Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Obama Hails 'Historic' Nuclear Deal with Iran; Netanyahu: Deal a Threat to Israel's Survival; Key Suspect Sought in Kenyan University Massacre; Sailor Rescued after 66 Days at Sea; Terror Suspects Targeted Police, Military. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired April 03, 2015 - 07:00   ET

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

[07:00:08] LABOTT: That's right, Chris. We've been talking all week that we thought it was going to be a very general statement, a broad political framework that had some curbs on Iran nuclear program, but basically left all the hard issues tills later. So my colleagues and I here following this stuff very closely, very surprised.

Let's talk about some of the key elements of this deal. It reduces Iran's centrifuges, which enrich uranium by about two-thirds. They had about 19,500. Now they're going to have about 6,000. And it's going to reduce its enriched uranium stockpile, which is significant. Those things together will extend what they call the breakout time that Iran would have enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon from two-thirds, two months, that it is now, to about a year, which is the goal that the administration had.

And that in exchange, Iran gets to lift sanctions in phases. It will get a lot of economic benefit. But first -- but then the U.N. Security Council phases -- sanctions will be lifted out in phases.

Now I sat down with Secretary of State John Kerry yesterday. Because you know, the elephant in the room in these talks was really Congress. They've been threatening sanctions. Now there's legislation pending in Congress, which has almost a veto-proof majority which would give them a vote, a say on whether the deal could go through. And I asked him whether Congress could kill this deal. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: That would be very irresponsible to make politics trump facts and science and the realities of what is possible here. And it would be particularly irresponsible to do it when you have six nations -- actually Iran, too -- but the P5+1 permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany. You know, China, and Russia, which don't have always everyday common interests with us in everything. But they are absolutely dedicated to the enforcement of this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LABOTT: Now the hard work begins. Negotiators will take a little bit of rest, possibly for the holiday. And then come back to renegotiate the fuller, comprehensive agreement, due at the end of June. That's going to be very difficult, to put all of those technical details on the broad strokes they agreed to yesterday -- Michaela.

PEREIRA: All right. Elise, live in Jerusalem.

Let's turn to here in the United States on that challenge for President Obama, selling that agreement to Congress and getting it across the finish line. Let's bring in CNN national correspondent Sunlen Serfaty live at the White House. This very well may be the heavy lifting for the president.

SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. It is going to be a heavy lift for the White House, Michaela. Congress is going to challenge President Obama on this.

There's already a series of defiant bills lined up, ready and waiting on Capitol Hill for the president. Republicans have said that this deal has made too many concessions to Iran. And Democrats have their responses basically tepid at best here.

Congress is back in two weeks from Easter recess. It is then when Republican senator Bob Corker, he has said that he will move that week on a bill. This is a bill that has already elicited a veto threat from the White House. And it would basically, in essence, if it gets a veto-proof majority, give Congress the ability to approve or reject this deal.

Now the White House has argued that this bill would undercut their ability at the negotiating table. Key is looking for Senate Democrats here. Will they defy the White House on this? President Obama had a stern warning for Congress.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If Congress kills this deal, not based on expert analysis, and without offering any reasonable alternative, then it's the United States that will be blamed for the failure of diplomacy. International unity will collapse, and the path to conflict will widen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SERFATY: The White House is going to be very aggressive on this. They're reaching out to key Senate Democrats who have not said one way or the other yet where they will come down on this bill. But the White House notes that they need these Senate Democrats to remain on their side on this. But Chris, they have a lot of convincing to do.

CUOMO: Absolutely. Not just at home, abroad as well. U.S. major ally in the region, Israel, they say they do not share President Obama's assertion that this is a good deal. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says this framework agreement threatens his country's very survival.

CNN's Oren Lieberman is live in Jerusalem. And what is the stronger reaction today?

OREN LIEBERMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, we expect another statement from Benjamin Netanyahu shortly, and if that continues with what we've heard from him lately, it will be some very, very strong words against this deal. In fact, I think his latest statement was perhaps the strongest rhetoric we heard so far.

After this deal came out, Netanyahu's government released a statement, Netanyahu himself released a statement, saying that this deal increases the risk of, quote, a "horrific war." Horrific war, some very, very strong rhetoric coming from Netanyahu.

He sees this deal as a bad deal for a number of reasons. Both for what's in the deal and what's not in the deal. Netanyahu has criticized the fact that this deal doesn't disassemble or take apart Iran's nuclear infrastructure. It limits it; it changes it, but that's not what Netanyahu wanted to see.

His other big criticism was that the lifting of sanctions is not tied to Iran pulling back its aggression in the region. That is what Netanyahu has seen as the biggest threat to the security of Israel and the security of the stability of the region. Those are Netanyahu's big criticisms here.

He's in a security -- or a cabinet meeting right now. He called this emergency cabinet meeting early this morning or late last night. We expect him to put out a statement shortly. So we'll have that statement for you. I think we have a good sense of what he's going to say. He's going to criticize the deal. The question is, does his language get even stronger?

And perhaps this week we got a hint of his strategy moving forward. He met with House Speaker John Boehner here in Israel. He met with Senator Mitch McConnell here in Israel, congressional Republicans who have criticized this deal. And if they work with Netanyahu, they could pose a big stumbling block to President Obama moving forward.

Chris, certainly, also worth noting that the intelligence minister said the military option is still on the table here.

CUOMO: All right. The threat is very real. Thank you for the download, Oren. No question the prime minister has sway in Congress.

So what is the reaction in Congress? What is the likely outcome here in terms of their action? Joining us now, Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine.

Thank you for the NEW DAY dedication, joining us on your way home, and a blessed Good Friday to you, sir.

SEN. ANGUS KING (I), MAINE: Thank you, Chris. Nice to be with you.

CUOMO: So the big concern is, at least for the president, that Congress will go its own way here and put out sanctions against Iran. In lieu of the details that we now have for this framework, what do you think the likely outcome is from Congress?

KING: Well, I think Bob Corker, as you mentioned, is going to be moving forward, probably right after the recess. There are a number of people from the Democratic Caucus, including myself, who have signed onto that bill. But I think our support is conditional upon a demonstration that this decision can be handled responsibly and without becoming simply another exercise to try to -- a partisan exercise to try to embarrass the president. This is just too important for that.

But the bill, the Corker bill, wouldn't apply -- it would only apply to the U.S. Sanctions, and it wouldn't apply, obviously, until there was a final deal. As you pointed out this morning, nothing signed. What we have is a detailed framework; a lot more detail than I think anybody expected.

But the idea would be, it would require 60 votes. There are some safeguards built in. But the underlying question is the one that you're going to be examining today and in future days. That is, whether the Republicans in Congress can approach this on the facts and the merits, look -- weighing the alternatives and not just saying, "If it's Obama's idea, we're against it."

CUOMO: Well, but you have...

KING: If it turns out if it's moving in that direction, Chris, I'm out. I'm not going to -- I'm not going to support something that's simply going to become a partisan cudgel.

CUOMO: Understood. But you do have an objective basis for pushback on this framework. The "Washington Post" has an op-ed out, saying that the parameters fall well short of the goals originally set by the administration. Is this framework, even if achieves all that it sets out, not enough?

KING: Well, the heart of it to me is verification. And that's really -- whether or not we can verify what's going on in there. There are -- I think a lot of people were surprised. I was surprised yesterday at the length to which, for example, reducing 10,000 down to -- 10,000 kilograms down to 300, shipping spent fuel out of the country, two- thirds reductions in centrifuge. But again, all of those things are meaningless unless there's really powerful, strong, intrusive investigation and verification.

If that's the case, and that's where the details are going to come, you know, obviously, that's going to be the real discussion that takes place over the next several months, both here in this country, around the world, in Iran and particularly between the negotiators.

But if -- if -- look, Chris, you've got to look at the alternatives. If you're -- as you're interviewing people today, and they're telling you why it's such a bad deal, ask them what their alternative is.

Because a lot of people think this is just us and Iran. It isn't. It's China; it's Russia. They're involved in these discussions, the entire Security Council of the United Nations. And we don't have the unilateral power to keep the sanctions going if those countries decided we blew up the negotiations unnecessarily. So that's -- that's option one is we could lose all international support for the sanctions which means they're ineffective. Iran is off and running; no inspectors, no limits or anything else.

Or the other alternative is war, is bombing, and most people estimate that a thorough bombing campaign would set their project, their nuclear weapons project back two -- between two and three years. So there are -- where are we then, where they've -- you know, they're back two or three years from now where they are, and you think they're going to negotiate then if we bomb them? I mean, this is -- this is pretty serious stuff.

But again, the question is, not is this a great deal? But is this a better deal than what the alternatives are? And so far, I'm impressed that the deal is more detailed, more intrusive, has more limitations, longer limitations than I anticipated. I'm not ready to sign on and say it's terrific. But I think it's a really positive step forward. And I sure don't want to see it derailed just because, you know, people want to embarrass the president or make some kind of partisan points.

CUOMO: Right. But...

KING: That would be -- that would be tragic.

CUOMO: Right. But just a quick final thought. You know the apolitical criticism would be yes, all these goals and aims that you lay out are probably beneficial and better than the alternative, if it's war. But what do you give to get them? And in what you give, do you wind up giving up -- giving up too much that doesn't give you the leverage going forward to enforce the deal?

KING: Well -- well, of course, that's a really good point. But as I read the facts, and the briefing I got yesterday from the White House, the sanctions don't go away until Iran complies. And then there's -- there are provisions for what's called snap-back, which means if there's a violation...

CUOMO: Right.

KING: ... the sanctions come right back in. And I think that's very important.

One other point that was made in the prior report. The Israelis are now moving the goal posts and saying we've got to get Iran to quit misbehaving in the region. That wasn't the focus of these negotiations. And frankly, that's a very unrealistic goal. It would be a nice goal. It would be terrific if we could achieve that. But let's deal with one issue at a time.

And the real issue is a nuclear armed Iran. They're still going to be troublesome in the region. They're still going to be a threat. They're still going to be an enemy of ours. But if we can get the nuclear arms off the table, that's a big deal.

CUOMO: Senator King, thank you very much. Enjoy your vacation; have a good Easter.

KING: Thank you, Chris. Nice to see you. PEREIRA: All right. This morning the search intensifying for a key suspect behind the bloody university rampage at a university in Kenya. The death toll stands now at a staggering 147 people, mostly students. We're also learning that al Shabaab terrorists singled out Christians during that massacre.

CNN's Christian Purefoy has the very latest for us. He is at Garissa University College in Kenya with the latest -- Christian.

CHRISTIAN PUREFOY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Michaela, at 5 a.m. yesterday morning, al Shabaab terrorists drove down this road, killed the two policemen standing guard at that gate and went into the university, with over 800 students waking up thinking it's just another normal day.

Now Michaela, we're standing here just on the other side of the fence of that university, which is now in lockdown. We've seen military trucks, ambulances, and all sorts of security forces coming by. But to be honest, it really is even here, a sense of detachment about the mass murder and horror that must have gone on behind those gates. But here's what we know so far.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PUREFOY (voice-over): This morning it's been just over 24 hours since al Shabaab gunmen terrorized this university in Kenya.

Now with at least 147 dead and nearly 600 evacuated, the community of Garissa in complete agony.

The massacre beginning just before dawn on Thursday, the terrorists descending on early-morning prayers, reportedly separating Muslims from Christians and killing the Christians or taking them hostage.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They started jumping up and down, running for their lives, but it's unfortunate that where they are going to is where the gunshots were coming from.

PUREFOY: The gunmen then going dormitory to dormitory before Kenyan forces eventually corner them, a standoff lasting for hours. Finally at around 9 p.m. officials announce the end of the operation.

Garissa University College, some 90 miles west of the Somali border. A region caught up in the ongoing battle with the Somali-based terror group al Shabaab.

SETH JONES, RAND CORPORATION: Kenya has been the primary driving force behind operations against al Shabaab in the region.

PUREFOY: The very same Islamist extremists responsible for the 2013 Westgate Mall massacre in Nairobi, Kenya.

According to reports, students had heard warning of an impending attack on their campus, just this past week.

The Kenyan government now issuing a bounty of more than $200,000 for this man, Mohamed Mohamud, wanted in connection with the campus attack.

[07:15:10] Though officials say Kenyan forces killed the four terrorists responsible, the nearly 17-hour siege, still too fresh.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PUREFOY: Now al Shabaab's stronghold, Somalia, is about four hours' drive over a bad road 190 kilometers that way. It really is the badlands of northern Kenya, a long, porous border with Somalia. Very difficult to stop al Shabaab hitting soft targets like this. But really, today, it's about Kenya now beginning to come to terms with what happened behind those gates.

Back to you.

CUOMO: All right, thank you very much for the reporting. We're still going to get information out of that. We'll check back with him in just a little bit for you.

Now we have breaking news, as well, in the Flight 9525 investigation. Investigators have a first look at what was on the plane's data recorder. That data, they say, proves co-pilot Andreas Lubitz put the plane into a dive and even accelerated on the way down. Meanwhile, his tablet device was loaded with searches for suicide methods, cockpit doors and cockpit door security.

PEREIRA: Lawmakers in Indiana and in Arkansas swiftly approving fixes that aim to remove the risk of using religious freedom laws to defend discrimination. Neither state gave LGBT advocates what they want, however: protection as a class under state law. Indiana added to its existing bill. Arkansas passed a narrower version of it -- its original bill, which is now virtually identical to the federal Religious Freedom and Restoration Act.

CUOMO: A Good Friday miracle to tell you about. This sailor, adrift at sea for -- wait for it -- 66 days now alive and well. CNN's Martin Savidge is live in Norfolk, Virginia, with details.

You know, Martin, you want to shake your head and say, "I don't buy it. He looks to good, he looks too good." But what's the facts on the ground?

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Louis Jordan has an amazing story to tell. And he begins it by saying that, back at the end of January, he went out from South Carolina, just to catch a couple of fish, he said. Thought he'd be gone a couple of hours. Two months later, he's rescued at sea. And his father admitted to us last night that he had thought his son was dead.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SAVIDGE (voice-over): An emotional reunion. Father and son together for the first time in months. Thirty-seven-year-old Louis Jordan was lost at sea for 66 days. His sailboat capsized, leaving him drifting far from shore.

FRANK JORDAN, FATHER: There comes a time when you wonder if they could still be out there. Surviving.

SAVIDGE: Louis speaking out for the first time, recounting how he managed to survive: catching fish with his bare hands and eating it raw. And trapping rainwater.

LOUIS JORDAN, SURVIVED 66 DAYS AT SEA: I was running out of water, drinking a pint a day for very long time. Rationing that water, almost out. Almost out. Finally, God answered my prayer, right before I ran out of water.

SAVIDGE: Reported missing on January 29, Jordan set out for a fishing trip, when the Coast Guard says his sailboat's mast broke and the electronics gear was damaged during rough weather.

But on Thursday, after more than two months at sea, with a broken shoulder, his fortunes changed. A German-flagged vessel rescued Jordan about 200 miles east of North Carolina's Cape Hatteras. He was medivacked to a Virginia hospital, walked inside on his own two feet. Here is the first phone call with his father.

F. JORDAN: How are you feeling?

L. JORDAN: I'm doing great now. I couldn't -- I couldn't fix it. I couldn't sail back with my boat. I'm so sorry. It's such a big loss.

F. JORDAN: Hey, Louis, you're fine, son. I'm so glad that you're alive. We prayed and prayed, and we hoped that you were still alive.

L. JORDAN: I was praying about you, because I was afraid that you guys were crying and sad that I was dead; and I wasn't dead.

I was utterly grateful and thankful to the people who rescued me. And I was grateful to God that my parents were not going to be worried about me.

SAVIDGE: An agonizing ordeal for Jordan's family coming to a close.

L. JORDAN: Let's have a hug. I love this man. Love him with all my heart.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SAVIDGE: And Chris, to your point, he does look to be in incredible medical condition, given the 66 days that he was at sea.

The story is still being investigated by authorities. There's no question that he was reported missing by his family. So how long he was gone is really not in doubt here. It is the conditions under which he actually had to survive.

But no doubt he's also very lucky, because of the crew that spotted him at sea, the Coast Guard that brought him to shore and then maybe the vessel that he was on himself, which appropriately was named Angel -- Chris and Michaela.

PEREIRA: That's a very interesting part of it. Interesting the fact 66 days would put him back into some of the throes of winter.

[07:20:10] CUOMO: Absolutely. Hard to believe. But until we know otherwise, we've got to go with what he says.

PEREIRA: What a story. Martin, thanks for bringing that to us.

SAVIDGE: Sure.

PEREIRA: All right. The arrest of two New York women in an ISIS- inspired bomb plot sparking all sorts of new concern about home-grown terror. Is enough being done to combat it?

CUOMO: President Obama says the Iran deal is good. Israel says, no it isn't. It could compromise their very survival. Is there a middle ground here? Israel's chief government spokesman joins us ahead with his concerns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:24:50] PEREIRA: Two New York City women are in custody this morning. They're accused of plotting to unleash attacks on American soil. Federal authorities say one of them has a direct link to al Qaeda. Both may have been inspired by ISIS propaganda.

And another U.S. citizen is charged with supporting terrorists who wanted to kill Americans abroad.

Let's bring in CNN counterterrorism analyst and former CIA counterterrorism official Philip Mudd. Counterterrorism analyst and senior fellow of the Foundation of Defense of Democracies, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, joins us, as well.

Daveed, let's start with this plot, obviously, unfolding in Brooklyn, these two women under arrest. Noelle Velentzas, Asia Siddiqui. Does this present a new surge in homegrown terror that we need to be concerned about?

DAVEED GARTENSTEIN-ROSS, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: It does in the sense that we can clearly see a spike of about 30 cases in the past 18 months. It's not unprecedented. If you go back to the 2009-2011 period, you also had a similar surge in homegrown terrorism in the United States, which subsequently subsided.

What they've concerned about, moving it away from this particular case, is that I think social media and the way that ISIS has come to master social media is changing radicalization patterns in a worse way. In that terrorism tends to be a group thing. But when you -- the reason why because is it takes a group to reinforce extreme beliefs, urge people to action. And I think that social media can serve the role as a group. That's one over-arching trend.

But in terms of home-grown terrorism, yes, there's a surge. It won't necessarily last forever, but we can certainly see it at the moment.

PEREIRA: Well, let's hope it doesn't. Philip, interesting to see here that in this particular plot, they

weren't targeting civilians, large groups of civilians gathered. They were specifically, it sounds like, plotting to target police, military outposts, et cetera. Does that surprise you?

PHILIP MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: It does. And this is a shift we've seen recently. Police, army, military, these are seen as more legitimate targets more than civilians. Civilians, for people entering this sort of level of extremism, when people decide to commit an act of violence, civilians are a harder pitch for al Qaeda than a military or police target.

Remember, we had a hatchet-bearing man in New York City a few months ago, trying to go after police. In Ottawa we had an attack on the parliament building, not on what al Qaeda would refer to as innocent civilians.

So this is an effort to get a target set that's a little bit -- from their perspective, a little bit more legitimate than just an innocent civilian.

PEREIRA: These two, do you think they were high players in this? I mean, where do they stand as far as you're concerned, in terms of a threat within the organization?

MUDD: Chump change.

PEREIRA: Chump change.

MUDD: Chump change. There's a way -- there's two sides to this coin. There's the good side of this. If you look at the criminal complaint, and I've read it, these people are no-talent ass clowns, in my world. Look, these -- they made every mistake you can make. I feel like I should run a seminar for terrorists on how not to get into the claws of American security services.

The problem with this and the reason people like me cringe is that this is a volume business. As Daveed said, as you talked about, there's so many of these people.

PEREIRA: Yes.

MUDD: They can be low-talent, but if you get hundreds of them, and you miss two of them, that's the whole -- you've got to do 100 percent. So these are not serious players, but you've got to worry when you get hundreds of them.

PEREIRA: And when this goes to press later, his words not mine on the clown phenomenon.

OK. So we go from bit players, Daveed let's talk about the situation in Texas, because it sounds like they netted a top al Qaeda operative, a Texas native. He is going to be a valuable resource for intelligence, will he not?

GARTENSTEIN-ROSS: That's something which I'm a little bit more skeptical of, unfortunately.

PEREIRA: Oh, OK.

GARTENSTEIN-ROSS: The reason being that look, he's in criminal court. And once someone gets Mirandized, everyone knows you stop talking. So he's someone who certainly has valuable information, but this is one of those situations where, once you get someone into criminal court, they stop being a valuable resource, unless some sort of plea deal can be struck whereby he gives up information to the government in exchange for a lighter sentence.

PEREIRA: How about you, Mudd? Do you feel the same way? You think that this might not net as much valuable information for U.S. officials?

MUDD: Boy, this is a lottery ticket for the intelligence folks. I would die to hear this guy talk.

The problem is, as soon as he lawyers up, you know what that lawyer is going to say: Stop talking.

There's another psychological piece to this. He's been gone since 2007, in the midst of al Qaeda. When you become ideologically turned for that long a period of time, the likelihood that you're going to come back and say, "Wow, I made a huge mistake," is lower. That's a chance he's just sitting there saying, "I joined the right group. Don't talk to me. I believe in what I joined."

PEREIRA: OK. So he's not a viable source there for information. But Daveed, I'm at least going to sleep a little bit better at night knowing that he's off the streets.

GARTENSTEIN-ROSS: Absolutely. I mean, I think we can be glad about that. There's an interesting series of events with him being basically sent back to Texas after, being apprehended in Pakistan. There's some cooperation that was taking place there. He has valuable intelligence.

And one other thing I would point out, by the way, is that the U.S. has gotten quite a bit of valuable intelligence within the past few months. I mean, netting Anad al-Shukra Shukra (ph), for example, is something that has helped to loop in other big fish in the al Qaeda chain.

PEREIRA: Gentlemen, we appreciate you joining us on this Good Friday. Thanks so much for your intelligence and your colorful language, as always.

Chris, I'll send it over to you.

MUDD: Take care.