Return to Transcripts main page

The Brief with Jim Sciutto

CNN International: Iranian FM Acknowledges "Exchange of Messages" with U.S.; Israel Continues Strikes on Iran and Lebanon; U.S. Lawmakers Criticize Pentagon After Iran Briefing; About 1,000 U.S. Soldiers Expected to Deploy to Middle East; Meta, YouTube Found Liable in Social Media Addiction Case; Israel's Next Move in the Middle East; Jordan's Role in the Middle East Conflict; Jordan and Gulf Neighbors Condemn Iranian Attacks. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired March 25, 2026 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR, "THE BRIEF": Hello and welcome to our viewers joining us from all around the world. I'm Jim Sciutto joining you live from

Tel Aviv. You're watching "The Brief."

Just ahead this hour, Iran's foreign minister says that Washington and Tehran have exchanged messages but denies that negotiations are taking

place. Some House Republicans say the Pentagon needs to provide lawmakers with more information on next steps in the war. And Meta and Google are

found liable in a landmark case that accused them of designing addictive apps for young people.

Iranian state media is reporting an official in Tehran has outlined five conditions for ending the war, this in response to a 15-point proposal from

the White House. Those Iranian conditions include a guarantee that Iran can exercise sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz and also receive payment of

war damages.

Sources tell CNN that the Trump administration is now trying to set up a meeting in Pakistan this weekend to discuss a potential diplomatic off-

ramp. The White House press secretary issued a new warning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: President Trump does not bluff and he is prepared to unleash hell. Iran should not miscalculate

again. Any violence beyond this point will be because the Iranian regime refused to understand they have already been defeated and refused to come

to a deal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Unleash hell, again that belligerent language from the White House podium. Iran's foreign minister says the U.S. has sent messages

through intermediary nations but he does not think that amounts to formal negotiations. The war continues to rage in this region. Iranian media says

that U.S. and Israeli strikes hit a residential area in the City of Shiraz, killing 20 people there. And the Israeli military says that it hit cruise

missile production sites in Tehran.

In Lebanon, another front of this war, the health ministry says the death hole has now risen to 1,100 people. Listen to what the Israeli prime

minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said about those operations in Lebanon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER (through translator): The dismantling of Hezbollah remains a top priority. This is also tied to the

broader campaign against Iran, which, as I said, is still underway, despite what the media reports. We are fully resolved to do everything necessary to

fundamentally change the situation in Lebanon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Joining me now here in Tel Aviv is Jeremy Diamond. And, Jeremy, from the moment that President Trump, some 48 hours ago, brought up the

idea of negotiations, Israeli officials have been, I think we can agree, skeptical, quite publicly skeptical. Why? And what are they saying now

about the prospects for negotiations?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: I think there's two things. I think on the one hand, Israeli officials are skeptical about the extent to

which there's any there, there in these negotiations. How meaty is this? How substantive is it? How real is the possibility of U.S. and Iranian

officials meeting in Pakistan, perhaps this weekend, as has been suggested so far?

And then secondly, there's the notion of, is Iran ready to make the kinds of concessions that the U.S. is asking for? Because if you look at what we

know about the 15 points and you look at those five points from that Iranian official to state media, there is a wide, wide gap there. And

Israeli officials are pointing that gap out to us. And they're making clear that this doesn't, isn't indicative of a country that's willing to make a

deal that would end this war. Certainly not on terms that would be favorable to the U.S. and certainly not on terms that would be favorable to

Israel. So, a big gap there.

And concern among Israeli officials as well that perhaps President Trump will be looking for a win, will look for a one-month ceasefire to kind of

work out the details of this. They've done that in the past with Gaza, for example. Headline agreements, big peace agreements, and then the details

are worked out later on. So, that's something they're worried about.

SCIUTTO: And often leaving some of the most difficult details for that period of time with an uncertain outcome. Is there concern that some of the

leaders killed in Israeli operations might have been the Iranian leaders willing to negotiate and that what you're left with now really aren't the

folks that might do that?

DIAMOND: In some ways this is kind of the irony of the Israeli strategy, because what we have seen is that the individuals that Israel has

successfully assassinated since the beginning of this campaign, beginning of course with the former ayatollah, Ali Khamenei, and then continuing with

Ali Larjani, the security chief, has empowered the hardline elements of the Iranian regime, of the IRGC, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

[18:05:00]

And when you think about Larjani, for example, he's someone who has long been viewed as obviously someone who put down protests and did terrible

things inside of his country, but also as someone who could be pragmatic in a moment like this, who could deal with the United States, who could

negotiate, and now he is gone.

And instead, the man who has replaced him now is someone who is viewed as much more hardline, much closer to the IRGC and very close to the new

supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, who himself is viewed as more hardline than his father.

SCIUTTO: Jeremy Diamond, thanks so much. Well, back in the U.S., members of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, including Republicans, say they

are not happy after the Pentagon's briefing on the war with Iran and plans for perhaps future action. Some Republicans say they didn't get enough

information about plans specifically involving the possibility of U.S. boots on the ground. This comes as roughly a thousand U.S. soldiers are

expected to deploy to the Middle East in the coming days, specifically paratroopers. This, according to two sources familiar with the matter,

speaking to CNN.

Lawmakers also still waiting for the White House to ask for a supplemental request, perhaps quite a large one, to fund the war effort. They're worried

about sky-high gas prices as well just months before midterm elections.

Joining me now is Republican Congressman Pete Sessions. Congressman, we do appreciate you taking the time this evening.

REP. PETE SESSIONS (R-TX): You bet.

SCIUTTO: Several of your Republican colleagues came out of the briefing for the Armed Services Committee, among them Nancy Mace as well as the

chairman, Roger is not satisfied with answers from the administration on plans going forward, including the possibility of a ground deployment. Do

you share those concerns?

SESSIONS: Well, I think -- I was not in the briefing. I think it's important to note that the people who are in the briefing have been from

the very beginning a part of the thinking of what is the plan, what is the expected response from the Iranians, what's the expected response from us,

how are other countries going to be involved.

And I think at this point there's a lot unknown, undone, that there -- it's not like we don't have a plan, it's that things were in flux during that

plan to take place. And I think that is something that for members of the Armed Services Committee to be able to sustain and to know how much money

you're going to bring that they think will be larger than smaller, how do we make sure that we deal with Israel and their needs and the things that

they want, who is calling the shot, who are our partners, where are the Saudis, where are a lot of people. And a lot of these things are really in

an unknown phase right now.

And that is what causes members of Congress, certainly those on the Armed Services Committee and the Intel Committee to want to second guess or to

say you need to know what those answers are if you're looking for us to be a part of it.

SCIUTTO: One question that they did not get a satisfying answer on was whether further disabling or even eliminating Iran's nuclear capabilities

was an explicit intention, goal of this war. They didn't get a straight answer on that. And that's even despite the fact that we've heard President

Trump say repeatedly that that is one of his goals.

Do you have an understanding as to whether eliminating or further limiting Iran's nuclear program is a goal of U.S. military action?

SESSIONS: Well, it should be a goal of the military action. But short term of that, we have to worry about the oil flow. We have to worry about the

Strait of Hormuz. We have to worry about not only our ability to effectively let commercial traffic through there, and this is the

conversation took place earlier in the week about how do we open up the ships to where they can get into the Gulf and then move product. This is

something that I think is the key.

But yet now we hear perhaps paratroopers, perhaps other people. I think that when you look at the complexity of the war, it brings up more

questions than answers.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Tell me about your feeling about the possibility of deploying U.S. forces on the ground, perhaps to Kharg Island. This has been

discussed quite openly.

[18:10:00]

It's CNN's reporting this evening that Iran has been boosting defenses on Kharg Island, including deploying shoulder-fired missiles to potentially

target any aircraft that would be used to transport U.S. forces there. Do you believe that that would be too risky? Would that be a bridge too far?

Do you want to see U.S. boots on the ground as the next phase of this operation?

SESSIONS: I think that the president has some limited opportunity as it is dealing with these because he does not want to turn this into another

Palestinian circumstance. He does not, in downtown Tehran or any other city, he wants to not go and bomb them into a circumstance that they could

not pick up their own leadership and move forward.

But Kharg Island is a different matter. Kharg Island is something that he made a key decision on not to bomb, not to ruin their facilities. But then

that became part of his threat, along with the other electrical generation that they have.

So, I think it's a circumstance where they're going to have to decide what are they trying to do. Are they trying to go after, as you suggested up

top, the uranium enrichment facilities, or are they going to go after doing something in the Gulf for the free flow of oil? And this is where it really

takes a lot of people to know originally what was the plan, how many missiles did they have, how many drones did they have, how many boats did

they have, and what has been taken off the table. But it's obvious to me that Kharg Island is going to be a battle.

SCIUTTO: Polling has shown that perhaps as much as two-thirds of Americans oppose the deployment of ground forces in this war. What do you hear from

your own constituents? Because, as you know, President Trump, when he was running for office, quite publicly said he would not get the U.S. involved

in another endless war. And I'm not saying this war will be endless, but part of that was driven by Americans' concern about U.S. casualties.

SESSIONS: Well, in fact, what the American people do recognize most clearly is Afghanistan and Baghdad. They remember Iraq. They remember the

long war. They remember what was being done and the American casualties, not just the military, but the cost of that war. I think now that the

American people have seen that, in fact, the Iranians are a very dangerous element, they continued to fund the Houthis and they continued to fund

Hezbollah, that are intent on doing the things that they do. That they have the arsenal that they have unleashed already is an indication they would

have used it. They've used it against their neighbors.

So, what do the American people, what do I hear back home? I hear back home, please make sure that you know what you're doing. We believe the

Iranians are a threat, but we also prefer not to be in a long war. And this is where the president is going to have to provide feedback about what the

real plan is, which is why members of Congress are saying, please tell us answers, so that we can then transmit this to the American people to give

them confidence.

SCIUTTO: As you know, the Strait of Hormuz was open before this war, and now Iran effectively has control over it due to the threats of drones and

sea mines, etc. Do you worry that the war created a problem that didn't exist before, that is, shutting the strait, which now the U.S. is in a

position where it has to apply even more military pressure to open it up? Do you worry about that strategically, that this war created a problem that

the U.S. now has to solve, and at risk to U.S. service members?

SESSIONS: Well, I think that it's certainly a humbling position for the American military to think that the might of the American military perhaps

either underestimated or did not have a better context about what would come at them. These drones that cost thousands of dollars against our

armaments that are millions of dollars in a war of attrition, obviously the drones win.

But I think that this administration is going to have to figure out, as we stated at the top, what is the goal here? Is the goal here to open back up

the Strait of Hormuz, which is where Israel's position would be, or is it to do away with their desire to bomb people?

[18:15:00]

They clearly have missiles. I don't know how many are left. We should have a better understanding about what is left in an arsenal against not only

the United States and our assets there, but also Israel and other friends that we have in the Gulf.

So, this is an equation that they are going to have to put their heads together and make that determination, go back to intelligence issues of

what has been spent, meaning what have the Iranians already sent at us or our friends and what they have left. I think it's a matter of attrition,

and I think that is why you heard conversation about needing more money.

We need to rearmament where we are. And we also have to remember, oh, we also have other friends in the world like Taiwan and Japan that we need to

make sure that we're paying attention to also.

SCIUTTO: Sure. And, of course, the ongoing war in Ukraine. Congressman Pete Sessions, we appreciate you taking the time this evening.

SESSIONS: Great. Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Well, joining me now here in Tel Aviv is Yaakov Katz. He's cofounder of Middle East America Dialogue, the author of the bestseller

While Israel Slept, as well as a senior columnist for the Jerusalem Post. Thanks so much for joining, taking the time tonight.

YAAKOV KATZ, CO-FOUNDER, MIDDLE EAST AMERICAN DIALOGUE AND AUTHOR, "WHILE ISRAEL SLEPT": Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: So, where do you see the U.S. and Israel this evening as the U.S. president talks, at least, about the possibility of negotiations, and

Israeli officials consistently express skepticism about the prospects for negotiations? Is there daylight between the two sides?

KATZ: No, I don't think I would characterize it as daylight in the sense that there's some tension, necessarily, but Israel is highly skeptical of

the prospect that there could be a deal. We saw this also in the run-up to what we've been seeing in this war when there was also the talk of maybe a

deal that could be reached, and Israel also then was highly skeptical, simply because of the fact that the Iranians won't give up their critical

assets, right? The 450 kilograms, for example, of high-enriched uranium. If this war ends with that still in the possession of the Iranians, that would

be a problem, right? That's enough for 11 potential nuclear weapons.

So, is that something that might happen? But if it doesn't happen, then what kind of deal are we talking about? So, there's a lot of skepticism

here. But I think that with that said, Israel's not going to go public and call out or come out against the president. We've seen an amazing alliance

here over the last three and a half, almost four weeks, and Israel's going to want to see that go forward.

SCIUTTO: You've described in weeks prior that there's been something of a division of labor in the military operations here, among those Israel's

focus on eliminating Iranian leaders, a U.S. focus increasingly now on operations to open the Strait of Hormuz. Does that division of labor

indicate a different definition of success in this war?

KATZ: Well, I think in the beginning the definition was joint, right? We want to try to degrade and weaken, take away, destroy the nuclear

capability, create greater security for the region, allies, bases, and of course Israel, and also that includes the ballistic missiles. Can we maybe

get to some sort of regime change? There was hope. There was the decapitation. Ali Khamenei, Larjani, and others hasn't worked out maybe the

way some people thought initially it would.

But I think right now what we're seeing is that for the Americans and definitely for Donald Trump, Strait of Hormuz is up there. It might even be

the most important priority right now. For the Israelis it's not. We understand the significance of it, but really if you ask the average

Israeli, probably until maybe two weeks ago they didn't even know what the Strait of Hormuz was. They care about the ballistic missiles, they care

about the nuclear, and they care about the potential support that the Iranians can continue to provide to Hezbollah and other proxies.

That difference of interest could lead maybe to the tension if we do see Strait of Hormuz is reopened, but the uranium remains in the hands of the

Iranians.

SCIUTTO: How about a difference in terms of stick-to-itiveness as it were? You commented early that perhaps the U.S., and by the way you weren't alone

in this, was in for a much shorter war, right? There was a lot of speculation in the U.S., and it's possible that that's what the president

wanted but didn't get it because Iran has shown a greater ability to survive this. But is there a different timeline then between the U.S. and

Israel that then would create some tension on how long to stay in this?

KATZ: I think Israel, if the prime minister could have his way, he would want this to carry on. I mean, yes, there are missiles that are landing and

they're being launched, and we have about a 90 percent successful interception rate, which is a big deal.

SCIUTTO: Which means some still get through, and that's why you and I have been in shelters today.

KATZ: Correct. And some still get through. But with that said, the price has not been enormous for the people of Israel.

[18:20:00]

And therefore, if we could keep this going with the American involvement and continue to exact a price from the Iranians, I think Israel would want

that to keep going, to try to get to that regime change. The president, though, has a different calculation, has different interests, and therefore

he has a different timeline.

But look, Jim, we've been down this road already a few times. Who would have believed it would take three weeks? Who would have believed that this

was going to happen? Who would have thought back in June it would have happened in the 12-day war? So, even now with the talk of new talks, is it

deception? Is it real? We'll have to wait to see.

SCIUTTO: You and I could have been having this conversation four weeks ago about the diplomatic track, and of course the President chose to go the

military path.

KATZ: Exactly.

SCIUTTO: So, we'll see what happens here. Yaakov Katz, pleasure to have you on.

KATZ: Thank you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Coming up, a landmark verdict in California could shake up Silicon Valley. We're going to discuss exactly why.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: A landmark verdict in California could now reshape social media. A jury found that Meta and YouTube were liable for a combined $6 million in

damages. That is just one case, though, involving a 20-year-old who claims the platforms harmed her mental health. The case accused the companies of

building platforms designed to become addictive. Both Meta and Google say they will appeal the verdict. The case, though, seen as a bellwether for

thousands of other cases across the U.S. The plaintiff's lead attorney says the verdict could have major repercussions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK LANDER, PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY: There are so many families who've been tragically hurt through the addiction of social media. We've sent a message

with this that you will be held accountable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Joining me now, CNN Media Analyst Sara Fischer. And, Sara, I suppose the headline here is not so much a $3 million verdict or $6 million

combined for the companies, for companies that have, well, you know, incalculable funds, but that there are many other cases like this that I

suppose might win as well.

SARA FISCHER, CNN MEDIA ANALYST: Exactly right, Jim. And so, that $3 million, if you apply it to the 3,000 outstanding cases, starts to add up.

But the real thing here is that what this trial showed is that tech platforms don't have broad immunity for liability of what's on their

platforms. For so long, they operated like they did.

[18:25:00]

And now, for the first time, they're really being checked on that. The hope that the plaintiffs have is that this is going to force some changes at the

big tech companies, force them to reconsider when they're putting out new features that might be addicting or sort of manipulative to young users.

SCIUTTO: And that was the line here from plaintiffs. They argued that the case was about product design, that the algorithm, in effect, designed to

bring people together. So, you can't put that phone down, which I think, you know, some of us who have used these platforms might understand that

logic. Can you explain how that argument played out in court?

FISCHER: Yes. So, they take a look at the way that videos in particular are surfaced on these platforms, that one comes sequentially after another,

and that it's algorithmically tailored to your personal interests in order to make sure that it's as addicting as possible and that you're spending as

much time on the platform.

This case was also interesting because they pointed to some other features like filters, Jim, or photos that you overlay onto photos of yourself to

make you look, you know, different. One of the filters that they called out was the beauty filter, which makes you look more beautiful. They said that

could be very toxic to young users.

And then the last thing that this case pointed out was it's not just that they had these addictive features, but that they knew that they had these

addictive features, and they didn't warn their users or do anything to stop them. That was a huge part of this case.

SCIUTTO: And legally, those features could cause measurable psychological harm. From a legal perspective, that's a pathway for other potential jury

verdicts, is it not?

FISCHER: Yes, and what's really interesting about that is a lot of people like to draw a comparison to big tobacco with social media. We have a

scientific way of proving addiction when it comes to big tobacco.

And so, trying to put that same type of terminology, a scientific term like addiction, here is really difficult. That's why it's more about assessing

the damages of harm as opposed to saying definitively that this is addictive or not addictive. You noted at the top of this conversation that

there were $3 million in damages, which is pretty small.

But one thing I want to know is that actually it was $3 million to the plaintiff. There was another $3 million in damages that were awarded here.

And so, I think that for all those thousands of cases moving forward, you're not just looking at the money that these tech platforms have to pay

to plaintiffs. You're also looking at the money that they have to pay to sort of pay the damages, if you will, for the behaviors of these companies,

and that's significant.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Well, and we'll see if that leads to change, right, change in these platforms. Media analyst Sara Fischer, thanks so much for joining.

FISCHER: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: And now, back to our top story with the U.S. proposing a multipoint, 15-point peace plan. Where does that leave Israel's view of

potential negotiations, but also crucially, its military campaign? I'll be joined by foreign policy adviser to the Israeli prime minister next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back to "The Brief." I'm Jim Sciutto live in Tel Aviv. And here are the international headlines we're watching today.

Meta and Google have been found liable of creating addictive and harmful social media platforms. The U.S. jury decided in favor of a 20-year-old and

her mother who accused the companies of negligence. Meta and Google were ordered to pay six million dollars in total damages. Both companies say

they'll appeal the verdict.

President Trump says he has rescheduled his trip to China for mid-May. He's now set to meet with the Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing on May

14th and 15th. The trip postponed because of the ongoing Iran war. Trump says President Xi will then come to the U.S. for a visit later this year.

The White House says talks with Iran are proceeding even after Tehran itself did not immediately accept Washington's 15-point plan to end the

war. Two Trump administration sources say the U.S. is working now to arrange a meeting in Pakistan. Iran's foreign minister said that

Washington's shift in tone amounts to an acknowledgement of failure in the war. The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday that

quote the broader campaign against Iran is still underway despite the media reports.

Joining me now for more is Dr. Ophir Falk. He's a foreign policy adviser to the prime minister. Thanks so much for joining.

OPHIR FALK, FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER FOR BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Thanks for having me, Jim.

SCIUTTO: So, first we've heard from Israeli officials and there's been some public comments to this effect that Israel is skeptical that Iran is

in any position or has any genuine desire to negotiate. Can you explain why that is in your view?

FALK: Well, Iran always lies. We've learned that, they always lie. But more importantly our objective is to remove the existential threat posed by

this Ayatollah regime. The best way of doing that is to remove the regime. Another way of doing that is to decimate their capabilities decimate their

military capabilities until they get to the Stone Age more or less. A third way, and the president obviously thinks that's an alternative, is by

negotiations. Those three methods are not mutually exclusive. Actually, to the contrary we can do all three at once. And that's what we're doing.

SCIUTTO: Now, there was similar discussion before the start of the war as you know the diplomatic track and the military track. Of course, the

president and Israel decided four weeks ago that the negotiation was not a viable path. Do you believe that has fundamentally changed is that Iran is

weaker and therefore more likely to come to agreement?

FALK: Well, it changed by the fact that Iran has been hit so hard and it's weaker than it's ever been before. But again, in terms of negotiations

we've learned that for 47 years they've lied. They've lied throughout all their negotiations. You can even see it in this war. They said they didn't

have ballistic missiles that could reach more than a thousand kilometers. They reached Diego Garcia. They can reach Europe.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has been saying that for decades. They're going to reach Europe with ballistic missiles and that's what's happening today. The

world understands. The world understands that Iran is blackmailing the world right now with the oil, with the Hormuz Straits. And if they had --

that would be like actually like peanuts compared to the blackmail they could do if they had nukes.

So, the world understands what we're doing. And I think we're doing a huge service to freedom and to the free world.

SCIUTTO: If Iran always lies, in your view, is that a message you're communicating, that the prime minister is communicating to the U.S.

president, saying, listen, it's a waste of your time to go down the diplomatic path?

[18:35:00]

FALK: Well, if anybody can do a deal with Prime Minister Trump -- or sorry, President Trump can do a deal. But again, based on past -- based on

the history, they've always lied. They've lied about their ambitions for nuclear weapons. They've lied about their ambitions for ballistic weapons.

And for 47 years, they've been calling death to America, death to Israel. They slaughtered their people on the streets. They slaughtered 30,000

people within a number of days on the streets of Tehran.

So, I don't think this is a regime that can be trusted. And I'm sure that the Iranian people don't want to replace one ayatollah with another

ayatollah. And we're creating we're actually creating the conditions for the Iranian people to take their destiny in their own hands.

SCIUTTO: But they have not yet, right? And I think one could understand why Iranians might not rise up against the government given the price and

blood they paid in January. Was that an unrealistic hope both for Israeli leaders and U.S. leaders to imagine that this campaign would then lead the

people to risk their lives again?

FALK: I wouldn't bet against the Iranian people, and that they're very brave people. But at the end of the day, again, it's up to them. It's up to

them. We can create the conditions. We've hit the regime like it's never been hit before. They're weaker than they've ever been before. And we're

decimating their capabilities, their nuclear capabilities, their ballistic missile capabilities. We've taken out thousands of missiles, hundreds of

launchers. We've taken out their leadership. It's not the same Iran. It's not the same Iran.

Maybe they will do a deal with the president and capitulate. I don't know. But we're going to do whatever it takes to defend Israel.

SCIUTTO: Is there any daylight between the definition of victory in this war? Because as you know, the president is quite focused on reopening the

Strait of Hormuz. That's less of a priority to Israel. And Israel seems more focused on existential issues, as you describe them. Could that create

disagreement as to what is success in this war?

FALK: First of all, I think we've been very successful today. And I have not seen any daylight between the president and the prime minister. I have

seen zero daylight between the president of the United States and our prime minister, Prime Minister Netanyahu. I've never seen cooperation

coordination between two world leaders like we have in this war. I've never seen such cooperation between two armed forces like the Israeli armed

forces and the American armed forces. I think it's an epic tag team. I haven't seen anything like this in the history of warfare. And we can only

thank that.

SCIUTTO: Well, but tell me then, what would it -- for the prime minister or for you, what would you need to see to say, we've done our job, we won

this war? What would you need to see? Would you need to see regime change? Would you need to see zero missiles getting fired? Because, as you know,

you know, I was in the shelters three times today. They maintain some ability to fire missiles. What is the definition of victory from Israel's

perspective?

FALK: Again, our objective is to remove the existential threat posed by this ayatollah regime. Both their nuclear capabilities and their ballistic

missile capabilities. If they can still fire ballistic missiles on civilians which is what they're doing. They're trying to murder civilians

around the clock. That's what they do. If they have that capability then that's not enough.

But we're going to -- we're hitting them like they've never been hit before. And we're going to continue to hit them until we reach our

objective.

SCIUTTO: If the president declares a ceasefire on Friday say or if he feels that there's enough potential in talks in Pakistan if they happen,

would Israel stop firing on Iran?

FALK: Well, so far, we've been in a perfect partnership. A great alliance where -- you know, the Americans call us the model ally, which we are. And

the United States it's an indispensable ally for Israel. Again, we've cooperated and coordinated fully on this war like no armies have ever done

before. And I think we'll continue to do that.

SCIUTTO: Even if the president sees potential for talks where Israel does not?

FALK: Well, again, we have nothing against reaching our objectives through American negotiations. We're doing everything in parallel and we'll reach

our objective. We'll win. It'll be a clear victory. And I think we've already done incredible things and we'll continue to do that.

SCIUTTO: Dr. Ophir Falk, we appreciate you joining the program.

FALK: Thank you, Jim. Thanks so much.

SCIUTTO: Coming up just after the break, Iran's Gulf neighbors speak out against the ongoing threat of military strikes. We're going to hear the

view of a former Jordanian foreign minister about how he believes a ceasefire should proceed.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:00]

SCIUTTO: Much like Israel, Gulf Arab states say they face an existential threat from Iran and are condemning attacks by Iran on their

infrastructure. Tehran targeted its Gulf neighbors to pressure Washington to stop this war, but instead those nations are now banding together

further, asking the U.N. now to monitor the situation.

On Wednesday, the U.N. human rights chief said these attacks could count as war crimes. The Iranian ambassador defended his country, though, before the

leaders of those Gulf nations.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALI BAHREINI, IRANIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: The responsibility for these attacks lies not only with those who carried out those attacks, but also

with those who facilitated, supported, and encouraged them. Iran considers it, it's why it's trying to respond to attacks at their resource and to

prevent any repetition of aggression.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: As the crossfire continues, the U.K. says that its jets intercepted drones in defense of Bahrain and are also supporting Jordan.

Earlier in the conflict, Jordanian air defenses intercepted ballistic missiles as the capital, Amman, was rocked by loud explosions. I heard some

of those air raid signals over Amman just yesterday.

Joining me now is Marwan Muasher, a former Jordanian foreign minister, now vice president for studies at Carnegie, for media studies at the Carnegie

Endowment for International Peace. Thanks so much for joining. We appreciate you taking the time.

MARWAN MUASHER, FORMER JORDANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: So, we're hearing quite different reads from Washington and here in Tel Aviv about the possibility of substantive peace negotiations. I

wonder, how does Jordan, how do other Arab countries view the prospects for a negotiated end of this war?

MUASHER: Jim, first I want to say that neither Jordan nor Gulf states wanted the war to start from the beginning. The U.S. strategy was not

clear, is still not clear. Is it regime change that requires boots on the ground? Is it decimating the nuclear capability of Iran? President Trump

said it did eight months ago. So, all of this is not clear.

There is no question that Gulf states are extremely angry at Iran today because it has targeted not just the military installations, but the

civilian installations in the Gulf. And this is what the Gulf has always been worried about. But there is also no question that Gulf countries are

also angry at the U.S. because they feel it has not protected them. All these U.S. bases in the Gulf have not prevented these Iranian attacks.

[18:45:00]

And in fact, after, you know, the number of missile attacks in the Gulf have only been superseded by the attacks on Israel. The UAE has been hit

hard. Kuwait has been hit hard. Qatar has been hit hard. So, there is a dual anger, if you want, targeted both at Iran for doing so and in doing

so, actually, you know, negating any possibility of a rapprochement between Gulf states and Iran after the war. But there is also anger at the U.S. for

not protecting these Gulf countries.

SCIUTTO: Is Iran, in at least one respect, stronger today than at the start of the war in that it now, some say, maintains effective control over

the Strait of Hormuz? In other words, is that a power that the war in effect granted them?

MUASHER: I think what the Iranians have been able to do so far is to shift the focus from one on military capabilities to one of political endurance.

And so, far they have endured. And by enduring, they have not lost. If you look at the conflict in terms of military capabilities, of course, the

Iranians lost most of their capability. Some estimates go as far as 80 or 85 percent.

But by enduring for so long and by not having regime change be affected in Iran, they can claim that they have not lost. This idea that Iran might be

Venezuela 2.0 where you decapitate the leader and then the whole regime falls has been proven, of course, very false. The Iranian regime is

extremely entrenched. We have not seen what many have hoped for, which is to see a unified opposition rise against the Iranian regime. That has not

happened. And there are no indications that it is going to happen anytime soon.

And so, without regime change, the region is going to be faced with a dual threat after the war, an Iranian threat, a weakened and isolated Iran, but

an Iran nevertheless without regime change, and frankly, an Israeli threat. Today Israel feels emboldened to go further than Iran, to go into South

Lebanon, to continue its expansionist policies in the West Bank and annex the West Bank.

I was very intrigued to hear your guest right now when you asked him whether Israel is going to stop if the U.S. and Iran come to a peaceful

settlement. And he evaded the question completely. And it is precisely because Israel does not intend to stop.

SCIUTTO: You have made comparisons to post first Gulf War to 1991 and that there was a military victory, but no plan for after the fact. Do you see

some of those parallels now in a surviving Iranian regime in terms of its ability to continue to threaten the region?

MUASHER: I've heard estimates from, you know, very trusted sources that if there is no regime change in Iran, and I don't expect that one will take

place, that Iran might be able to rebuild its capability in two years.

That is the problem we are facing today. We're now faced with an Iranian threat that was potential in the past and now is actual against Gulf

states. We are facing an Iranian threat through its proxies in the Middle East, whether it is Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Houthis in Yemen or the

Shiite armed groups in Iraq. But we are also faced with an Israeli threat, which threatens to annex most of the West Bank, and the Israelis are not

hiding this fact, which threatens into invading South Lebanon and staying there. And that can happen any time. That is what the region is facing

after the war.

In 1991, you know, George Bush Sr. decided not to march into Baghdad, asked the Iraqi population to rise, and when they did, they were massacred by the

Saddam Hussein regime at that time. That was only 30 years ago. People don't forget. And so, any hopes of an Iranian opposition rising against the

regime, I think, have been proved false so far.

The difference between 1991 and now is that George Bush Sr. understood that in order to defuse the tension in the region -- you know, the region needed

a political process to be able to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict, and thus, the Madrid process began.

[18:50:00]

There is no such process today. Neither President Trump is interested in, you know, a long-term solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and for sure

Israel is not interested in a solution to the conflict in the Middle East. On the contrary, what we are facing and seeing today is an Israel that

wants to grab more land and establish itself militarily in the region indefinitely.

SCIUTTO: Right. Yes, leaning on the military solutions. Marwan Muasher, we appreciate you joining.

MUASHER: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Well, still ahead, Asian governments are now rolling out emergency measures to deal with an even worsening global oil crisis, from

shorter showers to factory closures. How Asia is coping, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Just there, a powerful Israeli airstrike hitting a refugee camp inside Gaza. At least one Palestinian was killed, seven others injured in

the attack. The U.N. says two-thirds of Gaza's population continues to live in tents or damaged buildings six months after a ceasefire agreement. Just

no rebuilding visible there.

Well, the rise in energy costs due to the Iran war is hitting Asian economies especially hard due to their overwhelming reliance on oil

imports. Countries across the region are now issuing emergency measures to help deal with the supply and price shocks. Our Kristie Lu Stout has the

story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KRISTIE LU STOUT, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The Philippines has become the first country in the world to declare a state of national energy

emergency, thanks to a war thousands of miles away. Long lines snake out of Manila's gas stations, and soaring fuel prices have left some of Manila's

jeepney drivers uncertain how long they can stay on the road.

JOSEPH ORINION, JEEPNEY DRIVER (through translator): Instead of being able to bring home the earnings, it goes to pay for a diesel what's left for us

is very little.

STOUT (voice-over): It's all down to the U.S. and Israel's war with Iran, which has closed the Strait of Hormuz to all but a handful of ships.

STOUT: Asia is especially vulnerable to the supply shocks that's caused. It consumes more than 80 percent of the oil that crosses the strait.

STOUT (voice-over): In South Korea, the president has called for a 12- point country wide energy saving campaign, people are being asked to take shorter showers, charge their phones during the day rather than overnight.

And only use their washing machines and vacuum cleaners at weekends.

Fuel shortages have also caused some of Asia's flagship carriers to consider suspending flights, while India's textile industry has been

impacted.

[18:55:00]

India imports around half of its oil from the Middle East. And shortages have started to cause some factories to close or use carbon fuels, and some

residents to abandon their kitchens.

The cost of gas is so high we are cooking on this open-air stove. This woman tells us. She is far from alone.

People are queuing to fill gas cylinders and fuel tanks across Asia.

From Kathmandu, Nepal to Colombo in Sri Lanka, where authorities have declared every Wednesday a public holiday for government institutions,

including schools, but exempting hospitals to manage energy resources. And it's not just fuel shortages that are causing hardship. Thai farmers say

there's a social stigma too.

THEERASIN TANACHAWAROJN, THAI FARMER (through translator): When we bring containers to buy fuel, people look at us and accuse farmers of hoarding.

We simply can't handle the costs anymore. Rice prices haven't risen with the costs.

STOUT (voice-over): Even Thailand, cities are not immune. The Thai government has ordered government employees to lower office air

conditioning, to save energy, and ditch suits and ties to keep cool. That edict even applies to news anchors.

Kristie Lu Stout, CNN, Hong Kong.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: The ripple effects of this war around the world. Thanks so much for joining us this evening. I'm Jim Sciutto, live in Tel Aviv. You've been

watching "The Brief." Please do stay with CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:00:00]

END