Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Iran Retaliates At U.S. Base In Qatar; Supreme Leader Will Not Surrender Against Israel; Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) Is Interviewed About Iran Retaliating On U.S. Base In Qatar; Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) Is Interviewed About Debate Over Limiting Trump's War Powers Intensifies; Missiles Fired From Iran Toward U.S. Base In Qatar Intercepted; Oil Drops, Stock Rise After Iran's Intercepted Strike On U.S. Base. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired June 23, 2025 - 17:00   ET

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

KASIE HUNT, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT & HOST: Thank you so much for that. And if you missed any of today's show or any of our shows here in "The Arena," don't forget you can always catch up by listening to "The Arena's" podcast. You go ahead and scan the QR code that you see on your screen. You can follow wherever you get your podcasts. Alright, Phil Mattingly is standing by for us for "The Lead." Phil, nice to see you.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT & HOST: Likewise Kasie. We will see you back in "The Arena" tomorrow. Welcome to "The Lead." I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jake Tapper. The breaking news. President Trump has just weighed in on Iran's attempt at retaliation for U.S. strikes on its nuclear facilities this past weekend.

Trump writing on Truth Social, quote, "Iran has officially responded to our obliteration of their nuclear facilities with a very weak response. They've gotten it all out of their system, and there will hopefully be no further hate. I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost and nobody to be injured. Perhaps Iran can now proceed to peace and harmony in the region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same."

Now here's a look at Iran's response that Trump is now referring to as weak. Iran earlier today launching short and medium range ballistic missiles toward a heavily fortified U.S. base in Qatar. U.S. officials say there are no reports of injuries or casualties among American troops or Qatari citizens. Now this could be in part because of what president Trump pointed out in his post.

Iran actually gave Qatar advance notice before the strikes. A source tells CNN this was intended to minimize casualties and preserve an off ramp for the conflict. While Iran's thwarted attack today may have been on the lighter end of their retaliatory options, a new bulletin from the Department of Homeland Security warns Iran could try to target U.S. government officials if Iranian leaders believe the, quote, "stability or survivability of their regime is at risk."

This all follows new Israeli strikes on Iran today aimed at the notorious Evin prison in Tehran, known for housing political prisoners and Iran's military headquarters. CNN has this covered from every single angle. Fred Pleitgen in Iran, Erin Burnett in the United Arab Emirates, Jeremy Diamond in Tel Aviv, Israel, and Jeff Zeleny at the White House in Washington, D.C. We want to start things off with CNN's Fred Pleitgen who is in Tehran, Iran. Fred, what are you seeing on the ground there today, and what are you hearing from Iranian officials about what may come next?

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Phil. Well, first of all, as far as this retaliation is concerned, a couple of hours ago, the Iranians came out with statements saying that they had, in fact, launched a barrage of missiles towards the Al Udeid Airbase, run of course by the United States in Qatar. They said, and this came from a statement from Iran's Supreme National Security Council, that the amount of missiles fired by --

(TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES)

-- towards facilities by the United States, obviously indicating that this could very well have been a tit for tat response by the Iranians. The Iranians are calling this a decisive response, a robust response, and they also say that it was successful. The Iranian state media, Phil, is saying that six of the missiles came through and hit their targets. Obviously impossible for us to independently verify that.

(TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES)

-- there were actually celebrations in the streets here in Tehran following that attack by the Iranians. And as far as today is concerned, we did see a lot of anti-aircraft fire coming here over the skies of Tehran this evening. Also, of course, preceding that were those Israeli air strikes that you were talking about. Some of those air strikes actually very close to our location. Earlier today, we heard

(TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES)

MATTINGLY: Fred Pleitgen, one of the few western journalists in Tehran having some issues there with his sound. We are going to keep in touch with him throughout the course of the show. Fred, thank you. Stay safe. I want to turn now to CNN anchor, Erin Burnett, who is also in the region. She's in the United Arab Emirates near the Strait of Hormuz, a key strategic waterway in the Middle East. Erin, Iran's attack today is only putting this entire region more on edge, it seems.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN ANCHOR ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT: Yeah. More on edge, and, of course, there's so much concern. I mean, if you look at between the airbase here in the United Arab Emirates and, obviously, the massive naval presence here by the U.S. Navy as well as in Bahrain where the 5th Fleet is and in Qatar where you saw those strikes from Iran today. You have up to 30,000 troops just here in The Gulf where we're talking about right now on high alert tonight, Phil.

Concern about what could happen. There had been a shelter in place order that had been issued by the U.S. embassy in Qatar for American citizens when those missiles started coming in, short and long ranges, Fred was just describing, from Iran. You saw a panic even at a mall and a region very much on edge.

[17:05:02]

Also concern, that the threat to Americans, while most specific on U.S. bases and military installations here in The Gulf and across The Middle East, also extends to Americans, whether that be in the form of terror attacks or lone wolf attacks or some sort of, you know, bombing attacks. Those are the real concerns and questions among American intelligence and also from sources saying what they are most worried about.

But the airspace here, just to give you a sense of how dynamic the situation is, Phil, briefly, when those missiles were coming in, you know, we had people coming in from London. All of a sudden, you see airspace closed, people unable to get into the United Arab Emirates, temporary pauses, enclosures, and reroutes.

Airlines like Air France have changed their service and started to cut back service altogether to the UAE, just to give you a sense, and to Saudi Arabia, to give you a sense of the region on edge and the stakes and how high they are. Behind me, Phil, the western tip of the Strait of Hormuz, that crucial shipping lane, a series of disputed islands with massive Iranian military presence behind us, and all of this pointing to, of course, the biggest tool, the biggest threat that Iran has at its disposal, which would be perhaps mining or closing this crucial waterway for a fifth of the world's oil every day.

But very much a region on edge and the question of whether that strike in Doha was the first, whether it was it, what might be next with U.S. military assets here on high alert. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Erin, if you'll let me, I kind of want to flash back to our past lives as finance economics reporters based on what you were just talking about. And that is watching oil markets throughout the course of the day has been fascinating to me because before, I think the rest of the world started to exhale a little bit based on the initial, or least only retaliatory strike we've seen up to this point.

Markets were responding with a broad sense of, alright, that's it. We're in a good spot now. We can move forward on some degree in terms of where oil prices were. Is there a sense right now in the region that the Strait of Hormuz is not really on the table for Iranian retaliation?

BURNETT: I think it depends on who you talk to. And, obviously, Phil, you and I both know they have never in the history, even amidst conflict, closed it before. So there's that, and the market takes solace in that. However, you talk to some, in the Iranian government, when you do, we are able to have conversations with them, and they will always put that out there as something that they could do, which, of course, as you could see, the oil markets at this point don't think that that that's a real risk.

It is interesting though you look at the market always as a gauge of what the future holds. We are living in a world where actions do not always match what would be the rational explanation that makes the most sense, right? Whether you see that on tariffs or what you see it on.

So, yes, the market see this as not a real risk. They see escalation of conflict itself as not a real risk, but it's also fair to say that one week ago or 10 days ago, the markets would never have thought that we'd be sitting here having these conversations that we're having right now.

MATTINGLY: That is such an important point. Erin Burnett in the United Arab Emirates, thank you as always. And, of course, Erin will have much more from the region tonight on "Erin Burnett OutFront" right after "The Lead," 7:00 eastern here on CNN.

I want to turn now to Israel and CNN's Jeremy Diamond who is in Tel Aviv for us. Jeremy, what are you hearing from Israeli officials now that we've seen this response from Iraq?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, Phil, as those, ballistic missiles were headed towards that U.S. base in Qatar, Israeli officials here were certainly on high alert for the potential that Iran's retaliation might also extend to Israeli territory as well. They were prepared for a large barrage of ballistic missiles to be included in that retaliation. But ultimately, it seems that for the moment at least, it's been limited to that one base in Doha, Qatar.

And now Israeli officials are turning to what the coming days may hold. And in the same way that we are seeing across the region that the temperature is really starting to come down in the wake of what was clearly a carefully telegraphed and relatively limited attack by Iran, Israeli officials are also telling me that they believe that they can achieve their military objectives in Iran within the coming days, and that that may then tee up the possibility for a ceasefire, in this 10-day conflict.

Of course, that will require some diplomacy here, and we don't yet know whether that will flow through the Europeans, perhaps through this channel that Steve Witkoff, the U.S. special envoy has with Iran. But certainly, from the Israeli point of view, it certainly seems like they are headed in the direction of wrapping up their military operations in Iran in the coming days and showing a willingness to engage in diplomacy that would bring this conflict to an end, at least for now. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Jeremy Diamond for us in Tel Aviv, thanks so much. Let's discuss now with retired U.S. Air Force General Philip Breedlove and national security expert Joseph Cirincione.

[17:09:59]

General, to start with you, a source telling CNN Iran gave Qatar a heads up about this attack on the U.S. base there. The source saying it was intended to minimize casualties, provide a potential off ramp. At the same time, a senior Iranian official tells Reuters that Iran will continue its retaliation in response to U.S. attacks. Level set for people here. Where do we stand as this plays out?

PHILIP BREEDLOVE, FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER EUROPE: Well, thanks for having me on, and nobody really knows, but I think that what we have seen is Iran now is playing more to its internal audience than its external audience. The proportional sort of measure of what happened today, the fact that they warned ahead of time, I think they're looking to try to bring the temperature down, but they have sort of celebrated this with much more victory than actually happened to their internal audience and I think that's their first concern right now.

MATTINGLY: Joe, you had a piece today that was posted before the retaliation that we saw today. It's very sobering in terms of the scale of potential responses Iran could deploy in the wake of the U.S. strikes over the weekend. Do you think that the relief is probably too strong of a word here, but the view right now, I think, that's somewhat pervasive that, alright, now we can move towards a diplomatic, pathway here? It's too early for that more may be coming.

JOSEPH CIRINCIONE, NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERT: Well, there are a dozen responses that Iran could take to the U.S. and Israeli bombing. What they did today was the smallest of those steps, really, but largely symbolic. I agree with you. They seem to be reaching out. And I have to say, I don't think I've ever said this, maybe never. Donald Trump just gave a very good statement. Snide insults aside, he's reaching out. He's extending a hand. He's building a bridge.

He seems to recognize at some level that there is no military solution to Iran's program. You can't bomb it out of existence. You can only do that with negotiations. We did it before, before Donald Trump tore it up. Donald Trump was on his way to doing it again before Israel bombed. He seems to indicate that he wants to engage in negotiations. The Iranians may be saying the same thing. We don't know how the third party in this conflict will respond, Benjamin Netanyahu, but this is a very good sign. Maybe we'll get out of this with much less damage than we thought.

MATTINGLY: General, to that point, the kind of wild card here is how the Israelis respond. We just heard from Jeremy Diamond who was talking about their strikes today. They believe they can wrap things up quickly is what officials are telling him, but that will take another couple of days. What do you think the U.S. role is here with Israeli operations going forward?

BREEDLOVE: Well, we would hope that all parties would begin to manage down here. But we recognize that Israel has its own priorities that they intend to accomplish. And when they do, then they'll be ready to cease. It would be very good if the U.S. and Israel could remain in lockstep on the way forward and not have sort of a discord in how this might get agitated.

MATTINGLY: Joe, can I ask you, there was a -- as all this has been playing out, there have been kind of warnings from the Department of Homeland Security, warnings from U.S. officials about potential attacks in the homeland, lone wolf possibilities in terms of what may happen in the days ahead. How realistic are those for you? Because that's what -- I hear from a lot of friends not involved in this, not in this world saying, hey, is this like a real thing? Are there sleeper cells? What's the kind of viability of these threats? What's your sense of things?

CIRINCIONE: I can't comment on the sleeper cells. I just don't know, but the Quds Force, that part of the revolutionary guard, they have a global network. They have repeatedly hit soft targets, Israeli, U.S. targets around the world. We are vulnerable to those kinds of attacks. Doesn't take high-tech that you don't need a $2 billion bomber to do it. So, yes, this is a very real possibility.

But again, that would be quite escalatory. I take it as a very positive sign that we haven't seen that yet, but we got a long way to go. Iran plays a long game. It has a lot of patience. So this is a good sign that the relatively, as they say, weakness, as Trump said, weakness to their response is a good sign, but I wouldn't take it for granted. I wouldn't take it as a sign that they're ready to surrender. They seem to be indicating that they're willing to explore talks once again.

MATTINGLY: General, I pose the same question to you in terms of look, having covered this space for 15, 16 years, the concern about the capabilities and what Iran could deploy were this ever to be taken as an option from the U.S. side, from the Israeli side, was significant. Was that misplaced or have they been degraded to a degree that just hasn't been the case before?

[17:14:58]

BREEDLOVE: I don't think it's the latter. I think that there -- we all understand that there are more options on the table for Iran. But Iran understands that right now, Israel and to some degree, the United States own the airspace over Iran, absolute air superiority, and that they could continue to absolutely take apart piece by piece in very precise ways, which you've seen play out on TV already. They could take this military completely apart.

And so I think that Iran is going to come to the table understanding that it would be in their best interest to find a peaceful way of forward so they don't lose the remaining military capability that hasn't been taken away from them so far.

MATTINGLY: Joe, President Trump has repeatedly insisted the U.S. totally destroyed Iran's nuclear sites on Saturday. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency can't confirm the whereabouts of Iran's stockpile of near weapons-grade nuclear material. Are U.S. officials getting ahead of themselves by saying that they obliterated the program, the program is essentially destroyed?

CIRINCIONE: Absolutely. That kind of bravado from the president and the vice president and the secretary of state simply isn't true. I mean, damage them, yes. Set them back, absolutely. But eliminated them, no. You know, number one, Iran has the knowledge of how to build centrifuges, the knowledge of how to enrich uranium. You can't bomb that away. You could damage the facilities. They can build them back.

Number two, and this is the one that concerns me the most, we did not get the most crucial element. The 400 kilograms of uranium in which to 60 percent near bomb grade. We know, and the IAA director confirmed this to the U.N. just yesterday that Iran has moved that gas. We have satellite imagery of trucks backing up to the plants before the strikes began. We don't know where it is. There are other facilities. There are other centrifuge sites that have not been hit.

If Iran is able to put that enriched uranium into those centrifuges and enrich it up to bomb grade, which they could do in about five days, they could create the core of a bomb. Within three weeks, they could create the cores of 10 bombs. That has not been eliminated. That is my greatest concern. Are they racing to develop that weapon before the U.S. or Israel could find the gas and destroy it?

MATTINGLY: General Philip Breedlove, Joseph Cirincione, thank you guys very much. Appreciate it.

BREEDLOVE: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: Well, a short time ago, President Trump called Iran's retaliation today, quote, "expected." So, will the U.S. respond again? That question has ignited a debate here in the U.S. We're going to get to that with a Senate Republican and Democrat.

Plus, the impact of all of this on you, the American consumer. That's ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:20:00]

MATTINGLY: Back with our "World Lead." President Trump today thanking Iran for giving the U.S. early notice on the missiles launched toward a U.S. base -- military base in Qatar. Thankfully, no one was injured or killed in those strikes. I want to bring in Republican Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas. He served in the U.S. Army reserves and practiced medicine for more than 25 years.

Senator, really appreciate your time. Just to start with what you saw today in Iran's response. Do you think that the pathway forward should be diplomatic or would you like to see the U.S. respond to the Iranian response?

SEN. ROGER MARSHALL (R-KS): We don't need to respond any more than we have. I think Iran is just they're trying to save face today with that gesture. I think that we knew they were coming. We shot them all down except for the one we let go. I think this is a great time for everybody to take a breath and for Iran to realize they cannot have any type of nuclear weapons, any type of nuclear enrichment. So this is a day to catch our breath and pause, and hopefully they'll come to the negotiating table.

MATTINGLY: Moments after their reports that Iran had launched those missiles toward the U.S. base, your colleague, Senator Lindsey Graham, wrote on X, "Mr. President, it's time to end this madness in Iran. May God bless you and all those who serve under you." It seemed to imply that there there's further U.S. military response that's warranted. Look, your conference isn't monolithic. There's been a lot of ink spilled about the dynamics within the Republican Party about the pathway forward here. How would you describe it? When you talk to colleagues, where are they about what should happen next?

MARSHALL: Well, I think number one is Iran cannot have any nuclear weapons. That they -- we had an imminent threat here. They are 60 percent level of enrichment. A week away from having atomic bomb was a real threat. So whatever it takes to keep that from happening, I don't think any of us -- I can't speak for Lindsey. I haven't heard anybody else up here talking about any more force, any more use of force.

I think that that basically, President Trump's got this. I think this is a time for wisdom, for rational thought. Israel is taking care of business on their own, but most importantly, the world is safer today than it was a month ago.

MATTINGLY: Senator, last week, you had an interview on, "The Vince Show" where you said you thought that Israel could probably take care of this issue themselves, but if the president decided to move forward with strikes, he would probably have a very good reason for doing so. What rationale have you been presented up to this point? Have you been briefed on kind of what triggered the green light here?

MARSHALL: I do not have an official briefing. We're expecting that tomorrow. I think that, obviously, Israel was struggling to finish the job. I think the president had an opportunity to make a quick strike to finish the job, so to speak, with one swoop. I think that there was minimal risk to our soldiers, to our airmen as well. Thank goodness they're all out safely. I think that this was the best course of action at the time.

And I think that, you know, I'm always impressed when people want to judge somebody tonight. It may be months or years before we know, you know, what the history books are going to say about this, but no one can argue that the world's not a safer place today.

[17:25:01]

MATTINGLY: Senator, I think one of the -- something people may not understand is senators are often reading the president's social media posts just like reporters are and others to try and divine what exactly he intends.

And there was one in particular I think people have been trying to figure out the path forward, which was -- he posted, it's not politically correct to use the term regime change, but if the current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again, why wouldn't there be a regime change? Do you think the president is referring to a U.S.- led effort there?

MARSHALL: Look, I don't. But I'm just reminded when I read the "Art of the Deal," when I was newly elected 2016 with President Trump, we all read the "Art of the Deal." And even then, as I finished the book, I said, you know, the president's going to play with the press like a little boy and a flashlight and a dog, having that dog chase the flashlight. So I think sometimes the president just puts things out there and, people overreact to them. I always said take everything President Trump says seriously, but not necessarily literally.

MATTINGLY: Would you like to see Israel halt its strikes right now in the pursuit of a diplomatic pathway?

MARSHALL: I would love that, but Iran needs to basically have an unconditional surrender and commit that they will never be able to enrich any uranium. I think that they -- if they want to have nuclear power plants, they're going to have to buy that four or 5 percent enriched uranium. They've demonstrated that they can't be trusted. So, I think this is a good time for all of us to pause and see if Iran will come back to the bargaining table.

MATTINGLY: Last one briefly before I let you go. You -- I think Republicans are supposed to meet tonight about the major domestic legislative priority for the president. There's a lot of -- a lot of open issues there with an effort to try and get this on the floor as soon as the end of this week. Is that a plausible deadline right now?

MARSHALL: No, I think it is. I think with President Trump's encouragement and his persuasiveness, we can get the bill to his desk by July 4th. It seems impossible as we look at the problem right now. But look, we need to prevent the largest tax increase in American history. We need to make sure that people have that child tax credit, $2,200 per child, not at a thousand. This bill has more flexibility for 529 college funds and for Pell grants. So there's so many great things in this bill, we can't let this opportunity pass.

MATTINGLY: Republican Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas, thank you, sir. Appreciate your time.

MARSHALL: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: And we'll get a response next from a Senate Democrat who says Congress needs to be involved in any U.S. military action on Iran. We're back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:31:49]

MATTINGLY: Some breaking news just in to our World Lead. Israel's military has issued an evacuation order for parts of Tehran. It says citizens should immediately evacuate, quote, your presence in this area puts your life at risk. This, of course, comes in the wake of additional big Israeli strikes on Iran earlier today.

Meantime, President Trump's decision to bomb three Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend is intensifying the debate on Capitol Hill over limiting the president's authority over U.S. military action. Leading a War Powers Resolution in the Senate is Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia. He joins me now.

Senator, I'll get to the War Powers Resolution in a moment. But first, just your response to Iran's seemingly calibrated to avoid escalation strikes earlier today.

SEN. TIM KAINE (D-VA): Phil, I was -- the response was very calibrated. Iran fired on U.S. military positions in Qatar, but they gave the Qataris and the United States a heads up that they were doing it. And they announced that they fired as many missiles as the U.S. dropped bombs on them Saturday. That's clearly sending a message that we have to respond, but we would like to de-escalate.

And I was pleased to see that President Trump on social media, I mean, in a most unusual tweet, he even thanked Iran for giving the United States a heads up and said, I hope this means that the hate is over and now we can look for peace. And I'm going to encourage Israel to do the same thing. So thank goodness we know of no U.S. casualties.

That's been my worry as the tensions rise in the Mideast that we get into an escalation that puts our 40,000 troops in the region at risk. So far, that's not happening. But this is a very fluid and unpredictable situation.

MATTINGLY: When it comes to kind of the Article 1I versus our -- our Article I versus Article 2 fight, I want to contextualize this for people because at the risk of those assuming that this is something that the minority party does any time a President does something like this. You and I've had many a conversation late at night over the course of the last decade --

KAINE: Yes.

MATTINGLY: -- about this very issue, regardless of whose party's President is in power. This is something you have long pursued. A Justice Department official says if this conflict continues for an extended period, then the Trump administration may need congressional approval, but maintain that bombing through nuclear sites does not rise to the level of needing congressional approval. What's your response to that?

KAINE: Well, the -- the War Powers Resolution that was passed in 1974 is very clear. If the U.S. is involved in hostilities against another nation or an actor, could be a terrorist group, that is not covered by a congressional authorization, then any member can force this privilege resolution on the floor. And I don't think there is any way you could say that bombing Iran's nuclear facilities is not hostilities, not an act of war.

Vice President Vance called it a war yesterday. He said it's a war on their nuclear program, not a war on their country. But he used the war word. And Phil, I just say if the -- if the shoes were on the other foot, if Iran bombed nuclear facilities in the United States, would we think they were at war with us? We would.

[17:35:05]

And -- and the escalation of Iran now firing on U.S. positions, this demonstrates the need for careful deliberation, particularly since even the Israelis are saying now that Iran is not near having a nuclear weapon. The Israelis said before the Trump bombing on Saturday that they had knocked the Iranian program back two to three years at the least. There's no urgency here. We ought to have this debate in full view of the American public.

And every member of Congress should go on the board. Are they for or against a war? We shouldn't allow members of Congress to, like, hide in the tall grass, not cast a vote, not be accountable to their constituents and to all the military families in their states.

MATTINGLY: I think implicit of what you're saying is the reason why the executive branch or the President has grasped so much of this authority over the course of the last couple of decades is because lawmakers don't want to take that vote.

KAINE: Absolutely.

MATTINGLY: You have always worked on a bipartisan basis on this issue in particular with a number of different Republicans. What's your sense of the Senate Republican conference right now when it comes to your effort?

KAINE: It's no surprise I will get more Democratic votes than Republican votes. But I will get Republican votes on this. The last time I did this during the first Trump term, I got seven or eight Republican votes for no war against Iran in the aftermath of the Soleimani strike. Again, no war against Iran without a vote of Congress.

If my congressional colleagues think a war with Iran is a good idea, then they should vote that way. But we shouldn't be doing it without a vote. I will get Republican votes, but this is very fluid. We're having a security briefing tomorrow, all senators. We'll probably hear some things in there that might affect where people are. Watching this escalation today, hopefully not too serious an escalation that will affect folks.

But I -- but I do think the escalation demonstrates the reality that you can start war with a bombing campaign, but it's really hard to say where this thing is going. And that's one of the reasons why having the deliberative discussion at the front end is so important.

MATTINGLY: What do you hope to learn in the briefing tomorrow? There's been a lot of reporting about the dearth of information that's been presented, particularly to Democratic leaders and the Gang of Eight up to this point. What do you hope officials bring to the table?

KAINE: Look, we're going to find out about the -- the -- the differences of opinion among the Trump team on some of the intelligence. The question was Iran on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon. The Israeli prime minister said yes, but he's been saying they're a week away from a nuclear weapon for the last 30 years. So set that aside.

The U.S. intelligence has been that they were not close to having a nuclear weapon, that they were enriching, that they were growing their number of centrifuges after Donald Trump tore up the diplomatic deal that limited those aspects of their program. Yes, they were racing ahead.

But just enriching and having centrifuges is not the same thing as making a decision to weaponize, actually building a weapon, building a delivery mechanism. I think the evidence would suggest Iran was pretty far away from that still. We'll hear more about that tomorrow.

We're all going to want to hear what is being done to make sure that our 40,000 troops in the region and other Americans, you know, whether they be embassy personnel or others, we're all going to hear what we're doing to keep them safe. And I think there's going to be some tough questioning after the President said this might be about regime change.

You know, the -- many up here remember that part of the problem with Iran was that the U.S. did a regime change. We -- we not -- we organized a coup against an Iranian prime minister in 1953 and then installed a pretty brutal dictatorship over the Iranian people, the Shah of Iran, for the next 25 years with security police trained by Americans. That led to deep, intense resentment among the Iranian population.

So being involved in that regime change is part of what has led us to this level of hostility today. And when the President says now we ought to look at regime change in Iran, you're going to have some tough questioning about that tomorrow.

MATTINGLY: Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.

KAINE: You bet. Glad to, Phil.

[17:39:26]

MATTINGLY: Then there's Trump's mindset today as we watch this tension in the Middle East. Some insight into that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: President Trump's Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, has remained in contact with Iranian officials since U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities this weekend. But there's at least one hurdle. Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is somewhat MIA at this point. Difficult for his own Iranian officials to reach after he went into hiding as tensions escalated.

This is potentially a problem for Iran, given they need his sign-off on any major diplomatic decisions. Let's go straight to CNN's Jeff Zeleny in the North Lawn of the White House. Jeff, Iran has now retaliated. Experts say this is largely symbolic, but it's still a foreign country firing missiles at U.S. troops. What's your sense of where the President's head is at on this?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Phil, given the gravity and the stakes of the fact that missiles were fired at an American base, one that President Trump visited just a month ago when he was on his Middle East trip, he spent time with troops there. It is astounding how measured and reserved and, in fact, quiet the President has been.

He finally issued a message on Truth Social about three hours or so after the attack happened, and he actually thanked Iran for giving the U.S. a heads-up. Of course, there was no surprise. The administration was expecting a retaliation. Most of the planes and many of the forces were not there. But the President also said something very interesting. He said that he believes that Israel should now pare back its bombardment campaign.

[17:45:10]

So, diplomacy can begin. So, a very, a sense of de-escalation, Phil, and it's really not what White House aides were telegraphing, but certainly what the President's posture is at this moment. Of course, that can always change. Retaliation does not always come immediately, as we know.

MATTINGLY: Jeff, the President was clearly concerned about the impact on energy markets, oil prices in particular, earlier today, based on his Truth Social posts, saying, I think, drill, baby, drill, that he demanded that energy producers not increase prices in any way, shape, or form. How -- how are White House officials feeling about where the market stands right now?

ZELENY Look, I think that is something that the White House, this President in particular, always has his eye on, gas prices, other things, offering that message on social media to not raise prices. But the Strait of Hormuz, that clearly is a central part of this as well. If Iran closes that or blocks that, that could raise oil prices, no doubt. And that would have a political fallout.

As of now, the White House is hoping that most people are not, in fact, paying attention to any slight raises in gas prices. They're trying to smooth over the differences in their own movement. But there is no doubt about it. If oil prices spiked because of all of this, it would have a political effect on this President, as it does on all presidents. They don't set gas prices, but they get blamed for them when they go up. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Excellent point, Jeff Zeleny. As always, the White House, thanks so much.

Well, Jeff just mentioned it. This conflict with Iran, it's playing out on the outskirts of that major shipping channel, the Strait of Hormuz. How the situation could impact every American consumer. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:50:52]

MATTINGLY: We're back with the breaking news. And the global economy watching and reacting to every move of this escalated tension in the Middle East. Today, oil prices dropped when Iran fired at the U.S. airbase in Qatar. The intercepted attack seemed to show Iran didn't have the firepower to actually strike U.S. forces at scale. But what if that changes?

I want to bring in Diane Swonk. She watches all this for a living. She's the chief economist for the accounting firm KPMG. Diane, oil dropping 7 percent in the wake of an Iranian escalate or retaliatory strike. I mean, it seems counterintuitive. Why did it happen?

DIANE SWONK, CHIEF ECONOMIST, KPMG: Well, we saw basically the markets were relieved that it was such a measured strike. And in fact, the fact that they let us know ahead of time meant that we could intercept those missiles. And there was only six actually shot. It's kind of a strange thing. But the bottom line is that it could have been a much worse escalation. This was a face-saving sort of attack on the U.S. without actually hitting any of the targets.

What's really important is for oil prices going forward is as long as we can get a de-escalation, that's great. Because right now, we've also seen the break-evens for domestic oil producers go up in response to tariffs. They use a lot of steel. And steel tariffs have gone up a lot, along with the machinery to actually drill. So the idea of, you know, oil prices going up at a time when tariffs are also going up, and we won't see those effects until this summer, if they were to hit at the same time, they would amplify each other.

And that's why the administration is so worried about oil prices going up, because you don't want them to amplify the inflationary pain associated with tariffs.

MATTINGLY: The worst-case scenario tied to exactly what you're describing is Iran make -- taking some type of action related to the Strait of Hormuz. This is the -- the thing all U.S. officials are watching. It's certainly something the markets are watching as well. It doesn't seem to be credibly on the table, at least from what we've seen up to this point. What are the dynamics there? Why would Iran not make that move?

SWONK: Well, they depend heavily on oil exports themselves, and they would not be able to get the exports out, particularly to China. So that is important, is that they've got a financial lifeline and an incentive to keep that strait open because of that. So I think that's very important.

What we've also seen is because of attacks in the area, even though we seem to have sidelined a lot of the Houthis and other groups that attack in that area, we've seen insurance rates also go up a lot for those oil tankers in the region. So we'd like to see a de-escalation and remove some of these costs to be able to see somewhat lower prices at a time when, like I said, the timing couldn't be worse if it could amplify tariffs.

You don't want that to happen. If we cannot have it, we can have it offset the tariffs. That helps a little bit to ameliorate some of the pain that consumers are going to be feeling as a result of tariffs, which have yet to work their way through to everyone's pocketbooks.

MATTINGLY: Right, which -- which -- that is a very fluid situation in and of itself for American consumers right now. And I think no one has a crystal ball. There's no question about that. But right now, the national gas -- the national average for gas prices is about $3.22, up less than a penny in just the last 24 hours, but almost a dime in the last week. What are we looking at in the weeks ahead? How are you thinking through this? SWONK: Well, every dollar increase in the cost of a barrel of oil results in about 2.4 cents. So if you have a $10 increase, that's $0.25 on the gallon -- of a gallon of gasoline. And that's really important because, you know, most people actually drive to and from work. And those that are the lowest income have to be in person the most. And frontline workers, it really cuts into their ability to spend.

So that's why it's so critical at this point to keep those oil prices low at a time when other costs are going to be rising. We've already seen things like the care economy have shortages of workers. And the care economy is going up at more than twice the pace of over inflation. That's everything from elder care to child care.

[17:55:08]

And that's actually sidelining some workers. So if you were to add on top of that, the inflation related to oil prices and what is in the pipeline on tariffs, that would tip us from an economy that slows into likely one that slips into recession.

MATTINGLY: Diane Swonk, always appreciate your expertise. Thanks so much.

SWONK: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: Well, the breaking news this hour, Israel making it clear it is not done with attacks on Iran. Its military spokesman saying just moments ago, quote, we have many more strike plans. Will those -- will the U.S. help in those strikes? What's the role of Congress if President Trump considers more U.S. military action? We've got much more on all of the breaking news, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:02]

MATTINGLY: Welcome to Lead. I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jake Tapper. We start with breaking news and our World Lead.