent polling shows
[20:32]Americans are pretty wary of war against Iran, fearing casualties and possibly rising oil prices. Two veterans come on our program to debate the question, was this a worthy fight, and is now the time
[20:43]to fight it? Plus, Congress braces for a showdown, possibly on President Trump's war powers. And it's primary day tomorrow in Texas. We look at the candidates in both parties vying for a
[20:55]US Senate seat. The Takeout returns from New York in 90 seconds. Welcome back to the Takeout coming your
[21:07]way from our broadcast center in New York. We're continuing, of course, to follow the US war on Iran and what appears to be a somewhat rapidly expanding conflict in the Middle East. I want to turn to Elliot Arian and David
[21:17]Bella. Elliot is a former CIA officer, Marine Corps veteran, who is a CBS News contributor, been on our program several times. David former he's a med not a former you're a Medal of Honor recipient there is no former there ever and he's
[21:29]an Army veteran he's also the co-founder of Vets for Freedom which you might recall secretary of state secretary of defense Pete heath ran back in the day so I want to start this uh Elliot I'll
[21:40]give you an opening 30 or 45 seconds no is your answer about now and this effort tell me why >> well I actually frame it as no major
[21:51]sorry it's not quite um so much as binary for me. I mean, listen, if this effort is successful, I applaud it. You know, the Iranian regime has targeted US
[22:02]interests in the region for for years. You know, I have friends who were killed by Iranian proxies. So, if this endeavor is successful, uh I'm all for it. It is,
[22:13]however, incredibly risky. It relies upon elements of Iranians of civil society to rise up and take control of their government. Uh we are toppling a
[22:23]regime in a region that is extremely complex. Iran is the second largest country in the Middle East. Uh and I just am very skeptical that this isn't going to get very very messy and that
[22:35]it's not going to be over for quite some time. So call call me rooting for this to succeed, but uh doubting that it will be as easy as the Trump administration
[22:45]is saying it might be. David, uh, do me your analysis of the risk opportunity proposition. >> Well, look, uh, assessment of any combat operation,
[22:57]and I and I respect that. Uh, I think we're I'm far too emotional when it comes to Iran because of all the people that we lost uh because of the lack of
[23:07]response that we've had uh for decades over uh this regime and the way it's conducted itself. The reality here is that we're seeing uh a an operation that
[23:18]we've never seen before. Uh there is a mindset uh with this Department of War that you know when when you fight uh that the chains come off and and you go
[23:28]after the enemy for the end state and with here if we're going to negotiate and sit around uh with the Ayatollah after negotiation after negotiation at
[23:38]what point do we just say enough's enough? I respect the Trump administration for saying we're not going to repeat the sins of George H, you know, HW W Bush, Barack Obama, Bill
[23:50]Clinton. Ronald Reagan, Republicans belove Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan failed us when it came to Iran and did not respond when we lost Marines in
[24:00]Beirut. This president is saying no more. And I can't from the bottom of my heart with gold star families and friends that we've lost. This has been coming for a long time. I don't think
[24:11]anyone in my audience would disagree with anything you just said, David, but on the risk proposition that what may come next could be messy. How do you evaluate that? >> I don't know of any confrontation. Uh
[24:23]Maduro could have been You want to talk about messy? We just had a helicopter pilot that received the Medal of Honor. He landed on a machine gun nest. Uh these things are messy and there's always the uh capability of uh with our
[24:34]amazing technology could be neutralized. we could find ourselves uh you know outnumbered, outgunned. These things happen. But at the end of the day uh how
[24:45]many more Americans are we going to lose? How many more innocent people? The response of a regime in its death rattle is to launch drones at hotels and apartment buildings. I I don't know how
[24:56]we can fight. And here's another thing. Ukraine, the righteous fight in Ukraine against Vladimir Putin. Who's arming Vladimir Putin? These are the axis of evil that we heard about. so many years
[25:07]ago. Uh I believe that this is different. The way we fight is different. Technology is different. And I believe that we can be clean. I trust our military. I trust our leadership.
[25:18]And so far, what we're seeing right now, domination of the air in in 48 hours. This is one of the most impressive military operations I've seen in my lifetime. >> Elliot, many a commanding general have
[25:29]been told this time it's going to be different, not just in the Middle East. But I'm going to give you the last minute and a half to uh give us your perspective on what you've heard from David and what you have written so far on free press.
[25:40]>> I think oftent times you know we uh Americans you know we because we have such an effective and capable military uh that is has the ability to accomplish
[25:51]incredible missions like what we saw in Venezuela. We lose sight of the fact that war is fundamentally a a political action. You use military force to affect political change on the ground. Uh and
[26:03]in Iran, the politics are essential and we are staking everything not on whether or not our jets will be able to get in and hit their targets. We know they're going to be able to do that. But the
[26:14]question is then what? How does that change the politics in Iran? How does that change the politics in the Middle East? And for me, that's where there is enormous question mark. And if we look
[26:25]at the history of the Middle East, politics there is traditionally extremely messy, which makes it appear that this war is going to be messy and go on for quite some time and that
[26:35]ultimately the juice might not be worth the squeeze. But I'm rooting for I'm rooting for success. Uh but if I'm watching one thing, it's the politics on the ground in Iran. Very quickly,
[26:46]Elliot, Iran was a malevolent actor in Iraq after the 2003 invasion and toppling of Saddam. Syria is now destabilized. Do you see anything that
[26:58]is fearful to you about Iran, Iraq, Syria as unpredictable results of what has just occurred? >> Well, I think this goes back to the idea of what are the politics on the ground
[27:09]in Iran. You know, the Ayatollas do have real support. It's minority support, but 20% of the Iranian population are hardline supporters of the Islamic Republic. I don't know if that support
[27:20]just vanishes. And if it doesn't, you also have the risk of a civil war inside Iran, which would be incredibly destabilizing for the region as we saw with Syria. >> Elliot Arian, David Belly, I appreciate you both for coming on and giving your
[27:32]perspective so my audience could take it all in. Thank you very much for your time. Son of federal agent Robert Levenson, vanished in Iran nearly a decade ago, is urging President Trump to hold Iran quote unquote accountable. I
[27:43]will speak with Daniel Levenson next right here on the takeout. From our CBS News broadcast center in
[27:55]New York, let me welcome you back to the takeout. The family of retired FBI agent Robert Levenson says justice is now being served in the US and as US and
[28:06]Israel strike Iran. Levenson, if you don't remember, disappeared in Iran March 9th, 2007 during an unauthorized CIA mission. The US government has concluded he died while being held in
[28:18]Iranian custody. His son, Daniel Levenson, joins me now. Daniel, thank you for your time. uh please remind my audience of your father's story in relationship to the Iranian government
[28:29]and the US government. >> Thank you for having me. My father disappeared on March 9th, 2007 uh on
[28:38]Kish Island, Iran. Uh he was taken in uh by authorities there um and was never heard from again. They have lied to us uh every day ever since. Uh we still
[28:49]have no answers about what happened to him, when he would have died or who was where he was being held over there. Um so with these recent developments, we're we're hoping that this will eventually
[29:01]lead to answers for us. >> And what were the circumstances of his presence there? >> Uh he was doing what he had been doing in the FBI as a private investigator this time for the CIA, investigating
[29:12]corruption and uh moneyaundering. and he was meeting with a man on that island um who may have had the information for him. >> Understood. And in the process that your
[29:22]family went through, what was it like to try to get answers if at all from the Iranian authorities? And how helpful or maybe not so helpful was the US government in trying to facilitate you
[29:34]getting your family getting some of those answers? >> It was frustrating every step of the way. Um particularly with the Iranians. Uh my mom and I traveled to Iran in
[29:43]December of 2007. I went back uh 10 years ago um on my own to Kish Island to try to press them for answers. They have stonewalled us at every turn. Uh they've
[29:53]lied to us. They they have no uh qualms about lying straight to your face with a smile. Um the US government's uh work with us has improved over the years. There were a lot of missteps in those
[30:04]early years. Um, we're hopeful with this current administration, with the aggressive posture, um, the pressure that they're putting on the Iranians, it's going to help us, uh, come to a resolution and hold the Iranians
[30:16]accountable. >> And let me, uh, ask you this then, what would accountability to your family look like? And do you think now that the regime is certainly much weaker, it might fall in on itself entirely, that
[30:27]you might have an opportunity that has been denied to you low these many years of finding out exactly what happened? >> Yeah. Um there are several opportunities eventually, nobody knows what's actually going to happen these these coming
[30:39]weeks. Um but I think regardless of whatever government ends up taking place, whether it's a American friendly government or not, um there will be talks with the Trump administration.
[30:49]There will be an opportunity uh for our side to force them to the table and talk and come clean, provide answers. We have not received his remains. Um so they're
[31:00]going to have to provide us answers. At the same time, there is still a $25 million reward for information on my dad's disappearance that's out there. There are going to be defections. There are going to be people who are fleeing
[31:11]the sinking ship in Iran and it's going to be an opportunity for them who there are people inside Iran who know exactly what happened with my dad and there's a lot of money involved if they can provide the answers.
[31:22]>> When the United States government concluded that your father had died in captivity, did you meaning the family readily accept that? reluctantly accept that or do you still not in some part accept it?
[31:34]>> Uh we accepted it. There was evidence provided to us. It's been 6 years since that meeting. Um it was de definitely difficult. It was not surprising after
[31:44]13 years. Um but it it was devastating for us that our efforts didn't produce the result that we wanted and bring my brought my dad home.
[31:54]>> And you'd like I'm sure to recover the remains if they are recoverable. What else would accountability look like to you and your family? >> Uh, we'd like to hear what happened to
[32:05]him. Uh, we'd like to find out more specifically on who gave the orders to arrest my father, who gave the orders to keep quiet about it. Um, the people who were all involved in the Iranian
[32:16]government, and they're going to have to pay the price and and uh, face music about that. >> Daniel Levenson, son of Robert Levenson. I appreciate you coming in very much. Thank you. >> Thank you for having me. As Texas
[32:27]Republicans sling mud at one another ahead of tomorrow's Senate primaries, the president, well, he just will not endorse. You're watching The Takeout.
[32:36]More on all that coming up, I promise. Welcome back to the Takeout. It's
[32:49]primary day tomorrow in Texas. Ed O'Keefe joins us from Waco, not Austin, but Waco. Ed, take it away. Major, this is like Christmas Eve for those of us who are paid to cover
[33:00]politics. It all begins tomorrow here deep in the heart of Texas. We used to be led by a Texan who like to say things like, you know, uh, this race is closer than a two-tight bathing suit on a
[33:11]two-long car ride back from the beach on both sides of the aisle. Dan Rather would be correct. Let's start with the Republicans. John Cornin is a four-term US senator seeking a fifth. He is warning his supporters not to be
[33:23]complacent. That if they don't show up, either of his conservative opponents, Ken Paxton, the attorney general, or Wesley Hunt, the Houston area congressman, could win. Listen to his warnings.
[33:34]>> I know Republican voters. And as I said earlier, really it's a question of who bothers to show up. If only the most radical uh people show up in the
[33:45]primary, um then I think that's uh going to be a challenge. If we get a broad spectrum of Republican voters to ch turn
[33:55]out in the primary, I I'm optimistic about the outcome. >> Now, both of Cornin's opponents saw those comments to CBS News and have been sending them out to their supporters
[34:06]today over social media, even on text messages. Ken Paxton here in Waco a little while ago responded to Senator Cornin. Here's what he had to say. >> To talk about Republican voters is radical in some segment of that. I mean,
[34:18]I think he did that at the convention when he got booed by about 10 to 12,000 Republican delegates. These people are not radical. They are they love the Constitution. They want their freedom. They want a senator to go up there and
[34:29]fight for them. He has not done that. This idea that somehow these people are radical. They're they're god-fearing great Americans who love Texas and who love this country.
[34:41]>> Now, Congressman Wesley Hunt makes the ideological and generational arguments against Senator Corning, saying simply he's been in public office too long. >> You see, John Cornin is one of two
[34:51]Republican incumbents that the president has not endorsed. And I can tell you that if the president would have endorsed anybody when I waited eight months to get into this race, I wouldn't be here right now. And so >> if he'd endorsed John Cornin, you would
[35:03]have stayed >> in the very beginning. Of course I would have. >> Now remember the rules here in Texas require you to get 50 plus 1% in order to win. If that doesn't happen in a three-way race, at least two of these
[35:14]contenders could be headed to a runoff in late May. So Democrats see an opening, not only because of that crowded Republican race and the possibility that a conservative who can't win statewide gets the nomination,
[35:25]but also because this state's been changing. But you got two Democrats on the ballot down here. Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett of Dallas and James Telerico, a state lawmaker from Austin,
[35:35]who's also a seminarian. He argues to us Democrats should extend a hand to Republicans and independence. We talked to him in San Antonio.
[35:43]I was raised by uh by working parents who worked overtime to provide for me. And you know, I remember them telling me that the Democratic Party fights for the
[35:54]people. And we're not all, you know, in recent years, the National Democratic Party has lost that kind of fight. I think in 2026, you're going to see a new
[36:04]generation of leaders stepping up to take our party back to its working class roots like we like we remember from the New Deal, the Great Society, or the Affordable Care Act. >> Does it mean being entirely opposed to
[36:16]the president? >> No. I I think it's working with anyone and everyone to help working people. Again, the fight is not left versus right. It's top versus bottom. So, whoever wants to join us in taking power
[36:27]back from the billionaires and bringing that power back to our communities, I'm going to work with them, whoever they are. >> Despite our best attempts, we did not
[36:37]get to chat with Congresswoman Crockett. She argues this is going to be about women, new, younger voters, and black voters showing up to support her. Democrats have tried for years to try to get black voter turnout in this state
[36:48]up. particularly they they've never succeeded at least in the last 32 years or so. Major, the 2026 campaign season begins on Tuesday and it begins in a big way here in Texas.
[37:00]>> And you got to get to 50%. If you don't, you have to go to a runoff and the runoff might be next for the Republicans indeed. >> Ed O'Keefee, I didn't know if you were going to get all those sound bites in the time allotted. You most certainly
[37:11]did. Brilliantly well well done. It's Christmas in March for Ed O'Keefe and I'm very happy for that. Tune in tomorrow night at 9:00 p.m. Eastern. I will be anchoring special primary night
[37:22]coverage right here on CBS News 247. The Senate prepares to vote on a war powers resolution. Why the move has no chance of becoming law. That's next here on the Takeout. Welcome back. Reporter panel time. Let's
[37:43]bring them in. Daniellea Diaz covers politics and Congress for notice. That's news of the US. Nicholas Woo, newly minted congressional reporter for Semaphore, no longer with Politico.
[37:54]That's great. Uh, I'm a disembodied voice. I'm sorry I'm not with you, but Danielle and Nicholas, these are stressful times. Sometimes when there is stress, candy is a great antidote. So,
[38:06]if you need more candy than you would typically take, I'm not there to guard it. So, you take all the candy you want. First of all, you're both covering Congress. Congress is going to have a conversation later this week about the
[38:16]war in Iran. How do you expect it to go? Danielle, we'll start with you. >> Well, look, Democrats are hoping that they can get some support on their resolution to limit the uh to restrict what the administration can do in Iran.
[38:28]We already have in the House side uh Thomas Massie saying that he's going to support this measure to restrict uh power in Iran. Uh Warren Davidson being one that we weren't expecting another
[38:38]House Republican who could potentially support this. Uh but there could be some Democrats that don't vote for this measure and side with Republicans on it. It's going to be really tricky and the Senate's going to take it up as well.
[38:49]But Senator Tim Kaine, from my understanding, he put has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, really interesting. He lays out why he thinks that this is really important to happen right now, especially with what happened over the weekend. He's very optimistic
[39:01]that potentially can pass this in the Senate, but it's truly an uphill climb for Democrats to get this through. And Nicholas, the administration is basically saying we have all the
[39:10]authorization we need from 911 and the authorization to use military force that arose from that and other conflicts and they don't really think that Congress
[39:21]needs to weigh or they certainly doesn't want Congress to weigh in and restrain them. Now, >> this is part of why what we're hearing from so many different Republican members of Congress is for the
[39:32]administration to lay out their rationale for uh striking Iran. um over the next few days, you know, today uh uh top administration officials were briefing uh members of congressional
[39:43]leadership and then uh tomorrow evening the full Senate and the full house are going to have the opportunity to hear from those folks and you know folks like Warren Davidson, the Ohio Republican
[39:53]congressman that Daniellea mentioned has been really vocal in saying that you know he really wants to hear from the administration about their their cause for war. And that is is is certainly um
[40:04]you know a sentiment shared by a lot of other members of Congress. >> And Daniela, there is the matter of dollars and cents. There's plenty of money. There is no effort to deny this
[40:14]administration funds for this or any other military activity. So this is about trying to get the administration to do more in terms of dealing with Congress. But Congress is not talking
[40:25]about restraining or taking dollars away from this. No, it's really about a bigger picture, Major. Just the fact that we've seen time and time again, the Trump administration bypass Congress to
[40:37]make these decisions that we've seen happen. And Venezuela now what's happening in Iran and a lot of members, especially Democrats, because it's of course a Republican administration, raise their hands and say there used to
[40:47]be checks and balances. Congress used to approve strikes like what happened in Iran this past weekend. And that's not the case of what we're seeing. I mean, we heard Marco Rubio, Secretary of State
[40:56]Marco Rubio say today that it didn't need they didn't need to run through Congress for any sort of decision-m for any action they took against Iran. So, they're standing by that argument. And
[41:06]of course, all Republicans, excuse me, majority, I should say, of Republicans standing by the administration on that decision. >> Nicholas, we've got a big Texas primary tomorrow. Lots of eyes on the Republican
[41:18]Senate primary. John Cornin, Ken Paxton, the sitting attorney general, John Cornin, the incumbent senator, and um help me now, Wesley Hunt. Yes, I had him
[41:29]on the program. All three running for that. And then on the Democratic side, Jasmine Crockett and James Talerico, your sense of things. >> Well, as things stand right now, you know, polling has really been all over
[41:39]the place on this race. Um, but if if it's any prediction, uh, the we we might not even know the Republican nominee for Senate on election night. If this, uh,
[41:50]since this could very well go to a runoff election. Um, although it's a still a big open question of, you know, which of those three Republicans will end up in that, it's becoming, you know, a very nasty primary, extremely competitive, and something that has some
[42:02]Republicans concerned that they could end up uh, losing to a Democrat in the end if they nominate a weaker candidate. And Daniela, your sense of Taler Rico
[42:12]and Jasmine Crockett. >> Major, I spent a week in Texas. It's my home state. And I really felt it could be either one that wins uh this primary.
[42:23]You could see that Jasmine Crockett has name ID. That's what she knows that she has. Uh James Telerico acknowledges that he's the underdog. Could potentially up have an upset and beat her. But at this
[42:33]point, it's really either to take because Jasmine Crockett, I' I've reported with my colleague Alex Rody that her campaign is a little is much more disorganized than Terico. She's had a couple missteps on the campaign trail.
[42:45]Uh there were some issues with her accusing Terico's uh super PAC of taking out racist ads against her. He had to respond to that. I mean, it's really been an ugly back and forth between the
[42:55]two. But look, James Terico has run a really clean campaign. He's been all over the state. uh and he could potentially win that primary as well. It's remains to be seen how this could how this could end.
[43:06]>> Nicholas, very quickly, I got 25 seconds. There was a development in the main Democratic Senate primary. Catch us up. >> Uh we saw Senator Ruben Ggo of Arizona endorsed Graham Platner, who was kind of
[43:17]an insurgent progressive candidate there. And this is really teeing up different factions of the Democratic party. You know, kind of the more progressive wing versus a more establishment leadership uh wing that's
[43:27]backing Janet Mills, the governor. And in uh you know this could be Democrat's best Senate pickup opportunity if they manage to get through this very messy primary first. >> Danielle Adas Nicholas Woo. Thank you
[43:38]very much. From New York, I say to everyone, happy Monday. This is the takeout. Relentlessly curious, reliably, civil, occasionally clever, even when we're in New York. The Daily Report
[43:46]coming up next.