Return to Transcripts main page
Isa Soares Tonight
Starmer Addresses Parliament; Apologizes for Appointing Mandelson; Starmer Faces Political Leadership Crisis; Fate of U.S.-Iran Talks Unclear; Trump: Extension on Ceasefire with Iran "Highly Unlikely"; Pope Leo's Historic African Tour. Aired 2:30-3p ET
Aired April 20, 2026 - 14:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:30:00]
KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: -- not being given clearance on security vetting, I would not have appointed them. A deliberate decision
was taken to withhold that material from me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MAX FOSTER, CNN ANCHOR: Let's bring in our Clare Sebastian who's inside the British Parliament. Clare, it was a very detailed, very forensic
explanation going into all the details in the British Government that most of us aren't completely aware of, but what was the point here?
CLARE SEBASTIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well look, the central question of the day, Max, was for Keir Starmer to defend himself against accusations that
he may have misled lawmakers in this building, that when he's come to Parliament in the past and maintained that due process was followed, that
the vetting procedure was followed with Peter Mandelson, that he could in fact have been not telling the truth.
Now, he stuck fast to his defense against that, that he did not know, as was revealed by the Guardian newspaper here in the U.K. last week, that
Peter Mandelson had in fact failed at his official security vetting to take up the post of Ambassador to the United States, and that that was overruled
by Foreign Office officials so that he could then actually take up that appointment.
He says he didn't know, he says he should have known, and that somehow, he wasn't told about it by Foreign Office officials, he called that a
deliberate decision. And he said if he had known he wouldn't have appointed Mandelson in the first place. So, that was his defense.
But the attacks were fast coming, it got loud, it got tense, there were actually two Members of Parliament who were thrown out of the Commons at
various stages for their language, one of them calling Starmer a bare-faced liar, and the leader of the opposition, you know, questioned him on, you
know, how much he could have known and certain comments he's made in the past.
Several people compared it to 2022 when Starmer, as then leader of the opposition, you know, attacked Boris Johnson for claims that he misled
Parliament and saying that he should resign, saying, the leader of the opposition saying, why are there some rules for him and others for you? So,
it was supremely uncomfortable.
But I think the sense is that he avoided a major disaster, there was no serious sustained mutiny from his own party, there were no calls from the
opposition for a no-confidence vote, but I think the major moment of peril now for the prime minister will come tomorrow. And the Foreign Office
official, Olly Robbins, who he sacked as a result of these latest revelations will come before a Parliamentary Committee here in this
building and give his side of the story. If that differs significantly from the prime minister's, that could be a problem. And we're also hearing that
there is going to be another emergency debate on this in the Commons again tomorrow, so there is more to come.
And of course, the lingering issues about how, you know, every time this scandal resurfaces, the Labour Party spends more political capital on it
and it distracts from the business that they want to get down to, of tackling the cost of living, and of course two wars on two different
fronts, Max.
FOSTER: Clare, thank you. British lawmakers pushing the Prime Minister on what he knew then about Mandelson's vetting process and when, almost two
years ago, Starmer promised the British public, who were weary of political scandals and turmoil, that his Government would be different.
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch questioned how much he'd fallen short on that promise and who should be responsible for the vetting
failures.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEMI BADENOCH, BRITISH CONSERVATIVE PARTY LEADER: Instead of taking responsibility for the decisions he made, the prime minister has thrown his
staff and his officials under the bus. He has sacked his cabinet secretary, he has sacked his director of communications, he has sacked his chief of
staff, and he has now sacked the permanent secretary of the Foreign Office. All of these people fired for a decision he made.
The right honorable gentleman's defense is that he, a former director of public prosecutions, is so lacking in curiosity that he chose to ask no
questions about the vetting process. He asked no questions about Mandelson's relationship with Epstein. He asked no questions about the
security risk Mandelson posed. It doesn't appear that he asked any questions at all. Why? Because he didn't want to know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: So, the former head of the Foreign Office, Civil Service, will be speaking tomorrow. We'll bring you an update on that because that's really
what many MPs are looking for next.
Meanwhile, Bulgaria's ex-president is on course to be its next prime minister after winning parliamentary elections by an absolute landslide.
Rumen Radev's victory is one of the strongest results for a single party in a generation and may end the chronic political instability that has led to
eight elections in five years there. It's also the first time since 1997 that a single Bulgarian party has gained enough seats to govern alone
rather than in a coalition. Radev has vowed to seek better relations with Moscow and lift Russian-European Union sanctions, lift European Union
sanctions that he calls harmful to both sides.
Still to come, a former U.S. State Department negotiator joins us to talk about the sketchy U.S.-Iran ceasefire. We'll have the details on that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:35:00]
FOSTER: As we mentioned just before the break, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer acknowledging that he was wrong to appoint Peter Mandelson as U.S.
ambassador after facing a grilling from lawmakers today. Let's get more on this. I'm joined now by Labour Party politician Perran Moon. Thank you so
much. I know there are some backbenchers in your party very unhappy with the party's leadership right now, but what did you make of his performance
today?
PERRAN MOON, MEMBER OF BRITISH PARLIAMENT, LABOUR PARTY: I thought it was a pretty solid performance all round. Look, there are 400 Labour MPs.
There's always going to be a handful who are unhappy for one reason or another. I think the vast majority of Labour MPs were very satisfied with
what they heard.
The prime minister said that he would set out a timeline of exactly what was known when, and he delivered exactly that today. He's already
apologized several times for appointing Peter Mandelson. He did it again today and he was right to do so.
FOSTER: His story does need to match, though, what we're going to hear tomorrow from the former head of the Foreign Office who he fired over all
of this, doesn't it? That's another key moment.
MOON: Sure, it is a key moment, but the prime minister is absolutely clear, he made it very plain again today that there was no minister,
including himself, who was aware that the U.K. vetting service had been overruled and they appointed Mandelson without that knowledge. Had they had
that knowledge, and the prime minister made it very clear today, they would not have appointed him. It's a failure of the process and we are fixing
that process. It can never happen again, and the prime minister has been very clear about the changes we need to make to that process.
FOSTER: Or is it a case of deputy heads will roll? Because as Kemi Badenoch pointed out, several people have been fired over this, but the
prime minister is in charge of this organization. He's admitted he made a mistake. He's admitted he wants to take responsibility, but he's the only
person that doesn't seem to be taking responsibility. I mean, ultimately, the buck does stop with him.
MOON: Well, look, it's not beyond the wit of man to realize that if you have a piece of information that is so vital to the appointment of such a
senior position, you pass it on to your superiors. That was not the case. It was not handed over. And as you say, we will hear tomorrow much more
detail from Olly Robbins as to why that was withheld.
[14:340:00]
It is a process that is flawed. It needs to be amended. That information should have been passed on. It wasn't. The prime minister didn't know. And
Mandelson should never have been appointed. And that's why the prime minister has once again apologized today.
FOSTER: But there was an interesting email, wasn't there, from the head of the civil service at the time, Simon Case, saying that the appointment
should come after the vetting. And the prime minister saying, actually, the vetting comes after the appointment. So, it does sound as if he's saying
the head of the civil service is suggesting one protocol, but he's pushing another protocol onto the head of the civil service.
MOON: So, look, I'm not an expert in this. But as I understand it, there's two stages to vetting. There's an initial vetting process. And then there's
a kind of deep dive, the kind of U.K. vetting service, which goes much, much more deeply into some quite detailed understanding of an individual.
And there's all sorts of sensitive information that is considered.
Mandelson passed the first vetting stage and was announced. And then he didn't pass the second stage. And that information wasn't passed on. Now,
we're changing the process. And I think the prime minister made very clear today that there will not be appointments made of this seniority to --
without going through all of the security vettings, and for that information to be made available to ministers before they appoint.
FOSTER: A lot of MPs as well across, you know, all the different parties saying today that, wasn't it enough that we knew that Epstein had a
relationship with Mandelson? Why would you appoint someone into such a sensitive position purely based on that? Why was it pushed through? It's
clear that he was the first choice for the prime minister.
MOON: Look, at the heart of this whole sorry saga, we must never forget the victims of Epstein who've been so appallingly treated. I know the prime
minister feels this incredibly deeply that he has appointed a man who continued to associate with Epstein. And that's for that reason that he has
apologized continuously for appointing Mandelson. It was a huge mistake. And we must never lose sight of the fact that there are these victims
who've been so appallingly treated by so many people.
FOSTER: The king is obviously heading on a state visit to the United States next week. I keep being asked questions about the state of the
British government, this all-time low between Downing Street and the White House.
You know, the more these trundles on this whole story, the more it's potentially overshadowing the whole debate about the king's visit, which is
meant to be about long-term relationship building. But inevitably, we're going to be talking, you know, about the state of relations between the two
countries because of this affair, aren't we?
MOON: Oh, I think that the king will rise above all of this. We have, as you say, a very long-standing and friendly relationship with the United
States. We are close allies, and we need to make sure that we are working as closely as we possibly can, regardless of the figures who currently hold
offices, whether that's on this side of the pond or the other. That relationship endures. And the king recognizes that, and that's why he is
honoring this visit.
It'll be an important visit. I'm hoping that he will be able to speak to President Trump about the challenges that we face around the world. And
he'll do that in the typical way that the king does these things. And he approaches them in a very supportive way and attempts to put forward the
national interest but also is very cognizant of world affairs. And so, I'm very pleased that he is going.
FOSTER: Yes, OK. Perran Moon, really appreciate you joining us today. Thank you for joining us from Parliament.
Now, back to our top story then, the approaching ceasefire deadline between the U.S. and Iran. U.S. President Donald Trump says it's highly unlikely
it'll be extended beyond its scheduled end on Wednesday if there's no deal. Our sources report that U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance and other top White
House officials are expected to depart Tuesday now for Islamabad in Pakistan. That's where the potential round of talks next with Iran could
happen.
The U.S. boarded and seized an Iranian flagged ship on Sunday which led to a furious response from Tehran. Iran's foreign ministry insists there are
no plans for more talks as of now.
[14:45:00]
Former U.S. State Department Middle East negotiator and senior fellow at the Carnegie Institute for International Peace Aaron David Miller joins us
now. Thank you for joining us. I mean, a few things to go through with you. First of all, this statement from the President that J.D. Vance was already
on his way. Then we see him appear at the White House. He's not on his way. Presumably he will head there tomorrow. But it's not entirely clear when
these talks will start or whether Iran's even going to be involved, is it?
AARON DAVID MILLER, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT MIDDLE EAST NEGOTIATOR: Well, the two Iranian negotiators that showed up in Islamabad last time around, I
think, have agreed to come to Islamabad and it's -- Foreign Minister Araghchi and the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Mohammad-Bagher
Ghalibaf. But they are really at the mercy, I think, of a much harder core Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps senior leadership that has replaced those
that have been killed by the Israelis and the Americans.
This is not an auspicious moment, it would seem to me. There's no trust and confidence between the two sides. You've got a standoff in the Gulf. You've
got the Iranian decision to close the straits, the blockade. And now, you have the U.S. Navy boarding a ship which, according to one report, was
carrying precursors from Malaysia via China for ballistic missile production. Interestingly enough, there was no, I haven't seen any reports
about what's happened to the crew of that ship. The U.S. Navy has now taken control of the vessel. So, you've got that.
Then you have an announcement from Washington that there'll be no extension. It seems to me, barring some miracle, the best result you could
get out of this, and I don't think you're going to get a conceptual agreement, is some traction that would in fact lead to an extension.
Because the issues here are incredibly complicated.
And frankly, we don't have a clue about what the positions are of each side as it pertains to the highly enriched uranium. We have fragments of
information of the issues, but we don't know exactly where the sides are. So, I would hope, because the alternative is far worse, that you can get an
extension and that both sides would be serious about negotiating.
FOSTER: So, they can extend those key elements of the talks around uranium enrichment. The priority for the president will be reopening the Strait of
Hormuz, presumably. But it doesn't look as though Iran's going to do that if the blockade, the U.S. blockade, stays in place. And certainly not if
they're firing at Iranian ships as well. As I understand it, weren't they firing at the engine, I mean, that could have taken the whole ship down,
couldn't it?
MILLER: Well, they were warned in advance that there would be a very heavy-duty American piece of artillery with a five-inch shell that would be
fired at the engine room. So, they were given warning to evacuate personnel.
Look, the Straits are critically important, but I don't think you can get a solution to the Straits unless you address the broader issue of the other
things that are on the table. And each one of them contains a universe of detail. I mean, it took two-plus years to negotiate the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action, a flawed but highly functional agreement. And that agreement was 18 pages of text and 141 pages of technical annexes.
You can't deal with the HEU issue or the centrifuges or the matter of enrichment without intrusiveness and without monitoring. And I've seen no
reports that the IAEA has been involved in any of these negotiations. So, a level of detail that's going to take a fair amount of time, to say the
least, to work through. So, they need the time and space to do that, assuming both sides' clocks are in sync. That is to say both sides have a
shared sense of urgency that they want out of this war. I'm not entirely persuaded that the American clock isn't running much faster than the
Iranian clock. If that's the case, then the news isn't going to be great.
FOSTER: OK. We'll watch what happens tomorrow. Aaron David Miller, really appreciate you joining us. Thank you.
Still to come tonight, speaking from Angola, Pope Leo's sharp criticism of authoritarian leaders and some papal advice that applies to us all.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:50:00]
FOSTER: Fishermen in a Mexican coastal community are struggling in the wake of a massive oil spill more than a month ago, which was off the State
of Veracruz. The spill has since spread into several parts of nature. Mexico's president maintains that the cleanup is under control, but some
environmental groups say the government is not being honest about what's going on. CNN's Valeria Leon reports.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VALERIA LEON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Fishermen's nets sustained with tar, the most visible face of an environmental tragedy, stretching
over 600 kilometers, or 400 miles, of the Gulf of Mexico. An oil spill that began on March 2nd and whose causes are still unknown.
While Mexican authorities say the oil is seeping from three different sources, including a ship that has not yet been identified, environmental
organizations dispute that version. They say the root of the spill is a leak from a pipeline operated by Pemex, Mexico's state-owned oil company.
Whatever the source, it has dealt a major blow to the region. Turtles, fish and other marine life have been found washed up on shore, coated in oil.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): We never imagined something like this would happen. And now, look, this has affected us as restaurant owners
and everyone who depends on tourism.
LEON (voice-over): For local fishermen, it has upended their livelihoods, now that they are unable to work in the waters they depended on for
decades.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Since March 2nd, we haven't been able to fish. We usually catch crab and oysters, but now we can't because
no one will buy them.
LEON (voice-over): Mexico's government said at least 800 tons of crude have spilled into the ocean. Cleanup crews have been deployed, but
residents say the damage is still visible. And the economic impact is already being felt.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): The local community has gotten together to clean the beaches because we depend on tourism.
LEON (voice-over): President Claudia Sheinbaum has downplayed the impact, saying the situation is under control, adding that during Holy Week, hotel
occupancy in the coastal city of Veracruz reached around 80 percent.
[14:55:00]
CLAUDIA SHEINBAUM, MEXICAN PRESIDENT (through translator): There are ongoing cleanup efforts. The beaches have been cleaned and people were able
to safely go into the beaches of Veracruz.
LEON (voice-over): As the cleanup continues, questions remain over what caused the spill and whether the leak has been stopped. Meanwhile, both the
region's ecosystem and its local economy stand on the brink of disaster.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER: The Pope continues an historic tour across Africa. He's making a stop in Angola, the third leg of an ambitious 10-day tour. A short while
ago, Leo criticized exploitation by authoritarian leaders around the world. He had faced attacks from U.S. President Donald Trump in recent weeks, to
which the pontiff responded this weekend, he has no desire to debate the president. And today, at a nursing home in Angola, Leo issued advice few
could object to, a papal nudge to listen to your grandparents. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
POPE LEO XIV (through translator): Let us not forget that the elderly are not only in need of assistance, but first and foremost, need to be listened
to, because they preserve the wisdom of a people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Absolutely. Thank you for joining us tonight. Do stay with CNN though, I'll be back with "What We Know" after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:00:00]
END
