Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Trump To Reuters: Iran "Making An Offer" To U.S.; Iran's FM Office: "No Meeting Is Planned" With U.S. In Pakistan; Interview With Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA); Trump Orders Navy To "Shoot & Kill" Mine- Laying Boats In Strait; Naval Operations Expert On What It Would Take To Clear The Strait Of Hormuz Of Mines; Aid Organization Press For Humanitarian Corridor In Strait Of Hormuz To Deliver Life-Saving Supplies; Iran War Unleashes Humanitarian Concerns Across Region; Court Throws Out "Material Support" To ISIS Conviction. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired April 24, 2026 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: You know, whether it comes to things like pain, things like Alzheimer's, whatever it might be, even though women are more likely to suffer from those things, they are less likely to be part of trials. So, in some ways, it's no surprise that that cannabis has, you know, sort of really risen up there.
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: To fill a gap.
GUPTA: Yes, exactly.
BURNETT: All right, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, thank you. And thanks so much for joining us tonight. AC360 starts now.
[20:00:13]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER: 360": Good evening from the Newsroom. Breaking news tonight in our CNN Global War coverage. The American team and negotiators are posed to depart for Pakistan.
Now, the White House says the peace talks will resume, notably, however, this time without Vice President J.D. Vance.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The President has decided to dispatch special envoy Witkoff and Jared Kushner back to Islamabad. The Iranians want to talk; they want to talk in person. And so, the President is, as I've said many, many times to all of you, always willing to give diplomacy a chance.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Well, there are some important details to point out about this new round of talks. First, when the President extended the ceasefire on Tuesday, he did so, he said, to give the Iranians time to return with what he called a unified proposal. It doesn't sound like there is a unified proposal that's being made.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: With this group going, does that mean that you have gotten, the United States has gotten any kind of unified proposal from Iran, or are they going over there without any proposal from the Iranians?
LEAVITT: Weve certainly seen some progress from the Iranian side in the last couple of days. Again, the President has made the decision to send Steve and Jared to hear the Iranians out. And so, well see what they have to say this weekend.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: So, she says progress, but nothing about her proposal, unified or not. The President, in a brief phone interview with "Reuters," said, "they're making an offer and we'll have to see."
Another detail, according to White House officials, the Vice President isn't traveling with Witkoff and Kushner because the Iranians are not sending their lead negotiator. The speaker of Iran's parliament, whose name is Bagheri Ghalibaf.
The Iranians did send their foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, who arrived in Pakistan a few hours ago. And another potentially important detail about this new round of talks, Tehran said their foreign minister is not even there to speak to the Americans. The foreign minister spokesperson posted on social media, "no meeting is planned to take place between Iran and the U.S."
Theres also CNN reporting that one option developed by U.S. military planners is to target individual Iranian military leaders and others within the regime, who U.S. officials have recently suggested are actively undermining negotiations. That's according to a source, that includes this man, whose name is Ahmad Vahidi, the commander in chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
While bombing Iran has stopped during the ceasefire, the battle over control of the Strait of Hormuz continues. This week. U.S. forces seized two separate tankers in the Indian Ocean, thousands of miles away from the Strait.
In a briefing today, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth explained why.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: Just this week, we seized two Iranian fleet ships in the Indo-Pacific region that had left Iranian ports before the blockade went into effect. They thought they'd made it out just in time. They did not. We seized their sanctioned ships, and we will seize more. Our blockade is growing and going global.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Hegseth also highlighted the arrival of a third aircraft carrier in the Middle East, the USS George H.W. Bush. CENTCOM says this is the first time three U.S. aircraft carriers have operated in the region since 2003. The USS George H.W. Bush joins the USS Abraham Lincoln and the Gerald Ford.
We begin with chief White House correspondent and anchor of "The Source" Kaitlan Collins. So, the President is saying Iran will be making an offer. The White House is saying that they've seen progress. The Iranian side, they didn't actually say there was a unified proposal. Is it clear what is going on there or what the expectation is?
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN'S CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT AND THE ANCHOR OF "THE SOURCE": Not really. I mean, they obviously do have some expectation, some optimism of this because that's why they're sending Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff on a very long flight to Islamabad tomorrow. And so, once they arrive in the region, obviously that will be the key question.
But, Anderson, I talked to some people today about this, the bluster, which is what they believe it is from the Iranian officials saying there's no set meeting. It's not clear anything is happening. They believe it's just that. And that actually, once they're there, they will be able to sit down and to have these talks and to potentially make some progress as they are hopeful.
But it still raises questions about what exactly, because, yes, they are sending Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, but the fact that the Vice President is not going again does also signal that there's some unease about whether or not anything can actually be achieved.
And so, obviously, he had traveled previously. He was supposed to go this week, but I had heard that the White House and the administration basically wanted the Iranians to at least agree to some basic principles, some basic agreements before they showed up in Pakistan. And they had gotten silence from the Iranians, and they had talked about the fact that there wasn't anything clear in terms of who exactly was empowered to make the decisions in Iran. And that is still not clear, because the President said just yesterday himself that he didn't believe it was it was completely clear.
And so, I think a lot of that is still up in the air and remains to be seen. But the White House is still hopeful that Steve Witkoff is going over there and is it going to achieve something? I just think there's so many unknowns as of this moment, because for one thing, you just mentioned the Iranian ports and what Secretary Hegseth said about blockading those today. I mean, the Iranians have been demanding to release that, to end that blockade so, they would actually come to the table and the White House has said that's not happening. They're not doing that yet.
And so, a lot of that still remains to be seen. One thing is clear, in Pakistan, the intermediaries there are pushing for something to happen, an agreement. They urged the President to extend the ceasefire this week. So, we'll continue to see the role that they're playing in this. And if that continues to be the place where they're having these negotiations and these talks.
[20:05:58] COOPER: Yes, and we'll check in with Nic Robertson shortly in Islamabad. Kaitlan Collins, thanks, we'll see you at the top of the hour for "The Source." Joining me right now, former State Department Official Alan Eyre, who was a key member of President Obama's negotiating team for the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, which President Trump pulled out of in 2018. Also, with us Senior National Security Analyst and former Deputy Director of National Intelligence Beth Sanner and Brett McGurk, who served as senior advisor to the last four Presidents, is now a CNN global affairs analyst.
So, Beth, let's start with you. As we mentioned, a spokesperson for Iran's foreign ministry says no meeting planned. Kaitlan says there's optimism, maybe something will happen once they're there. The Iranians also said that Iran's observations would be conveyed to Pakistan. What does that indicate to you?
BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, I mean, I guess I'm a little bit on the less hopeful side. I think these are negotiations about setting up negotiations. And, you know, after Witkoff and Araghchi, you know, negotiated twice and were bombed during that, I actually think that having indirect talks might be better. I'm not sure that having these people in the same room is actually a good thing. I mean, the vibes are not positive.
And so, you know, I think that they're going to be perhaps presenting a written response to the U.S. preconditions for a second round. And if that's the case, I don't expect it to be an easy yes. I hope I'm wrong about all this, you know, but my experience is that, you know, the Iranians are going to be moving this forward slightly and just enough to put the ball back in the United States' court and were going to have to decide whether were going to continue on the path were on. A little bit of escalation, or whether were going to actually diminish some of our demands because were under the gun too.
COOPER: Brett, Tehran had previously conveyed in several statements by senior officials. They consider the U.S. blockade to be the violation of the ceasefire. There would be no further talks until a blockade was lifted. Obviously, their attempt to control the Strait is also, you know, against international law. Is this a way of getting around that precondition?
BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: So, I would say three points here that are interesting if in fact, because you're right, Anderson, Iran drew a very clear precondition. The U.S. has to lift the blockade of Iranian ports before they'll even have talks. If Iran is now coming to Pakistan and these talks happen, then they've blinked a little bit. And that's actually fairly rare for the Iranians to do once they lay down a precondition like that. So, I think that's important to watch.
Second is Pakistan, which Beth just mentioned. Look, oftentimes when you're dealing with a mediator, they really want this process to succeed. Pakistan has a lot on the line. I suspect they're putting some spin on the ball, Anderson, with both sides suggesting maybe there's some progress when in fact the two sides might be quite far apart. It's very difficult when you're dealing with mediators. So hopefully there's a face-to-face here. The third point I would say, though, Anderson, is that the third aircraft carrier coming into the Middle East is significant. I've dealt with Middle East policy for a long time. Honestly, I've never seen that in my time. It goes all the way back to 2003. That is an awful lot of firepower, and I think at least the U.S. is signaling that if there is not a diplomatic path here, that we are prepared to militarily, perhaps take control of the Strait of Hormuz, which is a very difficult military mission. But that seems to be the signaling. You don't deploy a third aircraft carrier strike group, which comes with destroyers and submarines, unless you're pretty serious about perhaps an operation that can come.
I hope it doesn't come to that. I hope that diplomacy can get on track, but I share Beth's caution, and I'm not particularly optimistic here.
COOPER: Alan, what do you make of this latest development? I mean, does it seem like some sort of a breakthrough would be likely. Why do negotiators need to be in the same city if they're only going to work through an intermediary?
ALAN EYRE, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yes, I agree with what Beth said, I think it's not necessary, it might even be detrimental for them to be in the same room. You know, what has to happen is there has to be some growth material in the petri dish. So, both sides start changing, exchanging ideas. When the U.S. says, well, we want to hear what the what the Iranians say relative to our demands. If both sides are talking about demands, then, you know, save the jet fuel and stay in your home country. You know, both sides. I don't think yet are ready to show the necessary flexibility. There's still this, you know, primate behavior of beating your chest and shrieking at the other side, trying to establish dominance and you know, that's not conducive to real negotiations.
So, I'm really not putting a lot of faith in, you know, if we get a third meeting out of this, that's fantastic.
[20:10:38]
COOPER: Beth, President Trump claimed in an interview with "Reuters" that Iran will be making an offer to the United States, he doesn't yet know the details. Do you buy that at all? Is that just something he says?
SANNER: You know, I don't know what to believe anymore. I think that I'm probably with most of our viewers on this, and probably you, Anderson, because there is, I guess I will say, bluffing on the part of the President of the United States. There are definitely things he said that I think we could prove are not true. And the problem I see with this is that, you know, it's meant for different crowds. And, you know, when you're saying one thing to juice the market or to calm the oil price, it can be very counterproductive to the negotiation.
And I think we saw this again today in the Hegseth press conference today where he's bragging about taking two ships of Iran that left before the blockade. So, that would just reinforce to Iran, it's like, why are you saying that? Because you basically, we can't trust you. That's a violation, right?
So, I just feel like we're talking past each other with all this bravado and very militaristic bravado. And it's not conducive to actually getting a deal. And we cannot get any of this done without a negotiated solution.
COOPER: Alan, the Vice President is not going, you know, I think it was Wendy Sherman said before the last time the Vice President went, he did bring experts with him, which was a good thing. You now have Witkoff and Jared Kushner going. Jared Kushner, I don't exactly know his status. He's not a government employee and he has; my understanding is billions of dollars of business interests in the region.
Is that weird that he is one of two negotiators for the United States of America?
EYRE: Well, in my opinion, it's definitely suboptimal. Expertise doesn't travel horizontally from field to field. He could be a great financier. Mr. Witkoff could be a great developer, but you need specific expertise in negotiations. They don't have it. But more importantly, they're not backstopped by a foreign policy apparatus that's operating anywhere near its strength. It's been vitiated and weakened by this administration.
So, even if they were the tip of the spear, you know, they're not backstopped by a bureaucracy and I mean bureaucracy in the best sense of the word.
COOPER: Like actual experts.
EYRE: Exactly, now, again, if you're only going to talk about general principles, the second meeting, you don't need to go into the nitty gritty of sanctions relief or, you know, the nuclear cycle, though you should have, you know, they should be available. But I mean, the first step is to agree on general principles and the basic contours of a deal haven't changed since Trump was inaugurated for the second term.
Limitations on the nuclear program in exchange for an easing of sanctions, that hasn't changed.
COOPER: Brett, we said earlier, neither Vice President nor the counterpart, Iran's speaker of the parliament are going to Pakistan. What do you think needs to happen before, I mean, what are the next steps? I mean assuming this is a meeting about a meeting and what needs to happen here?
MCGURK: Let's talk about diplomatically what's in the realm of the possible and the realm of the possible, as Alan was just referring to, it's a framework type agreement where you have principles and you put some limitations on Iran's nuclear program, probably with some sanction's relief.
I'm reminded of we talk a lot about the Obama nuclear deal, the JCPOA but before that, and that took 18 months of very high-profile negotiations. There was something called the JPOA. It was an interim agreement that was done totally in secret. The United States did not even tell any of our allies or partners that we were having those talks. And we rolled it out when we had an agreement, again, cooked in secret. I'm kind of building on what Alan was saying, how important this is.
Doing it in public makes it much harder. And I would say that you don't want to get the senior officials together like Ghalibaf and the Vice President, unless you have this thing precooked, because I think if they travel to Pakistan again and have failed, then you've really set back the diplomacy.
So could you come up with a framework agreement like the JPOA? Possible, but to do that, it takes a long time and kind of secret negotiations to try to, you know, get things done without all the different factions in Iran. And here, take biting of pieces. And I don't see that happening. So, let's hope something can come this weekend in Pakistan. But I return to where I started, Anderson, I'm restraining my expectations.
COOPER: Beth Sanner, Alan Eyre, Brett McGurk, thank you as always. Up next, more on the new round of peace talks. We'll talk to our reporter in Islamabad, Nic Robertson.
And later, the far-reaching impact from not only the war in Iran, but also fighting on the Israeli-Lebanon border, vast amounts of food, oil and supplies stuck on ships, threatening the global supply chain, details on that and more ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:19:48]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: We've certainly seen some progress from the Iranian side in the last couple of days. Again, the President has made the decision to send Stephen Jarrett to hear the Iranians out. And so, well see what they have to say this weekend.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[20:20:03]
COOPER: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt this afternoon confirming that special envoy Steven Witkoff and the President's son- in-law, Jared Kushner, are heading back to Pakistan tomorrow for a new round of peace talks.
Iran's foreign minister has arrived in Pakistan, but in a social media post, his spokesperson says no meeting is planned with the U.S. CNN's Nic Robertson is there in Islamabad, joins us now. So, is it clear how empowered the Iranian foreign minister is to actually negotiate on behalf of the Supreme Leader and the revolutionary guard commanders?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: He seems to have the authority of whoever in Iran is in control of sending him in a delegation to Pakistan to put the Iranians position face to face to the Pakistani mediators here.
His meeting with the Army, the commander of the Army, the field marshal here, Asim Munir, is meeting with the foreign minister, his meeting with the interior minister. These are the interlocutors that the parliamentary speaker, when he came here from Iran two weeks ago, that he met with. So, the Pakistanis seem to be taking him as a person representing the Iranian position at the moment and that's what he says is here to represent.
I think there's sort of some confusion that I think relates perhaps to sequencing. The Iranian foreign minister landed about five hours ago. He landed out at the VIP airport here, he's meeting with, is having his meetings very close to that airport in the army headquarters, which is nearby. As we understand, those meetings have gone through the night about five hours now. His plane is still on the ground, but when he came in, he said he was coming here, and then he was going to go to Oman, and then he was going to go to Moscow. And it's not clear if the foreign minister spokesman is kind of making a message for public consumption, international consumption. But it's quite possible. Iran's foreign minister is having a meeting here.
He'll take off, leave the country and may circle back if all the meetings go well for that meeting with Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, potentially Sunday, potentially Monday.
So, your question was, does he have the authority to come here? And that seems to be questioned by what his office is saying. I think the Pakistanis are taking him at face value at the moment that he does.
COOPER: And so, who are Kushner and Witkoff expected to meet with on the ground in Pakistan?
You know, at the moment that seems to be an open question. We would expect it at the moment to be the foreign minister, because if who was the number two at the negotiations two weeks ago. Because, as you were explaining before, if Ghalibaf, the parliamentary speaker from Iran who led the negotiations last time, came, then that would equate to J.D. Vance coming here to meet with him and that's not happening, it's Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner.
Look, I think one thing is worth understanding here as well is that the Iranians do not have a lot of trust and faith in Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff. They feel let down by them before in other negotiations. And specifically felt let down by them here two weeks ago. So, you know, it's I think it's pretty, we use the word fragile. I think it's fluid, I think a lot of things can happen. Theres a lot of positioning going on at the moment. But this is some diplomacy that wasn't happening a couple of days ago. It opens the door to possibility, but not a definitive outcome.
COOPER: Yes, Nic Robertson, thanks very much.
The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Republican Roger Wicker, is calling on President Trump to resume strikes against Iran. Here's what he wrote today on social media. "The time is over for negotiations with Iran's regime. The radical successors of Khamenei can never be trusted to keep any promise or agreement. Our commander in chief should direct his skilled military leaders to finish destroying Iran's conventional military capabilities and eliminating any last remnants of their nuclear program. This is the only way to ensure lasting stability in the region."
Joining me now, Congressman Adam Smith of Washington State, he's the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. Congressman, do you agree with or what do you make of Senator Wicker there that the President should resume military strikes on Iran?
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): I don't agree with them. Certainly, the negotiations are not going well. There's really no evidence that they're progressing in any significant way, despite what the White House is saying. And we know we can't trust the White House. I mean, a week ago, they told us that the deal was done and Iran had capitulated and agreed to everything.
So, we don't know how the negotiations are going. But the problem with what Senator Wicker is saying is it assumes that military action can achieve the ends that we desire. In the first place, we have to be clear on what those are. I mean, Senator Wicker did say the nuclear program. But what does the President want to achieve and what military action is actually going to achieve that for during the six weeks, roughly, that we were engaged in military action, we accomplished a lot in terms of blowing up targets. We were certainly capable of that and degrading the Iranian military.
We didn't accomplish anything towards the goals that Senator Wicker lays out there. All we know for sure is if we start military action, it will cause more death and chaos. Not that it will achieve our end. So no, I don't see a military solution to what we're trying to accomplish. It's got to be diplomacy.
[20:25:29]
COOPER: Maybe it's because I just keep rereading Vietnam books about the Vietnam War, like dispatches and stuff, but it seems like were using a metric. Like in Vietnam, we used the metric of body counts and, you know, bombs dropped, you know, villages, "saved." Do you feel like were using a different metric than the Iranians are using?
SMITH: A hundred percent, I mean, that's been the problem with this operation from the start. The White House has been talking out of both sides of their mouth. They talk about how we are accomplishing our objectives. Okay, well, and those objectives are blowing up missiles and blowing up production capacity and ships and all of that we are. And then they say how important it is that Iran has to not support terrorism, not get a nuclear weapon, not have a ballistic missile program. And we are achieving none of those goals. We're not moving closer to any one of those three. The metrics they are giving us don't match to the rhetoric of what they say they want to accomplish. And then, oh, by the way, in the middle of it, something else got thrown in. And that is Iran effectively shutting down the Strait of Hormuz and now were desperately trying to open that up.
So, absolutely, there is not a connection between the short-term tactical military achievements and any sort of strategic victory that would make this even close to worth the unbelievable cost.
COOPER: I was just talking to Alan Eyre, who was deeply involved in the 2015 deal, which obviously the Trump White House then tore up in 2018. He was saying that essentially our kind of the us, the experts in this, the people who, you know, are behind the scenes, like a duck paddling underwater, actually hammering out details that are crucially important on these things. Those ranks have been hollowed out by this administration. Do you worry about our ability to actually have like, very detailed, fine tooth comb discussions and negotiations, which is what ultimately this would have to boil down to, because Kushner and Witkoff are big at the very, I mean, to be kind, I guess you would say there are big picture people, if you want to put it that way.
SMITH: Yes, sorry. Yes look, there's two big problems here. I mean, first of all, as I mentioned, there's no military solution. So, diplomacy is the answer. But you have to have effective diplomacy and we've basically sidelined all of the experts. And by the way, we've also sidelined all of our partners and allies, the UK and France and others are, I think they've put together like a 44-nation coalition that's talking about how they can work with Iran in the Middle East to come up with some solution to open the Strait. We've pushed all of them aside in favor of, forgive me, two real estate guys from jersey, who don't really have a lot of experience in this area.
So yes, problem one, the military cant truly accomplish the real objectives that would make this worth it, we need diplomacy. Problem two we do not have a very capable diplomatic team at work here, and we've sidelined all of those people that you describe. First of all, we fired a lot of them, hollowed out the State Department, but still within the State Department, there's a lot of experienced people, experienced people on nuclear matters, on Iran and the Middle East and instead we got Witkoff and Kushner, who don't have any experience in any of that. So, diplomacy is the solution but the Trump administration is going to have to get a lot better at that quickly.
COOPER: Congressman Adam Smith, it's a pleasure, as always, thank you.
Up next, President Trump has ordered the U.S. military to increase minesweeping operations in and around the Strait of Hormuz, a mission that could take up to six months. Lawmakers were told this week some insight on what that work would entail coming up.
And later, a federal appeals court tosses out a material support to ISIS conviction for a New York city subway bomber. That's the result of this person's efforts to explode a device. How that might impact other terrorism cases going forward. Our John Miller joins us with details. He confronted the man just moments after the attack when he was part of the NYPD.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Did you do this for any particular group?
SUBWAY BOMBER: Yes.
MILLER: What group?
SUBWAY BOMBER: Islamic State.
MILLER: Islamic state?
SUBWAY BOMBER: Yes.
MILLER: What we would call ISIS?
SUBWAY BOMBER: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:33:50]
COOPER: President Trump has ordered the Navy to shoot to kill any Iranian boats placing mines in the Strait of Hormuz. But even with the President ordering the U.S. to step up its mine-sweeping operations, the Pentagon reportedly briefed lawmakers this week it could take up to six months to reopen the waterway. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has released this propaganda-style footage showing off some of the naval assets in underground tunnels.
I want to get perspective now from Bryan Clark, retired Navy officer and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, who's been examining potential scenarios to clear mines in the Strait of Hormuz. Bryan, thanks for being here.
What options are available to the U.S. Navy to clear mines in the Strait? There was a lot of reporting about the mine-sweepers that were decommissioned, I think it was back in January, that were in the region. How complicated could this get?
BRYAN CLARK, SENIOR FELLOW, HUDSON INSTITUTE: Well, thanks for having me on, Anderson. Yes, the -- this is really kind of the worst time for this to happen because the Navy just retired its mine-sweeping fleet and is still building up its fleet of robotics mine-sweepers. So we're kind of at the low point right now in Navy mine-sweeping capacity.
And right now what the Navy's challenge is, is trying to get some initial ships in there to be able to start clearing mines because they moved everything out of the Strait and out of the Persian Gulf at the start of the war. So now they're having to bring all of that back in and begin at least the slow process of using robots to search for mines along the transit lane in the Strait so we can at least bring Navy ships in and out. I think that the Navy has largely done that part of it already.
[20:35:15]
COOPER: Does the Pentagon's assessment of six months, does that sound accurate to you?
CLARK: It does. So looking at doing the wargaming that we've been doing, doing the analysis we've been doing, it looks like in the best- case scenario, the Navy's fleet of robot mine-hunters and mine- neutralization systems would be able to clear the mines out of the Strait in maybe a month, best case.
This is obviously not the best case because those systems are not in the field yet. They're still being brought in. And if you're under fire, obviously that slows down the whole process. Because even though the robots don't mind getting shot at, the people operating them ashore, and they'll have to be in some place like Oman or in UAE or even on a ship, they'll have to be defended. And then the operations necessary to protect them will slow down the process of deploying the minesweeping robots.
COOPER: So how long will it take to get those minesweeping robots into place?
CLARK: Well, I think what the Navy has done is they've brought in some of the mine-hunters on the destroyers that have been transiting up and down the Strait. So they've been using them to hunt for mines and allow the destroyers that they've sent in to clear at least a path for them. To widen that path to the point where commercial ships would be able to go up and down, that could take a few more weeks.
And they're going to be bringing those mine-hunting robots in from the Arabian Gulf side. So that's happening right now as they bring in the Littoral Combat Ship. The Canberra is there now. And they brought in a float forward staging base that can carry these minesweeping robots. So they're going to start bringing those in now, but it'll be a process of several weeks to be able to widen the path that's mine cleared and start to enable you to bring shipping back into the Strait.
COOPER: And how -- I mean, how many different types of mines are there in the Iranian arsenal? Is it known?
CLARK: Right. They're pretty -- it's a pretty diverse arsenal. They've been preparing for this for a long time. So they have bottom mines, which are mines that sit on the floor of the ocean, and then have a sensor that either detects the magnetic signature or an acoustic signature of a ship, and then can detect either when the ship is just crossing it and even can see when the ship's stern is beginning to cross. So they can attack it at the propulsion end of the ship.
There's also some moored mines that use the same kind of magnetic influence detection system. And they'll go off when you detect the magnetic signature of a ship. And then there's contact mines like you see from movies where you just run into them and they detonate. So they have all those in their arsenal, these smart mines that can detect ships, as well as these contact mines that just blow up with, you know, whatever hits them.
COOPER: And when they're demining, are they actually -- are they just blowing them up, or are they --
CLARK: Right.
COOPER: Yes, what do they do?
CLARK: Yes, the process is really -- it's somewhat complicated, right? So you have to hunt the mines with a sonar system that is on a autonomous undersea vehicle that will drive along the seafloor and look for mines there and look for mines in the water column. They also have some uncrewed surface vehicles that can drag a sonar or tow a sonar that will look for mines.
And then once they identify all these mine-like objects, they can either go through with a sweep gear, which will then collect the mines or set them off with the magnetic influence. And that sweep gear is towed by an uncrewed surface vehicle or drone boat. Or they have to use a mine neutralization system, which is a remotely operated mini torpedo that you drive in and just like a video game.
You drive it into the mine, and the mini torpedo either puts a hole in the mine and it sinks to the bottom and fills with water or it detonates the mine and it goes off. The problem then is you have to clean up all the mess that you've created. You've got mines that have detonated.
You've got mines that are sunk. And then you have to bring explosive ordnance personnel to go do that manually, that cleaning up of the mine debris. That process is what really drives it out to the months because you can detect the mines and maybe even neutralize them within a month's time based on our analysis. But the cleanup and then doing it under fire starts to stretch it out into multiple months.
COOPER: And just very briefly, this is probably a dumb question, but the cleanup, is that just a courtesy or is that a necessity based on military circumstances?
CLARK: It's a necessity generally for the shipping companies, right, because they're not going to want to drive in if there's unexploded ordnance and pieces of mines that maybe didn't go off in the water.
COOPER: OK. Bryan Clark, I really appreciate your expertise and it's very much on display. So I appreciate it. Thank you.
Coming up, massive destruction in Lebanon from the Israeli operation against Hezbollah. Perspective on the growing humanitarian concerns in the region from the head of the International Rescue Committee, David Miliband, next.
And later, a court has thrown out one major charge against a would-be suicide bomber. That could affect terrorism cases in the U.S. moving forward, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:44:09]
COOPER: Welcome back. You're looking at drone footage near the Israel- Lebanon border. Large-scale destruction by the Israeli military in one town, they say, for combating Hezbollah. Lebanese officials say the war in Lebanon has displaced more than a million people so far, with the ship stuck due to the U.S. blockade on Iranian ports and Iran trying to assert control in the Strait of Hormuz.
There are delays in getting food, oil, fertilizer, other supplies to where they're needed. Aid groups are concerned. The worst-case scenario, according to a U.N. report, an additional 32 million people could be pushed into poverty.
Joining me now is David Miliband, President and CEO of the International Rescue Committee. He's also the former U.K. Foreign Secretary. It's a pleasure to have you here, Mr. Foreign Secretary.
DAVID MILIBAND, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE: Thank you, Anderson.
COOPER: What concerns you most from a humanitarian standpoint about what is going on?
MILIBAND: Well, simply put, both sides are in check, but neither side can achieve checkmate. That's the standoff at the moment. And of course, a ceasefire is better than a continuation of the fighting.
[20:45:00]
But a ceasefire doesn't mean that life goes back to normal for people who've been displaced by the fighting in Lebanon, for people who are dependent on fertilizer supplies for their harvest in West Africa, which is happening today, for humanitarian aid groups like ours, who have got enormous amounts, enormous quantities of medical supplies and other critical items that are stuck in ports as the shipping system tries to accommodate this loss of 20 percent of the shipping flow.
And of course, everything is propelled in a more dangerous direction by the rise in fuel prices. You know that here, but actually what it means for the poorest people in the world is that they get pushed over the edge because they can't afford the foodstuffs that is necessary. They can't afford to feed their own kids.
COOPER: How do you even plan without -- I mean, given the uncertainty, how do you even plan for, you know, the catastrophes ahead, for the catastrophes that are happening all around the world?
MILIBAND: Well, there are two parts to that. First of all, the Iran war couldn't have happened at a worse time from global humanitarian perspective. 250 million people in humanitarian need around the world on February the 27th, the day before the war started. Now we're dealing with this sort of knock-on effects, the direct effects of the war in Lebanon, but also in Iran, very hard to get a sight of that, but certainly in Lebanon, one in five of the population displaced.
And then the indirect effects from fuel, fertilizer, et cetera. How do we plan? We have to just work with agility. We had our own -- there's a humanitarian hub in Dubai. We had our own medical supplies stuck there. You have to scrape and borrow to find a way through. And of course, this is happening at a time when there are aid cuts that are making the kind of agility and flexibility that we need, the extra supplies so important.
COOPER: The U.S. obviously has scaled back a lot of global support for a whole bunch of things. How has that impacted the IRC?
MILIBAND: Yes, I men, 2 million clients have lost all access to services. Kids getting education in Afghanistan, Sudanese refugees in South Sudan who have lost a health center. And in Lebanon, I was there myself three weeks ago in Beirut. Our own team were there because there was a pre-existing crisis. We had 250 staff. We're now down to 107 staff members.
So this is a very -- it's a -- the system is stretched to breaking point even before you get this extra load. Just an interesting statistic I learned today, our own supply chain costs, insurance, fuel, transportation costs, fourfold increase since February the 28th. So we're having to deal with that kind of hit at a time when there are aid cuts as well.
COOPER: I have found Americans to be remarkably caring about humanitarian disasters. We've seen that in Haiti. We've seen that in Hurricane Katrina. We've seen that all over the world when people get involved and informed. Have you noticed though a kind of compassion fatigue?
MILIBAND: I think there's two answers to that. One, there's a lot of crisis in the world, 60 conflicts around the world and that can sap the sense of agency that people feel that they can make a difference. On the other hand, all of our experience, people are on the street raising money for us, but also the higher level donors, we're finding that they're interested in impact. They're interested in innovation. They're interested in cost-effectiveness.
COOPER: When I say to them, look, it's a dollar a shot to get a vaccine into a kid's arm in war-torn countries at the moment, they say, well, hang on, that is -- that's an investment that beats almost any other. And so as long as we can get in front of them the facts, we're in a good place.
The big heart is still there. 90 percent of Americans, 89 percent said in a poll last year at the height of the cuts, they said we want 1 percent of the federal budget to go on foreign aid. That's actually the amount that went. The trouble is 55 percent of them thought that 20 percent of the federal budget --
COOPER: Right, most -- in most surveys, people think a huge amount of money goes to --
MILIBAND: Yes. So if we can tell them the facts, this is $1 in 100, 99 gets spent in America, $1 gets spent on international aid. If we can show there's real impact, don't believe the scare stories there that are missed. There's truths about $1 for a vaccine shot. How we can help kids make up for lost ground from -- when they've suffered trauma as a result of war.
And if we can also inspire them with the innovation, today in the Democratic Republic of Congo, we're using AI to diagnose Mpox, which is a rare African disease. We take a photo of a lesion, we compare it against a data set, we can get an answer quickly before even taking two weeks to get an answer. COOPER: I went to an Mpox outbreak, which used to be called monkeypox outbreak, years ago in DRC. And people then were like, we're doing zoonotic virus. And people then were like, well, there's no way it would ever come to the U.S. It came to the U.S. These things travel on plans.
MILIBAND: People move.
COOPER: Yes.
MILIBAND: Disease moves.
COOPER: David Miliband, the International Rescue Committee, thank you so much.
MILIBAND: Thank you very much.
COOPER: Appreciate it.
Would-be suicide bomber in New York subway who survived after his pipe bomb malfunction had one of his charges thrown out in court this week. What that could mean for future terrorism cases in the U.S. next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:54:12]
COOPER: With the U.S. on heightened alert to attacks here, a court ruling this week about a subway bombing in 2017 could take a powerful tool away from prosecutors pursuing terrorism-related charges. In December 2017, a man from Bangladesh, Akayed Ullah, entered a subway station near Times Square and detonated a pipe bomb strapped to his chest. Luckily, it malfunctioned. It didn't kill or injure any commuters, but it left Ullah with serious burns.
CNN's John Miller responded to the scene. At the time, he was the deputy commissioner of Intelligence and Counterterrorism at the NYPD. He and his colleague had this exchange with Mr. Ullah.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But you sure now there's nothing else that's going to hurt anybody else?
AKAYED ULLAH, 2017 SUBWAY BOMBER: Nothing else.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nothing else.
MILLER: And did you do this for any particular group?
ULLAH: Yes.
MILLER: What group?
ULLAH: Islamic State.
MILLER: Islamic State?
ULLAH: Yes.
MILLER: What we would call ISIS?
ULLAH: Yes.
[20:55:01]
MILLER: And did you do it in response to any particular call?
ULLAH: Yes.
MILLER: Which one?
ULLAH: They say attack here (ph).
MILLER: Attack here (ph)?
ULLAH: Yes.
MILLER: What do that mean?
ULLAH: Attack USA.
MILLER: Oh, attack U.S.
ULLAH: Right. That's right. Because over there, you guys bombing. You see a lot of people is dying over there.
So if you do stop bombing, we don't have to do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Well, Ullah was convicted on multiple charges, including providing material support to ISIS and sentence to life in prison. This week, an appeals court threw out the material support to ISIS conviction.
Joining me to explain is John Miller, who's now CNN Chief Law Enforcement Intelligence Analyst and CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig. So, John, have you ever seen a conviction tossed out for someone who confessed to you to an act of terrorism?
MILLER: Well, no. And, I mean, the question here is, was this properly tossed out? The material support of terrorism statute covers anyone who is going to take a designated foreign terrorist organization, ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and provide them with support. This court has elevated that law to say, well, it requires that there has to be direct control and coordination with that person.
COOPER: That's not how the terrorism works these days, is it?
MILLER: Scores of people have been convicted without that. And frankly, the model that has succeeded the most for groups like ISIS is creating effective propaganda, pumping that out onto the Internet, exhorting people to act on it, and then having them go forward understanding, I don't have to talk to the mothership, I don't have to need all the bomb-making instructions, everything's online, and doing something like he did. He -- Ullah was basically the perfect candidate for this material support, but they've raised the bar now on what that means.
COOPER: So, Elie, what do you make of this ruling?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Anderson, I think it makes very little common sense. I think it makes very little legal sense. Now, first of all, the gist of this ruling is because this individual only ever watched videos produced by ISIS over the Internet, but did not have direct contact, that cannot be material support.
However, hypothetically, if this person got on a Zoom with somebody from ISIS, and that person said the exact same things they say in the video, by the logic such as it is of this ruling, that would be material support. Now, if that sounds like a nonsensical distinction, it is.
And legally, when you look at the law, this phrase, material support of terrorism, the law itself actually gives us a whole bunch of examples of what can be material support. And one of those definitions is, if a person provides personnel, that can include the defendant himself. So if this guy says, I'm here to help you, I'm one person, I'm here to carry out your orders, that's enough under the law. So I think the Second Circuit got it dead wrong in this case.
COOPER: So how many other convictions have there been like this, and could this impact other convictions?
MILLER: So this could affect past cases. Right now, as Elie explains it, it only applies to the law within the Second Circuit, which is basically the New York court. But a large number of these terrorism cases, and all the ones I worked on, are within that district.
So take a look at anybody who was convicted under similar circumstances could come in and say, at least have that main charge thrown out. But look at the two guys on March 7th who threw the bombs, allegedly, at the protesters at Gracie Mansion. They said, we did this for ISIS.
America, die in your rage. But there's no evidence at this point that they actually talked to anybody in ISIS. The main charge against them is that count one, material support of terrorism. By this ruling, the U.S. Attorney's Office would have to consider pulling that.
COOPER: So, Elie, what do you think is going to happen with other cases? I mean, is it something that would end up at the Supreme Court?
HONIG: So the Supreme Court, of course, is the next in line. I'm certain DOJ will appeal this up to the Supreme Court. I think, ultimately, this will land at the Supreme Court one of two ways. One, it could be the Supreme Court just takes this case directly. It could be they share my view and John Miller's view and think that this ruling is nuts and say, we're going to reverse this. But even if the Supreme Court says, we're not going to take it now, here's what's going to happen eventually. Other circuits, perhaps the D.C. Circuit, perhaps the Fourth Circuit, which includes Northern Virginia, could be anywhere, are going to have the same issue crop up.
And if you see other circuits deciding this case the other way, then we're going to have what's called a circuit split, different circuits interpreting the same law different ways. And that really makes it ripe for the Supreme Court. So, this is a problem because right now prosecutors in New York cannot charge this particular statute. And it's a major tool. But I think eventually the Supreme Court is going to have to step in and stop this and reverse it.
COOPER: John, anyone who's watched "Law & Order," and I've watched a lot of it, knows, like, you don't talk to police. Why did -- were you -- are you surprised this guy talked to you?
MILLER: Not in the slightest --
COOPER: People talk to police all the time.
MILLER: First of all, that interview, that was Tom Galati, the chief of Intelligence, saying, are there any other bombs? Is anything out there that can hurt somebody? That's a public safety interview where you're asking questions to figure out, is this a one-off or is this like the 7/7 bombings in London --
COOPER: I'm glad he talk --
MILLER: -- where there were, you know --
COOPER: Right.
MILLER: -- multiple attacks on the same day. We needed that information right now. So we conducted the public safety interview. But my experience is, when you have these committed terrorists who went out to do an attack where they originally planned to die during it --
COOPER: They want to be (INAUDIBLE).
MILLER: They have been promised by the terrorist organization, valor, I'll be a hero, belonging, I'll be a part of something --
COOPER: Right.
MILLER: -- empowerment, I'll have impact. And this was his moment to say, I have impact.
COOPER: John Miller, thank you. Elie Honig as well.
The news continues. The Source with Kaitlan Collins starts now.
