Return to Transcripts main page

The Brief with Jim Sciutto

CNN International: Rubio: Operation Epic Fury Against Iran has Ended; U.S. Affirms Ceasefire with Iran Still Holds; Russia Announces Two- Day Ceasefire to Take Effect Friday; Estonian FM: Putin is Weak and Afraid; U.S. to Test New A.I. Models for National Security Risks; Assessing Iran's Nuclear Facilities; Trump and Xi to Discuss Iran and Oil Crisis in Beijing; Arsenal Reach Championships League Final. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired May 05, 2026 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR, "THE BRIEF": Hello and welcome to our viewers joining us from all around the world. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington, and

you're watching "The Brief."

Just ahead this hour, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says that Operation Epic Fury, the military campaign launched against Iran in

February, is now over. Estonia's foreign minister tells me that Russian President Vladimir Putin is afraid of Ukraine and weaker than he appears.

And Arsenal beat Atletico Madrid to advance to the Champions League final.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the combat operation launched against Iran in February is over. He says the focus is now simply on reopening the

Strait of Hormuz.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: The operation is over. Epic Fury is -- president notified Congress. We're done with that stage of it, OK? We're

now onto this project of freedom.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: He calls U.S. military action now a defensive operation. He says questions about Iran's nuclear program, including its continued stockpile

of highly enriched uranium, will be resolved purely through negotiations.

Nic Robertson is in Islamabad. And, Nic, you hear the secretary of state there say that the U.S. has moved on from this war in effect. I wonder,

what is the region's view? Do they feel that they have moved on from the war, or they're still feeling the effects?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes, I think the UAE feels pretty hard done by. The president sort of blinked on the fact that

the navy was attacked 10 times according to General Caine. But the UAE was also attacked, although Iranian officials say it wasn't them or implying

that they were attacking U.S. bases in the UAE, but the port of Fujairah was hit. So, that doesn't seem to hold water, and there'll be frustration

there that the U.S. may be moving on.

I think very clearly as well frustrations in Israel because they really feel that what remains in Iran presents a threat, an existential threat to

Israel because the Iranians have not changed their position on Israel at all. I think the perception about where to go from here now that is what

the White House is trying to shape at the moment. It's certainly what Secretary Rubio was trying to shape when he spoke about the next move

really being trying to get a memorandum of understanding type agreement with the Iranians, agreeing to go on and talk to and about the key issues.

And we got a sense from the secretary of defense today, Pete Hegseth, when he held his press conference, just how hard that is to achieve. Because on

the one hand they're talking to officials in government, and the IRGC is upsetting that, if you will, putting any potential talks on the off-off

ramp. Pete Hegseth here was talking about Project Freedom and the outreach they've been doing, but how it's happening. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: And we're communicating both overtly and quietly to the Iranians to allow this defensive operation to happen on

behalf of the world. There are some actions the IRGC takes sometimes that are outside the bounds of what maybe Iranian negotiators would like. That's

their job to rein that in. And ultimately, create a condition for a deal, right? That's not something I talked about in these remarks, but that's

happening in real-time. Iran has an ability to make that deal. But what we're demonstrating with Project Freedom is they don't control the Strait.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTSON: So, there you have it. Both secretary of defense, secretary of state are really putting that focus, as you were saying there, Jim, very

much moving forward into trying to establish talks despite the military capabilities or in spite of the military capabilities that Iran still has.

And of course, that's a seat of worry in the region.

SCIUTTO: So, how about that last statement there from the U.S. defense secretary saying the U.S. is demonstrating that Iran does not control the

Strait?

[18:05:00]

Is that what leaders and officials and traders and ship owners in the region believe? Because it seems like Iran has a fair amount of influence

over the opening and closing of that Strait.

ROBERTSON: And that's what they're signaling. The head of the IRGC Navy said exactly that a few hours ago. The president of Iran said they were not

about to surrender to the United States. Iran is absolutely intent on keeping as much control as it can over the Strait of Hormuz. It appears in

the past couple of hours a vessel was hit by an unknown projectile, not clear if the crew is safe, not clear of the environmental damage done. This

came from a verified report of the vessel being hit.

It's not quite clear what's happened yet, but it's exactly the sort of expectation that mariners who are stuck in the Gulf would fear if they try

to move their vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, that the IRGC will make good on those threats, despite the red, white and blue umbrella, very

heavily capable and protective umbrella that Secretary Hegseth talked about the U.S. putting over part of the Strait of Hormuz, a sort of a channel,

narrow channel to get those vessels out.

But at the moment, the IRGC does still appear to be able to project that force, and that's an intimidating force for the vessels that otherwise

would like to leave.

SCIUTTO: Nic Robertson, thanks so much for joining. Well, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dan Caine, says that Iran has, in fact, attacked

U.S. forces more than 10 times since the start of the ceasefire, and that that remains, though, in his view, below the threshold for restarting

combat. President Trump declined to explain exactly what would constitute a violation of the ceasefire, telling reporters, quote, "you'll find out."

Joining me now, retired U.S. Air Force General Dave Deptula. And listen, I mean, it sounds like the administration's kind of making this up, right? I

mean, they're saying, you know, 10 attacks on U.N. forces, that's fine. That's below the threshold. You know, we're moving on from Epic Fury. We're

now on Project Freedom. Is it clear to you what the threshold is? And does this look to you like a ceasefire that's holding?

LT. GEN. DAVE DEPTULA (RET.), U.S. AIR FORCE: Well, Jim, the real challenge is one that you just alluded to in your previous discussion, and

that's that Iran still retains enough residual capability to threaten commercial movement in a narrow maritime choke point. Now, deterrence here

means convincing Tehran that every attempt to interfere with shipping will fail, and it's going to cost Iran more than it gains.

So, the issue is straightforward. The free flow of commerce through Hormuz cannot be subject to veto by Tehran. Now, it is a complex issue because

deterrence in Hormuz is about restoring confidence, not just defeating threats, as you talked about.

Look, the U.S. military can escort ships, it can intercept the missiles and drones and clear mines, but the strategic objective is broader. Shipping

companies, insurers and using states need to believe that the route is safe enough for normal commerce.

SCIUTTO: Now, you have noted that the threats are layered. Iran can use missiles, coastal missiles, cruise missiles, one way attack system, small

boats, mines, and that then requires a layered defense integrated, a whole host of different kinds of forces. That indicates to me a long and

complicated operation. To get this open, how long and to what degree does the U.S. have to be there?

DEPTULA: Well, it's an excellent point. And this the -- actually, this a strength of the United States military that few other militaries around the

world have, and that's the ability to integrate all of the elements that you talked about, air and missile defense, electronic warfare,

surveillance, helicopters, ships, intelligence fusion. Because the purpose of an escort is not simply to eliminate incoming threats, it's to make Iran

believe the attack will fail before it starts.

Now, you put your finger on something that, quite frankly, no one knows the answer to right yet, and that's how long will it take? And here is a

typical tactic that Iran uses. They want to drag this out as long as possible because they understand the pressure that's facing the president.

[18:10:00]

So, the question becomes, you know, where does the pressure end up having the greatest impact first?

SCIUTTO: Yes. I mean, you know, to Secretary Rubio's point, Iran is losing a lot of money every day, $500 million a day. So, the question becomes, by

the way, U.S. consumers are spending a lot of money because of rising gas prices, but also particularly in Europe and Asia, those economies that

depend more on the oil coming through that Strait. The question is who can endure more pain, I suppose. And it seems that Iran is calculating they can

endure more pain for longer.

DEPTULA: Well, I think that's what they're betting on. But, you know, $500 million a day isn't chump change. And quite frankly, that's the principal

source of Iranian income. So, the point becomes, which you've articulated, whose pain point breaks first? And I'm pretty certain that Iran is

beginning to understand that President Trump is not going to blink first.

SCIUTTO: Before we go, you made a point earlier that all involved have to believe, right? They have to believe in Project Freedom, right? Because

they're going to be risking their own assets, their own ships. Ships cost a lot of money. The contents of those ships, the payload costs a lot of

money. What establishes that confidence? I mean, because that requires force over time, does it not? And the thing is, from Iran's perspective,

they don't have to get most of their hits through. They only -- I mean, they could win getting a very small percentage of their hits through,

because then that threatens the broader traffic, because everybody's wondering, will I be the next target that's hit?

DEPTULA: Well, that's true. And if Iran believes it can harass shipping without decisive consequences, deterrence is going to be incomplete. But if

they believe that every attempt that they make is going to fail and generate additional military, economic, and political costs, then

deterrence begins to be restored. And they may finally become convinced that they need to change their behavior. And once again, it's pretty

difficult to ascertain just when that's going to happen. But again, denying them $500 million a day of income is a pretty strong deterrent.

SCIUTTO: Lieutenant General Dave Deptula, thanks so much for joining.

DEPTULA: You bet.

SCIUTTO: Well, now to a rare Ukrainian attack deep inside Russia. Russian state media say that a missile and drone strike killed two people in the

Chuvashia region, that is more than 600 miles from Russia's border with Ukraine, 35 others injured in that attack. This comes as Moscow is

preparing to host its Victory Day parade to commemorate the defeat of Nazi Germany. Russia has announced a unilateral ceasefire to take effect on

Friday and Saturday to mark that holiday and parade.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced his own unilateral ceasefire beginning on Wednesday. Ukrainian military says that Russia still

launched 11 ballistic missiles and more than 150 drones overnight on Monday.

A short time ago, I spoke with Estonia's foreign minister, Margus Tsahkna. I began by asking whether Estonia believes that Russia will hold to that

ceasefire to mark Victory Day.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARGUS TSAHKNA, ESTONIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: I think that Putin is afraid about this parade he's waging every 9th of May and first time after 20

years, he's not planning to have a full-scale parade. And he's afraid of Ukraine drone attacks, I think, and that's the reason why he's proposing

this ceasefire or whatever we call it. Maybe they can hold it, but there is no strategic point to do it. So, it seems that he's afraid of Ukraine and

also this a pretty clear message that he's weaker than most of the world is thinking he is.

SCIUTTO: CNN is reporting that there's a European intelligence assessment that has found that Putin is increasing the security around him because he

fears for his own personal safety as well, including the possibility of a coup or an assassination attempt. Does Estonian intelligence believe the

same? Should Putin be worried about his own safety?

TSAHKNA: We believe it already, yes, because this the part of dictatorship everyday life. And of course, if you see that surrounding people, oligarchs

are suffering heavily because of the sanctions, because of the war. And as well, now we see the shutdowns about the internet in Moscow and St.

Petersburg today as well.

[18:15:00]

So, the average Russians, they are under terror anyways, and now they are losing as well the freedom even to connect and communicate between each

other. So, I think that this intelligence information is pretty solid that Putin is afraid of his life, literally.

SCIUTTO: I want to talk now about President Trump's recent decision to withdraw troops from Germany. Do you believe the loss of this brigade

combat team leaves Estonia and the other Baltic states exposed, more exposed to the threat from Russia?

TSAHKNA: Of course, we are not happy if U.S. is removing troops from Europe, but we don't see that it will be a big, you know, effect to our

security in the Baltic states. We still have the U.S. troops in the Baltic states and Poland, and also, we have really solid new NATO defense plans

regionally adopted two years ago in Vilnius, NATO summit.

SCIUTTO: I remember Estonian officials telling me after Russia's full- scale invasion of Ukraine that they were not happy with NATO's previous defense plan for Estonia, the tripwire plan, and that this increase in

forces on NATO's eastern flank was in part to respond to those concerns. But if the U.S. is now reducing that force deployment, wouldn't that leave

you with at least less confidence about your eastern flank with Russia?

TSAHKNA: We saw during President Trump's second administration first year that U.S. was reviewing the location of the troops to Europe, and U.S.

decision was, at least for now, that troops will remain to the Baltic states and also to Poland with real fighting capabilities. But if we're

talking about the new NATO plans were adopted in Vilnius two years ago, they were based on experience what we see in Ukraine.

So, before that, the plans were pretty solid that if Russia is starting the full-scale invasion against NATO in our region, then finally NATO will win

the war, so it will be a victorious response. But we witnessed as well that we have a strategic depth from the border of Russia to the sea, 200

kilometers, and we have witnessed what Russia exactly is doing with these occupied territories.

So, no Estonians, no infrastructure, nothing left. So, for us is the most important gap or we need to fulfill the gap is a deep strike capabilities

to Russia, because if Russia is starting now or whenever in the future the full-scale invasion, we will bring the defensive war to Russian territory.

We will hit all the Russian military targets which are supporting this invasion in Russia.

SCIUTTO: I mean, my concern is how do you do that, because the U.S. defense secretary has communicated to Estonia that Washington is holding

back arms deliveries from the Baltic states, in part because U.S. supplies have been so depleted.

So, you know, you have U.S. troops reduced in Germany, you have this Biden plan to send a long-range fire unit to Germany now apparently suspended,

and you have warnings from the U.S. defense secretary that they're just not going to be able to deliver weapons on time. That seems to me to be quite a

concerning message to Estonia.

TSAHKNA: The first of course what we do is that we invest to our own independent capabilities, and that is why Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and

Poland as well, we are investing already this year more than five percent of GDP. So, it is obvious that even we are the members of NATO, we need to

start to defend our country ourselves. And also, we have no doubts and no claims about the military cooperation with the U.S., but you're right. The

message is that the U.S. has postponed the deliveries to Europe because of the Iran war.

SCIUTTO: On the Iran war, this of course has put enormous pressure on Europe as well, purely in part from energy prices. Do you see the Iran war

as increasing or decreasing Europe's security, and increasing or decreasing European economic security as well?

TSAHKNA: On the one hand of course in Europe we are happy as well that the Iran regime is weaker and the nuclear program is postponed at least, and

everybody hopes that it will be finished. Of course, we don't need the final signs about that.

[18:20:00]

But you are right, we are paying a high price for the energy, and it directly affects all our economical development in Europe, which is not

doing well, actually. And as well, the energy security is something we need to look into that, and that's the reason why Estonia as well, we have been

joining the France-U.K.-leaded coalition to be part of securing the Hormuz Stripe for the future.

Even Europe is getting less than 7 percent of the energy trade through this Hormuz, but the oil prices globally are affecting us critically.

SCIUTTO: Margus Tsahkna, we appreciate you joining the program and covering so many topics with us.

TSAHKNA: Thank you very much.

SCIUTTO: Coming up, the U.S. government is now striking agreements with major technology firms to test A.I. models before they're released to the

public. Why A.I.'s threat to national security is a growing concern, here in Washington, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Welcome back. In today's Business Breakout, U.S. stocks posted solid gains once again on Tuesday. The S&P 500 and the NASDAQ hit new all-

time highs. I say that a lot these days. Intel helped drive the NASDAQ higher. Shares soared almost 13 percent on reports. It may soon sell chips

to Apple.

A pullback in oil prices also helped the mood on the markets. Brent crude fell 4 percent to settle just below $110 a barrel. Still well up from its

pre-war level.

A significant new safety agreement in the artificial intelligence sector. Microsoft, Google, and Elon Musk's ex-AI are giving the Trump

administration access to their new A.I. models before those companies release them to the public. Officials want to test the platforms for a

variety of national security risks, including cybersecurity threats and the potential for military misuse. U.S. officials have also raised concerns

over Anthropic's powerful new Mythos model and the threats that it might pose to cybersecurity.

Tech journalist Jacob Ward joins me now. He's the host of the Rip Current podcast. Jacob, good to have you.

JACOB WARD, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, TECH JOURNALIST AND HOST, "THE RIP CURRENT" PODCAST: Jim, good to be here. Thanks.

[18:25:00]

SCIUTTO: The Trump administration initially opposed all regulation of artificial intelligence, including at the state level. Why the change in

these circumstances?

WARD: Well, I think, you know, opposed is even being conservative about it. They truly have been, I think, as hostile to regulating this industry

as we have ever seen anyone. They tore up the Biden-era A.I. safety rules that had been put out and basically said we should not let this thing be

regulated. Trump referred to it as a beautiful baby that we need to allow to grow without dumb regulations.

And here we are in a world in which I don't think the technology has changed fundamentally, but it seems as if the Mythos model that you

mentioned has really scared everybody because it seems to be so good at finding cybersecurity risks that, you know, very respected cybersecurity

researchers are truly sounding the alarm on that.

And I would say it also has to do with the change of leadership when it comes to A.I. at the White House. David Sacks, who was the A.I. czar, a

very well-connected Silicon Valley guy who had maintained, according to The New York Times and others, many investments in this technology even as he

was running policy for the White House, he has left the job. And now Scott Bessent, secretary of the treasury, and Susie Wiles, chief of staff, have

filled in for him. I'm assuming, Jim, that they were shown some of what these models can do and said, OK, wait a minute, I think we have to change

the rules here.

SCIUTTO: OK. Now, as you know, the administration took aim at Anthropic because it refused to allow the Defense Department to use its models in

domestic surveillance as well as automated weapons. Is there a political element at all to this focus on this latest Anthropic product, or is it

purely about the national security risks?

WARD: You know, from all the experts I have spoken to, anyone of any political background who is exposed to the Mythos product, that Anthropic

product, is scared to death by it, that it is such a convincing and frightening demonstration. There's a reason that everyone from bankers to

administration officials seem to be, you know, wanting to take an early look at it.

So, I don't think it's necessarily a particular persecution of Anthropic. But boy, is it a complicated situation with that company. Anthropic, as you

know, is cooked right into some of the top most classified operations of the Pentagon. It has been choosing targets, according to reporting in Iran.

And now, it's embroiled in this funny showdown. There's going to be a court case later this month about whether or not the Trump administration was

allowed to call it a supply chain risk, this unique designation we've never seen before, even as Susie Wiles and Scott Bessent are supposedly meeting

with Dario Amodei, the head of Anthropic, to try to get that relationship going again, simply because the technology is so valuable to government

operations and to military operations.

So, it is a real tangled web here. This clearly a technology that the people at the top of the White House have seen and are worried about, but

they also want to make use of it. I think it's really an encapsulation of how all of us are feeling when it comes to the tension around this stuff.

SCIUTTO: Now, from a private sector perspective, does this massive pendulum swing make it difficult for them to do their jobs, right? I mean,

because you go from, it's the Wild West, do what you want, let the baby grow to wait a second, we got to do that. I mean, that that's not exactly a

consistent policy, is it?

WARD: No, it certainly is not. And we have seen this -- you know, this administration go all over the map on the matters of business. You know, in

this case, I would say the thing I'm really interested to see in terms of fallout from this you had an entire industry line up behind the Trump

administration, give money for the ballroom and, you know, fire off all kinds of supportive letters and, you know, hand him a gold statue in the

Oval Office, you know, because this a president who had promised to be basically entirely hands off, you know, as was going to create as open a

pathway as this industry has ever had when it comes to regulation.

And coming off the Biden administration, which had for the first time shown some real sophistication around regulation. That's part of why these titans

seemed to have turned on Biden at the time. So, the fact that the Trump administration is turning around on this, I think, could cost them the

support of this industry in a whole new way. And I'll be really curious to see the ways in which, you know, the tail wags the dog now that the dog is

making its own choices here.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Jacob Ward, thanks for walking us all through it. Checking out some of today's other business headlines. Shares of leading A.I. chip

firm AMD are rallying in afterhours' trading after reporting strong first quarter results. AMD is also raising its guidance for the current quarter.

The news comes as a relief to Texan tech investors on the lookout for any sign that A.I. spending might be slowing down. AMD says that data center

chips are now its main growth driver, with sales rising 57 percent in the first quarter.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is proposing a rule that would make quarterly earnings reports for companies optional.

[18:30:00]

Firms would only be required to release earnings twice a year, not four times. Opponents of the proposal say less frequent reporting will make

markets more volatile and less transparent.

Crypto exchange Coinbase is cutting 700 jobs, about 14 percent of its workforce. The company says it is reducing its headcount because of crypto

market volatility and because of how A.I. is changing the way the company operates. Lots of A.I. headlines, as usual.

Still to come on "The Brief," the Trump administration says that Iran's nuclear capabilities have been decimated. But what does the evidence from

satellite images show? We'll have that story just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Welcome back to "The Brief." I'm Jim Sciutto. And here are the international headlines we're watching today.

Iran is denying it launched strikes this week against the United Arab Emirates. That despite videos such as this one showing thick smoke rising

from a key oil facility. The UAE says three people were injured after Iran fired missiles and drones at the country on Monday. It also said today its

air defenses were again responding to missile threats from Iran.

The World Health Organization says some human-to-human transmission may have occurred on that cruise ship hit with the Hantavirus. The outbreak on

the MV Hondius has killed three people. The ship is anchored off the coast, the Cape Verde Islands in West Africa. Officials say the priority now is to

get two crew members who are now showing symptoms of the virus off the ship for treatment.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says that Operation Epic Fury against Iran is now over. He told reporters that Project Freedom, a new effort to

guide ships through the Strait of Hormuz, is the new focus and is strictly a defensive operation. There is no shooting, he said, unless we're shot at

first. Rubio insisted Iran must not be allowed to control the Strait.

[18:35:00]

The White House has insisted that Iran's nuclear facilities have been obliterated by U.S. and Israeli strikes. But according to a CNN analysis of

satellite images, some key links in Iran's nuclear supply chain may have survived the attacks, in some cases fully intact. Nuclear experts tell CNN

it is unclear how effective those strikes have indeed been. Our Katie Polglase has the details.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KATIE POLGLASE, CNN INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER (voice-over): This university in central Tehran is considered by the U.S. and Israel one of the very first

stages in Iran's nuclear supply chain. It was struck in mid-March by the U.S.-Israeli campaign, and it's one of dozens of sites across Iran we've

been analyzing to see how much of its nuclear supply chain has been wiped out. And the answer is not as much as the U.S. and Israel would like.

POLGLASE: That university you just saw has been under U.S. sanctions since 2012 for researching and developing weapons of mass destruction. It's a

reminder of just how long the U.S. has been tracking Iran's ability to make nuclear weapons.

And we found that in these latest strikes by the U.S. and Israel, while much of the production process has been substantially damaged, some of the

most important parts of this process, the stores of highly enriched uranium, may not have been touched at all.

POLGLASE (voice-over): Let's start at the beginning of the supply chain. Alongside the research, the process starts at places like these, Saghand

Uranium Mine, where the raw material, uranium ore, is mined. In recent years, Saghand Mine has expanded significantly. You can see widening pits,

growing piles of earth and diggers.

We looked at recent imagery since the latest strikes and found no evidence of damage. In fact, from between the clouds, you can still see diggers

operating at the site. So, far, this indicates this stage of the nuclear supply chain may remain untouched.

Next, the mined uranium ore is transported to production plants like this one in Ardakan. Here, it's converted into yellowcake, which is a type of

concentrated uranium. We found this plant was substantially damaged in recent strikes on March 27th. An image taken the following month shows

little change, suggesting the Iranians have not rebuilt this site yet.

After this, the yellowcake is taken here to sites like this one in Isfahan to be purified and converted into uranium hexafluoride. And it's this one,

this stage of the supply chain, that has caused the biggest headache for the U.S. and Israel.

Back last June, French outlet Le Monde found this truck visible in imagery taken just days before the strikes. These blue containers are likely

carrying uranium into the tunnels, experts told CNN. Days later, these facilities were substantially damaged in Israeli attacks. You can see

several buildings wiped out.

Then, in early 2026, Iran covered over several entrances to these underground tunnels with earth, preventing people from accessing them.

Further measures were taken this April, when these roadblocks were put up in front of the entrances to the tunnels. It could suggest there still

remains something valuable down there. They were not, however, hit in the latest U.S.-Israeli strikes.

Even experts we spoke to are unsure why. David Albright is a world-leading expert on nuclear weapons.

POLGLASE: How much of a risk in the future is that stores in Isfahan Mountain?

DAVID ALBRIGHT, FOUNDER, INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY: Well, I think it's a big risk. That's quite a bit of money in the bank. I

mean, the amount of enriched uranium they've produced was equivalent to a full years of production of their entire enrichment complex and is believed

to be mostly and almost all of it at Isfahan.

POLGLASE (voice-over): In fact, the U.S. believes this too, and their demand to remove this uranium has been a key issue in the stalling peace

negotiations. And finding out exactly how much is down there is central to determining whether Iran remains a nuclear threat.

Katie Polglase, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: An important story. Coming up, we will look ahead to President Trump's visit to China, a new book on the rise of great powers and what it

means for the world.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:00]

SCIUTTO: President Trump will visit Beijing next week. Iran and the ongoing oil crisis expected to be a top issue among many. Earlier, Trump

applauded the Chinese President Xi Jinping saying China had encouraged him to send Chinese oil ships to the U.S. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I have a very good relationship with President Xi. You know, I find him to be a tremendous guy. And we get along

well and you see how we do. We're doing a lot of business with China and make a lot of money.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Joining me now is Arne Westad, history professor at Yale University. His new book, "The Coming Storm: Power, Conflict & Warnings

from History," looks into a precarious state of the world today with a rising number of great powers and middle powers and an increasing

likelihood, in his view, of conflict. Professor Westad, thanks so much for joining.

ARNE WESTAD, AUTHOR, "THE COMING STORM: POWER, CONFLICT & WARNINGS FROM HISTORY" AND HISTORY PROFESSOR, YALE UNIVERSITY: It's good to be with you,

Jim.

SCIUTTO: So, I want to begin because you make the argument repeatedly that neither President Trump nor President Xi seems to understand that temporary

truces, whether that be on trade, tariffs or national security issues, are sufficient for the time, in effect. So, when you look at this summit, a

face-to-face meeting between Xi and Trump, what outcome would you want to see for it to be a significant moment?

WESTAD: So, I think one has to start with trade and technology and narcotics control and all of those issues where it's possible to make some

immediate progress. But beyond that, it's also essential, I think, to deal with the real issues that are strategic and are mainly connected to the

East Asia area. Those are the ones where there is a real risk for an armed conflict between China and the United States.

First and foremost, Taiwan, but also issues relating to Korea and relating to the South China Sea. There are so many potential conflicts in that area

that if you do not get going, talking to the Chinese about these now, I'm afraid that we at some point could run out of time.

SCIUTTO: I want to get to the question about Taiwan as it relates to trade and economic issues. You say that you need these two powers need trade

negotiations, stable, open financial markets, limited restrictions on technological trade. Could Trump, with his focus on making deals, as he

always says, but also on growing the U.S. economy, could he be the leader, the U.S. leader who might be able to bring that kind of relationship about?

WESTAD: At least getting some kind of stability in terms of the overall trade relationship, I think certainly is within reach because it's

something that China at the moment is very much minded to try to get.

[18:45:00]

And it's something that the Trump administration sees as having strategic value, both in domestic terms for the United States, but also in terms of

President Trump's wider foreign policy. So, I think it's definitely within reach.

The problem is, of course, that the two countries have approached these issues, trade and technology, especially in very, very different ways. So,

one has to come up with new kinds of formulas, some of which have been discussed bilaterally before, in order to break through on that kind of

issue. My point is that that's necessary and it would be very good if one could proceed in that direction. But even that would not be enough at this

stage if you want to stay off conflict.

SCIUTTO: You take care in your analysis not to make China 10 feet tall. In effect, you talk about China's domestic problems, weaknesses. It's getting

old, for instance, before it's rich. It's got a major demographic Trump -- crunch. It's got issues with debt and so on. But you also ask the question,

you know, given that some Chinese leaders believe they may be at their peak of their economic influence, that that might then make them more likely to

take a risk now, right, to calculate now is the time. And do you think that that might translate into a decision, for instance, to take military action

against Taiwan?

WESTAD: Under certain circumstances, it could. I mean, this the reason why I go back to the early part of the 20th century to draw some of the

comparisons that I think we have to bear in mind, especially the period before the First World War. It wasn't true planning or some kind of

immediate action that that disaster happened. It was because a world class crisis came along that we were not able to hold back from engaging in.

And that's my fear, maybe especially with the Chinese leadership. But for that matter, also with the U.S. administration at the moment, that there

could be some kind of black swan event, a terrorist action, something that we do not see at the moment that could complicate things to a point that it

would be really hard for either of the two sides to pull back.

So, this my big worry. And this the reason why I'm saying in the book, Jim, that we need to think about how we are going to deal with some of these

critical issues before we get into that kind of moment.

SCIUTTO: Yes. The book is riven with reminders of that kind of march momentum towards war in 1914. And it's scary, right? Because you see -- I

mean, this your point, right? You see many of those pressures today and you have a rising power in China, much like Germany was in that time period, an

existing power today like the U.S., much like the U.K. was at that time.

Do you see any leaders today who are conscious of that momentum and conscious of those circumstances and taking steps now to avoid the worst

outcomes?

WESTAD: So, I usually say, Jim, that this not a book that you should read late at night unless you have some strong drink next to you or something

that you could use to be calmed down by. It is a book that stresses, that it's very hard to see at the moment that there are leaders who are willing

and interested enough in going to the extent that is necessary in order to try to deal with these issues.

I think we have leaders in all of the main great powers who are very limited in terms of the strategic insights, in terms of how they think, not

just about their own country's future, but about what the strategic aims and broader motivations of other countries are.

And again, this reminds me very much of the situation that we had 100 years ago. It was not that someone really wanted to go to war, it was the

inability to understand the direction that the international situation was going in with conflicts and wars breaking up all over the place, just like

we're seeing today and being able to hold back when there was a crisis that could be seen as threatening one's own wider national interest.

SCIUTTO: Yes. I mean, as I observe, I feel like you have leaders who can't remember the lessons of history from 10 or 20 years ago, let alone 110

years ago. But before we go, you have said that Europe missed an opportunity to better integrate Russia after the collapse of the Soviet

Union in 1991.

Given Russia's posture since then, territorial aggression in Europe, launching the bloodiest war in Europe since World War II, is it too late

for such an approach? Because, as you know, you have some in Trump's orbit who say, hey, we could turn this all around. We could be best friends with

Russia, reverse Nixon, et cetera. Is that possible today?

WESTAD: I think it's much too late for that kind of approach now. Putin is set in his ways and those ways are connected to emphasizing Russia as the

main power in Europe. I mean, that's what Putin wants to achieve. There were mistakes made back in the 1990s. They didn't produce Putin. They

didn't produce the direction that Russian policy is going now.

[18:50:00]

It's very clear to me that Russia needs to move in a direction of some limited cooperation, unlimited compromise with other countries, first and

foremost the main European countries, if it's possible to turn this around. This is not one of those situations where you can simply will a new kind of

framework into being. And I hope that the U.S. administration also will realize that that is the case.

Because one of the other mistakes that we made some time ago, as you would know, is that there were all of these fanciful ideas about what could be

achieved with other powers that turned out to be entirely impossible. And that by itself increased tension and the risk.

SCIUTTO: Professor Arne Westad, the book is "The Coming Storm: "Power, Conflict & Warnings from History." Thanks so much for joining.

WESTAD: Really good to talk to you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Still to come on "The Brief," who is reaching the Champions League final? Highlights from the semi-final match between Arsenal and

Madrid just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Arsenal now heading to their first Champions League final since back in 2006. This after a semifinal second leg against Atletico Madrid at

London's Emirates Stadium. Patrick Snell has been following. Seemed like quite a match, Patrick.

PATRICK SNELL, CNN WORLD SPORT: Hi there, Jim. Yes, absolute delight in the end for Arsenal fans. It was very, very close though, I will say.

Atletico Madrid gave as good as they got and it was just the one goal that decided this one.

Let's take you to the action and see how this match was won in North London on Tuesday night. It was 1-1 after the first leg and that is the clinching

goal. The goal that decided this tie. It's a really good initial effort from Leandro Trossard there. The goal, he does make the save. He can't hold

on to it though. And Bukayo Saka, the young Englishman turning it into the net.

And look at these celebrations, Jim, for Arsenal. They are through the team that could be about to win the Premier League title as well. They are

through to the Champions League final for the first time in 20 years. They lost the 2006 final in heartbreaking fashion from their point of view to

Barcelona. So, they will feel they have unfinished business from two decades ago.

A terrific night. You can see the emotion of the players there. They are loving the moment and their head coach there is Mikel Arteta, the Spaniard,

who is overseeing this terrific group of players. Let's hear now from the goal scorer, the match winner himself for Bukayo Saka.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUKAYO SAKA: Hey, you are taking me away from the celebrations, man. It's so beautiful. You will have to see what it means to us, what it means to

the fans. We are all so happy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SNELL: I mentioned Arsenal could be in line, Jim, for a historic double as well. They are clear now, well clear of Manchester City in the race for the

Premier League title. They haven't won that in 22 years. Their last triumph in the Premier League was 2004.

[18:55:00]

So, there's confirmation then of their 1-nil victory on the night. 2-1 on aggregate. So, the big question now is who do they play in the final? Well,

it will be either Bayern Munich and Paris Saint-Germain. These two served up nine goals, seven different scorers in the first leg in the French

capital in the Parc des Princes.

So, what should we expect on Wednesday night at the Allianz Arena? Who knows? I tell you what, though, I do like the look of FC Bayern Munich,

Jim. They're on home soil. They're very imposing Allianz Arena where they're formidable at the best of times. There's so much on the line. The

German giants looking to become champions of Europe for a seventh time. PSG are trying to make it back-to-back triumphs. They won last year. They're

the defending champions.

But when you have a guy, there he is, Harry Kane, the English -- prolific English striker, 52 goals already this season. Bayern Munich have scored

116 in total this season. So, they are very, very good. They're a free- scoring side.

But look, PSG oozing quality as well with Ousmane Dembele. They've got Kvara as well. They've got Desire Doue, the magnificent 20-year-old. So,

it's going to be a terrific second leg. Dare I pick a winner? No. Back to you.

SCIUTTO: Patrick Snell, thanks so much. And thanks so much to all of you for joining. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. You've been watching "The

Brief." Please do stay with CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:00:00]

END