Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

Soon: Trump Holds Situation Room Meeting On Israel-Iran Conflict; New: U.S. Evacuates Some Embassy Personnel From Israel; Karen Read Acquitted Of Killing Her Police Officer Boyfriend. Aired 4- 5p ET

Aired June 18, 2025 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:12]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: All right. We come on the air here into THE ARENA with breaking news.

Any moment, President Trump will hold a meeting in the Situation Room. This as Iran vows to inflict irreparable damage on the U.S. if it joins Israel's fight.

And we're also following breaking news here at home as Karen Read is acquitted of killing her police officer boyfriend.

I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA.

We are joined by Anderson Cooper, who is live in Tel Aviv and will be here with me throughout the hour, because right now, the U.S. is set to deploy a third aircraft carrier strike group near Israel, and the State Department is preparing flights for Americans who want to leave the country.

Sources tell CNN that an American military aircraft has already been used to evacuate some embassy staffers and their families.

Just moments ago, we heard from President Trump for the first time since this morning when he said he gave Iran the, quote, "ultimate ultimatum".

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I have ideas as to what to do, but I haven't made a final -- I like to make the final decision one second before it's due, you know, because things change. I mean, especially with war, things change with war. It can go from one extreme to the other. War is -- war is very bad.

We'll see what happens. I have not -- I have not -- I've been asked about it by everybody, but I haven't made a decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP) HUNT: All right. So, Anderson Cooper on the ground there. You heard him say again late today that he has not decided. What have you been seeing hearing throughout the day there today?

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Here in Tel Aviv, it has been relatively quiet. There was one air raid siren that went off several hours ago. People across the city are instructed to go down into shelters, in the facility, in the hotel where we are. Everybody did that.

Then soon, the all-clear rang out. That's become obviously a common occurrence, although less and less here in Tel Aviv and elsewhere in Israel, as the number of the abilities of Iran seem to either be degraded or at least they are holding back on some of those missiles as the number of ballistic missiles they have may be, may be dwindling.

Israel has continued to have what they say is air superiority, air control over the skies, over Tehran and elsewhere. And they have continued sustained attacks at targets throughout a number of locations in Iran.

But a lot, you know, everybody here is still waiting to see what happens with the United States. What will President Trump decide? They've been following statements made by him throughout the day very closely. As you've been reporting, the president not saying one way or the other. What has -- what he has decided and that he hasn't, in fact, decided what he's going to do up until the last minute that that he needs to.

So, there's a lot of questions that remains, but life continues here in Tel Aviv. There were people out swimming the ocean, walking along the shore, watching the sunset.

Things -- there's a calmness here, I think. Or maybe a routine nature that we didn't see here from what I've told days ago. But it is certainly, obviously foremost on most people's mind and watching what the U.S. is going to do, Kasie.

HUNT: No.

COOPER: I want to bring in our CNN chief international security correspondent, Nick Paton Walsh, and also CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes right now.

Kristen, to you, first, we just heard from the president a few moments ago. What more -- what more have you learned?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Anderson, we've been talking to a number of his advisers, aides. They say that he is talking about this constantly, that there are a lot of people in his ear, and he is still trying to determine what exactly the U.S. is going to do. One of the questions that he has continued to ask the people around him is, is it possible to get in and get out?

The one thing Donald Trump has stressed over and over again is that he doesn't want any kind of long, prolonged war that the United States is involved in. That's something he also campaigned on.

Now, he's been talking about this, as I said all day, both to the press and behind the scenes. We're told he has a meeting in just about an hour in the Situation Room with some of the top principals. We've been seeing some of the cabinet members arrive. We saw the joint chiefs of staff, Dan Cain, walk in just a few moments ago.

Now, Donald Trump earlier in the day said that he had given Iran an ultimatum. This is what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Mr. President, have you given the Iranians an ultimatum?

TRUMP: You could say so. They know it. They know what's happening. Maybe you could call it the ultimate. The ultimate ultimatum, right?

[16:05:00]

REPORTER: What essentially was that, though? What do you mean?

TRUMP: I don't want to say it. Look, I think -- give me a break.

You don't know. I may do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do. I can tell you this. That Iran's got a lot of trouble.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: Now, a couple of things to note here. One, he's kind of vacillated for the last several days between a diplomatic approach and a more bullish approach. And we've obviously heard in the last several days this escalation in his aggressive rhetoric. But the thing to note here is that Donald Trump, while going back and forth, has again continued to question what exactly it would look like if this did unfold.

And he did say in the Oval Office just minutes ago that he was talking to Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, on a routine basis and urging him to keep going. We'll see what comes out of this meeting that's happening any moment now.

COOPER: Yeah, I want to go to Nick Paton Walsh.

Nick, Iran's deputy foreign minister tells CNN that they would, quote, have no choice but to retaliate if the U.S. joined Israeli offensive attacks and striking at Iran. How are the president's comments about possible U.S. intervention being received by Tehran?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, I mean, we heard the second time since the beginning of this phase of the conflict from the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his comments were fiery, potentially talking about irreparable damage. Didn't say precisely to who. If the U.S. intervened, he didn't specifically threaten U.S. bases in the region, or particularly rail against Donald Trump himself. So, a lower end on the combative scale from the supreme leader there

and the notion, of course, that surrender was on the table, washed aside by him. Of course, a country that has decades railed against the great Satan in the United States can't potentially suggest that they would simply give up.

And indeed, if talks were entered into now by Iran, it might potentially begin to look like some form of surrender. They have very few military cards, it seems left to play.

We've seen the number. I'm sure you've seen where you are, Anderson. The number of missiles fired every night diminished significantly. One, it seems justified in a recent raid by Iran. A heavier, larger type of missile. But that was intercepted.

And there are suggestions from experts we've spoken to that their stockpile over the last 15 months of launches has been significantly diminished. Those that can hit Israel from the 2,000 estimate to early last year to possibly anything between 200 to 1,200, depending on how you're counting this and how many they originally had, plus their launches taken out on the ground and days more of strikes against military infrastructure and the damage indeed that will have done.

Trump just saying how so much damage was done simply on day one.

So, I think Iran is in a series of bad choices here. It can't really pursue diplomacy and not seem exceptionally weak. It has very few reduced military options. Perhaps it's an exceptionally hard, tough thing to do to build a nuclear bomb in peacetime, let alone when you have the Israeli air force above you.

Trump's options, not necessarily as good either. If they do go for Iran's nuclear program, they have to be absolutely sure they extinguish it. And do we really think after this much conflict around Tehran, that the secrets of that nuclear program all still reside in the Fordow complex, that impregnable mountain lair that only the U.S. can penetrate with its bunker busters?

I'm not entirely sure, but still a key decision for Trump here. But ultimately, Iran massively weakened at this point.

COOPER: Yeah, Nick Paton Walsh, Kristen Holmes, thanks very much.

Kasie, I'm going to throw it back to you. And I think nick raises a number of important questions. In particular, there's been so much focus on the idea of if the U.S. was involved, it would be to try to destroy that Fordow facility, that heavily fortified compound. But even if they chose to do that, even if President Trump chose to do that and chose to use multiple numbers of those bunker busting bombs carried by B-2s, which are the only planes that can carry them, and only the U.S. has them.

The question is, how do you verify that that site is actually destroyed? And how do you verify that that's the only place there is nuclear material, enriched uranium that hasn't been moved to perhaps other locations. Does that require some sort of boots on the ground, some sort of special forces on Israel's part? A lot of questions on that.

HUNT: Yeah, no. So many questions. And you know, Anderson. I mean, one other big one. And I'm curious if, you know, as you've been talking to officials there, if you've heard anything about it, is whether Israel and the United States would be on the same page in terms of the end goals, because you obviously hear the phrase regime change being thrown around politically here.

What's your sense of that piece?

COOPER: Yeah. Well, you know, as you know, we've heard from Prime Minister Netanyahu over the last six days talking to directly, trying to talk directly to the Iranian people, encouraging them essentially to rise up and, and create their own regime change.

[16:10:00]

The ripple effects of any kind of attempt at regime change or even successful regime change, what that actually looks like, who would actually take over, who would succeed the supreme leader, what could it lead to as we -- I mean, we have all witnessed the results of attempts at regime change in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in, you know, all throughout this region, in Libya, all of it, which had unintended consequences, which the U.S. and other powers could not have predicted.

HUNT: Yeah, for sure. All right, Anderson, thank you. Stand by. You're going to be with us, of course, throughout the hour, as you have been, as he has been throughout our coverage today.

But we're going to bring in our panel here. We're joined by CNN global affairs analyst Kim Dozier, CNN political commentator, Republican strategist Kristen Soltis Anderson, former deputy assistant secretary of state in the Obama administration, Joel Rubin, and former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you very much for being here.

Kim Dozier, let me start with you. Big picture kind of where we left off with Anderson. I mean, as the president weighs this decision, what do you see as the most likely option on the table for him right now? And the biggest risks?

KIM DOZIER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, if he goes ahead with attacking Fordow using the bunker busters that only the U.S. has, the risk is you can't just do one and done, or two and done. How are you going to trust the Israelis to go into the site and tell you whether or not they've definitely destroyed everything?

On the other hand, if he decides to pull his bunker busting punches and not go ahead with an attack, what if Iran, in the coming months doesn't capitulate, doesn't turn over, or slow rolls turning over the nuclear material? It's already refined. Then he will own it. He will own, however quickly the Iranians get back to building their nuclear program.

HUNT: So, of course, this has split.

And, Governor Walker, I want to come to you on this. The Republican Party, Donald Trump's Republican Party, the America First piece of Trump's Republican Party with, you know, the sort of old school Republicans, if you will. I think probably the sharpest example of some of this actually came today or -- I guess, late yesterday from Tucker Carlson, who interviewed Ted Cruz.

I'm going to play a little bit of their very contentious exchange, because it just really sets the stage. Take a look how many.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TUCKER CARLSON, RADIO HOST: How many people live in Iran, by the way?

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): I don't know the population at all. No, I don't know the population.

CARLSON: You don't know the population of the country you seek to topple?

CRUZ: How many people living in Iran?

CARLSON: Ninety-two million.

CRUZ: Okay. Yeah.

CARLSON: How could you not know that?

CRUZ: Why is it relevant whether it's --

CARLSON: Well, because --

CRUZ: -- 90 million or 80 million or 100 million? Why is that?

CARLSON: Well, if you don't know anything about the country --

CRUZ: I didn't say I don't know anything about --

CARLSON: Okay. What's the ethnic mix of Iran?

CRUZ: They are Persians and predominantly Shia.

CARLSON: What percent?

CRUZ: Okay.

CARLSON: This is not even -- you don't know anything about Iran. So I ask you the country --

CRUZ: Actually, I'm not the Tucker Carlson expert on Iran who says --

CARLSON: You're a senator who's calling for the overthrow of the government, and you don't know anything about the country.

(CROSSTALK) CRUZ: You're the one who claims -- no, you don't know anything about the country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: So that really underscores the depth of the emotion here. But, sir, which side do you think is going to win out here? And how is that pressure potentially playing out for President Trump?

SCOTT WALKER (R), FORMER WISCONSIN GOVERNOR: Well, I think the president is actually where most Americans are at. The most Americans don't want to get in the war. They certainly want to get into long term, protracted war, but they also don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

So I think he's actually smack dab where most Americans are at, maybe excluding a little bit from some of the younger people who haven't gone through this before. But you think about peace through strength, part of the reason that one was all the build up in 1980 election, everybody said Ronald Reagan was going to get us in the Third World War, was out of control, and yet we had the most peaceful time in American history during those eight years, because he built the military up, he was strong. He wasn't afraid to use it, but he wasn't eager to as well.

And I think that's the sweet spot right now. Don't be eager. Be specific. And even with today, the last few minutes hearing the president's comments, he's not letting out of the -- cat out of the bag as to what he's doing. I think that's probably highly effective.

HUNT: Yeah, it's actually pretty remarkable, considering how President Trump often handles these kinds of situations. He often is willing to say quite a bit in public, and he's being very restrained.

But to that point that the governor was raising, Kristen, you got -- you're doing polling on this kind of as we speak. Where are Americans on this?

KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: So, Americans are generally of the mind that Israel had a right to defend itself, but they do worry about what American involvement could look like. Donald Trump is right that his voters are pretty much with him. I'm not seeing large numbers of Republicans breaking away from the idea of America getting involved, if only in a diplomatic way, or to defend Israel. But there is an interesting generational gap here where for the people I'm surveying, if you're over 50, you are overwhelmingly of the mind that this is unacceptable for Iran to get a bomb.

[16:15:01]

And we should be willing to do what it takes to get rid of it. But if you are under the age of 50, you are much more skeptical that the United States should be getting anywhere involved in this conflict.

HUNT: And the 50 versus -- plus or minus 50, why is it right there? Is it because younger people remember? I mean, I know, you know, I'm 40 years old. I have -- I know people who lost their lives, lost their limbs in the protracted conflict in Iraq.

I mean, what is it that is driving this divide?

ANDERSON: I think for older Americans, they remember a time when American projection of power and strength was a good thing, an unequivocal good thing around the world, in many cases, where if you are younger, you are probably thinking about American projection of power around the world through the lens of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. And those have not aged particularly well.

And so, this is a generation, two generations now, Gen Z and millennials who can't really point to good examples in their lifetime of America going fighting the bad guys and making America safer.

HUNT: So, Joel Rubin, in terms of how support for Israel is kind of playing out here, especially in the Democratic Party, I mean, you've got AOC retweeting -- retweeting, Thomas Massie, right? There are people, you know, on the left, frankly, raising questions about how far American support for Israel should go, and especially in light of of the war in Gaza. What impact does that having on this?

JOEL RUBIN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: Yeah. You know, there's a unity in Israel, which is the interesting dynamic that we're watching right now, which is that while the left and the base of the party is very skeptical of Prime Minister Netanyahu, his own people are not right now when it comes to this war. And I think that's very important. I think that, broadly speaking to the discussion here, over 50 and under 50, we see it in the Jewish community as well, a big differences in terms of support for military activity and not.

But I do worry that right now that the Democratic Party in the base got very excited about Donald Trump as being the anti-war candidate, as being someone who would bring peace to Ukraine and bring peace to Gaza and get a nuclear deal, they were -- they were hoodwinked. All of these issues, all of these conflicts have gotten worse on his watch. He is actually the one who got us onto this path by getting out of the Iran nuclear deal that President Obama negotiated a decade ago.

And so, now, I think you're seeing a lot of the reaction based on that.

WALKER: I couldn't disagree with that. Even before we gave him a stockpile of money. The reason they were able to support the attacks that we saw a year and a half ago in Israel, because Hamas is supported by Iran, we gave them the money under the Obama administration.

RUBIN: That has nothing to do with their nuclear program.

(CROSSTALK)

WALKER: You're totally wrong. We empowered them to do that. We empowered Hezbollah. We empowered the Houthis.

If anyone is to blame, it's the Obama administration for giving them that money. RUBIN: So --

WALKER: We should have never been involved --

RUBIN: The International Atomic Energy Agency said --

WALKER: They were all wrong. They were fundamentally wrong. We gave them the money that funded the terrorist attacks that we've seen in the last year and a half. Couldn't be more --

RUBIN: The IAEA saying that that is why Israel should strike. The IAEA eight years ago said that Iran did not have a dangerous nuclear program.

HUNT: So, Kim Dozier, you spent a lot of time reporting in the region. I understand we've got two different sides of the aisle here, but I mean, big picture here. There seems to be some questions right now between Donald Trump and his intelligence director about where Iran was in terms of building a bomb.

But what do you think was the real impact of pulling out of the deal in terms of how it relates to where we are today?

DOZIER: Pulling out of the deal sort of took the safety valve off, but that deal was about to expire, I think, next year. So, at -- in any rate, we would have had to renegotiate. But the sort of push me, pull me that Iran has gone through, it doesn't know which administration to make a deal with. The next one might overturn it.

So, they have basically gone on with their nuclear program because they've seen that taking it nearly to the brink gives them something to negotiate with.

But, you know, there's not necessarily a disagreement with Tulsi Gabbard. What Tulsi Gabbard said at that time is they don't have a nuclear weapon now, and they havent decided to make it.

All the intelligence estimates have been that Iran has the different components, but that the supreme leader suspended the program in 2023, and he stuck to that. So, they have the ability. They didn't have the will.

Now after this attack, the worry is, you know, maybe Israel will set them back 2 to 4 years, but they're -- Russia, North Korea, are allies might help them rebuild quickly. And now they might have the will to go ahead and build the things.

HUNT: All right. We're going to have much more of this throughout the hour. We're going to, of course, be joined by Anderson in Israel.

We're also going to have one-on-ones with key lawmakers. We're going to talk with someone who questioned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth today, as well as the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, as this conflict in the Middle East exposes a deep divide among some of the biggest power players in Washington.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): If Iran either gets a bomb or is right on the edge of getting a bomb, it doesn't matter what America thinks. Israel's -- Israel's going to jump on Iran like a cat on a fat rat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TAMMY DUCKWORTH (D-IL): You're pulling the military away from facing foreign enemies who literally say things like "death to America". Let the military get back to its real job. Stop forcing them to do DHS. And if you want to be DHS secretary, maybe you can apply for that job when you're fired from this one due to your incompetence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: That was Illinois Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth at a hearing with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth today, as the U.S. weighs how to respond to the conflict between Iran and Israel.

And joining us now is Senator Duckworth. She sits on the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, and, of course, is a veteran and Purple Heart recipient.

[16:25:05]

Senator, thank you very much for being with us today.

And I do want to start there, because we, of course, do have American troops in the region, in the Middle East. And of course, we have been reporting here at CNN about moves that the administration that our military is making to give the president options in the region. That includes deploying additional American assets.

How concerned are you right now about the safety of American troops who are deployed in the region?

DUCKWORTH: Well, I am deeply concerned about our troops overseas. This secretary of defense claims that he is all about lethality, and then, you know, warfighting. And yet he spends all of his time researching ways to rename U.S. bases for Confederate generals. He spends all his time sending troops onto Americas streets. I mean, he sent 700 marines who should be practicing for the expeditionary roll overseas. He sent them to the streets of Los Angeles.

And so, you know, my concern is that we don't have the troops on the ground who are able to even protect American diplomats in places like Baghdad, where we just had to evacuate a bunch of American diplomats. We're looking at perhaps evacuating American diplomats from our embassy in Israel as well. And you've got secretary of defense who is busy, worried about supporting Donald Trump's political regime here in the U.S., when he should be focused on making sure our troops have the training and the equipment that they need to do their jobs, but also that they're focused on doing the job, which is defending America abroad.

HUNT: So, speaking of doing the job, what do you think President Trump should do? Should the United States be involved in attempting to end Iran's nuclear program with military force?

DUCKWORTH: Well, he doesn't have the authority to do that. The War Powers Act is clear of what he needs to do. He needs to come to Congress if he wants to initiate a war against another nation. Now, that said, I think that the Iran needs to be stopped from developing a nuclear weapon.

But remember, the Donald Trump is the guy who put us out of the Iran nuclear deal. At the same time, I also think that Israel has the right to defend herself. What we should be doing is the United States is trying to broker an agreement to lower the tensions that are over there right now. But at the same time, work with the international community to help bring Iran's nuclear program under control and to stop them from being able to further develop it.

And I'm concerned that by getting involved in this, all were going to do is encourage Russia and the PRC and these other countries and North Korea to help Iran achieve their nuclear goals even faster than they would have had they been on their own.

HUNT: Senator, do you think that what Israel did here in starting this military conflict, in taking on the program in this way, is that has that been productive in terms of setting back Iran's goals?

DUCKWORTH: Well, I can't tell you what Israel's plans were, what they were trying to achieve. I don't trust Benjamin Netanyahu. I think he's a war criminal. That said, I don't think that Iran developing a nuclear program is in anybody's best interest other than Iran. And perhaps our adversaries around the world.

But I think that the first thing that we should be doing is United States is not to immediately involve American troops in that effort.

HUNT: If the president were to go ahead and strike Iran with American force without coming to the United States Congress first, what would you encourage your Senate Democratic leadership to do about it?

DUCKWORTH: Well, he has to come to us. We can censure him. We can do a number of things, but unfortunately, we will be stopped by the Republican majority in the Senate. I would hope that some of my Republican colleagues, especially those on what has been a bipartisan committee, the Armed Services Committee, will step forward and also work to restore our role as a co-equal branch of government. But at this point, I don't have a lot of faith in my Republican colleagues, unfortunately.

HUNT: How high is the risk if, in fact, the president were to again go ahead with this without coming to Congress first, that this any potential conflict could draw American boots onto the ground in the Middle East. How high of a risk do you think there is for that?

DUCKWORTH: Well, I think it's a very high risk because this president will send those troops to the Middle East without -- without the consent of Congress. He's already said that he's willing to do whatever he wants.

And we heard today that Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, has said that he'll do whatever the president tells him to do and that he doesn't actually view the courts, the judiciary, as having any standing over what he does as secretary of defense.

And so we're in a situation where we basically have a rogue presidency that's being enabled by his collaborators, my Republican colleagues in the Senate.

HUNT: All right. Senator Tammy Duckworth, I'm very grateful for your time today.

[16:30:00]

Madam, thank you very much for being on the show.

DUCKWORTH: Thank you.

HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, we're going to go back live to Israel. And Anderson Cooper, who's got new reporting from our CNN team that is on the ground there.

Plus, a member of the powerful Gang of Eight will be here live. The vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Mark Warner, up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: All right, welcome back.

We've got much more breaking news right now from the Middle East. Anderson Cooper has been live for us all day and night in Tel Aviv.

Anderson, you're there with our team. What have you got?

COOPER: Kasie, thanks very much.

I'm here with CNN Jerusalem correspondent Jeremy Diamond. Also going to be joining us is Ambassador Richard Haass, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.

[16:35:04]

Jeremy, you've been here the last few days. Just bring us up to speed on what's been going on here, and also in Tehran.

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's really remarkable when you look at the difference between today and where we were at the end of last week with where things started, in terms of those barrages of Iranian ballistic missiles. You'll remember that first night that Iran began firing missiles. We were talking about dozens of missiles being fired at the same time with very destructive and deadly effect. We've seen 24 casualties in Israel, but for the last two days now, we've had no fatalities in Israel as a result of those barrages.

A lot of that has to do with the fact that the barrages are getting smaller. They're still keeping up the pacing of them. But today, for example, just one missile that was fired by Iran this afternoon, still sending millions of Israelis fleeing into bomb shelters. But the last few days we've seen barrages of eight, barrages of ten. And the Israeli military assesses that that's because they've significantly damaged Iran's ability to fire large barrages at the same time.

COOPER: The question of the numbers of missiles, or just the launching devices.

DIAMOND: So, they say that they've destroyed about 40 percent of those ballistic missile launchers. So a lot of it has to do with the launching capacity, which is why were talking about how many they can fire at the very same time.

Also, they point to the killing of some senior Iranian air force commanders who would be responsible for coordinating those missile launches. And then beyond that, they also say that Iran is starting to try and move some of these missile assets eastward to try and get away from the western part of Iran, where the Israeli air force now has total air superiority and is basically going and trying to pick off some of these launchers as they are trying to fire missiles towards Israel.

I'm told that they have actually actively degraded some of the ability of Iran to fire missiles on the spot, but again, they're still leaving open the possibility that Iran can regroup, could start firing larger numbers of missiles, in particular, if the United States strikes Fordow, as we are anticipating, president Trump may be making a decision on that. There is the possibility there of Iran firing some kind of very large-scale retaliation. Again, if they are able to do that, pull themselves together.

COOPER: There's also other ways that Iran could try to retaliate, not just with missiles.

DIAMOND: For sure. Weve seen them use drones at the same time. Again, they don't have the same kind of destructive or deadly ability, and Israel is much more effective at taking those out. They're a lot slower as they're traveling towards Israel. They do have other means.

But again, these ballistic missiles are kind of the most potent weapon in their arsenal for striking at Israel. And right now, that capacity is being significantly degraded.

COOPER: All right, Jeremy Diamond, thanks very much.

Richard Haass to you, Ambassador, Trump earlier today, President Trump said, nobody knows what I'm going to do. He's spoken before about the benefits being unpredictable in foreign policy.

Is that your sense of what he's doing here? Is your sense he has not yet made a decision and is hoping a diplomatic effort may still be viable? AMBASSADOR RICHARD HAASS, PRESIDENT EMERITUS, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Look uncertainty, or unpredictability can be a tool in diplomacy. For example, we use it towards Taiwan, so China can't be sure of what were prepared to do. I think here more reflects the competing pressures that are being placed on the president. Plus, none of the options that's before him is without its drawbacks. Using force opens up all sorts of possibilities of retaliation as you know. Plus, it puts U.S. forces once again in the Middle East at a time they might be needed in other parts of the world.

Not using force is its own problem as well. The last thing in the world, I would think most people want to see is an Iranian nuclear weapons capability established.

So, my guess is what the presidents probably going to do, Anderson, would be to take one last try at diplomacy. It's possible the new environment you were just discussing where Iran is at such a disadvantage militarily will create a context in which the Iranian regime would be prepared to consider accepting formulas that, as recently as a week ago, were unacceptable.

COOPER: It was interesting to hear the president earlier today saying, essentially, he's not going to make a decision up until the last minute when he has to, because things can, can change so, so quickly. Obviously, they are positioning as much military hardware here, battleships in the region as possible to give the U.S. plenty of options, but it seems like a lot of options are still on the table.

HAASS: Sure. And they're not mutually exclusive. I mean, think about it. If your goal is to get the Iranians to consider accepting a deal, that would be quite difficult for them to accept one way to, shall we say, concentrate their mind is by putting all these military assets in a place where the Iranians say, hey, these guys are serious, and there's no way we can defend ourselves against it.

At the same time, that's exactly what you would do if you were actually going to use those military assets. So I think it plays into the idea that the president, as one of these points is going to reach, you know, is he going to reach that fork in the road and then like that great strategist Yogi Berra once said, he's going to have to take it.

[16:40:08]

COOPER: Brett McGurk has repeatedly said on our air that if the U.S. does go after that facility in Fordow, in conjunction with Israel, that the U.S. and Israel have to be aligned on what the end goal is for the U.S. not being -- that not being regime change. Are you concerned that for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, regime change is the unstated goal?

HAASS: I am concerned that he ought to be concerned about it as well. But he -- I mean, the prime minister, regime change is not a goal you can give to any military. Even one as capable as the Israeli military, and say, bring it about. Colin Powell used to say, militaries destroy things and kill people.

Don't give us goals we can't design an operation for. So, I think it's a mistake to define success in terms of something you can't be confident you can bring about, adding to it.

By the way, regime change doesn't always leave you better off. We had regime change in the former Soviet Union in the last I checked, having Vladimir Putin in charge of Russia is not exactly a windfall for the West. So, I just think the United States ought to keep its distance from regime change as a as a foreign policy goal here.

COOPER: Yeah, not a great track record in the Middle East on that for the United States. Ambassador Richard Haass, thanks very much.

Kasie, back to you.

HUNT: All right, Anderson, thank you very much for that. We'll see you in just a moment.

Up next here, we've got the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senator Mark Warner will be here live.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:46:05]

HUNT: All right. Welcome back.

As we continue to cover how exactly President Donald Trump plans to respond to this conflict between Israel and Iran. This is, of course, now going on day six.

Joining us now to discuss, Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner, who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which makes him a member of the Gang of Eight, that is the highest ranking group of members of Congress who have access to classified national security information.

Senator, very grateful to have you on the show.

SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): Thank you, Kasie.

HUNT: Let's just start with what you know or don't know about what this administration is planning to do here.

WARNER: Well, Kasie, I'm a member, as you said, of the Gang of Eight. We're supposed to know. I have no foggy idea what this administration's plans are, or what the foreign policy is vis-a-vis Iran.

Last Thursday, when these attacks started, the president said, well, Israel is doing this on their own. And we obviously have been willing to help Israel defend itself. Israel has that right. And Iran is, as they are, bad actors. But I also know that there's been no change in the intelligence that was Director Gabbard, the DNI put out in March that saying Iran had not made a move towards a nuclear weapon. So, now, we've got the president doing foreign policy by tweet saying,

total surrender, ultimate surrender, a surrender to who? And the idea of what would happen. I can tell you, if I don't know, the American people don't know. And other members of Congress don't know.

And a question that I would have if they were going to propose this is, you know, there are really open questions. It's not like one single run of an American warplane dropping the so-called bunker busters could guarantee elimination of all of nuclear activities in Iran.

So, what happens next? What happens to the 40,000 troops we have deployed in that region? Have we thought through all of that? So, this -- this is -- it's just beyond belief to me.

I will give Trump credit the first term when he thought about bombing Iran, he brought in all of the senior congressional leadership, both parties from the House and the Senate, and talked it through. What is pushing him to move this quickly without any consultation. And as you know, I thought this was the guy that was going to end these endless foreign wars.

And if there's one thing we know, it's a hell of a lot easier to start a war in the Middle East than it is to end one, and I am -- I have no idea what this administration's plan is going forward.

HUNT: Do you think it's possible he just -- hasn't made up his mind yet?

WARNER: But that would still -- that could -- that could be, you know, a -- that is a position he could take. He is the commander in chief. But the idea of keeping Congress abreast and answering the very questions, if we've got folks in harm's way, I've got, you know, a couple destroyers that are positioned in theater, homeported out of Norfolk. If those sailors are put in harm's way shortly, what do I say? What happens after one bombing run? What happens after if Iran strikes back, what is the next step?

You know, this is an enormously consequential decision. A commander in chief has the right to make those decisions, but he ought to do it. And that's why we have the requirements for the War Powers Act. If you're going to actually declare war, Congress is supposed to have a voice on that. And this administration, the -- this version of the Trump administration, I've never seen one that has less contact, less willing to brief.

And candidly, Kasie, I don't think it's just me. I don't think a lot of my Republican colleagues, no matter what they've said, have got any sense of idea of what is the plan, what happens after a potential bombing run.

[16:50:01]

HUNT: Senator, you raised, and I'm glad you did, what the director of national intelligence put out in March. And then the president had a comment just in the last day or two that seemed to contradict her. I want to play what she said and then what the president said, and get your take on exactly what's going on here. Lets watch it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: The IC 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.

TRUMP: I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having one.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Does President Trump know something that Tulsi Gabbard doesn't know?

WARNER: Well, Kasie, I can tell you this -- we got a brief as recently as Monday that seems ages ago. That said, the intelligence community has not changed their assessment that Iran had not moved towards an actual weaponization. They clearly enriched additional uranium. But there is then how do you put that in a weapons form and how do you deliver it?

And if this president is going to suddenly blow off all of the consensus opinion of the intelligence community? Well, what are these folks job? Their job is to speak truth to power, not cook the books.

When you cook intelligence, you end up with a war like Iraq, where a president at that point didn't follow the intelligence, and the intelligence was manipulated. I worry that we may be seeing some of that going on. I have no -- I have called for Tulsi Gabbard's resignation because we've seen her fire intelligence officials because they wouldn't bend the knee. But in this case, I think Gabbard's comments in March were correct. And it's, to my mind, fairly dangerous that the president blows the -- blows that assessment off as cavalierly as he did.

HUNT: All right. Senator Mark Warner, very grateful to have you today, sir. Really appreciate your insights, and hopefully we'll talk again soon because we've got a lot to talk about.

WARNER: Yeah, thanks.

HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, the days other breaking news. We just got a stunning verdict in one of the biggest murder trials captured global attention.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:56:53]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KAREN READ, ACQUITTED OF KILLING HER BOYFRIEND: I could not be standing here without these amazing supporters who have supported me and my team financially, and more importantly, emotionally for almost four years. And the second thing I want to say is no one has fought harder for justice for John O'Keefe than I have, than I have, and my team. Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: That was Karen Read today, leaving court a free woman after being acquitted of murder in the 2022 death of her ex-boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe.

Let's bring in CNN legal analyst, criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson.

Joey, thanks so much for being there for us.

This, of course, was a retrial. Karen Read's first trial had resulted in a hung jury. What was different this time?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah, I think a lot was different. I think the fact is, is that the whole essence of a cover up. The narratives here could not have been any different. The narrative of the prosecution being you backed your SUV into him, that is John O'Keefe. You knew he was dead. You left the scene of an accident and you were drunk.

Defense saying nonsense. The reality is, is this was a cover up. It was a cover up. Inasmuch as he was not killed by our client. She's being framed. He was killed in the home and brought back out.

And so, in the first trial, you saw 70 witnesses. This time the prosecution streamlined it with 49 witnesses. But I think the defense was able to make very clear, particularly with the expert witnesses, that there was no collusion and he could not have, that is John O'Keefe, the decedent, the person dead died that way.

And I think the other issue is that there was an investigator, the lead investigator, Kasie, who did not testify this time. He was fired because of his bias. That was very clear in the first trial. They didn't even bring him to testify.

Imagine a case that was put together, structured, organized, the witnesses, everything around you. And you don't testify. I think the defense was able to capitalize on that and say, that's reasonable doubt.

HUNT: Joey, the scenes here were let's be honest, fairly unusual. I mean, there were hundreds of people outside court today who were kind of celebrating, you know, screaming the way that you might at a -- at a concert when she came out. That was a little jarring, you know, in a -- in a -- in a murder trial, I think for some observers. What impact did this have, do you think, on the trial?

WARNER: You know, I think that the judge did a very good job in the parties in terms of being gagged to not influence the crowd that way and to not otherwise have the jurors become influenced by the crowd, not speaking to them.

But there was a vast interest. I think there's certainly a school of thought that prosecutors have tremendous authority. They have tremendous discretion in terms of what they prosecute, and people look for injustices and they look to right wrongs. And there's a lot of people out there who believe she should not have been retried, who believe that this was an overreach and believe that she had no responsibility with his death and believed that the defenses narrative that he was, in fact, being protected by other police officers who wanted to frame her such that she could take responsibility for something she did not commit.

HUNT: Of course, they all wearing pink, known to be her favorite color. Pretty remarkable all around.

Joey Jackson, thank you so much for being there for us, sir. I really appreciate your time.

JACKSON: Of course.

HUNT: All right. Thanks to all of you at home for being with us today. Thanks to our panel as well.

But don't go anywhere. "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts right now.