Return to Transcripts main page

One World with Zain Asher

U.N. Secretary General Calls For A Stop To What He Describes As The Dangerous Cycle Of Retaliation In The Middle East; Selection Underway For Alternate Jurors In The Criminal Case Against Donald Trump; Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi Virtually Unstoppable As India Heads To The Polls. Aired 12-1p ET

Aired April 19, 2024 - 12:00   ET



BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: All right, hello everyone, live from New York, I'm Bianna Golodryga, you are watching "One World". Today, I'll be

covering everything from the overnight Israeli strike on Iran to the release of one of the most anticipated albums in history.

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: And just outside Manhattan Criminal Court, I'm Erica Hill. Right now, selection is underway for

alternate jurors in the criminal case against Donald Trump. The judge says opening statements could begin as soon as Monday morning.

GOLODRYGA: The U.N. Secretary General is calling today for a stop to what he describes as the dangerous cycle of retaliation in the Middle East, this

after a U.S. official says Israel carried out a military strike inside Iran. Flashes were seen in the sky and the state media reported explosions

as well near an airbase in the central province of Isfahan.

And an Iranian official says that its air defenses intercepted three drones. Satellite images do not appear to show any extensive damage at the

airbase. The U.N. nuclear watchdog says no nuclear sites in Isfahan were damaged. Israel right now isn't commenting, but had vowed to hit back after

Tehran fired drone and missiles at Israel over the weekend.

Iran seems to be downplaying the incident for now, with state media showing calm scenes in Isfahan, as you see right there. But protests are erupting

in the capital. Crowds took to the streets of Tehran to voice their anger at Israel and the United States. And U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken

would only say that the U.S. was not involved in any offensive operations. He spoke earlier at a news conference from the G7 summit in Capri, Italy.


ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: The United States has not been involved in any offensive operations. What we're focused on, what the G7 is

focused on, and again, it's reflected in our statement and in our conversation, is our work to de-escalate tensions, to de-escalate from any

potential conflict.


GOLODRYGA: All right. We have reporters standing by to cover this story. National Security Correspondent Natasha Bertrand is at the Pentagon. But

let's begin with CNN's Nic Robertson in Jerusalem.

So, Nic, more than 12 hours later, Israel still not publicly acknowledging the strike. But given Iran's rather muted response so far and the scope of

the attack being rather limited, does this suggest that further escalation is less likely?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yeah, we're in a situation now of ambiguity, not escalation. I spoke a few hours after the

strikes to a regional intelligence source. His assessment, he told me from the information he had, was that he didn't expect Iran to retaliate. And

here we are many hours later.

And that seems to be the scene when Iranian officials say they are investigating the sound of explosions heard over Isfahan that they have now

described as their air defense systems targeting objects in the sky. That language itself speaks to a government, when you hear it from a government

like the Iranian government, that in essence tells you nothing to see here.

And the silence from the Israeli government is also the same. Nothing to see here. I mean, I think that, you know, the fact that the most we've seen

is a Twitter or expat, if you will, between two members of the Knesset, one hard right member of Prime Minister Netanyahu's government tweeting only

the word lame and a Yair Lapid of the opposition saying that this was, essentially, this was damaging to Israel's interests and could be heard all

the way from Tehran to Washington, neither of them actually saying what they're precisely speaking about. But it's very clear the understanding at

the moment is that this doesn't appear to be about to escalate, at least in the form of direct state-to-state Iran-to-Israel confrontation.

We've heard from the UAE, we've heard from Egyptian officials, we've heard from Jordanian officials, all of whom have an extremely large stake in de-

escalation, urging that de-escalation. And that does seem to be the picture right now.

GOLODRYGA: Yeah. And we had heard from Western leaders that had visited Israel earlier this week, the foreign ministers from both the U.K. and

Germany, both expressing to Israel that they should, you know, issue some sort of restraint in terms of what a smart retaliation would look like.


But no one was under the illusion that Israel would not retaliate. This does appear to have been rather strategic, but a message sent to Iran, no

doubt. Nic Robertson, thank you. I want to get to Natasha Bertrand.

Natasha, we have learned now that the U.S. was really caught flat-footed, given a heads-up just a few moments before that strike that is believed to

have been conducted by Israel on April 1st against the IRGC members at that compound in Syria. There had been concern, perhaps, that Israel would react

quickly after Iran retaliated. It's now been six days. We heard from Secretary of State Blinken there. Do we get a sense of what heads up the

U.S., if any, got ahead of this specific response from Israel?

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Bianna, we are told that the Israelis did notify the U.S. that they were planning to

respond. Now, the window that they gave the U.S. is not clear at this point. It's not clear whether they gave the U.S., you know, a heads-up of

saying, we're going to respond within the next 24 hours, or saying, we're going to respond within the next 30 minutes.

That is not clear. But the U.S. had asked Israel to give them a notification prior to them conducting any kind of retaliation, and they do

appear to have heeded that call. But, you know, the big picture here is that the U.S. is trying really hard at this point to distance itself from

this entire thing. I mean, Secretary of State Blinken barely spoke to it this morning when he was asked about it, only to say that the U.S. had

nothing to do with any offensive operations that happened in the Middle East last night.

He did not address the idea that Israel carried it out, nor that the U.S. had been advising them to act with restraint.

But the key message that U.S. officials are trying to send today is that they hope that this marks an end to this tit-for-tat, and that all of this

will amount to kind of, yes, we have this unprecedented situation where Iran and Israel have attacked each other really for the first time, and

this shadow war is now no longer in the shadows, but at the same time hoping that this is now contained.

And so, right now, U.S. officials are not necessarily breathing a sigh of relief just yet, but they are hoping that at this point all parties can

say, okay, you know, Israel got its kind of revenge for Iran's massive barrage last week, and Iran did the same for Israel's attack on what Iran

has said is its consulate. So, they're waiting to see essentially what happens next, really high-stakes diplomacy obviously going on at the


GOLODRYGA: Yeah, and Natasha, it's interesting because we had the Iranian foreign minister in the U.S. yesterday actually speaking to CNN, to Erin

Burnett, saying that any attack, a response from Israel would then lead to a further counter-response from Iran.

So, it's interesting to see that thus far, they seem to be downplaying the significance of what we saw from Israel overnight, basically nothing to see

here, is the message that they are sending, and it comes after the U.S. also imposed new sanctions against Iran, as well.

BERTRAND: Yeah, that's right. It's really interesting that Iran here seems to trying to be, you know, playing down the situation. It seems clear that

neither side can afford a war right now, frankly, going to war with each other at this point when Israel has Gaza to worry about and Hamas, and of

course Iran, according to military analysts, has really proven that its military capabilities are not what Iran has projected them to be. And so,

it's not really in anyone's interest for them to be fighting right now, and I think that you're seeing that play out in real time.

GOLODRYGA: All right, and Natasha Bertrand, thank you so much. Now, let's turn it over to my friend Erica Hill covering Donald Trump's hush money

trial in lower Manhattan. Erica.

HILL: Bianna, thank you. Jury selection continues at this hour in the courthouse behind me here in lower Manhattan for this trial. The judge, of

course, wants six alternate jurors. One was selected on Thursday afternoon. They'll be on standby in case one of the 12 jurors and panel cannot serve

or continue to serve out the duration of the trial.

Judge Merchan has also told both sides to be ready to deliver their opening statements on Monday. Later today, he's expected to hold a hearing to

discuss just how much Trump's other legal troubles can be brought up if he chooses to take the stand in his own defense. CNN's Kristen Holmes is down

here at the courthouse, as well, and has been following this all very closely and joins me now.

So, Kristen, as everybody waits for these moments, we are seeing a lot play out that is interesting as these jurors are questioned about their concerns

that they have about being on this jury for such a public trial with such a well-known defendant.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN U.S. NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's right, Erica. I mean, just moments ago, we saw a really emotional moment. This is

coming from our court reporters from this jury box. So keep in mind, this started out with 22 people.

It was remaining potential jurors from yesterday who had already gone through the swearing-in, but they needed to go through the questionnaire.

Then there was a break. Now, we are at the portion of the day in which both sides will get about 30 minutes to ask these potential jurors whether or

not they believe they could serve.


We have heard in these cases the defense has asked a lot of questions about Trump in general, asking whether or not people like him, whether or not

they actually believe they could be impartial because he is such a polarizing figure.

Now, what we hadn't seen before was somebody saying that they did not actually feel they could be impartial. They could not believe they could

serve on this jury during this part of the process. This is usually weeded out earlier. Now, here's exactly what happened.

A juror in one of the seats began crying during this questioning period when they were handed the mic to answer a question, said that they were

sorry, they thought they could do this. They wouldn't want someone who feels the way they feel to be judging their case either and said this is so

much more stressful than I thought it was going to be.

This is a very big indication of how this case could play out. There is a lot of stress. There is a lot of media pressure. There is the fact that

Donald Trump is the defendant, a former president sitting there. We saw this from a lot of jurors who walked in, said they were surprised and then

later came back. They said they were sorry. They believed that they could be impartial, but then they realized overnight they couldn't.

This person clearly got through several rounds believing they could be impartial until the stress of this. And that is also why they are needing

these alternate jurors, why this is so important. Because it's not necessarily that this is the last time this is going to happen. This is a

case that is going to be incredibly high profile. There is going to be a lot of pressure.

And the way that these people, I mean, these are regular people who are experiencing this. That could change at any time in terms of whether or not

they believe they can be impartial, whether or not they believe that they can stay away from consuming anything about this case. So, it's a really

fluid situation. They are down to about 18 people left.

They're still looking for five alternates here. But it goes to show you just how important, not just the jury is, but this alternate selection is

too for both sides, because it's not the last time we might see something like this.

HILL: You're absolutely right. Kristen, appreciate it. Thank you. For a deeper dive into what is ahead for this trial, let's bring in Ambassador

Norm Eisen, who of course was special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the first impeachment of Donald Trump. He's also the

author of the book "Trying Trump", a guide to his first election interference criminal trial.

Good to have you with us as always. I want to pick up where Kristen left off there. The fact that, I mean, yes, this has moved along quite quickly.

The judge really keeping everybody to task here, kicking, it seems everybody is wanting to do their part.

But there is this sensitivity and there are these concerns. And having seen now multiple prospective jurors say they're worried about what this could

mean. One even talking this morning about how anxious she could be knowing it should be part of such a public event that people might know who she is.

Do you think six alternate jurors are enough?

NORM EISEN, RETIRED AMBASSADOR, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I do think six alternates are enough, Erica. I was in court every day for the -- this week

for the selection of the regular jury and the first alternate. And I believe that this is a group of jurors who understands the weight that is

on them. A couple who overnight couldn't withstand the pressure for various reasons were dismissed yesterday. That took our jury pool from seven to

five. And then it went back up by the end of the day to 12 plus one. And we'll get these alternates seated.

This is the most extensive and yet efficient examination of potential jurors. What we lawyers call voir dire. I've been doing it for over three

decades. The most extensive I've ever seen. There's a questionnaire. Normally, those are written, but no, here the judge makes every juror stand

up and answer the questions so he and everyone can gauge credibility, tone and tenor.

Then the judge asks them more questions. Both sides ask. It's not just one round. The sides get two rounds. Then there's an elaborate process with the

judge. Anybody who feels they can't be fair is screened out at the very beginning. And we lost half of our group of 96 that way multiple times this

week. So, yes, I think 12 plus six will see us through to a verdict.

HILL: Norm, take us through. As you mentioned, you have been in that courtroom this week. Take us inside. What has that been like? And what have

you noticed in terms of the defendant, Donald Trump?

EISEN: As part of the elaborate precautions, we -- I'm one of about 50 reporters and analysts who have access to the courtroom. Only a pool, which

has included our CNN colleagues at time at times, is actually in the judge's courtroom.


The rest of us are watching, as in my view, all America should be able to do in the overflow courtroom. And then we'll all be back Monday morning for

opening statements in the judge's courtroom. But there is one advantage, Erica, to being in the overflow courtroom. You get to see Donald Trump up


I sat several rows behind him when I was in court earlier. And you only get to see his face when he turns his head to talk to Todd Blanche, Emma Bovey

or Susan Necklace, his lawyers who are seated near him. So, studying him, I believe that Donald Trump has absorbed the gravity of this case. I did note

that he had nodded off a couple of times. But once we got into the heat of jury selection, he's been on the edge of his chair.

At some points, he's been too much on the edge of his chair. And he got overheated when one juror was being examined and the judge came down on him

like a ton of bricks, Erica. And what happened after that was so interesting because Donald Trump was chastised and he acted like it. I've

never seen him hanging his head, looking down in his lap, slumping, dejected.

And to me, the weight of the potential outcome here was weighing on him. His freedom is on the line, as I wrote in "The New York Times" this week.

If convicted, he could face a sentence of incarceration. That's a very serious possibility.

HILL: yeah, Ambassador Norm Eisen, great to have you with us and appreciate the insight. Thank you. We'll have much more here from Lower

Manhattan as we continue to cover Donald Trump's first criminal trial. Also, this.


MIGUEL MARQUEZ, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You know Donald Trump for many years. What was your impression of him before he was president?

ALLISON EGAN, RETIRED NURSE: An arrogant son of a (BEEP) but not a bad person.


HILL: And there you have it. Our colleague Miguel Marquez out there on the streets of New York asking folks whether they feel they could be a fair and

impartial juror in a case against Donald Trump. Listen, it is certainly a hot topic of conversation, I think we could say here in New York, Bianna.

A lot of people wondering what it would be like if they were picked for that jury. What if their spouse were picked for that jury and they couldn't

talk about things? This is something that's going to be pretty high on New Yorkers' minds for a long time.

GOLODRYGA: And uniquely New York style to have someone say that he's an arrogant S.O.B., but not a bad person in the same sentence, as well.

Quintessential New York. All right, Erica, thank you. Well, coming up for us, the Republican U.S. House Speaker is not making many friends in his own

party with his handling of Ukraine aid. Democrats gave him a helping hand, but are not happy with him either.


MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: How would you characterize the Speaker's handling of this situation on the Ukraine aid?





GOLODRYGA: A deadly Russian strike in Ukraine's Dnipro region has claimed at least eight lives. Officials there say two children were among the dead

and another 29 people were injured in last night's missile attacks. A five- story building was heavily damaged, as well.

Meanwhile, the head of the CIA says Ukraine could lose the war by year's end if more military aid isn't provided. The U.S. could be one step closer

to sending that aid. On Saturday, lawmakers will be back on the Hill to vote on four separate foreign aid bills. The four passed the House Rules

Committee earlier. House Speaker Mike Johnson separated them in hopes that they would pass more easily. Now, his handling of the bill has some in his

own Republican party calling for his firing.


MIKE JOHNSON, U.S. HOUSE SPEAKER: Even though it's not the perfect legislation, it's not the legislation that we would write if Republicans

were in charge of both the House, the Senate, and the White House, this is the best possible product that we can get under these circumstances to take

care of these really important obligations.


House Rules say it just takes one lawmaker, like his fierce critic Marjorie Taylor Greene, to bring up a motion to oust the Speaker. But lawmakers on

both sides of the aisle think Johnson is doing the right thing.


RAJU: How would you characterize the Speaker's handling of this situation on the Ukraine aid?

MEEKS: Slow. Should have been done months ago. Should have just put the Senate bill on the floor. It would have gotten 300 votes.

MICHAEL LAWLER, U.S. HOUSE REPUBLICAN: And frankly, this is a moment for moral clarity for everyone. The Speaker is doing the right thing at the

right time for the right reasons. And the institution as a whole should respect that and they should reflect on that. And if the motion of A.K.

comes, I think it is incumbent upon everybody to protect the institution.


GOLODRYGA: Congressman Austin Scott joins me now. He's one of the lawmakers on the House Rules Committee. Thank you so much, Congressman, for

joining us. So, as someone who sits on the House Rules Committee, you know that this was a roller coaster in making, not just the past two months, but

even the past 24 hours.

Late last night, the Committee cleared the rule for the foreign aid package to be taken up today. But four Democrats voted yes on the Rules Committee

to see that move forward. I don't have to tell you how rare that is and even what we saw take place today.

The House voted to advance the bill 316-94, which tells us that 55 Republicans voted against it, and 165 Democrats supported this bill going

forward to tomorrow's ultimate vote. What does that say about what is clearly a vocal and not very small minority in your party that does not

want to see this aid get through to either Israel and, more importantly right now, Ukraine?

AUSTIN SCOTT, U.S. HOUSE REPUBLICAN: Well, it's an important package. And I think the most important thing is that by the end of the day tomorrow,

that the aid for Israel and the aid for Ukraine will have passed and will be sent to the Senate. Hopefully the Senate will move pretty fast and then

we can get a signature on it.

And so, I would just tell you, Bianna, we have a two to three to four vote margin on any given day. As Republicans, it's probably going to be that way

until the election is over with. And so, you may see more bipartisan rules moves. We've got to get another appropriation measure done for the next

fiscal year. We've got to do something on some other key issues.

And it may take that bipartisanship on the rules to make those things happen until the next election. So, I'm glad it happened. The most

important thing is we're going to have this vote tomorrow, and hopefully that aid will get to Ukraine as soon as possible.

GOLODRYGA: Yeah, and you know that aid is so desperately needed. There was yet another missile attack against Ukraine today. President Zelenskyy,

urging for that aid to come as soon as possible, said he needs a minimum of seven more Patriot or similar air defense systems right now. We heard the

dire warning from the CIA Director saying that the war could be lost as soon as the end of the year because that aid hasn't been there, and this

has been going on for a few months.

I know you support Ukraine getting that aid. You tweeted before, "Let me assure you, we want the Ukrainians to win and we want Putin to lose." But

going back to my earlier question, the reason why you see such a rare scenario where Democrats are actually coming to the rescue here, of even

getting this out of the Rules Committee, is because a significant number of members of your party object to it. So do they not want to see Putin lose?


SCOTT: I'm not going to speak for the other members. What I will tell you, Bianna, is if you look at the members on the Foreign Affairs Committee, on

the Intelligence Committee, on the Armed Services Committee, I think you're going to see broad bipartisan support on those of us who actually study and

work in these issues on a daily basis as members of Congress.

And so, what other members are going to do, I don't know. I will tell you that I do support what Mike has done in separating the issues because I do

believe that Israel and Ukraine and Taiwan are three totally separate issues. And there will be people that vote for one and not for the other on

both sides of the aisle, I think.

So, the most important thing, again, is that we're going to get the Ukrainians the aid that they need. We're going to continue to deliver the

intelligence to the Ukrainians that they need. And the Ukrainians are going to continue to give Putin significantly more fight than Putin ever

anticipated from the Ukrainians. And we as the United States of America are going to support them in that.

GOLODRYGA: Meantime, it sounds more likely than not that we will see a motion to vacate brought up for the speaker. He says he is comfortable with

that. His decision is one that he's made and he's comfortable with. And the consequences will fall and be as they may. We now have three, I believe,

Republicans, Paul Gosar of Arizona, also supporting a motion to vacate. Do you think that that's where things will end up? Is your party ready to go

through this process once again?

SCOTT: Well, I sure hope not, and I hope the Democrats don't want to go through this process again either. And I would remind my Republican

colleagues that the only person in our conference, and I include me in this, Bianna, I ran for Speaker, as well. The only person in our conference

that can get 100 percent of the conference to vote for them is the speaker of the House right now today. And that's Mike Johnson.

And so, if we have this small group that wants to go through the exercise of removing the Republican Speaker of the House, there is no other

Republican speaker coming that can get 100 percent of the Republican votes in our conference. So, this is not a smart play by my colleagues that are

pressing for this. And I would encourage them to think twice before they pull this trigger.

GOLODRYGA: Quickly, Speaker Johnson had an opportunity to raise the threshold for the motion to vacate. He didn't take that up, even though

there had been some pressure on him to do that from some of your colleagues. Do you think that he made a mistake?

SCOTT: No, I think changing the rules in the middle of a term is probably not the right way to do things. I think that, you know, all of us in

Congress, the 435 of us saw the turmoil that came from the motion to vacate and what I consider to be an abuse of it this past year. And I do think

that any rules changes probably need to be made at the first of the congressional cycle.

GOLODRYGA: All right, Congressman Austin Scott, thank you so much for joining us. You have a busy day ahead of you tomorrow, as well.

SCOTT: We do. It's going to all be good, though.

GOLODRYGA: Let's hope so. Well, coming up for us, as Ukraine and Israel wait on that U.S. Congress, the Biden White House is making an urgent plea

to lawmakers. More, when we come back.




GOLODRYGA: The International reaction to what a U.S. official confirms was an Israeli military strike on Iran has been swift. The United Arab Emirates

is expressing, quote, deep concern. The UAE is also urging both Israel and Iran to refrain from actions that might lead to further escalation. And as

we've been reporting, the G7 foreign ministers are also echoing those calls for restraint.

In Israel, opposition leader Yair Lapid is voicing anger after National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir tweeted a single word meaning lame or

weak and what's being interpreted as ridiculing the strike in Iran as perhaps not going far enough.

We're also keeping an eye on Washington, where the Biden White House is urging Congress to approve additional foreign aid for Israel, as well as

embattled Ukraine. Let's bring in CNN Senior White House Reporter Kevin Liptak, who is tracking all of this for us.

So, Kevin, let me get to the supplemental bill in just a minute. A bit of optimism hopefully going into the weekend that we'll finally see that

passed. But in terms of what we saw overnight, what appears to be, as a U.S. source has said, was Israel's response to Iran's unprecedented barrage

attack of over 300 missiles and drones last week. We heard from the Secretary of State basically saying that the U.S. hadn't been involved. Are

we expecting to hear directly from the President in response to this?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: We're not. And the U.S. is taking quite a tight lipped approach to that. You saw that in the Secretary

of State really not even going so far as to confirm that these strikes happen. And we haven't heard from the President about it at all either. And

I think this is part of a strategy to try and keep some distance between the United States and Israel's decision to counter strike.

Certainly, President Biden very mindful of not wading deeper into a conflict between Israel and Iran and also mindful of not escalating this

conflict further, trying to prevent a wider regional war. Now, we do understand that Israel did provide a heads up to the United States of its

decision to carry out these strikes. It wasn't much of a heads up.

It was hours, hours, not days. So, the U.S. not necessarily getting a lot of advanced warning, but it didn't necessarily come as a surprise to most

American officials who, despite President Biden's urging to Israel to caution restraint, were expecting Israel to respond in some capacity. They

had expected some sort of limited response, and that appears to be what happened.

And President Biden, I think, really trying to emphasize the non-military response to this yesterday, applying new sanctions on Iran's drone program,

trying to underscore that there are other ways, aside from a retaliatory strike, to respond. But certainly the real emphasis and the real imperative

at the White House now is to try and prevent this from escalating any further.

GOLODRYGA: Iranian state media also seeming to play down the events overnight, as well. Kevin Liptak, thank you. Time now for The Exchange.

Norman Roule is a senior advisor with the Transnational Threats Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and he joins us now

live from Washington, D.C.

Norman, thank you so much for joining us. So, prior to last night's retaliatory attack from Israel and its strike, but following Iran's

unprecedented strike over the weekend, you posted this on X.


I'm going to read it.

"Israeli retaliation will likely be proportional, limited, and something that is meant to demonstrate we can touch you in ways that hurt. For that

reason, Israel is not looking for a conventional war itself, but this takes time to work out. They want something that doesn't start a war, something

that resets deterrence, and something that allows them to focus on the issues that the Biden administration addresses."

Given the delay, I mean, there have been reporting that Israel was contemplating responding right away last Sunday, perhaps following that

attack. Given that it's been six days, and given what we now know about the strike last night from Israel, did it meet what you said they likely would


NORMAN ROULE, SENIOR ADVISER, TRANSNATIONAL THREATS PROJECTS, CSIS: Good afternoon. Yes, it did, and even Israel's initial response that might have

encouraged an early strike, it's not unusual in that environment. I mean, you imagine your policymaker saying we've been struck, and there will be

those at the table who will say we need to strike back immediately to prevent further strikes. Calmer heads will always dominate, and the

conversation will move on.

This has occurred in the United States over the decades, as well. So, I think Israel did exactly what the Biden administration in the region

wanted. It demonstrated to Iran it could touch Iranian assets that are important to the regime when it chooses to do so. I do remain concerned

that the initiative for violence remains with Iran. I'm not sure these actions, and certainly not the sanctions of last night, will deter Iran,

but we are in a new Middle East.

GOLODRYGA: What do you make of the fact that Israel also could show to Iran in this targeted attack last night that they could in fact penetrate

their air defense system? So, instead of going after what was an air base, which may have been a tit-for-tat kind of response, proportional response,

given the Nevatim Air Base where Iran was targeting many of its missiles, that Israel was saying we could go deeper and hurt even more if we wanted

to, and I'm obviously talking about its nuclear facilities.

ROULE: I'm not sure this was a surprise to Iran, although it was certainly a reminder. Iran's military, although not nearly as capable as Israel, is

certainly professional, and they would understand the capacity of Israeli weapons. Israel just demonstrated to Iran's policymakers this capability.

Likewise, northwest of Isfahan, there are important missile and drone facilities, as well as an air base, as well as the nuclear facilities in

Isfahan itself. So Israel was able to message all of this. Last, I should note that Israel conducted its strike on the 85th birthday of the supreme

leader. His 85th year begins with a strike by Israel on his country as a result of his aggression.

GOLODRYGA: Is it too soon to say that deterrence has been reestablished at this point?

ROULE: It's too soon. In fact, it may be too soon to say that we won't see further strikes by Iran, perhaps in the form of terrorism, other actions. I

do think we're going to see a continued Israeli press on Iranian proxies in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza because these represent a lethal threat to the

Israeli homeland, and Iran may respond to any Israeli action against its personnel supporting those terrorists.

GOLODRYGA: A lot has been said and noted optimistically about that successful thwarting from the barrage from Iran yesterday that not also

involved Israel's air defense systems, but the U.S. Western alliances and also neighboring Arab states as well, most specifically Jordan. But

obviously we now know that Saudi Arabia may have played a behind-the-scenes role, as well.

It's pretty safe to say that in their calculation, Israel was hoping not to hurt that alliance going forward or impact it negatively. Do you think at

least with this strike alone, it's been able to thwart any damage to that?

ROULE: I agree. I agree. That's a smart assessment. Israel does not want to further complicate the politics or regional security of its neighbors,

and the United States and the United Kingdom made their positions quite clear on calling for Israeli restraint.

GOLODRYGA: Can I ask you a bigger picture question? Because obviously the focus has shifted the past few weeks from the war in Gaza, but that war is

still ongoing. There are still questions about whether Israel will go into Rafah, what that incursion may look like, and obviously there's the

important issue of the hostages themselves.

So, none of Israel's main goals have been accomplished at this point, and there has been a lot of consternation and concern even from its closest

allies about how this war is conducted. But from Iran' point of view, what, if anything, do you make that up until this point, they haven't publicly

come out and said any of this back and forth has to do with Hamas or in support of the Palestinian cause.


It seems squarely focused on Israel's actions or what's believed to have been Israel's action and going after those IRGC members in Syria on April


ROULE: You're correct, and that's a very dangerous development, because in essence it takes this situation from Iran claiming that its actions are

because of the narrative of resistance to a direct Israel-Iran confrontation. At the same time, we leave this with Iran not being deterred

from maintaining its current level of violence against Israel using the same Quds Force officers in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen.

And we need to keep in mind that proxies from all four of those countries are attacking Israel on any given week using weapons that range from

Katyusha rockets, drones, to missiles. And Iran will continue to maintain this campaign, and I think that's the area for danger.

GOLODRYGA: And we'll continue to see what, if anything, its proxy continues to do. Obviously, I'm speaking of Hezbollah there in northern

Israel, where the fighting has been ongoing really between the two sides since October 7th. Norman Roule, thank you so much. We appreciate your


ROULE: You're welcome.

GOLODRYGA: Coming up for us, it is the biggest election in human history. It is the world's biggest democracy. We'll take you there just ahead.


HILL: With jury selection likely wrapping up today in Donald Trump's hush money trial, people around the world have been wondering, what would I do?

Could I serve on that jury? Could I be fair and impartial when it comes to someone as polarizing as Donald Trump? Well, CNN's Miguel Marquez spoke to

people across Manhattan, essentially the city's jury pool, to find out.


MARQUEZ: You know Donald Trump for many years. What was your impression of him before he was president?

EGAN: An arrogant son of a (BEEP) but not a bad person.

MARQUEZ: But you think you could be in that courtroom and you could judge the evidence fairly?

EGAN: Yeah, because I haven't delved into the details or him or anything. He doesn't really interest me that much.

MARQUEZ: Do you think you could be a fair and impartial juror in the Trump trial?



TIULESCU: Because, as I said before, I really hate him. He's a total catastrophist.


MARQUEZ: We are going from the top of Manhattan to the very bottom of Manhattan talking to Manhattanites, potential jurors, and whether they

could be fair and impartial in the Donald Trump trial. On the 34 counts that he is charged with, you could make a fair and impartial decision?

TRIK BARBEE, SECURITY GUARD: Sure, if I listen to the facts and everything, yeah. I think I can. I won't let him being a jerk cloud my

legal sense of fair play.

JESSIE BERGER, CONSULTANT: I don't have any biased opinion about him. I think people should be judged by what they've done before.


BERGER: And anything they've done, they've done. And it's history and it's evidence. So, I should be judged by that.

MARQUEZ: Do you think you could be fair to Donald Trump?

BAHSIL MOODY, BUSINESS STUDENT: Definitely. I mean, everyone, I feel like, deserves that.

KATHY PROUNIS, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNER: Yes, I would totally be fair and impartial because that's what I believe in. And I'm always, you know, I'm a

New Yorker. I'm upfront and I'm honest about everything.

MARQUEZ: Could you be fair and impartial?



DONNELLY: Because all the T.V. and speculation and things that I've seen that he's done, and I don't really agree on his character.

MARQUEZ: Do you think Donald Trump can get a fair trial in Manhattan?

AFI FRENCH, CONSULTANT: I would say yes. If there's a place that's going to happen, it's going to happen here. Because New Yorkers in general, I

mean, we may have opinions, but I feel like we set the tone for fair and equity. Like, that's what we do.

PAUL LIPPERT, RETIRED PROFESSOR OF FILM: Clearly, our justice system is being attacked. I think it's up to us to defend it, to defend due process,

and to defend the rule of law against all of its enemies.


HILL: All right, thanks again to Miguel Marquez for that. Always fascinating. I love hearing from the New Yorkers, Bianna, as to what they

think and how they think it would play out.

GOLODRYGA: New York stands in a city of its own around the world, right? They tell us what they think, we speak our minds --

HILL: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: -- and it's fascinating to watch a jury pool come out of it. Thanks, Erica.

HILL: Yeah, It really is.

GOLODRYGA: Well, coming up, an American political dynasty is rejecting one of its own. More than a dozen extended members of the Kennedy family

endorsed President Joe Biden, appearing alongside him at an event on Thursday.

They're shunning relative Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s own bid for the White House as dangerous, even as he is now qualified for the ballot in the key

battleground state of Michigan. Family members see him as a potential spoiler in a tight race between Biden and Donald Trump. RFK, Jr. said while

his family is divided in their opinions, they're united in their love for each other.

GOLODRYGA: Well, we are watching the world's biggest election begin. Polls have closed for the day in India after phase one. Now, it will take nearly

six weeks, yes, six weeks, for almost one billion people to cast their ballot. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is standing for a rare third

term, and our Will Ripley shows us why this is among the most consequential votes in decades.


WILL RIPLEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi seems virtually unstoppable as India heads to the polls. Modi

is widely expected to win a commanding majority of India's nearly one billion eligible voters, the biggest democratic election in the history of


Modi's own path from poverty to politics is part of his appeal for a lot of people here in India. His official biography says he's the middle son of a

chaiwala, a tea seller, a humble upbringing that he says helps him understand the problems plaguing everyday people.

RIPLEY (voice-over): Modi says his programs put more food on their tables, and his economic reforms have attracted billions in foreign investment,

raising India's global profile.

JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: I've been doing this a long time, but I don't ever remember anybody getting a warmer welcome than this man right here.

RIPLEY (voice-over): From the White House to the Kremlin, world leaders can't seem to get enough of Modi. Back at home, he's blurring the line

between religion and politics. Ram is the faith of India.

NARENDRA MODI, INDIAN PRIME MINISTER (through translator): Ram is the foundation of India.

RIPLEY (voice-over): That's Modi presiding over the dedication of a temple dedicated to Hinduism's Lord Ram, built on the site of a demolished Muslim

mosque. That demolition triggered deadly religious riots more than three decades ago. Modi projects himself as head priest, protector, and creator

of a Hindu first nation, a nation some say marginalizes Muslims.

SABA NAQVI, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: He willfully creates a cult of his own personality.

RIPLEY (voice-over): Many worship Modi himself, almost like a living god. That devotion runs deep in the ancient city of Varanasi, where religion is

woven into the fabric of life, like the rickshaws weaving in and out of traffic. I met this local shopkeeper who says he loves Modi like family.

RIPLEY: What makes him different from others?

UNKNOWN: What he says, he has done.

RIPLEY: When you hear him speak, do you feel like he's speaking to you in your life?


UNKNOWN: Yeah, yeah. Because he speaks with heart.

RIPLEY (voice-over): The heart of a very smart politician. Modi was not born here. He chose to represent this Hindu spiritual center. But not

everyone is a believer.

RIPLEY: Have you ever seen this city so divided, so polarized?

VISHWAMBHAR NATH MISHRA, HEAD PRIEST, SANKAT MOCHAN TEMPLE: This is what we call it is not the religious center. It is basically a spiritual center.

So, this unique fabric has a strained condition now. And we have a fear that this fabric may break.

RIPLEY (voice-over): That's what happened back in 2002, when Modi was chief minister of the western state of Gujarat. Religious riots there

killed more than 1000 people, mostly Muslims. Modi was accused of not doing enough to stop the violence. The U.S. effectively banned Modi from stepping

foot on U.S. soil, a ban lifted when he became prime minister in 2014. India's Supreme Court also cleared Modi of responsibility. Now, many say

Modi is stoking the fires of religious tensions.

SANA SABAJ, CELEBRATING END OF RAMADAN WITH FAMILY: The first term that came to my mind was scary.

RIPLEY: Scared?

SABAJ: Yeah, it's scary.

RIPLEY (voice-over): I sat down with Sana Sabaj. She was celebrating the end of Ramadan with her family.

SABAJ: Where is the freedom of somebody just wearing a skullcap, minding his own business, buying mutton, whatever he wants to, and then heading

home, and then dying on the way.

RIPLEY (voice-over): A fear shared by many Muslims in Modi's India, wondering if this is the end of a secular Indian government, and will it

mean the end of their religious and civil rights? Will Ripley, CNN, Varanasi, India.


GOLODRYGA: Fascinating, especially since we'll have six weeks to watch that play out. Well, coming up for us. Swifties in a tizzy after Taylor

Swift drops not one, but two albums.


UNKNOWN: Three, two, one.


GOLODRYGA: Ahead on CNN, look at Swift's brand new 31, you heard me, 31 double album -- song album, coming up.




GOLODRYGA: Taylor Swift released her highly anticipated 11th studio album, "The Tortured Poets Department" early Friday. And then two hours later,

just as Swifties finished listening, she then dropped a surprise second album with another 15 songs, called "The Tortured Poets Department: The

Anthology". Well, fans, as you could imagine, are absolutely thrilled.



UNKNOWN: Three, two, one.


UNKNOWN: I'm actually going to vomit right now. So here are just brief thoughts. What are the titles? What are the titles? What are the titles?

Are there features?

UNKNOWN: "The Black Dog".

UNKNOWN: Are there features?

UNKNOWN: This is so good. This is so good.


GOLODRYGA: Those are among the most muted and subtle responses from fans. Let's take a listen for ourselves.



GOLODRYGA: Okay, well that's a short clip from the album's eighth track called "Florida". It's part of a collaboration with Florence and The

Machine. Swift's new release comes amid her record-breaking Eras tour, and Grammy wins earlier this year. And it's on track to more than exceed sales

and streaming expectations. I don't know where she finds the time, but she is making so many of her fans happy.

Well, that does it for this hour of One World. I'm Bianna Golodryga. Don't go anywhere. I'll be right back with Amanpour.