Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
U.S.-Israel War with Iran; Russia Launches Large-Scale Attack on Ukraine; Ebola Outbreak; Marco Rubio on Capitol Hill. Aired 10-11a ET
Aired June 02, 2026 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[10:00:00]
ANNOUNCER: Live from CNN Abu Dhabi, this is CONNECT THE WORLD with Becky Anderson.
BECKY ANDERSON, CNN HOST (voice-over): Welcome to the second hour of the show from our Middle East programming headquarters. I'm Becky Anderson in
Abu Dhabi, where the time is just after 6:00 in the evening. It is 5:00 pm in Beirut, a capital that's relatively quiet at this hour.
But Israel has launched strikes in southern Lebanon even after Benjamin Netanyahu had a reportedly heated call with Donald Trump.
Dozens of people have been killed or wounded in one of Russia's largest attacks on Ukraine in months.
Also, CNN on the front lines of the Ebola crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where doctors are working around the clock to prevent the spread.
And U.S. secretary of state Marco Rubio is about to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We'll bring you the big moments from
that coming up.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
ANDERSON: Warnings flying across the Middle East as diplomacy between the U.S. and Iran, by all indications, is forging ahead in fits and starts.
Israel says it will reactivate plans to strike Beirut in Lebanon if Hezbollah keeps attacking Israeli communities.
Iran has called Israeli attacks in Lebanon a violation of the current ceasefire it has with the United States. But Iranian media now report that
a new ceasefire deal is still under discussion in Tehran, with changes submitted by president Donald Trump, who insists an agreement is close.
So how close are we in reality to some agreement, which could lead -- could lead -- to an end to the war?
Well, here to walk us through that is our international diplomatic editor, Nic Robertson and CNN Politics senior reporter Stephen Collinson.
Good to have you both.
Nic, let's start with you.
What are your sources telling you about where we are diplomatically?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Diplomatically, talks back on track. That hiatus, where Iran said yesterday that it was not going to
negotiate until Israeli troops were out of Lebanon and that there was a ceasefire back in place, they said that ceasefire was part of the ceasefire
that they had with the United States.
Inseparable (ph) from it, the talks are back on. Now it's not clear at the moment whether that brief hiatus has slowed things down because the
temperature or trust was pretty cool already. And the trust was at an absolute minimum as well.
But I am getting the impression from sources I talked to that, although there have been some difficulties over the past couple of days, that
progress is still being made, that there is an anticipation that this memorandum of understanding that this current conversation is about will
get signed.
But again, as we've discussed, a lot of it depends what happens on the ground. And the Iranian government has put a clear focus on the actions of
the IDF in Lebanon and the -- and we've seen president Trump put pressure on prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to curtail the IDF's military
activities.
But it's fallen far short of what Iran has actually called for.
Now can that be part of a memorandum of understanding that then gets further discussion?
Is this just about getting enough down on paper to open the Strait of Hormuz or will they -- or will the Iranians insist for a much greater
pullback of the IDF from where they're based inside of Lebanon at the moment.
But bottom line, talks continue and I'm not hearing anyone saying this is derailed or it's going to take weeks longer. I think the opposite, perhaps;
this has focused minds, even.
ANDERSON: Stephen, let me bring you in here. In a new "The Atlantic" piece, Iran expert Karim Sadjadpour, you both -- we both know well, notes
the Iranian foreign minister's philosophy.
Quote, "The Iranian negotiation style is generally known in the world as the 'bazaar style,' which means continuous and tireless bargaining. He who
gets tired and bored quickly will lose."
[10:05:00]
Stephen, viewed in that context, what do you make of Trump's description of these talks as, quote, "boring"?
STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think Karim has it right. If you look at the history of U.S.-Iranian negotiations, they're
always drawn-out and complex. And that's clearly a tactic that the Iranians want to pursue in this situation, since they believe clearly that they have
some kind of leverage over the U.S.
Not least because of their effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The problem, however, is that, if you look at recent history, the last 45 years
ago, every single successful U.S. negotiation internationally has involved a lot of boring diplomacy because that is what is required to get it done.
The Obama accord, the JPCOA on the nuclear program with Iran, that took 18 months of intense negotiations but arguably years of preparation before
that. The Bosnia peace accords, that happened over a concentrated period of time. But it was a result of months of intense American diplomacy.
The Camp David issue as well in the Middle East under Jimmy Carter -- so if you're going to get meaningful and lasting diplomatic initiatives to work,
you need to do a lot of boring preparatory diplomacy.
What the president wants is a big bang, a victory, an agreement that will allow him to walk away.
That doesn't seem to be very likely or realistic when you think of the entrenched issues in the Middle East and the fact that this issue over
Lebanon, which he managed to defuse yesterday with some emergency diplomacy, is going to keep on blowing up as long as there is a radical
regime in Iran and Israel feels constantly threatened.
ANDERSON: Nic, let me bring you back in. Iran's top negotiator Ghalibaf posted this on X, that he'd spoken with the speaker of the Lebanese
parliament and emphasized that if the crimes of the, quote -- his word -- "Zionist regime in Lebanon continue, we will not only halt the dialogue
process but also stand firmly against them."
Does Lebanon want Iran's support or to be used as a bargaining chip in U.S.-Iran peace negotiations, do you believe?
ROBERTSON: Look, I think what the Lebanese government wants to see is Israeli troops out of Lebanon, respect their territorial integrity and
sovereignty but to be given enough time for the Lebanese army to be able to do what Israel wants it to do, to police Hezbollah.
They would like to see the political interference, as they see it, inside of Lebanon by Iran propping up their proxy, which is an armed proxy -- it's
not just a political entity; it is an armed militia as well that attacks Israel but also exerts outsized political influence inside of Lebanon.
And in the eyes of many, holds the country back from getting the international investment and development that would see it recover from the
near economic collapse it's been through.
So they would like to -- they would like Lebanon to be freed of influence of Tehran and see Hezbollah become an only political actor. But that
doesn't happen in the short timeframe windows that we're seeing for the negotiations to get the ceasefire in Lebanon.
And for Israel's patience with the Lebanese government to -- excuse me -- to be able to have that strength on the ground, to build the Lebanese army,
which is weak relative to Hezbollah, to allow them to take control of the south and allow them to tell Israel it is safe.
No projectiles are going to come across the border from Hezbollah toward you. Job done; both countries can get on living relatively peacefully side
by side. That almost is a nirvana from where we stand at the moment. But in the ideal world, for the Lebanese political system, that would be what they
would want to see.
ANDERSON: Yes. And just to note, we are waiting to hear from Marco Rubio, who is appearing in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The
chairman just introducing the proceedings as we speak.
Stephen, we'll keep an ear out on that committee meeting, to listen in as to whether Marco Rubio is questioned about this Middle East conflict.
We do know that the Israelis and the Lebanese -- of course, they have representatives in Washington today -- and speaking about what the U.S. is,
a twin track on a peace deal or normalization of relations between those two.
[10:10:05]
So we'll keep an eye on that.
And Mr. Risch, still speaking; there is Marco Rubio listening in before he makes his opening statement.
Before I let you go, Stephen, some news just in the last hour. It's always busy in Washington, of course.
President Trump has named housing official Bill Pulte as acting Director of National Intelligence to replace Tulsi Gabbard. This is the same man
investigating Lisa Cook and one of the loudest voices inside the Trump administration, calling for former Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell to
resign.
I don't know whether he has any intelligence experience. I just want to get your thoughts on this announcement made in just the past hour or so.
COLLINSON: Well, this is a pretty stunning and, I would say, classically Trumpian announcement. There is no track record of Mr. Pulte having a long,
ingrained knowledge about U.S. intelligence and foreign policy.
This job, of course, was, set up after 9/11 to try to make sure that intelligence agencies in Washington didn't duel against each other and
create gaps that outsiders could exploit. So it's an important job.
And I think his appointment will further fuel concerns that Donald Trump sees the intelligence agencies as a way to punish his enemies and weaponize
his power.
We've seen that elsewhere in the government, not least from Mr. Pulte's activities, trying to go after people over alleged mortgage irregularities,
some of which didn't stand up very well in court.
And I think it shows the contempt, in many ways, which Donald Trump has for the "deep state," as his supporters call it. I think it's worth reflecting
on what's been going on in Washington in recent days.
Trump has had a number of reverses, not least over that $1.8 billion fund that he was planning to use to compensate people who were arrested and
jailed for the Capitol riot in January 2021. That has been pushed back by Republicans.
So I think, in some ways, you could see this appointment as a signal to Trump's base that he's still a disrupter.
He's still an outsider, that he still shares their suspicion of Washington, the establishment and the deep state and that he's going to do everything
he can to tear up the institutions of government in Washington, D.C., which was one of the reasons a lot of the people who support Trump were attracted
to him in the first place
ANDERSON: Yes. Fascinating.
Good to have you both. Thank you so much, Stephen Collinson today for you and Nic Robertson earlier.
And Stephen has an analysis piece for CNN, on president Trump's Iran dealmaking.
The crux of Stephen's argument that you can read online is this, "Trump may have contained the damage. But he got a fresh lesson that presidential
ventures in the Middle East are easily begun but can be nearly impossible to escape."
You can read more about that on CNN's digital platforms.
All right. Russia launched deadly large-scale strikes against Ukraine overnight, killing at least 21 people in the cities of Kyiv and Dnipro and
wounding over 100. The Ukrainian military says that Russia fired more than 600 drones and dozens of missiles on the country, including advanced
hypersonics.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON (voice-over): Now those strikes damaged residential and commercial buildings, sparking fires -- you can see there -- and burning
cars. Clare Sebastian following this from London for you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CLARE SEBASTIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Russia has come out and said that this is part of a campaign to systematically target Ukrainian industrial
facilities, logistics, fuel facilities, all, of course, they claim, supplying the Ukrainian army.
They're also painting it as revenge, which is something that we've heard many, many times over in this war; of course, a war that Russia started,
which doesn't lend credibility to that claim.
But still, they're claiming it's revenge for recent Ukrainian attacks in terms of what exactly they hit. Some of that is still trickling in. We're
hearing, certainly from a major private energy company in the Kyiv region, that several of their facilities were targeted.
This is a company called DTEK. Two of their engineers were injured. President Zelenskyy also spoke about energy and infrastructure facilities
in Kharkiv and the Kharkiv region. But some of the worst scenes that are coming out from this night and early into the morning as well come from
residential buildings that were hit.
A building effectively leveled in Dnipro, according to president Zelenskyy. That's where we see the highest death toll. Some 12 people killed there.
And in Kyiv as well, several residential buildings were hit as well. Rescue operations are still ongoing at two of those locations.
So look, I think Russia is claiming, of course, that these are legitimate military targets. But overall, I think the pattern that we're seeing here
is still one of attrition.
[10:15:03]
As they have somewhat lost the initiative on the battlefield here. This is an area where they can exploit vulnerabilities in Ukrainian air defenses.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON: Yes. Clare Sebastian reporting for you.
Well, when we come back here on CONNECT THE WORLD, CNN goes inside one of the hospitals in the so-called red zone of the Ebola outbreak.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
ANDERSON: The World Health Organization, WHO, reporting at least 49 people have died so far from an outbreak of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of
Congo and in Uganda. Over 300 confirmed cases of the virus are being treated. But experts do suspect there are hundreds more that haven't been
diagnosed.
Well, CNN's Clarissa Ward gained extraordinary access to the so-called red zone at a hospital in the DRC and shares what are a heartwrenching mix of
grief, fear and fading hope amongst those affected by the disease.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It is a surreal but now all too familiar ritual.
Healthcare workers painstakingly disinfect the coffin of the latest suspected victim of the Ebola virus at Bunia's General Hospital. His family
members look on in anguish, unable to get close to their loved one. Torn apart by grief and consumed by fear.
"Oh, my father. Why God?" this woman cries.
"Oh, God, this is my only father."
As the dead are carried out, new potential cases are arriving. At the entrance to the hospital, everyone's temperature must be taken.
WARD: So this is the room where they take people who are found to have a fever. There is a woman in there now, obviously they don't know if she has
Ebola or not but they're going to keep her here until they do more tests and get a better sense of what's going on.
WARD (voice-over): At a makeshift coordination center inside the hospital, Dr. Richard Kajol and his team are working round the clock to keep up with
an outbreak they say is out of control. They agreed to show me and photojournalist Alex Platt what they're up against.
WARD: We are now getting ready to go into the so called red zone of this hospital. That is the area where all suspect Ebola patients are put and
there is a lot of protective gear, unsurprisingly, that one needs to wear to go inside.
WARD (voice-over): Bundibugyo is a strain of the virus that few were expecting. There is no vaccine and no cure.
[10:20:00]
The doctors write our names on our backs so they can recognize us and then it's time to go in. At the moment, patients are treated in hastily
constructed tents. Thirty-year-old Gloria is a lab technician, one of dozens of health care workers believed to be infected.
WARD: She says it's difficult to breathe.
WARD (voice-over): Earlier, we met her sister waiting outside for news.
WARD (through translator): I saw your sister. She's waiting for the moment she can hug you again. Do you want us to tell your sister something from
you?
A message.
WARD (voice-over): "Do not be afraid," she says.
But it's impossible not to be scared. Some of the patients here are in very bad shape.
WARD: How do you stay strong when you're seeing this?
KOJAN: For me, it's our humanity.
WARD: Your humanity?
KOJAN: Yes, yes, it's our humanity. Many people are suffering like this, you know. I feel it. I feel it.
He was in coma.
WARD: Yes.
KOJAN: It's Ebola confirmed.
WARD: Ten-year-old Meshach (ph) is still very weak. His mouth ravaged with blisters from the virus. He asked the doctors for a banana, an encouraging
sign.
"Slowly, slowly," Dr. Kojan warns him.
His condition is improving but he has a long way to go.
KOJAN: You lay down, yes.
WARD: He wants to lay down?
Let's help him lay down then.
They lay him down in the corridor while his room is disinfected.
Nothing about this situation is OK. But these doctors are doing everything they possibly can.
As we walk to another ward, a familiar sound in the distance.
WARD: You can hear the cries of a family who are claiming the body of their loved one. This is a scene that's playing out here multiple times
every single day.
This is a temporary ward for suspected cases. Patients lie waiting for test results that are taking up to a week to process.
So this is the situation that health care workers really want to avoid and are racing to put a stop to. You have five patients in the same room, all
of them suspected of having Ebola. But doctors can't be sure.
They can't rule out the possibility that one person in here may not have Ebola and then, of course, there's a strong chance they could contract it.
Every exit from the red zone is as careful as the entry. Protective equipment must be sprayed down with chlorine and methodically removed.
WARD: We were in there for maybe half an hour and I could barely stand up by the end. It's incredibly tiring, really hot. You're sweating so much.
You're thirsty.
I just like, help us understand the kind of stamina that you need as a doctor to be going in and out of that red zone multiple times every single
day.
KOJAN: It's really hard. We have to stand strong for those patients and otherwise, you know, the situation will be really very, very bad.
WARD: That 10-year-old boy -- that's hard to see.
KOJAN: The first day, you know, he was really bleeding, a lot of diarrhea and shock, you know. So you have to get a way to give IV fluid. It's not
really easy.
So -- and for me, you know, like an ICU doctor, when you have a situation like this, it's very hard to just say I have to stop because I'm tired.
WARD: On the outskirts of the city, the family we met earlier is burying their father, 72-year-old farmer Papababona Bodwan (ph).
The burial team forms a cordon around his grave. The mourners forced to grieve at a distance, the final cruelty of this vicious virus -- Clarissa
Ward, CNN, Bunia, Democratic Republic of Congo.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON: Well, for more on this now I'm joined by Dr. Abdou Sebushishe. He's senior global health advisor for the International Medical Corps. And
he's on the ground there in Goma, in the DRC.
[10:25:00]
Doctor, it's good to have you. And you will have heard Clarissa's report there from the red zone effectively. Let's start with that situation on the
ground and these local efforts to respond. The WHO says there are 321 confirmed Ebola cases in DRC, over 100 more suspected cases.
Can you just further provide some detail on the measures being put in place?
And do you believe what's being done is sufficiently effective at this point?
DR. ABDOU SEBUSHISHE, SENIOR GLOBAL HEALTH ADVISER, INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORPS: Thanks for having me.
So far, there are a lot of interventions that have been put in place that are inclusive of deploying capacity to isolate patients safely and care for
them.
And the International Medical Corps, together with other partners, are supporting the local effort, local authorities' effort, to ensure the
containment within the isolation facility and enough bed capacity to isolate patients who are being identified.
But also, there are more efforts in providing supplies in the prevention, infection and prevention control supplies as well as the personal
protective equipment required for health care workers to be able to enter the red zone.
As you can see, currently I'm within one of our transit center, Ebola transit center, in one of the major hospital in Goma. And we are setting up
a triage system to ensure that every patient who attend this facility go through a screening for Ebola.
And if he's suspected to be Ebola, we put him in isolation and collect sample for testing. These are part of the measures that are being put in
place.
However, there are still a lot of challenges, especially related to contact tracing, where we have a few contacts of the positive cases that are being
monitored so far. And the majority of them are still missing.
And efforts are being made to ensure that they are being followed up because those can constitute a risk as they've been in contact. But also
another challenge I think that I should mention --
(CROSSTALK)
SEBUSHISHE: -- to -- yes.
ANDERSON: Go on.
SEBUSHISHE: I was mentioning that one of the major challenge here is related to the supplies and infection prevention control supplies but also
personal protective equipment for Ebola clinics but also for Ebola clinics that have to provide ordinary care.
ANDERSON: And I know that efforts on your organization have been hampered, I mean, by these PPE and supply shortages. This is -- this latest outbreak
is the 17th outbreak the DRC has dealt with. It came very shortly after another Ebola outbreak there.
How are you dealing with these shortages and who needs to step in to address this lack of medical supplies in the first instance?
SEBUSHISHE: You are right. This outbreak happened after another one that was declared over last year in November So, there were a resupply of the
stock that were used during the 16th outbreak. And that caused a stockout in couple of areas in terms of personal protective equipment.
And I would call for everybody's efforts to ensure that the health care workers on the ground have enough resources, including the personal
protective equipment, to ensure this outbreak is contained well but also to ensure the continuity of regular health services before they collapse.
ANDERSON: So -- and I -- and obviously, you know, for health care workers, this is absolutely critical. Read the Red Cross announced the deaths of
three health care volunteers in May. This is difficult.
You know, this, you know, to control this outbreak, you really need those supplies. We've also seen Ebola treatment centers being attacked by
protesters. And I think this is really important that we just sort of -- you explain, perhaps, why there is this frustration, this lack of trust
with authorities on the ground.
Can you just explain a little bit further?
SEBUSHISHE: There are a couple of factors that contribute to reduced trust that include specifically misinformation and rumors. You know, with Ebola,
we have to isolate patients to ensure that they are taken care in a proper way and avoid transmission to health care workers but also other members of
the community.
And that isolation sometimes cause rumors and stigma toward the community.
[10:30:05]
And those rumors are fueled by the social media spread widely and creating doubt within community about the reality of Ebola. And that's one of the
factors that are causing resistance in community.
Another factor is related to the trust into the response system and the health care as a whole, especially that health care workers are being also
affected. And they are some scaled down in some places of regular health services that further erode the trust of the community toward this outbreak
response.
And that is some of the factors that we are working on to ensure that we engage the community and give them the real information about Ebola and
stop the misinformation and rumors.
ANDERSON: Good to have you, sir. Thank you very much indeed.
Marco Rubio is speaking on the Hill very specifically about funding cuts and Ebola. So I do want to get to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to
listen in.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
MARCO RUBIO (R-FL), U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: -- a few weeks ago, made the decision that we were going to reengage on this issue of GAVI, respecting,
you know, what HHS views on it are as well. And we want to take their input.
But we'd like to get this issue resolved and an outcome that's acceptable both to Congress and also to our goals on global health. So it is an issue.
As I said, I wouldn't use the word "deferred" but we have certainly allowed him to play a leading role in determining what we're going to do next.
But right now, we're at a stage where we are going to reengage. We need to drive this to an outcome.
SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-NH): I couldn't agree more.
And so do you commit to using the $2 billion that Congress has appropriated for global health to actually help fund global health security?
RUBIO: Well, we do fund global health security beyond Gavi, by the way. And we can talk about that. We can talk about the compacts, I think 32 that
we've now entered into with countries all over the world.
We have a new agreement with the U.N. as well, that they're very happy with, the global fund. We've hit our cap. We are at our 33 percent. We've
actually been able to attract additional donors from around the world to contribute to it.
On this specific item, I would say we intend to get this resolved. We want to get this resolved. It's an important part of our matrix.
SHAHEEN: We will we will follow up and I hope you will share with this committee as soon as you get it resolved.
I want to go to oil, Russian oil sanctions and general licenses, because president Trump gave Russia a lifeline, allowing it to sell oil globally
through licenses issued by the Treasury Department.
While I think the administration should have known that the Iran War would make Russian oil more desirable, they decided to remove the stigma on that
oil and give an extra windfall of cash to Putin.
So can you let us know whether you believe or whether you will support extending those licenses when that license, when it comes back up mid-June?
RUBIO: Yes, a couple points.
First of all, that those -- the -- two things have happened. That -- one is actually the U.S., U.S. production and U.S. playing a role in the global
energy supply has increased. I think we had our largest amount of exports from the United States we've ever seen. So we've also benefited from this.
And our energy dominance has really come into play.
The Russian waivers were a decision. These are -- the policy -- the underlying policy remains on the sanctions. What has changed is these time-
limited extensions to try to alleviate the global -- right.
The problem we're facing, too, is there's a contagion potential and that is that, at some point, we can do strategic reserves. We can do some of the
other things that we've done to alleviate global supply.
But at some point, you have to ensure -- this is not so much for us. At the end of the day, our economy is not in need of it. But there are other
economies around the world that have benefited from this. So these are time-limited extensions that ultimately --
(CROSSTALK)
SHAHEEN: We certainly benefited China and Russia's economy.
RUBIO: Well, China doesn't -- I mean, China refines oil. They import a lot but they refine oil and they --
SHAHEEN: But they also benefit from Russian oil.
But my question for you is, can you commit not to extend the general license again when it expires on June 17th?
RUBIO: Well, that ultimately is a decision that's made by Treasury. But I will tell you, it depends on the circumstances at the time. We would like
to end it as soon as we possibly can, because the underlying policy of this country has been to sanction their oil. These were time-limited waivers for
the purpose of opening up more global supply.
SHAHEEN: I understand that but if we continue to extend them, they're not time-limited.
I want to get a final question in on food for peace, because, as you know, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has deepened the humanitarian needs in
food-insecure countries such as Sudan, South Sudan. And yet in your opening statement, you said that our aid targets those who are most in need.
[10:35:04]
But I think it's very concerning that the country selection process for food for peace, which I understand is led by the Department of State,
includes only two priority countries from World Food Programme hunger hotspots. That's Haiti and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
So the question I have is, why are we adding countries that aren't facing acute food insecurity, like El Salvador, Guatemala and Rwanda?
Why are we not helping countries who are facing acute, well, famine in some cases, Sudan, Gaza, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Syria, Somalia?
These are all countries that are -- have humanitarian crises. And yet we're helping countries that don't have acute food security.
RUBIO: So a couple points. First of all, on Gaza, we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars, including after the ceasefire and providing through
the World Food Programme and other entities. And we continue to do so.
I think if we're not the world's largest donor, I'd be surprised because it's a massive amount of money that we've provided through those mechanisms
of various means.
On the point of Sudan in particular, the complication in Sudan, which I wish were different -- and we're very involved in this. I mean, we -- I had
a meeting on Sudan yesterday.
The problem in Sudan has largely not been our unwillingness to provide funds. We are willing to step forward and we have the flexibility through
what we've been able to do with foreign aid to surge up that.
It's been distribution, it's been the ability to get that -- so as an example, in these conversations we're having between the warring sides, one
of the things were trying to identify is for safe spots where people can go receive humanitarian care assistance.
Where we can actually have the outside groups, the NGOs, the international organizations that we contract with have the ability to go in and actually
deliver the food without having their trucks hijacked or blown up or their workers killed.
That's been the fundamental challenge in Sudan is distribution. The distribution is being threatened because we don't have conditions on the
ground that allow for it.
And so to allocate money toward something that we can't distribute is unwise until we have that in place. That's deeply tied to the ability to
have a peace deal, which I can tell you, has been very frustrating. On the one hand, with Sudan, we had a donor conference in Berlin --
SHAHEEN: I don't want to interrupt you, Mr. Secretary but I'm out of time and it doesn't explain why we are providing food for countries that don't -
- are not insecure. I appreciate the challenges in Sudan. We have those challenges in many places.
But because we have dismantled the distribution network, when we eliminated USAID, we've exacerbated those challenges in countries around the world.
And we are not providing the help based on humanitarian needs. And that's my concern.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. JAMES RISCH (R-ID): Senator Ricketts.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. PETE RICKETTS (R-NB): Mr. Secretary of State, thank you for being here. I really appreciate it. Good to see you.
Communist China is trying to win the AI race and they will use it, for example, to dominate our military, if they're able to do that and so many
other ways. A world where Communist China is dominant in AI is very bad for the United States and for the entire world.
That's why it's critical that us and our allies cannot lose this race. Semiconductor supply chains, particularly semiconductor manufacturing
equipment, SMEs, are critical to winning this competition. It's one area that Beijing is spending billions and billions of dollars to be able to
produce chips in China.
And they failed to be able to produce those high end chips so far. President Trump understands this better than anyone because the Trump
administration was the first to utilize export controls on SMEs to slow down Communist China's advanced chipmaking industry.
Since that time, key allies and partners have also imposed controls on SMEs to China. However, their controls have not been as restrictive as U.S.
controls and this has allowed certain foreign countries to backfill the Chinese market with critical dual-use tools.
Secretary Rubio, do you agree that export controls on SMEs are critical to maintaining our technological advantage over Communist China?
RUBIO: It is. It's -- actually what's most critical is on the high end, the areas that are not legacy, that are broader and that allow for that.
I think on the broader point of AI, we share your view. One of the initiatives that I think Jacob (ph) has done a great job with at the State
Department is Pax Silica, in which we've signed up all these countries around the world.
I think were up to 13 or 14 and including ourselves and others who hope to join as well -- in which we can create this global consortium for all of
the elements of the AI supply needs.
It's not just the innovation, it's obviously access to the minerals and the critical elements necessary in order to produce these chips and all the
things that it will take to lead the world in AI. I think it is safe to say the United States right now is a global leader on AI. I think it is also
wise to say that that lead is not -- is not irreversible.
[10:40:00]
It's -- it has to be sustained. And there will be a real challenge in sustaining it. And we're going to have to stay focused on it.
The good news is, I do think we have a system of global alliances that view it the way we do. And we want to lead on it, because it's not just about
leading the technology in AI; it's about also leading in the standards that will govern how AI is used.
I don't want to monopolize this conversation on this point but it's one that I think the Senate should think about because I know we're starting to
think about it. AI will have very positive impacts on our economy and societies. It will also have some down -- some detriments.
It will go -- there will be white-collar jobs in this country that that will be impacted. And I think we have to start thinking not simply about
the impact that AI will have on those jobs but the societal pressures that that will create, not just in the United States but in economies all over
the world.
It -- much like industrialization and automation did, it will make the worker more efficient and more valuable. But it will eliminate some jobs
and those jobs will have to be replaced with new jobs or new skills.
That's not just an economic issue. That is a political issue that, over time, could destabilize societies all over the world. And so we have to
start thinking about AI in those terms as well.
RICKETTS: You mentioned our allies.
Shouldn't they have to follow the same standards U.S. companies do?
And we're limiting the amount of -- limiting the manufacturing equipment that's going to Communist China.
RUBIO: And that's our hope, is that we can create people that -- that we can create a coalition of nations that understand the danger in this. And
they're running through the same.
Some are better than others but they're running through the same problems that we run into. And that is companies ultimately want to sell to the
markets. And China is a large market. But I agree -- and that's one of the goals behind Pax Silica is to create unanimity and consensus behind that
thinking.
RICKETTS: Well, Mr. Secretary, that's why I recently introduced the MATCH Act with Senators Kim, Risch and Schumer to level the playing field. This
bill would provide the State Department with the leverage in ongoing negotiations with our allies to align those controls.
And if an agreement cannot be reached, it would ensure that foreign companies cannot sell the very chokepoint technologies that we have
restricted. So I hope you'll support that as we move forward on it.
One other thing I just want to hit before my time runs out here is that I was the co-sponsor of a bill to create the U.S. Foundation for National
Security and Counterterrorism. This is a foundation that will be a public- private partnership.
It would help counter traffickers and insurgents operating in ungoverned spaces around the developing world, such as Africa.
The State Department, however, has not, for over 1.5 years now, launched this foundation. And I encourage you to work expeditiously to implement it.
I think this is something that, as were talking about, especially the continent of Africa, can be very helpful to making sure that were not only
helping conserve the environment, helping animals, it's bad for terrorists.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
RISCH: Thank you.
RICKETTS: Look at that. I kept it in my time.
RISCH: Good job.
Can you do as well, Senator?
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): I'll do my best. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us today.
Despite the differences that existed between Republicans and Democrats prior to this administration on how to approach Iran's nuclear program, the
theory was basically the same that we were going to impose significant harm on the Iranian economy in order to force them to the table, to negotiate.
What is happening now is fundamentally different. This war and the administration's decision to blockade has now held the entire world economy
and the U.S. economy hostage to the ability to negotiate an agreement with Iran.
This is why the entire country is seized by the question of when there will be an agreement, because apparently, until there is an agreement, the
Strait of Hormuz remains closed. There is a cost to the Iranian economy.
But now there is a devastating cost to the U.S. economy. It has been indecipherable. The information coming from the administration, especially
in the past several weeks, as we get signals that a deal is imminent -- the president said yesterday he's bored by the negotiations. He doesn't care
whether we get a deal.
I think its really important for us to understand what your bottom lines are, what you're asking for in this negotiation, what commitments you need
Iran to make in order for you to release the blockade. And we hope for them to release the blockade as well. So give us a little insight into what your
bottom lines are.
What is going to get the strait reopened?
Because this is kind of the only question that matters for American consumers right now. And every day, we get wildly different signals from
the president as to whether he even is engaged in this question as to whether the strait is going to reopen.
[10:45:03]
RUBIO: Yes, I think your question gets right to the heart of the matter. So I think that's a -- it's a good question.
Let me first bifurcate two things. The only reason there's a blockade, the only reason why there's a U.S. blockade is because Iran has closed --
they're firing on commercial ships and they have mined large segments of Hormuz, international waters.
And so the blockade is only against Iranian ships. And it's very simple. The notion is, if no one's ships are going to get out, then Iran's ships
aren't going to get out, either. We can't live in a world in which they get to close the straits and tell everybody, pay us a toll or we will blow you
up. But their ships get to go out unfettered.
So that's the reason why there's a blockade. There wouldn't have been a blockade if Iran had agreed to do what they said they would do when the
cease-fire kicked in, which is, they were going to open the straits.
So let me just focus on the straits for a moment. Number one, what they're doing is unlawful and illegal. There isn't a country on Earth other than
Iran and maybe Oman that flirted with it, who's in favor of what Iran is doing in the straits. The Chinese are against it. The Russians are against
it. Everyone is against it. The whole world is against it.
So condition number one is, they have to reopen the straits. And reopening the straits means the following. Ships can sail through international
waters, the way they can do through other choke points around the world, without being fired upon, without paying a toll. That's condition number
one.
MURPHY: But the strait is closed because of our decision to invade Iran. This is a consequence of our military action.
So I guess I'm not interested in litigating that question. We all know why the strait is closed, because you took military action against Iran and we
knew ahead of time that that would be their likely response.
The question is, how are we going to get it reopened?
Are you going to drive a bargain that is so tough and so hard that the strait remains closed?
So how are we going to get it open?
RUBIO: Well, the first thing, that is a predicate to anything else happening. The straits have to be reopened.
So the way to think about it is this. If Iran wants to be able to move its oil again through the strait, they will have to reopen the straits. If they
refuse to do so, then we have other options available to us but we would prefer to negotiate the opening of this, which means the following.
(CROSSTALK)
MURPHY: So tell us about the negotiations. What do you need from them in order to get the strait reopened?
We need the strait reopened tomorrow.
RUBIO: Well, what needs to happen is very simple. They need to announce that they will no longer fire on commercial ships that are going through or
threaten to fire on ships, because, in many cases, ships just won't move.
They won't go, not because they got fired on but because of the risk of being fired upon. And so they have to announce very clearly, the straits
are now open. We're not charging a toll. We will help remove the mines that they put in there and they will not fire on ships.
MURPHY: But the president says they also need to make commitments on their nuclear program. That's what I'm asking.
RUBIO: Oh, I see what you're saying.
(CROSSTALK)
MURPHY: What commitments do they need to make in order for the strait to be reopened, for our blockade to end?
RUBIO: Well, the second thing they have to agree to as part of this is -- so, in addition to the straits, that's the predicate that opens the door to
phase two.
Phase two is they have to commit to very specific negotiations on highly enriched -- the disposition of the highly enriched uranium that still is
buried deep in a mountain somewhere. They have to agree on negotiating severe and long-term limitations and-or cancellation of enrichment activity
in their country.
MURPHY: In the second phase of negotiations?
RUBIO: Well, that would -- obviously, these are highly technical matters. So I don't think you could work those out in five days. That would require
a team of experts to meet over a 30-, 60-, 90-day period and work out the details.
But they have to commit to their willingness to do that. For example, they have to commit to say, we will dispose of the enriched uranium. And the
question now is, what are the mechanisms by which we do so?
That can be negotiated.
MURPHY: Final question. In order to get to that second phase, are you willing to release sanctions or release frozen money that the United States
is withholding from Iran?
RUBIO: No.
Right now, everything that's been discussed with them is that any sanctions relief -- now, remember, sanctions come -- there's international sanctions.
There's congressional sanctions. There's executive sanctions. So some, we can release and, some, we cannot.
But any sanctions relief is condition-based, which means it has to be in return for the reason why those sanctions were put in place in the first
place, which is their nuclear program.
So yes, look, Iran is being sanctioned because they enrich uranium. Iran is being sanctioned because they have highly enriched uranium. Iran is being
sanctioned because of their nuclear activities. If they agree to give up those things, there will be sanctions relief associated with their
commitment and compliance with those agreements.
MURPHY: But you will not give them sanctions relief just in exchange for reopening the strait?
RUBIO: No, that's not been discussed. That's not been offered.
RISCH: Senator Hagerty.
SEN. BILL HAGERTY (R-TN): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Secretary Rubio, its good to see you here. I want to commend you and the administration for actually implementing a foreign policy that advances
America's interests. Thank you.
If we could, I'd like to start with the Philippines, an area that we know very well. Its a geographic center of the Indo-Pacific region. It's an area
that is along critical sea lanes, where a tremendous amount of world trade and energy, commerce actually move.
A strong alliance with the Philippines clearly is in U.S. national security interest. It leads and supports our freedom of navigation. it also helps
U.S. deliver regional stability along the South China Sea, a very critical area, particularly in the face of a very aggressive posture that the
Chinese have adopted.
[10:50:00]
I want to recognize my colleague, Senator Kaine, who's worked with me to put in place the Philippines Enhanced Resilience Act. That's $500 million
of FMF grants. Its $1 billion of loans and loan guarantees per year to strengthen the Philippines and the United States alliance, to make us more
interoperable and more capable.
Mr. Secretary, I'd just like to get your comments, your vision, on the role of the Philippines in the United States alliance.
RUBIO: It's -- actually I spoke to President Marcos on Sunday and I've have had multiple engagements with them at a personal level. We've had
visits.
A couple of good points here. The first is we've actually entered into an agreement with them, in which they're -- I believe its an old U.S. military
facility inside the Philippines that will now serve as a -- I think it's a 4,000 acre --
(CROSSTALK)
HAGERTY: I'm very familiar with the area.
RUBIO: Yes, you know it. And that we'll be able to do a lot of our activities together with regards to our joint interests in developing an AI
and high tech and diversifying and helping diversify their economy.
The second is to continue with our defense commitments that we've made to them and the ability to interoperate joint exercises, which we've done now
multiple times over the last year.
Obviously, were very concerned with Scarborough. We've seen in recent days and we've demarched (ph) and made a very clear note. This issue came up
during the first meeting with the Chinese. It's come up in every engagement I've had with the Chinese. And it's come up again now very recently through
diplomatic channels.
And that is were very concerned about recent activity once again near Scarborough and the buildup of infrastructure that appears to be exerting
territorial claims that we have long argued are not valid. This is one of those irritants in the long term that I think will continue to have to
manage.
But I view the Philippines as a critical partner. And I think over the last, I would say, a couple of years, our relationship with them,
particularly under their new administration, is dramatically improved our ability to work with the Philippines jointly on a number of topics of
interest.
HAGERTY: Well, I want to commend you, the 4,000-acre Luzon Corridor is anchored by the Subic Bay --
ANDERSON: OK. This is the first time that Marco Rubio has testified before Congress since, the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran began. He's speaking in
front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about myriad files, it has to be said, including on the U.S.-Iran conflict.
He was asked to explain his bottom line on getting the Strait of Hormuz opened. He said ships must be able to sail through the strait without being
fired on and without having to pay a toll. The how, not as clear in his answer, it has to be said. But he was asked.
Before the portion of the testimony that we've just heard and which is continuing, the secretary of state did address the conflict and
negotiations with Iran. He said talks were ongoing and he alluded to a possibility that Iran has agreed to negotiate aspects of its nuclear
program that they had previously refused to discuss.
I want to listen -- get you to listen to that portion of Rubio's answer, which was just moments ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUBIO: Iran's desire to build a nuclear weapon, was going to be built, was going to be effectuated behind a conventional shield. They were going to
build for themselves. So many missiles, so many drones, so many conventional weapons, including a navy, that, at that point, there's
nothing you could do about it.
What they tried to do is they were going to try to build a conventional shield and hide behind that conventional shield and basically say to the
world, if you come and do anything about our nuclear program, we will overwhelm you with missiles.
We will overwhelm you with drones and we will overwhelm you with our navy and you will not win. You will not be able to do anything about it. They
were seeking that point of immunity, which is why the president chose to act, to deny them that point of immunity.
Operation Epic Fury, some of you didn't like it. Some of you did. It was highly successful in achieving its military objectives, which is
dramatically reducing the defense industrial base of Iran, the ability to build these missiles and to build these drones, especially the missiles
program, substantially degraded.
A substantial percentage and all of the exact numbers to the department of war -- because I'm not a general and I'm not here to speak as a military
planner -- but a substantial degradation in the number of launchers that they have as well.
They still have a lot of drones because these are easy to make. We all know it's not an Iran challenge. This is a global challenge and it's playing out
every single day around the world.
I mean, Mexican cartels are using UAVs against each other. We should imagine at some point may even use it against our own -- against our
interests. So this is a pervasive problem around the world. The economics of it are something we have to solve for.
But nonetheless, even their drone-building capability has been eroded. Today, there is no Iranian navy. There is no such thing. There's a bunch of
Boston whalers with machine guns on them. But there is no navy.
There is no Iranian navy. It lies at the bottom of the ocean and will soon, within a number of years, be prime fishing spots because they'll turn into
reefs. So my whole point is that the Iranian conventional shield has been substantially eroded.
[10:00:00]
RUBIO: Now in the aftermath of that, two things have happened. The first is they entered into a ceasefire. They agreed. We agreed to stop. But part
of that agreement was that they would reopen the straits.
They did not, at which point the president decided -- and I think appropriately -- we can't have a world in which Iran -- only Iranian ships
get through the straits. And so if they're going to -- if they're going to shut down the straits for everybody, we're going to shut down the straits
for them.
And we have done that through a very effective blockade and, by the way, through the seizure of sanctioned ships in the Indo-Pacific as well. The
cost to Iran every single day in lost revenue is in the hundreds of millions of dollars that they are losing in lost revenue that they're not
generating as a result of that.
Now we are in talks -- and I say talks because talks with Iran are not like talks with Switzerland, OK?
They're very different. They require the use of intermediaries, unfortunately. But there is the prospect before us which could happen
today. It could happen tomorrow.
It could happen next week that, for the first time, certainly in my memory, they have agreed to negotiate aspects of their nuclear program that, just a
month ago, just a year ago, they were refusing to even mention, much less enter into discussions about.
That is not a guarantee that ultimately it will lead to a deal that's acceptable to the Senate or acceptable to the American people. But we will
be able to engage them in a process to truly test the proposition of how far they're willing to go.
Complicating that process, unfortunately, is their internal regime is somewhat fractured in the sense of it takes days to get responses from
their system. We can go into more depth in your follow-up questions.
But we're hopeful that something like that could happen in which the straits would reopen; we would enter into a period of negotiations on very
specific topics, delineated negotiations in the hope of reaching an outcome that's acceptable to us and something that they would be able to do as
well.
If it doesn't work out, then obviously we still have a problem with respect to their nuclear ambitions. But what they won't have is the conventional
shield to hide behind any longer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: That's Marco Rubio, testifying in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the first time since the war began.
That's it from us. That testimony, by the way, continues. And stay with CNN for that. "ONE WORLD" is up next.
END
