Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Official Says, White House Believes Iran Preparing Imminent Missile Attack on Israel; Tonight, Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) and Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) Face Off in Vice Presidential Debate. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired October 01, 2024 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. You're live in the CNN Newsroom. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington.

We begin this hour with breaking news. The White House is preparing for a chilling new threat that Iran could be about to launch a missile attack on Israel. We're covering all the angles at this hour with our correspondents around the world.

Let's begin with the White House and what they're saying and CNN's Arlette Saenz. Arlette, we're just getting this word within the last hour or so. What can you tell us?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jim. This is a pretty stunning warning coming from the U.S. A senior White House official tells us that the U.S. believes that Iran is preparing to imminently launch a ballistic missile attack against Israel. It comes at a time when the U.S. has been watching with great concern to see what Iran's posture might be and whether they might try to launch any type of retaliatory attack against Israel amid the heightened tensions that have arisen over the course of the past two weeks.

Now, in this statement from a senior White House official, they note that the U.S. is actively supporting defensive preparations to defend Israel against this attack and said a direct military attack from Iran against Israel will carry severe consequences for Iran.

Now, it's unclear what exactly the scope of this possible attack might be, when exactly it will occur or where in Israel they will be targeting. But U.S. officials have been prepared for the possibility that Iran could launch some type of retaliatory attack. Officials have gone as far to say that if Iran or any of its partners or proxies try to use this moment to target American personnel or interests in the region that the U.S. would respond to defend their people.

Now, you'll remember back in April, the U.S. led this multinational coalition to help Israel defend itself in the wake or as they face a barrage of drone and missile attacks by Iran. Many of those drones and missiles were intercepted by that effort. And a U.S. official tells us that the U.S. is prepared to help Israel in a similar way. Now, we do know that the Pentagon has noted they have significant capabilities in the region, including a carrier strike group. So, we will see how this situation unfolds and how exactly the U.S. comes to Israel's defense if Iran does, in fact, launch this missile attack. And, of course, it comes at a time when President Biden has said they need to avoid an all-out war in the region. So, it's something the White House officials are monitoring very closely at this moment.

ACOSTA: Yes, I'm sure they are, Arlette.

I'm going to go to Jim Sciutto, who is in Tel Aviv for us. Jim, I mean, this is a very stark contrast warning from the White House for the White House to put this out at this at this juncture is significant. What happens now?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, we just heard from a spokesperson for the IDF acknowledging this White House warning and saying that, as of this moment, we do not identify we, the Israelis, any aerial threat launched from Iran yet, but they are certainly looking and watching it.

And, listen, Jim, this is exactly the escalation, a direct conflict between Israel and Iran that so many had worried about, including the U.S. president and other White House officials when they were making attempts for a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon prior to that strike that killed Hassan Nasrallah and prior to the events of just the last 24 hours in which you now have Israeli boots on the ground in Southern Lebanon, yet one more escalation.

From the Israeli point of view, it's a natural security step to take. They're trying to push back Hezbollah forces so they cannot threaten Northern Israel. But the concern from U.S. officials and some here in Israel had been that that might tempt a response from Iran, which we should note has largely been holding back in recent weeks and months, going back to the killing of the Hamas leader inside Tehran, Ismail Haniyeh, killed in Tehran, or in recent days following the killing of Nasrallah.

The question had been, was Iran keeping its powder dry? Was Iran worried about directly confronting Israel because the costs that it might incur from doing so, including potential threats to its nuclear facilities?

[10:05:04]

But if Iran acts on this warning that it does indeed launch these missiles that the U.S. says they're preparing for, we're in a new phase of this conflict. Because you could then imagine, as so often happens, one strike sparks another retaliatory strike. And you could imagine, as Israel is warning right now, that they might strike back directly against Iran.

ACOSTA: Right. I mean, and there's this warning from the White House, a direct military attack from Iran against Israel will carry severe consequences for Iran. That is a direct quote from a senior White House official in this statement. Let me go to Colonel Leighton. Colonel Leighton is also with us. If you can dissect what that means, I think it's very clear what that means, but what would a missile attack look like at this point? Would Iran go after civilian areas, potentially causing high casualties of civilians? What do you think?

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYLST: I think it's definitely a possibility, Jim. And when you look at the way in which Iran does its targeting, it is not generally very precise. Generally, what they do, they will say that they'll go after targets like, let's say, the intelligence headquarters of the Mossad in Israel or IDF headquarters or something like that.

But, historically, many of their missiles that have been, you know, locked into Israel. Israeli airspace have basically gone there indiscriminately, and that's the big worry that they could, in fact, hit a civilian area. And quite frankly, they may deliberately target civilian areas because, in Iran's view, that is something that gets more bang for the buck, so to speak, than just striking military targets.

So, they are not averse to striking a civilian area at all, and that's, I think, the biggest danger here. We could see some pretty big casualties if the defense systems don't work.

ACOSTA: And, Jim Sciutto, let me go back to you. Might this potentially look like what we saw back in April?

SCIUTTO: It's possible. Listen, that April attack was significant. It was dozens of missiles and drones. But the combination of Israeli air defenses and missile defenses, U.S. assets in the region, but also other partners, including a partner such as Jordan, they together shot down the vast majority of them. And listen, it comes down to a game of numbers, right, Jim? Because if Iran were to attempt to overwhelm those defenses, it might fire a great number of them at the same time or quite close proximity with the intention of overwhelming those defenses.

It's not unlike, frankly, what Russia attempts to do in Ukraine, right, is to overwhelm its air defenses and get some through. But it's also possible, Jim, that there could be some calibration here, right, where you fire a smaller number of missiles, still significant but less likely to impose severe damage, or that Iran chooses to attempt to strike military facilities as opposed to civilian ones.

Listen, a range of options, right? And we don't know how Iran will react, but we do know this, given the warnings from the U.S. and Israel, that Iranian leaders know that such an attack would then spark a reaction. And they would have to be preparing themselves for -- if they choose to order such a strike, preparing themselves for the consequences.

ACOSTA: And, Colonel Leighton, correct me if I'm wrong here, but back in April, when we saw that missile attack from Iran. There was some speculation at that time that it was done in such a way that the Iranians knew that many of those missiles would be repelled, would be shot down and so on. If we see something like that again, could it be the Iranians trying to send a message without trying to spark a global, you know, conflict here, you know, an act of war that might provoke a response from Washington?

LEIGHTON: Yes, Jim, that's exactly right. That is a very distinct possibility. And, you know, the Iranians are pretty good at calibrating some of their responses in diplomatic terms. And as far as their weaponry is concerned, yes, we thought, and many of us thought when we were looking at the April attacks, that that was really designed to send a message but not really inflict great damage.

You know, it is of no -- one of the missiles did strike a runway at an Israeli air base back in back in April, and they could have that happen again, but make -- in essence, make sure that they telegraphed enough of their intention that the air and missile defense systems could actually pick up and stop that kind of an attack.

ACOSTA: And our Alex Marquardt is with us. Alex, I know you were at the United Nations General Assembly last week. I mean, what we're seeing right now appears to be the fallout from just all the diplomatic talks really just going nowhere in New York last week.

[10:10:17]

And now we're just sitting on the edge of what could be a very serious event.

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jim. I think one of the things that was really highlighted last week was the U.S. failure to get to any kind of ceasefire, both in Gaza and in Lebanon. And so with this escalation by Israeli forces into Lebanon, we're certainly -- we've all been saying on the edge of something that may be something much more dramatic and much bigger.

There has been a sense, Jim, throughout this conflict for the past year that Iran does not want to engage in an all-out war, that they don't want to get dragged into something, but they are more than happy to have their proxies do the attacking for them, whether it's against Israel or against American interests across the region. One criticism you often hear of Iran is that they are willing to fight to the last Palestinian, Lebanese, Houthi, you choose your proxy rebel.

But right now -- and I believe that is still the sense right now, but there have been three distinct moments in this conflict, Jim, that have really raised concerns that Iran could respond or was expected to respond. The first was back in April when those revolutionary guard figures were killed in Damascus. We saw that incredible, huge response by Iran on April 13th with hundreds of ballistic cruise missiles and drones.

And then there was the killing of the Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, which has not prompted a real Iranian response. The Iranians have said they wanted to give time for the ceasefire talks to play out. They did not want those ceasefire talks to be derailed. But what was clear after Hassan Nasrallah was killed is that there would have to be some kind of Iranian response. I really think that it was a question not of if but when and how, and now we appear to be on the cusp of this Iranian response.

So, really, the big question right now is going to be scale. Is it going to be designed to really inflict real destruction and pain on Israel, or is it meant to send a message saying, we're not going to sit quietly after the death of Nasrallah? Jim?

ACOSTA: All right, very good. Thanks to all of you for being with us.

We should note our M.J. Lee over at the White House saying that the U.S. anticipates that the forthcoming attack from Iran against Israel could be similar in scale and scope to the one in April. We were just talking about a few moments ago that might be a preview of what we're going to see here in the coming hours.

But the Israeli military says no aerial threat identified from Iran just yet. So, we're watching all of this. Everyone, thank you so much for the news analysis there.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

ACOSTA: All right. We're back with the breaking news. The White House saying that they believe the U.S. believes that Iran is preparing to imminently launch a ballistic missile attack against Israel. We were talking about this in the previous segment.

I want to go back to Jim Sciutto and Colonel Leighton. I mean, Jim, what do you make of the Israelis at this point saying, well, we don't see anything yet? I guess the yet part is the key word.

SCIUTTO: Well, it appears that the U.S. has intelligence shared with the Israelis that they saw preparations for launch. The U.S. has enormous capabilities to do that via satellite, as well as what other assets in the region. It doesn't mean that they've launched yet.

Now, you have some time after launch, though less depending on the munition itself. A ballistic missile, best estimates, takes about 12 minutes to get from Iran to here in Israel. Drones take several hours. Cruise missiles take a few hours. It's all about speed, right? But the fact that Israel has not seen one yet does not mean that they're not going to see one in the coming minutes, hours or days. And depending on the number and the quality of each munition, they'll have a certain amount of warning time here.

Listen, this is significant. I think the most significant piece of information we've gotten in the last several minutes is that the U.S. believes this would be on a scale like we saw in April, because that was dozens, right, dozens of missiles and drones. And, again, U.S. intelligence is such that it would therefore, if it's making that assessment, it seems to me, have intelligence that they see multiple preparations at multiple locations to fire.

Does it mean that Iran fires all of them? But they at least have the capability to do so. And then, if and when they do, you have varying amounts of warning time, right, to act and shoot them down, the ballistic missiles being by far the fastest of them.

ACOSTA: And, Colonel Leighton, I mean, just to jump off of what Jim Sciutto was saying if the U.S. is anticipating that this attack could be similar in the scale and scope of what we saw in April, as Jim was saying, dozens of drones and missiles and nearly all of them were intercepted, I suppose we can't, I guess, overcorrect here and think, okay, well, no big deal, they're just sending a message, right? I mean, it could be different this time around, and the U.S. has to prepare for all options.

LEIGHTON: Yes, that's exactly right. And one of the keys to a successful defense of Israel, Jim, would be to make sure that you consider all possibilities here. If they're just sending a message, that's great, but you really have to prepare as if they're going to lethally strike at you.

And that's, you know, from a military perspective, as Jim Sciutto was saying, there are very key indicators that we've clearly picked up in this particular instance where they're getting the launch sites ready. They're doing the kinds of things that you would expect to be taking place in a case like this, in a situation like this.

[10:20:04]

And when you look at the totality of all of this, you know, back in April, on April 13th, they were sending around 300 missiles and drones in Israel's direction. The fact that over 90 percent of those were intercepted, that's a major win for the Israeli air and missile defense systems and, of course, the allied missile defense systems that helped with that.

So, the issue of oversaturation of those defenses is a real one. And so it really depends on, you know, what kind of preparations the Iranians are engaging in. And for Israel and its allies, it depends on the warning time. We have to basically use all our indications and warning capabilities to determine not only what the Iranians are doing, but when it's likely that they would engage in a launch sequence.

And once they engage in that launch sequence, that then makes a real difference in terms of, you know, how well you can prepare, how much you can actually do to defend yourself.

ACOSTA: Right. All right, well, Jim and Colonel Leighton, thanks so much. We appreciate it. Let us know and to all of our teams there on the ground in that region. You're doing amazing work. Keep us posted on any new developments. We appreciate it.

Again, the breaking news, the White House putting out the warning that Iran is believed to be preparing an imminent missile attack on Israel. We're going to stay on top of this, bring any developments. But we have other news to get to. The latest on Helene in the Southeast and the vice presidential debate coming up tonight. Stay with us. We'll be right back

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:25:00]

ACOSTA: It's debate day in America, and just hours from now, Democratic Governor Tim Walz and Republican Senator J.D. Vance going head to head in the first and only vice presidential debate with just five weeks to go until Election Day.

Let's discuss. Now we're seeing in Political Commentators Shermichael Singleton and Bakari Sellers. Also with us, publisher of the conservative site, the Bulwark, Sarah Longwell, she's with the Republican voters against Trump.

Sarah, let me start with you. I mean, do vice presidential debates matter? I know I'm doing a great job of promoting all of the coverage tonight, but do they sway some of these voters who may still be on the fence. What do you think?

SARAH LONGWELL, PUBLISHER, THE BULWARK: Yes, this one matters a great deal. And one of the main reasons that it matters is that Donald Trump at 78 is a very old man and the oldest person ever to run for president. And so J.D. Vance, as a potential vice president, is somebody that the American people need to know whether or not they think he's up to the job of being president.

And, you know, J.D. Vance -- I do focus groups all the time with swing voters and voters across the political spectrum. And I can't remember the last time there was a political figure that was so unanimously disliked as J.D. Vance. And so it will be interesting tonight whether or not J.D. Vance can sort of turn the perception of himself around with these voters, especially because I think Tim Walz, who might not be maybe as strong a debater on points as somebody like J.D. Vance, he's much more just likable in general. And so having them stacked up against each other will be interesting.

ACOSTA: Yes, it's going to be fascinating. And I have a sense that, I mean, they're just going to go after each other tonight. And, Shermichael, Trump -- to what Sarah was saying, Trump appears to be lowering expectations for his running mate. Let's listen to what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, 2024 PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: They're so rigged and so stacked. You'll see it tomorrow with J.D. It'll be stacked. He's going up against a moron, a total moron. How she picked him is unbelievable. And I think it's a big factor. There's something wrong with that guy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Yes, I mean, he's going after Tim Walz. SherMichael, your sense of it?

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, look, visually, I think Governor Walz looks older, J.D. Vance looks younger. I think that's going to matter, sure. Governor Walz is likable, more likable than J.D. Vance, but when the moderators tonight ask very poignant and tough questions on issues that matter to the American people, whether it's domestic or internationally, can the governor actually showcase that he has a deep and nuanced understanding of those issues?

If something were to happen to the vice president, if she were to become president, God forbid, is he capable of leading the country forward? I think that's going to matter to a lot of people. I know oftentimes we say, well, voters don't really care about the issues. They just want to know if they really like the person. I think the polling data suggests otherwise. Voters do care about the issues and they're paying attention to the issues.

Now, J.D. Vance can come across as capable and somewhat likable and someone who is able to lead the country or something were to happen to Trump, to Sarah's point, at 78 years old, then I think he wins this debate. I think he's going to do well. He's knowledgeable. He showcased that. He just needs to not come across as somewhat arrogant. People don't typically like to be talked down to. And so if he can accomplish that, then I think you'll have a good night.

ACOSTA: Yes. I mean, Bakari, that's lowering the bar. Shermichael is lowering the bar quite a bit there if J.D. Vance can just come across as somewhat likable.

BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. I think that tonight's going to be a struggle for J.D. Vance. And let me just -- for people watching, I do want to just couch my comments by saying that if you read the transcript of the debate tomorrow morning, it will probably look like J.D. Vance just walked away with this, if you just simply read the transcript.

[10:30:00]

However, there's much more Shermichael was just alluding to that goes into these debates, and I'm interested to see a couple of things.