The Challenging Realities Of Regime Change In Iran

That's pure automotive joy.

I'm Peter, the owner of Muscle Car Junior.

It started as a hobby, then I started posting about it.

Before I knew it, I built a business for storing muscle cars on Facebook Marketplace,

and the community of car lovers on Instagram.

Today, new customers send me what's that message is from all over.

Not bad for a hobby.

And how meta helps over 35 million American businesses, like Peter's Grow, at meta.com-slash-community.

In 2024, a truck crashed into Canaw in Mar rescue, where I work.

146 of our dogs needed homes fast.

We asked for help on Facebook.

Our story spread through WhatsApp messages and Instagram reposts.

Immediately, people stepped up, and just six hours later, every dog was fostered.

I'll never forget how our community showed up for us.

Learn how over 3.5 billion people connect to what matters with meta, at meta.com-slash-community.

I'm Ben Dominic.

I'm Madison Hallworth.

I'm Stuart Vaughnny, and this is The Fox News rundown.

Monday, March 2nd, 2026, I'm Grinnell Scott.

The US and Israel struck Iran over the weekend in an attack that killed Iran's supreme leader.

While there is debate on whether President Trump had the authority to act,

many say attacking a state sponsor of terror was the right move.

How do you take an action?

How do you give the president the latitude to take an action without letting your adversary know,

hey, here we come.

I'm Jessica Rosenthal, a new proposal from the FDA meant to make it easier to treat rare diseases

could quicken the pace toward individualized medicine.

We don't have the regulatory path to appropriately guard real those new innovations.

So instead, a medicine or a therapy for one has to go through the same process at a medicine

for 300,000.

And I'm Dr. Rebecca Grant.

I've got the final word on The Fox News rundown.

The last week was busy in the midst of a continued department of Homeland Security shutdown.

President Trump delivered his state of the Union address and the Clintons offered closed

door testimony on what connections they had to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

But in the early hours of Saturday, President Trump's announcement of an attack on Iran

became the top story.

Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating

imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people.

The assault resulted in the killing of Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Kamehni

and the loss of some of their top commanders.

But Iran's foreign minister Abbas Arachi went on ABCs this week to say they're still

able to respond to the attack against them.

They are capable enough to defend our country.

Even more, they are more prepared and capable than previous war.

Before 12 years, to a day war, quality wise, quantitative wise, they are in a better position.

With the threat of continued bombardments in Iran well into this week,

many lawmakers are standing behind President Trump in his attempt to put control of Iran

in the hands of its people.

I probably was less surprised than most Americans.

Pat Fallon is a Republican House member representing Texas 4th congressional district.

In so much as serving on the Armed Services Committee, especially the Intel Committee,

we're privy to more information than even the average member of Congress is.

I wasn't certain that the president would attack at the end of the day that's going to be his call.

But let's talk about the country we're chatting about here.

Iran, it's the largest state sponsor of terror in the world and it has been for decades.

It's responsible for nearly a thousand American deaths.

Mostly in Iraq, it sponsored murder, mischief, and mayhem with the billions of dollars

of oil revenue that they have they've been blessed with.

And when the President Trump was in President Trump 45, he put strong sanctions on them.

And I believe in 2020, their oil revenue was $8 billion.

But Joe Biden took his foot off the break.

And their oil revenues and just two years climbed to $43 billion.

And that's how they were funding not only their, you know,

revolutionary guard, how they can keep controlled home, but the Houthis,

the Hezbollah, and Hamas.

So this will be a major geopolitical shift.

If we are successful in achieving resume change.

We learned on Sunday that we had lost soldiers in this operation.

And you, me, every American is not very happy to see that.

We thank them for their service for what they've done for the country,

but it's still not something we want to see.

That's horrible.

I remember when we were in Iraq, we would get those daily reports, you know,

16 Americans killed, 74 Americans killed, 110 Americans, it was awful.

And this Sunday was no different.

The Venezuelan operation was nothing short of a miracle to go into a nation state,

their capital city, fortified location, and extract their head of state and his spouse,

both criminals, and come out with no killed in action.

They were wounded.

You said one of them awarded the Medal of Honor, right?

So, but that was absolutely a miracle.

It's just really just short or just short of one.

And to have this operation, Iran is a much bigger country, 93 million people,

sophisticated air defense supplied mostly by Russia, but Russia in some Chinese

equipment there as well.

It's, you're going to suffer casualties.

So, it's a very difficult decision for any president to make.

Speaking of that decision, we are hearing many in Congress,

mostly Democrats, and we'll have to say that.

Talking about war powers and the war powers resolution that the Senate is bringing up,

I believe, Senator Tim Cain of Virginia is the one that's mostly behind it.

Is there a place for the War Powers Act here?

Should the president come to Congress before taking this step?

Well, it's a double as short as so much as yes.

You'd love to see, you know, we have separations of power,

and there's supposed to be three equal branches of government.

But how do you take that and how do you take an action?

How do you give the president the latitude to take an action without letting your adversary know,

hey, here we come.

In the way that Congress dealt with that is after Vietnam,

they passed war powers, you know, the War Powers Act then, I believe it was 1974,

which said that you can have a conflict, you know, you've got 90 days.

And after that 90 days, you've got to come to Congress

if you want to have a sustained military action.

So, that's the safeguard there.

And that does give the president latitude to strike first without the enemy knowing and

use that element of surprise.

If we have a vote, I do believe the vote will,

to really hem the president in and remove his options and latitude,

I think it will fail.

And even if it were to succeed, it would be a political review for the president

and from a practical matter can just be to it.

I know the Iranian foreign minister said we've lost our supreme leader.

We've lost some of our commanders, but our military is more than capable of striking back

against targets as a result of what happened on Saturday.

I'm here in New York.

I know we have seen ramped up security at various high-profile locations.

It's happened in other cities as well.

Should we be worried here at home about any kind of retaliation from some kind of sleeper cell

or anything like that?

And given the fact that homeland security is still shut down at this point,

how much of a problem is that?

You always hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

We need to prepare for the worst.

It is not all the realm of possibility.

We're not talking some bad sci-fi, but movie or book where there are sleeper cells,

Iranian highly trained, Iranian sleeper cells already embedded in the country.

We have to be ever vigilant.

That has got to be a concern that we take seriously.

But if you really play it out, if the Iranian, what's left of their regime,

where to do that, you're going to rally the American people around this action.

If you do anything that's remotely resembles some kind of a smaller 9-11 kind of attack,

they do also have capabilities in Iran that could hit assets in the region, American assets,

and also American allies.

They're doing that right now with Israel.

Another major concern is the revolutionary guard.

There's about 40,000 highly trained, heavily armed soldiers that were loyal to the regime,

probably still are, that aren't true believer types.

And if we want regime chains, we're going to have to wrestle with them as well.

I'm sure the US have a say in who the next leader of Iran will be.

As far as the transition, we're going to have to have some kind of a role in the transition.

And then it's going to be up to the Iranian people.

This is something that a lot of Americans don't understand.

Is the Iranian regime, particularly over the last 20 years, and especially over the last couple,

has been wildly unpopular with Iranian citizens as a whole.

If we had a peg a number, it's difficult, but experts have said,

it's about 70% of the Iranian people hate their own regime.

That's why they have to rig the elections.

And you could easily control a population of 30% are with you and they're armed.

You saw that South Africa.

It was a very, it's like 20% and they control the country.

So, but now that percentage is mostly, mostly before the last couple of months,

it was down to 80% and that's what are up to 80% and down to 20% as far as supporting the regime.

That's why you saw the protests that we saw just a few weeks back.

I do want to hit a couple of other things while I have you here.

And the first thing is you were in the room in Chapakwa, New York

when the former president Bill Clinton and the former secretary of state Hillary Clinton

offered their testimony to the committee on the Epstein files.

What did you see? What did you notice?

Talk about sort of being in the room at that point and just the back and forth there.

Hillary said she didn't know Epstein doesn't ever remember meeting him.

And Galein Maxwell, she knew very, very casually.

She said Bill was more of a friend to Galein and casually knew Epstein.

She was agitated, she was angry.

It was interesting because I'd never laid eyes on her before.

I had seen Clinton before, never met either of them and she's still clear.

She hates Donald Trump clearly.

She sees him as the person that stood in the way of her ultimate dream and

had defeating her in 2016.

And she was encouraging the committee to go after him.

It's he's more likely there's patterns and practices to use her term.

She said there's he's got patterns and practices.

He's been horrible with women.

It's very likely he was very close with Epstein, etc.

But the problem is there's absolutely no evidence that that's true.

In fact, all of the evidence indicates that Donald Trump,

other than taking a few pictures with this guy,

very, very lightly and casually, had zero to do with him.

And then Bill comes in and says,

oh, I don't think Trump knew him at all.

I don't think Trump was in about anything.

And he was more affable and considering the circumstances

getting debosed by the Oversight Committee in Congress,

it wasn't as if he was enjoying it.

But he was pretty neutral in his demeanor and admitted that,

yeah, I knew Galein, but I didn't know what they were up to,

that kind of thing.

But it was very enlightening that Daven and I thought,

I think most of America people want to get to the bottom of this

and then put this Epstein matter behind his whole.

Last thing I have for you, this Tuesday, your state is among three

that kick off the primaries in the midterms.

You ready?

Yeah, no, I'm on the ballot too.

I'm on the ballot every two years.

I do have a primary opponent.

Same fellow that ran against me in 24.

So we're just going to take it very seriously.

We've got, it's literally primary mayhem down here

in so much as we're probably going to have 11 new Republicans

in Texas that will serve in Congress this next term.

There's going to be runoffs in Texas.

If you don't clear 50% the top two will go into a runoff

that I believe will be held in May.

We've got a high profile race in the Senate,

U.S. Senate on both sides.

Democrats and Republicans,

the almost vile member of Congress,

Jasmine Crockett, and that's saying a lot,

considering some of the vile folks we have that serve on the Hill.

She's running.

I'd love to see her defeated.

She's a horrible human being.

And then we've got John Cornyn,

his greatest test of his political career against the AG,

Ken Paxson, and I've worked with both of them

and I'm actually personally close to Ken Paxson.

The problem that Ken has, he's got a lot of political baggage.

He's going to have a tougher time,

most likely in the general.

That doesn't mean he can't win.

That doesn't mean that he won't be able to win maybe by five to 10 points.

But that's what the Corny people are doing.

His hammering can on,

I'm the better general election candidate,

Ken could put it in jeopardy.

And you don't want to spend hundreds of millions dollars

if you don't have to.

And to seek that you can win by 10,

why win if I won or even lose it?

The problem that Cornyn has is he's never built up

a really strong base of Republican primary voters.

And everybody grows up politically in different eras.

And John Cornyn grew up in the 90s

where it was just kind of, I don't want to say patrician,

but it was just,

there wasn't that populist grassroots

vein, if you will, in the Republican party at the time.

So that, and that's a problem that John has is he hasn't really,

you know, he doesn't, he doesn't have that 30, 40%

that can, he knows he's locked in and has got them

and then he's just got to find those other 10 or 20.

So if it goes to a runoff,

which all indications are at will,

it's going to be even a more difficult electric.

So it's going to be fascinating to see it unfold.

Pat Fallon is the fourth district representative in Texas

who has a midterm race as well.

Best of luck to you.

Thank you for taking the time to join us on a rundown.

Thank you so much and God bless, take care.

Xima is unpredictable,

but you can blur less with Ebgles,

a once monthly treatment for moderate to superior eczema.

After an initial four-month or longer dosing phase,

about four and ten people taking Ebgles achieved itch relief

and glare are almost glare skin at 16 weeks.

And most of those people maintain skin that's still more glare

at one year with monthly dosing.

Ebgles,

Libri Kizumap, LBKZ,

a 250-milligram per 2-milliliter injection is a prescription medicine used

to treat adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 88 pounds

or 40 kilograms with moderate to severe eczema.

Also called atopic dermatitis that is not well controlled with prescription therapies

used on the skin or topicals or who cannot use topical therapies.

Ebgles can be used with or without topical corticosteroids.

Don't use if you're allergic to Ebgles.

A allergic reaction can occur that can be severe.

Eye problems can occur.

Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems.

You should not receive a live vaccine when treated with Ebgles.

Before starting Ebgles, tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection.

Ask a doctor about Ebgles and visit Ebgles.lily.com or call 1-800-LilyRx

or 1-800-545-5979.

Put the power of over 100 meteorologists and the worldwide resources of Fox

in your hands with the Fox Weather Podcast.

Precise, personal, powerful, subscribe and listen now at FoxNewsPodcasts.com

or wherever you get your podcasts.

This is Dr. Rebecca Grant with your Fox News commentary coming up.

The FDA has a new proposed rule meant to make it easier

to develop personalized treatments for ultra rare diseases

that specifically cite the possibility of using genome editing.

You may have heard of CRISPR, a technology that allows scientists to change DNA sequences.

CRISPR was used successfully for the first time nearly a year ago

on BabyKJ, who was diagnosed with a rare metabolic disease.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

said of BabyKJ's parents.

They partnered with physicians at Children's Hospital,

of Philadelphia and Penn Medicine and helped pioneer a gene editing therapy

bill especially for their son.

After 307 days in the hospital, BabyKJ came home.

That's not just a recovery. It is a medical miracle.

This new framework would allow doctors, scientists and companies to get FDA approval

as long as the treatment has what is called a plausible mechanism,

a specific scientific method for fixing the cause of a disease.

A disease with 100 distinct mutations in the same gene

will no longer require 100 clinical trials.

One biology is clear and the sciences sound.

We will evaluate therapies based upon strong evidence and not arbitrary barriers.

Individualized medicine is not no longer theoretical.

The guidance is still in draft form and open for public comment for 60 days.

I think what the FDA is doing on rare disease.

And I think the agency more broadly is tremendous.

Judy Stacker worked at Health and Human Services under the first Trump administration.

She's now the founder of Wheeler's Warriors, named after her son,

who also has a rare genetic disease.

And I think Commissioner McCary got it this with his remarks saying,

you know, rare isn't really that rare when you take the community as a whole, right?

There are 30 million people in the United States

with what would we categorize as a rare disease, which is affecting less than 200,000.

And so I think that computes into about one out of every 11.

But they have been historically underfunded, underappreciated, under investigated.

And that's because our current drug development system is based on therapies for the masses, right?

And so we've gotten really good at individualizing diagnosis in the last couple of decades

before you'd be diagnosed with cancer.

Then we were like, now we know you have breast cancer.

Now we can identify that that breast cancer may be due to a genetic variant.

So we've gotten really good at figuring out what might have caused why you're sick.

But then we continue to treat that with just sort of these broad therapies.

Chemo, radiation, et cetera, to keep online with that example.

Now we're realizing you're sick because there you have an issue

because there is an issue with your genetic code.

And the science has now kept pace with that.

We can do a genetic patch through an ASL or we can edit the part of your gene

that maybe has more than it needs with CRISPR.

But we don't have the regulatory path

to appropriately guard real those new innovations.

So instead, a medicine or a therapy for one has to go through the same process

at a medicine for 300,000 clinical trials and multiple talk studies and animal studies

and all of these things that take multi-millions of dollars

and several years in which many of these patients don't have

to just treat one person.

And I think FDA on Monday signaled and took a really important step

to recognize that that system does not match or keep pace with the science.

One of the mechanisms to help fast track personalized therapies

is that if the disease is considered ultra rare,

you don't need to do a big study in order to get FDA approval for this treatment.

That's kind of to your point, right?

Naturally, if it's rare, you don't have a large pool to do a study on.

That's, am I understanding that correctly?

That that's part of the consideration here.

There is probably 32 to 40 kids in the United States

with my son's particular genetic condition.

How can you possibly do a double placebo controlled trial

with 160 to 200 people over the span of multiple years?

You just can't.

And so I think the agency is acknowledging that.

And I think they've acknowledged that before, right?

But I think what Monday signals to me

and what I think is unique is that they're saying

we're starting to realize that the way you treat these kids

is very similar if not the same across disease states.

And if you can prove to us that you know how to do that

in two, three, four, five, whatever the threshold is children,

we're going to let you use that process

for different children and different diseases

without having to come back to us every time.

It's incredibly exciting, and it gives me a lot of hope

for the first time in a long time.

So tell me a little bit about it

because the FDA specifically mentions CRISPR, right?

A marginetic editing.

And they mentioned RNA-based therapies

that can disrupt or block certain genetic material.

How big a deal was it last year

when this team at Children's Hospital in Philadelphia

announced they used CRISPR successfully

for the first time in treating KJ,

a baby's rare metabolic disease.

And was that sort of the beginning of this?

I mean, it was huge.

I think it was the beginning of people fully understanding

what was possible.

But I'll say it was not the beginning of this, right?

In 2018, a year before my son was born,

there was a mother, Julia Viderello.

She had a daughter, Miele, who had a different form

of a Baton disease, sealant, seven.

And she, you know, moved heaven and earth

and found an institution, Boston Children's Hospital

and a scientist there, Tim Mew,

to create an ASO, an antisense,

ugly and nucleotide.

And it's sort of like, for lack of a better word.

It's almost like a genetic patch of sorts to say,

okay, you're missing these instructions.

And so we're gonna try to get enough of those instructions

in there so that your body can do what it needs to do.

And so that was really the first time this was done.

And that showed that you could even create

a therapy personalized to one person.

And I think now with the guidance that FDA has published,

that's translating that to millions.

How do we go from Miele to KJ to millions?

FDA is sharing the guidance and the carburels potentially

to make that possibility a reality.

Tell me about your journey with your son.

You said that this announcement gave you a tremendous amount of hope.

Will this potentially one day apply to him?

I hope so and I think so.

Wheeler was born.

My husband and I had a very long and painful journey

to parenthood and through just a flu pre-conception genetic test

found out we were carriers.

And so we were devastated when we learned more about this disease

and we prayed and we thought, you know,

how are we gonna have a family knowing that this is,

we have a 25% chance of every possible child having this disease.

And so we felt that, you know, IVF with pre-implantation genetic diagnosis

was the most ethical way for us to proceed.

And then in doing IVF, after multiple failed miscarriages and cycles,

we learned that it was going to be unlikely if not impossible for us to have children.

And so we took a break.

I ended up being asked to join the Trump administration

and four months into that our method of contraception failed and we were pregnant.

And so, you know, we knew that this was a risk,

but we had hope against hope.

And so Wheeler was born on May 1st.

And then May 29th of 2019, I got the phone call that forever changed my life.

And I was told that he had this terrible disease.

And honestly, the script was make as many memories as you can.

And that was it.

And so thankfully, unlike many families, you know, I was at HHS.

So I picked up the phone and we wound up at NIH and we were there

participating in a natural history study because I just,

I had been told that there was nothing, there was nothing there.

And so I was like, well, what can I do?

Well, let's get it in somewhere where they can gather data,

where they can learn from this for when the science picks up.

We'll be ready.

We're now seven, almost seven years later.

And until yesterday, I was really no closer to saving my child

than I was the day he was born.

But I think what happened on Monday is a signal to say,

listen, if the way you treat a lot of these diseases

is the same, there might be a way for us to approve that process.

And so that's how we might be able to do that at scale.

And that then incentivizes academia, researchers, commercial organizations

to say, hey, what is worth it to invest in a Wheeler?

Because now I won't just be treating maybe 30 or 40 of those kinds of kids.

I'll be developing the process in which I might be able to treat 300, 400, 500.

And that then becomes commercially worthwhile.

Again, I think what we're seeing happen is truly extraordinary

and is the recognition that the science has outpaced the system

and what can we do to think about using the current authorities that FDA has

to meet that moment.

It does bring to mind the conversation that I've been hearing for a while now

about personalized medicine, right?

You will one day hopefully go to the doctor and they could look at your genetic

sequence and say, oh, we're going to, we can't give you this medication

because you would react badly to this and we would know that ahead of time.

But the technology to treat someone with something like crisper

at this point is still prohibitively expensive.

How do you think we get there if it's not cost effective?

Like, what is the journey to personalized medicine?

I think plausible mechanism is it.

Because I think you heard Tracy Beth Hogue said,

yeah, we're starting with sort of ultra rare diseases,

but this could be applicable for more common diseases as well.

You know, I think they recognize that we've got a crawl before we walk.

It's appropriate to start in a group that has been under-researched

to start thinking about how we do this.

Again, this process, this mechanism could be the same.

And then that will drive corporate entities to become interested to start doing it.

Because now they're not just necessarily developing a medicine for one person,

but they are proving they can execute a process

and they're doing it to treat one person.

But in proving they can do it in that one person,

then they prove they can do it in another person,

then they prove they can do it in another person.

And it might be different diseases, but they do it all the same way.

Then it becomes, okay, you've proven you can do this.

Now you can do this in any diseases that might be amenable

to being fixed by that process.

And you don't have to come back to us every time.

We can audit you.

We can do post-market review.

You need to share your data.

You need to be transparent.

This has to be good science.

But now you've passed the litmus test.

You've proven you can do this.

And that's where it becomes less expensive and prohibitive.

And I think that's where you're going to start seeing

commercial and corporate entities really engage.

Judy Stacker, founder of Wheeler's Warriors.

Thank you so much for joining us.

Thanks for having me.

Here's a look at the week ahead.

Monday Fox CEO, Lockland Murdoch,

speaks at the Morgan Stanley Tech Media and Telecom conference in San Francisco.

And speaking to tech, the Montana VA begins using artificial intelligence

scribe technology to aid patient visits.

Tuesday, Secretary Kristi Nome is in the hot seat testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee

on oversight of the Department of Homeland Security and some food industry happenings.

McDonald's introducing the limited edition.

Big Archburger will Starbucks rolls out its spring menu Wednesday back to Capitol Hill

with House Oversight Committee will hear from Minnesota governor Tim Walsh and attorney

General Keith Ellison on alleged fraud and misuse of federal funds in the state Thursday.

There's a national Capitol Planning Commission meeting for review of the new White House

East Wing modernization process Friday.

We'll get the February jobs report.

And you can read over those numbers while listening to new music from Narls Barkley,

who releases their first album in 18 years.

And that's a look at your week ahead. I'm Tom Graham, Fox News.

I'm your fearless leader Clay Travis.

This is Outkick the Show where every day we talk sports, politics, and the stories that actually

matter, real conversations, no spin, catch the show on youtubeoutkick.com and wherever you get your

podcast.

Read and review the Fox News rundown on Apple podcasts or wherever you listen.

It's time for your Fox News commentary. Dr. Rebecca Grant, what's on your mind?

The death of Ayatollah Hamani offers a new day for Iran and the prospects of peace across

the Middle East. And it's come as a direct result of precision, US air, and space power.

President Trump was right to seize the moment.

Be two bombers are back in action, Air Force F-22s and F-35s along with two aircraft

carriers and more land-based fighters are leading the most sophisticated air campaign ever launched

by US forces. However, the number one metric for success in Operation Epic Fury is simple.

The destruction of Iran's military power. Here are the top three priorities.

First, destroy the missiles. The core military objective and the biggest target set is

destroying Iran's missile complex. You can see why just look at the strikes they've launched.

Left to simmer, it would have been the US next. Secretary of State Marco Rubio made

clear Iran was trying to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles to reach us here in America.

The missile targets are spread across the country and Iran's salvos against Gulf states are

actually revealing more potential targets. Target sets expand as sensors pick up what the

military calls dynamic targets targets you see when they start shooting. Chasing leadership

Godaways and ensuring fixed site destruction will be the prime factor in how long Operation

Epic Fury continues. Second, US forces are playing offense and defense at the same time.

Crucial to both is the US Space Force. Their satellites are the first alert against Iranian

missile launches. Then it's up to US Navy destroyers, Air Force and Navy fighters, and of course

ground-based systems to chew up the incoming. Finally, while not a direct objective of Operation

Epic Fury, these in-your-face strikes should scare China. China is seeing that the US can wield

stealthy precision air power with incredible intelligence along a 2,000-mile arc.

For there is another strategic reality driving this operation.

President Trump needs to complete the takedown of Iran's capability now,

so our military can concentrate on deterring China and protecting our home shores in the Western

Hemisphere. I'm Rebecca Grant for Fox News.