Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Iranian Shahed Drone Struck the U.S. Apache Helicopter; U.S. Emergency Oil Reserve Nears Biden-Era Lows; U.S. Denies Entry to Somali World Cup Referee Over Vetting Concerns; Iran's Football Players Granted Limited Entry into U.S.; Bill Would Ban Feeding of Sharks in Federal Waters Off Florida. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired June 09, 2026 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Back now with our breaking news, President Trump vowing to retaliate after he says Iran shot down an Army Apache helicopter near the Strait of Hormuz. We're now learning some new details about the drone that Iran used to strike this helicopter and we have CNN's Zach Cohen with reporting on this. Zach, tell us what you're learning.

ZACH COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, Brianna, we were told by two U.S. officials that the Apache helicopter was brought down by an Iranian drone and a separate source telling us that it was an Iranian Shahed drone. Now, these are known to fly low and slow. They're better able to evade air defenses that way, able to do so better than a ballistic missile, for example.

What we don't know, what all three sources reiterate, is we don't know if Iran intended to target this U.S. army helicopter or if there was some sort of an accident that took place here. But what we also do know is that President Donald Trump doesn't seem to see a difference here.

He was writing on True Social saying, quote, "I've just been informed by our great military that last night the Iranians shot down one of our highly sophisticated Apache helicopters while patrolling over the Strait of Hormuz. There were two pilots involved. Both are safe and uninjured. Nevertheless, the United States must, of necessity, respond to this attack."

[14:35:00]

So it remains to be seen, though, what kind of response we're going to see from the U.S. president here. It's notable that this happened off the coast of Oman in the Strait of Hormuz, which obviously is that contested waterway that Iran has effectively shut down since the early days of this conflict. And it's also notable that the drone itself that they use here, a Shahed drone, costs about $35,000. An Apache helicopter is in the tens of millions of dollars, even if it's an older model.

So we've seen this sort of trend play out throughout the conflict, the U.S. using million-dollar missiles to shoot down $10 drones, for example, in the past. So there is a discrepancy there. And it's an example of how Iran has been able to effectively use these asymmetric capabilities to continue to pose a threat, not just to U.S. military vessels and aircraft around the Strait of Hormuz, but also those commercial vessels that are still not flowing through the Strait of Hormuz in any sort of a normal fashion. And that's really what remains the sticking point of these negotiations. And the timing of this is also notable. As Trump just said the other day, that he thought we were days away from some sort of an agreement between the U.S. and Iran. He'd also said previously, though, that his threshold for renewed military action against Iran was loss of life. That was something he strongly suggested was sort of his bar. Obviously, the two pilots in this case were OK.

They were recovered by a drone themselves.

KEILAR: A drone sort of boat.

COHEN: Exactly, a drone boat. And so it'll be interesting to see how Donald Trump decides to respond here. Will he respond in a proportional way or will he escalate the conflict even further?

KEILAR: That's just luck, though, in a way, right? That they did not perish.

COHEN: Absolutely.

KEILAR: So easily they could have.

COHEN: Absolutely. The helicopter crashed into the Strait of Hormuz. Obviously, whether it was an accident or intentionally targeted, they're in a helicopter, which can be extremely dangerous for the pilots involved.

And then there was a drone boat waiting to pick them up, which is amazing, frankly. And we've already seen 13 U.S. service members killed in this conflict. Again, that is something Donald Trump has said pretty clearly is his threshold for renewed combat operations.

But again, he's saying very strongly here that the U.S. must respond to this incident as well.

KEILAR: OK. We'll look to see what that means exactly. Zach, thank you so much for the reporting -- Boris.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: And we'll have to see how that response might impact global oil markets. We'd seen a sharp drop today after President Trump said that a peace deal with Iran could happen in two or three days. But a new report from the U.S. Energy Department is predicting the global benchmark with crude will average $105 a barrel through July, well above the levels that we're seeing right now. The current blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, responsible for a fifth of the world's oil supply, is also putting a major strain on American fuel reserves. U.S. stockpiles are shrinking fast, nearing lows not seen since the Biden administration and the outset of the war with Russia and Ukraine.

CNN's Matt Egan is here to break it all down for us. So, Matt, how much oil is in the strategic stockpile right now?

MATT EGAN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, Boris, this is still the biggest emergency stockpile of oil on the planet, right? There's about 350 million barrels of oil in the strategic petroleum reserves. So it's roughly half full at this point.

But the problem, as you noted, is that it's shrinking fast, right? It is down 11 weeks in a row, falling by about 66 million barrels since the war with Iran started. Now, all of this comes about four years after then-candidate Trump really blasted the Biden administration for aggressively releasing oil from the SPR ahead of the 2022 midterms.

Of course, that was because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Flash forward to today, now you have Trump officials draining oil from the SPR at an even faster pace ahead of this year's midterms because of another war, the war with Iran. And as you can see from that chart, the SPR has now declined to the lowest level in almost three years.

And at some point, this week, given the current pace of releases, the SPR will likely fall below that Biden-era low to the lowest levels since the early 1980s, back when the SPR was getting filled for the first time and back when the U.S. economy had a much smaller economy that consumed a lot less energy. Now, you've got to remember, this is not a bottomless pit of oil, right? There are limits here to how much oil can get released.

And some in the energy industry, they're getting concerned that at some point you could release so much oil that the SPR will no longer be able to function. We're not there yet, but we could be getting to that point some point soon. Take a listen to Mike Summers, the CEO of the American Petroleum Institute.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE SOMMERS, CEO, AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE: We're raising alarm bells right now. We're at about 350 million barrels left in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. You have to have about 20 percent of that left for it to be operational, for our system to operate.

So we're getting to levels where we're starting to be concerned.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[14:40:00]

EGAN: Now, of course, all of this emergency oil is designed to cushion the blow from the fact that the Strait of Hormuz remains effectively shut down. And this emergency oil, it has helped to put a lid on oil prices.

Prices are still high, but Brent crude trading a little above $90 a barrel as we speak, that is still high, but it is down from triple digit territory earlier in this crisis. And it is down again today, despite these renewed U.S.-Iran tensions. Now, this has also helped put a lid on gasoline prices.

Gas prices, the national average $4.16 a gallon today. Of course, that's not cheap. That is dramatically higher than before the war.

But it's also down 40 cents from the wartime peak. In fact, this is a six-week low. Look, Boris, I think the bottom line here is the SPR, it has helped to cushion the blow from this energy crisis.

But there are limits here. And this reserve is shrinking very quickly.

SANCHEZ: Matt Egan, thank you so much for walking us through those details.

Still to come, a new World Cup controversy involving Iran, the country's soccer federation saying that its ticket allotment was pulled just days before Iran's opening match in the United States. We'll discuss next.

[14:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: President Trump's strict immigration policy is drawing new criticism ahead of the World Cup. Former Arsenal football icon Ian Wright calling it America's World Cup of chaos. The comments come after the U.S. denied entry to a referee from Somalia, one of just seven African referees selected by FIFA for this year's tournament. CNN's Don Riddell is with us now on this part of the story. Don, what are you learning about who this referee is and what happened here?

DON RIDDELL, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: You know, Brianna, qualifying for the FIFA World Cup was supposed to be the hard part. Now many are discovering that getting into the United States might be even more difficult. Football's world governing body, FIFA, says that one of its referees will not be able to officiate any of the games this summer because he was denied entry to the country when he arrived in Miami.

Omar Abdulkadir Artan was actually named Africa's top male referee last year, but he's from Somalia, one of the 39 countries subject to travel restrictions by Donald Trump's administration. A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection said that he was determined to be, quote, inadmissible due to vetting concerns. In a statement CNN obtained from a Somalian official, Artan said quote, "Despite the circumstances, I'm in a positive mood and I'm focused on the next challenges in my refereeing career.

I would like to thank FIFA and CAF for all their support, and I promise to keep my refereeing levels up as I concentrate on the future."

FIFA issued a statement which read, in part, "FIFA is not involved in host country immigration processes. A host government ultimately determines who receives a visa and who is admitted into their country." But this is not a situation that FIFA must be happy with, especially since their president, Gianni Infantino, has cultivated such a close relationship with the U.S. President Donald Trump. It hasn't helped in this case or others.

KEILAR: No, and Iran's team, Don, is having issues as well with entry into the U.S. Tell us about this.

RIDDELL: Well, they're dealing with many, many issues. And remember, Iran were one of the first teams to actually qualify for the World Cup back in 2025. We believe they're the first country that's been hosted in a World Cup by a country that's at war with them since 1930, according to Reuters.

So their situation has been very, very difficult for months. Remember, they were supposed to be based in Arizona. They've now had to set up shop in Tijuana, Mexico, just over the border from San Diego, because the American government didn't want them staying in the United States, even though their three group games are in L.A. and Seattle. They've now got a situation with their tickets. Their tickets have all been revoked from these games. But the players are making a rather pointed statement, arriving wearing pins with the number 168.

168 people were killed on the first day of the war at the end of February when the Americans bombed a school. Very, very controversially. So sport and politics certainly mixing as far as the Iranian team is concerned.

KEILAR: Yes. Don, thank you so much. A lot to watch there with the World Cup. Besides just the soccer or the football, whichever word you choose for this beautiful sport -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: Now to some of the other headlines we're watching this hour. A New York Knicks watch party turned chaotic Monday night. Police said the crowd in Bryant Park became rowdy, violent, destructive.

An official says some of them climbed scaffolding, light poles and police vehicles, causing significant damage. Twenty one people in total were arrested. Several officers were hurt.

The watch party had been moved from outside Madison Square Garden because of heightened security with President Trump's attendance.

Also, the son of Hollywood icon Rob Reiner is seeking access to a trust fund established by his parents, arguing that he needs the money to defend against the charges that he killed them. In a new filing. Nick Reiner's attorneys say that he was supposed to get a partial payout that he was entitled to when he turned 30, but he never received it. He's now 32 years old.

The filing also says the trustee overseeing the fund since his parents killings has given a quote "... a shifting series of excuses to deny him access, including apparent concerns about Reiner's competence to manage such a large trust."

[14:50:00]

Reiner has pleaded not guilty to two counts of murder.

And a city north of Tokyo has closed nearly 100 schools because of a spike in these bear sightings. They've been reported in various places since Saturday, including the campus of a junior high school. There was another sighting in a shopping district. Officials are trying to figure out if they're dealing with the same bear or multiple bears, just kind of checking out what's happening around town.

Still to come in this week's edition of the What is the future of shark tourism in Florida endangered? We'll discuss after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:55:00]

SANCHEZ: The U.S. Senate will soon consider a bill just approved by the House that would effectively ban a growing industry in Florida, shark tourism. The Safe Seas Act would make it illegal to introduce food or any other substance into federal waters that would attract sharks, making exceptions only for research, or fishermen seeking to harvest the animals. Supporters say the proposed law is a common-sense step to protecting people in the water and reducing shark attacks.

But critics say it's based on fear rather than science, and that it would destroy an important part of ecotourism in the Sunshine State. This week on World Oceans Day, I spoke with Alex Carrier about the bill. He's a shark expert, a fisherman, and the operator of XELA Expeditions, a shark snorkeling outfit in West Palm Beach, Florida, which does not feed sharks but does attract them with chum, something the bill would ban.

It's important to point out for transparency that I've done this kind of diving with Alex before and I've interviewed him for previous stories. Here's part of our conversation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ: On this bill specifically, supporters argue that it's going to make Florida beaches safer. Do you agree with that?

ALEX CARRIER, SHARK EXPERT AND FISHERMAN: Well, what people need to understand about this bill is, so it's called the Safe Seas Act. And effectively, they want to ban bringing sharks in. So that's already banned within three miles of the coast.

So this ban would actually just be extending that to federal waters, which is a mistake. There's not really a whole lot of people swimming out in federal waters. And one thing is that, you know, if you put your finger in the ocean and then you taste it and it's salty, there's going to be sharks there whether, you know, there's chumming or not.

So that's just where they live. And it's not really going to make the seas any safer by doing so.

SANCHEZ: What do you say to people who think that what you do needs stronger regulation because they argue that it's dangerous, that you're making sharks associate people with food?

CARRIER: Yes, that's a great question. There's many different ways to do it. So for example, with my operation, we do not feed.

Now we do chum. Those are two very different things. Fishermen chum every single day, both close to the beach and far away.

And so there is a differentiation to make with those two things is that this bill includes both. And by including both, not only are you getting rid of an entire industry, but you're also keeping people from going to enjoy the ocean, going to see the ocean. A lot of our guests coming out, seeing the sharks, is their first time ever being on a boat sometimes and being on the ocean.

SANCHEZ: Part of what I think lawmakers are trying to do here is to cut down on depredation for fishermen. Right. In other words, when they're trying to catch something and sharks literally snatch away what they're catching as they're catching it, something that I've heard from fishermen is happening with more frequency than ever.

Do you think that feeding or chumming the water to bring in more sharks makes it more difficult for fishermen? And is this bill a way to address that?

CARRIER: No. In fact, I think that -- well, first of all, if you look at the numbers, the highest depredation is actually nowhere near any of the shark diving and snorkeling that goes on. So some of the highest depredation is in the Keys and on the West Coast.

There is no operations in either of those locations. And so it just goes back to the simple fact that, you know, sharks live in the ocean and sharks are hardwired to go after struggling fish even more so than any type of chum or feeding. So that's an important thing.

And the other thing, too, is that areas in the world where, you know, there is not just Florida, but there's other areas in the world, the Bahamas, where there are some areas that have no, you know, shark diving and they have way more sharks than, you know, where we're doing this. And so the shark snorkeling and diving operations did not choose this area and try to, you know, bring sharks. And they chose this area because there was already inherently sharks there ...

END