Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Blinken Speaks After U.S. Official Says Israel Struck Iran; U.S. Official: Israel Strikes Inside Iran; Jury Seated In Trump Hush Money Trial, Five Alternates To Be Picked. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired April 19, 2024 - 07:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[07:30:00]

ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Are committed, as Israel is, to ensuring that Gaza cannot be controlled by Hamas.

We've seen the devastation and destruction that have resulted from Hamas' leadership and the actions that it's taken -- and well before October 7. What it was providing or, rather, not providing for the Palestinian people made clear that its concern had nothing to do with the Palestinian people and everything to do with its objectives to destroy Israel.

So, making sure that Hamas cannot repeat the events of October 7 -- that's something that we are united in. But in terms of major military operations in Rafah, it's something that we don't support and we believe that the objective can be achieved by other means.

We've been engaged in conversations at senior levels with Israel over the past couple of weeks on this, including as recently as this week. Those conversations continue.

Finally, on the U.N. Security Council resolution. First, we are committed -- the United States is committed to achieving a Palestinian state. We believe that is vital to having long-term sustainable, durable peace and security. And, of course, it's the only way to fulfill the aspirations -- the rightful aspirations of the Palestinian people. But getting to that -- achieving that state has to be done through diplomacy, not through imposition.

And the resolution that was voted at the Security Council will have no effect on actually moving things forward and achieving a Palestinian state. Again, that can only be accomplished by diplomatic means.

It's also important to point this out. Under United States law, even if we wanted to vote for this resolution, had we done so, under our law it would have obligated us to cut off all of our funding to the United Nations. Clearly, not in the interest of anyone, including the Palestinians -- particularly, given the contributions we make to programs that are vital to them.

But as I said, we are committed to working to achieve a Palestinian state with the necessary guarantees for Israel's security. And we've been working on that, including as part of the potential normalization process between Israel and Saudi Arabia -- something that we've intensely engaged on over the last several months and weeks.

So you can see an important path forward that's there. And, in fact, we saw it in the wake of the unprecedented Iranian attack on Israel. You can see for Israel a future where a coalition of countries are working together -- working together to deal with the Iranian threat and to isolate it with Israel that's integrated into the region, with normal relations with its neighbors, and a resolution to the Palestinian question, which is necessary to really deep-root and achieve that coalition.

That's an incredibly powerful future. It answers what Israel has long sought, which is to have normal relations throughout the region. It deals with the single biggest threat to Israel's security and, for that matter, the security of most countries in the region and our own, which is Iran and its proxies. But to get there it's going to require calm in Gaza and it's going to require a clear pathway to a Palestinian state. So, we see that as one of the best ways to actually achieve results.

Again, you can put something down on a piece of paper and --

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right. We are listening in as the Secretary of State Tony Blinken continues to take questions at the tail end of the G7 foreign ministers meeting. Tony Blinken saying the United States has not been involved in any offensive operations. But commenting beyond that on the Israeli strike in Iran, he's not going there.

CNN's Kylie Atwood back with us, as well as everyone who is very kindly sticking around with us as well.

Kylie, what do you hear in the secretary's, kind of, non -- answer non answered? There is a lot there.

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, there's a lot there without there being much there, Kate. As you said, the most notable line is that the secretary said that the U.S. was not involved in any offensive operations. But he did not even directly acknowledge those Israeli strikes against Iran overnight, calling them "reported events."

Now, it's noteworthy that he is even approaching it this way. He said that the U.S. has been involved in diplomatic efforts to try and de- escalate everything that is going on in the region right now. And the fact that he felt that there wasn't a need to give a diplomatic response sort of in between the lines is a tacit nod to the fact that the U.S. likely believes that this was, indeed, a response by Israel that is not going to escalate the situation.

[07:35:00]

By contrast, he came out of the gates in this press conference saying that the G7 condemned that attack by Iran -- that attack by Iran against Israel that happened over the weekend, calling the an unprecedented attack and saying that the G7 stood by Israel's security and would continue to defend it. So very strongly continuing to go against Iran for those attacks that we saw over the weekend, but not commenting on what happened overnight.

Of course, we'll have to watch and see what comes out from the Israeli side because so far, they haven't said anything about these attacks overnight. And the U.S. is probably waiting to see what they do here.

But this was a really interesting press conference by the Secretary of State essentially allowing these events to happen overnight without an elevated U.S. response to try and bring down the tension in the region even more.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: His paucity of words -- his reluctance to say anything about it -- he was almost a human de-escalation behind that microphone this morning, and it seemed quite deliberately so.

Spider, if I can bring you into this to help us understand the why of this. What could Israel have hit? What didn't they hit? And what did they appear to do that the world, this morning, is reacting with an almost shrug?

MAJOR GENERAL JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS, U.S. ARMY (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST, HEAD OF GEOPOLITICAL STRATEGY, ACADEMY SECURITIES (via Webex by Cisco): Well, the Secretary of State needs to be reticent like he was. We can speculate, we can estimate, and that's what we're trying to do to put a little more color around this.

What was not struck last night were the nuclear facilities -- the enrichment capability that the Iranians have and their delivery means for those. What was struck was a military base in close proximity to that nuclear capability.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Yes.

MARKS: And they went after an airbase. They went after missile production capabilities. They went after ground units. And all of those were contributing elements to the attack that took place last Saturday. So I think in the Israeli calculation of proportionality is that it was a match. That they went after that which Iranians had used to assault the sovereignty of Israel last Saturday.

SIDNER: Now a question to you, Mr. Clapper. When you look at the situation, I think Antony Blinken said the word "de-escalation" at least a half-dozen times as he tried to answer questions.

How do you see this moving forward? Are we going to start seeing this sort of proxy war return, as opposed to Israel and Iran going directly at one another?

JAMES CLAPPER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, Well, last night, when I spoke to this, I had speculated that perhaps Israel and Iran were getting past the messaging phase on the escalation ladder. Well, I think we are very much still in the messaging phase. And it appears to me that both Israel, by its limitations on its strike or strikes, as well as Iran's, so far, non-reaction to this, tells me that they both want to step back from the cliff and avoid a wider war.

And what this could mean, and hope springs eternal, is that they'll revert to the behind-the-scenes secret war that's gone on for 40 or 45 years. At least I hope that's the case that this doesn't get any worse than it -- than it is.

And I think Sec. Blinken's non-comment about this would tell me that one way to tone this down is just not talk about it.

BOLDUAN: If you all could stand by with us we're going to get in a quick break. We have much more on what is the watershed moment in this crisis in the Middle East. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:43:50]

SIDNER: All right. With us from the White House now, CNN's Kevin Liptak after he had been listening to Antony Blinken there in Italy on this -- being asked many, many questions about Iran and talking about de-escalation every single time. What are you hearing?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah, certainly. And I think this decision to remain fairly tight-lipped about this overnight strike really does indicate that the U.S. is looking to put some distance between and the decision really trying to emphasize that it had no involvement.

And certainly, we know that President Biden, really since the hours that Iran started striking Israel last weekend, was on the phone with Netanyahu cautioning restraint -- essentially, provided the message that because Israel had been so successful in intercepting those Iranian drones that a retaliation might not be necessary.

Now, in reality, I think when you were talking to American officials over the course of the last week, no one here was under the illusion that Israel would do nothing. The few among U.S. officials thought that it would be a limited response -- and certainly, that had been President Biden's hope. And he was trying to send a message just yesterday, in implementing new sanctions on Iran, that there were other methods of punishing that country aside from the military one.

[07:45:07]

One of the questions that Blinken did not answer that he was asked is whether the U.S. was given a heads-up by Israel on its decision to strike back. He didn't answer that. But we are told by American officials that the U.S. did get a heads-up.

But one interesting thing that we heard before Blinken from the Italian foreign minister was that it was quite a last-minute heads-up. And the Italian foreign minister was in meetings all day with Blinken so he might have been in a position to know that.

And that's interesting because, of course, American officials, throughout the course of the last week, had been in touch with their counterparts talking about American commitment to Israel's defense.

And so, I think this decision to remain fairly silent on this overnight strike is somewhat telling. The U.S. doesn't want to give Iran any sort of pretense to claim that this was a U.S. decision. Certainly, American troops in the region have been targets of Iranian proxy groups and there is no desire to put them in harm's way. And I think this decision, certainly by the White House, not to say anything about this strike overnight really lends to that sense that the U.S. is trying to put some distance here.

I was told earlier this morning that the U.S. was not involved in this strike at all. You heard that directly from the Secretary of State as well.

Now, we will see President Biden later today. It remains to be seen whether he will say anything directly about this. But I do think it underscores the sort of tenuous position that the president is in as he looks to prevent this conflict from widening -- from becoming a wider regional conflict.

And I think the question that's hanging over the White House today is what Iran will do next. Whether this becomes sort of an escalation ladder where each country goes back and forth as they try an amp up their attempts at deterrence. That is something that President Biden has very deeply tried to avoid throughout the course of this conflict and it's something that I think he'll be watching very closely today as well.

BERMAN: All right, Kevin Liptak at the White House. Kevin, stand by. Keep us posted what you hear in that building behind you.

In the meantime, with us now is CNN's Fareed Zakaria, host of "FAREED ZAKARIA GPS." And Fareed, I just want people to know stock futures -- no -- oil futures, I should say -- oil futures after shooting up word of the attack overnight are not actually down, which indicates that oil investors are not too concerned about this escalating further between Israel and Iran. I don't want to talk about oil so much as what that might portend.

How is the world now viewing this? What's your general feeling this morning?

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST, "FAREED ZAKARIA GPS" (via Webex by Cisco): I think most people are viewing this as the kind of measured incremental response that President Biden and the administration have been urging the Israelis to do.

But we are in a different place. We are in a different strategic situation right now. Because ever since Israel bombed the consulate facilities of Iran in Syria, we are in a situation where Israel and Iran are now pretty directly and pretty openly hitting each other. That's very different from the 10-plus-year shadow war that has taken place between Iran and Israel.

And so, now the question becomes in these fairly direct attacks, are they going to be measured? Are there -- is there -- is there a path to de-escalation as Tony Blinken was saying, or it is possible that one of these gets out of hand and maybe there's a miscalculation? Maybe there is more damage than expected.

It's still something that leaves me nervous because until now, you would have -- the shadow war really wasn't a shadow. It was often indirect. It was often using proxies.

Well, we now have this Iran versus Israel. Each time one hits the other, the other feels they have to do something. That's the typical security spiral where one side does something that it believes it has to do. The other side can do nothing and that triggers a further one. So up goes the ratchet. So far, it's been calibrated and calculated, but it could get out of hand.

BOLDUAN: And Fareed, what did you think of the deliberate choice by Tony Blinken in not addressing a lot of the aspects of what we know and what's being reported and only saying that the focus is on de- escalation and that the United States was not part of any offensive action? Just his approach today. Because what is the fear the fallout would have been or the result or consequence would have been had Tony Blinken come out and said more about what is largely widely reported of what happened last night?

[07:50:08]

ZAKARIA: The Biden administration's great fear is that they -- the United States is going to get dragged into this in some way, and they're going to be very disciplined about not getting involved.

As you probably know -- this has been reported -- the Biden administration counseled Israel not to engage in that strike on Iran's consulate facilities. It has been urging Israel to have a very limited response to the -- to the Iranian -- roughly 300 drones and missiles launched against Israel.

So what it has been trying to do as much as possible is to keep this back in the shadows and not to have the United States, in some way, involved. Because that then -- that's when you would see oil prices really shoot up. In other words, that's when you begin to worry about a much larger geoeconomic and geopolitical spillover.

BOLDUAN: Fareed, it's great to see you as always. Thank you so much.

SIDNER: All right. Ahead, Donald Trump will return to court in New York where there is now 12 people -- 12 jurors that have been seated. Will enough alternates be selected today for opening statements to begin on Monday? We'll talk through it.

(COMMERCIAL)

BOLDUAN: Very soon, Donald Trump will be back in a New York courtroom. The focus today shifts today to the alternates. Five alternate jurors for his criminal trial need to be selected, although the judge says that number actually could even change. A full jury of 12 -- seven men, five women, plus one alternate -- have been seated for the historic trial. If the five remaining alternates are picked today, opening statements could begin Monday.

[07:55:09]

CNN's Brynn Gingras is outside the courthouse for us once again. Brynn, it was a wild day yesterday -- a bumpy road to getting that full jury. So now, what about today?

BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, bumpy is exactly how I was going to describe it, Kate. Everyone thought this was actually going to take a couple of weeks though, right, and it's actually happening a little bit faster than anticipated.

A full jury now impaneled, plus one alternate. And it's really just a cross-section of New Yorkers. There's an investment banker, a speech therapist, a teacher, a lawyer.

There are some who are seated on the jury who have been open about the fact that they are not big fans of Donald Trump. One person saying they don't like his persona. Another person saying they believe he's self-serving and selfish when it came to being a public servant. There are people who said that they've read quotes from "The Art of the Deal" and they like that he speaks his mind.

So a really diverse section -- cross-section of jurors here. Like you said, seven men and five women.

Now, the task at hand today, as you just said, is finding those alternates -- as many as five the judge wants to look for. There are 22 people that are still -- have to go through that 42 questionnaires and that's what they're going to start with today. And then, like you said, we could have opening statements come Monday, believe it or not, in this historic criminal trial.

One thing to point out, though. After those opening statements are done then, of course, the prosecution will call its first witness.

Well, at the end of court yesterday, the defense asked if they could have a list of who those first witnesses might be, and the prosecution essentially said no because we don't trust the fact that Donald Trump won't go on social media and talk about those witnesses. And the judge pretty much agreed with that and said that that's fine. So it's very possible we, the public, and the defense won't know who these first witnesses will be when they are called.

So this could be somewhat of a signal of maybe a contentious few weeks as this trial gets started, Kate.

BOLDUAN: Yeah. It's great to see you, Brynn. This is all going to be starting back up again shortly and Brynn is there for us -- John.

BERMAN: With us now, CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, Jennifer Rodgers. Counselor, that last point that Brynn was making jumped out at me as well where the prosecution said we're not going to give a witness list because we just can't trust the defense.

How rare is that, and what does that tell you about where things are headed?

JENNIFER RODGES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, LECTURER IN LAW, COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL: Well, they do have a witness list. Prosecutors have to turn over their list of all possible witnesses. So the defense knows who is coming overall, generally speaking.

What they said they didn't want to do is hand over the order of the first witnesses. So the defense's lawyer stood up and said we'd like to know the first three witnesses, and the prosecutors said we don't want to do that because then we're going to see attacks against those people in the next few days. And the judge agreed with them.

So it's not that they don't know who is coming broadly speaking; they just don't have the order of the first few.

But it is rare. In most cases, the judge wants everyone to know what's coming so that things can run in a more orderly fashion and everyone's ready. It's only not happening in this case, of course, because of the repeated violations of the partial gag order in place about talking about witnesses who will be part of the proceedings.

BERMAN: So what is your main takeaway from this jury now that we have 12 jurors? They're going to select the alternates presumably by the end of today. But what lessons can be learned from the difficulty and then the speed with which they were selected?

RODGERS: First of all, I think that Judge Merchan is really in control of this proceeding and on top of this. I was really impressed with the way that he handled this. I don't think we would have had a jury in a week in many other courtrooms. So I'm impressed with that and I think I'm hopeful for the rest of the proceedings moving more quickly because of it.

It's also a very heavily professional jury. Usually, you see a lot of government employees, a lot of retirees. We're not really seeing that here. These people have jobs and they're jobs that require higher levels of education. So that's going to be important I think.

This is a case about financial documents. Prosecutors are going to have to ask the jury not only to kind of digest these documents and find whether the defendant is guilty or not, but it includes this extra step of finding that the intention was to break another law. So I think they'll be happy to have these jurors with a higher level of education and analytical skills.

BERMAN: So one juror asked to be off the case yesterday. Another was removed after this strange back-and-forth. And USA Today actually spoke to that juror who was removed who called the judge a coward in the interview with USA Today. So that was unusual.

Anything to take away from that?

RODGERS: Well, that juror also apparently said that he was annoyed about how much information had gotten out. He was fascinated by Donald Trump. I think now looking at the interview he did, which I hadn't heard

about, it's good that he was removed. He seems like a person of very, very strong views. I mean, calling the judge a coward is pretty interesting. So I think it probably was a good removal.

BERMAN: Jennifer Rodgers, great to see you this morning. Again, we have a lot to talk about. Opening arguments could be as soon as Monday. Thank you.