Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

White House Says Talks With Iran "Going Well"; Iran Says They Are Not; Trump: Will Obliterate Iran's Energy Sources If Deal Not Reached; White House Defends "Short-Term Price Fluctuations" From Iran War. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired March 30, 2026 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:00]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: What a nightmare right before Easter. That's more than 400,000 candy bars.

Nestle says all its products can be traced with a unique code. So, if have a match from the stolen shipment is found. the company will be alerted.

The good news, no concerns for consumer safety, supply not affected. So, we all should have a good Easter.

"THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT" starts right now.

(MUSIC)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Hello, everyone. Welcome to THE ARENA. Kasie Hunt is off today. I'm Abby Phillip. It's good to have you with us on this Monday.

Right now, President Trump's war with Iran reaches a critical new point. One month in, there is no clear end in sight. And there are a lot of questions about what's happening behind the scenes.

Now, this afternoon, the White House insisted that talks are underway and that they're going well -- at least privately, that is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: It's no surprise that we are seeing the remaining elements of the regime become increasingly eager to end the destruction and come to the negotiating table while they still can, despite all of the public posturing you hear from the regime and false reporting, talks are continuing and going well. What is said publicly is, of course, much different than what's being communicated to us privately.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Those comments, coming just hours after President Trump said that the U.S. was talking with some parts of the Iranian government who he described as, quote, "a new and more reasonable regime," end quote. He even said that, quote, "great progress had been made". Contrast that, though, with a spokesperson for the Iranian regime who

says that there have been no direct negotiations yet with the Trump administration and who described the U.S. peace plan as, quote, "largely excessive, unrealistic and unreasonable".

And so right now, we really don't know what the plan is, what's been agreed to, or even who the United States is talking to, if anyone.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, I'm not going to disclose to you who those people are, because it probably would get them in trouble with some other groups of people inside of Iran. Look, there's some fractures going on there, internally. There are new people now in charge who have a more reasonable vision of the future. That would be good news for us, for them, for the entire world. But we also have to be prepared for the possibility, maybe even the probability that that is not the case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Okay, so Iran may not be reasonable in the Trump administration's eyes. And what happens then? Well, let's revisit President Trump's social media post. He warned that if a deal can't be reached, the United States will, quote, "conclude our lovely stay in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their electric generating plants, oil wells and Kharg Island, and possibly all desalination plants," end quote.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They gave us most of the points. Why wouldn't they? I would only say that we're doing extremely well in that negotiation. But you never know with Iran because we negotiate with them, and then we always have to blow them up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Let's get off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA. My panel is here with me in studio, along with senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes over at the White House.

So, Kristen, what are you learning about these conflicting comments from the administration officials, including some coming from the briefing this afternoon with Karoline Leavitt?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, that's really what we've been trying to make sense of for the last 24 hours. And it's not just the administration. First, were hearing these two very different stories, one from the United States, one from Iran. You have the United States, President Trump saying that Iran has agreed to most of the points in this proposal to end the war. Then you have Iran coming out and saying that that's not true, that not only have there not been direct talks, but that most of this proposal is unreachable, that they think it's unreasonable. Then you have the split within the actual administration. And we know that President Trump talking about how they were dealing with a new, more reasonable group of people. Well, you also heard Marco rubio calling the people that they were dealing with lunatics at one point. And there's been a number of these kind of discrepancies between what we are hearing from various administration officials. Even at one point, Rubio saying that it was hard to figure out who was in control in Iran.

And then we have President Trump telling "The New York Post" that he has been or that the United States has been negotiating with the parliamentary speaker.

This is all over the map in terms of what's actually going on behind the scenes. Now, the United States insists that these negotiations are still happening. They insist the American people should know that they should believe the United States over Iran and over this dictatorship. But of course, that still ends the question as to what the United States is saying and sometimes saying differently for the American people to try to decipher on their own.

PHILLIP: Kristen Holmes, thank you very much for that reporting.

My panel is here with me in THE ARENA. CNN political commentator and host of "The Off the Cuff" podcast, S.E. Cupp; political analyst and author of the "Blow the Stack" newsletter, Charles Blow; CNN political commentator and former communications director for Vice President Kamala Harris, Jamal Simmons and former Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien.

[16:05:00]

We're also joined by "Axios" global affairs correspondent Barak Ravid.

I do want to start in the room here, though, because this this post from the president this morning seemed to suggest that he was looking for a way out of this. And perhaps willing to accept whatever was available to him in the moment.

So, I mean, S.E., what do you make of all the conflicting reports? Maybe they're talking to people, maybe they're not. Maybe he's going to blow them up, maybe they're not. Where are we?

S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, first I just want to dismantle this strawman that people like Marco and Karoline Leavitt are putting out a lot, which is that we can't tell you what we're doing because it would tip off the enemy. The American people are grownups. Most of us have lived through a long war before. We're not asking for state secrets, but they've told us almost nothing about why were there, how long we might be projected to be there, what our goal is, what the mission is.

So, the American people rightfully are frustrated and confused, disoriented. What we've heard regime change, not regime change. Oil, not oil. We're here to help the Iranian people, that stopped like three weeks ago. I haven't heard anything about that since then. And so, when the administration is conflicting itself in what its

saying, don't be surprised when reporters on behalf of the American people are asking square this. I watched this whole press conference today. Reporter after reporter was asking Karoline Leavitt real basic, square this, make the thing you just said make sense with the thing Trump said or the thing you just said five minutes ago.

So, they've not narrowed down the talking points. That's obvious because they don't think they know what they're trying to get out of this.

PHILLIP: Is that fair, Bill?

BILL STEPIEN, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER: I mean, I don't think we know who's in charge over there. I think I believe everything that's being said. I believe nothing that's being said.

PHILLIP: What?

STEPIEN: This is how -- this is -- this is how negotiating works, right? They're unreasonable.

If we led with our negotiation and we were called reasonable, wouldn't that be troublesome? This is how -- this is how -- this is jockeying. This is posturing. This is part of the process.

PHILLIP: So you just think it's a big smokescreen.

STEPIEN: Yes.

PHILLIP: And you're fine with that.

STEPIEN: So the real players could be talking behind the scenes.

PHILLIP: But are we sure that the real player? I mean, this is -- part of the problem is that we don't even know if they're talking. They say they're talking. Are they talking? Do you believe them?

JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't believe anybody about anything. So, it's all very troubling.

Here's the problem. It seems like they're making it up as they go, right? And get back to S.E.'s point a second ago. First, they say it's about nuclear weapons and they say it's about regime change. Now it's about oil and the Straits of Hormuz. We don't know what it's about.

And in that confusion, the president of the United States is using that to divide us. Instead of getting Americans to rally together behind our troops who are who are at risk. We've seen some die. We've seen many more hurt.

Instead of bringing us together around that, the president is doing is dividing us around it and started saying like, who's a good American and who's not based on who supports him.

And how can you support him when it seems like he's giving up his power to woo us? Right? He's a salesman in chief. We thought he was going to go out and tell us how to make things right and do it the right way. Instead, what he's doing is just sort of bludgeon us into submission.

PHILLIP: Let me just play a little bit more from Karoline Leavitt. I want you to respond to this because she was at Trump has this deadline. It's supposed to expire April 6th. She was asked about how were supposed to know if Iran is making progress on the things that would be required in order for this deadline to not end in more bombings. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: What does the president need to see to not move forward with those strikes by April 6th?

LEAVITT: Well, I think he said it in his true social post this morning. He wants to see a deal over the next ten days. What that timeline is waning several days left and we'll see. I won't get ahead of it. We'll see what happens at the end of the 10-day period.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: I mean, to S.E.'s point, we'll see what happens. I mean, I hope they're -- I mean, if they're really talking to the Iranians, hopefully there's more clarity, at least on that end. But for the American people, there's nothing.

CHARLES BLOW, POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. And, you know, the Iranians have said that there are no high-level direct talks. Trump has yet to produce any proof that he is having high level direct talks. The one thing that we have been proven about Donald Trump is that he's a pathological liar, has been lying from the first term all the way through this one.

So, it is impossible for me to take his word on this. And then I believe it's even more cynical than what you said, Jamal. I think this whole rosy, we're making great progress. They gave us a great gift. It was worth so much money. And it's a great thing. Nobody has ever gotten it.

It's all to calm the markets. He is freaked out by what the markets are doing around energy and food and fertilizer, and he knows that that is a problem for him. So, when I look at the whole totality of what I know about Donald Trump, what the very little that we know about this situation and what negotiations might be going on, it is very troubling.

And last thing, what is also most troubling is if he is lying. They know he's lying. And then that gives them leverage. They know that if he's lying, he needs to look rosy. That's less likely for him to move more troops in and bomb more.

[16:10:00]

PHILLIP: Barak Ravid is with us. And, Barak, I know you just got off an important interview with

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and you asked him about the impact of this war on his war. Tell us what he said.

And I mean, what is the sort of broader geopolitical consequence not only of the oil markets being where they are, but also of Iran and its allies, sort of, or Russia specifically benefiting from the United States looking elsewhere in this moment.

BARAK RAVID, CNN POLITICAL & GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Yeah. So, President Zelensky, I think the main thing he told me is that he thinks that the Russians want this war in Iran to continue, and that they feel that they benefit from this war for several reasons. First, as long as the U.S. is focused on the Middle East, there's no pressure on them to do anything and they can just continue their own war on Ukraine.

Second, since this war started, because of the crisis in the oil market and the global energy market, the Russians got waivers for and that allowed them -- waivers from the U.S. that allowed them to sell their oil around the world. And they get, you know, economic benefit out of it.

And another reason is that if this war continues, I mean, at the moment, we still don't feel it. But if the war continues and at least from everything I know, it's supposed to continue for at least another month. But if it continues even after then, Ukraine will be -- will start being in shortage of weapons because the pool of weapons that the U.S. produces is limited at the end of the day, and the U.S. will need it for its own war in the Middle East.

So, for all those reasons, Zelenskyy told me he thinks that Putin would want this war to continue.

PHILLIP: Wow. I mean, Barak, what is your sense of this conversation we've been having here about what the truth of the matter is in terms of how much talking is happening between the United States and Iran right now. Do you get the sense, as President Trump has said, that they're making progress, they're dealing with more reasonable people, they're getting closer. Maybe they can wrap this up soon.

RAVID: So, I'll say something that maybe will be a bit unpopular in the -- in the discussion in the panel. But look, there are negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, okay. That's a fact.

Is this -- does this mean that U.S. and Iranian officials are sitting around the table talking? No. What is going on at the moment is that most and I think all of those negotiations are being conducted through a third party, mostly the government of Pakistan, but also the government of Egypt and Turkey.

And the Pakistanis, as far as I know, are speaking directly to the commanders of the IRGC, that basically they are the ones who are calling the shots at the moment in Iran. And I think this is meaningful, because those are the people that can make decisions both on the Strait of Hormuz and on the nuclear program. Does this mean that the sides are close to an agreement? The answer is

I'll be, you know, gentle here -- not yet. Okay? It will take a lot to reach an agreement. But are the parties is there a possibility that the parties will have some sort of a meeting in the next seven days? I think that's possible. And if that happens, and if on one side you have Vice President Vance and on the other side you have the speaker of the Iranian parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, okay?

If that scenario happens, I'm not saying it is going to, but I'm just saying there is a possibility. And if that happens, that would be the most senior meeting between Iran and the U.S. in 47 years. And this will be a historic moment that could create a dynamic that would lead us to a deal.

So, we're not there yet. There's no -- there's no deal at the moment, but it doesn't mean that there are no negotiations and that there's not a scenario where this can go to a diplomatic solution.

PHILLIP: Last question for you, Barak, since you're so plugged in on all of this. Look, let me actually just play this. This is Marco Rubio today, okay? These are comments that he made this morning, comments that he made this afternoon. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUBIO: Number one, the destruction of their air force. Number two, the destruction of their navy. Number three, the severe diminishing of their missile launching capability. And number four, the destruction of their factories, so they can't make more missiles and more drones to threaten us in the future. All of this so that they can never hide behind it to acquire a nuclear weapon.

The Iranian regime can never have nuclear weapons, and they need to stop sponsoring terrorism, and they need to stop building weapons that can threaten their neighbors.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[16:15:00]

PHILLIP: So, the first four objectives, he said, those were the four objectives of this conflict. And then the second part are -- seems like an expansion of that more, more political objectives.

Where do you think we are in terms of -- the first four seems reasonable. We could meet those objectives. But the second set, where are we in terms of whether or not they are actually even trying to get concrete gains on that second set of priorities that they have?

RAVID: So, I think that the military objectives, to be honest, have mostly been achieved. You know, you can argue if it's 90 percent, 95 percent, 99 percent, but I think we're more or less there. You can always degrade the Iranians even more. You will never get to a situation where they have no missiles or more or no launchers. They always have something. But -- so I think the military objectives, to be honest, have been

achieved. But the main objective that hasn't been achieved yet, and Rubio did not mention it as part of the four goals, even though that at the beginning of the war, it was part of the four goals. And this is preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

And to do that, the U.S. needs to find a solution to the 2,000 kilograms of enriched uranium that is in Iran right now, 450 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, 60 percent, very close to the 90 percent grade that you need for a nuclear weapon. All of this material is still in the country. You can get it out either through a deal, which the U.S. couldn't do until now, or through a military operation that will be extremely risky, extremely -- extremely complicated, and will prolong the war, in my opinion, in months.

This is -- this is the main issue, whether the U.S. at the end of this war gets this material out of Iran.

PHILLIP: Yeah, yeah, that is the central question. And to your point, I mean, Marco Rubio said these are four clear objectives. They're laid out here. Write them down. But not one of them had to do with the nuclear material, which is such an important part of this whole thing.

Barak Ravid, as always, thank you very much.

The rest of our panel, don't go anywhere. Stand by for us.

Still to come in THE ARENA, oil prices just settled above $100 a barrel for the first time in almost four years. So how long will voters put up with that kind of pain at the pump? We'll discuss.

Plus, Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen will be here. Who does he believe when it comes to the public claims about talks to end the war with Iran?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: The president insists that negotiations are underway. As you just mentioned, he's also said that Iran has agreed to most of the 15 points. We just heard from Iran, again, they're saying no negotiations are taking place. They're calling the proposal excessive, unrealistic.

So how do you square that? What -- what -- how do you explain that discrepancy between the two?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:22:24]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: I think the American people are smart enough not to take the word of a terrorist regime that has chanted death to America for 47 years at their word. And I hope the journalists in this room are wise enough not to take an Iranian regime that is repeatedly lied about our country, about our values, about everyone in this room, frankly, for nearly five decades. So, I think the American public are smart enough to understand that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: That was the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt responding to a question about the conflicting reports about the status of these Iran war negotiations. President Trump has insisted that the talks are underway as Iranian leadership says there have been no talks, no direct negotiations, at least so far with the U.S.

The president also says Iran has agreed to, quote, "most of the U.S.'s 15-point plan to end the conflict, while Iran describes that list as excessive, unrealistic and unreasonable.

Joining me now is Democratic senator from the state of Maryland, Chris Van Hollen. He sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

And, Senator, on this program last week, you said that you believe that Trump was lying about these talks with the Iranians. You heard Karoline Leavitt's comments there. She's basically saying what you're hearing from them doesn't reflect what's happening privately. We were just speaking to Barak Ravid, who says that through third parties, maybe the Trump administration is speaking with representatives of the IRGC.

Do you think it's possible that they are speaking with someone in the Iranian regime? And do you believe that those talks represent progress?

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): Well, Abby, it's good to be with you. Look, we know Donald Trump is a serial liar. Of course, the big lie he told the country was that he was going to keep us out of foreign wars and not drag us into another war in the Middle East. We also know he's been lying. When he claimed that we were in direct negotiations with the Iranians, and that they're going to give us everything we wanted.

As to whether or not we're in indirect negotiations through third parties, that's certainly possible as Barak reported. But the notion that we're near a big breakthrough is delusional.

And let's remember that Donald Trump, about three weeks ago said that we won the war. Those are -- those are his words, we won the war. So, the question is, what are we negotiating about right now? Abby, if we already won the war

PHILLIP: You know, the Iranians are also not really -- they've never wanted to talk about nuclear enrichment.

[16:25:03]

They've denied that they're even doing it. But the Trump administration has repeatedly said that's part of their goals.

If they end up ending the United States military engagement in Iran without securing the enriched uranium that Iran has, would it be possible to say that we have won this war?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, Abby, as you know, the Iranians actually have engaged in negotiations with the United States over a period of years regarding their nuclear enrichment program. In fact, during the presidency of Barack Obama, we had the JCPOA, which prevented Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. It required them to keep a stockpile of a very little amount of uranium, which was nowhere near what was enrichment levels for a bomb. And it was clearly verified by international inspectors. The most toughest regime verification regime, that they were complying.

Donald Trump ripped that up. And as a result, the Iranians began to enrich more, which brings us to today. Of course, the president told the country last year that bombing had completely destroyed the Iranian nuclear stockpile. And Tulsi Gabbard told the American people just about a week ago or so that Iran has made no effort to further enrichment since then.

So, all of this has been undertaken by Donald Trump under false claims. And I -- it's impossible for the American people to trust Donald Trump after all the lies he's told.

PHILLIP: Should the president even be considering taking the uranium out of Iran by force, potentially sending U.S. Troops in?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, that would put American lives at even greater risk. We've already lost 13 American service members, hundreds wounded, over 2,000 civilians killed in the region. And of course, this war is costing American taxpayers about $2 billion a day, let alone rising oil prices.

So, the way all along to get Iran to constrain its nuclear enrichment program is the way that Barack Obama successfully did. And Donald Trump, when he tore up that agreement, set us on this very dangerous path. But even he said he wasn't going to go to war in the Middle East. And of course, we're now finding ourselves in a war that he and Prime Minister Netanyahu started.

PHILLIP: I have to ask you about the ongoing government shutdown, actually, over the weekend. The Baltimore airport in your state of Maryland was dealing with insane lines over the weekend. TSA employees are now getting their back pay today after the president ordered that the agency resume compensating them.

Okay, so airports go back to normal. Is there any incentive at this moment for Democrats and Republicans to come to an agreement to actually reopen the government? There are other employees, civilian employees, who are still not being paid. They're not part of TSA, but they're not being paid.

What is it going to take to get the two sides back to the table?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, you're right, Abby. And in the Senate, both sides did come together just a number of days ago. Every single Republican and every single Democrat in the Senate voted not only to fully fund TSA, but also to fund FEMA and to fund the Coast Guard. And in the House, the speaker of the house refused to even bring that

up for a vote. We've now voted 14 times in the Senate. Democrats to fully fund not just TSA, but those other operations. We have been clear were not going to fund a lawless ICE operation, and we've insisted on significant reforms, reforms that the Trump administration has refused to make.

And so, we're not going to provide ICE another $10 billion to continue their lawless activities. But as you know, Republicans in their so- called Big, Beautiful Bill that cut Medicaid and health care, they funded ICE. So, ICE does have a lot of money. We've just said were not going to give them even more money until they adopt very meaningful reforms.

PHILLIP: I mean, just real quick before you go, can you trust your Republican colleagues in the Senate in this moment? They made a deal with you, but it wasn't one that could get to the president's desk. So are they the negotiating partners that you need to be talking with?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, they really need to be very publicly calling upon their House colleagues to bring the bill that we passed together in the Senate, Republicans and Democrats to a vote.

[16:30:04]

And they should keep that drumbeat going. Unfortunately, they're not doing that. And, you know, Donald Trump, I'm glad he finally released the money. If he had the power to do this, Abby, why didn't he release the money for TSA 45 days ago and prevent these lines? And the answer is, they thought that by holding TSA hostage, Democrats would fold on our demands for reforms at ICE, like calling for independent investigations of two Americans who were killed by DHS agents, rather than have that investigation conducted by DHS, which, of course, called them domestic terrorists.

PHILLIP: All right. Senator Chris Van Hollen, thank you very much for joining us.

VAN HOLLEN: Thank you.

PHILLIP: And up next in THE ARENA, a gallon of gas is now teetering on $4 a gallon as oil settles at its highest price in years. Ahead, what those prices mean for American voters?

And the concerns now being raised after President Trump issues a new threat to attack a vital piece of Iran's infrastructure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: The United States Armed Forces has capabilities beyond their wildest imagination, and the president is not afraid to use them.

REPORTER: Including potential war crimes?

LEAVITT: That's not what I said, Garrett. And you're saying the word "potential" for a reason. (END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:35:49]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: These are short term actions and short term price fluctuations for the long term benefit of ending the threat that Iran poses to the United States of America, our troops and our allies in the region, and ensuring that this regime can no longer control the world's free flow of energy through the Strait of Hormuz, which is something the administration continues to tackle day by day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: "Short term pain, long term gain" has been the White House's economic message when it comes to this war with Iran, but it's hitting Americans where it hurts. And that's because so many essential items flow through the Strait of Hormuz -- gas, fertilizer, fruit and vegetables, meat and aluminum, electronics, clothing, jet fuel. It's just part of a long list that's been impacted by the closure of the strait. The average gas price in the U.S. right now, $3.99, just one penny below $1. And that's up over $1. Since we got into this war.

So today, as oil settled above $100 a barrel for the first time since 2022, it only adds to the rising belief among economists that we could see a recession in the next 12 months. Moody's Analytics predicting a nearly 50 percent chance while Goldman Sachs has that outlook currently at 30 percent.

Blackrock CEO Larry Fink says a global recession is not off the table right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LARRY FINK, BLACKROCK CEO: If there's a cessation of war. And yet Iran remains a threat, a threat to trade, a threat to the to the straits of Hormuz, then I would argue that we could have years, years of, you know, above $100 closer to $150 oil.

INTERVIEWER: What happens to the global economy if that happens? How do we see it?

FINK: We'll have global recession.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: My panel is back.

Bill, real talk, I mean, how long can the administration continue in this place? And what's the risk politically to the president if we're looking at $4 a gallon and above and jet fuel prices, they're already hugely higher than they were a month ago. People are going to start paying a lot more for air tickets.

STEPIEN: Well, I'd remind people that gas prices were a dollar more under Joe Biden in 2022 than they are now. I'd also --

PHILLIP: Did not go well for Joe Biden.

STEPIEN: I'd also note that these same economists and experts predicted recessions back in the first term, when tariffs were put in place last year, when tariffs were put in place, not -- neither happened.

PHILLIP: Tariffs were struck down and Trump reneged on most of them even before.

STEPIEN: The timeline I care about, when I hear about short term pain, long term benefit midterms are seven months away. That's a big problem. There's a certain, there's a certain appetite that someone that politicians, Republicans are willing to bite the bullet on, they're looking at their own political futures. And seven months is really, really close.

PHILLIP: Yeah.

SIMMONS: Seven months is very close. I mean, listen, I look at three things and I'm thinking about this. Think about the security of the American people first, what's happening in Iran and maybe we should be there. But the presidents not telling us why.

I look at the unity of the American people around this. And I think about the competitive the competitiveness of the American economy around the world. And right now, those last two the unity of the American people and the competitiveness of our country seem to be at stake. Listening to Donald Trump as he's waging this war.

One thing we haven't talked about, we started thinking about the global economy is what happens in Taiwan. We are pulling resources and troops away from other theaters in the world. The Chinese have had an interest in going into Taiwan.

What happens if they begin to blockade Taiwan? The United States does not right now have the ability to do that, and the American people aren't unified around a global strategy that will help protect our allies.

PHILLIP: So, S.E., you know, President Trump is right when he says he's MAGA, they're more they're more or less with him. But there are some cracks that are beginning to show in some parts of the MAGA ecosystem, particularly in media. You have people questioning this war, not just because they voted for Trump because he was going to keep them out of wars, but also because of the economic toll that it takes.

And at what point does that start to show up in Trump's political future?

[16:40:03] Yes, the numbers are at 90 percent or higher, but at what point does it get to 85 percent, 80 percent? And then suddenly, you're looking at a different picture?

CUPP: Well, I'm worried that for dollars a gallon gas is going to look like a bargain, because if you keep 20 percent of the world's oil closed off to the world for a long enough time, you get $200 to $400 a barrel oil. That's $8 a gallon gas. And that's what some economists are projecting could happen here in an election year.

In Nevada, places like Nevada, gas is already at $5 a gallon. Farmers in Pennsylvania are already worried about the cost of fertilizer. In Michigan, where they make cars, they're worried about the supply chain cuts.

I just named three swing states. If that doesn't make you think about elections, and I know that Republicans are, well, I don't know what does. And I'm not even just talking about the midterms, I'm talking about 2028. Because the longer this goes, recessions don't get turned off by a switch.

Some projections from economists are projecting years of recession. Now, to Bill's point, some of that is because economists have been projecting were due for a recession for years now. Add the tariffs, add the war, and this is just a recipe for economic disaster.

PHILLIP: And it may not even really be up to us. It's not -- we may not be the deciding factor. It could be places like India and China where the sort of dominoes start to fall. And then we're affected on the back end of a global recession.

BLOW: Right. And the feeling starts to gel long before Election Day. It's not always how the voter feels the day he goes into the election because of the conditions that day. It is how they have come to feel in the months leading up to the election that has gelled already.

They -- even if it got better, they take that feeling they had three months ago. Four months ago, into the booth.

And the idea that we could be dragging this out -- it's very hard to figure out what it means to defang Iran. You know, this idea of -- does it mean going in and getting that material? Those sites are in the interior of the country. There's a mountain range that runs along the shore. You don't just drive in in Humvees, like it's a very difficult thing. It takes a lot of troops. They put themselves at danger, at risk. And then that's more of this discomfort with this war.

And the president is right. They did do a lot of damage the last time they did bombing. But that now means that soldiers may have a real job of digging under this rubble that we created the last time to get that material. It's a very complicated thing.

PHILLIP: So, on the 2028 front, I mean, the whole war creates in the minds of some people, this Vance-Rubio dynamic. Let me just play. The CPAC was this weekend, the political action committee for conservatives. Here's what some of the people there were saying about Vance versus Rubio.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As much as I would like to say someone like Vance, I just -- I hate seeing the president and vice president run. I want someone new and different, someone younger.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't really like Vance, but I think Marco Rubio was the only person for the administration or I would support going into 2028.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I voted for Vance.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I would go with Vance, too. I like Rubio, too. They make a good team. Too bad they couldn't co-president, you know?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think Vance is in a position and I don't think it would be wise for Rubio and his supporters to try to jump ahead of Vance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: So, Vance is still look -- look at the straw poll. Vance is still a little ahead. A lot ahead, actually, I should say. But Rubio has made a big surge since 20 since last year. And the straw poll, I actually just wonder -- I mean, do you see Rubio or Vance as trying to create any distance from the administration on this war? Because Rubio has been very much the face of it since it began?

STEPIEN: Maybe. I'm not sure, though, that a bunch of people dressed up like Uncle Sam at CPAC are the best arbiters of the future of the Republican Party. 2015, CPAC straw poll winner was Rand Paul.

PHILLIP: Right.

STEPIEN: 2016, it was Ted Cruz. Donald Trump was a distant third. So I'm not sure CPACs got the best finger on the pulse.

PHILLIP: All right. That's not good news for -- for J.D. Vance.

SIMMONS: I've got my popcorn ready because I think this is just amazing. I love it, and I was in the White House with the vice president, had a couple of cabinet members who were thinking about running for president. And it's not fun. And I can't imagine Donald Trump is going to let this happen.

PHILLIP: We got a lot of -- we got some years ahead of this stuff.

SIMMONS: Fluffing.

PHILLIP: All right. Ahead for us in THE ARENA, more on President Trump's threats to, quote, blow up and completely obliterate Iran's energy sources. What that could look like, and whether that would help him achieve his administration's goals.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Strait of Hormuz will be open when this operation is over. It will be open and it will be open one way or another.

[16:45:00]

They choose to try to block the straits, then they will have to face real consequences, not just from the United States, but from regional countries and from the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: Of course, this administration and the United States Armed Forces will always act within the confines of the law. But with respect to achieving the objectives of operation Epic Fury, President Trump is going to move forward unabated. And he expects -- expects the Iranian regime to make a deal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: That was White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt telling reporters this afternoon that the administration intends to comply with the law in any future actions against the Iranian regime. That comment, coming after President Trump threatened this morning to completely obliterate Iranian power, oil and water sites if they don't immediately open the strait of Hormuz.

[16:50:07]

Now, it's that last part of the threat, hitting Iranian water sites that is, raising concerns of doing so would be a violation of international law.

Joining me now is former NATO supreme allied commander, retired Admiral James Stavridis.

Admiral, thanks for being here.

That threat of Iran -- of Iran's desalination facilities being hit is kind of an eye opening, one coming from the president of the United States. What would the consequences be for the region, and do you think it would be a violation of international law?

ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET), CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST: Let's take all three things that were mentioned there. So striking oil. No, I don't see that as illegal under international law. The electric grid is kind of in a gray area. Depends if you are striking portions of it that supported military activity.

Going after the water supplies, that would be extremely hard to justify under international law. And leaving aside the legalities, Abby, the practical effect would be batteries released against the Gulf Arabs' desalinization plant.

So, if this thing turns into a water war, it's going to take years for the region to come back. I doubt we will actually fulfill that portion of the threat.

PHILLIP: And Turkey, a NATO ally, confirmed today that NATO assets intercepted a suspected Iranian missile in Turkish airspace. I want to play for you what the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, said when he talked about the NATO alliance earlier today in an Al Jazeera interview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

INTERVIEWER: Do you believe the E.U. and NATO countries betray the U.S. at this crucial moment?

RUBIO: I think it was very disappointing. You have this. And again, look, the president in our country will have to reexamine all of this after this operation is over.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: You're seeing, on the one hand, a NATO country under fire from Iran from this conflict, and on the other hand, the administration suggesting they might reevaluate the alliance.

What does it mean to have the secretary of state say that in this moment?

STAVRIDIS: Both are very worrisome developments? Here's what I would be advising the NATO countries, and I suspect this is where Secretary General Mark Rutte, former prime minister of the Netherlands, very experienced hand, is trying to guide the alliance. It is to step up with maritime assets, for example, minesweepers, minehunters. These are ships as well as guided missile frigates, guided missile destroyers. I would say to Europe, get your hand in the air now in order to be part of the strait clearance operation.

I think that would be a pretty reasonable ask on the part of the administration. I think ultimately the Europeans would fulfill it. That's a way to get the NATO, European nations and the Canadians, by the way, into the game on the side of the U.S.

PHILLIP: Why do you think they haven't been willing to do that yet?

STAVRIDIS: I think they feel as though the United States launched into the war while negotiations were still in progress. And they feel as though more time should have been given to let those negotiations play out.

Having said that -- not to use sports analogies, which I hate -- but you got to play the ball from where it is on the field. We're in a war. It is not unreasonable, particularly, Abby, given the attack on Turkey, to go to the Europeans and say, time to step up. We need you to look at least on the maritime side and the openness straight part of this. PHILLIP: The president is also reportedly considering, or at least one

of the plans he's been given, is an operation that would use force to extract the enriched uranium from Iran if they can't get a deal through negotiations.

What would that look like in your understanding of it? How much time would it require and how risky is it?

STAVRIDIS: Massive undertaking, very high risk would require a thousand plus troops minimum, because you've got to go 350 miles inland. Assuming that all of that enriched uranium is still in Isfahan three, 400 miles inland, you've got to establish secure air power as well as a ground perimeter. Then you've got to bring in the specialists who could actually extract this. And by all reports, it's buried under tons of rubble.

So, you're looking at weeks and thousands of troops, very high risk. Personally, I think where this will end is that problem, that portion of it will be placed on kind of a sidecar negotiation while we get to a broad deal that opens the Strait of Hormuz, stops the bombing, once we're concluded clipping back the Iranian capabilities.

[16:55:08]

I think that's what I'm hearing Secretary Rubio talk about.

PHILLIP: Yeah. All right. Retired Admiral James Stavridis, we appreciate you as always. Thank you.

STAVRIDIS: You bet.

PHILLIP: And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIP: And a big thanks to my panel here in New York.

My friend Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD".

Jake, take it away.