Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Sources: Israel Pauses Iran Strikes, Will Keep Hitting Lebanon; Soon: Jury Selection Begins In Deadly L.A. Fire Trial; Political Pressure Could Undercut EPA Science On Chemical Safety. Aired 11- 11:30a ET

Aired June 08, 2026 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:00]

COY WIRE, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR: All these contestants get belly rubs after the game. And Pamela Wolf, I hear you have some special guests with you on set the next hour.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: We do indeed. I asked Wolf if he was going to adopt one of them, so TBD, everyone stay tuned. Because last time we had pups on, I adopted one, so it's his turn.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And Lucy Blitz, that's your puppy.

BROWN: Lucy Blitz, The Situation Room mascot. That's right.

BLITZER: And she's on Instagram too, Lucy Blitz.

BROWN: She is, at Lucy Blitz Brown.

BLITZER: All right, Coy. Excellent work. Thank you very, very much. And the next hour of The Situation Room starts right now.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.

BROWN: Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer with Pamela Brown, and you're in The Situation Room.

And we begin this hour with more breaking news. A major escalation in the Middle East. This brand new video into CNN showing damage in Lebanon from strikes earlier today. And this comes as sources now tell CNN that Israel will pause strikes on Iran at the request of the Trump administration, but will not stop targeting southern Lebanon. Tehran calls that a deal breaker. Iran suspended its military operations against Israel, but says it will continue fighting if Israel targets Lebanon.

BROWN: And all of this comes as Iran and Israel traded strikes overnight. This right here is new video, and it shows Israeli military bombardment on Iranian air defense systems. It is the largest escalation of this conflict since April. CNN's Jeremy Diamond is in Tel Aviv. Jeremy, a lot of back and forth so far today, but bottom line, is Netanyahu defying President Trump and his wishes right now? JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Yes, there's no question that that took place after President Trump called the Israeli prime minister, urged him not to retaliate against Iran following multiple barrages of Iranian ballistic missile attacks on Israel. But overnight, the Israeli prime minister moved forward with that retaliation nonetheless. Two waves of attacks, one targeting military sites in Iran, the other targeting a petrochemical facility there. And following that, we saw not only another wave of ballistic missiles from Iran, but also the Houthis, the Iran's allies in Yemen, fired two missiles against Israeli territory, one of which didn't reach Israel, the other of which was intercepted.

And so we haven't seen any indications of casualties or fatalities as a result of Iran's ballistic missile attacks on Iran. But nonetheless, the first time that we have seen Iranian ballistic missiles targeting Israel since the ceasefire went into effect in early April. And now, as both Iran and Israel are indicating that they will stop attacks on one another, there is one major caveat to that. And that is the fact that Iran says that should Israel resume attacks not only against Iran, but also against southern Lebanon, then Iran will once again strike Israel. And this time, it says its response will be more ferocious than before.

Israel has vowed to continue carrying out strikes in southern Lebanon, where -- which is a stronghold of Iran's proxy group, Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant organization. And so Hezbollah in southern Lebanon already today being struck once again by the Israeli military. Hezbollah has also been firing at Israeli troops in southern Lebanon. And so as that back and forth continues, it seems likely that if Iran follows through on this threat, then we'll see a resumption of the attacks between Iran and Israel. Pam, Wolf?

BLITZER: All right, Jeremy Diamond in Tel Aviv for us. Jeremy, stay safe over there. Thank you very, very much. Pamela?

BROWN: Very busy day. A lot going on. Michael Allen joins us now. He was special assistant to President George W. Bush for national security and was senior director at the National Security Council. Good morning to you. So Israel is saying it will stop strikes on Iran, but continue striking Hezbollah in Lebanon, in southern Lebanon. Iran says that's a deal breaker. So how do you view all of this? Where do you see this going?

MICHAEL ALLEN, FORMER MAJOR STAFF DIRECTOR, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: This is very fragile, and I expect that we're going to have continued hostilities ongoing. It's almost like a movie scene with three different characters pointing weapons at each other. If Hezbollah or if Hezbollah hits Israel, Israel is going to strike Beirut. And if Beirut is struck, Iran is going to send ballistic missiles back into Israel.

So it's very, very fragile. I'm not sure necessarily what the President's going to be able to do here, because if I'm Benjamin Netanyahu, I have to act in the nation's self-defense if I see a gathering threat of Hezbollah terrorists about to launch an attack. So I know the President's putting weight and leverage onto Netanyahu, but this is difficult for him. His people want him to be able to strike out at this terrorist group.

BLITZER: Yes. What signal does the ongoing fighting, Michael, suggest to you, especially Iran's targeting of Israel? And it's sending to proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, basically a green light, go ahead and do what you want to do.

[11:05:11]

ALLEN: Well, it underscores something that's fearful. I don't think Iran feels like they've lost at all. I don't think they feel pressure whatsoever. The only real pressure we have on them is the blockade, which I think works, but it's a long fuse. It's not just going to work next week and they're going to begin to make concessions. So when I see them acting recklessly, frankly, that tells me they don't have any real fear of what the United States is going to do, and that's partly because the President has taken the use of force by the United States largely off the table.

And I don't want to go back to war either, but when you've ruled it out, I don't think there's an or else. There's no or else for Iran to make some new calculation of, oh, wow, we should act less recklessly or redouble our efforts at the negotiating table.

BLITZER: You know the Israelis. You know the Israelis well. And so do I. Whenever they're attacked or even threatened by adversaries, the mood in Israel is you've got to retaliate, you've got to stop that. And so even if President Trump is telling Prime Minister Netanyahu don't do it, politically, the intense pressure on Netanyahu to go ahead and strike back exists.

ALLEN: And I think it's a fair case because I think any nation would say, listen, I just got struck by a terrorist group from another state. If I don't hit back and hit back powerfully, my deterrence begins to lapse and gets less and no one will fear me into the future. So I'm not looking for escalation paths here, but you have to be able to hit them back somehow.

BROWN: So then does President Trump have any control over what happens between Israel and Iran because obviously that has direct implications for the United States and these ongoing negotiations?

ALLEN: So I think he's counseled everyone in the last 24 or 48 hours to stand down a little bit, and he'll definitely continue to pressure Benjamin Netanyahu. But I'm really worried. I think it might be Iran's plan to put pressure on the United States by way of Israel by having Hezbollah take new strikes into or appear to be about to take new strikes into Israel so that Israel has to act against Lebanon. And when they do, that entire scenario that we just discussed plays out. And here we are in a situation.

BROWN: That works in Iran's favor.

ALLEN: I think it works in Iran's favor. By the way, why did we depart from our policy that the Hezbollah-Israel hostilities are part of what we're trying to accomplish with the Straits of Hormuz? We're not even talking about the Straits of Hormuz or the nuclear program over the weekend. We're sort of, I hate to call it a sideshow, but this should be delinked from the main attraction, which is how do we get the Straits of Hormuz open and how do you get to a long negotiating period when you hope Iran will begin to surrender some of its nuclear capability?

BLITZER: And the strikes that the Iranians have launched against civilian targets, major targets in Israel, and Israel's retaliatory strikes against some petrochemical developments inside Iran, this is the most intense fighting between Israel and Iran since early April when the so-called ceasefire started.

ALLEN: Yes, that told me that Israel's really ready to get back. They have a whole target set. They wanted to finish off petrochemicals. I don't think they want to just do tit for tat. I think they feel like, you know what, we've got a week or two of new targets to hit, especially ballistic missile launchers.

BROWN: All right, Michael Allen --

BLITZER: Michael Allen, thank you.

BROWN: -- thank you so much. Always great to have you on with your analysis.

ALLEN: Thank you.

BLITZER: And still ahead, Oklahoma rushes to regulate new artificial intelligence that's used in political campaigns. The governor of Oklahoma will join us live.

[11:08:53]

BROWN: And later, EPA scientists say they're under political pressure to change safety reviews for products that many of us use. CNN exclusive reporting just ahead here in The Situation Room. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Well, new this morning, jury selection is about to begin for the man accused of starting the Palisades fire in Los Angeles. It killed a dozen people and destroyed thousands of homes and businesses last year and is the third most destructive fire in California history. Jonathan Rinderknecht faces federal arson charges and prosecutors say his anger at the world led him to set the fire. So let's bring in CNN national correspondent Nick Watt in Los Angeles. Tell us more about this case, Nick, and what's going on today.

NICK WATT, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jonathan Rinderknecht, 29-year-old occasional Uber driver, is facing up to 45 years in jail, three federal counts of arson for, as you say, setting, so prosecutors claim, this fire that destroyed 37 square miles, nearly wiped the Pacific Palisades off the map and killed 12 people. Now, what prosecutors are going to say is that Rinderknecht was working as an Uber driver that night. A number of his passengers claimed that he was kind of angry and antsy and complaining and pissed off at the world. And they say that they have surveillance video that shows just after midnight, just after the New Year, into 2025, they have video of him going up the Palisades and setting a fire. Now, here is where it gets a little complicated. They found videos, ChatGPT videos, that he allegedly asked ChatGPT to create scenes of people fleeing from flames. They say that they've got Internet searches of free Luigi Mangione and against billionaires, all of this kind of thing.

[11:15:19]

But as I just mentioned, he allegedly set this fire just after midnight January 1st. The Palisades fire didn't ignite until January 7th. But what investigators claim is that that fire that was set January 1st, firefighters came, put it out. But they say there were embers burning under the ground that on January 7th, when the wind picked up, those embers flared up again and caused the Palisades fire. So that is going to be a wrinkle. He set a fire, they say, a week before.

The firefighters came, said they put it out. So is the Palisades fire this 29-year-old occasional Uber driver's fault? So the defense is going to say, listen, he is a scapegoat. He was arrested months later, and he's going to be a scapegoat because they just want to cover up the failings of officials, including the fire department.

So jury selection has just got underway. That's going to take a couple of days. We expect the trial will take a couple of weeks. And as I say, he is facing up to 45 years in jail if convicted. But this is not going to be a straightforward case. Very few arson cases, we're told, are straightforward. This one is going to be very interesting to watch. Pamela?

BROWN: All right, it sure will be. Nick Watt, thank you so much. Wolf?

BLITZER: And up next, updated guidance seems to be paying off. Why scientists are seeing a dramatic reduction of egg allergies in children. We have the details just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:21:34]

BROWN: And turning now to a CNN exclusive, scientists at the EPA say that they're under political pressure to change safety reviews of chemicals commonly found in many products like household cleaners and cosmetics and to downplay potential risks to human health and the environment. CNN's Rene Marsh has this reporting for us. She's here with us in the Situation Room. So what are these scientists telling you?

RENE MARSH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, I have to just start by saying many people don't even realize that in all of these products that we use every day, whether we're getting ready in the morning, cleaning our house, making our laundry smell a certain way, they all have these chemicals in them, which I didn't know until now, that have not all fully been reviewed by the EPA for the human health impact and the environmental impact. And now some of these longtime EPA employees are telling us that they are feeling pressure as they're assessing these chemicals for the impact of human health, political pressure to make these chemicals appear safer than they actually are.

And they point to the fact that the Trump administration has installed former lobbyists from the chemical industry to run key offices in charge of regulating a lot of these chemicals in these consumer products. But one of these employees gave me one scenario, and he says, when we're evaluating how harmful these chemicals could be to humans, we're looking at exposure scenarios. What is the likely way in which Pamela Brown will come into contact with this chemical?

And he gave me the example where he said, you know, if two hands touch a chemical and there's risk, a supervisor may ask, well, what happens if you only put one hand? What about a pinky? Looking for the least amount of contact to enable them to say that the chemical is safe. And, you know, people may be wondering, well, why are chemicals that haven't fully been reviewed in our products that are on store shelves and we all assume are safe?

When the nation's first law for regulating these chemicals came into play back in the 70s, there was not a requirement under that law for the EPA to assess the 62,000 chemicals that were already in the marketplace or already in production. So they were grandfathered in. Fast forward to 2016, that law has since been updated. And now they are mandated to do these reviews, and that is the work that's happening now that these scientists say is subject to political pressure inside the agency.

BROWN: And just to make sure I heard you correct, so a former lobbyist for some of these chemicals is now overseeing regulation. Is that right?

MARSH: Yes, we have three former lobbyists for the chemical industry. They work for trade groups that they are now installed in some of these key offices at the EPA, making decisions, running these offices as it relates to regulating chemicals that already exist in these products. Anything from certain chemicals that are used in nail polish to make nail polish flexible. It could be chemicals --

BROWN: Perfume.

MARSH: Yes, fragrance that causes that fresh scent that we love our laundry to smell a certain way. All of these things take certain chemicals, and it is the EPA's job at this point to identify the high- risk, the high-priority chemicals and determine with certainty, or as certain as they can, what is the potential harm to human health and to the environment. And that is the work that these scientists are saying. They feel it being, you know, exposed to political interference.

[11:25:03]

BROWN: And so how is the EPA responding?

MARSH: The EPA is pushing back pretty hard. They sent us a statement, they said in part that they are implementing the President's executive order on restoring gold standard science across its risk evaluations. The agency also went on to say that it is using realistic exposure scenarios rather than defaulting to compounded, worse-case assumptions. So again, they are saying that's what's happening here. We're using solid science. But these longtime career employees are saying something quite different.

BROWN: We've heard that phrase, gold standard science, across many of the agencies under the Trump administration. Rene Marsh, thank you so much.

MARSH: Thank you.

BLITZER: Good work. Excellent reporting. Thank you very much.

And new this morning, scientists are seeing a big drop in childhood egg allergies after new guidance urged parents to start introducing eggs much earlier.

BROWN: CNN health reporter Jacqueline Howard has the details for us. This is so interesting, Jacqueline, because I remember there was a similar study about peanuts. It used to be don't give peanuts to kids until after two. Now it's give it earlier. Now it seems like there's something similar here with eggs.

JACQUELINE HOWARD, CNN HEALTH REPORTER: That's right, Pamela. Yes, and so what we're seeing with this new research is that guidance to really introduce these foods more around six months of age instead of waiting longer. The research suggests the guidance is actually working to reduce the prevalence of allergies, and it shows that this can be done safely. So what we learned from the most recent study, now this was done in Australia, but the researchers tell me that the findings can also be applied to here in the United States.

The researchers looked at data on more than 7,000 infants in Australia, and they looked at the prevalence of egg allergy before guidance was updated in 2016 and then after. And they found the prevalence was higher before. About 9 percent of infants had an egg allergy. But when you look after the guidance updated, that prevalence dropped to about 7.6 percent. And the researchers say that corresponds to overall about a 17 percent drop in prevalence.

So it suggests the research here supports the updated guidance to really introduce at a younger age to reduce the prevalence of egg allergy, Wolf and Pam.

BLITZER: All right, Jacqueline Howard, excellent information, especially for parents and grandparents of little kids, information they need to know.

BROWN: Absolutely, very important.

BLITZER: Thanks very, very much.

BROWN: All right, just ahead here in The Situation Room, Graham Platner's emotional town hall in Maine, how the embattled Democrat is trying to study his Senate campaign after new reports emerge about his past treatment of women?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)