Return to Transcripts main page
The Brief with Jim Sciutto
CNN International: Trump Returns To U.S. After Three Days In China; Trump: "Lot Of Different Problems" Settled On China Trip; Sources: U.S. Working To Indict Former Cuban President; Israeli Source: Top Hamas Military Leader Killed In Gaza; Trump: China Will Buy Millions Of Dollars Of U.S. Soybeans; Trump Weighing Lifting Sanction On Chinese Companies Buying Iranian Oil. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired May 15, 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]
ZAIN ASHER, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello and welcome to our viewers joining us from all around the world, I'm Zain Asher in New York. Jim
Sciutto is off today. You are watching "The Brief."
Just ahead this hour, Donald Trump says that he and Xi Jinping discussed U.S. arms sales to Taiwan but adds that American policy has not changed.
Sources tell CNN that the U.S. Justice Department is looking to indict former Cuban President Raul Castro, and auditions for the next James Bond
are officially underway. We begin with U.S. President Donald Trump's visit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping.
No major agreements came out of this meeting. China did not agree to help broker a U.S.-Iran peace deal, while Trump says he made no commitment on
Taiwan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: And on Taiwan, he doesn't want to see a movement for independence. He says, look, you know, we've had it for
thousands of years, and then, at a certain period of time, it left, and then we're going to get it back. On Taiwan, he feels very strong. I made no
commitment either way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: That hasn't stopped Trump from claiming the two countries settled a lot of different problems. While nothing firm was put to paper, the two
leaders do seem to leave with a warmer relationship. Xi has accepted Trump's invitation to visit the United States in the fall.
Alayna Treene joins us live now from the White House. The two men did have a lot to discuss this time around, but nothing specific or concrete came
out of it in terms of agreements. There were no deliverables. Alayna, was that to be expected? Walk us through that.
ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, I think what was interesting is the amount of preparation, or perhaps even lack thereof, for
this trip. And I mean that in the sense of typically when you see -- and this is especially something I've taken notice with this president,
President Trump, during his second term, when he goes on a foreign trip of this magnitude, typically they have brokered on the front end, you know, a
lot of these big deals for him to kind of take a victory lap around while he's there.
That didn't really happen this time, even though, as you mentioned, there were a lot of notable things that we know were expected to be discussed.
That includes, you mentioned it, the Iran War and Taiwan. But on the deal side, I mean something around A.I. chips or rare earth minerals and some
economic deals.
Now, there were some of those, I should note. You know, President Trump said that Xi did agree to order 200 Boeing jets and also to invest hundreds
of billions of dollars in U.S. tech firms. But by and large, we didn't really see this major announcement. So, that was interesting in itself.
I think a lot of this was really -- ended up being about optics and hearing the two leaders talk in very positive ways about the relationship that
Washington and Beijing share at this moment and really looking ahead, even as there were some thorny issues, of course, we know, that did dominate a
lot of these bilateral meetings.
Again, Taiwan, I mean, that has been a longstanding dispute between the United States and China, as you played in that clip, you know, the
president trying to be noncommittal, saying that, you know, he was going to make a decision regarding a U.S. arms deal to Taiwan, something I should
note was actually approved by Congress for $14 billion back in January, but still trying to maintain a bit of that ambiguity that we know has been
longstanding U.S. policy.
On the Iran War, that was really, to me, going to be the biggest question around this trip, whether or not, one, we would see President Trump and his
advisers try to convince Xi to intervene in a certain way, just given the alliance, the strong alliance between China and Iran, China is one of
Iran's biggest consumers of oil, and see if he could help kind of convince the Iranians to come to the negotiating table in a more significant and
meaningful way to try and reach a compromise. It does appear, as the president is set to land shortly back in Washington, Zain, that that didn't
happen.
[18:05:00]
And so, what that means about the war moving forward, I mean, there's still so many questions now, really not a lot of significant movement there,
either. And so, to wrap it all up, really, I agree with what you were saying, that we didn't see a lot of those big movements, these big
breakthroughs that I think perhaps some people were waiting and watching for.
ASHER: Yes. And just also curious, from the Beijing side, was this visit a success for Xi Jinping? I mean, you mentioned Taiwan coming up, and Xi made
his red lines on Taiwan very, very clear. And Trump, of course, was noncommittal, as you would expect, because he didn't want to be backed into
any kind of corner. So, from Beijing's side, was this visit a success or not?
TREENE: Well, I think to have kind of the red carpet rolled out the way that they did it, you know, and have -- I mean, one, they rolled it out for
the president, but to also see the president treating Xi with such a level of respect, with saying wonderful things about him, that he's a great man,
that he's a strong leader, that he wants to have a good relationship with him for years to come, I think all of that, of course, is what China was
hoping to get out of this, to see the United States and have President Trump himself kind of embrace China in that way.
And notable, too, I mean, this was the first visit from a U.S. president to China in 10 years. And so, this was a huge moment, I think, for Beijing as
well. And the fact that you didn't see any of these tense moments, you know, particularly given the history that these two men have shared -- I'd
remind you that during the president's first term, I mean, you constantly were hearing him talk poorly about China, criticizing them, really, you
know, trying to make China the centerpiece of a lot of their foreign policy, to see it come to this point, where President Trump is treating him
like an equal, allowing him to kind of show off his prowess as a foreign leader on this world stage, I think is only a benefit in that sense.
But similarly, I will argue, a lot of this, again, was about optics. From what we saw, it was about optics and not deliverables. At the same time,
you know, we didn't see President Trump coming back to the U.S. with a lot to tout. You're not really seeing that for the Chinese either.
ASHER: All right. Alayna Treene, live for us. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. All right. Sources tell CNN the U.S. Justice Department is working to
secure criminal charges against former Cuban President Raul Castro. The scope of the investigation is unclear, but prosecutors are looking into
possible charges related to the downing of two planes in 1996, which killed three Americans. If approved by a grand jury, the indictment could be
announced next week. It comes as a U.S. official says the Cuban government is in talks to accept $100 million in American aid.
The CIA director met officials in Havana on Thursday. The U.S. says that aid offer is contingent on the Cuban government making meaningful reforms.
The country is facing a dire energy and economic crisis because of the U.S. blockade on oil. It's led to a fuel-starved nation. You have Cubans
protesting in the streets.
Evan Perez is joining us more on all of this. So, just talk to us about these charges that the U.S. is preparing to file against the brother of
Fidel Castro, Raul Castro, and, of course, the former president of Cuba himself, Raul Castro, who took over obviously from his brother, and just
how the U.S. is really trying to squeeze Cuba both economically and apparently politically as well.
EVEN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR U.S. JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Raul Castro, Zain, is 95 years old -- or about to be 95 years old. And so, it's not clear that
this is really about bringing him to charges here in the United States as much as it is about another way that the U.S. government is trying to put
pressure on the Cuban government. We know, for instance, that the Justice Department and the U.S. attorney down in Miami has had a working group of
prosecutors that have been looking at possible charges against a number of Cuban leaders, not only Raul Castro.
So, this may only be the beginning of the additional pressure points that we might see from the Trump administration and from the Justice Department.
But for what we -- what we're anticipating to happen as soon as next week, perhaps Wednesday, which is the day that Cuba celebrates its independence,
is you're going to -- we're expecting that the Justice Department is going to try to seek these charges against Raul Castro.
Now, these -- we don't know exactly what charges they're going to be, but one of the things that we know that they've been investigating and one of
the things that they've been looking to do is to bring charges related to the shootdown of the Brothers to the Rescue plane. Brothers to the Rescue,
of course, is a Cuban-American exile group that was active during the 1990s. They flew aircraft very close to Cuban airspace, and they would let
go of leaflets that would land inside Havana. It was an irritant, of course, to the Cuban government.
[18:10:00]
And in the end, they shot down these planes. Four people were killed. Four men were killed. Three of them were American citizens. And that is the
jurisdiction that the U.S. is using to perhaps bring charges against Raul Castro.
Again, we're going to learn a lot more about this in the coming days. But a lot of this is more symbolic, right? And a lot of it is about pressure that
the U.S. government is trying to do. They've -- of course, as you pointed out, they have an essential blockade on oil shipments to Cuba after the
removal of Maduro from Venezuela. Venezuela no longer is the main supplier of oil to Cuba, which is what has caused the worsening of the Cuban
economic crisis and, of course, these blackouts that we've seen there that are almost daily.
So, again, we expect that we're going to learn a lot more in the coming days about these possible charges. And part of this is also this idea that
the Cuban-American lawmakers, Republicans, of course, who have a very good relationship with the president, a lot of influence of President Trump,
have been pushing for this.
One of the things they've cited is recordings that are said to show, perhaps, that Raul Castro himself ordered the shootdown of those Brothers
to the Rescue aircraft in international airspace outside of Cuba, again, back in 1996. Again, we're going to hear a lot more about this in the
coming days, especially because, again, Cuba marks its independence on Wednesday, and we may be able to -- we might see those charges exactly
then. Zain.
PEREZ: All right. Evan Perez, live for us there. Thank you so much. For more on all this, I'm joined by Ivo Daalder, former U.S. ambassador to NATO
and now a senior fellow at Harvard's Belfast Center. Ivo, thank you so much for being with us.
I mean, obviously, we've had sort of vague rumblings about the fact that the U.S. wants Cuba to distance itself from Beijing and Moscow, but is it
fully clear to you at this point in time what exactly the U.S. wants from Cuba specifically?
IVO DAALDER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO AND SENIOR FELLOW, HARVARD UNIVERSITY'S BELFER CENTER: Well, I guess what it wants is something that
Americans have been wanting since 1959, which is to end the Cuban revolution, to enable the people of Cuba to choose their own government,
and for Cubans who have fled over the many years to the United States to return home, or at least to have that option to return home. That's never
been a question. The question has always been, how do you affect that?
Back in the 1960s, we tried it by trying to assassinate Fidel Castro. We even supported an uprising and a direct invasion back in the Bay of Pigs.
And since then, we've done it through an economic blockade that in close to 70 years just hasn't had the impact that we had wanted to. The one time we
did change policy was under the Obama administration, particularly in the second term, when tourism and everything else started to open up and things
did change.
But certainly, for the people inside Cuba, where there was an ability to thrive because of the privatization of parts of the economy, that of course
was shut down again by President Trump in his first term. And I guess what we're seeing now is somehow an attempt to squeeze Cuba so hard
economically, perhaps now with the judicial threats hanging over the former leader, the former president's head, in order to get the kind of change
that we have always wanted. Whether this will work any better than any of the others, we will have to wait and see.
ASHER: So, then, what do you make of this particular way that the U.S. is going about it this time around? I mean, everybody predicted that it would
come to this back in January, when the U.S. decided that Venezuela was no longer going to be supplying oil to Cuba and that Mexico couldn't step in
either, that it was just a matter of time. Some people said weeks, maybe months, before fuel completely ran out and the island was brought to its
knees economically. And now, we're seeing blackouts for 20, 22 hours a day in some parts of the island. I mean, obviously, there's a very sort of
uneven distribution of electricity across Cuba.
But the fact that the U.S. went about it this way, effectively punishing indirectly, or directly, the very people, the ordinary people of Cuba who
have suffered economically for so long, they're the ones that are really suffering right now. Your thoughts on this particular way that it's gone
about it?
DAALDER: Yes. I don't think this is the way to do things. I think we have always sought to make a distinction between the government and its people.
And here, we are punishing the people in order to get at the government. Indeed, the president, in the case of Iran, has threatened to vote to
annihilate an entire civilization. Again, focused on the people rather than the government.
[18:15:00]
The people are the victim here. They have been the victim all along from a regime that has not delivered for them, has delivered for themselves, but
really not for the people. And to squeeze not just the leadership, but indeed, to try to make life so miserable for every single person on the
island doesn't strike me as humanitarian. It doesn't strike me as consistent with the kind of values that we espouse. It's probably illegal
under international law.
We have always made distinction about humanitarian aid and non-humanitarian assistance. And, you know, until not that long ago, having energy, being
able to heat your homes or run air conditionings or have lighting or operate factories was pretty fundamental to people's lives. So, I think
this is the kind of activity that is extreme, unnecessary, by the way.
Cuba is much larger in the American imagination than it is in the rest of the world, which likes Cuba for its beaches, is more than willing to come
and visit it, has never understood why we have this kind of embargo. The fact that it has a communist regime is something that we try to change in
very different ways.
By the way, the president just returned from two days visit to a communist regime. Xi Jinping is not just the president of China, but he's also the
head general secretary and the head of the Chinese Communist Party.
So, why for one and what for other? Mainly because we think we have the power to get Cuba to do what we want to do. Well, frankly, we don't have
the power to get China to do what we want it to do.
ASHER: Yes. And speaking of China, I mean, you know, I think the sort of bigger headlines coming out of that meeting is the fact that there were no
major headlines coming out of the meeting. There weren't no major breakthroughs, despite having so many issues on the agenda. You know, in
terms of rare earths, in terms of, of course, the war with Iran, in terms of Taiwan, I mean, when Xi Jinping sort of pressed Trump on Taiwan, Trump
sort of gave a very sort of vague answer, not wanting to back himself into a corner. Understandably, I'm sure he prepared for that.
But of course, Xi Jinping, for his part, didn't want to necessarily be told what to do as it pertained to Iran. What do you make of this meeting and
what deliverables did not come out of it, but what might come out of it in the future?
DAALDER: Well, the way I look at it is the president went and wanted to get some big deals economically, and as far as we can tell, he didn't get them.
He's speaking about 150 to 200 planes that Boeing may have, a contract that Boeing may have gotten. The expectation was for at least 300 or possibly as
many as 500 planes, which is why the stock price for Boeing went down. He didn't get that. It's not clear that he got any of the economic agreements.
But the important thing for China is they got what they wanted. They got the president of the United States to come to the court of Xi Jinping, who
was the emperor sitting there and receiving one of his subjects in many ways. That's what it looked like. It was not just a meeting of two equals,
which in and of itself is pretty remarkable. No U.S. president has gone to China as an equal. Every president who's gone to China up to this point was
clearly the leader not just of the free world, but the leader of the world.
And here, the president of the United States seems to think that it was somehow extraordinary that he has this relationship with what is, in many
ways, a competitor of us and in many ways is an adversary of the United States. So, what Xi Jinping got was the recognition that he mattered. The
other thing he got, which is important, he got this idea that we now have a relationship based on what the Chinese are starting to call constructive
strategic stability.
What he wanted was an extension of the truce, the trade truce, to be left alone to do what he needed to do to continue to change his economy, to
become not just an equal, perhaps a dominant economy, certainly in Asia and perhaps possibly in the world. And that too is something that Xi Jinping
got.
So, I think looking back, the president is frankly coming back empty-handed on issues like Iran and on economic affairs, whereas Xi Jinping is seen by
the Chinese, the most important people for Xi Jinping himself, and by many in the world as the one who has gotten a better deal out of this than the
U.S. president. That is not a good thing for the United States, and frankly, it's not a good thing for world stability.
ASHER: Well, China certainly does hold the cards in many sort of areas, especially as it pertains to Iran and rare earths. But as you point, the
optics, especially as it pertains to the audience that Xi Jinping cares about the most, the Chinese people, that is what mattered to him. And that
may be where he did have the upper hand. Ivo Daalder, live for us. Thank you so much.
DAALDER: My pleasure.
[18:20:00]
ASHER: All right. Israel says it carried out an attack in Gaza targeting Hamas's top military leader. Despite a ceasefire, a senior Israeli security
official says that Izz al-Din al-Haddad was likely killed in the attack. CNN is unable to independently confirm that and has reached out to Hamas
for comment. Doctors in Gaza say at least one woman was killed, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health. Israeli strikes have killed more
than 850 people since the ceasefire went into effect last October.
All right. Coming up on "The Brief," President Trump says that China has made a commitment to buy soybeans from U.S. farmers, though he's offering
very few specifics. The chairman of the American Soybean Association joins us next with his reaction.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ASHER: U.S. stocks retreated from their record highs this week. All three major U.S. indices finished lower while Treasury yields jumped. Crude oil
prices are also on the rise. Investors are reacting to the lack of major announcements from the summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and
Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Chip stocks were also hit hard. Intel down more than 6 percent. NVIDIA lost over 4 percent.
President Trump says that China will be buying billions of dollars of U.S. soybeans without providing any details. His treasury secretary, Scott
Bessent, seemed to contradict him earlier on CNBC. Bessent said that there would be no new purchases of American soybeans, just those agreed to under
last year's agreement.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT BESSENT, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: Soybeans, we have a very large purchase commitment from the Busan agreement for the next three years. So,
beans are really all taken care of. Although, if I were the Chinese, I'd probably buy more beans now because there's a weather pattern called El
Nino that we're probably going to see this year that typically results in very high soybean prices.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: China imported about 15 percent of its soybeans from the U.S. last year, down from 41 percent in 2016. Joining me live now is American Soybean
Association Chairman Caleb Ragland. Caleb, thank you so much for being with us.
I first want to start by talking about how the trade war, especially as it heated up last year, I mean obviously it started in part in 2018, but
really ratcheted up last year. And the U.S. obviously imposing punishing tariffs on China. China then retaliating. And that, of course, hurting
American soybean farmers. How have you been impacted by that?
[18:25:00]
CALEB RAGLAND, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION: Well, the American soybean farmer has really had a difficult last couple years. In 2025, the
average soybean acre lost 100,000 acres. And thousands of family farms across our great country are struggling financially with a combination of
record high input prices and lower commodity prices.
While soybean prices have recovered some, they're more than offset by the increase in our cost of inputs. And we desperately need a change in order
to make a profit and to sustain our farms economically. Because right now, we're in the process of losing many family farms, many young folks not
being able to come back to the farm and continue the family tradition.
And also, we're going to lose many farmers who have farmed for years, but they're losing money and can't stay in business because we have to make a
profit. We have to make a living. And many farms, all they have is the sale of their crops. And when we're losing money, we can't sustain.
ASHER: I mean, it really does underscore how important that relationship between China and the U.S. actually is as it pertains to China importing
American soybeans. I mean, China just cannot meet its own demand. Therefore, it has to rely on the American farmer. That relationship has
changed dramatically.
But talk to us about how much some of the assistance, especially, I believe, in 2018 and 2019, the government began this sort of farm aid
packages to help American farmers. How much has that helped, you know, offset some of the losses that you guys have experienced?
RAGLAND: Anytime the government has to step in and come up with an aid package to help us stay in business, it will help put a Band-Aid on an open
bleeding wound, but it doesn't make us profitable. Anytime farm aid is involved, we're still losing money. It's just shallow losses instead of
deeper losses. And we as farmers want to make money from the market, and we need strong demand for our crops that we grow and our livestock in order to
make a profit. And what we need is a level playing field.
Right now, we're still at a 10 percent disadvantage to our competitors in South America when it comes to the Chinese market due to tariffs that are
in place. We need a level playing field so that we can sell our great soybeans at a competitive price with our competition in South America. And
the message I want to deliver is we need those tariffs to disappear, and we also need to have sales and follow through to those sales.
I'm glad President Trump has been in China advocating for us. What we need now is follow-up. They need to buy our soybeans and actually follow through
on those commitments that they make.
And it was mentioned about how in 2016, 41 percent of the soybeans that went to China were American soybeans and how much that is down now. It used
to be that when you saw a field of U.S. soybeans, every third row went to China. Last year, it was less than one out of four rows, and we've got to
get that market back because China consumes more soybeans than the rest of the world combined.
Think about that for a minute. They have more pigs in China that eat soybeans than the rest of the world combined. We've got to have a part of
that market, and they are such a major market, we can't make up that with lots of little markets that we get a little more of just because they're
such a major player.
So, we've got to find a way to get that business back and to be competitive, and it starts with making those tariffs disappear so we can be
competitive because we have to have an economically competitive price in order for them to purchase from us, ultimately.
ASHER: Of course. I mean, everything you're saying makes sense. And actually, I'm so glad that you brought up the competition that you guys
are, you know, feeling from Latin America because one of the consequences of the trade war between the U.S. and China is that China ended up relying
on -- has now ended up relying more on Brazil to make up for the lost American market. So, they're now relying on Brazilian farmers to sell them
soybeans because relying on the American market is tricky because of tariffs and everything is much more expensive.
And so, even when tariffs go down fully, are you concerned that that market will never come back, that because there's this fear just in terms of not
just instability but the lack of reliability as an economic partner, that the U.S. is not a reliable economic partner, that China has now settled on
Brazil as opposed to the United States?
[18:30:00]
RAGLAND: Well, it's certainly a proven business tactic that we have to be a reliable provider. We have to be somebody that they can count on and that
they find easy to do business with. And that is a combination of a lot of things, but it's much harder to gain a new customer than it is to retain an
old one.
So, we need to take that seriously and make sure we're doing everything we can to be reliable providers and to be trustworthy and easy to do business
with. And that's what they want because, ultimately, they need lots of soybeans. We can provide that need, but we don't need to give an excuse for
them to look other directions for the provider of the soybeans that they need.
Right now, China is investing a lot in infrastructure in South America, and that's very concerning to us because if they're making those long-term
investments, that makes it harder for us to get back there. And the longer that goes on, the harder it is for us. So, it's vital that we do everything
we can right now to regain that business, to prove that we are trustworthy and reliable, and that we can provide them our quality soybeans at a
competitive price, and that we can be reliable again long-term.
ASHER: Caleb Ragland, I'm so sorry for everything that you guys are experiencing, but thank you so much for sharing your perspective. And I
hope that things get better soon for you guys. It sounds like it's been a really, really difficult run over the past couple of years. Thank you.
RAGLAND: Well, thanks for the opportunity, and the American farmer is going to keep producing and just keep counting on us. We're going to do our best.
ASHER: OK. I will, I will. Thank you, Caleb. All right. checking some of the other business headlines today, Jerome Powell finishing his eight-year
term as chair of the Federal Reserve. He steered the U.S. Central Bank through major challenges, including the COVID-19 pandemic, high inflation,
and political pressure from the White House. Kevin Warsh has been confirmed by the Senate to succeed him. Powell says he will stay on the Fed Board of
Governors.
Starbucks is laying off 300 corporate employees in the U.S. as part of its restructuring efforts. The affected teams include marketing, human
resources, and supply chain management. Starbucks is trying to reduce costs under CEO Brian Niccol. Its shares are up more than 25 percent so far this
year.
And Chinese automakers expanded their market share in South Africa to 17 percent. Last year, South Africa's auto industry body says that Chinese
brands offer modern technology, competitive pricing, and long warranties. The market leader is still Toyota in that country, though, with a 25
percent share.
We'll be right back with more after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:35:00]
ASHER: All right. Welcome back to "The Brief." I'm Zain Asher here at the international headlines we are watching today.
Sources are telling CNN that the U.S. Justice Department is working to secure criminal charges against former Cuban President Raul Castro.
Prosecutors are looking into the Cuban military's downing of two planes in 1996, which killed three Americans. If approved by a grand jury, an
indictment against the 94-year-old could be announced next week.
A dangerous effort is underway in the Maldives to find the bodies of four Italian divers who died in a scuba accident. One body has already been
found. Italy's foreign ministry says the five divers apparently died while exploring an undersea cave 50 meters beneath the waves.
U.S. President Donald Trump has now landed back in the United States after a summit with China in Beijing. Few concrete outcomes appear to have come
out of it. Aboard Air Force One, President Trump downplayed tensions with Chinese leader Xi Jinping over U.S. arms sales to Taiwan.
And following his trip to Beijing, President Trump could soon lift sanctions on Chinese companies buying Iranian oil. He says a decision on
the matter will be made in the coming days. CNN has previously reported that China opposes sanctions on Iran's oil. CNN has visited a bridge which
Iranian officials say was destroyed in a U.S. attack. CNN's Matthew Chance is in Tehran right now.
Before we show you his exclusive report, we'd like to note CNN only operates in Iran with government permission, but maintains full editorial
control of what it reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A rare glimpse of the tightly controlled Islamic Republic. We drove out of Tehran,
the bustling but still tense capital, past anti-American slogans daubed along the route, to the town of Karaj and one painful scar left by the
latest US-led war.
When finished, the B1 Bridge was meant to be a symbol of Iranian engineering prowess, the tallest in the region. But for now, it's become a
battered monument to ruthless American air power.
CHANCE: Wow. Well, you really get a sense of the incredible destructive force that was at play with these U.S. airstrikes that smashed this
concrete look and twisted all this reinforced steel. Let's take a look so we can get closer, a bit closer to the edge. I mean, look at the concrete
pylons that have been absolutely shattered.
And down here, I mean, it's a huge drop of 450 feet. This was, as I mentioned, the highest bridge in the Middle East. And there were people
down below who were caught up in this and killed.
CHANCE (voice-over): And the Iranian official who was sent to show us around insisted this targeting of infrastructure and the killing of
innocent civilians was a war crime that should be punished. It's an allegation U.S. officials categorically deny.
CHANCE: The Americans say that this was a legitimate military target, that this bridge would have been used for the transport of drones and missiles,
and therefore it was fair game. How do you answer that?
DR. ALI SAFAR, IRANIAN LOCAL OFFICIAL (through translator): That's a false narrative from President Trump. This bridge hadn't even opened. Not a
single car had driven over. It was built for the use of our people and was just called a military target so it could be bombarded, demolished, and
destroyed.
CHANCE (voice-over): Back in April, Trump posted video of the attack on his Truth Social platform, urging Iran to make a deal before it's too late.
Now, after his state visit to China, there's still no deal, and Trump is raising the issue again amid concerns the fragile ceasefire with Iran could
soon break down.
TRUMP: We haven't knocked out other than one bridge, and we did because they misbehaved, but we have bridges we could knock out. We could knock out
their bridges and their electrical capacity. Within two days, we could knock out the whole thing.
[18:40:00]
CHANCE (voice-over): It's a terrifying possibility, but one that doesn't seem to be giving Iran much pause.
CHANCE: Why is it important for this country to rebuild the bridge now, when there's the possibility that the Americans could strike it again in
the near future? Why now?
DR. SAFAR (through translator): We're not thinking about that. Our focus is on the reconstruction of our bridge. It was designed and built by our
engineers, despite many difficult years of sanctions.
CHANCE (voice-over): And amid growing tensions with the US, Iranian officials insist this symbol of the Islamic Republic will rise again.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ASHER: The final night of the Eurovision Song Contest is coming up tomorrow, but with the competition embroiled in its biggest boycott ever,
there are fewer fans and singers to take part. Details on that story ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ASHER: The Eurovision Song Contest is set to wrap up on Saturday with the grand finale that would normally cap off weeks of joy and fun. But this
year's competition has been mired in politics that have cast a paw over much of the event. Five countries and some fans are boycotting it because
of Israel's participation. Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Iceland have all opted out in protest over Israel's actions in Gaza.
Dean Vuletic is a historian who focuses us on contemporary Europe, specifically the Eurovision contest. He's the author of the book, "Postwar
Europe and the Eurovision Song Contest." Thank you so much for being with us, Dean. And obviously, let's be honest, Eurovision has weathered a lot of
crises in the past. But this one, I mean, I worry that it's not necessarily insurmountable, but it is certainly tricky waters to navigate. You've got
five countries pulling out, and that means a lot less money for the competition itself. So, just walk us through what the consequences of this
will be, you think.
DEAN VULETIC, HISTORIAN AND EXPERT ON EUROVISION SONG CONTEST AND AUTHOR, "POSTWAR EUROPE AND THE EUROVISION SONG CONTEST": Greetings from Vienna,
Zain. So, yes, this is the biggest political boycott of Eurovision by participating national broadcasters. As you mentioned, five of them are not
in Eurovision this year.
[18:45:00]
This does mean that the participation fees that they would normally pay and which help to finance the contest aren't coming in. But we have to wait and
see what the full impact on the contest will be when it comes to its financial aspects.
For now, though, we know that all of the tickets have been sold for the shows. The fans are here. The weather in Vienna, though, is putting a bit
of a downer on festivities. It's a bit chilly and rainy. We have to see tomorrow how much fun there will actually be around the city.
ASHER: I'm sure you are. I can tell by your smile you are so excited, as actually am I, you know. But just in terms of, you know, the political -- I
mean, this competition has now been very sort of politicized. And I've had some analysts who I've interviewed on this issue in the past say that you
can't embrace politicizing Eurovision for one sort of crisis and not for another.
So, for example, obviously, in 2022, Russia was excluded. That year, Ukraine actually won the competition. That was obviously the same year that
Russia launched an invasion of Ukraine. And if politics was going to be embraced that particular year, then it's only fair that politics is
embraced in other years as well. I mean, obviously, you can't have -- you can't sort of have a buffet as to when politics is allowed to interfere in
the competition and when it's not allowed to interfere. What do you make of that argument?
VULETIC: Well, first of all, Eurovision has always reflected politics. It has always reflected the political zeitgeist. But the cases of Russia and
Israel are rather different because when it came to Russia, there were European sanctions against Russia. There have been no such sanctions
against Israel. So, really, the divisions in the European Broadcasting Union over Israel's participation in Eurovision reflect these divisions
also among European governments as to how they should redefine relations with Israel.
ASHER: For the countries that have boycotted it, the five countries that I mentioned, what do they actually want? I mean, what would it take for them
to participate in the competition again? I mean, I'm sure it's all different depending on the country, but just walk us through what you what
you actually know in terms of each specific country.
VULETIC: Well, yes, they have very different opinions on this issue. First of all, many are concerned about Israel's actions during the Gaza war.
They're also concerned about the limitations on media freedom during the Gaza war and the deaths of journalists. And another concern is the role of
the Israeli broadcaster in Israel, its connections with the government. But it's here that the European Broadcasting Union really defends the Israeli
broadcaster, Kan.
It sees its role as defending independent public service media in Israel. And Kan has been threatened in that regard by the Netanyahu government.
Just in recent days, the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, debated a bill, its finance committee debated a bill that would see the budget of Kan
brought under government control, which would threaten the independence of Kan and compromise its position in the European Broadcasting Union. And
that means its participation in Eurovision.
So, there are different issues here, international politics, military campaigns, and also internal politics in Israel.
ASHER: All right. Dean Vuletic, I'm sure you are -- it sounds like you're hugely excited. You can't wait. I mean, it obviously happens once a year
and people across Europe are really excited. Just quickly before you go, one word answer. Who are you most excited to watch perform tomorrow?
VULETIC: I'm excited to watch the whole show.
ASHER: OK.
VULETIC: I mean, there is so many wonderful performances, so many things to look out for. Finland is the big favorite. Look out for Linda Lampenius,
who performs in the Finnish duo. She's a world-famous violinist, and she'll be playing her violin. And watch out for Australia. Delta Goodrem delivers
a stunning performance at the end. She rises above a sparkling gold piano on a platform. Look out also for a wedding dress that turns into a flag.
Dare I say that that comes from Italy? I don't want to be --
ASHER: That is so Eurovision, isn't it? A wedding dress that turns into a flag. Listen, I'm going to be killed by my producers right now, because we
have to go. But, Dean, thank you so much. Thank you so much.
VULETIC: Thank you.
ASHER: I'll be watching.
VULETIC: Enjoy the show. Thank you.
ASHER: Of course. All right. from Sean Connery to Daniel Craig, "James Bond" has been a part of movie history for six decades. Now, the search is
on for the actor who will carry Britain's most famous secret agent into the future. Details ahead.
[18:50:00]
ASHER: All right. Super spy James Bond has been a worldwide box office draw for six decades. Now, the hunt is on for the next 007. Amazon MGM Studios
say that auditions are underway for the next installment of the blockbuster franchise. The studio has no plans to provide more details about its search
for the right man, or woman, maybe, to take over Daniel Craig. It says fans will find out as soon as the time is right.
I'm joined live now by entertainment journalist Segun Oduolowu. Thank you so much for being with us, Shagun. So, just in terms of who the next James
Bond would be, I mean obviously your guess is as good as mine, but how do you think whoever this person is, is going to reflect the times that we're
in?
SEGUN ODUOLOWU, ENTERTAINMENT JOURNALIST: Well, Zain, thank you for having me. It's a great question because there are rules to playing James Bond.
And what the new studio, Amazon and MGM, the new director, Denis Villeneuve, and the new writer, Steven Knight, they are seeing a darker,
grittier type of bond, and they want a young audience. And that's leading us to actors like Callum Turner, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Harris Dickinson,
and dark horse Australian Jacob Elordi, who everyone is loving because he's in his glow up, whether it's on "Euphoria" or "Saltburn."
These actors fit some of what the studio wants, the director wants, the writer wants, and even the casting director, because you can't talk about
James Bond without speaking about a powerful woman, and Nina Gold is the casting director. You must remember Nina Gold's name because she is famous
for casting relatively unknowns and knocking them out of the park into stardom. She cast all the seasons of "Game of Thrones," which gave us Kit
Harington, and we fell in love with the different characters from "Game of Thrones" that we never knew about. They want to do the same thing here with
James Bond.
That might make Jacob Elordi a dark horse because we know him too well. That might make Aaron Taylor-Johnson a dark horse because he's been in
blockbusters. There's also the commitment of time. Daniel Craig played James Bond for 15 years. So, any of these actors that are being considered
have to be able to commit to 10 to maybe 20 years to do this next series of James Bond films. It's a big commitment if you're trying to do other Oscar-
worthy type of movies. So, a lot of rules in there. I hope the audience was able to digest that.
ASHER: Wow. You're really passionate about it. I love it. So, just in terms of what makes a great James Bond, because there's been so many over the
years. There's been Roger Moore. There's been Sean Connery. Obviously, a lot of people love Sean. I mean, he had a lot of swagger, Sean Connery.
[18:55:00]
But there have been ones that -- you know, George Lazenby wasn't necessarily, you know, one of the sort of most famous, I guess. I think it
was really Roger Moore. At least when I was growing up, Roger Moore and Sean Connery. What makes a great James Bond?
ODUOLOWU: So, you're right that -- Roger Moore is my favorite, because Roger Moore added some comedy and some humor and a little bit of camp.
Plus, I think "Live and Let Die" is an all-time classic. But by bringing up Lazenby, it's interesting. He's the only Australian to ever play James
Bond, which would make Jacob Elordi an interesting choice. Lazenby only did one movie and famously had a falling out with the powers that be that
controlled James Bond. You need him to be rugged, right? Sean Connery was rugged and Irish and a former boxer and a truck driver. Even Pierce
Brosnan, there was this suave cool.
But when you get to Daniel Craig, you know, as many people will remember, they didn't think he could do it. I remember talking about James Bond, not
James Blonde, because he didn't have the dark hair that everyone associated with James Bond. You want the physicality. And I think this next wave of
James Bond films will demand it.
And all of the actors I've mentioned are fit. They're in shape. They can do the fighting. And who knows how they like their martinis, but they look
like they can handle a drink.
ASHER: Do you know that the way George Lazenby got that role is that he was sitting next to the producer, Albert Broccoli, and they were having a
haircut together. And Broccoli was like, you know what, this man could be James Bond. I kid you not. It was literally from one moment to the next, he
was catapulted into stardom. But, Segun, that was a great conversation. Thank you so much for that.
And thank you all at home for watching. I'm Zain Asher in New York. You've been watching "The Brief." Stay with CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:00:00]
END
