Return to Transcripts main page

One World with Zain Asher

Pentagon Watchdog Reveals Extent Of U.S. Damage From Iran Strikes; Fears Of Renewed Israeli Campaign Mount In Lebanon Amid Strikes; Gates: Governments Not Ready To Handle A.I.; House Democrats Push For A.I. Action; U.S. Military Confirms It Has Deployed Weapons In Space; Pentagon Watchdog Issues First Review On Impact Of Iran War; Chinese Sneaker Brand Brings Steph Curry To China; Aired 12-1p ET

Aired September 15, 2026 - 12:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:00:33]

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. Live from New York, I'm Bianna Golodryga. You are watching the second hour of "One World."

Billions spent, bases damaged, and missiles in short supply. A new report from the Pentagon offers never-before-seen details on the war in Iran.

Also ahead, yet another warning on the rise of artificial intelligence. Bill Gates says, we're not ready.

And later, more than a car. How one man's 90-year-old Ford is making memories that will last more than a lifetime.

All right. Iranian strikes have caused widespread damage to U.S. military bases across the Middle East. And now the Pentagon's watchdog is revealing

the extent of those losses in a special report.

The Pentagon's inspector general says hundreds of buildings and structures have been damaged or destroyed since the war started in February. The

report says key U.S. munitions stockpiles have also been depleted. And the scale of the attacks have forced the U.S. military to change how its troops

operate across the region.

In addition, damage by Iran to U.S. diplomatic facilities in the Middle East has caused roughly $184 million in damage.

For more on this, let's bring in Davis Winkie. He's a reporter and senior fellow covering U.S. national security for CNN. Thank you so much for

joining us.

So, this report, I think, goes through the month of June in its assessment. And what I want to specifically ask you about is that point I made earlier

that it has in fact changed the way U.S. troops are operating in Iran and - - and/or the region as it continues its war at times kinetic with Iran.

How has it changed?

DAVIS WINKIE, NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Well, Bianna, let's start by talking about what operations and U.S. Central Command were for U.S. troops

in the years preceding this conflict.

Aside from occasional breaks to the status quo, when there would be exchanges between the U.S. and Iran, life in Central Command was largely

routine in a lot of places, where you had these big, safe, comfortable bases that acted as major logistics hubs, such as Al Udeid Air Base in

Qatar. You had ports in Kuwait. You had the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet headquarters and logistics hub in Bahrain. These were large, fixed places

where Americans were comfortable.

And one of the big findings of this report or one of the first things truly officially acknowledged in this report is the fact that it's not going to

be the same after this.

As you said in your intro, hundreds of buildings damaged or destroyed. I want to zoom in on the Bahrain example though. Acting Navy Secretary Hung

Cao, speaking in a recent interview said that Iran, quote, blew the hell out of the Navy base there.

And because it was such a important logistics hub for the Navy, it was, you know, a place that enabled resupply for ships operating in the region. It

processed mail for sailors in the region.

And those functions have now, in some cases, shifted out to Diego Garcia, an island out in the Indian Ocean that has stretched out resupply cycles to

14 to 18 days, according to the report.

Those changes have ultimately created a space where service members aboard some of the long deployed ships on the blockade line suffered from

intermittent losses of supplies and other issues such as disruption to their mail.

It's -- it's remarkable how we're able to get this snapshot finally officially acknowledged by the Pentagon.

I -- I do also want to note, Bianna, that there's a lot that this report doesn't say. It's unclassified. And we don't have access to the classified

appendix to it, of course. And it doesn't include, for example, all the aircraft that we know were destroyed during the time period. It doesn't

have a cost estimate for the damage to U.S. bases, for example.

And, you know, but even with that said, this is an interesting contrast to the polished talking points we've seen from U.S. officials, over the course

of the conflict, that have largely focused on the tactical successes of U.S. forces in the conflict.

[12:05:04]

GOLODRYGA: And the conflict still continues. Deployments have been extended through next year as well.

Davis Winkie, fascinating reporting. Thank you so much.

Well, a source tell CNN that the ambassadors of Israel and Lebanon will meet at the U.S. State Department today to jump start a U.S. brokered

ceasefire signed back in June, meant to stop the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah.

This as Israel ramps up its bombardment of Southern Lebanon. Lebanese officials say 13 people, including six children, were killed Monday. The

Israeli military says that it struck people seeing transferring weapons in the town. Lebanon says 11 people were killed on a strike on Sunday as well.

CNN's Jeremy Diamond joins us from Jerusalem.

So, we have the strikes ongoing in the region there, though reporting at the same time of a meeting in Washington. Just walk us through the latest

details of this meeting, Jeremy, and then we can get to the news on the ground there.

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Well, there is some diplomacy continuing between Israel and Lebanon mediated by the United

States. Although, it's quite clear that the ambitions of this next round of talks are being scaled back, both in terms of the substance, but also in

terms of the setting.

And that's because today what we were supposed to see was the latest round of negotiations between Israeli and Lebanese diplomats in Rome, which has

become the -- the kind of formal setting for these talks between the two countries.

Instead, the Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors to Washington will meet at the State Department today in order to pursue that diplomacy, but you won't

be seeing the kind of all-out effort that would have taken place in Rome. Apparently, this is due to logistical issues, but it is set to take place

instead next month.

But -- but this is happening against the backdrop of a few things. First of all, the Israeli elections that are set to take place in late October are

certainly an important backdrop to the current state of diplomacy between these two countries.

And that's because the -- the main thing that the Lebanese government is trying to secure in these negotiations is the withdrawal of Israeli forces

from Southern Lebanon. We've seen them engage in these pilot zones where you saw Israel basically say that they're not going to bomb these areas or

hand over control of territory to the Lebanese armed forces who are in exchange, supposed to keep Hezbollah and other paramilitary groups out of

those areas, but none of that has actually led to the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon so far, nor the expansion of those pilot zones.

Instead, the Israeli government has been more focused on achieving additional military gains against Hezbollah, such as the demolition that we

saw this week of an underground command center that Hezbollah operated inside of Southern Lebanon outside, though we should note, of that Israeli

zone of control right now.

The second thing that is happening is that this is all happening against the backdrop of a clear escalation in Israeli military attacks in Southern

Lebanon. You mentioned those latest strikes that we saw yesterday that killed 13 people in just one of those strikes, 12 people were killed, of

which six of them were children, three of them were women.

The Israeli military, for its part, said that it had detected the transfer of weapons and targeted people who had said were involved in the

transferring of weapons in that area.

But again, on the ground, the Lebanese health ministry says that the majority of those victims in that strike were indeed civilian.

So, we will see what these latest negotiations between Israel and Lebanon today in Washington actually yield.

But for the time being, it seems unlikely that we will see any kind of major progress on this file until those Israeli elections conclude in late

October. Because, you know, for now, it seems unlikely that the major step that Lebanon wants, which is the withdrawal of Israeli troops, is going to

happen before them -- before then.

And until that -- that point, it is very hard to imagine additional progress either on the ground or on the diplomatic front being achieved.

GOLODRYGA: All right. Jeremy Diamond, you'll be covering it all for us as you always do. Thank you.

Well, recently, we've seen governments and tech leaders speaking out on regulating the pace of A.I. development.

Now, Microsoft co-founder and billionaire philanthropist, Bill Gates, says no government is ready to handle the possibilities of A.I.

He says, quote, "There's all sorts of movies where some aliens are coming and magically the U.S. and China and everybody comes together to solve the

problem."

Gates adds, "A.I. is kind of like this alien intelligence. It's here and we better do like it shows in those movies."

Anna Stewart joins us now from London with more details. That's an analogy, I think, we can all understand, Anna, and it all ends usually pretty well

for mankind after two and a half hours, some popcorn. That's not the concern though that many lawmakers from both sides of the aisle, I'll be

speaking to one in just a moment. But even the heads of these A.I. companies, that's not where they are right now.

[12:10:19]

ANNA STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, there is a huge list of concerns right now. The risks seem to be sort of gaining every single day.

And for Bill Gates, he already wrote in an essay last month, 6,000-word essay, about where he sees A.I. going. And it was quite balanced, you know.

It had sort of the benefits that society could reap, but also had plenty of risks.

And one of the big ones for Bill Gates is equity and whether A.I. is only going to advance the economies or improve the lives of those nations that

can afford, you know, access to NVIDIA's latest chips, that can afford giant data centers, that can essentially afford to build out the A.I.

infrastructure needed and host, you know, the world's biggest A.I. companies. That's fine in perhaps Europe and U.S., but what about some of

the developing countries in the world?

So, he is earmarking with the Gates Foundation at least $1 billion to improve access over the next two years. This is to train A.I. models across

different cultural contexts, different languages.

So much of what we have in A.I. currently is in English, for instance, and they're going to use these tools for education, healthcare, and

agriculture.

Now, parking that aside, some of the other warnings Bill Gates has had in the past have included things like job losses, bad actors, getting use of,

you know, frontier models and using that to develop bioweapons, for instance.

What wasn't in Bill Gates' warnings, though, at least last month, was this big fear about self-improving A.I. This is the big fear, of course, that

we've had from Anthropic over the last couple of weeks, the fear that self- improving A.I. in the wrong hands could actually sort of get out of control of humans, could lead to the extinction of the human race.

However, I do find that his analogy with sci-fi alien movies, a little concerning, very dystopian. A.I. is kind of like this alien intelligence.

He says, as long as we do it like the movies, which in his case, in the movie he references, involves the U.S. and China getting together, all will

be well.

So, there we go. We just need, you know, world leaders to banded together and maybe come up with some sort of regulation. Perhaps, that'll be on the

cause, but it sounds like a -- a tough act.

GOLODRYGA: A tough act. I think a more apt analogy perhaps could be in a book, "Frankenstein." Mary Shelley, she also laid out a scenario where

something man-made, all of a sudden, is a threat to us all.

Thank you so much, Anna Stewart.

Meanwhile, U.S. lawmakers are trying to figure out a way to address the A.I. concerns, despite the president calling those concerns a hoax.

Senator Bernie Sanders says the president is not taking the threat seriously enough.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): What can you say about Trump? I think he is mentally unstable. And I think he has not a clue about the dangers that

advanced the A.I. poses.

When you have the leaders of the companies who are developing the technology, who are saying, we are developing a technology we don't know

where it is going, and it is quite likely that human beings will not be able to control this technology, and that this could have an absolutely

horrendous impact on the future of humanity, one might think that you'd have a president of the United States who would listen to the leading

experts in the world, but Trump is Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: So, let's get some perspective from the Democrats were joined by Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, who is on the House Select Committee on

U.S. and Chinese Strategic Competition. Thank you so much, Congressman, for -- for joining us.

So, there you heard the president say that this concern is all a hoax and that the only A.I. guardrail needed really is a, quote, strong and smart

high I.Q. president.

From your work on the intelligence committee, what risks demand safeguards beyond just presidential judgment?

REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): Well, I'm not really sure if Donald Trump was referring to himself in that particular description, because I think --

GOLODRYGA: Sounds like he was.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: -- a lot of people would beg to differ.

But I think that the biggest risk that we have right now is what's called recursive self-improvement within A.I. That's the idea that A.I. is not

only developing the software coding to improve itself, but is researching new strategies to improve itself.

In effect, it is becoming some type of superintelligence. And that is something that I'm hearing repeatedly from researchers across different

companies.

And, therefore, I think at this point, we should do at least two things. One is we should absolutely require that every frontier LLM, Large Language

Model, be validated and approved by the government and tested before they're actually published and released to the public. And I think that

government employees should be embedded at those frontier companies during the development of those LLMs.

[12:15:10]

And then the second thing is, we absolutely have to bolster our export controls right now, which unfortunately have been eviscerated since Joe

Biden left office. . Donald Trump, if he really wishes to win the A.I competition with China, needs to make sure that we close the gaps in our Swiss cheese kind of

enforcement regime right now and properly fund the BIS, which is the agency which would enforce these particular controls.

If we don't do that, then we're not going to win any competition with China at this point with regard to A.I.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. How do we effectively enforce safety standards without giving Beijing an advantage? It did seem from Dario Amodei's ideas that

that would really focus on limiting chip sales or banning them, especially some of the more high-end and more exclusive chips, but is that something

you would endorse?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Yes. I think that at this point, we have to use our leverage. And our leverage is the chokehold that we have on the highest end

semiconductor chips that are necessary for training these large language models.

Unfortunately, right now through, various loopholes, the Chinese are acquiring these highest-end chips. They are also accessing them remotely

through the cloud in third countries like Singapore, as well as Malaysia. And we have to do everything we can to limit their ability to do that.

Now, using that leverage, we can then impose other standards, including these safety standards. But without that leverage, if we don't use that

leverage, then yes, we should be concerned about them racing ahead in the A.I. competition with our technology fueling their advantage.

GOLODRYGA: So, what would you like to hear the president say to President Xi when they meet next week, specifically as it relates to this issue?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I think he should point Xi to his own experts in China that are also sounding the alarm.

Just the other day, you know, one of their government experts talked about how their own government could be threatened through this recursive self-

improvement or through A.I. kind of racing past human control.

I think that Trump should then say, look, you know, we need to come together on some common sense guardrails, such as, for instance, making

sure that our nuclear weapons are not powered by somehow some autonomous system that is fueled by A.I., that we should make sure that there's a

human kill switch with regard to any A.I. system that is in use anywhere in -- in both of our countries and elsewhere.

I think those are the types of common sense agreements that we should come to with the Chinese.

GOLODRYGA: I know that some Republicans and Democrats, in joint legislation, are calling for A.I. guardrails.

But realistically, you've got these executives of these companies sounding the alarm saying, change isn't coming in a few months or a year. We're

talking weeks, perhaps, and this is happening as Congress and the senator about to go on quite a lengthy recess.

Realistically, can anything be done or passed before the October recess?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Yes. There's actually legislation that's already been passed by one House or the other in -- in Congress that would start the

process of regulating A.I. And so it's a matter of taking it up and -- and basically passing it on the other chamber and then sending it to the

president.

I think that with regard to some other safeguard, so to speak, such as independent testing, verification, and approval, I actually think that we -

- we might have to do this through not-for-profits and other institutes in the private sector, since we don't want to necessarily stand up a whole new

bureaucracy, nor can we, in such a short period of time, to do what is necessary.

But at this point, my constituents and others are calling for action now. We can't just be waiting, you know, weeks or months or years, because it

might be too late. There might be some catastrophic damage to the economy or even a loss of life if we don't properly regulate A.I.

GOLODRYGA: We've heard these executives, and I think unanimously agree that at least in the interim, they should all be self-regulated. I know you've

called from government officials to sort of sit as a third-party and regulate any of their larger models before they're released.

[12:20:00]

What should companies be required to prove, in your view, before they release one of their newer models?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, I think there's probably a long laundry list of, you know, different types of metrics that, you know, they will have to produce.

But if I can just put it in one or two common sense -- sentences, one is, what is your proof that a human being is ultimately in the loop with regard

to control of this particular model? And what does it take to kill this model if necessary, if for some reason it does something that's unexpected?

Just the other day we've learned from Anthropic, and before that OpenAI, about how their agents, their A.I. agents basically escape the lab

environments and basically hacked other companies.

What -- you know, if something like that were to happen on a larger scale or with a financial institution or God forbid with a healthcare institution

or even the government, what would be possible in terms of a kill switch where you actually are able to shut it down? And how do you do that?

I mean, those are the types of common sense questions that my constituents ask and that I would pose to them as well.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And we heard from Dario Amodei raise concern about, you know, not -- not shutting down one bot, but perhaps what happens when

there's a swarm of bots that pose a major threat.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: That's right.

GOLODRYGA: Go ahead. Quickly. Yes.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: If I could just add one other thing, I think we also have to address the issue of these open-source models too. There are American

open-source models and, of course, we know there are Chinese open-source models.

So, we have to confront, how do we deal with those? How do we make sure that those models too are regulated properly? And I hope that that is also

something that comes up, you know, between Chinese and American officials.

I know that Trump thinks that -- that -- that no regulation is necessary, but I hope that some cooler heads are able to raise this. Because sooner or

later, we're going to have to work on this together.

GOLODRYGA: No doubt. Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, thank you so much for the time. We appreciate it.

And still to come on "One World," an unusual acknowledgement from the U.S. military. Details ahead on why the U.S. has deployed weapons beyond the

surly bonds of Earth.

Plus, a major shift in U.S. energy policy as the Trump administration rolls back pollution limits on power plants. What the Environmental Protection

Agency is saying, that's ahead.

And still ahead, Curry pandemonium in China. Why fans are packing the streets just for a chance to catch a glimpse of the basketball icon? That's

later this hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:25:33]

GOLODRYGA: Well, it sounds like something out of a sci-fi novel, but this is now reality. The U.S. Air Force Secretary confirmed that the U.S. has

deployed weapons in space.

Troy Meink says that the weapons will defend American forces against potential threats. For now, it remains unclear when exactly the military

put the weapons into orbit or even what types of weapons were deployed.

Let's discuss with Brian Todd, who is joining us live from Washington. Brian, so much we don't know yet, but the timing is interesting. Why make

this announcement now?

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Bianna, it seems to be a signal to Russia and China who have challenged America's dominance in space weapons

that the United States is going to meet those challenges. And we'll get into the Russia-China threat in just a moment.

But this is extraordinary, as Bianna mentioned. This is the first public acknowledgment that the United States has weapons in space. And it came

from Air Force Secretary Troy Meink at a conference outside Washington on Monday.

Here's what he had to say about that weapons system.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TROY MEINK, U.S. AIR FORCE SECRETARY: Today, we continue to ensure we remain ready to meet the challenges of evolving threats wherever they

exist. This is why the United States now has, on orbit, space control weapons capable of defending the joint force against hostile, adversary

action.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TODD: Now, Troy Meink did not provide any specifics about those weapons. And when he was pressed on that during that conference, he refused to

provide any details. He was vague, probably because there are treaties in place which restrict the placement of certain types of weapons in space,

specifically the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which bans the use of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction in space, but it does not ban the

use of conventional weapons in space.

Also not known is exactly when these space weapons were deployed. CNN has reached out to the Space Force for further comment. We've not gotten

details back on that yet.

But China and Russia have been challenging America's space dominance, as we mentioned a moment ago. The U.S. military has repeatedly warned that China

and Russia are testing new offensive space capability, like Russian satellite constellation training missions that U.S. officials say that

Russian system there could demonstrate what they called attack and defend tactics for possible combat in space.

Also, U.S. officials say that China is developing a nuclear-capable partial-orbit hypersonic missile. So, those systems operated by Russia and

China pose a direct challenge to U.S. dominance in space.

It's also part of a broader picture here, because last December President Trump signed an executive order calling U.S. superiority in space, quote, a

measure of national vision and willpower.

The executive order was a step toward Trump's proposed Golden Dome missile defense system, which is a multi-billion dollar plan modeled or at least

inspired in part by Israel's Iron Dome system.

U.S. officials say that Golden Dome could intercept an enemy's missiles, basically from anywhere in the world.

What's not clear, though, Bianna, right now, is whether this weapon system that Troy Meink talked about in space is part of Golden Dome, whether it's

separate, or whether it might be exactly the same thing that Donald Trump was talking about when he -- when talked about having a Golden Dome missile

defense system.

Just a lot. We do not know about the specific weapons that the U.S. has in space, but it is extraordinary that U.S. officials, for the first time

ever, seemingly, are acknowledging that they're out there.

GOLODRYGA: It is. Brian Todd, thank you.

TODD: Sure.

GOLODRYGA: Well, major rollback of power plant pollution rules is now official in the U.S. The Trump administration has finalized the repeal of

Obama-Biden-era limits on carbon emissions from coal and gas-fired power plants.

The Environmental Protection Agency administrator says the move will clear the way for more American energy production and lower costs.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEE ZELDIN, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: There used to be at the EPA a choice where they would say that in order to protect the

environment, you had to suffocate out of existence the entire sectors of our economy. No more.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Last year, the U.S. recorded an increase in planet healing pollution reversing a previous downward trend driven in part by power

plants burning coal.

Well, any moment now, members of the Kennedy Center Board are expected to hold a critical meeting. A source familiar with the matter says the board

could shut down the performing arts center as early as today due to lack of funds.

[12:30:07]

Sources say President Trump has offered to raise the money needed to keep it going, but won't if his name is not on the building. His name was

removed in June following a federal court ruling.

CNN's Sunlen Serfaty has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Today, the Kennedy Center board will be meeting and we have known for quite some time that dire financial straits

this center has been in.

But we now have this new significant warning that will come from Kennedy Center leaders and will be presented at the board meeting today, warning

that they may not be able to pay payroll, that they won't be able to cover basic building maintenance, and that the best course of action they will

argue to avoid certain fiscal collapse is to close its door.

Now, notably, this information is coming from Kennedy Center leadership -- leadership that was installed by President Trump. They'll argue that the

decline was not due to Trump, but because his name is not on the side of the building and that it is Trump that they believe is needed to revive and

bring back these donors.

So today, they will be giving the board 10 options to bring back his name to the exterior of the building, one proposed inscription, writing, quote,

renovation, restoration, and support by President Donald J. Trump.

Another saying, quote, acknowledging the unwavering support of President Donald J. Trump and the Trump Kennedy Center Fund. And another option,

quote, "A legacy protected through the generosity of President Donald J. Trump."

And notably, they openly acknowledge here that unless Trump gets his name, if he is not publicly recognized, that President Trump will not provide the

renovation of the building. He will not oversee the renovation of the building. And all of this is still being challenged in court by those who

say it is Trump himself who has derailed the Kennedy Center and the Kennedy Center mission.

And this comes as there is also a status hearing this morning, in that case, which could open up even more legal questions about what happens

next.

Sunlen Serfaty, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

In this update, just in a few moments ago, a federal judge has blocked the latest attempt by the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees to add President

Donald Trump's name to the building.

U.S. District Judge Casey Cooper said, a proposal to add an inscription thanking the president for renovating and restoring the institution's

edifice along with a move to rename the center's campus after him, quote, bucks a federal court order and a statute Congress enacted.

We'll continue to follow this developing story for you.

We're going to take a short break and come back with more.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:35:46]

GOLODRYGA: The U.S.-Israeli war with Iran is quickly approaching the seven- month mark. Yet, the U.S. defense department hasn't held a formal news briefing since the beginning of May.

But now, we're getting one of the first public accountings so far of the cost, scope, and scale of this conflict.

Pentagon's watchdog has issued a new report, and one of the key findings is the amount of damage Iranian strikes have done to U.S. diplomatic

facilities in Gulf nations. And that has led to changes in the way the U.S. military has traditionally operated in the region.

The report also gives one of the first clear-eyed acknowledgments of American munition shortages.

Time now for The Exchange. My conversation with CNN military analyst, retired Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton. Colonel, always good to see you.

So, what is the scale of damage reveal about the gaps now in America's defenses?

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, Bianna, one of the things about this report is that a lot of it does not come as a big

surprise, actually, based on reporting here at CNN and in other outlets.

It's been pretty clear that there has been extensive damage on the military front as well as on the diplomatic front. For example, on the diplomatic

side, the chief of station in Riyadh, the CIA's facility there, was apparently destroyed.

And that, of course, you know, has a monetary cost, but it also has an intelligence cost. And what it tells me is that the damage was very, very

extensive for both military and diplomatic targets throughout the region. And that includes our ability to collect intelligence in the region.

So this, you know, is clearly a well-planned out response from the Iranians that resulted in a lot of damage to, you know, a lot of the military

facilities, you know, 184 million, according to the Pentagon Inspector General.

But I believe that only counts the diplomatic side of things that does not count the facilities that the military has control over or is shared with

host nations.

GOLODRYGA: The report also documents munition depletement and supplies -- supply lines being stretched thin.

How much concern is there about that dwindling supply? If, God forbid, there is another hot spot that erupts in the world that requires U.S.

military to intervene?

LEIGHTON: Yes, I think it's a huge concern, Bianna. And, you know, when you look at the theoretical hot spot that could potentially develop between the

United States and China over Taiwan, that would require the movement of a lot of munitions, a lot of other supplies into the Indo-Pacific region.

And we're not ready to move resources from the Middle East to that region or to augment the resources that we already have in the Indo-Pacific.

So, it really speaks to the way in which our budgetary process, as an essence, failed us when it comes to planning for contingency operations.

And, you know, in the old days we had a situation where we basically budgeted for two wars and half war and half war meant a minor contingency,

such as a counterterrorism operation, for example.

And two big wars would be major theater wars on the scale that you see today in -- in Russia and Ukraine. So, that's the kind of thing that, you

know, we decided not to do after the demise of the -- the Cold War, the end of the Cold War, and the demise of the Soviet Union.

And now we're in a situation where we thought that peace dividend, as it was called at the time, is really not something that is -- is out there

that is available for us, so we have different threats. And we really fail to anticipate that nation-state threats would be threats that would evolve

at this particular point in time. But as we can clearly see, they certainly have evolved and become another menace for us and another danger for us.

GOLODRYGA: Help explain for our viewers who might be confused by the fact that we're not even at war and at daily war with boots on the ground

against an archrival, let's say like China or even Russia, the Defense Department, we know how large that budget is. And the fact that we're

having to deal with these headlines now, like a shortage of munitions and stretched supply lines, where has all that money been going, Colonel?

[12:40:11]

LEIGHTON: Yes. So, a lot of that money has been going to sustaining operations in the global war on terror. So, this, of course, is a multi-

year issue and, you know, multi-year really multi-decade issue over the last 25, 30 years.

And one of the things that the money has been going to is the development of new technologies. It's also gone to personnel costs, retirement funds,

you know, all those kinds of things for our personnel.

But the money that is earmarked for munitions has actually, in some cases, served as a bill payer for other expenditures and for other priorities that

the Defense Department has had over the years.

So, what ends up happening is you end up with these shortages of munitions like the Patriot missile or the THAAD missiles that are used as protective

missiles for our bases in -- in the Middle East and in other places.

So, what you're seeing is really the fact that our priorities have not aligned with what has become the reality. And, you know, it's -- it's

definitely hard to predict the future, but some of this should have definitely been -- been part of the equation.

And it's also clear that our defense industry really needed to move forward in the production of things like the Patriot missile and -- and things like

the THAAD missile because those missiles become part of a defensive posture than we have other missiles that are more offensive in nature, like, let's

say the PrSM missile.

Those missiles would then be better used because our forces are protected at their home bases. But in essence what has happened is our strategy of

forward basing is now called into question because we cannot protect those forward bases. And that's -- that's the problem that we run into right now,

Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: And a misalignment as well. I mean, you've got million dollar missiles that are shooting down thousand dollar drones, so that's another

factor consider here as well.

Thank you so much, as always.

LEIGHTON: You bet, Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: Cedric Leighton, appreciate it.

LEIGHTON: You bet.

GOLODRYGA: Well, a stunning revelation from California Governor Gavin Newsom. He says he will not run for president in 2028 if former vice

president Kamala Harris decides to throw her hat in the ring.

California Democrats spoke to CNN's Jake Tapper while the two were fly fishing together in Montana. Here's more of their conversation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: How does one even make a decision to like run for president?

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): I have no experience in this process, so I'm -- I'm going through it.

TAPPER: I remember people thinking, oh, he should have run in 2024.

NEWSOM: I mean, I wasn't ready.

TAPPER: You weren't ready?

NEWSOM: No. God no.

TAPPER: Do you think if you'd taken on Biden?

NEWSOM: I would never -- first of all, I wouldn't do that. And second, if I did, I would have gotten crushed because I didn't have a why. You don't

have a big enough why, then you don't belong there.

I'm not screwing anything up anymore, man. I mean, I -- this -- I know what matters in life. You know, I got four kids. It's the only thing that

matters to me. They got to be on board. And if that's -- forget it. If they're not on board, that's a -- that's a non-starter. And -- and then you

just have to meet the moment. You got to be honest with yourself. Do you represent the zeitgeist in the moment? Are you wasting everybody's time?

Ad you just have to -- honestly, you have to feel like you can stand on there on stage with what 30?

TAPPER: It's going to be a lot of people.

NEWSOM: Yes.

TAPPER: It's a lot of Democrats.

NEWSOM: Thirty-one flavors and --

TAPPER: You're not even the only California.

NEWSOM: No, right. Yes.

TAPPER: You got Ro Khanna.

NEWSOM: Yes.

TAPPER: Kamala.

NEWSOM: Yeah. I don't know if she runs, but we'll see.

TAPPER: I know she's called around.

NEWSOM: Yes. But I wouldn't run as she ran.

TAPPER: If she runs, you won't -- you will not?

NEWSOM: Of course not. Why would I? I wouldn't do that to her. I wouldn't do it to -- why would I -- wouldn't do that to you. I wouldn't waste

everyone's time. Who needs that?

TAPPER: What do you mean? That doesn't make sense. Doesn't really make sense to that.

NEWSOM: I just said, when I -- no, I wouldn't. First of all, electorally, it's a gift from God for everybody else. They enjoy the hell out of it.

Mutual assured destruction. It services no greater good.

TAPPER: I mean, you do whatever you want. I don't care. But like -- but like kind of argument would be like, you know, she -- she have a shot.

NEWSOM: Yes.

TAPPER: And you've never run and she's -- she's run twice.

NEWSOM: Yes. And I mean that would be the -- I'd be the approach to the campaign certainly. That would be the case you'd make. Pretty good one

actually. You know that's -- that's objectively true.

I just -- but I know what that means. I know her base of supporters. I know her friends. The Zen diagram on that is just pure crossover. It's not -- I

wouldn't do that to -- I wouldn't do that to people.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:45:13]

GOLODRYGA: All right. Let's take a look at where the markets are right now. Red arrows, again, the Dow down about 3.25 percentage point. The NASDAQ

down about the same. And S&P 500 down, four-tenths of a percent. This is your business breakout.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defended the Trump administration's economic record during his annual testimony before the House Financial

Services Committee. Earlier, his opening remarks were interrupted several times by protesters objecting to U.S. sanctions on Iran and Cuba.

Happening today in Washington lawmakers, cultural leaders and A.I. experts are gathering for the Pro-Human Assembly 2026. The event is focused on

keeping humans in control of artificial intelligence, including concerns about liberty, jobs, and accountability.

Macklemore will no longer open for Ed Sheeran on the remaining dates of his U.S. tour. That's after venues reportedly objected to the rappers on stage

remarks in support of Palestinians and calls for a free Palestine.

Golden State Warriors icon, Steph Curry, has arrived in Beijing after announcing a 10-year endorsement deal with Chinese sportswear giant, Li-

Ning. This landmark deal ends Curry's sneaker free agency and will include not only sneakers, but basketball products, athleisure (ph). I can't even

say this, and gives Curry the ability to sign athletes under his brand.

CNN's Beijing bureau chief Steven Jiang has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

STEVEN JIANG, CNN BEIJING BUREAU CHIEF (voice-over): Steph Curry was just in China.

STEPHEN CURRY, PROFESSIONAL BASKETBALL PLAYER: So excited because the very first Curry Li-Ning tour is upon us.

JIANG: I'm in front of a Li-Ning story in Beijing. His first stop. There's no doubt who this Chinese sportswear company considers to be their biggest

brand ambassador after signing him to a 10-year deal just this past summer. Look around me here, his image and name just everywhere.

JIANG (voice-over): Curry has a massive following here. Throughout his NBA career and his earlier partnership with Under Armour, he has visited this

country multiple times and once again, his arrival generated huge excitement among fans.

But for the most part, this tour was low-key, with limited events open to the public and media largely kept out.

Even die-hard fans had a difficult time figuring out where they could catch a glimpse of their idol.

For Li-Ning, the brand founded in 1990 by the eponymous legendary Chinese gymnast. The Curry deal is another step in taking its brand global. The

company has already partnered with NBA stars including Dwayne Wade and Jimmy Butler.

And for Steph Curry and Li-Ning, no doubt they hope their deal is more of a slam dunk than perhaps this shot.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[12:50:04]

GOLODRYGA: Athleisure, I can say it, see?

All right. Still to come on "One World," decades of family stories wrapped up in one special card. Details ahead on the only owner of this 1936 Ford

Coupe.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GOLODRYGA: Golden years and golden abs, the 63-year-old man in China's Jiangsu Province, is going viral. Here, you can see him using a stainless

steel basin as an ab wheel.

Several people online are calling his workout routine, quote, hardcore. Display of fitness and determination. Go to you. I don't know if I can do

that.

And finally, some cars finally can last a lifetime. In Wisconsin, 85-year- old Tom Lawrence has been driving his 1936 Ford Coupe for about six decades. That's right, six decades. Now, after all that time, his car is

still winning competitions.

James Groh of Wisconsin T.V. station, WTMJ, has the story.

JAMES GROH, WTMJ REPORTER (voice-over): This is a 1936 Ford Coupe. And for roughly the past 60 years, this race car has only had one driver, Tom

Lawrence from Sheboygan. The 85-year-old has been driving it since he was about 19 years old.

TOM LAWRENCE, OWNER OF 1963 FORD COUPE: It's just a challenge to have something fast and be faster than the other guys. And this car was.

GROH (VOICE-OVER): These photos are from the '60s. That white car is the same one Tom still drives. And these are his racing trophies.

T. LAWRENCE: I don't know how to explain happiness, I guess. There's so many things in this world that makes a person happy.

GROH (VOICE-OVER): Going fast is one of those things that makes Tom smile.

GROH: Will you ever go drag racing again?

T. LAWRENCE: No.

GROH: OK. So, he says he doesn't drag race anymore. But I got in the car with him and he still got that need for speed. We hit, you know, about 80

miles an hour. The lead foot is still there, but a ton of fun.

GROH (VOICE-OVER): Racing was eventually replaced by a family and a career. So, the car collected dust for a few decades.

JEFF LAWRENCE, SON OF TOM LAWRENCE: It really kind of sat like a shell for most of my childhood.

GROH (VOICE-OVER): That was the case until the late '90s. Tom constructed this garage specifically to rebuild this race car from the ground up. And

put it back together piece by piece with the help of his family.

J. LAWRENCE: Bring the grandkids to help out, put a fender on.

GROH (VOICE-OVER): It took about 30 years, but he finally restored this car to its former glory.

[12:55:01]

T. LAWRENCE: I can't believe it. It's done. You know, I did this.

GROH (VOICE-OVER): And while he doesn't drag race anymore, the car is still winning competitions like Best in Show and Best in Class at car shows

across the state.

KELLY OTTMAN, DAUGHTER OF TOM LAWRENCE: And so it's a family affair of us going to car shows, supporting him, celebrating him. And then being able to

drive in it, sitting in the front seat is a lot. It's just joyful.

GROH: Ultimately though, this is way more than just a car. It represents a journey, marriage, kids, grandchildren, moving. This car is the symbol of

Tom's life.

T. LAWRENCE: Well, obviously, it means everything.

GROH (VOICE-OVER): This car and Tom still have many miles left in the tank and competitions to win.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GOLODRYGA: It gives new meaning, built to last.

All right. That does it for "One World" today. I'm Bianna Golodryga. Don't go anywhere. I'll be right back with "Amanpour" after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END