Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Threatens Iran over Saudi Oil Attack; Israeli Election Is a Referendum on Netanyahu; Former British Prime Minister Cameron's Regrets. Aired 2-3a ET

Aired September 17, 2019 - 02:00   ET

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

[02:00:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

ROSEMARY CHURCH, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Hello, everyone, thanks for joining me. I'm Rosemary Church and you are watching CNN NEWSROOM.

Ahead this hour: new warnings from Donald Trump following an attack on Saudi Arabia's oil supply in the U.S. president suggested Iran may be to blame.

Plus Benjamin Netanyahu's political survival, the polls open Israel in an election that is too close to call.

And British prime minister Boris Johnson decides he would be better off skipping a press conference with Luxembourg's leader rather than face off against anti Brexit protesters.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

CHURCH: The U.S. president is pointing the finger at Iran over Saturday's attacks on Saudi oil sites. Donald Trump tweeted Sunday that the U.S. was locked and loaded to respond but still wanted to verify who was responsible.

Here is what he told reporters Monday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I don't want war with anybody.

But we're prepared more than anybody.

We have a lot of options but I'm not looking at options right now. We want to find definitively who did this.

But I will tell you there was a very large attack and it could be met with an attack many, many times larger very easily by our country. But we are going to find out who definitively did it first.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHURCH: So Mr. Trump is not saying it was definitely the Iranians. But his secretary of state Mike Pompeo blamed them almost immediately Iran denies it's behind the strikes but its Houthi allies in Yemen claim they were responsible, hitting the oil sites with drones.

U.S. officials say they have evidence that Iran was involved and the Saudis say the attacks did not come from Yemen. We will hear from CNN's Nick Paton Walsh in Tehran in a moment. But first international diplomatic editor Nic Robertson reports from Riyadh.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: So far we haven't heard from the Saudi leadership responding to President Trump about what sort of direction and precise support they would like from the United States. That is not happening in the public domain. Certainly maybe behind closed doors.

Interesting here, the newspaper headline speaking about the United Nations is concerned about tensions in the situation right now rather than headlines ratcheting up anti Iranian rhetoric in the newspapers here.

So it seems the Saudi leadership at least for now is playing a statesmanship like role. We have heard however from the Saudi coalition military spokesman, saying very clearly that they believe the weapons were used to target these facilities were Iranian made and they were not fired from Yemen by the Houthi rebels there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LT. COL. TURKI AL-MALIKI, SAUDI-LED COALITION SPOKESPERSON (through translator): All practical evidence and indicators in the weapons used in both attacks show preliminarily that these are Iranian weapons. They are working on finalizing these investigations. All results will be announced. The terror attack was not from Yemen as the Houthis have claimed. They are just tools used by the IRGC.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTSON: What Col. Maliki is also saying is that they will present the evidence they have to journalists and they will try to find the locations of where these missile systems were fired from to give a sort of context to these claims by Saudi Arabia that these were Iranian made weapons systems.

In the past the Saudis has accused Houthi rebels in Yemen of firing huge Scud missiles at Saudi Arabia Iranian made missiles. The Saudis have said that the U.N. has investigated those claims and found indeed the weapons systems were manufactured in part in Iran.

It does not mean per se that if they were Iranian made that Iran was responsible for their firing. But that does seem to be the direction the Saudi government is going in. For right now, at least, an attempt it would seem, they're going to put this evidence in the public domain to build a broader support for their very staunchly anti Iran position.

Clearly the leadership has to show a deterrence in some way somehow to mitigate against having strikes like this in the future, a very difficult diplomatic tightrope to be walked here at the moment -- Nic Robertson, CNN, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHURCH: CNN's Nick Paton Walsh has a reaction now from Tehran.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Iran has always denied any responsibility or involvement in these attacks on Saudi oil facilities.

[02:05:00]

WALSH: That was reiterated this day by President Rouhani, who said it is not about oil, it's about stability and security and reciprocal action -- I'm paraphrasing here -- by the Yemeni people.

Now from the beginning Iran has said this was the act of Houthi rebels in Yemen, who are fighting Saudi backed Yemeni forces. The many Yemenis who work with the Houthis have been subject to an extensive at times barbaric air campaign.

Hassan Rouhani saying this is a response against Saudi infrastructure. Now slowly ever since U.S. secretary of state Mike Pompeo made the initial allegation that Iran was behind the attack, we have had a drip-drip of anonymous U.S. officials, trying to put evidence, put details together to back up that stark accusation.

So far, frankly, there's been very little evidence at all put out into the public. But they are beginning slowly to suggest that maybe Iran's territory was used as a staging grounds.

Again, Iran has always denied that and continued to do that today. The foreign ministry spokesperson said that Donald Trump's words often last about 24 hours. He was referring to two tweets by the U.S. president, that said the U.S. was locked and loaded to potentially respond.

A White House official clarified that, saying he was not really talking about military action but oil reserves. I think a lot of people are trying to work out really what the U.S. policy is.

Some of them are talking extraordinarily tough toward Iran. Iran is kind of used to that, I'd imagine, to some degree, consistently denying involvement. And I have to say there was some analysts who think that the stark use of Iranian territory as is being alleged by U.S. officials to launch these attacks would be possibly an overtly, stupidly bold move by any Iranian officials.

We simply have no evidence to back that up. At that point, Iran continues its denials of any involvement. But we are into uncharted waters here. There has been a lot of tension in the region but nothing like this attack on Saudi oil facilities, and the concern I think certainly concern among ordinary civilians in Iran, who just want sanctions lifted and life on an ordinary basis to improve for them, is we are in very dangerous territory ahead, where these big players in the region may try to prove to the other who is the toughest -- Nick Paton Walsh, CNN, Tehran.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHURCH: For more, I'm joined from Denver, Colorado, by Michael Moran, the CEO and chief research officer at Transformative, a risk analysis company.

Thank you for being with us.

MICHAEL MORAN, TRANSFORMATIVE: I'm glad to be here. Thank you.

CHURCH: So as the international community calls for more facts to be gathered before placing the blame, U.S. secretary of state Mike Pompeo was very quick to accuse Iran of attacking the Saudi oil facility without producing any definitive evidence to support that claim.

And the U.S. president appears to agree with him.

When you look at the facts available to us, what is your assessment of who is responsible, where this attack came from and whether we are talking about drones or cruise missiles here or something else?

MORAN: What we see is tracking really very heavily toward Iran, in part because of the sophistication of the attack and the accuracy of the attack. The Yemeni Houthis have launched relatively unsophisticated missiles into Saudi before.

They are not guided in a very sophisticated sense; in other words they're not able to hit within yards of a target.

These apparently hit the Saudi oil facility very accurately and did enormous damage to a really critical point of infrastructure, not just for the Saudis but for the global oil infrastructure. So it does suggest a more sophisticated hand than a rebel group in Yemen.

CHURCH: And what would be the motive for Iran attacking Saudi Arabian oil facilities?

MORAN: Well, that's a very good question, Iran may very well be trying to bring the United States to the negotiating table. That is a very fraught strategy with this president already.

(CROSSTALK)

CHURCH: It appears a risky gamble to do that, when really, they were poised to meet, the U.S. president and the Iranian president?

MORAN: It does appear a gamble. I do think that the Iranians are very unhappy with the sanctions that have largely shut off the main source of hard currency to their economy.

They are extremely angry that the Saudis are benefiting from a relationship to the United States that is as close as it's ever been and which has been pretty much impervious to the world's anger over the Saudi war in Yemen.

So I think the Iranians may well have felt they had a motive.

[02:10:00]

MORAN: And it could be that it's ultimately someone within the Iranian hierarchy, whether it's the Revolutionary Guard or some other group that is ultimately tagged with responsibility.

Obviously this is a situation where conspiracy theories will swirl. I tend to find the conspiracy theories unconvincing. On the forensic evidence, it looks very much as though Iran is the main suspect.

CHURCH: After the attack, President Trump tweeted that the U.S. was locked and loaded as a response, he's backing away from any military response now.

But how wise was it for Mr. Trump to threaten Iran?

And what would that fight look like, if for any reason, the U.S. president decided to attack Iran?

MORAN: The threat is the threat. The rhetoric this president uses is always overheated. He's always locked and loaded. Let's face it. The fact is, he's been relatively restrained in a military sense internationally.

I think the concern in Washington in this administration -- or any administration -- is that Iranians have a global footprint. They have, as your reporter in the lead-in suggested, they have got influence with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, who have shown that they have the capability to strike beyond the borders of their own territorial control.

They have influence internationally with groups as far afield as areas of South America and in Africa as well. So this is not a case of rolling out of some F-22s and shooting some Tomahawk missiles from submarines. This is a country that can retaliate and can take a punch and wait and retaliate at the worst possible moment.

So the calculus is fairly significant in Washington right now, not eager to get into a war.

CHURCH: Very quickly, why would the U.S. even be considering military options here, given this attack took place on Saudi soil?

How is this America's fight?

MORAN: That's an ideological question and I honestly think that the administration currently in power in the United States has aligned itself incredibly closely to both Israel and to the Saudis.

It has an almost reflexive tendency to back whatever comes out of Riyadh or Tel Aviv/Jerusalem, now Jerusalem, of course, because the administration has recognized that as the capital of Israel. So you have a very different administration in place now. Now having said that, the initial reaction or reflexive reaction may not ultimately manifest itself as policy. They may not go through with anything. And there are so many who think the United States could do short of military action and certainly short of enormous military force that would hurt the Iranians.

CHURCH: We shall be watching to see what Iran's next move is in this. Michael Moran, thank you so much for your analysis, we appreciate it.

MORAN: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHURCH: The world is watching as Israeli voters head to the polls. This is the country's second election in less than six months. Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu forced this election after he failed to form a coalition to govern the Knesset in April.

His party faces a tight race against the Blue and White Party led by Israel's former military chief, Benny Gantz. CNN's Sam Kiley joins us from a polling station in Jerusalem.

Good to see you Sam. So, with a race too close to call, whoever wins will likely face a tough coalition building exercise. Just as Netanyahu did back in April.

Any guarantees this time around?

SAM KILEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: None whatsoever, Rosemary, in fact, all the opinion polls before the polling opened would indicate that actually the whole coalition building process, whoever emerges as the main party here, is going to be even more fraught in all probability than it was last time around.

This round of elections is a consequence of the April elections, producing -- the government no longer coalescing after the results there under Benjamin Netanyahu. But this is also in opportunity for more fringe groups to try to get more leverage within the Israeli political system, notably Arab voters.

Opinion polls show they might garner about 12 seats in the 120-seat Knesset. Also Jewish Power right on the extreme far right might get four seats.

[02:15:00]

KILEY: That could be problematic for Netanyahu if he emerges as the leader that is asked to try to form a government through a coalition. But it is all going to be about coalitions. It's quite interesting.

There has been a steady stream of voters, we have been here since polls opened two and a quarter hours ago. The signs here -- and this is only one polling station -- that the turnout could be reasonably high. That would be to the benefit of the main voting blocs here, Likud, looking at the opinion polls, saving about 32 seats and the Blue and White, the other main party, also likely to get 32 seats according to the preelection opinion polls.

It really matters to those big parties to get as many voters as they can out into the system because this is a proportional representation system. So if a party gets 20 percent of the votes they get 20 percent of the seats. It is a system in which every vote counts.

But it also makes vulnerable to fringe elements. But they are campaigning over the last week or so, certainly, from Benjamin Netanyahu, who throughout this campaign, really has driven the narrative.

He has always focused on his role as an international statesman and began to make dramatic promises about what he would do on the Palestinian West Bank in promising, for example, to annex the Jordan Valley and settlements and so on.

That was clearly to appeal to those far-right voters who might go off to the more fringe elements. And for the center left, they have really struggled to get across anything that really indicates a great deal of difference between themselves in terms of policy and Mr. Netanyahu.

So Yair Lapid told me other day he is the co leader of Blue and White Party, he would acknowledge, for example, it was a good idea for Israel to control the Jordan Valley, he said only that should come as a result of negotiations with the Palestinians.

Those negotiations ran into the sand more than five years ago but I think the extent to which those issues play to a domestic audience, it's probably overblown. They are fascinating to those of us at the international community but for most Israelis, it is really a focus on whether or not you want Benjamin Netanyahu to emerge as the next prime minister of this country.

CHURCH: All right, we will be watching very closely to see what the outcome is. Sam Kiley, reporting live from a polling station in Jerusalem. Many thanks as always.

And you can watch the CNN special coverage of the Israel election beginning at 10:00 pm on Tuesday. As the polls close, CNN will have that coverage live from Jerusalem.

Well, it was supposed to be a day of Brexit diplomacy.

Instead Britain's prime minister was heckled and booed. Now Boris Johnson is waiting for word from the U.K.'s highest court. The latest on the countdown to Brexit.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[02:20:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING) CHURCH: In just a matter of hours, Britain's highest court will

determine whether prime minister Boris Johnson acted legally when he suspended Parliament. It follows what can only be described as a blue Monday for Mr. Johnson after he was attacked by the prime minister of Luxembourg over Brexit. Our Nina dos Santos explains.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NINA DOS SANTOS, CNNMONEY EUROPE EDITOR: The day of diplomacy in Luxembourg saw the U.K. prime minister come away empty-handed and leave a podium as well.

XAVIER BETTEL, LUXEMBOURG PRIME MINISTER: I repeat, this Brexit is not my choice.

QUESTION: Prime Minister, who is picking up the bill?

DOS SANTOS (voice-over): Arriving for his first face to face meeting with the European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker, Boris Johnson did not talk up the prospects of a deal with the E.U.

After a two hour working lunch, one which Downing Street described as "constructive," Johnson made it clear that he would not ask for an extension to Brexit. The E.U., for its part, issued a statement, insisting that the ball was still in Britain's court.

Boris Johnson wanted this meeting in an unusual location. And as such, the tiny Dutch Luxembourg sandwiched between France and Germany acts as a power in the E.U. But even here protesters against a no- deal Brexit made their presence felt.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is my first demonstration. I've never been in a demonstration. We feel so strongly about this matter and about how our rights are going to be destroyed by Brexit, even with the deal, even with the withdrawal agreement. Our rights of free movement go out the door.

DOS SANTOS: Mr. Johnson, CNN, how confident are you in the deal?

DOS SANTOS (voice-over): Avoiding questions became a recurring theme for Johnson with the PM pulling out of what was supposed to be a joint press conference with his counterpart from Luxembourg, who spoke regardless.

BETTEL: What people need to know what is going to happen to them in six weeks' time. You cannot hold a future hostage for party political gains.

DOS SANTOS (voice-over): Addressing reporters later and homeward bound, Johnson reverted to his usual optimism.

JOHNSON: Yes, there is a good chance of a deal. Yes, I can see the shape of it. Everyone can see roughly what could be done. But it will require movement and it will require the system by which the E.U. can control the U.K. after we leave, the so-called backstop, to go from that treaty. DOS SANTOS (voice-over): Until it does, with 50 days left, Brexit negotiations appear for now to be going nowhere -- Nina dos Santos CNN, Luxembourg.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHURCH: Regrets, he's had a few. Former British prime minister David Cameron is breaking his silence about his time in office. The man who called the 2016 Brexit referendum is making the rounds to promote the release of his memoirs and he sat down for a candid interview with CNN affiliate ITV.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CAMERON: I totally -- if you're asking me, do I have regrets?

Yes.

Am I sorry about the state the country has gotten to?

Yes.

Do I feel I have some responsibility for that?

Yes. It was my referendum, my campaign, my decision to try and renegotiate.

And I accept all of those things. And people, including those watching this program, will have to decide how much blame to put on me. And I accept. I cannot put it more bluntly than this. I accept that that attempt failed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHURCH: And our Matthew Chance reports from London on why David Cameron feels responsible for the divisions caused by Brexit.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: These remarks are being closely scrutinized because this is the first time in three years that the former British prime minister, David Cameron, has spoken at length about his decisions when he was in office, specifically his decision in 2016 to hold a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union, a vote which, as we now know, was won by the Leavers and which plunged this country into political chaos.

[02:25:00]

CHANCE: Now he is apologetic. He said he's aware of the turmoil the referendum caused. He also said that he regrets the results and apologizes for his failed strategy to keep Britain inside the European Union.

David Cameron, of course, campaigned to remain and then abruptly resigned shortly after the referendum result.

The former British prime minister also made it clear that he believed that he thought the vote was inevitable and that he would do the same thing again, something that won't endear him to many people in Britain who blamed him for the current Brexit mess that the country is in.

He also had criticism, David Cameron, of some of his conservative party colleagues who campaigned for Brexit ahead of the referendum, including harsh words for Boris Johnson, the current British prime minister.

Mr. Johnson, he said, did not believe in Brexit and backed to leave to, quote, because it would help his political career. Cameron said that Johnson and other prominent conservative Brexiteer, Michael Gove were ambassadors for the expert trashing, truth-twisting age of populism.

They are harsh words from a former British prime minister to a sitting one -- Matthew Chance, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHURCH: We'll take a short break. Still to come, the Iranians keep denying they played a role in attacks on Saudi oil sites. But the Saudis and some U.S. officials say otherwise. How they're laying out their case. We'll take a look at that when we come back.

[02:30:01]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: It was an attack on the heart of Saudi Arabia's lifeblood, for which global powers quickly ready a response. Now, critically important, determining who is behind the coordinated strikes against multiple targets at two key oil facilities. Amid claims of responsibility by the Houthi rebel group in Yemen.

REAR ADM. JOHN KIRBY (RET.), CNN MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC ANALYST: It's clear that this attack was highly coordinated, complex, extraordinarily precise, and it's just not plausible that the Houthis could do this on their own.

ROBERTSON: Commercial satellite images released by the U.S. government show the scale of destruction from, at least, 17 strikes at Saudi Aramco's oil plant. And, at least, two at the nearby Khurais oil field.

Experts agree the precision shown would mark a major improvement in the Houthis military capabilities.

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: And you can see very pinpoint strikes that have gone into those oil tanks. There is no damage beyond where the missile actually penetrated the tank.

The fact that they have that precise intelligence indicates that there is some kind of a state actor behind these attacks.

ROBERTSON: Houthi rebels say they use 10 drones to carry out the attacks from Yemen. But U.S. officials say the images show points of impact on the northwest side of the facilities, which they say would be difficult to do from Yemen. Instead, they claim the attacks more likely came from Iran.

LEIGHTON: These drones could have conducted evasive maneuvers, and they could have come from a number of different places.

LT. GEN. MARK HERTLING (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: When you're talking about drone swarms, they are very difficult to pick up on radar. The intelligence community has some huge challenges in terms of pinpointing facts from where they are originated from.

ROBERTSON: A spokesman for the Saudi-led coalition, says Iranian weapons were used in the attack. They say the attack did not come from Yemen. But they are still working to identify the actual launch site.

In the past, the United Nations, says Iran has supplied the Houthis with drones and missile parts. The Saudi officials demonstrated to us last January.

Iran is disputing U.S. claims. The president saying in a news conference that the attacks are a response by the Houthis to Saudi Arabia's military campaign against the group in Yemen.

But the U.S. alleges an attack by Iran could represent attempts to gain leverage amid America's campaign of maximum economic pressure.

ROBERT BAER, CNN INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY ANALYST: If Iran indeed was behind this attack, they use proxies. Now, whether they were from Iraq or Yemen, it's hard to tell. There will be no smoking gun against Iran.

Now, how the administration intends to frame this, this is something else?

ROBERTSON: As the probe continues to determine who carried out the attack, the question remains who would stand to benefit most from the attack on the Saudi oil facility.

Nic Robertson, CNN, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROSEMARY CHURCH, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: For more, I am joined by CNN military analyst Lieutenant General Mark Hertling. Always good to have you with us to explain all things militarily.

HERTLING: It's good to be with you, Rosemary. And I'll do my best.

CHURCH: All right. So, let's start by getting your reading on where things stand right now given the U.S. and now Saudi Arabia both pointing the finger at Iran. Tehran denies those allegations, while Yemen's Houthi rebels claimed responsibility for the attacks on the oil facilities.

When you look at the facts and the satellite images obtained so far, what makes sense to you about who may have been responsible?

HERTLING: Well, it's certainly indicating that Iran was involved in some way. Whether or not they fired the weapon system or assisted others in doing so, remains to be seen, I'm sure they were behind it in some way because that is their -- that has been their mode of operations over the last decade or so.

But again, where the system came from? Was it southern Iraq? Was it Iran proper? Was it Yemen or even somewhere in Saudi Arabia, has still not been proven. And I'm sure there is a discussion going on about this within the intelligence communities and the shared intelligence between nations.

But right now, the facts aren't clear. Or at least they haven't been presented that way by those who communicate the facts to the people that will support action in one way or another.

CHURCH: All right. So, if Iran was behind this, why attack Saudi oil facilities at a time when the U.S. president was poised to meet with the Iranian leader? Does that make sense to you what purpose would an attack on this scale in Saudi Arabia serve and to whom?

[02:35:05]

HERTLING: Well, certainly, it sends a message. And I think Iran has been attempting to send the message that the economic sanctions against them have been devastating. Secondly, they're trapped into a corner, quite frankly.

They are economically declining, they are pariahs on the world stage, they don't know how to get their message out, the information that they have been pursuing and contributing to the world has not been truthful, they are more than likely contributed -- contributors to this attack.

So, from the standpoint of diplomacy, economy, and information, they are failing miserable.

CHURCH: What would be the consequences of the U.S. perhaps, and we're not saying this is going to happen. But what would happen if the U.S. did engage in any form of military action in response to those attacks on Saudi Arabia soil?

HERTLING: Right. Well, first of all, we would be joining in an operation that an in truth, doesn't affect any of our security concerns. We are here to fight Saudi Arabia's war for them. They have been fighting against the Houthis in Yemen for several years now. And, in fact, they've been somewhat devastating in their attacks against the nation of Yemen and the Houthi rebellion.

At the same time, there is obvious disconnects between Iran and Saudi Arabia. And getting ourselves in the mix of that would only cause more challenges, I believe, on the world stage. Not only for a global economy for Iran to strike against U.S. interests, but also just placing the United States in a very (INAUDIBLE) situation. When, in fact, Iran has proxies all over the Middle East and, in fact, can do some damage.

This is similar truthfully, Rosemary, to the president's actions against North Korea. He got himself involved in a situation that has no good military ending. And to always attempt to apply a military approach first and foremost by threatening a language and bluster like locked and loaded or previously cocked and loaded.

Some of those kinds of statements that the president made is not the best way to calm a situation and allow other things to come to the bubble and see what other approaches you can use in these kinds of a crisis situation.

CHURCH: Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, always a pleasure to get to your analysis on these matters. We appreciate it always.

HERTLING: Thank you, Rosemary. Appreciate it.

CHURCH: Israel's prime minister is fighting for his political life as voters head to the polls right now. Can his Likud Party overcome a challenge from Benny Gantz's Blue and White Party? More on what lies ahead, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[02:40:26]

CHURCH: Israel second general election in less than six months is now underway. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu forced the do-over election after he failed to form a governing coalition back in April.

Poll suggests his Likud Party faces a tight race against the Blue and White Party, led by Israel's former military chief Benny Gantz.

CNN's Oren Liebermann has our report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is fighting for his political future. In an election that's too close to call, Netanyahu is re-upping his hardline promised to annex parts of the West Bank and bringing back his time tested strategy to boost voter turnout. Warding his party's Likud supporters, they're about to lose.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL (through translator): In the polls I received just four hours ago, we're losing. And we're losing not because I don't have a majority in the country. The majority of the country wants me to be prime minister. We're losing because Likud voters are complacent.

LIEBERMANN: Over the weekend, Netanyahu got another helping hand from President Donald Trump, who offered to discuss a mutual defense pact after the elections. Netanyahu celebrated the idea. Never mind that Israeli security experts have reviewed and rejected a defense pact in the past.

DAN SHAPIRO, FORMER UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO ISRAEL: They wouldn't want to necessarily implicate the United States and actions that Israel might feel it needs to take in his own defense.

And the United States prefers to have a certain degree of distance and even deniability from actions that Israel may feel it needs to take without being bound to them by a formal defense pact.

LIEBERMANN: Netanyahu's former chief of staff, Benny Gantz, now his rival, doing his own rounds in the media. He lacks the charisma of Israel's longest-serving leader, but the two have polled neck-and-neck repeatedly. His main message, Netanyahu is a danger to democracy.

BENNY GANTZ, FORMER CHIEF OF GENERAL STAFF, ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES (through translator): Everyone who does not want to see here next week a government that tramples the principles of democracy, let's go out and vote Blue and White. So that we don't wake up a day after the elections with a prime minister with no restraints.

LIEBERMANN: These two men were separated by less than 15,000 votes in April's election. Gantz thought he worn on a bad exit poll. Netanyahu thought he won with a coalition. Both claimed victory that night and both were, in the end, mistaken.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LIEBERMANN: One of the main questions we'll be looking for when we first see the exit poll projections, and then, look at the actual results will be can either Gantz or Netanyahu form a governing coalition of 61 seats? Do they have a clear path to a government? That's one of the key questions here.

And it's possible, the answer will be, no. In that case, the only certain thing you could say is that Israel looks like it's heading for more political uncertainty. Oren Liebermann, CNN, Jerusalem.

CHURCH: And at this hour, there's still no sign of a $6 million piece of art that was stolen over the weekend from the ancestral home of Winston Churchill. The artwork is a solid gold toilet called, America.

The 18-carat commode had once been on display in New York and was only installed at the Blenheim Palace a few days before being stolen. The toilet was fully functioning and when it was ripped out, it caused flooding damage to parts of the home in which Churchill was born.

A pretty stinky thing to do, don't you think?

Well, thanks for watching CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Rosemary Church. "WORLD SPORT" starts after the break. Have a great day.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[02:45:00]

(WORLD SPORT)

[03:00:00]