Return to Transcripts main page

The Source with Kaitlan Collins

FBI Working With Google, Looking At Searches Tied To Guthrie Case; Zuckerberg On Stand; Iran Bracing For U.S. Strikes. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired February 18, 2026 - 19:00   ET

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

[19:00:23]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next:

Google searches for Guthrie. CNN learning the FBI is now working with Google to investigate searches before the kidnapping that could help identify a suspect, as TMZ reports it's received a new and graphic message. Harvey Levin is my guest.

Plus, Facebook's founder grilled. Mark Zuckerberg, testifying in a landmark trial about claims his social media apps harmed children. Still on the stand right now? What is he saying?

And Iran tonight, bracing for possible U.S. military strikes. New satellite images show Tehran fortifying its nuclear facilities.

Let's go OUTFRONT.

(MUSIC)

KEILAR: Good evening. I'm Brianna Keilar, in for Erin Burnett.

OUTFRONT tonight, new details in the search for Nancy Guthrie. CNN is learning that the FBI is now working with Google to look into searches that could potentially lead them to a suspect. Investigators looking into searches like Nancy Guthrie's address, plus Savannah Guthrie salary made in the days and weeks before Nancy Guthrie was kidnapped.

Also tonight, the Pima County sheriff is telling "The New York Times", they're focusing a lot of energy on what he's calling one of their most promising leads, and that is that Ozark trail hiker bag sold at Walmart. Sheriff Chris Nanos says authorities are now pulling data on every sale of that backpack statewide, and then looking at which buyers also purchased latex gloves or a mask. He said, quote, "It's going to take a while, but it's a lead and you got to chase it down."

And investigators tonight also looking to Mexico for any leads in the search for Nancy Guthrie. A source telling CNN investigators have now briefed Mexican law enforcement authorities.

TMZ's Harvey Levin has also been reporting on this angle and more today and he'll join me in a moment with what he's learning.

Ed Lavandera is OUTFRONT live in Tucson, Arizona. Ed, tell us the latest that you're learning there.

ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is now day 18 of the search and investigation to find 84-year-old Nancy Guthrie. And there's just still not a lot of clear indication how much headway investigators are making at this point. But the news of exactly how expanded this search is and that U.S. investigators have briefed the U.S. Border Patrol, as well as Mexican border officials, is significant.

It kind of speaks to just the wide possibility of where this investigation might, might lead, and a clear indication that there isn't really any kind of specific lead that is top of mind, I think, for investigators at this point, closer here to the Tucson area. That area of the border is about 70 miles or so away from Tucson. So, it's always been one of those questions that has lingered over this investigation.

But over the last few days, Brianna, we've reached out to local officials on the U.S. and Mexican side at the state level and local level. Many of the investigators and government officials on the Mexican side of the border say they have not been asked to cooperate or help with the Nancy Guthrie investigation.

So, the extent to how serious of a possibility this might be, I think is still very much in question. But at this point, when there is no clear answers anywhere to be found, you have to investigate everything -- Brianna.

KEILAR: Yeah, certainly.

Ed Lavandera with the latest there in Tucson, thank you.

OUTFRONT now, Harvey Levin, the founder of TMZ. He has been breaking news from the start of this investigation, and he has just received a graphic new ransom note.

TMZ, of course, received that initial ransom note, and multiple emails from someone claiming to know who kidnapped Nancy Guthrie, as well.

Harvey, I know that you're just getting some new information on Walmart searches. First off, can you tell us what you're learning there?

HARVEY LEVIN, TMZ FOUNDER: Yeah, you had mentioned "The New York Times" article, so we know that there is not just a person in the FBI, there's a team now in the FBI that is on the hunt to see if they can figure out not just who is buying the backpack, but there's other identifying things here.

We are pretty sure that the jacket this guy was wearing was an authentic -- an athletic works fusion knit jacket. I spoke with law enforcement today. They are looking at that jacket. They're looking at a couple of others as possibilities. We think it's that jacket, but also the holster. And what they're trying to do is see if they can -- not just find somebody who bought the backpack, because that -- a lot of people bought the backpack. But if you can find people who bought -- somebody who bought a backpack, who bought that jacket, and maybe have bought that, that holster. Then, all of a sudden, you're honing in on someone. So, they have a whole team, right now, at the FBI working on that.

[19:05:02]

KEILAR: Yeah, that's a better Venn diagram, right, to work with. And I know you received yet another note today. What can you tell us about it?

LEVIN: So, it is a really sophisticated, note, Brianna, it is honestly, I had to get somebody to help translate it for me. It involves a demand for crypto, not bitcoin a different type of crypto. Authorities have asked us not to be more specific about that but they make very specific demands.

The amount they're asking for in this different type of currency is roughly the same as the amount in the first ransom note, six million -- the equivalent of $6 million. And they graphically describe the consequences if they're not paid.

KEILAR: When you say sophisticated, do you mean because of the type of crypto or is it something else?

LEVIN: No, it's not just. No, it's the manner in which they're asking for the money. And how it works in terms of getting. I'm not -- I've talked to the FBI today and I'm not allowed to be specific about this, not allowed to be. I mean, we're cooperating.

But the way it works is that the money will automatically go into this account if certain things happen. And it actually involves the media, too, in terms of what the media puts out. But it's a very sophisticated way of doing it, where one thing triggers another, triggers another. It's beyond my level of knowledge. But I had some people in the office.

KEILAR: The sophistication is in the process. It sounds like that is spelled out in there. And then, so this language, this tone of this note, is it similar or is it different from previous notes that you've received?

LEVIN: It is a little more graphic and chilling than the previous one. The previous one was also pretty chilling, but the way this is described, it's more so.

KEILAR: Is there anything in this new note that demonstrates the person who sent it is following developments in this case?

LEVIN: Oh, yeah. I mean, I think -- I think it's very clear that whoever is sending all of these notes to us, both the ransom notes and the people asking for the reward, they hear what's going on, they read what's going on. I think that's pretty clear. And this person specifically addresses media coverage.

KEILAR: Is there anything in the note that provides proof of life or demonstrates inside knowledge?

LEVIN: By inference, they do. They don't say it directly but by inference they do in terms of consequences.

KEILAR: And you reported today you said quote, based on what we know, this is not a hollow promise. I mean, what makes you say that? Are you saying that you believe this to be genuine?

LEVIN: Oh, no, we don't know that this is real or not we have forwarded on to the FBI. I will tell you this. You know, I spoke to somebody in the FBI today and they are more than happy for me to say this, which is that if these are hoaxes to get money from the Guthries. This is a federal crime. They will be prosecuted, and they will, as it was put to me, they will be spending a long, long time in a federal prison. So they are not playing games with this.

KEILAR: Yeah. I appreciate you saying that. You've been highlighting that if people are exploiting the Guthries, that is something that is not going to be tolerated. They're obviously -- they're in the middle of hell with what they're going through right now. And that is -- they do not deserve that.

What's the FBI telling you about this note?

LEVIN: Well, they're looking into it. They're looking into this. They're definitely looking into the first one they have spent a lot of time on that first note.

And, you know look, what I'm told, the way it was put to me today was they're shaking the trees. They are just going everywhere they can, you know, the gun shops that they went to the other day or last week, rather, seeing if there was anybody that they recognized from a list of names that came up dry. They didn't get anything.

So they don't have a clear lead on anyone right now. It's pretty clear to me, but they are going in all sorts of directions you talked about, you know, going after, you know, Walmart and looking at, you know what somebody possibly purchased they're looking in Mexico. We know they've done that.

They are really just -- they're chasing down every lead they can.

[19:10:00]

They're getting a lot of them. And then they have to, you know make a decision. Is this worth, you know, going down a rabbit hole or not? And, you know, they're getting so many that they only have limited number of people there. So, they're picking and choosing.

But I will say that first ransom note has really captured their ongoing attention. KEILAR: So, you mentioned Mexico in your reporting that the FBI

reached out to authorities in Mexico. Tell us what you're learning there. And do you get the sense from your reporting that this is a real suspicion, or is this just a consideration based on how close Tucson is to the border?

LEVIN: I think the latter. I think you're right. It's a consideration.

They have been in touch with federal authorities in Mexico asking them to tell police departments, local police departments, to be on the lookout for Nancy or the kidnapper. They -- they don't think that the kidnapper took her directly to Mexico. They've looked at Border Patrol cameras and they just don't believe, based on what they saw, that it was that if she went to Mexico, it was done immediately.

Now, they do say that if it, you know a day or two or three later, it's possible that they could slip across the border but that's a theory. So, you're right. This is a consideration. It's not necessarily a lead.

KEILAR: Harvey, thank you so much for joining us. We do appreciate it.

LEVIN: You bet.

KEILAR: Reminder to our viewers, it is 1-800-CALL-FBI if you have seen anything suspicious.

Let's discuss. We have a lot here to talk about.

Andrew McCabe, as former deputy director of the FBI, you certainly dealt with cases that involve Mexico. And you heard sort of Harvey's assessment there as he's talking to sources. It's really just the reality. Tucson is very close to Mexico, but that is a very real thing. How are you seeing that consideration, that possibility of Nancy Guthrie maybe being brought to Mexico and what you've learned about what law enforcement is doing right now.

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: You know, Brianna, it's something that the investigative team absolutely has to consider. And I'm sure they've been thinking about that from day one simply because of the proximity. Like there are only about, you know an hour or so away from the Mexican border.

So, in the -- in the least case scenario, you want to at least be sharing intelligence with our law enforcement and intelligence colleagues in Mexico. You want to be -- you want them to be aware of the situation. You want them to have all the information about Nancy Guthrie, who she is, what she looks like, what her health conditions are.

You want them to go one step further and really hit their -- what we call HUMINT or human source network. So those people who are out in the criminal community who talk to Mexican law enforcement authorities and intelligence authorities, you want them to be aware of this because there they could possibly stumble across people who are talking about this situation or may be involved in it.

So, you -- they were probably doing that sort of coordination with Mexican authorities right from the very beginning. And then as you get additional leads or tips or information that comes in that indicates that there might be more specifics to work on. You want to keep those pipelines of information going.

The FBI doesn't actually conduct any sort of law enforcement activity in Mexico or in any other foreign country, but we do have deep relationships with our counterparts there, and hopefully, those relationships are still in a good kind of positive place that the Mexican colleagues are willing to spend some of their own time and effort to see if they can help us solve this crime.

KEILAR: Yeah, certainly.

And, Mary Ellen O'Toole, as a former FBI profiler, what would that say about a perpetrator if they would take that risk, if they would make that calculation to cross the border?

MARY ELLEN O'TOOLE, FORMER FBI PROFILER: Well, you're right to define it as a risk. And the risk would go up if it was more reactionary than it was planned. And by that, I mean we know that there was planning in front of the abduction and likely there was post offense behavior that included planning.

So, if the offender decided to leave the United States and go to Mexico because it was -- the investigation got too close to him up here in the United States, but he didn't really make thorough plans to do that, then that's where you will see him make mistakes, and even to the point where he doesn't know where to go, doesn't know where to take Nancy. He's going to stand out. He will have problems and encounters with people he didn't anticipate.

So, the risk level goes up if he did not plan it ahead of time.

[19:15:01]

KEILAR: Wally Zeins, as a former NYPD hostage negotiator, you heard what Harvey Levin said about this new ransom note, how much credence do you place in that note, considering what you've learned about it?

WALLACE ZEINS, FORMER NYPD HOSTAGE NEGOTIATOR: Well, the most important thing is we want proof of life. That's the -- that's the part that's going to tip the scale. If they do not show proof of life, they're not going to get money request. I mean, that's the bottom line to this whole thing.

And they got to work, I'm sure that the FBI has their profilers and their hostage negotiators briefing him when he has that conversation. And it's very important to try to get a dialog going with him. And whoever the kidnappers are, only because you want to get to a point in hostage negotiation where you have a behavioral change on both parts, where you both can have some sort of conversation.

It's like a seesaw, you know one's up, one's down. You want to have it in the center. You want to be able to communicate. And proof of life is the part that is the most important part of this whole negotiations.

KEILAR: Director McCabe, we're also learning that the FBI is working with Google to find Google searches related to Nancy and Savannah Guthrie, maybe Nancy Guthrie's address. Plus, Savannah Guthrie salary. Those kinds of things.

How difficult is that process? How fruitful can that be?

MCCABE: Well, difficult and fruitful are often not connected. So, it's not particularly difficult. And many, many I think -- it's widely believed that your search history, especially on unencrypted communications, is not covered by the reasonable expectation of privacy that that leads to fourth amendment protections so Google is free to share that information with whoever they want.

Now, in this case, and I would expect all criminal cases, the FBI likely serves a warrant on Google for specific search language, and they are looking for people likely in this area, in the Tucson area, or the greater Arizona area who have searched for things like Nancy Guthrie or maybe Savannah Guthrie and salary and these other -- these other kind of keywords before the crime took place. What they're trying to do is to create -- to identify a population of people who were interested in these topics before they became front page news, and that, you know, that is that's a regular part of investigations.

Now, there was actually a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision back in last December that conclusively stated that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the language that you send to a third party like Google or some other search engine, and therefore, Google is free to share that information with law enforcement if they wish to do so.

KEILAR: Really interesting.

Mary Ellen, I think one thing officials do not seem to have in this case is a motive. And you have studied criminal motive very carefully. What are you considering based on what you know now at day 18?

O'TOOLE: Well, I'm looking at probably four possible motives. And again, it could be a combination. And one of them is obviously money. In a kidnap case, one of the motives can be sexual in this case, Nancy is an older woman, so that's probably not as likely.

Another motive in a high-profile case like this is to get attention. Another motive is just the excitement of being involved in something like this. And then finally, something that were seeing that we had over the last 25 years in different kinds of cases is people that are grudging, begrudging of their way of life, and they blame other people for it and they will maybe stew over they're in -- what they perceive as injustices in their life, and then they will act out. We saw it recently at Brown University, where he stood over how his life ended up and then went on and shot two students at Brown and then the MIT professor.

And those people are called injustice collectors. And so, if this person incorrectly blames somebody as high profile as Savannah Guthrie because he didn't succeed, let's say in journalism, it's an -- it's an outlier in terms of a motive. But it -- you know, it could happen. And sometimes these cases involve those very unusual kinds of motivations. So it's not impossible.

KEILAR: You have to consider it.

And, Wally, as someone who has spoken to criminals to resolve hostage situations, what would you say to someone right now who has Nancy Guthrie who has perpetrated this crime, or to someone who knows who did?

[19:20:03]

ZEINS: I would immediately try -- the first thing is to develop a rapport conversation between myself and that individual just by ourselves, and talk to that person in the sense of the first thing, to be an active listener to that person. Secondly, I would want to show to that person that I have an emotion to listen, to understand. And thirdly, I try to develop then the rapport.

Once I develop the rapport with that individual, I'm going to try to influence that person, and that person's going to try to influence me. And finally, at the end, we're going to develop a behavioral change. As I mentioned earlier, where we're both going to be on the same page, and we're going to both be able to start to communicate, negotiate, and come to some sort of successful agreement.

KEILAR: Wally, Mary Ellen, Director McCabe, appreciate all of you having this discussion. Thank you so much.

And OUTFRONT next, investigators now relying on cutting edge genetic technology to ID the person who may be responsible for abducting Nancy Guthrie. How does genetic genealogy work? I'll be talking to an amateur DNA sleuth who used it to unmask the Golden State killer.

Plus, social media on trial. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg facing tough questions under oath about whether Facebook and Instagram are dangerous for kids.

And a chilling look inside a massive surveillance state that is now using A.I. to keep track of its citizens.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:25:59]

KEILAR: We have breaking news. Right now, investigators are analyzing biological evidence found at Nancy Guthrie's home. DNA profiles are being analyzed at the lab, and the sheriff's office is confirming it is using genetic genealogy to potentially track down the person responsible for abducting Nancy Guthrie. They're testing DNA from a glove recovered two miles from Nancy Guthrie's house. And DNA found at the home as well. Neither matched anyone in the national law enforcement DNA database. The cutting-edge technique used in genetic genealogy has helped solve

hundreds of cold cases including one of the most notorious in American history, that of the Golden State killer. And the woman who helped unmask that killer after more than three decades, is here to talk about how this all works.

OUTFRONT now, Barbara Rae-Venter, who is the author of "I Know Who You Are: How an Amateur DNA Sleuth Unmasked the Golden State Killer and Changed Crime Fighting Forever".

Barbara, thank you for being with us and just walk us through how genetic genealogy could actually help identify a suspect here.

BARBARA RAE-VENTER, UNMASKED THE GOLDEN STATE KILLER USING GENETIC GENEALOGY: Sure, thanks for inviting me, Brianna. So investigative genetic genealogy takes a sample of the crime scene DNA in this case, presumably DNA, either from the glove or from the home. And it's uploaded to one of two databases that allow upload of forensic samples. And those are GEDmatch and Family Tree DNA.

Unfortunately, we're not allowed to use some of the bigger databases like Ancestry, and 23 and Me, and MyHeritage.

So, what we do is we upload the DNA sample and then what we're looking for is people who share DNA with the potential suspect. And so, then what we do is we take a sample, a -- their information, and we build family trees for each of those people who share DNA with the suspect.

What we're looking for is common ancestors. So, let's say we get a match with somebody who is a second cousin. Second cousins share a set of great grandparents and so we've got a couple of people who are matching the second cousins. We can then identify that common set of great grandparents.

So, then what do we know about the suspect? We know the suspect must also be a descendant of that common set of great grandparents. So, then what we do is we turn around and we build what we call a reverse tree. Now, we're looking for all of the descendants of that set of great grandparents, and we take what we know about the suspect and try then to figure out amongst all those descendants, then, who our suspect must be.

So, in the case of the Golden State killer, we had known that his first rape had been in about 1940 -- 1976. So, we had figured that he was probably born in about 1936 or earlier. We knew that he had been active in northern California. He probably lived in northern California. I had been able to use his DNA to get his eye color, which suggests that he had blue eyes. And so that actually became one of -- the pieces of information that we used to identify him.

So in the case of Nancy Guthrie, what we're looking at then, okay, this is occurred in near Tucson. We're probably looking for somebody who lives somewhere in that area from the information that the FBI has been gathering from the Ring camera information, they've probably managed to come up with an approximate age for that person.

So, again, we would then use that information. Once we get the information for who shares DNA with the crime scene person.

KEILAR: And, Barbara, you're able to take these things and narrow it down. And you did that by finding, I think, someone in the database who shared a great, great grandfather with the Golden State killer.

[19:30:04]

When you're talking about building --

RAE-VENTER: Correct.

KEILAR: -- that kind of genealogy, because that's what takes so much time here. How long does that take?

RAE-VENTER: It -- it can take a long time. So I've solved cases in less than eight hours where I've had close matches where people shared a lot of DNA with the suspect. Other cases, you know, you're still working on them two years later.

So, I think one of the things that's important here for the audience to know is that this could take a while.

KEILAR: Yeah.

RAE-VENTER: And so, I know everybody's very anxious to get an answer to who this person is. But it really could take a while because depending also on the bio ancestry of the suspect, if the person is not white that could really be a problem, because the databases are about 80 percent white. So, if you have somebody who is a non-white, if they're Hispanic or they're Black or some other ethnicity, could be very, very difficult to solve the case. It would be possible, but it can take time.

KEILAR: It can take time. The DNA found at the house or on the glove, even if there is very little of it, would that be enough?

RAE-VENTER: Yeah. The -- even since -- since the Golden State killer, the techniques have become very sophisticated. And so, it's possible to actually work with very, very tiny amounts of DNA. So that actually should not be a problem.

It's more just a case of being able to build out the trees and there -- there be the right people in the databases that we can actually see shared DNA with.

KEILAR: Yeah, it is very promising, but obviously very laborious. And there have to be some kind of matches in there.

Barbara Rae-Venter, thank you so much. Really great to speak with you.

And OUTFRONT next, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg takes the stand in an unprecedented social media trial where Zuckerberg's company stands accused of harming children.

Plus, breaking news new satellite images show Iran is reinforcing its key nuclear facilities as fears grow, the U.S. could be on the brink of launching an attack.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:36:53]

KEILAR: Breaking news, Mark Zuckerberg grilled on the witness stand over children and social media addiction. The Meta CEO on the witness stand for hours in a landmark social media trial. Zuckerberg questioned over claims that Instagram is intentionally addictive despite potentially harming children. The tech billionaire, the world's fifth richest person, vehemently defended his company's youth strategy.

OUTFRONT now, Katie Drummond, global editorial director of "Wired".

All right, Katie. So, you followed Zuckerberg's testimony very closely and things did get heated. How did this go for him?

KATIE DRUMMOND, GLOBAL EDITORIAL DIRECTOR, WIRED: It was certainly contentious. I mean, it's worth noting that this is actually Mark Zuckerberg's first time defending Meta and his company and their practices in front of a jury under oath on the stand. So, certainly, a very pivotal day for him, and one that got pretty combative. I mean, he was not shy about dismissing the questions from, you know, the opposition's legal counsel regarding his company's practices.

KEILAR: Does the public think that Meta is doing enough to protect kids? What do they think?

DRUMMOND: Well, to be determined, and I certainly don't want to speak for the general public but I think when you look at the hard facts, right? I mean, we have internal documents from Facebook and Meta going back many, many years talking about the importance of capturing the tween market, right? And talking about sort of the importance of that for Meta's long term growth.

We also know that product features like autoplaying videos and infinite scroll are very captivating, right? They do make these products very hard to put down. You also have the fact that for a very, very long time, Meta did not do much, if anything at all to restrict access to a platform like Instagram or Facebook to those under the age of 13. So, when you take all of that combined look ultimately this is in the hands of a jury but I think as far as public perception goes, it's quite clear that Meta has some challenges when it comes to how it deals with young people.

KEILAR: Zuckerberg cited privacy concerns when he was asked about tightening Instagrams age verification. Is that a valid concern?

DRUMOND: I mean, look, Mark Zuckerberg and Meta are never quick to talk about privacy when it comes to all of the data that they collect about all of their users to sell ads against. So, it's an interesting line and distinction to draw. To cite privacy when it comes to the mental health of young people. Again, I'm not the jury. I would not say that I personally find that argument particularly compelling. KEILAR: Zuckerberg was also pressed today about his control over Meta and he was asked about this comment that he made on Joe Rogan's podcast a year ago, a really important one. Let's listen to it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK ZUCKERBERG, META CEO: Because I control our company, I have the benefit of not having to convince the board not to fire me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: The reason, Katie, that is getting so much attention is because he now says quote, "in practice, the board is independent." How much control does he have?

[19:40:02]

DRUMMOND: Mark Zuckerberg -- Mark Zuckerberg, excuse me, wields the same amount of power over this company today as he did a year ago, two years ago, five years ago. I mean, this is a very long standing norm and precedent within this company that he wields outsized power.

And what he said on Rogan is exactly the case. He has, you know, essentially limitless power over Meta and his role as CEO is very, very, very secure. So, what he's saying on the stand might be sort of finessing a version of that truth. What he said on Joe Rogan does, in fact, represent the way his company is structured.

KEILAR: That's really interesting. In the end, is this trial going to lead to any change at Meta? Is it going to lead to change at other social media companies? Do you think

DRUMMOND: Well, look, it depends on the outcome but what I would say is that this is one trial of thousands that are winding their way through the United States court system, and it uses a really interesting argument. Right essentially saying that these products and services are designed to be addictive to young people knowing that that addiction might come with mental health consequences.

So, this is a really seminal moment for these companies. And if a jury does find that Meta is liable for damages that could open up the door to many, many, many more lawsuits. And, you know, accountability with real teeth for these companies in a way that I do not think we have seen before.

KEILAR: It is such a case to watch. Katie Drummond, thank you so much for being with us.

OUTFRONT next, breaking news. Fears growing inside Iran that the U.S. may launch another attack. There are new satellite images, and they show key nuclear facilities are now being covered with concrete and soil.

Plus, China now using A.I. and its vast network of cameras to spy on its citizens in a way that we have never seen before, including flagging what authorities call abnormal behavior. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:46:41]

KEILAR: Breaking news, the U.S. military is prepared to strike Iran as early as this weekend, sources are telling CNN. But President Trump, who has privately argued for and against strikes, has yet to make a final decision on what to do. This comes amid a significant U.S. military buildup in the region, with another aircraft carrier strike group on the way and Iran bracing for possible strikes as new satellite images show rapid fortification at several Iranian nuclear facilities with concrete and large amounts of soil being used to bury key sites.

OUTFRONT now, Seth Jones, former advisor to the commanding general of U.S. Special Operations Forces in Afghanistan.

So, Seth, the military is ready to go. Clearly, or they're very close to being so. There are significant assets in the region with this other aircraft carrier strike group on the way.

Do you think it is more likely than not that the U.S. will attack Iran?

SETH JONES, PRESIDENT, DEFENSE & SECURITY DEPARTMENT, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: Well, Brianna, the fact that we've got now two carrier strike groups that will be available in the region, and those are costly deployments. And so, I think with -- without a breakthrough in diplomatic negotiations, which we have not seen, that I do think there that were seeing a higher risk of the U.S. conducting strikes. And of course, that that then leads to this question about what's the U.S. objective here?

I suspect that the U.S. objective is probably going to be limited to things like nuclear facilities, potentially Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps sites, rather than bigger objectives like regime change. That is a lot more risky. U.S. doesn't have ground forces there. Doesn't look like it's going to ever put any in. So, I think that's sort of where we sit right now.

KEILAR: So when you talk about what that looks like compared to the strikes that the U.S. conducted on Iran's nuclear facilities this last summer, are you talking about sites in Tehran? Are you talking about sites well, outside these nuclear facilities, what are you expecting?

JONES: So, I think it's important to go back to the Prussian military theorist Carl Von Clausewitz, who talks about war as being a continuation of politics or policy by other means. So, I think really the goal, the question here is what's the U.S. political objective with Iran right now? If it is largely about targeting Iran's nuclear sites, then I think we'll see something that's somewhat close to Operation Midnight Hammer. But the U.S. is probably also going to have to go after Iranian air defense capabilities, which the Israelis had already taken care of by the time those bombers conducted strikes.

If the U.S. wants to go after Iran's missile capabilities or partner forces, or even start targeting some of the forces that are cracking down on protesters, then you're going to see a bigger target set list. And so, again this all comes back to the administration's political objectives here.

KEILAR: You mentioned regime change and your expectation. That is not the goal here. Is that a needle that is easily threaded? I mean, is there a way that the U.S. objective could in a way they could overachieve, for instance what they may be trying to do?

[19:50:06]

How do they make sure they don't do that?

JONES: Well, I think partly it's going to be the target set list that the administration starts going after. So if again, they're just nuclear sites like the ones you just showed on the satellite imagery, those are pretty limited objectives. But if -- if we see those tomahawks, for example, going after Islamic Revolutionary Guard sites or Basij sites or other key political targets, for example decapitation strikes against Iranian political leaders, that starts to move up the escalatory ladder and starts to look much more like weakening the regime and potentially regime change.

But again, there are huge risks if the administration goes down that road.

KEILAR: Seth Jones, so great to speak with you about this. Obviously, we are watching this situation very carefully and we appreciate your expertise.

OUTFRONT next, an eye-opening report on how China is turning to A.I. for policing and surveillance.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:55:49]

KEILAR: Tonight, authoritarian A.I. China using artificial intelligence and millions of surveillance cameras to monitor its citizens. Three cameras for every seven people. A chilling look inside China's expanding A.I. surveillance state.

Will Ripley is OUTFRONT.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WILL RIPLEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Kung Fu meets artificial intelligence. Humanoid robots powered by advanced A.I. performing live on China's biggest stage.

On Chinese social media, this A.I. generated video.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You roll up here dressed like a damn robot.

RIPLEY (voice-over): Robot dogs and soldiers liberating a backward, impoverished United States. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That rivals (ph) mine.

RIPLEY (voice-over): Seizing guns commandeering churches.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They came here for the worst

RIPLEY (voice-over): A dystopian vision of a future America under Chinese control, powered by drones and A.I. tech made in China, some of it already in use. These are robotic traffic police operating right now on streets in China, using cameras and artificial intelligence to manage traffic in real time.

U.S. experts refer to it as authoritarian A.I., tech designed to watch people, maintain control and in some cases, step in automatically without a human having to make the call. This report from ASPI says China is using A.I. to turbocharge surveillance of its 1.4 billion people, with as many as 600 million cameras, roughly three cameras for every seven people. Many are now A.I.-enabled tracking faces, movements and behavioral patterns. The report says Chinese authorities use algorithms to predict peoples actions, forecasting protests, flagging what authorities call abnormal behavior, even claiming to monitor the emotional state of prison inmates to stop dissent before it ever happens.

China's foreign ministry in Beijing tells CNN, ASPI is anti-China and long known for fabricating numerous lies and false information. China's biggest tech firms are key to making this work, the report says. ByteDance censors politically sensitive content on Douyin, the Chinese TikTok. Tencent assigns risk scores to users based on online behavior. Baidu sells A.I. moderation tools used in criminal investigations.

CNN reached out to all three companies. So far, no response.

A.I. powered weapons are also being deployed in China's military. The kind of technology Beijing imagines could play a future role in attacking Taiwan, a scenario illustrated in this A.I.-generated propaganda video from the People's Liberation Army.

China's military is also developing drones that swarm the way animals hunt, copying insects, hawks, even apex predators. A.I. controlled weapons could someday coordinate, adapt and keep attacking without waiting for human commands.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KEILAR: And Will Ripley joins us live.

Will, that's pretty astounding stuff. Is this only happening in China, or is this happening in other places in the U.S. as well?

RIPLEY: Beijing certainly makes the argument, Brianna, that this is happening in the U.S., too. They point to this Georgetown University report that says ICE has built these huge A.I. driven surveillance systems that are capable of pulling data using A.I. on almost any American adult in the name of national security. So, the big question, of course, with these A.I. systems, especially

the weapon systems, Brianna, are we heading towards this future where life and death decisions are made by algorithms and not people? And interestingly, we've been going to bars and tone throughout this report inside China. They've been cutting off parts of the story not sure what they don't want Chinese people to see and what they do, but that's the world we're living in. China and its humanoid robots getting stronger every year.

KEILAR: Yeah, certainly very concerning, clearly to the Chinese government.

Will, excellent reporting. Thank you so much for that.

And before we go, a programing note tonight on CNN, Laura Coates has a special hour on the search for Nancy Guthrie. And that will start at 11:00 p.m. Eastern.

Thank you so much for joining us.

"AC360" starts now.