Good evening. Thanks for joining us. We begin tonight. Special Edition broadcast with breaking news.
A strike on the U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia by two suspected Iranian drones, the latest in a wave of reprisals across the region. That's an Iranian drone hitting a high rise apartment in Bahrain over the weekend. Iran striking targets from Cyprus in the Mediterranean to Dubai.
Now the State Department tonight warning U.S. citizens in 14 area countries to leave now, including from Jordan with the American Embassy was evacuated earlier tonight. There was no attack there. The U.S.
is saying for Americans to get out of those 14 area countries. Easier said than done. Again, just a short time later, the Riyadh Embassy was struck after that warning in Jordan. So was an American base in Kuwait over the weekend killing six U.S.
servicemembers. Eighteen others were seriously wounded. We're just learning more about that attack. A senior U.S.
official telling CNN, Jim Shudo, that American forces are preparing for a quote major uptick in attacks on Iran over the next 24 hours. Also tonight, Israeli Defense Forces are striking Hezbollah Command Centers and weapons towards sites in Beirut. As that's unfolding, Iran is answering this new video of an Iranian missile attack on Tel Aviv, a new wave sending our crew into the bomb shelter in the basement of this building just an hour ago. Dubai, Bahrain, a lot of countries that we're going to be getting to throughout this hour, duck and cover drills going on in some locations.
There's certainly a lot going on. And Jeremy Diamond joins us from Tel Aviv. Matthew Chance is in Beirut where we just saw that new explosion. Let me start off with you.
What do we know about what is going on, Matthew, where you are in and around Beirut? Actually, let's go to Jeremy Diamond. Jeremy, what's the latest you were seeing in Tel Aviv? And talk to me about what you were hearing from Israeli officials about this major uptick over the next 24 hours.
Well, and there's been about a couple of hours ago. We had the latest barrage of ballistic missiles being fired from Iran on Iran on Israeli-Israeli attacks. We saw the Iranian-Israeli cities, including right here in Tel Aviv, where our team witnessed multiple interceptions as well as a ballistic missile that appeared to be potentially armed with some kind of a cluster munition. We saw this pattern of breakup of the warhead as it was coming down.
We have seen reports of fallen shrapnel, smaller craters in the Tel Aviv area, but no indication as of yet of any direct impacts. But Israeli officials that I've been talking to have indicated that the number of ballistic missiles that Iran is firing is about to drop off quite significantly as early as tomorrow night. And that's because right now we are in the midst of Israel and the United States carrying out very intense airstrikes in Iran. One key figure that I was told by Israeli officials is that as of today, we've seen about 1,200 targets struck by the United States and Israel in the first three days of this war.
That number is expected to double by tomorrow. And that just shows you how intense those strikes are currently in Iran. And because of those strikes, these Israeli officials say that by tomorrow night they expect that Iran's ability to fire ballistic missiles on Israel and throughout the region is going to be significantly impacted. And we'll have to see whether those expectations that assessment actually proves to be true by tomorrow night.
Of course, so far we've seen at least 10 people who've been killed in Israel as a result of these ballistic missile attacks and Israelis once again tonight being sent to bomb shelters. We will see if that pays diminishes over the next couple of days as Israeli officials have told me to expect. In Germany, what in terms of the defensive capabilities of US forces and also Israeli forces, how are they doing in just terms of the number of Patriot missiles and the like to defend Israel in other US locations? Well, the first thing to say is that the air defense effort has been very successful so far here in Israel.
Israeli officials have told me that they've only seen single digit numbers of direct impacts from these missiles over the course of the last three days. Even before this war started, there were concerns among Israeli officials about the number of interceptor missiles that they still had in their stockpile, although that specific information about those is very closely held here in Israel. We know that the United States has supplemented Israel's air defense with a number of Patriot and FAD missile batteries that have been positioned in the region, as well as the USS Gerald R. Ford, which is off the coast of the northern Israeli city of Haifa.
So far they've been successful. It's hard to tell as of now how much longer they can keep this up. But if these Israeli officials are to be believed right now, they may not need as much capacity of air defense assets if they can degrade Iran's ability to even fire those ballistic missiles in the first place, which is really officials tell me is indeed the strategy at this moment. So something that we're going to be keeping a very, very close eye on in the coming days.
Alright, I want to check out when Matthew Chansu is in Beirut. Matthew, what more do you know about Israeli strikes in and around Beirut trying to degrade and destroy as much of Hezbollah as possible? That's certainly been happening and those strikes have been really intensive. And to some extent, I think Lebanon has become yet another front in this ongoing escalating Iran War.
And that's because Lebanon is home to Hezbollah, powerful, or what was very much a powerful Iranian-backed militia that has often been a proxy for Tehran. Striking across the border into northern Israel, what it says was a revenge attack for the killing of the Iranian Supreme Leader by those joins Israeli US strikes over the weekend. The Israeli response to that has been really very strong indeed. They've been pounding positions held by Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
Tonight they've been hitting areas of south Beirut, the city where I'm talking to you from right now. There have been at least 52 deaths over the past 24 hours or so. We haven't had the latest casualty reports from Lebanese officials as a result of the latest airstrikes. But what I can tell you is that thousands of people, particularly from southern Lebanon, have fled their homes, they've gone in their cars, they've traveled to the north to Beirut where it's at least a little bit safer and elsewhere as well to try and escape the fighting.
This is a country that is exhausted by war and conflict. The Lebanese government has been sharply critical of Hezbollah for taking the action that it did, for drawing it into that around war. They've even taken the step of formally outlawing Hezbollah's military activity. Now that sounds symbolic, but it could actually be something that fuels tensions and lead to a confrontation between Hezbollah, which has had residual power here, and the Lebanese government.
So that's quite a risky strategy that they've taken in order to try and prevent further Israeli strikes. But for the moment, those measures have not worked, and it looks increasingly like, as I say, Lebanon, because of its Hezbollah, Iranian proxy, is being drawn into that broader Iran conflict. Matthew Chan, Jeremy Diamond. Thanks very much.
We'll continue to check in with U.S. events. Warren, I want to bring in a retired General David Patreus, former head of U.S. Central Command, which covers the Middle East region.
He's also served as the CIA Director, Under President Obama. General Patreus, I appreciate you being with us. As a senior U.S. official told CNN, shoot-off the American forces are preparing for what they described as a major uptick in strikes on Iran over the next 24 hours.
This next phase is going to focus heavily on destroying missile production, unmanned aerial vehicles, naval capability, President Trump. Secretary Rubio both previously said that the biggest U.S. strikes are yet to come. What do you expect to see in the coming hours?
And how do you assess what we have seen over the last three days in the region? Well, what we've seen is just extraordinary numbers of strikes with extraordinary effects. The elimination of the killing of the Supreme Leader is a truly extraordinary achievement, and a number of the other leadership figures, also going after headquarters and so forth. But I think the focus now, Anderson, is on the retaliatory capabilities.
Not that they haven't been doing this already. But they're seeing what the effects are in particular of the Shahid drones. It's not a good exchange to shoot a Patriot missile costing a couple million dollars for a $20,000 drone. You and I have actually seen what Shahid drones did in Ukraine until they dramatically improved their defenses against them.
And that's a larger threat than in the past of that category. So I'm sure they'll be focusing on the drone storage locations, the drone launch sites. In addition, as you noted, going after the missile stockpiles, the missile launchers, which have already been reportedly reduced very substantially. But also the missile construction facilities in this case as well.
They've been going after the naval capability, and that's of course to preclude them blocking the Strait of Hormuz, although shipping has already been reduced. They're quite considerably with the attack of a couple of ships just outside the Strait. So I think, again, the focus is to make sure that the missile math continues to work out. And that is how many missiles do they have in launchers, and now also how many Shahid drones do they have, because I think it's the Shahid drones that have actually killed our soldiers versus how many interceptors of all different types do we have.
And I'm sure there's a good bit of effort, very short term going on to focus all of the assets that are capable for as comprehensive a defense against the Shahid drones as can be developed in the near term. Is it clear to you what the objective is in terms of the United States? And obviously the objective is going to determine what the objective ultimately accomplishes. Well, there are a number of objectives.
Keep in mind that the military is given a set of missions. The mission consists of a task and a purpose. So attack the missile launchers assets, the construction in order to prevent the missile threat to degrade it very considerably. The same, again, about all of these different efforts, including of course degrading further or destroying any residual nuclear capability is a very considerable objective of this.
And with the International Atomic Energy Agency announcing just before the operation began that there may be some stockpile of 60% enriched uranium buried underneath the Esfahan facility. I would suspect that at some point they're going to go back and drill down through that and make sure that that is never accessible. But the real one of course is what about attacking the regime leaders, the regime itself. And here I think the military mission is probably does not have a purpose for which that task is being conducted of bringing about regime change.
I think this has been redefined a bit or clarified a bit in the recent 24 or 36 hours where it would be to set conditions for the possible overthrow of the regime. But of course that's going to rely on some developments that I'm not sure are the base case right now. That would need to require an opposition that would all of a sudden have a lot of guys with a lot of guns and a willingness to use them against very substantially. Let's keep in mind that if you total up all of the regime forces, the Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Basish militia, the National Police, the Ministry of Intelligence, the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, you're talking about a million men under arms.
And they have shown a willingness to be very brutal with those weapons, killing tens of thousands of innocent demonstrators and prisoners of thousands of others. So the question really is where could an element be developed or break off or find a charismatic leader who can mobilize sufficient men under arms to oppose this regime given all that ruin that it has brought onto Iran. It's very clear to the people, for example, that this regime has driven their economy into the ditch, made them poor nationally and isolated them internationally. But the question is where could that force come from?
So I actually think that the military missions are quite clear. The tasks and the purposes associated with accomplishing those tasks. The real question is can setting the conditions for a regime result in Iranians being able to take advantage of that situation. General Petraeus, I appreciate your time.
Thank you. We have a live report from the border with Iran with the Americans strikes expected to intensify over the next 24 hours. Finding the source you can trust for weather forecasts should be easy, right? This is CNN meteorologist Derek Van Dam, thrilled to introduce the new CNN Weather App.
Check your daily forecast to plan your day, the weekly forecast to see what's on the way and prepare for any major storm with our robust real-time video coverage. The app is stunning. And if you're a weather nerd like me, you'll love our in-depth stories and the photo of a day. Download the CNN Weather App on iOS today.
It's time I got news for your ears. The podcast. I am your host, Michael Ian Black. We're talking about Trump's stock trades, his IRS lawsuit, his slush fund.
Bill Cassidy learns what happens when you cross Donald Trump. Members of Congress cannot corruptly profit from using insider information. He never said presidents can't sell stock space on your information. You're right.
You're right. You're right. You're right. Even say that.
Have I got news for your ears. Check us out on Apple, Amazon Music. Wherever you get podcasts, even though you can watch the podcast on Spotify. And Iranian drone literally just blew directly over our heads from Iran into Iraq.
That is CNN's Clercia Ward reporting from Eribeal, a city in Iraq located not far from the border with Iran, and she joins us from there. Now, what's the latest that you have been seeing in northern Iraq? What are you hearing from sources elsewhere in the region? Well, Anderson, it has been a very eventful day and night and not in a good way.
Those drone attacks have continued. We just actually heard a series of loud booms coming from that direction. That is where the Eribeal airport is, where some U.S. servicemembers are still serving.
If it was air defenses earlier on this evening, we heard a lot of military helicopters around there, and we have heard reports of multiple drones targeting another base just outside Eribeal. It's called the Harir Air Base. Again, we don't know if there were Americans at that base, but clearly we are learning that these Iran-backed Iraqi militias are really upping the tempo in terms of the amount of attacks on U.S. targets or what they deem to be U.S.
targets here in this autonomous Kurdish area. There was also an attack earlier on the Hormor gas field. This is strategically very important because 80% of the electricity, the powers Iraqi Kurdistan, comes from that gas field. And it does not have air defenses, and it's important for our viewers to understand Anderson that aside from that airport and a couple of other strategic places, Kurdistan in general does not have air defenses.
So these drones, these missiles, these rockets, they really do pose a significant threat. One other thing that we are just starting to learn about, and this is coming again largely from an Iraqi militia, again, that is backed by Iran. They are saying that they have struck a hotel in Erbil Province, it's actually outside of the city, where they say that U.S. soldiers were staying.
This is significant because it's the first time we know of Inter-Rock that they are apparently deliberately striking civilian infrastructure. We don't know of any U.S. military personnel staying in any hotel here, but there are a lot of contractors who work in some capacity on some of these military bases. A lot of them have been taken out of those bases and put in hotels temporarily because the air space is closed, because it is so complex now to try to get people out of the region.
So a lot of moving parts here in Iraq, Anderson, and a lot of anxiety as this situation continues to ratchet up and up Anderson. Yeah, and as we're here over the next 24 hours, it was supposed to escalate significantly, so thanks very much for that. Iran State TV reports that anti-American and anti-Israeli protesters took to the streets of Tehran today, obviously encouraged by the government there, venting their anger at the killing of Iran's supreme leader. They were poorly chanted, no submission, no surrender in war with America.
The supreme leader and dozens of other senior officials were killed in the air strike on Ayatollah Khimani's compound on Saturday. American and Israeli intelligence agencies were tracking his movements closely, took advantage of the situation. A source says that Khimani and the other officials who rarely gathered in the same place let their guard down. We're joined by Karim Sajapore, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Norman Rule, former National Intelligence Manager for Iran at the Office of Director of National Intelligence, the former Senior Operations Manager in the CIA.
Karim, it's good to have you on. You heard Karim's report. Are you surprised by the scope and scale of Iran's retaliation, including apparently attacking the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh with drones a short time ago?
Well, Anderson, they did telegraph that if they were to be attacked, that they were planning on regionalizing the war. I think it's backfired on them and that their hope was that by attacking their neighboring countries, in particular the Arab Gulf countries, that those countries were going to put pressure on the United States to end the war, to restrain the United States. But in talking with officials from those countries, I think it's had the opposite effect. It's pushed those countries much closer to the United States and one official from one of those countries texted me tonight to say, you know, we're now more persuaded to ask the United States to finish off Iran rather than end the war.
Norman, is it clear to you who's in control of the Iranian armed forces right now? Because Iran's foreign ministry told Al Jazeera yesterday that military units are operating, quote, independent and somewhat isolated and, quote, acting based on general instructions given to them in advance. And that retaliatory strikes on Oman were, quote, not our choice. That's certainly untrue.
The Iran's military has had pre-programmed instructions. That's not something that started after the June war. That's a long-standing practice of parts of Iran's military. But since the conflict has begun, they would have had time to issue a number of instructions to say, stop this, start that.
And there's no reason for Iran to continue to conduct strikes on civilian targets in Bahrain, the Emirates, Qatar and other Gulf places. They're conducting this because they believe it's a tactic they should continue to undertake. Karim, the killing of the Supreme Leader, other top officials in the regime, how significant is it? And what do you see happening in the days ahead?
And just a reminder of that, perhaps a pock-riffle quote from Vladimir Lenin, that sometimes decades pass and nothing happens, and then sometimes days pass and decades happen. Ayatollah Khomeini had been the only ruler that most Iranians ever knew, because he's been ruling the country for 37 years, and it's a country, three-quarters of whom were born after the 1979 revolution. And he's obviously left an enormous void in the system. And really, I don't think anyone is going to be able to replace some of the people who are in the conversation right now for succession.
Not people in my view who have the possibility of becoming strong leaders. And frankly, most of them are living underground right now for fear of assassination. So the regime right now resembles a chicken with its head cut off. It's flailing in all directions.
And it really is an existential moment for the Islamic Republic. So Karim, given that, what are the opportunities? What are the dangers? Well, as General Petraeus alluded to earlier, this is a zombie regime on one hand, and it's a dead leader dying ideology, dying legitimacy, but it still is capable of lethal force.
There still are perhaps hundreds of thousands of people within the security forces. I don't believe that all of them are true believers, but certainly they have thousands of men who at the moment believe it's killer be killed. And so the question is whether we start to see splinters within those security forces. So far we haven't seen them, but if the bombing campaign continues, that may be a possibility.
Norman, how concerned are you that there's enough people who are armed and willing to fight and have a vested interest in keeping the current regime in power or some semblance of the current regime in power that fundamental change will not occur? There is absolutely no evidence of people who are supporting the regime and the IRGC or the besieged militia who are defecting in large numbers from the regime. That's just an unfortunate fact. So we have a situation where we have people who are armed, who would be very violent towards the protesters.
So if you are in the US government, you have a situation where you're facing a leadership in Iran who are in essence from the same cloth as the Supreme Leader, the head of the IRGC is one of the most violent people in the IRGC history. The head of the IRGC is one of the most violent people in its history. So you've got to have some kind of situation where a new leadership comes into Iran's governance. And that's not going to happen until there's some additional changes in that government in the near term.
But the remaining leadership has got to control this armed force so that they don't turn on the protesters. This remains a work in progress if we're going to allow the Iranian people to be free. Karim, waiters is reporting that President Trump just told News Nation that the world will soon see how the US will retaliate to Iran's apparent drone attack on the US embassy in Riyadh a short time ago. We hear now that US military strikes in the next 24 hours are going to be even more intense in the, or at least there's going to be an uptick in the next 24 hours.
Is it clear to you what the end goal of this is? It's not totally clear to me that it's clear in President Trump said what his exact end goal is. He's when he spoke into reporters over the last 48 hours, he's kind of shared contradictory and goals. It seems to me based on what I can read of him that he's kind of torn between at least a couple options.
One is he wants to see a character change in the regime. He's evoked Venezuela several times, decapitation of the top leader and doing a deal with a more compliant successor. I think if he could push a button and have that outcome, he would, but so far that hasn't presented itself. And for that reason, he's also intimated that he's okay with trying to implode this regime.
And, you know, at some point, as General Petraeus was saying earlier, the military seems to have very clear objectives, but there also needs to be clear political objectives. And again, it doesn't seem to me that the president has reconciled his endgame in his head. Commissage report, Norman Rule. Appreciate it being on tonight.
Thank you. Coming up next, a new read on how Americans be the war with Iran striking back. Some of the sounds from Beirut, Lebanon tonight. Continue our special scene and global report.
War with Iran. New video tonight of an Israeli strike in Beirut on Hezbollah command centers. That's what that was in weapons storage facilities according to the IDF. And in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia tonight sources tell us a pair of suspected Iranian drones hit the U.S.
embassy unclear what, if any, damage there is. Joining us now is seen in Chief White House correspondent, anchor of the source, Caitlyn Collins. So, Caitlyn, is it clear whether the White House expected the scope and scale of Iran's retaliation? No.
I mean, even the president has said he was taken aback by exactly how Iran is retaliated. And I think that's why, in part, you're seeing the president talk about what's to come over the next few days. As he's making clear, this is not just a one-and-done strike from over the weekend. Something that we know the president was briefed on as an option here, a more limited military strike.
Instead, he seems to be taking a much more expansive view of what's to come here. And obviously now in response to what we're seeing happening at the United States Embassy in Riyadh, somewhere the president was just last summer, that has changed the calculus potentially here, and what this response is exactly going to look like. And so I don't think we know yet how president trouble will respond militarily. We will obviously wait to see what that looks like.
But I mean, when you talk about looking at the entire Middle East and what this has looked like, I was talking to some experts last night who said they believed Iran had miscalculated here by responding and going after these other nations in the Gulf and enviring on them because of the concern that they would join this war against them. And so I think there's a lot of questions that remain to be seen in terms of how this plays out. But it factors into the big question and conversation we've been having here in Washington and that lawmakers and administration officials have been asked about Anderson, which is what is the end goal here and what is the exit strategy for this Trump administration in this war? Because we've gotten a broad range of reasons for why you are seeing what you're seeing right now from the administration, from regime change to nuclear weapons to their ballistic missile weapon program to annihilating Iran's naval capabilities.
I mean, there have been several different reasons. And despite us hearing from officials that this is very clear and the president's objectives are obvious, that's actually really not the case when you just look at the myriad of answers that we've gotten from the president himself who laid out about four reasons today. The vice president who just now was saying it's about the nuclear program and that is the objective to the defense secretary earlier, the Pentagon saying it's not a regime change war, it just happened to result in regime change in Iran, given they've taken out at least 40 of the senior leaders there. And so it has raised a lot of questions.
And I don't think there have been answers to those questions yet. Yeah, Caitlin, thanks very much. We'll see you at the top of the hour for the source. And your guest is Connecticut Democratic Senator Chris Murphy.
And polling finds that nearly six in 10 Americans disapprove of the decision to take military action in Iran. A full 60 percent right now said the president does not have a clear plan for handling the situation. Senate Global Fair's analyst Brett McGurk joined us here also. Sent at Molten, the Democrat from Massachusetts on the Armed Services Committee.
Brett, you've been involved in planning vis a vis a vis to Iran for a long time over many administrations. What questions do you have at this hour about what we have been seeing? What concerns do you have? Questions and reflections.
Clarissa's incredible reporting from Iraq, Anderson. I've just been reflecting on Christmas Day, 2023, after my family opened President's, I got a call from Situation Room, Iranian drone attack in Erbil. Exactly what she was talking about. Three Americans, wounded one grievously, about a month later, we had three Americans killed in Jordan from Iranian drone.
That was before all this. So just to put this in some context, these guys have been attacking us regularly. We of course had to respond to that. But look, I think you'll hear in Washington, this is a dynamic situation.
That's a fancy way to say nobody knows where this is heading, 48 hours in. I think they had some tactical military success in these first 48 hours. I suspect they have a target deck. I think the president is alluding to.
They're probably going to hit some nuclear facilities. There's a very deeply buried facility called Pickaxe Mountain. I think that's probably coming. We'll see that over the coming days.
But the big question is whether Iran can keep up this tempo. And they have a lot of short-range missiles. That's what's hitting the golf, that's what's in drones and hitting our facilities. Their longer-range missiles to Israel are in more limited supply.
Whether or not Iran can keep up this tempo is a big question. It's really the main military objective right now to try to degrade that. We have to see it. Just too many open questions that's kicked on just alluded to.
Congresswoman, what are your thoughts going on? President Trump has not ruled out the idea of boots on the ground. Also, I want to please something that Marco Rubio said about one of the motivations for why this attack and why now, whether it was an imminent threat or something else? Here's what he said earlier.
There absolutely was an imminent threat. And the imminent threat was that we knew that if Iran was attacked and we believe they would be attacked, that they would immediately come after us. And we were not going to sit there and absorb a blow before we responded. Because the Department of War assessed that if we did that, if we waited for them to hit us after they were attacked, and by someone else, Israel attacked them, they hit us first, and we waited for them to hit us.
We would suffer more casualties and more deaths. He's implying that Israel, the IDF, was going to attack Iran, was going to strike whether the US did or not, and that then the blowback would also hit US facilities or interests, and therefore the US got drawn into this. Does that make sense to you? It's just absurd.
I mean, I mean, I don't get to just punch you in the face, Anderson, because I think that Brett might punch you, and then if you punch him back, you might hit me. I mean, that's what he's saying. There are all kinds of nations who are enemies around the globe. We don't just get to preemptively attack them.
We know that China would like to attack the US someday. We know that they're in avocery. They're not just going to start a war with them because they might attack us or someone else might attack them down the road. I mean, it's just a completely absurd explanation.
And I think it comes back to the fundamental question, why are we going to war? What are we actually trying to achieve? And what are you telling those troops on the ground who are risking their lives right now in the Middle East? Why are they risking their lives?
What are you telling to justify to them that this is worth it? Brett, I'm wondering what you think of that rationale. How important is it to have a very specific goal in mind? Is it enough to say, okay, let's see what happens essentially?
What I heard General Kane doing today was narrowing the military objective. Basically, the objective is, as I heard him define it, we wanted to create Iran's ability to exert power outside of its borders. That's missiles, it's navy, drones, what's left of nuclear, and that's kind of the main objective and of course the regime leadership sites. I think that is what the US military is focusing on.
But this question about the Israeli objective is important. We covered this in the June War Anderson. Very important to make sure we have some alignment about where this is heading. This is a joint military operation between the US and Iran.
I'm not convinced we have that on the US and Israel. And that is, I think that gap could open as perhaps a few weeks from now the president and I say we've met our objectives and the Israelis want to keep going. So that's another big question that could be coming. So Anderson, the foundational mistakes with Iraq War, I mean there are a lot of mistakes.
But the two foundational ones were one, it was based on a lie about nuclear weapons. There was no WMD in Iraq. And guess what? Trump was obviously lying about obliterating Iran's nuclear program.
And number two, there was no plan for the day after. So it was great. We had a lot of early tactical success in Iraq. I was very proud to be part of that invasion force that did really well militarily.
But the strategic objective was not there. The plan was not there. So you can say we're going to go after their ballistic missiles. But what if they buy them from the Chinese, which they're already planning to do?
You can say we're going to go after their nuclear weapons program, but they can reconstitute. So what matters is come next. You can say we're going to take out their regime. But what regime is going to come after?
It could be even more hard-line, more anti-American than the one we just displaced. It matters to have a plan. And it's pretty obvious the president does not have a plan. And there's the old Colin Powell, you bought it, which was in reference to Iraq.
Corollary here, which I see the Trump administration putting, is we break it and the Iranian people own what comes next. I saw them really backing off of the trying to micromanage the political outcome here. I'll just say something on the ballistic missiles. It's a serious problem.
And there can be a legitimate military objective to degrade the ballistic missiles. We know where the targets are. We know where the production facilities are. And you don't want to be at the point where there are so many ballistic missiles.
They can actually overwhelm any air defenses. Let me ask you about that. Because Kuwait state media is just now reporting the Kuwaitis intercept at 178 ballistic missiles and 384 drones since the war began. Do you think the US was prepared for this size of retaliation?
We've seen those videos of underground facilities somewhere in Iran with huge numbers of drones. We should have been prepared for that. This problem is beyond Iran. This is the Iran, of course, transfer is this technology drones missiles to Russia.
They're using them in Ukraine. It's the same state of fact. It's a lot of it comes out of Iran. So if you have a narrow military objective, we're going to actually degrade Iran's missile and drone capacity.
That is legitimate. And there's an opportunity here to do that. If this mission expands into we're going to try to somehow from the air change Iran's system, political system, that is where you get into total mission. I'd say one thing.
I think Seth and I fully agree on this. No boots on the ground. I mean, the fact that they're even open up the idea, maybe that's to say we're keeping our options open. We should have no American troops on the ground.
We're just clear. The president has already said, hey, Iranian people go and rise up. We want regime change. We also go.
He was the height of the protest. He was saying, you know, keep going in the streets, protesting takeover government facilities, if you can. And you know why he couldn't respond? Because his carrier group was off Venezuela, which is not a legitimate national security threat to the United States.
That's why he didn't stop those tens of thousands from being killed. And the problem with the missiles is not just with Iran and the proxies that they support in the region. It's the fact that if we use too many of our missiles to shoot theirs down, then we don't have enough for everywhere else in the world that we need them, most especially in the Pacific, where we have to deter and prevent a war with China. How concerned are you?
Certainly for the US capabilities and defense of just, you know, patriots and other defensive capabilities. There's a missile, missile math equation here. Andrew, we got discussed on a June war. I dealt with that a couple of missile barrages we had to face with the Iranians.
But this gets to if you're looking at this in the White House, if you're in the Pentagon, and Iran's stockpiles are massively increasing. Is there a point? I would actually want to bring that down. Otherwise, it can overwhelm an air defense.
It's a tough equation. Every president has struggled with the vexing question of the Islamic regime since Jimmy Carter. It's incredibly difficult. We're early here.
But I have the same question about where this is heading and the fact that we don't have a clear end-to-mind. When it's complicated, that's why you come to Congress and you have an honest debate about whether it makes sense to go to war, to risk American lives, to tell these 18-year-old kids that yes, your life is worth risking for this very clear objective and we actually have a plan to achieve it. Congressman Moltin, thank you very much. Appreciate it both of you.
Up next, a global perspective on this widening conflict. What are you doing by seeing this free Zikaria and the New York Times of Thomas Friedman ahead? Comedian Craig Ferguson is going coast to coast to unpack what it really means to be an American today. What could possibly go wrong?
Craig Ferguson, American on purpose. New series premieres May 39 on CNN and next day on the CNN app. Vice President Vance has just weighed in what he'd like to see when the war is over but does not necessarily expect. Take a look.
In a perfect world, yeah, we would love it if somebody came to power in Iran who was willing to work with the United States who was willing to show some respect to the United States. And again, most importantly, made that long-term commitment that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. But ultimately, Jesse, whatever happens with the regime in one form or another, it's incidental to the president's primary objective here, which is to make sure the Iranian terrorist regime does not build a nuclear bomb. There's the Vice President tonight at Fox News.
Joining us now is host of CNN's GPS, Fareed Zakaria, New York Times Foreign Affairs, opinion Collins, Thomas Friedman, author of the best-selling book among many from Beirut to Jerusalem. Fareed, did you ever think you would see a war like this with Iran? Well, it was always possible that the United States would go to war with Iran. But what's strange about this one is the rationale seem odd and constantly shifting.
Even in that clip you played Anderson. You know, first they say, well, we're happy to work with somebody who will be willing to work with us. Then they say, this is a terrorist regime and we must never make sure they never get nuclear weapons. We just want to hear them say that.
Well, the president said that in the State of the Union. The Ayatollah Khamenei before he died had issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. It's in the first paragraph of the Iran nuclear deal that Obama signed. So what exactly is the goal?
You do get the feeling, Anderson, that this is a war that has been entered into with a kind of bomb and hope strategy, that is bomb them to smithereens, hope that the regime crumbles. Now that it doesn't seem to be at least crumbling before our eyes, the president and the vice president have gone back battling and saying, oh, maybe we can deal with these guys. Maybe we can find somebody who we can deal with. And President Trump said Venezuela is the perfect scenario.
Remember in Venezuela, there was no regime change. They just essentially got rid of one person. What happened to the announcement when the president called on the Iranian people to overthrow the country? You're not saying, though, that you trusted the Ayatollah to follow through and not develop nuclear weapons?
No, but what I'm saying is what President Trump said in his State of the Union was, we want to hear the magic words. We will never have nuclear weapons. All I mean is saying is the Iranians have repeated the whole issue with Iran has always been, they have what is technically a peaceful program, but it seems to be creeping towards levels of enrichment that could become dual use and how do you monitor it and that's why you need it in specters. But the more important point now is given that the regime hasn't collapsed, what does the administration do?
Does it keep bombing and hope that the regime will collapse, which seems to be the current plan? Or does it start to scale back its goals and say, no, what we're really looking for is a new Iran deal? Tom, I want to just replay what Marco Rubio said, the Secretary of State in many other positions said about the reasons for this. There absolutely was an imminent threat and the imminent threat was that we knew that if Iran was attacked and we believe they would be attacked, that they would immediately come after us and we were not going to sit there and absorb a blow before we responded because the Department of War assessed that if we did that, if we waited for them to hit us first after they were attacked and by someone else Israel attacked them, they hit us first and we waited for them to hit us, we would suffer more casualties and more deaths.
Tom, you spent more than four decades covering the Middle East, you've heard a lot of reasons for military action. I don't know if you've heard that one before, what do you make of it and what do you make of what we've seen so far? Anderson, that's the most chilling statement I've heard from any one of the administration since the start of this war is completely incoherent. It makes no sense.
It's just a pile of nonsense and I find that really chilling. Do you guys make a repeat? Yes, I can't even repeat the logic of what he was saying. If Iran was attacked, I assume by Israel and then it launched missiles against the continental United States, that's a guy looking for an expos facto rationale and that's chilling.
If that clip doesn't tell you that when you don't know where you're going, anybody will get you there? That was a really, really chilling clip. So what are your concerns for what happens next? I could not repeat you that logic.
If you played it 10 times to me, it would still not make any sense to me. I mean, what do you mean? Well, I agree with Thomas, a very bizarre rationale that we need to go to war because in case somebody else attacks them and they were to attack, not the person who attacked them. It's essentially saying, well look, Iran's going to attack US assets, so why not get the jump on them and just attack them first?
I mean, if somebody were to attack North Korea, they would attack us. Does that mean we invade North Korea? No, and it also, honestly, it gives credence to the worst kind of anti-Semitic tropes which say that Israel has gotten us into this war, that we ended up being dragged into this. So the whole thing is confused and I think it's mainly because the president chose to use – to understand the Trump administration, you have to understand.
The president says something and the court around him has to justify it. And what the president said was Iran posed an imminent danger to the United States. Now, there's no – on the plane logic of there's no, there was no threat, right? So they had to come up with some rationale.
Tom, you wrote in your latest column that in the Middle East, the opposite of autocracy is not necessarily democracy, often it is disorder. And we've certainly seen that in other places like in Iraq. Is that what you expect to happen here? What concerns do you have right now?
I think there are three potential outcomes as we sit here today, Anderson, and that can change in 24 hours. One is the rump Iranian regime, which you end up with, is even more hard-line than what you had before. That's one option. The second is you get what I call Islamic regime 2.0, where you do have real reformers elements in the regime, where big critics of the Supreme Leader who felt he was taking Iran in a very bad direction.
You could see potentially some alliance between them and elements of the revolution and the guards in the army. It would still be the Islamic regime, but one that might be much more ready to engage with the United States on some kind of new restrictions on nuclear weapons, and everyone could somehow declare victory. And the third is complete disorder, because when you decapitate these regimes, we have plenty of evidence of it. Syria, Libya, they do one of two things.
They're implode, as Libya did, because it had hard borders around the region of Egypt and Algeria, or the Expo, the way Syria did. And that's one thing for Syria to explode. It's another for a country of 90 million people with lots of minorities around its periphery to explode. And so that's what really concerns me.
If I could just add to the point Tom was making, remember what happened with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We defeated it. The regime collapsed, but the people with the guns, the bathers in the armed forces, melted into the population. But there was a debathification campaign where you took away their power and they'd melted into the society with their guns.
They became the insurgency. So don't forget, the revolutionary guard in Iran has all the guns. So even if you get what you want, which is the overthrow of this regime quote unquote, it is very likely that a very powerful faction of the revolutionary guard will melt into the society with their weaponry and mountain insurgency. So in a strange way, even though President Trump called on the Iranian people to overthrow the regime, I think that Tom's third option is one that could get very, very messy.
Tom, it is. I mean, members of the administration have gone out of their way to say this is not Iraq. I don't even know what that means. It's Iran is a difference.
Essentially, they're not going to make the same mistakes. Yeah, I don't believe that at all, because I don't think this was run through any serious strategic internal vetting process. I think this was a war that the product as my newspapers reported, very influenced by the private discussions between Netanyahu and Trump. And I think that at this stage, if I were Trump, he said in an interview that he was ready to talk to the Iranians, I'd get on the phone sooner rather than later by Iran.
We're out of time. Tom Friedman, thank you for your special coverage. The war with Iran continues with Caitlin Collins. Hey, I'm Anderson Cooper.
On my podcast, all there is, we explore grief and loss in all its complexities. You have been, and I mean, is so sincerely the soundtrack to my healing. My guest on this episode is Chanel Jones. In January, she began hosting along with Jenna Bush Hager today with Jenna and Chanel, the fourth hour of the Today Show.
In May 2025, Chanel's husband, Uche Oj died from Gileob lastoma. When you hear other people share, it is healing and you don't feel as isolated. You feel less alone. And so I feel like you've created this beautiful quilt of like nurturing our hearts.
And so I am honored to be part of this quilt. Talking grief, building community. That's what the podcast is all about. This is all there is.
Listen and follow wherever you get your podcast. I'm Daniel De Kim. I'm going to South Korea to figure out how this small nation conquered the world with its culture. Join me and meet the artists and creators behind the phenomenon.
K everything now streaming on the CNN app.