Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Joe Biden: U.S. In "Active Discussion" On Israeli Response To Iran; Walz and Vance Face Off in Civil, Policy Focused VP Debate; Crisis Escalates in the Middle East; IDF Striking Hezbollah Targets in Beirut Suburbs; Iran Launches Its Largest Attack Ever Against Israel. Aired 2-3a ET

Aired October 02, 2024 - 02:00   ET

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

[01:59:55]

BECKY ANDERSON, CNN ANCHOR: Well, hello, I'm Becky Anderson in Tel Aviv. It's 9:00 a.m. here. Israel warning Iran will pay for launching nearly 200 missiles into its territory.

[02:00:06]

ROSEMARY CHURCH, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Rosemary Church in Atlanta following a surprisingly civil debate between the two U.S. vice presidential candidates ahead of next month's election.

ANDERSON: The turmoil in the Middle East is escalating from Iran's attack on Israel last evening. We're looking at live pictures from out of Beirut, black plumes of smoke still rising from the densely populated southern suburbs where the Israeli military went after Hezbollah targets overnight.

Israel is vowing to carry out -- carry out more strikes in the region after Iran's largest ever attack on the country.

The commander in chief of Iran's powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps says 200 missiles were fired at Israel, and that 90 percent of them hit their targets, which appears to have been the Mossad Intelligence Service headquarters and two Israeli air bases.

The IRGC claims Israel and the U.S. are deliberately downplaying the effectiveness of the assault. However, it is very unclear at this point whether the barrage caused any serious damage. The IDF has reported one death so far. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is vowing to hit back, fueling fears that this conflict will spread even further.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER (through translator): Iran made a big mistake tonight, and it will pay for it. The regime in Iran does not understand our determination to defend ourselves and our determination to retaliate against our enemies. We will stand by the rule we establish. Whoever attacks us, we will attack him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON: Well, we're getting word of Hezbollah claiming a rocket assault on some Israeli military barracks. CNN's Paula Hancock is live in Abu Dhabi.

And this happening now, Paula, we're getting word that Hezbollah is already claiming to have hit back. What do we know at this point?

PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Becky, we're hearing from Hezbollah in a statement that they have hit multiple locations, they say, including a military barracks in northern Israel near Samaria (ph). They say other locations, they have hit Israeli troops.

And we understand that from the Hezbollah statement that they have thwarted, they say, an Israeli military incursion into al Edessa (ph). This is a Lebanese town just across the border with Israel.

Now, we've reached out to the Israeli military for comment on this. They are looking into it at this point, we have though heard from one of the main hospitals in northern Israel, Rambam, which takes in many injured soldiers certainly did back in 2006 and they say that there has been a "incident," but they say they cannot confirm at this point how many have been admitted to hospital, but it does appear as though there has been some kind of attack by Hezbollah targeting military barracks, targeting Israeli soldiers in northern Israel also saying that they have thwarted an Israeli advance on one of the villages just across the border. When we have more information on that, we will bring it to you.

But when it comes to the strikes last night that we saw from Iran into Israel. We have heard from the Pentagon that this was twice as large as what we saw back in April with the Iranian launches of drones, also cruise missiles into Israel. The fact that this was ballistic missiles shows it was a much more significant attack.

And the question now, of course, is, what will Israel's response be? We have heard from the Israeli Prime Minister vowing to respond, saying that Iran has made a big mistake when it comes to what it did yesterday evening.

And we also understand from the Israeli side or at least the U.S. says they don't believe they have decided exactly what that response will be at this point.

Just for a bit of context, what happened back in April, the Israeli response was to strike targets in a district called Isfahan. This is an area where some key Iranian nuclear facilities are based back in April. It was believed that the U.S. had convinced Israel to downplay its response, and that it was seen as more of a message to Iran that Israel was saying, we can reach your Iranian nuclear facilities if we want to.

[02:05:15]

So, of course, that is a question whether or not that will be the kind of response we see this time around. There have been many countries around the world condemning what Tehran has done, though, obviously concerned that this could signal a sinking into the wider conflict that for months, many countries have been trying to prevent.

And of course, Becky, what we're seeing at this point is each side upping the ante. So, we see Iran now giving a more significant response, it says for the killing of Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah, for Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas and others. And the concern, of course, is that Israel will feel that its response has to be more significant as well, Becky.

ANDERSON: Paula Hancocks is in Abu Dhabi. Thank you, Paula.

President Joe Biden says that the United States remains, and I quote him here, "Fully supportive of Israel" but is still discussing an appropriate response to Iran's attack.

Mr. Biden confirmed that the U.S. is in constant contact with the Israeli government, though he hasn't personally spoken with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu since August. He also spoke on how the attack was thwarted.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The attack appears to have been defeated and ineffective, and this is testament to Israeli military capability and U.S. military. I'm also a testament to intensive planning between the United States and Israel to anticipate and defend against the brazen attack we expected.

Make no mistake, the United States is fully, fully, fully supportive of Israel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON: Well, Miri Eisin is a retired Israel Defense Forces Colonel and a senior fellow at the International Institute for Counterterrorism at Reichman University, joining me live from Tel Aviv, and it's good to have you up this morning. Thank you.

Israel has woken up to a country that certainly seems largely intact. Iran suggesting that the ballistic missiles that it used to attack the country last night hit 90 percent of its targets. But the assessment at this stage, though it continues, doesn't suggest as such.

These were military and security facilities that were targeted. What's your assessment of what happened between what 7:30 and 8:15 or so last evening?

COL. MIRI EISIN, SENIOR FELLOW, INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR COUNTERTERRORISM AT REICHMAN UNIVERSITY: Becky, I love the way that we quote what the Iranians are saying, that they fired these against these different military installations, and yet it hit near a school inside a schoolyard in the town of Gerar (ph) that most people in the world have never heard of, not a big city inside Israel hid inside the town that I live into right next to Tel Aviv and all around Israel. So, I want to separate between the statements that they make, the

statements that Hezbollah make. They can say that they're firing at military installations. They fire at the civilian communities, and wherever it hits, it hits.

And in that sense, I think that, as an Israeli right now, you cannot hide in Israel if there are casualties and the idea that Israel is hiding what happened yesterday, Becky, you were here. We were all here. It was scary, it was hard, but that's what air defense does. That's why Israel, together with the United States, by the way, invested heavily in the term air defense.

I don't think people understand what that means. It's not just the active defense of having the interceptors intercept these missiles in the atmosphere above the ground and the booms that we heard. It's also about the passive defense, what you and I did when those sirens were going on and on and on yesterday, for you know, within that hour.

But we protect ourselves. We go to places. We know how to act. So, I don't believe the Iranians. I don't believe Hezbollah, and I do think that this kind of unprecedented attack is not the same as April. This is bigger and harsher.

ANDERSON: I want to talk about two things, Israel vowing a response, saying that Iran made a big mistake, and that they will pay the price. Firstly, to your mind, what does that price look like in Iran?

EISIN: So, this isn't just about posture. There's a lot of rhetoric that happens in the Middle East. We all make statements, and here I am, and on Israeli T.V., where I live, inside Israel, we're on the 360 -- I wrote it down, 362nd day of this war. We've been in war a year, Hamas, Hezbollah, the proxies, let alone Iran, has already attacked us in April and now.

[02:10:00]

So, when we talk about an Israeli response, we're talking about an all-out war, and Iran is using its proxies, and right now it directly attacked Israel.

And so to me, there's no question that there's a response. The question is, which one? We're consistently trying, we've been on the initiative against that main proxy Hezbollah in the last few weeks. That's part of it, but it could be direct against Iran.

ANDERSON: Let me just get for our viewers the tweet from the Iranian foreign minister after this attack on Iran last night. He said, and I quote, "Earlier this evening, we exercised self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, targeting solely military and security sites in charge of genocide in #Gaza, #Lebanon." This is the Iranian foreign minister.

And he went on to say, we did so after exercising tremendous restraint for almost two months to give space for a ceasefire in Gaza.

And speaking to sources around this region, there was certainly an enormous effort made on the part of regional actors to try and rein in Iran's response to the killing of Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas in Tehran, and latterly, to the assassination of the Hezbollah chief, backed by Iran, of course, and his -- many of his commanders and now, of course, the limited and targeted incursion, as it is described, into Lebanon.

The foreign minister very quick to point out that this has been a policy of exercising restraint for almost two months, to give space for a ceasefire in Gaza. That seems as far away as it ever has at this point. The concern is clearly now about a wider regional war. Do you share that concern? And you front opening up with Iran itself, rather than just, for example, its proxies in Hezbollah and its, you know, ally, as it were in Hamas in Gaza. What are your concerns at this point about where this goes next?

EISIN: My first concern, Becky, is that I've never wanted a war. October 7th is the worst day in my history. When we talk about the last 362 days where we never wanted a war. The question is, what you do with the proxies, with Iran and Hezbollah has both a proxy and a Lebanese player.

And when you talk about diplomacy, I want to be clear, diplomacy is not about a peace treaty. You don't do a peace treaty with somebody who's calling for your annihilation. The peace treaty there would be that I don't exist, and then everything's great.

And I say that because right now, if you look at that foreign minister's tweet, I was reading it right before the program on night of April 13th, 14th, the former foreign minister, he was killed in that air crash that happened when the president was killed, put out a similar tweet from the United Nations from the Iranian where they show that what they're doing is legal, and what they're trying to do is not just the physical attack against Israel, it's the information warfare.

Look at what you're just telling me, that what Iran is doing is legit and that what they're doing is just self-defense. I don't think that's what you were saying, but that's what they're saying.

What the Islamic regime of Iran is doing is a overt attack against a sovereign state. They can say whatever they want. This is beyond illegitimate. It's been called out as such by the president of the United States, by the prime minister of the U.K., by all of the world leaders. This isn't something that should be put in the Iranian information war context. We shouldn't allow them to be able to be legitimized in such a way.

What do I want? I want an end to the war. I want the hostages back. I want Hamas to stop attacking me. I want Hezbollah to stop calling for my annihilation.

In the meantime, I need to talk, at least in a certain degree, in Middle Eastern terms with his proxies and the voices that they hear, and that's my targeting them in a very specific way.

ANDERSON: Miri Eisin, just before I let you go very briefly, should we expect to your mind a response from Israel on Iran in the immediate future? I'm talking about in the coming hours.

EISIN: I don't know, and I will say that today is the Jewish New Year, and that we're all looking forward to next Jewish year being a bit better. And I don't know if that will impact our decision making, but I do not know. It does not have to be immediate. It does not have to be overt, but I do think that there will be a response.

[02:15:02]

ANDERSON: Miri Eisin out of Tel Aviv, it's good to have you, and I'm glad to hear that you're safe. Thank you.

EISIN: Thank you.

ANDERSON: Well, in Tehran, scenes of jubilation in the streets of the Iranian capital following Tuesday's missile strikes on Israel. Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, that Tuesday's operation was, "Only a portion of our power," hand warning Israel not to enter a conflict with his country.

And the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei also issued a warning on social media, posting in Hebrew that the, "Blows against Israel would become stronger and More painful if Israel Strikes back."

Abas Aslani is a journalist and a senior research fellow at the Center for Middle East Strategic Studies. He joins me now from Tehran.

The U.S. describes the unprecedented attack by Iran on Israel yesterday evening as defeated. The missiles mostly intercepted, they say, and those that landed don't seem to have caused significant damage, although that assessment continues. The IAF, Israel's Air Force, still has its full operational abilities according to the IDF.

So, will this be seen as a success or a failure for regime supporters in Iran? And perhaps we should also explore whether it will be seen as a success or failure for those who do not support the regime in Iran.

ABAS ASLANI, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, CENTER FOR MIDDLE EAST STRATEGIC STUDIES: Becky, you know, in Tehran, the takers that the U.S. wants to play down this operation in order to avoid escalating this into a fully scaled regional war. And the figures which have been given by Iranian sources and officials, they have been saying that 80 to 90 percent of those missiles were, you know, succeeded reaching their targets.

And you know, it seems that with the -- this attack, Iran tried to generate a gear of joy, including in the country, because it was retaliating against the assassination Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, as well as assassination of Hassan Nasrallah and other Iranian officials and the released ones. Also, this created the joy among its regional allies, casting shadow over the Israeli celebration following those recent assassinations.

And you know, there have been, you know, different reactions, but there have been calls from political factions and officials calling for unity against this. And this is something which is different from the last April attacks.

And this means that Iran is also ready for the next waves of attacks in case Israel retaliates. And this is something which is being awaited in Tehran. There are reports that Israelis might be preparing for a response against Iran, so they are trying to also make sure that they will be ready to react against Israel in case a response comes.

ANDERSON: Right. Well, let's talk about that readiness, because Israel is vowing a response. It hasn't said when, but it is vowing a response, saying that Iran has made a big mistake and that they will pay the price.

Internally, what does that price potentially look like in Iran, and how is the country preparing itself for an attack on, for example, Iran's nuclear facilities or its power and oil infrastructure, or counter strikes, for example, against where these launch pads and launch sites are for the missiles, the ballistic missiles that were launched yesterday on Israel?

ASLANI: Becky, you know, the response could be targeted at some sites, including some infrastructure, or even the nuclear sites, or it could be a measured response, like what happened in, you know, last April. It seems that Israel would not be doing this without any tacit approval from U.S. administration and president.

And you know, if you know attacks like on nuclear facilities happen, this could have also costs, not just for Iran, but for the global community, and those who have some concerns about the Iran's nuclear program. This could somehow provoke Iran's, you know, withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation, the so called NPT, and undermine that Non-Proliferation mechanism on the long run.

[02:20:05]

And this will -- you know, this can also carry the risk of Iran's further response against Israel, which can escalate to a broader conflict in the region. This is the scenario, I think, which is not favorable to the United States as well ahead of the presidential election. And I think this --

(CROSSTALK)

ANDERSON: There is an assumption here that Israel is still in any way reined in by the United States. And if that is an assumption that is being made in Tehran, they may be mistaken at this point, given the Israeli government's form to date.

The foreign minister tweeted this morning. I was just talking to my last guest about this, so I just want to put this to you. He said the attack came after exercising -- Iran exercising a tremendous restraint for almost two months to give space for a ceasefire in Gaza.

Was that the received wisdom in Iran? And including Iran potentially holding back Hezbollah in recent months? And will there be a school of thought that says that was a mistake and has made Iran look weak in the eyes of an Israel with momentum at present?

ASLANI: Well, that back and forth between Israel and Hezbollah was done in a calibrated way. But that was Israel who escalated this into a new stage where the rules of engagement have changed, the deterrence, you know, line have been somehow moved to -- I mean, been dynamic and been moving all along.

And you know, Iran has been, as it was said, showed -- shown restraint, because Tehran was promised a ceasefire in Gaza if it didn't respond against the assassination of Hamas chief in Tehran. But this turned out to be further, you know, assassinations against senior commanders of Hezbollah, Iranian IRGC commander, as well as the leader of the troop as well.

But if Iran didn't want to respond, it could be an invitation for further assassinations or measures, including inside the Iranian territory. That's why Iran sees this as a kind of, let's say, a measure in order to stop that cycle of, you know, attacks. And I think this could be (INAUDIBLE).

ANDERSON: But Abas, let me ask you very briefly, because I'm going to need to let you go. Very briefly, you know, how far -- how far is Tehran do you believe --

ASLANI: -- somehow, you know, mobilize a public pressure in Israel against Netanyahu.

ANDERSON: How far briefly is Tehran prepared to go at this point, because Israel varying a response, the U.S. in coordination with other allies supporting Israel last night in intercepting these missiles? Who is a target at this point for Tehran around this region?

ASLANI: Becky, you know, the previous times and always, we have been feeling that Iran has been trying to operate short of a war, meaning a full scale war in the region.

But this time, the feeling is a bit different, because you know the announcements, the way they are made, or the situation, the sense here in Tehran is that you know, this time, if Israel, you know, conducts a significant military strike against Iran directly, there will be another response from Iranian side, and this could escalate into a bigger war.

And you know, the readiness for a likely war is being felt this time into Iran. This was not the case back in last April.

And you know, we have been hearing many calls from Iranian officials calling for a unified stance toward Israeli threats, and this indicates that you know the situation is a bit different from the previous times. And this, you know, signifies the seriousness of a likely war in the region.

ANDERSON: Abas Aslani is in Tehran. I appreciate your time this morning. Thank you very much indeed.

We are following other stories for you this hour as well. The U.S. vice presidential debate was notably amicable, but turned contentious at times. Tim Walz and J.D. Vance faced off in New York. More on that after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[02:27:47]

CHURCH: Welcome back to our coverage. Hezbollah says it hit an Israeli military barracks with rockets in northern Israel after Israel launched a new round of strikes on Beirut's suburbs overnight. This comes after Iran unleashed a barrage of missiles at Israel Tuesday. Iran's military chief says the attack was limited to military targets, but warns of broader strikes if Israel responds.

Tehran says 200 missiles were fired in the attack, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Iran has made a, "Big mistake and will pay for the strike."

Well, police departments across the United States are stepping up security at places of worship in light of the attack, especially amid the start of the Jewish High Holy Days. The NYPD expects to have increased patrols for the next two weeks, they will also be working with experts for detecting explosives at bridges and tunnels, and using helicopter units to check for radiation.

Police in Chicago, Philadelphia and Los Angeles have also announced increased monitoring for places of worship. Some measures were already in place before Iran's attack on Israel.

The first and only U.S. vice presidential debate in this year's election was notably amicable and focused on policy, though there were a few contentious moments.

Democrat Tim Walz and Republican J.D. Vance were cordial and at times agreed with each other. They sparred over the economy, housing, immigration, reproductive rights and other top issues as they made their pitch to voters just five weeks until Election Day. They focused their attacks instead on their opponent's running mates.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. TIM WALZ (D-MN), U.S. VICE PRESIDENTAL CANDIDATE: But what's fundamental here is that steady leadership is going to matter. It's clear, and the world saw it on that debate stage a few weeks ago. A nearly 80-year-old Donald Trump talking about crowd sizes is not what we need in this moment.

SEN. J.D. VANCE (R-OH), U.S. VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Donald Trump recognized that for people to fear the United States, you needed peace through strength. They needed to recognize that if they got out of line, the United States global leadership would put stability and peace back in the world.

[02:30:00]

(END VIDEO CLIP) CHURCH: Perhaps the sharpest contrast of the night came when Walz drilled into Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, the Democratic VP nominee put Vance on the spot during a discussion of the January 6, 2021 insurrection and from false claims that he won the 2020 election.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. TIM WALZ (D-MN), U.S. VICE PRESIDENTAL CANDIDATE: This was a threat to our democracy in a way that we had not seen. And it manifested itself because of Donald Trump's inability to say -- he is still saying he didn't lose the election. I would just ask, did he lose the 2020 election?

VANCE: Tim, I'm focused on the future. Did Kamala Harris sensor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 COVID situation?

WALZ: That is damning -- that is a damning non-answer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHURCH: Walz criticized Vance and Trump for spreading false claims about Haitian migrants eating pets in Ohio. Vance claimed an influx of migrants are overwhelming the community and blamed the Biden-Harris Administration. The moderators eventually stepped in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARGARET BRENNAN, DEBATE MODERATOR, CBS NEWS: Thank you.

VANCE: Margaret, the rules were that you guys were going to fact- check and since you're fact-checking me, I think it is important to say what is actually going on. So, there's an application called the CBP One app where you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum or apply for parole, and be granted legal status at the wave of a Kamala Harris open border wand. That is not a person coming in, applying for a green card, and waiting for ten years.

BRENNAN: Thank you, Senator.

VANCE: That is the facilitation of illegal immigration, Margaret, by our own leadership. And Kamala Harris opened up that pathway.

BRENNAN: Thank you, Senator, for describing the legal process. We have so much to get to Senator.

WALZ: Those laws have been on the book since 1990.

BRENNAN: Thank you, gentlemen. We want to have --

VANCE: The CBP One app has not been on the books since 1990. It is something that Kamala Harris created, Margaret.

BRENNAN: Gentlemen, the audience can't hear you because your mics are cut. (END VIDEO CLIP)

CHURCH: Ron Brownstein is a CNN Senior Political Analyst and a Senior Editor at "The Atlantic." He joins me now from Los Angeles. Appreciate you being with us.

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Hi, Rosemary.

CHURCH: So, we saw the first and only debate between vice presidential hopefuls, Tim Walz and J.D. Vance Tuesday night. Who do you think won that debate? And did it change the trajectory of the presidential election in any way?

BROWNSTEIN: Well, first of all, I think the vice presidential debates are to U.S. presidential politics as the bronze medal game is to the Olympics. It is sometimes fine, but it is pretty much always forgettable. Instant polling after the debate by and large have found that equal shares of people thought that Vance and Walz won. That seems to me about right. For most of the evening, Vance was a smoother, more confident performer.

As a Senator, he is more conversant with a lot of the federal and international issues that were under discussion than Walz is as a governor. But Walz's finish was very strong. I mean, to mix the sports metaphor, it was kind of like hitting a walk-off home run. I mean, he really did crystallize what may be the most important issue facing the next vice president. Will you support Donald Trump if he again attempts to override the election? And J.D. Vance could not, would not say no.

CHURCH: Yeah. Interesting at that point, of course, the VP candidates answered a wide range of questions, didn't they? On the Middle East policy, economy, immigration, reproductive rights, health care, climate change, and more. There were a number of falsehoods, it has to be said, on both sides. But, what were the weak and strong points for Walz and Vance on some of those issues?

BROWNSTEIN: Well, I think Walz obviously was nervous when it started and he, at various points in the debate, kind of stumbled over himself, his wording. His weakest point was certainly trying to explain how he said he wasn't in Tiananmen Square during the democracy protests and in fact, was only there a little later, which doesn't seem like a huge kind of misapprehension 35 years later.

I thought Vance was strongest in making the case on inflation, which is interesting because I think Trump has gotten away from that and focused more on personal safety, crime, and immigration. Walz's best moments as I said, I think were the closing about democracy, but also the exchanges about abortion. I thought Vance, it was striking that on both abortion and health care, he largely dodged the questions. He has really been out there on health care, making clear that Republicans still have plans to reconfigure, restructure the Affordable Care Act to undermine its core protection for people with pre-existing conditions. He did not repeat that tonight on the stage. Instead, he tried to kind of evade the question as much as he could. CHURCH: Yeah. And you mentioned abortion rights, on that issue. Walz laid out the need for women to have control over their own bodies, not the state.

[02:35:00]

And then Vance appeared to change his stance on the issue, didn't he?

BROWNSTEIN: Yeah.

CHURCH: But Walz didn't tackle him on that. What was your reading of that particular moment?

BROWNSTEIN: Well, I think it was indicative of a lot of the moments. I mean, there was a little bit of the Joe Lieberman 2000 versus Dick Cheney vibe to Tim Walz's performance, in which Democrats after in 2000 and I think again tonight, felt that the candidate was so focused on portraying his own reasonableness and centrism and kind of Minnesota nice that he let a lot of opportunities go by and certainly, let Vance get away with misrepresenting positions that he has held and that Trump has held.

In the end, more sound and fury than signifying anything, vice president until debates have not really had a big impact on presidential races. Otherwise, we'd be talking about President Dukakis after Lloyd Bentsen demolished Dan Quayle in 1988. But I do think, for Democrats, there were probably frustrating moments where Walz did not take the offensive to some extent, maybe to a considerable extent, that was erased from the board by that very strong final few minutes. He really did save the best for last, talking about democracy, not only looking back at January 6th and Trump's actions, but looking forward to what a Vance would do if presented with the same circumstances in which Mike Pence stood up for the constitution. Would Vance do the same? There wasn't much tonight that will give you a lot of optimism that would be the case.

CHURCH: Yeah. Indeed. Ron Brownstein, good to have you with us. Appreciate it.

BROWNSTEIN: Thanks for having me.

CHURCH: And when we come back, Israel is vowing revenge after Iran's massive missile attack. But Iran is warning things will only get worse. We'll have more on our top story right from Tel Aviv.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECKY ANDERSON, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWSROOM": Welcome back. More now on our top story, the aftermath of Iran's largest ever aerial attack on Israel, as well as Israel's escalating war with Iran-backed Hezbollah.

[02:40:00]

Overnight, CNN teams heard blasts in Beirut's southern suburbs where Israel says it has been striking Hezbollah targets. Israeli military issued evacuation orders starting at midnight local time, likely when most people were asleep. Meanwhile, Israel warning Iran of serious consequences after it fired 200 ballistic missiles at Israel on Tuesday. The IDF says at least one person was killed, a Palestinian, in Jericho, and several were injured.

One ballistic missile hit near a school in central Israel. You see that here leaving a crater more than two meters deep. The U.S. says it does not believe Israel has decided yet how it will respond, but Israel insists Iran's attack will be answered.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REAR ADMIRAL DANIEL HAGARI, IDF SPOKESPERSON (through translator): We are on high readiness on the defense and the offense. We will protect the citizens of Israel. This fire will have consequences. We have plans, and we will act at a place and a time of our decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON: Gideon Levy is a Columnist with "Haaretz" newspaper, joining us from Tel Aviv. The U.S. has said it doesn't believe that Israel has decided how it will respond. What to your mind happens next?

GIDEON LEVY, JOURNALIST, "HAARETZ": (Inaudible) and the most expected one, namely Israel will take revenge. Now, there will be retaliation, quite a serious one, and then all will depend on the reaction -- on the reaction of the Iranians. It looks like a regional war. It behaves like a regional war. And we are in a regional war.

ANDERSON: Here is what Joe Biden had to say last night in the wake of that unprecedented attack.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, (D) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The attack appears to have been defeated and ineffective, and this is testament to Israeli military capability and U.S. military. I am also -- it is also a testament to intensive planning between the United States and Israel to anticipate and defend against the brazen attack we expected. Make no mistake, the United States is fully, fully, fully supportive of Israel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON: The U.S. president also conceded last night that he has not spoken to the Israeli prime minister since August. Gideon, is this a U.S. president who has any influence at this point over the decision that the prime minister will take?

LEVY: I think that the U.S. president didn't want to have influence until now, because would he like to have influence, he could take some measures, take some actions throughout the last 11 months. If the American president would really like this war to be over, he knows very well what to do. If he wants, if he would like to stop this war, you first of all don't supply Israel with unlimited and unconditional weapons and ammunition. What is Israel supposed to do with all those weapons if not to use it?

So, I think Biden maybe with very good intentions, lost his way because he said one thing and he acted in the exact opposite way. And therefore, Israel can quietly ignoring his advises because by the end of the day, they are totally hollow.

C ANDERSON: You've suggested that this looks like a wider regional war. In fact, you say we are in a wider regional war. Gideon Levy, you have much experience of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his thinking. You have insight into the way that this prime minister has conducted himself over the last 30 years? What to your mind is his next move, with regard Iran? We are already seeing the IDF's response to Hezbollah, continuing attacks in southern Lebanon. We are hearing some reports of an incident in southern Lebanon tonight, but we've seen -- we've seen attacks on southern Beirut overnight, targeted attacks against Hezbollah assets.

What is the response on Iran and in Iran at this point? And when?

[02:45:00]

LEVY: First of all, one of the problems that it seems -- at least it seems that (inaudible) Netanyahu, Israel knows exactly where are they aiming, where are we aiming. We know always the next step and what comes next. Now, it's very clear that Israel will bomb Iran. I cannot see another possibility, even though I'm not sure that this should be inevitable. But according to the mindset of Israel, there must be retaliation for last night, last night was horrible.

Not that I underestimate what happened last night, but the question is, OK, so we will beat them back now and then what? And then they will beat us back, and then what? I mean, this lack of horizon or any kind of horizon, political horizons, strategic horizons, nothing of this. Netanyahu never believed in any kind of political settlement with the Palestinians, with the Arabs. He never believed in negotiations, and he is now implementing his policy mainly to live only on our soil (ph), on our military force and nothing but this. This is a very depressing vision.

ANDERSON: Briefly, I've got 60 seconds. Gideon, is it clear what the goal is there? What the goal is at this point for the prime minister here, the longer term goal? I mean, you were talking about him just responding at this point in an incremental way. What's the long-term strategy here?

LEVY: I think Netanyahu and his governments see the right situation is a big opportunity and the opportunities to crush once and for all Israel's dangerous enemies, namely Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas. This is totally impossible dream but they believe that they can do it now and they have this opportunity which will never come back. And therefore, they will do anything possible in most massive forces, in unlimited way to try to implement this strategy.

The only problem with this strategy is that it cannot succeed. It must fail because you cannot base your policy only on military force. You cannot go on from war to war, from retaliation to retaliation forever. You must talk for another horizon. And Netanyahu is not looking for any other horizon.

ANDERSON: The view of Gideon Levy here in Tel Aviv. Thank you very much indeed, for joining us.

LEVY: Thank you.

ANDERSON: We will do more on what is our top story in the hours to come. Meantime, some other news for you. And there was no shouting, name-calling or talking over each other. In fact, the U.S. vice presidential debate seemed almost normal. Details on that are just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[02:50:45]

CHURCH: Welcome back, everyone. Well, the only debate between the U.S. vice presidential candidates was considered normal, which is almost rare in modern U.S. politics. Republican J.D. Vance and Democrat Tim Walz were cordial with each other. But they attacked their opponent's running mates. They agreed the housing crisis was bad and that gun violence needed to be reduced. But they clashed on the January 6, 2021 insurrection and on the divisive issues of abortion and immigration.

CNN's Kristen Holmes reports on J.D. Vance's debate performance. But first, here's is MJ Lee on Tim Walz's performance.

MJ LEE, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Heading into Tuesday night, Tim Walz's team was working to consistently try to lower expectations going into the debate, saying that J.D. Vance was likely to be more prepared, perhaps smoother on the debate stage, saying that he has had more practice than the governor in terms of doing interviews as a senator, and being more combative in media appearances. After the debate, Walz aides that we spoke with wouldn't deny that Vance did appear practiced and polished. Anyone could also see that Governor Walz did appear for nervous, particularly at the beginning of the debate.

But the Walz aides that we have been speaking to, they do insist that when it comes to substance, put aside the style, that he did come out on top on a number of issues. As one Harris aide put it to me, they were particularly pleased with how much the debate ultimately ended up focusing on former President Donald Trump and his record, his statements, and his proposals, including on issues like immigration and reproductive rights. And as CNN had reported going into Tuesday evening, Walz's debate prep had included preparing for potentially false statements that are made by J.D. Vance.

Now, an example of this is the following exchange where we saw the governor trying to balance both real-time fact-checking his opponent and also quickly turning to his own talking points on a specific issue. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BRENNAN: Governor, do you care to respond to any of those specific allegations including that the vice president is "letting in fentanyl" and using kids as drug mules, among other things?

WALZ: Yeah, well --

BRENNAN: -- regarding children?

WALZ: The drug mule is not true. But I will say about this, about the fentanyl, because this is a crisis of this, the opioid crisis. And the good news on this is the last twelve months saw the largest decrease in opioid deaths in our nation's history, 30 percent decrease in Ohio. But there's still more work to do. But let's go back to this on immigration. Donald Trump had four years -- he had four years to do this and he promised you, America, how easy it would be. I'll build you a big beautiful wall and Mexico will pay for it. Less than 2 percent of that wall got built and Mexico didn't pay a dime.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEE: No one on the Harris team believed that one debate on one night could end up making all the difference just in terms of the overall trajectory of the 2024 race. But still, there was recognition that this was an incredibly important opportunity given that this could be the last debate before Election Day, if there doesn't end up being another presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and Former President Donald Trump.

MJ Lee, CNN, in New York.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN U.S. NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance's team is celebrating, as is Former President Donald Trump, with his pics, performance tonight at the debate, they believe that he was able to pivot on various topics, that he was able well to defend Trump's record.

Now, we are told that Former President Donald Trump was watching in the plane on his way down to Texas. He's going there for fundraising event and he was publicly slamming Tim Walz and privately praising J.D. Vance. This was a much different tone than what happened in the aftermath of that first debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, in which Trump himself was angry after the debate, his team was trying to reassure him, trying to say that he did a good job, but were privately very concerned that that could impact him in November.

[02:55:00]

Now, when you talk to his various advisers, his various allies, and as Donald Trump, they don't really believe that this debate with J.D. Vance and Tim Walz is going to move the needle at all. They understand that usually, vice presidents and a performance in a vice presidential debate doesn't actually impact the election result in November. But what they are happy with is the way that J.D. Vance comported himself, is the way that he answered questions and the fact that tomorrow or the day after, they don't have to play cleanup for J.D. Vance. They feel like they can defend his performance. One of the things to keep in mind here was this was really an opportunity for Vance to prove that he was the right person to be chosen to be Donald Trump's running mate. He's had a very rocky rollout. If you looked at any polling, he is almost underwater when it comes to public opinion. And one of the reasons that Donald Trump chose him in the first place was because he thought he was a good debater. He had watched clips of his debate when he was running for Senate in Ohio. It's part of the reason that he endorsed him back then. And again, part of the reason he chose him to be his running mate.

So, this was big deal for J.D. Vance to get up there and prove that he was the right person for Donald Trump to choose. And that is what you're hearing from the campaign today, that he was and his performance showed that is the exact reason why Donald Trump chose him. Now, there were moments of discomfort when he was up on the stage. One of the ones that has been pointed out to me by a number of Republicans is when J.D. Vance said that the CBS moderators were not supposed to fact-check, it seemed almost as though he was complaining. But overall, they were happy with his performance when he got on not debate stage and went up against Governor Tim Walz.

Kristen Holmes, CNN, New York.

CHURCH: And that's all the time we have this hour. I'm Rosemary Church. Becky Anderson and I will be back with more news in just a moment. Do stay with us

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[03:00:00]