Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Claims Iran To Blame For School, Not U.S.; Gulf State Report Further Attack After Iran Apology; Trump: U.S. Ground Troops Could "Possibly" Be Sent To Iran; Iranian Officials Working To Select New Supreme Leader; Trump Wants To Be Involved In Picking Iran's Next Leader. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired March 07, 2026 - 23:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:00:28]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN ANCHOR: Hello and welcome to all of our viewers joining us here in the United States and all around the world. I'm Polo Sandoval live in New York.

And we want to begin this hour with dramatic new video of fires in Kuwait. The Kuwaiti army saying that a wave of hostile drones targeted fuel storage facilities at the Kuwait International Airport on Sunday. The army said that it had intercepted three ballistic missiles over Kuwait -- Kuwaiti airspace. A high rise government building was also targeted, reported by the Kuwait News Agency. At least three Gulf States have been taking fire from Iran in recent hours despite its president's apology on Saturday for earlier strikes on its neighbors.

Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are also reporting new attacks at this hour with fires breaking out at a government building and a fuel storage site at the international airport in Kuwait. As we mentioned, Saudi Arabia says that it shot down more than 20 drones while Bahrain fought a blaze at a seaport. In Iran, a huge fire has been raging near a petrol storage facility in the capital city of Tehran, and that's after an Israeli source said that the country's military is now going after those sites and this is part of its next phase of the war.

CNN's Mike Valerio is keeping a very close eye on all the developments related to this conflict, which again is now entering its 10th day. Mike, joining me live from Beijing. I'm curious, what can you tell our viewers around the world about these latest strikes not just in Kuwait but also in Beirut, we understand.

MIKE VALERIO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: All right, we're going to start with Kuwait and then we'll bounce around the region. So let's go back to those pictures and we want to stay with them from Kuwait City, Polo, to, you know, just show everybody who's watching around the world that even though we are entering week two of this war, the scenes of, you know, terrifying tableau all around the region really have not subsided. What we're able to tell you about what we're looking at right now, this is a 22 story government building that essentially runs the Social Security system and pension system of Kuwait targeted by a drone. Kuwaiti authorities tell us in the middle of the night this is like the heart of Kuwait City, a major commercial neighborhood.

So what we're able to report through our network of correspondence around the region is that nobody lost their lives in this attack. There were some security guards who were evacuated, other people evacuated from this high rise now inferno, but nobody has been killed by this attack, certainly, thank goodness. This is all in the context also of Iran's president, Pezeshkian, saying in a televised address yesterday that strikes against Gulf neighbors who he called brothers would cease. Clearly, that is not the case.

Let's jump to Beirut. Late strikes by the IDF reported through our contacts in Israel. Reporters also who are on the ground, Nick Paton Walsh among them, in Israel saying that the IDF targeting and killing four members of Iran's Quds commanders, the Quds Force, that were ensconced in a hotel building in Beirut very close to the heart of the city.

So the Quds Force, that is essentially the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, arm of power outside the boundaries of Iran. According to the IDF, you know, when you're in Israel, they say that the Quds Force are responsible for terror attacks that are outside the immediate reaches of Tehran. So the IDF certainly claiming a victory here with that targeted, they say, missile attack that hit that hotel building in Beirut. So now we're trying to see if there is going to be any change in the apparent disarray and the top echelons of the Iranian leadership, such as it is after that televised address by President Pezeshkian. And also when we heard from the Security force secretary Ali Larijani yesterday, walking back those comments.

You know, we have new reporting that Riyadh has intercepted at least three drones during the overnight hours. So we're waiting to see as Asia starts a new day here, at least this corner of Asia, is there going to be more of a signaling down the military ranks through Iran to slow the tempo of these drone and missile attacks. But based on the compelling images and the reporting that we're able to gather at this hour, it seems as though that is not the case, at least not yet, Polo.

[23:05:08]

SANDOVAL: Yes, without a doubt. A new day will bring another wave of developments to cover. Mike Valero, thank you so much for that update on multiple fronts.

We do understand one of the first images of the war was actually the deadly strike on a school in southern Iran just over a week ago. Analysis by CNN as well as other media outlets and experts, all suggesting that the U.S. military was likely responsible for this strike. It happened at around the same time as an attack that U.S. forces likely carried out on a nearby Iranian naval base. But listen to what U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Saturday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did the United States bomb a girls elementary school in southern Iran on the first day of the war and kill 175 people?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No, in my opinion, and based on what I've seen, that was done by Iran.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is that true, Mr. Hegseth? It was Iran who did that?

PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: We're certainly investigating it. The only side that targets civilians is Iran.

TRUMP: We think it was done -- we think it was done by Iran. Because they're very inaccurate, as you know, with their munitions. They have no accuracy whatsoever. It was done by Iran.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANDOVAL: CNN Senior Political Analyst Ron Brownstein joins me now live to talk more about the political implications of this ongoing conflict. Welcome back, Ron.

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Good to be with you.

SANDOVAL: Just picking up on what you just heard a short while ago from President Trump, Secretary Pete Hegseth given the opportunity to essentially support that previous statement from his boss, from President Trump, yet he stopped short of that, saying that the investigation is still ongoing. Just speak to what it could mean should the investigation eventually lead to official confirmation that the U.S. is responsible for that strike a week ago.

BROWNSTEIN: Yes, I think it speaks to the complexity of the situation that the president is in, as we've talked about before, to begin with, he is really in an unprecedented situation at the outset of a conflict. We've had three polls this week where 54 percent of Americans in the NBC poll said they opposed the military action, 56 percent in the PBS, NPR Marist, 59 percent in CNN. We have not seen that before at the outset of a conflict of this magnitude where a majority opposes the action going in. Now, there is love lost anywhere on the American political spectrum for the Iranian regime. And I am guessing that when we have polling in a few days that many Americans will support and find reasonable the goal of degrading their military capacity and diminishing their ability to project power through the region and threaten their neighbors.

But it is a reflection of the tightrope that the president is on that I'm not sure how much stomach there is in the American public, given their skepticism about this to begin with, for civilian casualties in Iran. Much less casualties to U.S. forces, much less paying more at the pump themselves. As I wrote last weekend, I think he's on a very narrow ledge in this war where he can sustain enough political support for it, particularly within his own party, as long as the costs seem low. But whenever -- as soon as they do grow, I think he has very little cushion for that kind of reversal. SANDOVAL: Yes, and Americans over the weekend were faced with that truth and the reality of the cost of war, as many saw the dignified transfer of those six brave service members --

BROWNSTEIN: Yes.

SANDOVAL: -- the president on hand for that. Just clearly, obviously, we are in this conflict now. So what would American voters see as a favorable resolution, you think?

BROWNSTEIN: Well, you know, the option for the president to basically declare victory and walk away, I think is always there. You know, he has killed the leader of the country. They are doing significant damage to the Iranian military capacity, at least their conventional military capacity. And as I said, we don't have polling on that yet, Polo, but I do think that most Americans will -- or something around half of Americans will see that as a reasonable goal.

The idea of extending this over any length of time and risking the accumulation of costs of different kinds, whether it is damage to U.S. allies, whether it is the death of U.S. service members, whether it is the death of Iranian civilians, and maybe most acutely, whether it is more pain at the pump for Americans at a time when they are already frustrated that Trump hasn't made more progress on the biggest issue they elected him to solve, which is their cost of living. The longer the conflict goes on, the longer -- the more those risks apply. And by the way, there is an opportunity cost as well. I mean, you saw in the State of the Union the president beginning to try to deliver an economic message that he kind of gets what people are frustrated about. I mean, he did say inflation is plummeting, but he did put out some ideas on that. Every week he now spends justifying the war is another week ticked off toward the election without him delivering a clear message on the economy.

[23:10:07]

SANDOVAL: And this conflict, as you know, Ron, it rages on in a midterm year. So what are your thoughts on where Republicans sit on this, especially some of those who say that this war is not a war?

BROWNSTEIN: Yes, well, you know, right now in polling still 80 to 85 percent of Republican voters say they -- say they support this military action, which means that Republican elected officials are going to stick with Trump. And you know, as we've not -- as we've seen over these 15 months, they've been very reluctant to differ or deviate from him on anything. So, you know, his base is going to stay with him, you know, for at least a while on this again, as long as the costs stay manageable. But for the rest of the country, the cost benefit analysis of this is pretty shaky. The biggest political problem Trump has is that voters do not -- most voters do not believe he has made sufficient progress on the issue that they elected him above all to solve.

And not only that, the -- 2/3 in the latest CNN polling reflected in other polls as well, don't believe he is focusing enough on that issue, which is their cost of living. So this is kind of a double whammy in that respect. It compounds that problem to the extent gas prices go up and stay up. But it also becomes yet another piece of evidence of him focusing on just about anything else other than what most of his voters wanted him to do above all. So, you know, even if this goes well, ultimately, I think Republicans and Trump will be judged in the midterm by their success on the economy and as I say, both in terms of the opportunity costs of what he's not talking about and in terms of the actual cost at the pump.

There is real risk for them the longer this conflict goes on.

SANDOVAL: It is always great to get your perspective. Ron Brownstein, thank you for your time.

BROWNSTEIN: Thanks for having me.

SANDOVAL: We'll see on the way here on CNN newsroom.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, my God. Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANDOVAL: Despite an apology from Iran's president, Gulf countries, they are still fending off attacks just like this one. That story much more on the other side of this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:16:13]

SANDOVAL: Welcome back to our breaking news coverage of the war with Iran. Hours after Iran apologized for attacks on its Gulf neighbors on Saturday, several countries across the region are reporting even more attacks. Kuwait saying that a wave of drones targeted fuel storage at its international airport. And Saudi Arabia saying that it also intercepted more than 2021 drones in the early hours of Sunday. And this was the scene in Dubai on Saturday where a building had to be evacuated in a major tourist area due to falling debris from missile interceptions.

In what were extremely rare public comments, the president of the UAE described Iran as the enemy. My next guest is the former Ambassador Dennis Ross, who served as a Middle East negotiator during the Clinton and H.W. Bush administrations. He's also a special assistant to president -- was also a special assistant President Barack Obama.

Mr. Ambassador, thank you so much for joining us.

AMBASSADOR DENNIS ROSS, FMR. SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good to be with you.

SANDOVAL: So in your view, what does conventional wisdom tell us about the Trump administration's goals of regime change in Iran? Do you think that the U.S. Israeli joint strikes so far are enough to get Donald Trump what he wants eventually? ROSS: Well, I think, as you said, the objectives that have been stated by the administration have shifted. So the question becomes, what is it that the president really wants? My guess is that what he wants is to be able to say, and he may be able to do this, that we have set back the Iranian ability to threaten their neighbors for a decade. We have destroyed the military infrastructure, the missile infrastructure, the cruise missiles, the drones, the industrial base that produces them, the whole system that basically allows them to build stockpiles and to -- and to basically transport these systems throughout the country. And that we have basically set back the nuclear program in the same way.

So we have reduced Iran's ability to be a threat to the region, to destabilize the region. And what happens at this point from now on may be up to the Iranians internally. But I think the President would, in a sense, walk away from the issue of regime change and focus instead on the fact that what he's done is set back the Iranians in a way that they were not set back last June. You had a 12-Day War with Israel, which the U.S. joined in on the last day. And in the aftermath of that, while the Iranians were set back, they began to rebuild in a very significant way their ballistic missile capability.

They began, notwithstanding all the domestic problems that they had and the upheaval that they faced. They were again providing material and money to Hezbollah, the same, trying to get it to Hamas, clearly doing more with some of the Shia militias within Iraq as well. In effect, Iran learned nothing from what was done last summer. And in effect, what the president might be saying is it became clear that they would once again destabilize the region, threaten their neighbors, try to attack the Israelis. And we basically put a stop to that.

I think that's the essence of what he's going to say and it's probably the essence of what his objectives are. We're not at the point where we have destroyed enough of the, I would call the industrial base, that produces the missiles and drones and the underground bunkers. We haven't destroyed enough of that to be able to justify the president's being able to make that statement. But I think over time, and it's hard to say exactly how much more time, the military will have a better sense of that. But over time, I think the president could be put in a position where he's able to say that's what was accomplished.

[23:20:13]

SANDOVAL: Yes, as the president said, we could -- we could expect an intensification of some of these strikes, potentially going after some of those underground facilities. President Trump also says that he wants to see unconditional surrender from Iran's regime. I mean, is there any scenario where you see that actually happening?

ROSS: I don't. I think we're much more likely to see this war end with a unilateral declaration by the president where he says that he's achieved what we set out to achieve. And I think basically he'll make it clear if the Iranians were to continue to strike anyone in the region, we would hit them again, but that he's prepared to declare an end to this. And he'll probably say that, look, it's up to the Iranian people to deal with a government that has unmistakably failed them, but that we have achieved what we needed to achieve. I don't see any circumstance in which you have an agreement where the Iranians are effectively saying we surrender.

In fact, even if there is -- even if the president declares an end to the war. I suspect that for a day or so, the Iranians may shoot off a variety of rockets or drones with the express purpose of trying to say we didn't surrender. The ones who wanted to end the war were the Americans, not us. I suspect that's the kind of scenario we're more likely to see.

SANDOVAL: We've seen alliances around the world tested by this conflict in just the last seven days alone. I mean, obviously, we know that Trump has even criticized the U.S.'s European allies as well. And yet there is some support, for example, from the prime minister, Keir Starmer, offering some of the military facilities to support U.S. troops. Just how crucial is that kind of support from European allies when it comes to this current conflict, Mr. Ambassador?

ROSS: Well, one of -- there's two different dimensions to the kind of support that you see. One is a military dimension where there are others who can basically help divide the labor and the costs and the forces that can be used for defense, for example. I think what we're seeing from a number of Europeans is a readiness to send forces in there to help with the defense against what the Iranians are doing. So one dimension of this is just clearly military.

The other is political. The more that Iran isolated the more it weakens Iran over time. The irony is that Iran has, I think, miscalculated. They thought by attacking all their neighbors, that would force the neighbors to come to President Trump and especially those like the Saudis, the Emiratis and the Qataris whose leaders are quite close to President Trump. The expectation on the Iranian side was we'll hit them and they will then go pressure the president to end the war.

That turned out to be a huge miscalculation. And what it's done instead is isolate Iran and it's produced, you made a reference to Mohammad bin Zayed's statement, which is very unusual, really unprecedented, where he publicly came out and called the Iranians an enemy. The UAE has sought to have at least a relationship of calm with the Iranians. And at one point they were even talking about being prepared to invest in Iran. They've allowed, especially in Dubai, they've allowed Iranians a kind of presence there.

And here you have the president of the UAE coming out and not mincing words, making it very clear that Iran is an enemy. And Iran has brought this on itself by not just attacking. If they had -- if they'd gone after only the bases in these countries, that would have been bad enough from the standpoint of these countries. But the fact is they went after all sorts of civilian targets, which belied the arguments that the Iranians were making. And to have the President Pezeshkian come out and apologize and say we won't attack these, and even as he was saying this, there were attacks against civilian targets in these countries. So it made him look like he is disconnected from real power in Iran. But it also validated the view of all these countries that now view Iran as an enemy.

SANDOVAL: Yes, those were just absolutely remarkable statements made this weekend from those two presidents.

Ambassador Dennis Ross, thank you so much for your -- for your time. We really do appreciate your perspective.

ROSS: Pleasure.

[23:24:53]

SANDOVAL: Still to come here on CNN Newsroom, it is one of the most solemn and somber events. A U.S. president contend the dignified transfer of U.S. soldiers killed overseas. We'll tell you about those six fallen soldiers who have just returned home.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANDOVAL: Welcome back. The remains of six U.S. soldiers killed by an Iranian drone in Kuwait have now been returned home to their families. The U.S. president, vice president and other top cabinet officials, they attended this dignified transfer at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware on Saturday. Donald Trump, you see him there saluting while also wearing a white hat with gold USA lettering. He called it a sad day but expects to attend more dignified transfers as, quote, "a part of war," said the president.

CNN's Michael Yoshida tells us more about the six soldiers who were killed in the U.S. war with Iran.

MICHAEL YOSHIDA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: A somber and solemn day here at Dover Air Force Base. This is the place where our heroes come home. The dignified transfer happening of six U.S. service members who were killed in a deadly Iranian drone strike in Kuwait. President Trump, the first Lady, Vice President Vance and others watching as these service members returned to the United States. We are learning more about each of them.

Captain Cody Khork, a 35-year-old from Florida. He had felt a calling from an early age to serve, described as having great leadership and care for his team. Also Sergeant Declan Coady, a 20-year-old from Iowa who had wanted to go on to be a commissioned officer. Also Sergeant First Class Nicole Amor, 39-year-old, mother to a fourth grader and a high school senior. Her husband spoke with her just hours before the deadly strike.

He said, quote, she was almost home. Also Sergeant First Class Noah Tietjens, a 42-year-old devoted husband and father who stood out for his professionalism and mentorship. Major Jeffrey O'Brien, a 45-year- old husband and father of three. He had served in the reserves for nearly two decades. And finally, Chief Warrant Officer 3 Robert Marzan, described as a loving husband, father, brother, uncle and friend. [23:30:24]

All of these US service members, they were assigned to the 130 sustainment command, that's an Army Reserve unit out of Iowa. And we're told that four of them had developed an especially strong bond and kinship as they had previously served together in the same unit back in 2019 in Kuwait. Now this transfer happening, them all have returned home here at Dover Air Force Base.

And for those who know this area, as you drive up towards the base, there's an overpass with the message, all gave some, some gave all. The weight of that message never clearer than on days like today, these six service members being honored and remembered for their service and their sacrifice.

Outside Dover Air Force Base, I'm Michael Yoshida.

SANDOVAL: And President Trump has said that he believes that there will likely be more U.S. casualties in the war with Iran. And he says that there could be possibly be U.S. troops on the ground in Iran. Listen to what he said aboard Air Force One on Saturday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One of the circumstances where you send in ground troops, how are you thinking about that?

TRUMP: I don't even want to talk about it now. I don't think it's an appropriate question. You know, I'm not going to answer it. Could there be? Possibly, for very good reason, have to be very good reason.

And I would say if we ever did that, they would be so decimated that they wouldn't be able to fight at the ground level.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANDOVAL: Douglas Brinkley is a presidential historian. He joins me now live from Los Angeles.

Douglas, thank you so much for joining us tonight.

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Thank you for having me.

SANDOVAL: Douglas, you heard some of the comments from President Trump this weekend and saying that he's leaving the option on the table of possibly sending actual conventional troops into Iran. Historically speaking, just how much of a significant escalation would that be? Should we reach that point?

BRINKLEY: It would be very significant escalation because I don't think the American public, the people have a stomach for, you know, what went through in the early part of this century with Iraq and Afghanistan, sending American soldiers at that degree into harm's way. I think the Trump policies really is claiming, really megaphoning, unconditional surrender. And that term, you know, in American history, Ulysses S. Grant used it. Hence, even may talked about my names, U.S., you know, using unconditional surrender. And then FDR famously made it a doctrine, you know, at Casablanca, of just no surrender.

And it was -- it was meant to motivate an alliance against Germany and Italy and Japan. I don't know what our unconditional surrender is because there is no real government of Iran and we're not sure who the leader is. There's nobody clear who we're negotiating with. And putting American troops into a country of, you know, 93 plus million people seems like a fool's errand.

SANDOVAL: Yes, it is a very high bar that the administration essentially putting for itself there with no guarantee that we may actually get to that point. You know, I'm glad you mentioned previous administrations. Just historically, when was the last time that we witnessed a U.S. president essentially wage a military campaign without securing congressional approval?

BRINKLEY: Well, you know, even Lyndon Johnson in 1964, you know, he pushed through to get us into Vietnam. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution done very quickly and brought America to Vietnam. But you see, Richard Nixon, when he was president and we were -- we had a commitment for war in Vietnam, but Nixon brought the war into Cambodia, and holy hell exploded in Washington, D.C. and beyond because they -- there was a feeling that Nixon exceeded his presidential power.

Donald Trump, the connection to Nixon is Trump loves the line, if the president does it must be legal. That's what Nixon told David Frost for BBC. And he wants to show the world how ardent he is and isn't going to budge an iota.

The question is, though, can Trump come and build a coalition in the Middle East, meaning Netanyahu, Trump starting to get, bring in Quaid, you know, you know, all of our allies, are we going to be standing firm together, or is Iran, Russia going to be able to break the puzzle apart and create some fractions within what is a very shaky alliance in the Middle East right now.

[23:35:16]

SANDOVAL: Sure. And I'm wondering if we could also shift our focus now to Congress. There is certainly this, shall we say, this reluctance among some Republican members of Congress to describe what's happening as a war. House Speaker Mike Johnson called it a limited operation. Based on your expertise, Douglas, what's your assessment of how the War Powers Act applies to this current conflict?

BRINKLEY: Well, keep in mind that President Trump is commander in chief, meaning he runs our armed forces, army, navy, and that's an immense power. But the purse strings are held by Congress. And the way the law is set to work, that President Trump should have consulted with Congress before our intervention, our bombing, our war, our incursion, whatever word you want to use, what occurred. But in typical Trump fashion, he does the act and then backpedals and things will get tied up in legal mumbo jumbo. What is clear is that this is a fiercely high bar for presidential power we're dealing with right now.

And we're watching a Congress not sure whether its steps are. And that's because President Trump's kept the GOP pretty much in lockstep with him thus far, with the exception of Rand Paul in the Senate. And it would have to take kind of a coalition of Republicans saying, enough's enough. We were into the strikes in Iran, and we believe wholeheartedly in U.S. Israeli relations, but nobody is bargaining for a long drawn out war.

Remember the war of George W. Bush, and he went in to -- you know, we thought it'd be a year, then two years and three years and seven years. And there seems not to be a public appetite for that. That's how Donald Trump won. He said, no more forever wars. I'm going to do -- never do what George W. Bush did. That was Trump's foreign policy calling card.

But, alas, he went 180. And this is how he wants to see himself, as this -- a wartime president, not simply a president. You know, that not known in the annals of history, of victory. I think Venezuela whetted his appetite. It was success.

And also his previous strike into Iran, where it worked. It showed that he -- he's learned how sophisticated and awesome U.S. military capabilities are. There's nothing like it in the world. And now he has that as his disposal and is going to be making chess moves or video moves or whatever you want with that but we've got to remember the cost of death and also listen to peacemakers, people like Pope Leo talking about the cost of human life.

SANDOVAL: Yes, without a doubt. Iran last year, Venezuela this year certainly emboldens this U.S. president and now were at this point.

Always great to have your historic context. Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, thank you so much for your time.

BRINKLEY: Thank you.

SANDOVAL: Anti-war protests, they continue across the United States and abroad as the war with Iran continues to escalate. Demonstrators, they gathered here in New York City this weekend, calling on the White House to end the military action and to pursue diplomacy with Iran instead. And many voicing their skepticism over Trump's motivations for escalating the conflict. Here's CNN's Gloria Pazmino reporting from New York.

GLORIA PAZMINO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And it wasn't just here in New York City. We saw demonstrators join protests across different cities, including in Toronto, in London and several other cities here in the United States. In New York City, I spoke to several demonstrators who told me that they wanted to join the protest because they're deeply frustrated about what's happening in Iran and in the region. They feel a frustration with the White House and with the Trump administration, saying that Trump campaigned and promised to not engage the United States in more protracted conflicts. And they see this action in Iran as a breaking of that promise.

I spoke with people who were frustrated with Congress because they feel that there are not being enough of a check on the Trump administration. And many of them told me that they were worried that this conflict and the military action that we're seeing in Iran would drag on for much longer. Here's some of what they had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It seems clearer and clearer each day with the comments from this administration that they don't care about the Iranian people, that they don't care about our American people. And it's very frustrating. But I keep hope alive because most Americans actually agree on most things and want the same things. And they don't want their tax dollars going to a war of choice that is already spilling in to disaster across the region.

[23:40:08]

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There's no plan. This hasn't been, you know, hasn't been brought before the American people. We haven't had any say in this at all.

PAZMINO: And what would you -- were your message be if you could send one to the White House?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: End the war now. End it now. Figure out a diplomatic way to solve this problem.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAZMINO: I also spoke with Iranian-Americans here in the New York City community who told me that there is a lot of heartbreak right now in the community. Families that are divided. Some family members feeling glad that there's an opportunity for change, but also frustrated that it's coming in this way.

A lot of skepticism also that the regime change that the Trump administration has talked about can actually come to fruition. They don't believe that this is actually the right way of doing that. They believe that it's the people of Iran who should be able to determine what the future of their country looks like. And so a lot of concern over that issue as well. Overall, a lot of frustration seeing the images coming out of the Middle East.

I'm Gloria Pazmino, CNN, New York.

SANDOVAL: And still to come, President Trump looks to weigh in on who will become Iran's next leader. We'll bring you a closer look what the process could look like and where it stands at this hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANDOVAL: A member of Iran's Assembly of Experts says that a new supreme leader could be chosen within the next 24 hours. While no selection has taken place yet, according to state media, the senior cleric said that all 88 officials are impatiently waiting the conditions to hold a session where they will pick the next leader. And this comes as President Trump is again reiterating his desire to be involved in picking Iran's next leader. He claims that his input will actually help prevent a future U.S. intervention.

[23:45:09]

Joining me live to discuss now is Jonathan Panikoff. He's the director of the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council.

Jonathan, thank you so much for joining us tonight.

JONATHAN PANIKOFF, DIRECTOR, SCOWCROFT MIDDLE EAST SECURITY INITIATIVE, ATLANTIC COUNCIL: Thanks for having me.

SANDOVAL: So, Jonathan, give us some insight, at least just a sense of what that process is like to select the successor of the ayatollah.

PANIKOFF: It's incredibly secretive. Ideally, the assembly of experts, as you mentioned, which is a mostly clerical establishment, is supposed to get together and choose the next leader. It then has to be approved by what's called the Guardian Council, which is a smaller body that is supposed to protect even more so the underpinnings of the revolution, the ideological underpinnings of Iran. But it's worth noting that the one time that we've had a succession in 1989, from Ayatollah Khomeini to the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was just killed, they actually largely ignored the process. They chose their own way.

And so while there is a process set up, we'll still have to wait and see if it's actually followed.

SANDOVAL: Do you think that recent protests that we witnessed earlier this year may have potential influence on that process at all, potentially steering where the next leader will actually -- at least steering the process by which the next leader is selected?

PANIKOFF: Sadly, I don't, unfortunately. Look, I think there's going to be a major impact on the Iranian regime and how it ideologically proceeded or thought we would have not seen thousands of protesters killed, frankly, on the street, the reality is that the regime right now, even the remaining portions, seem quite committed to the ideological underpinnings that it was founded on. And so while it's possible a new supreme leader could be more pragmatic, largely, I would expect that you'll see any new supreme leader to be within the confines of what we would view to be kind of the traditional candidates and how they would approach the Iranian regime as it's been since the revolution in '79.

SANDOVAL: And when it comes to just, you know, regular Iranians, especially those that participated in some of these protests, these deadly protests that we saw earlier this year, is there any appetite there for President Trump to have any say over who the next leader would be?

PANIKOFF: I think most Iranians, those who have taken to the streets, there's unclear polling, it's a very difficult place to poll about whether the majority really want nothing to do with this regime. Frankly, more than anything, just want leadership and an ability to live their lives with more freedom, with more openness. If President Trump can help deliver that pressure and leverage, I'm sure that they would welcome that. But I think the bigger challenge right now is that there's confusion, I would imagine even in Iran, about whether President Trump is seeking regime change, as he seemed to indicate at the very beginning of this conflict when he called for people to come to the streets once bombing ended, or he's seeking simply leadership change but willing to also work within the system a la Venezuela, that I don't think is what most of those who came to the street are looking for.

SANDOVAL: Some absolutely fascinating insight from Jonathan Panikoff. Thank you so much for your time, Jonathan, as always. Appreciate it.

PANIKOFF: Thanks for having me.

SANDOVAL: Thank you. And as the U. S. Israeli war on Iran intensifies in scale, so too does the battle for information. We'll have more coming up on how Iran is presenting the conflict in a very different light.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:53:01]

SANDOVAL: As the U.S. Israeli war in Iran intensifies in scales, so too does that battle for information. You see within Iran state media, they have been pushing an alternative narrative of military superiority through the combination of AI generated images and propagandist claims. Here's CNN's Nada Bashir with more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NADA BASHIR, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): As the U. S. Israeli war against Iran rages on, a war of narratives is also playing out. While some U.S. officials are attempting to downplay the scope of this latest deadly military offensive --

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), HOUSE SPEAKER: We're not at war right now.

BASHIR (voice-over): -- the Iranian regime's propaganda machine is in full swing, portraying a resolute image of strength despite days of intense bombardment by the U.S. and Israeli militaries and the death toll within Iran already surpassing 1,000, according to one human rights group.

BASHIR: Propaganda has long been a powerful tool in the Iranian regime's arsenal. And state media has been working around the clock to inflate the success of the regime's counteroffensive, framing attacks on U.S. and Israeli assets in the region as being on an unprecedented scale. But how accurate is this framing?

BASHIR (voice-over): Iran's counterattacks have been significant in both scope and impact, successfully targeting military, diplomatic and civilian infrastructure in the region. But misinformation has also been rife from the outset of this war. Iranian leaders have, for example, portrayed attacks on Israel as having completely decimated cities and key military assets.

One parliamentary representative claimed that all Israeli security and intelligence centers were being struck by Iranian missiles. And in this social media post from Iran's Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, he claims that more than 500 U.S. soldiers have been killed in just the last few days. In reality, six U.S. service members are confirmed to have died during this war so far.

[23:55:10]

AI enhanced images have also circulated across social media, including an AI manipulated image claiming to show a destroyed American radar installation in Qatar. The unverified claim was also shared in an article by the Tehran Times newspaper. It is false claims like this that have spread doubt amongst international audiences over the veracity of attacks both inside Iran and beyond.

MAHSA ALIMARDANI, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, WINTNESS: With AI, we have this concept of the liar's dividend. The liar's dividend is basically the term of art for the benefit that accrues bad actors when they sow public uncertainty and they basically question if anything can be real.

BASHIR (voice-over): Iranian state media has also, as expected, been highly selective in its coverage. Take for example the devastating attack on Iran's Minab elementary school which killed more than 100 young girls according to state media. The widespread coverage of the aftermath and the mass funeral held for the victims is a stark contrast from the regime's response to the thousands reportedly killed earlier this year during anti-regime protests.

ALIMARDANI: When the burials of, you know, the hundreds of girls was done, they had aerial shots of the burials. They had tons of footage and photography of the mass kind of crowds attending the funerals and the burials. And you have like compare it to the deaths of the protesters in January where people couldn't get even the bodies of their children. They weren't allowed to have burials or funerals.

BASHIR (voice-over): Of course, both the U.S. and Israel are also striving to shape the coverage of this latest conflict in a never ending battle to control the narrative.

Nada Bashir, CNN in London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SANDOVAL: Thank you so much for joining me in the last hour of news. I'm Polo Sandoval in New York. I'll join you again in just a moment as we continue our breaking news coverage of the war with Iran.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)