Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Israel Says Retaliatory Strike against Iran Is Complete; Trump Arrives Hours Late to Rally after Podcast Interview; Final CNN Nationwide Poll Shows Dead Heat for 2024; "The Washington Post" Will Not Endorse a Presidential Candidate. Aired 3-4a ET
Aired October 26, 2024 - 03:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[03:00:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): This is CNN breaking news.
PAULA NEWTON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Hello and welcome, I'm Paula Newton, live in New York. We are following breaking news this hour.
Israel has carried out a major, long-awaited series of airstrikes against Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON (voice-over): Tehran looked and sounded like this just a short time ago. Now you could see and, of course, hear what happened to be anti-aircraft fire. Now, Israel's military has announced the strikes against Iran are in fact over.
Two sources tell CNN there were three waves of strikes in retaliation for Iran's missile barrage against Israel on October 1st. There's no word yet on possible damage or casualties but Israel says it struck military targets, including missile manufacturing facilities and surface to air missile arrays.
The U.S. asked Israeli officials to avoid strikes in Iran's nuclear or oil facilities for fear of escalating the conflict and affecting the global economy.
And 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 meantime and defense minister Yoav Gallant monitored the strikes, as you can see them there, from a command post just along with other Israeli officials.
The Israeli military says the strikes are a response to months of attacks by Iran and regional groups backed by Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REAR ADMIRAL DANIEL HAGARI, IDF SPOKESPERSON: The regime in Iran and its proxies in the region have been relentlessly attacking Israel since October 7th on seven fronts, including direct attacks from Iranian soil. Like every other sovereign country in the world, the State of Israel has the right and the duty to respond.
Our defensive and offensive capabilities are fully mobilized. We will do whatever necessary to defend the State of Israel and the people of Israel.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: CNN's Ivan Watson has been following developments from Hong Kong and he joins us now.
I mean, no doubt an unnerving few hours for people in Tehran and beyond. But for now, this cycle of escalation seems to be over, at least as far as Israel has indicated. We've had several hours of daylight. Now in Iran.
What more are you learning about these strikes?
IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Right.
It's 10:30 in the morning in Tehran and after a night of fireworks, where you had Tehran residents filming Iranian air defenses blowing up in the sky and tracer fire in the sky.
We have not heard or seen images that are anywhere similar to what it looks like in southern Beirut or in parts of southern Lebanon after Israeli airstrikes there hitting densely populated residential neighborhoods.
In this case, the Israelis are saying that they were targeting military installations and the Iranian government, in what few statements have come out in the Iranian state media, have also indicated that Israel did in fact target, as one state media outlet described it, as military centers in three different provinces.
We can show you a map of those provinces. It's Tehran province, Khuzestan and Ilam. Those were the provinces that were targeted. We will likely not see an extent of the damage if it was in fact military bases that were targeted because that is a national security secret for Iran.
It won't want to telegraph that just as Israel didn't want to telegraph the extent of the damage caused by scores of Iranian rockets and drones that were fired at Israel on October 1st at Israeli air bases. Both sides trying to keep this somewhat quiet. If anything, the messaging coming out of Tehran is that, look.
[03:05:00] Traffic is moving around Tehran as usual. It is business as usual right now. Where traffic was dramatically diverted is in the airspace in this volatile part of the Middle East, as the Israeli warplanes were flying to and from Iran.
If you look at the flight tracker maps, you'll see that the air traffic, commercial traffic, was completely diverted, not over -- not only over Iran but also over its western neighbors, Iraq and Syria and Jordan. And it'll be a big question, I think.
We may not get the answer of it, of what was the itinerary of the Israeli warplanes?
What countries did they fly over, what were refueling exercises?
Did they have to take place for the warplanes to be able to carry out these bombing attacks?
The Israeli military, Paula, they say that all of their warplanes landed successfully back in Israel. And if that is, in fact true, then it would indicate that the Israelis succeeded in bombing multiple targets in Iran without losing a single plane to Iranian air defenses, which you could argue is quite a victory for Tel Aviv.
NEWTON: Yes, no doubt, as we continue to try and parse exactly what happened here and the fallout. Ivan Watson for us in Hong Kong, appreciate it.
HA Hellyer is a Middle East studies scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a senior associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies. He joins me now from Cairo, Egypt.
I want to thank you for joining us here to give us some perspective on all of this.
I mean, given the limited nature of these strikes, do you believe there was any real degradation done here in Iran's capabilities?
HA HELLYER, SENIOR ASSOCIATE FELLOW, ROYAL UNITED SERVICES INSTITUTE FOR DEFENCE AND SECURITY STUDIES: Thank you for having me on your program.
So the truthful answer is, we don't know. And we won't know because, of course, Iran will not reveal the details of those attacks, will not reveal the details of what has happened in terms of impact on their capabilities.
And the Israelis are likely to, how should we say, overinflate the impact.
So we don't know how much it will degrade their capacities at all. What we do know is that the retaliation that Israel promised would take place is now taking place.
The question will now be, does that end this particular cycle or does it start a new cycle?
And if you look at how the direct attacks between Israel and Iran have taken place over the past year, this is actually the beginning of a new cycle in terms of the tit-for-tat.
But the question will still be, is Iran now going to respond with its own retaliation?
The media representation of this in Iran has pretty much downplayed these attacks. So that would indicate, one would hope, that there won't be a new escalation that takes place. But you know, we'll have to wait and see.
NEWTON: Indeed we will. Given what you just outlined, though, Israel's aim, of course, here is to restore some level of deterrence.
Do you believe they'll be successful at that, given what you said?
Right, already, Iran is saying there was limited damage
HILLYER: No, I don't. And I think that the whole notion of deterrence and disregard is really quite farcical. What we've seen over the past year, at the very least, is that this idea of quote-unquote, "establishing deterrence" is really nonsensical.
There's no deterrence in any of this. This is about whether or not the other country thinks that it can get away with doing more. Iran will not be deterred from escalating in the future if it so sees fit. Neither will the Israelis.
What we've seen over the past year, I think, should really end this discussion once and for all. Unfortunately, it does serve as the stated motivation for a lot of these attacks and, unfortunately, what these attacks tend to do is place the region into a heightened sense of alert.
It doesn't quote-unquote "deescalate through escalation," which is the most incredible thing I've heard. Rather, all it does is risks plunging the region into further chaos and turmoil.
So we wait to see how the Iranians will respond. But so far the indications now (INAUDIBLE) downplayed, these particular attacks. And we hope the news cycle won't start anytime soon.
NEWTON: Given your skepticism over deterrence, though, I wonder what you make of the U.S.' military moves in the last few weeks, you know, shoring up its defense of Israel.
Do you believe that was persuasive in terms of Israel having a more limited retaliation here?
[03:10:00]
HILLYER: This is very interesting because of course the U.S. elections are coming up in just over a week a week or so. You have to keep in mind that Israel will calculate its own responses,
keeping in mind that the United States is its closest ally, its indispensable ally and, thus far, a pretty, pretty solid ally in terms of not placing any conditions or restrictions in how Israel prosecutes the war on Gaza.
How it proceeds in terms of strikes and invasion of Lebanon and, of course, these strikes on Iran.
Having said that, I think the United States made it very clear to Israel that it does not seek a widescale escalation in the Middle East, which is the biggest danger when it comes to Iran, that this could unfurl into a massive, wide-scale regional war because that would bring in other actors in the region that the United States also counts on.
And does not -- they do not wish to have this widescale regional war, either. So I do think that the Israelis calculated very carefully in terms of how they proceed with today. I think that the engagement of the U.S. in this regard was significant.
But frankly, it also shows, when the U.S. wants to push Israel to modify its behavior, it can do so. And as of yet, what we've seen is really unbridled (INAUDIBLE) for Israel in terms of the war in Gaza. And that sort but of pressure should be welcomed there.
NEWTON: Interesting, especially given the fact that we are so close to a U.S. election here. HA Hellyer, I want to thank you.
(CROSSTALK)
NEWTON: -- perspective.
We turn now to Gaza. Emergency response officials say at least 26 Palestinians were killed in strikes early Friday in the southern part of the enclave. And in northern Gaza, health authorities claim Israeli forces opened fire in a hospital compound after days of laying siege to the facility.
The hospital's director described the situation as, quote, "truly terrifying." Sources say the facility is in desperate need of aid.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HUSSAM ABU SAFIYA, DIRECTOR, KAMAL ADWAN HOSPITAL (through translator): We will be facing a humanitarian catastrophe if there is no solution to the situation in the next few coming hours. The hospital will turn into a mass grave.
There is a huge number of wounded people and, approximately every hour, we lose one of them as a martyr.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Ten days and counting, new CNN polling shows no daylight between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. But look at the numbers and what's ahead on the campaign trail, that's
next.
Plus "The Washington Post" won't endorse either candidate in the U.S. presidential race. Now former employees are speaking out. That's next.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[03:15:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
NEWTON: A reminder of our top story this hour, Israel has carried out retaliatory strikes on Iran overnight.
The Israelis say the attack is now over. Tracer fire and explosions rang out in the skies above the capital, Tehran, in the predawn hours early Saturday morning. Israel's military says it targeted Iran's air defense systems and missile production sites in several locations.
Iran said the attack on military centers in the provinces of Tehran, Khuzestan and Ilam caused limited damage. The strikes come in response to an Iranian missile barrage launched against Israel on October 1st.
Now we expect to learn more as the morning goes on and officials get a clearer picture of the situation.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
NEWTON: In 10 days, voters in the United States will head to the polls to choose their next president. More than 34 million ballots have already been cast with early voting underway in most states.
The final CNN nationwide poll before Election Day shows the race is, yes, 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 are expected to do the same in Michigan on Saturday. Trump spent part of his day accusing Kamala Harris of not caring about border security. During a campaign stop Friday in Austin, he said the U.S. has become a garbage can into which the rest of the world dumps its unwanted people.
Trump later moved on to battleground state of Michigan but arrived much later than expected.
Our Alayna Treene was there.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ALAYNA TREENE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: On a very chilly evening in Traverse City, Michigan, on Friday, Donald Trump arrived to his event nearly three hours late. Now Trump is normally a bit late to some of his events but that was
uncharacteristically late for the former president. Now Donald Trump, when he did arrive, he walked out onto the stage to a pretty dark theme song.
It was actually known as "The Undertaker," a song for a WWE wrestler. And he stood on stage for roughly seven minutes before Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" played and then he began addressing the crowd.
Now before he took the stage, I will say, hundreds of people had already left because of such a delay.
[03:20:06]
Donald Trump apologized for that once he got to the podium. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: We had some other things really important. And I said, you know, we're going to get this stuff done. And my people came to be sure we could cancel our evening event. I'm sure that people wouldn't mind. I said, are you crazy?
I'm not canceling. There's no way. I'm not canceling. There's no way. We never even -- so I apologize. But you know, it's all about winning. We got to win and we did some things today that will help us win.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TREENE: Now the reason Donald Trump was so late, his senior advisers say, is because his interview, he had a scheduled interview with podcaster Joe Rogan on Friday. That went over, way longer than they expected.
It lasted roughly three hours and that was taped in Austin, Texas, of course, a roughly three-hour flight to Traverse City, Michigan. (INAUDIBLE). Taping with Joe Rogan was very important to Donald Trump's campaign.
Not only is he one of the most popular podcasters in the United States, he has roughly 14 million followers on Spotify. But also this is something that they had been working to secure for several months.
Particularly, they really view this as a crowning achievement on their overall strategy this cycle to really try and target not only men but young men and specifically low propensity voters, meaning people who aren't necessarily political.
Trying to get them to turn out for Donald Trump. So that was a huge part of why they were late on Friday. But Donald Trump, of course, apologized to the crowd and then spoke for roughly an hour beyond that -- Alayna Treene, CNN, Traverse City, Michigan.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: Musical superstar Beyonce headlined a Democratic campaign rally in Houston, Texas, Friday.
Now she didn't perform and many were disappointed about that but she did speak briefly and introduced the vice president. CNN's Rosa Flores was there in Houston and has our report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ROSA FLORES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The energy here in Houston is electrifying because of star power. It's Texas sized. 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.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMALA HARRIS (D), VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The reality is, for every story we hear 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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FLORES: And after Texas, you guessed it, Harris is returning to the battleground state of Michigan -- Rosa Flores, CNN, Houston.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: Now earlier I spoke with CNN senior political analyst Ron Brownstein about the presidential race. And I asked him what he thought about the polls that show Trump and Harris statistically in a dead heat. Here's part of our conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: The erosion for Harris relative to Biden's numbers in 2020 is predominantly, overwhelmingly, among voters of color, nonwhite voters.
[03:25:04]
If you look at the two big polls that came out today, CNN and "The New York Times" Siena, they had her respectively at 41 percent to 43 percent among white voters, which is exactly where the major data sources that we have on the 2020 elections put Biden.
The decline is a fairly substantial decline in both polls, not only among Hispanic voters, which is what we've been dealing with for months, but also among Black voters.
And you know, there are Democrats who are very hopeful that those numbers in these media polls about Black voters, which aren't as -- the samples aren't as big -- are wrong and that they're overstating the loss.
But one Democrat said to me, you know, what if it's the opposite, what if it's the real problem here is that where the polls are unrealistically showing are holding up with white voters, which is, which is a possibility.
One last point, this demographic pattern, which is so unusual, really sets up the geography. If she is losing support among voters of color to be anywhere near the extent these polls are suggesting, all of the Sun Belt states are very hard.
But if she's holding support among white voters, to the extent the polls are suggesting, the Rust Belt path of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, that would get her exactly the 270, is still open to her.
NEWTON: I mean, look, it has been quite a week of rhetoric. The F- word, as someone called it, the F-bomb -- fascism -- you know, fascinating. And you can see it online at CNN. We put together a mashup of the fact that, for the last several months, it's actually been Donald Trump has uttered that word much more often than Kamala Harris.
And yet some of the Trump's surrogates have been saying to CNN, look, a lot of people who will vote for Donald Trump are concerned about what he says. But they are more concerned about how Kamala Harris will act.
Do you think there's any truth in that?
BROWNSTEIN: Well, yes. I think -- I think that's right. But the mistake is to assume that this is just about rhetoric or expressing positive feelings about Adolf Hitler or his generals.
I think the most important thing that John Kelly, the former four-star Marine general, who was a chief of staff, said in these interviews, was that Trump repeatedly, during his first term, wanted to use the U.S. military on domestic soil against American citizens and was resisted and ultimately blocked in doing that.
And that is so important because Trump has put forward in array of very specific proposals to use the military or the National Guard domestically in a second term. He's talked about sending the National Guard into blue cities to just patrol for crime, to round up the homeless, to participate in his mass deportation plan.
And of course, most recently, to target in some vague way the enemy from within. It's really important to understand this is not just offensive rhetoric or kind of rhetorical excesses, this is Trump talking about using the military in a way that we have not seen through American history.
And of course, maybe the most famous example I left out was in the meeting when they were -- when they were meeting in the White House before January 6th.
And one of the White House counsels said, won't there be massive protests in the cities if Mike Pence overturns the election result?
And one of the Trump -- the other Trump advisers said, that's what the Insurrection Act is for, which, of course, allows the president to use the military domestically.
That, I think, is the real stakes here, not who is calling who names.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: 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 any in the future, for that matter.
Its publisher says the decision is consistent with its values and a return to the newspaper's roots. It has made an endorsement in every election since the 1980s. A person with knowledge of the matter told CNN "The Post's" editorial page staffers had already drafted an endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris.
But "The Post" said owner Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, made the decision not to endorse. Robert Kagan, an opinion editor at large at the newspaper, says he resigned over the move.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROBERT KAGAN, FORMER EDITOR-AT-LARGE, "THE WASHINGTON POST": It was a pretty easy decision. This is obviously an effort by Jeff Bezos to curry favor with Donald Trump in 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 oppose it, 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.
[03:30:00]
They endorsed a Democratic nominee in Maryland. They 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)
NEWTON: Legendary "The Washington Post" journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein slammed the newspaper for not endorsing a candidate.
They issued a joint statement on Friday, calling the decision "surprising and disappointing."
Adding, quote, "We respect the traditional independence of the editorial page. But this decision, 11 days out from the 2024 presidential election, ignores 'The Washington Post's' own overwhelming reportorial evidence on the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy."
Our breaking news coverage in the Middle East continues next. Israel launched a barrage of airstrikes against Iran.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[03:35:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
NEWTON: Just a few hours ago Israel carried a long expected series of strikes against Iran. Israel says those strikes are now over and Iran says the attacks were intercepted, causing limited damage.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON (voice-over): This is what the skies over Tehran looked and sounded like a short time ago. You could see and hear what appear to be anti aircraft fire. CNN's Alex Marquardt has more now on the strikes and their targets.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Israel announced in the early hours of Saturday morning that their military operation against Iran was over after striking military targets in different parts of the country.
The targets, according to Israel's military, included missile manufacturing facilities as well as surface to air missile systems. Sources told CNN that there were three waves of Israeli airstrikes. And Iranian media said that military sites in three different provinces were hit but they claimed limited damage.
The United States had pressured Israel to not strike Iran's nuclear or oil facilities, fearing greater escalation in the region and an impact on the global economy. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to have complied.
Following Israel's operation, a senior U.S. administration official told reporters that, quote, "This should be the end of this direct exchange of fire between Israel and Iran."
The official also said that the strikes were carefully prepared as well as being extensive, targeted and precise. Israel's strikes were in response to the October 1 Iranian barrage of some 180 ballistic missiles, directly fired at Israel.
For the past three weeks, Israel has been preparing its response in coordination with the United States though Washington made clear it did not participate in Israel's operation. What comes next remains very much to be seen, what the damage in Iran looks like, whether the Iranian regime retaliates in some way and what impact this may have on the other fronts in the region, in Lebanon and in Gaza -- Alex Marquardt, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: Alon Pinkas is the former Israeli consul general in New York and he joins us now from Tel Aviv.
Good for you to be with us this morning.
The Israeli response was weeks in coming.
Does its narrow, defined scope surprise you?
Did you believe that perhaps prime minister Netanyahu would be a bit more ambitious?
ALON PINKAS, FORMER ISRAELI CONSUL GENERAL, NEW YORK: No, it did not surprise me, Paula. Here's the thing.
It needed to be impactful and broad enough but not to hit nuclear or oil industry facilities and infrastructure. That was a result, A, of American pressure and, B, an attempt not to escalate this beyond control. It's already beyond control to a degree.
But at least not add to it or exacerbate the escalatory process. Now, in terms of the attack itself, Paula, it was somewhere in the intermediate range. It was not as symbolic as the April 13th attack but it was -- it did not go, as you called it, ambitious.
It did not -- it did not go as far as people had expected. But the key right now is, first of all, we don't know the exact extent or the accurate extent of the damage. It may take a day or two. And I would not necessarily trust Iranian reports, who, on the one hand, are trying to downplay the damage.
On the other hand, have already committed to retaliate, which brings me to the point I was going to make.
The key right now is whether or not Iran sees this as limited enough to warrant restraint or feel obligated by its previous commitment to retaliate, no matter what, which then would lead to a second, perhaps a third phase, wherein the ambition that you spoke about comes into play.
NEWTON: I suppose, at that point in time though, that Israel would look at that as another opportunity, if there is more retaliation. I'll leave that issue there for now. I do want to go back to something you mentioned though and that's the fact that the United States was apparently persuasive here.
Why do you believe that is?
And do you think that has a lot to do with the fact that the United States put some military muscle behind that persuasion?
PINKAS: Well, it put military muscle in the Gulf to try and avert the scenario in which it is being dragged into the war. Here's the thing. Israel was talking out loud, in a very vocal way, of attacking or at least contemplating considering attacking Iran's oil infrastructure.
[03:40:08]
The Iranians in response, Paula, announced that, if that happens, they will not hesitate to attack Gulf -- Arab Gulf states' oil industries. That is Qatar and Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. And the biggest prize of them all, Saudi Arabia.
If that happens or if they close the Strait of Hormuz, then the U.S. is involuntarily being dragged into the war. That is something that, for the better part of the last year, the U.S. has warned Mr. Netanyahu over.
And they warned him not only because they thought this was going to happen but because they thought he was deliberately trying to create that scenario in which the U.S. is being dragged and then attacks Iran's nuclear facilities, which the U.S. can.
But Israel only has a very limited capacity to execute. And I think that if you saw the last two or three weeks of public statements coming out of Washington, the Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin; indeed, the president himself, Joe Biden, they all said, we implore Israel not to attack neither oil facilities or Iran's nuclear -- military nuclear infrastructure.
So in that respect, the U.S.' only interest here was not to defend Israel, although that's a byproduct, but to avert a greater escalation, which involves it as well.
NEWTON: I dare ask this, trying to be optimistic here, given that perhaps we can underline the fact that this has gone on, it's over, perhaps both sides content to leave it there.
Does this clear the decks for more negotiations on a possible ceasefire?
Blinken was in the region for days. There are negotiations ongoing this weekend.
PINKAS: Well, yes. I don't usually tend to be optimistic on these issues but I'll flow with you. All three fronts, in all three theaters -- Gaza, south Lebanon with Hezbollah and the direct kinetic exchange or missile and bomb ping pong that's going on between Israel and Iran, in all three, the military objectives were reached.
They have been attained. And I don't see, I fail to see any other any other attainable or feasible military target. So you would think -- and this is the optimistic portion of this. You would think that, if that happened, then this is the time for some kind of a diplomatic initiative that may combine all three.
But maybe because of the different circumstances --
(CROSSTALK)
NEWTON: It is --
PINKAS: -- divide the tree into three separate agreements.
NEWTON: Yes. And even as we honor it, right, and as we listen to it, it seems like such a tall order. We will wait to see what the next hours and days bring. Alon Pinkas --
(CROSSTALK)
PINKAS: -- you didn't let me do my pessimistic bit. So yes, I agree with --
(LAUGHTER)
NEWTON: I would love to leave it there right now with the optimism. Alon, thanks so much. We'll get back to you. Appreciate it.
And we'll be right back with more news in a moment.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[03:45:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
NEWTON: And we return to our top story. Israel strikes back at Iran in retaliation for Tehran's missile barrage on Israel earlier this month. Now the operation is over and Iran says there was, quote, "limited damage" in some areas.
Israeli officials say its decision to hit what it says are military targets came after weeks of deliberation. Israel's security cabinet voted unanimously to approve the strikes. That's according to the prime minister's office.
The vote apparently happened during a phone call hours before the attack. The White House is urging Iran to stop attacking Israel and put an end to this cycle of fighting. Now a quick reminder of what got us to this point.
Back in January, Iran blamed Israel for the assassination of several of its military advisers and a missile strike in Damascus, Syria. That led Iran to launch an unprecedented large-scale drone and missile attack at Israel in April.
July saw Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh killed in an overnight strike in the heart of Tehran. That was followed by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah being killed in an Israeli airstrike in Beirut, Lebanon, last month.
Now in October, Iran launched dozens of missiles toward Israel in what it said was a response to those and other assassinations.
And, of course, overnight, Israel responded to that, saying it's targeted Iran's air defense systems and missile production facilities.
Now earlier, CNN's Anderson Cooper spoke to chief international anchor Christiane Amanpour to get more insight into the dynamics in the region that led up to this action.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: It appears that the last time it was sort of a standoff missile attack that hit perhaps a radar station somewhere around Esfahan.
This appears to be actual aircraft according to the IDF and according to the United States, actually, in some way, dropping bombs or missiles on Iran directly from their own planes.
And so, this would be a very first to put this into context -- very first time that this kind of engagement has actually happened.
[03:50:00]
Iran has been preparing for this ever since its 200 missiles, ballistic missile barrage against Israel back in early October.
And the question has always been from the Iranian perspective, if you look at the reporting, if you hear what the Iranian officials have been saying is, how big will it be and what are our options?
Should we respond at all if it's more symbolic or more something we can absorb and we expect as a retaliation from Israel or is it something much bigger, much wider, targeted at the regime, targeted as you've been discussing, the crucial oil infrastructure or indeed the nuclear infrastructure?
And then what would they be potentially they think themselves forced to respond to?
So I do think it's going to be important to see the scale of what Israel is doing. And then to see whether Iran decides that it has to respond.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Want to go live now to Washington and Behnam Ben Taleblu. He is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
And good to see you again this hour. We were just listening to Christiane.
I mean, what do you believe, given what we've seen in the last few hours, was this limited enough for Iran to absorb it so that we can really draw a line under this cycle?
BEHNAM BEN TALEBLU, SENIOR FELLOW, FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Paula, that's certainly seems to be the narrative that most though not all, semi official and an official media, are laying the tracks for right now.
But obviously anything can change when battle damage assessments come in as well as, of course, the mood within Iran, even within a very narrow and more cohesive regime, really.
You have some ultra-hardliners already, right now, hauling in version on social media for a third over to direct and kinetic ballistic missile barrage like you saw it back in April, like you saw earlier this October.
If past this prologue, perhaps the regime may indeed try to spin this politically because it knows they have lost this militarily. And make no mistake for the regime to basically be unable to control its own airspace and not have some that's more advanced air and missile defense apparatus is protect its military sites.
Does mean that in the long run, it cannot afford to sustain this exact force.
NEWTON: I'm interested though in what Iran's motives might be at this juncture when you have Israel continuing its campaign in Lebanon, continuing its campaign against Hamas in Gaza. When they look at the larger picture, what interests will they be
pursuing in the weeks and months to come?
TALEBLU: In the short to medium-term, if you're in the government of the Islamic Republic and their hard-line security elite, what you're looking to do is rebuild your deterrence calculus and your deterrence apparatus.
Conventionally, they have the long-range strike capabilities which Israel has been able to intercept with its very well layered air and missile defense system. They used to have the terrorist infrastructure that you saw to the south of Israel with Hamas and what the October 7 terrorist attack did there.
But again, the loss of that capability, given Israel's military successes to the south and vice versa the north, Hezbollah was long believed to be a kind of a conventional deterrent against Israel and to allow the Islamic Republic of Iran to develop the ultimate deterrent, which is a nuclear weapon.
With Lebanese Hezbollah's leaders, operatives, midranking officials and lots of their arsenal out of the way, Israel is having military success, beget (ph) military success. And so the Islamic Republic really is indeed between a rock and a hard place here, particularly since early to mid September.
If they escalate -- and there was talk about this back in April, as well as talk about this the aftermath (INAUDIBLE), if they escalate overtly, well then they'll have to keep pace with an adversary like Israel, which has clear escalation dominance.
But if they don't respond at all, they set the tone, tenor and much more likely the predicate for an increasing series of a death by thousand cuts' use of military force by Israel against the regime or its proxies or both.
NEWTON: You certainly have painted a stark picture there. The choices that Iran has.
I only have about a minute left but, in terms of regional players here, Arab states, is there, one, a leader that can really step in here and really try and bring an end to this on many different fronts?
TALEBLU: Alone, no. I think you've even seen continued hedging by pro-American forces like Saudi Arabia right now, putting out a quick, short press release, condemning the strike.
So I don't see anything indigenous or organic from the region being able to stem what appears to be a widening Israel-Iran cycle of violence. That, I think, is a role for outside players like Washington. That's why all eyes will be on Washington in the coming days.
NEWTON: Yes.
On Washington with that critical election coming up and obviously no one knowing the outcome here. I will note that, Saudi Arabia, as you said, said it was an intervention.
[03:55:00]
And certainly a violation of sovereignty but that was it. It was short. Behnam, we will leave it there for now. Thanks so much. Appreciate your insights.
TALEBLU: Thank you.
NEWTON: And I'm Paula Newton. I want to thank you for your company. I'll be back with more of CNN's breaking news coverage in just a moment.
