Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Ceasefire Looks Shaky As Iran Halts Traffic In Strait Of Hormuz After Israel Attacks Lebanon; Hegseth: Iran Can No Longer Build Missiles, Rockets Or Launchers; NY Times: How Trump Took The U.S. To War With Iran; NY Times: Vance Told Trump War Could Break Apart Political Coalition. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired April 08, 2026 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

KARA SWISHER, HOST, "ON" & "PIVOT" PODCASTS: So, preventative health is critical to doing that -- doing all manner of exercise very early on. There is obviously amazing scientific breakthroughs around using AI and cancer that well be getting around, or GLP-1s. But it's also in terms of -- it's almost like savings. Once you start in the beginning, it compounds over a lifetime and it matters in the time where everybody does start to break down inevitably, because that's ultimately what happens.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN CO-ANCHOR, THE SITUATION ROOM: Great advice. Kara Swisher, thank you very, very much. And don't miss the premiere of the all new CNN original series, Kara Swisher Wants To Live Forever, this Saturday, 9 pm Eastern. You can see it on CNN. You can also stream it on the CNN app. Starts on Sunday on the CNN app. And to our viewers, thanks very much for joining us this morning.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR, THE SITUATION ROOM: Inside Politics with our friend and colleague, Dana Bash, starts now.

DANA BASH, CNN HOST, INSIDE POLITICS: The U.S. and Iran claim victory while the world holds its breath. I'm Dana Bash. Let's go behind the headlines at Inside Politics.

It's been just hours since President Trump announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran, but this morning, that temporary truce is looking fragile at best. Moments ago, an Iranian news agency reported Tehran halted oil tankers traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, reopening the Strait to commerce, of course, was a key part of the deal.

The president and his administration says, Iran signed on to. Listen to Secretary Hegseth this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: What has been agreed to, what's been stated is, the Strait is open. Our military is watching, sure their military is watching, but commerce will flow.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BASH: One of Iran's demands in exchange was that Israel and its bombardment of Hezbollah targets in Lebanon. The Israelis say, they never agreed to that, and the strikes continue today, as you can see here in Beirut. The bigger picture here is this, and this is the biggest question right now. Did the U.S. and Iran sign on to the same deal? Maybe not.

A White House official tells CNN and confirms a New York Times report that a 10-point plan published by Iran is not what President Trump agreed to last night. So, we start with that sense of real confusion right now.

And I'm going to bring in Axios' White House correspondent and CNN Global Affairs analyst, Barak Ravid. Dare I ask you to try to clear up this confusion, or maybe just explain why there is so much confusion about this ceasefire?

BARAK RAVID, GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT, AXIOS: Well, first, because I think the ceasefire was negotiated in a relatively short timeframe. And therefore, a lot of the issues were not really defined and there were a lot of loose ends that still need to be -- to be managed.

And I think one of the reasons that the mediators wanted the parties to meet face to face to negotiate this Friday is to start closing all the loose ends. Because the main issue with the ceasefire was first to stop everything, put more time on the clock. The mediators wanted 45 days. It ended up with two weeks. But they wanted to put more time on the clock, and they managed to do it.

Now, there are a lot of issues that are still open and need to be clarified. By the way, the main issue, in my opinion, at the moment, OK, is not the big issues in the Iranian 10-point plan. It's the situation in Lebanon that could collapse the whole ceasefire if it continues to escalate.

BASH: Say more about that? Can you explain -- explain that because that's certainly, as you heard how we opened the show, that the Iranians are saying that they thought part of the ceasefire deal was that the bombardment of Hezbollah targets in Lebanon would stop. And Israel is saying, nope, that wasn't part of our understanding.

RAVID: Yeah. Well, I think it's not only the Iranians. The problem is that the Pakistani prime minister, when he announced the ceasefire, he made it clear that Lebanon was part of the deal, which raises the question of what happened there in the negotiations. If the main mediator says that Lebanon is part of the deal. I know that the Egyptian mediators and the Turkish mediators see it the same way that Lebanon is part of this deal.

Yesterday, shortly before Trump announced the ceasefire, he called Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu, who sort of lost control of the process and was very nervous about this ceasefire. And during that call, when Trump told them listen, I'm going to agree to a ceasefire with Iran. Netanyahu told them, but what about Lebanon? We want to continue fighting Hezbollah. And Trump told Netanyahu, no problem, you can continue fighting Hezbollah. Lebanon is not part of this deal. [12:05:00]

So, this was something that was agreed upon before the announcement of the ceasefire. It was agreed upon between Israel and the U.S. I heard it that from both Israeli officials and U.S. officials. And U.S. officials told me today --

BASH: Go ahead. Go ahead, Barak.

RAVID: And U.S. officials told me today that they're not concerned about this -- those Iranian threats to withdraw from the negotiations or to close again the Strait of Hormuz because of the situation. Lebanon, they think it will be solved and it's not going to be a reason for the agreement to collapse.

But I think it is still the biggest challenge to this very, very, very fragile ceasefire. We are less than 24 hours since it's been announced. And I think when you look at the results of the Israeli strikes, according to the Lebanese Red Cross, we're talking around 90 people killed, more than -- close to 300, maybe more than 300 people wounded. That's a very serious thing, especially that we don't know yet. How many of them are Hezbollah and how many of them are innocent civilians?

BASH: Yeah. We don't know yet. Before I let you go, I do want to just put up on the screen for our viewers something that you know, which is the list of what Iran says, its demands are for this and for an ultimate -- more than a ceasefire, an ultimate cessation of all activity. This is according to Iranian officials. This is obtained by CNN.

That Iran regulates passage through the Strait of Hormuz, no attacks on Iran and its regional proxy forces. So, that's Hezbollah is part of what we're talking about here. Withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region, compensation to Iran for damage from the war, lifting of all sanctions and unfreezing of assets, binding U.N. resolution peace deal. I can't imagine anything, maybe the last one, maybe in a perfect world, but the first 1,2,3,4,5 is like non-starter for the U.S. and Israel.

RAVID: Yeah. I think, look, this is the Iranian opening position in the negotiation. The U.S. is going to come to those negotiations with a 15-point list of demands that are also very maximalist and hardline. The question is whether in the negotiation table, the parties will have political instruction from their leadership, the negotiators, whether they'll have political instruction from the leadership to close the deal and then they'll find the compromises.

I think the key issue here to look at, it's not all the Iranian rhetoric, it's -- that's, you know, that's -- that's fine, that's, you do it in a negotiation. The number one -- the only issue. The only issue in this negotiation is what happens to the highly enriched uranium that is right now in Iran.

We're talking about thousands of kilograms of highly enriched uranium, 450 kilograms of 60 percent other, you know, several hundred kilograms of 20 percent. There's a lot of enriched uranium in Iran. If at the end of this, this enriched uranium stays in the country, then this is a big problem. If it is out of the country, or it's destroyed, or it's diluted, this is a very big achievement for Trump's diplomacy. But we will slowly -- will have -- this is what everybody needs to look at. What happens to this enriched uranium?

BASH: Yeah, no question about it. Barak, always good to have you on. Thank you so much for being here and your terrific reporting. We have some additional terrific reporters here at the table. David Chalian, I'm going to start with you. What's your takeaway from what we've seen this morning and where we are at this moment?

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR & WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: Well, I mean, I think the takeaway is what you and Barak were just discussing, which is the fragility of this ceasefire at the moment. And listen, it is always true as a conflict comes to an end, right, that both sides are going to try to spin their successes at that moment. What we don't know is, are we really at the end of this, you know, a two-week ceasefire is to allow for these negotiations of a more final kind of solution to take place.

We don't know if at the end of these two weeks, these two sides will be any closer to coming. And you just said you can't even envision five of those bullet points. It's hard to envision any of them, given where we are right now, coming together. But what -- what had -- what had to happen, I think, to get here was that the president had to back off that threat, which he did to allow this space to exist.

BASH: A threat to end civilization in Iran?

CHALIAN: Yeah, that threat.

BASH: Yeah.

CHALIAN: That's what I'm talking about. Yeah.

BASH: OK. Barak was talking about the enriched uranium and I agree with him. I'm sure you all do too, that that is one of the most important sticking points here. Listen to what Secretary Hegseth said about the enriched uranium this morning.

[12:10:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HEGSETH: Non-negotiable that they won't have nuclear capabilities. And so right now, it's buried and we're watching it. We know exactly what they have, and they know that, and they will either give it to us, which the president has laid out. They'll give it to us voluntarily. We'll get it, we'll take it, we'll take it out. Or if we have to do something else ourselves, like we did midnight hammer or something like that, we reserve that opportunity.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BASH: And he mentioned what the president had said, just less than an hour before the Hegseth briefing this morning. The president put on social media, the United States will working with Iran dig up and remove all of the deeply buried B2 bombers, nuclear dust. I mean, do we really think that that is -- I mean, it's a nice thought that that would happen together, but there's no evidence in any kind of recent or even more historical past that that's going to happen.

SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: Yeah. I mean, with the caveat, of course, that we're not inside these negotiations, nothing we're seeing on either side indicates that this has actually been formally agreed upon by Iran, especially. And what I thought was notable was, you know, I thought Pete Hegseth was a little bit more careful in his phrasing of that than the president. When you read the president's Truth Social post earlier today, it sort of sounded like this was a done deal. This was what was going to be happening.

When I saw Pete Hegseth's comments later in the morning, he was sort of laying out the options on the table. And so, I do think that there may be hasn't been a formal agreement to do so, but certainly this is the Trump administration's ultimate goal. And when I talk to people who are extremely supportive of the president, they have pointed out that at the end of the day, if this nuclear ability still remains for Iran, it's not a win for the Trump administration. And I think that the Trump administration is well aware that that has to be the ultimate end game here.

BASH: Which is probably why, when you tried to ask the president himself about this at a briefing a couple of days ago, he sidestepped the question, and that's a charitable way to put it.

ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yeah, yeah, yeah. He was definitely did not want to talk. I specifically asked him about the threat that he had made yesterday morning, and whether -- and if he was concerned about the fact that most international legal scholars say that it would amount to war crimes. And he did not want to talk about that at all.

Just even the fact that we are talking about sort of the uncertain path forward as far as something as important as how the U.S. and Iran will deal with uranium. Doesn't this also just speak to the fact that when you look at the objectives that were laid out at the start of this war. And now you look at this two-week ceasefire and the victory lap that both sides are claiming.

I mean, the administration really has not accomplished, really, any of the objectives that they laid out at the start of this war. When it comes to what's the way for it in terms of Iran's capabilities to develop a nuclear weapon, regime change, right? You still do have -- yes, many have been killed, but you still do have the same regime structure, this theocratic regime structure that's in place.

And then, of course, the Strait of Hormuz as well. As of right now, right, it seems like you've gone from an administration that talked about unconditional surrender with Iran. Now to the point where at least the president's statements indicate that they might be working with this Iranian leadership when it comes to the Strait of Hormuz.

I mean, that is quite a shift from the initial objectives that were laid out, even if they had have made progress on depleting Iran's missile capabilities as well. We have seen progress there. But when you look at the full slate of military objectives, and now to this point, with this ceasefire, what we're even talking about here, it really is a break from what we heard at the start of the war.

BASH: Yeah. Really important points all. There is a barometer that the president cares a lot about, understandably, a lot of people do, and that is the stock market. And as we go to break, I just want to show you, it's doing pretty well. They're very happy with at least the announcement that the president made yesterday. We'll see how it fares as the questions about whether the ceasefire will hold goes as the day goes by. But it looks like the Dow is up more than 1200 points at this hour.

All right, coming up. New reporting on President Trump's decision to go to war in Iran initially, and who in his inner circle thought it was a bad move. Plus, a new democratic contender, maybe, maybe dipping her toes into the 2028 presidential waters. CNS's Jeff Zeleny caught up with Senator Elissa Slotkin, who happens to be in Iowa.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BASH: New reporting from New York Times journalists Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan takes us inside the Situation Room during critical discussions leading up to the war with Iran. It was a tight circle of people, some you would expect, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, others who don't make headlines, like White House Counsel David Warrington. A big takeaway from Maggie and Jonathan is there were a lot of concerns inside that room about going to war, but few were willing to say it openly.

[12:20:00]

Everyone deferred to the president's instincts. They had seen him take bold decisions, take on unfathomable risks and somehow come out on top. No one would impede him now. I think we need to do it. The president told the room. My smart panel is back now, including their colleague from The New York Times, Zolan. I want to start with some of the reporting that they have on the ambivalence that was in the room.

Mr. Rubio, of course, the secretary of state and national security advisor, indicated to colleagues that he was much more ambivalent. Ms. Wiles -- Susie Wiles, chief of staff, had concerns about what a new conflict overseas could entail, but she did not tend to weigh in on hard -- weigh in hard on military matters in large meetings.

General Caine, the joint chiefs chair, was not a political loyalist and he had serious concerns about a war with Iran, but he was very cautious in the way he presented his views to the president. KANNO-YOUNGS: And what's fascinating about all that reporting is group that together with also how some of the -- how the ICE community, how Ratcliffe, and also Rubio pushed back on the briefing that these top officials got from the Israelis as well. You did have officials saying, I mean, in this story, Marco Rubio basically dismissing, you know, this report, others saying that the Israelis have attempts to exaggerate in this briefing. Go ahead.

BASH: And let me just put sort of a little meat on that bone, real quick. So, what you're talking about also in this report is Prime Minister Netanyahu, went into the White House on February 11 and gave some very bold, optimistic assessments of what could happen if the U.S. and Israel went to war there --

KANNO-YOUNGS: Into the Situation Room --

BASH: Into the Situation Room. Thank you, right.

(CROSSTALK)

KANNO-YOUNGS: Yes, yeah.

BASH: So, you have the Israeli prime minister in the Situation Room with a small group of people, including the fact that it could bring an end to the Islamic regime. And what you were saying this, according to the reporting, when Mr. Trump joined the meeting of the U.S. intelligence officials after that Netanyahu briefing, Mr. Ratcliffe briefed him on the assessment.

The CIA director used one word to describe the Israeli prime minister's regime change scenarios, farcical. At that point, Mr. Rubio cut in. In other words, it's bullshit.

KANNO-YOUNGS: I think that is really important to highlight, right, especially if we're going to talk about the ambivalence that people had to express a dissenting view, you know, to the president, because you did have doubts there, but those doubts weren't forcefully argued to the president, right?

And we've talked often, you know, going back to last year, about how loyalty is such a measure of success in this administration. And we've -- I've often had a reporting target of, what does -- how does that translate in these meetings, where you would expect a back and forth and a counter argument to be presented, and then another argument to be presented. Or is it that some of the most powerful influential people in government are really just focused on -- at times telling the president what he does rather than what he does not want to hear, right?

And this reporting was so important because on something as pivotal as whether or not to go to war, it really seemed like the only person who presented that counter argument was the vice president, was J.D. Vance.

BASH: And Shelby, let me read you part of that reporting. In front of his colleagues, Mr. Vance warned Mr. Trump that a war against Iran could cause regional chaos and untold numbers of casualties. It could also break apart Mr. Trump's political coalition and would be seen as a betrayal by many voters who had bought into the promise of no new wars.

TALCOTT: Yeah. The vice president seems to have been the most forceful one in the room and sort of laying out more clearly what everybody else was trying to quietly express to the president. And so, you know, I do think that there was clearly some effort to say, hey, hold on. What about this? What about this? But I think that at the end of the day, there's a few aspects. A, the people around Trump this time around are very careful. So even when they express their opinions, I think sometimes it's curbed, and they don't -- they aren't as forceful as say, the vice president. But I also think that the president had already made up his mind.

And I think that there was an acknowledgement among the room, and among this group of advisors in particular, that, OK, well, you know, we'll say there are some risks to this, but at the end of the day, as that reporting notes, the team around Donald Trump, at the end of the day, whenever he does something, they'll voice their opinion. They will say something. But if he wants to do it, they go ahead with it. And this is a clear example even something as huge as going to war with Iran.

BASH: Yeah. Which, I mean that is actually in keeping with the way most administrations are. I mean, he's the president. He was elected. They weren't, and so forth. I do think the fact that the U.S. intelligence agencies push back about the notion of any idea of regime change from this maybe speaks to why the U.S. goal at the beginning and still now, wasn't -- they were saying regime change would be nice, but it's not part of our goal.

[12:25:00]

CHALIAN: So, there's the intel side of the briefing that Israel presented, and as you're saying, that many in the U.S. were skeptical of from the U.S. Intel community. But I think it also exposes this reporting, the political divide that exists because both -- so much criticism on the right and the left. And I don't mean just what J.D. Vance said about, you promised no new wars, but it's about Israel leading the U.S. into this.

That is the core of the critique on the right and the left of Trump's foreign policy in this moment in time. And I think that this, you know, having Netanyahu in the Situation Room, like the tightness around this, to me, exposes the heart of that concern.

BASH: And real quick. One of the right-wing's most ardent opponents of the state of Israel is Tucker Carlson. And in this reporting, it says that Tucker went to speak to the president about this. Mr. Trump, who had known Mr. Carlson for years, tried to reassure him -- excuse me, they talked on the phone. I know you're worried about it, but it's going to be OK, the president said. Mr. Carlson asked how he knew. Because it always is. And I think that's another dynamic here that we can't put aside, which is that the president feels so emboldened or at least felt so emboldened by in his first term, getting out Soleimani, by the operation in Venezuela. Both of which were so different from what he embarked on with Iran and but that was a part of his thinking as he went into this operation six weeks ago.

All right, coming up. Republicans won a special election in Georgia. So, why are Democrats celebrating? We'll explain after a break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:30:00]