Trump's Iran Strategy Faces Partisan Divide; Interview with Javad Zarif, Iranian Foreign Minister, on U.S. Sanctions; House Subpoenas More Ex-White House Officials
ANNA COREN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Hello, everyone. Thanks for joining us. I'm Anna Coren. You're watching CNN NEWSROOM. Ahead this hour, dangerous games: Iran lashes out at the U.S. military buildup in the Gulf with concern growing on both sides that an accident could start a war. Also ahead, the pressure to impeach: there are new calls within the Democratic Party to open an inquiry into Donald Trump. And will the fourth time be a charm? Theresa May makes a last-ditch attempt at getting a Brexit deal through Parliament.</s>COREN: The White House moved its Iran strategy away from Twitter Tuesday, trying to sell it to lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Secretary of state Mike Pompeo says the Senate and House learned about the latest Iranian threats in closed door briefings. The U.S. has sent extra warships to the Middle East and ordered non- emergency personnel out of Iraq. The acting Defense chief says moves like these have deterred attacks on U.S. troops.</s>PATRICK SHANAHAN, ACTING U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: Our biggest focus at this point is to prevent Iranian miscalculation. We do not want the situation to escalate. This is about deterrence, not about war. We are not about going to war.</s>COREN: Senator Lindsey Graham, Republicans like senator Lindsey Graham are backing the White House strategy. Democrats have been more skeptical.</s>SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): It was a very good briefing. They explained to how us the Iranian threats were different than in the past, that the attack on the ships and the pipeline was coordinated and directed by the Iranian government, the ayatollah. We've picked up strong intelligence that they had given the Shiite militia basically more running room and direction and that attacks against American interests and personnel were imminent.</s>SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): The Iranians are no closer to talking than ever before, that they do not seem to be backing down from a standpoint of military provocation and, thus, you have to ask, whether our strategy is working.</s>COREN: The U.S. has been sending mixed messages about whether it actually wants to negotiate with Iran. Tehran says it cannot trust the U.S., especially after the Trump White House left the nuclear deal. Well, CNN's Fred Pleitgen discussed recent tensions in an exclusive interview with Iran's foreign minister.</s>FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Especially with those mixed messages that apparently have been coming from the Trump administration in the past couple of days, with President Trump one day saying that any sort of fight between Iran and the United States would lead to the official end of Iran, as he put it, and then only a day later saying that he actually wants negotiations with the Iranians. I asked Iran's foreign minister whether or not negotiations are something that are currently in the cards. And he said in the current political climate and situation, it's absolutely not something the Iranians think is possible.</s>JAVAD ZARIF, IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: We are not willing to talk to people who have broken their promises because we talk to people. We did not believe that our nuclear program, our nuclear energy program required us to provide concessions or confidence building measures. But we engaged. We acted in good faith. We negotiated. We reached a deal. What the United States is saying, if we make a deal, whatever we can get you in the negotiations through the deal is fine. Whatever we cannot get you, we'll come back to try to get you. This is not the way serious countries deal with each other. The United States may be used to doing that with clients but they cannot do that with Iraq.</s>PLEITGEN: How dangerous do you think the situation is currently in the Persian Gulf with the U.S. aircraft carrier on its way, B-52 bombers. At the same time, from your side, saying, look, we don't want an escalation but it will be painful if there's one.</s>ZARIF: There will be painful consequences for everybody if there's an escalation against Iran. That's for sure. The United States is engaging in an economic warfare against Iran. It has to stop. Economic war means targeting Iranian people. That has to stop. The United States does not have the legal position, does not have the moral position, does not have the political position, does not have the international position, to impose economic war on Iran. Iran is not interested in escalation. We have said very clearly that we will not be the party to begin escalation but --</s>ZARIF: -- we will defend ourselves. Now having all these military assets in a small waterway is, in and of itself, prone to accident, particularly when you have people who are interested in accidents. So extreme prudence is required and we believe that the United States is playing a very, very dangerous game.</s>PLEITGEN: So the Iranian foreign minister there saying that he believes that the U.S. is playing a dangerous game, as he put it, in the Persian Gulf. I also asked him about those recent apparent sabotage attacks on tankers in the Persian Gulf. He said that the Iranians absolutely had nothing to do with that. But still he says he believes that, right now, the situation between the U.S. and Iran in that very narrow waterway, still extremely dangerous -- Fred Pleitgen, CNN, Tehran.</s>COREN: For more I'm joined from Los Angeles by CNN global affairs analyst Max Boot. Max, great to have you with us. After hearing the evidence, U.S. lawmakers are very much at odds over whether Iran poses an imminent threat to U.S. interests. How would you describe the current threat level?</s>MAX BOOT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: It's very hard to say. I think the real threat right now is the threat of miscalculation because the Trump administration is engaging in so much saber rattling. And you know, even in the normal times, U.S. and Iranian forces are really on hair trigger alert. I remember being out on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Nimitz in 2017 and they're always out there in a state of near war with the Iranians. So it doesn't take much to set it off. And there's all these leaks from the administration about sending troops to fight Iran, leaks about Iran's supposedly placing missiles on boats. You know, this thing can easily get out of control just because of the perceptions of a threat on both sides, whatever the realities are.</s>COREN: Do you believe the Trump administration is exaggerating intelligence to lay the groundwork for war with Iran?</s>BOOT: Well, I don't know because I don't have access to that intelligence but I will tell you, this is one of those situations where the fact that President Trump is a congenital liar works against him. This is somebody a president, who has recorded 10,000 falsehoods over the course of his presidency and he's advised by people like John Bolton, who have falsified intelligence in the past to justify U.S. war in Iraq, so -- and it's not possible to put any kind of faith or credence in what they say. You have to say, show me the evidence.</s>COREN: Well, does this feel like another Iraq, which has been suggested by some lawmakers?</s>BOOT: That's certainly a very real possibility. I think if in fact war were to break out between the U.S. and Iran, it could even be worse than Iraq because Iran is a much bigger country with a population of 83 million people as opposed to Iraq, which is a country of about 33 million people in 2003. And Iran has a lot of capabilities, missiles, submarines, drones, proxies across the Middle East so it would be a very dangerous conflict. I think the big difference between Iraq and Iran is that, in 2003, you had a president in George Bush who was pretty eager after 9/11 for war; whereas right now, you have a president who's basically a neo-isolationist. Trump is somebody who talks a big game, who likes to bully and swagger but ultimately, at the end of the day, I don't think he really wants a war. So I think the real danger here is that John Bolton and other advisers could basically provoke a conflict with Iran. You could have shooting begin for some reason; you could have a shell land at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad or some other provocation. And then you could see that action-reaction cycle spin out of control, where Trump would be forced to react and some of the hardliners like Bolton would get the war on Iran that they have long advocated.</s>COREN: You mentioned that division within the Trump administration, Pompeo and Bolton both long-time advocates of a regime change in Iran. And then we heard from Republican senator Lindsey Graham earlier. He interpreted the evidence that he heard as a game changer. I mean, that's quite a statement and troubling as to what it implies.</s>BOOT: Well, again, like I said, I wouldn't trust Donald Trump and John Bolton. I sure wouldn't trust Lindsey Graham, either, because he basically has become a Donald Trump parrot. I mean, he just says whatever he thinks that Donald Trump wants to hear. And the fact that some of the Democratic lawmakers who have seen the same evidence that Lindsey Graham has seen have said that they don't find it nearly as conclusive and, in fact, you can interpret it in a very different way, that the Iranians were arming up because they thought that the U.S. was going to attack them. So I think with a lot of intelligence, it's usually pretty ambiguous. It's how you choose to interpret it. And again, it's hard to have much faith in the interpretation put out by the Trump administration, given their long record of mendacity.</s>COREN: You mentioned you believe Trump doesn't want a war. Many other experts agree. But he does want a deal and he thinks he can strike the same sort of deal he has with North Korea. But does that seem possible in the current climate? And you'd also have to assume that Iran is a very different animal to North Korea.</s>BOOT: Well, it's a long shot because let's remember, he hasn't actually struck a deal with North Korea. I mean, what he was doing was very transparent. He was blustering with "fire and fury" and then he was opening his outstretched arms to Kim Jong-un. But neither approach has actually produced a deal. And I'm skeptical that there's a deal to be had. And if there is a deal to be had, I doubt it would be much better than the nuclear accord that the Obama administration negotiated because Secretary Pompeo put out this list of 12 demands that are so wide-reaching, so sweeping, including having Iran cut off all of its proxies across the region, which have been a cornerstone of Iranian foreign policy since 1980. I just don't see much chance that the Iranians are actually going to do that because it would basically amount to a change of regime. And Trump has not put enough pressure on them to achieve those kinds of results.</s>COREN: Max Boot, great to get your analysis. Thanks so much for joining us.</s>BOOT: Thank you.</s>COREN: House Democrats are stepping up the pressure on more former White House officials in their probe of possible obstruction of justice by U.S. president Donald Trump. The Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the president's ex-communications director, Hope Hicks. Democrats want to ask her about a misleading statement regarding Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer in 2016. The committee has also subpoenaed Annie Donaldson, the one-time chief of staff to former White House counsel Don McGahn. That same Judiciary Committee faced an empty chair on Tuesday as McGahn defied a subpoena to appear. The White House instructed him to not show up, claiming he has immunity since he was a close adviser to the president. Democrats say McGahn's testimony is crucial since he told investigators about the president's efforts to fire special counsel Robert Mueller and then lie about it. All the stonewalling by the White House is pushing Democrats closer to calling for impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will lead a caucus meeting in the days ahead. She has said she favors a more deliberate approach, gathering evidence before starting impeachment proceedings. But other Democrats want to be more aggressive.</s>REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA), CHAIR, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: We think the case gets stronger the more they stonewall the Congress.</s>REP. JOHN LEWIS (D-GA), CHAIRMAN, OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: I'm getting there. I think what the president has done has put us in a position where we cannot get any information to do the oversight that we need to do.</s>REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D), NEW YORK: I think impeaching and choosing to not impeach when there is an abundance of evidence could also be construed as politically motivated as well. And we can't be scared of elections. We need to uphold the rule of law.</s>COREN: Ryan Lizza is a CNN senior political analyst and the chief political correspondent for "Esquire." He joins us from Washington. Ryan, great to have you with us. The House Judiciary Committee is obviously intensifying its investigation into the president, issuing subpoenas for Hope Hicks as well as Annie Donaldson, both considered critical witnesses to the committee's investigation. How damming would their testimony be?</s>RYAN LIZZA, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I think especially Don McGahn, his chief of staff, her testimony would be pretty important because she, in the Mueller report, shows up as a very aggressive note taker. So Annie Donaldson is a prosecutor's dream because she documented what happened in that office and because the office where she was the chief of staff, the White House counsel's office, was so central to the obstruction of justice charges. Her recollections, her testimony to the special counsel and her notes really form an enormous amount of the factual record. And just to take a step back, what the Democrats are trying to do is they're trying to bring to life the Mueller report, right? Most Americans, let's be honest, most politicians on Capitol Hill haven't read this report and a lot of the initial descriptions of the report were colored by the Trump administration and by the attorney general. And so Democrats have this job of letting the American people know how serious they believe the obstruction of justice charges are in the second half of that report.</s>LIZZA: And they need these firsthand witnesses to get up on the Hill, raise their right hand and tell the story of what the -- what these allegations are.</s>COREN: Well, these subpoenas came the same day that Don McGahn failed to show at the House Judiciary Committee hearing. The chairman, Jerry Nadler, obviously quite irate. He said we will hold this president accountable one way or another. Do you think that this is a sign they're beginning to move toward an impeachment inquiry? Which obviously many Democrats are calling for.</s>LIZZA: Yes. Two things that happened in the last week. One is the escalating confrontation between the House, which is controlled by Democrats, and the administration, which is just thwarting across the board almost all of their requests. And that leads to the second thing which is the quiet but very, very frustrated wing of the Democratic Party, who believes they should move forward with impeachment proceedings, started to get very vocal. There was a big blow up on Capitol Hill in a private meeting among Democrats yesterday, where some pro-impeachment Democrats confronted Democratic leaders, who think the Democratic leadership has been too slow to embrace even the possibility of impeachment. And the Democratic Party is pretty much split on this issue between people who believe it's their constitutional responsibility to, at the very least, start impeachment hearings, you know, see where the evidence leads, and other Democrats who take a little bit more of a political calculation and say it doesn't matter. The Senate is controlled by Republicans. They're never going -- in our system, obviously, the House essentially indicts and then the Senate holds a trial. The House is controlled by Democrats; the Senate is controlled by Republicans. Lots of House Democrats say, what is the point?</s>COREN: An impeachment inquiry would have a lot more power.</s>LIZZA: Absolutely.</s>COREN: Obviously this growing chorus within the party, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is resisting those calls for an impeachment inquiry.</s>LIZZA: Yes.</s>COREN: Why is she doing that?</s>LIZZA: It's a great question. Look, Nancy Pelosi is no conservative, right? She's a pretty liberal Democrat, represents one of the most liberal districts in the country but she is also -- has pretty canny political instincts. And I think she looks at impeachment almost purely as a political device. She went through the impeachment of Bill Clinton and thought the Republicans were -- it was a frivolous exercise that never had a chance of removing Bill Clinton in 1998 and shouldn't have been pursued because of that. And I think she just looks at the math and says the Senate is never going to remove this president so what is the point? We have an election in 2020. We have two remedies available for us. This is, I think, Pelosi's thinking. You can do this foolish mission of trying to impeach and remove him or you can focus all of your political energy on defeating his re-election campaign. I think her political calculation is that the latter is the smarter move for Democrats. Other Democrats say, no, that's an abdication of their constitutional responsibility and it's setting a bad precedent.</s>COREN: Ryan Lizza, great to speak with you. Thanks for joining us.</s>LIZZA: Thanks for having me.</s>COREN: Britain's prime minister has failed three times already but now Theresa May's making another attempt to get her Brexit deal passed. What she is offering to skeptical MPs. Later this hour, how Huawei's CEO is downplaying the trade restrictions placed on his company by the United States.