Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

Exclusive: Sources Tell CNN Early U.S. Intel Assessment Suggests Strikes On Iran Did Not Destroy Nuclear Sites; Pelosi: Impeachment Over Iran Is "High Threshold". Aired 4-5p ET

Aired June 24, 2025 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:09]

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT:

The defense will do the same. They will pull together in a way that helps them and try to urge the jury to acquit them.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: All right. We'll be looking for that.

Kara Scannell, thank you so much.

We really appreciate that report from New York.

And THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: We have breaking news in THE ARENA. I'm Kasie Hunt, joined by Anderson Cooper, live in Tel Aviv. He'll be with us throughout the hour as we start with new CNN exclusive reporting right now on the U.S. strikes on Iran.

An early U.S. intelligence assessment indicates that those airstrikes did not destroy the core components of Iran's nuclear program. In fact, the Pentagon's intelligence arm believes the program was likely set back by just months. That's according to three sources who were briefed on that intel assessment.

Two of the sources say the assessment says Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium survived. Another says Iran's centrifuges are largely intact. This as a fragile ceasefire holds between Israel and Iran. No new airstrikes have been reported between those two countries since this morning. Both sides have said they will respect the truth, the truce, that is, if the other side does the same.

President Trump has been touting that ceasefire at the NATO summit in the Netherlands. That's where he is right now. Since Saturday's airstrikes, he has repeatedly claimed that the sites struck were totally obliterated.

I want to bring in now CNN senior national security reporter Zachary Cohen. He is part of the CNN team that broke this exclusive reporting.

Zach, tell us more about what we've learned. ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yeah. Kasie,

this is the first known U.S. intelligence assessment since those U.S. military strikes on those nuclear sites in Iran. And it's one that was produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency that's a member of the U.S. intelligence community overseen by the Pentagon. And it found that those military strikes did not completely destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities and really only set it back by a matter of months.

Now, look, it's important to note that this is an early assessment and one that is based on the information that the U.S. intelligence community and the Pentagon have collected so far. But it is noticeably at odds with what we've been hearing from President Donald Trump, who was quick to come out after the military operation was complete and claim that Iran's nuclear program had been obliterated. That was a direct quote.

Specifically, the DIA assessment states that the centrifuges at these facilities, at these facilities do not appear to be destroyed. In fact, one source saying that they appear to be largely intact. Thats the assessment of the DIA.

And two other sources saying that the enrichment stockpile, the enriched stockpile, the stockpile of enriched material, still also was not destroyed during these airstrikes. Now, there was obvious damage done to the outside of these facilities. And that's not something anything is disputing. The military's consistently pointed out that this was a successful tactical operation, but one that needed more time to assess the actual damage that it was that was inflicted during the strikes. And now we're getting our first look at what the details and what the assessment of the U.S. intelligence community might be.

Now, we reached out to the White House for comment on this before publishing this story, and got a response from White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. She I'm going to read this in full. She said, quote, "This alleged assessment is flat out wrong and was classified as top secret, but was still leaked to CNN by an anonymous low-level loser in the intelligence community. The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran's nuclear program. Everyone knows what happens when you drop 14 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets. Total obliteration."

I do want to point out, Kasie, that the White House statement there does not dispute, in fact, confirms this assessment appears to exist, but is really echoing more in line with what President Donald Trump's messaging has been, basically saying that he doesn't agree with the assessment itself, saying that he believes that the strikes did cause total obliteration.

So, again, this assessment could change and evolve over time as more information comes in. But the first read from the U.S. intelligence community, and in particular the defense intelligence agency, is that the strikes did not have the same effect that Donald Trump has been claiming they've had.

HUNT: And, Zach, we also have a response from Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense.

COHEN: That's right. We also reached out to the -- to the Pentagon for comment on this before the story. And Pete Hegseth similarly pushing back on the notion that or on the assessment itself, saying it was not completely obliterated, he says, quote, based on everything we've seen and I've seen it all, our bombing campaign obliterated Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons.

Our massive bombs hit exactly the right spot at each target and worked perfectly. The impact of those bombs is buried under a mountain of rubble in Iran. So, anyone who says the bombs were not devastating is just trying to undermine the president and the successful mission.

[16:05:00]

And I just want to note, too, there was some debate. We previously reported some debate with amongst U.S. officials about whether those massive bunker buster bombs that were used at two of these Iranian facilities did have the capability of penetrating deep enough underground to destroy the nuclear equipment that was believed to be stored there. The DIA's early read is that the answer to that is not a complete and overwhelming yes, as maybe Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth have been saying, it is.

HUNT: All right. Zach Cohen with our latest reporting on this -- Zach, very grateful to have you today. Thank you.

Let's go now to Anderson, who's, of course, live in Tel Aviv.

Anderson, that ceasefire currently in place, does this report change things?

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: I mean, Kasie, look, this is a -- it's a fascinating early assessment, but I do think it's important to reiterate a couple of things which Zach has said and which is in the actual the reporting on it. This is an early U.S. intelligence assessment described to CNN by three people who were briefed on it. It was produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency, which is most viewers may know, is the Pentagon's intelligence arms.

There are other intelligence agencies out there. It's not -- that's different from the CIA and elsewhere, who may also have initial assessments, initial reports. There's going to be -- this is one piece of the intelligence community's assessment at this stage, as far as I understand, based on this reporting by CNN, and it's based on early battle damage assessment by the U.S. Central Command.

Now, two of the people Zach mentioned who were briefed said that Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium was not destroyed. That's not necessarily, perhaps all that surprising. There have been a number of reports and suggestions, even in advance of this attack, that Iran may have moved large amounts of highly enriched uranium to other locations, even locations which are not known to the U.S. and to the IAEA.

Now, one of the people, as Zach mentioned, briefed on the early assessment, told CNN that the centrifuges are largely intact. That would be surprising. Some had previously suggested that even if the bombs dropped, did not penetrate deep enough to destroy centrifuges. And as Zach mentioned, you know, these had never been used before. Wasn't clear if they could penetrate deep enough. And I'm not sure we still have the answer to that.

But the idea that the centrifuges would not have been destroyed -- earlier, there had been some atomic experts who said that if you cut the electrical supply to those centrifuges, it might have them spinning out of control and no longer working.

CNN was told that this early assessment says that the impact of the attacks on the three sites, Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, are largely restricted to aboveground structures, including power infrastructure. So, again, don't know how that would have affected the centrifuges. But we do -- we don't know more than that.

We should also point out that the classified briefings for members of Congress, which were to take place today, were suddenly canceled, which is upset many Democrats in congress who were to receive those briefings.

We don't know if there is a connection between that cancellation and the early assessment. There was no explanation given for the cancellation of the briefings. It will be interesting to see if and when those take place, what comes out of that.

And President Trump has not yet responded to CNN's reporting of this early assessment directly, but he has just in the last 24 hours or so and more gone after anyone who has even suggested that it's too early to say that all the bombings resulted in complete obliteration of Iran's nuclear facilities, the White House, as Zach mentioned, in addition to calling whoever leaked this early assessment a loser, the White House also said that the alleged assessment, which what they're calling it, was classified as top secret and that it's flat out wrong.

Now, the chairman of the joint chiefs, as you know, said Sunday that bomb damage assessment was ongoing. And it was, in his words, way too early to comment on Sunday on what Iran's nuclear capabilities still are.

So, this is a really interesting reporting. There's obviously going to be more assessments and more to come, and perhaps a better picture in the days ahead.

I want to bring in CNNs chief international security correspondent, Nick Paton Walsh, and CNN's Kristen Holmes, who's at the NATO summit in the Netherlands with the president.

Kristen, first to you and the president's team have repeatedly said this strike obliterated Iran's nuclear program. We haven't yet heard his comments about this reporting on the earlier assessment. I'm wondering what you make of it, what you expect to hear from the president.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, the president is not going to be happy with the fact that this leaked in this early assessment, because President Trump has been touting, as you said, that a complete obliteration of these nuclear sites. But one thing to keep in mind, Anderson, and you say this yourself, is that we know that President Trump spoke like this from the second those bombs went off and the planes left Iranian airspace. He was saying that the sites had been completely demolished.

We also know, and we heard this again from Dan Caine, the chairman of joint chiefs of staff, but also from experts and sources, that it was much too early to know exactly what the damage was done, that there was going to be a lot of intelligence that was going to be done through aerial imaging, as well as sources on the ground, and that this was going to be a lengthier process.

[16:10:12]

But that hasn't stopped President Trump from, of course, taking full credit for annihilating those nuclear sites. And even today, on his way to the NATO summit, he was asked about his confidence in the efficacy of those bombs. And here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: How confident are you that Iran's nuclear capabilities have been completely demolished?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think it's been completely demolished. I think the reason we're here is because those pilots, those B-2 pilots, did an unbelievable job. Iran will never rebuild its nuclear -- from there? Absolutely not. That place is under rock. That place is demolished.

The B-2 pilots did their job. They did it better than anybody could even imagine. They hit late in the evening. It was dark with no moon. And they hit that target with every one of those things. And that place is gone.

REPORTER: Sir, how are you confident that this might not happen again, say, in a couple of weeks?

TRUMP: They're tired of it. I think they don't want it to happen again. And Iran's not going to have a nuclear weapon, by the way. I think it's the last thing on their mind right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: So, two reasons why this is so fascinating, this early intelligence assessment. One is that we know and we reported in the lead up to the United States actually launching these strikes, launching these bombs in Iran, President Trump was asking his advisers privately, almost consistently if these would actually take out these nuclear sites, because he only wanted to do it if it was going to completely end the nuclear program, or at least take it out a substantial amount. So that's part of this.

It's fascinating. The other part of this is that they the administration, the White House, are using this, this bombing to bring Iran to the table, saying that now they have nothing left. They have to negotiate with us.

And this is a key part of President Trump's strategy in the Middle East is getting Iran to the table for a nuclear deal. So, the real thing we're watching now, too, is does that impact that? Does that impact Iran coming to and making a deal with the United States?

COOPER: Yeah. And, Kisten, it's also interesting to me that the White House and President Trump continually bring in the pilots of this and any reporting that's saying anything other than complete obliteration as somehow a criticism of pilots or anybody involved in the mission, which, of course, is simply not the case.

Pilots can execute a mission completely flawlessly. The question is, what is the actual bomb damage here? This has nothing to do with the remarkable ability of these pilots, who flew all the way from the United States and back executed, dropped payloads exactly on target. I mean, that seems a kind of a red herring there.

Nick, I want to bring you in. To Kristen's last point, what this might mean again, still very early assessments, need a lot more to know.

Actually, Nick, before I go to you, I want to go to Fred Pleitgen who is -- who is live in in Tehran for us.

Fred, talk a little bit about what you have been seeing over the last several hours.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Anderson.

Well, as far as this new reporting, obviously, that we have is concerned, it's been quite interesting to hear and see what the Iranians have been saying, not specifically about that reporting, but in general about the strikes that took place, because it is something that obviously has been playing very big here in Iran. A lot of officials have been talking about as well, and we've been really hearing three things, Anderson, from the Iranians. On the one hand, first of all, they've been absolutely clear that their nuclear program is going to continue and hasn't actually been set back that far. That's something that the Iranians have said.

But there's basically three arguments that they've been making for that. And it was today, actually, that the head of Iran's atomic energy organization came out and said all of those sites that we've been talking about, the Iranians are saying that they had in preparation for any sort of strikes that could take place, cleared anything of significance out of those sites before the strikes took place. It's obviously impossible to independently verify that, but that was one of the things that was put forward by the Iranians.

Another thing came from an adviser to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. He said, who said that a site like Fordow, which is heavily fortified, which is inside a mountain they believe cannot be destroyed by a single strike. Of course, the U.S. used some pretty heavy ordnance, but the Iranians are saying its deep inside a mountain and that it would be very difficult to do any significant damage, very significant damage to a site like that with a single military strike.

And one thing that we've heard from several Iranian officials, Anderson, is they say even if the centrifuges were destroyed, even if the highly enriched uranium were to be destroyed, that the knowledge has not been destroyed. It still is very much there. There are still a lot of nuclear scientists here in Iran, even though some of them were killed in the early stages of Israel's bombing campaign here of Iran.

But the Iranians have been unequivocal, saying that their nuclear program is going to continue and that for them, even now, enrichment is still a red line.

[16:15:08]

And enrichment is something that they say they are going to continue in the future. I was able to speak to the deputy vice president of Iran a couple of days ago, and he said the Iranians would be willing to compromise and say that they would enrich at much lower levels than they have in the past. But they certainly say that they want Iranian enrichment to happen inside Iran using Iranian equipment. And that's not something they're going to back away from -- Anderson.

COOPER: All right. Fred Pleitgen in Tehran, thanks very much.

I want to go back to Kasie. Kasie?

HUNT: Thanks, Anderson.

And, Nick Paton Walsh, let me just go to you briefly on this, because, of course, the big question as well, whether this cease fire is going to hold in the face of this new information. And that depends, of course, on what Israel does, but also, of course, what Iran does next.

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. I mean, look, we've heard signals today that Iran does not intend to violate the ceasefire unless Israel does. And as we increasingly find out more about the damage done, then I think it's fair to say there will be an assessment made by Israel and possibly the U.S., to, if they need to take further action. But it's important to make a distinction between Iran's nuclear program and its nuclear sites.

I mean, throughout the discussion of all this 12-day conflict, it's been very clear talking to experts. One said to me, look, you can't assassinate Iran away from into nuclear ignorance. They have scientists, ten killed, another death of another one announced just today on Iranian state media, and the latest wave of Israeli strikes.

But still, that knowledge passed on to other individuals. There's been repeated talk of other sites that haven't been part of these key three, Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan that are regularly discussed publicly by un inspectors and western officials that potentially nuclear activity could be happening elsewhere. Some of these indeed even pictured in satellite images in the

mountains, too. And remember when 83 percent enriched uranium was found back in 2023. Well, there's been a significant period of time between that find by U.N. inspectors and where we are now. And also remember that the amount of nuclear material at 90 percent enrichment you might need for a nuclear weapon, some say, is 20 kilograms. You could fit enough potentially for five in the back of a small van.

So, it's very easy to have concealed that important material. And then there's the weaponization know how as well, which comes down to individuals and potentially maybe hidden elsewhere in Iran, too.

So rebuilding centrifuges, potentially something easy to do. I think its really important to point out that clearly, a lot of damage was done by these U.S. strikes. And indeed, the Israeli strikes beforehand and the Israeli strikes on Fordow that came after those U.S. bunker busters when they attacked the access routes in and out in the days afterwards.

So, this doesn't have to be a sort of binary, "Did it work or did it not work?" moment. But it's important to remind people that I don't think at any point, any real expert has suggested that a bombing campaign could completely remove to zero all of Iran's nuclear program.

You could damage nuclear sites. You could certainly, and they have the Israelis, and these waves of strikes killed nuclear scientists.

But ultimately, most people who observe this are a period of time, say the only way to end Iran's nuclear ambitions is through diplomacy, in which they let inspectors in, permit people access without the threat of air power or firearms being used to ensure that program is gone.

But this was the big gamble here, Kasie, in all of it. Ultimately, unless you were able to cause enough damage to Iran's nuclear program in this singular set of strikes and the 12 days of Israeli bombardment, you run the risk potentially, of hardliners making the race for a weapon.

HUNT: All right. Nick Paton Walsh for us -- Nick, thanks very much. Really appreciate it.

Our panel is now here in THE ARENA.

CNN chief national affairs correspondent Jeff Zeleny, CNN national security correspondent Kylie Atwood, CNN chief political analyst, former senior adviser to President Obama, David Axelrod, and CNN's senior political commentator Scott Jennings.

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

Scott Jennings, Nick Paton Walsh makes the point that this is not something that you can say is going to be completely obliterated or not. He laid out all of the reasons. President Trump clearly wants this to be extraordinarily clear. And I want to play the moment from this morning. This was around breakfast time, right? Many people probably watching with their kids. The president clearly

flashed, flashing some anger. Let's watch that moment just to remember what it was.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I'm not happy with Israel. You know, when I say, okay, now you have 12 hours, you don't go out in the first hour and just drop everything you have on them. So I'm not happy with them. I'm not happy with Iran either, but I'm really unhappy if Israel is going out this morning because of one rocket that didn't land that was shot, perhaps by mistake, that didn't land. I'm not happy.

You know what we have? We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing. Do you understand that?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[16:20:07]

HUNT: And you -- if you had a private conversation with the president and he's angry at you, I think you probably recognize the person that was right there. It doesn't come out in public all that often, but there it was. This assessment, surely. And it's the public nature of it surely can't be making Donald Trump less angry right now.

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, I'd be angry if I were him. I mean, he's the president of the United States, and now he's got a part of the bureaucracy that's leaking top secret, sensitive military information. I mean, were in the immediate aftermath of a military exercise. This document was not produced for public consumption. It was produced for top secret internal government consumption. And now, it's out in the public domain.

So, if I were him, I'd be mad about that, number one. Look, there's more info to come. There's 17 other intelligence agencies inside the government that have to produce some kind of information.

The head of the IAEA says that substantial damage and substantial setbacks have occurred in the program, and it's no doubt that the combined efforts of both Israel and the United States have done a substantial amount of damage to Iran's capabilities here.

How much damage? How long have we set them back? I think we don't know exactly yet this very early in all this. But if I were the president --

HUNT: The president is saying completely obliterated.

JENNINGS: If I were the president and my government was leaking top secret military information after what our military did, which was execute a precision military strike, I'd be pissed.

DAVID AXELROD, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, first of all, every president gets angry, I'm sure you probably got yelled at when I was over there at the White House.

JENNINGS: First by you.

AXELROD: So, I didn't want to add that, Mark Rutte. Yes, maybe not in those terms, but -- but maybe. But, so, you know, look, no president likes leaks. And our president, the president I work for didn't like leaks, but that's not really the question here.

The question is whether people are getting honest information. And what we see here is sort of Donald Trump being Donald Trump. And like everybody's strength is their weakness. Donald Trump is a guy who is very improvisational, very impulsive and very much insistent on his version of events, especially when it reflects on him.

And he went out there Sunday night and he wanted to claim a total victory. And he did. And I respect General Caine, frankly, for stepping out the next day and saying, you know what? We don't know yet exactly what the extent was, it was probably extensive, but we don't know how extensive.

And I think that was what most presidents would have said, that we did substantial damage. We set their program back. But that's not Donald Trump.

HUNT: Well, Jeff, this all but guarantees that, you know, and I guess were in such a political, you know, partisan reality across the board in American life now, the politicizing of intelligence is not new.

Obviously, it happened in the lead up to the Iraq war. Many Americans you can see in the polling have really bad memories of that, that they are clearly bringing to this situation. When you look at some of the numbers that we have, but it's -- it seems undoubtedly it seems doubtful that this is going to be politicized.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: I think there's no question. I mean, it would have been, regardless of the leak or not. And again, I'm not sure -- I think that's a legitimate question for the president to be angry about, but that's not what he was angry about at that moment.

Because at that moment, at 6:45 this morning, he didn't know about this leak. He's been very defensive about the reporting that's been coming out. And even a defensive, I'm told about some of his own officials. He would like the Pentagon to sort of share his obliterated language. But that has not happened.

So, throughout the day yesterday at the White House, one of his first comments on the strikes that were fired on Al Udeid were to go after the media for questioning how severe those strikes were. But to your point about the politicization, there's no doubt.

I mean, his rise was fueled by the skepticism out in the American electorate and the public, really, that grew over some two decades or so. But the here and now, I think the questions are there.

The White House wants to move on. The president wants to move on from this very, very quickly because he knows the public has very little appetite for this. So, the big questions for the world, will this affect the ceasefire at this moment?

I don't think there's any reason to think that it would. I mean, there are several other things that could affect the ceasefire. It's fragile, there's no doubt about it. But it also could be historic. And I think that we have to sort of look at these in a separate light.

HUNT: Kylie, I mean, to that point, how are the Israelis going to look at this? Because if they still see having the air defenses down over Tehran as the time that they need to take out this program, if the assessment is its not been taken out, does that not mean they may take additional action?

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: It's a good question because the Israelis have indicated in the last few days that they are slowing their operation. They have actually in the last few hours, adhered to this ceasefire. So even if they're seeing this assessment they also have an internal assessment which is at this moment in time, we're going to let this ceasefire stand. We're going to let Trump drive for diplomacy.

But I do think it's really important to note that a battle damage assessment, a comprehensive one, not just, you know, an early assessment but the whole comprehensive battle damage assessment is going to be critical to take into account as diplomacy starts up again. And the reason for that is because if you agree to a deal that doesn't actually take into account what the battle damage assessment is, how can you actually put a limit on Iran's nuclear program going forward?

HUNT: And how long would it take to get a full, government wide battle damage assessment? This is obviously one of 18 agencies. It's preliminary. How long would it take to go from here to a full assessment?

ATWOOD: It's a good question. I mean, we have not heard that from sources yet, but. I do think we'll probably hear more later on this week because both the house and the Senate are expected to get a briefing that was scheduled for today, but delayed.

AXELROD: One thing, Kasie, about your question is once you go out in front of the world and declare that the program has been completely obliterated and eliminated, its hard then to go back and say, you know what? I was wrong about that. We got to go back a second time.

That's -- that's one more reason to be a little bit prudent about what you're willing to claim just hours after an operation.

HUNT: Although it also clearly says something about the tolerance he has for this continuing.

AXELROD: But it wasn't, you know, to Scott's point and to the president's point, no one is denigrating the people who carried out this mission, and no one should.

HUNT: Absolutely.

AXELROD: I mean, they obviously did their job. The question was whether the bombs did the job they hoped. And I can tell you, going back 15 years, those debates were going on within government.

HUNT: About whether they were going to work at all. Yep.

All right. Coming up next here, the former chair of the homeland security and foreign affairs committees here, Republican Congressman Michael McCaul standing by, live as tensions rise on the Hill following the last-minute delay of todays scheduled briefings on the Iran strikes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): They called me up and said, we're taking imminent action. We can't tell you what country. I said, can you give me some details? They said, no. That's the extent of the briefing I've gotten.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:31:35]

HUNT: All right. Welcome back to THE ARENA.

Joining us to discuss the latest in the Middle East, Republican Congressman Michael McCaul of Texas. Of course, the chairman emeritus of both the House Foreign Affairs and Homeland Security Committees. He's also traveled to Israel as part of a congressional delegation last month.

Congressman, thanks very much for being here. I do want to start with the new CNN reporting. This is what we say, quote, the U.S. military strikes on three of Iran's nuclear facilities last weekend did not destroy the core components of the country's nuclear program and likely only set it back by months, according to the intelligence assessment. It was produced by the defense intelligence agency. The Pentagon's intelligence arm.

Now, worth noting Karoline Leavitt, the White House spokesperson, pushed back against this report, said it was wrong.

I'm interested to know your reaction to this, considering that President Trump has repeatedly said that the program was, quote, completely obliterated.

REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL (R-TX): Right. Well, it's unfortunate that intelligence gets leaked so quickly in this administration. I understand the president's frustration.

Having said that, it did cause significant damage. And I think that's important in terms of a time to negotiate a peaceful resolution. However, and I've been briefed on this plan in the past, it was never to completely destroy these three facilities, but rather cause significant damage. But it was always known to be a temporary setback where they could then rebuild the centrifuges. I think right now, the key is to keep applying the pressure, the leverage.

HUNT: So, why do you think the president is saying what he's saying in public if that's the case?

MCCAUL: Well, because it did cause significant damage. And you had 12 30,000-pound bombs --

HUNT: Significant damage, completely obliterated, right?

MCCAUL: -- being dropped. It's all a matter of semantics. I think the president, you know, thinking it caught -- it completely obliterated. Look, it caused significant damage. It was a temporary setback, however. A temporary enough to now have negotiations. I think we got to keep the pressure on Iran to come to the table and negotiate in good faith.

You know, 60 days they failed to work in a diplomatic manner. I met with the Prime Minister Netanyahu. He told me these negotiations will fail, and I will strike Iran with or without you. I plead the case. He had to work with the United States, our partners, our allies, to protect our military assets in the region that are there, which he did.

But he also said that the regime is going to be more worried about staying in power than retaliation. What I find significant, Kasie, is the retaliation, Iran said, was proportionate to the strikes against them, which tells me they want to save face with their people and now de-escalate the situation. I certainly hope that's true in this case.

HUNT: Sir, what is your sense of whether this ceasefire will hold? Do you think that the Israelis are still going to feel as though they need to take additional advantage of being able to fly over Iran, that the air defenses are down?

MCCAUL: Well, of course, their air defenses are down. I don't know to what extent -- Mossad's in Iran right now. I think if I were the ayatollah, I'd be very nervous. They took out a lot of their top leadership of the IRGC, their top scientists.

But I do think in terms of the strikes, they need to stop so we can sit down to negotiate.

[16:35:00]

Now, I'm clear-eyed about the ayatollah. I don't know if we'll ever negotiate in good faith. We've had this problem since 1979, and they spread terror throughout the Middle East ever since then. I think the end of this remains to be seen.

HUNT: Sir, there were congressional briefings that had been scheduled on the results of this operation. Those briefings have now been postponed. Do you have any sense that that may be because the intelligence assessments are that this was not as damaging to the program as the president has portrayed publicly?

MCCAUL: I was told privately that it was the schedules of both secretary of state and secretary of defense. I understand that given the gravity of what's going on right now, however, we are under Article I, the People's House, and we need to have this briefing. I understand it will take place on Friday, and we look forward to that conversation.

HUNT: But weren't they always scheduled to be at NATO, which is -- which is where they are?

MCCAUL: That's correct. And I think that's part -- it's a scheduling issue. I don't think there's anything nefarious going on with that. And I think, you know, were going to have a very good discussion.

I think also, you know, once they reported this to the congress under the War Powers Act, the clock is ticking, is there going to be a sustained military action or is this over with the one strike? Then, we go to the Foreign Affairs Committee to determine whether an authorization of use of military force is required in this case.

HUNT: Sir, do you think that this is the end of it? Do you think that between the strikes, the Iranian response and now this tentative cease fire, how high is the risk that this is going to become a protracted conflict, that the United States is going to remain involved in?

MCCAUL: Well, the good news is Iran reached out to the Saudis this morning. Russia doesn't seem to be escalating this thing. I have to say, even though the reports are temporary setback on the nuclear sites, Iran has been severely damaged. Their air defense systems, their top leadership, their scientists, the ayatollah is underground right now.

I think they're on their heels. I think the best opportunity to negotiate is now. But we've got to continue to apply the pressure on both Israel and Iran to have a ceasefire and put pressure on Iran to negotiate a peaceful resolution once and for all. If they're not willing to do that, then they'll suffer the consequences. I would hate to see a return of the B-2 bombers, but that's always an option.

HUNT: All right. Congressman Michael McCaul -- sir, thanks very much for your time today. Really appreciate it.

MCCAUL: Thank you, Kasie.

HUNT: All right. Coming up next, we're going to go back live to Israel with Anderson Cooper.

Plus, what do Democrats think about the president's actions in the Middle East? It seems to depend on who you ask. One lawmaker introducing articles of impeachment today, others saying, not so fast.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: What do you say to your conference that's calling for impeachment here? REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): No, it's -- you know, that's a big threshold

to cross.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:42:35]

COOPER: Welcome back. I'm Anderson Cooper, live in Tel Aviv.

Sources telling CNN that an early U.S. intelligence assessment suggests that Saturday's strikes on Iran did not destroy its nuclear sites. This is a very early assessment.

I want to bring in CNN chief international correspondent Clarissa Ward, also CNN political and global affairs analyst Barak Ravid.

Clarissa, let's just start out with you.

Again, this is an early assessment leaked by three sources talking about it with CNN. What do you make of that?

CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I've been making a list of some of the words that we've heard used to describe the impact of these strikes on this Iranian nuclear facility are very -- all three of them thwarted, degraded, obliterated, destroyed, severely damaged.

I mean, the bottom line is we just don't have the full picture yet and --

COOPER: It's still too early to tell.

WARD: It's a preliminary report from one agency. It's too early to tell. I mean, the timing of the release or the leaking I should say to CNN of this report is significant. It came on the heels of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu taking to the airwaves here in Israel and delivering a pretty bombastic mission accomplished speech to the Israeli public, where he talked about having laid waste to Iran's nuclear facilities.

He didn't give a timeline. And again, the timelines -- how far back has it been set? Is it months, as this report indicates? Is it years, as we heard yesterday from the IDF?

I don't think we have a clear picture yet, but certainly, you know, the tune that Israeli officials are singing and continue to trumpet is we got it done. We reserve the right to go back in and do it again if Iran tries to rebuild or restart this. And let's now, in the words of the IDF, focus back on Gaza and on toppling Hamas and bringing the hostages home.

COOPER: Barack, what are you hearing? First of all, what do you think about this? This leaked early assessment with all the qualifiers that Clarissa just mentioned? And what are you hearing about any other assessments that may be out there or coming?

BARAK RAVID, CNN POLITICAL AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: So, Anderson, I spoke to five different Israeli officials, three of them are working in different intelligence agencies. Two others are in other branches of the government, but have access to classified briefings about this issue.

[16:45:03]

And I think that at least people who are in the Israeli intelligence and Israeli military intelligence were sort of puzzled by the DIA report. They thought it was, you know, too soon because they -- they themselves, who have more or less the same intelligence, still didn't really put on paper such -- such an analysis.

There were also preliminary things, but they mostly described what happened and not what it means or what's the assessment of it about how far back it took the Iranian nuclear program.

All these Israeli officials I spoke to thought that, at least according to the intelligence they had, that the Natanz, both above the ground and underground facilities, were destroyed completely, with Isfahan being in a sort of question mark. It was -- there is some severe damage in parts of it, but its unclear what's happening inside.

In Fordow, more or less the same. It's not really clear. And one of the things I heard from an Israeli official is the reason we still don't know is because the Iranians themselves still did not go into those facilities, and that's why they themselves did not do this battle damage assessment. Therefore, it's hard to know what exactly happened.

COOPER: Well, that was actually going to be my next question to you, because how much would Iran, even at this stage, know about their own capabilities, given the -- I mean, the destruction that's occurred, the difficulty of communication and the ability to actually access below ground in these sites, and given the amount of ordnance that was dropped on these sites.

RAVID: Well, I think that now with the ceasefire, they'll have much easier time going there and trying to figure that one out. The fact that it was, you know, there was constant fighting in the last 12 days. Everyone were sort of like staying underground.

And I think we will know in a matter of days before the Iranians will get there. And then both Israeli and U.S. intelligence services will have much more information, because most of what we know now is from satellite images and things. You can -- you can sort of see on the outside, it will take a few days until I think we'll know what's happening on the inside, and this is what really matters.

COOPER: Clarissa, in terms of support for what has happened here, there still widespread support here in Israel for -- for what -- what's gone on.

WARD: Yeah. I think, you know, when you talk to most Israelis, there's a sense that if this had gone on for days longer, maybe even a week longer, the support would have been here for that. It's pretty clear that the reason this stopped was because of those choice words that we heard from President Trump and the phone conversation between him and Netanyahu earlier.

Netanyahu, in this speech today, was very keen to say, you know, this is a historic cooperation between our two countries. Thank you to President Trump. You're the best friend Israel has ever had in the White House.

But you do also still feel, Anderson, I would say here, a palpable sense of relief. The home front command today announcing that it's back to normal. Schools are opening, the airports opening.

COOPER: Which is huge, that people will be able to come and go through the airport.

WARD: And maybe one night now without any sirens.

COOPER: Yeah. Clarissa Ward, thanks very much. Barak Ravid as well.

Kasie, back to you.

HUNT: All right. Anderson, thanks.

Coming up next here, to impeach or not to impeach? What leading Democrats are now saying about a push from their left.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:53:30]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: What do you say to your conference that's calling for impeachment here?

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): No, it's -- you know, that's a big threshold to cross I would say to them. That -- don't be -- yes, it's probably wrong for the president not to come to Congress, but let's just change that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Let's just change that.

The former speaker of the House and, of course, longtime Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, giving an effective thumbs down to members of her party that are pushing to impeach President Donald Trump for failing to get congressional approval before striking Iran.

Our panel is back. Were joined by CNN political commentator Xochitl Hinojosa, who's also here.

David Axelrod, I mean, this seems like Nancy Pelosi basically saying, I mean, let's be real. She tried to pump the brakes on some of the actual impeachment proceedings that occurred the first time Donald Trump was in office. But the reaction from the left here has been pretty aggressive.

How do you think Democrats should be approaching this? Like, what is the politically smart way to do this?

AXELROD: Well, look, I think it's not wrong to point out that there are certain rules and norms that should be followed that the Constitution does give the congress certain powers but, you know, we've seen other presidents also --

HUNT: Your former boss.

AXELROD: Yes. And there are procedures for that.

I don't -- look, there's plenty of stuff to talk about in terms of Donald Trump trampling over the Congress and its constitutional provisions. But the way -- the biggest power that the Constitution delegates is to voters, and the best way to change things is through elections.

And this would be a stupid political move, because this is not what the country wants. They want people to be focused on the costs that they pay every day at the cash register and their rent and so on, and they want more of a focus on their lives. And that's one of the dangers for the president if he gets caught in sort of a foreign misadventures, because that's not what the American people elected him to do.

HUNT: Yeah. And I mean, to that point, Scott Jennings, the American people, some of the new CNN polling shows that something like 60 percent of the public do not approve of or are not interested in us striking Iran, which, you know, we found noteworthy because history has shown that striking and then getting out, historically, Americans have been mostly okay with that.

But clearly taking on board the lessons of the Iraq war has shifted something, right? Like the reluctance for foreign involvement is that much higher than it used to be.

JENNINGS: Yeah, I think that's true. But at the same time, we went in and we went out and look, you can't crowdsource national security. I mean, if you thought the people that were chanting "death to America" were on the doorstep of getting a nuclear weapon, I wouldn't stop and take a poll. I would go ahead and do what I could to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon.

HUNT: Do you think President Trump doesn't care about said polling?

JENNINGS: I think he -- I think he certainly cares about public opinion. But at the same time, the president of the United States most importantly, cares about national security. We had a window here where there was no danger, really, to our pilots. Iran didn't even know we were there and couldn't get a shot off to do something, which meant preserving the national security of the United States, keeping these "death to America" butchers from getting a nuclear weapon. So, you know, look, the polling is the polling, but the decision

making was sound. He had good intelligence. We had a window of opportunity. He took the shot. The military executed.

AXELROD: The phrase that you used, I think is most important is if you can get in and you can get out. And, you know, I know I've sat in these assessments, one of the questions is then what? What's the second, third and fourth order events that you can expect after this?

And I'm not convinced. I haven't seen evidence that there was really deep discussion of those things. I think the president but -- you know, I accept your premise, but I do think that there is a responsibility to think beyond that, because I think the American people will be fine if it was in and out and you just and, you know --

JENNINGS: Well --

AXELROD: -- but if it becomes an ongoing saga because of the action he took.

JENNINGS: I do think they had ongoing dialogue going on with Witkoff and other people in the region. I mean, it manifested itself in Iran, you know, weekly shooting off a few missiles at our base that didn't land on anything, obviously, he wanted in and out, and Iran wanted in and out.

AXELROD: Listen, there are all kinds of implications, and hopefully none of them will happen, that go to cyber, that go to cutting off the Strait of Hormuz, that go to danger to our troops in the area. None of it may happen. I hope to God none of it does.

But to think -- to say that it's just sort of a lark where you can just go in and come back. It's over. Everybody's good, everybody's safe. We've achieved our objective.

That's just not the way -- it may work that way in reality shows, it doesn't work that way in reality.

HUNT: The risk will pile on.

XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I agree, and also we're not -- as you mentioned, were not out of the woods yet. I think that this CNN poll, it talks about Americans are really worried about the threat to our country, the Iranian threat. You saw DHS and the FBI put out information saying that, you know what? Everyone needs to be on high alert because there could potentially be --

(CROSSTALK)

HINOJOSA: Exactly. And these, you know, FBI agents should have been on national security from the beginning. They should never be pulled off for anything else. But unfortunately, they were pulled off to work on immigration. And now the administration is even scared about that threat, and they're pulling them off and putting them back at on national security matters. So, there is a real threat. And Congress, instead of worrying about impeachment, what they should

be worried about is getting briefed. What happened to that briefing? Why was it canceled? Because they were terrified of what Congress may learn about.

The other thing they should be worried about is the threat environment. They should be getting briefings from the FBI and DHS on what that threat environment looks like. So that's how Congress should be spending their time.

ZELENY: And one of the reasons that Speaker Pelosi, former Speaker Pelosi is talking about her reticence for the word impeachment, she wants to win the House back. And the word impeachment helps the White House. The president will use that every single day about saying Democrats, if they win the House back, that's why they're trying to stop me.

So I think that the whole idea of impeachment is something that most Democrats don't want to go anywhere.

AXELROD: And let's acknowledge it would be a purely symbolic act. It would not have any effect. It would be a time suck. It would be a drama. But we all know how the drama would end, and it would not --

HUNT: They also don't control the chamber that they would need.

JENNINGS: But if they did. If they did get control of it in the midterms coming up, I have no doubt Democrats will be right back at the impeachment table.

HINOJOSA: That is not true. Jeffries has already said that he did not believe it was a good idea, and a majority of Democrats in the caucus did not vote to advance impeachment.

So, I don't agree with you, but you're trying to do some fearmongering here.

(CROSSTALK)

HUNT: We have 10 seconds -- Axe.

AXELROD: Look, he's a reliable reflection of strategic thinking on that side. And I think that's exactly what they'll say.

HUNT: All right, guys, thank you very much for being here for this conversation. Really appreciate it.

Phil Mattingly standing by for "THE LEAD".

Hi, Phil.