Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
U.S. On Alert After Attack At Synagogue, Shooting At University; Trump Touts Surging Oil Prices Downplays Higher Gas Prices; Sources: U.S. Underestimated War's Impact On The Strait Of Hormuz. Connecticut Democrat Senator Issues Strong Words on the Iran War; American Generations Debating the Price of the War in Iran. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired March 12, 2026 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: President Trump of course comes -- this comes as the longstanding ties that he has with the Ultimate Fighting Championship company and its CEO, Dana White, and the training is happening, I should note now, ahead of in a few months, where we're going to see a planned UFC Fight Night to celebrate the country's 250th anniversary on the South Lawn of the White House, something that will coincide with the President's own 80th birthday.
We'll keep you updated on what we learn about what happens in Quantico this weekend. Thanks for joining us tonight. CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip starts now.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, the nation on edge. An attack at a synagogue and a shooting at a University puts America on high alert for terror.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Never thought I would experience something like this.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you think you can target the Jewish community in this county or anywhere in this state, you're wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Plus, the president brags about high oil prices, while Iran's new leader purportedly threatens the U.S. with an economic hit. Also despite the deaths of troops and accidental bombings of a school, the White House continues to portray the war as a video game, and are the decisions by older generations today hurting the next ones tomorrow?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The neocon boomers surrounding Donald Trump are mortgaging my generation's future.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But just seems so insane based on what he ran on. I mean, this is why a lot of people feel betrayed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Keith Boykin, Leigh McGowan, Joe Borelli, Josh Rogin and law enforcement analysts. This is CNN Special Live Coverage.
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.
PHILLIP: Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York. Our breaking news tonight. Tensions are high across the United States after two attacks on American soil, both incidents that are stoking new fears of rising terror threats right here at home, amid that ongoing war with Iran.
The first an act of suspected terrorism at Old Dominion University in Virginia. That's where officials say a gunman opened fire inside a classroom, killing one person and injuring two others, before students subdued and killed him. Authorities identified the attacker as a former National Guard member who served nearly seven years in prison for trying to help ISIS.
He was released in December of 2024 as the shooting has left the community shaken.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAHARI, OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY STUDENT: We heard, like, scream, like faint screaming, and we just, like, looked back, we didn't know what it was, and then we heard the screams getting louder, and then that's when the alarm went off, and everyone just like, ran out the building. I think it's crazy, like it's crazy. That's all I can say. Like I thought -- I never thought I would experience something like this.
ZACHARY MULDER, OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY STUDENT: My heart dropped. I didn't know, really know what's going on. I just know I had to leave immediately. So it was pretty scary.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: The second an act of antisemitic terror near Detroit. Officials there say a driver armed with a rifle and explosive plowed his vehicle into Temple Israel Synagogue. Security guards opened fire on the suspect, and something inside the car ignited, engulfing it in flames. The suspect was later found dead.
DHS has now identified that person as a naturalized citizen born in Lebanon, and officials are investigating whether he had multiple close family members who were killed in an Israeli strike on Lebanon in recent days.
Joining us here is our National Security Analyst and John Miller, you've been following both of these stories, but the big picture here for the United States is the threat level. And it's these two incidents, plus two others in recent days. Where are we on this and is it being properly portrayed to the American people, the risk that I think the entire country might be in? JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT & INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, I
think it is in that at the beginning of this war, we saw the statements from the FBI and DHS saying we're going to be in a heightened threat environment, that the most likely scenario if there is an attack on the homeland is going to be from lone wolf actors, and that there was an elevated threat, either from terrorist organizations like ISIS or even Iranian operatives who may be here or have been here, waiting for someone on the other side to press that button to activate them.
So what we're seeing now is we're seeing two things. One, we're seeing what appears to be people who are acting alone, including two who acted together, but not in conspiracy with any larger group that claimed to do it for ISIS, that would be the attack in New York City, near Gracie Mansion.
But what we're also seeing is this churning effect, which is one terrorist attack may not cause somebody who is never thinking of one to do one, but when you have those people who are leading the propaganda, who are in the chat rooms, discussing with each other, it will spur another person who's already thinking about it to move forward. And I think we're seeing that.
PHILLIP: Yeah, the Old Dominion attack in particular is fascinating because this individual was known to law enforcement. He had just been released from prison for a terrorism related offense. What surprises you about the idea that that here we are, you know, a year and a half later, and this person has allegedly committed another act of terror?
[22:05:00]
DARRIN PORCHER, FORMER NYPD LIEUTENANT: It begs the question as to why was he let out sooner than he was sentenced to. He got out in seven years, and I believe he was sentenced to 11. So one may argue that was the good time something that came to fruition that allowed him to get out. But bigger than that, what was the -- what was the parole process in terms of the monitoring. He went into a college campus, and he specifically spotlighted the ROTC program.
For those who are not familiar with the ROTC program, these are the college students that are gaining scholastic endeavors to become officers in the United States Army. He was, at one time, a United States Army soldier in the National Guard, and when he came into that room, the first thing he asked was, is this ROTC?
And that's when he began his campaign of carnage. There's a slogan that we use, run hide and fight. You run away from the assailant, you hide, and if you don't have any other recourse, you fight. That's what happened as it relates to these ROTC students and their valiant efforts were able to capture the individual.
They took his life, but unfortunately, we lost the life in that classroom. And so it begs the question as to, what are the fortifications in that college to prevent these types of acts from happening in the future. They got to have an after-action review. They're going to see the positives and the negatives. But the key is, you want to keep violent assailants off of the campus and ensure that people are properly identified when they enter that space.
PHILLIP: Yeah. I mean, we saw another example of in that synagogue in Michigan, security working the way that it was supposed to. They -- the FBI had actually done a training with this temple in the past about this exact type of situation, and it seems to have worked. But the idea that Jewish Americans right now, they've been living with this for a long time now, but in this moment, they seem to be facing the real prospect of all of these types of lone wolves coming into their gates, into their -- their synagogues, and into their schools.
JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GOAL SECURITY ANALYST, WASHINGTON POST INTELLIGENCE: Yeah, you're absolutely right. It's not new. For the last 25 years or so, synagogues, Jewish places of worship have had to have these kinds of security measures, and it's just become a fact of life for Jews who want to practice their religion in this country, not just this country, all over the world.
It's also true that since the United States started the war with Iran, the region has been on fire, and that has spiked antisemitism to new levels, and that United States is not immune from that. So we have a worldwide rise in antisemitism and also a backlash that's related to the actions that we're taking in the Middle East, and this has put Jews not only in synagogues, but all over the world, including in Israel and including in the United States at a higher risk. It's just a fact.
PHILLIP: I mean, even if the attackers may not be directly motivated by Iran, specifically, there is conflict in the region that is creating an environment. John, you had written this back on March 7, that DHS diverted resources from terrorism cases, human trafficking investigations and secret service missions to focus massive resources on what most -- most -- on what was mostly civil immigration enforcement.
Kristi Noem, the head of DHS, at the time, gutted the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security agency that -- and oversaw the dismissal of hundreds of staff from the disaster relief agency FEMA, and proposed reducing the Office of Intelligence and Analysis staff from 1000 to 275.
There has been a kind of shift of focus at DHS, and we're talking also about a government shutdown that specifically affects DHS. But what are you seeing in terms of the preparedness on the intelligence side, on the counterterrorism side, that affects us in this moment of heightened vigilance?
MILLER: You know, that's a fascinating question. It was interesting when I wrote it, but if you look at it in the context of today, it's very pointed, because when she proposed cutting INA, Intelligence and Analysis at DHS from a 1000 analysts and supervisors working on threat reporting to 275, there was pushback on that, and the cut had to be reduced.
It was less than what she proposed, largely from Jewish groups and other groups concerned with security, saying you can't gut that. Those are the people who supply us our indicators and warnings, our tipping and queuing. And then if you change channels out of DHS to the FBI, some of my former colleagues, some of the most experienced counterterrorism executives who have a depth in this field were pushed out of that because of politics by the Trump administration.
[22:10:00]
And just a couple of weeks ago, as CNN reported, our best Iran experts from the Counterintelligence Squad in the Washington Field Office of the FBI were also pushed out because some of them had been pulled into the Mar-a-Lago classified documents, cases. So over politics, we've lost a lot of talent that would be really useful right now.
ROGIN: You could also say that the gutting of our intelligence communities contributed and the disregard of their analysis contributed to a lot of the misassumptions that led to the mistakes that we're seeing in the Iran war today. The failure to anticipate the energy crisis, the failure to anticipate the vulnerability of some of our Gulf allies, our critical infrastructure and you know, the vulnerability and the homeland is just one small piece of that.
PHILLIP: And a major question for the administration Darrin is going to be, why this Old Dominion attacker in particular was not at the very, very top of the list of people that they were watching in this moment.
PORCHER: It's clear that he should have been but as John mentioned, in terms of the cuts, when you place a Trump loyalist in a position of prestige such as running DHS, and you undercut the subject matter experts, you now -- you're going to see a recession in the effectiveness in that organization. The operation becomes weak, and we're seeing how it manifests on the back end.
Trump did make the replacement as it related to Kristi Noem. I think this is something that should have happened back when the Minneapolis shooting occurred, but it was something that I believe Trump felt, is he didn't want to appear as if he was in the wrong by replacing someone at a time of crisis.
Now, the adjustment has been made, but at the same token, they have still appointed another Trump loyalist and not a subject matter expert. And it begs the question as to, how are we going to keep the homeland safe? The only way this happens is when you put plausibly knowing people in these positions to ensure that they can do the back checks to make sure that people are doing what they're supposed to do.
PHILLIP: All right, thank you all and just to note, I mean that terror suspect that we were just discussing was released December of 2024, just at the tail end of the Biden administration, and just at the beginning -- on the cusp of this one. So lots of questions for law enforcement as we move forward.
Next for us, breaking news tonight in the war. Oil prices are now at their highest level in four years, and sources tonight tell CNN that the Trump administration completely underestimated what they're calling a worst case scenario. Plus, as the White House continues to promote this war with video game and movie clips, a Senate Democrat gives a blunt assessment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the most incompetent, incoherent war America has fought in the last 100 years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, the price of oil has skyrocketed to the highest level in nearly four years. It jumped to over $100 a barrel, and markets tumbled as a result of it. At the center of all of this is the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has effectively closed that waterway and has struck at least six vessels there and in the Persian Gulf in the last 48 hours, and just in sources tell CNN that the Pentagon and the National Security Council significantly underestimated Iran's willingness to close the Strait in response to military strikes.
We're also told that the security team didn't account for the potential consequences of what officials are describing as a worst case scenario. But now the president is suggesting that higher oil costs are actually a good thing. He posted on Truth Social that because the U.S. is the largest producer of oil in the world, more expensive oil means America is making a lot of money, a lot more money.
But he did add that right now, stopping Iran from having nuclear weapons is of far greater interest to him. So this new reporting, I think, is very eye opening for a number of reasons, because the ability of Iran to continue to keep the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed to non-Iranian, non-allied ships of theirs, even though they are severely weakened, is the -- probably the biggest factor that's going to control whether or not this war continues, because if oil gets to a certain point, the Trump administration is going to have to deal with the practical and political consequences of that.
JOE BORELLI, FORMER REPUBLICAN LEADER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: Look, it is -- it is Iran's only point of leverage right now. Let's be clear about that. There is no other point that they can twist anyone's arm. They can't talk their way out of it. Their Supreme Leader, the new Supreme Leader, we're not even sure if he's healthy enough to stand. He hasn't been seen yet.
So they're playing the only chip they have on the poker table. The President has a lot more chips to play as well. You know, obviously there's talk about the Navy coming in, whether that happens this week or next week, to actually escort some ships through the Strait, that would be a positive development.
But all of Iran's oil is focused, 95 percent of it on one island, and the President has not authorized the bombers to take care of that island, eliminate that island. That is the ultimate pardon the phrase, Trump card, which is sort of the dooms day scenario for Iran that would singlehandedly wipe out their entire economy. President Trump still has that card to play, and I hope he uses, you know, that chip against theirs.
LEIGH MCGOWAN, PODCAST HOST, POLITICSGIRL: You're using a lot of gambling metaphors.
BORELLI: Yeah.
MCGOWAN: Which is interesting, because I feel like this entire thing is one big gamble where we didn't consider the consequences like you're talking about. He's got one chip, and we have a bunch of chips. I feel like this is the most obvious ace up your sleeve situation that you could possibly have. Like to not think that they were going to close the Strait of Hormuz seems foolish. It feels like that was exactly what they were going to do. One-fifth of the world's oil goes through there for the entire world.
[22:20:00]
So they're not just holding that. They're holding the world's oil hostage. And then on top of that, it's like they don't have anywhere to store the rest of the oil that they're actually pumping out of the ground. So all the places that are pumping oil are like, what are we going to do with this if we can't move it out? So that's also causing a problem.
And then we have all of our bases around the Middle East. So that would be another chip that they could play. They could blow up our own bases that we've spent billions of dollars.
BORELLI: That was a good zinger. You got me on the gambling stuff. That was a good one.
MCGOWAN: I'm not trying to get you, dude. We're at war for no reason. We're at war for no reason and you're like blah, blah, blah.
BORELLI: We're not talking about chips, we're talking about nuclear warheads and nuclear enriched uranium. Is it better they have it?
MCGOWAN: No, there's no reason, no intelligence that said there was any nuclear warheads.
BORELLI: You're saying no one thought this plan out. Is it better -- would it be better that Iran has enriched uranium that they can now deploy to their proxies in the Middle East or use it themselves?
MCGOWAN: But that's not what they said. That's not what's on the table.
PHILLIP: I actually think that's a good question. It's a good question whether we're even going after the enriched uranium, because look, the objectives here and what they actually will accomplish, that is one of the big question marks. Are they actually going to be able to get to that uranium, or are they actually going to be able to take it off the table? I'm not so sure. We've seen evidence of that.
ROGIN: Right. I don't think you have to have secret intelligence sources to know that they failed to plan for a lot of the contingencies that were easily predictable if we were going to attack Iran, the Strait of Hormuz, the attacking of our embassies, tens of thousands of Americans trapped and can't get out of the countries. They're in danger. They didn't bother to tell them. No consultation with allies, no energy policy to offset the disruption, and they're scrambling.
Oh, now we've got to release Russia's sanctions to get more oil on the market, and now we've got to tap the strategic reserves. And they're obviously reacting. They're killing the mine boats after the mines are already in the water. OK? So they're get -- they're constantly chasing the Iranian strategy.
And it just shows what happens when you have a military only approach that has nothing to do with the diplomatic, economic and political consequences of launching a major war that's going to engulf the region in fire. And so when you look at any one of these issues, you have to say to yourself, man, this should have been planned a lot better, whether or not you think this is a good idea or a bad idea.
And in the end, at every stage the administration is going to face this issue of, OK, how much pain are we willing to take to the American economy? How many dead men and women are going to return to Dover Air Force Base? How many billions are we going to spend, and can we suffer more than the Iranians? And over time, the Iranians are betting that they're going to be able to suffer more than us, and they may be right about that, because Trump changes his mind all the time.
And that speaks to your questions about objectives. They're always changing, because Trump's constantly changing his mind.
PHILLIP: So two different --
ROGIN: And that's crazy.
PHILLIP: Two different administration officials, both involved in the energy strategy, talked about whether or not the boats would be escorted in the Strait of Hormuz or not. Just listen to what they had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can it happen now? Will it happen soon that the Navy can do that?
CHRIS WRIGHT, ENERGY SECRETARY: It will happen relatively soon, but it can't happen now. We're simply not ready. All of our military assets right now are focused on destroying Iran's offensive capabilities and the manufacturing industry that supplies their offensive capabilities.
SCOTT BESSENT, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: That was always in our planning, that the chance that U.S. Navy, or perhaps an international coalition, will be escorting oil tankers through. There are, in fact, tankers coming through now, Iranian tankers. I believe some Chinese flagged tankers have come through. So we know that they have not mined the Straits.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROGIN: They're letting the Chinese tankers through because they're partners with China.
PHILLIP: Right.
ROGIN: They're getting money from the Chinese.
PHILLIP: They're letting their allies through.
ROGIN: That's not a great example of the successful (inaudible)
PHILLIP: Not ours. But, I mean, if you listen to that, I mean, you're hearing Scott, two different messages here. But the bottom line is that it's not happening right now. We are 12 days into this war, and for us and for the rest of the world, outside of Iran, China and India, the Strait of Hormuz is closed. So we are effectively unprepared for this moment.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I mean, as you said, we're 12-13 days into this, and I suspect that over the next few days, we will be working with international partners to open it up. I don't know whether it will happen within the next 24 hours, 48 or hours, 48 or what have you, but it's obviously a priority. I agree with Joe, this is really the last thing Iran is capable of doing, and so we have to destroy their capabilities of doing that.
It seems to me, given the fact that they have been intermittently attacking all their neighbors in the Gulf, the other Arab states that they would have some interest in, possibly over time, ensuring that the Strait remains open. So I think it's sort of fashionable to freak out and have a meltdown when you oppose something in the first place.
But again, we're in the middle of the second week of this. We have pummeled, pummeled their offensive capabilities. You know, we have destroyed nearly all of their air defenses. I mean, I think we are currently meeting our objectives. I think the issue you raised about the --
[22:25:00]
MCGOWAN: What are our objectives?
JENNINGS: No nukes, no missiles and drones, no aggressive Navy, no exporting of terrorism.
MCGOWAN: Based on what.
JENNINGS: Period.
MCGOWAN: Based on what? Based on what intelligence, based on what evidence? JENNINGS: You don't think Iran is the largest state sponsor of terror,
that they pursue nuclear weapons, that they have missiles and drones and they have an aggressive navy?
PHILLIP: I think she's asking what's the evidence -- what's the evidence that we have those objectives is what she's asking?
MCGOWAN: Yeah,
JENNINGS: Well, we have a severe -- I mean, in the daily Pentagon briefings, we get a mathematical calculation of the degradation of the number of missiles and drones they've been able to fire. Number two, we have a full -- we have -- we have an account. Yes, we have.
PHILLIP: Well, they -- hold on, they have talked about their capacity.
JENNINGS: We have an accounting every day of how many ships we've sunk. And so we are --
PHILLIP: But I guess I wonder, you know, I mean the two perhaps most important --
JENNINGS: Because they constantly harass ships.
PHILLIP: That the two most important elements of this are going to be the nukes, and this idea that there -- are they going to export terrorism. I don't think we've seen any evidence that any -- either of those two things have actually been halted.
JENNINGS: Well, I think the nuclear -- just, just to answer your question. I -- to me, the nuclear piece is the most important piece. The President set a red line. I'm never going to permit them to have nuclear weapons. They went to the table with our negotiators, and their opening position was --
PHILLIP: But where are they?
JENNINGS: -- we have the material to do 11?
PHILLIP: Yeah, I get that we know that they said that they had it. But I'm asking, do we know that we've destroyed it? Do we --
JENNINGS: We've not (inaudible)
PHILLIP: -- have it in our possession? So that's going to be a key question.
KEITH BOYKIN, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE AIDE: And that's part of the problem. This whole mission has been a disaster.
JENNINGS: For who? Iran?
BOYKIN: And it maybe get a disaster for the world, for -- for the United States of America. Maybe it's funny to you, but --
JENNINGS: It's funny to me that you're hoping that we lose this war to Iran.
MCGOWAN: That's not what he said.
BOYKIN: I never said that.
JENNINGS: Who is it a disaster for?
MCGOWAN: Humanity.
BOYKIN: It's a disaster for their 170 school children who were killed by our U.S. Tomahawk missile. It's a disaster -- it's a disaster for the -- it's a disaster for the seven U.S. soldiers who were killed.
BORELLI: You're wishcasting an American (inaudible) it's incredible.
BOYKIN: No, no, Scott, it's -- this mission has been disaster. The motives have kept -- have continued to change one day to next.
BORELLI: No, they have not. The announcement today from the White House was almost identical to the announcement on March 2nd.
BOYKIN: Let me just finish. I let everyone else speak. I haven't spoken. President Trump said he wanted unconditional surrender. He said he wanted regime change. We're not going to get unconditional surrender. We're not going to get regime change. We have another Ayatollah Khomeini now in charge, the same person -- the same different -- same person with -- a different person with the same name, essentially running the country right now and --
BORELLI: Maybe.
BOYKIN: Maybe or maybe not, but we don't -- we don't know what's going on, because our government hasn't been truthful in telling us what we need to know about what's happening. And this is part of the problem.
BORELLI: What have they not been truthful about?
BOYKIN: This is part of the problem with the administration, because they've been dishonest about what their objectives were from the beginning, they've been -- this -- they've been dishonest about what they've accomplished from the beginning.
BORELLI: How? What's the evidence of dishonesty?
BOYKIN: And -- and they were dishonest about the Tomahawk missile.
BORELLI: What is the evidence of dishonesty?
MCGOWAN: The evidence of dishonesty would be in August, they told us they had completely decimated Iran's nuclear program. Then we -- then we had to get at them, because they were getting nukes. Then it wasn't about the nukes, it was about regime change. Then it wasn't about regime change, it was about terrorism. So they don't have their story straight, so that's what they haven't been honest about, Scott.
And a billion dollars a day, $11,000 a second, the American people are allowed to ask what the problem is and we're not going to be lied about it, OK? That's not what we're going to do.
PHILLIP: So Joe, go ahead.
BORELLI: You just -- the money argument is so rich, you know, we -- the money, how much we spend? You know, $11 billion so far.
BOYKIN: $11.3 billion.
BORELLI: We gave Ukraine $188 billion to prosecute their war. And the reaction -- and the reaction from the left is to even give more money to fund more money, spend more money in Ukraine. So yeah, it cost $11 billion. I'd rather the United States spend $11 billion, maybe $20 billion, maybe $30 billion --
BOYKIN: $11 billion in six days.
BORELLI: -- if it results in and I'll put the caveat, if it results in either the regime changing, or --
BOYKIN: Which is not happening.
BORELLI: -- or the inability of them to possess nuclear weapons.
PHILLIP: But Joe, what if neither of those things happen, because as of this moment, it does not appear --
BORELLI: As of this moment --
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. As of this moment --
BORELLI: They set a timetable and you are changing the timetable.
PHILLIP: As of this moment, there's no indication that the regime has been weakened or that they have --
JENNINGS: You don't think Iran has been weakened?
PHILLIP: OK, all of the reporting out there from within the administration is that they recognize that the regime has not -- they have not shifted away from the -- from the Islamic --
JENNINGS: Of course -- of course, not. They're religious fanatics. They --
PHILLIP: So --
JENNINGS: -- personally never changed but to say they haven't been weakened, I think is not true.
PHILLIP: So Scott, I mean, listen, I'm talking about -- I'm talking about how much control do they have over their own country?
BORELLI: But why are you on your own timeline? And not the president's timeline?
PHILLIP: And I'm not saying that people weren't killed, hold on a second Joe. I'm not saying that people weren't killed in the regime.
[22:30:07]
I'm just saying, are they in less control? And the answer is no.
What's your evidence that their control has been weakened?
JENNINGS: Because the current supposed head of the country is basically just a cardboard cutout that they claim is alive somewhere. It's pretty obvious.
PHILLIP: But what does that have to do with whether or not they have control over the country?
BORELLI: They wouldn't be using A.I. images of the supreme leader if they thought they had so much control over the country.
PHILLIP: It's a serious question. No talking points. I'm just asking.
Seriously, where's the evidence that the Iranian regime has loosened its grip over the country?
JENNINGS: What do you mean by grip? Their capacity to do what? They have far less capacity to fire missiles--
PHILLIP: Because you're telling me that the regime has changed. I don't see any evidence of that.
JENNINGS: I said they were weakened. But there's no doubt about the entire level of government.
BORELLI: -- that civilians in Iran are orchestrating attacks on regime forces on different roadblocks and areas like that. That shows a coordinated effort from Iranians or someone else perhaps on the ground in Iran. That shows that the regime has lost some grip on the country. But again, you don't have to put up a cardboard cutout and an A.I. image of the supreme leader if you're not trying desperately to keep up the illusion that the regime is still solidly in control.
JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, WASHINGTON POST INTELLIGENCE, AND AUTHOR, "CHAOS UNDER HEAVEN": The person who contradicts you most is President Trump, because he says he wants to make a deal like Venezuela and put in a Delcy, which means another regime leader who's just willing to make a deal. Now, Donald Trump's wrong about that because the new leader, they just killed his father, his mother, his wife, his son, and 20 other members of his family. So I don't think he's going to make a deal.
What President Trump said is it's going to end very soon. We've already won. We're just going to wrap it up.
I'm going to say stop, and the Iranians are going to stop, okay? And that's what we're facing here. It's not, oh, well, what is in the realm of the possible. The President of the United States says, whenever he says we're done, we're going to stop, he expects the Iranians to stop. And guess what? They're not going to stop. The war is going to go on.
They're not just going to say, oh, President Trump killed our ayatollah, but now let's just make a deal and go back to business as normal. So the war is going to drag on. And that's exactly the quagmire that everyone warned about at the very beginning.
PHILLIP: We'll continue this when we get back on the other side of this break.
Next for us, the first message from the purported new leader of Iran we've been discussing. Here are his demands, and what is the White House prepared for? We'll debate that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, the purported new leader of Iran is vowing never- ending revenge on the United States and Israel. With his first public remarks since the U.S.-Israeli strikes killed his father, the new ayatollah signaled that the war could go on indefinitely. Earlier this week, Donald Trump called the younger Khamenei's appointment unacceptable and said yesterday that he refused to comment on whether he should remain in power.
Senator Chris Murphy, one of the few lawmakers who received a classified briefing this week on the operation in Iran, had some pretty strong words about this conflict.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): This is the most incompetent, incoherent war America has fought in the last 100 years, and that's saying a lot. This administration has no idea what they are doing. There is no viable war plan, they change their goals and their aims every single day.
I have great sympathy for our soldiers and our military leaders. They are being given directions by a senile old man who is losing his mind. And so it's no surprise that this war is going horribly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, as strong as you could get, really, in those comments. But I just want to take the temperature down for a second only to say that there's no question that the United States military is effectively carrying out its orders on the ground in Iran.
The question that I think a lot of people have, and I believe Chris Murphy has, is do they have a plan for what comes next? That seems to be where we're at.
ROGIN: Right. You know, talking to a lot of people in the administration and giving them full credit for their theory of the case, I think what they're telling people is that when Donald Trump decides to stop, then the war stops.
And if that's in two weeks or three weeks, it's up to Trump. He'll say when it's the right time, and then we'll stop, and the Iranians will stop. That's their theory.
And to be fair to them, that may happen, okay? We can't say that that won't happen. That's one scenario. I don't think that's going to happen, but that's the current plan if there is one Donald Trump says stop, and everyone just stops and goes back.
Now, there's another scenario, which I think is more likely, which Chris Murphy seems to think is more likely, which is that the Iranians don't stop. That after we just bombed their cities, killed all these people, killed the Ayatollah, you know, destroyed their, you know, military and their navy, that they're still going to want to fight, okay?
And then if they're fighting us, we've got to fight them, because that's what a war is. Once you're in it, you're in it, okay? And I think that's going to happen.
So, you know, I think that's what we're facing, a total disconnect between what the White House thinks is going to happen and what's really going to happen.
[22:39:55]
KEITH BOYKIN, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE AIDE: I think there's a third scenario, which is that no matter what happens with Iran and the United States, that there will be some sort of long-term consequences that we may not see in the next few weeks or months or years, but may come some decades later, just as we saw in 1979 with the Iran hostage crisis, which happened because of 1953 when we overthrew their democratically elected government.
And the same thing happened when we saw 9/11. That was because of the United States' involvement in the first Gulf War and had a long-term effect.
JENNINGS: You're blaming the U.S. for 9/11?
BOYKIN: I'm not blaming the United States. I'm saying that--
JENNINGS: Sound like it.
BOYKIN: I'm saying that what-- Well, let me finish.
JENNINGS: Sound like it.
BOYKIN: I'm saying that when we take actions across the world, that there are consequences that we don't anticipate that can happen years later. And so when we wonder why people are coming after us and attacking us, it's maybe because we're attacking them.
JENNINGS: What did the first world trade--
BOYKIN: Hold on.
JENNINGS: What was the cause of that one?
BOYKIN: I'm sorry?
BORELLI: What was the cause of the first world trade center bomb?
LEIGH MCGOWAN, PODCAST HOST, "POLITICSGIRL": I think that's irrelevant to this moment. I think the point is...
BOYKIN: No, I'm just saying that the Gulf War, number one, but that, I mean--
MCGOWAN: That's not the point.
BOYKIN: We're getting away from the point.
PHILLIP: Yes, I mean, look, just to be centrist here, the basic concept of actions and consequences and some actions having unintended consequences, I don't know that that's really debatable. I think that's a basic principle of foreign policy that we've seen play out time and time again.
ROGIN: And the consequences to countries all over the world.
PHILLIP: So on that question, I mean, is it fair for people to ask, what are the unintended consequences of this particular major action that the United States has taken?
JENNINGS: I just want to go back to 9/11 for a second. The idea that the United States had it coming--
BOYKIN: Never say that.
JENNINGS: -- is insane.
BOYKIN: Don't put words in my mouth.
JENNINGS: No, it's literally in my mouth.
MCGOWAN: Again, that wasn't the question.
BOYKIN: Let's have a new conversation.
JENNINGS: I'm sorry.
BOYKIN: I'm not going to lie to you here and lie about what I just said.
JENNINGS: You said, we did something and that caused it.
BOYKIN: Scott, I don't even know why you're why I mean--
JENNINGS: We're going to roll the tape later and everybody's going to point.
BOYKIN: The reason I know why you're doing this, because this allows you to deflect attention for the fact that your President, Donald Trump, has no idea what he's doing in Iran. He's caused the death of seven U.S. servicemembers, of 140, as I said, 170 school children, 140 injuries in this country of U.S. servicemembers as well.
We've got American citizens who are stranded. You're talking about unintended consequences.
BORELLI: Let's talk about the intended consequences, right? The message today from the Iranian regime is not different than it's actually ever been. It's we are going to fight the U.S., we are going to fight Israel.
That was the message today, but that's been the message for 40 years.
PHILLIP: We were just discussing in the last block whether or not they had been chastened. You just confirmed, just as you said there, they are saying the exact same thing that they have been saying for 47 years.
BORELLI: They're saying the same thing they've been saying for 47 years. They're not going to stop. Your point was that they're not going to stop.
They're not going to stop, but if they don't have the capacity to replenish their missiles, if they don't have the financing to finance their proxies throughout the region, then it doesn't matter what they say in their own country because they don't have the ability to project outward. That would be a success by any stretch of the imagination. If Iran is no longer allowed to play terrorist daddy across the Middle East, across the world, that's a successful outcome.
I don't want to hear that that wouldn't be a successful outcome.
ROGIN: Do you think that Donald Trump is willing to commit to the amount of time and effort and blood and treasure that is going to be necessary to commit to that outcome?
Because I'm sure Lindsey Graham is willing to sacrifice American blood and treasure until we get to that outcome if it takes months, if it takes years. And is Donald Trump going to, does he have the wherewithal and the stick-to-itiveness to keep this war going for years considering what it's doing to the economy, to gas prices, to the Republicans' chances in the next election?
BOYKIN: Don't you?
ROGIN: And all of the relationships that he has and all of that.
The Board of Peace? The Board of Peace is not looking so good right now, is it, Joe?
BOYKIN: Don't you, don't you think so?
ROGIN: So how is Donald Trump going to do his Board of Peace corruption if people want to join the Board of Peace because he's--
PHILLIP: Scott, go ahead and respond.
ROGIN: There's consequences. Lots of consequences.
JENNINGS: Reasonable outcome here, though. Don't you think it's entirely possible because of the way Iran has acted? You have Israel involved. You have all the other Arab states in the Gulf that they have attacked, they're very angry.
Over time, these fanatics, of course, will have to be monitored and will have to be kept in check. We're not the only people in the world who want them kept that way. It strikes me that what has happened here is we're going to decimate their military.
Whatever happens to their regime, they're going to be under constant surveillance and contact from Israel, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Europe, et cetera. Basically, they've brought the whole world in on this and down on this.
ROGIN: The whole world--
JENNINGS: And over time, they're not going to permit Iran to reconstitute.
BORELLI: Even the Chinese statement came out today.
ROGIN: Did you answer the question? If I could just respond, because I think it is an important question, right?
And I think the answer is actually very simple, is that what you're proposing is an endless military campaign against Iran.
JENNINGS: Endless surveillance.
ROGIN: Because if you're not going to replace the regime, then they're going to constantly rebuild and constantly rebuild. And we're going to have to constantly attack them.
[22:45:01]
And so, yes, what you're proposing is essentially a lifetime of attacking Iran. Now, again, that's one way you could go. I don't think that's what Trump wants, I don't think that's what Trump is going to do.
And you know what? Everybody knows Trump's not going to do that. So what he's going to do is he's going to get halfway there, and then he's going to change his mind and then we're going to leave the regime intact.
And by the way, all those allies and Gulf partners, you know why they're not attacking Iran right now? Because they're pissed off at us, because we started the war that they're getting attacked on without consulting them, without even bothering to consult them, okay? And so building this international coalition to go after Iran would
have been a lot easier if we had talked to our allies and partners before we launched the war, instead of doing the complete--
PHILLIP: We've got to leave it there.
Coming up, how Americans view the war in Iran may depend on their age. Are current leaders over-leveraging the future for the next generation? That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, are the oldest generations in Washington making decisions that future generations will ultimately have to pay for? It's an argument you hear on all sides of the political spectrum. Here is Gen Z liberal Adam Mockler.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADAM MOCKLER, PODCAST HOST, "THE ADAM MOCKLER SHOW": The neocon boomers surrounding Donald Trump are mortgaging my generation's future for another endless, maybe endless, but another very expensive Middle Eastern war. We tried this with Iraq, we tried this with Afghanistan. It left us in trillions and trillions of dollars in debt.
We pay $1 trillion per year just on the interest for our debt. This is amassing and it's going to affect my generations for decades to come because the old people know they can start wars because young people don't have the power to stop them. So the old people make us foot the bill.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: He's not alone in that. Even some Republicans are questioning the decisions of older lawmakers.
Meghan McCain, for example, slammed Lindsey Graham, saying, quote, "Nothing like a single childless septuagenarian telling American mothers to send their children to go possibly die in a war."
This is an age-old debate, especially in the last 25 years of American history. Is it true that the younger generation is facing the consequences of whatever this is?
MCGOWAN: Yes, absolutely.
I mean, as the mother of an 18 year old son, they start drifting around talking about the draft. I get really upset. Parents across America should be really upset right now with the amount of debt we are racking up for this, it's going to be around our children's necks.
And if you look at the septuagenarians that are making these decisions, first of all, Congress should have made this decision about war, not the President. But if you look at Congress and the people that are making decisions right now, they don't even live in the world that we have to live in or the kids are going to have to live in. They are making decisions that they will never have to live through.
And they're not even asking the right questions. You see these congressional oversight committees, and they're not asking about A.I., they don't understand tech.
They should have regulated the Internet way back in the day. But they don't know enough because they're not in the generation that will have to live with it or know about it. And they're making these decisions. They're cashing.
What is the -- Cashing something you're -- Something you can't check.
See, I'm old. I wish I knew that. There you go.
PHILLIP: Your mouth is writing a check.
MCGOWAN: Yes, exactly. That's what's happening.
PHILLIP: You know what I can't cash. Go ahead, Joe.
BORELLI: I agree with a lot of what you said. I think young people should come out there and vote for the party that is concerned about the national debt, concerned about reduction of spending, concerned about our financial future.
A generation ago, that's the Republican Party. I think it's a fantastic thing.
MCGOWAN: Dude, a billion dollars a day for you to vote for no reason. That's out of your mind.
BORELLI: Next time (inaudible) I'm going to have that conversation with him.
PHILLIP: You know that that hasn't been true in either the first or the second.
BORELLI: Which party, in your opinion?
PHILLIP: I'm just saying. Let's call it neither party, but Trump has not been concerned about not spending.
MCGOWAN: No, we can't call it neither party. And I don't speak about the Democrats, but you can't say neither party.
PHILLIP: I would say it's not a top priority for the Democratic Party to cut spending. It is supposed to be a top priority for the Republican Party to cut spending.
BORELLI: And I urge young people to put pressure on Republican lawmakers to delimit that. PHILLIP: But let's get back to the war. Let me just get back to the war for a second. Because I think people forget that Donald Trump really tried to differentiate himself from the rest of the Republican field when he was running for President by saying things like this, listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, THEN-BUSINESSMAN: We shouldn't have gone into Iraq. And the minute we leave, you know, they say we're out.
We have 50,000, 60,000 soldiers there right now. We're out?
Now, we took out Saddam Hussein. What have we created? A mess.
And the day we leave Iraq, it's going to be, forget it.
It's a total and complete disaster. And I'd like to see money spent on this country.
UNKNOWN: How does the United States get out of this situation? Is there a way out of it?
TRUMP: You know how they get out? They get out. That's how they get out. Declare victory and leave.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: That is Donald Trump. That's what some people voted for because they wanted him to spend money here instead of $11 billion dropping bombs elsewhere in the world.
JENNINGS: I'm sorry, Abby, but we've spent more money in this country on Somali fraud in Minnesota than we've spent on this war so far. You keep throwing around $11 billion.
MCGOWAN: Oh, my God.
JENNINGS: $19 billion.
PHILLIP: It's not $19 billion. $11 billion is a lot of money. And it's a lot of money that could have saved millions of children around the world, it could fund hunger programs here in the United States.
It could do a lot of things.
BOYKIN: $11 billion could fund the entire CDC budget. That's $9.6 billion.
[22:55:04]
And we spent that in six days in the Iran war, and we are now 12 days in. So we're probably $22 billion, which we'll find out a few days later. $22 billion in a 12-day war for something that the American people didn't ask for. Donald Trump is 79 years old, he'll be 80 this year. He doesn't have
to pay for this. He doesn't have to live with the consequences of this.
His son, Barron, is 19. His son, Barron, won't be fighting this war. But you know what? Millions of Americans who are at that age range will be suffering because of Donald Trump's changes.
PHILLIP: Everyone, thank you very much for being here.
Next for us, there is more breaking news tonight. A U.S. refueling aircraft has crashed in western Iraq. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Breaking news tonight. Central Command says that an American military aircraft, just like the one that you see there on your screen, has gone down in western Iraq.
[23:00:02]
We are told that the aerial refueling tanker was not hit by any fire, and five crew members were on board. There was another aircraft that was involved in the incident, and that one did land safely. CNN is going to update the story as soon as we know more about the fate of those crew members.
Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
