Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
U.S. Senate Intel Committee Hearing On "Worldwide Threats"; Trump Intel Officials Questioned In Senate Hearing; Preparations Underway To Celebrate Eid Al-Fitr Amid Iran War; Some Ships Are Still Going Through The Strait Of Hormuz; Senegal Stripped Of "Africa Cup Nations" Title Goes To Morocco. Aired 12-1p ET
Aired March 18, 2026 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[12:00:00]
SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): We asked a brief on how our adversaries and allies would respond to the war in Iran. I imagine I'll get the same answer. So,
it's just a point out here. It's challenging to forget about actually what was in the brief for a second. We're having a hard time finding out not
only if you briefed the President on something, but even if the White House asked if they could be briefed on something or if analysis was produced. So
I just want to point out here, this is about six days.
JOHN L. RATCLIFFE, DIRECTOR, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: Can I comment on that? I go back to the point. It's the same approach that we took to the.
To the prior operations, which, to your credit, Senator, you have praised the intelligence and military communities in Operation Midnight Hammer and
Operation Absolute Resolve. It's the same approach and the same professionals in terms of how they approached this particular.
KELLY: We're trying to figure out if the President knew what the downside was of the Strait of Hormuz being closed. And I'm having a hard time
finding out whether the White House asked or whether there was a brief. Whether the President knew. Did he know this was going to happen or did he
just disregard it?
And I just want to point out something that was released about six days ago. This is a fundraising email from the President. From the President of
the United States. And in this email here, where there's multiple links to donate money, it says, as a National Security Briefing member, you'll
receive my private national security briefings.
Director Gabbard or Director Radcliffe, do you think the public should be able to? Supporters of the President should be able to pay and receive his
private national security briefings.
I assume these are briefings, Director Radcliffe, that you provide to the President that is now going to be provided to somebody who makes a...
RATCLIFFE: Regardless of what that. I don't know what that document is, but regardless of what it says, it didn't happen.
KELLY: Oh, no, this was new.
RATCLIFFE: But what I'm telling you is that the Hatch Act would prevent me from. In a political role, from engaging in that. I'm not aware that
anything like that happened.
KELLY: This says unfiltered updates.
So, Director Gabbard, do you have any comment on whether unfiltered updates of private national security briefings should be made to individuals that
donate to the president?
TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: I'm not, I'm not familiar with that document, and... (CROSSTALK)
KELLY: It's been made very public six days ago. We'll get you a copy here, because I agree with you, Director Ratcliffe, that the Hatch Act should
prohibit this type of conduct. Thank you.
SEN. TOM COTTON, R-ARK., CHAIRMAN: Senator Lankford joins us from what I gather is a very exciting confirmation hearing for Senator Mullin.
SEN. JAMES LANKFORD, R-OKLA.: It is, actually. For all of you. Thank you. Thank you for the time that you give to the country to be able to serve for
your families and the sacrifice that you make to be able to do this. And all the professionals that work around you. Please pass on our gratitude to
them because they work incredibly hard and difficult tasks in this.
I want to talk about something that's a little closer to home on this. A lot of Oklahomans that I talk to, and quite frankly, folks even outside the
state on it, when they think about threats, they, as strange as this may sound to those of us that deal with missiles and ballistics, they think
about the threat to their family and to their income and to who they are.
And a lot of it is international scammers that are now reaching into the United States to be able to gather data or to be able to steal money from
them. AI has accelerated this dramatically and I know the worldwide threats has (ph) -- has mentioned this in soe of the challenges that we face on it,
but challenge is getting bigger.
FBI had noted that in 2024, it was almost $17 billion that was assumed lost to scammers, a lot of those international, some estimates are (inaudible)
$50 billion on it. AI continues to be able to accelerate the capabilities on it.
Open AI even noted now that there is a -- they're putting online ads saying if you've been scammed, here's a way to recover your money, and that is
actually a scam. It's taking them to a fake FBI page, where they can then turn in and to say if you've been scammed, here's how the FBI is going to
actually come help you to recover it, but even that page is fake, and they're going to be able to seal their information.
This is accelerating at a pace that's pretty dramatic with the use of AI on this. Director Patel, I -- I know that you guys are on it. I know that
there's multiple entities on it, but this is a big challenge, and a lot of Americans are very, very concerned about the threat to their families, they
may have their parents that are more vulnerable at this time and being targeted, how do we take some of this on to be able to confront what's
happening online to be able to attack people and to be able to scam them?
KASH P. PATEL, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: Thank you, Senator. And it's -- with any other high priority operation that the FBI
runs, whether it's CICT or talk about scamming and scam centers here, one, you have to drown and get online with your online covert employees and
platforms, and we've increased funding and we've also -- and (ph) what we've strategically is move people out of Washington DC on the intel
analyst front and the support staff front to places like Oklahoma -- actually, every single state across the country has received a plus up
because of that.
And what we've created is the Internet Crime Complaint Center or the IC3 (inaudible), which I know you're familiar with and reference, so, what
we're doing on the homeland is going out into the streets of America on the online platforms in America and shutting down those networks and shutting
down the capability of AI to interfere.
But I think the bigger term project, what we're doing overseas, that's the key to this...
LANKFORD: Right.
PATEL: ... the scam center compounds are largely located in Cambodia and Burma and on the Thai border. I've already engaged with the Premiers of
each and every one of those countries.
We've done so to switch off access to the internet with those governments, to make sure that that those compounds -- they're literal compounds that
are being built -- and we can get into that in a classified center (ph) -- that are fleecing Americans and senior citizens all the way from Southeast
Asia, because they are backed by the CCP to build those compounds, because they know it's going to hurt everyday Americans.
So, us, which we have successfully already eliminated and shut (ph) -- scuttled -- excuse me, numerous compounds in Cambodia and Burma and
Thailand is the big picture -- the big part of the lift overseas with (ph) what we're going to do is go into those countries and shut down every
single scam center compound.
LANKFORD: Which is very helpful and every America (ph) is -- is thinking about this and talking about it.
Director Patel, I'm going to stay with you, the counter narcotics work has been phenomenal in the past year and half. The amount of methamphetamine
and fentanyl that had (ph) been seized coming across our border has been dramatic, and that has a real effect to what's actually coming at families
in my state on it (ph) -- what I'm interested in is who are you partnering with local law enforcement to continue to accelerate this process? What
does that look like for FBI?
PATEL: Absolutely, Senator. The -- the counter narcotic mission can't be complete without state and local law enforcement, so we are embedding more
task force officers across the country on the specific counter narcotics mission.
[12:05:00]
We've also stood up with our interagency partners in Tucson, Arizona, the Southern Border Intelligence Center, specifically on a counter narcotic
mission, so that we can utilize the Department of War and interagency capabilities on the law enforcement front. That's why we seized enough
fentanyl in 2025 to kill 178 million Americans. That's a 31 percent increase year over year. And here's a statistic that everybody should be
proud of, opioid overdose deaths from last year dropped 20 points -- 20 points from across the country.
And in Oklahoma specifically, Senator, we seized enough kilograms of cocaine to include a 232 percent increase in the State of Oklahoma alone,
and enough fentanyl to kill 500,000 Oklahomans.
We can't do that unless we have great police partnerships, which has been a priority of mine, which I -- it's (ph) why I've (ph) embedded police
officers here at headquarters from around the country to make sure we have that connectivity. And I've shortened the task force officer onboarding
pipeline from one to two years to 90 days. We need them.
LANKFORD: Yes, we do.
Director Ratcliffe, the Annual Threat Assessment highlights this year the Muslim Brotherhood, in particular, and calls out some of their financial
material supports (ph) on this, that -- that may be surprising to some folks here, but it's not surprising to folks all across the Middle East in
(ph) the threat that the Muslim Brotherhood continues to pose to so many governments and entities across the world on that.
How is the Muslim Brotherhood financing itself and its acts of terrorism? And is there something that we need to do here to be able to make sure that
we're protecting Americans in the threat?
RATCLIFFE: Senator, I think -- with regard to the Muslim Brotherhood abroad, you know, we view that just as we do other proxies across the
Middle East, the Houthis and other -- other groups, and I can relate to you that the -- the CIA is -- is very focused on the counterterrorism front.
You weren't (ph) here before...
LANKFORD: Right.
RATCLIFFE: ... I said in the classified portion, I would get into the CIA's success with regard to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in a classified
setting, where I can -- I can share with you the -- the impact that we're having.
But what I -- what I -- and -- and across the board with regard to terrorist groups and our counterterrorism activities, I can publicly
characterize it as saying we've had -- we've -- we've accomplished more in the last year than in the four years of the prior administration combined.
So, hopefully, it gives you some measure of comfort about -- about how we're approaching things and the -- the effectiveness that we've had in the
-- in the last year in that regard. And -- and I'll look forward to getting into detail in the (ph) classified portion.
LANKFORD: Look forward to that. Thank you.
Senator Reed?
SEN. JACK REED, D-R.I: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you. The Washington reported earlier this week in their words "the US intelligence assessment say Iran's regime likely to
remain in place for now, weakened but more hardline, with a powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp (ph), security forces exerting greater
control".
Director Gabbard, do you stand by that report (inaudible) Intelligence Community Assessment?
GABBARD: I don't stand by any leaked so called intelligence to the media. I do stand by the intelligence community's assessment that was included in
the Annual Threat Assessment that speaks directly to this issue that as of this moment, the regime maintains power within Iran, even though they are
vastly degraded on almost every front.
REED: Do you think that the killing of the Ayatollah and his wife and other family members and key people contributed to the picking of a hardline
successor?
GABBARD: Senator, the -- the intelligence community's assessment has pointed to a number of different scenarios that went into play with the
selection of the successor. The details of that we can discuss in a closed hearing with regard to the intelligence reporting.
REED: Is the (ph) regime in Iran now trying to promote the deceased Ayatollah as a martyr who should be followed? And has that helped (ph) them
consolidate support?
GABBARD: Senator, the Iranians are certainly using that as a call to action. The effects of that from an intelligence standpoint, are -- remain
to be seen.
REED: There is a tradition in Shia though, to honor martyrs, one of their greatest celebrations is the -- the martyrdom of a -- the grandson of
Mohammad, is that correct?
GABBARD: That's right.
REED: So, we might have played into their cultural biases erroneously.
General Adams, what conditions (ph) do you assess would need to be present to make the regime collapse? (Inaudible) necessitate -- excuse my voice --
unconditional surrender? And can it be done with air power alone?
JAMES H. ADAMS III, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: Senator, we have, at the Defense Intelligence Agency, put together a number of
scenarios coordinated across the IC with regards to what we would forecast that the future would be. The -- one of the -- there are (ph) four specific
goals that we've been told to -- to track and analyze with regards to the - - the goals of the US effort.
They've been articulated earlier in the hearing, so I won't hammer on -- on those but with regards to the collapse of the regime, specific
perpetuation, like what -- what -- what (ph) would precipitate that, we -- we would like to -- I would prefer to talk to about (ph) -- about that in
the classified hearing.
REED: Well, I understand, but there's a very basic question here, will air power alone be able to destroy this regime, given the culture, the
politics, the temperament of these people, the Iraq Iran war lasted for eight years, with a million casualties. Do you think air power alone will
do?
ADAMS: Senator, the capabilities that our joint force brings to bear, can - - can accomplish many missions. To forecast exactly what can and can't accomplish this goal, I would (ph) -- I prefer (ph) not to -- to -- to
guess or prognosticate on that.
REED: Well, I'll recognize your professional position.
US Special Envoy, Steve Witkoff recently stated that Russian leaders told Trump on a call that they were not sharing intelligence with Iran. Witkoff
said (ph) "we can take them at their word". Director Gabbard and Ratcliffe, do you take President Putin at his word?
RATCLIFFE: I'll go ahead and answer, no, I don't take Vladimir Putin at his word.
[12:10:00]
REED: Are they providing intelligence to the Iranians?
RATCLIFFE: Well, we talked about this before...
REED: Yes.
RATCLIFFE: ... the -- the -- in the classified session we'll -- we'll go -- what -- what we can go into is that the Iranians are requesting
intelligence assistance from Russia, from China and from other adversaries of the United States, and whether -- and whether or not those countries are
-- are (ph) -- is -- is (ph) something we can talk about in the classified portion.
REED: But you've made an assessment. You've analyzed traffic communications and you can...
RATCLIFFE: I know that answer, and happy to -- to discuss that with you in the classified portion.
(CROSSTALK)
REED: Yes, sir, go ahead.
RATCLIFFE: Go ahead.
REED: Thank you.
(LAUGHTER)
One of the aspects of this is the collateral effects, particularly in Russia and Ukraine. We were just talking about Russia probably or possibly
providing intelligence that may be interfering or inflicting casualties on our forces. Russia is also benefiting from the lifting of sanctions on
their ability to sell oil throughout the world. I heard one estimate of a $20 billion surge in their potential revenues.
Ukraine, on the other hand, is facing perhaps a disrupted supply chain of missiles and other equipment because they're being devoted to this
operation. So, General Adams, can you just give me a -- your impression of the effect of the battle on Russia and Ukraine at the moment -- of this
battle?
ADAMS: Well, from our collections, the effect of the Epic Fury on that the Russian-Ukrainian battle has been indirect, not -- not direct. We do track
very carefully what -- what benefits or, as you alluded to, the -- the collateral effects of what we're doing and how -- how it impacts. There --
there is a lot of, from both the Russians and the Chinese, observations of what we're doing and figuring out what -- what they can learn from that. So
I think that's a collateral effect as -- as we expose what the joint force displays on -- on the battlefield.
And I think we can talk it in a little more detail as we move to the classified session some of the -- the things that we're collecting
specifically about what those effects are.
REED: Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
COTTON: Senator Ossoff.
SEN. JON OSSOFF, D-GA.: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here. And before I ask you a few questions, I want to call everyone's attention again to this fundraising email signed by the
president that Senator Kelly mentioned earlier in which the president of the United States invites his campaign donors to quote, "claim your spot,"
"claim your spot, join now to receive private national security briefings" to his political donors, featuring a photo of the president at a dignified
transfer ceremony with a flag-draped coffin of an American service-member killed in action returning to their family.
And the American people need to know that the president of the United States is fundraising for his political campaign and his PAC using images
of American service-members killed in action. And it's a disgrace.
Now, Director Gabbard, I'd like to reground this in your core responsibilities. Under the law you are responsible for providing national
intelligence to the president, correct?
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: And to the heads of executive branch departments and agencies, yes?
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: And to the chairman of the joint chiefs and senior military commanders?
GABBARD: Across the IC, yes.
OSSOFF: And to the Senate and the House and relevant committees, correct?
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: And the law states that the national intelligence you provide to Congress, quote, "should be timely, objective, and independent of political
considerations," correct?
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: And you noted in your opening statement you're here fulfilling a statutory responsibility and that your testimony, quote, "represents the
IC's assessment of threats, correct?
GABBARD: That's right.
OSSOFF: That opening statement as submitted to the committee in advance of this hearing stated that as a result of last summer's airstrikes, quote,
"Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated," end quote, correct?
GABBARD: That's right.
OSSOFF: And is that in fact the assessment of the intelligence community?
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: So the assessment of the intelligence community is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated by last summer's airstrikes.
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: In the opening statement you submitted to the committee last night also stated, quote, "There is been no effort since then to try to rebuild
their enrichment capability," end quote, correct?
GABBARD: That's right.
OSSOFF: And that's the assessment of the intelligence community.
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: The White House stated on March 1st of this year that this war was launched and was, quote, "a military campaign to eliminate the imminent
nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime," end quote. That's a statement from the White House, quote, "the imminent nuclear threat posed by the
Iranian regime." Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?
GABBARD: The intelligence community assessed that Iran maintained the intention to rebuild and to continue to grow their nuclear enrichment kit.
OSSOFF: Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was a, quote, "imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime," yes or no?
GABBARD: Senator, the only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president. And he made that determination.
OSSOFF: False, this is the Worldwide -- this is the Worldwide Threats Hearing where you present to Congress national intelligence, timely,
objective, and independent of political considerations. You've stated today that the intelligence community's assessment is that Iran's nuclear
enrichment program was obliterated and that, quote, "There had been no effort since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability."
Was it the intelligence community's assessment that, nevertheless, despite this obliteration, there was a, quote, "imminent nuclear threat posed by
the Iranian regime," yes or no?
GABBARD: It is not the intelligence community's responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat.
OSSOFF: OK.
GABBARD: That is up to...
OSSOFF: Here's...
GABBARD: ... the president...
[12:15:00]
OSSOFF: Here's the problem...
GABBARD: ... based on a volume of information...
OSSOFF: No, it is -- it is precisely...
GABBARD: ... that he receives.
OSSOFF: It is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States. This is the Worldwide Threats Hearing, where,
as you noted in your opening testimony, quote, you "represent the IC's assessment of threats." You are here to represent the IC's assessment of
threats. That's a quote from your own opening statement. And so my question is, as you're here to present the IC's assessment of threats, was it the
assessment of the intelligence community that, as the White House claimed on March 1st, there was a, quote, "imminent nuclear threat posed by the
Iranian regime," yes or no?
GABBARD: Once again, Senator, the intelligence community has provided the inputs that make up this annual threat assessment.
OSSOFF: You won't answer the question.
GABBARD: It is the nature of the imminent threat that the president has to make that determination based on a collection in volume...
OSSOFF: You're here to be...
GABBARD: ... of information and intelligence that he is provided with...
OSSOFF: You're here -- you're here to be timely, objective, and independent of political consideration.
GABBARD: Exactly what I'm doing.
OSSOFF: No, you're evading a question because to provide a candid response to the committee would contradict a statement from the White House.
Let me ask you about your presence in Fulton County on January 28th of this year. You were present at the FBI's raid on the Fulton County Elections
Office on January 20th, correct?
GABBARD: I was present for part of the FBI exercising a warrant approved by a municipal judge...
(CROSSTALK)
OSSOFF: Yes, and the FBI was there executing...
GABBARD: ... investigation.
OSSOFF: Yes, and the FBI was there executing -- the FBI was there executing that warrant to seize ballots and materials associated with the 2020
election, correct?
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: And are you aware that members of this committee have already opened inquiries into your election-related activities?
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: And are you aware that your general counsel and deputy general counsel have already provided testimony to this committee regarding those
activities?
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: On February 2nd, you send a letter to Senator Warner regarding your presence at the raid. Was that letter accurate?
GABBARD: I don't recall the exact date, but if I sent a letter that had my signature, it was accurate.
OSSOFF: You stated in the letter that your presence at the raid was, quote, "requested by the president", correct?
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: When did the president request your presence at the raid?
GABBARD: The day of the raid, the warrant execution commencing.
OSSOFF: The day of the raid?
GABBARD: Yes.
OSSOFF: He called you on the phone?
GABBARD: I'm not going to disclose how the message was delivered, but it was a request from the president and his administration to go and help
oversee this warrant being executed, along with the deputy director of the FBI...
OSSOFF: Is it your role to oversee...
GABBARD: ... and to thank the FBI agents who were conducting this (inaudible).
OSSOFF: Is it your role to oversee the execution of criminal warrants?
GABBARD: It is my role based on statute that Congress has passed to have oversight over election security, to include counterintelligence, to
include...
OSSOFF: But you said you -- you ov- -- you oversaw the raid, correct? You just testified you oversaw the raid?
GABBARD: Portions of it.
OSSOFF: OK. Did you handle any ballots or election-related materials?
GABBARD: No.
OSSOFF: You were inside an FBI evidence truck, correct? You were photographed inside an FBI evidence truck.
GABBARD: It was an empty truck, yes.
OSSOFF: The president stated, quote, "You (inaudible) wanted to be checked out (inaudible)...
(GAVEL)
COTTON: The senator's time is expired. The senator's time is expired.
OSSOFF: Did you look at votes as the president stated?
COTTON: Senator Ossoff, your time is expired.
OSSOFF: You respond (inaudible).
COTTON: You can have her -- no, she cannot respond because...
OSSOFF: No, for the record. Will -- will the -- will the director please respond for the record to that question, is my -- my question.
GABBARD: I'm happy to respond to questions for the record.
OSSOFF: Thank you, Director Gabbard.
COTTON: Thank you.
Vice Chairman?
SEN. MARK WARNER, D-VA.: I just want to -- not going to go back to this issue. I'm sure will address in the -- in the closed setting. But I am very
disappointed. This is the only one time a year the public gets to hear from you guys in this kind of setting, and the fact that we have repeated public
reporting, including a major story in the Wall Street Journal today, about China and Russia assisting Iran, which seems obvious and evident, and none
of you would confirm that publicly I think doesn't give the American people the full challenges of this war.
COTTON: I -- I would add what I said earlier, that the media is not a classification authority, but certainly sounds like something Russia and
China would do and that have done for decades in the past to Americans.
To wrap up a little business here before we adjourn the ocea- -- open session, we will reconvene in 30 minutes in our usual location for the
closed session. That's at 12:56 promptly.
I do want to note for the record that Senator Young cannot join us. He is at Dover Air Force Base for the Dignified Transfer of Remains for one of
our fallen heroes, a Hoosier, and I would invite everyone to join Senator Young in praying for the family and friends of that soldier and all the
soldiers who have given their life in the defense of our freedom and security.
General Hartman, I want to again acknowledge you, given your impending retirement, since this is your last appearance for the committee, I'm sure
you hope, and I'm sure that the thing you'll miss most about your long career in uniform is testifying before Congress.
I remind members that questions for the record will be due by the close of business.
[12:25:26]
ZAIN ASHER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. You've just been listening to the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and also other top U.S.
intelligence officials, essentially testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee on a hearing really focused on national security and
worldwide threats facing the United States, obviously, taking on renewed significance given the ongoing war in Iran now entering its third week.
Let's bring in CNN's Zachary Cohen, joining us live now from Washington.
So we had about two hours or so of listening to several American intelligence officials testifying. Just walk us through what stood out to
you and what clarity we got about the purpose of this war and also long- term goals of the U.S. intends to accomplish here, Zachary.
ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, guys. I think the thing that stood out the most was the lack of clarity that we still
have about, not only the Trump administration's justification and reasoning for initiating this conflict, but its objectives that it's hoping to
accomplish before the war can end.
On the former, it was very interesting to watch both Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, face
questions about this idea of an imminent threat.
We've been talking about this since it was first cited by the president as the reason for initiating these joint military operations along with Israel
targeting Iran.
Initially, the imminent threat, according to the president, was related to Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon and its nuclear weapons program and
capabilities. That is -- those are capabilities that Director Ratcliffe -- or sorry, Director Gabbard today testified in the view of the U.S.
intelligence community was obliterated in those last year's airstrikes by the United States, at least it's enrichment capabilities.
And she also said that Iran had not yet chosen to pursue intercontinental ballistic missile capability. And even if they had made that choice to try
to build missiles that could send a nuclear weapon to the United States, it would be almost 10 years before they could achieve that.
So that doesn't seem to line up with the president's stated objective or a state of reasoning of an imminent threat to the U.S., and specifically to
the U.S. homeland.
And again, John Ratcliffe, the CIA Director, did say when he was pressed by lawmakers that he agreed with the president's determination that there was
an imminent threat. But at the same time, both he and Gabbard sang ultimately their job was to present the president with all of the
information. And it was him, up to him, to decide whether or not a qualified as an imminent threat.
[12:30:06]
And -- but again, that doesn't really line up with what we heard today about Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile ambitions, as well as the once
stated goal of toppling the Iranian regime. Director Gabbard actually said that in their view, the regime in Iran remains intact, though its
capability highly degraded.
And -- and if left in place, Gabbard said it would likely pursue a year's long effort to rebuild both its missile and nuclear capabilities, remaining
hostile effectively to the United States.
So we're now more than two weeks into this conflict, and we still don't have a clear sense as to why President Donald Trump decided to go ahead
with this war and how he plans to exit from it, essentially.
The one other point that really stood out here is Gabbard and Ratcliffe were repeatedly pressed on whether or not the president was briefed on the
potential downsides of starting this war, specifically whether or not Iran would likely move to close the Strait of Hormuz, and whether they would
attempt to launch strikes against U.S. allies in the Middle East. Both of those things well known to U.S. intelligence agencies for years now, but
both the president -- according to the president, surprised him in the aftermath.
ASHER: All right. Zachary Cohen, live for us there. Thank you so much.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Let's bring in CNN national security Analyst Beth Sanner, who joins us now live in Washington. Beth, it's good to see
you. Thanks for sticking around.
You're the perfect guest to have on for this after we heard that hearing, because there's a question of whether you have these intelligence officials
parsing words with senators in their back-and-forth or whether they're just misstating something or not wanting to bring something to the public light.
Because the question that was directed at Tulsi Gabbard by Senator Ossoff, in particular there at the end, was whether she and others in the
intelligence community had told the president that there was an imminent threat to the United States or to U.S. assets by Iran.
And she said, that is not something that someone in the intel community, that in her position, makes the decision, that ultimately it is the
president of the United States that decides what the imminent threat is. They just lay out the threat assessments. You've been in those situations.
Tell us what the actual state of play is.
BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, I mean, first, what a horrible job to sit behind those desks and answer those questions when
obviously there is this gap between what the intelligence community believes and note that Tulsi Gabbard started off by saying, what I tell you
today doesn't necessarily represent my personal views. This is the views of the IC. She's never -- she didn't say that last year.
So, there's this gap between what the intelligence community has said and said in the run up to this pretty clearly, and what the administration says
was the justification for the war.
But I think even more broadly, the idea of what this regime would do, how we should think about the orientation, capability, and motivations and
likely response of the Iranian regime.
And that is very clear to me to be a gap. And -- and so that says to me that either the president wasn't briefed or very likely, you know, he was
briefed and he just decided maybe with other advisors that those reactions weren't likely.
And -- and I think it's this failure to really understand Iranians, the Iranian regime to understand our enemy. And I don't think that failure lies
with the intelligence community.
ASHER: Beth Sanner live for us, thank you so much.
GOLODRYGA: Thanks, Beth.
ASHER: We'll be right back with more after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:35:12]
GOLODRYGA: All right. It is 7:30 in the evening in Riyadh, and there have been loud explosions in the Saudi capital.
Let's bring in our international diplomatic editor Nic Robertson who is there for us live.
And, Nic, we're -- we're reading that the Saudi defense ministry says that air defenses are now dealing with what appears to be a ballistic threat.
Tell us more about what you're seeing and hearing.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes. And that's very unusual for Riyadh. A lot of drones have been intercepted above the -- the
skies here, but ballistic missiles incoming, that's new and different. And that does seem to relate to the alerts that were put out on the phone
network.
And I was standing here a few minutes ago, and I could see very clearly from where I'm standing, intercept a rocket being launched into the night
sky. We couldn't see the interceptions, but we could hear explosions and no evidence of impact on the ground that we can see. And no reports from the
Saudi defense ministry of any impact on the ground.
And it's -- and I think it feels, at least to us here, that this is significant. It's not just significant because it's ballistic missiles,
because we've actually seen the interceptors going up. And that's a rarity here in Riyadh, a real rarity.
But it feels different because right now in Riyadh, you have the foreign ministers of the Gulf countries and Arab neighbors Turkey, Azerbaijan here
as well, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, Jordan's here, the Egyptian foreign minister is here as well, for a meeting to discuss exactly this, the
ongoing war with Iran, that they are not part of and feel worried about its outcome and worried about its impact and concerned for all the dimensions
of it.
And here it appears that if -- that Iran has chosen this moment to launch ballistic missiles at this city, again, a rarity, and they've been
intercepted in the skies above.
ASHER: And, Nic, we are obviously on the eve of a major Muslim holiday with Eid, marking the end of Ramadan, the end of sort of 30 days of fasting.
Just explain to us how all of that is being affected by war, Nic.
ROBERTSON: There is all the uncertainty going on. You know, here in Saudi Arabia, even -- oh, that's another warning siren going off just now. I
don't know if that means there'll be more interceptions that -- that will become apparent.
I'm just going to try to turn that off on my phone here. If there will be more interceptions, but that warning siren you just heard there was, again,
the same warning siren we had a few minutes ago.
But looking down on the street, the traffic continues. So it is a worry for people here, but they are going about their daily lives.
[12:40:01]
We went Kuwait over the past week or so. And we're talking to people there and hearing as well how the government is trying to sort of ensure that
people are safe during Eid. This is what we saw and heard.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTSON (voice-over): Ramadan and its day-long fasting is ending. Eid al- Fitr is arriving. Families flocking to Kuwait's bright souq, shopping for gifts for loved ones, all part of the celebration of the Muslim holiday.
But this year, with a difference, air raid sirens are suddenly common part of everyone's life.
TALAL ABU TERRI, I.T. SPECIALIST: I think that we fell -- we feel a sense of safety because we have the Ministry of Defense and the Kuwait army and
thank them so much for keeping us safe and dealing with any threats coming from Iran.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): Even so, some missiles have been getting through. An 11-year-old girl killed, dozens of civilians injured.
And this Eid, the government is telling Kuwaitis, not to risk danger and hold big gatherings.
LOLOWA AL-AYOUB, FENCING INSTRUCTOR: Of course, we have to be cautious. That cautious is -- being cautious is also very recommended. But family
gatherings are -- might not be 200 people, it can be 20.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): Another bit of festive Eid fun is also being put on hold per government instructions, traditional theater performances.
ROBERTSON: The whole investment here has been huge. This whole wrap-around stage recreating the old streets of Kuwait right down to the chairs for the
audience to sit on. The whole theater put together for the Eid performances.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): Eid is peak season and rehearsals like this one now halted. More than 80 staff involved in this production, the owner and lead
actor who put up close to half a million dollars for the Eid shows is taking it on the chin.
MOHAMED AL-HEMELY, THEATER PRODUCER AND ACTOR (through translator): We are extremely sad that we are in war. This financial situation of the theater,
the money and the tickets, all can be compensated.
But Kuwait, our love to our nation, we should listen to our leadership. We are sad, yes, but we are not angry. When the war is over, we will return to
our normal life.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): And how to do that? His answer is simple.
ROBERTSON: What's your solution?
AL-HEMELY: I don't know.
ROBERTSON: Really?
AL-HEMELY: I think I call for somebody. Hello? Stop the war, please.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): But the jokes belie a darker reality. Everyone knows the war could get worse.
ROBERTSON: The biggest worry for leaders here is escalation. So far, vital infrastructure, like desalination plants, power generating equipment,
doesn't appear to have been on Iran's target list.
But the leaders know, if they joined the war, all that could change, putting their populations at even greater risk.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROBERTSON: And I think that's going to be at the center of discussions here with the foreign ministers right now. They can't afford to get involved in
the war because it could get worse. It affects them directly.
So, how can they be involved in getting a de-escalation and to the war and being safe in the future and getting the oil to market? We'll see.
Hopefully, we'll get a readout later this evening.
ASHER: All right. Nic Robertson, do stay safe. We saw those -- we heard those sirens going off where you are, so please do stay safe. Nic
Robertson, thank you for that report.
GOLODRYGA: And coming up for us, is the Strait of Hormuz really closed? We'll tell you how and why some ships are still getting through.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:45:32]
ASHER: All right. We've been telling you about the vital importance of the Strait of Hormuz, which, of course, the fifth of the world's oil output
normally flows through.
GOLODRYGA: And while Iran's blockade has choked off most traffic through the waterways, still some ships are getting through.
Eleni Giokos reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ELENI GIOKOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Is the Strait of Hormuz really closed? Marine traffic shows tankers are turning off their tracking data before
entering the narrowest part of the strait, then went through the strait, tankers reappear on the other side.
Only 90 tankers have transited through the Strait of Hormuz since March the 1st, and that's according to Lloyd's List Intelligence.
RICHARD MEADE, EDITOR-IN- CHIEF, LLOYD'S LIST INTELLIGENCE: On a daily basis, you would normally expect to see 65, 70 tankers pass on a daily
basis. So, we really are seeing a -- a -- a trickle of the normal volumes of traffic.
GIOKOS: The Strait handles around 20 percent of the world's oil supply. So who's getting through? Lloyd's List data reveals most are part of shadow
fleets. It's a group of ships that usually operate outside of normal international shipping rules. In this case, mostly carrying sanctioned
Iranian oil and likely headed to China.
Data also shows traffic is dominated by Iranian-linked vessels. A much lower number of compliant fleets have moved through.
Around March 13th or 14th, two India-flagged LPG carriers and a Pakistan- flagged crude oil tanker on March 15th.
So, how are they doing it? Iran says it has given clearance to some vessels. It's not clear what the process is, but Iran says, it will only
target American and Israeli-linked tankers.
United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations reports 21 vessels have been attacked since the start of the war and that's a threat to shippers.
MEADE: It's the Iranians who are in control of the Strait of Hormuz. It's as simple as that. You are not seeing ships move because there is a direct
threat to vessel safety.
GIOKOS: Trump is trying to find a way out of this oil supply shock and the U.S. has realized, it cannot do it alone, reaching out to allies to create
a coalition to assist with naval escorts.
Experts say, this is a clear signal the Trump administration didn't fully calculate the economic hit the world would feel from the impact of the
closure of the straits.
Eleni Giokos, CNN, Dubai.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:50:24]
ASHER: All right. Senegal is challenging being stripped of the Africa Cup of Nations. The controversy started on the football pitch in January when
they walked off.
GOLODRYGA: And now Morocco has been crowned champions.
CNN World Sports Amanda Davies explains.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANDA DAVIES, CNN WORLD SPORT: You know it's a big story when it's overshadowing the European Champions League knockout rounds, but that is
exactly what we're talking about here. It is remarkable, unprecedented in footballing terms.
Eight weeks after Senegal took home the trophy, celebrating in such style, having lifted African football's biggest prize for the second time in their
history. They have been stripped of the title. And it's beaten finalist, Morocco, who've been awarded the victory.
Senegal had already been punished. Coach Pape Thiaw and a number of his players were fined and banned after the chaos of the final in Rabat on
January the 18th.
As a reminder, late in stoppage time, Senegal's players had walked off the pitch in protest after Morocco were awarded a penalty. The game was halted
for around 17 minutes before Senegal ultimately came back out. They were really, really ugly scenes.
Morocco missed the spot kick. The match went to extra time. And Senegal ultimately won one nil. But African football's governing body, CAF, have
now overturned the result at an appeals board saying, Senegal are declared to have forfeited the final match with the result of the match being
recorded as three nil in favor of Morocco.
It's citing articles in the Confederation of African football rules saying that, "If a team refuses to play or leaves the ground before the end of
regulation time without the referee's authorization, it will be considered the loser and eliminated from the competition."
Incredibly, Morocco have admitted in a statement that their appeal was never intended to challenge the sporting performance of the teams, as in
they didn't expect or want to be given the win.
Senegal star, Sadio Mane, reacted on Instagram saying, "The world knows the true champions." The Senegal FA have described it as unfair, have said that
they're taking their fight to sports highest ruling body, which is the Court of Arbitration for Sport or CAS.
And their general secretary, Abdoulaye Seydou Sow, speaking on Senegalese T.V. has said, the fight is far from over. We will stop at nothing.
Amanda Davies, CNN, London.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ASHER: All right. Members of the Iranian women's football team have arrived back in Iran, completing a fraught journey from Australia where they had
been competing in the Asian Cup.
You're actually looking at players coming through the Bazargan border, that's the border crossing between Iran and Turkey. That's how they made it
back.
GOLODRYGA: Seventeen members originally sought asylum in Australia fearing persecution if they returned to Iran.
However, over the weekend, five of them withdrew their claims. Two others remain in Australia while most of the squad have since returned home.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Venezuela, the best in baseball.
(CROWD CHEERING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: A lot of emotion there. Venezuela fans cheering for their team at the World Baseball Classic. They were able to hold off Team USA's star
powered roster starting with a sacrifice fly in the third inning and a home run in the fifth that gave them a two to nothing lead.
[12:55:09]
ASHER: Yes. Venezuela's great pitching sealed the win in the bottom of the ninth inning. Certainly an emotional win for Venezuela.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. It's been quite a year. And quite a -- a long number of years. And there you see them celebrating the fans. Sports has a way of
making people come together and just feel great and -- and proud.
All right. That does it for "One World." I'm Bianna Golodryga.
ASHER: And I'm Zain Asher. We so appreciate you watching. "Amanpour" is up next. You're watching CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:00:00]
END
