CNN "The Situation Room" - Transcript: Russian Agression, ISIS and American Defectors, Netanyahu and the Iran Deal

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BLITZER: Barbara Starr at the Pentagon, disturbing developments indeed. Thank you.

Let's get a little bit more on all of this. Joining us, Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff of California. He's the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Congressman, thanks very much for going.

Do you have a good understanding of what Putin is up to right now with all these military maneuvers, moving these aircraft into Crimea, moving troops closer and closer to some of the NATO allies?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA: This is I think what dangerous dictators do.

They are playing to an external audience and an internal audience. These kind of aggressive moves have made him very popular at home. They're also a way of putting pressure on NATO and basically asserting Russia's prominence on the world stage. I think this is very consistent with what we have seen about the very aggressive, dangerously aggressive and provocative moves that Putin likes to make, more of the same, and there's no telling where this ends.

BLITZER: It was very disturbing in that Russian TV, state TV documentary, he actually said a year ago when Russian troops were actually helping their allies in Crimea take over and annex Crimea, make it a part of Russia, he was putting some of his nuclear forces on alert.

SCHIFF: It is very alarming that he would come out and say that, if that was true, and if it was true, even more alarming.

At the same time, I find it remarkable and not a little bit arrogant for him to talk about how, quite openly, he was planning the takeover of Crimea even before they supposedly voted on that. The fact that he's proud of that, that the election was essentially a charade, is extraordinary. BLITZER: I have spoken to representatives of the some of the

NATO allies, like Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia. These are all NATO allies. If one NATO ally is attacked, all of the other NATO allies must come to the defense of that NATO ally. They are worried about Russia right now. They are not sure that the U.S. and other the NATO allies are ready to come to their defense.

SCHIFF: I can understand why they are concerned. It's why we have to do everything we can to reassure them.

And that means assisting with their policing mission, putting more of our NATO forces in the region, closer to the theater. But they are also, I think, very much feeling under assault internally, as the Russian propaganda machine tries to move their domestic populations. They have a right to be very concerned.

BLITZER: On this issue that Barbara was just reporting that the U.S. has lost a drone over Syria, the Syrian regime claims they shot down that Predator drone, what can you tell us about that?

SCHIFF: Well, I can't confirm that that's the case.

We have had some mechanical problems with drones. Whenever a drone goes down, wherever it goes down, people take credit for shooting it down. That's often not accurate and not the case. If these reports are accurate, and it was shot down, the question is, who shot it down? And did the Syrian -- have that capability? Did the Russians help? So, a lot of unanswered questions at this point.

BLITZER: If they have a drone, they could do some reverse technology and learn stuff that the probably the U.S. doesn't want them to learn in the process as well.

Congressman, I want you to stand by for a moment. We have much more to talk about, including ISIS and including the Israeli election results.

We will much more with Congressman Adam Schiff right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Let's get to more on the breaking news we're following.

An American Air Force veteran and airplane mechanic now charged, formally charged with trying to enter Syria to join ISIS forces. The FBI had been monitoring him for more than a decade after he told a co- worker said that he actually sympathized with Osama bin Laden.

We're back with Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

His name Tairod Nathan Webster Pugh. How much damage potentially could he have done to the United States, from a propaganda standpoint, also from a military intelligence standpoint, if, in fact, he had gotten into Syria and connected with ISIS?

SCHIFF: I don't know how much damage he could have done on the intelligence front.

I imagine it would be limited, except one thing I'm going to be interested in finding out, and that is, what kind of work was he doing as a contractor in Iraq and why would we be employing someone who made those kind of expressions earlier about the bombings of U.S. embassies being justified?

The bigger concern I think is what he might -- what kind of service he can provide in terms of aircraft, either as a mechanic assisting ISIS or, more importantly, whether he has insights into vulnerabilities of American commercial aircraft. That's always been a key concern of ours.

BLITZER: In terms of hijacking or shooting down aircraft, stuff like that?

SCHIFF: Exactly, or finding ways to smuggle explosives onto a plane.

BLITZER: Which is pretty worrisome.

He had been monitored for a long time, but I guess they didn't have enough to arrest him until he actually went to Turkey from Egypt and was apparently trying to cross the border into Syria.

SCHIFF: And that's a real challenge because it looks like, from what we know of the complaint or the public reports, that he made statements to others that were reported. But that's not very substantial evidence of an intent to actually act on those things. People have the right to express their opinions.

So clearly when he took those steps of actually trying to get into the country, we had enough cause to arrest.

BLITZER: Let's talk about the election results in Israel. Too close to call right now. Very, very close between the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu and Isaac Herzog, his main challenger. It could go either way, even though Netanyahu is claiming a big victory. What is your reaction?

SCHIFF: My reaction really to the last couple of days of the campaign, the thing that was most striking to me was Netanyahu walking away from the commitment to a two-state solution, because if he has problems now with the current administration and he ends up staying in power, we have just added a whole new issue of considerable heft to the differences between Netanyahu and the president, and that is support for a two-state solution.

BLITZER: When you say two-state solution, you mean Israel alongside a new state of Palestine?

SCHIFF: Exactly.

If this is more than a campaign pledge that the prime minister intends to shed if he's reelected, this is going to be another substantial problem. We have the very important differences on the Iranian nuclear potential deal, but if we also have a disagreement with the Israeli government on the desirability of a two-state solution, it's going to add to the differences between our two leaders.

BLITZER: Well, do you think he was just saying that in the final days of the campaign to appeal to right-wing voters in Israel, I'm not going to support a Palestine, there will never be a Palestine under his administration?

Do you think he can actually now, assuming he stays on as prime minister, and there's no guarantee he will, but let's say he does -- can he quickly walk away from that?

SCHIFF: Well, I don't see how, because if there are parties that he brings into a coalition that he was appeasing with that kind of a commitment, you can see them walking away if that commitment is something he walks away from.

So, that's going to be, I think, a pivotal issue if he remains at the leadership. In Congress, we're going to have to try to work to make sure we maintain a strong relationship with Israel no matter who ends up governing in that country. That's something that's been put at risk to the degree that the Republican Party has become associated with Likud. That was never the case. It was more -- it didn't matter who was running the country.

BLITZER: Because the relationship already between Netanyahu and President Obama was severely strained because of his speech before the joint meeting of Congress.

You actually went to that speech, although you weren't happy he delivered that speech, which basically said what the president is trying to do in these Iranian nuclear negotiations is a bad deal and he urged everyone to oppose it.

Already was bad then, but now potentially could be a whole lot worse if he stays on as prime minister and opposes that so-called two- state solution.

SCHIFF: Exactly. That for me was the main takeaway of this campaign.

And that is, we already had a poor relationship I think between Mr. Netanyahu and the president. It got worse with the speech and it may get worse still if the prime minister intends to...

BLITZER: Do you think, if he's reelected, let's say he stays on and he holds on to these positions, opposes any deal with Iran, opposes or at least the current notion of a deal with Iran, opposes a two-state solution, do you think the Obama administration backed by Congress would actually take steps against Israel, reduce economic or military assistance, for example, intelligence cooperation, military- to-military cooperation, stuff like that?

SCHIFF: I think the military-to-military and intelligence cooperation is going to go on regardless of who is in that office and differences over policy.

But where it may come in is if the prime minister opposes a two- state solution, and there are issues before the U.N., of which there always are, because so much of the U.N.'s time is spent on Israel and often criticizing Israel, it's hard to imagine the administration being as eager to rush into that to Israel's defense if there's yet another major disagreement on policy.

BLITZER: Vetoing U.N. resolutions, Security Council resolutions which are anti-Israel, and that's what you're talking about. The U.S. might be more reluctant to do so, is that what you're saying?

SCHIFF: Well, particularly if those resolutions deal with a two- state solution. We will have a very big divide on that important policy.

BLITZER: Well, let's see. First of all, he's not reelected yet. It's going to take several days, if not several weeks, before there's a determination who is going to be the next prime minister of Israel. We will see what happens.

This new exclusive poll shows 68 percent of the people support using direct diplomacy to try to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons; 29 percent oppose. There's a decisive majority that likes the idea that the Obama administration is at least trying to diplomatically end the possibility of Iran getting a nuclear bomb.

What are you hearing about those negotiations in Switzerland right now?

SCHIFF: Well, it certainly sounds like they are close. And the White House has been briefing us and the team have been briefing us from time to time.

But it's also a situation where it could fall apart. And there still I think are remaining significant differences. And whether we can close that gap, whether the negotiating teams can or not, we will find out soon. I wouldn't be completely surprised if we get to the end of the month, and we don't have as many specifics as many in Congress would like.

And then I expect we will have a debate over whether there's enough common agreement to hold off any legislative action until the real deadline in June.

BLITZER: You're the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Are you being briefed thoroughly, as thoroughly as you would like by the Obama administration on what is going on in these negotiations?

SCHIFF: I have been. They have been very frequently coming to the Hill or inviting us to the White House for briefings on this.

We also, quite separate and apart from that, get briefings from the elements of the intelligence community about what they know about Iran's nuclear program. And so I think the communication on that has been very good. There are certainly policy differences among us on the Hill, but I don't think any of us can complain that we have been left out of the loop.

BLITZER: Are you comfortable potentially, as the report suggests, could be a 10-year deal, after 10 years, all bets are off and Iran can do whatever it wants?

SCHIFF: We will see; 10 years seems to me a very short period of time. It goes by in a heartbeat and particularly with a regime that looks at its history in terms of millennia, not the regime itself, but the Persian nation, 10 years is a blip on the screen.

It really depends on what the agreement as a whole provides and what the alternatives are. And my concern all along on this has been that the timetable -- let's say this falls apart, we add new sanctions. Is there enough time for those sanctions to take place before we get to any red lines? And I'm not sure there is.

BLITZER: Congressman Schiff, thanks very much for joining us.

SCHIFF: Thanks, Wolf.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source