Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
New Strikes As Trump Demands Iran's Unconditional Surrender; Trump Signals Possibility Of Longer War Against Iran; Sources Say, Russia Is Giving Iran Intel To Target American Forces; Trump Threatens To Strike Cuba; Obama Says Trump Brings New Assaults On Democracy Every Day. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired March 06, 2026 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JESSICA DEAN, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, the war is expanding. It's bloodier and completely unpredictable. Is Donald Trump spiking the football before the bombs stop?
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: On a scale of 10, where would you rate it? I said about a 15.
DEAN: Plus, Vladimir Putin in the shadows. An American adversary is now helping Iran target U.S. forces.
Also --
TRUMP: He's doing some job and your next one is going to be -- we want to do that special -- he's waiting, but he says, let's get this one finished first.
DEAN: The America First president is rapidly morphing into an imperialist with a hammer.
And --
BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Each day we're told by those in our office to fear each other and to turn on each other.
DEAN: -- while honoring an icon who stood up to power, Barack Obama goes off on the man who holds the power.
Live at the table, Charles Blow, Jason Rantz, Reena Ninan, Josh Rogin and Peter Meijer.
This is CNN's special live coverage of the war against Iran.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DEAN (on camera): Good evening to you. I'm Jessica Dean in for Abby on this Friday night. And as the war on Iran takes another dangerous turn, President Trump making new demands, moving the goalpost for an end to the conflict. In a post on Truth Social tonight, Trump says, quote, there will be no deal with Iran except unconditional surrender. But what exactly does that mean? And who gets to decide when that will be?
Here's the White House press secretary explaining.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: What the president means is that when he, as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, determines that Iran no longer poses a threat to the United States of America and the goals of Operation Epic Fury has been fully realized, then Iran will essentially be in a place of unconditional surrender, whether they say it themselves or not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DEAN: Tonight, there has been a new round of intense airstrikes in Tehran as the war approaches its one week mark. And if you're wondering how things are going, Trump told CNN he would rate the war, quote, maybe a 15 on a scale of 10, and that the military is doing, in his words, better than anybody could have ever dreamed.
But is he celebrating too early? The Trump administration's timeline for victory is starting to sound strangely familiar.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Regimes like this that have their power base in fear and intimidation tend to topple fairly quickly.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm confident that our troops will be successful, and I think it'll go relatively quickly.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: And we can say four weeks, but it could be six, it could be eight, it could be three.
LEAVITT: We expect to last about four to six weeks.
TRUMP: Right from the get beginning, we projected four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DEAN: We've got our panel here around the table with us.
We just heard from the president there and from the administration splicing it together with things we heard years and years ago. I think that the driver -- let's have the driver of this first question be. Is he spiking the football before the bombs have stopped falling? Jason, we can start with you. JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RED RADIO HOST: I mean, the spiking the football, I think he's being accurate as to where things stand right now. Obviously, things are going well for the United States, not going so well for Iran. I think pointing that out is obviously a smart move because he's dealing with some folks who are obviously not happy or excited with this direction. And I think the more it's clear that we're obviously winning and we do have objectives in mind, despite what some folks are pretending that we don't, he's setting up --
CHARLES BLOW, LANGSTON HUGHES FELLOW, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: What do you think --
RANTZ: I think he said the objectives many times. Number one is to make sure that he's -- that Iran is not capable of creating nuclear weapons that could be used as a threat to the Americans. I think number two is about going after the ballistic missiles. We don't want to get to a point where they can easily overwhelm us and then also protect their nuclear capabilities. Those are two very important ones. Number three is, of course, stopping the Iranian money going into these terrorist proxies, like Hezbollah and Hamas and the Houthis. Those are three very clear objectives. These are not new objectives, and I think that they're important.
BLOW: Do you include regime change, which is also something --
RANTZ: I would like to see regime change, but I don't think that that is --
BLOW: No, they don't include it in his list.
RANTZ: No, I don't think that's his goal.
JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, WASHINGTON POST INTELLIGENCE: He said -- that's what he just said.
RANTZ: No, that's not actually what he just said.
ROGIN: And I want to pick the next leader of --
RANTZ: He did not say, I want to pick the next leader. You are making that quote up.
ROGIN: No, I'm not making it. I'm paraphrasing what he said.
RANTZ: You're making the quote up.
ROGIN: Unconditional surrender, is that a made-up quote?
RANTZ: No.
ROGIN: What does unconditional surrender mean? That means --
[22:05:00]
RANTZ: Surrendering.
ROGIN: That means they have to do what we say and put in our leader that we want.
RANTZ: You've got the three objectives that are very -- these objectives are not controversial.
DEAN: Wait, here's my question --
(CROSSTALKS)
DEAN: Here's question on the objectives, because there's the objectives which they have listed out. Then there is how do you achieve those? What is the plan? And I think that's where there's still a lot of questions is how -- okay, those are your objectives, but how do you get there?
BLOW: And also how do you --
DEAN: And do you have a plan for that?
BLOW: How do you get there without troops on the ground, which they have promised that they will not put troops on the ground? How do you even get to a position where you can say that there's a surrender and all the things that Karoline Leavitt said that they want to have as part of that surrender proof that they are not capable of attacking Americans anymore without having inspectors on the ground, for instance? How do you even get there? It's an impossible thing.
And you're just adding together all the mis -- the kind of the carousel of reasons that they've given for starting this war in the first place.
RANTZ: They said that from the start.
BLOW: No, they haven't said it from the start course. They said one thing from the start, then they added --
RANTZ: What did they say?
BLOW: They added other things. I'll go through the list of things.
RANTZ: Yes. What did they say from the start --
(CROSSTALKS)
BLOW: We're going to stop them for the nuclear weapons, right. So, you have to have --
RANTZ: Which is what I said, number one.
BLOW: Get an inspector on the ground to figure out did they have them or not, right? You do agree with that?
RANTZ: Generally, yes. I mean, obviously --
BLOW: What does generally mean?
RANTZ: Well, because we're also knowing where some of their locations are, we're going to destroy them. Why are we pretending that is somehow, again, just like absurd.
BLOW: Do you think you can just from the sky figure out?
RANTZ: Yes, I think that's a start, of course. I don't understand your main point. So, are you complaining that that's not a valid objective?
BLOW: No. I was listing 1 of 9 to 13 different --
RANTZ: Tell me the objectives that he has outlined that you disagree with.
BLOW: I'm going to stay on this one because I want to make sure --
RANTZ: Do you agree with this as an objective?
BLOW: No. I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. Do you believe that you can, from the sky, from satellites, tell whether or not the nuclear capabilities of Iran have been destroyed?
RANTZ: No, I don't think you need troops on the ground if that's what you're --
BLOW: Do you believe what the president said the first time they attacked Iran's nuclear weapons, saying that they had to completely obliterated the Iranian campaign, which would have meant that they wouldn't have had to do this?
RANTZ: You do understand, however, that they started again to --
BLOW: Do you think that they --
RANTZ: You don't think that that's true?
BLOW: Do you think that --
RANTZ: Do you think that Iran -- all of a sudden, Iran --
BLOW: Do you think they rebuilt this entire nuclear program --
RANTZ: No. I think they were trying to. I think they were trying to. And we also don't have all of the intel as to whether or not there were other sites specifically for this purpose.
BLOW: The next thing I want to ask you --
RANTZ: You're now just completely ignoring --
BLOW: The next thing I want to ask you is whether or not you believe that there was an imminent threat, and whether or not you have seen proof that there was an imminent threat?
RANTZ: I think that when they make the argument specifically around ballistic missiles and getting to the point of immunity, I do think that is an imminent threat, yes.
BLOW: That is not an -- you recognize that an ambient threat is not the same as an imminent threat, right? That doesn't take an English professor to know the difference between those two terms.
PETER MEIJER, CO-FOUNDER AND HEAD OF STRATEGY, THE NEW INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION: So, Iran attacked 12 countries in the region with ballistic missiles. Is that not proof positive of exactly the threat that Iran was posing in this entire dynamic?
ROGIN: They did that in response to us attacking them.
MEIJER: But what I'm saying is, so this is getting back into the same reason why Trump is actually a really good negotiator.
ROGIN: Circular logic.
MEIJER: You come with a list --
ROGIN: They were going to attack us because we attacked them.
MEIJER: Excuse me, Josh, I'm talking here. You come with a list of 12 points and you think Trump is going to adhere to each one of them. His entire negotiating strategy is about leverage and optionality. The leverage we have is we have right now air supremacy over Iran, not air severe -- sorry, air superiority, not supremacy. We still need to watch out for their mobile launchers. But we also are able to take this battle to a time and place of our choosing in each and every coordinate.
BLOW: No. You cannot try to play word games and say optionality is the same as inconsistency.
(CROSSTALKS)
MEIJER: This is not having to thwart themselves to a bunch of rhetoric.
ROGIN: Yes. But changing with the situation, the situation changes --
(CROSSTALKS)
DEAN: Okay. Hang on, hang on, hang on. We got it here. Go ahead.
ROGIN: But the problem with that is that the rhetoric the president of the United States told the world is he told the Iranian people to rise up and fight the regime, and then he didn't offer them any help to do that. Then he --
(CROSSTALKS)
ROGIN: Now I'm talking. Then he turned around and he said, no, we can work with the regime as long as they can work with us. So, that rhetoric has raised aspirations of the Iranian people that -- and sent them to a slaughter without any help. And that's a colony on the idea of helping the Iranians throw off the regime in the first place.
So, when you change your objective from, we're going to free the Iranian people, to we're going to work with the regime, to we're going to free them, to we're going to work with them, what that amounts to is you're destroying a country and then leaving the people to their own --
(CROSSTALKS)
REENA NINA, FOREIGN AFFAIRS ANALYST: Guys, are we done with the food fight for a second? Are we done with the food fight for a second? Like, where are we now? You can negotiate until the cows come home on politics.
[22:10:01]
Who did what? Where are we now? Where are we going? It is about leverage at this point, right? It is about leverage. We hit them hard. We've got the air supremacy, we've got the power. What's the leverage they have at this point? The leverage is that the Iranians at this point have the ability to continue firing. Yes, the rockets are down, yes, but they have received strategic intelligence to hit our hotels, to hit military installations, to hit places that, quite frankly, I did not think, and obviously I don't have the intel that the U.S. military does, I did not think was possible, and the success rate that they have had.
What I worry about the most at this point is where our Achilles' heel, and what I mean by we is the United States, where the United States' Achilles' heel at this point is. We can't operate all over in multiple theaters.
Today, my family is from South India, from Kerala. I got panic calls because an Iranian ship has docked in South India. And so does this mean that there's something happening that is going to blow up? Is there another front? That's what I'm watching for, because what they do is they understand the leverage, they jump in, and they know where to push the button.
DEAN: And -- okay. And so in all of this, I think coupled with this question of their posture and kind of adding to this conversation is what we're seeing them not just saying in press conferences but what they're putting out on, you know, X, for example, they have this new video. I'm going to just play like seven seconds of it. But this is just -- it's called -- the message was touchdown. This is what it looks like.
And that -- so there's one with football, then this one is -- has different movie clips, which Ben Stiller, the actor and director, came out today and said, please stop using Tropic Thunder. We didn't give you -- you know, we never gave you permission to do that. But it's just it -- it almost feels -- well, you know what? What does it feel like? You tell me.
BLOW: Well, 60 percent of American people do not agree with this operation. They're trying to figure out ways to convince people that this is okay. They're trying to do that without coming to the American people and saying, why are we there? Not all these changing rationales. Why are we there and what is the endgame? How do we get out? How do we measure success in this operation? That is still not clear to too many Americans and that is their problem. So, no amount of interesting, funny videos is going to change that fundamental problem.
DEAN: And, Peter, I know you served.
MEIJER: Yes.
DEAN: You're a veteran.
MEIJER: And by the way, I see those hype videos and that is elder millennial written all over it.
DEAN: Yes.
MEIJER: I mean we were doing those type of things in the early days.
I mean, I think the fundamental challenge the administration has is, you're right, there wasn't that much of a case being made ahead of time. Now, on the veteran side of the House, it's like, oh, we're going after Iran. Good, great. They killed a lot of my friends. They have been attacking U.S. forces for decades, you know? But that is not something that the American people were necessarily aware of. The dots weren't really connected. They hear about the Iran deal, the JCPOA, but it doesn't have the tangibility of the actual threat.
And I think this is also where I think the optionality and the leverage that the administration have actually is a benefit, but it is massively challenging because when the president goes on T.V., he is the leader of the United States, he is our president, our commander- in-chief, but I guarantee you the number one audience he has in mind is not in the U.S., it's in Iran, because that is what is going to ultimately determine the end of this conflict. And that runs crosswise into the public opinion, that runs crosswise into trying to convey to the American people what we're doing, because the reality is this is going to be a feedback loop of looking at what is the situation on the ground, where do we need to go, what can we press if we can find somebody in the regime --
DEAN: But he understands --
(CROSSTALKS)
ROGIN: I'm not sure the Iranians are following the memes on Twitter right now. They got more important things to deal with. I think that these videos trivialize --
MEIJER: I'm talking about threats (ph).
ROGIN: I think these videos trivialize the horror of warfare. And, you know, a lot of people are suffering and dying, not just in Iran, but around the world, a lot of countries are getting bombed right now. And for them to sort of be like sensationalizing it I think puts on an ugly face of America to the world because it's not just about the U.S. and Iran. There are 12 countries under attack by Iran. There are the Europeans who are not getting energy. There are Asian friends whose economies are attacking.
Americans are about to suffer higher prices, inflation. The economy's already not looking good. And when you think about the shocks to air travel and shipping and energy, and then what are they spending their time on and making cute videos to try to like make themselves laugh about the fact that we're doing this, I think it's gross, I think it's ugly and I think it undermines our ability to rally not just Americans, but the world to our side, which would be nice in this moment if we're going to prosecute a war based on unclear objectives and unclear angles.
DEAN: Let's -- there's still a lot to talk about.
Up next, a disturbing revelation that Russia is now giving Iran intelligence to target American forces and bases. So, how does that change this war?
[22:15:00]
Plus, Trump is now threatening to attack another nation as fears mount he could be turning into an imperialist.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DEAN: Tonight, we're learning Russia's getting involved in the war with Iran. Multiple sources telling CNN Russia is providing Iran with intel about the locations and movements of American troops, ships, and aircraft. It's not clear any single Iranian attack can be linked to Russian targeting intelligence.
Karoline Leavitt was asked about that reporting today. Here's what she said,
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: Whether or not this happened, frankly, it does not really matter because President Trump and the United States military are absolutely decimating the rogue Iranian terrorist regime.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:20:03]
DEAN: Her first take there, it does not really matter. Leavitt later had a chance to clarify. Here's what she said then.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: You just said on Fox that it doesn't really matter if Russia is giving Iran information about military assets. Why doesn't it matter if U.S. military is being put in danger by Russia and is that what the president believes as well?
LEAVITT: What I meant, Kristen, and thank you for giving me a chance to make it very clear, is that it clearly is not making a difference with respect to the military operations in Iran because we are completely decimating them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DEAN: President Trump meantime hosted a savings college sports roundtable at the White House today. And while he was doing that, he snapped at a reporter for asking a question about Russia. This is the president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: It sounds like the Russians are helping Iran target and attack Americans now.
TRUMP: That's an easy problem compared to what we're doing here. But can I be honest? It's just I have a lot of respect for you. You've always been very nice to me. What a stupid question that is to be asking at this time. We're talking about something else.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DEAN: And we're back now at the table. It's a real -- I mean from all three of those statements, there's a real dismissal of this.
ROGIN: Yes. First of all, it does matter that the Russians are helping the Iranians trying to kill American soldiers. Second of all, we don't know that it hasn't had an effect. The Iranians have had a lot of successful strikes, if we're being honest, on sensitive American military facilities, hotels where American troops are staying, radar stations, not to mention energy infrastructure, data centers, logistics hubs, ships going down in the Strait of Hormuz. So, we don't know at all that it hasn't helped.
And, thirdly, the fact that the president doesn't seem to care indicates that he still hasn't understood the basic fact that Russia is not our friend. Putin is not our friend. They're on the Iranian side. We're on the other side. They're against us. They wish us harm,
BLOW: And it still begs the question why. Why does he never want to condemn Russia? Why does he always defend Putin? It's a really strange situation that does not present an easy answer that comes to the fore.
DEAN: Why do you --
MEIJER: I got it for you.
DEAN: Why?
MEIJER: The fact that this administration, everything is oriented around avoiding a great power conflict with China. So, that means you split off and drive a wedge between Russia and China, because if Russia is in China's corner, that is even more dangerous.
ROGIN: How's that going to end?
MEIJER: I mean, right now, we've taken Venezuela off the board, Syria's off the board.
ROGIN: No, no, you said we're trying to drive rush away from China. MEIJER: I'm working on it.
DEAN: Wait, Peter, finish your thought. Go ahead. No, because I want to follow -- yes, take us to the end.
MEIJER: Yes, no. So, it's starting from working back from how do we prevent that conflict, and that is by denying the assistance, that's by denying the additional forces that could come into their play. So, that's where you get Iran as part of this equation.
Now, obviously, the challenge is Russia's a bad guy. I have zero doubt about that. I wish this administration --
BLOW: Do you think that Trump believes that?
MEIJER: I actually think he does.
BLOW: Does he ever say it?
ROGIN: Does he?
MEIJER: His rhetoric is very different than his actual actions around the sanctions right now. I mean, this is one of the reasons why a lot of our European allies are talking about --
(CROSSTALKS)
BLOW: What do you mean?
MEIJER: They're doing a one-month suspension, ones that were only put on --
ROGIN: They said they're going to release more Russia sanctions.
MEIJER: My point is this administration has been a whole hell of a lot more aggressive, not rhetorically, but in terms of the reality of the support they're providing than the Biden administration was.
(CROSSTALKS)
MEIJER: (INAUDIBLE) giving lethal aid and weapons to Ukraine.
(CROSSTALKS)
MEIJER: Yes, I'm saying Obama wasn't willing to do that. And, by the way, the flows in --
ROGIN: Biden armed the Ukrainians. Trump ended the arms, okay? Let's not rewrite history. And when it comes to --
MEIJER: Which arms did Trump end? What is not being sent to Ukraine?
ROGIN: There have been no Congressional appropriations for arms for Ukraine this year.
MEIJER: Yes, because now the NATO allies are buying that and then they're providing it, which is fantastic. They're actually getting up to the 5 percent GDP up from the --
RANTZ: Which only happened because of the pressure that the president put on them.
MEIJER: Which is not something that Putin is sitting there going like, oh, thank God, they're --
ROGIN: If you're going to sit here and tell Americans that you think Trump is pro-Ukraine, I don't think that's going to -- I don't think that makes any sense. I don't think anyone really believes it.
MEIJER: Did I ever say that in the rhetoric? I'm saying the reality of what's occurring is very different on the ground.
(CROSSTALKS)
ROGIN: (INAUDIBLE) strong-arming the Ukranians into a surrender deal with the Russians, as they're giving concessions to the Russians because now they need Russian oil on the market to compensate for the Iran war. So, the policy is actually very pro-Russian.
RANTZ: Yes. But going after Iran --
ROGIN: Oil prices are very --
RANTZ: But going after Iran actually hurts Russian oil in the long- term. No, absolutely not. When you have control over the oil --
ROGIN: I've spent 20 years studying the U.S.-China relationship and all of my friends who -- and experts and officials who work on China inside this administration say the same thing. China's the biggest winner of the Iran war. They have the most reserves. Their ships are protected.
[22:25:00]
They've kept their oil exports in. They're going to aid the Iranians without getting deeply involved.
DEAN: Wait, so --
ROGIN: And when President Trump --
DEAN: Wait. Hang on.
(CROSSTALKS)
DEAN: On that point, I do want to just piggyback on what you're saying, which is on the China piece.
ROGIN: It's a distraction from China.
DEAN: Hang on. The China piece of it, we do have a clip from CNN today that the U.S. does have intelligence suggesting that China may be preparing to provide Iran the financial assistance, spare parts and missile components. That's three people familiar saying that. Though Beijing is stayed out of the war until now, China relies heavily on Iranian oil and has reportedly been pressuring Tehran to allow safe passage for vessels through the Strait of Hormuz.
(CROSSTALKS)
RANTZ: It's literally the opposite of what you just said. The reason why they're giving support to Iran right now is because a weakened Iran hurts China. That is the reason why they're getting more involved here.
NINAN: What you're seeing are all of these countries that are --
RANTZ: That's just a reality.
NINAN: -- heavily sanctioned Russia, you've got China. Iran, they're all banding together in this moment. We shouldn't be surprised that Russia is helping Iran. I mean, the Iranians had the Russians' back in the start of this war by helping with drones. No surprise that Russia would come back in. If you didn't expect that, you're reading the wrong playbook. I mean, this is not a surprise.
What, Josh, I'd love to hear from you is the trip with President Trump still on in China, because, to me, that is an end goal. Whatever Trump says publicly, you got to know he's all about the deal. He might say something to your face and the moment he gets media.
ROGIN: It's a perfect question, because think about what's going to happen, assuming we stop bombing in the next four weeks and Trump goes to Beijing, oil prices are up, the economy's going down. Trump needs a deal. He needs calm. That gives Xi Jinping all the leverage. We already know that President Trump wants to make a deal to lower tariffs, give U.S. technology to the Chinese, perhaps throw Taiwan under the bus. And all of this Iran disruption puts Trump in a weaker position and Xi in a much stronger position. And that's how inside the negotiations over what's going to happen, and those are playing out.
So, I think --
RANTZ: Except the reality of a weakened Iran actually again hurts China, which gives more leverage to President Trump, to the United States' position. No, it's not me saying it. It's just the reality.
NINAN: What if the ayatollah -- if there's another ayatollah, and this isn't about regime change, it's about regime maintenance. And if you look at Venezuela, Venezuela is not -- it's not regime change in Venezuela. It's a regime maintenance.
(CROSSTALKS)
NINAN: Cuba is another example of regime management.
ROGIN: (INAUDIBLE) point of how China benefits. You know, Taiwan has been waiting for, you know, billions of dollars of U.S. munitions and missiles and other stuff that they've already paid for that we can't deliver. Now they're going to have to wait an additional ten years because we just used all of those things in Iran. So, the -- RANTZ: Well, we also increased manufacturing fourfold.
ROGIN: Yes, but that's going to take years to come into play. So, the backlogs will increase even if we speed up --
RANTZ: You're assuming -- I'm sorry, you're assuming a depletion of our munitions to an absurd degree, especially given the fact that we just got a whole bunch of new technology coming from Ukraine specifically to go after the drones from Iran. So, the math doesn't just completely add up.
ROGIN: So, where do you think Taiwan's going to get all of these munitions they paid for?
RANTZ: So, if the answer -- if the question is, will they get it tomorrow? No, the answer, of course, is not. But also the Chinese threat against Taiwan is not going to happen tomorrow. It's not going to come tomorrow.
ROGIN: What I'm saying is that the Iran war is a distraction from the strategic imperative of raising deterrents against China in Asia.
MEIJER: I absolutely -- Can I ask a question back to Josh?
ROGIN: Sure.
MEIJER: I fundamentally disagree with you.
ROGIN: That's okay.
MEIJER: But there's this notion of the Davidson window. That is the window of opportunity for China to move on Taiwan.
ROGIN: Right.
MEIJER: Do you think that that window has moved up or has been pushed back by the actions over the last week?
ROGIN: I understand what you're talking about. There's no set timeline for China to attack Taiwan, okay? That's not a thing. It's not like Xi Jinping is like, I'm going to do it by this. What he said is, we want to be ready by 2027 and then have what you like to call optionality. So, now the Chinese have the optionality and we have only one job is to make it harder for them to do the option of invading. And we can't do that because we can't give Taiwan the arms we need because we're using them all in Iran for this mission, which has no clear ending and no clear objective and no clear endgame and no clear day after those --
MEIJER: Those are very different arm strains though, by the way. It was Hellfires, there was Stingers, there's a lot of things that were delayed. There were more in --
ROGIN: There's a lot of overlapping.
MEIJER: But this is also the key point right now, and so like on the quadrupling --
ROGIN: Let me ask you another question, Peter. Well, if we're going to establish --
MEIJER: We're going to (INAUDIBLE) when these domestic politics, it's a whole different --
ROGIN: If we're going to establish a system whereby the big countries can attack the smaller countries at will with no international law adherence, no consultation with the international community, no -- not even bothering to offer any justification that makes any sense whatsoever, then what is Xi Jinping going to take from that? Let me just finish.
MEIJER: So, you're --
ROGIN: He's going to take from that -- oh -- no, I'm saying we are doing the same thing that Vladimir Putin did, which is to attack without a justification of smaller countries just because we can.
MEIJER: No, sorry, we're not comparing the United States to Russia.
(CROSSTALKS)
DEAN: Okay. Guys, we're going to talk about another country in just a second.
ROGIN: And once you destroy international law, it's very hard to get it back.
DEAN: Don't worry, there's more to discuss.
[22:30:00]
Up next, Trump is now threatening to strike another nation, perfect timing for this. This time Cuba and there are starting -- there are new fears that he's starting to become an imperialist without control. Take it from me. They will discuss all of this on the other side of this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DEAN: Tonight, a little under a week into his war with Iran, Donald Trump has his eyes set elsewhere.
[22:35:00]
In a phone call today with CNN's Dana Bash, the president said Cuba is going to fall pretty soon and they want to make a deal so badly. That's what he said. He also he'd send Secretary of State Marco Rubio over to Cuba and that he'd quote, "See how that works out." Trump added quote, "I've been watching Cuba for 50 years and it's fallen right into the lap."
So, we were right on the precipice of having this conversation when we had to take a break. But this idea of nation building of Venezuela, we now see in Iran, and we were just starting to get into that. What are -- what are your thoughts?
REENA NINAN, FOREIGN AFFAIRS ANALYST: I'm a girl from Tampa.
DEAN: Yes.
NINAN: Cuba, I just got to tell you, is Florida politics. People might, I'm not Cuban, but if you know Florida politics, Cuba has long been a mainstay in Florida politics. When I was growing up in the '80s and '90s, this was about communism. It's not about communism today. It's about geopolitical influence, Chinese intelligence. You're looking at Latin America. They want to have that positioning to be able to have that stronghold that's so close to the U.S.
It's again, like my point on this isn't, Donald Trump isn't doing regime change. It's regime maintenance. So, you talk to Fidel Castro's grandson. He likes to party. We like to party. Let's make a deal together and figure this out. He believes this is low-hanging fruit, something that they can accomplish and move forward. Is it really what happens? Is it ripe for change? We'll have to wait and see.
MEIJER: It sounds like was diplomacy you just mentioned.
NINAN: Might just be little diplomacy.
DEAN: Might just some diplomacy.
NINAN: Just might be.
DEAN: How much of this all lines back to China when you're looking at Venezuela, when you look at what's going on in Iran, when you're looking at Cuba?
ROGIN: I feel like everybody in Washington these days wants to say everything's about China all the time and justify whatever they want to do by saying, oh, this is a China thing, so we've got to do it. That's not really true, okay? The reasons that we're so involved in toppling Latin American governments has very little to do with China.
When you consider the fact that China's economic presence in Latin America has nothing to do with, you know, who runs the place, they'll deal with anybody. We're going to topple the Iranian regime. They're going to deal with the next Iranian regime the next day. They don't care, okay? And what they do is they offer positive engagement through investment, and that investment is predatory and ends up screwing those countries over.
But we come in and bomb the place. We're actually pushing a lot of these countries into Chinese arms, quite unfortunately, okay? And then we say, oh, we did it to keep China out, and it doesn't actually work that way. And it's just an excuse to cover up the real motivations, whatever they may be. And to think that Cuba's just going to fall in a couple of weeks because Donald Trump's been watching it and he's calling it is ridiculous.
And we can't discount the fact that part of his plan might be to attack or arrest the leaders of Cuba because that's what he just did in Venezuela and in Iran. So, he's talking very casually and very callously about another regime change operation without even really bothering to explain it at all. And that's where we are in our politics and our society.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOW: But I think it could absolutely be all geopolitical completely. But at the very same time that all of this is happening at the time same days, he's saying that the DOJ now releases more Epstein files that this time.
UNKNOWN: Oh, come on.
BLOW: So, you're laughing at --
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: Yes, I'm laughing. No, I'm laughing at you using the victims for some cheap, silly political point.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: Yes, I think it's and silly. No, I think you're using that in a cheap and silly way. And that is a shame. Shame on you for doing that.
BLOW: No, not shame on me.
RANTZ: Come on. You should feel shame for that.
BLOW: I'm always going to be on the side of the victims --
RANTZ: Except for the last four years.
BLOW: No, what you talking about?
RANTZ: Yes, like the entire Democratic Party.
BLOW: Did you know me for the last four years?
RANTZ: I did know you for the last four years. I followed you for long time.
BLOW: I have not met you before this year.
RANTZ: Yes, I've never met you before this year.
BLOW: You don't know me. Anyway --
RANTZ: We didn't get talking together, so I didn't actually know you.
(CROSSTALK)
DEAN: Okay, wait, I do want to talk about the politics of this, though, for a second, because Donald Trump won. and is known for America First. That's all he ever talks about. That's what he's told the American people. I'm going to make things more affordable for you. Life is not going to be as hard to make sure that you can send your kids to school and keep them in your home and pay for your gas. And Americans are still really struggling with that.
We've had people like Marjorie Taylor Greene say this is America Last Policy to be focused so heavily on foreign policy. Is this an abandonment of what he promised people?
RANTZ: No, I think this is in support of that. When we have weakened Iran, when we have a weakened Maduro regime, or a non-existent one right now, it obviously does help us. It's playing more into the long- term strategy, not a short-term strategy for sure. I mean, look.
BLOW: And one of the he promised was to release those Epstein files and then he started --
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: You just got mad that they were released. No, I didn't get mad. I did not get --
BLOW: What are you -- are you listening?
RANTZ: You're claiming that -- so that was not a criticism?
BLOW: What you talking about?
RANTZ: So, you were celebrating the fact that we just released somebody's files.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOW: No he was saying -- absolutely, because they withheld them and then they got caught withholding them.
RANTZ: What was in the files?
BLOW: They got caught --
RANTZ: Who was in the files? What was in the files?
[22:40:00]
BLOW: It was an uncorroborated.
RANTZ: What? Say that one more time. Uncorroborated right?
(CROSSTALK)
BLOW: Well, why were they hiding it?
RANTZ: They weren't hiding it.
BLOW: They were hiding it. They literally took it out.
RANTZ: They weren't hiding it.
BLOW: They were hiding it. They literally took it out.
UNKNOWN: They were hiding it.
RANTZ: They're hiding something that's uncorroborated that makes the claims that are just completely absurd. But we're pretending that this has something to do with what's going on in Iraq. Yes, okay, yes. You caught the President. He's going after Iran and he's talking about Cuba because he wants to hide something that you all been talking about now for the last year. No one forgot about it at all.
(CROSSTALK)
DEAN: But I want to get back -- respectfully, I want to get back to the primary question which is Cuba, and about this, you know, this -- they denied nation-building again and again and in fact, hang on, we can play the clips and then I want to hear what you -- watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We do not seek war. We do not seek nation-building. We do not seek regime change.
We are going to end the era of nation building.
I don't think we should be nation-building anymore.
We will end the era of nation-building.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DEAN: Okay, is this nation building?
ROGIN: I think we have to start to entertain the possibility that Donald Trump has no core principles.
(LAUGHTER)
BLOW: You believe?
ROGIN: It's possible he just says what he needs to say to get through the day to whatever audience he's standing in front of, and that when it comes to foreign policy he's liable to change his mind based on a whim or who he talked to or what his --
(CROSSTALK)
MEIJER: Or based on the context of what happened at that time.
RANTZ: Sometimes things change.
ROGIN: And occasionally he does the right thing, too. I'm not here to say he never does the right thing. I'm just saying there's no way to predict it because --
(CROSSTALK) BLOW: What they say about a broken clock?
ROGIN: -- is right twice a day.
BLOW: Exactly.
RANTZ: Your basic argument is that you disagree with some of the positions that he's taking.
ROGIN: No, that's not what I'm saying.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: But it is, actually --
ROGIN: There's no actual core strategy or ideology of Donald Trump's foreign policy. I wrote a whole book about it. You should read it. It's really good.
DEAN: So is that what this is?
RANTZ: Let's e-trade books. I'll give you "What's Killing America" and --
(CROSSTALK)
DEAN: This is in your view, strength.
MEIJER: -- dominance. So, we've long appreciated that Donald Trump has a very negative view towards the Japanese terrorists in the 1980s, or sorry, the Japanese trade balance and then the terrorists put on. He views that as a way of enforcing American strength. The other thing I hadn't really appreciated is, you know, at the same time as that, that was the Iran hostage crisis and how did the U.S. look incredibly weak? What was our standing in the world? How was it viewed that we could be pushed over?
Donald Trump views at the end of the day that if folks fear the United States, we are strong and we are safe. If we are not feared, we are not strong and we are not safe. And the German --
(CROSSTALK)
BLOW: I'd rather have --
(CROSSTALK)
BLOW: -- make us more safe.
(CROSSTALK)
NINAN: The President is banking his entire --
(CROSSTALK)
ROGIN: why not lead the world in a positive way through -- DEAN: Okay, Reena, I'm going let you have the last word and then we're going to go to break.
NINAN: Look, he's banking his entire foreign policy and practically much of his presidency on Iran. This could not be more crucial. You've got midterms coming up. I am a mom. Do you know how much oranges and bananas and milk cost? I know my oranges and bananas and milk aren't coming through the Strait of Hormuz. I'm not cutting up. I'm buying them. I'll cut up my watermelon. It is expensive.
And while the milk isn't coming through the Strait of Hormuz, people start to believe that it is. And if it affects -- I was at Costco and two couples were arguing over how coffee -- Folgers coffee is up double. It's almost $22 for a little thing.
So, people are starting to feel the pressure point. And oil is the next big thing because, you know, the measurement that we use in the U.S. hit 90 percent today -- 90. When you hit $90, your gas prices go up. There is no political about it. It's proven, and it happens. And when people start feeling it, the pressure is on, and that's when international story becomes --
(CROSSTALK)
DEAN: It becomes a domestic story. All right, stay with us. Up next, Barack Obama goes off on his successor at Jesse Jackson's funeral, including remarks about greed, bigotry, and dividing Americans. We're going to talk about that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:48:34]
DEAN: Former President Barack Obama delivered a powerful message in his tribute to the late Reverend Jesse Jackson and there was a thinly veiled target.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Each day we wake up to some new assault on our democratic institutions. Another setback to the idea of the rule of law. Each day we're told by those in high office to fear each other, and to turn on each other, and that some Americans count more than others, and that some don't even count at all. Everywhere we see greed and bigotry being celebrated, and bullying, and mockery masquerading as strength.
Because if we don't step up, no one else will.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DEAN: What do you think Jason, is that appropriate of a new for them?
RANTZ: Yes, probably in the context of I don't think Jesse Jackson would be upset with the messaging. I think it's rather telling though that clips that are being played today from the speech had nothing to do specifically with Jesse Jackson's life. And I think that does a disservice to this kind of event.
DEAN: Charles, what did he, yes --
BLOW: I watched the whole, I watched his whole speech. I watched most of the funeral.
DEAN: Yes.
BLOW: That was the last little segment of Obama's speech.
[22:50:00]
The entire speech that he gave --
RANTZ: But this is getting played --
BLOW: I'm sorry, and I'll finish. The entire speech was about Jesse Jackson's life and also about how Jesse Jackson impacted Obama specifically as a young man to see Jesse Jackson running for president and what have you. I do, I was watching to see how he would deal with this, however, though.
DEAN: How Barack Obama would.
BLOW: Barack Obama would deal with how this funeral celebration of this man's life, which is dedicated to unity, racial harmony, racial equality, is happening in the context of the first year of a presidency that has seen tremendous rollbacks, a kind of hysteric attack on DEI, attacks on black history, attacks on equality in general. How do you have that sort of celebration and not say something about the context in which we live? So, the fact that he added on that two minutes at the end felt appropriate to me.
DEAN: It was interesting to see obviously Kamala Harris was there, Joe Biden was there, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, to see them all together. And here, they're, you know, as they celebrated this incredible life. But also, to your point, you know, wove in a lot of that.
NINAN: I do think Americans want to see civility, especially in a moment when it comes to a funeral of a popular political figure or presidents, whatever it might be. You know, it was great -- it was First Lady who passed and to see Melania Trump at that and the First Lady is there, as well.
But I think what Jesse Jackson represents, especially for a woman of color like myself was, it was the first time that you saw someone say, people of color can be part of American politics. And in the '80s, that was something remarkable. It's hard to understand, you might not get it now, but in the '80s, that was a real moment.
You know, he was a prodigy of Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King wasn't throwing RPGs and bombing places around. That was a tactic he didn't use. It was a time of trying to move the civil rights movement through without bombs and guns, and shooting people and taking people hostage. And they achieved something remarkable that I, even not being black, am a benefactor of today. So when I think about Jesse Jackson, whatever your opinion might be,
that moment of him crying and holding the flag the night President Obama won was pretty powerful. And tonight, he paid homage to that man and he deserved it.
DEAN: Yes, certainly. And Josh, you know, to that point, when you watch a funeral for somebody of the caliber of Jesse Jackson to exactly what you just laid out, I think it does just anyone that watches it, you know, watches the whole thing or watches parts of it, you do kind of reflect a little on where we are today, where we've come and where we're going.
ROGIN: Yes, I think Obama was right. I think our culture has been taken over by greed and cruelty. That's what's in my feed. I don't know about your feed. And, you know, we need these reminders of our essential oneness of humanity and our need for compassion and tolerance, and respect for each other, and respect for the environment, and respect for the poor and the suffering.
And, you know, so, it's a shame that we have to have a funeral to get there, and hopefully we can have more of those reminders. And thank you for highlighting on that show maybe we can end on that positive note tonight.
DEAN: We have a -- no, I'm greatly appreciative to all five of you for being here on a Friday night, no less. It is good to have you. There's no shortage of news and things to discuss. So, thank you all for --
NINAN: We're going to hold hands now, everybody. We'll sing -- sing songs together.
BLOW: Kumbaya (ph). Do we know the words?
(LAUGHTER)
DEAN: Thank you all of you. Up next, we're going to have an emotional moment from that service that brings the past to the future. That's when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:58:26]
DEAN: It's been a long time coming, but a change is going to come. That Sam Cooke classic was an anthem of the civil rights movement. It was powerful, complex, hopeful, all words that describe the Reverend Jesse Jackson. And today people gathered in Chicago to celebrate the civil rights icon's life. Jackson once said there were two kinds of singing, before Sam Cooke and after Sam Cooke.
Cooke debuted "Change" on "The Tonight Show" in 1964, but the recording of that version is missing. It's lost to history. Cooke never performed it again live. Jennifer Hudson sang a rendition today at the celebration, a perfect sendoff for a legend.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (JENNIFER HUDSON PERFORMING)
LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, President Trump's bold new demand in the war with Iran.
