Return to Transcripts main page
The Brief with Jim Sciutto
CNN International: New Round of U.S. Strikes on Iran; Yemen's Houthis Declare Blockade on Saudi Shipping; Hamas Names Khalil Al-Hayya as New Overall Leader; Mamdani: Looking into Possibility of Arresting Netanyahu; Andy Burnham Replaces Starmer as U.K. PM; The State of the U.S.- China A.I. Rivalry; U.S. State Department Vows to Dismantle ICC; Spain's World Cup Victory Lap. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired July 20, 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 in Washington, and
you're watching "The Brief."
Just ahead this hour, the U.S. launches more strikes on Iran as President Trump vows retribution for the deaths of American service members. Andy
Burnham becomes Britain's new prime minister, promising sweeping changes to tackle political dysfunction. And Spain's World Cup victory over Argentina
celebrated back home with a parade through Madrid. Those stories and plenty more coming up.
The U.S. once again launching a fresh wave of military strikes on Iran as President Donald Trump warns Tehran will pay for killing three U.S. service
members in recent days. The U.S. military says it is now targeting Iranian military capabilities used to attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz.
Witnesses heard explosions near the strait, according to Iranian state media.
U.S. Army has now identified two of the fallen service members killed in an Iranian strike on Jordan, 25-year-old First Lieutenant Tyler Feehan and
Private Isabella Gonzales, who was just 19 years old. The U.S. is sending more aircraft to the Middle East as the risk of a prolonged regional
conflict is growing by the day.
Houthi rebels in Yemen have declared their own maritime blockade, this one on Saudi shipping through the Red Sea. It's a separate issue, but the
Houthis' alliance with Iran could tangle the region in two conflicts.
Joining us now from the White House is Kristen Holmes. And, Kristen, as the U.S. expands these strikes and most recently in retaliation for the deaths
of U.S. service members, when you speak to White House officials, do they still believe the strategy of military pressure plus a hope of returning to
the negotiating table is working? I mean, do they still see one leading to the other?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's unclear whether or not they see it's working, but it does appear to be what they
are continuing to move forward with. I mean, President Trump now, he has ordered a 10th consecutive day of these strikes on Iran. And we do know
that the military action is something the president and the White House believe does put pressure on Iran.
Now, one of the other things, and I know we reported this last week, is that they believe that this blockade in the Strait of Hormuz is something
that puts an extreme amount of pressure on Iran, particularly when it comes to what they believe is a chokehold on Iran's economy. And so, that likely
is also another way that they are trying to pressure Iran back to the negotiating table.
And if you listen to Secretary of State Marco Rubio or any of these other top U.S. officials, they are continuing to leave the door open for some
kind of diplomacy, saying that they are not walking away from negotiations, but that Iran has to come and come in good faith. And that diplomacy is
always on the table.
Now, we do know that President Trump is increasingly angry, particularly about the deaths of American soldiers. He will attend that dignified
transfer tomorrow night of those fallen soldiers. So, whether or not that plays a role in how long these strikes are going to occur for, that is what
we are waiting to see.
And it is still unclear what the endgame is here. We know President Trump had looked for a diplomatic off-ramp. We know that he still wants to be out
of this war, as does the entire administration. I mean, I do want to just note, the most recent poll shows that 68 percent of Americans do not
believe the war is worth fighting. That means only 28 percent believe that it is worth fighting.
So, this is not a winning issue for President Trump. He'd rather be focused on affordability or a number of other issues, particularly as they head
into November and into those midterm elections. But right now, they are still considering expanding the war on Iran, and at least talking openly,
or at least U.S. officials are talking openly about this prospect. And that includes, as we reported earlier today, sending more U.S. military
aircrafts to the Middle East from European airbases, F-16, F-35s, aerial, the aerial tankers that are for refueling.
All of that, part of this effort either to, one, pressure them, but also, two, in what there is, what our U.S. officials are saying is to punish them
for breaking the ceasefire and now, of course, for the deaths of these U.S. troops.
[18:05:00]
SCIUTTO: And listen, you know, as you put more forces in the region, that puts more U.S. service members potentially in the line of fire, right? The
U.S. service members, a big reminder this weekend.
But before we go, the U.S. has previously been engaged in military attacks on Houthi rebels because of their attacks on shipping through the Red Sea.
The Trump administration eventually calculated that they were just expending too much ammunition, missiles, et cetera. Are they considering
opening up a new front against the Houthis if they follow through on this threat?
HOLMES: It doesn't seem at this point, it doesn't seem at this point that that's something that they're willing to do. We do have to continue to
remind our viewers, even though what they are seeing play out in terms of military action, President Trump and the administration does not want to
expand those military operations.
I mean, just last week, we heard questions about President Trump threatening to expand military operations. And then when asked
specifically, would you send troops on the ground? Would you try to take Kharg Island? Kind of blew off the idea at one point after one saying yes,
then later saying, why would I do that? We have plenty of capabilities as it is. That's just a small microcosm of what we're seeing across the board.
And to your question, the administration doesn't want to expand its military operations. It wants to continue to shrink those military
operations. But right now, there's no real other way that they see in reacting to what Iran has done in terms of violating the ceasefire and
killing U.S. troops. And that is why you're seeing this 10th consecutive day now.
SCIUTTO: Kristen Holmes at the White House, thanks so much.
HOLMES: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: Well, also in the region, Hamas has now elected a new leader for the first time since the killing of Yahya Sinwar in Gaza in October 2024.
Militant group announced Khalil al-Hayya, who serves as the group's chief negotiator during ceasefire talks with Israel, will now lead Hamas. This
comes just two weeks after Hamas announced it would dissolve its government in Gaza.
Palestinians are trying to preserve an archaeological site in the West Bank, which dates back thousands of years. They say Israel is interrupting
their efforts, while the Israeli government accuses Palestinians of simply not protecting the site from looters. Jeremy Diamond has this report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On this West Bank hilltop, a battle over the past will shape the future. And archaeology
is the weapon of choice.
DIAMOND: So, this is the line right here?
ZAID AZHARI, SEBASTIA HISTORIAN: Yes, exactly. The first line of these columns, it's an area sea. But it's the area sea started.
DIAMOND: And so, what does that mean for Palestinians in this area?
AZHARI: It's mean that we are losing our heart by losing this area and not having access to our agricultural fields and our archaeological sites.
DIAMOND (voice-over): Sebastia is an archaeological treasure, home to thousands of years of Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman history. It is now
enmeshed in the fabric and economy of the Palestinian town of the same name, but risks being cut off from it.
AZHARI: If we looked at the examples we had already, maybe they will build a wall. Who knows?
DIAMOND (voice-over): It is also home to ruins from the ancient kingdom of Israel.
DIAMOND: Archaeologists say, these ruins date back to the ninth century B.C., part of the capital city of the ancient kingdom of Israel. And now,
the current Israeli government wants to use these ruins as a justification for seizing hundreds of acres of land on an archaeological site that
includes ruins from many other periods in history.
DIAMOND (voice-over): The goal, an Israeli tourist site with a focus on its Jewish heritage. The man behind that project is far right heritage
minister Amichai Eliyahu, who has, among other things, said he would be open to nuking Gaza. He says Palestinians have failed to preserve the site
and protect it from looters.
DIAMOND: In order to protect the site, why is it necessary to expropriate privately held Palestinian lands?
AMICHAI ELIYAHU, ISRAELI HERITAGE MINISTER (through translator): The area is Israeli territory. It belongs to the Jewish people. It is not occupied.
I am not willing to have the story of the Jewish people destroyed, sabotaged, robbed, dismantled, or erased.
DIAMOND (voice-over): But Palestinians say, it's Israel standing in the way of efforts to rehabilitate these ruins.
AZHARI: We tried to do a rehabilitation, an urgent and emergency rehabilitation. During the work, settlers, soldiers came, they stopped all
the labors.
ALON ARAD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, EMEK SHAVEH: So, they keep on repeating this argument that the Palestinians are destroying archaeological remains
but have not shown any data to support it.
[18:10:00]
DIAMOND (voice-over): Alon Arad leads a group of Israeli archaeologists fighting against what they say are the real intentions of this government
and Eliyahu.
ARAD: He doesn't care about antiques. He wants to annex. It's not about the site. It's the ability to use the site as a weapon, as an instrument to
take more land, to shrink this Palestinian space.
DIAMOND (voice-over): The Palestinian Authority, supported by archaeologists like Arad, has filed an emergency petition to designate
Sebastia as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
ELIYAHU (through translator): UNESCO can say whatever it wants. If it tries to go against the truth and invent narratives here, it will not
succeed.
DIAMOND: It seems like ultimately, you are trying to strengthen Israel's position on the grounds in that territory.
ELIYAHU (through translator): The land is irrevocable. The facts irrevocable, that we let them erase our heritage? The facts are that this
is the land of our fathers and mothers.
DIAMOND (voice-over): Palestinians are also deeply rooted in this land, like the olive trees, Sebastia's families have cultivated amid the ruins
for generations.
AZHARI: This is everything for us. I cannot imagine Sebastian without archaeological site. It's like your children, you cannot like leave one of
them. This is the heart of people of Sebastia and Sebastia at the same time.
DIAMOND (voice-over): Jeremy Diamond, CNN, Sebastia, the West Bank.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: The politics of the Middle East, very much headline news in New York City as well, as President Trump says what he thinks about New York
Mayor Zohran Mamdani's suggestion. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, could be arrested if he were to step foot in New York City.
There is, of course, the United Nations General Assembly coming up in September. President Trump posted online that Prime Minister Netanyahu,
quote, "Will not be arrested in any way, shape or form," end quote, while in the U.S. Mamdani reiterated today that the Israeli leader should be held
accountable.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZOHRAN MAMDANI (D), MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: We're speaking about someone who's the subject of an international criminal court arrest warrant. And
he's the subject of this arrest warrant for alleged crimes against humanity, for war crimes. And he's the architect of the genocide against
Palestinians in Gaza as Israel's prime minister. These are not facts of my personal assessment. They are facts of public record. What I've also made
clear is that my administration will follow all applicable local laws.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Joining me now is the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon. Ambassador, thanks so much for joining the program.
DANNY DANON, ISRAELI AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: Thank you for having me, Jim.
SCIUTTO: So, as we look at the comments from the New York mayor, I wonder, does that threat affect at all the prime minister's considerations about
his travel plans either to New York or to other places that say they would abide by ICC arrest warrants?
DANON: Jim, the declaration of the mayor is baseless. We all know it. It's a stunt. He wants to distract the attention from his failures running the
city. And he picks on the prime minister. He knows the law, like all of us. You know, the U.S. is not a part of the ICC, so the warrant here is not
effective. Moreover, there's an agreement between the U.N. and the U.S., the host country, that allow leaders to come to speak at the U.N.
I will remind you a few of the dictators, not that I'm comparing anyone, but you know you had Ahmadinejad, Muammar Gaddafi, Yasser Arafat, and a
leader of a democracy will not be able to come to the U.N. We know it will happen. Prime Minister Netanyahu will come to the U.N., will speak in the
General Assembly, will defend our country.
And if you want to arrest someone, I think we should arrest Mayor Mamdani, because he continues to incite against Israel, promote antisemitism,
support terrorism. Only a few days ago, he actually spoke about the terrorists that we killed, and he called him an innocent journalist. And
two days ago, he sent his commissioner to meet with the Iranian ambassador in the U.N. So, we know it's politics, and we thank President Trump for his
clarification. The prime minister will come to the U.N., and will continue to represent us.
SCIUTTO: As you know, though, the New York mayor is not the only U.S. lawmaker who has criticized the conduct of the war in Gaza and elsewhere.
As you know, nearly half of House Democrats voted this week to end U.S. aid to Israel. Are you concerned that Israel is losing not just American
lawmakers, but some of the American public?
DANON: Well, first, Jim, let me surprise you. It is legitimate to criticize Israel. You know, in Israel, we have a vibrant democracy. We
criticize one each other 24/7. So, we are open for criticism, and we don't have to agree all the time with our allies. But you should use the same
standards that you use in any other cases.
So, we will continue our dialogue with our friends in Washington, in the administration. We will continue to cooperate with the American people. At
the end of the day, we share the same values, the same principles, and also the same enemies.
[18:15:00]
SCIUTTO: I want to turn now, if we can, to what appears to be another escalation of the war in Iran. CNN has reported that the Trump
administration wanted to limit Israel's involvement during these latest strikes to avoid further broadening the conflict. And I wonder what your
reaction is to that. And are the Israel and the U.S. still fully aligned with the Iran War strategy?
DANON: We are aligned. We trust the judgment of President Trump in handling the situation. You know, we are very skeptical about the Iranians.
Because we know that when they say something, they are lying, even when they sign an agreement like they did in the past with the JCPO, they lied
to the world. So, we are more skeptical.
And our main message is that if anyone thinks that they will target the Israelis and there will be no response, he's mistaken. So, if Iran will
decide to attack us again, we will respond immediately. And it will be a severe response, a painful one.
SCIUTTO: I wonder what your assessment is at this point of the success of the war. Because during my time in Israel, when I was meeting with Israeli
officials, they made quite clear that for the war to be successful, that a primary objective was to end Iran's nuclear program. And that hasn't
happened. And the new focus seems to be on solving a problem that didn't exist so explicitly prior to the war, and that is Iranian threats to
traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. If the war were to end today, would it be a success, in Israel's view?
DANON: Well, first, we have to acknowledge that we had an imminent threat coming from Iran. They were very close to achieve their goal of obtaining
nuclear power. And it's not the case. You know, we pushed them. It would take them years to rebuild those capabilities. But it's not over. You know,
we had three main goals before the war. One was the nuclear capabilities. The second was the ballistic missiles. And the third is the proxies.
So, I think it's too early to decide whether we accomplished all the goals. But I think we were able to push them back from where they were. And that's
meaningful. It's important. But we are still monitoring very carefully what's happening on the ground in Iran.
SCIUTTO: Ambassador Danny Danon, you're always welcome on the program.
DANON: Thank you, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Ten years, seven leaders and new promises to deliver desperately needed change. We're going to discuss a new British prime minister, Andy
Burnham, and his vision for his country.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:20:00]
SCIUTTO: New British prime minister, Andy Burnham, is promising sweeping changes and an end to political chaos. The Labour Party leader replaced
Keir Starmer at 10 Downing Street on Monday, you see him there, to become the seventh British Prime Minister in just about a decade.
Burnham is appointing his first cabinet, turning to former Defense Secretary John Healey to become the new Chancellor. Ed Miliband has been
promoted to Foreign Secretary and Shabana Mahmood will remain as the Home Secretary.
Lewis Goodall is a British journalist co-hosting the News Agents podcast. Lewis, good to have you.
LEWIS GOODALL, CO-HOST, "THE NEWS AGENTS" PODCAST: Thank you very much, my pleasure.
SCIUTTO: So, it was notable to hear Burnham say he will announce a 10-year plan for the country. I wonder, do you and others in the U.K. think he's
going to last 10 months in the current environment? I mean, the lifespan of a U.K. prime minister has not been particularly long in recent years.
GOODALL: No, we used to mock Italy for this sort of thing, now Britain's British politics has turned into Italian politics with worse weather. Look,
recent prime ministers have often talked about 10-year plans, and as you say, very often they've lasted sometimes barely a fifth as long as that.
I think it's fair to say that for the rest of this Parliament, which could last until 2029, I think it's very unlikely, bar some unseen catastrophe,
that there will be a new prime minister. The Labour Party knows that it has put all of its cards, it's put all of its chips on Andy Burnham. They can't
be replacing a prime minister for a second time in this Parliament.
So, if Andy Burnham wants to, he could be prime minister, most likely, for the next three years. The big question, I think, which is going to envelop
British politics over the next few months, assuming that Andy Burnham gets a bit of a polling bounce, and there's every indication to believe that he
probably will. He is a much more popular figure, at least for the beginning, than Keir Starmer was. Keir Starmer, for all sorts of reasons
that maybe need not disdain us, become almost despised by the British public.
If he does enjoy a bit of a polling bounce, then I think there will be more and more speculation as to whether there could be a general election within
the next 12 months or so. There is another good reason for that as well, which Andy Burnham, you've already said it there, in talking about a 10-
year plan of transformation, in talking about turning the page on a 40- year, what he calls kind of neoliberal settlement in Britain, that requires potentially much bigger changes than were involved or outlined in the 2024
Labour manifesto that Keir Starmer was elected on.
So, if he's going to make a real handbrake turn in policy and politics and all sorts of directions over the next 12 months, for reasons of legitimacy
and authority, I think that those clack-clamor for an election will get louder.
SCIUTTO: I mean, the thing is, particularly if he was to call an early election, he has to develop an appealing message that could win, because
when I talk to a lot of folks in the U.K., they're deeply concerned that the Reform Party could win the next cycle, and you have Nigel Farage as
your new prime minister.
GOODALL: That's true, and one of the principal, if not the principal reason, that Andy Burnham is prime minister now, and we should just take a
step back, particularly for a lot of your viewers around the world who won't be aware of all the details.
You know, this guy, it's not unusual for Britain to replace prime ministers in the middle of a Parliament. We don't obviously have a presidential
system, but what is unusual is that this guy wasn't even a Member of Parliament six weeks ago.
You know, he was elected in a special election or a by-election. He was basically put in as a kind of break glass in case of emergency kind of
option for the Labour Party. They were so scared, terrified by existential angst, really, by the local and regional elections that we had in Britain
in May, by, as you say, the Reform Party, the populist sort of hard-right party led by Nigel Farage.
They were so scared of not just losing to him, but potentially being destroyed by him, that they looked for a very kind of American style,
really, kind of someone who wasn't in Westminster, sort of king over the hill, who could come in and sort of clean up town, and that is very unusual
in British politics, but it's also true to say that even in that time, for lots of reasons, the Reform Party led by Nigel Farage, they've actually
been going down in the polls.
So, if Burnham does enjoy a vote over the next six months, and he can sniff, he can sense that actually that this is a moment of maximal
vulnerability to Farage, given he has been elected and chosen to see off that threat, I think he will be very, very tempted to actually go.
SCIUTTO: Yes, not unlike Starmer's performance, right? You know, way back when he got himself a majority.
[18:25:00]
Before we go, Burnham was once one of President Trump's harshest critics, saying he would refuse to meet with him. Now, he says he will deal with
Trump directly and up front. How do you think that relationship is going forward, and will it differ at all from his predecessor?
GOODALL: It's a really tantalizing, interesting prospect, isn't it? As you say, he has previously been a bit of a critic of President Trump. But there
are a couple of potential sort of glimmers on the horizon. Number one is, and I've spoken to a few people sort of around Burnham who say this, you
know, they're hopeful that, you know, President Trump, for all of his faults, one thing we do know, he likes a winner.
And sometimes he likes people from rather a different political perspective. Look at the relationship he struck up with someone you were
just talking about, Zohran Mamdani in New York, isn't he? He's left-wing, he's liberal, he likes the charisma of the guy, he likes the kind of cut of
his jib, he likes the fact that he's a winner. And Burnham's had a very unlikely kind of trajectory to the premiership. And I think people around
him think that Trump might respect that.
There may be incoming a change on North Sea oil and gas policy. Previous government was against exploration of licenses, something that Donald Trump
has talked about consistently, was talking about even in the last 24 hours. That might carry some favor as well.
But I think if you talk to people around Burnham, they're also aware that, you know, as time ticks along, you know, if Burnham is hoping to be there
for the next three years, four years, longer, Donald Trump will be gone in a couple of years. So, they will have half an eye on that.
But I think they're hopeful that -- you know, that Burnham will be able to strike up a cordial relationship with Trump, perhaps not as close as
Starmer's was in the early days, but then they would say, look what happened to that in the end.
SCIUTTO: Yes. It's -- well, sometimes it goes back and forth, as we've seen in recent experience. Lewis Goodall, thanks so much for joining the
program.
GOODALL: My pleasure.
SCIUTTO: On Wall Street, the major indices finished Monday's session lower. Stocks pressured by rising oil prices once again, with Brent Crude
briefly surpassing $90 a barrel. Tech stocks were volatile ahead of closely watched earnings later this week from Alphabet, parent of Google, Tesla,
IBM and Intel.
Well, China's leader Xi Jinping is promoting his country as a global leader in A.I., urging the world to follow its lead. He told a tech conference in
Shanghai that China and its open source A.I. models offer an alternative to U.S. tech nominates. China's growing technological clout was a key topic at
last week's Aspen Security Forum.
While there, I sat down with Anya Manuel, the executive director of the Aspen Security Strategy Group. She says the U.S.-China economic rivalry
remains as contentious as ever.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANJA MANUEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASPEN STRATEGY GROUP: I don't think they've made any progress. I think the surface is trying to be very calm
and underneath the competition is on. I mean, when you look at what China is doing in the tech space, they now, according to an Australian think
tank, lead in 69 out of 74 key technologies.
So, maybe that's not all true, but it's getting very real. You know, they're rehearsing. They're using drones to impersonate British typhoon
fighters as decoys. They have the best anti-satellite missile capability that can take down our satellites. So, it's under the surface. Everything
is moving forward at warp speed and it's all competitive.
SCIUTTO: One of the panelists made a point the other day and it stuck in my mind. Both sides want some calm or normalization to allow themselves
space to --
MANUEL: To race.
SCIUTTO: Right?
MANUEL: Yes.
SCIUTTO: To race.
MANUEL: Yes. That sounds right to me. I mean, I was just -- the Taiwanese are here, not on stage, but they're visiting with us. And from those
conversations and others I've had about the Indo-Pacific here, Beijing is really tightening the noose around Taiwan.
And it's inexorable. And it's a little bit tougher every day. You know, they're now arguing they have -- Beijing is arguing it has jurisdiction
east of Taiwan, looking out onto the Blue Pacific. And they're rehearsing the blockade of the two busiest ports in Taiwan. So, this isn't getting any
better.
SCIUTTO: No. In terms of trade between the U.S. and China, have they found a path forward? We're more than a year out of Liberation Day and obviously
have retreated from the most outsized tariffs. But is it your sense, particularly when you speak to not just government folks, but also the many
businesses that still do business across the Pacific, do they sense any calming of those waters?
MANUEL: I think the insanity of Liberation Day is over. I do think -- Jamieson Greer was here yesterday with us. I interviewed him. I think he is
trying to restore some normalcy through our trade relationships. He talked about the board of trade he's created with China. I asked him what that is.
SCIUTTO: Lots of boards these days.
MANUEL: Lots of boards. But he sounded optimistic. I can't evaluate that, but that they're going to come up with certain products and services
categories that we're not going to fight over.
[18:30:00]
It's kind of a whitelist approach, like we're not going to fight over Starbucks coffee or McDonald's or Disney. He didn't mention those, but
those are examples I could imagine. But we will fight really hard over semiconductors and A.I., and that's OK.
SCIUTTO: So, tell me on A.I., because it's interesting, I hear concerns about the U.S. at a minimum losing its lead, but possibly falling behind in
terms of space technologies already in shipping, I mean by like leaps and bounds. But in A.I., is it an even race? Is someone pushing ahead?
MANUEL: So, it's interesting, we have Tarun Chhabra from Anthropic here with us, and he insisted yesterday, if I heard him correctly, that the
Chinese are still six or so months behind. That's not what I see. You know, I live out in Silicon Valley. I think Kimi Moonshot, while we were on the
air just now, came out with another super advanced model. There's a GLM 5.2 model, and at least on cyber-attacks, they are on par or just below what
Mythos and our most advanced models can do.
And so, that's a really dangerous area, because as you know, we don't have any architecture right now to test the models. We don't really have a
policy in place for how you handle China's open models that are going to be all over the world because they're free.
And so, I think those of us in the space worry a lot that there's going to be an A.I.-enabled cyber-attack within the next six, eight, nine months.
Let's hope we're wrong.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: A.I.-enabled cyber-attack, wow. Well, straight ahead, the U.S. launches a new wave of military strikes on Iran, plus what we're learning
about some of the U.S. service members killed in those Iranian strikes.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:35:00]
SCIUTTO: Welcome back to "The Brief." I'm Jim Sciutto, and here are the international headlines we're watching today.
On his first day in office, Britain's new prime minister, Andy Burnham, is promising political stability. In his initial remarks, he pledged welfare
reform, a devolution of power, as well as help for the homeless. Burnham is taking over, of course, for Keir Starmer, who announced his resignation
last month. He is the seventh prime minister in 10 years.
Officials say a man taken into custody for allegedly throwing an incendiary device outside a federal building in New York is a 43-year-old Army
veteran. He's now been identified as Andrew Arrabaca. The FBI says he poured gasoline on the ground, ignited it with a lighter, and a firework in
a canister. He then allegedly pulled out a BB-style gun and fired several pellets. A civilian and two government employees were injured. Arrabaca
allegedly told authorities he was targeting the building, which houses dozens of federal agencies.
Brothers Andrew and Tristan Tate are fighting extradition to the U.K. on rape and sex trafficking charges. The social media influencers appeared in
federal court in Miami on Monday following their arrest over the weekend. Their attorney is asking they be released pending the outcome of the case.
They do remain in custody for now. Their next hearing is next Monday.
Returning now to our top story, the escalating war between the U.S. and Iran. The U.S. once again launched a wave of strikes on Iranian targets,
this after President Trump warned that Iran will pay for killing three U.S. service members in recent days. You see two of them pictured there. The
U.S. is sending more aircraft to the Middle East, pending an escalation, along with refueling tankers necessary to allow longer-range strikes inside
Iran.
Joining me now is independent Congressman Kevin Kiley. Congressman, thanks so much for taking the time.
REP. KEVIN KILEY (I-CA): Of course, thanks for having me.
SCIUTTO: You have said in the past that Congress needs to be engaged to make any deal with Iran durable. However, in terms of military action, you
voted against the War Powers Resolution. Now, that this war has extended once again, and I know the administration says they have a new 60-day
clock, but there are a lot of Democrats and Republicans who don't buy that. Is now the time for Congress, including Republicans and independent
lawmakers like yourself, to clip the president's wings here, so to speak?
KILEY: Well, it's certainly the time for Congress to be more centrally involved, and I frankly think there's been a big missed opportunity with
this funding bill that's going through that doesn't really reflect a deliberate judgment on the part of Congress as to how funds should be
allocated in a way that will guide this conflict towards an acceptable resolution. And I do think that Congress is owed an explanation as to why
this ceasefire fell apart, what were the conditions that we thought were going to lead to its success that failed to materialize.
So, frankly, I think that from the very beginning of this conflict, Congress has not been nearly involved enough. You can perhaps say that the
administration should have done more, but also Congress itself needs to exercise its Article 1 authority. And principally, the best way to do that
is through the power of the purse.
And so, I'm very disappointed with this funding bill that's going through, that's being done in a party-line way. What we really need right now is for
a bipartisan approach that will allow for all of us to set the terms for how this conflict is going to wind down.
SCIUTTO: As you know, Senator Adam Schiff, he's filed a new War Powers Resolution that would essentially reject the president's assertion that
there's a new 60-day clock. Could you see Republicans and independent lawmakers like yourself supporting such a measure?
KILEY: Well, the thing about the War Powers Resolution is that it doesn't really achieve what we want it to achieve, or at least what I want it to
achieve, in terms of having more meaningful congressional involvement and having a more durable basis for achieving peace here. The War Powers
Resolution, first of all, what it says is that you have to immediately withdraw any and all personnel from the region, which would put our
servicemembers at risk.
[18:40:00]
But at the end of the day, this is something that is never going to be signed by the president. And if he vetoes it, I, even if it were overridden
likely would not hold up in court.
So, for people who keep introducing these resolutions, I understand their instinct to want to do something to get Congress involved, but I want
Congress to be involved in a way that actually matters.
SCIUTTO: I wonder what your read is of the administration's, the president's strategy in Iran, because for weeks they've been saying that
the U.S. can in effect beat Iran into submission, and that ultimately the president has said Iran actually really wants to talk. But every day the
war continues, Iran keeps striking targets. It's now killed three U.S. service members over the weekend. Is the president's strategy working or
failing?
KILEY: Well, I want to say first of all that of course my heart goes out to the family of our lost service members, and all of us want to sure we do
everything we can to avoid further casualties and loss of life for Americans.
But I think there are serious questions about what exactly the strategy is. We've seen this sort of whiplash back and forth. We've seen this high wire
act. We've seen the you know, threats on the one hand followed by negotiations and temporary agreements on the other. And this is why I've
said from the very beginning that if we want to actually have something durable here, we need to have Congress and all interested parties involved.
So, that means involving the Gulf states, involving our allies and coming to what understanding we can that will achieve the goals that are
indispensable here, which is opening the Strait of Hormuz, winding this conflict down, and assuring that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon.
SCIUTTO: The president is now considering apparently operations up to and including ground operations to take Kharg Island, which would of course put
more U.S. forces in danger. Given how unpopular this war is already, do you think U.S. forces should fight on the ground to fight and potentially die
in an expansion of this war?
KILEY: I certainly don't want to see that. I don't want to see the war expand. I want to see the conflict come to an end. But I want to make sure
that it's done in a way that protects U.S. interests and assures we don't leave Iran in a position where they can inflict even greater harm on
Americans, on our allies on the region, and on the world going forward.
SCIUTTO: Congressman Kevin Kiley, we appreciate you coming back on the show.
KILEY: Of course. Thanks for having me.
SCIUTTO: Well, Trump and Europe, allies on paper, friction in practice. We're going to speak with a member of the European Parliament who has been
a key figure in negotiations between the U.S. and Europe.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:45:00]
SCIUTTO: It's of course no secret that the Trump administration is in a rocky relationship with Europe. There has been NATO spending fights, trade
disputes, threats to invade Greenland, a war of words with the Pope even, and a pledge to dismantle the International Criminal Court.
In Italy, President Trump has questioned the country's reliability as a wartime ally, and claimed that Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni groveled for
his attention, something that, of course, she quite publicly denied. And even attempts to smooth out ties have often comes loaded with insults.
The White House is welcoming reports that the new British prime minister, Andy Burnham, is set to open up North Sea oil reserves, but the president
called the U.K., quote, "A poverty-stricken disaster". Spain's prime minister, Pedro Sanchez, has also clashed with President Trump but, look at
the photo there, the two seem to, well, at least have a moment of peace at the World Cup final on Sunday. Of course, the Spanish Prime Minister had
much to celebrate Spain won.
Brando Benifei is a Italian member of the European Parliament, chair of the Parliament's delegation for relations with the U.S. Brando, nice to have
you back on the show.
BRANDO BENIFEI, EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT MEMBER, ITALY AND CHAIR, EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DELEGATION FOR RELATIONS WITH U.S.: Thank you very much. Thank
you.
SCIUTTO: I wonder, you, you have noted, and you've argued, that Europe gets its best results with the Trump administration when it stands its
ground, and I've heard this from other European leaders as well, that they've learned the power of no.
BENIFEI: Yes.
SCIUTTO: And I -- do you see that reaping benefits in the relationship with the U.S.?
BENIFEI: Well, I think Trump is often testing us. He wants to see how much the E.U. is united in saying, we demand respect. We want to find fair
deals. In fact, we have been working to stabilize trade relationships, but we have seen, even in, just in these hours, new issues coming up with
Canada, but also towards E.U., we still have uncertainties regarding the pricing for certain industrial goods and for the pharma. So, we are still
in a dire situation, uncertain waters.
But we are trying to be constructive. we try to not take every single declaration from the president too seriously because sometimes it's part of
the tactic of the negotiations of the White House. But we need to be firmer.
I would say as a member of parliament that sometimes our governments have been too scared of President Trump. While it was clear, and the Greenland
example is the most obvious, when E.U. has been united, Trump backed on his ideas. He --
SCIUTTO: Yes. He backed off a little bit.
BENIFEI: -- change -- he backed off. Yes. He changed his mind.
SCIUTTO: Question, though, it's not clear that Trump has given up on Greenland, and, and most -- just in the last couple of weeks he has said,
well, I'm angry with Europe because they wouldn't give me Greenland. What would happen if Trump insisted again? How would you respond, and what would
that mean for the relationship?
BENIFEI: Well, the answer from the member states in this case has been very clear, and it will stay very clear, that there would be an immediate
retaliation in terms of trade, but also there would be the determination to defend the soil of Greenland.
So, I mean, Trump would go in a conflict with NATO allies, the same allies he's asking to spend more for their military defense for the NATO, which I
have to remember, the only case when NATO collective aid was activated was to help U.S. in the fight against terror. So, in fact that's, that's
history.
And I think that this doesn't make sense. I hope there will be some more clear rationality on this topic, where U.S. already can do a lot in
Greenland. They have a lot of possibility to do their security activity, economic investments. So, there is no need for conflict.
SCIUTTO: Another issue of contention is, of course, the ICC, the International Criminal Court.
BENIFEI: Yes.
SCIUTTO: You've called the Trump administration's campaign against it, quote, "A direct attack on the rules-based international order." Now,
you're urging the European Union to consider activating its blocking statute to protect the ICC from U.S. sanctions.
BENIFEI: Yes.
SCIUTTO: Is that likely to happen? And what would that mean?
BENIFEI: I think this is a, a real possibility because, to be frank, these sanctions are outrageous, and even more, the recent attacks by Secretary of
State Rubio. Because the International Criminal Court has been subscribed to by 125 states.
[18:50:00]
And simply, it's a last resort court for certain very heinous crimes. And the fact that there was a mandate for arresting Vladimir Putin, the leaders
of Hamas, and Benjamin Netanyahu for different reasons, is not at all a reason for the U.S. to act like this.
Also, I need to underline that it was not Congress to vote for these sanctions. It has been an executive order. So, it's just the decision of
the administration. And I think that there should be respect for the fact that all the allied countries of the U.S., including all the member states
of the E.U., are part of the court, and they want it to function, not to be boycotted in a crazy way.
SCIUTTO: Before we go, the Iran War is, of course, not coming to an end. It's expanding. Trump has attacked European allies for staying out of the
war, for not joining military action. But as it drags on, does it demonstrate to you that Europe made the right call, staying out?
BENIFEI: I think we made the right choice. And Trump made a big mistake. It's evident, I think, to most Americans, too. What is America gaining from
this war? It destabilized the Middle East more. A lot of money was spent. The cost of energy is rising. No nuclear material was retrieved from Iran.
So, it's been a total disaster.
And, to be frank, a lot of people from both sides of the aisle in the Congress are telling us the same, that this was a total failure. And I
think that Trump should restrain and work with the Iran. Iran was hit, so it could be brought to negotiations now. But, instead, we are giving them a
lot of power with the straight-over moves. And I don't think this is good for anyone.
SCIUTTO: Brando Benifei, we appreciate having you back on the program.
BENIFEI: Thank you very much. Thank you.
SCIUTTO: A royal thank you and a huge parade through the Capitol. The newly crowned World Cup champions return home to giant crowds in Spain. CNN
is there, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Well, it looks like pretty much all of Madrid turned out for an enormous parade today to welcome home Spain's World Cup champions. CNN's
Pau Mosquera was there for the celebrations.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PAU MOSQUERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thousands upon thousands of La Roja fans have floated downtown Madrid to celebrate Spain's World Cup triumph. All of
them wearing as you can see Spain's national flags, Spain's national team to join the players at Plaza de Cibeles which is at the very end of this
Alcala street.
[18:55:00]
We're being told by Spanish government delegation in Madrid that around 1 million people took the streets here in the Spanish capital as to celebrate
this very unique occasion. They enjoyed a very special moment with some music, with some Spanish well-known artists but above all celebrating this
triumph with the players that made possible what seemed to be impossible. A celebration that certainly will go until the early hours of the morning of
Tuesday.
Now, the real challenge will start this Tuesday as most of them will have to get back to normal after days of celebration, after being long hours of
Sunday and Monday celebrating. But the good news I'm being told by many fans is that the excitement generated by winning this World Cup will stay
with them for a long time.
Pau Mosquera, CNN, Madrid.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: Well-deserved congratulations to Spain. Thanks so much for joining us today. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. You've been watching "The
Brief." Please do stay with CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:00:00]
END
