Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Iran's Supreme Leader Is Dead; Iran Vows "Heaviest Offensive" Yet After Supreme Leader's Death. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired February 28, 2026 - 21:00   ET

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

[21:00:30]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

SARA SIDNER, CNN HOST: I'm Sara Sidner.

The breaking news, the U.S. and Israel are at war with Iran. Dawn is now breaking in the Middle East, and an uncertain future is unfolding across the region but most especially for the 90 million people in Iran.

Iran's state media just confirming the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is dead. After 37 years of absolute control, Khamenei was killed following a barrage of joint U.S.-Israeli strikes. You're looking at the aftermath of the strikes that targeted his personal compound there on the right-hand side, but the fighting that seems to just be beginning.

Just a short time ago. Israel launched new strikes on military targets in Iran.

And we begin this hour with CNN anchor and chief national security analyst Jim Sciutto on a history changing moment for the entire Middle East.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST (voice-over): It was a broader and more ambitious attack than many had expected. As day broke, airstrikes slammed Tehran Saturday morning as the U.S. and Israel launched joint strikes, which President Trump called Operation Epic Fury.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The United States military is undertaking a massive and ongoing operation to prevent this very wicked radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests. We are going to destroy their missiles and raise their missile industry to the ground

SCIUTTO (voice-over): Sources tell me that the U.S. is prepared for multiple waves of strikes lasting 36 to 48 hours followed by pauses to assess battle damage. Soon after the strikes began, a plume of smoke was visible, rising from Tehran's Pasteur District, location of the highly secure compound housing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. By days end, President Donald Trump confirmed the supreme leader was dead.

Israel quickly closed its airspace, declaring a state of emergency and warning citizens to stay home. Iranian state run news agencies began reporting that missiles are dropping in cities across Iran, including Isfahan, Lorestan, Karaj and Tabriz. Footage verified by CNN appears to show a strike on Iran's intelligence ministry complex in northern Tehran. Video geolocated by CNN from another angle, appears to show the same area.

Then retaliatory strikes by Iran began hitting across the region. First missile attacks on the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet base in Bahrain. Soon after, Iran fired short and medium range missiles at the al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the largest U.S. military installation in the Middle East and at the U.S. base in Erbil, Iraq.

Within hours, the United Arab Emirates announced it had closed its airspace as missiles struck the capital city, Abu Dhabi, and heavily populated neighborhoods in Dubai. Israel itself was next. As sirens erupted in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, Iran, launching dozens of ballistic missiles in Israels direction, Israeli air defenses working to intercept them. Stories of casualties quickly emerged. Iranian media says dozens of students were killed after a missile struck a school near the town of Minab. Bahrain reported a high-rise residential building struck.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: In the next few days, we are going to strike many terrorist targets to complete this act and to topple this regime.

This help that you are wishing for has arrived, and this is the time to go together for this mission.

SCIUTTO: Global airlines are canceling flights all over the Middle East, and governments warning their citizens to take immediate shelter as the deadly back and forth continues, with no apparent end in sight.

Jim Sciutto, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SIDNER: Okay. CNN's Nick Paton Walsh is following the very latest from southern Israel for us.

Give us a sense of what you have been seeing and hearing throughout the day and what is happening now, it is just 4:00 in the morning, your time.

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, sure, Sara, we've just literally crossed the border into southern Israel here, and it is utterly momentous news to have Iranian state television confirm what President Trump, Prime Minister Netanyahu here had been saying was the case for hours that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a dictator of 47 -- 40 years in power in Iran, is indeed dead.

Now that sparks obviously two potential crises here, the first being exactly who will replace Khamenei as the head of the Iranian power structure there. President Trump hinted that he knew he would like it to be, but he wasn't going to say more in recent comments to the media. At the same time, the second crisis obviously involves whether or not the Iranian people choose this moment of a power vacuum to follow President Trump's instructions and essentially rise up. Many, I think, are provided some element of skepticism about how likely that may indeed be, given how entrenched the security structures are across Iran. But they have taken extraordinary blows. I mean, the list of individuals taken out, according to Israeli officials, is extraordinary.

The defense minister, the national security advisor, the head of the IRGC, a real again for the second time frankly, in a year since the 12-Day War decapitated or decimated so much of Iran's security apparatus, they'll be searching to find out, frankly who survived the mornings daylight strikes.

But the death of Khamenei will, I think also cause many in the region who were certainly opposed and almost disgusted by the relentless repression put in against his own people to be potentially concerned about what may come next? Because air campaigns in the past have not historically swept in positive governmental change. There is no obvious opposition in a box waiting to step in. And so, it may indeed be that the White House are hoping for some kind of advanced form of the Venezuela formula. We saw where they captured Nicolas Maduro, the president then, and saw his deputy, Delcy Rodriguez, step in. Is there a Delcy Rodriguez figure potentially in Iran that they have in mind?

But the job isn't quite so easy there. The history of repression so horrifically violent, the thousands killed in recent protests by the security forces there mean that a transition is likely to be bloody and angry. Indeed, as well.

And the air strikes have not stopped yet. We are hearing reports of more ongoing in Iran's skies across the cities there, as it seems like missile sites and security apparatus continue to be hit. There's been one dead and over 100 injured here in Israel, in a barrage that seems to have got through a couple of occasions in some parts of the defenses, but more, I think unprecedentedly and shockingly has been Iran's response across the gulf region.

Startling scenes in Dubai and Abu Dhabi. An airport hit there, one dead, hotels aflame because of what seemed to have been drones getting through. Some of the defenses are startling 209 drones fired at the Emirates State, the United Arab Emirates, by Iran, their defense ministry said 130 or so missiles as well most of those intercepted but still damaged caused a Saudi Arabia, Bahrain other places hit as well. A startling move here, frankly by Iran to wash away any concept of trying to retain allegiances in the area and simply lash out wherever it potentially could.

And that, I think, has a region reeling now and may also suggest how desperate perhaps what remains of the Iranian government. Indeed are. They fired an enormous volley here, essentially putting themselves with their backs against the wall in the region. And what comes next in the days ahead is essentially a test of what they have left, whether they have a (AUDIO GAP) here and quite how this fast changing situation leaves who that leaves in charge in Iran -- Sara.

SIDNER: Yeah, what you're saying is absolutely true about the attacks on some of the other places in the Middle East including the UAE, Bahrain, there will be no love lost from some of those governments and people after civilian areas were hit by Iran.

Nick Paton Walsh, thank you so much. We'll see how that all unfolds. We are just at the beginning of this.

Perspective now from former deputy director of national intelligence, Beth Sanner.

First to you, just the what are you -- what are you -- what do you make of this move by Iran to hit all of these other places, not just those who are attacking Iran, which is the United States and Israel but to go after Bahrain, to strike the UAE, to hit residential targets.

What does that tell you about A, their capabilities, and B, their mentality right now?

[21:10:03]

BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: So, this was obviously an Iranian plan to hit all these Gulf states, even places that don't have U.S. bases. And I think that the -- they are fundamentally misreading the Gulf and they are fundamentally misreading us. So, you know, their intention here was to get the Gulf states to, you know scream and say to the United States please stop, please stop. You know, we can't take this. This is bad.

But instead, the opposite has happened and the Gulf States instead are rallying around these actions and saying, yeah, we cannot live like this anymore. So, they are now part of the anti-Iranian coalition. They weren't in that position going into this. And so, the Iranian regime's huge mistakes and misreadings are actually benefiting us.

SIDNER: The Saudis have always been at odds for a very long time with Iran, but it is significant that the UAE and others are now in a similar position because of the actions of Iran and its response.

I do want to ask you about what the president has been saying. He talked about asking the Iranian people to rise up and talk about regime change. The president has said that these strikes are necessary because Iran posed an imminent threat to the U.S. We have spoken with sources who have told us that the intelligence doesn't really back that up. Put all of this into perspective for us.

SANNER: Right. So, I mean there are a couple issues. Here is one, what is the justification for this activity? And I think that, you know, it's really difficult because I think everyone who knows anything about the Middle East knows that if President Trump could succeed on creating a stable and prosperous Middle East, the realization is now and has been quite clear, that that is not possible as long as Iran is in power. But to actually do this, you need some justification under international law. Or at least that's how life used to be. It's questionable whether, you know, the international law works that way now.

But there is, as far as I know, really no good evidence that there was an imminent attack. And I think when one of the other guests mentioned that, you know, there were reports that Iran was going to strike the Gulf States -- yeah, I suspect there was a report that said that in the contingency of the United States striking Iran first, I don't think that Iran was in a position and did not want to go to war or to poke the bear. So I think that's a little farfetched.

But we know that the administration has been pushing this narrative very subtly. But for several weeks now.

SIDNER: I do want to have you sort of take us in the room, a room that most of us will never be inside, the Situation Room. And what that might be like right now as we're hearing the president is in Mar-a- Lago. He's still doing his fundraiser all hell is breaking loose in the Middle East.

But, you know, they were there and had planned clearly some of this out there was the apparatus, the military apparatus in the region that's been there for a while.

Take us inside the Situation Room. What would be happening at this hour?

SANNER: Well, the Situation Room in the White House of the south, right? It's not -- it's not the one that most of us are that familiar with. But there was a meeting in the Situation Room in D.C., you know, earlier during the week and now they're gathered there in Mar-a-Lago.

And so, you know, the real decisions there are about what first, what is happening, what are the effects of what is happening. And then to judge what's going to happen next in terms of not just the Iranian regime, but are we seeing any signs of breakage in that, you know, armor of the Iranian regime, the clerical regime and the IRGC? Because if that does not break even with all this decapitation then the chances of regime change are much lower.

So I think these are the things that everybody's monitoring, and it's very much about situation updates. The intelligence community also wants to look a couple steps ahead but generally in these moments, that is extremely difficult to do.

SIDNER: Yeah. You talked about the IRGC, and I'm really curious because the president has said, look, he's offered surrender now. Or else, and we're seeing the or else in one aspect, but he's sort of prodding and pushing with words to say, you know, if you surrender now, you know, things we can -- change can happen. Do you -- do you see that happening?

[21:15:01]

SANNER: No, I -- well, I mean, we don't know, right? So, these are -- we're talking about people. We're talking about individuals.

But we're also talking about people who have everything to lose if this regime comes down and you think about, Sara, our viewers are very well acquainted with the videos of what happened on those evenings throughout the day of January 9th and 10th or eighth and ninth whatever it is, when these forces not just shot at protesters, but just brutally murdered them.

So, all around the country, each of these people who participated in this have their very lives and their livelihoods at stake, and there's no guarantee that the president of the United States can offer that changes that reality. And so that's why this is going to be tough.

SIDNER: Yeah. You make a really important point. Their lives are at stake. And they'd have to give up the -- potentially give up their own lives if they were to, quote/unquote, surrender how that would happen. I have no idea going forward. But we will see what happens because as time goes on, if this is a protracted war, we'll see how -- what the outcome is. But we are right now right at the beginning of it, and there's a lot to discuss.

Beth Sanner, thank you so much for your expertise. I do appreciate it.

There is much more unfolding at this hour. President Trump warned there may be some American casualties as strikes in Iran continue. I will talk to a Republican member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:20:19]

SIDNER: All right. In President Trump's eight-minute social media video explaining why he was launching a war, the president acknowledged that U.S. troops may be killed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost and we may have casualties. That often happens in war, but we're doing this not for now. We're doing this for the future. And it is a noble mission.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Now, you can compare that to the promises he has made time and again, when he was asking the American voters to put him in office.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I'm proud to be the only president in decades who did not start a new war. Everyone said, oh, he's going to start. He's going to start a new war.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: I want to bring in Ohio Republican Congressman Warren Davidson. How do you explain the president's decision to go to war versus his

promise not to go to war, to start forever wars, as he has put it, again?

REP. WARREN DAVIDSON (R-OH): Well, there's no question. No new wars is a popular part of President Trump's platform. I recently, today, I reread J.D. Vance's endorsement of him from January of 2023, and a big part of J.D. Vance's support for him was exactly that commitment and the way that he delivered on it in his first term.

So -- but that will tell you President Trump's track record. He's reluctant to go to war. He doesn't really want to I think he was disappointed that he couldn't get a negotiated agreement. And then he felt like, well, I don't -- I can't bluff I have to follow through and do this.

He did brief the Gang of Eight, but he didn't brief Congress, and he really hasn't communicated well with the American people. So, there are people that are simultaneously saying this is a war, as the president himself referred to it as a war, and in particular, a regime change war. And then there are people that are saying it's something less than a war and that's why Congress is supposed to vote, you know for a long time really, for, you know the entire century so far, 26 years now, the country has heard some level of commitment of as much as it takes as long as it takes.

This was first said in Afghanistan. Then it was applied to Iraq, and then it's been applied by the Biden administration to Ukraine. What? That sounds good, but it doesn't ever define the actual mission. And that's why when the country goes to war, Congress is supposed to declare it so that the whole country is committed to the same cause.

SIDNER: And so, are you demanding that Congress authorize this? Go ahead.

DAVIDSON : I'm sorry --

SIDNER: Are you demanding that Congress does authorize?

(CROSSTALK)

DAVIDSON: -- just that makes the case to Congress.

SIDNER: Have you gotten any sense of what the plan is going forward? Because, as you mentioned, there have been war after war, the United States has entered and getting out of those wars has not given the United States what it wanted whether it be regime change in places like Iraq or Afghanistan. The Taliban is right now in charge of Afghanistan. After all those years and all the deaths to American soldiers and to civilians there.

What's the plan? Do you have any sense?

DAVIDSON: Yeah. I mean, that's why the American people are right to be a little cautious about this and why they're right to put pressure on our representatives to vote. I mean, you know our troops are put into harm's way. The least Congress could do is show up and vote.

So, I hope that we do just that, and I hope that it's done with a -- with a great deal of information from the administration and look, I got it. Weve got some colleagues that are somewhat less trustworthy. Fine. Don't invite them to the briefing.

But the duty in our constitution is clear, and we're obligated to follow it. And so if the administration is committed to something short of a war you know, some people would say that the decapitation strike itself might not amount to a war but if that was just a one strike and out, I don't think the president would have framed it that way in his eight minute talk when he announced what he was doing. And we also wouldn't still be there on the ground.

But I think it's also important to thank our military. They've done what they were asked with incredible skill and precision. So far as we know, no loss of life. And I wish them safety and success and everything they're doing.

SIDNER: The military following their orders. I do want to ask you if there is a vote in Congress, are you going to vote yes to go to war with Iran.?

DAVIDSON: As I said last week, you know I've asked for the classified briefing. I'm open to learning more about whether there was some exigent circumstance that prevented the president from doing that but based on the reaction from the Gang of Eight who was informed, it doesn't seem to be the case. So, there are actions sort of short of war that wouldn't require a vote from Congress.

And I've worked on authorizations for use of military force to go after Iran's proxies. They're not nation states. That's not the same as war, but the power to declare war is not even if its popular given to the president.

They had this debate during the constitutional convention. They wrote about it -- the Founding Fathers wrote about it extensively, including in the Federalist Papers, in their own writings. George Washington himself made it clear that the duty is for Congress. So that's irrevocably accurate of our Constitution.

And there are people who say, oh, well, the War Powers Act gives the ability to do whatever the president wants for 60 days. And that's also not accurate. It's not an accurate reading of the law.

So I think the burden is if we're going to go to war, Congress should hear the facts, and the American people should. And then we should make the commitment to do it or not. And so, I don't want to prejudge it, because I do know the presidents reluctant to do that. And so, I want to be in a position to be willing to say, yes but the obligation is that Congress votes.

SIDNER: Yeah. The president has said were at war. But as you point out, it is Congress that actually makes that determination. We will see if Congress is brought into this next week, as you all have been asking and some demanding the president to do. Congressman Warren Davidson, I do thank you for your time. Really

appreciate it.

All right. So, Democrat, a Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee gives her perspective on this very debate. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:30:05]

SIDNER: All right. We've seen flares light up the skies over Qatar as missiles were intercepted tonight the Qatar News Agency reporting eight people were injured due to falling shrapnel.

Now, here in the United States the U.S. congress has not received a briefing related to Iran. However, Secretary of State Marco Rubio notified all reachable members of the gang of eight congressional leaders in advance of the American strikes.

I want to bring in California Democrat, Congresswoman Sara Jacobs.

Thank you so much for being here.

First of all, during the last 30 minutes, we learned from Iran's state media agency that the ayatollah has been killed. They confirmed what the president has said. They confirmed what Israeli sources have been telling us. What do you think of that? And what do you want to see happen in Iran?

REP. SARA JACOBS (D-CA): Look, nobody mourns Ayatollah Khamenei's loss. He was a brutal dictator who terrorized his own community, let alone the region. But I am very concerned about what comes next. Who's going to lead next? What's going to happen?

Often, we see security vacuums like this lead to civil wars or even worse, more hardline leaders or different factions. And those who have the guns being the ones who end up leading the country in the future, which leads to even more instability.

And so, I still think that there are a lot of open questions. And president Trump and his administration have not answered them and have -- don't have a real strategy on what happens next.

SIDNER: If there was no imminent threat as the -- as some Republicans have been trying to push this idea that there is this imminent threat from Iran, should the United States have gone to war with Iran or the president calling it war with Iran, he has not come to Congress for that approval?

JACOBS: Absolutely not. Look, clearly, President Trump has failed to learn from the decades of U.S. misadventures in the Middle East. But we are not good at this sort of military adventurism. We are not good at regime change. We are not good at predicting what happens next.

And I am very concerned about the fact that this is actually going to create even more instability in a region that does not have any -- like that, doesn't need any more instability. That's already pretty unstable enough. I honestly think that this is one of the biggest blunders in U.S. foreign policy. And that's a pretty high bar, right? We've made a lot of mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam and Libya.

But Iran is a huge country in a really strategically important place. And we have now unleashed a bunch, a series of consequences that we don't even understand yet.

SIDNER: Yeah. I mean look, Iran is also reacting in a way that has surprised quite a lot of people who have lived in and follow the region like myself, the -- you know, targeting of civilian, infrastructure in places like Dubai and the UAE, and Bahrain. It is surprising to see that because that is an area that is very close to Iran that has tried in some ways to, to keep ties or keep the peace, if you will. And now that is over.

I do want to ask you, about what's coming up next week. Next week the house is voting on a measure that would limit President Trump's ability to take additional military action against Iran without Congress's signoff. Do you expect that to pass? What are you hearing not only from your Democratic colleagues, which might be quite obvious to people, but from the Republicans?

SIDNER: Look, I hope that it passes and frankly, I hope that every single one of my colleagues votes for it. I represent San Diego, the biggest military community in the country and my constituents, the ones who actually bear the price of this war. They deserve the president having to come before Congress and the American people and explain what his plan is, explain what his strategy is, explain why this is in U.S. national security interest.

And so far, he has done none of that. My constituents, our service members deserve a real debate and deserve to have the Constitution followed that says that no one individual can actually make the decision to take our country to war. It has to be the United States Congress.

SIDNER: Do you think if it does pass through the House, that it has any chance of being passed by the Senate and ultimately, signed by President Trump?

JACOBS: Look, I think there is a good chance because again, whatever you think of this military operation, I'm against it.

[21:35:02]

But even if you aren't, this is actually not about that this is about making sure that there is a real strategy, a real plan that the American people have gotten that information, that a real debate is has happened, and that the president has to come before Congress as the founders of the Constitution intended and required.

SIDNER: I do want to ask you, you worked at the U.N. and at the State Department. We are now seeing something that that we really, actually haven't seen before. Israel and the United States together at the same time, taking part in what the president called a war. What do you what do you make of this? What does it mean?

JACOBS: Well, look, I think this this military operation, this war is clearly illegal under both domestic and international law. And, you know I was against the Iraq war. I was in middle school, but I was -- I remember thinking it was a bad idea.

But even then, President Bush came to Congress, came to the U.N. Security Council to make his case. He got allies on board.

President Trump has done none of those things and so, you know in many ways, I think this is going to turn out even worse because we don't even have our allies supporting this. We don't even have -- even the fake imprimatur of a congressional vote, right? Like this is really, really dangerous and concerning. And I'm really, really concerned about what it means for the safety of our service members in the region and all over the world.

SIDNER: Certainly your constituents and the families of those service members are nervous today and will be until there is some resolution to all of this, as are everyone in the region. Already innocent lives have been taken.

I have never covered a war where innocent people weren't killed. And so, this is a very big moment, especially because so many nations in the Middle East are being engaged at this moment.

Congresswoman Sara Jacobs, I do thank you so much there. I think reporting from San Diego for us. Do appreciate it.

Still ahead, a former State Department Middle East negotiator joining me next to discuss how this attack on Iran could change the balance of power in the region.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:40:54]

SIDNER: Welcome back to CNN's breaking news coverage of a historic night as tensions are rising in the Middle East, multiple Iranian state media outlets confirming Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in a barrage of joint U.S. Israeli strikes that flattened part of his compound.

You can see the before and after photos there. On your left was before, and on your right is after.

I want to bring in former Middle East negotiator for the U.S. State Department, Aaron David Miller. It is a pleasure to have you, a person who has followed what is going on in this region for decades now.

With the Iranian supreme leader now dead, how dramatically has the future of Iran shifted tonight?

AARON DAVID MILLER, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT MIDDLE EAST NEGOTIATOR: Potentially significantly, Sara. But little reality therapy here. Look at Gaza, where these rallies waged an extraordinary two-year war,

killed thousands of Palestinian civilians and Hamas fighters. Hamas now controls 47 percent of Gaza and is the preeminent Palestinian actor in that part of the strip. Lebanon Hezbollah is certainly down, but not out. And still exercises extraordinary influence over the Lebanese government.

So, Iran -- you have a 50-year-old structure, revolutionary structure, IRGC, clerical, political establishment who controls all the guns, all the money, all the oil and all the power. This could represent a moment but it's -- but I think it's going to be a slow and incremental transition.

And I think it demonstrates, frankly, that in a war of choice, which is essentially what we have here, trying to sort through what the end state was supposed to be is critically important.

SIDNER: Yeah, that's a really good point.

I do want to talk about this. The president has been very clear. And in sort of goading and pushing the Iranian people to seize this opportunity as he put it to take over their country. Do you see that happening? Could -- could that happen? Because we saw what happened before all of this with thousands, up to 12,000 potentially, according to some human rights groups, killed, slaughtered by the Iranian regime when they tried to stand up and make changes.

MILLER: Right. The president actually used the figure 32,000 in his State of the Union.

Look, you have a million Iranian security personnel, either IRGC, military security and Basiji that control the streets. A million, and you have an opposition that is unarmed, difficult to communicate with. The Internet has shut down and Iranian state cyber activities -- without leadership, without organization, without fear and extraordinary courage, unbelievable courage.

But the reality is, unless you see some sort of break or crack in the security establishment, some discontented faction within the Iranian military or the IRGC that is going to participate in a -- in a power struggle, I would not underestimate, frankly, the resilience and the brutality and the repression of the current Iranian regime, with or without the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei.

In this case, harken back to Bush 43. A mission is not accomplished.

SIDNER: I do want to ask you about how the Iranian regime has decided to attack some of its neighbors -- the UAE, Bahrain. There's a long- standing battle between Iran and Saudi Arabia that is well known but the UAE is a different, different place and we're seeing it hit civilian structures in some cases.

[21:45:06]

What do you make of that? I mean, is this going to explode into a regional conflict? MILLER: I mean, this is a really good question, Sara, and I don't

think we have the answer. I mean frankly, I'm sort of amazed, given the fact that the Americans carried out 900 strikes. The Israelis mounted the largest single day activities of their air force, 200 advanced fighter aircraft, 500 strikes in Iran. And yet the Iranian response has been -- well, relatively contained. There have been no American casualties to date.

So, either the Iranians are holding back, which is certainly possible or concerned about regime preservation, which is going to be their paramount. Strategic imperative right now. They're not interested. At least that's one possibility in a dramatic escalation. We'll see, though, I think in the next two or three days. What the American and Israeli battle plans are for Iran and how the Iranians are going to -- are going to respond.

SIDNER: I mean, I guess the question is, you know, the president also saying, hey members of the IRGC, you know, surrender. And you have the death of Khamenei. Is this enough to propel a regime change just with the folks that are there? As you mentioned, unarmed, just with the residents and the opposition there who do not have the apparatus when it comes to militarily at least, to take on this regime. Even still.

MILLER: Well, it's hard to imagine. In fact, Venezuela is an interesting parallel here because the president essentially turned his back on Maria Machado and the protesters and essentially anointed or empowered Delcy Rodriguez, who is an ideologue, a Chavista, perhaps more practical in many respects.

So, the question I would raise and the president today mentioned the name of Ari Larijani, who was formerly head of the national security council and head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Is the administration in touch with or are they interested in finding an Iranian Delcy Rodriguez to deal with, cutting out the protesters and being willing to cut a deal with the successor to Ali Khamenei?

It's a thought. I don't think the models are quite consistent, but it does raise the question. Sara of a war without a strategy. And we're not talking about the day after or the days after, or even the weeks after. We're talking about the months after, if that, as so much dust settles or not in Iran and in the region.

SIDNER: All right. I mean, if history is a guide, the United States has not fared well when trying to affect regime change in other countries where they have waged war.

Aaron David Miller, we will see what happens in Iran. But this is a huge, huge break that we for the Iranian people, we will see what happens going next thank you so much.

Coming up, new reporting on what led to the strikes in Iran. The White House officials tonight say they believe Iran was prepared to potentially launch preemptive strikes but were hearing another side of that argument. And that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [21:52:41]

SIDNER: This just in to CNN. Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard has just said the most ferocious offensive operation in the Islamic Republic's history will begin any moment now, in a threat directed at Israel and the United States. President Trump says Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is dead, killed in today's massive U.S. and Israeli attacks, which has been confirmed by state media in Iran.

Now, Trump said that he will continue with heavy bombing throughout the week. We are also hearing from both administration intelligence sources about how the president decided to initiate this attack.

CNN's Kylie Atwood is joining me now from the Pentagon.

What are your sources telling you about what factored into the president's decision to launch this enormous attack?

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, listen, what we know is that President Trump had been for days monitoring what was going on in the region and also closely monitoring what was happening with the negotiations that were going on between the U.S. and Iran that were being moderated effectively by the Omanis. President Trump's vice president, the Vice President Vance, met with the Omani foreign minister on Friday, and it was less than 24 hours after that meeting that these strikes began occurring.

We saw this evening from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth posting on X, saying that Iran had the opportunity to make a deal and now they are burying the consequences. That is a message we're hearing from multiple administration officials over the course of the last few years. The ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Walz, also saying that the Iranians had their opportunity at diplomacy, but also going on to say that there's no willingness to cease aggression and there's no willingness for peace.

So, clearly, the administration did not believe that Iran was authentic at those diplomatic talks, which was a major factor in leading to these strikes. It's also important to note, and you guys have been discussing this over the last hour, that on the record administration officials are not pointing to an imminent threat that Iran posed to the United States or the region that resulted in these strikes.

Instead, what they are doing, we've heard from President Trump, we heard from the ambassador, as I said to the United Nations, Mike Walz, earlier today, they're pointing to the collective action that Iran has taken over decades against the United States, killing Americans, also posing threats to America's allies in the region, backing those proxies, financially, militarily in the region, and of course, building up their nuclear program.

[21:55:26]

And when it comes to that nuclear program, we're hearing, of course, questions from Democrats about the legality of these strikes that were carried out tonight. And Mike Walz, when he was speaking at the United Nations, pointed to Iran's continued buildup of their nuclear program as being a rationale for what he called lawful strikes by the United States.

One of the things that are there major questions about tonight, though is what this looks like going forward. President Trump said earlier today, of course, that this is going to go on for at least another week. These strikes in the region. But what more would the United States be willing to do? Is discussing, potentially doing for the Iranian people given President Trump said, is their moment to rise up?

We're not hearing many details about that. The secretary of state, Marco Rubio, held a phone call this evening with members of the G-7 were waiting for readouts of that because obviously, all of the players in the region have a perspective on what the United States should do here. But diplomatic sources that I am talking to right now, even though they were given a heads up militarily through military-to- military channels, that these strikes were coming, they really don't know what next is coming from the United States -- Sara.

SIDNER: And that is everyone's worry. What is next? How does this end?

Kylie Atwood from our D.C. bureau, thank you so much. And just, you know, a reminder we have breaking news. We have just learned Iran is making a huge threat, saying that the most ferocious offensive operation in the Islamic Republic's history will begin any moment.

We are here watching. We'll see what happens. More in a break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)