Return to Transcripts main page

The Brief with Jim Sciutto

CNN International: U.S. Conducts New Strikes on Iran; Trump Says He'll Let Ukraine Make Patriot Missiles; Trump: Putin and Zelenskyy Will Meet; U.S. Markets Slide on Renewed Middle East Tensions; Ukraine Ramps Up Pressure on Russian-Held Crimea; World Cup Controversy. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired July 08, 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. says it has launched new strikes against Iran after President Trump declared the ceasefire over. Trump tells

Volodymyr Zelenskyy he will let Ukraine manufacture its own Patriot missiles. And red cards, suspended goals, reverse penalties not given. I'll

speak to a former referee about the controversial calls, several of them, at this year's World Cup.

We do begin with the breaking news. The U.S. is carrying out a new round of military strikes on Iran. Just ahead, this video shared on social media,

which appears to show explosions in an Iranian port city. U.S. Central Command says the new strikes are at the direction of President Donald

Trump.

Iranian state media reports explosions heard near coastal cities, including Bandar Abbas and Sirik. You see their close proximity there to the Strait

of Hormuz. This is happening as Trump is on his way back to the U.S. from the NATO summit in Turkey. Earlier Wednesday, he declared the ceasefire

with Iran over.

Alayna Treene is at the White House and joins me now. Alayna, here we are again. And the president has certainly given indications that, well, the

war was over, the war was won, and that perhaps he had run out of patience with this war. But here we are again. And I just wonder, are you getting

the sense from the White House that we're in for several rounds of strikes here?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I think that's still unclear. Although, I will say, even when the president was previewing the

second round of strikes, which obviously we're seeing be carried out this evening, and I do think, to your point, of that map you were showing,

notable to see that they are really targeting areas around the Strait, trying to drive home this idea that this is about a response to Iran's

attacks on vessels in that key waterway.

But all to say, despite the President previewing this earlier today when he was in Turkey and saying that the U.S. would hit Iran very hard, he also

argued that he does not believe this will be a return to all-out war. Listen to how he put it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: No, I don't think it's going to start again. I think it's going to go very quickly. They hit a couple of ships, and so

we hit them much harder. We'll only make it safer, including for oil. Anything that happens is going to happen very fast. We're not looking for

long-term.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TREENE: Now, I will say, of course, some of those comments likely also targeted toward the markets, with oil prices, of course, rising in response

to the exchange of attacks and some of the President's comments today.

But I'd note as well that he has been contradicting himself a bit. In one breath, you know, earlier he was saying the ceasefire is over, the MOU is

over. However, he also said in another breath that he believes that's really up to some of these negotiators, people like Steve Witkoff and Jared

Kushner, who have been leading that. So, it's still unclear at this point what the fate of this agreement between the U.S. and Iran is and whether or

not it is truly over.

And some other things I just want to point out. I've been catching up with my sources, Jim. One thing is that there is no question that the president,

they say, is very frustrated about the Strait not yet being fully open. Remember, that was a key part, really one of the first lines in that

memorandum of understanding that was signed just a couple of weeks ago.

The other part is that Iran struck some of these vessels in the Strait while he's in NATO, while he was meeting with foreign leaders and on a

world stage. We know that Trump likes to tout these types of successes when he goes to these big summits. He wasn't able to do that with Iran striking

different vessels in the Strait.

The third point is, I'm told, he's also been losing some patience with the pace of negotiations, specifically when it comes to the talks around Iran's

future nuclear program, the state of Iran's future nuclear program. So, all of that, I think, contributing to what we're seeing really publicly spill

out today while he was in Turkey and, of course, with some of these strikes.

SCIUTTO: Alayna, can I ask you a question?

TREENE: Yes.

SCIUTTO: Does anyone in the White House share with you concern that the president is losing control of this war, that he doesn't have the ability

to end it or to force negotiations that he has said or claimed that he has?

TREENE: They don't frame it that way. What I will say is, what I found very interesting is there's a lot of differing opinion inside the West

Wing, including among many of their cabinet officials. We've done extensive reporting on this, about whether or not they believe that Iran would

actually ever live up to its commitments and whether, in Trump's words, you know, they're tapping the U.S. along. There are a lot of people that

believe that that was never going to happen, that Iran was never going to honor its commitment.

[18:05:00]

However, there's also a large consensus, again, with the top officials and advisers Trump speaks with, the chief of staff, to the defense secretary,

the list goes on, that they all wanted to get this war over with. It's something Trump wants as well. They want this to end. And having an all-out

war, a return to major combat operations, is not, I think, in their minds, a way that this will end quickly. So, they are in a bit of a very tight

spot here on how to proceed.

SCIUTTO: Alayna Treene at the White House, appreciate it.

Let's go now to CNN's Fred Pleitgen, who is inside Iran. We should note CNN operates there only with the permission of the government, but maintains

full editorial control of its reports. So, Fred, here we are again, and Iran, again, the target. Tell us what state media, what Iranian officials

and others are telling you about the extent of these strikes.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Jim. Well, they certainly seem to be even broader than the strikes that we saw

last night by the United States against targets in Iran.

One of the things we have to point out is that here in Tehran, where we are, everything is quiet. So, it certainly seems as though they are still

restricted to those coastal areas, but certainly seem to be in a broader part of those coastal areas than, for instance, we've seen yesterday when

the strikes were initiated at almost the same time that we're speaking right now.

One of the areas, for instance, that appears to be reporting explosions taking place is the area around Bushehr. There is, of course, a nuclear

power plant in Bushehr. So, far, the Iranians are saying that has not been targeted. There are some military bases around those as well. That's in the

northern part of the Persian Gulf.

Then we have those areas around that arch of the Strait of Hormuz itself, but also an island on the western entrance of the Strait of Hormuz called

Abu Musa. And then even as far to the east as Chabahar, which is actually a port town that is very close to the border with Pakistan.

So, the strikes, if they are still indeed ongoing, seem to be ongoing for an extended period of time. They also seem to be broader than strikes that

we have seen before, not just yesterday, but of course in those skirmishes that have been taking place over the past couple of weeks. So, certainly,

the United States seems to be hitting some of those targets there inside Iran.

At the same time, the Iranians are saying or had been saying that there is going to be retaliation for any sort of strikes that the United States

conducts. Of course, one of the things that the Iranians have been targeting or say they've been targeting is U.S. assets specifically in the

Gulf countries. What we've seen so far is especially the U.S. trying to target -- or the Iranians, sorry, trying to target U.S. assets in Kuwait

and also in Bahrain. Whether or not that's going to be the case this time is obviously something that we don't know just yet. The Iranians haven't

started that yet.

But one thing that I think we should focus on, Jim, is the fact that the president had said in his press conference earlier that the U.S. might take

the Kharg Island, which of course is so important for Iranian oil exports. Well, Iranian politicians have been coming out and saying, look, the U.S.

can try and do that, but it's going to be bloody for the United States, and the Iranians are ready for that.

So, the Iranians certainly telegraphing that they are going to respond, also telegraphing that they are in or up for a larger fight if this

memorandum of understanding falls apart, Jim.

SCIUTTO: No shortage of threats and increasingly no shortage of strikes in both directions. Fred Pleitgen in Tehran, thanks so much.

Joining me now, retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General Dave Deptula. Good to have you back, sir. Thanks so much for joining.

LT. GEN. DAVE DEPTULA, U.S. AIR FORCE (RET.) AND DEAN, MITCHELL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE STUDIES: You bet, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask a very basic strategic question. If the goal of these strikes recently have been, one, to open the Strait of Hormuz, but two, to

force Iran to the negotiating table and make concessions, have the strikes met either of those goals?

DEPTULA: Well, I think that the strikes underway need to be executed before we can properly answer that question. I think that what you're

seeing is the U.S. is shifting from a purely paper compliance model to more of an enforced consequences model.

And one needs to remember, and I think we have to be careful not to mirror image to the Iranians what our response might be, and to recognize that

Iran only cares about or will respond to force. So, that's part of the challenge here.

I'm concerned that perhaps we're thinking a little bit too much the way we would react, as opposed to what needs to be done to get the Iranians to

comply. And that means greater application of force, quite frankly.

SCIUTTO: I mean, the trouble is that they have not responded to force yet in the way that the U.S. wants. One, which is to -- you know, unrestrained

opening of the Straits as well as Syria's negotiations going forward.

[18:10:00]

The trouble is that they have not responded to force yet in the way that the U.S. wants. One, which is to, you know, unrestrained opening of the

Straits as well as serious negotiations going forward. And I understand the application of further force, but to what degree, right?

I mean, the question is how far is the U.S. willing to go? I mean, you have this chorus, right, if you listen to everybody from several, you know,

Israeli officials speaking publicly to the Wall Street Journal editorial board, they will say, finish the job. Well, what does finish the job mean?

DEPTULA: Yes. Well, it is -- that's the challenge. I mean, if it was easy, it would be over with by now. Now, obviously, I'm not going to discuss

operational target lists in detail, but conceptually, the target sets that are being exercised include the systems that Iran uses to threaten the

Strait, which includes IRGC naval assets, coastal anti-ship missiles, all these things that I think you've gone over ad nauseum, command and control

sites, but to a much, much greater degree than they've been reduced so far.

You know, one of the topics that people get all excited about is electricity. That is the single most highly leveraged target there is. You

take out the electricity that powers the IRGC capabilities, and you shut them down. And a legal case can be made that you can do that in accordance

with the laws of armed conflict.

So, you know, there's one potential area that could actually paralyze the IRGC's ability to operate. So, I think that what we need to do, and the

mistake that we need to avoid, is conducting pinprick retaliation. The right approach is to attack the systems that enables Iran's maritime

coercion.

SCIUTTO: We know that the possibility of ground operations is, at least on the table, up into the point that ground forces have been deployed to the

region for that possibility. How big a risk would that be? Whether you're saying, go on shore along the Strait to destroy positions you can't destroy

entirely from the air, or go on to Kharg Island to take possession of Kharg Island or control it so that Iran is constricted economically, or go on the

ground to retrieve all the highly enriched uranium. Can you do any of those things without the risk of significant casualties?

DEPTULA: Short answer is absolutely not. OK. Now, you raise three separate conditions, which are all different. The one that's been batted around the

most recently is the whole issue of Kharg Island. Well, why? Well, because Kharg Island matters because it's central to Iran's oil export capacity.

But the objective is not the island itself. The objective is the flow of oil revenue that funds Iran's aggression. And we can neutralize that flow

through aerial mining, maritime exclusion, precision strikes on the export infrastructure, and sustained surveillance without putting U.S. sons and

daughters on Iranian soil and dramatically increasing potential U.S. casualties. So, let's not occupy what we can neutralize.

SCIUTTO: Lieutenant General Dave Deptula, appreciate you joining.

DEPTULA: Have a great day.

SCIUTTO: Well, now to right in the middle of it, the Arabian Sea, where the commanding officer of the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier says

that Iran has looked for ways to target his ship. Our colleague, Pamela Brown, is on board where she spoke to Captain Daniel Keeler in a CNN

exclusive.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PAMELA BROWN, CNN CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: The president today said that there have been many attacks against the Abraham Lincoln. I

wonder what you can tell us about the attacks you have fended off, what you've seen.

CAPT. DANIEL KEELER, COMMANDING OFFICER, USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN: Since we've gotten here, clearly, during Epic Fury, they, you know, the Iranians were

looking for opportunities to attack this ship. I think we're very well defended. They don't get close.

BROWN: Today, they targeted military bases. Have you seen the threats against the Abraham Lincoln go down in recent weeks and months and like

more toward the land?

KEELER: Yes, I think it's cyclical. And you'd have to ask, you know, Iran why they're picking what they're picking. But I think we're a very hard

target, because we move. And some of those land-based targets are not as difficult because they're obviously fixed. So, you know, I think I

understand that Iran would probably want to go after things that they have a higher confidence level that they can attack.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[18:15:00]

SCIUTTO: Well, turning now to a significant development in U.S. support for Ukraine, President Trump said today that he will give Kyiv the ability,

the license, in effect, to make Patriot missiles, the interceptors for the Patriot missile system. The president met with his Ukrainian counterpart at

the NATO summit in Ankara, where it was hailed by Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a good meeting.

A Patriot's license would give Ukraine access to one of America's most sensitive missile defense technologies. Ukraine's president said his main

goal for the summit was to secure more air defenses for his country.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: The one thing we still need to do here in Europe is build a strong defense against Russia's ballistic

missiles. It's a big challenge. It's true. This is Russia's last major advantage. And as well, and as we have seen from the wars in the Middle

East and the Gulf, this is an issue of global importance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Perspective now from inside Ukraine, in the Ukrainian capital, Halyna Yanchenko is a member of Ukraine's parliament, and she joins us now.

Halyna, good to have you back on the air.

HALYNA YANCHENKO, UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT MEMBER: Hello.

SCIUTTO: President Zelenskyy, he called his meeting a good one with the U.S. president. I wonder, based not just on their comments, but on what the

deliverables were, do you agree? Was it a good meeting?

YANCHENKO: I believe it is a great meeting. And this is something that Ukraine and social media are discussing and social, basically media, but

also traditional media in Ukraine.

You should have some idea about what is going on currently in Kyiv. Lately, Russia has started to attack Ukraine, and especially capital city, Kyiv,

where I am based, with ballistic attacks in addition to this Shahed Iranian drones. It's very difficult for Ukraine to deal with ballistic missiles

because nearly an only tool to tackle ballistic down is Patriot's Interceptors, PAC-3. And we had a huge shortage of these missiles.

That is why over the past week, Russia has killed over 50 civilians alone in Kyiv. This is a huge tragedy for many families, you can believe that.

This is a huge tragedy for Ukraine. And that is why negotiations about PAC- 3, Interceptors for Patriot, was indeed the main goal of President Zelenskyy during the NATO summit.

So, actually, he had two goals. First, to negotiate long-term solutions by negotiating the licenses so Ukraine can produce Patriots here in Ukraine.

Also, another thing to realize is Patriot missiles are great with everything, but only one thing. The producer of Patriots can only produce

about 60 missiles a month. This is not enough, given the security situation in Ukraine, but also globally. So, we definitely, we as Western

civilization, need much more Patriot interceptors currently. And Ukraine can help with boosting this production, since Ukrainian defense industry

really knows how to boost production. So, that was the first goal of Zelenskyy to negotiate licenses.

But the second goal, since Ukraine is out of these missiles at the moment, the second goal was to actually negotiate some kind of contracts and

ability to purchase some Patriot interceptors now, especially given the fact that European countries are ready to help Ukraine and are ready to

actually to buy those Patriot interceptors for Ukrainian urgent needs, just to protect innocent civilians who suffer on a daily basis every night in

the danger.

SCIUTTO: President Zelenskyy said that Russia's conditions for ending the war are shifting. Does he sense weakness? Does he sense Russia willing to

concede more perhaps?

YANCHENKO: Well, it's clear for us in Ukraine that every war is being over with negotiations. But it's important to understand what are the positions

of the parties in these negotiations. Of course, Ukraine is ready for negotiations because we are interested in the end of the war. But Russia is

not interested neither in the end of the war nor in negotiations.

[18:20:00]

Just over the past year, Zelenskyy has invited Putin to start real negotiations at least five times, in Istanbul, in Urals, in South Arabic

countries, but Putin, the president of Russia, is constantly ignoring this invitation of President Zelenskyy, of President Trump, or Putin is simply

lying about his real intentions and about his intentions to negotiate.

Therefore, we believe that there should be other tools to force Russia to actually enter real negotiations and end the war, and we believe that

Western countries have such tools. It's more sanctions, it's stopping in trading, just to make sure that Russia will run out of funds to continue

funding the war. If Russia will be out of money to pay for war, they will be forced to stop it.

SCIUTTO: I want to read one line from this statement at the conclusion of the summit, the Ankara summit declaration from NATO that stood out to me

regarding Ukraine. It said, Ukraine contributes to transatlantic security, and allies stand united in our unwavering support for Ukraine in defending

its freedom.

Now, given that this is a NATO statement, the U.S. is one of the signatories, it's quite strong wording, especially given that President

Trump has at times not expressed support for Ukraine and even criticized the Ukrainian president and the war and U.S. support for the war. Do those

words have meaning to you?

YANCHENKO: Well, I hope that these words will be lasting, and there will be some activities behind these words. This is what I pray for, and this is

what all Ukrainians are praying for.

SCIUTTO: Well, I also know you're praying for safety in the midst of all those missile attacks. Halyna Yanchenko, we hope you and your family

continue to be safe there in Kyiv.

YANCHENKO: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Please stay with us. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: In today's Business Breakout, the Dow had its worst day in almost a month, and the price of oil spiked following renewed conflict with Iran.

Reports of strikes came in just before the market closed.

[18:25:00]

The Dow then closed down more than 570 points. The S&P also finished in the red. Brent Crude, the global benchmark, shot up to $78 a barrel. Gasoline

futures in the U.S. spiked 6 percent. The highest single-day increase in three months.

The U.S. war with Iran has already done a number on the IMF's world economic outlook. The fund released its latest predictions today. Now,

forecasts the global economy to grow just 3 percent this year. That is lower than its April forecast.

Joining me now, Art Hogan, chief market strategist for B. Riley Financial Art. Good to have you back.

ART HOGAN, CHIEF MARKET STRATEGIST, B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Great to be back. Thanks so much for having me.

SCIUTTO: So, the moment the shooting started again and President Trump declared the ceasefire over, markets moved quite quickly. Stocks going

down. Oil going up. Are investors pricing in a prolonged conflict here, or do you see them expecting a more short-lived disruption?

HOGAN: Yes, such a great question. I think market participants had clearly been cautiously optimistic that there would be an exit ramp on this war

with Iran. And that diminishes over time. We certainly saw the price per barrel of oil come down quite a bit when the memory of understanding --

Memorandum of Understanding went out. And we got, you know, within shouting distance of where oil was before the war started. And that's reversed

itself pretty dramatically today. And I think that's the consequence of this just not being both sides negotiating.

It feels as though both sides are still talking by each other. And clearly, when the missiles fly, the price of oil is going up. And then what follows

that is Treasury yields work their way higher as fears of inflation being more persistent. Means the Fed might actually have to raise rates, not cut

rates this year. And all of that sort of wraps up into the market reaction.

But this has been a market that's been able to whistle by the graveyard on this war, hoping that we find an exit ramp. And it just doesn't seem to be

any closer today than it was last week.

SCIUTTO: Yes. I kind of feel like the market's a bit wrong on this, right? Because repeatedly, they seem to just, well, as you say, pricing in a

shorter conflict. But the U.S. seemingly can't get out of this war, right? It's expanding now. The peace talks don't seem to be going quite anywhere.

I mean, do you think the markets -- I mean, hard to describe them all, given there are so many of them. But do you think that they've

underestimated the risk of this dragging on?

HOGAN: Yes, Jim, think about it like this, right? So, the markets are contending with a juxtaposition where higher energy prices causing

inflation to go up, likely causing the Fed to do something more hawkish compared with the fact that earnings growth has still been robust, right?

So, investors sort of are willing to ignore the length of what's going on until they're not, while earnings growth still rises. And what will happen

is we'll start earnings season next week with the banks.

And companies will, again, start talking about the input cost, whether it's energy or everything that comes out of the barrel of oil, like

hydrocarbons, plastics, fertilizer, et cetera, and how that's impacting their business, transportation costs, et cetera.

So, once this starts taking a hit on earnings growth, which we expect to be pretty robust for the second quarter, then you'll start to see investors

say, OK, this happen -- this is lasting a lot longer than we thought. We clearly need to pay attention to this because if it affects earnings growth

and GDP growth, then clearly, it's going to vest levels of stocks.

SCIUTTO: You brought up interest rates. And before the MOU was signed, you said, if we can get to an off-ramp in this war, the Fed might be able to

cut rates maybe once this year. But to your point, do you see rates more likely to go the other direction?

HOGAN: Yes. We just got the minutes from the last Fed meeting, and there's some symmetry in how Fed members are feeling right now. But there's more

folks that are hawkish and think that we'll need to raise rates this year than there are folks that think that if inflation can come down or start

heading back to 2 percent and if energy prices continue to come down, then perhaps they could cut rates, but not until next year.

So, unfortunately, the longer this war lasts, the more impact it's going to have on rates. And that's going to be a drag on earnings growth and

certainly economic growth. So, clearly, it goes hand in glove. And unfortunately, it's not getting any better anytime soon.

SCIUTTO: Yes. And a lot there to hurt consumers themselves. Art Hogan, thanks so much.

HOGAN: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Checking some of today's other business headlines, Jeff Bezos' space company is taking on its first round of outside funding. Blue Origin

has been valued at $130 billion and is looking to raise some $10 billion. Bezos himself is expected to pony up $2 billion. Blue Origin competes with

Elon Musk's SpaceX, which went public last month in the biggest IPO ever, a valuation of more than $2 trillion.

[18:30:00]

Salesforce announced it will invest one billion dollars in Switzerland over the next five years. The goal? Promote the use of A.I. The European nation

is home to a number of international organizations, of course, including the World Economic Forum and a major hub for the U.N. Salesforce's

investment comes despite investors' worries that the company is overspending on A.I.

China is reportedly planning on letting its top AI companies buy NVIDIA's H200 chips, this according to Reuters. NVIDIA had already received licenses

from the U.S. to sell its advanced chips to China. It will be a limited number of companies buying a limited number of chips, however. NVIDIA

shares rose 1 percent on the news.

Coming up next, more on our breaking news. President Trump ordering new strikes on Iran. He says the ceasefire is now over.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

A U.S. federal judge has ordered President Trump to pay $5 billion to former magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll. Trump was found liable for

sexually abusing and defaming Carroll in a civil case three years ago. He asked for a delay in paying the damages until the Supreme Court decides

whether it might reconsider his petition.

Donald Trump has adopted a more positive tone towards the NATO alliance. After a busy day at the summit in Ankara, he offered new support for

Ukraine in its ongoing war with Russia. And in a major policy shift, the president says the U.S. will give Kyiv a license to manufacture Patriot air

defense missiles.

The U.S. is carrying out yet more strikes on Iran just hours after Trump said the ceasefire is over. The Iranian state media reports explosions in

several coastal cities U.S.

[18:35:00]

Central Command says the strikes were at President Trump's direction and are meant to degrade Iran's ability to threaten ships in the Strait of

Hormuz.

Tom Karako is director of the Missile Defense Project and a senior fellow for defense and security at the Center for Strategic and International

Studies. Tom, good to have you.

TOM KARAKO, DIRECTOR, MISSILE DEFENSE PROJECT, SENIOR FELLOW, CSIS DEFENSE AND SECURITY DEPARTMENT AND SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND

INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: Good to be with you.

SCIUTTO: As we look at Iran first, a U.S. official says the military is in a wait-and-see mode regarding exactly how many waves of U.S. strikes there

will be but do not rule out further. What's going to be the measure of success here, right? I mean, how will the U.S. judge whether the strikes

worked, if they're enough, if they're enough pressure? What are they looking for exactly?

KARAKO: Well, unfortunately, the metric there is that the Iranians stopped doing the bad things they said they weren't going to do, like closing the

Strait or shooting at ships, for instance, or shooting at U.S. bases in the region.

I will say that this is probably a prudent reassessment of the situation. We heard a very rosy situation from the vice president and from other folks

in the administration a couple weeks ago, and I think there -- I think, frankly, as the president said today, he was asked what changed in his view

over the past couple weeks, and he says he got to know the Iranians.

It's 18 months into the second administration on the Trump team, so it's good to see that they are beginning to see the Iranians for what they are,

but frankly, they've been that same thing all along.

SCIUTTO: You argued that after Epic Fury, the U.S. had already lost an extensive number of missiles, jeopardizing long-term deterrence, defense

goals, not just in the Middle East, but in Europe and in Asia as well. If this war restarts again, presumably, the U.S. military will be using more

missiles.

I mean, do we even have them? How many more can they afford to expend?

KARAKO: Those are two different things. We have them, and can we afford them? We do have them, but frankly, I don't think we can afford to do it

without incurring a very deep cost. So, we can afford to do it for this conflict, for this enemy, but, you know, the observer of this conflict that

is cheering the most, frankly, is China.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

KARAKO: China is clicking away on a name clicker for every tomahawk and every PAC-3 that we expend. And so, frankly, it is quite worrisome for the

broader deterrence and defense goals in the Pacific, which, after all, is supposed to be our focus.

SCIUTTO: Yes, I just wonder what the solution is for that, right? Because this has been -- there's been an awareness of just how long the supply

chain is for these missiles and the Iran war has been a study in just how quickly you can expend them, right, in a conflict without a decisive finish

at this point.

Is there any evidence that the combination of the defense department and industry have figured out a way or invested the dollars or made the changes

necessary to speed up and to scale up that production?

KARAKO: So, the good news is that we have figured out what to do. We have sufficiently not only diagnosed the problem, but figured out the

prescription. The bad news is we haven't yet taken our medicine. And the taking of the medicine part is in the form of appropriations.

So, we are many tens of billions of dollars short of where we need to be to begin what's called the munitions ramp that was kind of planned last year,

solidified in the January, February timeframe. And why is it we have these prioritized munitions, but they've not yet kicked off with contracts? Why

is that? Because we don't have appropriations.

The 2026 appropriations was $30 billion short by its own admission of what the Pentagon wanted for this munitions ramp. And that was before Epic Fury.

So, we are now in a very deep hole. And guess what? There is, unfortunately, not just a whole lot of momentum behind the supplemental of

2026 supplemental to pay for the war to fix this replenishment problem to replace what we've been shooting off.

You know, by a lot of measures, it looks like we're going to kick this to the lame duck period in terms of getting to a CR and then we'll just pass

something after the election for the 11 for the for the for the lame duck.

SCIUTTO: Sure.

KARAKO: That's losing time. We're losing a lot of time and Congress really needs to act now to appropriate to get this replenishment going.

SCIUTTO: OK. Before we go, tell me the significance in your view of the U.S. -- the president offering Ukraine the ability to manufacture its own

Patriot missiles. Significant? And how quickly can that make an impact for them?

KARAKO: So, a couple things. One, it's significant from I would say the overall posture of this administration to Ukraine. They figured out that

Ukraine is actually making some success and it's frankly good to see a little bit of falling and a little bit of, frankly, recognizing who the bad

guys are here and at least being amenable to helping the Ukrainians do more.

[18:40:00]

The bad news, however, is that, you know, I can have a driver's license. It doesn't mean that I have a car to drive to work. And so, just because you

have a license doesn't mean you have the facilities stood up or the supply chain, the pipeline of the supply chain is not full. So, it's likely to

take a little while for this to be shooting patriots out the other end.

SCIUTTO: Tom Karako, appreciate you joining.

KARAKO: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Well, speaking of Ukraine, it is ramping up pressure on Russian- held Crimea. It has repeatedly struck Russian targets on the peninsula in recent weeks. That's significant. Nick Paton Walsh reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Ukraine is hitting Russia hard where it all began. Occupied Crimea taken first in

2014, it is a peninsula and that makes it very vulnerable to being cut off.

There are two ways in or out. First is the Kerch Bridge, which Ukraine has been hitting for years and it's now beset by queues of thousands of anxious

Russians trying to get out. Second is the land bridge through occupied Ukraine. Many saw this as a big strategic gain from Russia's invasion in

2022, a way to cheaply and permanently connect Russia to this tourist Mecca, the jewel of the Soviet past.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Most of the Crimean Peninsula, a national resort.

VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): Crimea, sacral importance for Russia, like the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

WALSH: Ukraine's 2023 counter-offensive tried to break through here but failed, hitting huge Russian defenses. Now, they're flying over them. New

mid-range Ukrainian drone capability striking the road along the land bridge and Crimea's air defenses, leaving it vulnerable. And then the

actual bridges to Crimea and the Russian trains and the roads. Now, they're hitting ordinary infrastructure, refineries, power stations, meaning power

cuts in the cities.

Queues at gas stations, thick black smoke on the skyline, so yet more Russians are leaving. Zelenskyy recently claimed that Russia has had to

priorities air defenses in Crimea and around Moscow as well. Putin has recently accepted economic challenges and indeed gas shortages as Ukraine's

drone strikes increasingly cause chaos in ordinary Russian life.

So, what's the goal here? Make Crimea hard to live in, a place without tourists, gas, power, affordable food and the land bridge to it, already

itself a tough place to live in, seems less worth the cost.

And this is the wider point for Kyiv. Seize on the growing questions inside Russia as to what the war is even for. If Crimea is effectively

uninhabitable and the only gains they can claim are tiny bits of land, usually rubble, in the Donbas. Turn Crimea from a jewel in Putin's crown to

leverage for Ukraine, perhaps in any future peace talks, or even into a damaging thorn in Putin's side as he tries to navigate growing dissent

about his war of choice.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Another important front in the Ukraine war. Well, some of the biggest plays at this year's World Cup have involved the officials. We're

going to speak to a former Premier League referee about some of the most disputed calls. There's lots of emotion around this. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:45:00]

SCIUTTO: One thing we've learned at this year's World Cup is that anger at the refs can transcend all borders. It was Egypt's turn to complain after

their shocking 3-2 defeat to Argentina. One of their goals was disallowed after a video review. Their head coach wondered afterwards why VAR was not

used to review physical plays against his side. He called it all unfair.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOSSAM HASSAN, HEAD COACH, EGYPT (through translator): I am saying that we deserve to win. I do not want to say hard luck to us, no. We went out with

honor on our part. But the result was far from the fair play that FIFA talks about. There was no respect and no fair play today.

Today, we had a penalty not given. The referee, not even the VAR, even tried to look at it. We had a goal, the second goal, and it was disallowed

in a strange way. Life is still, and the world is still, not fair.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: FIFA drew the wrath of Belgium as well for allowing U.S. striker, Folarin Balogun, to compete against them on Monday, lifting his red card

suspension. That decision followed a phone call between FIFA president, Gianni Infantino, and President Trump.

And Croatia's head coach stepped down after a 2-1 defeat by Portugal, but not before complaining about a VAR-awarded penalty and an offside decision

that ruled out a late goal that would have tied the match.

Lots of questions, lots of anger, lots of emotion. Joining us now is Graham Scott. He's a former referee with the English Premier League, now a

reporter with The Athletic. Good to have you on.

GRAHAM SCOTT, FORMER REFEREE, ENGLISH PREMIER LEAGUE AND REPORTER, THE ATHLETIC: Thanks so much for joining. Good evening.

SCIUTTO: So, lots of runover. I do want to begin, because it was more recent, with the decision to disallow Egypt's goal earlier in that match

there. A VAR review, a play long, far away from the ultimate goal. Was that the right call?

SCOTT: I didn't think so, no. I can understand it. I've done that job a hundred times. It's incredibly challenging, and I loathe to criticize

anyone who's sat in that VAR chair and wrestled with those judgments. But I didn't think it was the right call.

I don't think it's a foul to start with. And even if you think it is, I think it's far too far from goal. There are 10 Argentinian players between

the ball and the goal. The fact that their midfield chooses simply to jog back into place and allow someone to run from his own penalty area into

their own and to score is on them. And I felt like the VAR bailed them out for some poor play on their part.

And it just didn't sit right with me. It felt like an overreach of VAR, which is supposed only to intervene when there's a really poor, obvious,

clear error that anyone looking at it would go, well, that's just got to be put right and put right quickly.

SCIUTTO: Yes. I mean, that's the overall question with a lot of these calls here, right? And listen, I've watched a lot of football in my time,

and there are times in the pre-VAR era where you were thinking, I wish there was VAR because the ref clearly missed it. Do you think that in this

tournament, there's been an overuse, an over-application of VAR?

SCOTT: I think it's the problem for most people, and certainly for me, it's been inconsistently used. So, what do we want here? Do we want to take

our time and get to the best possible decision, or are we going to try and basically support the unfilled referee and put right only the decisions

that are so plainly wrong that they can't possibly be allowed to stand?

And it's felt like we keep falling between the two stools. One week we -- or one game, we intervene, or the referee intervenes, the VAR intervenes on

a relatively minor infraction. The next time you think, well, that's clearly a foul, surely, they'll come in here, and they don't.

And it's very difficult to pitch it right. You've got lots of different people involved, lots of different nationalities, different cultures,

different expectations. You watch the Premier League, which I refereed in. It's very physical. We let a lot go. We're very relaxed about contact in

other jurisdictions. That's different.

[18:50:00]

So, you're going to get some differences, but it does feel like that the gap between the two extremes is much too -- has been much too wide in a

single tournament of just about 100 games.

SCIUTTO: How about the technology itself? I mean, is it too sensitive, right? I mean, you think of the chip in the ball that detected some sort of

contact with the hair on the ear of your Croatian striker in that play, or when you see some of these offside calls where, I mean, it feels like the

collar of a guy's shirt puts him offside, which a referee or a line judge couldn't possibly spot in the moment. I mean, is one of the problems that

there's just too much technology?

SCOTT: Possibly. There's an endless debate in football between whether people want consistency or a more common sense, liberal approach to

applying the rules of the game. When it comes to offside, it's large part of the law is simply a matter of fact. Are you nearer the goal than two of

their team? And if you are, then you're in an offside position. If you then play the ball, you commit an offside offence.

So, we've gone down a very forensic, factual route by using the technology to try and get the right outcome, just like we might use Hawkeye for the

lines at Wimbledon or for the goal-line technology in soccer. We've gone down a factual route, and I don't really like it. I think it takes too

long. It's not -- it doesn't feel right. But understand it, because at least we get consistent outcomes.

But in other situations, we strive for consistency, but then we end up spending hours and hours pouring over -- or collectively over the

tournament, hours potentially pouring over lots of incidents to try and find what is considered to be the absolutely perfect, correct decision. And

football isn't like that.

The joy of football or soccer is that it's continuous. It doesn't stop. It flows. And instead, we've had a tournament with three-minute drinks breaks

midway through each half, and VAR checks that just kill the atmosphere in the stadium and take away from the experience, especially of the fans in

the grounds, but also people watching at home.

SCIUTTO: Yes, yes. There's a lot of time to run to the loo during this tournament. Graham Scott, we appreciate your joy.

SCOTT: With all those drinks, you kind of need to.

SCIUTTO: Well, exactly. Still to come on "The Brief," Emmy nominations unveiled today honoring the best of the best on television. We're going to

break down who's hot and who's overlooked. Just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: It's that time of year again. The 78th annual Emmy nominations are out, honoring the best shows on primetime television.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- in the presence of hypercaloric metabolic acidosis. I recently had a case in the ICU.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: "The Pit" led all shows with 25 nominations. The medical drama starring Noah Wyle focuses on healthcare workers at a Pittsburgh hospital

that won big last year, but could face stiff competition this year from Apple TV's, "Pluribus."

[18:55:00]

On the comedy side, "Hacks" snagged 24 nominations in its final season. Jean Smart was nominated again for her performance in the lead role.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was talking to the guy on the ferry, and he said something odd.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What was that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He said bad things happen here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Apple's "Widow's Bay" received a hefty 19 nods and "Shrinking" is also a strong contender. The late Rob Reiner received a posthumous

nomination for his guest role in "The Bear." The awards ceremony will air in September.

And thanks so much for joining today. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. You've been watching "The Brief." Please do stay with CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:00:00]

END