Return to Transcripts main page

At This Hour

Lawmakers Want a Say in Iran Nuclear Deal; Is Yemen a Failed State?; Manhunt in Kenya Following Campus Terror Attack. Aired 11:30- 12p ET

Aired April 03, 2015 - 11:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:30:14] KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: This morning vastly different reactions to the framework for a historic nuclear agreement with Iran. World leaders have until the end of June to make it all final and there's a lot of work to do up until then. The deal calls for Iran, among other things, to reduce centrifuges to two-thirds to about 6,000, and cut its enriched uranium stockpile to about 3 percent. In return, sanctions against Iran will be lift. Iran's president said a short time ago his country will stick to its promises and hopes to become a more active player in world affairs. But the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, the deal threatens Israel's existence. He said this, "Such a deal does not block Iran's path to the bomb. Such a deal paves Iran's path to the bomb."

Secretary of State John Kerry helped hammer out the agreement. He writes this in an opinion piece in "The Boston Globe" today, "To be clear, there is no aspect of the agreement that is based on promises or trust. Every element is subject to proof. Only if Iran lives up to its obligations as verified by the IAEA and by our own eyes and ears will it receive the relief from sanctions that it needs to end its economic isolation."

President Obama is warning Congress not to do anything to sabotage the agreement. Lawmakers, many of them skeptical, they want a say on any final deal.

Let's get reaction from the man that matters in this discussion, Congressman Ed Royce, Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Congressman, Mr. Chairman, it's great to see you.

I've been seeing reporting from the White House that the president -- since this has all been announced, the president as well as his top advisers have been reaching out to members of Congress to brief further on this deal. Have you have gotten a call?

REP. ED ROYCE, (R-CA), CHAIRMAN, HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: Kate, I have had long discussions with the administration recently, yesterday, on aspects of this arrangement. And I'll just share with you the key concern that I raised, and that is with the North Korean nuclear framework deal, we found out we didn't have unfettered inspections, we didn't have the right to have inspectors go any place, anywhere, any time. As a consequence of that, North Korea developed that nuclear weapon. North Korea has been in touch with Iran, been working with Iran. We want to make certain that this time the inspectors really have the ability to access not just the sites that are named but other military sites where they can show up and investigate, and we don't have a repeat of what we had with North Korea developing a nuclear weapon.

BOLDUAN: What kind of, I don't know, assurance or confidence were you given that that's going to happen? We heard from the president yesterday and he said pretty clearly that inspections are going to be able to happen anywhere in the country. And Secretary Kerry, as you heard me read, said none of this is going to be based on trust, it's all going to be based on proof.

ROYCE: But that's not the view that the Iranians have. The view that the Iranians have is that their military installations are off limits. In '93, Iran signed on to the additional protocol, which meant IAEA inspectors could go on site. But at Fordo, they built their own new contraptions of centrifuges for a separate nuclear research program and said, well, this is a military site, you can't go on that site. This was discovered two years later, and a year after that, Iran admitted they had cheated. So they've cheated in the past. The question is this time, unlike last time, will we have something stronger than the additional protocol? Will we have language that allows the inspectors to show up, you know, at the gate and say, look, we think that there's research going on inside that military facility, which is what Fordo was. And the military has a lot to say about this, not necessarily the Iranian negotiators. They don't have all the power in this. The ayatollah and the military have all the power. So far, what we've found is that we haven't gotten language that satisfies those of us that have looked at this seriously, nor has the IAEA had those 12 questions answered about the previous bomb making. They've got a thousand pages where they were developing a warhead for a nuclear device and they said they haven't gotten these questions answered. So these questions have to be answered. And this is what Congress is saying in the negotiation, look, you can't get rolled on every single point here. You've got to get the inspectors in there.

BOLDUAN: Go beyond the issue of inspections. In general, when you're looking at this, is there anything you like in the deal that you've been briefed on?

[11:35:05] ROYCE: Well, if we end up with the spent fuel going outside of the country, which I think is highly questionable, but if it went to be reprocessed, if that's where this stockpile ends up overseas, then I'll be happy. I don't know that that will end up in the negotiation but I think it's still on the table and we're still pushing for it. I think that the question of lifting sanctions -- what the Iranians are saying is that their understanding of this negotiation is that sanctions by Europe and the United States are lifted immediately. What the administration is saying is that, no, there's a process here and the IAEA have to be satisfied first.

BOLDUAN: Yeah.

ROYCE: But I don't know, it looks like we lose our sanctions leverage in this, doesn't it?

BOLDUAN: That clearly needs to be clarified and worked out. There a few months to get some of these details hammered out. But I do want to ask you, the big focus -- quickly, when you guys get back on Capitol Hill, it quickly goes squarely to you. The president said clearly, if Congress kills this deal without offering a reasonable alternative, the United States will be blamed for the failure of diplomacy. Are you going to be pushing for new sanctions? Or are you ready to accept blame, according to the president, if this falls through?

ROYCE: Kate, we sent a letter to the White House a week ago, myself and 367 members of the House of Representatives, a majority of the Democrats, virtually all the Republicans, saying here are the four points that you need to negotiate into this deal. The right to go anywhere, any time on the inspections was number one in that. But as we lay out these points, the administration needs to negotiate these into the agreement. And if you do talk to inspectors, you know, they will -- and those that have followed this debate, they'll show you how the administration has backed, backed, backed up from their original demands to make sure that Iran didn't have enrichment capability to where we are today, which is, you know, we discover that Iran in the middle of this negotiation develops a new form of centrifuge spinning 16 times faster, and the excuse is, well, Zarif, the head negotiator didn't know what the military was doing. Well, his boss certainly knew. The ayatollah knew what was going on on that research. And we had to discover that through a clandestine process and this was maybe about November that we discovered this, right in the middle of the negotiation? So, yes, we need verification in this. This can't be like North Korea where everybody goes around and congratulates themselves that we found peace in our time and then we find out down the road that because we didn't nail it down properly, the North Koreans have developed a nuclear weapon and an ICBM capability.

(CROSSTALK)

ROYCE: Especially when the ayatollah -- let me just point this out. The ayatollah said last week, yes, "Death to America, death to America," he says to the crowd that are chanting this. When you have this type of attitude, you better -- it better be verified that you can get the inspectors in there.

BOLDUAN: At the very least, it seems very clear that the president and his advisers have a lot more convincing to get you on board with what they have as a framework right now.

Congressman Ed Royce, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time. Looking forward to having more conversations with you about this.

ROYCE: Thank you, Kate.

BOLDUAN: Of course.

Ahead for us AT THIS HOUR, chaos in Yemen. Even with airstrikes and threats of ground troops, rebels forces continuing their push. Has all hope been lost in what now seems very much like a failed state? More on that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:42:11] BOLDUAN: The crisis in Yemen is reaching a boiling point, described now as a failed state and a dire situation. Shiite rebels pounded the southern port city of Aden. The country's president has already fled the country. And it looks like days of airstrikes by a Saudi-led coalition may finally be slowing some progress made by the Iranian-backed rebel group.

Joining us now to discuss more, CNN military analyst, Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona.

Colonel, there's a lot to discuss. There's really two fronts to be discussing in Yemen. You've got the Shiite rebels, the Houthis, taking over part of the country, and then you seem to have al Qaeda taking advantage of the chaos. What do you see?

LT. COL. RICK FRANCONA, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: That's right. Al Qaeda in the Arabia Peninsula, arguably one of the most effective al Qaeda organizations in the world, is taking advantage of there conflict between basically the Saudis and the Houthis. They've taken Aden and pretty much pushed everything from the northern corridor down to the south. That's leaving AQAP to its own devices. They're out in the east. They've seized a prison, released some of their compatriots from jail. This allows them almost free run to expand their power rather than contain it. Of course, there's not much we about it right now since we've lost our one air base in the country, there's no embassy there. So our operations against AQAP, just like the Houthis, is very much restricted.

BOLDUAN: And what the U.S. role could be, should be or should not be is a big question. What is going on with Saudi Arabia leading this coalition? It's a major military, it's a big coalition of Arab nations that seem to have some difficult progress in holding off this rebel group.

FRANCONA: Yeah. It's interesting. When we saw this operation kick off about a week ago, it looked like it was going to be a formidable force going after a relatively small group in Yemen. What we've seen in this rather anemic air campaign, it started off great, but the Saudis have had to pull back because they're not getting much support from the Arab allies. They're getting a lot of push-back from the Yemenis who they're supposedly there to protect because there's so many civilian casualties. The Saudis are not being as effective as they need to from the air, which is surprising because they have the weaponry to do this. So we're seeing this kind of fall apart. The U.S. could get in there and use its good offices to arrange something. The whole purpose of the Saudi campaign was to bring the Houthis to the table, to restore al Hadi to some sort of power. There could be some sort of power sharing agreement but they've got to get the Houthis on board and they have so far refused. We could try but I don't think we're going to have any more luck than the Saudis.

[11:45:08] BOLDUAN: To that point, what's going to be the changing factor here? Are the Saudis going to redouble their forces or actually take part in a ground operation? What's going to tip the scale?

FRANCONA: Yeah, I think it will be a long time before we see a ground operation there. Remember, the Egyptians, who are part of this coalition, and the Saudis, have tried ground operations in Yemen before. Very, very difficult fighting environment. Houthis are very skilled guerrilla fighters. So I don't think the Saudis really want to get involved on the ground. I think they're going to continue the air campaign and hoping for some sort of breakthrough where the Houthis will agree to sit down with them. I don't see that happening any time soon, Kate. I think this is going to get much worse, much more chaotic before it gets better. The benefactor in this? AQAP.

BOLDUAN: Exactly. In the meantime, al Qaeda seems to be doing a good job in making gains amidst the chaos.

Colonel Francona, always good to see you. Thanks so much.

FRANCONA: Thank you.

BOLDUAN: Ahead for us AT THIS HOUR, students massacred on their college campus. 147 people confirmed dead now. And a manhunt is under way for the suspected mastermind of the attack.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:49:59] BOLDUAN: AT THIS HOUR, a manhunt is on for the man that Kenyan authorities labeled "most wanted" and linked to that massacre at a university in Kenya. At least 147 people were killed when al Shabaab gunmen shot their way onto campus yesterday. Witnesses say the attackers singled out non-Muslim students. Most of the victims were found face down shot in the back of the head before security forces killed four of the gunmen.

Let's bring in to discuss, Peter Pham, the director of the Atlantic Council at the Africa Center, joining us from Washington.

Peter, thank you very much for coming in.

It is a tragedy of an amazing proportion for that country, the worst terrorist attack since '98, the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Kenya. It is known that al Shabaab can hit soft targets, as these are called, but it was also largely seen that al Shabaab was kind of being pushed out. Are you surprised that this happened?

J. PETER PHAM, DIRECTOR, ATLANTIC COUNCIL, AFRICA CENTER: Unfortunately, not at all. What al Shabaab was being pushed out of was territorial control. It was holding territory and trying to set up its own government in Somalia. In the process, the group has changed. It's no longer as interested, the leadership, in running and ruling people so much as becoming a transnational terror threat. And as this attack as well as attacks they carried out in Kenya in November and December last year, a foiled plot in Uganda back in September, it's really becoming more of a terrorist group. So the danger is changing.

BOLDUAN: When you list it out that way, it begs the question, when you look at the disproportionate nature of the number of people killed, they're talking about four, maybe 10 gunmen on the high end. How can this be? The Kenyan authorities just can't handle this?

PHAM: Well, these are soft targets. They're very easy and they get attention. A group of innocents like this will get world headlines. We're talking about it. It's low cost, high yield for these terrorist groups. Al Shabaab is on the run but it's trying to change itself. And this is getting the attention it wants and desperately wants in a very crowded field of extremist groups, each trying to outdo each other in brutally.

BOLDUAN: And folks might remember us talking about al Shabaab last month or in February where they made a call for hitting soft targets, like malls in the United States. How serious do you think that folks should take that threat? Clearly they can cause terror and carry out terror attacks in the region. But what about in the United States?

PHAM: Well, the real danger, the real threat of al Shabaab is it's one of the few of these foreign terrorist organizations that has a track record of having sympathizers, a small minority, within the larger Somali American community. But real nonetheless. We've had people arrested, prosecuted and convicted for getting involved, helping Shabaab with financing and recruiting. They have a small following but it's there. Making them more dangerous than group that is don't have that niche within the American homeland.

BOLDUAN: This is your area of expertise. You've got them on the run, but on the other hand, they're getting attention, people are attracted to their call, what should the U.S. be doing if they're not doing something correctly now, what should they be doing?

PHAM: What we have been doing is eliminating key leaders who -- you can always get fighters. But only so many people can organize major attacks. We've had a very successful record of eliminating some of those. And that has lowered the risk, not eliminated but certainly mitigated it a great deal.

BOLDUAN: That's at least part of the solution, I guess.

Peter Pham, thank you very much for bringing us your perspective on this. Much appreciated.

PHAM: Thank you.

BOLDUAN: Ahead for us, was Jesus married with children? Quite a question to be posing AT THIS HOUR. What was his relationship with Mary Magdalene? A love story of biblical proportions or biblical gossip? A leading scholar weighs in on this Good Friday.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:46:29] BOLDUAN: Today Christians around the world are celebrating Good Friday. But some Biblical scholars say Mary Magdalene could be the real last temptation of Christ, Jesus' lover. On the season finally, this Sunday night, on "Finding Jesus," the program takes a deeper look at that relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

Here's a little clip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Another lost Gospel, that of Philip, suggests a different reason for Peter and the other disciples' apparent dislike of Mary.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All those tantalizing theories about Jesus and Mary Magdalene being lovers jumped from this one passage. This is the juiciest stuff we've got, that there was a relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In the early Christian community, for the most part, the missionaries were missionary couples. So it makes sense that Jesus himself could have been part of a missionary couple.

DR. JEFFREY GARROWAY, HEBREW UNION COLLEGE: As a first-century Jewish man, it would have been incredibly likely that Jesus would have been married during his lifetime.

CANDIDA MOSS, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME: This is high- stakes stuff. If Jesus, the Son of God, was married and he had children, if he had that kind of an intimate relationship, people want to know. And if he had children, that means there might be people wandering around today with sort of holy blood in them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: Now, that is some fascinating stuff. Here to discuss, Professor Candida Moss, who teaches New Testament and early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame.

You just saw yourself in the clip of "Finding Jesus." Pretty understandable the fascination with this topic, with all the topics that the program has taken on. But what is the evidence or the argument, if you will, that they were married?

MOSS: The argument that they were married rests just on probability. It's a first-century Jewish man, so he was probably married. But there's no hint of that in the New Testament and there's no reference to Mary Magdalene as anyone other than a follower of his and who followed his teachings. Jesus and female followers could just be friends.

BOLDUAN: But wouldn't there be -- I ask this and you can laugh at me-- wouldn't there be some modicum of evidence? Were their marriage documents of any sort coming from that time?

MOSS: Well, there were sort of marriage documents in the ancient world, usually for the healthy or the elite. But nothing like that for that Jesus. There was no evidence he was married in our earliest documents.

BOLDUAN: You call it a high-risk, high-stakes. Lead us down that path of what it would mean if they had been married? That would suggest maybe there are children.

MOSS: Right. The first question for Christians is, what if there were children? There would be people with divine blood.

BOLDUAN: The premise of many books.

MOSS: Which was the premise of "The Da Vinci Code." More practically for Roman Catholics, this would mean, if Jesus was married, can Catholic priests get married?

[11:59:39] BOLDUAN: That's a question we'll leave here. But we'll also be able to possibility get a better window into with "Finding Jesus" this Sunday.

Candida Moss, always great to have you. Thank you so much.

A reminder just for everyone, you can catch "Finding Jesus" this Sunday right here at 9:00 on CNN.

Everybody, thank you so much for joining us this week. Have a great weekend. That's if for us AT THIS HOUR.

"Legal View" with Ashleigh Banfield starts right now.

Thank you.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. I'm Ashleigh Banfield. And welcome to "Legal View."