Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Interview With Rep. Anthony Brown (D-MD); Trump Administration's Iran Policy?. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired January 08, 2020 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:01]

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: And it goes on to talk about potential for sabotage of infrastructure inside the United States.

Again, one of the things the FBI and the Homeland Security Department are saying is that there is no indication of an imminent threat here in the United States. Essentially, this is a bulletin that's aimed to prepare law enforcement agencies around the country for the possibility that those things could happen.

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN HOST: OK. Always got to be prepared for that.

We thank you for the heads-up and what our intelligence agencies are dealing with currently in the homeland.

Let's go to Boris Sanchez now, our correspondent over at the White House, because we also have this new reporting on the calculations that were made about whether to strike back at Iran or not.

Tell me what you have learned.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Brooke, this is coming just a few minutes ago from our colleague Jim Acosta here at the White House, reporting that a senior White House official expressed that there was some consideration about launching a quick retaliatory strike against Iran as news of these strikes coming from Iran to these air bases in Iraq was unfolding.

That senior administration official telling our colleague Jim Acosta that, ultimately, the president wanted to wait for all the information to come in first, saying specifically -- quote -- "The president was never going to act before all the facts were clear."

They really wanted to gauge Iran's intentions with these strikes, and as you heard today, the president essentially taking the off-ramp here, opting for, you know, economic sanctions, a softer retaliation, and not this harsh military response that he had been promising for some time.

Still, Trump keeping up the pressure, making clear that the United States military is at a readiness that it's never been before, also making clear to Iran that he feels emboldened when it comes to his options in the Mideast, considering that the United States is not as dependent from an energy perspective on Mideast oil as it has been in the past.

We also heard President Trump today making a really surprising statement about having NATO be more involved in the Mideast. It's unclear exactly to what extent the president is expecting the NATO alliance to get involved in that region, but we know that, since his speech, the president has spoken with the secretary-general of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, as well as the prime minister of the U.K., Boris Johnson.

The president here really open to what he's seeing from Iran, but make no mistake, we have seen in the past that Iran has a long timetable when it comes to revenge, and they have many proxies in the Mideast. That is something that the administration is closely watching, but they are optimistic that things will ease, considering what could have happened, Brooke.

BALDWIN: Yes, the line from James Clapper, former director of national intelligence, to your last point, he said, you know, be warned. This sequence may not be over.

SANCHEZ: Right.

BALDWIN: Boris, thank you at the White House.

Let's go now to Jarrett Blanc. He's the former coordinator for the Iran nuclear deal over at the State Department.

So, Jarrett, thank you for being with me.

And let's just start from the beginning, just your reaction to the news that the U.S. thought about striking back last night.

JARRETT BLANC, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, I'm certainly pleased that they decided not to.

We are in an escalatory cycle, and at a certain point, one or both of the parties need to step back, or we're going to end up in a full- scale war. And so striking back, when this attack seemed to be fairly calibrated from the Iranian side, I think would have been a terrible mistake.

BALDWIN: Then watching the president today addressing really the world from the White House, the first words out of his mouth was, "As long as I am president, Iran will never have a nuclear weapon."

And just given all of your experience with Iran, did you watch this speech, did you interpret it as an olive branch offered, or do you think it might escalate tensions further?

BLANC: Well, I think that it's -- I think that the speech was incoherent.

So, if the strategic objective is to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon, which is what the strategic objective should be, then we should still be in the JCPOA, which constrained Iran's nuclear program and ensured that it would remain the most tightly investigated nuclear program by the international community, the IAEA, in the world.

Stepping away from that gives us a lot less control of where Iran is going. Now, is it an olive branch? At least it's not a further escalation, but I think Iran has been pretty clear about what they need to get back to the table. That's modest sanctions relief, and Trump seems to be promising the opposite instead.

BALDWIN: Well, there was a lot of blame thrown from this current administration to the previous, and specifically to you as a former JCPOA negotiator.

I want you to fact-check something that President Trump said. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Iran's hostilities substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013, and they were given $150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash.

Then, Iran went on a terror spree, funded by the money from the deal, and created hell in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

[15:05:07]

The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: By the funds made available by the last administration.

Your response to that, Jarrett?

BLANC: Well, it's an outrageous falsehood.

The -- first of all, I mean, all of the numbers in the president's speech were wrong. All of the increase in violence that we have seen in the region coming from Iran followed not the JCPOA, but Trump's withdrawal from the JCPOA.

During the period of implementation of the JCPOA, there were no Iranian or proxy missile strikes on U.S.-used bases in Iraq. There were no attacks on shipping in the Gulf. There were no attacks on Saudi oil facilities or U.S. drones over the Gulf. All of that followed Trump's withdrawal from the JCPOA.

As far as the specific financial claim is concerned, the way that Iran fights wars is relatively inexpensive. It's asymmetric. They were not wanting for money even during the tightest sanctions imposed by President Bush and President Obama. They're not wanting for money for their perceived national defense now under the tight sanctions imposed by President Trump.

That's just not how they pay for their national defense.

BALDWIN: OK. So I'm hearing you calling the president out on that false claim.

The president also this morning plotted the precautions, the early warning system taken ahead of the Iraqi strikes, but multiple administration officials are telling us here at CNN that Iran's missiles intentionally missed areas not populated by Americans.

What's your read on that? Do you think Iran meant to show its great missile force, but not kill any Americans? Was that the point?

BLANC: That seems like the most plausible explanation, both for the -- what appears to be the targeting of the missiles and also the warning provided to the Iraqis in advance, which they knew would be shared with us.

That said, of course, the Iranians were running a risk that something would go wrong. They were prepared to absorb that risk. But I think it's probably the right interpretation that they were seeking to avoid or minimize casualties.

BALDWIN: Last question, do you think this sequence is over?

BLANC: I don't think so at all.

I think that the overt Iranian response may be over, but we should expect a long tail of covert Iranian responses, including potentially terrorist or proxy attacks, assassination attempts, cyberattacks, political manipulation in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere.

And, by the way, the Trump administration seems to agree with this, because, whatever they have said, I think obviously falsely, about imminent attacks they were seeking to avoid, they have stepped up security across the region. They have reduced military activities in Iraq against ISIS.

As you just reported, they have stepped up security here in the United States.

BALDWIN: Right.

BLANC: So they're well aware that more might be coming.

BALDWIN: Jarrett, thank you very much.

BLANC: Thank you.

BALDWIN: Thank you for your expertise.

We also have new satellite images today of the Al Asad Air Base in Western Iraq that appeared to show building -- damage to several buildings there.

Our CNN chief international correspondent, Clarissa Ward, is now in Irbil, Iraq, where multiple locations were targeted.

And, so, Clarissa, I know you have just gotten your feet on the ground there. I don't know how much you have been able to see. But can you talk me through about any damage or anyone in the area, their reaction to this?

CLARISSA WARD, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: So, you know, I have to tell you, Brooke, it was a little chilling to be landing on a plane in the pitch black late at night here in Irbil, because, essentially, the vast majority of flights have been canceled.

The airport was a virtual ghost town, most airliners deciding not to go ahead and fly into Irbil because there was a missile that did hit within the perimeter of the airport. It didn't explode, but, certainly, it has got tensions raised and people concerned about security.

When we arrived at our hotel here, there was kind of an extraordinary scene in the lobby, I would say roughly 100 U.S. military contractors all who were essentially evacuated from Baghdad area, from the Balad Air Base, presumably evacuated here, because this was always presumed to be a sort of safe haven in Iraq, if you will.

Well, it's clear, after last night, that the sort of myth of this being some kind of a safe haven has been punctured, although I will say, Brooke, that, when you talk to people here, when you look at the local Kurdish authorities' response to the event, while there was a lot of anxiety and fear last night, as people could actually hear some of those missiles landing, today, there is a sense of calm and normalcy returning.

There is a growing conviction that perhaps this was going to be a one- off episode, and that it is not likely to be repeated. And I think particularly after hearing President Trump indicate that the U.S. would not be seeking to escalate any further, there's certainly a sense of relief here, Brooke.

[15:10:18]

BALDWIN: Wow.

But, back to the scene at your Irbil, you know, hotel, did those U.S. military contractors offer anything up in terms of what it felt like to hear these missiles land not too far from them?

WARD: To be honest, Brooke, they were far more concerned with the situation in Baghdad and in Balad Air Base.

And I think they had some real concerns about events sort of spiraling potentially into a dangerous situation in those southern areas. They felt much safer here because, as I said, even though there were some missiles that hit in and around this area, they did not -- well, none of the missiles resulted in any casualties.

But, for the most part, they seem pretty secure in this idea that this was about delivering a message, rather than delivering some kind of a deathly blow.

I should also add, Brooke, that the minute they found out that we're journalists, they very quickly avoided talking with us further, for obvious reasons. BALDWIN: Yes.

Clarissa Ward, we're glad you're there. To you and your crew, thank you. And be safe.

Right now, senators are being briefed on the intelligence that led to the deadly strike on General Soleimani. House lawmakers just walked out of their briefing moments ago.

And the vice chair of the Armed Services Committee will join me live to share his conclusions.

And U.S. intelligence is now taking a look at the crash of that Ukrainian passenger jet in Tehran, killing all 176 people on board -- what we're learning about this.

Stand by.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:16:22]

BALDWIN: We're back. You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin.

The president's top national security officials, including the CIA director and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are briefing the full House and Senate today on why President Trump authorized last week's deadly drone strike on Iran's top general.

Were lawmakers convinced the president made the right move?

House Minority Whip and Republican Steve Scalise says yes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. STEVE SCALISE (R-LA): He was also plotting future attacks, and, obviously, you can't go into full detail about the intelligence of those future attacks, but how much is enough?

How many more Americans did Soleimani need to kill before somebody's going to support him finally being taken out and removed from this planet?

And so, again, I would go back to my basic question, is, is the world a safer place with Soleimani not in it? And the clear answer is yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: That's Steve Scalise.

With me now, a Democratic lawmaker who was just briefed.

Congressman Anthony Brown of Maryland is vice chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He is a retired colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve who earned a Bronze Star after serving in Iraq.

So, Congressman Brown, thank you, sir, for joining me.

REP. ANTHONY BROWN (D-MD): Great to be on with you, Brooke.

BALDWIN: We heard your fellow Democrat Gerry Connolly step in front of cameras after he was briefed, and the words he used was sophomoric and utterly unconvincing.

What was your read of the briefing?

BROWN: Yes, I wasn't convinced whatsoever.

I think we heard a lot of conclusory statements like, there was an imminent threat, the intelligence was credible.

But, as members of Congress, we wanted the factual basis. Tell us about that threat, time, place, manner. We received none of that. Tell us about the intelligence. And we see very little about that.

We got conclusory statements that there was an imminent threat based on credible evidence. That's what the administration's position has been publicly, as well as in this classified briefing, but no facts to support it. And that's what leaves a lot of members wanting, a lot of members of Congress wanting.

BALDWIN: I hear you being unconvinced, and I know you can't comment on content, but, you know, bottom line, Congressman, was the strike on Soleimani warranted?

BROWN: Look, I think, you know, Soleimani, General Soleimani, has his hands -- had his hands in a lot of actions, activities, operations that resulted in the death of Americans and many others.

It's my sense, after what I have heard, that the strike, the assassination of General Soleimani was probably based more on past conduct, which is bad, and less on an imminent threat, because, again, we didn't hear a whole lot about the threat that General Soleimani was planning, plotting, coordinating, not to say that there would not have been.

But, again, the question is, what was the basis for assassinating this Iranian general at this time? And we just haven't...

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: Sounds like you don't have your answer. OK, got it. Got it.

Fortunately, no blood was shed on the American or the Iraqi side. Do you believe the Iranians when they say that this response was proportionate? Do you believe the sequence of attacks is over?

BROWN: Look, I think that this attack was an intent on the Iranians to demonstrate their capability and try to establish a level of deterrence.

I think we can all take a collective sigh of relief that there were no casualties, Americans, Iraqis, or others. This is a really good time, I think, to de-escalate, and to really find a way to resolve this problem.

And the administration, President Trump certainly today did not offer any strategy or approach to doing that.

BALDWIN: Sounds like, according to some intelligence sources our folks have been talking to, there is concern when it comes to potential cyberattacks, so they have got their eyes on that.

[15:20:03]

Given, Congressman, just that you have served in Iraq, and the fact that Iraq is now caught in the middle of this fight, geographically speaking, would you be in support of the U.S. withdrawing troops from Iraq?

BROWN: Look, I think what we need to do is, we need to make sure that Iraq is a stable nation, stable government, stable civil society, and that they can provide for their own security.

If we don't do that, then we will see what we saw in 2011 and 2014, the reemergence of ISIS. So, yes, I would, as well as many others, would like to see U.S. troops withdrawn.

But we need to make sure that we do it at a time when we're not creating greater risk for the United States and our allies.

BALDWIN: So, it sounds like you're saying, no, the U.S. should not withdraw, based upon the vacuum that would certainly be filled by ISIS terrorists, a la 2011? Is that correct?

BROWN: Correct.

BALDWIN: OK.

BROWN: The withdrawal needs to be deliberate, and with our goals completed.

BALDWIN: With 50,000 or so troops, American troops, stationed throughout the Middle East, and, of course, their families at home on pins and needles, you know, wondering if this is over, what would you say to them?

BROWN: Look, I tell you, my -- there's a special place in my heart for U.S. men and women who serve in the military and their families. Their families are on pins and needles.

Last night, we were all watching on the television with, you know, two dozen or so missiles impacting housing where service members are located. That's just not where we need to be.

And I think the president needs to step up. He's got to articulate a strategy, so that America, including our military families, know that there is a plan, there are goals that are in place, we're going to engage our allies, and as soon as we can, we are going to bring our men and women home, whether that's Iraq, whether that's Afghanistan, or anywhere else around the world, because we're tired of these forever wars.

And I think we owe that to the men and women who serve. We owe it to their families. We owe it to America.

BALDWIN: Congressman Anthony Brown, thank you, sir.

BROWN: Thank you, Brooke.

BALDWIN: Any moment now, we are expecting Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to come out, talk to reporters after briefing the Senate. We will bring that to you live, also why Iran's attack shows its advanced missile capability.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:27:18]

BALDWIN: In Iran, celebration in the streets of the nation's capital after news of the strike was announced.

Ayatollah Khamenei, who was a close personal friend of General Soleimani, reportedly urged the Iranian military to play a direct role in any response, instead of using a regional proxy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI, SUPREME LEADER OF IRAN (through translator): They were struck with such a slap last night. That's another matter. Military action like this is not sufficient. What is important is ending the corrupting presence of America in the region.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Let's go straight to Beirut to CNN senior international security editor Nick Paton Walsh.

And, Nick, you say that the most important part of all of this is for President Trump to view this as a win. Tell me why.

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL SECURITY EDITOR: That's potentially the fear you might take away from all of this.

Yes, there appears to be an off-ramp. Yes, it appears that the Iranians in this strike seem to have chosen a method of attack and a means of attack and a target that pretty much reduced the likelihood of Americans actually being killed.

They used ballistic missiles. When they reach altitude on their way in from Iran towards a target, they pop up on the U.S. radar. That gives the Americans about three minutes or so to react. These bases were already on high alert. And so you can see through all of that, including there's also the fact that the Iranians tipped off the Iraqis that these attacks were coming, the strong likelihood that they hit a base that was fully in lockdown with troops under cover. So, maybe Iran was looking to do something symbolic, theatrical, you

might even say, and then allow Donald Trump to say, OK, fine, let's put this back and forth to rest, because, obviously, the U.S. has a superior military in an overt confrontation.

The danger you might take from this, though, is that, frankly, it hasn't been a superb week in terms of White House messaging. There's been messy statements about targeting Iranian cultural sites. There's been confusion over withdrawals from Iraq and various letters being sent that were subsequently denied by the U.S. military.

And we have sort of seen Donald Trump, at the end of it all, a very presidential, very calm address, to some degree. The fear, though, I think some analysts might have is that, if he sees this week as being an outrageous success, where, essentially, he's used brute force to face down the Iranians and caused them to back off, he may try and repeat that tactic elsewhere.

Remember, the U.S. and Iran have been in some kind of covert or overt war for about four decades now to some degree, a conflict, better to say, and this is the first time their militaries have overly struck each other.

That shouldn't be something we take lightheartedly. It's a huge escalation. And, of course, if Donald Trump thinks he won out of this, he might try these tactics again. And that could be problematic in the months ahead -- Brooke.

BALDWIN: This may not be over. I have been hearing that from a number of experts.

In fact, just in the last hour, Nick, we learned that the FBI and Homeland Security sent out this bulletin to law enforcement throughout the U.S., warning of cyberattacks or other terror attacks on American

[15:30:00]