Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

U.S. Launches Third Consecutive Night Of Strikes On Iran; Iranian State Media: Explosions In Several Port Cities Along Strait; Iran Claims Video Shows Cruise Missiles Firing At U.S. Assets. Aired 4-4:30a ET

Aired July 14, 2026 - 04:00   ET

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

[04:00:00]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Speaker of their parliament said that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We aren't charged.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, listen to the --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president may have said it. We aren't actually charged.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: All right. We'll see about that. All right, thanks guys here in the studio. Thank you for watching.

You can stream the show anytime with an all-access subscription in the CNN app or at cnn.com/watch. CNN's coverage continues next.

JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: A third straight night of strikes on Iran underway as we speak. The president has already had plenty to say about it, some of it raising the question, haven't we heard a lot of this before?

Good evening. John King here in for Anderson tonight.

Here are some of what the president told reporters a bit earlier.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: So we're doing another major attack tonight. They want to make a deal. They came back. We made a deal two days ago. And they want to make a deal.

They've been negotiating for 47 years, but nobody's ever hit them militarily. We're hitting them very hard.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: The new strikes began just before dinner time. And as before, U.S. officials saying this latest round is targeting Iran's coastal surveillance systems, its drone and its missile capabilities. And Iranian state media reports explosions in locations in and along the Strait of Hormuz, including Bandar Abbas, which CENTCOM says it hit overnight with naval surface attack drones. This is video of some kind of port facility being destroyed.

CENTCOM calling it the first time American forces have used sea drones in combat. But here's where it gets at least a bit confusing. All of the targets tonight sound familiar? Naval systems, drones, missiles.

So are U.S. Forces restriking targets and capabilities that the president in the past has said were destroyed or were those past statements about total destruction exaggerated? This is new video just in showing what Iran claims to be missiles being fired against American targets in the region. We cannot independently confirm the authenticity of that statement or that video. But with that as a backdrop, here's the president again tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We've knocked out their navy in a period of one month. We knocked out their air force. Their air force is nonexistent. We knocked out most of their missiles, most of their drones.

We knocked out their drone manufacturing capability, about 92 percent. Their missile capability for manufacturing. We knocked out 89 percent. And they have a little capability, but they don't have any capability for us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Now, he has said as much before for many weeks, in fact, which again raises the question, are we refighting the same war here? The president also weighed in today on Iran's nuclear program, which he recently suggested no longer mattered because in his view, any highly enriched uranium was, quote, "so far underground. Nobody's going to be able to get it except us." Only now he's warning the United States would, in his words, quote, "take out Iran's fortified complex inside the Pickaxe Mountain near its nuclear enrichment facility site in Natanz."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We're going to take out Pickaxe Mountain, tell the Iranians to be ready. We're watching it closely. We see no activity there. They're not doing well with their nuclear situation.

Every time we hear about it, we blow it up. So, they don't like talking about it. But we'll probably give Pickaxe a shot relatively soon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: There's no indication that it's been hit tonight. But again, if the buried uranium no longer matters, why would it be targeted at all? On top of that, and certainly adding to the sense of deja vu, the U.S. naval blockade is back on, effective tomorrow, according to CENTCOM. But there's also a twist which the president today rolled out on social media, quoting him now, "The USA will be, from this point forward, known as the Guardian of the Hormuz Strait. But as such, and as a matter of fairness, will be reimbursed at the rate of 20 percent on all cargo shipped for any and all costs necessary to do the job of providing safety and security to this very volatile section of the World."

In short, a toll or a fee, which would be a no, no, if you listen to the President's Secretary of State.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: It's an international waterway. No country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway. That's existing international law. That's the way it is. An international waterways all over the world and that's the way we expect it will be here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: And it's not just Secretary Rubio on record saying no charging for passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Here's Vice president Vance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How strenuously will the U.S. fight to keep tolls out of the strait and keep any keys away from the future strait, commercial traffic? And are you going to leave it to the Gulf states to kind of fight this battle?

JD VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, we believe international waterways should be free of tolls.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: There was a time, not that long ago, back in May to be precise, when the president was with them in the no toll camp.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We want it free. We don't want tolls. It's international. It's an international waterway.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Now, though the president says it's 20 percent for protection. Iran's foreign minister replying in a mocking message saying whoever provides safe passage through the strait should be compensated and offering to do it for less. CNN's Kaitlan Collins was in the Oval Office today, and she joins us now.

[04:05:15]

Kaitlan, did the president give you, did you hear any new information about his plans today, where this is headed?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, I mean, we had so many questions about it given, you know, the contradiction that you just laid out between what Secretary Marco Rubio has said about this notion of even charging tolls essentially in the Strait of Hormuz with what the president is now proposing. And also, when the president is saying that if the United States is in charge of the Strait of Hormuz that it should be reimbursed for protecting it. Even today, he was floating this number of a 20 percent reimbursement going to the United States for all cargo that passes through the Strait of Hormuz. And obviously, it's not clear who exactly would be paying that 20 percent if it only applies to cargo, if it applies to oil.

And so, I asked the president who exactly he envisioned reimbursing the United States for taking over the Strait Hormuz, as he proposed today. And this is what he told me.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COLLINS: You said that the U.S. will get reimbursed.

TRUMP: And we're not going to put it up. Yes, I was going to reimburse.

COLLINS: Who's going to reimburse the U.S.?

TRUMP: Because we're protecting a very rich portion of the world. We're spending money. And so, what we've done is we are going to be reimbursed for protection we're protecting by the countries that we're helping.

For instance, you look at the five countries, you have Saudi Arabia, you have UAE, you have Qatar or Qatar, as I always say, you have Qatar, Bahrain, and by the way, you have others, you have Kuwait and you have others. And they will do very well do very well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Now, obviously that's a key question because we have not seen any of those countries yet. I don't believe, John, on the record, commit to reimbursing the United States for doing as much. Obviously, they're the ones who are also being attacked by Iran right now as it's been firing off its, its missiles and weapons in the last few days, as this has gone back and forth. And so that's still a huge open question in terms of whether or not this is even something that moves forward.

But I think, John, at the heart of was the president is resuming these strikes. He's reinstating the blockade. That is exactly what obviously had been in place for the first several months of this war. It has not resulted in Iran saying that they will not have a nuclear weapon and putting that down on paper with the United States. It's not clear why this time we'll achieve a different result either.

But the president believes, you know, that this is the next step for them.

KING: Certainly, it is where we, we are at the moment. Kaitlan Collins, thank you so much. And we'll of course see you at the top of the hour for the source. Joining me now to discuss further, CNN global affairs analyst, Karim

Sadjadpour, who also serves as senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International peace. And Brett McGurk, who's held national security positions under the last four presidents, including in President Trump's first term, and is just back recently, back from a trip to the Middle East.

Brett, let me just start with you. The president said a lot of things there. Some of them conflicting, some of them sounded familiar, some of them in my view, which is why you're here, a bit confusing based on everything you hear from the president today.

Where do we stand right now? Are we back where we were before the memorandum of understanding, back before the cease fire? Where are we?

BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Right now, John, I mean, as I was preparing to come on air, the UAE announced two ships, two civilian ships off its coast have just been hit by Iranian cruise missiles. Apparently one crew member, an Indian crew member was killed in that attack. So, this is very much escalating.

And I'm thinking of something we discussed on this program when this war started four and a half months ago, John, that, you know, if you don't define your objectives very clearly going into a military campaign, they tend to be defined for you. And now the objective is all the Strait of Hormuz. That is what this is all about.

The Revolutionary Guard, I think there are rumors there's a power struggle going on in Tehran. I wouldn't put too much stock in that. The Revolutionary Guard is in charge. They are demonstrating they have power, capability and willingness to shut down the strait by shooting at civilian ships. And you add another wrinkle now, the Iranian backed Houthis in Yemen, John, are threatening to shut down the Bab El Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea, which they had done in 2023 and 2024.

So right now, we're in a state of escalation. And whether or not there can be back-channel diplomacy to get it back into some sense of containment, we'll see. But that's where we are right now. Yes.

So, we are kind of back to where we were before the MOU was even signed.

KING: To that point, Karim, as Brett notes you would need diplomacy to deescalate. The president talked a little bit about that in the Hewitt you today -- Hewitt show, excuse, today. Listen to his description of how he believes the memorandum of understanding worked and on the other side and see if you agree.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It was a test. We didn't know. It didn't -- look. Memorandum of understanding with when you're dealing with sleazebags don't mean much, and they don't mean much when you're dealing with honorable people too because it's a memorandum of understanding. It doesn't mean much. And I said why are we even you know it's a standard tactic in the U.S. that you go to a memorandum of understanding and then you go to the deal. I said just go to the deal first.

But you know what? It was sort of a test and they weren't there. They didn't honor the test.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[04:10:08]

KING: Third night in a row of strikes. Karim, those words from the president there. Sometimes you have bluster before you have breakthrough. What do you make of that?

KARIM SADJADPOUR, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, there's obviously zero trust between the United States and Iran, John, and unfortunately, I see these two adversaries, Trump and Tehran, in a kind of a face off of gangster diplomacy for the Iranian regime. The lesson they unfortunately learned from this war is that you extract concessions not with diplomacy, but by attacking your neighbors, by controlling the Straits of Hormuz, by not responding to U.S. threats. And multiple generations of U.S. statesmen understood that, you know, America's most important, one of America's most important geopolitical assets is its credibility.

And unfortunately, right now, neither our adversaries like Iran nor our allies take our words seriously.

KING: Well, that is troubling. As you try to get a breakthrough. Brett, some of the specifics today, the president posting on social media. The United States is going to charge 20 percent of all cargo shipped, going to be, quote, "the guardian of four moves straight."

His secretary of state, his vice president, even the president in the past have said, that's not the way to do it. It's not the way they want it. It's not what international law says.

Is it clear to you at all how this would work and is it feasible? Is it legal?

MCGURK: I think, John, I think that statement's actually quite unfortunate. To extend is even serious because one thing that the U.S. has going for here is the Gulf states are unanimous that they will not accept a tolling mechanism which Iran is insisting on. Even Oman, which has been working with Iran on some of this, has been rejecting that.

For us to now come in and say, actually, you'll pay a fee to us, I think just kind of forfeits a lot of the legitimacy we have here in keeping that international strait open. So, look, President Trump has said a lot throughout this conflict on his truth social feed, and I would, I hope I would stock that up to something that is not particularly serious.

What is serious here is whether or not the Strait of Hormuz will be open again, which, again, is a question, John, not just of military power, but of confidence to international shippers to, to make the journey. And we're very much back to the future here of where we were about a month ago.

KING: All right, we're talking about the military, the kinetic activity right now because obviously, three nights of strikes in a row but in addition to that, we're going to have the economic domino effect playing out as we go through Karim. You mentioned a very important thing about credibility, both with adversaries and with allies.

I was playing some of the sound of the president at the top of the show. A lot of it sounds familiar.

He says we just -- he said in the early days, number one, he said in the early days it would be over within days. Where four and a half months later, he said they were totally destroyed. This was totally destroyed. That was totally destroyed.

Are we, in your understanding, rebombing things that have been bombed before or was the president grossly exaggerating in the past and there are still targets to hit?

SADJADPOUR: In short, John, I don't think there are any military silver bullets here. We know from history over the last 47 years, this Iranian regime has only agreed to meaningful compromise a couple times. And that is when it comes to faces, what it believes is existential pressure coupled with a credible diplomatic exit.

At the moment, I don't see either right now. They feel that they've prevailed in this war. They don't feel like they're facing an existential threat. And there are no military silver bullets. I don't believe in the near term and nor do I see a credible diplomatic exit given the president's public language.

So I don't unfortunately see any end in sight in this conflict. And the Iranians continue to feel emboldened.

KING: Gentlemen, Karim Sadjadpour, Brett McGurk, wish it was a more positive conversation, but appreciate your insights tonight. Gentlemen, thank you very much.

Up next for us, a federal judge says the president tried to manipulate the judicial process. But that's not all she said about the president's lawsuit against the IRS or just about everyone involved in it.

Also tonight, officials weighing in for the first time, but plenty of questions remain. The second fatal ICE shooting in less than a week.

And later, all we're learning about Senator Lindsey Graham's death and the political repercussions it has now set off.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[04:18:47]

KING: A stinging ruling today in the case follow along, essentially amounted to the president suing the IRS, which he oversees, then settling with it as president in a deal that only he could get as president. Namely a $1.8 billion fund now abandoned, we think, which he tried to steer to some January 6th convicts. That and keeping the IRS from investigating the president, his family or his businesses from past tax issues.

Today, a Miami federal judge called his lawsuit an attempt to manipulate the judicial process and said the president acted in bad faith in bringing it. Quoting now from the judge's ruling, "This action was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute. There was never adverseness between the parties. There was never a case or controversy, and there was never a question as to who would prevail."

In addition to ordering sanctions for the attorneys involved in this case, the judge also ordering her opinion be submitted to attorney disciplinary boards in New York and Washington, which are now reviewing already pre-existing professional ethics complaints against both the associate attorney general, Stanley Woodward, and the acting attorney general, Todd Blanch, whose confirmation hearing begins later this week.

Joining us now to discuss our CNN legal analyst, Elie Honig. It's a pretty scathing rebuke of the attorneys of the case itself, what kind of penalties and what happens now?

[04:20:08]

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, the judge is pissed when you read this ruling. I mean, there's no other way to put it. You can feel it coming off the page because the judge feels like she got played, like she was misled by the parties to believe. You use the word adverseness when you have a lawsuit, it's supposed to be two parties that actually are against one another.

However, this was essentially Donald Trump, private citizen, private, versus Donald Trump's IRS. And so, the judge goes back and says, I've now looked back at the filings, I've considered all the facts, and I believe I was misled. And therefore, the penalties, they're pretty. They're about as serious as a judge could do.

She's referred various lawyers, including Todd Blanche, for potential disciplinary action. Also, you'll remember the parts of the settlement you mentioned before. Two parts of the settlement. There's the slush fund, which DOJ has said they're not going to use anymore, and then there's this immunity for Trump.

And what the judge does there is a little confusing. The judge says, I'm not going to knock down the immunity, but I'm also going to prohibit you from using it in any official proceedings. So, it's essentially that.

KING: So help me with the language. Because I want to read the language. Quote, "The parties are prohibited from referring to the purported settlement agreement in future legal proceedings. Again, you could read that and say, oh, well, then that's done. You could, you know, they can investigate or you or what? It's vague enough that we're not exactly sure.

HONIG: So let me give you a hypothetical. Let's say three years from now is a new administration and they start investigating one of Trump's companies for potential tax violations. This order says Trump or his family cannot say. But hang on a second, Your Honor, we have a settlement that says we're immune.

So essentially, the judge says, I'm not going to kill this thing, but you also can't use it. So, it's essentially been put on the shelf.

KING: Timing matters always in life. The acting Attorney general has a confirmation hearing this week in Washington. It is certain that this is going to come up, both the specifics, the scathing nature of the words in this ruling. But also, he has said it.

You said the slush fund, as you call it, is off the shelf now. But he has yet, if I'm right, refused to sign a piece of paper swearing to that.

HONIG: I promise you, you will hear Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee quoting from this ruling because it is so scathing. And one of the things that Todd Blanchard needs to be asked about is this whole mess, the slush fund and the immunity deal. All he said so far is, okay, we're going to let the slush fund die. After there was pressure from Senate Democrats and Republicans.

But he's never owned up. He's never acknowledged this was wrong, this was a terrible idea, this corrupt use of taxpayer money. And so, I think it's one thing for him to back off, which he's done now. But I expect senators to be pushing him hard on how he justifies it.

KING: Well, that hearing to come. Busy week.

HONIG: Will be there.

KING: Elie Honig, appreciate your time.

Next protest in the wake of yet another deadly ICE shooting just today and the first official words about it nearly 12 hours after the fact. What we're learning from the scene in Maine and Maine Senator Angus King joins us to discuss.

Also, Houston's district attorney on the ice shooting just a few days ago there and his take on the federal investigation.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[04:27:10]

KING: For the second time in less than a week, there's been a fatal ice shooting. First one in Houston, Texas. More on that and the investigation there in a moment. First though, the shooting this morning in Biddeford, Maine. That's just south of Portland.

A warning. The video you're about to see is disturbing. Several federal agents surrounding the victim on the ground. An immigrants rights group says he's a 26-year-old man from Colombia

who was authorized to work, that group says here in the United States. Protesters took to the streets in town after the shooting, calling for ICE to leave the state. Tonight, nearly 12 hours after the shooting, the Department of Homeland Security released a statement. It says, quote, "ICE was conducting targeted surveillance on the last known address of an illegal alien with a final order of removal. An illegal alien departed the residents in a vehicle. ICE law enforcement attempted to conduct a vehicle stop. The vehicle attempted to flee the scene, and fearing for public safety, an officer discharged his weapon."

That statement continues. "The driver of the vehicle was struck. Emergency services were immediately contacted. He passed away from his injuries. The Biddeford Police and the FBI responded to the scene. DHS OIG, that's the officer of inspector general, has been notified. Unlike all of discharger firearms, this will be investigated."

That statement did not explain why the ICE officer thought the driver was a threat. Joining me not to discuss, Maine Senator Angus King, an independent. Senator King, grateful for your time tonight. Troubling day for your state, obviously.

You said in your first conversation with the DHS secretary, Markwayne Mullin, he used the phrase, quote, "weaponize the vehicle." In the later official statement that was just released, DHS did not use that language. It said, quote, "the vehicle attempted to flee the scene and fearing for public safety. An officer discharged his weapon."

Seems to me like an important distinction. What do you make of that and do you have an updated understanding of what happened here?

SEN. ANGUS KING (I-ME): I think that is a very important distinction, John. And there's also a point that sort of glossed over in that statement. The person that was killed was not the person that they were seeking. They sort of made it unclear.

But the person they were after was not the guy they ended up shooting. And then, as you say, the statement does not allege that the officer felt that he was -- he was in danger. There's a lot of law, John, on police officers shooting at vehicles. And the bottom line is you have to either fear for your own safety or the safety of others. And so far, we haven't seen evidence of that.

The key here is an unvarnished, transparent investigation. And John, here's the problem. The people of Maine don't trust the federal government to do that.

And so, what I've been pushing and what I talked to the secretary this morning, the main -- Maine officials, the state police, other Maine officials, the Attorney General's office should be involved in this, in this investigation if it's going to have any credibility.

KING: Well, did he give you any assurance they would be looped in the past? And you mentioned the police protocol about vehicles. We saw this play out in Minneapolis. Sadly, a very similar --