Ambassador Michael Leiter, Senator Mark Warner, Congressman Mike Turner

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan

Episode Date: April 12, 2026
Key Guests:

• Dr. Michael Leiter, Israeli Ambassador to the US
• Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), Senate Intelligence Committee
• Congressman Mike Turner (R-OH)
• Kristalina Georgieva, IMF Managing Director
• Anthony Salvanto, CBS News Elections & Surveys Director

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on the dramatic breakdown in US-Iran negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, President Trump's decision to order a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the war’s impact on global energy and inflation, and the deepening public concern reflected in new polling. The discussions feature a range of political leaders and policy experts analyzing the direction of the conflict, diplomatic prospects, the humanitarian toll, and effects on the global and US economies.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. US-Iran Talks Collapse; Strait of Hormuz Blockade

[00:27–05:39]

• Vice President Vance returns from Pakistan after 21 hours of talks with Iranian leadership; no agreement reached.
• President Trump orders the US Navy to blockade the Strait of Hormuz and issues a direct threat to Iranian forces.
• Quote: "We have made very clear what our red lines are...They have chosen not to accept our terms." – VP Vance ([03:51])
• Iran’s refusal to renounce nuclear weapons remains the core impasse.
• Talks hailed as historic—first face-to-face US-Iran talks since 1979—but outcome uncertain; ceasefire fragile.

---

2. Interview: Israeli Ambassador Michael Leiter on War Goals & Diplomacy

[05:39–15:42]

• Israel aligns closely with the US position, seeking diplomatic rather than military resolution if possible.
• US demands Iran’s affirmative commitment to never develop nuclear weapons; debate over "civilian nuclear program".
• Quote: "Civilian nuclear program doesn’t entail enrichment. There are 57 countries with a civilian nuclear program that don’t have enrichment." – Michael Leiter ([07:37])
• Three main Israeli concerns:
  • Iran’s nuclear weapon pursuit
  • Ballistic missile capacity (Israeli intel says less than 9 years to reach US)
  • Iranian proxies (e.g., Hezbollah)
• Disputes NYT report about Israel’s war strategy; says regime change is a process, not an instant outcome.
• On Lebanon: Israel distinguishes striking Hezbollah as terrorism response, says numbers of civilian casualties are disputed.
• Quote: "Hezbollah is a terrorist organization which is also a political party. It’s not a political party which also has a terrorist wing." – Michael Leiter ([12:59])

---

3. Interview: Senator Mark Warner on Intelligence, War’s Cost, and Transparency

[16:01–23:38]

• Rebuts Israeli claims of imminent Iranian threat to the US; blames war escalation on administration’s policy choices.
• Notes that removing enriched uranium from Iran would require a minimum US force deployment of 10,000 troops.
• Warns of difficulty in securing the Strait of Hormuz against Iranian asymmetric strategies.
• Questions administration’s transparency and rationale for war; points to high and persistent US gas prices.
• Quote: "Are you willing to put your sons and daughters in a ground war in the Middle East to get that enriched uranium out? I’ve not found any volunteers on that." – Mark Warner ([20:54])
• On Homeland Security standoff: Frustration over lack of policy gains for Democrats and ICE’s controversial practices.

---

4. National Mood: Analysis of CBS News Polling

[24:49–28:12]

• Widespread anxiety and stress about the war.
• Ambitious goals (open Hormuz, regime change, prevent nuclear arms), but public doubts any are achieved.
• Gas prices and inflation drive political discontent; only 36% approve of Trump’s handling of the war, 31% on inflation.
• Quote: "When they talk about opening the straits, they're really talking about gas prices. And...people here telling us those higher gas prices are a financial hardship." – Anthony Salvanto ([25:40])
• Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric (“a whole civilization will die tonight…”) draws broad public disapproval and global condemnation.
• Most Americans perceive administration lacks a clear, consistent plan.

---

5. Interview: Congressman Mike Turner on Congressional Oversight & War Justification

[28:22–35:39]

• Asserts that Iran’s near-nuclear status and refusal to renounce weapons justifies continued US pressure.
• Says conflict is fluid; Iranian actions and negotiations drive shifting strategies.
• Emphasizes need for broader international responsibility for Hormuz security.
• Pressed on lack of clear administration strategy and Congressional oversight:
  "The President just tweeted this this morning. So you’ll have to ask the President." – Mike Turner ([35:23])
• Repeatedly returns to Iran’s refusal to declare an end to nuclear ambitions as the core crisis.

---

6. IMF Perspective: Kristalina Georgieva on the Global Economic Shock

[35:58–44:32]

• Describes the war as the largest energy market disruption in modern history.
• 13% of oil, 20% of gas exports blocked for over five weeks; acute impact in Asia (energy rationing, inflation).
• Secondary effects: potential global food price spikes, tourism and transportation shocks, remittance flows disrupted.
• US less affected than poorer, energy-importing countries, but inflation and price hikes still significant.
• Recovery will be slow: even with a ceasefire, supply and infrastructure disruptions are “baked in” for months if not years.
• Quote: "The impact is baked in because already the tankers that should have arrived in Asia have not arrived...If you look at the size of the impact, it depends on how much your reliance on imports. But it also depends on what is your fiscal position. Do you have capacity to absorb the shocks?" – Georgieva ([40:55–41:55])

---

7. Notable Positive Moment: Artemis II Lunar Mission Returns

[44:42–45:58]

• NASA’s Artemis II mission returns safely with the crew celebrating unity and human achievement. Astronauts share gratitude and philosophical reflections on humanity.
• Quote: "Planet Earth, you are a crew. It’s a special thing to be a human, and it’s a special thing to be on planet Earth." – Artemis II astronauts ([45:38–45:58])

---

Notable Quotes (with Timestamps & Attribution)

• VP Vance: "We have made very clear what our red lines are...They have chosen not to accept our terms." ([03:51])
• Amb. Leiter: "Civilian nuclear program doesn’t entail enrichment. There are 57 countries with a civilian nuclear program that don’t have enrichment." ([07:37])
• Amb. Leiter: "Hezbollah is a terrorist organization which is also a political party. It’s not a political party which also has a terrorist wing." ([12:59])
• Sen. Warner: "Are you willing to put your sons and daughters in a ground war in the Middle East to get that enriched uranium out? I’ve not found any volunteers on that." ([20:54])
• Anthony Salvanto: "When they talk about opening the straits, they're really talking about gas prices. And...people here telling us those higher gas prices are a financial hardship." ([25:40])
• Rep. Turner: "The President just tweeted this this morning. So you’ll have to ask the President." ([35:23])
• Kristalina Georgieva: "The impact is baked in because already the tankers that should have arrived in Asia have not arrived...If you look at the size of the impact, it depends on how much your reliance on imports. But it also depends on what is your fiscal position. Do you have capacity to absorb the shocks?" ([40:55–41:55])
• Artemis II Astronauts: "Planet Earth, you are a crew. It’s a special thing to be a human, and it’s a special thing to be on planet Earth." ([45:38–45:58])

---

Important Timestamps

• [00:27] – Recap of failed US-Iran talks; Trump orders Hormuz blockade.
• [05:39] – Amb. Leiter on diplomacy, Israeli concerns.
• [16:01] – Sen. Warner: intelligence dispute, war goals, public sentiment.
• [24:49] – Anthony Salvanto on US polling, war’s domestic impact.
• [28:22] – Rep. Turner: war rationale, Congressional oversight.
• [35:58] – Georgieva (IMF): global economic effects, inflation outlook.
• [44:42] – Artemis II mission splashdown; astronaut reflections.

---

Tone & Language

The episode is urgent, critical, and deeply analytical. Military and diplomatic stakes are presented soberly, often with targeted frustration at the lack of clarity or progress. Economic discussion is dire but pragmatic, offering data-driven explanations. Audience polling segments convey anxiety and widespread dissatisfaction, with politicians generally pressed for accountability.

---

Conclusion

The episode presents a pivotal moment in the US-Iran confrontation, highlighting the limits of both diplomacy and military action and the profound ripple effects on global security and economics. While the guests align on the dangers posed by Iran, there remains sharp debate over strategy, transparency, and the human and economic costs—both at home and abroad. The episode ends on a note of unity and hope through the achievements of NASA’s Artemis II mission, drawing a stark contrast with the fraught international landscape.

Transcript

[A]

Insurance isn't one size fits all. That's why drivers have enjoyed Progressive's Name youe Price Tool for years now. With the Name youe Price Tool, you tell them what you want to pay and they'll show you options that fit your budget. So whether you're picking out your first policy or just looking for something that works better for you and your family, they make it easy to see your options. Visit progressive.com, find a rate that works for you with the name your price tool. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates Price and coverage match limited by state law.

[B]

MARGARET I'm Margaret Brennan in Washington. And this week on FACE THE Nation, Vice President Vance returns to the US Empty handed following talks with Iranian leaders. But President Trump now says he's ordered the Navy to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. The 21 hours of negotiations ended early this morning in Pakistan.

[A]

The bad news is that we have not reached an agreement. And I think that's bad news for Iran much more than it's bad news for the United States of America.

[B]

President Trump and Secretary of State Rubio got the news while they were out for Saturday night at the UFC fights. Earlier, Mr. Trump downplayed the significance of the talks.

[C]

Whether we make a deal or not makes no difference to me. The reason is because we've won.

[B]

What's next in the now 44 day war that has sent gas prices soaring around the world? Will the fragile two week cease fire hold? And what exactly is President Trump's goal in the conflict? We'll hear from the Israeli ambassador to the US Michael Leiter, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner, and Republican Congressman Mike Turner. We'll also take a closer look at the war's impact on the global economy with the head of the International Monetary Fund, Kristalina Georgieva. And finally, a bleak week winds up with a very happy ending. It's all just ahead on FACE THE nation. Good morning and welcome to FACE THE nation. As we come on the air, President Trump is weighing in on the outcome of those talks in Pakistan, saying that, quote, most points were agreed to, but the only point that really mattered, nuclear, was not. He also says the US Navy will begin a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and that any Iranian who fires at US or peaceful vessels will be, quote, blown to hell. There's no word on what Mr. Trump is suggesting was agreed to at this point. According to our new CBS poll, there is increasing concern about the president's handling of the war and its impact among Americans. Those factors and more add up to a new low in President Trump's overall job approval rating for his second term. The inflation report out late last week did not help. It was the worst of Mr. Trump's second term, showing a monthly jump we hadn't seen in nearly four years. We've got more on our poll later in the broadcast, but we begin with Saturday and Sunday's dramatic negotiations in Pakistan between the US And Iran. Our Mts Tayyip reports from Islamabad.

[D]

There was a real sense of optimism as Vice President J.D. vance arrived in Islamabad along with Special envoy Steve Witkoff and the President's son in law, Jared Kushner. Just hours earlier, the Iranian delegation had also arrived in the capital city, led by the speaker of Parliament Mohammad Bagr Gallaba and Foreign Minister Abbas Arakchee. It was hosted by the Pakistanis who helped broker the ceasefire so the talks could happen. The first high level face to face meetings between top American and Iranian political leaders since the 1979 revolution. And after 21 hours of marathon talks, including multiple calls to President Trump, Vice President vance emerged at 6am local time.

[A]

We've made very clear what our red lines are, what things we're willing to accommodate them on and what things we're not willing to accommodate them on. And we've made that as clear as we possibly could. And they have chosen not to accept our terms.

[D]

According to Vance, the key sticking point was Iran's refusal to agree to never develop a nuclear weapon. Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ismail bagai said the U.S. made, quote, excessive demands, but downplayed the apparent breakdown. One should not have expected that we could reach an agreement in a single session, he said. And while that may not have been the Iranian delegation's expectation to end the punishing six week war, the US Delegation left the talks more definitively.

[A]

We leave here with a very simple proposal, a method of understanding. That is our final and best offer. We'll see if the Iranians accept it.

[D]

Throwing into question whether the Shaki ceasefire would hold, if further talks would be held, and whether US Forces would return to direct combat. Moshahid Hussein Said is a member of the Pakistani Senate. Are the talks dead and will we see the war restart?

[B]

No, talks are not dead. There's a stalemate, but the fact is that top leadership met face to face. That's almost a miracle. And Pakistan pulled it off. So I think that says a lot. That shows that both sides are ready, able and willing to seek a deal.

[D]

And the Pakistani government has said it was, quote, imperative the US And Iran uphold the ceasefire. And that it would also try to host further talks in the coming days. Margaret. Talks which could determine the fate of the Strait of Hormuth and a conflict which has seen global energy prices soar and thousands of people killed.

[B]

That's MT's Tayyeb in Pakistan. For more on the peace negotiations, we are joined now by Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Dr. Michael Leiter. Good morning. Welcome back to the program, Margaret.

[A]

Good to be with you.

[B]

Israel and the US have been lockstep in this war to date. You heard the Vice President sort of leave the door open to diplomacy. But President Trump also said this morning the US Is locked and loaded for an appropriate moment. Is it your understanding that Israel and the US Will hold fire until the end of this two week ceasefire?

[A]

We have to remember that the President has been relentless in pursuing an end to this crisis through talks. That's the talks preceded the June war, talks proceeded epic fury. The talks are going on now. And I think that if we can conclude this crisis with Iran, with this regime, this tyrannical regime that's pursuing nuclear weapons without going back into kinetic activity, it would probably be best for everyone. The President continues to pursue that. But right now they saw face to face the Vice President sat opposite this fellow Golubov who is directly responsible for the murder of his own people just in January, this past January, and just saw how obdurate and obstinate they are in pursuit of nuclear weapons.

[B]

When you said the talks are still going on, is there any level of U S. Iran contact at this point?

[A]

Well, you know, the president gave the issue two weeks and we're just into the end of the first week. So there is another week left for the potential for continued talks. We know the Iranians, we know this regime. We don't think they're going anywhere. But it's important to give it a chance.

[B]

Vance said we need to see Iran give affirmative commitment to not seek a nuclear weapon or the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon. Is your understanding that the US Position is zero enrichment or are they still leaving the door open that Iran could have a civil civilian nuclear program for medical purposes?

[A]

Civilian nuclear program doesn't entail enrichment. There are 57 countries with a civilian nuclear program that don't have enrichment.

[B]

But they want a little bit. You know that.

[A]

No, if they have a little bit, then they can have a lot to move from 60%, which they had, to 90%. Look, you don't build these production plants deep underground. If you're doing it for Medical purposes. You have nothing to hide. These people lie. We shouldn't be surprised when people who murder their own also lie. This has been their pursuit. They've been chanting for 47 years, death to America. Death to Israel. That's their goal. Let's not.

[B]

But we're negotiating with that same regime right now.

[A]

We're trying at the same time to act. We're negotiating them. We're negotiating them after eliminating their navy, after their air force, after degrading their leadership. Hopefully, they'll come to their knees and say, we're surrendering.

[B]

Well, the president has said the war is won. Your prime minister said the work is not yet complete. Specifically, what part of Iran still poses a military threat to Israel? Do you still consider it an existential threat?

[A]

Well, there are three things that we have to be concerned with from the beginning. Number one, the pursuit of a nuclear weapon. If they go back to that pursuit, that concerns us. Number two, ballistic missiles. Okay, These ballistic missiles. They promised, by the way, that they don't have a ballistic missile that could reach Europe. They lied. We saw that they do.

[B]

You're talking about firing on Diego Garcia.

[A]

The firing on Diego Garcia, they said it was limited to 2,000 kilometers. We see. Now they've got 4,000 kilometers. It's just a sprint to 8,000 kilometers and to hit Chicago or Tenafly, New Jersey.

[B]

So that has to be U.S. intel says nine years.

[A]

And proxy. Well, our intel says less than nine years. Okay.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And our intel has been accurate on this from the very beginning. Okay. Now, it was clear, we said that they're in a sprint to achieve nuclear weapons. And Mr. Witkoff came back from the talks beforehand and said they came in, they walked into negotiations, that we've got 60% ready for 11 bombs. 11 bombs at 60% means that you got a week or two until you got 90% and weapon grade. And the last thing, Margaret, are the proxies. Okay? This isn't over until there is a complete delinkage between Iran and its proxies, which have spread death, mayhem and destruction around the Middle East.

[B]

I want to come back to that in regard to Hezbollah. But just to finish what you're talking about with intelligence, there was this highly detailed New York Times report this past week. I know you read it. Extraordinary journalism that detailed this February 11th meeting where your prime minister pitched President Trump on bombing Iran. It said the Israeli plan was to kill the ayatollah, done cripple Iran's ability to threaten its neighbors, spur a popular uprising in Iran, and then conduct regime Change, leaving in place a secular leader. Obviously, all those goals were not achieved. Can you declare an end to the war without achieving that checklist?

[A]

First of all, all of those goals have not been achieved yet. This is a process. This isn't instant soup, number one. Number two, I was in the room at that meeting. The journalists who wrote that article were not. And apparently they received the information second, third hand. There's an awful lot in that article which simply isn't true, which is a narrative that's being created. Interesting narrative, but not accurate. So I'd be very careful about quoting from that particular article.

[B]

Well, specifically, what did they get wrong? Because they say your intelligence service is. The Mossad argued the Iranian regime would be so weak it could not choke off the Strait of Hormuz. That was wrong. Iran would have the.

[A]

No, we didn't argue that. We argued the potential that we've got to work towards that. Nothing was presented as a fact that if we do this, this will be the outcome. It's not science. Politics is not science. Military operations are not science. We presented the case that this is what we think should be done. The president makes a decision. This whole thing about the prime minister coming in and dragging the president into all, you know, for publicity purposes.

[B]

Did Mossad believe that there would be protests that would overthrow the regime and that Kurdish fighters would enter through the north?

[A]

The Mossad thought that as we saw in January, hundreds of thousands and millions of people rise up. The potential for that happening again is even greater now. And we still think it's very great. We still think we could, that could materialize over the next couple of months.

[B]

Then why not have the same regime that is suppressing those people?

[A]

Well, you can negotiate.

[B]

Is Israel really supportive of his policy?

[A]

We're supportive of the president and his efforts. Okay. We've been in lockstep from the beginning in the planning, in the implementation, and we're going to end this thing together as well. So we're completely supportive of the president's efforts, both diplomatically and militarily.

[B]

On the proxies, the Jerusalem Post today is writing that Israel's war in Lebanon is the price to pay for Iran reopening Hormuz. The Israeli offensive against Hezbollah. And for our viewers, they are political party in Lebanon. They also are Iran's strongest militia and proxy force. They've complicated things here. The Trump administration is holding talks Tuesday in Washington. You'll be at the table with the ambassador from Lebanon. Hezbollah is not part of these talks. In that lead up, is Israel going to pause Reduce the strikes on Lebanon, if I can.

[A]

A point of correction. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization which is also a political party. It's not a political party. Which also has a terrorist wing. They are a terrorist organization. They're a proxy of Iran.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Which has an agenda of destroying the state of Israel.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

And they fire missiles into our towns and villages.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

And we have to respond now. We want to negotiate with Lebanon. Lebanon and Israel can live in peace tomorrow, I believe. You know, we had this initial phone call on Friday. It was a conference call, you and the Lebanese ambassador, myself, Lebanese ambassador, the US Ambassador to Beirut. All moderated by the State Department official, Mike Needham. It was a great conversation. And the thing we all agreed upon that if there was. If we just put Hezbollah on the side and just Israel and Lebanon negotiate peace. Two months, three months, we've got a complete peace agreement.

[B]

Let me just follow up. You said Israel has to respond. That's different. When it comes to responding to a strike from Hezbollah versus the kind of bombing that we saw this past week, particularly on Wednesday. The airstrikes killed more than 350 people that day, a third of them women and children and the elderly, according to the Lebanese Health Ministry. The vice president said Israel had agreed to check itself with these strikes. And the president said he spoke with Bibi, your prime minister, and he said he's going to low key it. Can you explain what low key bombing means? Is this a reduced cadence and volume of strikes from Wednesday? What exactly did the US And Israel

[A]

agree to reduce cadence up cadence. Operational issues aren't discussed on Sunday morning on television.

[B]

Well, the president.

[A]

Well, what we discussed is that we're going to be in tandem with the president's efforts in the Gulf and we support the president's efforts. Right now we are pursuing those who are shooting missiles against our civilians. And the operation Wednesday was targeted to against operation centers of Hezbollah.

[B]

Now, what they do you dispute those Lebanese government figures?

[A]

Absolutely. It's like Hamas releasing figures from Gaza, you know, their health ministers.

[B]

You're negotiating with the Lebanese government?

[A]

Absolutely, absolutely. But sometimes there's this attempt to paint us as, you know, going after civilians. We're going after in a targeted fashion the terrorist infrastructure. That's what we focus on now. What they do, Margaret, is they put their operation centers, their terrorist centers and among civilians. Now, we tell them to get out. They don't always get out, but we do what we can. Hamas does this in Gaza by building their bases within civilian centers. Hezbollah does it. And we saw the other day where Tehran sent their civilians out to the bridges and the energy plants so they wouldn't be. This is a crime against humanity.

[B]

Well, you have your own diplomacy on Tuesday. We will be watching for that and what happens. Thank you for your time this morning. We'll be right back. We turn now to Senator Mark Warner. He's the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, and he joins us from Charlottesville, Virginia. Good morning to you, Senator.

[C]

Good morning, Margaret.

[B]

I want to pick up where we just left off with the ambassador. When he was talking about his country's intelligence estimates versus ours, he said he was in that room that day when Prime Minister Netanyahu pitched President Trump on this war that the US Is now in. He said these press accounts were wrong. In your understanding of US Intelligence, is it true the CIA disputed the Mossad's assessment as farcical?

[C]

Well, Margaret, I was not in that meeting. I know two things. One, having seen all the intelligence, there was no imminent threat from Iran against the United States. And two, I take my former colleague and now Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and at his word, when he publicly said, well, we knew the Israelis were going to strike Iran, so we felt we needed to go ahead and strike first since Iran would attack us. So we are where we are. But let' sno American should forget this is a war of choice chosen by the President. And if we just quickly look at the goals, regime change, frankly, the new leadership is more radical. Getting the enriched uranium out would require 10,000 troops minimum, guarding a perimeter around a bunker where our troops would have to go in and get this very volatile uranium out. The Iranians could bomb that. We've taken down a lot of their ballistic missiles, but as we've seen, they still have many left shooting down our planes. Thank God our military's world class and got those pilots out, but they literally have thousands of drones left. And this question about what the president's going to do with closing the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranians have hundreds of speedboats where they can still mine the strait or put bombs against tankers in. Closing the strait, how is that going to ever bring down gas prices?

[B]

Well, two things on that. Just to follow up that 10,000 troop requirement. Is that an official government estimate and is that in the midst of combat or is that with Iranian government permission to have boots on the ground?

[C]

This has been known for. There is a reason the Iranian regime is awful. I agree with the ambassador on that. They've been awful for 47 years. But there was a reason why previous presidents, including President Trump, in his first term, didn't choose to go to war because this is extraordinarily complicated. The fact that the President acts like he's surprised the Iranians closed the strait or would attack our Gulf allies, anybody would have read the intelligence that was first. The ability to, to protect our soldiers would require every estimate. I've seen at least 10,000 troops guarding a perimeter, sending troops into these bunkers for days on end. Very vulnerable. The Iranians still have ability to bomb their own bunkers. That is, again, a reason why I think action like this has not been taken before.

[B]

So CNN is reporting, the New York Times, that China is set to deliver new air defense systems to Iran within the next few weeks. The Israeli ambassador previously has acknowledged that China was considering helping Iran. How significant would you describe Beijing's support at this point?

[C]

I would describe it as significant, but they try to hide themselves. China says, well, this is their private sector. We all know there is no such thing as a true private sector in China. Every company in China has to have its first loyalty, the Communist Party. But what we have done, let me also point out, Margaret, by the Trump administration releasing sanctions on Russian oil, that's $10 billion to Putin. More crazy is by releasing sanctions on Iranian oil at sea, we have literally funded the Iranian government $14 billion that they're using to buy from China and elsewhere, weapons to attack our troops. That is insanity in my mind.

[B]

You're talking there about President Trump's efforts to try to lower oil prices through those measures. I want to ask you, though, on the broader point in our polling, we see broad dissatisfaction with how the administration is handling the war. But as for the aspirations, Americans broadly support them. 87% say Strait of Hormuz needs to be reopened. 81% want to ensure freedom for the Iranian people. 76% want to permanently stop Iran's nuclear program. 55% want the current leaders ousted before we end the war. Do you sort of want to see us finish what America has started here? Can you really just hit the brakes,

[C]

Margaret? I agree with all of the goals of the American people, but when you take. Ask the next question. Are you willing to put your sons and daughters in a ground war in the Middle east to get that enriched uranium out? I've not found any volunteers on that. The Strait of Hormuz was open before this war started. Gas in Virginia was $2.81 40 days ago. It is over $4 now. Even if president declares victory tomorrow, those high gas prices will be with us for months. And it's Natural gas, not just gasoline. Asian countries are shutting down their economies one day a week because the price of oil has skyrocketed so much. We buy a lot of stuff from Taiwan, South Korea and countries around Asia. All those prices are going up.

[B]

And we're going to talk about that with the IMF director later on. But just to put a fine point on it, does this mean you would not vote for a supplemental funding request? If the president needs more money to finish what he started,

[C]

I'll take a look at anything. I want to make sure our troops who've done magnificently. But this president should have come to the American people and Congress first and say, I'm going to choose to go to war. Here's what I want to try to accomplish. Those four goals of regime change, uranium, missiles and the Strait of Hormuz. We only got those goals about 10 days into the war. And on any honest assessment, I don't think we've accomplished any of them so far.

[B]

I want to ask you on another topic, and that is basically congressional inaction. We're on day 58 of the shutdown of Homeland Security in terms of this standoff in regard to funding. Republicans are preparing a plan to fund ICE and to fund a CBP on a party line vote through a process known as reconciliation. Democrats had the standoff to demand policy changes. That never happened here. What did Democrats actually get out of this?

[C]

Well, Margaret, what we got out of it, at least in the Senate, is we got 100 to 0 vote saying let's fund all of the rest of DHS except for ICE. That should have. We assumed you had every Republican senator vote for that. And then the speaker of the House, who can't seem to decide what he wants, rejected it. I am glad that the president has gone ahead and paying the salaries. But I think if you ask your same poll questions, do the American people want ICE running around cities, frankly arresting not only undocumented but Americans and putting Americans life in jeopardy as we saw in Minneapolis? I don't think they want that going on as well.

[B]

Okay, Senator, I have a heartbreak I got to take care. Thank you very much for joining us. We'll be right back. Have you ever felt like you were living just a B or B plus life? It's so dangerous to live that. More dangerous than a B minus or a C plus life? Because when you're living a B or B plus life, you don't change it. You think it's good enough. Is it? I'm Susie Welch. I host a podcast called Becoming youg people think, okay, an a life is not available to me, but there is a way. We are all in the process of becoming ourselves. Listen to Becoming youg wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back to Face the Nation. Americans are growing increasingly concerned about the war with Iran and its impact. Our latest CBS News poll finds as the approval of Donald Trump's handling of the conflict has dropped to 36%. Back home, the president's ratings on handling of inflation are at the lowest level of his second term, with only 31% approving. For more, we're joined by our executive director of Elections and Surveys, Anthony Salvanto. Good to have you here, Anthony.

[E]

Morning, Margaret.

[B]

So what exactly are Americans telling you?

[E]

Well, when I just ask how this war is making you feel, the top answers people give are worried and stressed. Let's unpack that. Why? When they look overseas, they see a lot of important goals for the U.S. big bipartisan majorities think it is important, too. You can go down the list, stop Iran's nuclear program, make sure the Iranian people are safe and free, change the regime, change the leadership in Iran, and most important, open the Strait of Hormuz. And what you see is interesting is when you juxtapose that and ask them, well, have those things been done? You see a dramatically different answer because very few people think that they have. What that collectively tells you is this looks to people like unfinished business. There are goals, okay, the war began, not everybody liked it, but now they're saying, make sure it pays off in ways that come back to the US and let me pick up on that word pays off for a second. Because when they talk about opening the straits are really talking about gas prices. And what we've seen is people here telling us those higher gas prices are a financial hardship, difficult to pay. And so that is having an impact both on their views of the economy more generally, as well as their pocketbooks. And you mentioned those ratings at the top look sort of like first rule of politics. Gas prices and prices go up and approval ratings start to go down.

[B]

Well, the president always uses social media to make, you know, big statements of intent. A few days ago, he posted a particularly incendiary one. It said, quote, a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don't want that to happen. That statement drew rebukes from even some of the president's closest supporters, as well as the Pope. You gauged reaction to that rhetoric. What did the American public think?

[E]

So by the time we got to talking to them, people had heard and seen that post and we showed it to them. The general view was they disliked it. There were some who said, okay, a little bit more alike. And those were folks in the MAGA base, not all, but relatively more. But it's also a window into how people process some of these statements. And we've been looking at this for 10 years that are, if you will, shattering norms or changing the way things have been done in the past. And that is they thought it was at least as much a negotiating tactic as it was an intention.

[B]

So how does all of that impact how the public views the president's leadership?

[E]

So one consistent thing through this war is that most people have said they don't feel the administration has clearly explained the goals. I followed up on that this week. And most folks who feel that way think it's that the goals have kept changing, that they've heard, not that they haven't articulated anything. So there's that wide array, and they're not clear which one. Exactly. That relates to most people saying they don't feel Donald Trump has a clear plan for this conflict. Those two things together speak to that collective uncertainty about it, if you will. And when there's uncertainty, you inevitably start to see ratings overall and the feeling that the war isn't going well yet going down.

[B]

Anthony Salvanto, interesting stuff. Thank you.

[E]

Thanks.

[B]

And we'll be right back with a lot more FACE THE nation. Stay with us. We're back now with Republican Congressman Mike Turner. Thank you for coming back to town early to talk to us in person.

[C]

Thank you.

[B]

Let's start on our polling because you, like many people right now, are running for reelection, Right? You look at this poll, 64% of the American people disapprove of the war, 62% say the president has no clear plan. There are these negative perceptions, the president's handling of the economy and inflation. Dayton isn't immune. Gas price is up a buck from where they were same time last year. How are you explaining to people in your district that this war is worth it?

[F]

Well, first off, no conflict ever polls well. I mean, when there's a conflict occurring, no one says it's being handled well because you have to go through the conflict. The president has articulated, I think very well that this is about ensuring that Iran does not become a nuclear state and no one is willing to trade lower gas prices for Iran becoming a nuclear state. And when Vice President Vance stood at the podium and said that the negotiations had broken off because Iran was not willing to declare that they would not become a nuclear State that should have sent a chill both through Europe and around the world. And I think, you know, for everyone, because that truly is what this is about, that puts away what, you know, what Senator Warner was trying to dismissively say, that this was not an imminent threat and what everyone else has been saying in Europe and around the world.

[B]

Well, the president said it's an ambition,

[F]

but that this is an immediate. The iaea, Grossi, the director had said they were weeks away from having enough material to have.

[B]

You said there was no evidence that they were pursuing anything.

[F]

They were weeks away. And now you have it. No longer can people say that they did not have the ambition. Here they are all the way at the table. They have been in this, this massive conflict and they're unwilling to say they're not going to pursue. They're unwilling to pursue the weapon preventing that.

[B]

However, the negotiation itself is proof of the fact that militarily you cannot achieve destruction of nuclear ambition, is it not?

[F]

No, it's not. Because they're still ongoing and the president has said what's ongoing, this conflict, this act, the negotiations.

[B]

But the president said the war has won.

[F]

This is not over. And as it's not over, Iran is going to have to come to the realization, as are the jcpo, the original enrichment deal that Obama had negotiated where he said we're not going to allow them to have a nuclear weapon, but we're just going to watch.

[B]

They didn't have a nuclear weapon and

[F]

where we're going to watch and they

[B]

don't have a nuclear weapon and we're

[F]

going to watch them enrich until they get close enough and then we'll take military action. Europe, everyone was a party to this deal. This is not just a United States.

[B]

They still want to agree.

[F]

This is not just a United States issue as we saw during this conflict where Iran in their missile technology sent a missile all the way to Diego Garcia. This was a wake up call for Europe. They now have missile technology that can reach Europe. This is a regime, a terrorist regime that we cannot allow to have a nuclear weapon.

[B]

So you said. The president has been very clear here in his goals and intent. Art polling shows the American people aren't persuaded in the same way you are. Let me run through some of the things he said on the Hormuz Strait at the outset of the war. March 3, he said the Navy would begin escorting tankers. No matter what, the US Will ensure the free flow of energy to the world. March 9, he said he was still thinking about taking it over. March 15 he said it was someone else's problem. Our allies would take care of it. Maybe we shouldn't even be there. We don't need it. We have a lot of oil. Six days later, he threatened online the US Would attack Iran's power plants if it didn't open the Strait within 48 hours. March 26, he went back to blaming allies, saying he's disappointed in NATO.

[F]

Margaret. In any conflict.

[B]

He announced it ceasefires.

[F]

Conflict is going to be fluid.

[B]

Iran had agreed to open this strait. I'm not done. Because yesterday.

[F]

Conflict is going to be fluid.

[B]

CENTCOM announced they're sending two ships to set the conditions for clearing mines. This morning he said the Navy's gonna start blockading the strait and interdict ships. Is that the final answer? I mean, can you see here why the public doesn't think your adversary has a clear strategy?

[F]

Your adversary has a vote in this, too, and they have a position at 2, which. There were just negotiations. Just yesterday.

[B]

They changed with the.

[F]

Just yesterday there were negotiations. And literally Iran had an opportunity just yesterday to say to the world, we're not going to pursue a nuclear weapon. Can you imagine the largest exporter causing

[B]

your gas prices to be the terrorist

[F]

regime to go up having a nuclear weapon? They have been enriching uranium. They've been enriching to the point where the iaea, the head of the IAEA said they were weeks away from having enough to have.

[B]

There has not been a single congressional hearing on this issue. No one's disagreeing. It's an important one. Since foreign hearings began, there have been hearings. You have been in Iran for 11 days, Congressman.

[F]

Decades.

[B]

Do you think this is adequate oversight?

[F]

There have been. Of this war, decades of. Well, actually, we have had classified briefings on this issue. Now, this is an ongoing conflict. There are going to be continued briefings. I think the administration certainly could. And the chairman of the Armed Services Committee has chastised the Department on needing to provide Congress with more information. But we've had classified briefings. But the issue that. The crux of this. That Iran cannot be permitted to have a nuclear weapon, which is what the vice president stood before the world and said that Iran is unwilling to declare. Just yesterday, which was the breaking point of the negotiations, has been the subject of hearings from the.

[B]

Do you know what the president means when he says that the United States Navy is now going to be blockading the Strait of Hormuz that we are trying to open? Has that been breathed to Congress?

[F]

I think. Well, of course not, because it was just announced yet as you and we

[B]

were discussing this morning all along, and this was part of the Ukraine.

[F]

What is clear in the strategy, as the President has said, is the straits are not just a United States issue. It is also a Europe issue. It is a worldwide issue. And Iran should not be permitted. Iran should not be permitted to control the straits. It's not just a United States issue.

[B]

Did they mine it?

[F]

And Iran should not be permitted to just decide who gets through. And Europe, our NATO allies, others who have certainly an interest in the straits should be coming to the table, and it should not just be a U.S. issue. And the President, by saying we're not just gonna let them decide who gets through, is certainly calling all of our allies and everyone to the table of this needs to be addressed.

[B]

Did they mind the Strait of Hormuz? Because in that tweet today, the President also said they might not have.

[F]

Well, I think.

[B]

Because he said, no shit.

[F]

I think you'll have to ask the President.

[B]

But that's the point that Congress has not moved on that. As a member of Oversight in Armed Services. Do you feel like this has actually been adequately explained to you? Because the American public does not.

[F]

The President just tweeted this this morning. So you'll have to ask the President.

[B]

We would love to ask the President or the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense, but members of Congress from his party are the only ones sitting here today. And we do appreciate you answering questions on it.

[C]

Thank you, Margaret.

[B]

All right, we'll be right back. On Friday, we spoke with the Managing Director of the imf, Kristalina Georgieva here in Washington. And we began by asking her about the war's impact on the global economy. How do you calculate the economic shock from this Mideast war?

[G]

We look at the size of the impact and the duration of impact. And what I can tell you is that this shock is large. 13% of oil, 20% of gas that would have flown in the world is now stuck for five weeks and counting. It is global. Everybody uses energy. Everybody feels the pinch of prices going up. And it is asymmetric. It affects different countries differently. If you are in the vicinities of the conflict, it's a big hit on you. If you are an oil importer, it is a big hit on you. If you have no reserves to protect yourself, you are in a very tough situation.

[B]

It appears like Asia bore a lot of the economic impact here. South Korea, they've got a big computer chip industry. They have called on their citizens to conserve energy. India, they're rationing Energy. The Philippines had a national energy emergency. The Australian gas stations are running out of fuel. It seems like there's a large part of the planet that's really in pain.

[G]

Oh, yes, people are hurting. They're hurting because of sheer lack of quantities. If you are in the Philippines, you're queuing the same way people were queuing here in the 70s to feel your tank. They are hurting because they may be in need of of helium for semiconductors or for MRIs.

[B]

And that comes out of Qatar, out of the middle.

[G]

That comes out of Qatar. And now it is cut to size. They may be hurting because of fertilizers. Now is the planting season. If you are not getting fertilizers or not getting them at a reasonable price, we may see spike in food prices coming. They're hurting because of remittances. Just think how many people live in the Gulf, work in the Gulf, send money home to places like India and Bangladesh. And this money is not coming. They're hurting because of transportation. I'll tell you, my heart goes for Sri Lanka, a country that is coming out of a big shock. They were now affected because a third of flights to Sri Lanka go through the Gulf. Now tourism is going to be hammered. So for many, many reasons, countries are affected. And when you look at the size of the impact, it depends on how much your reliance on imports. But it also depends on what is your fiscal position. Do you have capacity to absorb the shocks? Yes. Who has least capacity? Poor vulnerable countries, whether they are in Asia or in sub Saharan Africa, they're being hammered dramatically. And when we discuss our response, we will zero in on this.

[B]

Highly vulnerable countries here, Americans, they're still spending, they're still driving, but they have seen inflation go up, prices at the gas pump.

[G]

Right. I mean, the US is in the category of countries that are somewhat less impacted because US is energy exporter. But as I said, everybody feels the pinch of prices going up. Why? This is a negative. Supply shocks. You have less energy, but the demand is still the same. What happens? Prices go up. And here in the United States, people have not quite yet seen inflation going down to target. We were projecting this to happen by early 2007. Now that may be somewhat delayed. And what does it mean? It means that people experience a tax on their income. Who is most affected? Of course, Low income, part of the population.

[B]

Well, at one point, oil prices surged nearly 50% because of this war in Iran. And you called it the largest disruption to global energy markets in modern history. As increases, as you said, to fertilizer to other prices that are going to push up, up food. Do you see this impact stretching through 2026? Even if we get a ceasefire that

[G]

sticks, so the impact is baked in because already the tankers that should have arrived in Asia have not arrived. Right? So we already have that impact. But then on top of it, we have the infrastructure impact. 72 energy facilities have been hit, one third of them severe damage. You take the gas field in Qatar, it would take three to five years to reach its full capacity. That has significance. And then we have other infrastructure impacts, like refineries. If they don't receive oil on a regular schedule, they have to shut down, when they shut down to restart. That is with delay. So, yes, we are going to see some drag of this crisis over the year. But if we have peace, of course conditions are likely to improve faster. Above all because confidence is going to benefit from the knowledge that there is a resolution of the fighting before. Something that is very important to recognize. The world economy has been incredibly resilient. We have been hit by one shock and another and another. We were actually projecting a small upgrade for growth in 2026 had it not been for this war. Now we are going to have a downgrade. And the size of this downgrade will depend on these two things, duration and speed, with which everything can come back to the same level of production that we had before.

[B]

Do you think that global economists really overestimated the negative impact of the Trump tariffs?

[G]

Ah, very good question. So the fund, when the tariffs came, was among the very few institutions that were not projecting recession. We did project some slowdown in growth. We did see some slowdown in growth.

[B]

So it be somewhat disruptive.

[G]

We thought it would be somewhat disruptive. It was somewhat disruptive. But then what happened was an adjustment, adjustment in the United States with agreements that have reduced the pressure that tariffs would put here and on the rest of the world. And we saw the rest of the world saying, okay, let's see how we can trade more with each other. Massive increase in trade agreements, more attention to regional trade. If you look at a place like

[B]

you're saying turning away from the U.S.

[G]

well, the U.S. is saying we want to have an economy that is mostly based on investing at home, having manufacturing at home. That's a choice that the country is making. Other countries are looking into their economic future. Small, open economies. They have no choice. They have to find ways to trade with each other because otherwise it would be very costly for their people. So the developments are relatively calming in a sense that we see traits like water. You put an obstacle, it goes around it.

[B]

Our full conversation can be seen on our YouTube channel, website and our podcast. Now to some good news.

[C]

Houston Integrity Splashdown.

[B]

The Artemis II mission has ended and it was a perfect splashdown for NASA and its crew with the capsule Integrity landing into the Pacific Ocean just off the coast of San Diego Friday evening. NASA astronauts Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch and Canadian Jeremy Hansen reflected on their extraordinary mission Saturday after being reunited with their families.

[F]

I would suggest to you that when you look up here, you're not looking at us. We are a mirror reflecting you.

[D]

And if you like what you see, then just look a little deeper. This is you.

[B]

The four spent just over nine days traveling to the far side of the moon, farther than any human had been.

[F]

The gratitude of seeing what we saw, doing what we did, and being with

[A]

who I was with.

[F]

It's too big to just be in one body.

[B]

I know I haven't learned everything that this journey has yet to teach me. But there's one new thing I know, and that is planet Earth. You are a crew.

[A]

It's a special thing to be a

[C]

human, and it's a special thing to be on planet Earth.

[B]

That's it for us today. Thank you all for watching. Until next week for Face the Nation, I'm Margaret Brennan. Today's guests were Israeli Ambassador to the US Michael Leiter, Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner, Ohio Republican Congressman Mike Turner, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva and CBS News Executive Director of Elections and Surveys Anthony Salvanto. The senior executive producer of Face the Nation is Mary Hager Laird. The executive producer of Face the Nation is Anne Hsu. This broadcast was directed by Shelly Schwartz. Face the Nation originates from CBS News in Washington. For more Face the Nation, we're [e-mail] and on YouTube. We're also rebroadcast on our CBS News 24. 7 streaming network at 12:30 and 2:00pm on Sundays. It's available through our apps CBS News and Paramount.

[A]

Plus, you didn't start a business just to keep the lights on. You're here to sell more today than yesterday. You're here to win. Lucky for you, Shopify built the best converting checkout on the planet like the just one tapping ridiculously fast, acting sky high sales stacking champion at checkouts.

[F]

That's the good stuff right there.

[A]

So if your business is in it to win it, win with Shopify. Start your free trial [e-mail] win.

[C]

I remember thinking, God help us all. A new Paramount plus original docu series. My phone goes off one night. We're getting ready to take down John Gotti.

[F]

That's all I could say.

[C]

Click. Real FBI agents.

[A]

I get a call from my wife say my son has gone missing.

[C]

Real stories Gannon is now a missing and endangered child. Wheel stakes it's now or never. A lot of things can go wrong. And only one thing can go right. FBI True now streaming on Paramount Plus.