As American and Israeli forces continue their operations against Iran into their second week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will address the public this evening. The Pentagon has stated that over 50,000 U.S. military personnel are engaged in what they’ve designated “Operation Epic Fury.” CBS News correspondent Major Garrett recently interviewed Secretary Hegseth regarding the ongoing conflict with Iran.
By Friday, when our interview with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth took place, the U.S. military had reported hitting 3,000 targets within Iran.
Major Garrett inquired: Earlier this week, the Speaker of the House claimed, and I quote precisely, that “The mission is nearly accomplished by all estimates.” Is this assessment accurate?
Pete Hegseth responded: Indeed, we are progressing exactly as scheduled and according to plan. I was at CENTCOM just yesterday—
Major Garrett interjected: Such a statement might lead some to believe the conflict is nearing its end—
Pete Hegseth continued: We’re certainly not displaying a “mission accomplished” banner, unlike what George W. Bush did on an aircraft carrier. That’s not our approach, and we haven’t done so. However, we can assure the American public that this engagement is not an even match.
This disparity is intentional. Our military capabilities far exceed those of Iran. Furthermore, when considering the combined strength of the U.S. Air Force and the Israeli Defense Forces’ air power, we possess the two strongest air forces globally.
Our capacity for aerial dominance, employing conventional ordnance like 500-pound, 1,000-pound, and 2,000-pound gravity bombs against military targets, is an aspect of the campaign we’ve barely initiated. This phase will further demonstrate our effectiveness in achieving our goals.
Major Garrett asked: The President recently stated that the only possible resolution with Iran is unconditional surrender. What exactly does this entail, and how will its authenticity be verified?
Pete Hegseth replied: It signifies our commitment to victory, meaning we dictate the conditions. We’ll recognize surrender when they are no longer able to resist. There will come a point where they have no alternative. Regardless of their acknowledgment, they will become militarily ineffective and will surrender.
Major Garrett questioned: Generally, surrender implies a direct, person-to-person interaction. Would a similar protocol be necessary in this situation?
Pete Hegseth answered: There are various methods for this. Whether they choose to concede or their pride prevents them from vocalizing it, President Trump will ultimately determine the terms.
Yesterday, the Iranian president commented that the U.S. demand for unconditional surrender is, and I quote, “a dream that they should take to their grave.”
Major Garrett probed: Iran and Iraq engaged in a protracted conflict lasting nearly eight years, during which neither side surrendered. I’m curious if this historical context influences your or the President’s strategic considerations—
Pete Hegseth responded: I mean, there was a very lengthy conflict that both I and my generation participated in.
Major Garrett affirmed: Yes, I am aware of that, sir.
Pete Hegseth continued: In Iraq and Afghanistan, many misguided tactics were employed. This is warfare; it’s about conflict and compelling your adversary to yield. Whether they conduct a formal surrender ceremony in Tehran Square is their decision.
Accounts differ regarding the precise origin and timing of the war. Certain staunch presidential supporters have voiced criticism, implying that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu steered the U.S. into a conflict they believe does not prioritize American interests.
Major Garrett asked: Would you like to comment on that criticism?
Pete Hegseth responded: All I can say is that I am present daily and observe President Trump’s methods, and what he prioritizes are America, its citizens, and its interests
Major Garrett inquired: Reports suggest that on February 23rd, the Israelis, via Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, supplied crucial intelligence regarding the probable location of Ali Khamenei and his associates. The U.S. reportedly verified this information through the CIA, leading to an opportunity presented to the President, which then became the catalyst for this conflict. Is this account accurate, Mr. Secretary?
Pete Hegseth replied: President Trump’s strategy has consistently centered on promoting American interests. Therefore, the acquisition of intelligence, whether from Israeli or U.S. sources, always undergoes verification by our intelligence agencies for accuracy. Often, the most effective way to initiate operations is through a trigger-based or condition-driven event. Collaboration on the suitability of such moments is possible. However, we always maintained control over the decision to proceed or not, ultimately to advance American interests and safeguard American lives.
Major Garrett observed: Some might interpret that chain of events as an opportunistic move rather than a response to an immediate threat.
Pete Hegseth responded: I believe much of that discussion is rather trivial and theoretical. They have been responsible for American deaths for 47 or 48 years and pursue relentless nuclear ambitions.
After we destroyed their nuclear capabilities during the 12-Day War and Operation Midnight Hammer, they should have engaged in negotiations and acknowledged, “Alright, we understand. You are serious. We will forgo nuclear weapons.” Yet, they failed to do so.
Consequently, the President perceives this as a threat that would persistently escalate over generations.
Even though the administration’s asserted in June that Iran’s nuclear infrastructure had been eliminated, international oversight bodies estimate Iran retains over 970 pounds of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels.
Major Garrett asked: Can President Trump’s stated objectives be realized if we do not locate, secure, and remove the highly enriched uranium?
Pete Hegseth replied: We have multiple strategies to address that. They’ve developed a burgeoning conventional missile arsenal, expanding daily in production capacity, to shield their nuclear extortion goals. Regarding their nuclear program, we will ensure that their nuclear aspirations are never fulfilled.
Major Garrett asked: Will our forces directly neutralize it?
Pete Hegseth responded: I would never disclose our operational options to you or anyone else. That’s a consistent point; people frequently inquire—
Major Garrett interjected: It’s not truly—
Major Garrett clarified: It’s a valid inquiry.
Pete Hegseth acknowledged: A very fair question. People constantly ask about ground troops, no ground troops, two weeks, four weeks, six weeks, or invading. President Trump and I understand that you do not reveal your operational boundaries to the enemy, the media, or anyone else. We are prepared to go to any necessary extent to achieve success.
Major Garrett asked: Are there any overt or covert American forces currently deployed within Iran?
Pete Hegseth replied: I would not confirm that information even if such forces were present.
Major Garrett followed up: My only reason for asking is that you previously stated no earlier this week. Does that response still stand?
Pete Hegseth confirmed: Yes, that remains the answer. However, we retain all options. It would be entirely imprudent not to reserve the right to pursue any course of action, whether it involves ground forces or not.
Major Garrett stated: CBS News has received information from three sources indicating that Russia is supplying intelligence to Iran concerning U.S. deployments and movements. For the average American, this might sound like a significant and perilous development. Is it?
Pete Hegseth responded: We are monitoring all activities. Our commanders possess complete awareness. We operate with the world’s finest intelligence capabilities. We understand communication networks, their motivations, the potential accuracy of shared data, and how to integrate that into our operational strategies, as does our CENTCOM commander. So, we are fully informed. The President, moreover, exhibits an extraordinary talent for risk mitigation. Therefore, the American public can be confident that their Commander-in-Chief is thoroughly aware of all communications. Any inappropriate actions, whether overt or covert, are being decisively addressed.
Major Garrett asked: Can the American public consequently anticipate diplomatic engagement with Russia aimed at halting this activity?
Pete Hegseth replied: As observed by many, President Trump maintains distinctive relationships with numerous global leaders, enabling him to achieve outcomes that other presidents, particularly Joe Biden, could not. Messages can certainly be conveyed, whether through direct, one-on-one discussions or indirectly through him or his cabinet.
Major Garrett inquired: Does this situation expose U.S. personnel to greater danger than they would typically face?
Pete Hegseth interjected: Well, no one is—
Major Garrett clarified: Regarding the Russian involvement?
Pete Hegseth responded: Nobody is endangering us. We are the ones posing a threat to the adversary, and that is our objective. Consequently, we are not concerned about that. We mitigate risks as necessary, and our commanders account for all such factors. However, the only individuals who should be apprehensive at this moment are Iranians who expect to survive.
Last Sunday, six U.S. Army reservists lost their lives in a drone strike carried out by Iran in Kuwait. Yesterday, President Trump and Secretary Hegseth were present for the dignified transfer ceremony at Dover Air Force Base. Another service member’s fatality was reported this afternoon.
Pete Hegseth stated: The President correctly warned that there would be casualties. Such operations inevitably involve losses. More casualties are to be expected. And no one, especially our generation, is unfamiliar with the sight of Americans returning home in caskets. However, this does not diminish our resolve in the slightest. Instead, it strengthens our determination to conclude this fight—
To date, Human Rights Activists in Iran reports over 1,600 Iranian fatalities, including 168 individuals, predominantly children, at a school located in the southern region of the country, an area under U.S. attack during that period.
Major Garrett asked: Have you drawn any conclusions regarding potential U.S. military involvement, intentional or otherwise, in a strike on that particular school?
Pete Hegseth responded: We are still conducting an investigation, and I will leave it at that for now. However, I want to emphasize to you and the world that, unlike our Iranian adversaries, we never intentionally target civilians.
Major Garrett asked: A report emerged late this week from two officials suggesting probable U.S. involvement. Is that report incorrect?
Pete Hegseth replied: I have already stated that we are investigating.
Major Garrett questioned: If you were able to definitively inform the American public, “It was not us,” you would do so, wouldn’t you?
Pete Hegseth responded: I would say that an investigation is underway, which is the sole response I am prepared to offer.
This evening, Iran declared that the son of its deceased leader would assume his position. This morning, President Trump remarked that any leader chosen without his endorsement would, quote, “not going to last long.”
Major Garrett asked: You previously stated this is not a regime-change war, yet the regime has clearly undergone a change. Can you reconcile these two statements?
Pete Hegseth replied: Certainly.
Major Garrett prompted: Please proceed.
Pete Hegseth clarified: My statement stands. This is not a regime-change conflict in the traditional George W. Bush sense, involving massive troop deployments. In Afghanistan, as a young captain, I witnessed Americans attempting to transform a society that, in essence, existed in biblical times, despite possessing AK-47s and cellphones.
The arrogance of believing, “We’re going to transform Afghanistan into a Jeffersonian democracy by establishing Western-style military forces and institutions,” was fundamentally flawed. I observed this unfold personally. This doesn’t detract from the bravery of the Americans who served there, whom I know. However, our objective here is not to reconstruct Iranian society through an American lens. We attempted that previously, and the American populace has rejected such interventions. President Trump characterized those conflicts as misguided. We are not pursuing that approach now.
Major Garrett asked: President Trump also commented this week that he desires to safeguard certain individuals he wishes to see rise to power in Iran. Does this constitute a new mission for your department?
Pete Hegseth replied: No.
Major Garrett inquired: How would one protect individuals within the country whom he believes could ascend to leadership positions there?
Pete Hegseth responded: The most effective method to protect them is precisely what we are currently undertaking. The combined American and Israeli efforts you observe present a generational opportunity for the Iranian people.
During the past week, Iran carried out missile and drone attacks against almost a dozen Middle Eastern nations, among them American allies such as Qatar, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia.
Major Garrett asked: Margaret Brennan has reported that our regional allies, not us, are experiencing critically low supplies of interceptors. Is this accurate, firstly? Secondly, how ready are we to assist them in replenishing their interceptor stocks to ensure their protection as this campaign progresses?
Pete Hegseth replied: Extremely prepared. We have accounted for that. As Admiral Cooper, the CENTCOM commander, explained yesterday, their missile launch rate has decreased by 90% from its peak. So if, excuse me, their missile *shots*. If they cannot launch anywhere near that previous volume, our projected munition requirements are far beyond what we anticipate needing. We can also transfer supplies to allies if necessary, always prioritizing the needs of our own forces, troops, and bases. However, wherever we can assist allies, we will.
Since the commencement of the conflict, oil transit through the Strait of Hormuz, a conduit for 20% of global oil supplies, has ceased. Consequently, U.S. gasoline prices have increased by nearly 50 cents per gallon on average.
Major Garrett asked: This week, the President stated that the Strait of Hormuz would be secured. How will this be accomplished, and how will the presently stalled ships resume transit with assurance that they will not be impeded by any remaining Iranian naval vessels or coastal armaments along the strait?
Pete Hegseth replied: We are actively addressing much of that situation.
Major Garrett inquired: By what means?
Pete Hegseth responded: Through American firepower. What was once the Iranian Navy has been largely neutralized. Certainly, more vessels will need to be destroyed. Therefore, their capacity to exert any naval influence in that region is being—
Major Garrett interjected: Is diminishing—
Pete Hegseth continued: Diminishing, and will continue to diminish further. Again, what I want your audience to grasp is that this is merely the initial phase.
Production credits: Andy Court, Andrew Bast, Arden Farhi. Associate Producers: Annabelle Hanflig and Emily Cameron. Broadcast Associates: Erin DuCharme and Jane Greeley. Edited by Craig Crawford. Assistant Editor: Aisha Crespo.
<section class="content__body--footer">
</section>