Return to Transcripts main page

The Brief with Jim Sciutto

CNN International: U.S. Military Announces "Powerful Strikes" Against Iran; CENTCOM: U.S. Launches New Strikes Against Iran; Trump Considers Selling F-35 Jets To Turkey; Trump Talks Possible U.S. Troop Drawdown In Europe; Trump Criticizes NATO Allies After Arriving For Summit; China Appears To Build Full-Scale Mock-Up Of U.S. Warship. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired July 07, 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, the U.S. military says it is again carrying out strikes against Iran after Iran attacked ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

Donald Trump says once again that the U.S. should take possession of Greenland and criticizes allies at the NATO summit in Turkey. And World Cup

champions Argentina make a big comeback scoring three goals in 13 minutes to overcome an inspired Egypt.

We begin with breaking news out of the Persian Gulf. The U.S. military has announced it began striking Iranian targets in response to a series of

attacks on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. Central Command called Tehran's attacks quote unwarranted, dangerous and a clear

violation of the ceasefire.

Earlier, the U.S. reimposed imposed oil sanctions on Iran. Yet another significant challenge to what was already a fragile ceasefire between the

two nations.

Joining me now retired U.S. Army Major General Randy Manner. It's good to have you here. I just wonder as I look at these repeated exchanges of fire

between the U.S. and Iran is this still a ceasefire or is this a low-grade war?

MAJ. GEN. RANDY MANNER, U.S. ARMY (RET.): I think this is just continuing evidence that the agreements are very, very tenuous and that they are

subject to, quite frankly, something as simple as be yet impactful as a drone strike against one or the other. This is not -- the U.S. response is

to be expected, quite frankly, to do nothing would be a sign of weakness.

So, I think this is something that we are going to see continued tension in the Middle East on this very, very fragile situation. Neither side really

wants this to escalate, in my opinion.

SCIUTTO: But what you hear from President Trump and what you hear from Trump administration officials is that Iran has been so decimated by the

war and strikes and by U.S. intimidation and pressure that the U.S. has the upper hand, but Iran is still attempting to demonstrate, it seems, control

over the Strait of Hormuz. I mean, at a minimum they're defying U.S. pressure.

MANNER: So, bluntly stated, the administration's words are 90 percent propaganda. They are basically saying we destroyed Iran yet at the same

time the president himself said we want unconditional surrender to, oh, by the way we'll give you billions of dollars we'll unfreeze your assets and

so on.

This is something where the truth is geography provides Iran its equivalent of a nuclear weapon, meaning that they can raise oil prices or cause people

to jump when they want to just by attacking a few ships along the way. They are still a very powerful force to be reckoned with and they are not going

-- their national pride will not allow them to back down to the United States. This will continue this tit-for-tat.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you this then going forward. Has the credibility of the U.S. military threat against Iran diminished? Because the U.S. is showing

its willingness to respond with limited strikes to Iran's strikes, but does Iran believe that the U.S. president is willing to order a return to full-

scale war or are they calculating this is as far as the U.S. will go now, therefore, we can push the envelope, push the limits?

MANNER: I think this is something where the Iranians truly want there to be a reduction of friction, they want their oil to flow, they want their

assets to be unfrozen. I believe that is in their best interest and the United States, obviously, it's aren't in our best interest to have the oil

flow as well.

[18:05:00]

From a military point of view, the U.S. military spent upwards of $80 billion to $100 billion worth of weapons and other assets such as fuel and

so on in that war, and in contrast, the Iranians spent a fraction of that, yet still they're able, with just a few hundred thousand dollars' worth of

drones, able to cause havoc in the Middle East.

SOARES: So, that raises a broader question, because others have made the point that what you've seen, not just from the war in Iran but also to some

degree from the war in Ukraine, is that smaller powers can at least hold to a draw, but perhaps even win conflicts with major powers, great powers. Is

that part of the message you're seeing from this Iran war as well?

MANNER: Absolutely. It's the same thing that was seen in Vietnam. If you look back, here we had the most powerful military in the world basically

attacking the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese, but yet, all of the power of the United States could not overcome what the resistance was there.

And so, this is another -- yet one more lesson the United States military has failed to learn is we must adapt to the adversaries and techniques of

the world, quite frankly, the way that Ukraine has done so very, very well. And they are the -- in my opinion, they're the very best in the world right

now in the defense and use of drones at this time.

SCIUTTO: Yes. I mean, remember history, right, and you don't even have to go all the way back to the Vietnam War, you could look at Iraq and

Afghanistan as well. General Randy Manner, good to have you.

MANNER: Thank you, sir.

SCIUTTO: Well, joining me now from Ankara is CNN White House correspondent, Kristen Holmes. Kristen, I wonder how the administration is framing these

attacks because this is the latest in a series of exchanges of fire in the midst of what's supposed to be a ceasefire but the fire has not ceased.

Does the administration still believe peace talks are -- I don't even want to say on a on track, but have the potential of being on track? Where do

they stand?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: At this very moment we don't know and that's the big question is, what does this mean for the

ceasefire? Is the ceasefire so fragile that something like this could break it?

And to be clear, President Trump and the administration have, over and over again, as we've seen this exchange of fire over the last couple of weeks

since the ceasefire, they have always put an emphasis on the idea that those strikes are proportional, that they are something as retaliation,

that they can't just allow the U.S. or U.S. targets or commercial vessels to be hit, they have to respond if there's a break in the ceasefire, and

that's what it is, just a response. That is not what they are saying tonight.

One U.S. official is telling Zach Cohen that this is not in any way proportional that this is punishment and it's going to go on for some time.

And you could even see that in the post from Central Command saying that these were going to be heavy costs the Iranians were going to have to incur

for violating that ceasefire yet again.

And it's not just the military action, you're also seeing the financial action. We know that the U.S. reimposed those sanctions on Iran selling oil

earlier today. At that point, it seemed as though that was the only retaliation, we were going to see particularly given that President Trump

is currently in the region.

He is currently in Turkey, a country that borders with Iran, a country that during the course of this conflict with Iran, NATO allies have intercepted

roughly three ballistic missiles that were flying into Turkish airspace from Iran. And yet, President Trump is here and he is launching those

attacks.

So, what this means, the big question, is there even a ceasefire to hold? Is there any kind of back channeling happening right now? And all of this

is unfolding in real time, and that's what we're working our sources to find out. But what we do know is they mean this as punishment and they mean

for the Iranians to feel this as punishment.

SCIUTTO: We'll see, ultimately, if it changes the Iranian response. Kristen Holmes in Ankara, thanks so much.

Earlier CNN spoke to Israel's prime minister before the U.S. launched its latest round of strikes on Iran. Speaking about broader issues Benjamin

Netanyahu told our colleague, Dana Bash, that the U.S. and Israel do not always see eye to eye, but that differences of opinion are normal among

allies. Here's part of that interview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: Look, he is the president of the United States. He does what is good for the United States. I'm the

prime minister of Israel, I do what is important for -- what is good for Israel. And most of the time these things are identical.

I have to commend the president when he brought a huge American force to counter our common enemy, which is Iran, that chants death to Israel, death

to America. Had they developed nuclear weapons, if we hadn't acted, they would have them already. They would eventually use them against America,

not only against Israel.

[18:10:00]

So, on the big things, we see eye to eye, and occasionally we don't, but we're true allies. They call us, the National Security Council issued a

memorandum a few months ago, they called Israel the model ally. And I can tell you that even allies can have their differences, but I think America

has no greater ally in the world than Israel, and Israel has no greater ally than the United States. And I say that with complete recognition of

the fact that we sometimes see things a bit differently.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: We're joined now by former Israeli prime minister, Naftali Bennett. Good to have you. Thanks so much for taking the time.

NAFTALI BENNETT, FORMER ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: Thank you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Before I get to the Prime Minister's comments, I want to ask your reaction to the latest exchange of fire between the U.S. and Iran. This is,

you know, is not the first time. Do you believe there is still a ceasefire, and do you believe there is still a credible path to negotiations?

BENNETT: I believe that Iran will continue to play delay tactics, cat and mouse games with the United States in order to improve their leverage and

ultimately keep and retain their nuclear program. These folks, the ayatollahs, they only understand leverage and force, and I'm not

necessarily talking only about military force, also economic sanctions and other sorts of pressure, but they are just world experts in playing these

games, and that's what's happening right now.

SCIUTTO: So, let me ask you this, given that this has been stretching out, these games, as you describe them, stretching out for a number of weeks,

are they playing the U.S. to some degree? I mean, in your view, is the U.S. wise enough to your description of how Iran carries out negotiations?

BENNETT: Well, I think President Trump wants to ensure that Iran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon, that Iran's nuclear program is dismantled and

without enrichment, et cetera, and he's pursuing the negotiation, which is fine as long as you hold the big stick.

You know, it was, I believe, Teddy Roosevelt who said they carry a big stick and speak softly, so the stick has to remain. The moment you let down

that stick, they just will pursue the nuclear program and gradually erode all the elements that already have been agreed on, even though very little

has been.

SCIUTTO: If Iran retains its nuclear program, would the war have been lost?

BENNETT: Look, the main goal of this war is to dismantle Iran's nuclear program. So, obviously, the objective has to be met. We have to be patient

about this. The Iranian regime has patience, and we have to show strategic patience and pressure them, not let go of the financial sanctions, which

are very, very damaging when they're up there.

I understand they're just biding for time. They're just waiting for something to happen. So, we have to see this through, because a nuclear

Iran is not only a nightmare for Israel, but for the entire Middle East and for the world, for that matter.

SCIUTTO: Let me talk now, if I can, about the relationship between the U.S. and Iran. You heard Prime Minister Netanyahu there say that there are

disagreements between the U.S. and Israel, but allies can have disagreements, and he says that he and President Trump remain aligned. Do

you buy that?

BENNETT: Look, Israel and America are two different nations. We're obviously the smaller partner, the junior partner here, but in the Middle

East, this is where we live, and we are an anchor of security and freedom in the Middle East, and a very important one, because we're doing the

fighting.

We didn't ask America to fight in Gaza or in Lebanon or in Iran. We're doing the fighting, and we never will ask for American soldiers to defend

us. We'll do the job. We do need America's back. Not always are things viewed identically.

I'll give you one example. From our perspective, Iran is an existential threat to the small Jewish state, whereas for America, it's a strategic

threat, but not an existential one, and therefore, we have to ensure that our interests are there.

[18:15:00]

And I want to be very clear. While it's no secret that I'm running for prime minister in the hopes of replacing Netanyahu's government, the

opposition and coalition in Israel all stand together, united in the critical goal of dismantling Iran from having any nuclear program. This is

not about opposition or coalition or Netanyahu or not Netanyahu. This is about security for Israel, for the Middle East, and for the world.

SCIUTTO: As you know, part of Netanyahu's support inside Israel has been, at least in the past, based on his close relationship with Trump. That

relationship is not quite as close, based on some of the comments, both public and private. Do you believe that Netanyahu has damaged that

relationship?

BENNETT: Well, you know, I think after 30 years of serving Israel, doing some very good things and some lesser things for Israel, it's time for

Netanyahu to move on. It's time for new leadership in Israel. It's time for a renaissance in Israel, Israel and its neighbors, and Israel in the

relationship with the United States.

We are not at our best moment, obviously, and I'm acutely aware of our position in the American public, which is at a very low point. But I do

want to ensure that Americans understand that we deeply appreciate this friendship, and we are fighting for freedom in crazy circumstances.

We don't want war. I hate war. I fought wars. I lost my best friend in war. My son is fighting. This is all very personal. We hate war. But what can we

do if not defend ourselves from Hezbollah, Iran, Hamas, that all want to destroy us? So, it's not a symmetric situation. They want to destroy us.

We're not looking to destroy Lebanon or any other country. Just we want peace.

SCIUTTO: Asked about declining support for Israel here in the U.S., Netanyahu blamed to a large degree social media. He said that people are

being fed, in effect, propaganda or at least inaccurate information on platforms such as TikTok. In your view, is that it or have Netanyahu's

policies and Israel's conduct of the war in Gaza and Lebanon contributed to that loss of support?

BENNETT: Well, I think there's a very broad view in the West today, generally, regardless of Israel, of the victims and the victimizers, the

aggressors and the victims. And supposedly in this framework, Israel is the aggressor. It's all beautiful, except that it's wrong. It's simply wrong.

We did not attack anyone on October 7th. We were attacked. We were attacked by Hezbollah. We were attacked by Iran. So, this is all a response to these

attacks.

I can guarantee you that the day that our enemies decide to stop fighting Israel or lay down their arms, there will be peace because we're not

seeking any enlargement of Israel. We're not seeking anything. We just want to lead our lives. So, in that sense, all Israelis understand, those who

support Netanyahu, those who oppose Netanyahu, understand that we're in a war to defend Israel.

My big criticism is that it's taking way, way too long. This should not have taken three years. We should have -- if we have no choice but to go to

war, it should be short, strong and victorious.

SCIUTTO: As you know, and some of this criticism comes from inside Israel as well, that it's not questioning Israel's response to -- right, rather,

to respond to the October 7th attacks. It's about the conduct of that response and the attention in particular to the deaths of civilians, and

not just in Gaza, but in Lebanon. Do you believe any of that criticism is fair?

BENNETT: I think the basis for what has been happening over the past three years is what happened 25 years beforehand, which is Iran, through its

proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, built a whole new strategy, which is to turn cities, towns, into terror bases.

So, imagine a town where every house has a rocket launcher in it, or hand grenades, or is part of the terror base. And the moment they turned their

entire civilian infrastructure into a terror infrastructure that forced Israel -- we're not magicians. We need to do away with terror. It forces us

to destroy those bases, those terror bases that are being hosted in homes, in schools, in hospitals.

[18:20:00]

I think you'd agree with me that the moment a hospital is turned into a terror base, it no longer enjoys the term hospital.

SCIUTTO: Before we go, just one more question if I can, given the elections are coming closer and closer in Israel. The latest polling suggests neither

Netanyahu's coalition nor the opposition would have enough seats to form a government. And this is a pattern we've seen in so many elections where the

margins are just so tight, right?

What does that tell you about where the Israeli public stands right now? And do you see a figure who can unite? I mean, do you believe you could

unite a broader coalition in Israel?

BENNETT: Yes, I absolutely believe I can unite and build a broader coalition. Already as prime minister, I led the most diverse coalition in

Israel's history with eight different parties, religious, secular, right, left, Jewish parties, and there was an Arab party back then.

So, I know how to connect different types of people, and it was a beautiful government. It was bipartisan. You know, everyone knows my opinions. I'm a

very hawkish right-wing person, but I'm also very liberal. And most importantly, I know how to unite Israel behind a common goal of fixing

Israel.

What I would do as prime minister after uniting the country, I would build a constitution for Israel, which we don't have. I would go out to the

region with a big initiative of peace and normalization with the moderate Arab countries. And I think we could do amazing things, especially

business-wise. And internally, I would work to heal Israel from inside, because we've taken a big hit over the past three years.

So, I'm very optimistic. I think we're going to win. And I think we have good chances of fixing Israel and telling a whole new story to the world.

SCIUTTO: Naftali Bennett, we appreciate you joining. Let's talk as we get closer to Election Day.

BENNETT: You got it. And if I may wish a happy 250-year birthday to the American people. America has done immense good to the world, and we're

proud to be such a close friend to your amazing nation.

SCIUTTO: Appreciate it. Just wish we could have done better on the soccer pitch last night. Naftali Bennett, thanks so much.

BENNETT: Well, nobody's perfect. You take care.

SCIUTTO: It happens. Still ahead, President Trump says he will consider selling F-35 fighter jets to Turkey, a move that could trigger a battle in

Congress. More on the NATO summit in Ankara, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:00]

SCIUTTO: Well, at the NATO summit in Ankara Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump floated the idea of selling F-35 fighter jets to Turkey. That,

despite a congressional ban. Trump also says he would lift sanctions on Turkey. Why were those sanctions imposed? Because Turkey bought a Russian-

manufactured air defense system.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: The decision we're going to make, we have a very good relationship. I would think that many people -- I can tell you,

many people, including the people sitting right here, thinks, you know, why wouldn't we do that? We have a better relationship with Turkey, and

Turkey's been, in many ways, much more loyal than other countries that we think would be loyal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Well, U.S. divisions with Europe also on display. Trump reiterated his ambition of the U.S. taking control of Greenland, which is a territory,

of course, of the U.S. ally, Denmark. He also refused to say whether the U.S. will further draw down U.S. forces in Europe. Much to discuss.

Joining me now, Brookings Institution fellow Asli Aydintasbas. Thanks so much for joining.

ASLI AYDINTASBAS, FELLOW, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Hi, Jim. Good to be here.

SCIUTTO: So, first, I want to start with the backdrop of this summit itself. President Trump says he might not have even shown up, except for

his close relationship with Erdogan. Is Turkey actually a loyal ally to the U.S., as the president describes, or is it more really just about Trump's

personal relationship with it?

AYDINTASBAS: There's been a question on whether or not Turkey is a loyal ally in some countries. Certainly, previous administration has seen it as a

Trojan horse.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

AYDINTASBAS: But President Trump and Erdogan do have something that is described as a bromance. It's a personal relationship. But also, they have

very similar worldview. Their understanding of what's happening in the neighborhood, in Ukraine, in terms of relations with Russia, are very

similar. It's love at first sight. And not a week passes, Jim, here in Washington, without Trump praising Erdogan in one fashion or another.

SCIUTTO: But what has the U.S. gotten out of that? I mean, as Turkey made concessions to the U.S.? Has it served U.S. interests in the region, or is

it purely about Trump's perception of that relationship?

AYDINTASBAS: Trump likes Turkey and Erdogan, I think, because he feels Turkey is strong, decisive, can use hard power, boots on the ground, all

things Europeans don't do. Erdogan is also regionally more powerful now. He's got strong cards.

The first is the geography. Of course, Turkey's caught in between these different wars. But also, because Turkey has a robust defense industry, it

has a very poor human rights record, increasingly authoritarian. But that's not something President Trump really cares about.

And I think that he wants to bring in Turkey from the cold. Now, U.S. sanctions are very complicated things. Turkey would have to also take

steps. That is the case. We don't know what concessions Turkey has made. These cannot be just waved off with Trump saying, you know, I'm lifting

sanctions and bringing you back into the program. He has to somehow find a way of appeasing U.S. Congress.

SCIUTTO: OK. So, the issue, of course, as I mentioned, was that a number of years ago, Turkey bought Russian-made S-400, surface-to-air missile

decision, which violates NATO rules.

AYDINTASBAS: Big time.

SCIUTTO: As it were, there's been some talk that Turkey might transfer those to another country, perhaps Ukraine. You have said that's unlikely.

So, what are the other potential formulas?

AYDINTASBAS: So, these formulas were developed even under the Biden administration, because S-400s, Turkey cannot use them, but they're there

in their presence. It's been slapped with U.S. sanctions and kicked out of F-35 program. I think this was a huge strategic mistake on the part of

Erdogan.

But now, how do you get rid of it with Putin there next door, who's not going to be very happy if you give them over -- hand them over to Ukraine?

There have been various formulas. Can they be put on a U.S. base or a NATO facility, perhaps with eyes, occasional inspections?

SCIUTTO: Just parked there?

AYDINTASBAS: Parked there.

SCIUTTO: Like still in their crates, as it were?

AYDINTASBAS: They are kind of not being operational right now. Can there be some sort of a verification mechanism? Occasionally, NATO inspectors, U.S.

inspectors poking or looking. Can they be put apart into different pieces, which would be Turkey is no longer in possession of it because it's not one

thing. It's spread out.

SCIUTTO: I see.

AYDINTASBAS: So, people have been going around these ideas.

[18:30:00]

But one thing that does need to happen, in addition to a formula finding -- getting rid of possession element, which is stipulated in the law, is

Turkey would need to pledge that it does not intend to buy any more weapons from Russia.

SCIUTTO: What would F-35s mean to Turkey?

AYDINTASBAS: It means a lot.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

AYDINTASBAS: Turkey is a country -- is a regional heavyweight, but it has not been able to buy any weapon systems from its European or U.S. allies

over -- for the past 10 years. The relationship has been very tumultuous. And I think that it is now feeling that with Greece, Russia, Iran, regional

rivals, and Israel, everyone arming around Turkey, that it needs to really improve its air force.

Turkish army -- Turkey has been in NATO since 1952. So, its NATO is pretty much reliant on U.S. weapons when it comes to airplanes and fighter jets.

So, it does really want F-35s, which Israel has, a top regional rival for Turkey, and Greece has.

SCIUTTO: And as you know, Israel is not happy with this possibility.

AYDINTASBAS: Israel is very unhappy.

SCIUTTO: Asli Aydintasbas, pleasure having you on.

AYDINTASBAS: Thank you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

The U.S. military says it is striking Iran once again in response to a series of Iranian attacks on commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz. This

video from social media shows explosions and fires at Iran's port of Bandar Abbas. The U.S. official says the strikes are not proportional and are

meant instead to be, quote, "punishment." The U.S. also reimposed oil sanctions on Iran in response to those attacks on cargo ships.

[18:35:00]

Iran calls that a clear violation of the ceasefire agreement with the U.S. and is now vowing to take any measures to defend its national security.

A high rise under construction in New York City has been evacuated after structural columns buckled. Inspectors found multiple cracks and sagging

floors. The New York fire chief said the building moved after first responders arrived. Authorities have evacuated nearby buildings as well and

created a safety cordon.

Well, Donald Trump, as we noted, is in Turkey now for the NATO summit. The U.S. president is considering, among other things, whether to approve the

sale of U.S. F-35 fighter jets to Turkey. That's despite a U.S. law banning their sale to Turkey and despite objections from Israel. On Wednesday,

Trump is set to meet as well with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Speaking in Ankara, Trump said, quote, "We're going to see about further drawdowns of U.S. forces in Europe." The U.S. president has expressed

repeated frustration with European allies for not spending enough on defense, but also not joining his war with Iran.

In June, U.S. defense secretary, announced a six-month review of U.S. forces in Europe. One U.S. think tank says there is an opportunity there

for Europe. The German Marshall Fund says the transition from a U.S. to a Europe led security order is no longer theoretical, it's underway. The

Trump administration announced reduction in American military capabilities in Europe and the undertaking of a broader force review marks the first

step in a structural burden sharing shift that no successor is likely to reverse. Whether that shift opens a window of opportunity or a

vulnerability depends on the speed and sustainability of Europe's response and on Washington's view of a stronger European industrial base as an asset

or competitive threat.

The author of that article joins me now, Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer, president of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. Good to have

you here.

ALEXANDRA DE HOOP SCHEFFER, PRESIDENT, GERMAN MARSHALL FUND OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you for having me.

SCIUTTO: So, you say you've been very clear. You do not believe the Trump administration will go so far as to withdraw the U.S. from NATO.

But when you listen to the comments yet again, as president goes to this NATO summit, he derides Europe for not spending enough on defense. He

derides Europe for not joining his war with Iran. And he also speaks in disparaging terms. And he's reducing forces. And he's often raised

questions, it seems, about the U.S. desire to defend Europe if it were to be attacked. So, given all of that, why do you maintain that confidence?

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: I think what you're seeing live is a painful renegotiation of the transatlantic contract, which is that Trump is

accelerating in his particular style, I agree, a long overdue transition from a heavily U.S.-led European security order to a primarily Europe-led.

And what you've seen today in Ankara, I think, is exactly what Europeans should be doing, which is now translating their increased defense budget

into concrete and durable industrial capabilities, and particularly in the critical areas where Europe has been consistently, consistently over-

reliant on the United States.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you this, though, because Trump also said today that the Ukraine war just doesn't matter to the U.S. And he said that before.

Now, as you know, Europe sees it quite differently. They see this as a foreign power attempting to redraw the borders of Europe by force. I don't

have to tell you the recent history of Europe when powers attempted to redraw the borders of Europe by force.

If the president doesn't buy that fundamental threat, how can they truly be aligned? You know, and how can he truly be invested in the alliance beyond

trying to change the alliance?

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: You're pointing to a critical divergence.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Europeans, for all the reasons you just mentioned, see Ukraine as an existential issue, because the future of Ukraine will

determine the future of Europe's long-term security. That's long-term stability.

On the Washington side and Trump administration side, they're looking for an exit, and they're looking for a quick deal. But by the way, this deal

cannot come quickly. And that's something that the Trump administration had to process over these past 18 months.

However, what I see now, as we are talking and as allies are meeting in Ankara, is a huge opportunity for Americans and Europeans to lean in much

more and harder and support Ukraine, because the winds are turning, and they're turning in favor of Ukraine.

[18:40:00]

But there is still -- what you're seeing also is because of both the war in Ukraine and the war in the Middle East, you've seen how in particular the

interceptors and the air defense is now being a collateral damage in Ukraine because some of these critical capabilities have been relocated in

the Middle East.

SCIUTTO: So, what's the solution to that problem in the near term? I mean, it takes two years to manufacture one Patriot interceptor. I mean, there's

no sort of quick fix for that.

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: There's no quick fix. However, what you've seen over the past couple of months at the United States has been reducing its support to

Ukraine is how the center of gravity of both military and financial support has shifted to Europe. So, my answer to your question is actually in Europe

right now.

SCIUTTO: Yes. The question about -- listen, and it's -- you don't even have to be an American preaching to Europe about this because I hear this from

European officials saying, we waited too long, right, to build our own defense, to spend more on defense, to fill all these gaps. So, you're

seeing a new commitment to that. The trouble is it takes time to do that.

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Absolutely.

SCIUTTO: And the U.S. is such a bear, you know, just by comparison and its capabilities that, you know, how do you replace that lost American

contribution in time to protect Europe's security interests when you have Russia threatening, right?

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Your question is the key question. It's the timeline question. It's the tempo question. And what Europe needs to do right now is

actually manage the immediate short-term urgency of continuing to support Ukraine while still being heavily over reliant on the U.S. defense

industry.

But at the same time, that's what Europeans are doing right now is also investing in the five to 10 years to come, building up their future

industrial base. And so, your question is key. Why? Because how do you avoid this window of vulnerability of, I would say, the three, five years

to come where Europeans are not ready yet and do not have the capabilities to offset an inevitable reduction of U.S. capabilities.

SCIUTTO: And does Russia try to test that?

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Absolutely.

SCIUTTO: In that time period? Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer, we appreciate you joining.

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Thank you so much.

SCIUTTO: Thanks so much. Still to come on "The Brief," a mockup of a U.S. warship at a remote missile testing site in China. What that means for the

U.S. and for the broader region.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:45:00]

SCIUTTO: New satellite imagery reveals what analysts believe is a full- scale replica of a U.S. Navy destroyer. That replica in China is apparently a missile testing facility in remote northwestern China. And it's raising

new questions about what exactly Beijing might be preparing for. CNN's Will Ripley takes a closer look at those images and what it might mean.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WILL RIPLEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At first, it looks like any American warship at sea. Then you notice the sand. More

than a thousand miles from the nearest coastline, hundreds of miles from any major city, deep inside the western Chinese desert, what appears to be

a full-scale mockup of a U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. Look at it side by side with the USS Fitzgerald. The resemblance is striking. Both

are around 510 feet long. At the back, the helicopter flight deck used to launch and recover naval helicopters.

Next are the vertical launch systems, cells used to fire guided munitions like the Tomahawk cruise missile, heavily used in the conflict with Iran.

This is the bridge and command area where navigation, communications, and combat operations are controlled. At the front is the deck gun used for

surface targets, air threats, and shore bombardment.

Together, the details suggest a carefully built full-scale replica of one of America's main guided missile destroyers, workhorses of the U.S. Navy

fleet, more than 70 sailing in oceans around the world. If conflict ever erupts over Taiwan, these destroyers would likely be among the first U.S.

warships deployed.

Han Su analyzes China's military for Taiwan's top defense research institute.

RIPLEY: Why would China go through all the effort and expense to build this?

HANS SU, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY RESEARCH: The Chinese they try to prepare everything from A to Z.

SU (through translator): The Chinese military has ballistic missiles that can attack from high angles and cruise missiles that can attack

horizontally. So, they're trying to combine both and enhance their anti- access and area denial capability.

RIPLEY (voice-over): He says they're trying to improve the accuracy of China's newest hypersonic anti-ship missiles displayed at Beijing's

military parade last year. The 3D replica is covered with antennas designed to simulate the radar signature of an American warship, helping China

detect, identify, and perhaps target the real thing.

It's located in Xinjiang, the same area where the People's Liberation Army built 2D flat mock-ups of U.S. aircraft carriers and destroyers several

years ago, even putting them on tracks, analysts say, to move at the speed of actual ships.

RIPLEY: Have they ever built a 3D mock-up before?

JOSEPH WEN, OSINT RESEARCHER, TAIWAN INSPIRATION ASSOCIATION: It's first time.

RIPLEY (voice-over): Open-source intelligence analyst Joseph Wen first spotted the mock-up when it was still under construction about a month ago.

WEN (through translator): I do think this is quite surprising. The scale of the construction is really massive.

RIPLEY: What message are they trying to send by building this?

WEN (through translator): The message that they are sending is China is always preparing for war.

RIPLEY (voice-over): Under leader Xi Jinping, China has poured billions into modernizing its military, from aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons

to artificial intelligence.

The PLA has also long trained using mock-ups of everything from U.S. military assets to Taiwan's presidential office. On China's tightly

controlled social media, censors are allowing comments like these. The U.S. military's premier escort warships, long regarded as a source of pride,

have now become designated targets for Chinese missiles. They are nothing more than targets sitting in the desert, waiting to be hit.

RIPLEY: We've reached out to the Pentagon, the U.S. Pacific Fleet, and China's defense ministry. No response. But we do know China's military

modernization continues on multiple fronts. We saw it just after the 4th of July when Beijing conducted that submarine-launched ballistic missile test

into the Pacific, although missile tests are pretty routine for nuclear powers.

What makes these desert mock-ups unusual is really their level of detail. You don't need a realistic 3D replica to simulate a warship's radar

signature. That's why many believe these mock-ups may be doing two jobs at once, helping the PLA physically prepare for a future fight, while also

sending a psychological warning to anyone watching from above, especially the U.S.

Will Ripley, CNN, Taipei.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Still to come on "The Brief," Argentina pull off a stunning comeback in the final minutes of World Cup action against Egypt, how it all

went down, including questions about the officiating, and highlights from the Colombia-Switzerland match still underway. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:50:00]

SCIUTTO: Well, a real nail biter at the Men's World Cup today, with Argentina overturning a two-goal deficit to beat Egypt 3-2 in the round of

16.

Fans erupted in Venezuela, Buenos Aires, after Lionel Messi rallied with just minutes to spare. The reigning champions will now take on Switzerland

or Colombia, those two teams facing off in Vancouver. Well, actually, we now know. Switzerland just won on penalties moments ago. So, it'll be

Argentina-Switzerland.

World Sports' Amanda Davies is at the Fan Zone in Atlanta, where she's been speaking to Argentine fans. And, I mean, this was an amazing comeback here,

with, once again, we should note, questions about the officiating decisions. How did it all go down?

AMANDA DAVIES, CNN WORLD SPORT: Yes, I have to say, what a day here at the World Cup. Switzerland, literally in the last couple of minutes, have just

secured their place in the quarterfinals, the first time since 1954. Having gone out at this stage of the competition four times in a row, they've

broken Colombian hearts.

It went all the way down to a penalty shootout. And what that means is that Switzerland will be lining up against the defending world champions,

Argentina, in the last eight. Because this was a day where the dream was not going to end. The dream of the B Campeonatos, the back-to-back World

Cup titles for Argentina, and the dream for the rest of us, who are lucky enough to see Leo Messi and his teammates do what they have been doing on

the world stage.

But, wow, did they have to fight for it against Egypt. You saw the emotion from Messi, his coach, Lionel Scaloni, and his teammates at full-time.

Because on 79 minutes, Egypt were 2-nil up. An Egyptian team who have only won their first World Cup match at this tournament, who were in the round

of 16 for the first time. And after those missed opportunities from Argentina, a missed penalty, another missed penalty from Leo Messi.

You saw the doubt start to creep in to the Albiceleste fans. But not for nothing are they the defending world champions. They have won the last two

editions of the Copa America since Lionel Scaloni has been in charge. They've only lost nine games out of the last 101. Cristian Romero set them

on their way.

And then I was sitting there thinking, Argentina need to channel a bit of that that we saw from Cape Verde, or that that we saw in the last World Cup

final in Qatar against France. And lo and behold, that was when Messi stepped up. It's said when he missed the penalty in the last earlier stages

against Austria, it made him angry.

[18:55:00]

And he stepped up just when his team needed him again to score his eighth goal of this World Cup to make it 2-2. Argentina would never come back to

win from two goals down at a World Cup, but records are there to be broken.

Enzo Fernandez ultimately stepping up, scoring the winner to put Argentina through to the next round, completing one of the greatest comebacks in

their footballing history on one of the greatest days at this World Cup. And I think you can hear the party is just getting started here at the fan

zone.

SCIUTTO: Well, if only the U.S. team could have had a greatest day last night as well. Anyway, more drama on the pitch. Amanda Davies, 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