Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Sources: Platner Could Drop Senate Bid As Soon As Today; Just In: Trump Orders New U.S. Strikes In Iran. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired July 08, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:02]
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And certainly, we have concern for them at this point.
Jacqueline Howard, thanks for all the info. We do appreciate it.
And THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
(MUSIC)
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: Hello, everyone. Welcome to THE ARENA. Kasie off is -- Kasie Hunt is off today. I'm Jim Sciutto.
And as we come on the air, a Senate campaign is on the brink of collapse. As we wait for an announcement from Graham Platner that could come at any moment, a source close to the campaign telling CNN, quote, "This could and should end today," end quote.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DEVON MURPHY-ANDERSON, MAINE DEMOCRATIC PARTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: The main Democratic Party has been working around the clock to develop a process to replace our U.S. Senate nominee that is open, inclusive, transparent, and fair.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: At this point, it does seem that everyone is moving as if Platner's exit is all but inevitable. after an allegation of sexual assault, an allegation that Platner denies.
Sources say that Platner and his team are trying to find a way out while still influencing what comes next, something the party says is out of the question.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MURPHY-ANDERSON: Unfortunately, Graham Platner's team has repeatedly reached out to us in an attempt to put their thumb on the scale of what this process looks like. We have repeatedly reiterated to Graham Platner's team that they have no role in determining our next Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate, nor in determining what this process looks like. (END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: If Platner drops out by Monday evening, Maine Democrats will have just two weeks from that point to name a replacement, and would- be candidates are already positioning themselves to take over in what is one of the most important races of this year.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NIRAV SHAH (D), FORMER MAINE GOVERNOR CANDIDATE: Graham and I share a lot of the same progressive ideals, like Medicare for all, taxing billionaires. But make no mistake, there will be a challenge to make sure that the party is unified.
TROY JACKSON (D), FORMER MAINE STATE SENATOR: There's a movement here in Maine across this country of people that are fed up, with health care not being offered to everyday people, with prescription drugs, workers' rights.
SHENNA BELLOWS, MAINE SECRETARY OF STATE: Holding Donald Trump accountable and standing up and fighting for the working class over billionaires and massive corporations, those ideals, that is incredibly important. And I think there's tremendous energy in Maine to beat Susan Collins and to win control of the U.S. Senate. And I think we can't lose sight of the fact that this was never about a person. It was a movement for change.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Lots of hats in the ring there. Let's get off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA.
My panel is here, along with CNN's Arlette Saenz, who is live in Portland, Maine.
Arlette, I wonder what you're hearing. We know they're talking about this exit. Everybody says it's going to happen. Do we know how soon?
ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We don't know exactly how soon, but there is a potential that a video announcing Graham Platner's decision could come later today. But there's still the potential that this timing could shift. Graham Platner and really a very small team of strategists have been navigating what his exit strategy will look like from this race at a time when there's also a lot of questions going forward about what the process to replace him might look like for Maine Democrats.
Earlier today, the Platner campaign's campaign manager, Ben Chin, had sent us a message out to supporters saying that they believe the Maine Democratic Party has cut their team, their supporters and volunteers out of this process. He wants Platner supporters to try to tell the main Democratic Party offering some feedback on what they would like to see next.
The Maine Democratic Party, in turn, had said that a lot of what the Platner campaign has engaged in is distractions, but that they do want to embrace the support of his backers as they try to work through an open and transparent process to replace him should he drop out of this race.
But we spoke with voters a bit earlier today and asked them whether they thought that Platner should have a role in selecting who the next nominee might be, what that process will look like. Take a listen to what some of them had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAENZ: Do you think Platner should have a say in how this replacement process plays out?
LISA SESSIONS, MAINE VOTER: Absolutely not.
SAENZ: Why not?
SESSIONS: I just -- I don't think again, I don't -- I don't know that I would trust somebody that he would put as a -- as a nominee. I don't trust him. Why would I trust his opinion on other people?
ELIZABETH HALL, MAINE VOTER: I think Platner has had a role and he is established what a very strong platform is, what people want to see from a next Senate candidate, and therefore, if that role, sorry, if that platform is honored of what we all voted to see come to fruition and endorse, then that in and of itself has been that role.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SAENZ: Now, even before Platner has stepped aside from this race, there have been a number of Democrats here in Maine suggesting that they are interested in potentially running for Senate.
[16:05:01]
One of those is Dan Kleban. He is a owner of a local beer company. He actually posted on social media today saying that he does plan to run when Platner steps aside. I've also learned that Graham Platner spoke with a longtime supporter of his state representative, Valli Geiger, thanking her for support in encouraging her to consider running if he does step aside.
Now, a source that told me that also said the Platner hasn't made any decision about endorsing a potential next candidate, but it really highlights the dynamics at play here in Maine, with many Maine Democrats already jockeying to potentially replace Platner. But ultimately, we are still waiting for Platner to announce his final decision as his race has been completely upended over the last 48 hours.
SCIUTTO: Arlette Saenz in Maine, thanks so much.
My panel is here in THE ARENA, CNN political analyst and historian Leah Wright Rigueur; CNN special correspondent Jamie Gangel; former Congress communications director for Vice President Kamala Harris, Jamal Simmons; and Republican strategist Brad Todd. They are both CNN political commentators.
We're also joined by former Trump White House communications director Alyssa Farah Griffin.
Listen, there are lots of questions here, including process, how you get to a point of choosing a new candidate, but one of the initial questions, Jamie, is, what -- it seems Platner is fighting for here, right, is a chance to influence the choice or the process of that next candidate.
I want to quote from State Senator John Baldacci, who's one of those potential replacements. He posted this on Facebook.
This is already going to be a tough race for any successor, but having him looking for a guarantee, speaking about Platner, is only going to tie a lead weight to any nominee. Do you agree with that?
JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, there's not a role for Platner here. No, this story is over for him. I think everybody's ready to move on to the next part of this. And they've got some real work to do in family healing and all that stuff to do in Maine. There's some justice issues that are going to have to get worked out. This is not -- the rest of us need to move on with working on the United States Senate.
What's going to start to happen to him that he has to really be worried about is staffers are going to start looking out for themselves. Because a lot of people are up there working for him, they're trying to do their job and be the best professionals they can. But at some point, they're going to have to worry about their own political futures, their own professional futures.
The best news for those staffers would be it's an orderly process, maybe one of these candidates picks them up, and they don't then have to write Graham Platner campaign on their next resume line.
SCIUTTO: Yeah, no question.
Listen, Brad, it's not surprising that conservative commentators, and by the way, it's not only conservatives who are drawing comparisons to the Kamala Harris post-Biden problem here. Here are some of those commentators and how they've been reacting to this news.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It feels like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris all over again.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: The Democrats voted, and now the party of democracy is apparently going to subvert the will of the people.
TOMI LAHREN, HOST, "TOMI LAHREN IS FEARLESS": They thought he cannot beat Donald Trump. So what do they do? Bait and switch. And they installed Kamala Harris. And it looks like they're on track to do the very same thing in Maine with Graham Platner. (END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: So, Brad, is there any way to avoid that comparison and say we're going to learn from the Kamala Harris issue and find some sort of more open way to go about this?
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, it was in June when they could have picked someone else in the primary. This skunk did not start stinking this week. Graham Platner has been a loose cannon and a dangerous, violent person for over a year. We've known it.
He said that if you saw a Republican eating and open the open elected official, you should follow them and yell at them. Don't let them have a public without that. He said that secondary power meant shutting things down. We knew that he'd been violent and made violent references to his other girlfriends.
I mean, he's been this bad all along. And Democrats, including everybody on that list that you showed as possible replacements, have covered for him. So the only way to fix this and make it right would have been to have not elected him as the nominee.
SCIUTTO: Okay, it did happen.
TODD: Democrats should stick with him or hand the seat to Susan Collins. She votes with him half the time anyway.
SCIUTTO: Well, Jamie, that does not appear to be what's going to happen. Platner, at least based on our reporting, most likely to drop out. Senator Chris Murphy, He made a point about the next steps. He said, this can't happen as a party insider backroom deal. Voters are sick of the status quo. They need to have a say here, or our party will squander whatever credibility we have left.
So he's, of course, wise to the Kamala Harris comparisons here, what could a process look like that is more open? I mean, there's discussions of a caucus here. How would that even happen?
JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: I don't think the party in Maine knows yet. I think, look, we have a very messy situation in Maine. And it's about to get messier. First of all, Graham Platner is struggling to get out of the race. That's a problem for the party, because he has taken what could have been a competitive race, and he's now out.
And so, he was a spoiler there. Now he wants a say in what comes next. There are, you know, Democrats who are really concerned that he's going to tell his supporters to stay home.
[16:10:06]
That's not what they need. And they really don't seem to have come up with a process yet.
TODD: He has the cards. He doesn't have to drop out. He can stay and be the nominee, and I guarantee if he does, the Democratic National Committee will be back in for him. as soon as he stays in the race.
GANGEL: No. He will not.
SIMMONS: There are other things that could happen.
TODD: It's happened every other time except Roy Moore, except Roy Moore. Cory Gardner, when he's at this NRSC, backed away from Roy Moore. Every other time, both parties eventually come in for controversial nominees at the end and try to save them.
SCIUTTO: Well, it seems like the right --
(CROSSTALK)
SCIUTTO: It's going to be multiple accounts of it.
Leah, is there a historical precedent for the situation we're in right now, separate from Kamala Harris, in a Senate race like this, where you have this timeline, you basically have a couple weeks to choose, you have an unclear process? You have six candidates who, well, they're clearly raising their hand right now.
LEAH WRIGHT RIGUEUR, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST & HISTORIAN: They're radically -- I mean, there's radically different. This is something that I think is unique to this particular moment, but there are other parallels that we can draw. We can look at Doug Jones versus Roy Moore in 2018, which was a race in which Roy Moore refused to drop out of and refused to concede.
And I think one of the big lessons, one of the big takeaways there was that Doug Jones actually was defeatable, right, as the Democratic nominee for the Senate. But Roy Moore and Republican women voters overwhelmingly punished the Republican Party for allowing Roy Moore to stay in.
The subsequent election, where they actually had a real matchup that didn't have the kind of baggage that we have with somebody like Roy Moore, looked radically different, and we actually see Doug Jones lose in that.
So, I think one of the things that we have to see, or one of the things that have to pop up, is there has to be a very incredibly strong response on the part of the Democratic Party, on the part of Democratic leaders, particularly leaders who have shown that there is a different path to win within the party. So, Mayor Mamdani coming out and calling on Platner to drop out is a really big thing as he has established himself as a leader, a new leader within the party.
And I also think it is a very big deal that somebody like Bernie Sanders, who has actually stood by Platner for a long time, has called on Platner to drop out. This is big.
SCIUTTO: There's been a lot of that going on. Listen, if you were advising Platner or the party in Maine right now, what advice would you give them? Is there any way to distance yourself from a deeply, deeply tarnished candidate here, but also somehow maintain the voter base that he was, when he won this nomination, able to energize?
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Honestly, this is a disaster for Democrats, and especially for the DNC, because keep in mind, Graham Platner was not a DNC pick. This was a guy who was backed by some Bernie consultants, and he was kind of this outsider candidate that was chosen. Very similarly to what we saw in New York, where you see these outsider candidates who are not thoroughly vetted, who then you find out past statements that they make that are incredibly controversial, that are going to be a drag coming up in the midterms ahead.
So, now, the party is scrambling to kind of clean up a mess that was not its own making. It was sort of its left flank's making. And if the process doesn't look fully open and transparent, it is going to evoke memories of 2024 and Kamala Harris being put back on the ticket. So, they have to make it seem like somehow the voters are having a say, and there's not really any process for that.
It's really some unprecedented territory that we're in. I think the smartest thing that they could do is go with a candidate who has run for federal office before, someone like a Jared Golden, a former House member. He's been vetted. He's known in the state.
He actually worked for Susan Collins, but is a moderate Democrat. If you go with somebody who's not vetted, you're bound to have, you know, something, some skeleton come out of their closet that could just further harm this race.
SCIUTTO: Jamal, the trouble is, though, and serious, serious vetting failures aside in this case, is that there's a reason. that voters are electing candidates like this, right? And by the way, not just, as you know, not just -- in fact, the Republican Party --
SIMMONS: Donald Trump.
SCIUTTO: They're not satisfied -- well, exactly. They're not satisfied with what the national party grandees, the candidates they're selecting or pushing for these roles. And some of the candidates have great success, right? Mamdani was-- no one had money on Mamdani in New York, right? And he won, and he beat Cuomo. So that's a-- how do you keep those voters energized and engaged?
SIMMONS: Yeah, we have seen this before. In 2016, the "Access Hollywood" tape came out, Donald Trump was the person who took that on. I think there is an effort in the country, not just in the Democratic Party, but across the country, to throw the bums out, to get rid of anybody who's defending institutional power as being something that's going to work for people.
People want things to change. I mean, this is what is so particularly powerful about what's coming from some of these candidates that Mayor Mamdani is supporting and others.
[16:15:03]
SCIUTTO: Yeah. SIMMONS: They're looking at the world from the outsider in, and they're saying, insiders, you've had your chance. Somebody else needs to get a chance. And so, the worst thing for the main party to do would be to pick somebody who's just a typical politician and try to throw them in the race. They got to find somebody else.
TODD: But you know, they also have to find someone who can win moderate. Susan Collins has been elected in Maine. She's -- by the way, she's --
SIMMONS: We've achieved that.
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: She has. She's the win Republican a blue state. Well, but maybe they have to pull somebody even more moderate. Or maybe Susan Collins -- going further left won't help you win. Like it's why Kamala Harris lost. She was too far left from 2019.
It was not because of the process. It was because she said too many crazy left things.
SIMMONS: But that's assuming they're on a left right axis. And I don't think that's what this is. I think this is an outsider versus insider axis. And on that axis, it's completely different.
TODD: Well, they have to find an outsider who's moderate. Like, that's the trick.
SCIUTTO: So, Jamie, assuming we get the news of what we expect to be a video statement from Platner sometime perhaps today, perhaps tomorrow. map out the next steps. What happens after that?
GANGEL: I think the party does not know. They are figuring that out in real time. But here's what they do need. They need someone who can raise a lot of money.
Susan Collins has a huge war chest. They need someone who can create enthusiasm, get out the vote. And you know what? They need Graham Platner to Just get out of the way as quickly as possible.
SCIUTTO: We were talking before we came on the air, and it made me think of John Edwards, when he was clearly out, but imagining -- well, hey, I can get another job in the administration. The campaign was like, that's not going to happen. Someone must be telling Platner that right now.
RIGUEUR: Absolutely. And I think that's actually the job of the nationwide -- of the Democratic Party, to step down and step in and say, no, your job is to be quiet and sit in the background and sort out your issues while we focus on this winning in this race.
The other thing, too, and this is just like a big picture type thing, which is that the Democratic Party, I think, is right now in a kind of quandary, right? And so desperate to win that sometimes they skip the vetting process. And we have to have -- there has to be an establishment or a criteria
that says, hey, things like having a Nazi tattoo is disqualifying. You know, harassing women, disqualifying. Maybe being on questionable websites, disqualifying, right?
There are all these things that are perhaps like skeletons in people's closets. No one has a clean internet, right, history. But there are just certain things that should be red lines from the beginning. And so, it's not even something that should be entertained, no matter how desperate you are.
SCIUTTO: Well, especially when winning the Senate involves really running the table, right, of these various seats.
Alyssa Farah Griffin, rest of the panel, please do stand by.
Coming up in THE ARENA, Congressman Adam Smith will be here live. We'll get his reaction to the latest in Maine, as well as the sudden collapse of talks between the U.S. and Iran and renewed military strikes from both nations. He's the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There's something wrong with them. They're cuckoo. As far as I'm concerned, it's over.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:22:41]
SCIUTTO: Back now with the breaking news, U.S. Central Command confirmed that new military strikes are underway in Iran at the order of President Trump. Part of the CENTCOM statement says these strikes are designed to, quote, "further degrade Iran's ability to threaten freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz".
I want to bring in CNN White House correspondent Alayna Treene.
Alayna, how far does this go? I mean, this is the second night in a row. There have been repeated violations in both directions of this ceasefire. The president said the ceasefire was over, but then he said he doesn't think the war will restart. Where exactly are we from the White House perspective?
ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, look, it's been a lot of unclear messaging, honestly, from the White House and from the president himself. Jim, I will note, and you mentioned this, the president did preview earlier today while wrapping up his summit for NATO in Ankara, Turkey, that he was expecting and that he was likely to order, I should say, more military attacks in Iran.
I do want to read to you a little bit more of this CENTCOM statement. Obviously, they are confirming that these are U.S. military strikes at the direction of the commander-in-chief. They say that they are conducting strikes against Iran to further degrade their ability to threaten freedom, as you mentioned, of navigation in the strait. They said the U.S. is holding Iran accountable for recent unjustified aggression against commercial shipping.
It goes on. You can read it there on your screens. It goes on to add some more details. Look, this is, you know, a tit for tat we are now hearing, Iran arguing that they were not being aggressors in the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. saying that these are proportional attacks in response to the attacks from Iran on these different vessels within the Strait, all to say it is unclear to your key point about whether or not we should actually be expecting this to return to major combat operations and whether or not the ceasefire is actually over, as the president said.
I do think what's important to note is what he had said later in the day, that he believes, you know, Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, the vice president, all of whom have really been leading negotiations on the U.S. side with Iran, that it's up to them to see how they want to proceed regarding how these talks are going between Washington and Tehran.
No question, though, that Trump is incredibly frustrated. I heard this in my conversations with White House officials today. He's frustrated with the pace of these negotiations. He wants there to be more firmer commitments at this point when it comes to some of the thorniest issues like the nuclear, the fate of Iran's nuclear program.
[16:25:05]
So, all of this leading to a very, very fragile moment in this ceasefire and leaving these questions about what's really going to happen.
SCIUTTO: I mean, the fact is, there's more shooting than negotiating.
TREENE: Yeah.
SCIUTTO: Alayna Treene at the White House.
Joining me now is the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Adam Smith of Washington.
Congressman, thanks so much for taking the time.
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): Well, thanks for having me. I appreciate the chance.
SCIUTTO: So let's set aside the White House messaging. Just as a matter of fact, Iran and the U.S. are shooting at each other. Are we back at war?
SMITH: Yeah. I mean, I think there's any question about that. If you're lobbing missiles at each other and Iran is targeting our bases, as I understand it, in Kuwait and Bahrain, they're targeting ships and we are now aggressively hitting Iran. We don't know yet the details. Apparently, the latest U.S. strikes on Iran have just kicked off, but they seem substantial. It's more than just a proportional response for Iran's attacking the ships yesterday.
And look, it represents a breakdown in this negotiation. Now understand, I mean, Trump put us in a horrible position by starting this war in the first place. What we're basically negotiating now is how much to pay Iran to open up the strait when the strait was opened before the war began. And we haven't made progress on the key objectives.
But I will say I think Iran is kind of pushing their luck a little bit. They had a pretty good deal here where they could get paid to open the strait. Instead, they wanted to say, well, we'll open the strait a little bit, not entirely. And that's why they're shooting at some ships going through the lanes they don't want them to go through.
Now I think we're looking at a protracted conflict, and the negotiations are going to be in trouble for a while.
SCIUTTO: Let me ask you this, because the administration said two things. They said, one, the US has obliterated Iran's offensive capabilities. Clearly not true, because they're still able to threaten shipping, U.S. bases in the region. But two, that Iran is scared, right, and that this military pressure will force them to the table. Is it a matter of fact, again, that U.S. military pressure is being eroded to some degree, at least in terms of accomplishing what the administration says its goals are here, which is to force Iran to the table and to make real concessions.
No, look, that was always the problem with this. And I had these arguments. And we've heard a lot of people criticize Trump from the right, from the hawkish side point, saying, well, "he should finish the job", quote/unquote.
The problem is, finishing the job implies that there's something militarily that we could do that would officially break Iran and get them to capitulate. That has always been the assumption. That assumption has always been wrong. Because all Iran has to do is survive.
Yes, I know, their navy is in the bottom of the ocean. Their air force is destroyed. We've blown up a whole bunch of missile launchers, and yes, we have weakened them, but they don't have to be terribly strong to threaten the strait and threaten the region. They just have to have a few missiles and a few drones.
You're not going to be able to, quote, "finish the job," unquote, to the point where it breaks Iran. That was always the flaw in the argument for starting this war in the first place. And now we're in that hole.
And yes, final point, the Trump administration, have they ever told the truth about this conflict? Have they ever said anything that was accurate? So, relying on what the White House says about where this conflict is at is a fool's era. SCIUTTO: So, to that point, let me ask you this, because the president started the day by saying he believes the ceasefire with Iran may be over. But then he somewhat qualified that later by saying, well, I don't think the war will restart. And I wonder if you believe that unclear messaging is deliberate, perhaps to calm the oil prices, as we saw the oil market go up.
But also, you know the law here, right? Because if we're at war, then a 60-day clock should start ticking again if it hasn't already expired.
SMITH: Yeah. No, I think what it really reflects -- and there's a lot of different layers in the question that you just asked. But the primary thing it reflects is Trump, in his mind, knows what he wants. Okay, he wants to be the guy who isn't in a war, okay, because the war is bad and constituents don't like it.
He also wants to be the tough guy who breaks our adversary in Iran and forces them to do what we want. So, he simply says things that fits his sort of mental narrative of where he would like to be. completely disconnected from the reality of where we actually are. And where we actually are is we are absolutely in a war with Iran.
We're lobbing missiles at each other, and we are unable to use our military force, as I mentioned, to break them to the point that Trump wants to break them. So, Trump is basically trying to fight back against reality by saying, no, we're not at war, and of course, we've totally defeated Iran, and Iran's going to do what I want. That's what he wants to believe in his own mind. Reality tells us a very, very story.
SCIUTTO: So let me ask you this. Is a new vote in Congress on the president's war powers as they relate to Iran likely to be in the offing?
As you know, back on June 23rd, very briefly, the Senate voted to move the president's war powers as they relate to Iran. likely to be in the offing. As you know, back on June 23rd, very briefly, the Senate voted to move it forward, and then two Republican senators changed their vote and reversed.
[16:30:02]
Do you believe there'll be the votes in the House now?
SMITH: This is -- I don't know. This is always a very difficult thing, because obviously Congress should have greater say in the U.S. going to war than we have. not just under this president, but under many previous presidents.
And keep in mind, even if we pass this resolution, depending on the form it takes, it's either non-binding or it has to go to the president, and the president would veto it. And then for it to actually have legal effect, we would have to get two-thirds vote. And even then, every administration has pretty much believed that the War Powers Resolution was an unconstitutional check on Article II power, so then we'd have a lawsuit over that.
So that the votes in Congress don't reflect something that's actually going to stop the war. It does reflect pressure on the Republicans to finally stand up to Donald Trump.
Trump is pushing a terrible, terrible policy, as he has all across the board. And Republicans may quietly complain about it, never publicly vote for it. This is an opportunity to give them the chance to say, no, this war in Iran is a terrible idea. Regardless of the practical impact, we want to be on record saying this should stop.
SCIUTTO: Often a big distance between the private complaints and the public statements on many issues.
Congressman Adam Smith, thanks so much.
SMITH: Thanks, Jim.
SCIUTTO: We're going to go live to Tehran now, where CNN's senior international correspondent Fred Pleitgen is.
Fred, if you know, it's past midnight there now. What are you seeing and hearing as the U.S. begins strikes on Iran once again?
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Jim, you're absolutely right. It's exactly one minute past midnight here on the ground in Tehran. As you can see behind me here in the city itself, traffic is still fairly normal. We're not hearing any explosions or anything of that nature. It seems as though these airstrikes are going on once again in the south of Iran. And there's sort of some reports that we're getting in from official media, from government media, also from social media as well.
And it seems as though some of these strikes, Jim, once again, like they were yesterday, centered around the Strait of Hormuz, that arch of the Strait of Hormuz, the northern tip of the Strait of Hormuz. There, of course, you have that port town of Bandar Abbas, which is used by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy. There's a big port there. And then there's Serik, which is an island or the town, an island off the Strait of Hormuz. And there also, we've heard that some explosions have been happening there as well.
Of course, we do have from CENTCOM that statement from U.S. Central Command that they are conducting these operations right now. What we've been hearing from the Iranians, they haven't officially commented on this, they haven't reacted to this yet, is they say that there is going to be a strong response coming from the Iranian side to any new attacks launched by the United States.
The Iranians, of course, yesterday said that they also launched some attacks, some retaliatory attacks, after the U.S. bomb places in the Strait of Hormuz. And the Iranians certainly say that a strong response will be coming to any military action taken by the United States, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Fred, let me ask you this, because you were in the midst of those multi-day funeral -- the funeral procession for the late leader, Ali Khamenei. When you've been speaking to members of the Iranian public, but also your conversations with Iranian officials, in general, is there a sense of defiance in the face of these ongoing and now expanding U.S. strikes?
PLEITGEN: Well, I would certainly say that there's definitely a sense of defiance, especially if you look at where the Islamic Republic of Iran stands right now. One of the things that we always have to point out is, of course, there are people who are opposed to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
But if you look at the supporters of the government here, the Islamic Republic, they certainly feel that they've been galvanized. And we certainly have seen that here on the ground over the past couple of days as these funeral ceremonies have been taking place. And, of course, one of the things that we have to point out, Jim, is that we're just hours away of the final major funeral procession for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who, of course, was killed in that airstrike at the beginning of the U.S. and Israel's war against Iran. That's going to happen in Mashhad, in the east of Iran.
So definitely still a very important event that's going to happen. But certainly, if you speak to the supporters, you speak to the officials, they will say that they believe that right now Iran, the Islamic Republic of Iran, is in a stronger position than it was before, notwithstanding the fact that a lot of their navy was destroyed, a lot of their air force was destroyed.
They believe that just because they have that chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz, they are more defiant than before. They believe that their missiles and drones have proved to be more effective than many people would have thought. They believe they have what it takes to stand up to the United States and certainly believe that they can outlast the U.S. and certainly know where it intends to be war like the strikes that we've been seeing over the past couple of days.
SCIUTTO: Yeah, that's the inverted math of asymmetric warfare, isn't it? Before we go, Fred. What is the view in Tehran of the progress, or if not the progress, just the prospect of progress in peace negotiations?
PLEITGEN: That's a really interesting question, I think a really important question, because it really depends on who you ask here on the ground. Certainly, there are a lot of people who tell you, look, we're tired of sanctions, we're tired of living, not being able to live out our full potential.
A lot of people will tell you that. A lot of people would look forward to sanctions relief. But there's, quite frankly, also people that we've been speaking to here on the ground who say that they believe that negotiations with the United States and the work to try and achieve some sort of agreement were a mistake on the part of the political leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
If you look, for instance, at the foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, he's been getting some serious backlash from hardliners who say they believe that the sacrifices, as they put it, of their military have been in vain if some sort of agreement with the United States has reached certainly one where the Islamic Republic would make a lot of concessions.
So there really is a multitude of views here. But right now, I would also say that there is definitely a degree of pessimism as to the prospect of this memorandum of understanding surviving and then, of course, leading to those larger negotiations that could lead to a broader peace agreement or a larger agreement that would see sanctions relief for the -- for Iran, but then also, of course, possibly restrictions on Iran's nuclear program as well.
SCIUTTO: Yeah, they haven't even gotten to the truly intractable issues, such as the future of Iran's nuclear program.
Fred, please stand by there in Tehran.
I want to bring in former NATO supreme allied commander and CNN senior military analyst, retired Admiral James Stavridis.
Admiral, always good to have you.
ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET), CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST: Thank you, Jim.
SCIUTTO: So, Admiral, as you well know, the U.S. certainly can continue strikes like this on Iran. It has the hardware in the region. But is this a low-grade war that the U.S. can win? Because it seems that Iran is striking back and willing to withstand this pain so far.
STAVRIDIS: I would say, at this point, we are bringing a knife to a knife fight. We've got a gun. And I think that's what President Trump has to make a decision upon.
And I'm all for striking Iran. I think they have badly overplayed their hand here. And I think the Admiral Brad Cooper, the head of Central Command, is going after targets that are directly impacting the opening of the Strait of Hormuz all makes sense.
But talk about bringing the gun to the knife fight, that is when we go after their economy, and that's going after Kharg Island.
And you heard President Trump kind of tease that out a little bit. And frankly, I don't think we're going to conquer Karg Island, but we could blockade it. That would be the end of the Iranian economy. I think you've got to go after economic targets.
And the problem with doing that is the Iranian response. Will they then go after oil and gas facilities in Saudi Arabia and UAE? So, it's not a great set of options, but I think compared to option one, Pontius Pilate, just walk away from it all.
Option two, full-blown troops on the ground, massive military, not a very good option. I think option three is amp up the pressure, go after some economic targets, push them back to the negotiating table.
Frankly, they've got a pretty good deal, and I think they're about to lose that opportunity. Hopefully, those lights will go on in Tehran.
SCIUTTO: Well, first, before we get to Kharg, if the intention with striking coastal cities' positions around the Strait of Hormuz is to eliminate Iran's ability to target shipping there, can that be done just from afar? Or do you need troops on the ground to do so? Because Iran has proven itself very resilient to threaten shipping, whether it be a combination of sea mines and drones and missiles fired from afar. Can you eliminate that danger without putting troops on the ground there?
STAVRIDIS: I've gone through the Strait of Hormuz close to 100 times on Navy warships, both under attack from Iran and in other circumstances. We've been at this for 40 years in my career trajectory. And the short answer to your question is, you can degrade their abilities significantly, but you cannot, in this new era of drones, take away that ability.
They can launch drones from hundreds of miles away. So, going to be a very difficult proposition. You could up your chances by taking control of about 100 miles of Iranian coastline along the strait, then the Iranians really would be down to drones. And that's pretty hard. You can defend against it up to a point.
But boy, you don't want to get to those stages. Let's hope we can get to a negotiation and get Fred Pleitgen out of Tehran, for whom I have enormous respect for the reporting he is doing.
SCIUTTO: Fred, you heard Admiral Stavridis there describing the economic pressure point for Iran and the regime, including the possibility of shutting down its oil industry if the president were to order that. What is your sense being in Iran? I mean, is the -- population feeling the economic pressure? Do you sense the frustration at the regime bubbling over as a result of that?
PLEITGEN: -- Stavridis for those kind words.
First of all, yeah, they are definitely feeling the economic pressure. We speak to people here on the ground quite constantly. A lot of people who are saying right now, it's very difficult to find jobs. Inflation is a huge problem. A lot of goods aren't as readily available as they were before.
So, certainly, the population is feeling the pinch of the last four months of those military operations that have been going on but they really have been feeling that pitch for an extended period of time.
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
PLEITGEN: And I think one of the things that the leadership here in Iran believes is that they believe that the propensity to take pain on the part of the Islamic Republic, on the part of the population, on the part of the government here, that their pain tolerance is a lot higher than what the rest of the region is willing to endure. If you look at, for instance, countries and cities like Doha, like Qatar, if you look at the United Arab Emirates, a lot of them, of course, are built on international economies, are built on expatriates and people from abroad coming and working there, and the Iranians simply believe that they have the longer end of the stick, if they're able to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, as the Admiral said, the Iranians definitely believe they would be able to do, and then also project power into the region.
And I think one of the things that the Iranians, they say themselves, have been trying to make clear is that in order to project that power, especially into the Strait of Hormuz, to stop shipping from going through there, they don't really need a lot of those coastal positions. They sometimes fire some of those missiles. that endangers some of those shipping lanes from deep inside Iranian territories.
So, they certainly say the geography favors them. Kharg Island is another one of those things, by the way, where today a senior member of Iranian parliament said, look, if the U.S. wants to try and go there, the Iranians are going to defend that place. It's going to be bloody. for U.S. troops that are going to try and go on land there.
So the Iranians are essentially saying, as far as the geography is concerned, as far as their population is concerned, Iran is there. Iran is not going to go away. And certainly, Iran is a big factor with more than 90 million people to deal with.
SCIUTTO: Right. Well, just ask the Ukrainians about how far you can fire drones deep inside an enemy territory, and cause damage.
Admiral Stavridis, before we go, you mentioned the prospect of the U.S. blockading, perhaps, or taking control or destroying facilities on Kharg Island. One danger with that, right, from the U.S. perspective is the effect on oil prices, and therefore the effect on the U.S. economy and the president's own concerns about gas prices in this country and the political effect of that in the midterms. That has held him back from such an effort to date. That's an -- that's something to consider for a president who might consider such action.
STAVRIDIS: It absolutely is. And, you know, see paragraph one about why this is not a really good option. But I think the range of possibilities of action for President Trump are narrowing. And he can, at this point, either come up with something to pressurize the Iranians to get to the table. But as Fred points out, they think they can take a lot of pain. And I think they can, too. And don't forget, the protesters, the heart of that resistance, were killed in January when they shot down 40,000 of their own people. Those were the shock troops of the revolution.
So, there's not a lot of rise up at the moment in Tehran. And so, I think President Trump has got a bad set of options, but if I were advising, I'd say start to go after more of those economic targets and hope you can push them home to the table. That's the best of some bad options.
SCIUTTO: That was one of the big holes in the initial war strategy, right, was this idea that somehow the people were going to take down the government, given the price they paid for challenging the government just weeks before. Retired Admiral James Stavridis, thanks so much. Fred Pleitgen in
Tehran thanks to you and your team as well. We're going to have more of our breaking news coverage of the new U.S. strikes on Iran. Please do stay with CNN.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:48:55]
SCIUTTO: Continuing our breaking news coverage with new U.S. strikes on Iran.
Joining us now, CNN senior national security reporter Zach Cohen.
And, Zach, as we watch this play out, this reminded us of your early reporting weeks ago that if talks didn't move forward, if Iran continued to threaten the strait, that this was exactly the U.S. planned response. Tell us what the intention is here with these strikes.
ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yeah, Jim, it appears that and it's notable that the strikes appear to be very much concentrated around the Strait of Hormuz still at this point. And this is something that I was told back in April would be option number one, so to speak, if this ceasefire fell apart. And it's dynamic targeting around the Strait of Hormuz, specifically looking at targets, mobile targets, that have remained elusive to the U.S. military to date. And these strikes that we've seen over the last 48 hours or so really do go beyond what the sort of back and forth we also saw during the ceasefire itself.
This is -- appears to be a concerted effort to try to neutralize those mobile missile launchers, those remaining sites that they can still use to threaten commercial vessels. But at the same time, we were told in April and we've been told as recently as today that military strikes on their own, regardless of how effective they are, are unlikely to immediately reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
[16:50:09]
That's really based around the confidence of the shipping industry itself. And unless you can prove 100 percent to these shippers that the threat has been neutralized, which given all of the things we know about Iran's capabilities around the Strait of Hormuz, given all the things we know about their drone capability and how that can be a threat from far away, that seems like a long shot, to say the least.
And so, but we are seeing these strikes very much following the pattern of one of the options Trump was briefed on back in April, has known is at his disposal in the time since, and now seems to be putting that into practice. Now, beyond that, Trump's options, as we heard from Fred and Admiral Stavridis, are not really that great either. And we've heard the president float the idea of attacking critical infrastructure, for example. That would be an escalation in this conflict, but it is one of the
options that Trump also has if he feels that this conflict needs to be escalated again. And so, there's no indication at this point, though, and again, these strikes today kind of reinforce the scope, the limited scope of the military operations as of now that Trump has decided to move into attacking critical infrastructure, but really watching to see if these strikes expand beyond the coastal sites, expand beyond the Strait of Hormuz is really the key thing to see as far as indicators this is going to escalate.
SCIUTTO: Well, listen, it also reinforces that Iran's capabilities have not been neutralized. They still maintain the ability to threaten the Strait and elsewhere.
Zach Cohen, thanks so much.
My panel's back with me.
Brad, this war was supposed to have been won already.
TODD: Two weeks.
SCIUTTO: Is this a problem for the president?
TODD: Yes, I think walking away was a problem for the president, first off, as well. I mean, the MOU is wildly unpopular among the president's base voters, who are generally very hawkish and very anti- Iran, despite what some of the online influencers might say, the Republican base is pretty anti-Iran.
I think that the fact that the MOU seems to be broken down might give the administration a second chance to end the war in a way that Republicans would like. Certainly, Democrats are never going to come around, and independents like to see things tidied up fast. And I think that's easier for me to say than it is to do.
But I think that the president having another chance to end this with strength as opposed to capitulation would be good.
SCIUTTO: Escalate to de-escalate, in effect? Is that what you're saying?
TODD: Yeah, I think it's possible. I think the MOU gave us no good answers other than the fact that the military didn't have to leave until 30 days after a final agreement, which might have never come. That was really the only stick in the MOUs.
And so, I think Republicans, while they're certainly concerned about gas prices in the strait being closed, The way the war was left off did not leave a good taste in most Republicans.
SCIUTTO: Jamal, you all read of this?
SIMMONS: Yeah, we've just been recovering from gas prices. They just sort of started to tick down, you know, closer to just below $4. This is not going to give people a lot of confidence that the prices that they're worried about are going to be able to keep going down going into election day.
If I'm running for office, I'm looking at this as a Republican, I'm looking at this and I'm not happy about it because we want to get things stabilized. Interest rates are in funky places, happening with gas prices and prices inside the grocery store. So, the American public never wanted to be there in the first place, doesn't understand why we're there now, wants it to be over.
I think the president's on their side.
SCIUTTO: Jimmy, I've covered a lot of wars recently, where U.S. presidents have calculated that they can beat their way to victory.
GANGEL: Or miscalculate, yeah.
SCIUTTO: And miscalculate it, and it took 20 years to learn that lesson in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is a point that President Trump has made repeatedly to criticize his predecessors. Are we seeing history repeat before our eyes?
GANGEL: Absolutely. I don't think we should be surprised at all that we are here today. This is like I'm shocked, shocked, shocked that there's gambling in Casablanca. This -- it would have been surprising if it held, frankly.
And to go back to something we've discussed from the very beginning, when you talk about time in the West -- there's an expression, time in the West is money, time in the Middle East is time.
And we have been watching the Iranians, you know, are they playing Donald Trump? Are they stringing him along? Is it because their government is so fractured that different, you know, power groups are having their say? But I don't think we should be surprised that we're here today.
SCIUTTO: Your statement just there about Iran playing the U.S., dragging the negotiations out, for folks listening at home, this is not just Jamie times, a lot of time in Israel. That's exactly the Israeli view of these negotiations, that Iran is basically playing the U.S. president.
Leigh, where do we go from here? If this country finds itself back in a Middle Eastern war, four months, what, four months and a couple days out from a midterm election?
RIGUEUR: I mean, it's the albatross around Donald Trump's neck. He has said it himself multiple times that he thinks -- I mean, he has used it as a cudgel against other candidates in the past. This was actually one of the most striking things about Donald Trump when he ran for office in 2016, which is he made the argument that it was a mistake to involve ourselves in the situation in Afghanistan.
He blasted Obama, right, accused him, said he will start a war with Iran in order to re-energize his base and stay in office. And here he finds himself perhaps at the weakest point, one of the weakest points of his presidencies in this exact same situation. And I think this is a -- you know, going into the midterms, you don't want this on your plate.
Gas is going back up. We now have another issue, crisis with shipping and manufacturing. This is not where Donald Trump wants to be.
SCIUTTO: Here where he finds himself, where the American people find themselves, and where those forces in the Middle East who've been -- well, they've been on high alert for weeks and months and in danger in the line of fire.
Please do stay with us. Our breaking news coverage continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Thanks so much to my panel.
"THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts right now.
