Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Seventh U.S. Service Member Killed In Iran War; Two Republicans Vote With Democrats To Rein Trump's War Powers; Mojtaba Khamenei Selected As Iran's Next Supreme Leader. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired March 08, 2026 - 17:00   ET

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

[17:00:00]

UNKNOWN: 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.

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

Nada Bashir, CNN, in London.

JESSICA DEAN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Nada Bashir, thank you. The new hour of "CNN Newsroom" starts right now.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): This is "CNN Breaking News."

DEAN: And you are in the "CNN Newsroom." Hi everyone. I'm Jessica Dean here in New York. U.S. Central Command saying a seventh U.S. service member has been killed in the Iran War. That service member died last night from severe injuries received in an attack in Saudi Arabia, March 1st, during Iran's initial strikes across the Middle East. That soldier's identity is being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin has been notified.

Six soldiers who died earlier in an attack in Kuwait returned to U.S. soil on Saturday in a dignified transfer. I do want to go now to CNN's Nic Robertson who is on the ground in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Nic, what else can you share with us about this seventh servicemember's death?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes, I think what we're learning is a picture of just how sensitive it is for Saudi Arabia to have U.S. troops on its soil and for them to be caught up in this war because it is highly unusual, it appears, certainly in the way that CENTCOM has released information about those fallen soldiers in Kuwait and the additional casualties and injuries, some severe, some not so much, around that attack a number of days ago. This is the first information that we've had that this service member was injured seven days ago, seriously wounded, now passing away.

There's a lot of information that we don't have. The Ministry of Defense here in Saudi Arabia doesn't want to give any information because they say that this is a U.S. military issue and refers us to CENTCOM. So, we don't know where this incident took place, this attack, as it was described by CENTCOM as an attack on U.S. troops. We don't know if it was a direct strike from a drone, a cruise missile or a ballistic missile or if it was a result of an intercept.

What we do know is that the vast majority of the more than several thousand U.S. forces believed to be in Saudi Arabia have historically been stationed at the Prince Sultan Air Base, which is just outside of the capital, Riyadh, here. And that is an air base that has had repeated strike attempts by drone, cruise missile, ballistic missile over -- particularly over the last few days. The Saudis repeatedly say that they're intercepting all those missiles fired at that very important air base. Indeed, we've just been told by the Ministry of Defense here that another ballistic missile fired at Prince Sultan Air Base has been successfully intercepted.

But it does seem a little perhaps stranger out of kilter not to have had the information about the injury, about this casualty, or to be informed if there were additional U.S. casualties from something that happened a week ago.

The other thing that has happened here today, again in the similar area to the Prince Sultan Air Base, close by a town less than 10 miles from there, two civilians have been killed, a Pakistani and a Bangladeshi, and 12 others injured, again in a missile -- in a projectile strike, is what the Ministry of Defense has said here. So, in the space of one day, now three fatalities in Saudi Arabia have been announced. We haven't seen any fatalities publicly announced until now.

DEAN: Yes, that is certainly worth noting. Nic Robertson, thank you so much for your reporting there in Saudi Arabia. We appreciate it.

We're joined now by former national security advisor during President Trump's first term, John Bolton. He also previously served as the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Mr. Ambassador, thanks for being here with us. I first just want to start with what we started our show with, this death of a seventh U.S. service member killed in this war, and I just want to get your thoughts on where we are.

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: Well, very sad. Obviously, we don't know the circumstances. But Saudi Arabia has been hit by attacks from Iran much less than some of the other Gulf countries like the UAE, which have received proportionally greater attacks. But I think this is going to continue. And I think it's -- hopefully, it's something the Pentagon planned for and tried to minimize the prospects for casualties.

DEAN: President Trump appeared yesterday to rule out involving Iranian Kurdish groups in a possible ground offensive.

[17:05:03]

He has not, though, ruled out boots on the ground even though -- let's put an asterisk next to that -- we don't, you know, define boots on the ground. What might that mean to him? But is it possible to accomplish the president's goals without some sort of ground contingent, do you think? BOLTON: Well, let me address the Kurds first, if I might. Look, the

Kurds have separatist ambitions, pretty well founded in their history. But by the same token, they could certainly join forces with other ethnic groups and the other widespread dissatisfaction inside Iran against the regime and they could leave the separatism or autonomy question until later. I think anything that puts pressure on the regime is positive.

I've said for really since the attacks began that I didn't think that Trump would want any extensive presence on the ground. We undoubtedly have some there now. But the one exception to that is whether it's now or later to secure the nuclear sites, the elements of Iran's nuclear weapons program, Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan, and perhaps others. And that appears to be perhaps under consideration.

The reason for that is we don't want any of the materials, equipment or other information there really to get out, to be used by the Iranians later if they try and rebuild their program and certainly not to let it get out into the hands of terrorist groups or rogue states that are themselves seeking a nuclear weapons program.

So, I think there would be strong justification to do that. It's a risky operation, to be sure. But after all, it is Iran's nuclear threat that primarily concerns us.

DEAN: I also want to ask you about the Israeli-U.S. relationship in all of these. Since this war began, they've really been in lockstep on all of these. We did see the energy secretary, Chris Wright, telling CNN today that the U.S. does not plan to strike Iran's oil and energy infrastructure, which we have seen Israel do in the past 24 hours. We've been reporting on that. Do you think the U.S. and Israeli goals are compatible as we move forward and how might that evolve, do you think?

BOLTON: Well, I think it's possible there could be a difference of opinion. If the United States is really committed to regime change, that's Israel's fundamental objective as well. I think the attacks on oil tanks and other infrastructure have more to do with debilitating the civilian economy than really preventing Iran from pumping oil and shipping it later. And I think that's a conscious decision.

Again, if we get regime change, if there's a possibility that the Ayatollahs are gone for good and there's a road to a constitutional process for the Iranian people to decide who governs them, you don't want to destroy the economy totally because the economy is already in the tank and any new government would need access to selling oil without a sanction. So, destroying their infrastructure would just make it very hard for a new government to be successful.

DEAN: And so, how do -- what do you think that means -- knowing all of that, what do you think that means for the U.S. and Israeli relationship moving forward?

BOLTON: Well, if it's working correctly, I think it means that Prime Minister Netanyahu and Trump have to be talking all the time, assessing where they are and what comes next. I have to say, from the military perspective, it looks like the two participants are meshed very closely together. That's obviously good.

But as on other questions, dealing with other allies, with our public here at home and Congress and with the opposition, I think on the political side of this operation, the administration has a lot of work to do so that the failures there on those sorts of issues don't undercut the obvious military successes we're having.

DEAN: Do you think that the president has done a good enough job explaining this to the American people?

BOLTON. No. I think he should have been making the case for regime change months and months ago. That has nothing to do with describing the military operations we've seen the past week or the time or anything like that. It's to make the very compelling case that Iran's quest for nuclear weapons and its longstanding support for international terrorism and its direct state terrorism itself, often against Americans, is a very, very good case for regime change. I think he could have had a lot of support for this before the attack started.

The polls show the war is not popular. The president has the bully pulpit, as Theodore Roosevelt said. He needs to communicate to the citizenry, certainly to people in Congress, that this is something that's in America's national security interest.

DEAN: All right, Ambassador John Bolton, thanks for your time. We appreciate it.

[17:10:01]

BOLTON: Thank you.

DEAN: Still ahead in the "CNN Newsroom," most Republicans in Congress are supporting President Trump's authority in the conflict in the Middle East. But not all. One of those pushing back, Congressman Warren Davidson, will join us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DEAN: On Thursday, the House voted against a measure that would have restricted the president's war powers.

[17:15:00]

This after a similar failing in the Senate Wednesday. Some Republican lawmakers, though, have been raising concerns over the U.S.-Israel war with Iran.

I want to bring in Republican Congressman Warren Davidson from Ohio. He's joining us now. He's a West Point graduate, served in the Army. Congressman, great to have you. Thanks for being here on this Sunday afternoon. You are one of the few Republicans speaking out against the decision to attack Iran, how it has been conducted, the plan going forward, just two -- one of just two Republicans who joined that failed vote to try to rein in the president's war authority. Now, there's this potential that the Pentagon could request more funding. I'm curious where you are on that.

REP. WARREN DAVIDSON (R-OH): Yes, I think, you know, one, it's important to properly characterize the vote. I mean, the Constitution limits the president's war-making authority. Of course, the president can respond to repel an invasion or an imminent attack. And the debate is really, can you engage in a war of choice? And that's the point of Article I, Section 8 where Congress has that decision-making authority. And so that was really what the vote was.

And some people say, well, the War Powers Resolution gives the president the ability to do whatever he wants for 60 days as long as he tells Congress in advance. That's also not true. But I'm encouraged that at least some of my colleagues recognize that come 60 days from now, if the president hasn't sought and obtained authorization for the war, that there would be a constitutional crisis for that.

So -- but that was really the vote. It wasn't whether you could be 100 percent for the war and everything else or you could be 100 percent opposed. But that was the question. The question was, should the president be able to do this without congressional authorization, not whether or not we should go to war.

DEAN: Right, or whether or not you support the war. I am -- one of the central questions that continues to bubble up is, what is the plan here? How is this going to -- what is going to happen as this moves forward and in response to Senate Republican Senator Lindsey Graham's comments saying that plan for Iran is regime change? That is what he says.

You said the president seems to have a different plan. I'm curious how -- what is your level of concern over the fact the administration might not have a clear strategy for how this end or exactly where they're going? Are you concerned about that?

DAVIDSON: Well, I can tell you what the president and his team briefed initially was that there's three objectives that are obtainable. One is longstanding and it has been the policy of the United States and that has been passed in law. We agree that Iran should not obtain a nuclear weapon. In fact, we've directed the president to do what he can to make sure Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. And so, I think that's part of how a lot of people wrestled with the strikes back last summer in terms of limiting Iran's ability to never have a nuclear weapon.

And then the most recent attacks, he said there were three objectives: No missile capability, no Navy that can keep choking off the Straits of Hormuz, and then no ongoing support for the proxy groups that have done so much to destabilize the region. Now, since then, of course, Lindsey Graham continued to speak all kinds of things, more wars in more places. Even in the midst of this war, he wants to start at least one or two more wars.

But the president has said that he's also supporting unconditional surrender. And Karoline Leavitt has been clear and everyone that knows President Trump knows that he doesn't take things off the table. So, a lot of times people say, oh, well, he's for anything extreme, and he'll never be boxed in where they'll take it off the table. And I think that's important. That's the way he negotiates. That doesn't necessarily mean that's what his actual position is.

DEAN: What would you like to see moving ahead, moving forward in all of these?

DAVIDSON: Well, it's too late to put the toothpaste back in, right? So, I mean --

DEAN: Yes.

DAVIDSON: -- the war is already underway. You can pretend it's not a war. It's embarrassing when people try to say this isn't a war. Of course, they did that for the entire Korean War. They pretended it was a U.N. police action and refused to authorize it.

And it was an Ohio Republican, albeit in the Senate, Senator Taft, who kept insisting that we should call it a war since it's a war and we should vote in Congress because that's what the Constitution says. He never prevailed and who knows how that'll turn out here. And I think that's the real question is. I think we should call it a war, we should have a vote and debate on it, and we should do that before we fund it.

DEAN: And so where are you on continuing that funding? I mean, it sounds like you want to have this discussion before you approve any more funding for this. Is that -- am I understanding that right?

DAVIDSON: Yes, that is the exact point. And I think that's what the Constitution requires, is come have the discussion and you look at the resources that are required for it. It's a heavy lift. I mean, you're talking as much as $2 billion a day. We already have massive deficits.

[17:19:58]

But what you can tell from the action and from the briefings we received, this is going to be a very serious and intense combat operation, right? So, the level of intensity going on here is the kind of thing Congress should debate. And look, as a as an army ranger back in the day, look, I think if you're going to fight a war, you should fight it to win, you should be very bold and decisive, you shouldn't have to step it.

I think that's the mindset. Pete Hegseth is leading with it as secretary of war. And the men and women of our arms forces are doing heroic work in their fighting a just cause. Whether we should have done it or shouldn't have done it is a different story.

I mean, the Iranian regime is the largest state-sponsored terror. They've engaged in horrible atrocities around the world and against their own people. Their government is evil. So, I do hope that their government goes away. But I do also hope that we make rational decisions collectively in accordance with the Constitution.

DEAN: And the president is said to be weighing whether or not to put troops on the ground there in Iran. What are your thoughts on that? DAVIDSON: Well, again, it's a limiting factor. If your goal is regime change, that's what it's going to take. You shouldn't pretend that somehow, you're going to bomb your way to regime change, particularly given the kind of terrain that Iran has.

So, we had a much more limited objective in Kosovo, for example, and Serbia in the 90s. And granted, tech has come a long way since then. But ultimately, what you find is if you want to change a regime, it's pretty hard to do without boots on the ground.

And I think that's likely what would be necessary to change the regime in Iran. And I think it's going to take a longer-term commitment and a lot of resolve because you see the same kind of, you know, weight- amount strategy. I think the other thing is if you look at it from a weight-amount strategy, that doesn't mean you have to go with the same level of intensity. Part of the reason people can say, oh, we can weight them out is they watch you spend massive amounts of energy, and then they spend minimal amount of energy in grand strategy. That's known as, in the principles of war, that's economy of force.

And that's what we did so successfully as a country to defeat ISIS. We engaged in our own proxies. We had, you know, Kurdish rebels and other -- others engage against ISIS, and then we used a limited amount of resources and we denied our adversaries targets to hit. If you look at Iraq, by contrast, you put a big army on the ground and you drove down the same supply routes every day, and then you act surprised you got ambushed. The fight against ISIS denied a footprint to be targeted. And if we were going to go for a regime change, I think we should learn from what worked against ISIS and what didn't work with a big army approach driving down the same supply routes every day.

DEAN: All right, Congressman Warren Davidson, thanks for your time. We appreciate you.

DAVIDSON: Thank you.

DEAN: We do have breaking news out of Iran as a new supreme leader has been named. We will bring that to you right after this quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DEAN: We do have breaking news just in to CNN. Iran naming its new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei. He's the son of the late supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. I want to bring in CNN's Jeremy Diamond, who is standing by in Tel Aviv as we get this breaking news. Jeremy, what are you hearing from your sources?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jessica, this is just in from Iran's assembly of experts. This is the body of senior Iranian clerics responsible for electing the next supreme leader. And they have now chosen just over a week after the assassination of the ayatollah, Ali Khamenei, they have chosen his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, as his successor. He is a 56-year-old who is known for having close ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. And he will, in large part, his selection here, will in large part be viewed as a continuation of his father's rule and quite a hardline kind of stance for this Iranian body of experts to be choosing as the next supreme leader of Iran.

The two other candidates who had been in the running to potentially be named as the next supreme leader were viewed as the more moderate candidates. And so, clearly, these senior Iranian clerics choosing to kind of continue the legacy of Ayatollah Khamenei, who ruled for decades in Iran by choosing another Khamenei, Mojtaba Khamenei.

Interestingly, he was also apparently among the individuals who were targeted in those opening Israeli strikes last Saturday, which saw the killing of the former supreme leader as well as dozens of other senior Iranian officials. Mojtaba Khamenei was wounded in that strike, according to reports. His wife was also killed in that very same strike. And so, now, we see the direction that Iran is heading in in the wake of the assassination of the longtime supreme leader.

It's also important to note that this is someone who President Trump has said would be unacceptable to him in terms of leading Iran in the future. The president had said in an interview with Axios a few days ago that Mojtaba Khamenei was a -- quote -- "lightweight" and that choosing him was unacceptable, that this would be viewed as something that would kind of continue the direction of Iran. President Trump, of course, has said that he would like to have a say in the future direction of Iran, kind of likening this to the same scenario that just happened in Venezuela.

[17:30:02]

But we are watching as this, you know, very heavily-ingrained system in Iran that has ruled the country for decades is remaining in power and electing another Khamenei as its next leader.

DEAN: All right, Jeremy, I want you to please stand by. We're going to come back to you. I do want to go to Fred Pleitgen, our colleague who is in Tehran. Fred, what are you hearing about this -- the new supreme leader?

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Jessica. Well, this announcement was made 20 minutes ago on Iranian state T.V. It was a very low-key announcement. It was basically read out. They broke into the newscast. And to give you a sense of what happened there on Iranian state T.V., there were so many screens that showed some gatherings that were happening and that's going on right now during these times of these combat operations. There are night time vigils going on in several Iranian cities. And some of the people who were seen start cheering for that as the new supreme leader, Ayatollah Seyed Mojtaba Khamenei, was announced as the new supreme leader or the third supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

There was a statement also from the Council of Experts that they had to go thorough deliberations as they had to pick. Apparently, the decision on Mojtaba Khamenei as the new supreme leader was actually made today, obviously now upcoming day. Of course, who are on that council are very much aware of the fact that this announcement comes at a time that is very difficult for the Islamic Republic of Iran. There's a lot going on. Obviously, there were some of the words that came from U.S. President Donald Trump. Nevertheless, they said that these deliberations were very thorough. They believe that Mojtaba Khamenei is the best candidate to take over from his late father and obviously to continue some of the policies of his late father as well.

Just to give you an idea, Mojtaba Khamenei is 56 years ago. He was born in Mashhad which is, of course, one of holy cities here. You're hearing a lot that alliance is there. He went to a religious seminary. However, being called to a major religious city, a holy city that is not very far from here in Tehran. So, certainly, there have to be religious credentials for this position.

Also, if it were to be categorized, definitely more in the camp of the hardliners, he has good connections to Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps. Clearly, what Council of Records has done, it has opted for a continuation of the policies, the ideology, of course, also of his father, Ayatollah Khamenei, who, of course, was killed a couple of days ago in an airstrike here in Tehran. So, it has made anything that is going to be complicated or everything that is going to mean as this armed conflict continues and as that standoff, of course, also with U.S. Trump administration continues as well.

DEAN: OK, Fred Pleitgen live from Tehran. Fred, thank you so much for that reporting. I believe we also have Clarissa Ward standing by in Erbil, Iraq. Clarissa, obviously, the question now is, what might the new Ayatollah mean for Iran's actions moving forward? Obviously, they have been striking where you are in Erbil and been trying to strike U.S. air bases as well. What more can you tell us?

CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jessica, I think this comes as a surprise to nobody. It has been speculated now for a few days that Mojtaba Khamenei would indeed be announced as the new supreme leader. The real question here is, what would be the response of President Donald Trump? What would be the response of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?

The Israelis have previously made it clear that he would not be a palatable choice for them because he is absolutely a sign of the continuation of the old guard, of the hardliners. He has a close relationship with the IRGC, a close relationship with the besieged paramilitary voluntary force. He was sanctioned by the U.S. in 2019.

And I think something else that's very striking, just talking to some Iranian sources and contacts in the diaspora, is that many Iranians have barely ever heard this man speak. This is somebody who has largely been in the shadows. Even though he was known to be powerful and wielding a lot of influence in the background, he is not what you might say a familiar face on Iranian televisions or a familiar voice.

So, it's going to be very interesting to see what the response is from the U.S. and Israel and what kind of comments we may hear from him and what that portends for the direction that this conflict is taking. Certainly, a lot of people will not be feeling overly optimistic about this, depending on which side of this war they sit on.

[17:35:00]

Here in the region, there is just a desperate desire, Jessica, for everybody to try to find some kind of a diplomatic off-ramp. We have seen a steady stream of attacks across the entire Gulf, here in Iraq where there are now real tensions between the Kurdish leaders, between the government in Baghdad. We heard the Iranian president just yesterday saying, you know what, we apologize for these attacks and they're not going to happen anymore. And within moments, we saw a drone hit the Dubai airport and those attacks have continued. And today, a big strike in Kuwait hitting a ministry, a 22-floor building engulfed in flames. Fortunately, no one died in Bahrain. A desalination plant was hit.

And it's clear that people in the region and leaders in the region are getting increasingly frustrated and running out of road in terms of holding this position of trying to be patient, to not allow things to escalate.

We heard the leader of the United Arab Emirates yesterday in very rare comments, really issuing a stern rebuke, calling Iran the enemy, that's not language that we have heard before, and also saying that that the Iranian government should not confuse the restraint and the patience at this stage of the United Arab Emirates for weakness.

So, I think, for many, this will be seen potentially as an ominous sign that this conflict is going to continue to escalate, Jessica.

DEAN: Yes. And Iran had hoped that in striking some of those goal states, that perhaps they would then turn around and put pressure on the U.S. and Israel. As you note, that has not happened just yet. Clarissa, I think a lot of people, too -- we hear regime change a lot. We have heard that certainly from Benjamin Netanyahu. He has been quite clear about that being an objective for the Israelis. The U.S. and President Trump have talked about it, but not made it a clear objective when they listed out from the Pentagon. What might this mean, naming Mojtaba Khamenei as the new supreme leader? What might that mean in that conversation?

WARD: Well, let's think about what President Trump has said. In the beginning, he talked about Iranian people take to the streets, take your country back. Then he seemed to rolled that back a little bit and say, no, we're focused on three strategic objectives, the nuclear sites, the missiles, Iran's Navy. Then he talked again about people taking to the streets and taking their country back. And then he has talked a few times about the success, in his eyes, of the Venezuela model and Delcy Rodriguez and how well that has worked out.

Well, you can be pretty sure, Jessica, and I'm not an Iran expert, but still, I think it's safe to speculate that Mojtaba Khamenei is not going to be a Delcy Rodriguez model by which I mean he will not be a candidate or a supreme leader who can be pragmatic and work with the U.S. and Israel and effectively be some kind of a puppet while still maintaining the sort of cohesion of the regime within Iran.

So, this is clearly a rebuke to President Trump in that sense, and it remains to be seen how the U.S. president will respond, Jessica.

DEAN: Yes, certainly does. All right, Clarissa, thank you so much for that reporting. I do want to go back to Jeremy Diamond. Again, he is standing by in Tel Aviv. And Jeremy, we're just talking there with Clarissa about what this potentially could mean when it comes to any potential regime change, and we were noting how very clear and explicit the Israeli prime minister has been in that being an objective of theirs. What more can you tell us about those dynamics?

DIAMOND: Yes, absolutely. And, you know, I was just texting with an Israeli official while you were speaking with Clarissa who wrote to me -- quote -- "I doubt the Iranian people want to replace one ayatollah with another ayatollah."

And so, you get a sense there of the Israeli point of view on this, that Mojtaba Khamenei will be nothing but a continuation of his father's rule, which is also the analysis of most experts who view him as a hardliner, someone very much aligned with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

And so, from the Israeli perspective, this certainly doesn't mark the regime change that they are looking for, and I presume that Mojtaba Khamenei will now also, once again, have a target on his back in the same way that his father did.

You know, we have heard from Israeli officials over the course of the past week who have made clear that the Israeli operations there are intended to weaken not only Iran's military apparatus, but really the structures of the regime.

All of the different things that hold this regime together, whether it is the Basij, the internal security forces inside of Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and now also what we are seeing in terms of Israel going after Iran's oil infrastructure, all of these is intended to get at the various pillars of this Iranian regime.

[17:39:56]

And whether it is the former supreme leader or now the newly appointed one, Israel's strikes and its actions will be intended to weaken his rule and to try and encourage the Iranian people to once again take to the streets and try and overthrow their leader. So far, we haven't yet seen that kind of return of mass protests from Iranians in the streets amid this war over the course of the last week, but that certainly is something that the Israelis are hoping will happen.

And again, now, we are just watching to see how the Iranians will also react to the appointment of the recently deceased supreme leader's son to this position, how they will react to seeing a continuation of a leader who many of them came out into the streets in large numbers to protest as recently as a couple of months ago.

DEAN: Yes. Fascinating dynamics. All right, Jeremy, thank you so much. I want to go now to Nic Robertson who's in Riyadh Saudi Arabia. Nic, as you've noted in our time together earlier today, Saudi Arabia, of course, also being targeted by the Iranians. They were announcing their first deaths in all of this today. What might this mean for Gulf states, specifically where you are in Saudi Arabia?

ROBERTSON: Look, I think the Gulf states here are going to read Iran by its actions. They are trying desperately to stay out of the war, a war that they feel has been brought on them by the United States, by President Trump, by Israel, by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. So, whatever happens politically, militarily in Iran.

And there was a sort of a false hope yesterday when the Iranian president spoke positively about apologizing to the Gulf states for attacking them. And then the next thing that happened was there was a huge round of missiles attacking civilian and government infrastructure in Bahrain, in Kuwait, in the UAE, and in Saudi Arabia just in the past couple of hours where, in the past few minutes actually, two ballistic missiles have been intercepted, fired at Prince Sultan Air Base. That's a massive air base just outside of the capital, Riyadh, where U.S. troops, U.S. Air Force are based. There was another ballistic missile fired there just an hour or so before that.

The message, I think, and the interpretation that these leaders in the Gulf are going to put on the situation is, what is Iran doing? How is it threatening our security? And are they going to go ratchet up a level, not just target military bases and civilian infrastructure, but will they double down on energy infrastructure like oil refineries, oil fields? How far upstream on those sites will they go? How much damage will they do?

And that, of course, is going to bring about a judgment call on how these Gulf states should respond to, I think where we stand this evening, see a leader that has been elected in Iran who is very clearly unpalatable to the U.S. president, unpalatable to Israel, a continuation, it appears, of the hardline leadership of his father, a further ascendancy and strengthening of the IRGC in the current situation.

Given the president's words yesterday, it didn't seem to carry for very much. It is worrying. It is a footstep closer to sort of staring over the precipice of the chaos that could come, that everyone here hopes won't come.

Everyone, I think it was fair to say, in the Gulf countries this evening, I was talking to, you know, a number of well-informed Saudis here about the situation and it really was, what happens next? Well, it depends on who Iran picks as their leader and then, after that, what they do, what military action do they have. The ball, in essence, for where this goes at the moment, escalation, de-escalation, chaos, not chaos, does seem to lie in the Iranian leadership. I think this will be interpreted as a step towards a real potential for further chaos.

DEAN: That is a very important point. Nic Robertson in Riyadh, thank you so much. We are joined now by former CIA director and commander of U.S. Central Command, retired General David Petraeus. He's also chairman of the KKR Global Institute. General Petraeus, thanks for being here with us. I first just want to get your reaction, we've heard from our reporters spread out all across the region, get your reaction based on your experience as to what this naming of the late supreme leader's son could potentially mean.

DAVID PETRAEUS, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR, FORMER COMMANDER OF U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: Well, I think it is unfortunate. I think Nic had it exactly right. Everyone was waiting to see who would be the next supreme leader. Now, we know and we assume that he will be a continuation of what his father was, which is a very hardline ideological cleric.

[17:44:58]

I don't think he's even an ayatollah unless he just got promoted very recently, which also happened for his father, by the way. He was not that prominent when he was selected several decades ago. And if this continues then and in particular if they start to widen their target list, it's going to escalate things and it could prolong things as well.

I think the hope had been that there might be someone who would become the leader, who would be a bit more pragmatic, might signal a willingness to give up on the nuclear program, to stop arming these murderous proxies in the region, and to stand down on its missile program. And that does not appear to be the case right now unless, of course, he emerges as someone different when he actually is in power. And we've seen that elsewhere, of course. But that would not be the base case at this point.

DEAN: What might that escalation look like?

PETRAEUS: Well, it would be a widening of the target set that Iran is striking particularly with its drones, although it clearly has some missiles left, down about 90 percent in terms of the numbers of missiles they are sending each day. But they still are sending some.

And, of course, the missile mass starts to get important here, how many missiles and launchers that they have left relative to how many missile interceptors we have left. We know that some of the countries in the region have voiced some concerns about that.

And then drone threat does continue as well. Although it's much smaller warheads, it still can cause a lot of damage and destruction, particularly if it can ignite something.

So, again, the possibility that was there, I think, where we were making great progress against our military objectives in terms of the missile and drone programs, the leadership, of course, the naval forces, generally the regime forces overall in their infrastructure and so forth, to the point that if there was someone who would come in that would signal some willingness to talk behind the scenes and perhaps bring it to a close. But I'm not sure that that is now the base case.

Let's keep in mind also that if he is so hardline that he refuses to change the trajectory of Iran, that we might have to repeat this six, 12 months from now. If they restart their nuclear program or develop a threatening number of missiles again, that was probably going to cause Israel to attack them regardless of this had we not gone forward in another month or so. I was in Tel Aviv a few weeks ago, and they were very concerned about how rapidly that missile capability had been reconstituted.

DEAN: And so, to that point, does that -- do you think that changes the U.S. and Israeli military position at this point for what they're going to do going forward, knowing that he is now the new leader and knowing what you just laid out?

PETTRAEUS: Well, it certainly could. There are other factors here, though, that could lead to consider how long this should go on. I mean, one of them is inescapably the price of Brent crude, which could well break $100 a barrel when the trading resumes. It's set roughly about $93 a barrel right now, having been in the low to mid 60s prior to all of this happening. It's sort of stair stepped its way up, particularly if the prospect for freedom of navigation through the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz has not very clearly returned.

The Iranians have struck a number of vessels and it appears that a lot are just hunkering down, waiting to see what's going to happen. And at least two countries in the region have already stopped producing because they don't have any more storage facilities for what it is that they have produced.

And that will be a concern going forward, especially for Asia and for Europe. It's a bit less for us although, paradoxically, the production of West Texas Intermediate continues. There's no interruption. But that price tends to go up with Brent. And so, it is trading just a few dollars below. That will have a very significant impact on the price of a gallon of gas at the gas pumps. And then there will be other issues as well.

Again, have we really whittled down the drone capability? Can we take that down further, the actual manufacturing capability? Can we destroy all of the missile launchers, stockpiles and, again, those manufacturing capabilities? Is there an emergence of an opposition force that does not appear to be in the cards right now but it's not something you can rule out?

And, by the way, there's another factor here. It is actually possible that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps with whom, again, the former ayatollah's son does have a close relationship, I'm actually not sure how they will regard.

[17:50:00]

This almost becomes a monarchy again. And, you know, didn't they just take down a monarchy? That was the cause of revolution back in 1979. So, a number of different dynamics that are going to be in play here. But I think one will not, and that is the emergence of a pragmatic leader with whom we might have been able to craft a deal that would have provided much longer stability in a region whose brand is built on stability and security and prosperity and visionary leadership and so forth.

DEAN: Yes. All right, General David Petraeus, thanks for your time. We appreciate it.

PETRAEUS: Good to be with you, Jessica. DEAN: Thank you. And we continue to follow this breaking news as Iran names the new supreme leader. We will have much more for you when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DEAN: We continue to follow these new developments out of Iran where the late supreme leader's son, Mojtaba Khamenei, has been named his successor. Since the war began, oil prices have been surging. And there are questions around what might happen now, especially in light of this new news.

Let's bring in oil and energy analyst Bob McNally. Bob, thanks so much for being here with us. We are getting this new information about who has been named the next supreme leader. And all of this happening, too, as we wonder how this war will impact the oil industry, gas prices here at home. Can you connect the dots for everybody?

BOB MCNALLY, OIL AND ENERGY ANALYST: You bet. Great to be with you, Jessica. I wish I had better news. So, the world is now a little more than a week into the largest oil disruption ever in history. The 20 million barrels a day that have stopped flowing from Hormuz to the world is twice the amount of the biggest last disruption, which is all the way back in the 1950s, believe it or not, the Suez crisis. This is a percentage of total world supply.

So, this is an authentic crisis. It needs to stop soon. By what David Petraeus was just saying, we need to get freedom of navigation going and that flow through Hormuz restart.

Now, Jessica, before the start of people thinking it was possible, no one thought that an adversary could shut down the Strait of Hormuz. That didn't happen even in the 1980s during the (INAUDIBLE) War. Now, everyone is asking, how long can it last? Can't take another few weeks of this. I think we're going to see galloping further increases in oil prices. It's going to start to hurt equities as well. So, we all have to hope that those tankers start up again.

DEAN: And at this point, what are you watching for to see movement in that?

MCNALLY: So, specifically, what we're watching for is to see if the U.S. Military can degrade Iran's many asymmetric layered capabilities to threaten those ships. They have many small boats with bombs or torpedoes on them. They have drones, they have mines, and they have even anti -- even long-range artillery that they can use. So, they have -- it's sort of like whack-a-mole with thousands of dangerous little moles that you have to whack.

And we have to see those degraded. And then we need to see ships go through that narrow strait safely. Once that happens, oil prices will collapse, everything will get better. Until it does, they're going to get a lot worse.

DEAN: And just quickly before we go, you've said this war could lead to a guaranteed global recession. Those are your words. How -- it sounds like you really do believe that. How soon do you think something like that could happen?

MCNALLY: Yes, the world economy can't run without 20 percent of its energy being restored. So, in a prolonged, God willing we don't have this, but if we don't restore Hormuz flows in the coming weeks, oil prices will continue rising to the point where they do what they've done in the past, contribute to recessions and downturns. We'll have to sort of stop the oil price rise by stopping economic growth. It's the bad way to stop an oil price increase. I hope we don't see it. But if we go a few more weeks of this, we will.

DEAN: All right, Bob McNally, good to have you. Thank you for that.

MCNALLY: Thank you.

DEAN: We have more of our breaking news just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)