Return to Transcripts main page
The Brief with Jim Sciutto
CNN International: U.S. Reports Strikes on Iran After Downing of Helicopter; Crew Reported Safe After U.S. Chopper Goes Down Off Oman; Sources: Trump Told Netanyahu to Hold Off on Iran Attack; N. Korean Media: Xi and Kim Agree to Expanded Cooperation; Plan to Quarantine Americans in Kenya Sparks Protests. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired June 09, 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]
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR, "THE BRIEF": I'm Jim Sciutto, live in Washington. We begin in the Middle East with breaking news.
The U.S. military said it has launched new strikes against Iran in response to the downing of a U.S. attack helicopter. It's the latest sign an already
rocky ceasefire may be crumbling. That Apache helicopter went down off the coast of Oman on Monday. President Donald Trump said earlier Iran had shot
it down and said that the U.S. must respond. The two crew on board were rescued. For its part, Iran has not fully confirmed or denied that it
struck the helicopter.
The speaker of Iran's parliament said, quote, "We prefer the language of diplomacy, but we speak other languages far more fluently."
Joining me now, Kristen Holmes at the White House, Fred Pleitgen, who is live in Tehran. Kristen, I want to begin with you because a U.S. official
is telling CNN, these new strikes are intended as a warning shot, but the hope is they will not derail negotiations. Can you explain the president's
thinking here? He wants this to be a symbolic response?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: The White House and President Trump believe that they had to respond because of the downing of
an Apache helicopter. This was the first time one of these aircrafts had gone down, it was at the hands of an Iranian drone. They still haven't
confirmed whether or not it was intentional, although given this statement that we saw from Central Command, CENTCOM, on X, it does certainly seem as
though they believe there was at least some intention behind it.
I do want to give you some of what they say in this statement about the ongoing strikes. As you noted, they are telling us separately and privately
that this is meant as a warning shot, but what they said specifically was that this was in response to yesterday's downing of a U.S. Army Apache
helicopter, and they categorized these as self-defense strikes. They also noted that this response was a proportional response to unjustified Iranian
aggression. That's the part in which it seems as though they're indicating there was at least some intention behind the shooting down of this Apache
helicopter.
Now, what we were told was that President Trump believed, and this is what he had posted also publicly, that out of necessity, the United States had
to give some kind of response to essentially not let them get away with this, but that they kept this incredibly targeted.
President Trump has been unwilling to launch any kind of massive military operation in the last two months, given the ceasefire. He has been looking
for any kind of diplomatic off-ramp, although sources telling us that eventually Iran went too far with this downing of the Apache helicopter,
and thus, President Trump responding. As you noted, they're still hoping and believe that this is not going to impact any of those ongoing
negotiations, but that President Trump had to send a message.
SCIUTTO: Kristen, stand by. I want to go to Fred Pleitgen in Tehran. Fred, do you have a sense yet of the extent of these strikes, but also how the
Iranian government is responding?
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Jim. Well, obviously, this is all still very fresh and ongoing, it appears right
now, also from that statement from CENTCOM saying that all this started around 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
What we are hearing is that apparently there are some explosions that have been heard in some areas in the area of the Strait of Hormuz, some coastal
areas, also some areas on some islands around the Strait of Hormuz, like, for instance, Qeshm Island, which directly borders the Strait of Hormuz,
but then also Bandar Abbas, which of course is one of the main ports there in the Strait of Hormuz, and also, of course, one that's used by the
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as well.
As far as reactions are concerned, to the actual U.S. strikes, not so far. But what we have heard is from Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, who
essentially is saying that if a U.S. helicopter, if a U.S. aircraft was hit by an Iranian drone, the Iranians say that that would have been an
accident, that they did not mean to down a U.S. aircraft or hit a U.S. aircraft. Essentially, what he said is that if foreign forces fly around
near the borders of Iran that they are subject to, or that they could encounter, as he puts it, accidents, there could be errors of their own, or
they could be caught in crossfire, as he put it.
And one of the interesting things that we gleaned also from that statement from the foreign minister is he said almost exactly the same thing that you
had just pointed out from the chief negotiator from the Iranians, Mohammad- Bagher Ghalibaf. He also said that the Iranians say that they prefer diplomacy, but they also speak other languages, as he put it, as well.
[18:05:00]
The Iranians, Jim, in the past couple of days have been very strongly indicating that if they are attacked, if there's strikes, then their
response would be very harsh. That's something that they believe that they demonstrated on Sunday and Monday with those strikes trying to target areas
in Israel and with the response to that. And certainly, something where they say that in the future, their response will not necessarily be limited
if their territory is structured.
SCIUTTO: So, Kristen, the president is still presenting a hopeful outlook as to the prospect for further negotiations and even a deal. He keeps
saying within the next few days, as you've been well aware and have been reporting, but if a ceasefire can't even hold up, because let's be frank,
the fire has not ceased, right, and this was a shot that took down a helicopter with two pilots on board, is the White House still maintaining
that sense of optimism?
HOLMES: Jim, it's unclear about this two- to three-day timeline. I mean, President Trump did say that before we had details of this helicopter that
had been shot down. So, everything could have shifted since then, but they are still maintaining some kind of cautious optimism.
Just the idea that they're saying that they don't believe these strikes are going to impact any kind of negotiations, that they're essentially sending
a signal back that this was a warning shot, shows that they are still trying to find that diplomatic off-ramp. They are not trying to make this
into a major military escalation.
Now, President Trump, again, this two- to three-day timeline, it seems unlikely, given what we are seeing right now, but the White House has not
walked it back in any way. We have heard President Trump kind of speculate about this shorter timeline before, only to have it be more drawn out over
the last two months, since the ceasefire actually went into effect. We still, of course, have no peace deal. But behind the scenes, they were
still cautiously optimistic. Unclear on that timeline, though.
SCIUTTO: Kristen, thank you so much. I do want to take a moment now because my colleague, Zachary Cohen, is going to join us because he has
some new reporting on these U.S. strikes against Iran. Zach, what do you know?
ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, Jim, we are learning a little bit more about the nature of this operation being carried
out by U.S. Central Command, which, as of a few minutes ago, a U.S. official told me was ongoing. We're learning that the U.S. forces are
striking broadly the islands and coastal sites, military sites at those two locations, like what Fred was describing, the sounds of explosions that he
was hearing from the ground in Iran.
And while a U.S. official also telling our Alayna Treene that these strikes were contained, me and our colleague, Natasha Bertrand, are being told that
this is not expected to be the only wave of strikes, that we could see additional waves carried out here over the next several hours.
So, while contained, still intended to send that warning shot, that message to Iran in response to that downed Apache helicopter. And also, while
limited in scope, it does appear that the U.S. military is hitting several different locations, all of a military nature.
SCIUTTO: Zach, thanks so much. I want to go back to Fred Pleitgen, who is in Tehran. And Fred, you've been speaking to Iranian officials for their
description of the status of negotiations. Is it your impression you hit harder to bring them to the table? Is it your impression from speaking to
Iranian officials that that pressure works, or that Iran feels it's resisting?
PLEITGEN: Well, one of the things that the Iranians say again and again is that pressure is not going to move things forward at all. That's something
that they've said from the beginning. And I think it's something that they believe that they've shown, certainly since the U.S. and Israel attacked
Iran at the end of February, they said, look, they stood firm. They showed until the end that they were able to fire back, and they still have that
chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz as well.
So, essentially, the Iranians are saying pressure is not going to move anything forward at all. One of the things that we have noticed here on the
ground, though, over the past couple of days, that the Iranians do say that if they see goodwill, real goodwill, as they put it, from the Trump
administration, see signs of the Trump administration trying to build trust with the Iranians, that then they are very much up for a diplomatic
solution. There are certainly still some sticking points, and they keep saying that again and again.
The Iranians are saying that their frozen assets certainly are among the biggest of those. They want those frozen assets to be released as fast as
possible. And then at the same time, of course, they're also saying that specifically the area of the Strait of Hormuz, so what we're talking about
right now, where the strikes are happening, the Strait of Hormuz, they say, is not going to go back to the status that it was before the U.S. and
Israel launched their war against Iran. They say that Iran is going to retain a certain amount of control over the Strait of Hormuz.
And at the same time, they also say, though, that there is not going to be a tolling system. They seem to definitely have come away from that.
[18:10:00]
But they do say that there certainly most probably are going to be some sort of administrative or environmental fees that could be charged. But
certainly, the Iranians are saying right now they are going to maintain that degree of control of the Strait of Hormuz.
SCIUTTO: Yes, which at times the U.S. president has said was a red line. We'll see if there's a resolution to that. Thanks so much to Fred Pleitgen
in Tehran, also Zach Cohen, and of course, Kristen Holmes at the White House.
Joining me now is Senator Peter Welch of Vermont. He is one of 35 Democratic lawmakers who's demanded President Trump provide legal
justification for the U.S. military force against Iran. Senator, it's good to have you on as the shooting is back on between the U.S. and Iran, as it
has been for several days. Is this a ceasefire in name only at this point?
SEN. PETER WELCH, (D-VT): Yes, we're at war, and we have been for months. And there's no surprise that hostilities are resuming. So, what you have is
a situation where the president made a decision, unilateral decision, to use military means to try to achieve his goals. And the goals were getting
rid of the nuclear program, getting rid of the missile program, and also regime change. And all three of those have failed.
So, he used military as opposed to containment as a strategy, and he's back on his hind legs, really, trying to salvage a situation where he's
continuing to flail. And it does not look good.
SCIUTTO: From a legal constitutional standpoint, you, of course, are among many Democratic lawmakers and a handful of Republicans who've said that the
president needs to go to Congress now, in particular, since you passed this 60-day deadline since the start of hostilities. Where does this leave that
effort?
WELCH: Well, frankly, unless we get Republican support to assert congressional authority over war-making, it won't go anywhere. We need the
votes and we need Republican colleagues. But aside from the legal question, there's the policy question. I mean, is this policy that the president is
pursuing in a half-baked way working? And it's really failing.
And these so-called negotiations are really all about him trying to get a face-saving way where he can, quote, "declare victory." But it'll be
victory where there's another ayatollah, the nuclear material is there, where the state restraint of Hormuz is not open like it was before the
president struck.
SCIUTTO: Do you -- when you speak to colleagues on the Hill, Republican, Democrat and Republican, but also to diplomats, other officials in the
region, is it their impression that the U.S. is losing this war?
WELCH: It is. And in fact, that's true. I mean, take what it is that the president said were his objectives. Those three things I mentioned. He said
it would be over just like Venezuela. I mean, we're months into this. And what has happened is it's escalated. Thousands of Iranians have been
killed. All their leadership was killed and they've got new leaders with the same ideology. But also, now, you have Netanyahu spreading the war in a
very massive way in Lebanon. So, it's eroding support from our Mideast allies.
And it's out -- it's really out of Trump's hands. He flails about, he makes statements, he claims that we've got a deal. And each day when you say,
what is the deal? Same old place.
SCIUTTO: There has been even public tension between the U.S. and Israel in recent days and between Trump and the Israeli prime minister. Now, it does
seem that Trump in the last 24 hours held Israel back from even further, more expansive attacks inside Lebanon. But let's be frank, the strikes in
Lebanon have continued. Do you see Israel as potentially defying the U.S. as it goes forward?
WELCH: Yes, I do. I mean, we've -- of course, the U.S. has been the staunchest ally of Israel. But when you look at how this war started, it
was Netanyahu himself, never in the history of our country has this happened, in the situation room with the president. He was arguing for this
war and said it would be over quickly. Some of Trump's officials said that was a pipe dream, OK? Now, we have a situation where the president clearly
prefers a negotiated resolution. And you have a situation where Netanyahu clearly prefers to prolong the war.
So, they really have different policy objectives here. And how much Trump can control Netanyahu remains to be seen. But clearly, the Netanyahu
objective is more war, both in Iran and certainly in Lebanon, versus the desire of Trump, elusive as it may be, to get a negotiated resolution.
SCIUTTO: Senator Welch, just as we've been speaking, a colleague has handed me this latest bulletin, and that is that Iran is now launching
missiles and drones towards U.S. targets in the region. So, that's retaliation for retaliation. I mean, you know how these cycles go here.
[18:15:00]
What does this tell you about the state of this war and U.S. control over further escalation?
WELCH: We gave up control once the bombs from the B-1s did their damage. And what Iran decided to do was an asymmetric response, which a weaker
power frequently will do, to close the Strait of Hormuz. And what the president finds himself is in a defensive position, frankly, where
everything he's saying is about trying to maintain a public relations claim that he's in charge and he's victorious. And he's got this additional
problem of Netanyahu having conflicting objectives from what is in the United States' interest, even as defined by President Trump. It's a very
dangerous situation, very unstable, and it could go on a very long time.
SCIUTTO: Senator Peter Welch, we do appreciate you joining, particularly in the midst of the breaking news.
WELCH: Yes, thank you.
SCIUTTO: And we will be right back with more on this breaking news story, the U.S. and Iran again exchanging military strikes in the region. Please
do stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Returning now to our top story, the breaking news. The U.S. is carrying out military strikes on Iran after an Iranian drone struck and
downed a U.S. military helicopter. Earlier, President Trump had promised retaliation. Now, Iran's Revolutionary Guard says it is launching its own
attacks towards U.S. targets in the region, including via missiles and drones.
Joining me now, CNN military analyst, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton on the telephone. Colonel, you've been covering this war quite
closely from the start and in your job in the military and since have covered multiple military conflicts. Does this look like a ceasefire to
you?
COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: No, Jim, it certainly doesn't. And when you look at all the different aspects here, this is very
much the same type of effort that you get in an escalation. So, I think we're approaching the so-called escalation ladder and we're going up the
rungs very quickly here if we're not careful. And that is going to create some real problems, I think, for not only the forces that are in the
region, but also our force posture in general.
[18:20:00]
So, it's, yes, we're definitely getting into this very quickly. And the Iranians, obviously, at the moment are responding to the U.S. strikes, the
retaliatory strikes. So, this is going to, I think, be something that we're going to be dealing with, unfortunately, for a while here.
SCIUTTO: Help us understand the risks of further escalation now. And keep in mind, just in the last several days, you already had Israel -- Iran,
rather, launching ballistic missiles at Israel, Israel responding. You have Israel expanding its attacks inside Lebanon. Now, you have, beyond the
other kind of fire U.S. and Iran have exchanged, a drone that struck a U.S. helicopter with two pilots on board. I mean, I think we could say quite
comfortably that they're lucky to be alive. They spent two hours in the water before they were rescued. What should our viewers prepare for in
terms of next steps, possible escalation?
LEIGHTON: Yes, I think there are a lot of different aspects to this. But, you know, clearly, we should all be prepared for more engagements of this
type. You know, the striking of a Shahed -- by the Shahed drone of the Apache helicopter, that is, you know, certainly could be considered an
isolated incident. And there seemed to be efforts earlier today to kind of ratchet down tensions. But that clearly is not what's happening right now.
And so, as a result of that, I think we have to, you know, look at this as being a, you know, basically a precursor event to further activities, a
potential, perhaps for a limited air campaign and, you know, possible naval campaign, meaning, in essence, Tomahawk missiles being used to strike other
targets in Iran. Those would be the kinds of things, Jim, that I would expect to see at this particular point in time.
The other thing that could happen, maybe a little bit down the road if this doesn't get resolved, is deployment of further troops to the region. Now,
that is something that, you know, you really don't want to do in a moment like this. But that is, you know, certainly a possibility, especially if
that escalatory ladder is something that, you know, we're basically on right now, then neither side seems to want to back down. And if that's the
case, then you were really going to be set for a lot of different problems and a lot of different, you know, possible incidents of this type that they
could really, really easily spiral out of control.
SCIUTTO: Yes. And there are already units pre-positioned in the region for other potential, if ordered, for other potential operations. I want to ask
you this, Cedric Leighton, because you have had the U.S. military say it's conducting an investigation, still investigating, as to whether this drone
that hit the Apache was intentional or not.
I'm just curious. You could see Shaheds flying through the air. They're not that fast. I mean, they're not ballistic missiles. I mean, does it sound
like this was just an accidental collision in the air, or do you find that implausible?
LEIGHTON: Well, you know, I'm suspicious, to say the least, that, you know, this was something that is an accident, but it's not completely
impossible. What could have happened, for example, is that the Shahed was flying at an altitude, perhaps just below or at a particular angle that was
out of sight from, you know, what the helicopter pilots could see. And maybe they didn't see it in time. That's, you know, theoretically possible.
But I certainly have to say I'm suspicious that it was an intentional act.
Now, having said that, the Shahed itself is not designed to be an air-to- air weapon. It's designed to be an air-to-ground weapon. And that, you know, makes you wonder, you know, are the Iranians using new tactics? Are
they employing these weapons in a last-minute bid to, you know, attack U.S. assets in any way that they possibly can? Was this the last arrow in their
quiver, so to speak? And they felt they had to do that.
I don't think that -- you know, it doesn't seem like the Apache was in a location, as far as we know right now, that would have been provocative to
the Iranians. So, it does seem strange that that particular thing happened. But then what would have the other target of the Shahed been? You know,
would it have been going to, you know, some target in Oman or in the UAE, and the helicopter just happened to be in its flight path? That, you know,
is something that you, you know, you'd have to consider as well.
And the key thing here, I think, is, you know, getting the intel for this, using all-source intelligence to figure out, if we can, what the Iranian
intentions were, what were the commanders in Iran saying to their units, if that's something that U.S. intelligence has access to, that would be the
key thing there, I think.
[18:25:00]
SCIUTTO: Before we go, big picture for a moment, because the Trump administration and the president have claimed at different times that the
reason this war was a success is because they decimated Iran's missile program, they decimated its drone production, drone program, and its Navy
capacity.
And yet, we see Iran still able to fire missiles at Israel and other targets in the region, still able to fire drones at Israel and other
targets in the region, as well as at shipping, you know, the point of restricting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, and it's still able to
mine and, in other ways, threaten traffic. I mean, does that knock down administration claims of, again, tactical successes in this war?
LEIGHTON: Well, it certainly, I think, impinges on those claims. And I think that, you know, to call it decimating the Iranian assets is really
missing the point. The Iranians have a lot of redundancies, had a lot of redundancies in their systems, and those redundancies are what we're
seeing, in essence, come to fruition. They believe in asymmetric capabilities and using those asymmetric capabilities.
Yes, they were very proud of their, you know, Iranian Navy. The Iranian Navy, in the standard form, no longer exists. But it does exist in an
asymmetric form, and that is, you know, underwater drones. They have, as you mentioned, the minelaying capability. They have surface drones, naval
surface drones. They have small boats. They have all those kinds of things. And that's just one example. And then you get to the drones that we're
talking about, like the Shaheds, and those are clearly still in production.
Production has not been limited to the extent necessary to render it null and void. In essence, what you've got, Jim, is you've got a system that can
survive, barring, you know, in essence, a catastrophic collapse of their industrial base. And that catastrophic collapse did not happen. And it
would be very difficult to achieve using the means that we have at our disposal right now.
SCIUTTO: Colonel Cedric Leighton, thanks so much. We continue to follow the breaking news in the region, which is the U.S. and Iran once again
exchanging fire in the region, carrying out strikes. The U.S. on Iran, Iran on U.S. targets in the region. We'll continue to follow that news. Please
stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:30:00]
SCIUTTO: Again, the breaking news, the U.S. and Iran exchanging attacks as we speak. This after Iran downed a U.S. military helicopter, the U.S.
military announced strikes on Iran shortly after President Trump said that Iran had shot down a U.S. Apache attack helicopter. He said specifically an
Iranian drone. At the time he said the U.S. had to respond. And we are seeing that response underway.
Shortly after that, Iran said it is launching its own attacks on U.S. targets in the region, including both missiles and drones. Certainly, the
ceasefire negotiated since back in April. Very much under threat right now, if it exists at all.
Former U.S. Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller joins me now. Aaron, where does that leave us?
AARON DAVID MILLER, FORMER U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT MIDDLE EAST NEGOTIATOR AND SENIOR FELLOW, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: I think we're
living on borrowed time to a certain degree, Jim. The question is, how long can you live with no trust, no confidence, no direct contacts, presumably
between Iran and the U.S., all done through mediaries or on cell phones, presumably. How long can you live in a no war, no agreement twilight zone?
And that's where we are.
No one wants to go back, the Iranians to be sure, to February 28th. And Trump doesn't want that either. But the Iranians are showing a high degree
of risk readiness, Jim. I mean, striking Israel for the Israeli strikes in the Dahieh in the southern suburbs, which the Israelis had done in a sort
of derogatory fashion, how many times over the course of the last two years that shows a degree of boldness.
And then now, I mean, we don't know the circumstances of the shoot down of this Apache. I mean, I suspect was it an accident? Was it poor command and
control? In that respect, it doesn't matter because the Iranians are not happy with the sort of ceasefire. They're not getting satisfaction on a
couple of the issues that they want from the mediators.
SCIUTTO: We were speaking earlier with Colonel Cedric Leighton. He was talking about the ingredients now for escalation and certainly putting the
lives of U.S. pilots is one of those. Although I should note that President Trump shortly before ordering these strikes told one reporter that, well,
that attack wasn't a big deal, his words, because the pilots had survived.
But do you see the ingredients here for escalation, given that if you have Iran digging in and showing a higher risk profile or risk tolerance, as you
say, and the president feeling the need to strike back? I mean, the trouble, of course, is it's hard to put that genie back in a bottle.
MILLER: Yes, and there's escalation and escalation. I mean, I don't think -- it's hard to imagine going back to the 39 days of intense American
strikes and Iran's response, primarily against the Gulf states and Israel. But can you live with this sort of escalatory pattern? Maybe. If -- but the
reality, Jim, is if there may not be any going back, the question is, how do you go forward? How do you actually get the kind of traction that a
memorandum of understanding would provide, which is a ticket?
You know, Iranians, the Americans are buying a ticket to sit down and negotiate a lot of issues, which probably right now reflect Grand Canyon-
like divides. Do you want to do dilute it, ship it out, keep it? What about enrichment moratorium? For how long? The Straits, frozen assets. The
Iranians want to be paid up front. The administration isn't willing to do that. I mean, there's so many issues.
And again, the negotiating structure is so dysfunctional. You need to have at least proximity negotiations where teams of Americans and Iranians can
actually through intermediaries and together sit and exchange drafts, trade proposals and try to bridge gaps. I just don't think this sort of structure
is sustainable.
SCIUTTO: Yes. Is there an impression of the parties involved? And I'm not just saying Iran, because I've heard this criticism from Israeli officials
for some time, frankly, that President Trump wants an agreement more than the other parties involved.
[18:35:00]
MILLER: In other words, the worst thing a negotiator can do in a negotiation is reveal that he or she is in a greater hurry than they're
negotiating. That is a -- that's cardinal sin number one of a negotiation. There's no doubt about it. And there is no shared sense of urgency. There
really isn't. Trump is in a hurry. He's clearly -- he clearly seems to have taken significant escalation off the table. And yet, he's unwilling or
unable to see how to how to spin a win here.
And that, in the end, to me, Jim, is the real challenge here. It's not the midterms. It's not gas prices. Trump could blame midterms on bad
candidates. It's that the president in the face of the gravest crisis in his presidency, foreign policy wise, a crisis that will define his legacy
cannot abide being seen to be a loser and empowering the very regime that, along with Venezuela and Cuba, he seeks to undermine.
To me, Trump's -- what's going on inside Trump's head, that, to me, is the key constraint. As he said in the wake of Venezuela, Jim, the New York
Times, the only constraint that exists, I think he said the morality of my own mind.
SCIUTTO: Yes. Yes. And he's often made the connection between Venezuela and Iran because he had success in Venezuela. He seemed to imagine in his
own words and descriptions that Iran might be just as easy, though, of course, as you know, quite different circumstances.
Before we go, there is, of course, another player in this game, and that is Israel. And Israel has shown its continued willingness to expand the war in
Lebanon at times to the chagrin of the U.S. president. Would Israel defy the U.S. if the U.S. were to make a bad deal with Iran or to -- you know,
to pull back from military action against Iran? Would Israel say we're moving ahead?
MILLER: Well, when you say Israel, Jim, what we're really talking about is one Benjamin Netanyahu, 15 out of the last 17 years he's governor in the
country, he's up for re-election in October.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
MILLER: Benjamin Netanyahu played a big role in how this war began. He will not play a big role in how it ends. He is dependent on Trump. If Trump
doesn't campaign for him actively, his vulnerabilities are going are going to increase exponentially.
So, yes, Trump gives him some room to maneuver. Those two phone calls, one of which Trump said the missiles, Iranian missiles were in the air already.
I don't think that Netanyahu would have would have gone once without some sort of yellow blinking letter acquiescence in Trump. And then, of course,
Trump managed to constrain what the Israelis wanted to do, which was a much more comprehensive set of strikes against Iran.
But in the end, Jim, if Trump is on the cusp of a deal and the Iranians say we need something that normal humans would regard as a sustainable
ceasefire, the president will pick up the phone. And he's going to tell me Netanyahu, this is what he needs. And Netanyahu is going to comply.
SCIUTTO: Aaron David Miller --
MILLER: Let's hope we get to --
SCIUTTO: Well, let's -- we'll see. Sometimes it's not entirely in the control, even of very powerful leaders. Aaron David Miller, thanks so much
for joining.
MILLER: Thanks, Jim. As always.
SCIUTTO: Again, we will continue to monitor events in the Middle East as the U.S. and Iran are exchanging fire once again.
We do want to go to some of today's other news. Chinese President Xi Jinping has wrapped up his first visit to North Korea in seven years. Xi
says his meeting with Kim Jong-un strengthened mutual understanding and clarified future ties between Beijing and Pyongyang. North Korean media
says the two agreed to expand political, economic and cultural cooperation.
Ivan Watson has been following the story from Hong Kong. Ivan, can you help put some meat on those bones there? Improved cooperation. You know,
certainly there's power in the visit itself and the images of Xi and Kim standing shoulder to shoulder. What were the goals of the leaders going in
here?
IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think, look, it's been seven years since Xi Jinping made his last visit to Pyongyang. An
awful lot has happened since then, Jim. And perhaps one of the most dramatic changes has been the expansion of ties, a security treaty assigned
between the North Koreans and Russia. Vladimir Putin, who made his own visit to Pyongyang in 2024. And North Korea sending thousands of soldiers
and believed munitions as well to help Russia fight against Ukraine.
[18:40:00]
China has always had this relationship with North Korea, a friendship that the two governments have described as being forged in blood going back to
the Korean War. And now, Russia is forging its own friendship with North Korea, forged in blood in the battlefields of Eastern Europe.
And this is something that China has been watching. And Xi Jinping has arrived and visited, brought his wife. He was greeted off the plane by Kim
Jong-un himself and his own wife at the airport. They've had these two days of ceremonies, of attending artistic performances and visiting various
sites together and having a banquet together. But this is also Xi Jinping kind of reasserting that China is North Korea's first and most important
friend at this point.
So, that's, I believe, some of what we're interpreting as those statements coming from Xi Jinping. This is his first foreign trip of the year. He's
just coming off of having hosted President Trump in Beijing, also having hosted Vladimir Putin in Beijing. And it looks like he's trying to firm up
these ties with North Korea to remind the North Koreans that, hey, we are the most important game in town.
Of course, Kim Jong-un has -- he's in a much sweeter spot than he was a couple of years ago. China isn't the only game in town. He has further
deepened his relationship with Russia. He's getting economic benefits from that. And as a kind of middle power, one could argue, he's able to be in a
position where he can try to leverage Russia and China to extract as much as possible from these relationships.
There's an important thing that I think, an absence from the readouts from North Korea and the Chinese governments about this visit, and that is China
not making any mention of what it has traditionally been its position when it comes to Korea. That is calling for the denuclearization of the Korean
Peninsula. We have not been hearing that statement from the Chinese government for some time now. And that is an indicator and a suggestion,
perhaps, that the Chinese government and Xi Jinping are more comfortable with a nuclear-powered North Korea than they had been in the past when they
had been aligned with the U.S. calling for denuclearization.
And that's particularly important when a week before Xi Jinping's visit, Kim Jong-un went to a factory that was manufacturing nuclear material and
called for, quote, "beefing up our state's nuclear forces at an exponential rate." Jim.
SCIUTTO: Yes. That would be quite an impactful change by the Chinese leader to, in effect, greenlight that program going forward. Ivan Watson in
Hong Kong, thanks so much.
We'll have more on our breaking news in just a moment as Iran and the U.S. rather exchange fire once again in the Middle East.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:45:00]
SCIUTTO: Recapping our breaking news. The U.S. and Iran say they are launching attacks on each other. This after the downing of a U.S. military
helicopter. The U.S. military announced strikes after President Trump blamed Iran for that shoot down.
As the missiles and drones fly in both directions, Iran's foreign minister tweeted this. Despite its defeats on the battlefield, the U.S. opted to
test our determination. Our powerful armed forces will leave no attack or threat unanswered. Leave our region if you want to be safe. History of the
Persian Gulf has many chapters on dire fates for intruding outsiders.
Certainly, a defiant message there from the Iranian government in the midst of this latest exchange of fire.
Retired Major General Randy Manner joins me now. He was the deputy commanding general for the U.S. 3rd Army in Kuwait, responsible for all
U.S. forces in the Middle East.
My first question to you is the safety of U.S. forces in the Middle East. Because Iran, in responding to these U.S. strikes, launching drones at U.S.
bases in the region, drones and missiles. As we saw during the war, Iran has a proven ability to get through U.S. air defenses and threaten U.S.
forces in the region. Should they be concerned at this point about the threat level?
MAJ. GEN. RANDY MANNER, U.S. ARMY (RET.): The first thing is I'm glad the two pilots seem to have been recovered from the Strait, and hopefully
they're safe and sound.
In answer to your question, it is an absolute concern for U.S. bases in the region because we cannot protect against all drones and all missiles. And
so, it's very likely that there could be strikes that could injure or kill Americans as a result of this effort. It's a very unusual situation where
the president decided five hours after the event to be -- to do, quite frankly, an escalated response, hitting many targets along the Strait, not
just something that would be commensurate with the attack on one single Apache helicopter.
SCIUTTO: Tell us what escalation might look like going forward. And, of course, the difficulty with escalation, right, is that it's sort of a game
of chicken, is it not? Who blinks first?
MANNER: Exactly. The challenge is that in the Middle East, it's almost an eye for an eye. And that's why whenever Israel and Iran exchanged missiles,
they basically backed off because they've been through this situation many, many times before and they were able to deescalate.
The United States, with this administration, does not quite understand that. And therefore, they have escalated significantly already from the
idea that, OK, allegedly we have one helicopter that was downed, and then we should be attacking something commensurate. But that's not what has
happened. It's been many, many times the locations have now been hit across the Strait.
It also raises issues about why was that air crew in the water for two hours? There are so many Navy vessels and so many air rescue capabilities
that theoretically you could have had them out of the water within 30 minutes. It implies that there were other issues going on or that the
United States did not have air superiority and felt they could perhaps lose other helicopters going in to save them. So, there's a lot more of this
story that needs to be uncovered.
SCIUTTO: No question. And ultimately, it was a naval drone that went in to pick up those two pilots, which might be a message as well about the
continuing threat. Before we go, has Iran exposed American vulnerabilities in the region? Not just its ability to continue to threaten traffic through
the Strait of Hormuz, but also to threaten U.S. forces in the region and to threaten Gulf allies in the region who even with, you know, sitting behind
U.S. air defenses, bases, et cetera, all those things have proven to be vulnerable to Iranian fire.
[18:50:00]
MANNER: That is correct. The Iranians -- this entire war of the administration against the Iranians in the past 90 days has demonstrated
the weaknesses of the United States. Despite being the most powerful military on the planet, we are extremely vulnerable to drones and to
missile strikes because we don't have the experience the way the Ukrainians do. And this is very disconcerting.
And the Iranians now have newfound power, both militarily as well as economically, that they can shut down the Strait literally within hours if
they choose to at any point in the future. And that is not something that they did or had the knowledge they could do before this war.
SCIUTTO: Yes. And certainly, take down U.S. aircraft. It's not the first time it's happened. Major General Randy Manner, we appreciate you joining.
MANNER: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: And I'll be back with more of today's news right after a short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: As we continue to monitor events in the Middle East, time now for some more of today's other news. Protesters in Kenya are venting their
anger as fears were sparked over a proposal to build and open a U.S.-funded isolation ward there for those exposed to the Ebola virus. Critics argue
the facility would expose Kenya to a further outbreak.
We should note Kenya to date has not registered a single case of the disease. The Democratic Republic of Congo remains the epicenter of this
latest Ebola outbreak. The DRC is now racing to build its own Ebola treatment center. CNN's Clarissa Ward reports on how that effort is
proceeding.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: We're here at a brand-new U.S.-funded Ebola treatment center at Bunia's General Hospital,
which is just about to open. You can see people are working hard to get those first patients in.
WARD (voice-over): It's being built by American NGO International Medical Corps with funding from the U.S. government.
WARD: Everywhere you go, you see this. This is the new branding for the United States State Department, which has contributed more than $160
million to this Ebola crisis.
WARD (voice-over): Almost a year after dismantling USAID and slashing foreign aid across the board, the U.S. remains the single largest donor to
this outbreak.
DR. AHMAD MAHARISHI, IMC COORDINATOR: It has been hectic. So, we tried -- we have been working day and night just to make sure that we realize this.
And it has taken us 10 days. It also involves a lot of hard work. So, normally, it takes 21 days to build. But because of the agency, because of
the high number of cases that have been admitted across, it really requires this commitment to make sure that everything is ready in time.
[18:55:00]
WARD: So, each bed has a number and has already been designated a patient. Obviously, we can't show you that for patient privacy reasons. But what we
can say is that this tent is for men who are in stable condition, and that tent is for the women.
WARD (voice-over): The following afternoon, the first patients arrive. One after another they come. The wait is over, but the hard work has just
begun.
Clarissa Ward, CNN, Bunia, Democratic Republic of Congo.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: Thanks so much for joining today. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. You've been watching "The Brief." Please do stay with CNN as we continue
our breaking news coverage.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:00:00]
END
