Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Administration Briefs Congress on Iran; Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) is Interviewed about Iran; Iran Threatens U.S. Allies. Aired 9:30-10a ET

Aired January 08, 2020 - 09:30   ET

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

[09:30:00]

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: That it would be very limited in terms of -- when you compare it to what the Gang of Eight got.

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, typically in these briefings not a whole lot of intelligence is provided to these members beyond what was already publically known. So expect to hear a lot of frustrated lawmakers coming out saying that they don't -- didn't learn a whole lot new.

Yes, you're right, the Gang of Eight is what gets the super-secret intelligence, something that most of the Congress does not get. The top eight leaders of Congress and the House Intelligence and Senate Intelligence Committees, and those members have yet to comment about exactly what they have heard. So we'll see what lawmakers have to say.

The briefing will be led by top administration officials, including Mark Esper, the defense secretary, including Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state. We expect the CIA director, Gina Haspel, to be there, among others.

Now, this comes as the House itself is debating how to handle the issue about tying the president's hand going forward. The -- there's a discussion about -- within the House to have a vote as soon as next week to -- on war powers resolution to essentially prevent the president from moving forward on any aggression towards Iran beyond 30 days. And after 30 days you'd have to try to renew that effort. That vote is expected -- was expected initially this week but Nancy Pelosi delayed that until what is expected to be next week.

Now, in talking to Democrats going into a closed door caucus meeting in the room just next to me, they're defending that effort going forward and they're saying that it makes sense to do this now, even though in light of last night's attacks, they say the president needs to come to Congress to defend his actions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): These are processes that need to be run. They're -- they're the two most serious constitutional processes we have, war and impeachment. So, no, they shouldn't be allowed to color each other. They need to proceed independently. And I think that if you look at what happened in the last couple of weeks, it's hard to argue that the delay in conveying articles to the Senate didn't serve the purpose of allowing for more information to come out and for Americans to better understand what was going on.

We've seen emails that were FOIA provided that are -- that are not happy emails for the president. we see John Bolton saying that he would testify to the Senate. So this delay has served a purpose. How long it should go on from here, I don't know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So that was Jim Himes talking about -- a House Intelligence Committee member talking about how the push to -- on the articles of impeachment, the -- Pelosi's decision to hold back the articles of impeachment might be on the back -- of the people's minds right now as people are now focusing on the aggression with Iran and potential escalation of military action by the United States. That's going to be a debate within the Democratic caucus, how to balance both impeachment, as well as this new potential aggression here with Iran.

HARLOW: Yes. Yes.

RAJU: So a lot of questions that the Democrats have to sort out here behind closed doors, guys.

HARLOW: You know, just takes you back to the late '90s and the delay there when it came to the House on impeaching, you know, President Clinton when those strikes were happening.

Manu, thanks very much. We'll see what happens next hour when McConnell talks.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Joining me now is Democratic Senator Tom Udall from New Mexico. He serves on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Senator, we appreciate you taking the time this morning.

SEN. TOM UDALL (D-NM): Thank you. Pleasure to be with you.

SCIUTTO: Let me begin with the killing of Qasem Soleimani and what has followed.

Right after President Trump ordered the attack which killed him, you said the following -- you said that President Trump is recklessly hurdling our nation toward another disastrous and deadly war in the Middle East that will not make us safer. The American people are not asking for war.

Given that it is now the Pentagon's view, at least for now, and, of course, this could change, but the Pentagon's view that Iran deliberately missed U.S. forces in this base here and is, in fact, looking for an off ramp here, do you see this now as the president's decision to kill Soleimani as working?

UDALL: I don't at all. And I don't think we're any safer. But I think the important thing about where we are today, we have a

pause. We should be trying to de-escalate in any way we can, de- escalate this situation on both sides. And I don't believe that it's in the interest of the United States or anybody in the region to be moving forward with a war. And so let's de-escalate.

SCIUTTO: Well, you even have an Iranian leader publicly offering to de-escalate there. And I wonder, given the nature of this attack, that public offer, and that Soleimani has been removed from the battlefield in a sense, is that a win for -- not just for the president but for the country?

UDALL: Well, I'm not -- I'm not so sure about that. I think we've seen the destabilizing impacts already. Iran has taken itself out of the agreement, the JCPOA. The country of Iraq has issued, through its parliament, a request that we get out of the country. This has been very, very destabilizing. So I don't see that as this situation that you're talking about as being described as a win.

[09:35:03]

But I think -- I think clearly at this point let's try to de-escalate. Let's try to move back and see if we can't resolve things more peacefully, more diplomatically, try to talk to each other. Unfortunately, this reminds me an awful lot of the build-up to the war in Iraq where one side goes back and forth, back and forth and we're headed on a very, very dangerous path.

SCIUTTO: I remember that build-up well. I covered it. And you hear -- you hear some similar rhetoric now. Senator Lindsey Graham called Iran's missile strike an act of war. And "The New York Times" has reported that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, that he'd been pushing for Soleimani's killing for some time.

Are you concerned that hawks who perhaps desire a broader conflict with Iran have the president's ear now?

UDALL: Well, I think we should all be pausing and figuring out how to de-escalate and try to do everything we can. If the president comes out and makes a statement that's very aggressive and escalates this again, he's clearly put us in a war footing. And if he's going to do that, he has to come to Congress.

Congress is the one on behalf of the people that declares war. The president has got to make his case. He's got to say why he wants to go to war. How long. What the expenses are going to be. And he's got to make the case to the Congress, rather than this back and forth and trying to build it up to suggest that somehow we have to go to war because we've been attacked.

SCIUTTO: You will often hear this after a president, whether Democrat or Republican, orders military action, that Congress needs to prove it. That's constitutional. But the fact is, over decades now, through multiple administrations, and oftentimes through -- you know, despite public statements, a private desire for sitting lawmakers not to have a vote on the record on military action. I mean is this a serious effort here, because if you look at the sweep

of history, this recent history here, Congress has not exactly defended its constitutional rights on the power to declare war, particularly well, has it? And, frankly, you don't have bipartisan support for the measure that you're supporting.

UDALL: Yes, you're absolutely right, Congress has abdicated its responsibility. It has not stepped up to the plate. This is something that Congress has needed to do for a long time. In fact, we have had bipartisan support for the resolution that I attempted to attach as an amendment to the NDAA. Fifty-one senators supported that resolution. The House put it in with a bipartisan majority also in the Defense Authorization Act. So I think there's strong, bipartisan support --

SCIUTTO: Right.

UDALL: To say, if you're going to get in a war, Mr. President, come to the Congress and make your case.

SCIUTTO: OK. We'll see. Just very quickly before I go, yes or no if possible, so far Mitch McConnell not committing to witnesses in a Senate trial. Without that commitment, should Nancy Pelosi, in your view, continue to hold on to the articles of impeachment?

UDALL: I think that is a judgment call for her, but the real issue here is, are we going to have a fair trial? And I don't think you have a fair trial without witnesses and without documents.

SCIUTTO: OK. Well, we'll watch the developments.

Senator Tom Udall, a pleasure to have you on the program this morning.

UDALL: Thank you. Thank you. A real pleasure.

HARLOW: All right, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is now responding to Iran's threat to target U.S. allies in the region. What he said is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:42:57]

HARLOW: Overnight, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps threatening to target U.S. allies across the globe, including Dubai and parts of Israel.

SCIUTTO: CNN's Becky Anderson is following the latest from Abu Dhabi, just next door to Dubai.

Becky, Iran threatening to target Dubai, UAE, Hifa (ph). I just wonder, are messages coming from the emirates, for instance, to the U.S. and other players say, hey, guys, ratchet it down, we don't want to get caught in the middle of this?

BECKY ANDERSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: There's absolutely no doubt that that is happening, and no doubt the killing of Soleimani has absolutely heightened tensions around the region, not least here in the UAE, which, of course, sits just across the Persian Gulf from Iran. So, Jim, not unsurprisingly, considerable efforts being made here to take the heat out of the situation.

I've got to say, Israel's position more defiant, if you will. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatening anyone with the, quote, strongest blow who might dare attack Israel.

But in the UAE, and across the Gulf, there is an absolute push towards de-escalating these tensions. Anwar Gargash, who is the minister of state for foreign affairs, stressing this in an early tweet this morning, saying, quote, de-escalation is both wise and necessary. A political path towards stability must follow, end quote.

And just 24 hours ago you know that the Saudi deputy defense minister was in the U.S., also urging the U.S. to pull back to prevent things spiraling out of control. Remember, Saudis prized all facilities attacked in September, blaming the attack on Iran. The kingdoms been at war with Iran-backed forces in Yemen for years at huge cost. Saudi hosting 3,000 U.S. troops, 5,000 based in the UAE, many more across the region. You could argue that those bases are as much a target now as a deterrent, and that the reason for this ratcheting down certainly from this part of the world.

[09:45:01]

HARLOW: Before you go, Becky, just talk about Benjamin Netanyahu's response to the threats and just how aggressive his stance is should anything come Israel's way.

ANDERSON: Yes, I mean, and you can see, as I said, that that a much more defiant response, if you will. And Israel really out front as opposed to many other countries around this region in saying we stand by the U.S., the U.S. has a friend in Israel, Israel has a friend in the U.S. And I don't think we should be surprised by that position. After all, it's been Iran in the crosshairs that Israel has been sort of efforting for now for some time.

Look, I mean, it is a very -- it's a really interesting sort of juxtaposition as it were between Israel and these Gulf allies. Embassies here have issued updates to their travel advice. They are warning their citizens to be vigilant. But residents have not been urged to leave the country by any credible sources. Tourists haven't been told to stay away. In fact, the Dubai media office, just in the past couple of minutes, this is important, releasing a statement saying the threats didn't come from a, quote, official source in the Iranian government. Remember, they came from the telegram channel from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the Dubai media office urging people to refrain from what they see as spreading rumors. I mean it's not going to stop people worrying, but certainly here in the UAE it's that kind of geographic proximity that really worries people, ratcheting down here as opposed to that response, if you will, from Israel.

HARLOW: Understood.

Becky Anderson, thank you very much.

President Trump is set to speak, address the nation. He will respond to Iran's latest attack. That will happen at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time. So in just over an hour. Will de-escalation be next? We speak to an American who was imprisoned in Iran for over 500 days, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:51:29]

HARLOW: The president's response to Iran's revenge attack happening in just a little over an hour from now is when we'll hear from the president at the White House.

SCIUTTO: Well, CNN global affairs analyst Jason Rezaian knows a thing or two about Iran. He was imprisoned there for 544 days on vaguely defined charges of espionage, covered Iran for years before that. He and his wife were seized in July 2014, placed separately in solitary confinement, threatened with execution, physical mutilation, dismemberment. Those are facts. His wife was released within a couple of months, but Jason and three other Americans were not released until a prison swap in 2016.

Jason, thanks so much for being here.

As I said, you know a thing or two about this regime, the lengths to which it will go to abuse foreigners or its own citizens. As you watched this attack yesterday, this missile attack, retaliation it seems for the Soleimani killing, do you see what some see here as an effort at restraints, in effect, hit back but don't hit back too hard?

JASON REZAIAN, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Yes, Jim, I mean I think that that's what this attack last night was intended to accomplish. Obviously, Iran's leadership has domestic political concerns that they have to think about. They sustained very large protests just a few weeks ago against the regime. Hundreds of thousands of people poured into the street in many different cities around the country. So for them to not respond in any sort of way would have shown great weakness internally, and I don't think that they could really accept that right now.

At the same time, I don't think that this is the end of retaliation. And -- they're really waiting to see what the U.S. does next.

HARLOW: Even if the U.S. decides to de-escalate and not respond, we'll see what the president says, Jason, I just wonder what history with Iran has taught us for Americans waking up this morning that may think, OK, now this is done, now we move on.

When you think back to how Iran has acted in the past and you think about proxy attacks over the years, you think about the -- the attacks, the subsequent attacks in Buenos Aires, for example, what does that tell us about how Iran views retaliation on targets that would not be obvious?

REZAIAN: Well, it's a long-term prospect, right? It's something that, you know, you have to remember that Iran is a country with a defined identity of itself that goes back more than 2,500 years. Conflict, revenge, resolution, these are things that play over -- play out over a period of decades and centuries, not, you know, weeks or months. And we also have to remember that they're capable of not necessarily mounting a real military defense against the United States. I mean everybody who's looking at the situation understands that their military might is just a tiny fraction of what we could mount against them.

So they look towards more asymmetrical and unexpected forms of retaliation, like the bombing that you mentioned, like attacks on embassies and other acts that are outside the norms of international rules and regulations.

SCIUTTO: Yes. And cyber-attacks as well.

REZAIAN: Right.

SCIUTTO: The 52 Americans who were taken in 1979 by Iran and held for 444 days, they have been thrown in the spotlight because, of course, the president tweeted that we have picked 52 targets in Iran, kind of in their honor. But some of those Americans say they really don't want any part of that.

[09:55:04]

I want to play some sound from former hostage John Limbert a short time ago. Have a listen. I want to get your reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN LIMBERT, FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR IRAN: I, for one, want no part of the president's posturing about Iran. I certainly want no part of his -- whatever decision he takes, such as, for example, killing people or blowing up (INAUDIBLE).

So, Mr. President, if you're listening, please don't bother yourself on my account because I want nothing to do with it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: You could certainly have personal animus toward the regime, I imagine.

REZAIAN: Sure.

SCIUTTO: But what's your own reaction as you see this play out?

REZAIAN: Well, Jim, you and I met over a decade ago in Iran in a situation that was a very tense time. The regime acting out against people.

I've seen the way that that regime is able to corral, hurt, abuse its own citizens, and the citizens of the region. But, you know, I look to John Limbert as sort of a guiding light and always have on issues of U.S.-Iran policy. And I would double down on what he said. You know, I've faced a lot of abuse from this region, specifically from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, but, ultimately, I don't want to see Iran destroyed or cultural sites destroyed or innocent lives lost because it's a wonderful country, despite the abuses of the regime.

SCIUTTO: Understood.

Jason Rezaian, thanks so much for coming on.

And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]