Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Six U.S. Troops Killed in Direct Hit on Ops Center in Kuwait; Trump Say He Had a Feeling Iran Would Attack First; U.N. Confirms Damage to Iranian Nuclear Facility; Conflict Draws in Countries Across the Middle East; Pentagon Policy Chief Says Iran Missile Buildup Led to Military Operation. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired March 03, 2026 - 13:30   ET

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

[13:30:00]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": CNN National Security Reporter, Haley Britzky. Haley, you are getting new details on security at that side, in part because it was a concern before this even happened.

HALEY BRITZKY, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Certainly. So, the security of U.S. forces around the region were a concern for officials, not only leading up to the operation, but especially as we've started seeing Iran retaliate. There's tens of thousands of U.S. service members throughout the region at these various different bases, but what's important about this strike that we saw on Sunday is this was not at one of those fortified, hardened, known U.S. military bases. This was at the Port of Shuaiba in Kuwait.

It was at a sort of makeshift tactical operations center which this source familiar described as essentially an office space and sort of a triple-wide trailer. It had concrete barriers around it, so typically, you see that for things like car bombs, vehicle-borne, and provides explosive devices, but nothing over top of it necessarily to harden it from things like drone and missile strikes which we know is sort of Iran's weapon of choice in these sorts of retaliations.

And as you mentioned you know, these six service members, they haven't been identified. Typical for the military to of course want to notify their families of this horrible news, but this source familiar says that this was a sort of operation center that was at this port. When it was struck, they described it as a dead center hit on this trailer, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Kuwait is also, obviously, where we saw those fighter pilots eject after friendly fire incidents, right?

BRITZKY: That's right. So, three F-15 fighter jets that were mistakenly fired upon, the military said, by Kuwaiti air defenses, all six of those crew members ejected from their jets and are in stable condition we're told. The military has also said that so far in the operation, there are 18 U.S. service members who've been seriously wounded.

We don't know the extent of those wounds yet. Certainly, we can expect to see those numbers fluctuate as this is a very fluid situation. The president has made clear that casualties could increase as this operation continues.

SANCHEZ: Haley Britzky, thank you so much for that update. Appreciate it.

Ahead, the White House says one reason for the war was to guarantee that Iran could never obtain a nuclear weapon, but were they actually close, especially given Operation Midnight Hammer just last year. We're going to discuss with an arms expert when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:36:23]

ERIN BURNETT, CNN ANCHOR, ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT: And welcome back to our Breaking News coverage of the war with Iran. I'm Erin Burnett in Tel Aviv.

Earlier today, we did have ballistic missiles through here that did get through, injuries, but no dead in that particular strike a few moments ago. Another one that we believe was from the north and Hezbollah as the ongoing war is heard and felt here. The U.S. and Israel's punishing bombing campaign in Iran is targeting multiple sites again today.

And I want to show you some new satellite images that we're just getting in to show the extent of some of the damage from those specific strikes. What you're looking at here is one of Iran's most sensitive nuclear sites. So this is Natanz, and what we're circling there is a central part of it.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog does confirm damage to the entrance buildings at the Natanz fuel enrichment plant, which is also where it is believed that Iran stores much of its already enriched material. There does not, from the images that you can see here, appear to be additional damage to the plant itself.

Now, at the same time, the U.N. watchdog chief is contradicting Trump administration claims on Iran's nuclear program, saying that Iran, in fact, was not days or weeks away from having a nuclear weapon.

Jon Wolfsthal joins all of us now. He served as Special Assistant to President Obama for National Security, as well as Senior Director for Arms Control and Nonproliferation. I really appreciate your time here, Jon.

So let's just look at those satellite images again, if we can. And this is Natanz. Now, and this name is familiar to everyone. You talk about Isfahan, you talk about Natanz, you talk about these facilities. Obviously, all of them were part of the massive strikes last summer, all right, that supposedly obliterated Iran's nuclear program. Now, we're seeing these additional strikes.

Are you able to tell anything from this image as you look at it? JON WOLFSTHAL, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR NATIONAL SECURITY: Well, it's clear that the facility itself is still intact. So, the amount of damage that the United States and Israel could have done, clearly, wasn't imposed on these facilities. I think there are major questions, as your lead-in suggested, about whether the administration's justification for this war, preventing Iran from getting access to a nuclear weapon, were justified.

But if there were serious concerns, you would imagine that the first things this administration would want to destroy are all of Iran's nuclear facilities in total. And it's not just the satellite photographs that you've presented. There's a headline now in the New York Times that, in fact, the most likely storage facility for the 60 percent enriched uranium at Isfahan also appears to have been untouched.

So, I think there are a lot of questions about the administration's strategy and its justification. But if you are going to go to war to prevent proliferation, you would target these facilities, and they appear to be intact.

BURNETT: Right. And it looks as if both, they are targeting, but they are leaving them intact. Given what we've seen about the strikes so far, it would seem -- I mean, tell me if you think I'm wrong -- but it would seem that that's purposeful. I mean, do you think that's purposeful and part of some broader strategy here? How do you interpret it?

WOLFSTHAL: Well, I think it's very hard with this administration to interpret from afar. If this was in the Obama administration, the Biden administration, the Bush administration, you could assume some level of coordination. I don't think we have seen that level of coordination politically in terms of when the strikes took place, and I think in terms of linking the president's stated goals for the war and the actual military operations.

[13:40:00]

There are clearly something (inaudible) air defense, anything that CENTCOM commander would view as a threat to operations. But if the goal is to prevent access to a nuclear weapon, you have to go in and strike all the nuclear facilities and obliterate them, and that wasn't done.

BURNETT: Yeah. No, that wasn't done. And to your point, so we don't know why, but it's a gaping question. It's a huge question. I want to get to what the IAEA (inaudible) chief, who, of course, would be in charge of inspections if there were to ever be inspections again, but they're closer to knowing what's going on with this program than anyone else. In an interview with our Becky Anderson today, he said some really important things, Jon.

He said that there was, yes, serious concern about the nuclear- enriched stockpile that had been built up, but absolutely no evidence in any way, shape, or form that Iran was close to having a nuclear weapon. And then he took it even further. He said that there was no evidence in any way, shape, or form that they had any systemic program to actually go about trying to build a nuclear weapon. Does that comport with what you know?

WOLFSTHAL: I'll tell you three things that I know. One, I know Rafael Grossi quite well. I've worked with him over the last 20 years. He's a consummate professional. He's honest, he's direct, and he knows his business, so you can take his word. Two, that's consistent with what the U.S. intelligence community has been saying since 2003, that Iran is at least a year away from building a nuclear weapon, and that they do not have an active program to build a nuclear weapon. That hasn't changed under President Trump, President Biden, President Obama.

And number three, I can tell you that when we went to war under George W. Bush in 2003 on the pretense that Iraq was building a nuclear weapon, the International Atomic Energy Agency said, no, that's not true. Our people are on the ground. We know what's going on. And they were right, and the United States intelligence community was wrong. So, those are three things that your viewers should take to heart.

I believe the IAEA, and I don't trust the Trump administration's opinion on this as it's been said to date.

BURNETT: Well, as you point out, even when it came to Tulsi Gabbard, right, she had initially put out the U.S. assessment, which is that there was no evidence that Iran was trying to pursue a nuclear weapon, right, and that was quickly squashed down. That was all around the massive strikes that we saw last summer.

So, Jon, at what point do you think that you're going to be able to see where we are right now? Because I'm coming back to this conundrum that does not add up, which is the U.S. is doing these ongoing strikes. One of the stated objectives that we do know is an objective is that Iran can never get a nuclear weapon, OK? And yet, we're looking at these satellite images where there's a strike and you don't see anything actually being hit. Are we going to be able to figure out what's in that gap?

WOLFSTHAL: No. The United States, through air power, cannot secure these locations. And the concern now is not only that Iran or elements within the Iranian regime, the IRGC, the Iranian Atomic Energy Agency, may be moving these materials elsewhere, but that other elements that can operate now with impunity inside Iran because they've lost control of the country thanks to the Israeli and American airstrikes, these materials could be vulnerable.

One of the first things that you worry about in a war is what happens to the strategic assets, what happens to the weapons, what happens to the chemical, biological, nuclear assets. If we were in Russia, if we were in China, North Korea, those would be top priorities. In Iran, we're worried about nuclear materials, and there doesn't appear to be a plan to secure them or target them, and that suggests that there wasn't adequate time, attention, or planning paid in this operation.

BURNETT: Which is just a pretty stunning thing to let sink in. Jon Wolfsthal, I appreciate your time. Thank you very much. And the war that we're in the middle of here in the Middle East threatens to become a much bigger conflict, much bigger. The Pentagon now issuing a new justification for the launch of the initial strikes on Saturday, and we're going to look at what that is and what it could mean for the future of this war and really, for all of us, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:48:34]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": Just in the last hour, President Trump offering a new explanation for launching strikes on Iran, saying he had a feeling the Islamic regime would attack first. Those comments coming shortly after a top Pentagon official testified before the Senate's Armed Services Committee.

The DOD's Under Secretary of Policy telling lawmakers that a rapid buildup of Iran's missile and drone capabilities triggered the U.S. operation against Iran over the weekend, one of several shifting rationales, justifications, and goals for the war that we have heard from the Trump administration.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The regime already had missiles capable of hitting Europe and our bases, both local and overseas, and would soon have had missiles capable of reaching our beautiful America.

MARCO RUBIO, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces. And we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.

J.D. VANCE, (R) VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We destroyed Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon during President Trump's term. We set them back substantially. But I think the president was looking for the long haul. What the president determined is he didn't want to just keep the country safe from an Iranian nuclear weapon for the first three, four years of his second term. He wanted to make sure that Iran could never have a nuclear weapon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Let's talk about this now with Leon Panetta.

[13:50:00]

He served as Defense Secretary and CIA Director under President Obama.

Sir, thank you so much for being with us. Is the asserted imminent threat or objective clear to you here?

LEON PANETTA, DEFENSE SECRETARY UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, it's not. And I don't think it's clear to the administration because what you're hearing is a number of different explanations about why this war began. And they're just not being truthful with the American people about what ultimately required that the United States and Israel conduct this attack.

I think what's obvious here is that intelligence had picked up that the leader, the Ayatollah, was located with other leadership in Iran. And I think that what happened is that Israel urged the United States to join in an attack to basically get rid of the supreme leader. I think that was the basic incentive here.

But the administration is not saying that. They're using all kinds of other excuses. The Pentagon has made clear that there was no threat of a preemptive attack of any kind. I think they've got to be more honest with the American people about just exactly why we entered this war.

KEILAR: Why do you think they're not just saying that?

PANETTA: You know, we all know that truth is the first casualty of war. And I think that's happening here. I think they ought to be very truthful. You know, we can all question the justification, but I think if the president of the United States were to say the reason that we engaged in this war is because we were going after the supreme leader of Iran, and we had very good intelligence as to where that individual was located. I think that's the truth. And I think the President should say that directly to the American people.

But when they try to rationalize different reasons for why this happened, whether it was nuclear, whether it is missiles, whether it is that the president had a feeling that somehow there would be a preemptive strike, you don't start a war based on a feeling. You start a war based on intelligence as to what you're after and what you're trying to achieve. And that, frankly, is what the president and the administration ought to make clear, not just to the American people, but to Congress and the world.

We are in a large regional war right now that could escalate even further. This is a moment for truth. It's not a moment when you continue to lie to the American people.

KEILAR: Yeah, and when you're talking about that, this being a broad regional war right now, obviously, we've heard concerns about the potential for expanding to a forever war. I mean, right now it is, as you say, it is regional, it is broad. Iran is clearly wanting to broaden it.

But we're talking airstrikes, this somewhat squishy four- to five-week timeline we're hearing from the Trump administration. No boots on the ground, though the president and other administration officials haven't fully ruled that out. How do you see the risk of a protracted war right now?

PANETTA: I think there's a very dangerous risk of a larger escalation taking place here. Look, the plan as I understand it right now, is that we're going to engage in four to five weeks of an air attack and bombing and missiles. Four to five weeks. I think their hope is that by doing that and by hitting a lot of targets, that somehow that will weaken the regime and perhaps bring the regime down.

I think that's what the goal is here. But when you're shooting missiles, as we've seen, and those missiles are flying as we're talking, when they hit a number of targets, when they take lives, when there is mass destruction taking place, that escalates the war. That makes people madder.

That engages countries that otherwise would not be engaged. And so, you know, as Churchill made clear, it's easy to get into war, but war can produce very unpredictable consequences.

[13:55:00]

And that's what we're seeing now. This is all roll of the dice. And what I worry about as we go through four or five weeks of bombing, and at the end of that, the regime is still in place and nothing changes, then we have to ask ourselves, why the hell did we do this?

KEILAR: Secretary Panetta, really great to speak with you. Thank you so much for being with us.

PANETTA: Good to be with you, Brianna.

KEILAR: And ahead on "CNN News Central," President Trump admits that some of the Iranians the U.S. hoped to work with in the future have been killed in the strikes. What's next then, for Iran, as the war rages on? We'll have that ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)