Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
South Carolina Republican Speaks Out after a Misled and Frustrating Briefing on Iran; DHS Shutdown Reaches Day 40; Meta, YouTube Liable for Addiction Among Youths; U.S. Demands 15-Point Plan to end Iran War but Iran Rejected it. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired March 25, 2026 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:46]
LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Tonight, Iran prepares for a possible U.S. ground invasion on a key island, as more Republicans speak out against the possible plan. Congressman Nancy Mace walked out of a briefing on Iran that troubled her and two of my guests tonight.
Plus, travelers face some of the longest airport lines ever. TSA agents quitting, missing paychecks, and Congress, they may be about to skip town.
And the ruling against Meta and YouTube is being compared to Big Tobacco's reckoning. That's all tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
My opening argument tonight, President Trump is inching toward what may be the biggest decision of his second term. Thousands of Marines are now on their way to the Middle East. Another thousand soldiers, they're about to be deployed.
And soon, he may decide whether to send them into Iran. The White House is still talking up, well, talks. But Iran is publicly rejecting the President's 15-point plan to end the war.
And that's got the administration saying things like this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: But if Iran fails to accept the reality of the current moment, if they fail to understand that they have been defeated militarily and will continue to be, President Trump will ensure they are hit harder than they have ever been hit before. President Trump does not bluff, and he is prepared to unleash hell.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: But to use her vocabulary, involving ground troops is a hell of a risky option. There would be a huge risk to the lives of those service members, a risk of massive military escalation and retaliation, and a political risk of losing the voters who thought Trump was going to avoid conflicts like this. More members of his own party are speaking out. They're saying they're
a hard no over boots on the ground. Top lawmakers were briefed on Iran today.
And Congresswoman Nancy Mace says she stormed out of the meeting. She says she felt misled, that the administration didn't give any answers. And she'll join in just a moment to talk about that.
And as for Iran, well, they're getting ready. (inaudible) CNN, they're building up defenses and laying traps on Kharg Island. That's their crown jewel, where 90 percent of their oil experts flow through.
And the country's speaker of parliament says he's seen data that shows Iran's enemies are preparing to occupy an Iranian island. And he's vowing relentless attacks of vital infrastructure if those enemies, quote, "step out of line."
Just last week, a top Iranian official warned an invasion of Kharg Island would mirror another war America has seen before.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: There are thousands of U.S. Marines on the way. What happens if they get used, you think?
UNKNOWN: We defend.
UNKNOWN: What does that mean, though, for these Marines if they were to land in Kharg Island?
UNKNOWN: Just read what happened in Vietnam.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, Trump's made it abundantly clear he's not afraid of sending in troops. Remember what he said just three days into the war.
I don't have the yips with respect to boots on the ground. Like every President says, there will be no boots on the ground. I don't say it, I say probably don't need them or if they were necessary.
And that brings us to today, day 26. If these talks fail, what's left? The White House was asked exactly that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: If these negotiations are not successful, is the only option to open to reopen the strait in boots on the ground, given that all of our allies have essentially said that they are unable or unwilling to help?
LEAVITT: Look, that's a hypothetical question. It's a hypothetical question. It's also a decision that would have to be made by the commander-in-chief and I'm not going to get ahead of him.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: A hypothetical decision that would have to be made by the President of a war, he says he's already won.
You know, my first guest was briefed by the administration today and is not satisfied by what she heard. Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace of South Carolina joins me now, she sits on the House Armed Services and Veterans Affairs committees. I should note she's also running for governor of her state.
[23:05:05]
Thank you for joining us, Congresswoman. I have to understand what was it about today's briefing that you found so concerned in terms of the idea of the United States possibly putting troops on the ground in Iran?
REP. NANCY MACE (R-SC), GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I would say as a mom, as I hope the future governor of South Carolina, because we are winning in the governor's race, that when we go to war, when we are willing to send our sons and daughters into war, that it is a enormous responsibility that needs to be taken seriously and that Congress needs to have a say.
We are now almost four weeks into this. And I would tell you the frustration that reverberated in that room today. And I got to be careful about what I say, because it was in a skiff and it was a classified setting, TSSCI clearances only.
But there was frustration that reverberated throughout based on the information that we were receiving. And I'm MAGA Mace. I am a conservative foreign Republican and I support President Trump.
I think he's done an excellent job to where we are today. But when we're talking about troops on the ground, that is a different stage in an operation or in a war that has a significantly greater gravity than any other thing that we've talked about. And I look back at what happened after 9/11, even President Bush, who I opposed going into Iraq, still came to Congress and got an AUMF or Authorization Use of Military Force.
He did that for Iraq in 2011, he did the same thing for Afghanistan in 2002. When we were bombed by Pearl Harbor, it was President Roosevelt that came to Congress to get authorization to go to war. And so in this stage of it, Congress needs to have a greater say, I believe.
COATES: But there was a chance to have a vote to have that sort of early on.
MACE: Early on.
COATES: Early on. So you voted no in terms of that. So is the difference for how you feel now based on the length of this war so far as opposed to four weeks ago?
MACE: Based on the length and based on the information I received today. COATES: So what I know you can't speak specifically. I understand and
I respect that, I appreciate that.
But generally, was it the information that you were receiving or the lack of information that you were receiving? It's a distinction.
MACE: I would say that it's both. And I would say that you saw Republicans across the spectrum today express their frustration. You saw Republicans and Democrats alike.
I was not convinced when I walked out of there that troops on the ground were necessary to declare victory. I believe President Trump can declare victory now. Maybe he would want to.
COATES: He has declared victory.
MACE: But, you know, he could use more bunker buster bombs to bomb more locations in Iran. But I have a hard time understanding what Kharg Island has to do with some of our objectives and thinking through and war-gaming through what the consequences of taking Kharg Island might mean.
It might mean that there are entire countries in the Middle East that don't have water if Iran targets, for example, the desalination plants. So I think -- thinking through all of this and you look at we lifted sanctions on Russian oil.
We were buying oil from Iran while we're bombing them. We suspended the Jones Act, which protects American shipping and American maritime jobs.
We're doing all this with the knowledge that Russia is aiding Iran, China is aiding Iran. And so, you know, to do this in a more protracted manner to put troops on the ground, then they're going to have to come to Congress and convince us that it is the right thing to do. And that is the right next step.
COATES: You believe now that Congress should be authorized.
MACE: One month in.
COATES: Now, when you talk about the type of information that gave you pause, do you feel that Congress has been misled about the justifications for the war till now or the American people been misled? I think it's been just so inconsistent.
MACE: I think the objectives need to be clarified. I think the objectives on what's going on today need to be clarified both for the American public and for Congress. And for me, getting those answers to those objectives will determine how I decide, you know, do we continue this?
And I think I don't -- I will not send South Carolina sons and daughters to work to die for the price of oil. I just will not do it.
To me, there is not value in that. And I'm not willing to do it with my own children. I wouldn't be doing -- willing to do it for yours or anybody else's.
COATES: Is that the contingency on which you would base your decision to vote for more funding for the war?
MACE: Right now, I think that's in the balance. I mean, I think there are many questions that Congress needs answered. And I wish that every member of Congress got the same briefing I got today.
COATES: And because if they had--
MACE: What they had, I think they -- I think it would be very enlightening.
COATES: Were you surprised by what you learned today?
[23:10:04]
MACE: I was very surprised and disappointed.
COATES: Did you feel that you had a clear understanding before today? It's briefing--
MACE: I think my understanding is very different today. And that that troubles me. And I want to be sure that we are successful.
And if you look at let's look at Afghanistan, the Taliban doesn't know that they lost the Taliban and the United States gets $80 million a week. No one -- they don't know that they lost the war, and I'm unwilling to turn Iran into the next Afghanistan. I'm unwilling to turn Iran into the next Iraq war.
I'm unwilling to lose Marines on the sands of Kharg Island for where we are right now.
COATES: And the President is saying and suggesting consistently that this is a short term endeavor. He has used various words to convey that, that this is not a long term war or a conflict. Based on the briefing you received today, do you think that that lines up with the reality?
MACE: I think that he's been right so far, 100 percent right. He has executed this war perfectly, in my opinion, so far. What I am concerned about is the Washington war machine doing what it is.
COATES: That's Lindsey Graham.
MACE: I take that as Senator Graham, the senior senator from South Carolina. I take that as a military industrial complex.
I take that as a guy that is going back to my home state of South Carolina, telling mothers and fathers to send their children into war to take an island over oil. And I am vehemently opposed to that.
COATES: I want to play. So I was on the same page hearing what you're talking about in reference to Senator Lindsey Graham, what he had to say. Let me play that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): So here's what I tell President Trump, keep it up for a few more weeks.
Take Kharg Island where all of the resources they have to produce oil, control that island, let this regime die on a vine. We got two Marine expeditionary units sailing to this island. We did Iwo Jima, we can do this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I know you take issue with several points he's raised, including Iwo Jima and the loss of American lives there and the 7000 were died--
MACE: 7000 marines on the black sands of Iwo Jima.
COATES: So explain your opposition to his statements about Kharg Island or the idea of allowing the regime to die on a vine.
MACE: I want President Trump to take Lindsey Graham out of the situation room.
COATES: Is he advising the President?
MACE: He brags about it. And I don't think Lindsey Graham, for all of that hubris, has thought through or war-gamed the consequences of us taking Kharg Island.
Has he thought through what the Houthis are going to do? Has he thought through where Hezbollah is? Because Hezbollah is not going to fly on a plane from Tehran. Hezbollah is here, Hezbollah is waiting, Hezbollah has not struck yet.
Has he thought about the desalination?
COATES: You mean you think the United States is at risk?
MACE: Kharg Island is affiliated with Hezbollah. They get trained in Venezuela.
I mean, they're here. They've crossed an open border that was open for the last four to four years or so.
But has Senator Graham thought through the consequences, what Iran will do to disrupt the economy? They've already done a lot.
But what they will do even more so if we were to take Kharg Island. And so that's why I'm looking at this more holistically and thinking about have we thought about the consequences?
I want us to declare victory because we've won. President Trump has won. And now it's time to show us the American people what is the exit strategy?
Because the men and women that we send to war deserve an answer to how does this end?
COATES: When you say the President has won and then raise concerns about the sustainability of that success, isn't there a disconnect between the potential need for boots on the ground to maintain it and declaring victory?
I mean, one could certainly say the airstrikes and the strategy so far have been successful. But then how do you maintain that premise if the actual regime believes it has not lost?
MACE: Well, look at the last 70 years. Tell me a war that we've won in the last 70 years. Tell me where we have bombed an Islamic country, fanatical country, where we bomb them into peace.
We haven't done it. And when we have done regime change, we failed. I mean, we replaced one hominy with a younger hominy.
And oh, by the way, we killed his wife, his father, his mother and all of his children. So do we think he's going to be nice when he's negotiating with us? Absolutely not.
And so, you know, America is very good at being the hammer, you know, and we're good at hammering the nails. But sometimes if you want regime change, if that's the objective, and I'm not certain that it is, but if that's the objective, sometimes you need a screwdriver.
Sometimes it's intel that might be better or maybe a special forces operation that might be better to do the regime change from the inside out.
[23:14:58]
COATES: Would that include boots on the ground?
MACE: No, the boots on the ground in a regime change. I believe are two totally different apparatus or apparati that would go in and be successful there. And we're talking about two different strategies.
COATES: Congressman, you are very adamant about your belief the President has been extremely successful. A new Quinnipiac University poll found more voters think that the war with Iran will make the world less safe.
And I want to point out 59 percent of voters disapprove of the President's handling of Iran. Obviously, we are less than eight months away from a midterm. You yourself running for office know what it's like to have run for office.
Will this war cost Republicans electoral victories?
MACE: If there are boots on the ground, I think there'll be enormous costs associated with it. And I would never make any decision going into war or not into war based on the politics. But this is a midterm year and I think that there will be consequences to it.
I think right now the base is with the President. I'm with the President. I think he's in a phenomenal job.
But the minute that we have a single boot of a single soldier from the United States on the ground--
COATES: Your views change.
MACE: -- and the views change. And I think it is, I think it's overnight.
And I think it's something that, you know, Congress needs to weigh with all the information, with the truth that I didn't feel we got today. And, you know, everyone needs to get the same briefing we received today and make that decision.
Is it right to go into a protracted, elongated war where soldiers are going to die? And right now I am adamantly opposed to boots on the ground based on the information that I have.
COATES: I want to pick your brain more about this. It's really interesting to think about. We have to take a first break here, but stick around because I want to talk to you about the crisis at America's airports and what's happened with the TSA right back with Congresswoman Nancy Mace.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: You know, any hope the DHS shutdown would end today is likely floating down the Potomac River.
On day 40 of the partial shutdown, both Democrats and Republicans seem to back off a proposal to end it. Caught in the middle are passengers who are waiting in security lines for four and five hours at times, along with thousands of TSA officers who still have to do their jobs even though they haven't been getting and aren't being paid.
The TSA says more than 480 agents have resigned and collectively officers have missed a billion dollars in pay and many families. They are reaching, if not well beyond their breaking point.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADAM STAHL, ACTING DEPUTY TSA ADMINISTRATOR: We got folks sleeping in cars, folks, I talked to a single mother recently who has a three year old child that special needs can't afford to pay for child care for that three year old child, have folks having to pay, essentially get blood drawn to afford gas to come to work. So the situation is dire.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Congresswoman Nancy Mace is back with me and just hearing that it hits home for so many people, just the dire straits. We know about living paycheck to paycheck. I've been a federal employee through a shutdown, wasn't getting paid.
The idea of you hearing stories of mothers who can't afford child care, loans defaulting, people selling their blood for gas to still go to work. I mean, what do you think people are looking at Congress and saying, what are you guys doing?
MACE: Well, I mean, number one, Congress shouldn't be getting paid if our federal employees aren't getting paid.
It's not just the airport workers. It's also the Coast Guard. They're not getting paid either.
And airport security is national security. That's how dire the situation is. And we just spoke about the situation in Iran and the conflict in the war in, you know, they've threatened to do another 9/11 attack.
And that would be the worst possible time when our airport security is at its weakest point. This is the time. And so it is a very dire situation.
But the reason that we're here is because the left and the Democrats didn't want to fund it. I mean, we had this vote weeks ago and now we're continuing to argue over current laws in our country.
COATES: We don't want to compartmentalize funding. We want to exclude ICE. They are supporting the TSA.
MACE: Republicans want to deport people who are here illegally and Democrats do not. And I think at the end of the day, like if we don't follow our own laws in our country, we're not really a country at all.
And, you know, I think we'd be realistic about that. But it is very dire. I mean, I don't understand why this is so difficult for us right now and I think every member of Congress should be standing in the same line with all the American people for three, four, five hours. You don't like it.
We'll vote to fund it. That's what needs to happen right now.
COATES: When you talk of American public, American voters, they hear the back and forth. They hear the consternation and they hear the policy stances that are at odds with one another. Your statement just now about Democrats not wanting to deport people who are legally in the country is inconsistent with what many Democrats say they actually want. They want a fair, legal immigration system.
MACE: We've seen the protests across the country.
COATES: I've seen --I've been covering the protests and they have largely been with respect to the actions that ICE has taken that they feel are divergent from the practices.
MACE: -- who are here illegally, like deport the rapists, deport the (inaudible) and the child molesters and the pedophiles and the murderers. Like, can we all like I don't understand why we can't all agree to deport the worst people first.
That seems like that would be the easiest, most logical, common sense thing to do. We can't even agree on that right now because you'll see protesters outside of ICE operations in Minnesota or wherever where they are deporting a pedophile and people are protesting it. Like, I can't make it fence.
COATES: Well, they would quibble with the idea of why they're out there protesting. But let's talk about Secretary Kristi Noem, no longer DHS secretary, as you know.
[23:24:57]
But she gave out $10,000 bonuses to TSA agents who stayed on the job during the shutdown of the last year when Arizona Ruben Gallego, they want Congress to pass a bill to do the same time this time around. So focusing on what's happening to TSA, would you support that?
MACE: Oh, for sure. I mean, the folks that have been able to stay, I mean, if they can do bonuses, I would be supportive of that measure.
COATES: I have been able to say is a really important point you just raised, because it's a luxury to be able to.
MACE: Correct. If someone is sick or they have a special needs child, as you just mentioned earlier, that's going to be different. Someone living out of their car, they're going to have to get a second job.
You know, so every person's situation is different, which makes this so much worse than it was even in the fall. And here we have this is now because of the war in Iran. This is now a major national security issue.
COATES: That gives many people pause and concern, particularly given that there was a deal to fund DHS and it received Trump's blessings on Monday night. I mean, it's Wednesday and a lot has changed.
He said he now would be unhappy with any deal. And now you're seeing Republicans back away from it. Why pour cold water on the prospect? What's the logic?
MACE: I don't know, I don't speak for the President. And I didn't get a chance to read that bill because it didn't come before Congress.
I try to read everything that I can to have a better understanding of what is going on and what's-
COATES: Do you support important negotiations at this point?
MACE: I mean, a hundred percent. But we've also got to be sure that if we're going to be negotiating, that we're not allowing these people who are criminals doing real harm in this country.
And I just mentioned earlier, Hezbollah is tied to folks like that are part of the cartel Tren de Aragua. I mean, they have it in South Carolina. They're everywhere. Like, we've got to make sure that we are deporting the worst of the worst. And if we can't agree on that, we're not going to agree on anything. And now we're seeing it to the detriment of our nation's safety.
COATES: You think the deportation issue is the deal breaker when it comes to TSA reopening?
MACE: I do. Based on what I've said--
COATES: No matter how long it lasts.
MACE: -- I think that it's an issue over illegals who are here and the left not wanting to deport them, the right wanting to deport all of them. I think that's what this is about at the end of the day.
COATES: Are you willing to have the national security consequences you've articulated about the TSA not being appropriately?
MACE: These people need to be paid and they need to get back to work. We need them paid so they can go back to work. And they're talking about now an entire walkout of TSA potentially as soon as this weekend.
And I quite frankly, I don't blame them. So get used to being on trains and automobiles, I guess, because if airlines shut down, airports shut down, we're going to have a real problem.
I do want to commend Delta. Delta shut down its government desk because Congress is unable to come to an agreement. And I hope that every airline does that.
Don't give any special treatment to anyone in Congress until they sit down and get this deal done and get these people paid.
COATES: Congressman Nancy Mace, thank you for joining us.
MACE: Thank you.
COATES: Still ahead for us tonight, a jury finds that social media is addictive and dangerous and that Meta and YouTube know it. It's a ruling so significant that it's being compared to the landmark case that led to Big Tobacco's reckoning.
Will the same happen now to Big Tech? The lawyer representing not just the plaintiff who won today, but thousands of others will join me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Hey, are you scrolling on your phone right now, checking social media? I will then listen up because in a major ruling today after nine days, a jury found both Meta and YouTube liable for a young woman's mental health struggles.
I want to explain what this case is about. It started with 20-year-old Kaylee. She sued both companies and others, which settled, alleging that they intentionally hooked her at a young age with designs like the infinite scroll that we're all so familiar with.
She says she spent hours as a child on Instagram, that their tools like beauty filters led her to develop body dysmorphia and anxiety, even suicidal thoughts. And she says she's still addicted.
This was a seven-week trial even Mark Zuckerberg was called to testify at. Both Meta and YouTube announced they will appeal the ruling, but there are thousands of other lawsuits just like this one that are now waiting in the wings.
Here with me now is the attorney who just took on some of the most powerful companies in the country, let alone the world. Matthew Bergman, founding attorney at the Social Media Victims Law Center.
Matthew, thank you for joining me tonight and your client, Kaylee, was actually in the courtroom today for the verdict. How's she feeling tonight?
MATTHEW BERGMAN, PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY IN TRIAL AGAINST META AND YOUTUBE: Exhausted, but gratified. It was a tough two months for her, but she stuck it out and she's the tip of the spear.
COATES: The jury ordered Meta and YouTube to pay three million dollars in compensatory damages to your client. He recommended another $3 million in punitive damages. Meta alone is worth an estimated $1.5 trillion and they are splitting the cost of the responsibility as allocated 70-30 with YouTube.
People might see this number and they say, well, they make so much as a parking ticket for the companies. You have other cases waiting in the wings. The cost is going to add up.
BERGMAN: Well, that's what we hope. You know, we've tried more persuasion, it doesn't work. These companies have been excoriated in Congress, it doesn't work. There have been press exposes of them, it doesn't work.
The only thing that seems to work is to hit them in the pocketbook. And that's what we're prepared to do in this case and many other cases after this.
COATES: Why do you think this was such a successful legal approach, not talking about the content, but essentially the apps, the addictive nature of it, the knowledge behind it? Why was this, you think, so convincing to these jurors?
[23:35:06]
BERGMAN: Well, for two decades, social media has not played by the same rules as every other company. They've been subject to immunity and have as a result been able to design and profit from products that inflict carnage on young people, not just in the U.S., but around the world.
We decided to take a different approach and not sue them for their content, their defective design that is in particular features that are very harmful to kids, irrespective of the content that enabled us to get past the motion to dismiss, which no one thought would happen, get past summary judgment. And finally, with the incredible trial work of Mark Lanier, I get to this incredible and watershed moment.
COATES: You see so many families who were rejoicing, bittersweet. Nonetheless, some have lost their children and responding to this on the Hill and beyond. I mean, some people have been describing this case as big tax, big tobacco moment, which resulted in public warnings and education, which then led to fewer smokers.
Do you see that analogy or this as that big tobacco moment?
BERGMAN: I absolutely do. You know, what we've learned in this trial, the documents that were released for the first time showed that they specifically designed these platforms to be addictive. And the medical evidence is that the addiction is not simply behavioral, but there's a neurologic component to it.
And so they deliberately targeted teens, knowing that their brains aren't fully developed, knowing that they're so craving, as teens are, of adulation from their peers, and profited from it.
You know, when these kids are on social media, they are not the customer. They're the product, they're selling their eyes, they're selling their attention. And the more time that they can keep kids online, the more advertising they sell, and the more money they make.
COATES: You know, as you know, Mark Zuckerberg was added to the President's advisory board on tech today. The "Wall Street Journal" editorial board called today's ruling a shakedown. Their phrase, that they argue, does not help children.
And they're writing, quote, "trial lawyers will now use the L.A. verdict in advertisements to recruit more plaintiffs. They may even use the social media platforms to advertise. Unemployed? Depressed? Spend your Friday night scrolling? You could make big money by holding billionaires responsible for your problems."
What's your response to that?
COATES: Well, I wish the editorial board would have taken the time to talk to parents who have lost children to suicide after being deluged with videos, telling kids to walk in front of trains or to take a shotgun to their head. These parents literally slept outside the courtroom -- in courthouse in order to go and bear moral witness to this.
This is not about trial lawyers. If I never had to try another case, if I never have to talk to another parent who's lost a child, I'd be the happiest guy in the world.
COATES: Matthew Bergman, thank you. BERGMAN: Thank you.
COATES: Up next, will there really be a deal brokered with Iran? And if so, what would it actually take? My next guest says the most important talks aren't even between Iran and the U.S., they're between the President and himself. Robert Malley, the former leader negotiator of the 2015 Iran deal, will join me to explain.
Plus, Iran laying traps on hard island just as Trump considers sending in Marines and paratroopers. We'll walk through just how risky that mission would be.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: As we enter week four, all signs point to the President wanting a speedy end to the war with Iran. The U.S. offered a 15-point list of demands, but Iran quickly turned it down, which frankly begs the question, are they going to negotiate on the President's terms at all? Well, it depends on who you ask.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBAS ARAGCHI, IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): They talk about negotiations. They talk about other things. This is precisely an admission of defeat.
Weren't they calling for unconditional surrender? Then why are they now speaking about negotiations as the right course? I will explain that there is no negotiations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That sounds like an emphatic no from a top Iranian official. Tonight, the President is adamant Iran is coming to the table.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: And they are negotiating, by the way, and they want to make a deal so badly, but they're afraid to say it because they figure they'll be killed by their own people. They're also afraid they'll be killed by us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: With me now, former U.S. special envoy for Iran under the Biden administration, Robert Malley. He was also a lead negotiator on the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.
Robert, thank you for joining him. In the U.S., they've got this 15- point list of expectations, Iran essentially rejecting that plan and offering its own conditions. And so where do we go from here? I mean, will the regime even be willing to negotiate? ROBERT MALLEY, LEAD NEGOTITATOR ON THE 2015 IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL, AND
FORMER U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY TO IRAN: You know, Laura, there really are two parallel universes right now. There's a universe in the President's head in which the United States has won the war several times, in which Iran is about to capitulate, in which he's chosen who's going to be negotiating, who's going to be the counterpart of the American negotiators.
And then there's a real world in which the war is ongoing. You have death and destruction that is still ongoing, almost a million people displaced in Lebanon, people being killed in Iran. And Iran holding the world economy hostage, blocking the transfer of oil, sending the markets tumbling down.
And there's no meeting point between those two worlds. The President still is in his parallel universe. At some point, he's going to have to realize Iran is not going to capitulate, Iran is not about to give up.
And at that point, perhaps there's going to be some semblance of negotiations. But I fear we're a long way from that.
[23:45:05]
COATES: I mean, the White House is still moving forward to save any possible talks. But to your point, it suggests that the most important conversation you believe is between President Trump and himself, then, not advisers or anything else.
MALLEY: That's right. I mean, he keeps talking about negotiations with Iran. Again, they may take place, but both sides are in very different places. The President thinks he's winning, which he is militarily.
Iran thinks they're winning, which they are politically and economically. So there really is no meeting point. So he keeps talking about negotiations.
At the same time, as you mentioned, he's assembling an expeditionary force. So we may any day now see American troops trying to occupy a part of Iran. And let's not forget, and this is the reason why, members of Congress should be angry, the American people should be angry.
This war was unlawful. It has no justification. It has no point and right now it has no exit.
COATES: Let's talk about who may be part of the negotiation talks, because you have Iranian officials who have expressed a preference, I understand, for Vice President J.D. Vance, possibly sidelining the President's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff.
Now, they must know, surely, that Vance won't make any decisions in a vacuum. So is this a negotiating tactic or something deeper?
MALLEY: So first, I'll take all of that with a grain of salt. There's a lot of information. There's a lot of disinformation.
But from Iran's point of view, I can imagine the last thing they want is to be sitting at the table again with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. They sat with them just recently, and in the middle of the talks, the United States ordered strikes against Iran, and they were sitting with Steve Witkoff a year ago, and in the middle of those talks, there were strikes. So from their perspective, either they were playing the game or they didn't know what the President wanted.
In either case, it's not really those. They don't want to be sitting across the table from them. So maybe they're playing the game of saying, we don't trust them anymore, they were trying to lead us astray, or they didn't even know what was going on.
We want to deal with somebody who is more authoritative and perhaps more sympathetic, because in their mind, again, assuming this report is true, Vice President Vance is known for being more skeptical of wars in the Middle East, so perhaps they think that he's somebody who would be more sympathetic to trying to find an ending to this war.
COATES: Perhaps. I mean, a very important part of these negotiations is the President himself. I mean, you've talked about the President's unpredictability. If and when Iran does not easily acquiesce to his demands, does he have any good options at this point?
MALLEY: I mean, he always has one good option, which is when you're a President who makes up your own reality, you can always claim that you've won.
And that's what he does almost every day. So at some point, since he's never stated very clearly what his objectives were, he could say, I've met all my objectives, I've met them two weeks ago, I've met more than all my objectives, and so now I'm calling it, the game is over, I'm leaving. That's his option.
The problem he has right now is that Iran feels like it's more or less in the driver's seat, and it might not want to end the war on the terms and on the calendar that President Trump imposes. So even if he wants to end the war, it's not clear that he's going to have on the other side a party that's prepared to do the same.
COATES: Robert Malley, thank you.
While the administration talks diplomacy, it's also moving 5000 service members and Navy carriers to the region. The Pentagon isn't saying why, but it appears these forces are going into places in case Trump orders a ground invasion of Iran.
Now, that offensive could start on Iran's Kharg Island. It handles almost all oil exports from Iran, and it's also home to more than 8000 people.
I want to talk more about this with the Operation What It Might Look Like with retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery. He was a commander on the U.S. Navy's George Washington Carrier Strike Group. He's now a senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Admiral, thank you for being here. There are about 1000 paratroopers,
4500 additional Marines that are moving into the region. How would an operation like this even work?
REAR ADM. MARK MONTGOMERY (RET.), U.S. NAVY: This is interesting. I can understand bringing the Marines in for something called noncombatant evacuation operations when it gets really dicey around one of our embassies or consulates. These are the perfect forces to pull them out.
But when you start thinking about how to use them offensively, if we're going to use them to seize something like Kharg Island, I think this is a very dangerous proposition. The risk to force, those actual forces, I have no doubt they could seize it, but once they have to hold it, the risk to force is going to be very high.
And eventually the risk to mission will be high because the amount of forces we'll have to put around them to protect them will prevent us from doing other things like take control of the Strait of Hormuz or continue to do combat air campaign against targets in Iran. So I'm very worried that this really is going to put a lot of things at risk for an outcome that I don't think is necessary.
[23:50:00]
COATES: So CNN has learned that Iran has been building up defenses on the island, moving surface to air missiles to the island, laying traps around it, for example. What types of challenges then, given what you've just articulated about the risks to the mission, let alone the troops, would they face?
MONTGOMERY: First, I hope that's true in the sense that if this is a deception or distraction, it's achieving its role, getting Iran to expose forces, put them into Kharg, where we've already hit them once, we could hit them again, that would be great. If, however, we still pursue some kind of seizing operation, obviously given the opportunity to repair their defenses from the attacks that happened last week and put new forces in, we'll introduce additional risk. Again, I'm confident we could seize it, but holding it and keeping it for any period of time is a lot of risk.
COATES: So is that based on how the Iranians might respond or have the capacity to respond in the long run? Because I understand the point of having to sustain that control, but do you think that the ability of the Iranians to outlast our ability to sustain is greater?
MONTGOMERY: I think what it does is it puts us at such geographic proximity, and you can see this in the drone attacks now. Almost no Iranian drones get to Israel, because it's 500 miles, they get shot down along the way.
But a lot of drones get to Bahrain, only 70 miles, 80 miles away. Kharg Island, 20 miles away, they get even more drones, and they can start using things that we see Russia and Ukraine using called FPV drones, kind of kamikaze, one-way, short, 20, 25-kilometer drones. They could easily have tens of thousands of those, and those place our individual soldiers at risk, and they're very hard to counter and shoot down, and we certainly haven't demonstrated much ability to counter drones so far.
COATES: There's another island people are talking about, and that may be just strategically important. It's called Larak Island, and it's virtually inside the Strait of Hormuz, a very important thoroughfare, and the IRGC uses the island to monitor vessels. So would it be better for the U.S. to seize that one instead of Kharg Island?
MONTGOMERY: I thought the same thing, and believe me, I've passed Larak Island 50 or 60 times in my career, going in and out of the Strait of Hormuz. It's a much more central island to control the Strait of Hormuz, much easier, I think, to hold, reasonably easy to seize if we wanted to. I'm not recommending that we do that, but just because I think we can remove it. All of these islands, we can make them not valuable to Iran.
We can damage all the military equipment on it. In the case of Kharg Island, we can tell any ship going to it to get fossil fuels. We'll sink you, then sink one.
All the other merchant ships will get the message and not go there. There's lots of ways to influence how Iran uses these islands, how they use the Strait of Hormuz, and impact them, do cost imposition on them. Putting our forces ashore puts us at risk and allows them to put cost imposition on us.
That isn't where the President wants to be. He's never struck me as someone who wants U.S. casualties. He's been very careful about that and adamant about it, I think seizing any of these islands really increases our risk of that.
COATES: Admiral Mark Montgomery, thank you.
MONTGOMERY: Thanks for having me.
COATES: Still ahead, did a major airline just troll the Transportation Secretary with a new feature? That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, it's almost midnight here on the East Coast. Let's check in with Elex Michaelson out on the West Coast. My friend, good to see you.
I mean, first of all, remember when Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy told people not to wear pajamas on planes? We talked about it.
Well, United didn't listen because they just unveiled a relax row in economy where the entire row transforms into a bed. I mean, are you on board with this? ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR: Of course. I mean, as we've talked about,
I don't really fit on planes at 6'5". So I don't think I would even fit laying fully across.
But the idea of laying down sounds great. The big question is we don't know how much this is going to cost.
COATES: I know. I mean, I'm all for the fetal position. You know, I'm a staggering 5'3 and a half.
And so this is what I already do. But now that you have those, like, armrests that can go all the way down, that's really the bane of my existence. But I do think there needs to be a rule that people have to have their socks on because bare feet on planes, that's a hard no for me.
And this actually might happen. What's your plane pet peeve?
MICHAELSON: That's pretty bad. Loud talkers are not great either. Maybe it's when your head gets clogged up and you don't realize.
But some people are exceptionally loud.
COATES: What do you mean? Then don't sit next to me, Elex. I don't know where you're trying to get at, this is very triggering.
MICHAELSON: Yes.
COATES: No, I fall asleep, I don't talk on planes. I'm watching either "Top Gun: Maverick," or I'm asleep. That's it.
MICHAELSON: That's your go-to.
COATES: That's it.
MICHAELSON: Yes, I mean, but this new thing really could revolutionize air travel. And it's especially great. I've seen a lot of parents are especially excited about it because it's hard to travel with young kids.
And so this idea of being able to lay down with your child could be a game changer for a lot of people.
COATES: This would have been unbelievable when my kids were still smaller than me. But listen, I want to hear what's coming up on your show.
[00:00:02]
MICHAELSON: We got lots of great stuff coming up on the show, including the lead lawyer that just argued this big social media case win.
COATES: Great.
MICHAELSON: So we're getting into that. Plus later, talking about the big baseball game of the night, opening night. Just happened on Netflix.
Plus, of course, all the latest from the Middle East, all coming up on "The Story Is."
COATES: All right. Well, have a great show. See you.
MICHAELSON: Thanks, Laura. Have a great night, we'll see you tomorrow. For now, "The Story Is" starts right now.
