Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Iraq Paramilitary Group Tells Protesters to Back Away Ahead of U.S. Troop Deployment; U.S. Sends More Troops to Protect Embassy After Attack; North Korea to Reveal "New Strategic Weapon" in Near Future. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired January 01, 2020 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: About 100 U.S. Marines landing in Baghdad, filing out of MV-22 Ospreys to protect the embassy. More are on the way. Photos just released hours ago showing hundreds of American paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division preparing to the Middle East to add to security there.

Also today, North Korea is threatening to unveil a new strategic weapon and to restart nuclear testing. Potentially a devastating blow to President Trump after three high-profile summits with Kim Jong-Un. The North Korean leader says they will never get rid of their nuclear weapons as long as U.S. policy towards North Korea does not change.

We will bring you President Trump's conciliatory response to Kim in a moment. But first, let's go first to CNN's Arwa Damon. She is live in Baghdad.

So, Arwa, it looks like these protesters aren't going to leave. They're setting up tents even there, signaling this is not going to be a short-term demonstration.

ARWA DAMON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Actually, Jim, this is actually an indication of just how quickly things can change here. It appears that they have gotten orders from their leadership to clear out and that is what they have done.

But let's just take a look at what's happening here. That is one of the entrances to this massive, sprawling compound. And you can see right now those two soldiers or security contractors taking down the flags that were put up by these various different demonstrators. Each flag represents a different group. A lot of these groups, as we have been reporting, are very pro-Iranian.

You can see the entrance to the building underneath was torched. The walls are just covered in anti-American graffiti. They've also set a tire on fire just to make even more of a statement as they were withdrawing.

Now, as I was saying, the situation here does change so very, very quickly. About an hour and a half ago we have been hearing that one element among the protesters, those who are members of or supporters of Kata'ib Hezbollah, the group that was the target of those U.S. strikes on Sunday that set all of this off, were refusing to leave. But by the time we actually got here, they had gotten their orders to clear out as well.

Jim, we spoke to their spokesperson who is here on the ground. He said, look, we've given America our message and our message is that at least in Iraq we can march straight to their doorstep. We are not going to be stopped and they -- he also said that they wanted to show America that it wasn't as strong as it thought it was, to deflate its ego a little bit, because they feel that the U.S., especially with these strikes, was acting with too much impunity and completely disregarding the fact that Iraq is a sovereign nation, not to mention the targets of these strikes.

But this is a very complicated situation here, Jim, because Kata'ib Hezbollah, again the group that the U.S. was targeting that America says has been responsible for those various different attacks against U.S. installations, is part of what's known as the Popular Mobilization Force. This is a force that is made up of different elements of various Shia groups.

Many of whom actually were fighting the U.S. back during the years of the U.S. occupation of Iraq but they came together under this paramilitary force to fight ISIS. They were instrumental in the battle against ISIS. But they are also very militarily powerful. Even though they are technically part of the Iraqi Security Forces, they don't necessarily listen to the commands that come from Baghdad.

So while for the time being it seems like this situation, despite these scenes that it has left behind, may now be coming to a close, this is by no means over, Jim. There are great concerns that this proxy war unfolding between Iran and the United States in Iraq is nowhere nearing its end at this stage.

SCIUTTO: Arwa Damon, on the ground, good to have you there because the situation does change very quickly.

Let's go now to the Pentagon, Ryan Browne, who is there.

Of course, troops already on the way. You have the Marines who have landed. You have The 82nd Airborne on the way. Any reaction at the Pentagon of that scene that we just saw there. It appears that those protesters moving away from the embassy now.

RYAN BROWNE, CNN PENTAGON REPORTER: Well, no reaction yet, Jim. Of course, all these deployments were ordered before the protesters started to kind of get retreat a bit from the compound there. But again the U.S. had also put an additional several thousand U.S. paratroopers on alert that could also be deployed. So it's possible that those now will not be sent to follow these forces that were sent in.

But we're seeing some images of what has already been done. They flew Apache attack helicopters over the compound. You saw the Marines, 100 Marines flew into the compound on the MV-22 Ospreys. And we heard a little bit earlier today from special representative for Iran, Bryan Hook, who talked about the fact that, you know, he cited the president's efforts, these deployments, this maybe potentially one of the reasons why the situation has calmed a little bit there in Baghdad.

[09:05:13]

But we have to remember how we got here. The U.S. has blamed the militia group that have been participating in this protest for some 11 rocket attacks on U.S.-Iraq installations, including one on Friday that killed an American contractor and wounded several military personnel. That threat hasn't necessarily gone away.

The U.S. could be watching for additional retaliation from these Iranian-linked groups that while ostensibly part of the Iraqi Security Forces, maintained close ties to Tehran. So the U.S. keeping its posture very much in a place where it could act if attacked but again probably a welcome sign from the military and State Department that these protesters have begun to disseminate a bit.

SCIUTTO: And they are concerned about a threat in the future to U.S. forces on the ground.

Ryan Browne, at the Pentagon, thanks very much.

Joining me now to discuss, retired Air Force colonel, Cedric Leighton. He's a CNN military analyst. And Sam Vinograd, CNN national security analyst.

Thanks to both of you. Happy New Year to both of you.

SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Happy New Year.

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Happy New Year.

SCIUTTO: Tough news on this first day of 2020.

Colonel Leighton, if I could begin with you, interesting perhaps tactical retreat here by these Iranian-backed protesters from the U.S. embassy as more U.S. forces on their way. What do you read into that? What's the significance?

LEIGHTON: Well, I think what you're seeing, Jim, is that this is a tactical retreat by the Iranians. You know, as the spokesman for Kata'ib Hezbollah told Arwa Damon, he basically said yes, we've achieved our goals, and I think that's correct. They've achieved their goals. They've gotten our attention.

We don't want to repeat a Benghazi where, you know, God forbid, an Iranian hostage situation like we had 40 years ago, and so that's the kind of message that they wanted to send that we can do this. We don't necessarily want to do this at this particular moment in time. But the forces that Iran controls in Iraq are very powerful and they have to be reckoned with if we do anything in the future in that country.

SCIUTTO: Sam Vinograd, the president has been back and forth a bit, you might say, in terms of the standoff with Iran. For instance, not retaliating for the shootdown of $110 million U.S. drone a number of weeks ago. Retaliating here when you had that U.S. contractor killed, attacks on U.S. forces in the region.

But he did say that if there was a war with Iran, if it would escalate, in his words, it would go very quickly. Is that an accurate, realistic projection of how an escalated conflict would go?

VINOGRAD: That's the opposite of the truth, Jim, but very quickly, the attacks against Kata'ib Hezbollah were not just about one Iranian- sponsored attack. They were about a persistent campaign.

SCIUTTO: Right.

VINOGRAD: By Iranian proxies, Iranian terrorists really, against American interests in Iraq. And that alone tells us that any actual, regular war with Iran would not be easy. It would not be quick. We think about how many Americans, American citizens, diplomats and soldiers we have throughout the region. They are all targets for Iranian militia as well as Iranian conventional forces.

Iranians' conventional capabilities alone, missiles and soldiers, would do incredible damage to the Americans throughout the region. And we can even just look at the Iran-Iraq war to see how long that conflict lasted. There are no easy solutions to the conflict with Iran. But any armed conventional conflict with Iran would be long. And it would be incredibly dangerous for all the Americans throughout the region.

SCIUTTO: Yes. And perhaps, Colonel Leighton, you have the Iranians flexing that muscle here showing the kind of damage they could do in the event of a broader conflict.

I just want to ask you to put on your intelligence hat here and analyze the administration's strategy because the administration seems to lurch from conciliatory messages, the president saying last night, you know, he wants peace there and hard action, military action. Can you discern an Iraq strategy from the administration right now?

LEIGHTON: Not really, Jim. And you know, part of this -- you know, the president is going to bask in a tactical success. And, you know, you have to say that, you know, this is certainly not a repeat of Benghazi, and that's good. The problem is, is that there is no discernible way forward on the part of the U.S. We don't know what the Middle East is supposed to look like, according to U.S. strategy.

And that's really the problem here. There has been no strategy that has been developed. What do we want Iran to look like? What do we want Saudi Arabia to look like? What do we want Iraq to look like? None of these questions have been answered, and we also, as a result of that, we don't know how we are going to be posturing our military forces in the region. Right now we're looking at kind of a status quo in how we're placing things.

We're taking the types of things in that we've done for many, many years and we're continuing with those policies. But any type of future movement, any type of movement to bring Iran closer to the West, is certainly not on the table at the moment.

[09:10:07]

I won't say it's completely off the table, but it is definitely not happening right now. And that's part of the problem. No discernible strategy. And that's a major weakness in the administration's approach.

SCIUTTO: Sam, you have heard the president publicly state or signal some openness to meeting with the Iranians, or restarting direct talks here. And we should note that, you know, in the midst of -- soon after fire and fury with North Korea, before you knew it the president and the North Korean leader were having three summits in quick summary, although as we can see with North Korean development, it's not necessarily progress, concrete progress as a result.

I mean, is it possible that this president, this unpredictable president, could take a turn and say, OK, let's sit down and talk?

VINOGRAD: Well, I think he actually has said that. I think what he has misjudged is the Iranian willingness to come to the table. I mean, his approach has been haphazard. Secretary of State Pompeo laid out a 12-step program that Iran need to take before coming back to the negotiating table. But President Trump doesn't really rely on intelligence for anything, let alone Iran.

And I think he has grossly misjudged what his withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal has done to the Iranian regime's willingness to come back to the negotiating table. He did not provide a realistic off-ramp to renegotiate the Iran nuclear deal when he withdrew. And then he took other escalatory measures that in my view were unnecessary.

Iran is a culprit here but when President Trump designated the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization, designated Khamenei.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

VINOGRAD: He really escalated the situation unnecessarily and now we have a situation where the regime feels domestic pressure within Iran to portray the United States as the enemy.

SCIUTTO: Well, we'll see if it escalates further.

Sam Vinograd, Cedric Leighton, thanks to both of you.

North Korea, the other topic we're discussing this morning, has vowed to reveal a new strategic weapon. This despite talks with the U.S. on denuclearization. Those three face-to-face summits with Kim. Still, President Trump is saying Kim Jong-un is a man of his word.

And while senators battle it out over witnesses at an impeachment trial, the man at the center of the Ukraine scandal, Rudy Giuliani, says he'd be willing to testify.

Plus, the White House is cracking down on vaping set to take certain e-cigarette flavors off the U.S. market. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:16:36]

SCIUTTO: A blow to the president's efforts. His promises to denuclearize North Korea. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un says the country could soon resume nuclear weapons testing. According to the state-run media there, Kim says there will, quote, "never be denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula," if the U.S., quote, "persists in its hostile policy towards North Korea."

The North Korean leader also reportedly declared that the world will witness a new strategic weapon in the near future. Alarming on both counts.

CNN correspondent David Culver is following this story.

David, tell us what we're to make of the North Korean dictator's comments. He often makes bold policy pronouncements around the new year. How soon do we expect him to act on these?

DAVID CULVER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I can tell you for one, Jim, he had a lot to say. So much so that it seems like he's passed on putting out his annual New Year speech to the public. So it was a mixture going through the many pages of frustration, of anger, of even desperation. As you point out, this is something that suggests that, perhaps the strongest indicator yet, that the North is willing to resume testing of nuclear capabilities and perhaps even ICBM long- range missiles.

It's been more than two years since we've seen them do that. But this is also consistent with what CNN first reported just before Christmas. You remember the warning of a Christmas gift from the North. Well, CNN reported that it was not going to be anything of a nuclear test or of an ICBM but rather, it was going to be this hard stance of a policy change towards the denuclearization talks.

Not taking it completely off the table but saying for now they're not going to engage in denuclearization talks until they raise the bar, so to speak. Compare what we saw last year in Kim's speech with what we saw this year and it's a stark contrast. Last year he was talking about the economy. He was talking about development within North Korea. This year the reason I say it was a desperation that came across is that he was threatening, really kind of with his new ultra- modern weapon which of course he was vague about.

He didn't go into much detail. But also warning of the concern for sanctions. These are sanctions that he is desperate to get off and even hoping that maybe Russia and China who have proposed to the U.N. that they would ease sanctions, would step in and help out with. It seems the U.S. is not going to go that direction, though -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: Well, Russia and China have helped them cheat a lot, North Korea, on those sanctions.

David Culver, thanks very much. Here's how the president responded to Kim.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Look, he likes me. I like him. We get along. He's representing his country. I'm representing my country. We have to do what we have to do. But he did sign a contract. He did sign an agreement talking about denuclearization. And that was signed, number one sentence, denuclearization. That was done in Singapore. And I think he's a man of his word so we're going to find out, but I think he's a man of his word.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: No evidence of that yet since Trump took office. He and the North Korean leader have now met three times in person, including once across the DMZ line in North Korea. We were there.

I'm joined now by the former special representative to North Korea, Joseph Yun. He served in the Trump administration.

Ambassador, we appreciate you taking the time this morning. And Happy New Year to you there in Seoul, Korea.

[09:20:01]

JOSEPH YUN, FORMER U.S. SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR NORTH KOREAN POLICY: Good to be with you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: So you look at these words from Kim, restarting nuclear testing perhaps. A new strategic weapon. In your view, is this a bluff or a genuine threat from Kim?

YUN: I think you have to take it very seriously. My reading of what he said is really there are three key points there. Number one is that it is all your fault, U.S., that we've not gotten anywhere. So we're going to stop our end of the deal, which is stopping testing. The second is a threat. Threat of new strategic weapon. And we don't know what that is. My guess is that they're trying something.

ICBM married with nuclear weapon, and that will be very, very dangerous. And third point is that door is still open for negotiations. And so, really, this is from really the typical playbook. Mixing with blame, threat, and holding out our chance for negotiation. And really, as far as Kim goes, I think he still sees best chance of a deal, a deal that he wants, with Trump. And so he wants to open that opportunity.

And so within -- over the next few weeks or a few months, I wouldn't be surprised if there is movement both in Pyongyang and Washington for new talks.

SCIUTTO: But to what end, I wonder. Because you've had three face- to-face summits. No concrete steps towards denuclearization. In fact it's the assessment of U.S. intelligence that North Korea has advanced both its missile and nuclear program. I wonder as you look at this, and particularly with President Trump who is conscious of the political consequences of this in an election year, if Kim is playing Trump here.

YUN: Oh, Kim is definitely, definitely playing Trump. I agree 100 percent with you. And you know, really, President Trump saying that Kim signed a deal for the denuclearization. Well, not so far, no. He has not signed a deal for denuclearization. And, in fact, if you ask most experts in and out of the government, they would agree there is no denuclearization within short-term horizon.

So the deal has to be how much actually, you know, arms control talks more like. How much nuclear weapons do they get rid of. Do they go for a freeze and in return for how much sanctions?

And I think the key point here, Jim, is that Pyongyang believes price has gone up. They've shown their nuclear weapons. They've shown their delivery system. Now they are saying, listen, you cannot get us for the same price as you could have gotten us 10 years ago, five years ago. And that's the failure in Washington I think to accept that the price has gone up. So it's going to be interesting how it plays out over the next few months.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Or even a deal you could have gotten three years ago. You heard the president there again saying he's a man of his word. He and I have a good relationship. In the face of, well, contradictory facts, frankly, in terms of how North Korea has been behaving and threatening here, I wonder, are you concerned that the president is valuing, is relying on his personal relationship with Kim over the facts of North Korean behavior?

YUN: Oh, I'm very much concerned about that. I think, you know, we have a situation in which both Trump and Kim believe they are playing on each other. And that's a very dangerous situation. And I believe, you know, there is really no personal rapport. I mean, that's just complete exaggeration on President Trump's part. And you look at the rhetoric just below them, whether it's from North Korean foreign minister or vice foreign minister or from the U.S. side.

Previously it was Bolton, obviously, but even folks like Pompeo and Esper, there is no feeling that they are meeting in any way halfway in between. And so this relying on summitry to get to a deal, well, it doesn't work out that way. There is just no way in a summit two leaders can sit down and agree on steps towards a freeze, steps towards a dismantlement, and steps towards peace. They cannot do that, so that has to be done on the working level. And there's been no progress at the working level.

SCIUTTO: It's disturbing to hear.

Ambassador Joseph Yun, thanks very much.

[09:25:03]

YUN: Good to be with you. Thank you. SCIUTTO: Back here in the U.S., Republicans might be pushing back on

having witnesses at a Senate trial. At least most of them. But Rudy Giuliani says he would be willing to testify.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Rudy Giuliani is not expected to play a formal role in defending the president at a Senate impeachment trial, but how about appearing as a witness?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Would you testify in the trial?

RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY: I would testify. I would do demonstrations. I'd give lectures, I'd give summations, or I'd do what I do best. I'd try the case. I'd love to try the case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: The president not asking him to do that --

[09:30:00]