Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Pakistan Prepared To Host U.S.-Iran Talks; Challenges Of Seizing Iran's Enriched Uranium; TSA Workers Feel Frustrated; NASA Prepares For A Return To The Moon. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired March 29, 2026 - 17:00   ET

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

[17:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN ANCHOR CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to the "CNN Newsroom," everyone. I'm Omar Jimenez in New York. Jessica Dean has the night off. It is day 30 in the war with Iran. And tonight, Pakistan says it is prepared to host and facilitate talks between the United States and Iran in the coming days. The foreign ministers of Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan all met in Islamabad today to discuss ways to de- escalate the war as its potential expansion could further threaten the region. And earlier today, Iran's parliament speaker accused the United States of secretly planning a ground invasion, and his comments come as more U.S. troops arrive in the Middle East. U.S. Central Command says the Navy's USS Tripoli carrying 3,500 sailors and marines is now in the region.

We are joined now by CNN chief global affairs correspondent Matthew Chance and CNN correspondent Julia Benbrook. Matthew, I want to start with you. What more are we learning about these potential talks here?

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, I haven't got a lot of detail on it, Omar. But, look, I mean, this comes after four countries met in Pakistan earlier today, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt along with Pakistan. And, you know, Pakistan latest foreign minister saying, look, you know, we've agreed to host talks between the United States and Iran in the days ahead, although it's not clear, we haven't heard from either the U.S. or Tehran about whether delegates from those countries are going to be attending any kinds of talks like that.

I can tell you there's a great deal of skepticism here in the Gulf region about the possibility of negotiations right now because the negotiating positions of the two sides are so far apart. The United States has put out a 15-point plan calling for basically Iran to stop all nuclear activity, to limit its missile technology, that kind of things. And Iran has put out a much more, you know, complete contradictory five-point plan to bring the war to an end, basically calling for reparations from the United States and, you know, saying that it wants all American bases in the region, for instance, dismantled. And so, they're sort of equally unlikely to find any common ground.

There's also this sort of new fear in the region, that because U.S. troops have started to arrive in the Gulf region over the past day, it's an opportunity for ground operations by the United States to begin. So, there's a real fear that something like that, that kind of escalation could happen in the hours or the days ahead. Omar?

JIMENEZ: Yes, it's something all Gulf states are watching very closely right now. I want to bring in CNN's Julia Benbrook for the White House perspective on this. I mean, what is the White House saying right now?

JULIA BENBROOK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, there is some hopes for negotiations in the coming days. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, he said that he thinks that there will be some meetings with the Iranians this week and that he believes that President Donald Trump wants to see a -- quote -- "peace deal" come together.

Now, in a recent statement from White House spokesperson Anna Kelly, she said specifically that the president's first instinct is diplomacy, but she also left open the door here for this to go on longer. I want to read you part of that now. She said -- quote -- "Now that the regime's ballistic missile capacity and navy is getting annihilated by the United States, they are begging to make a deal." She said that "The president is willing to listen, but if they fail to accept the reality of the current moment, they will be hit harder than ever before."

Now, Trump has pointed to multiple different timelines throughout this. He has repeatedly said that he thinks this conflict is going to end soon. He has added very soon at different points. He has put out a number of different predictions, including four to six weeks. But now, as we are a month into this conflict, there are still so many questions, and he has worked to avoid being tied to a specific timeframe here. He has said that the Iranians are begging to be able to come to a deal. And then there's the point of ground troops, the potential of ground troops.

[17:04:57]

Recently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that he believes the administration is going to be able to achieve its objectives without putting American troops on the ground. But then he also addressed the service members heading to the Middle East, saying that the president has to be prepared for all contingencies.

And I wanted to point out, Omar, these morning shows, the Sunday shows, are often a time that we hear from administration officials as they tout the administration's work so far, and they work to ease any concerns about this. As we monitor those today, there were not a lot of appearances and not a lot of spokespeople out there speaking directly about what's going on in Iran, which could potentially point to just some of the uncertainty here in the days to come.

JIMENEZ: And, of course, as questions mount over what comes next here. Julia Benbrook, Matthew Chance, appreciate the reporting on both fronts. I'm also now joined by former National Security Council and State Department official Brett Bruen. He's also the former director of Global Engagement during the Obama administration and currently president of the Global Situation Room. Brett, I just want to start by getting your reaction to this news that Pakistan says it's prepared to host talks between the United States and Iran in the coming days. Does that signify anything to you?

BRETT BRUEN, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, let me start with this claim by Trump and the White House that the Iranians are begging for a deal. Omar, when countries are begging for a deal, they don't just secretly tell the American president, they go through multiple channels, and nobody else is relaying that message. And so, I think it's indicative of the fact that Trump is fishing around for a deal. He's trying to find an exit strategy here. And Pakistan is helpfully offering him one and, obviously, they're cooperating with other key regional powers.

But as, you know, Matthew Chance laid out, it is not clear the contours of that deal. And so, we talk about how close we are to a deal. You know, the fact of the matter is they are at polar opposite points right now. And so, I think we've got to take the claims of proximity to peace with a big bag of salt.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, even if the U.S. and Iran are both supportive and confident in Pakistan's efforts to facilitate these talks, for example, what do you see as a realistic outcome here? I mean, is a ceasefire even possible at this point?

BRUEN: Well, I think the most likely outcome from the U.S. side is that Trump takes his toys and goes home and claims that Iran has capitulated in some way, shape or form. The question really is, Omar, will Tehran cooperate with that line? And there is an argument that says, you know, they will try to reconstitute some of those missile capacities, the drone capacity, perhaps their asymmetric capabilities as well if Trump offers them the auspices of peace.

But I don't see that currently in the cards. Tehran has a greater interest in continuing to inflict more economic as well as security pain on the U.S. And Omar, let's not forget, the Iranians are learning important lessons about how to defend, how to target against American attacks in these last 30 days. And so, they're gaining valuable intelligence with each day that passes.

JIMENEZ: You know, one of the things I think about for the United States, I think back to your time in the Obama administration, for example, and one of the key criticisms on that Middle Eastern foreign policy came around Syria sort of laying out that red line for attack if chemical weapons were used. The U.N. assessed there was evidence they were used, but then President Obama went to Congress. Ultimately, no real follow through militarily at that time.

Here, you have President Trump threatening to blow up Iran's biggest power plants if the Strait of Hormuz wasn't open. It hasn't to this point. And then now, President Trump says he has postponed any action on energy infrastructure. I just wonder, how does what seem like this whiplash of American policy impact the ability of ally countries either to help or to help negotiate?

BRUEN: Well, sitting here in Europe and, you know, I was in London, Brussels, Paris, now Dublin, everyone that I'm talking to, Omar, is saying that Trump has no idea what he's doing and no idea how to get out of it. And the response from our European allies, quite frankly, has been to sit back, to cross their arms because they've just been the butt of all of Trump's bombast and all of his attacks and tariffs and threats over the last year. He has now found himself in a quagmire and you're seeing our traditional allies, the major powers, reluctant to get involved because they know that Trump is not a reliable ally nor is he, quite frankly, a reliable negotiator.

JIMENEZ: Well, and even if we get to some form of meaningful negotiation here, what should the U.S. goals be in entering into any talks with Iran?

[17:09:57]

BRUEN: Well, look, there are the stated goals if we take them as such. Obviously, that Iran can't reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. If you will, we go back to that Iran nuclear deal, the JCPOA intrusive inspections as part of that as well, obviously, on the missile side, that has proven to be one of the more challenging aspects of this. A lot of our allies in the region are worried about that capability. It's harder when we start talking about drone production and capability because, you know, that doesn't necessarily take place out in the open. It can take place in somebody's garage.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, one of the things here, obviously, there are a number of countries that are sort of caught up in any of these potential negotiations. But among them is the United States and Israel that have pretty much moved, for the most part, in lockstep in regards to strikes on Iran. Where do these talks between the U.S. and Iran leave Israel who, of course, is much closer to Iran, much more within striking distance and has faced direct strikes?

BRUEN: I think this is a challenge for Trump because, you know, he went to this dance with Israel as his only partner. So, in order to get out of this, is he able, for instance, to bring Netanyahu along with his conditions? We're hearing signals from Netanyahu's government that they are close to accomplishing most of their major targets. So, perhaps, that's signaling to the White House that they would accept some sort of ceasefire, some sort of drawdown in the conflict. But Netanyahu has also been a very difficult partner, including for Trump. He doesn't always go along with what Trump is asking him to do. And, obviously, he knows that Trump is in a difficult political and economic situation at the moment.

JIMENEZ: Brett Bruen, appreciate the time and perspective. Thanks for being here.

BRUEN: Sure thing.

JIMENEZ: All right. Meanwhile, recent polls show a majority of Americans oppose a ground operation in Iran. But what are the president's options if the U.S. is looking to actually take the country's enriched uranium? We're going to have an expert join next to help answer that very question. Plus, TSA workers hoping to get their first paycheck after weeks of no pay. One employee telling CNN it felt like a hostage situation. We'll tell you why this first paycheck may not be enough for many of these essential workers. Straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: We're following some breaking news. Pakistan announcing it is prepared to host and facilitate talks between the United States and Iran in the coming days. Earlier this week, CNN reported the U.S. conveyed a 15-point list of demands for Iran through diplomatic channels with Pakistan. Many of those demands echo those the U.S. made before the war began, like the U.S. taking control of Iran's highly enriched uranium. But the reality of that is much easier said than done.

I want to bring in Andy Weber. He was the assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical, and biological programs during the Obama administration. He's now a senior fellow at the Council on Strategic Risks. Andy, thank you for being here. I just want to start with, what do we know about Iran's nuclear ambitions amid this latest military operation, and how might those ambitions shift as the U.S. and Israel continue to put pressure on the regime?

ANDREW WEBER, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL PROGRAMS: Well, we know they have over 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, enriched to 60 percent, which is near weapons-grade. Their enrichment capability has been badly damaged in the June Midnight Hammer Operation, the sites at Natanz and Fordow. But the question is, you know, have they made a political decision to hold on to that material and turn it into metal and fabricate a weapon? That is a great concern for everyone in the region and the world.

JIMENEZ: And you talk about 60 percent, that threshold, correct me if I'm wrong, for weapons grades, up to 90 percent enriched uranium, and you have experience with the process of securing enriched uranium. You know, the months of diplomacy and learning where it is, and then actually getting it out of the country, though, is almost the more difficult part. Do you believe that is possible with Iran and what would that take?

WEBER: Well, it would be a major operation. First of all, the material, at least most of the material, is in deep tunnels at a site called Isfahan. And extracting it, provided the containers have not been damaged by the bombing, would be a very complex operation. It would probably take days or weeks, perhaps even months. And I was trying to dispel the notion that you could just go in with a special mission unit and quickly leave the country with the material. It's much more complicated than that.

JIMENEZ: You mentioned Isfahan, again, targeted in U.S. strikes last June. Iranians have been working to sort of clear the rubble. But a lot is hidden below ground there. How does that complicate any form of extraction plans?

WEBER: Well, we would have to do really an excavation operation to gain access. The Iranians have piled dirt at the tunnel entrances.

[17:20:01]

We don't know if the bombing has collapsed portions of the tunnel. And then, of course, going in. The Iranians had many, many months since the Midnight Hammer Operation to booby trap those towns.

JIMENEZ: You know, I want to ask you, back during the Iran nuclear deal, which was brokered under President Obama, one of the tenets involved independent monitors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to make sure enrichment stayed below 3.6 percent threshold, safer electricity but well below, you know, sort of that weapons-grade threshold. Even that had its fair share of critics then, but it's a very different world now. And could something like that work as part of any solution in this current environment? And if not, I mean, is it realistic to think that the United States can keep Iranian enrichment to zero?

WEBER: Well, the situation has gotten much worse since --

JIMENEZ: Yes.

WEBER: -- President Trump in his first term pulled out of that arrangement that we had that would limit Iranian enrichment levels to about three and a half percent. I don't think we can turn back the clock. We would have to reach some kind of an agreement, preferably under international supervision, that would allow us to remove this very dangerous material from Iran to a third country.

JIMENEZ: You know, U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff has been at the forefront of negotiations on a number of fronts on behalf of the United States. But in this case with the Iranians, he had previously insisted on their right to keep enriching uranium. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE WITKOFF, U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY: Throughout our meetings with the Iranians, we heard the following from them. The Iranians have the inalienable right to enrich. Then we heard they possessed enough 60 percent enriched material, 460 kilograms, to make 11 atomic bombs. Finally, we heard the following statement. They would not give up diplomatically, but we could not win militarily.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: I misspoke. I meant to say the Iranians had previously insisted on their right to keep enriching uranium. But there is some level of diplomacy underway again now, as we understand. It's hard to know the reality. But do you assess that Iran does need to give up its highly enriched uranium as part of any deal?

WEBER: Oh, I think that's absolutely essential if we are to prevent over the long-term Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. We should not compromise on that. How we do it is really the question. And ideally, it would be one of the conditions that would be negotiated. And then an international team from the IAEA would monitor the safe, very methodical removal of this highly enriched uranium.

JIMENEZ: Well, we are a long way from that point. But as we get closer, Andy Weber, please come back, share your insights as always. Thanks for being here.

WEBER: Thank you.

JIMENEZ: All right. Still to come for us, TSA workers finally set to get their first paycheck since the government shutdown began. But many tell CNN they still feel unseen and frustrated. We will tell you why they say temporary relief just isn't enough.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: While the partial government shutdown is still showing no signs of stopping, there may be a light at the end of the tunnel for TSA workers and U.S. travelers facing long lines at airports across the country. Now, wait times today have eased a little bit as Trump administration officials say TSA workers could start getting paychecks as early as tomorrow under the president's plan to fund the employees through an executive order. But that won't solve everything right away. For example, hundreds of TSA agents have already quit. And on Saturday, more than 2,800 TSA officers, that's over 10 percent of workers nationwide, called out, according to DHS.

I want to bring in CNN senior writer Tami Luhby, who joins us now. So, Tammy, I mean, let's just start with how are workers feeling about the president's plan.

TAMI LUHBY, CNN SENIOR WRITER: Well, they consider the situation still unresolved. There's a lot of confusion. They have many questions. No one has seen any money yet. And normally, it can take several days for people to actually receive the money in their bank accounts, depending on which financial institution they use.

But most importantly or one of the important considerations is that the TSA guidance has mentioned that they would receive back pay because, remember, they received only a partial payment in the end of February and now they've missed two full payments as well. So, they're wondering, does the president's directive mean that they're going to get their next paycheck in two weeks if Congress doesn't, you know, come to an agreement to fund the agency?

JIMENEZ: And I think, as we're showing some pictures of long lines from this morning in Atlanta, a lot of travelers are just asking that question. How long should they expect long lines here?

LUHBY: Well, it could take still several days or potentially a week to resolve. You know, many of these workers have canceled child care for their kids because they couldn't afford the payments. They're now going into their second month now without pay. One worker in Houston told me today that he can't afford to fill up his car with gas until he sees some money in his bank account, which he hasn't yet. And he's worried about being considered absent without leave or AWOL and getting disciplined. So, it could take several days at least for the situation to normalize.

[17:30:00]

Plus, remember, as you mentioned, more than 500 workers have quit the agency already, so they're not coming back.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, what's interesting over the course of this, you know, people were donating gas or gift cards to many of these TSA agents as they tried to navigate through. TSA put out a statement saying officers won't be able to accept donations for gas or gift cards once they get their back pay, telling TSA employees to -- quote -- "start politely refusing all gift cards as soon as pay is disbursed." But I guess the question is, how much of a difference did those donations actually make for these employees? Is this going to be a big loss?

LUHBY: Yes, those donations were crucial. Union workers that we've spoken to and, you know, others have said that they really depended on getting this food to feed themselves and their families. Workers were getting lunch at the airports. They were taking part of it home so that they knew they could have some dinner. And they were really depending on gas. You know, gas prices have been going up. So, you know, not having any money makes it hard to buy gas, but it makes it even more difficult when gas prices are a dollar higher than they were a month ago.

So, a union spokesperson told me that this TSA guidance came as a real shock to a lot of workers and to the union and said that TSA, by saying this, TSA really didn't appreciate the depths of the financial woes that these workers have been, you know, facing. They've missed, so far, a billion dollars in pay during this shutdown. So, these donations were crucial for them.

JIMENEZ: Yes. And it affects a lot of future planning. And it doesn't seem like there's any long-term solution on the table even if they do are expected to get their pay starting Monday, as we expect. Tami Luhby, appreciate the reporting. Thanks for being here.

LUHBY: Thank you.

JIMENEZ: All right, still ahead, it is one battle after another on Capitol Hill, and I am not talking about best picture winner with no end in sight for the 43-day government shutdown. House Republicans snubbing a bipartisan funding deal approved by the Senate. So, how is this going to end? I'm going talk about it with our political panel, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) JIMENEZ: If the Homeland Security shutdown is making one thing clear, it's that there's a growing divide between House and Senate Republicans, at least as of late, over how to fund DHS and the shutdown. Here's House Speaker Mike Johnson, for example, slamming the bipartisan deal that Senate Republicans made early Friday morning that would have funded the bulk of Homeland Security.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE JOHNSON, SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: This gambit that was done last night is a joke. I'm quite convinced that it can't be that every Senate Republican read the language of this bill.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: All right, a lot of factors to discuss here. Joining us is CNN political commentator and Democratic strategist Maria Cardona and former White House spokesman for George W. Bush, Pete Seat, who is also a former spokesman for the Indiana Republican Party. Good to see you both.

Pete, I want to start with you. You know, look, after all that has happened this week, Congress is now out on recess and really both sides still seem dug in. And it's one thing for Republicans and Democrats to be at odds. But, I mean, we've got significant midterms coming up. Are you surprised to see Republicans in both chambers at odds, extending a shutdown that really has already become such a difficult time for so many?

PETE SEAT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN FOR FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, certainly, the Senate and House Republicans had some type of miscommunication. But what happened was all gamesmanship on the part of Democrats and particularly Chuck Schumer. Somehow, language was inserted into this amendment that would zero out appropriations for ICE and for Border Patrol, which is contrary to the appropriations bill for DHS that was passed on January 22nd by the House. Only one Republican voted against that. Seven Democrats voted for that.

So, somehow, this language was snuck in there in the explanatory statement. It's in section four. Anyone can read it. It's right there in the amendment. And that's why Speaker Johnson and House Republicans are angry. They were sent an amendment that would zero out funding for support staff that are helping ICE. We're talking about human resources staff, people who are in the back office, people who run the IT systems, not the frontline agents that we see on television but the people who are doing the behind the scenes work.

And for border security, Democrats are angry that Donald Trump has secured our border. They want to go back to the broken policies of Joseph Robinette Biden. That's what they want, and that's what they're trying to do. And they almost got away with it, if not for House Republicans.

JIMENEZ: Well, Maria, I just want to ask you about -- because, look, people -- I don't know that the general public is reading that specifically into the bill, even though you bring that up, Pete. What they seem to be upset about which, by the way, on both sides, is that now, both chambers, Democrats and Republicans, have gone out to recess. And for Democrats, we're at this point where Democrats still haven't gotten the immigration enforcement reforms that sort of were at the center of this shutdown to begin with. And so, Maria, I just wonder, do you see any political risk for Democrats here in that this is extended for so long and yet we're kind of in the same place that you're in to begin with?

[17:40:03]

MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, let's remember one thing, Omar. Republicans control everything. They control the House, they control the Senate, they control the White House. It's kind of jaw-dropping that my dear friend, Pete Seat, is actually saying that Republicans in the Senate are stupid or can't read or didn't read or something and saying that Schumer got the better of them when we don't control the Senate. What I believe happened is that the Republicans in the Senate actually understood the assignment. The person who's not understanding the assignment or the people are Mike Johnson, Donald Trump, and the White House.

The American public are pissed, Omar. You know this. You're going to do a special tonight that everyone should watch about rogue ICE agents, about the brutality and the violence that has been imposed on communities all across the country by these ICE agents and the American people have had it, which is why Democrats held the line in the Senate and did not give one additional red cent to fund ICE and Customs and Border Patrol so that they could continue with their brutality on American communities.

Now, you know, the Republicans are using the talking point that, oh, Democrats are pissed about border security. Well, that's actually not the case because border security and even ICE got $75 billion in the bill that passed last summer. They don't need this money, Omar. They absolutely do not need it. You know who does need it? TSA. Who knows who does need it? Coast Guard and FEMA.

And that is the bill that Republicans and Democrats in the Senate passed this past weekend. So, now it's in the House, it's in the hands of Republicans in the House, and they are falling apart because they are mad that this deal was passed, they see the midterms coming along, and they know the American people are pissed at Republicans. They are on the side of Democrats, which is why Democrats have been winning so many special elections. And Mike Johnson is in trouble because he doesn't know whether to acquiesce to Stephen Miller or to do what the American people hired him to do.

JIMENEZ: Well, Pete, let me just -- let me just ask you about whether -- whether Republicans read the bill in its entirety, as you were saying or not. At the very least, it passed in a bipartisan manner out of the Senate and basically going with what Speaker Johnson has said, assumes that Senator John Thune did not sort of do his job in the majority there. And I just wonder, do you see any political risk for Republicans moving forward here or are you OK sort of with how things are in this moment? SEAT: I don't know who did or did not read that explanatory statement. I do know that it was passed on a voice vote. We don't have a roll call of what happened. So, we can call it bipartisan, but it was a voice vote. No one objected to it, which is why Speaker Johnson wonders if people read it or if they just tried to hightail it out of town for their Easter recess.

But I do want to say something to what Maria was pointing out. Look, it is a midterm election with a Republican president. History says we probably won't do well. I'm very clear-eyed about it. So, Democrats want to hang their hats on that. That is just history speaking.

But if you look at polling, Americans still trust Republicans more when it comes to the economy, when it comes to immigration, when it comes to crime. There are -- there are things that aren't necessarily always going in our direction, but Americans are still with us on the issues that matter most. And one of those is immigration. It's because this president and Republican leadership have secured our border. They have literally sealed it closed. That's what they were elected to do. And Democrats want to reverse the clock. They want to go back to the bad times, the times that led to Donald Trump being reelected and sent back to the White House.

CARDONA: But --

JIMENEZ: Well, and one thing to note -- Maria, I'm sorry we have to go. I just will say that while President Trump was elected, in large part on the economy and immigration, his poll numbers have slipped on those issues. So, something to monitor as we head into this -- this midterm season.

CARDONA: That's right.

JIMENEZ: I appreciate the insight from both of you. Maria Cardona, Pete Seat, thanks for being here.

CARDONA: Thanks, Omar.

SEAT: Thanks.

JIMENEZ: All right. NASA is just days away from astronauts returning to the moon for the first time since Apollo 17. We'll talk about it, coming up. You're in the "CNN Newsroom."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: December 11th, 1972. That was the last time man set foot on the moon. Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt did it on Apollo 17. Now, as early as Wednesday night, NASA could take its first steps to return to the moon. This is a live look at Launch Pad 39B at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida where Artemis II is preparing for the first crewed mission to the moon in nearly 54 years. Now, the crew, led by Commander Reid Wiseman, Pilot Victor Glover, and mission specialists Christina Koch and Jeremy Hansen will orbit the moon, potentially going farther from Earth than any other human in history.

[17:50:01]

Now, Artemis II is a 10-day, 600,000-mile test flight around the moon and back home, a mission to test life support systems and check everything out before astronauts return to the surface of the moon, which is expected sometime in early 2028.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REID WISEMAN, ARTEMIS II COMMANDER: Just to remind everyone, this is a test flight. This is the first time we're going to try this. This is the first time we're loading humans on board. And I will tell you, the four of us, we are ready to go. The team is ready to go and the vehicle is ready to go. But not for one second do we have an expectation that we are going. We will go when this vehicle tells us it's ready and when the team is ready to go. So, we might go off the path, we might have to try again a few more times, and we are 100 percent ready for that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: All right, joining us now, a man who knows a little something about space travel. He was the commander of the International Space Station, Leroy Chiao. And he's the author of a new book, "Dinner with an Astronaut," which comes out in June. Leroy, I just want to start with, what are you most excited about for this mission here?

LEROY CHIAO, FORMER ASTRONAUT, NASA: Well, I'm very excited about the four of them getting to go, number one. But, as you pointed out, the first time in nearly 54 years that humans have traveled into the vicinity of the moon, pretty cool. They're going to set a record for the humans that have traveled farthest from the Earth. And they're going to be on a free return trajectory, which means the moon's gravity is going to pull them back around once they swing past it and direct them back to Earth.

As you pointed out also, the main purpose of the mission is to check out the Orion spacecraft and, you know, put some mileage on the SLS rocket as well as validate the heat shield. Three years ago, after Artemis I, there was some significant damage to the heat shield. NASA engineers and contractors believe they have their arms around it. So, we're looking forward to a good flight test.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, I think a lot of people are looking at the preparations being made for this test flight and for what it's really previewing, which is eventually going back to the moon itself. Why has it taken more than 50 years to go back to the moon?

CHIAO: We basically won the space race with the Soviet Union by landing humans on moon. The Soviets never even got there. They managed to get a rover there and send back a sample, which was significant. But for different reasons, they never did get humans on the moon.

And so, now, China has, just a few years ago, publicly, very publicly announced their intention to land their own astronauts on the moon by 2030 and hence kind of the impetus to try to get back there first even though we've done it before, you know, 55, 56 years ago, you know, thereabouts.

But, you know, it's important that we kind of establish a foothold on the moon, establish a moon base, and set us up to go to Mars, send humans to Mars, which is the next big goal.

JIMENEZ: I mean, was it just, yes, the competition from other countries as well, but, you know, after those missions, was it -- obviously, we've sent people to space many times, you among them, but why was the moon just not so much part of what seemed like a priority?

CHIAO: Sure. Well, getting to the moon was the big thing back then. The Soviets --

JIMENEZ: Yes.

CHIAO: -- were trying for the moon. We were trying for the moon after we beat them in that space race. There was no more political reason to go back again. You know, we landed six missions on the moon. Twelve Americans walked on the moon. And, you know, there was no reason to continue funding that, especially in the early 70s, you know, stagflation, the economy was much -- in a much, you know, not great place. And so, the decision was made to cut back.

We had a space shuttle on the drawing board. We decided that that was going to be a low-cost access point to space. Didn't turn out that way. But space shuttle is still the most amazing vehicle we've ever operated, built and operated. And exciting times ahead, too. Beyond Orion, I'm talking about Starship. That's a really exciting thing, SpaceX and Starship.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, there's a lot of history on this flight, too. We're going to see the first Black man, the first woman, the first Canadian. And that potential history isn't lost on some of the crew. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTINA KOCH, MISSION SPECIALIST, ARTEMIS II: Also, not about celebrating any one individual. If there is something to celebrate, it's that we are at a time when everyone who has a dream gets to work equally hard to achieve that dream. And we're at a time where we've recognized the importance of if we are not going for all and by all, we aren't truly answering all of humanity's call to explore.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: And Leroy, I just want to ask, you know, when you're in a crew like this, you know, they happen to be from different backgrounds and things of that nature. But there obviously has to be a cohesiveness, a very unique cohesiveness going somewhere potentially where humans have never gone. Just give us some insight into what actually needs to happen among the crew and working together to pull off something like this.

[17:55:02]

CHIAO: Sure. The first thing a crew does when they come together and -- by the way, the commander is usually given a lot of input into the composition of the crew. You know, not everyone is going to get along, right? But, hopefully, you put together a crew that can get along. And the first thing that happens is you move into an office together and you start training together and you start bonding. And that's very important because -- especially for a long duration flight on a space station for six or more months. You know, everyone can get along for a couple of weeks on a shuttle mission. And in this case, it's a 10-day mission. So, there shouldn't be any issues.

But I'm sure this crew has bonded. They've been training for many years. They have a common goal, and they all seem to have that kind of personality that can get along with just about anyone.

JIMENEZ: Yes. Leroy Chiao, appreciate you being here. Thanks for taking the time. And be sure to follow along with Artemis's trip to the moon on "CNN All Access." We'll be right back, everyone.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)