Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Israel Says Retaliatory Strike Against Iran Is Complete; Kamala Harris And Donald Trump Campaign In Texas; How Some Conservative Voters In Pennsylvania Are Leaning. Aired 1-2a ET

Aired October 26, 2024 - 01:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[01:00:50]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Hello and welcome to all of our viewers watching us here in the United States and from all around the world. I'm Alex Marquardt live in Washington. Thank you so much for being with us.

Israel has carried out a major, long awaited series of airstrikes against Iran. That is just part of what the skies over the Iranian capital Tehran looked and sounded like just a short time ago. You could see and hear what appeared to be those tracers and anti-aircraft fire.

Now, Israel's military has announced that the strikes against Iran are over. Two sources telling CNN that there were three waves of strikes in retaliation for Iran's missile barrage against Israel on October 1st with some 180 ballistic missiles. As things stand right now, there is no word on possible damage in Iran or casualties.

But Israel says that it struck military targets, including missile manufacturing facilities and surface-to-air missile arrays which we understand to be air defense systems. The U.S. asked Israeli officials to avoid strikes on Iran's nuclear or oil facilities for fear of escalating the conflict in the Middle East and furthermore affecting the global economy.

Just moments ago, a senior U.S. administration official said this should be the end of this direct exchange of fire between Israel and Iran. Israel has made clear to the world that its response is now complete. It was extensive. It was targeted. It was precise. It was against military targets across Iran.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, they monitored the strikes from a command post along with other top Israeli officials. The IDF says that the strikes are a response to months of attacks by Iran and regional groups backed by them.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REAR ADM. DANIEL HAGARI, ISRAELI MILITARY SPOKESMAN: I can now confirm that we have concluded the Israeli response to Iran's attack against Israel. We conducted targeted and precise strikes on military targets in Iran, thwarting immediate threats to the state of Israel. The Israel Defense Forces has fulfilled its mission. If the regime in Iran were to make the mistake of beginning a new round of escalation, we will be obligated to respond.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUARDT: CNN's Ivan Watson joins us live from Hong Kong with more. So, Ivan, there are big questions now about what damage was caused in Iran and how Iran could respond.

IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, those are these big questions. But it does bear the hallmarks of what appears to be presented as a calibrated act of violence by the Israeli military carried out against Iran. But as Israel has painted it and as its close ally, the Biden administration has described it, targeting, as they put it, military sites.

And the Iranian state media has seemingly confirmed this amid these reports and the social media videos that have emerged of Iranian anti- aircraft defenses lighting up the skies over Tehran in the pre-dawn hours of the morning. The Iranian state media has described the Israeli bombing attacks as targeting what they call military centers in three provinces of Iran. So that's Tehran, Khuzestan and Elam provinces. So far the Iranian information sources are also describing this as targeting military targets in Iran right now.

And the extent of the damage, we're not likely to see that because it would be a national security matter for Iran. They likely would not want to illustrate how much damage could have been carried out against their military installations. We have not yet heard of any civilian casualties as a result of this bombing run.

[01:05:00]

When you take a look at the map, the regional map, you'll see the amount of distance that the Israeli warplanes would have had to fly from Israel all the way to Iran and over Tehran province itself. We're not sure what the flight path exactly would have been, but take a look at this flight radar map that shows you how commercial planes diverted over airspace not only of Iran, but also of neighboring Iraq and Syria and parts of Jordan as well, clearly to trying to stay out of the way of these acts of war, this violence that was being carried out. And there is good reason for this.

In 2020, during a period of heightened tension between the U.S. and Iranian air defenses shot down a Ukrainian commercial airliner that had just taken off from Tehran from the main airport there, Imam Khomeini Airport, and all of the passengers and crew on board that plane were killed. That's 176 people on board. So for -- fortunately, we haven't heard of anything terrible like that happening in relation to these airstrikes. So we'll be watching now to see how Iran will respond officially to

Israeli successive waves of Israeli warplanes bombing Iran. The Israeli military, so far it says that all of its planes have succeeded in returning safely back to Israel.

If that is in fact true, Alex, then that would indicate that the Israeli Air Force had free reign over Iran and was able to carry out multiple bombing runs without a single one of their planes being scratched, which is really a military success. If that is, in fact true, on the part of the Israeli Defense Forces.

MARQUARDT: Yes, I certainly think, Ivan, you're right, that is the message that the Israelis were trying to send to them, that we can breach your air defenses whenever we want. And certainly they hope that is going to register with the Iranians. Ivan Watson, thank you very much for that reporting.

Malcolm Davis is a senior analyst for Defense Strategy and Capability at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. He joins us now live from the Australian capital of Canberra. Malcolm, thank you so much for being with us.

I want to ask you first what you make of what we believe we saw tonight, my time, early morning Iran time. This rather narrow, it appears, set of targets and specifically just military targets.

MALCOLM DAVIS, SENIOR ANALYST, AUSTRALIAN STRATEGIC POLICY INSTITUTE: Yes, it was a very limited and very precision attack in terms of the way the Israelis carried it out. And I think that was quite deliberate in the sense that I think what Netanyahu and the Israeli government were trying to do is send a message to the Iranian government to basically say this is a limited response to your earlier attack on us. Take the pain and back down.

So in other words, the Israelis are trying to prevent a wider war. I don't think the Iranians want a wider war. So the Israelis gave the Iranians that off ramp of just doing a very limited, highly precise attack on military only targets.

MARQUARDT: Even though the message that they're trying to send to Iran was basically we can attack you with impunity, we can do whatever we want, we can get past your air defenses, we can take out your air defenses. You don't think that is embarrassing enough to justify an Iranian response?

DAVIS: Oh, certainly embarrassing for Iran, but the question is, do they really want to go down the path of launching a retaliation against Israel for this particular attack and then seeing Israel say fine, all bets are off, and go after the Iranian nuclear facilities and going after the Iranian oil facilities and probably the leadership targets as well.

So I think that, you know, Iran's best interest here would be to essentially take this hit and back down and accept the fact that Israel delivered this attack. Yes, it's a humiliation. The fact that no Israeli aircraft were shot down, no missiles were intercepted, and the Israeli attack was very effective, but the Iranians would actually reap the whirlwind and lose much more if they decide to retaliate.

MARQUARDT: How much do you think the U.S. tempered Israel's plans and really got them to focus narrowly on just these military targets and within these military targets, really just ballistic missile facilities and these surface to air missile arrays?

DAVIS: I think that probably that was an actual factor in Israeli thinking. Certainly the Israelis do need U.S. military support to continue, not just in regards to tensions with Iran, but also in relations to the issue of the war against Hamas in Gaza and also operations against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

[01:10:15]

So I think if the Israelis had ignored U.S. concerns and gone ahead and struck the nuclear facilities, for example, or power generation or oil fields or those sorts of things, then you would have seen a fall- off in U.S. Support. Now, obviously one complicating factor to that is we are coming up to the presidential election and I don't think you would have seen necessarily the Biden-Harris team wanting to back down from supporting Israel at this particular point. But after November 5, if Kamala Harris wins, for example, you could then see a fall-off in U.S. support.

So I do think that probably the Israelis were playing it safe. They decided for now let's do a limited strike but hold open that prospect for a much larger attack if the Iranians are foolish enough to retaliate in response today's actions.

MARQUARDT: So what do you think happens now? Do you think Israel just turns its focus back to its campaigns in Lebanon against Hezbollah and in Gaza against Hamas?

DAVIS: Partly that, but also they'll keep their forces poised in case Iran does retaliate. And you know that retaliation is not out of the question. Obviously this is a decision that's being made in Tehran at the moment. But if Iran does retaliate, then Israel will strike back much harder. And the sort of targets I've talked about, the nuclear facilities, the oil facilities, leadership, those are the targets that would be hit.

But I think what Israel wants to do is finish the job in Gaza as quickly as possible, get the hostages released or rescue the hostages and at the same time suppress and defeat Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. And that's their priorities here.

MARQUARDT: That could still be a decent way off. Malcolm Davis in Canberra in Australia, thank you very much for joining us.

DAVIS: Thank you.

MARQUARDT: Israel's strike on Iran comes after weeks of deliberations, including with the United States. Our coverage of the Israeli strikes continues right after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [01:16:38]

MARQUARDT: We are following breaking news out of the Middle East as Israel has carried out retaliatory strikes against Iran. The Israelis say that this attack is now over. Gunfire, air defense systems, explosions, all ringing out in the skies above the capital Tehran over the past few hours.

Israel's military says that it targeted Iran's air defense systems and missile production facilities in several locations in Iran. State media says that the Israeli attack caused what they called limited damage. The strikes come in response to an Iranian missile barrage launched against Israel back on October 1st. We do expect to learn more as the morning develops and Iranian officials get a clearer picture of the situation.

Israeli officials, for their part, say that today's strikes were the culmination of weeks of deliberations, both internal as well as multiple rounds of consultations with U.S. officials.

And now that Israel's retaliation is complete, the White House is calling for this to be the end of this cycle of fighting between Israel and Iran. I'm joined now by Arash Azizi. He is a contributing writer to The Atlantic and a visiting fellow at Boston University. He is also the author of "What Iranians Want," joins us now live from Toronto.

Arash, thank you so much for being with us. We have reported that in the past few weeks, Iran was nervous as they braced for this Israeli strike. Now we're hearing Iranian officials downplaying the impact of what Israel did today. How do you expect the coming days to play out?

ARASH AZIZI, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: I think Iranians are relieved because Israel only attacked military targets. Now, attacks were significant. I think they are downplaying it, but, you know, it's more significant than they sort of let it out be.

But Israel did not attack infrastructure. It did not attack oil installations, did not cut Iranian electricity, did not attack the water, did not assassinate Iranian military or political officials or all the sort of scenarios that they had feared or that Israeli opposition politicians like Naftali Bennett had sort of asked the government to do.

So I think Iranians, and I've spoken to several sort of sources in Tehran in the last few hours. I think they're mostly relieved. There are those who think Israel might escalate later on, but I think they're relieved. And I think the consensus is that they don't really want this. They don't want to broaden the conflict. And like the White House, they're sort of aiming for an end to this tit for tat escalation that we've seen in the past few months, really.

MARQUARDT: Yes. To your point, there are, as far as we know, no known strikes against the IRGC or Quds Force personnel. Do you believe that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei will call it a day and perhaps just look for asymmetric opportunities to hit Israel down the line as they've done in the past?

AZIZI: You know, this is a very shameful day for Khamenei because for decades he had promised, if you will, that Iran had some sort of a no war, no peace policy, that, oh, it fought Israel indirectly but without ever inviting war on Iranian home front. He had failed that promise. Now Iranians had to watch for the first time since 1980s, a very major attack on their capital.

[01:20:06]

You know, Iranians woke up all throughout the night to see this attack. So it was a terrible day for Khamenei. And I think you'd like to go back to a time where they didn't have to face this. So, yes, I do believe that he will order either a very limited response to Israel or even no response directly in order to limit the conflict. And of course, he's 85 years old. He's not going to be the one that is in charge for a very long time.

And I think this entire episode has really shook the Iranian establishment and perhaps has given some force to those who believe that any extensive military engagement will be disastrous for Iran and that Iran should instead focus on its economic development, like Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region do.

MARQUARDT: Yes. How do you see the position of the Islamic Republic in the broader Middle East? You know, a year after this war started a year ago, you could say they had powerful proxies in Hamas and Hezbollah. You know, those have been severely degraded. The Houthis are getting pounded by the Americans and others. And now you've seen these two major salvos of missiles and drones that Iran has fired at Israel to little effect. So where does that leave them?

AZIZI: The Islamic Republic has an untenable goal. Its goal, it says, is to drive the U.S. out of the region and to destroy Israel. These are just basically unrealizable goals. It does not have the capacity to achieve these goals. What it can do and it has done is to sort of do a very drawn out game of rising up these anti-Israel militias in the region, setting them against the countries in the region, setting them against Israel.

And, you know, Israel's sort of continued wars has sometimes helped Iran to have some legitimacy in the eyes of, you know, some of the people in the region. But ultimately it's untenable. And I think the past few months have really shown that it's untenable. I think in the long run, Iran will need to rethink these policies.

And I think that there are chances that this could happen. The problem is Ayatollah Khamenei and some of the others. I mean, he's not alone. But not everybody is like this. The problem is that they're revolutionaries built in the 1960s and 70s, and they have this long term goals that they believe they've dedicated their lives to.

But their agenda is not supported by the Iranian people, who certainly don't want the war with Israel. They have no reason to want to go to war with Israel. I believe they're not also even supported by many in the Iranian establishment who believe this is very foolish and ruinous for Iran to get itself into a war with Israel, which would definitely also mean a war without the United States.

Let's not forget that the United States, we can talk about its role. There's obviously presidential elections next week that will determine a lot of things. But there is no scenario in which there's an outright major war between Iran and Israel and the U.S. simply sits out. That's just not going to happen. And for Iran to get itself into a direct war with the world's biggest superpower is obviously foolish from Iranian national security perspective.

MARQUARDT: Arash, before I let you go, what do you make of Iran's outreach to what have been traditionally regional rivals in the Gulf? It does appear that as their proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, get pounded in Gaza and Lebanon, that they are making more of an effort to try to. I don't know if collaborate's the right word, but at least have conversations with regimes that in the past they've had very difficult relationships with.

AZIZI: We've seen for the past few years that Iran has realized that it does need to have good relations with its neighbors. It rebuilt diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia. Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, traveled tons of countries in recent days, including Bahrain, with which Iran does not have diplomatic relations, including Jordan, with which it doesn't really have good relations, including Egypt, with which it does not have diplomatic relations.

I think what they did is try to expand their ties there. And I think, certainly, again, huge chunks of the Iranian establishment understand that if there is a future, it has to be in working with the states, not trying to go against them. But, you know, I think there's something of a consensus on that, actually. And I think there was also sort of more immediate goals.

And some are now saying that the fact that the Israeli strikes were limited is sort of achievement of Araghchi's trip. I don't know how true is that, but it is true that he brought a message to these countries, basically asking them to tell the U.S. to tell Israel, which does have relations with some of these countries between Bahrain and United Arab Emirates, to tell them to limit the attacks. And, you know, some that I spoke to claim that the limitedness of these attacks are sort of due to Araghchi's trip, and that's certainly what Tehran wants.

[01:25:02]

MARQUARDT: All right, Arash Azizi in Toronto, thank you so much for joining us.

AZIZI: Of course.

MARQUARDT: In just 10 days, voters in the United States will be heading to the polls to choose the next American president. So far, more than 34 million ballots have been cast, with early voting underway in most of the U.S. states.

The final CNN nationwide poll before Election Day shows that the race is really on a razor's edge, with 47 percent of likely voters supporting Kamala Harris and an equal 47 percent supporting Donald Trump.

The two candidates held dueling rallies in Texas on Friday, and they're expected to do the same in Michigan, another battleground state, or rather that is a battleground state. Unlike Texas, they'll be holding those rallies on Saturday. On Friday, music superstar Beyonce headlined a campaign rally for Kamala Harris. That was in Houston.

The singer came out onto the stage with her former Destiny's Child bandmate Kelly Rowland. Now, Beyonce didn't perform at the rally, but she did introduce Harris. CNN's Rosa Flores was there in Houston and has this report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROSA FLORES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the energy here in Houston is electrifying because the star power is Texas size. I'm talking about Beyonce, Queen Bey in her hometown of H Town.

Now, as I look around this stadium, the venue is also Texas sized, I can see that pretty much every seat here has been taken, and this stadium seats about 21,000 people. Now in addition to that, the organizers deployed a floor that meets up to the stage what you would expect during a concert, and I can tell you that there are multiple pens of spectators, and they're standing shoulder to shoulder, standing room only.

Now, if you're wondering why Harris is in Texas when Texas is not a battleground state, you're probably thinking what most people in the United States are thinking. Why? Well, as Kamala Harris continues to create a contrast between what an America under a Harris administration would look like and an America under a Trump administration would look like when it comes to abortion rights, Texas is center stage. Texas is the biggest stage because Texas is one of the states with the strictest abortion bans.

There is -- there are no exceptions for rape or incest in this state, and there's a very narrow exception for life of the mother. Now it's not just the star power that Harris has brought to Texas, it's also the stories of real women who have been impacted by the lack of abortion care in several states. In the United States, take a listen.

KAMALA HARRIS, U.S. DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: The reality is, for every story we hear about, about the suffering because of a Trump abortion ban, there are so many stories we've never heard an untold number of women and the people who love them, who are silently suffering, women who are being made to feel as though they did something wrong, as though they are criminals, as though they are alone. And to those women, I say, and I think I speak on behalf of all of us. We see you, and we are here with you.

FLORES: And after Texas, you guessed it, Harris is returning to the battleground state of Michigan. Rosa Flores, CNN, Houston.

(END VIDEOTAPE) MARQUARDT: Our thanks to Rosa Flores. Donald Trump criticized Harris over that high profile rally during his own campaign stop in Texas. He was speaking in Austin. He accused his rival of not caring about border security. He said that the U.S. has become what he called a garbage can into which the rest of the world dumps its unwanted people. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Today, Kamala is here in Texas to rub shoulders with woke celebrities. Isn't that exciting? But she's not going to meet with any of the victims of migrant crime while she's here. We have many of them right here, the families. We have many of them. And they're incredible people. What they've gone through, the hell that they've gone through and will continue to go through, unfortunately.

She'll not speak to the grieving mothers from whom she has stolen the brightest light in their lives. She was in charge of this border and she doesn't like being called border czar anymore. She didn't mind it almost four years ago, but now she doesn't like it. But you don't need that term. She was in charge of the border. She never came here and she never made one call to these people behind me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[01:30:00]

MARQUARDT: Later on, Trump showed up three hours late to a rally in Michigan because he gave what he called the longest interview of his life to podcaster Joe Rogan. The former president told the crowd that he figured they wouldn't mind because he's trying to win.

And in a major break from recent tradition, the Washington Post says it will not endorse a candidate in this year's U.S. presidential election, or in the future, for that matter. Its publisher said that the decision is consistent with its values and a return to the paper's roots.

The Washington Post has made an endorsement in every election since the 1980s. A person with knowledge of the matter told CNN that the Post's editorial page staffers had already drafted an endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris.

But then the Post said that owner Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, one of the richest men in the world, he made the decision not to endorse. Robert Kagan was an opinion editor. Excuse me. He was an opinion editor-at-large at the Washington Post and he said that he resigned over the move was.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT KAGAN, FORMER WASHINGTON POST EDITOR-AT-LARGE: A pretty easy decision. This is obviously an effort by Jeff Bezos to curry favor with Donald Trump in the anticipation of his possible victory. Trump has threatened to go after Bezos' business. Bezos runs one of the largest companies in America. They have tremendously intricate relations with the federal government. They depend on the federal government. And Trump has made it clear that he will attack media organizations that are critical of him.

The Post has had no trouble endorsing presidential candidates up until now. And by the way, this argument that they're making, that somehow they want to become above it all on this thing. They've endorsed all kinds of candidates in this election season. They endorsed the Democratic nominee in Maryland. They've endorsed other Democratic nominees. So is it just only in the race that Donald Trump happens to be running in that they've decided not to endorse? It's absurd.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUARDT: Israel strikes back against Iran. Our breaking news coverage continues after this break. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[01:36:39]

MARQUARDT: An update now on this hour's breaking news. You are looking at live pictures right there of the Iranian capital Tehran, where it is now 9:00 in the morning after Israel carried out long awaited series of strikes against Iran.

That was what the skies over Tehran looked like and sounded just a few hours ago. You can see and hear there what appeared to be anti- aircraft fire.

The Israeli strikes were in retaliation for Iran's missile barrage with around 180 ballistic missiles against Israel back on October 1st. In this Israeli retaliation there were three waves of strikes over a number of hours. We don't yet know much about how what damage there was. Though Iran has called the damage limited. Israel says that it struck strictly military targets.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HAGARI: Our message is clear, all those who threaten the State of Israel and seek to drag the region into wider escalation will pay a heavy price. We demonstrated today that we have both the capability and the resolve to act decisively and we are prepared on offense and defense to defend the state of Israel and the people of Israel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUARDT: Meanwhile, a senior U.S. official says that Israel's retaliatory strikes on Iran were, quote, very carefully prepared. The White House is now calling for calm and deescalation now that Israel has finished its operation. CNN's senior White House correspondent Kayla Tausche has more U.S. reaction from Washington in.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KAYLA TAUSCHE, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: The aftermath of these strikes, U.S. officials are describing them as the type of proportional response that President Biden and his top aides had been urging the Israelis to carry out in these recent weeks specifically to limit civilian casualties and to be targeted and precise.

U.S. officials this evening describing that wave of strikes as carefully prepared, limiting civilian casualties and designed to be effective, with the effect being the degradation of Iran's capabilities of carrying out a future ballistic missile attack and deterrence against any future action.

A senior administration officials with a warning for Iran not to respond, suggesting very forcefully that this should be the end of the direct fire exchange between Israel and Iran, but also saying this, saying if Iran chooses to respond once again, we will be ready and there will be consequences for Iran. Once again, we do not want to see this happen. This should be the end of the direct exchange of fire.

The senior administration official suggesting that there have been multiple channels of communication through which Iran has been made very aware of the US's position and its belief that Israel has a right to defend itself, especially when Iran launches a barrage of ballistic missiles toward densely populated areas, including areas where tens of thousands of Americans live.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MARQUARDT: Our thanks to Kayla Tausche and our coverage will continue after this quick break. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[01:44:10]

MARQUARDT: You are looking at live pictures of the Iranian capital, Tehran, where it is now the morning after Israel carried out a long awaited series of strikes against Iran. The operation is now over. Iran says there was limited damage in some areas. Israeli officials say that its decision to hit what it said were military targets came after weeks of both internal deliberation and conversations with the U.S. administration.

I want to bring in Andrew Tabler who is a senior fellow in the Arab Politics Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He is here in Washington. Andrew, thank you so much for joining me on this really important day.

First off, I want to get your impression of what we saw tonight.

ANDREW TABLER, SENIOR FELLOW, WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY: I think the Israeli strikes were quite precise.

[01:45:00]

They were very limited in the sense of the targeting, but I think quite devastating. And we're going to know much more about that in the morning as there are further assessments, but not something that spread to energy infrastructure or nuclear facilities. And this is the more limited strike, I think, that the Biden administration in particular, but not only was hoping for so to not escalate out of control and cause a wider regional war.

MARQUARDT: What are you going to be looking for in the coming hours?

TABLER: I think there's a couple of things to watch. The rhetoric coming out of Tehran and particularly from the supreme leader and their surrogates will be very indicative. But we have seen this before. Even if they come out and say, well, there's going to be a direct response, it doesn't mean that it's actually going to be coming before the U.S. election on November 5th. So have to wait and see. And the aerial photography tomorrow should tell us a lot more as well.

MARQUARDT: I am struck by the confidence of the Biden administration that there was a call with a senior administration official and reporters after the IDF announced that their operation tonight was over. And this official said that they believe that this, quote, direct exchange between Israel and Iran is now over. What do you make of that confidence?

TABLER: I think that it's hard for any administration to be completely confident that both their adversaries and allies are going to react the way they are. But the United States has, of course, direct contact with Israel, and of course, they're having a really hard time dealing with the Iranians. But there is backchanneling. So I think there's a way to understand that and understand what each side's intentions may be.

MARQUARDT: Yes, that same U.S. official saying that they have both direct and indirect communications with the Iranians. So I imagine they are certainly communicating now that they really hope that Iran doesn't respond.

But as you noted, Andrew, what we saw tonight does appear to be limited and calibrated the way that the Biden administration had wanted, the way that they had been communicating the past few weeks, at least in terms of this narrow set of targets. To what extent do you think the U.S. held Israel back?

TABLER: I think that the U.S. completely explained to the Israelis the situation that not only was this response happening in a regional context, which has been worsening since October 7, 2023, but that it's right before the U.S. general election.

And I think there it becomes a bit tricky because it begs the question whether the Netanyahu government prefers to have a continuation of the Biden administration under Kamala Harris or do they prefer Donald Trump, who would certainly, I think, constrain Israel less militarily.

But it's really hard to say. I think that for the moment, this response was proportionate and it allows for an escalation, but one that's more measured and one that's more manageable, not just before November 5th, but before the change in administration in mid-January.

MARQUARDT: No doubt the Israelis, like so many, have their eyes on the calendar. We knew that they wanted to respond before the election. But gaming that out a little bit, if Trump were to win, do you think that Israel could feel then emboldened to do more in the near future?

TABLER: I think so. I think that -- it's kind of hard to say, but I think there's a couple of things. Rhetorically, of course, Trump is quite in favor of Israel getting it over with or finishing the matter. And I think you can read that two ways. One is support for military action by Israel and the Netanyahu government.

The other one is to get it over with before in the event he would win the election, get it over before his administration starts. And it would make it easier and less risky, particularly as concerns potential strikes on energy infrastructure, which I think would worry any president of the United States or any leader in the world. Oil, and the price of oil underpins the entire world economy still. And that is not going to go away anytime soon. Major damage to infrastructure could harm that and change things very quickly.

MARQUARDT: Still so much to unfold in the coming days. Andrew Tabler here in Washington with me. Thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate it.

TABLER: My pleasure.

MARQUARDT: With just 10 days to go before the U.S. election, it is clear that the battleground state of Pennsylvania could decide who wins the White House.

[01:50:00]

CNN's John King recently returned to the suburbs of Philadelphia and talked with some of the people who had earlier supported Nikki Haley. He wanted to find out how they plan on voting now.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Michael Pesce is methodical, a stickler for detail and preparation. Pennsylvania's archery deer season is now open. This range a place to shoot targets and adjust your gear.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There we go.

KING (voice-over): Rifle season is a month away and at this stop. Pesce is no nonsense. Just a few shots to help him adjust the sight. Two more to let a visitor get a feel for the.30-06 deer rifle. Conservative in every way. No wasted shots or time. Everything by the book. Not a fan of surprises. Yet Pacey is voting for Kamala Harris because he is even less of a fan of Donald Trump.

KING: You're going to vote for her, but do you know what you're getting?

MICHAEL PESCE, PENNSYLVANIA VOTER: No, I don't. And that's the scary part is, you know, I'm not voting for a candidate. I'm not voting for a policy. I'm voting against a candidate and policies. And not even all the policies. Just, you know, the unstableness of some of the things he says are truly scary.

KING (voice-over): Pesce is a Reagan Republican, supported Nikki Haley in this year's GOP primaries. A never Trumper in a place where that really matters. Bucks County, one of the suburban Philadelphia counties crucial to the math in battleground Pennsylvania. He wants his party back and sees a second Trump loss as essential.

PESCE: Then I think that the Republicans will start coming back to what they were because they don't have that radical right side. They don't have the craziness and the instability.

KING (voice-over): Berks County is a bit more away from the city, more rural and more Republican, yet not as deep and reliably read as just a few years ago.

JOAN LONDON, PENNSYLVANIA VOTER: This neighborhood is becoming a lot like the Philadelphia suburbs. This is a primarily Republican leaning borough, always has been. But when it comes to national elections, I do see more and more support for Democratic candidates.

KING (voice-over): Attorney Joan London switched her registration to independent after voting for Haley in the GOP primary. London was asked to join this local political program not long after our first visit five months ago. Back then, she told us she would write in a conservative because she viewed President Biden as too old. And later she told us she viewed Vice President Harris as too liberal and untested. But then she watched the Harris-Trump debate.

LONDON: The last straw was what he said about the Ukraine, where he said that we have to have a negotiated settlement. For someone who claims to be a conservative to say that was in my opinion, outrageous. It's appeasement.

KING (voice-over): So London is now voting Harris, voting Democrat for president for the first time because she believes Trump must lose because she gets the battleground state math.

LONDON: I needed to vote against allowing him to become president again. I don't want it on my conscience that I contributed in some way to that. Sometimes you have to say American first, conservative second, Republican third.

KING (voice-over): Media is in Delaware County just outside Philly. Reliably blue now, but still a test of whether Harris can match or exceed Biden's 2020 math. It's also a big test for Trump. He lost the Philly suburbs in 2016, but narrowly won statewide. But he lost these suburbs by a bit more in 2020 and he narrowly lost Pennsylvania.

KING: We're getting to the end here. Have you made up your mind?

CYNTHIA SABATINI, PENNSYLVANIA VOTER: No.

KING (voice-over): Cynthia Sabatini is another never Trumper, another Haley primary voter, another Republican who won't vote for him but isn't sure about her.

KING: Finish the sentence. Madam Vice President, if you want my vote here in the very important Philadelphia suburbs, you need to do.

SABATINI: You need to answer questions on point. You need to provide more details about your economic plan. You need to provide more details about your vision also for this country. I'm, you know, I'm a bottom line person. I want details.

KING (voice-over): Sabatani is mad at local Democrats she sees as tax and spend happy.

KING: Is she going to pay the price for that?

SABATINI: She may. She may.

KING (voice-over): But she does see an upside for Harris over Trump.

SABATINI: I believe she's a person of character. I have no qualms about that. I really do. I think she's an upstanding individual. It's just that I really don't know what to expect from her if she is indeed elected.

KING (voice-over): Sabatini meditates frequently to clear her mind and reduce stress.

[01:55:00]

SABATINI: Deep inhalations and long exhalations.

KING (voice-over): She predicts a final day decision to either vote for Harris or to ride in Haley. A vote to help score the suburbs and settle the biggest of the battlegrounds. John King, CNN, Media, Pennsylvania.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MARQUARDT: Thanks to John King and thanks to you all for joining us. I'm Alex Marquardt here in Washington. Our breaking news coverage continues after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)