Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump's Iran Strategy Faces Partisan Divide; Interview with Javad Zarif, Iranian Foreign Minister, on U.S. Sanctions; House Subpoenas More Ex-White House Officials; Prime Minister May Announces "New Brexit Deal" for Fourth Vote; U.S. Temporarily Eases Restrictions on Chinese Telecom Giant; North Korean Media Call Biden an Imbecile; Study: 187 Million People at Risk from Rising Sea Levels. Aired 12-1a ET

Aired May 22, 2019 - 00:00   ET

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

[00:00:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

ANNA COREN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Hello, everyone. Thanks for joining us. I'm Anna Coren. You're watching CNN NEWSROOM.

Ahead this hour, dangerous games: Iran lashes out at the U.S. military buildup in the Gulf with concern growing on both sides that an accident could start a war.

Also ahead, the pressure to impeach: there are new calls within the Democratic Party to open an inquiry into Donald Trump.

And will the fourth time be a charm?

Theresa May makes a last-ditch attempt at getting a Brexit deal through Parliament.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

COREN: The White House moved its Iran strategy away from Twitter Tuesday, trying to sell it to lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Secretary of state Mike Pompeo says the Senate and House learned about the latest Iranian threats in closed door briefings.

The U.S. has sent extra warships to the Middle East and ordered non- emergency personnel out of Iraq. The acting Defense chief says moves like these have deterred attacks on U.S. troops.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PATRICK SHANAHAN, ACTING U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: Our biggest focus at this point is to prevent Iranian miscalculation. We do not want the situation to escalate. This is about deterrence, not about war. We are not about going to war.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COREN: Senator Lindsey Graham, Republicans like senator Lindsey Graham are backing the White House strategy. Democrats have been more skeptical.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): It was a very good briefing. They explained to how us the Iranian threats were different than in the past, that the attack on the ships and the pipeline was coordinated and directed by the Iranian government, the ayatollah.

We've picked up strong intelligence that they had given the Shiite militia basically more running room and direction and that attacks against American interests and personnel were imminent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): The Iranians are no closer to talking than ever before, that they do not seem to be backing down from a standpoint of military provocation and, thus, you have to ask, whether our strategy is working.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COREN: The U.S. has been sending mixed messages about whether it actually wants to negotiate with Iran. Tehran says it cannot trust the U.S., especially after the Trump White House left the nuclear deal. Well, CNN's Fred Pleitgen discussed recent tensions in an exclusive interview with Iran's foreign minister.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Especially with those mixed messages that apparently have been coming from the Trump administration in the past couple of days, with President Trump one day saying that any sort of fight between Iran and the United States would lead to the official end of Iran, as he put it, and then only a day later saying that he actually wants negotiations with the Iranians.

I asked Iran's foreign minister whether or not negotiations are something that are currently in the cards. And he said in the current political climate and situation, it's absolutely not something the Iranians think is possible.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAVAD ZARIF, IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: We are not willing to talk to people who have broken their promises because we talk to people. We did not believe that our nuclear program, our nuclear energy program required us to provide concessions or confidence building measures. But we engaged. We acted in good faith. We negotiated. We reached a deal. What the United States is saying, if we make a deal, whatever we can get you in the negotiations through the deal is fine. Whatever we cannot get you, we'll come back to try to get you. This is not the way serious countries deal with each other. The United States may be used to doing that with clients but they cannot do that with Iraq.

PLEITGEN: How dangerous do you think the situation is currently in the Persian Gulf with the U.S. aircraft carrier on its way, B-52 bombers. At the same time, from your side, saying, look, we don't want an escalation but it will be painful if there's one.

ZARIF: There will be painful consequences for everybody if there's an escalation against Iran. That's for sure.

The United States is engaging in an economic warfare against Iran. It has to stop. Economic war means targeting Iranian people. That has to stop. The United States does not have the legal position, does not have the moral position, does not have the political position, does not have the international position, to impose economic war on Iran.

Iran is not interested in escalation. We have said very clearly that we will not be the party to begin escalation but --

[00:05:00]

ZARIF: -- we will defend ourselves.

Now having all these military assets in a small waterway is, in and of itself, prone to accident, particularly when you have people who are interested in accidents. So extreme prudence is required and we believe that the United States is playing a very, very dangerous game.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PLEITGEN: So the Iranian foreign minister there saying that he believes that the U.S. is playing a dangerous game, as he put it, in the Persian Gulf.

I also asked him about those recent apparent sabotage attacks on tankers in the Persian Gulf. He said that the Iranians absolutely had nothing to do with that. But still he says he believes that, right now, the situation between the U.S. and Iran in that very narrow waterway, still extremely dangerous -- Fred Pleitgen, CNN, Tehran.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COREN: For more I'm joined from Los Angeles by CNN global affairs analyst Max Boot.

Max, great to have you with us. After hearing the evidence, U.S. lawmakers are very much at odds over whether Iran poses an imminent threat to U.S. interests.

How would you describe the current threat level?

MAX BOOT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: It's very hard to say. I think the real threat right now is the threat of miscalculation because the Trump administration is engaging in so much saber rattling. And you know, even in the normal times, U.S. and Iranian forces are really on hair trigger alert.

I remember being out on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Nimitz in 2017 and they're always out there in a state of near war with the Iranians. So it doesn't take much to set it off. And there's all these leaks from the administration about sending troops to fight Iran, leaks about Iran's supposedly placing missiles on boats.

You know, this thing can easily get out of control just because of the perceptions of a threat on both sides, whatever the realities are.

COREN: Do you believe the Trump administration is exaggerating intelligence to lay the groundwork for war with Iran?

BOOT: Well, I don't know because I don't have access to that intelligence but I will tell you, this is one of those situations where the fact that President Trump is a congenital liar works against him. This is somebody a president, who has recorded 10,000 falsehoods over the course of his presidency and he's advised by people like John Bolton, who have falsified intelligence in the past to justify U.S. war in Iraq, so -- and it's not possible to put any kind of faith or credence in what they say.

You have to say, show me the evidence.

COREN: Well, does this feel like another Iraq, which has been suggested by some lawmakers?

BOOT: That's certainly a very real possibility. I think if in fact war were to break out between the U.S. and Iran, it could even be worse than Iraq because Iran is a much bigger country with a population of 83 million people as opposed to Iraq, which is a country of about 33 million people in 2003.

And Iran has a lot of capabilities, missiles, submarines, drones, proxies across the Middle East so it would be a very dangerous conflict. I think the big difference between Iraq and Iran is that, in 2003, you had a president in George Bush who was pretty eager after 9/11 for war; whereas right now, you have a president who's basically a neo-isolationist.

Trump is somebody who talks a big game, who likes to bully and swagger but ultimately, at the end of the day, I don't think he really wants a war. So I think the real danger here is that John Bolton and other advisers could basically provoke a conflict with Iran.

You could have shooting begin for some reason; you could have a shell land at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad or some other provocation. And then you could see that action-reaction cycle spin out of control, where Trump would be forced to react and some of the hardliners like Bolton would get the war on Iran that they have long advocated.

COREN: You mentioned that division within the Trump administration, Pompeo and Bolton both long-time advocates of a regime change in Iran. And then we heard from Republican senator Lindsey Graham earlier. He interpreted the evidence that he heard as a game changer. I mean, that's quite a statement and troubling as to what it implies.

BOOT: Well, again, like I said, I wouldn't trust Donald Trump and John Bolton. I sure wouldn't trust Lindsey Graham, either, because he basically has become a Donald Trump parrot. I mean, he just says whatever he thinks that Donald Trump wants to hear.

And the fact that some of the Democratic lawmakers who have seen the same evidence that Lindsey Graham has seen have said that they don't find it nearly as conclusive and, in fact, you can interpret it in a very different way, that the Iranians were arming up because they thought that the U.S. was going to attack them.

So I think with a lot of intelligence, it's usually pretty ambiguous. It's how you choose to interpret it. And again, it's hard to have much faith in the interpretation put out by the Trump administration, given their long record of mendacity.

[00:10:00]

COREN: You mentioned you believe Trump doesn't want a war. Many other experts agree. But he does want a deal and he thinks he can strike the same sort of deal he has with North Korea.

But does that seem possible in the current climate?

And you'd also have to assume that Iran is a very different animal to North Korea.

BOOT: Well, it's a long shot because let's remember, he hasn't actually struck a deal with North Korea. I mean, what he was doing was very transparent. He was blustering with "fire and fury" and then he was opening his outstretched arms to Kim Jong-un.

But neither approach has actually produced a deal. And I'm skeptical that there's a deal to be had. And if there is a deal to be had, I doubt it would be much better than the nuclear accord that the Obama administration negotiated because Secretary Pompeo put out this list of 12 demands that are so wide-reaching, so sweeping, including having Iran cut off all of its proxies across the region, which have been a cornerstone of Iranian foreign policy since 1980.

I just don't see much chance that the Iranians are actually going to do that because it would basically amount to a change of regime. And Trump has not put enough pressure on them to achieve those kinds of results.

COREN: Max Boot, great to get your analysis. Thanks so much for joining us.

BOOT: Thank you.

COREN: House Democrats are stepping up the pressure on more former White House officials in their probe of possible obstruction of justice by U.S. president Donald Trump. The Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the president's ex-communications director, Hope Hicks. Democrats want to ask her about a misleading statement regarding Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer in 2016.

The committee has also subpoenaed Annie Donaldson, the one-time chief of staff to former White House counsel Don McGahn.

That same Judiciary Committee faced an empty chair on Tuesday as McGahn defied a subpoena to appear. The White House instructed him to not show up, claiming he has immunity since he was a close adviser to the president.

Democrats say McGahn's testimony is crucial since he told investigators about the president's efforts to fire special counsel Robert Mueller and then lie about it.

All the stonewalling by the White House is pushing Democrats closer to calling for impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will lead a caucus meeting in the days ahead. She has said she favors a more deliberate approach, gathering evidence before starting impeachment proceedings.

But other Democrats want to be more aggressive.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA), CHAIR, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: We think the case gets stronger the more they stonewall the Congress.

REP. JOHN LEWIS (D-GA), CHAIRMAN, OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: I'm getting there. I think what the president has done has put us in a position where we cannot get any information to do the oversight that we need to do.

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D), NEW YORK: I think impeaching and choosing to not impeach when there is an abundance of evidence could also be construed as politically motivated as well. And we can't be scared of elections. We need to uphold the rule of law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COREN: Ryan Lizza is a CNN senior political analyst and the chief political correspondent for "Esquire." He joins us from Washington.

Ryan, great to have you with us. The House Judiciary Committee is obviously intensifying its investigation into the president, issuing subpoenas for Hope Hicks as well as Annie Donaldson, both considered critical witnesses to the committee's investigation.

How damming would their testimony be?

RYAN LIZZA, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I think especially Don McGahn, his chief of staff, her testimony would be pretty important because she, in the Mueller report, shows up as a very aggressive note taker. So Annie Donaldson is a prosecutor's dream because she documented what happened in that office and because the office where she was the chief of staff, the White House counsel's office, was so central to the obstruction of justice charges.

Her recollections, her testimony to the special counsel and her notes really form an enormous amount of the factual record.

And just to take a step back, what the Democrats are trying to do is they're trying to bring to life the Mueller report, right?

Most Americans, let's be honest, most politicians on Capitol Hill haven't read this report and a lot of the initial descriptions of the report were colored by the Trump administration and by the attorney general.

And so Democrats have this job of letting the American people know how serious they believe the obstruction of justice charges are in the second half of that report.

[00:15:00]

LIZZA: And they need these firsthand witnesses to get up on the Hill, raise their right hand and tell the story of what the -- what these allegations are.

COREN: Well, these subpoenas came the same day that Don McGahn failed to show at the House Judiciary Committee hearing. The chairman, Jerry Nadler, obviously quite irate. He said we will hold this president accountable one way or another.

Do you think that this is a sign they're beginning to move toward an impeachment inquiry?

Which obviously many Democrats are calling for.

LIZZA: Yes. Two things that happened in the last week. One is the escalating confrontation between the House, which is controlled by Democrats, and the administration, which is just thwarting across the board almost all of their requests.

And that leads to the second thing which is the quiet but very, very frustrated wing of the Democratic Party, who believes they should move forward with impeachment proceedings, started to get very vocal.

There was a big blow up on Capitol Hill in a private meeting among Democrats yesterday, where some pro-impeachment Democrats confronted Democratic leaders, who think the Democratic leadership has been too slow to embrace even the possibility of impeachment.

And the Democratic Party is pretty much split on this issue between people who believe it's their constitutional responsibility to, at the very least, start impeachment hearings, you know, see where the evidence leads, and other Democrats who take a little bit more of a political calculation and say it doesn't matter. The Senate is controlled by Republicans. They're never going -- in our system, obviously, the House essentially indicts and then the Senate holds a trial.

The House is controlled by Democrats; the Senate is controlled by Republicans. Lots of House Democrats say, what is the point?

COREN: An impeachment inquiry would have a lot more power.

LIZZA: Absolutely.

COREN: Obviously this growing chorus within the party, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is resisting those calls for an impeachment inquiry.

LIZZA: Yes.

COREN: Why is she doing that?

LIZZA: It's a great question. Look, Nancy Pelosi is no conservative, right?

She's a pretty liberal Democrat, represents one of the most liberal districts in the country but she is also -- has pretty canny political instincts. And I think she looks at impeachment almost purely as a political device.

She went through the impeachment of Bill Clinton and thought the Republicans were -- it was a frivolous exercise that never had a chance of removing Bill Clinton in 1998 and shouldn't have been pursued because of that. And I think she just looks at the math and says the Senate is never going to remove this president so what is the point?

We have an election in 2020. We have two remedies available for us. This is, I think, Pelosi's thinking. You can do this foolish mission of trying to impeach and remove him or you can focus all of your political energy on defeating his re-election campaign.

I think her political calculation is that the latter is the smarter move for Democrats. Other Democrats say, no, that's an abdication of their constitutional responsibility and it's setting a bad precedent.

COREN: Ryan Lizza, great to speak with you. Thanks for joining us.

LIZZA: Thanks for having me.

COREN: Britain's prime minister has failed three times already but now Theresa May's making another attempt to get her Brexit deal passed. What she is offering to skeptical MPs.

Later this hour, how Huawei's CEO is downplaying the trade restrictions placed on his company by the United States.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:20:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

COREN: In Jakarta, Indonesian police used tear gas to disperse demonstrators who had gathered to protest election results. This follows the official announcement that president Joko Widodo was elected to a second term by a comfortable margin. His opponent says he believes there was widespread cheating and is vowing to challenge the result.

Well, Britain's prime minister could face another confidence vote. "The Sun" reports senior Tory backbenches will announce a new bid to force a vote on Wednesday. This after May announced a fourth and final attempt to get her Brexit deal passed in Parliament next month. Phil Black has the details.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PHIL BLACK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This is Theresa May's last chance to get a Brexit withdrawal agreement through Parliament. Her legacy is riding on this and so, too, in many ways, is the future of British politics.

After the deal she negotiated was voted down by big numbers in Parliament on three separate occasions, May now concedes she needs the support of opposition MPs to get it through.

So she suggested a series of compromises to try to win and secure support from members of different parties from across the spectrum of Brexit belief in Parliament. Two ideas are attracting a lot of attention.

One, a temporary customs union. Her own Conservative Party wants out of the customs union altogether while the opposition Labour Party wants a permanent one. May's compromise would potentially be temporary because she says future governments would have the option of changing the arrangement.

The other risky idea, May says vote for her new deal and Parliament will have the chance to vote on whether it should be put back to the people with a referendum. It is not a guaranteed further referendum on Brexit. It is simply the chance for Parliament to vote on one. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THERESA MAY, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: The revised deal will deliver on the result of the referendum. And only by voting for the withdrawal agreement bill at second reading can MPs provide the vehicle Parliament needs to determine how we leave the E.U.

So if MPs vote against the second reading of this bill, they are voting to stop Brexit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACK: So the tactic with all this is to try and pick off enough new support from opposition parties while, hopefully, not further enraging members of her own Conservative Party.

There are early signs this isn't working as hoped, with members of the Brexit wing of her party declaring this to be an even greater mess than the deal some had reluctantly voted for previously. She has around two weeks to try to sell this. Once again, she has little reason to be optimistic -- Phil Black, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COREN: For more on this, CNN's European affairs commentator Dominic Thomas joins us now from Los Angeles.

Dominic, tell us what is so new about Theresa May's new deal?

DOMINIC THOMAS, CNN EUROPEAN AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Well, what's new; really the only thing is that things are really worse than they were before. It's just a mere repackaging, filled with all kinds of ambiguity and uncertainty, with words like "alternative arrangement" and "temporary" and so on and also bringing out the question of the second referendum.

The irony of this is that a deal on Brexit lies as she moves to the center. But as she moves toward center, she alienates members --

[00:25:00]

THOMAS: -- of her party, a party that is already dramatically weakened. And while this is happening then, it becomes even more interesting for the opposition to not compromise because what they have been looking for and strategizing throughout all of this is the prospect of a general election and they can see the Conservative Party embroiled in these battles.

And as they saw in the local elections and as they're about to see this weekend in the European elections, the Conservative Party is being blamed for what is going on. And we see members of the party now trying to wrestle the steering wheel away from her in order to take control of this process.

COREN: You mentioned that second referendum. It's now suddenly on the table after Theresa May resisted it for so long.

Why now?

THOMAS: She feels this is an opportunity to try and appeal across the aisle to the opposition. This is something that they very much want. Of course, what is so extraordinarily vague about this is we don't know what the actual wording of that referendum would be.

And if the withdrawal agreement actually did go through, which there's very little likelihood of this happening, it would be almost unconscionable for the Brexiteers or for members of her party to support this.

So it's clearly a branch that she's handing over to the Labour Party, perhaps if anything, to show she is trying to establish compromise and deal with them to perhaps shift some of the blame, if this doesn't happen, on to the Labour Party. But beyond that it's very hard to see how that would work for her.

COREN: MPs have rejected her Brexit deal three times.

What makes her think with these new compromises they'll pass it on the fourth attempt?

THOMAS: There's no reason why they would. In fact, you could argue it might even suffer an even greater historic defeat than the first one that she experienced. It's clear that this party has been dramatically weakened. The Conservative Party saw how they were decimated in the local elections. They're polling way behind in the E.U. elections coming up this weekend.

So there's no reason for it to go through. And what's so extraordinary is it's been a few weeks now since we've been talking about Brexit. She hasn't come back or been able to strike any kind of deal. And her position just weakens as every day goes on.

There's no way that this would pass and the threats that she's been putting out, there this might be your last chance or we might end up with a no deal, those didn't work before and they're not going to work at this particular stage. And it's looking increasingly likely that she will be ousted in the days to come or that a vote of no confidence will take place.

COREN: As you mentioned, the reaction from those key Conservative and Labour is certainly not encouraging toward this new plan.

If it is rejected, what happens next?

THOMAS: Well, if it makes it that far, I think at that particular point she has lost any kind of capacity to claim that she is the right person to be continuing on with these negotiations. So either she resigns or calls for a general election, for which she would need a two-thirds support in Parliament. But she would have to step away or simply the opposition will table a motion of no confidence. It was defeated previously but on this occasion, it would be hard to see the support not coming from across the aisle for this.

So there would be no way for her to continue in that. And in fact, this weekend, with the E.U. elections, what's going to be interesting with that is that traditionally the U.K. voters have never really come out for these elections. You've always ended up with 30 percent or so in the 40 years they've been voting.

Actually, it'll be very interesting to see because it's a single issue election. It's all about Brexit. And the British people have not had a chance to weigh in on this since 2019 (sic). They were denied a people's vote and they haven't been given a second referendum. This is their chance to go to the poll.

It's going to be interesting to see how each side of the Brexit equation is mobilized around this particular question and the outcome of that in some ways could map the path ahead for how both the Conservative Party and the various opposition parties go about strategizing their positions on Brexit as they go into the withdrawal agreement vote a few days later or even possibly into a general election. So it's a very important moment.

COREN: Dominic Thomas, thank you for putting that all into context for us. THOMAS: Thank you.

COREN: Huawei's CEO goes on the defense, saying the Trump administration's ban on his country will hurt the U.S., too. Still to come, more on the escalating trade war between the U.S. and China.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNA COREN, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Welcome back. You're watching CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Anna Coren, live from Hong Kong. The headlines at this hour.

[00:32:16] Iran's foreign minister says the tthethhe U.S. is playing a, quote, "very dangerous game." He spoke to CNN in an exclusive interview. This as the U.S. has sent extra warships to the Middle East.

Trump officials briefed U.S. lawmakers Tuesday about the president's strategy. They say they shared recent intelligence about Iranian threats.

British Prime Minister Theresa May has announced what she calls a new Brexit deal. In it, she offers a chance of a second referendum on the issue and a temporary customs union with the E.U.

"The Sun" reports some conservatives will make a bid for a no- confidence vote in Mrs. May later Wednesday.

More Democrats are joining the call for impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump. The president's former White House counsel, Don McGahn, defied a House Judiciary Committee subpoena on Tuesday. That same panel issued more subpoenas, including one for former White House communications director Hope Hicks.

Well, the Dow jumped nearly 200 points after the U.S. announced it was easing trade restrictions on China's telecommunications giant Huawei, at least for 90 days. Meantime, Huawei's CEO is downplaying the restrictions and says Huawei was prepared for it to happen.

Our Sherisse Pham has more from Hong Kong.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SHERISSE PHAM, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Huawei is on the defense. Company founder and CEO Ren Zhengfei saying Tuesday that the ban on Huawei hurts U.S. companies, too.

REN ZHENGFEI, HUAWEI CEO (through translator): Although this time we're on that blacklist, our own company won't be effected by it, but the U.S. Is a country with the rule of law. U.S. Companies cannot avoid respecting the law. Substantive entities also must respect substantive law. As the media report on this, they should deeply understand that U.S. Companies share a common fate with us.

PHAM (voice-over): Huawei spent $11 billion buying parts from dozens of U.S. firms last year. It's also the sole provider of networking equipment to many rural American Internet providers.

The U.S. temporarily eased restrictions on Huawei products after the Trump administration blacklisted the Chinese company last week. The U.S. commerce secretary saying it's intended to give telecom operators that rely on Huawei equipment time to make other arrangements.

The relief also applies to Google, which is restricting Huawei's access to its Android operating system to comply with the U.S. ban. A Google spokesperson saying Tuesday that "The temporary license allows us to continue to provide software updates and security patches to existing models for the next 90 days."

That means current Huawei devices will continue to have access to Google's ecosystem and services, but future Huawei phones won't. Consumers in Europe or Latin America likely won't buy Huawei smartphones if they can't get apps like YouTube or Google Maps.

[00:35:11] Huawei is China's most successful global tech company. It's the world's largest telecommunications equipment maker and sells more phones than Apple. It's also a leading 5-G player.

But Huawei still needs U.S. parts to build its products.

(on camera): The company has stockpiled supplies and can survive for a while, but experts say a long-term ban would be crippling.

Sherisse Pham, CNN, Hong Kong.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COREN: Next on CNN NEWSROOM, melting ice sheets may be causing sea levels to rise much faster than previously thought. The danger for coastal cities. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COREN: North Korean media had harsh words for a U.S. Democratic presidential candidate. KCNA calls Joe Biden "an imbecile, bereft of elementary quality as a human being." It came in response to Biden's reference to Kim Jong-un at a campaign rally.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Let me ask you: are we a nation that believes there's a moral equivalence between right supremacists, neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and those with the courage to stand against them? No, we don't. But Trump does. Trump said there's a moral equivalence.

Are we a nation that believes in ripping children from the arms of their parents at the border? No, we don't. But Trump does.

Are we a nation that embraces dictators and tyrants like Putin and Kim Jong-un? We don't, but Trump does.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COREN: For more on this, Paula Hancocks joins us from Seoul, South

Korea.

Paula, "imbecile" seems a bit harsh.

PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, North Korea, Anna, has a notoriously thin skin when it comes to insults against their leader, Kim Jong-un. We have seen countless insults going the other way from state-run media to whoever decides to slight the North Korean leader.

So we've seen this in the past, but this was certainly a well-thought- out opinion piece in KCNA, the state-run media, referring to Biden as reckless and senseless, seized by ambition for power.

Also saying that he is an imbecile, "bereft of elementary quality as a human being, let alone a politician." It was fairly damning against the former vice president.

But what it does show also is that North Korea is following U.S. politics fairly closely, potentially looking at who they are going to be dealing with if -- if there is a Democratic win after 2020. Joe Biden is the current frontrunner when it comes to the Democratic Party.

But it's something that we have seen many times before. One interesting part about this is some of the insults that North Korea media is focusing on seem to echo insults towards Biden that we've heard from the U.S. president, Donald Trump himself. Speaking of him as a fool with low I.Q. That's what Donald Trump called him just a couple of months ago.

[00:40:16] And then also pointing out that, during a speech that the former U.S. president Barack Obama gave, the vice president appeared to have fallen asleep. And this is in keeping with the nickname that Trump has given to Joe Biden of Sleepy Joe. So it's very interesting to see those links there. The cynical amongst us might suggest that North Korea is trying to curry some more favor with the U.S. president.

COREN: KCNA, always very entertaining. Paula Hancocks, great to see you. Thank you.

Well, a catastrophe could be in the offing if carbon emissions continue to go unchecked. That's what the authors of a new study say about one of the major drivers of climate change.

They warn sea levels may rise much faster than predicted, due to melting ice sheets, possibly as much as 2 meters by the end of this century, swamping coastal cities like Shanghai and New York.

One hundred and eighty-seven million people -- that's 2.5 percent of the world's population -- could be displaced if this worst-case scenario plays out.

Our meteorologist Pedram Javaheri joins us with more. Pedram, this is alarming.

PEDRAM JAVAHERI, CNN METEOROLOGIST: It is. And we see stories and studies like this almost every single week, it seems like. And this particular one really alarming, because not only does it take into account recent findings of the past five years, it also analyzes studies that we've seen from, just say, 2012, 2013 from the U.N., studies that were released regarding the sea level rise that essentially said 1 to 2 meters. That's what we expected.

The most recent findings now say, if everything remains unchecked, especially seeing the little progression that we've seen in improving the conditions in the past couple of years, half a meter estimation with a one-degree rise or even a one-meter estimation of sea level rise with a 2 degree increase. That is well, well below where it may end up within the next, say, 70 to 80 years.

In fact, a two degree rise, that would take the oceans up between 26 centimeters to over 80 centimeters. And estimations previous to this have said maybe 34 may be the maximum.

Well, now they're saying 5 degrees Celsius is really what is possible with the progression that we've seen in recent years and the very little on a global scale that is being done to curb the emissions; and of course, the dramatic sea-level rise already in progress.

And the study itself took some 66 scientists, looked at the ice sheets in Greenland and also in Antarctica and analyzed how things are varied within the additional data that's coming in. And of course, you factor in the thermal expansion, the waters themselves beginning to heat up, as well. That also allows the sea levels to rise.

So with a two-meter increase potential, that would put about 2 million square kilometers of land lost to sea, about, as you mentioned, 200 million people or so would be displaced on the immediate coastline. And the countries at most risk, looking at the populations right on the coast, for China, by 2050. Estimated over 22 million live along the coast that would be impacted by this. India, Bangladesh, Indonesia and the Philippines being the countries most impacted with the sea level rise as dramatic as it potentially may be here within the next few decades -- Anna.

COREN: Hopefully, this is the wake-up call that the climate change skeptics need. Pedram Javaheri, great to see you. We'll see you next hour.

Thank you for watching CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Anna Coren from Hong Kong. WORLD SPORT starts after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:45:15] (WORLD SPORT)

[00:57:21] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END