Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Iran Deal A Threat To Israel?; Interview with Mark Regev; Official: Co-Pilots Act Was "Premeditated Murder"; NCAA President Addresses Controversial Law. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired April 03, 2015 - 07:30   ET

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

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: As an Easter gift to Mudd, he does not want to start a program for terrorists to figure out how to avoid the authorities. He was just using that as a demonstration of their own ineptitude. Isn't that right, Mr. Mudd?

[07:30:02] PHILIP MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: I think that's a safe bet. If I offered that impression, I'm not taking money from terrorist groups. That's a federal violation.

CUOMO: And here's a very good tease, Mr. Mudd has a book coming out, we'll tell you about it next week, just a teaser, a tease for you there.

All right, when we come back Israel's prime minister says a nuclear deal with Iran isn't just a bad deal. It threatens his nation's very existence. So what is he going to do about it? His spokesman joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:34:44]

CUOMO: President Obama has achieved what some consider a historic framework for a nuclear deal with Iran. But many don't see it that way, few more important than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He says the deal threatens Israel's very survival. So what is Israel going to do about it?

Israeli government spokesman, Mark Regev joins us now. Mr. Regev, thank you for joining us as always. Why is this a bad deal?

[07:35:10] MARK REGEV, ISRAELI GOVERNMENT SPOKESMAN: My pleasure. It's a bad deal because did allows Iran to retain an expansive nuclear infrastructure it allows Iran to continue with thousands of centrifuges, to continue to enrich, to continue with research and development on a new generation of more efficient centrifuges.

The deal proposed doesn't even call on the Iranians to take apart even one of their nuclear installations, so you have this massive Iranian nuclear infrastructure and this in the hands of a regime that almost on a daily basis says my country should be destroyed.

CUOMO: When you look --

REGEV: And this is a problem.

CUOMO: When you look from a scale perspective, I'll give you the high points of what the nuclear program would look like with and without the deal. You have 19,000, some say even more centrifuges. It's down to 6,000, no inspections right now. You'd have inspections. You'd still have sanctions in place.

And you'd have what they're calling the break-out time, which without a deal, would be time to two to three months without a deal that would be their breakout time. With the deal, you have one year and obviously, the give is no sanctions with a deal and you'd have sanctions without a deal. So you are reducing things, why isn't that of any value?

REGEV: We believe it's possible to get a much better deal. We see what's on the table now as a step in the wrong direction as very dangerous because you're giving international legitimacy to ultimately an Iranian nuclear program whose goal is, sole goal, is to have a nuclear weapon.

And there shouldn't be that legitimacy. On the contrary, we believe the international community should hold out until you get a better deal that actually substantially dismantles the Iranian nuclear program and commits Iran to a new set of behavior.

If Iran wants to be treated as a normal country, it has to be to start acting like a normal country. They shouldn't be exporting their aggression throughout the region. You know what they're doing in Iraq and in Syria and in Lebanon and now today in Yemen as well. You know what --

CUOMO: The negotiators say you have to separate the nukes and the outlying foreign activity. That this was only supposed to be about the nukes and you have to start somewhere and the question becomes how do you get a better deal than right now? What could you do to Iran, that you haven't already done, at least for the United States, 35 years, having them as an ostracized entity?

REGEV: Well, the truth is in the only in the last two or three years that the United States have ratcheted up sanctions and the Iranians have been feeling the pressure. Here we have to give a word of thanks to the administration in Congress for putting those very tough sanctions in place.

Now we think those sanctions should stay in place until the Iranians actually take substantive steps to dismantle their nuclear program. Ultimately, if you take that away, what motivation do the Iranians have for making real concessions?

CUOMO: If this deal goes forward as it is, there is a whisper that Israel might consider a unilateral attack against Iran because of its own properties of self-defense. Is there a real chance of that?

REGEV: Let's be clear. Just this week, once again the Iranian leadership, this time a top general, reiterated that he actually said that Israel's destruction is nonnegotiable. In other words, it's something the Iranians are willing to talk about anything, but destroying Israel, they can't discuss that.

That's part of their very being. So obviously nuclear weapons, nuclear potential in the hands of such a regime, is for us a scenario that we don't, we don't want to go there. You have to know, Chris, it's not just Israel's problem.

Our Arab neighbors, those large Sunni moderate countries in the region, they support our position on this issue. And I'd urge you to remember when Arabs and Israelis agree, as we do on Iran, it doesn't happen every day of the week.

So when we agree, I would urge people to pay attention. I would urge you to remember, Chris, that Iran is building intercontinental ballistic missiles. Those missiles are not for us, they've got missiles that can hit Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Those missiles are to hit targets well beyond the horizon and that includes North America.

CUOMO: So the idea of military action in response to this deal isn't just saber-rattling. In a quick statement you're saying that's a real option on the table?

REGEV: We would of course like to see a deal that actually significantly dismantles the Iranian nuclear program. We'd like to see that done diplomatically.

[07:40:03] CUOMO: OK.

REGEV: But of course, Israel is here under direct threat and it's the responsibility of every democratic government and my prime minister was just re-elected with a mandate. We have to protect ourselves.

CUOMO: Mr. Regev, thank you for giving us the perspective of Israel. It's a pleasure having you on the show -- Michaela.

REGEV: Thank you for having me, sir.

PEREIRA: All right, Chris, new evidence from the Germanwings flight data recorder that's been found confirms that the crash was indeed deliberate. We may never know why, but journalists from a German publication who spoke with the pilot's friend may give us some insight, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:44:36]

PEREIRA: New this morning, investigators now say that data from Flight 9525's data recorder confirms that the co-pilot deliberately crashed the plane, this as investigators are calling the crash premeditated murder after discovering the co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, had done internet searches about suicide and about cockpit doors.

Jillian Reichelt is editor in chief of "Bild Online." He spoke to a friend of Lubitz yesterday. He joins us now from Berlin. We'll talk to you about that conversation you have a friend in a moment. [07:45:04] But this is a big development, the flight data recorder now showing that this was deliberate. The internet searches proving this was premeditated murder. This is a big, big development.

JULIAN REICHELT, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, "BILD ONLINE": Yes, good morning, Michaela. What we're learning this very moment coming out of the investigation in France is that the second black box seems to confirm that Andreas Lubitz deliberately started the descent of the plane.

Initiated the descent of the plane and then increased the speed of the plane to crash it into the mountain. That is coming out of the investigation from the prosecutor in France right now. What we are learning.

And you know, yesterday we were told by the German investigator, that he had been looking for ways of suicide on the internet in the past days and weeks. That was taken from his tablet computer.

To us, that kind of indicates that maybe his plan to crash the plane evolved, that he was looking for more so to say traditional ways of suicide in the beginning.

And then went on, you know, moved on to that plan, and started looking up ways to block the cockpit door, looking up the locking mechanism, the security mechanisms of the cockpit door. So it seems like a plan that evolved out of a so to say normal suicide plan into what it then became.

PEREIRA: It evolved as you said so let's talk about this conversation that you had with a friend of the co-pilot. What did this person tell you about this man?

REICHELT: It was actually our reporters speaking to several friends of his, one of them pretty close to him. And what is interesting there is that as of now, pretty much everyone knew about his mental condition, knew that he was seeking treatment, you know, very much seems that his family knew that he was on heavy medication.

And you know, the question coming out of that is to us, did he conceal to friends and family that he was still you know, on active duty, that he was still in the cockpit or did he, you know, did everyone know that he was flying although he was in a very bad mental place and receiving heavy medication?

We have learned from the investigation, from documents that are part of the investigation that he was on a combination of heavy antidepressant that increases the risk of suicide, has been on that for weeks.

And that at the same time, on a sleeping medication that is also used to treat panic attacks. Doctors that we have consulted tell us this combination of medication wouldn't even allow you to drive a car, not talking about flying a plane.

PEREIRA: Let me ask you, though, if they had these concerns, the people that knew this man, did they ever make them aware, the airline aware? Did they ever speak of their concern leading up to or right after? Why are we only hearing about this now?

REICHELT: Well, that is, you know, the big question everyone is asking right now. We know from records that Andreas Lubitz was concealing to the doctors just days before he crashed the plane that he was on active duty. He was telling them, the doctors, he consulted, that he was on sick leave. That he was not flying, but he wants to get back in the cockpit.

Possibly because he was afraid that someone would report him. He was seeking treatment while concealing that he was still flying. You know, we're very certain that his friends and family knew about his condition.

But as of now, it seems more likely that he tried as much as possible to conceal also from them that he was flying because it's very hard to imagine that they knew about the condition, you know, his family was actively taking him to doctors.

You know, it's very hard to imagine that they were taking him to doctors and at the same time allowing him to fly commercial airliner.

PEREIRA: I know it is shocking, shocking developments that you, "Bild" online have uncovered. This is not reporting of CNN. We need to make that clear. Julian Reichelt, thank you so much for joining us with your information -- Chris.

CUOMO: All right, Mich, important advance on that story. So tomorrow is the final vote, can Wisconsin end Kentucky's historic season? What about Michigan State versus the Dukies? We've got a preview for you. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:53:41]

CUOMO: Get your hoops on.

PEREIRA: Right.

CUOMO: This weekend is as big as college basketball gets. It was almost kind of -- almost wasn't, right --

PEREIRA: That's true.

CUOMO: -- because of the controversial Indiana Religious Freedom Law, but that is gone as a threat. So it's now xs and o boys. Let's bring in Andy Scholes.

PEREIRA: Cats, cats, cats.

CUOMO: Giving away the bias. So Andy Scholes, this morning's "Bleachers Report," this may be the best pairings we've seen in recent history, true or true?

ANDY SCHOLES, CNN SPORTS: Very true, Chris, absolutely. I can't wait for this, these match-ups tomorrow night. It's looking like it's going to be one of the best final fours we've seen in a long time. It's been kind of over shadowed this week by the Religious Freedom Law.

You know, everyone was waiting to see how the teams in the NCAA would react to what's been going on here in Indiana. The NCAA, you know, their headquarters are right down the street from where I'm standing here in downtown Indianapolis.

They were the first to speak out against the Religious Freedom Law. He says they aren't happy that this whole debate has been overshadowing this week's festivities. He said the bill is more important than a basketball tournament.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. MARK EMMERT, NCAA PRESIDENT: So we came out fairly early in this process and we were hopeful that that could instigate some change, and while we don't want to, you know, overplay the roam that role that we had in it, we were happy that they decided to respond I think appropriately.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[07:55:12] SCHOLES: Now all the head coaches in the final four released a joint statement earlier this week about the religious freedom law. CNN's Rachel Nichols sat down with all of them to discuss the role sports has played in this controversy.

You can catch those interviews on "All Access At The Final Four," a CNN and "Bleacher Sport" special. That's going to be tomorrow, 2:30 Eastern right here on CNN.

Of course, the final four game tipoff tomorrow night at 6:00 Eastern on our sister network, TBS. Michigan State is taking on Duke that should be an amazing game. That will be followed by undefeated Kentucky taking on Wisconsin in a rematch from last year's final four.

That game last year, guys, was amazing. I can't wait for tomorrow night's game. Of course, everyone's waiting to see if Kentucky can do this and go 40-0. No one wants to hear it. They will be getting it tomorrow night.

PEREIRA: My goodness, all right, Andy, thank you so very much. We'll be watching.

All right, so we know that many, many, many details still need to be ironed out, but we have a framework for an Iran nuke deal. What's in it, what happens if Iran does not comply?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)