Takeaways from Trump's prime-time address on the Iran war

[0:00] Welcome back to CBS News 24-7. I'm Juliette Goodrich. President Trump giving an update on [0:06] the war with Iran. I want to bring in CBS News senior White House and political correspondent [0:10] Ed O'Keefe to talk more about that. Ed, if you're there, I just want to get your initial thoughts [0:15] on the substance of the speech. Well, Jules, this was designed, according to the White House at [0:23] least, to be an update on what was going on and some sense of the way forward. And if you're [0:29] someone who has not been paying close attention or not listening directly to the president, yes, [0:34] it probably did provide you some sense of a refresh. But for those that have been following [0:39] this closely here in the United States and around the world, there wasn't much new in this address. [0:44] And even his suggestion of how much longer this could take, saying it'll end shortly and then [0:50] suggesting two to three weeks, as he often does for many things he does, not necessarily a firm [0:56] commitment to an end date by any means. And that, [0:59] in comparison of this 32-day conflict so far to wars that lasted several years, clearly designed to [1:06] minimize and assuage the concerns of people who are concerned that this is going to continue for [1:11] quite some time in an open-ended way and potentially begin to really cost Americans [1:16] at the gas pump and then elsewhere. As he said, again, reiterated that he has always, [1:25] since he began his political career about 11 years ago now, [1:29] called for the end of Iran's nuclear ambitions and reiterated tonight that that is a big focus of [1:36] this ongoing conflict. Of course, that was the point of the military strikes on Iran last summer [1:42] when he insisted that their nuclear capabilities had been completely destroyed, [1:47] now suggesting that, in fact, that is part of the ongoing mission as well as destroying [1:52] Iran's conventional military capabilities, which he says now have been almost completely destroyed. [1:57] One other little bit of news [1:58] that I heard about the nuclear war is that the United States has been completely destroyed. [2:00] That's right. [2:00] And that's something that we've heard or that our team heard, certainly in this address, [2:03] is he's now suggesting that as many as 45,000 Iranians were killed in protests in the weeks [2:10] before this military conflict began. At one point several weeks ago, he had told us it was about 30,000. [2:17] So that assessment has now increased. How they get to that number and where in that vast country did [2:23] this occur are questions that we'll be asking certainly in the coming hours and days. But otherwise, this, [2:29] you know, essentially a refresh or a modest attempt at updating. And there was very little conversation [2:37] as well as I would argue about the fact that gas prices have hit record highs now for the first time [2:42] in four years above $4 a gallon. Often in these instances, when the polling starts to show that [2:48] things are going poorly for a president, they want to take advantage of this opportunity, addressing [2:53] the country, getting the airtime to do so from the broadcast networks to sort of say, I feel your pain. [2:58] I understand your concern. I understand your concern. I understand your concern. I understand your concern. [2:59] But he suggested, again, short-term pain for a long-term investment, and that is future security of your [3:06] children and grandchildren. Polling that we've been discussing all night and that we've seen in recent days [3:11] continues to suggest most Americans are not willing to shoulder this short-term pain, in part because they [3:17] believe the president hasn't properly explained himself. [3:19] Yeah, it'll be interesting to see where the polling stands now after this. Ed O'Keefe, Ed, thank you so much. [3:24] Let's now bring in J.D. Simpkins, editor-in-chief of the Military Times and also a Marine [3:29] and veteran of the Iraq War. We spoke to you before the president addressed the nation. So now let's talk to you after the fact. [3:37] What are your big takeaways from the speech? [3:39] I don't really have any takeaways, quite honestly. I think there was, you know, a lot of weaving and not necessarily a real speech in terms of what we just heard. [3:52] There's, you know, as Ed mentioned, citing two to three weeks is kind of the go-to move. So, I mean, there hasn't been any [4:01] real clarity from the beginning and I don't think anybody listening to that speech came away from it thinking that there's any more clarity right now on the immediate horizon. [4:11] Yeah, for the timing of this speech, all of us asking why, why tonight, there really wasn't a lot of clarity and not clear objectives. [4:19] No, there wasn't. And as we've discussed previously, you know, he did go into some of the military successes but, you know, those successes, while [4:31] from a military standpoint do not equate to strategic outcomes. So, you know, depending on [4:37] how long this runs, what type of troops might be involved or what the exit strategy is, I think [4:44] you're still going to see a prolonged conflict in the Strait of Hormuz that could last a lot [4:50] longer than anybody is discussing right now. Did anything surprise you? No, I would say that it was [4:59] a little bit of surprise that there was how little substance there was to some of it. I think some of [5:04] us were at least expecting, you know, the teeter to go one way or another in terms of potentially [5:11] discussing boots on the ground or discussing, you know, just claiming victory in a way that would [5:17] allow them to, you know, pat themselves on the back a little bit and withdraw troops, which [5:22] right now I think a lot of people are viewing as a bad outcome, but it's not the worst outcome. So [5:27] we still don't know. [5:29] What the outcome is going to be, because I don't think there was anything that that showed one way [5:34] or another. So let's talk about the Strait of Hormuz and the rising cost of oil and gas prices. [5:40] He did mention that he acknowledged it, but it didn't really provide much timeline or comfort [5:45] in terms of prices going down. Did you hear that? No, I didn't. And I think if if the U.S. and if [5:53] President Trump wanted to walk away from the Strait entirely, you know, as we've discussed, [5:58] this doesn't necessarily mean [6:00] any conclusion to the conflict. I would expect to see a protracted one, whether it is Iran using [6:06] one off attacks on cargo shipping or higher intensity prolonged attacks. This is something [6:13] that specifically benefits Iran, and they have pretty significant leverage in terms of being [6:19] able to buy time to resupply and and incorporate other actors in the region. So, you know, Iran, [6:25] Iran's long term strategy is ultimately, as we've known, [6:29] they [6:29] dragging things on and bleeding regional countries dry across various industries, which whether it's [6:35] oil tourism included. So I think it's it's a paramount area that we're not seeing necessarily [6:42] any defined outcomes still. And I don't know when we will or what what type of outcome that'll be [6:51] once we do hear about it. Yeah. So as we leave and we continue with the CBS Evening News, J.D. [6:57] Simpkins, it seemed like it was just an update. [6:59] It was vague and it was surprising for the president. So, J.D., thank you so much. Appreciate that in your time before and after his speech.