Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

U.S.-Backed Rebels Close to Liberating Raqqa; Pope, Trump Offer Support to Parents of Dying Baby; U.S.: North Korea Missile was "Probable" ICBM. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired July 04, 2017 - 13:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:32:47] BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: ISIS is running out of places to go.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(GUNFIRE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: This here is the scene in Raqqa, Syria. It's a stronghold for the terror group. Coalition troops are pushing into the center of the city. They just breached the city's Rafiqa Wall. And in Mosul, Iraq, this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(GUNFIRE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: A similar scene there, where U.S.-backed forces are pushing out the last of the ISIS fighters. These twin de facto capitals, Raqqa and Mosul, were initially declared caliphates by ISIS.

I want to discuss this now with our Senior International Correspondent Nick Paton Walsh in Erbil, Iraq, and CNN global affairs analyst and senior national security correspondent for "The Daily Beast," Kimberly Dozier.

So, Nick, you have the U.S. envoy for the anti-ISIS coalition, Brett McGurk, tweeting that -- Syrian Democratic Forces, late tonight, entered the old city in central Raqqa. Key milestone in campaign to liberate the city. Just how significant is this?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we don't know the scope of their progress elsewhere around the city.

But the fact, according to this coalition statement, they seemed to have managed to get past the fences of the old city relatively easy, according to the coalition, by blowing two substantial holes in the about six-mile long perimeter wall around the old city, therefore enabling them to bypass all the booby-traps and defense positions ISIS have put in place, well, that could save them a lot of time.

And it does potentially mark a significant moment of progress. They seem to be move in quite quickly around Raqqa. They have a lot of coalition ground and air support speeding them on, and they face, potentially, a lesser challenge.

Certainly, Mosul, you referred to earlier on, that was the largest population center that ISIS ever held in Iraq. Raqqa was a de facto capital they declared in Syria. Raqqa potentially, at this point, has only 50,000 civilians in it by one count. Some suggest even more, 150,000.

But that's nothing compared to the problems that Iraqi Special Forces face when they moved into the populated areas of Mosul. It's an easier task. They're up against 2,500 ISIS fighters, so the coalition only a few hundred of, you know, kind of the diehard foreigners as far as we understand.

And at this point, they seem to be three kilometers from the city center. That's where the toughest fighting will be, in the built up, dense urban stroll.

[13:35:04] But the question really is, do the Syrian, Kurds, and Arabs the U.S. are backing have momentum now to move faster, or are they going to still come on stuck when they get to the dense urban areas I said where ISIS have been dug in and laid booby traps for some time -- Brianna

KEILAR: So, Nick's saying there, you know, Raqqa is no Mosul, and yet we see just how tightly ISIS will hold on to an enclave like this. But what does this mean that it appears they are on the verge of losing both of their de facto capitals?

KIMBERLY DOZIER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: They have already sort of planned for this, or as best they can, by moving some of their leadership or the majority of their senior leadership down the Euphrates River Valley to Deir ez-Zor to another city called Mayadin. But you're seeing the coalition step up strikes in those cities.

And in recent days, and recent weeks, they've taken out some senior- level leadership. One Baghdad official I spoke to said that, now, they're getting down to the fourth and fifth levels of the leadership because the second and third tier, ISIS can't replace them fast enough.

You know, at the height of this crisis, back in 2015, they had something like 1,500 foreign fighters coming in to Iraq and Syria a day. That's down to a trickle of a hundred or so. So you see ISIS getting burned out of its last strongholds.

Its transition plan is to move elsewhere, but they'll have this great loss of losing both capitals. And they'll have to find a way to keep winning supporters despite that.

KEILAR: We've seen, Nick, that when ISIS loses territory, it starts looking in other directions, whether that's just claiming influence abroad, and we've seen, of course, that there are this lone wolf attacks inspired by ISIS. But also just looking for very visual, terrible attacks. We've seen one, for instance -- some in Turkey, for instance. Does this at all impede their ability to do that?

PATON WALSH: It is hard to tell. I mean, bear in mind, ISIS is really an idea. You know, we've seen a lot of these attacks around the world, ostensibly people inspired by things online. And they were told by Adnani, the ISIS spokesman, that they shouldn't really wait for instructions, just go ahead and do things that came to mind, in that kind of sick call to inspiration he put out to terrorists around the world.

So losing territory, yes, potentially inhibits them to have a nerve center where they can plan, where they can perhaps train individuals too, and they're certainly on the run. But bear in mind, too, you know, simply the fact that they lose these main cities doesn't stop them being a problem in Iraq and Syria.

More so in Iraq, too. There's a very disenfranchised Sunni ethnic group in the Iraqi population that distrust and are distrusted by the Shia ethnic group, who predominantly run the military and the government now. That's always been at the heart of this struggle. That hasn't gone away.

So there are areas of the country where they'll find some sense of shelter, many fear. And that will continue with inspiring these bomb attacks we've seen, car bombs, suicide bombers, against soft civilian targets around Iraq. The bloodshed hasn't stopped.

We've just seen them lose territory quite quickly here. But the fight for Raqqa, I've got to stress it here, is moving quickly but it could still take months. We simply don't know how willing they are to resist there and what kind of supply levels they still have because they've been encircled now for a few weeks -- Brianna.

KEILAR: That's a very good point. This never seems to take a shorter time than expected. I think we see that.

The bigger picture in Syria, what does this mean for that in terms of stability for the entire country? There are so many facets to this conflict. The Assad regime, Russia's involvement. If ISIS' stronghold in Raqqa goes down, what does it mean for the bigger picture?

DOZIER: Well, you have U.S. and Russian-backed forces coming into closer and closer proximity as they hunt down the last vestiges of ISIS. We've already had one clash because of that with the U.S. shooting down a Syrian jet that was menacing what it called ISIS forces, what the U.S. called Syrian defense allies.

So it's a chance for a greater friction ahead. Look to the Putin- Trump meeting at --

KEILAR: That's right.

DOZIER: -- the G20 because this is the topic that's got to come up. We're probably going to hear Putin offer to cooperate on ISIS as we have before, but talks towards a political solution have been stalled or moving at a snail's pace for some time. And this loss of these capitals isn't going to change that.

KEILAR: Is there a real cooperation on ISIS, though, when you look at Russian involvement and how it seems to be targeting anti-regime forces instead?

DOZIER: U.S. military officials tell you there's been no real cooperation so far. They say that the Russians have been helpful in certain areas by passing on messages to other forces, pro-Assad forces, on the ground saying stay away from this area to avoid conflict.

[13:40:00] That tactical cooperation has worked in a few instances, but we haven't seen the U.S. and Russia work together towards ending the fighting there because they disagree on the future of Syria and who should ultimately rule.

KEILAR: That's right. All right. Kimberly Dozier, thank you so much. Nick Paton Walsh as well. We appreciate it.

And coming up, the Pope and President Trump stepping into the middle of the dispute surrounding a terminally ill baby in London. What the Vatican is now offering to the parents. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: The heartbreaking story of a British infant has garnered worldwide attention, including that of President Trump and Pope Francis.

Little Charlie Gard has a rare terminal illness. His case has sparked debates over moral and ethical issues, such as link to medical treatment and the right to die with dignity. CNN's Diana Magnay is covering the story for us from London.

Diana, give us some of the background on this and how the President and the Pope became involved.

DIANA MAGNAY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Brianna, this is such a painful story and it's hit really the country's top pediatricians, a range of medical experts, all of whom have submitted evidence to the British courts against two very desperate parents.

And on the basis of medical ethics, medical science, they have all reached very different conclusions about what's in Charlie's best interests.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MAGNAY (voice-over): The tubes that keep him alive will be turned off soon. His parents' last hope, to take him to the States for highly experimental medical treatment, blocked by the British and European courts. Their last wish, refused, to take him home to die. [13:44:59] CHRIS GARD, CHARLIE GARD'S FATHER: He's a little trooper

and he's a soldier. He will fight. He'd fight to the very end and he is still fighting, but we're not allowed to fight for him anymore.

Our parental rights have been stripped away. We can't even take our own son home to die. We've been denied that. They don't think we've been through enough.

MAGNAY (voice-over): Little Charlie Gard was born healthy but diagnosed the following month with a rare genetic disorder, a form of mitochondrial disease, which has left him, his doctors say, with irreversible brain damage.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're still fighting!

CROWD: We're still fighting!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Save Charlie Gard!

CROWD: Save Charlie Gard! Save Charlie Gard!

MAGNAY (voice-over): At the weekend, protests in London against the decision to turn off life support. And after the Pope sent a message to the parents from the Vatican, saying he was praying for them in the hope that their desire to accompany and care for their own child until the end will be respected, now Donald Trump has weighed in too.

If we can help little Charlie Gard, as par our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so.

MAGNAY (on camera): Charlie's case is extremely complicated. The treatment that the U.S. is offering is called nucleoside bypass therapy, and it's never been tested on a strain of the disease as rare as Charlie's is. And even the U.S. specialist who is offering it says he think it's unlikely that it will be able reverse Charlie's brain damage.

And that's why the British courts ruled the way that they did. They said they didn't want Charlie to be the subject of medical experimentation if there was no chance of him getting better, that his right to die with dignity must come first.

MAGNAY (voice-over): But that's not the way his parents see it. Sadly for them, the pleas of a Pope and a President, already too late.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MAGNAY: You've got to ask, Brianna, however well-intentioned the intervention of President Trump and the Pope may be, does it give the parents false hope? Because this is the end of the road in terms of legal recourse.

They have taken this case to the high court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights, because, in this country, if parents and doctors disagree on what is in the best interests of the child, then it has to go to the court. And the court have all decided that it is in Charlie's best interests to have treatment withdrawn and for him to be able to die with dignity, Brianna.

KEILAR: Why is his family not allowed to take him home to die?

MAGNAY: Well, so this is probably when you consider palliative care options in hospitals, i.e., the best course of treatment for a terminally ill child and end of life plan that will make it bearable for the child and for the parents. It may be that the hospital thinks he is too fragile to move. That may also be why the hospital is not allowing him to go to a hospital in Rome, the Vatican hospital which has said, look, we'll take little Charlie.

So I think there are many, many factors that go into the end of life plan that pediatricians will be drawing up where, basically, the child has to be the focus and the minimization of suffering of the child has to be the focus. But you also have to bring the parents on side and onboard, and it has to be a process that everyone really agrees on.

KEILAR: Yes.

MAGNAY: And considering they come from such different ends of the spectrum, the parents and the doctors, on this one, that is clearly a complicated issue. You know, they were supposed to be turning off the life support machines on Friday. That hasn't happened.

I would imagine, although the hospital doesn't disclose individual patients' details, that that is because this is such a complicated process, and they need to try and get the parents onboard.

KEILAR: What is the Vatican hospital saying?

MAGNAY: Well, they have said they were in touch with Great Ormond Street, which is the hospital here where Charlie's being treated, and Great Ormond Street said we can't transfer the child to you because of the court's decision. He has to be kept here for treatment.

Now, I imagine, also, that the courts made that decision based on what they consider to be Charlie's very, very fragile situation. And Great Ormond Street is one of the top hospitals certainly in the U.K., in the world, to treat children with terminal illnesses, so they must have confidence that he's getting the best possible care there, even if the parents do not -- Brianna.

KEILAR: Yes, but your heart breaks on this story. Diana Magnay in London for us. Thank you so much. We're going to be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:52:35] KEILAR: Breaking news here at CNN. A U.S. official telling us that North Korea's missile test was of a probable intercontinental ballistic missile. CNN's Ryan Browne has the latest on this.

What are officials telling you, Ryan? RYAN BROWNE, CNN PENTAGON REPORTER: Well, we're starting to hear that

the initial assessment that the missile was an intermediate range ballistic missile was not correct, and they have since revised the assessment and now deemed with high confidence that it was a probable ICBM capable of traveling a significant distance further.

One other thing that was noted was that this missile actually had two stages. And so, basically, the initial missile was launched and then a second booster fired, propelling the missile even further for another, about, 30 seconds, we're told. This is a significant technological capability that North Korea hasn't demonstrated in previous intermediate-range missile tests in the past, so this is something that's kind of played into this revised assessment the U.S. officials are making.

They have been meeting today, we're told, security officials from across the government, to assess this most recent North Korean missile launch. And part of that assessment now is this new determination that they have high confidence that this was, in fact, a test of an ICBM.

KEILAR: All right, Ryan Browne with the latest there for us. I want to bring in now retired Admiral John Kirby.

So this is very significant, right? Because we know that while North Korea may not have nuclear capability to couple with this ICBM, it seems very likely that they could, then, move in that direction.

REAR ADMIRAL JOHN KIRBY (RET.), CNN MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC ANALYST: Sure.

KEILAR: That almost, they may be unstoppable at this point in time, and these changes the entire situation as the U.S. relates to North Korea as a nuclear power.

KIRBY: Right. I mean, an ICBM capable Pyongyang, that's a game changer. This is a capability that the regime has been trying to perfect and to get fielded. It looks as if they've done that. That certainly does change the calculus. It also limits the kinds of options that the administration has going forward.

It's not like we didn't see this coming. I mean, this has been a long time in development, but now it does more sharpen the kinds of options that the United States can take in concert with the international community.

Kim sees this kind of capability as a bargaing chip. It's his ultimate way of ensuring the regime's survival, and that's what he's really after here. Obviously, it poses a real threat, a threat we all need to take seriously, but it is, for him, a chance to make sure he survives.

[13:55:00] KEILAR: What are the options that would have been on the table before that are eliminated by what seems to be an ICBM?

KIRBY: I think it now makes it -- not that he didn't have capability before to wreak havoc and violence on the peninsula or even in the region, but this means now that he can do that with a longer reach. And so the calculations, the cost of military intervention of a kinetic sort, open combat, that now has graver potential consequences.

So it limits, I think, a little bit. Not that anybody was ever, I think, seriously thinking about a new war on the peninsula, but certainly, this makes it that much more dangerous to do it.

KEILAR: So, Ryan Browne, if we're hearing now from sources that this is a probable ICBM, is there another step where they're going to say, definitively, yes, this was one?

BROWNE: There's sort of a potential where they release that assessment in the past, the United States military, when missiles have been launched, they miscategorized the initial launch, they'll release kind of a revised assessment publicly. They have done that in the past. There is precedent for this.

But as you mentioned, again, military, not making any comment on whether not this kind of missile could be fitted with a warhead or a nuclear warhead, perhaps. That would be another technological leap way beyond what we've seen. But, again, this is -- the constant testing, the frequency of the tests has gone up a lot in the last year, and this is just another example of advancement of the North Korean technological capability.

KEILAR: And all of this happening on the Fourth of July, no mistake there, and all of this happening as President Trump looks towards very important meetings at the G20 Summit in Germany.

John Kirby, Ryan Browne, thank you so much. That is it for me. I'm going to be back at 5:00 Eastern in the "SITUATION ROOM."

For our international viewers, "AMANPOUR" is next. For our viewers here in North America, "NEWSROOM" with Brooke Baldwin is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)