Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Israel And Iran Launch New Round of Attacks; Interview With Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT); Sources: Trump Is Considering U.S. Military Strikes On Iran; Iranian Supreme Leader Warns: "The Battle Begins"; Defense Secretary Hegseth Ordered Additional Military Assets To Middle East, Including The USS Nimitz Carrier Strike Group; MAGA Movement Split Over U.S. Involvement In Middle East; Israel Warns People In Tehran To Evacuate: "Life In Danger". Aired 8-9p ET

Aired June 17, 2025 - 20:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI, IRAN'S SUPREME LEADER (through translator): We must give a strong response. God willing, we will respond with strength and we will show them no mercy.

MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The question now whether Iranians themselves will stand with the leader they've so often opposed.

Melissa Bell, CNN, Paris.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: All right, thanks for joining us. I'll be back on to the morning. "AC360" starts right now.

[20:00:35]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Good evening from Amman, Jordan and we are route to Israel right now, because the airspace over Tel Aviv and elsewhere in Israel is closed, we're heading there over land.

We've seen what we believe were Jordanian air defenses targeting missiles flying over Jordan not long after we landed here in Amman around the same time in the skies over Tel Aviv.

Israeli air defenses engaged inbound missiles as well, take a look.

These are some of the intercepts which have become a regular sight over the last six days over Israel. Also, within the last hour, the IDF told people living in one section of Tehran to leave the area ahead of Israeli attacks there. In addition to that new reporting, "The New York Times," citing American officials that Iran is preparing missiles to be used against U.S. bases in the region should the U.S. join the fighting. And as Iran and Israel continue to engage missile fire and airstrikes, with explosions being reported tonight in both countries, the question just as it was when we left you last night, is will the United States get involved militarily in offensive operations against Iran? Even more so now, after what the President has said and done since he

made an early departure from the G7 Summit last night in Western Canada, he left. You'll remember shortly after telling people in Tehran to "evacuate immediately," which is this video from one of the highways out of Tehran showed many did. Nearly 10 million people live in that city.

Then on the flight back, he said this to CNN's Kaitlan Collins, suggesting he buys Israel's assessment of how close Iran is to a nuclear weapon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Tulsi Gabbard testified in March the intelligence community said Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon.

DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having one.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, just to remind you, here is what DNI Tulsi Gabbard said in March.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TULSI GABBARD, UNITED STATES DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: The I.C. continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. The I.C. continues to monitor closely if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, today, she says there's no daylight between what she said then and what the President is saying now. As for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, he was asked over the weekend what changed since then? He said intelligence, which he said was shared with the U.S., was, "absolutely clear that they" meaning Iran, "were working in a secret plant to weaponize the uranium. They were," he said, "marching very quickly."

The President returned to Washington early this morning. By noon, he was posting on social media three times in quick succession, quoting from the first. We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran, raising the questions about who he meant by we. The post continues -- Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, but plenty of it. But it doesn't compare to American made, conceived and manufactured stuff.

Following that, a thinly veiled threat about Iran's leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. We know exactly where the so-called supreme leader is hiding, the President wrote. He's an easy target but is safe there. We are not going to take him out (kill), at least not for now. Then a short time later came this two words, all caps, "UNCONDITIONAL

SURRENDER." As you might imagine, all this raise any number of questions with State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce could not answer, though she did say this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TAMMY BRUCE, SPOKESPERSON FOR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE: This is again, one of the things we have learned about President Trump is that when he tweets, when he speaks, the world watches and it's the most clear framework that we can learn of his approach.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: A short time later, after speaking by phone with Prime Minister Netanyahu, the President met with members of the National Security Council. And though we don't know yet what was said, two officials familiar with the ongoing discussions on the subject tell us he is growing increasingly warm to the idea of using American military assets to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, some of which may only be vulnerable, as you know, to American weapons.

Just a short time ago, we got word that the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem will be closing tomorrow through Friday. And moments before air time, Reuters, citing Iranian news agencies, said that Iran's revolutionary guards have issued an evacuation warning for neighborhood in Tel Aviv.

CNN chief international correspondent Clarissa Ward is there in Tel Aviv for us, again tonight she joins us now. What have you been seeing and hearing throughout the evening tonight -- Clarissa.

[20:05:18]

CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we have had a number of sirens going off throughout the night. Anderson, most recently about an hour ago, a number of missiles intercepted over Tel Aviv, at least one making impact and some fires that we saw, but no casualties reported by Israel's emergency services.

And we're hearing from Israeli authorities that it's about ten missiles so far that ballistic missiles from Iran that have been launched this evening. Compare that to 30 yesterday evening and then compare that to 200 on Friday evening and you have a sense that there is certainly a dramatic reduction in the amount of activity that we're seeing coming from Iran into Israel.

Now, what that is a result of, we don't know. The Israelis are saying that they have decimated about a third of Iran's missile launch pads. So that may certainly be a factor in this. It may also be that Iran is trying to conserve some of its firepower while it waits and watches to see what the U.S.' decision will be in terms of taking a more direct intervention.

And that's certainly a question here as well, Anderson, that people are asking themselves. Publicly, Israeli officials seeking not to appear to strong arm or weigh in too heavily on this issue with the Defense Minister Israel Katz, today saying, basically, were grateful that the U.S. is helping us in a defensive posture and not really pushing any further than that, but privately, clearly, Israel very much hoping that President Trump will make the decision to join in this operation against Iran.

And to that end, as well, we have been hearing reports from the Israeli Air Force and also from people on the ground inside Tehran of heavy explosions throughout the night as everybody waits and watches to see what the next few days will bring. And certainly, just to add last thing significant that the U.S. embassy is announcing it will be closed Wednesday to Friday.

They haven't really given an official reason for that beyond saying in compliance with what the Israeli Home Front Command is essentially suggesting, and some Americans have been reaching out to me as well, saying that they're stranded trying to get home. And at this stage, the U.S. State Department not really in a position to help them -- Anderson.

COOPER: Yes, Clarissa Ward, thanks very much. We'll check in with you throughout the hour as warranted. I want to check in with CNN's chief White House correspondent and anchor of "The Source," Kaitlan Collins.

Kaitlan, is it clear what happened at the meeting in the Situation Room what the President is thinking is right now?

COLLINS: No, we know it was a widely attended event, Anderson. We saw everyone coming to the White House and then leaving hours later after this meeting, inside the situation room had wrapped up and included the Joint Chiefs Chairman, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the Vice- President, the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard it was quite a heavily populated event. But obviously, you know, the President does have meetings regularly with his team inside the Situation Room.

But this takes on newfound importance because there is a critical decision before him right now. And we don't know as of this moment which way he is going to ultimately come down on this. But we do know that he is leaning much more toward having the United States get involved militarily in this and potentially help Israel strike Iran's nuclear program and nuclear facilities here.

And so, that is a major shift from where the President was a few weeks ago, a few months ago, certainly when he was ruling out this idea of getting involved in the Middle East and saying that he wanted to pursue a diplomatic solution instead. And, of course, now he's grown increasingly frustrated with how that process went. And he's been impressed by how successful the strikes by Israel on Iran have been and that is really what's contributed to the shift in his mindset that were seeing.

And, I mean, you could see it in his Truth Social post this morning after we got back from that trip that was cut short to Canada, where he was saying that, you know, we know where the Supreme Leader is hiding. We're not going to take him out as of right now. A very obvious caveat, that is, you know, not really exactly settling to the to the Ayatollah himself.

And so, when you look at that, you get a real view into what the Presidents thinking is. And we did last night on Air Force One because we asked him, Anderson, about reports that maybe he'll send the Vice President and his Middle East envoy to meet with Iranian officials and try to get some kind of diplomatic talk back on track. He was pretty dismissive of that when I asked him about that, he said, maybe I will, but it didn't seem like that was any real feasible plan that was in the works. And so --

COOPER: He was also pretty dismissive of Tulsi Gabbard, the DNI when you asked the question, the important question. Well, she just testified in march that the U.S., the assessment of the U.S. intelligence community was that they were not, you know, on the cusp of developing a weapon. What do you make of his answer?

[20:10:17]

COLLINS: Yes, and, you know, she did testify during that moment that yes, there's a lot of uranium enrichment that Iran has more than any other country that doesn't have a nuclear arsenal. But she was quite clear in March that they did not believe that they were actively working on pursuing a nuclear weapon.

The President just frankly disagrees with that. And so, it was notable to hear him dispute what his top spy chief is saying. She told reporters on Capitol Hill today that they are aligned. They are on the same page. But I talked to a lot of White House officials who said, obviously, you know, this is the difference in their views that is shaping out.

She has always been a noninterventionist. That is very clear in her testimony and in her appearances that she's made, even as the Director of National Intelligence. But it's central to the question here, Anderson, which is what changed and why now? Why do they believe Iran is closer to developing a nuclear weapon that could warrant potential U.S. military intervention. And obviously, you see the prime minister of Israel defend that. And there's a question of whether or not that is a similar justification that the President uses here.

COOPER: Kaitlan Collins, thanks very much. We'll see you at the top of the hour. Interesting side note tomorrow, the President is scheduled to have lunch with the chief of Army staff of one of Iran's neighbors, Pakistan, which is itself, of course, a nuclear weapon state.

And joining me now, "The New York Times" Washington correspondent, Mark Mazzetti and Politico White House bureau chief Dasha Burns. Mark, based on your reporting, how aligned or not have President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu been on Iran in the weeks leading up to Israel's airstrike? And what's changed in recent days, particularly, it seems, in the past 24 hours?

MARK MAZZETTI, WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Well, they weren't really aligned for weeks and months. And, you know, back in April, Netanyahu was pushing similarly for a strike. Again, as you know, Anderson, Netanyahu has been pushing for years for the United States to join Israel in a strike against Iran. Trump kind of beat this back.

But then in late May, American intelligence agencies picked up what they thought was pretty indisputable Intel that Israel was about to do this, and they were about to do it without the United States. And I think what's important to point out is that Netanyahu, since last fall, has felt very emboldened to go after Iran because he no longer has a Hezbollah threat of retaliation from Lebanon.

Israel has hit Iranian air defenses, and the Iranian missile capabilities have shown themselves over the last year to be weaker than expected. So, an emboldened Netanyahu meant that he could push Trump and even do an operation on his own, with the hope that if by starting it, he could bring Trump in, bring the United States in to kind of, "finish the job." And that's kind of where we are right now about whether the United States gets directly involved, especially with the Fordow bunker and other difficult targets.

COOPER: I mean, I've been wondering how much the Trump administration is influenced by the weakness -- the historic weakness of the Iran regime because of the prior Israeli efforts against Hezbollah, because of the decimation of Hamas, the change in leadership in Syria.

According to your reporting, the President took notice of all the credit the Israeli government was getting on Fox News. Is that right?

MAZZETTI: Yes, right. So, Friday morning, the morning after the Israeli strikes, President Trump was watching Fox News and sort of seeing all the credit Israel was getting for what seemed like a pretty clean and successful at least first day of the operation and Trump started calling around and sort of saying how much the U.S. actually behind the scenes was involved.

Now, that's one thing, right, to say that the other thing is to then get directly involved, militarily involved with American lives on the line, which is what he's now pondering with direct U.S. military airstrikes.

So, there is this, you know, war for the President's mind on this issue, right within his circle of advisers about whether the United States should take this step, something that he said during the campaign he would avoid.

COOPER: Yes, well, Dasha, to that point, is it clear to you who has the President's ear on this and to what extent he's listening to that advice? Because clearly, it does seem I mean, I know DNI Gabbard said they're on the same page, but it's certainly based on her testimony, it doesn't seem like it and he sort of brushed aside that to Kaitlan Collins.

DASHA BURNS, WHITE HOUSE BUREAU CHIEF CORRESPONDENT, POLITICO: Well, there are a number of factors here. Number one, there are a lot of voices in the President's ear, and he is somebody that with big decisions like this, does like to call around and does like to hear a variety of opinions. You also have a lot of people who want to seem like they are influencing the President. So, we've been very careful in our reporting to try to parse through who is actually influential and who just really wants to be.

I will say, the folks that are talking about the U.S. getting involved in regime change, as though that is something that is very seriously on the table right now, are off base, at least for the moment from what I'm hearing from White House officials and allies.

Regime change is not something that is seriously a discussion. However, taking out Iran's nuclear capabilities and the U.S. getting involved in that, that is something that folks are open to. And some of the sources I've been talking to have been traditionally staunch isolationists. They were in support of President Trump because he was promising no new wars. They are now pointing to way back when the President first launched his campaign in 2015, saying, remember he was talking about preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons at all costs even back then.

[20:15:49]

So, maybe we forgot how serious he is about this issue. And again, the fact that these are kind of staunch America First people who are now recalling this and pointing to what they say has been a consistent position from the President on Iran for a decade plus. That is really telling as well here, Anderson.

COOPER: Dasha, does it seem to you that the President has been essentially, kind of I don't know, if outmaneuvered or just maneuvered into this by Benjamin Netanyahu, because certainly he was planning on having further negotiations. And then Israel launched this strike. And now the U.S. position seems like it's about to change.

BURNS: Here's what I know from sources. He wanted a diplomatic solution. He felt like he could use some art of the deal tactics to make it happen, and he wanted more time. He did not want Netanyahu to strike when he did, but then he did. And then his hands were a little bit tied and now the options on the table are different than what they were even a few days ago.

Even over the weekend, there was conversation about some of the rhetorical threats that the President was posting being more threats to bring Iran to the table, see if he could call their bluff, vice- versa. But now, it feels like the White House is seeing that that diplomacy might not be possible anymore at this point, given the images on your screen right now.

COOPER: Yes, Dasha and Mark, thank you very much, appreciate both of your reporting very much. There's a lot to get to throughout this hour. Coming up next, let's see, I want to go to -- we're going to have more reports from the region. But I want to bring in Senator Chris Murphy, air defenses in action a short time ago in Tehran, as we showed you, the Israeli Air Force says strikes on the Iranian capital are underway.

Senator Chris Murphy is joining us now. Senator Murphy, what where do you stand on where the U.S. is now and what may happen, it seems like from this administration? SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): Well, I think what you heard in the

reporting just now is an indication of how weak the U.S. hand is here. Clearly, President Trump did not want Israel to take this action.

We were literally in the middle of trying to find a diplomatic solution. The United States had enormous leverage and Donald Trump is so weak in the Middle East that the Israelis essentially ran over him. And now we are speeding towards a war in the Middle East that the American people don't want.

The fact of the matter is, there was a diplomatic path, and there potentially still could be a diplomatic path. But anyone who is cheerleading the United States into a war with Iran has very quickly forgotten the disasters of the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war, where there were early tactical successes. But it became a quagmire that ultimately got thousands of Americans killed, created new insurgencies against U.S. Interests and against our allies in the region.

So, I do not think there's support in this country for the United States to go to war again in the Middle East. And I would remind the President that he can't take any offensive action against Iran without coming to Congress first. He has no leeway here. The Constitution requires him to get an authorization of military force from Congress.

I don't think that he'll get that authorization from this Congress, because there is opposition on both the Republican and Democratic side to the United States getting dragged into another potentially disastrous conflict in the Middle East.

COOPER: How worried are you that Benjamin Netanyahu is maybe not just out for trying to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program, but regime change and obviously the history of, you know, what the U.S. has tried to do in terms of regime change, both in, you know, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere has always had unintended consequences.

MURPHY: Well, that's exactly right and whether or not Israel says that its intent is regime change, the nature of these strikes prompts the potential that this government will fall and potentially replaced by an even more dangerous regime. So, this is a really dangerous business to get into and once again, we should be making decisions based on what's good for U.S. National Security.

We do not have any obligation to follow and Israeli decision that likely has more to do with protecting Netanyahu's own political situation back home than it does with protecting U.S. National Security interests. So, this regime in Tehran is dangerous. It is dangerous to Israel. It's dangerous to the United States but there are potential follow on, terrorist led regimes that could be even more cataclysmic for our interests. We just have to have our eyes wide open as to the mess that we may be creating.

[20:20:42]

COOPER: So, what do you think the administration should do? I mean, what do you think they should use the weapons that the only the U.S. has to try to take out this Fordow facility or do you think that's a mistake?

MURPHY: I think that's a mistake. I don't think the United States should get involved in another war in the Middle East and we should just be very clear that there is a limited amount that we can do, even with air power here. Our forces in the region are very exposed. We don't obviously need to talk about classified information, but it is open source reporting that we don't have adequate protection on many of our forces in the region.

And so right now, Iran has not decided to strike at U.S. forces in the region. That calculus absolutely changes if the United States ends up getting directly involved. You are talking about putting some significant U.S. assets at risk and drawing the United States much more deeply into a war that may not simply be about air assets. We might ultimately have to commit land forces. If, you know, a dozen or two dozen American soldiers get killed in the region. And again, that is not anything that the American people are asking for.

Donald Trump made a promise when he ran for office that he was going to get the United States out of wars, not get the United States into a new war in the Middle East, which the united states participation in the Israeli air campaign may end up doing.

COOPER: Senator Chris Murphy, I appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

MURPHY: Thank you.

COOPER: Coming up next, in the wake of today's meeting that the President had with the National Security Council, we'll be joined by a former National Security Council member who's been in the room many times with Iran on the agenda. That's' ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:26:02]

COOPER: Those are air defenses in action a short time ago, in the skies over Tehran, the Israeli Air Force saying that strikes on the Iranian capital are underway after warning residents in one part of the city to leave.

Now, before the break, Senator Chris Murphy warned of the potential eventual need for ground forces in the region as one possibility. If the U.S. gets involved in the strikes on Iran.

Our perspective from CNN global affairs analyst Brett McGurk, former Middle East and North Africa coordinator for the National Security Council and also retired U.S. Army Colonel Peter Mansoor, senior fellow at Mershon Center for International Security Studies at Ohio State University.

Brett, I want to start with you. I want to play just a couple of times, a couple of many times over the years, really, that Prime Minister Netanyahu has warned that Iran was close to acquiring nuclear bomb. The first one is from 2006. I think the second one was from 2012. I just want to play this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL: It'll take them anywhere up to three years to cross all the nuclear technology threshold, and then it takes about a year or two to weaponize. But this at most would give us five years. It could very well be next year.

By next spring, at most, by next summer. At current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage. From there, it's only a few months, possibly a few weeks, before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: There's certainly a lot of people who are suspicious of Prime Minister Netanyahu -- his motivations, potential motivations, potential, you know, domestic political motivations, legacy motivations to do this. He saw the U.S. was -- going to have more negotiations with Iran. Do you believe that Iran is on the brink and given also Tulsi Gabbard's testimony back in March?

BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Look, I believe, Anderson, not speaking for Prime Minister Netanyahu or anyone, but as someone who's dealt with this problem. The Iranian nuclear program has these advanced centrifuges and stockpiles of highly enriched uranium that has no conceivable civilian use. And the IAEA, which has no axe to grind, issued a report last week that found Iran to be in egregious violation of their nonproliferation obligations. And then 19 countries found them in violation of nonproliferation commitments for the first time in 20 years.

When this all broke, Anderson, five nights ago, we were talking about Fordow. That was the crux of it. I was immediately concerned the Israelis could not do that on their own. And that's where we are and in Fordow, this underground facility of Iran has ten cascades of these highly advanced IR-6 centrifuges, enriching to 60 percent uranium. It's a serious, serious problem and I've dealt with it.

[20:30:01]

I am not saying that I -- if I was working on this issue this might not be where we want to be, we want to try to get a deal, but we are where we are. And I believe very strongly, and I know the president was briefed today on the military option.

And I have to say, I saw Senator Murphy on there, it's a viable military option, that doesn't mean it's advisable, that it's worth a real debate.

COOPER: Colonel, I mean, Iran is historically weakened right now, given the decimation of Hamas, Hezbollah, the change of regime in Syria, how much should that play into the Trump administration's considerations about whether to directly strike or not?

COL. PETER MANSOOR (RET.), U.S. ARMY: Well, the question is, if not now, when? If Iran wasn't close to a nuclear weapon leading into this conflict, it will get there as soon as it can, exiting this conflict, having been attacked in a serious way by Israel. So if the United States is going to get involved, if we're going to actually destroy the Iranian nuclear program, now is the time to do it, when Israel has achieved air superiority over Iran, allowing U.S. aircraft to fly with much less danger as they strike their targets.

You know, this deep ordinance penetrator that's required to take out the mountain under which the Fordow facility is located, you know, it requires a hefty platform to carry it, and that makes it vulnerable to air defense systems. So with those out of the way, now is the time to strike if the president decides to do so.

COOPER: Brett, my understanding is, with this bunker-busting bomb, it's not just one that gets dropped. It would have to be multiple kind of in the same spot over and over again to really penetrate. I also heard one analyst say that even then, there might be a requirement for some sort of Special Forces to go in and inspect or get material out of there. Is that -- how do you see -- if the U.S. decided to do this, how does it play out?

MCGURK: That specific ordinance, the 30,000-pound ordinance, is almost designed for this specific mission. It's been trained on. The plan has been refined, including just over the last two years. It's a very viable plan.

Peter just made a very important point. There are two main risks to this plan. Number one is the air defense. The air defense is no longer there. So we can hover over the site and make sure it is destroyed. I think the military probably has pretty high confidence in that. Second, there was a risk of Hezbollah missiles. That's also no longer there.

But I would say an important thing, Anderson. This is really critical. If we are going to do this, you obviously have to manage and mitigate risk. We also need alignment with the Israelis.

I am concerned about mission creep. We've talked about this in the past. If the president has made this decision, he has to speak with Prime Minister Netanyahu and say, look, we're prepared to do this, and then we have a clear end state.

We are destroying the nuclear facilities, the missile facilities, and that's it. We are not going for regime change in Iran. I think we have to have a very clear limitation on the objective.

So you want to manage risk. You want to have clear alignment with the Israelis, that's critical. And then the timing. The question here, last night, we were talking about coercive diplomacy. Today, the president said unconditional surrender.

Is the door even open to diplomacy? There's a lot of discussions going on in the region. Everybody's talking to everybody. It's unclear to me whether the door is still open for diplomacy.

I might give the Iranians one more chance to take the deal that's been on the table, which can solve this issue diplomatically. But it looks like now, Anderson, we are moving everything in place to get ready for a strike on Fordow.

COOPER: Brett McGurk, Colonel Peter Mansoor, I appreciate your expertise in this. Thank you both.

Coming up next, a closer look at how far along Iran's nuclear program is and more from the region. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:38:21]

COOPER: And welcome back. We're live from Amman, Jordan. It is 3:37 a.m. here. You can hear the call to prayer echoing over this city. I'm not sure if you can hear from now. But it's an extraordinary sound in the middle of the night here, it's around 3:30 a.m.

With Iranian missiles targeting Tel Aviv, the morning call to prayer here in Amman, just sounding Iran Supreme leader. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei just posted on social media, and I'm quoting now, "In the name of the noble Haidar, the battle begins." Haidar is a name often used for Ali, who Shia Muslims consider the first imam and successor to the Prophet Muhammad.

Meantime, the Pentagon is mobilizing assets in the region, including dozens of aerial tankers, along with the aircraft carrier Nimitz and its associated task force.

For more on the preparations and the plans, CNN's Natasha Bertrand joins us now from the Pentagon. Natasha, what are you learning? What more do we know about the assets being moved to this region and what military options are being presented?

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, we've seen dozens of U.S. Air Force tankers move into the region in recent days, and that is because we're told it will give the president options. Essentially, if he wants to carry out any kind of strike on Iranian nuclear facilities using a B-2 bomber, for example, he can do that because of all of the tankers that are currently in the air. They can be refueled.

And in addition to that, it also gives the president the option of helping the Israeli military carry out strikes on Iran themselves. Of course, these tankers could also be used to refuel Israeli jets as they carry out their strikes over Tehran and over the nuclear facilities inside Iran.

[20:40:03]

And so, essentially, it gives the president the flexibility to decide just how far he wants to take this. Does he want to get the U.S. directly militarily involved using its own air force assets to launch strikes on Iran, or does he want to just go the lesser end of that spectrum and help the Israeli aircraft continue the pace of the strikes over Iran that they have been doing in recent days and perhaps even escalate those?

So that is why the tankers, we're told, have been moved into the region. And of course, as you mentioned, the U.S. has deployed the Nimitz aircraft carrier to the central command area of responsibility. It joins the USS Carl Vinson, another aircraft carrier that is still there.

It's unclear how long they're going to overlap. But of course, the aircraft carriers provide a tremendous amount of hardware and firepower that can be used in both offensive operations as well as, of course, defensively, as many of the destroyers in the region have been as well, helping to intercept some of those Iranian missiles that have been incoming into Israel, Anderson.

COOPER: All right. Natasha Bertrand, thanks.

For more now on Iran's nuclear program, which before the break, our guest, Peter Mansoor, said is all but certain to accelerate if Iran gets through Israel's operation.

Joining me is National Security Analyst Joseph Cirincione, who is the vice chair of the board of directors at the Center for International Policy. Thanks so much for being with us. How hard is it to know with any certainty how close Iran is to getting a nuclear bomb before these airstrikes?

JOSEPH CIRINCIONE, VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL POLICY: Right. Thank you, Anderson. There are major uncertainties here. There are a couple of things that we do know. We do know that they have enough medium enriched uranium, uranium enriched to 60 percent, that they could quickly put back into those centrifuges at Fordow or elsewhere and turn into bomb grade material, 90 percent enriched uranium.

And they would have enough for the cores of about 10 bombs. That we know. What we don't know is how skilled they are in turning that uranium into a metal. That's what you need to forge it into the core of a bomb. Would that take them weeks or months? We just don't know.

Do they have a workable bomb design that they could then fashion into a deliverable device? Because of those uncertainties, the U.S. intelligence agency has always estimated that it would take Iran between one to two years to build a nuclear weapon. But they now have the hardest part done. They have enough of the material. They can do that, as I say, in days.

And then that were playing with guesses about how long they could do it. And so you're basically gambling that you could do enough damage to Iran that you could shut this operation down before they could build a bomb. That is a complete unknown. I don't think anybody knows whether you can do that.

COOPER: What about -- I mean, that's a bomb of 90 percent -- with 60 percent, which is what they have already. Can you fashion a crude device? Because I guess my question is, if Iran feels they have no other -- you know, if their back is against the wall, they feel this is a -- the regime is going to live or die based on this. And they are so inclined. Could they fashion some sort of crude nuclear device?

CIRINCIONE: No, not with 60 percent. The minimum is 70 percent. You just got to get the uranium 235 isotopes close enough together that once you start the reaction, it'll go to explosion and not fizzle out. That's why 70, 80, 90 percent is preferable.

The unknown here is what you would do once you've got a crude device. So instead of fashioning it into the device, you could fit on a warhead of a missile to deliver that way, that might take you one to two years. Perhaps you just want to do something you can deliver in the cargo hull of a ship or by truck or by airplane.

Well, that you might be able to do in a couple of months, a couple of weeks. You just don't know. That's why the idea of attacking Iran now like this is really rolling the nuclear dice.

Maybe you can succeed. I say there's a chance of that, but there's a far greater chance that this could lead to the kind of catastrophe that military and intelligence officials have been warning about for 20 years. There's a reason we haven't done this before. The risks are just too great.

There are alternatives to military action, and that is diplomacy. It's the only thing that has worked to stop Iran from getting a bomb. It still has a chance to work if the president of the United States can make up his mind and decide what he wants to do.

COOPER: And just briefly, the risks you're talking about are not just of, you know, of what kind of regime takes over. Are you talking about a nuclear risk in an attack that a bombing of a facility could actually a radiological event?

CIRINCIONE: Right. If we attack Iran, and it looks like we're going to do that, there's a number of things that people have warned about that are likely to happen. Closing the Straits of Hormuz, shutting off, therefore, about a quarter of the world's oil supply. That will sink stock markets around the world, could throw us into a global recession.

[20:45:12]

U.S. bases in the area are going to be attacked. U.S. missiles are going to start attacking sites, perhaps throughout the Middle East, where U.S. forces are involved. The Quds Force could start attacking U.S. and Israeli interests outside the region.

These people know what they're doing. They can blow up restaurants, blow up symbols of U.S. power. All kinds of things could start to break out at this point. And then at the top of that list of unknowns is that Iran could announce that it has a nuclear weapon and that it has smuggled it into a port of a European ally or of the United States itself and threatened to detonate it unless the U.S. stops its attacks.

Or it could do a nuclear test to just show us that it has a nuclear weapon. What do we do then? That's why this is such an unnecessary gamble.

COOPER: Joseph Cirincione, I appreciate your time tonight. Thank you.

Coming up next, the Republican divide over the Israel-Iran conflict, how the president responded to this.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST, THE TUCKER CARLSON SHOW: I don't want the United States enmeshed in another Middle Eastern war that doesn't serve our interests.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:50:30]

COOPER: More now in the divide on the political right over President Trump possibly helping Israel offensively. In recent days, he's taken heat from staunch allies like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

CARLSON: My interest is really simple. I don't want the United States enmeshed in another Middle Eastern war that doesn't serve our interests. I think we're going to see the end of American empire.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

COOPER: That prompted this from the president on social media, quote, "Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.

Joining us now journalist Gretchen Carlson, founder of Lift Our Voices and former Trump White House Communications Director Alyssa Farah Griffin. Appreciate both of you being with us.

Alyssa, how do you square the president's past reluctance to get involved in military conflicts which he campaigned on with the prospect what he might do to help Israel here?

ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Listen, Trump's actually been pretty consistent on Iran. He's always said they cannot have a nuclear weapon in his first term. He supported the maximum pressure campaign. And many voices like Tucker Carlson, like his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, actually opposed the strike killing Qasem Soleimani in his first term.

And then we're predicting that this would lead to World War III. In fact, it restored deterrence in the region. I think that Donald Trump is rightly talking to Benjamin Netanyahu, talking to Arab partners in the region and to our European allies who recognize Iran as a malign force in the region, that it is in our best interest to make sure that they do not have a nuclear weapon. And he's going to win with his base in this. I'm sorry, but nobody has a stronger hold on his base than Donald Trump himself.

COOPER: Yes, Gretchen, I mean, to that point, Congressman Marjorie Taylor Greene, she wrote, "Anyone slobbering for the U.S. to become fully involved in the Israel-Iran war is not America first MAGA," end quote. Obviously, I mean, she's saying, you know, she's more MAGA than Donald Trump, I guess, here.

GRETCHEN CARLSON, JOURNALIST: Yes, look, I think it's good to have a difference of opinion even inside of MAGA, because what we've seen on both sides of the aisle is that when you have group think, that's when incivility really brews. What I'm more worried about here is actually what Alyssa was just talking about, which is Trump's beliefs himself.

And it's been reported that he watched Fox News over the last couple of days, and he saw that they were talking about how brilliant Israel's attacks had been against Iran. And that really changed his views about, you know, he wanted to flex. He wanted to get involved in this as well.

And it's one thing to operate on a whim on tariffs and on immigration, which he has done, albeit those are important issues. It's a whole other thing to suddenly just decide that you're going to attack Iran on a whim because you want to flex. And I think that that is what the danger is here.

Not necessarily that MAGA is disagreeing. It's that we could get ourselves involved in World War III. But if you want me to actually predict who I think he'll listen to more than anyone else, it's not Marjorie Taylor Greene, it's Laura Loomer. And she's the one that's telling him right now to attack.

COOPER: Alyssa, obviously, you know, the U.S. has a rough history on attempting regime change in the Middle East, something that President Trump has spoken about repeatedly while he was running. If the U.S. does act, do you think he's going to try to limit this to just direct strikes by the U.S. on this Fordow facility, any other nuclear facilities, and not try to get involved in an actual change of the Iranian regime?

GRIFFIN: Listen, I think Donald Trump showed his hand a bit when he truthed that he said we instead of the Israelis. I think it would be in his best interest to let this be an Israel-led strike and to say that we're supporting them defensively. We're increasing our posture in the region. It would be a massive escalation for the U.S. to directly participate in strikes.

But this is something that he explored in his first term. We know that there were even talks of targeting civilian sites in the first term. That would be something that I think would be a massive disagreement with his base. But where I do think he's with the general public is this acknowledgement that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.

And at this moment, I think the kind of million-dollar question is, how real is this threat, this timeline that seems to be new? Not the one we've heard for the last decade of, you know, they could imminently have a warhead, but something that led to the need to start engaging in a real way.

And I would just remind folks, the Iranians have had a price on Donald Trump's head as well as his former advisors in the first term. This is a rogue regime that wants to kill Americans. And he has a right to at least assume a defensive posture that keeps them from having a nuclear weapon.

COOPER: Yes. Alyssa Farah Griffin, Gretchen Carlson, thank you so much.

Coming up next, more from the region, a live update from Tel Aviv.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:59:18]

COOPER: With Iran and Israel trading fresh strikes tonight, and the world waiting for what tomorrow might bring from President Trump, I want to check back in on the latest from inside Israel, where we are heading this morning.

Senior Jeremy Diamond is in Tel Aviv for us. You actually -- you are actually had an idea of command center when the last barrage of missiles came in. What happened?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Anderson. We're with the Israeli military's elite search and rescue unit. And as those barrages came in, we were in the command center with them, as they are getting all of these different inputs on the latest barrages of ballistic missiles. There were two overnight here.

There were several falls, strikes that they actually were able to identify. But quickly, you know, within minutes, as they are getting all these different data points, they realized that none of them were to any residential buildings. Most of them fell in open areas. One hit a car park in Tel Aviv.

And the reason why we are seeing fewer of these missiles actually getting through Israel's air defenses, according to Israeli military officials, is because they say that they are damaging those Iranian ballistic missile launchers inside of Iran. And that is degrading the Iranians' capability to fire large barrages of missiles, and fewer of them then getting through those air defenses. Anderson?

COOPER: All right. Jeremy Diamond, thanks so much. We'll continue to follow it.

The news continues. "The Source" with Kaitlan Collins starts now.