Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

Israeli Prime Minister States The Deal Will Lead To Arms Race; Netanyahu Blasts Iran Nuclear Deal; White House Critical Of Netanyahu Speech; 50 to 60 Democrats Skip Netanyahu Speech; Iran's Nuclear Capabilities; Hillary Clinton's Controversial E-mails; Israeli Prime Minister on Iran Deal; Tehran Reacts to Netanyahu; Netanyahu's Speech

Aired March 3, 2015 - 13:00   ET

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


WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer. It's 1:00 p.m. here in Washington, 6:00 p.m. in London, 8:00 p.m. in Jerusalem, 9:00 p.m. in Moscow. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

Up first, a potential nuclear nightmare. That's what the Israeli prime minister says could happen if a proposed nuclear deal with Iran goes forward. This was the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu's, much-anticipated and controversial speech before a joint meeting of the United States Congress. He warned that the deal in the works right now will, in his words, pave the way for a nuclear Iran instead of preventing one.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, PRIME MINISTER, ISRAEL: So, this deal won't change Iran for the better. It will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that's supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet. This deal won't be a farewell to arms, it would be a farewell to arms control.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: The prime minister called the current plan being negotiated a very bad deal. And he warned about the dangers of Islamic militants getting access to nuclear weapons.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NETANYAHU: The greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle but lose the war. We can't let that happen. But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: We're harnessing all of our global resources to cover this story as only CNN can do. From here in Washington to Jerusalem, from the nuclear talks in Switzerland to the Iranian capital, our correspondents are standing by to bring you all the latest details, all of the developments.

Let's take a closer look at the prime minister's speech right now. Our Global Affairs Correspondent Elise Labott is joining me here in Washington. Elise, listen to what the prime minister said about the alternatives to this current plan that's in the works.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NETANYAHU: The greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle but lose the war. We can't let that happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. So, the criticism coming in, Elise, as you know, from the White House, elsewhere is that bold words, tough words by the prime minister of Israel but no specifics, no real alternative to what's going on.

ELISE LABOTT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: That's right. And just a few minutes after the speech, I got an e-mail from the very top administration officials calling this a, quote, "very weak deal" because he didn't -- the prime minister didn't offer a coherent alternative. And the criticism of the administration by the prime minister is that he talks tough but without a deal would be the greatest and the quickest way for Iran to get the bomb that he is afraid of because without a deal, Iran would be able to continue its nuclear program. It would go on unabated. You would not have those kinds of inspections and those restrictions that are currently in place and would be in place for a long time to come.

BLITZER: Going into the speech, as you well know, the administration, the White House, they were concerned he was going to release sensitive, classified information as part of this speech. He did -- he didn't do that.

LABOTT: He didn't do that. His aides advertised some specifics of the deal. He really gave a very broad characterization. But I think when he was very effective is, Wolf, in this mixture of intelligence and emotion and painting this picture of not only the nature of the regime, talking about these tentacles of terror that Iran has throughout the region, the danger of them getting a nuclear weapon in the region, but also why this deal would be a way for Iran to go quickly to the bomb in it -- less than a year if it were to violate the deal or once it expired. And also setting -- talking about the tinderbox that would be inside the Middle East.

The problem is, as we're talking about he has no alternative, he's talking about a deal, Wolf. He wants greater restrictions for some time to come. He doesn't want those restrictions lifted until Iran changes its behavior in the region. He wants to keep sanctions in place. That deal does not exist. And then, you go back to the problem that, what do you do if there's no deal? And the prime minister said, Israel will not stand alone. It will not stand by and watch Iran get a nuclear weapon. And the question is, would they use military action to go after Iran? And it doesn't seem likely they could do that, at this point, without the United States. And that's what they were afraid of, that they would be in this position, forced to defend themselves by themselves.

BLITZER: All right, Elise, I know you're getting more reaction. I'll have you stand by.

I want to go to the White House right now. As you can imagine, officials there are very, very critical of the prime minister of Israel and his speech. They released a statement just a little while ago. Our Senior White House Correspondent Jim Acosta is getting reaction. How furious are they over there, Jim?

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: They're furious with Benjamin Netanyahu, no question about it, Wolf. There is strong pushback from this administration to the prime minister's speech. And they really are offering up a rebuttal, almost point by point throughout this speech. They're saying that without this deal that they're trying to reach with the Iranians, that Tehran would be, you know, really on the path to developing a nuclear weapon. They also say that even military action would only curtail their program for a fraction of the time that this deal would offer. And so, that -- they're saying that that is another point that is in their favor.

Another thing that they're saying, Wolf, is that just because they're talking to the Iranians does not mean that they're trying to normalize relations with the regime in Tehran and that they say that they don't trust the Iranians. If this deal is put into place, there will be a monitoring regime that is put in place to make sure that the Iranians are living up to their end of the bargain.

But, really, Wolf, if you just look at the personal nature of this White House response to the prime minister's speech, it is -- it is stark. It is vivid. And it can't be mistaken. I want to put this up on screen. They are basically asking Prime Minister Netanyahu, where is your plan? It says, quote, "We are pursuing a deal that verifiably prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Where is the alternative? Simply demanding that Iran completely capitulate is not a plan nor would any country support us in that position." The prime minister offered no concrete action plan.

And, Wolf, the President will have an opportunity to talk about this. Potentially, he has a meeting with his defense secretary in about half an hour. The cameras will be going in. We're not sure whether or not the President will talk about it. But then, the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, he'll be peppered with questions about the prime minister's speech. That happens at 2:00.

BLITZER: Yes, and if the president's relationship with the prime minister was bad going into this speech, it's poisonous --

ACOSTA: Worse now.

BLITZER: -- right now. It certainly is. All right, Jim Acosta, we'll stand by. We'll hear what the president has to say in this meeting with the new defense secretary, Ash Carter. Let's go to Jerusalem, though. Kate Bolduan is on the scene for us. Kate, I know you've got a special guest. You're getting reaction from some of the prime minister's supporters.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. And some of the prime minister's critics, Wolf. Right after the prime minister finished his speech, his main opponent, Isaac Herzog, took to the microphone and began giving, if you want to call it, a response. In the response, Wolf, just really quickly, Herzog said many things, including after the applause, Netanyahu remains alone. Israel remains isolated and the negotiations with Iran will continue. He accused Netanyahu of sabotaging the relationship with the United States. That, of course, is the key opponent to Benjamin Netanyahu in the upcoming election.

But right with me now is Danny Danon, a former deputy minister of defense, current member of the Israeli parliament. And I know you have a very different view of the prime minister's speech before Congress.

DANNY DANON, FORMER DEPUTY DEFENSE MINISTER, ISRAEL: Kate, Prime Minister Netanyahu was sounding the alarm for the survival of our country. We are worried. And I am very proud of our prime minister who came and said exactly what we feel. It is a bad deal. We prefer to wait, not to sign this deal because the P5 plus 1, they want to stop Iran for the moment. We want to stop Iran for the long run. We cannot allow them to become nuclear. And (INAUDIBLE) of the infrastructure, the uranium (ph), you cannot monitor them.

BOLDUAN: But, Danny, this came out -- and I know we talked about this earlier and I want to get your take. The administration immediately after the prime minister spoke said that there is literally not one new idea, not one single concrete alternative. It's all rhetoric, no action. Then what did the prime minister gain in this speech?

DANON: Well, first of all, I see that in your politics you have officials. If somebody has something to say, he should come publicly and say what he thinks about our speech. The prime minister flew in the middle of the campaign and said exactly what we feel here in Israel. But there is an alternative. We should continue with the sanctions. We should apply more pressure. This is a crucial moment. It is a (INAUDIBLE.) You don't sign the deal today. You put more pressure on Iran. And then, you get them to sign a better deal for us.

BOLDUAN: Well, Danny, you brought up that he flew in the middle of -- in the flew middle -- he flew in the middle of the campaign. That's one of the biggest criticisms that I'm hearing from Israelis here that are -- that are critical of the prime minister, as well as you're hearing that concern over in the United States, that this was all about politics. Was this all about the campaign?

DANON: The date it was set, March 24th, not by us, by the P5 plus 1, they're the one that are negotiating with Iran. I don't know --

BOLDUAN: Couldn't he have made this speech two weeks earlier? The negotiations in Geneva have been going on for -- I mean, the interim deal was signed in 2013. He -- this speech could have gone on -- could've come much earlier.

DANON: We care about the politics. But the ayatollahs, they don't care about the elections in Israel. They do not care about the elections in the U.S. They care about building the bomb. And I think that prime minister pushing the issue of Iran for many years and he's worried about this issue because in two weeks, we will have a new government in Israel. But Iran will continue to build its nuclear capabilities.

BOLDUAN: And in two weeks, we'll find out what impact, if any, that this speech the prime minister had gave before Congress will have. Danny, thank you so much.

DANON: Thank you very much.

BOLDUAN: Thank you very much for being with me.

Wolf, back to you.

BLITZER: One quick question, Kate. This -- there's a rule in Israel, a law that two weeks before an election, you can't do campaigning live on television. So, there's this five-minute delay. I understand when the opposition, the main challenger to the prime minister, Isaac Herzog, the labor party leader, was speaking. They took part of his rebuttal speech and they didn't allow it to go off to the Israeli public. What happened?

BOLDUAN: This aspect of this is fascinating to me. And it come -- and it comes from strict rules, as you and I were discussing, in election law. This -- they've -- they had decided, a judge, that Netanyahu's speech needed to be on five-minute delay for all networks and radio that were going to be broadcasting it in order to try to avoid letting it become a political campaign propaganda speech.

On the flip side, the interesting part about this, when Herzog began making his speech, the stations decided it was becoming too political and they pulled his speech -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Interesting stuff, the politics in Israel. All right, we'll see what happens two weeks from today when the elections take place.

Between 50 and 60 Democrats here in Washington, members of the House and Senate, chose not to attend the speech by the visiting prime minister. One who did attend is Congressman Adam Schiff of California. He's the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman, I know you're privy to all the sensitive information. What did you think of the prime minister's speech?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA: Look, I think the prime minister laid out fairly well the concerns that many Israelis have about what they've heard about the deal. The challenge and this has been highlighted by the White House response is, what's the alternative to this proposal? And there, I do agree with the criticism that we didn't hear a lot of what happens next if this thing falls through. And, Wolf, what I think happens next is Iran begins to spin up its centrifuges again. It starts to enrich to 20 percent, maybe beyond 20 percent. We get much closer than a one-year breakout. And then, the question is, where's Israel's red line and where's ours? And I'm not sure there's enough time there for what the prime minister, in part, laid out. And that is that Iran then comes back to the table for more negotiations. So, that's really the dilemma that we're going to face if there is any kind of an agreement.

BLITZER: Have you seen the U.S.-Israeli relationship, at least in public, as poisonous as it -- as it appears to be right now? This personal relationship has really gotten a whole lot worse between the prime minister of Israel and the president of the United States.

SCHIFF: I certainly haven't. And this is a grave concern, I think, to all of us here on the Hill and both sides of the aisle because the relationship has to be strong. And, ironically, the prime minister really needs the president, whether there's a deal and maybe even more so if there isn't, because if there is no deal and Iran begins to enrich again and Israel makes the decision, it needs to embark on military action, they're going to want the support of this president. So, it's very dangerous, I think, to have allowed the relationship to get to this point.

BLITZER: All right. Thanks very much, Congressman Adam Schiff. We'll continue to stay in touch with you. We're going to have much more coverage of the prime minister's historic and very controversial speech before the United States Congress. That's coming up, including a fact check of the comments he made about Iran's nuclear capabilities.

And later, Hillary Clinton apparently breaking the rules, using her personal e-mail account for every single e-mail she sent during her four years as secretary of state. Will this come back to bite the likely 2016 Democratic presidential candidate?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made his remarks before a joint meeting in the United States Congress, but it could be argued that his remarks were also aimed at negotiators in Switzerland trying to secure a long-term agreement with Iran on its nuclear program. That includes the secretary of state, John Kerry. Only three weeks remain to strike that framework of a deal in Switzerland.

Our chief national security correspondent, Jim Sciutto, is joining us. He's covering the talks in Montrose.

So what's been the reaction so far to what we heard from the prime minister, Jim?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, from the negotiators here, that's been no reaction, Wolf. And the reason for that is that since before the speech started to know, a good two and a half hours, those negotiators, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, the Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, have been still at the negotiating table, their third session of the day, their fifth in the last 24 hours. And that gives you an indication of what they're focused on here. They're still working towards a deal. The -- I did speak to the Iranian foreign minister earlier. He said

that Netanyahu's intention, in his view, is to try to create tension and conflict here. The principle concern from Secretary of State John Kerry had been that the Israeli prime minister would reveal some of the secret details of where the negotiation stands. That did not happen. But, of course, the speech did show overall a fundamental disagreement between the president and the Israeli prime minister, between the U.S. and Israel on the very idea of the talks.

Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes, the prime minister said, this is a bad deal.

The White House said yesterday, the president in that interview with Reuters, he said maybe the chances were about 50/50 at best that there could be a deal. You think that's changed as a result of what we heard from Netanyahu today?

SCIUTTO: you know, the 50/50 number has been - it's been an administration talking point for a number of months, less handicapping and more just to deliver the message that these talks may get through, they may reach an agreement, but they may very well not. And when you look at the outstanding issues and you look at the timeline, a little over three weeks to the deadline for a framework agreement, there are major framework issues where the two sides are very apart on sanctions. Iran wants them lifted immediately. The U.S. wants to parcel that out over time to make sure Iran complies.

You heard the IAEA yesterday saying again that Iran is still not, after more than a year and a half of negotiations, fessed up on past efforts at weaponization. And that's even before you get to this Rubik's cube of restrictions that they're trying to build on Iran's program. A combination of the number of centrifuges, the type of centrifuges, what kind of R&D Iran can do. That's the real complicated part. All those things, with the time left, shows you why the administration making clear that these talks may very well not come to an agreement.

BLITZER: Jim Sciutto in Montrose outside of Geneva for us covering these talks. We'll check back with you.

CNN is the only U.S. television network with a correspondent in Iran right now. For reaction from Tehran to what we heard from the Israeli prime minister, let's go to our senior international correspondent Fred Pleitgen.

What are you hearing from the people there? I suspect they weren't taking that speech live on Iranian state television, but I assume people have heard about it already.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, they certainly have heard about it, Wolf, and there have been actually some pretty vicious reactions so far already on Iranian TV, but also from Iranians that we have actually been speaking to as well.

It was interesting, you're right, they didn't take the speech live as Netanyahu was giving it. However, there is video of the speech that's running and there was a headline on Iranian TV that called it a speech of Iranophobia. Now, in some commentary after the speech on Iranian TV, they were saying that the speech was a humiliation for Barack Obama and they also kept making the point that they believe that this speech would drive a wedge between the U.S. and Israel and also alienate a lot of the other western allies that Israel has. So that was certainly one of the main points that they were making.

I was afterwards able to speak to a political analyst who's very close to the government here in Tehran and he accused Netanyahu of lying. He said that Netanyahu was contradicting his own intelligence. Remember, there was those cables that were leaked just a couple of days ago that seems to suggest something like that, that perhaps Netanyahu had been at odds with his own intelligence services. That's certainly something that the Iranians were building very big on.

But one of the main points that was taken up here was the points that the prime minister made where he said that he believed that Iran need the deal more than the west does and more than the United States does. And that's certainly something the Iranian leadership has tried to dispel that notion on various occasions. One of the things, for instance, that the supreme leader has said is that he also believes that a bad deal for Iran would certainly be worse than no deal and that Iran would carry on and would muddle through if indeed the sanctions remained in place and there was no agreement, Wolf.

BLITZER: Fred Pleitgen in Tehran. We'll stay in close touch, obviously, with you as well. He's reporting what the reaction is over there.

Coming up, we'll get more reaction to the prime minister's speech at the United States Congress, including the prime minister's chief press secretary, Mark Rega (ph). He's here in Washington. We'll get his reaction as well.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back. We're continuing our coverage of the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu's, controversial speech today before a joint meeting of the United States Congress. Let's get some more reaction.

Joining us, the former speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich.

You were there, Mr. Speaker, up on Capitol Hill. We know that he was extremely well-received by the people who were there in the House of Representatives. But you also know that at the White House they're furious right now that he's - that the prime minister is questioning their commitment to Israel's security.

NEWT GINGRICH, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I, you know, I think it's very ironic. The president's overreaction made this a much, much bigger speech. If the president just relaxed, had coffee with Netanyahu, this would have been a normal foreign visitor speech. But by reacting for the last two weeks in the frenzy that they've been in, they guaranteed that this would be a speech noticed around the world. And it's a pretty straightforward argument.

Netanyahu, who's worried about the very survival of his country, is not prepared to take risks. Obama, who has a gigantic country thousands of miles away, is more prepared to take risks. That's a straightforward, legitimate argument and it's one which I think Netanyahu's going to win. And I think the reaction to the speech today shows you that there's going to be a very large bipartisan majority opposed to any kind of a bad deal with Iran.

BLITZER: Because the - the accusation against him is that he did this largely -- or at least in part, for domestic political reasons. He's facing a stiff challenge, the elections in Israel two weeks from today. What would have been the big deal if he would have waited at least until after the elections so he wouldn't be accused of doing this for domestic partisan reasons?

GINGRICH: Well, I think that there's a grave danger from his perspective that the United States, that the Obama administration, will reach an agreement with the Iranians. There was a deadline in late March and I think that Netanyahu was determined to draw a line in the sand before the deadline and to indicate to the American president the limits to any kind of agreement he could get away with. And I think that he was very clear in the speech today that there are very strict limits beyond which it would be a bad deal. And I think you saw in the congressional reaction by both Democrats and Republicans that there's a pretty big bipartisan majority that is going to vigorously oppose any kind of a bad deal.

BLITZER: If there's no deal, the administration points out, the president of the United States himself, that there's nothing stopping Iran from going ahead and enriching as much uranium as they want and going ahead with some sort of nuclear weapon. The only reason they're not doing that now is because of the pressure -- because of all these negotiations with members of the U.N. Security Council.

GINGRICH: Well, and I think, first of all, it's pretty clear that if there is no deal, the Congress will pass dramatically stiffer sanctions, and combined with the drop in the price of oil, which is costing the Iranian dictatorship a great deal of money, the additional layer of sanctions will cause even more pain in the Iranian economy and further weaken the government. So it's not a question of them having an automatic free hand. I think it's also clear -- and even President Obama said we're not going to tolerate the Iranians getting a nuclear weapon. Now the question I ask the president is, what does that mean? Is he prepared to use military force? Is he prepared to use, you know, covert action? But what does "not tolerate" mean, which is something he himself has said?

BLITZER: Well, I think, in the past, they've often said, including the president, if there's no deal and Iran is moving forward, the United States will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. All options, he says, would be on the table -

GINGRICH: Right.

BLITZER: Presumably referring to the military option as well. All right, Newt Gingrich, thanks very much for joining us.

GINGRICH: Thanks. Good to be with you, Wolf.

BLITZER: In his address to the United States Congress, the Israeli prime minister primarily focused his speech on a proposed deal on the table between Iran and what are called the P5 plus one, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany. The prime minister made a few allegations about Iran's nuclear programs.