Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Rep. Jared Moskowitz is Interviewed About Briefings On Iran; House And Senate Classified Briefings On Iran Postponed; Sources: Defense Intel Agency Assesses U.S. Strikes Did Not Destroy Iran's Program; Trump Lashes Out Against Israel, Iran Amid Fragile Ceasefire; Early U.S. Intel Assessment Suggests Strikes Only Set Back Iran Nuclear Program By Months; U.S. On Alert For Potential Iranian Cyberattacks; Oil Prices Plunge Again, Gas Prices Yet To Drop. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired June 24, 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 HOST: -- The chamber that they would need.

SCOTT JENNINGS, SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But 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.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: 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. You're trying to do some fear mongering here.

HUNT: Very quick last word. We have 10 seconds.

DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: 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.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. Agree.

HUNT: Guys, thank you very much for being here for this conversation. Really appreciate it. Phil Mattingly standing by for "The Lead." Hi, Phil.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Kasie. We'll see you back in the arena tomorrow.

[17:00:39]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jake Tapper along with Anderson Cooper in Tel Aviv. Our breaking news as we watch the skies above Tel Aviv amid a shaky cease fire with Iran. CNN has learned that a U.S. military assessment of strikes on three nuclear facilities this weekend did not destroy the core components of Iran's nuclear program, likely only setting it back by months. Now important to note, sources underscore this is according to an early U.S. intelligence assessment that was described by three people briefed on.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: That's right. And the White House acknowledged the existence of this assessment but said it was, in their words, flat out wrong. Now, the intelligence is still very much a work in progress. This was a report based on these three people who spoke to CNN who were briefed on it. An early report from the Defense Intelligence Agency, they are early findings.

There will be other findings from other intelligence agencies and even they acknowledged the results of this early assessment may change based on information that continues to come in. These early findings, though, are at odds with President Donald Trump's repeated insistence that the strikes completely and totally obliterated Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities. Here was President Trump just this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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. His targets were obliterated. Iran will never rebuild its nuclear. From there, absolutely not.

That place is under rock. That place is demolished.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: I want to go straight to CNN's Natasha Bertrand who helped break this reporting.

So, Natasha, talk more about what you are learning about the early intelligence on the strike. Again, this from this early assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency.

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Anderson. So the intelligence community is continuing to gather information following those U.S. strikes on the Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday. And so they are still trying to develop a fuller, more comprehensive picture of just how much this set back Iran's nuclear program. But we do have the known U.S. Intelligence assessment following those strikes, and that does come from the Defense Intelligence Agency, which is the Pentagon's intelligence arm. And they based their assessment off of the preliminary damage assessment that was produced by U.S. Central Command, essentially by reviewing the site photos, by reviewing the overhead satellite imagery, Central Command came up with a battle damage assessment.

And based off of that assessment, the DIA said that it is their belief that the nuclear program has only been set back by a matter of months and that core elements, including the centrifuges, including the enriched uranium, they remain largely intact, according to multiple people who were briefed on this preliminary assessment. Now, as you said, that does conflict with what President Donald Trump has been saying about the fact that he believes that these strikes completely obliterated Iran's nuclear program. Something we should note, Republican Representative Michael McCaul, who spoke to CNN earlier today, would not echo saying that when he was briefed on these U.S. military plans to hit Iranian nuclear facilities, it was always the understand that this would cause a temporary setback rather than the complete obliteration of their nuclear program.

But I do just want to read a little bit of what White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told CNN when we asked her about this reporting. The White House did appear to acknowledge the existence of this assessment, but they said that they disagreed with it fundamentally. She said "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."

And Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth also provided a similar statement to CNN saying that it's his belief that the bombs were in fact devastating. But look, this is, as you said, a very early look at what the intelligence community is assessing. As of right now, there are 18 different agencies in the intelligence community and it's not clear at point whether all of them share the same assessment as the DIA and what those assessments will be moving forward.

[17:05:09]

So, again, just a very early peek at what the U.S. Intelligence Community is thinking about these strikes, Anderson.

COOPER: It's a fascinating early look. Natasha Bertrand, thanks very much.

Want to go to CNN's Kristen Holmes, who is traveling with the president in the -- the Netherlands for the -- the NATO summit there.

Kristen, Trump this morning -- the president this morning was livid in at the suggestion that U.S. strikes did not take out Iran's nuclear facilities. I'm not sure if you've heard directly from the president yet about this leaked or the assessment of this leaked intelligence assessment, but no doubt he's probably not going to be pleased about that.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: No, certainly not. And I have heard from a number of White House officials who are not happy about this leaked assessment, their pushback being, as we've noted, that this is still very early. They don't believe that this is the right assessment, that there are still ongoing intelligence assessments. But there's a couple of reasons why this is so notable. One, President Trump, as we reported, both privately and publicly, was asking his advisers, officials, well, he's really weighing this decision to make these strikes, whether or not they would fully take out Iran's nuclear facilities. And he was assured by a number of his advisers and officials that it would because part of the reason that they wanted to go through with this was President Trump said, I don't want to just partially take something out. I want to make sure that we can really get in there. So that's one reason why people around President Trump are not thrilled that this intelligence assessment has been leaked. But the other part of this is that you have to remember that the cease fire is really just the beginning, not just the cease fire, but the striking of the nuclear facilities. And then the cease fire is the beginning of what President Trump views as the end goal in the Middle East or particularly with Iran, which is an Iran nuclear deal.

And this is something that he has been trying to get done since he started in office, something he promised he would get done on the campaign trip rail. And they do believe that at this point, because of the fact that President Trump released those bombs and they struck the nuclear facilities, that the Iranians are coming to the table. And that's part of the reason you hear President Trump double down on this idea that he had to do this. One, he had to do this to obliterate the nuclear program, which obviously this intelligence assessment kind of questions, but two, that he had to do this in order to bring the Iranians to the table to ensure that they would never have a nuclear program because they wanted to negotiate.

This again would raise questions as to what the Iranians are willing to give up if, in fact, they haven't lost their nuclear capabilities. So all of that playing into the White House response. We have not heard directly from President Trump yet.

COOPER: Kristen, we'll check in with you in the Netherlands. Back to you, Phil.

MATTINGLY: Thanks, Anderson.

Well, even before CNN's report on an early U.S. intelligence assessment on Saturday strikes against Iran, Democratic lawmakers questioned why the Trump administration abruptly postponed today's classified briefings for the House and the Senate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): I don't buy the explanation at all. Many of us were demanding a briefing before the strikes occurred. And the fact that this is being put off, again, just raises questions about why have they not been more forthcoming with whatever intelligence shows?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Now the White House says it delayed congressional briefings due to, quote, "evolved circumstances" in the Middle East. I want to bring in Democratic Congressman Jared Moskowitz of Florida.

Just to start, do you believe that early assessments showing it maybe didn't go as far as the president has said it did, drove the decision to delay these briefings? REP. JARED MOSKOWITZ (D-FL), HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: I don't know. Let me say this, I'm someone who supports taking action in Iran, so I support that. But this ability or this decision that they made to postpone the briefing of Congress is outrageous. Right. First of all, they should have made sure they made contact with all the Gang of Eight. Putting that part aside, that they didn't do. Now they have two briefings that they cancel, it's not acceptable.

So look, from here, I'm going to go to a SCIF, I'm going to go read the BDA that's now made available to us, right? But I really think they don't know. I mean, this thing is way down in the mountain. You're looking at satellite imagery from above, we have no human intelligence. So I think everyone's posturing and guessing.

We hope, obviously, if we took action, the action we took is as successful as it could be. But it's unclear at the moment. I think everyone needs to take a breath and wait.

MATTINGLY: Can you remember, you're on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, you're involved in these issues, do you remember a time where there has been this long a delay in a briefing for lawmakers, particularly in a strike of the scale or magnitude?

MOSKOWITZ: Listen, the three years that I've been here, three and a half years, I've never remembered a briefing that was scheduled for all of Congress be canceled like this without any plan on when it's going to be rescheduled. And the House goes on recess next week, right. And so this idea that if it doesn't happen this week, it may not happen.

MATTINGLY: You make a really good point in the sense of there's a lot that I think people after the strikes assumed it was going to take a while to figure out if you would ever figure it out in a fulsome manner to begin with, with that as the baseline, I think I'm trying to understand what the rationale would be to delay briefings, to keep Congress out of the loop, to not even notify --

[17:10:16]

MOSKOWITZ: Yes. You're asking me to explain the --

MATTINGLY: Yes, understood.

MOSKOWITZ: -- (inaudible) administration? I mean, I'm not Ms. Cleo.

MATTINGLY: But what do your colleagues say? When you talk to Republicans on the committee, what are they telling you about why?

MOSKOWITZ: What do they tell us privately or do they say publicly?

MATTINGLY: Privately.

MOSKOWITZ: Well, look, I think the idea that Congress not being briefed is something that is a bipartisan issue of the folks on the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Intelligence Committee, the Armed Services Committee, the committees of jurisdiction. I mean, you know, Representative Meeks, Ranking Member Meeks, should have gotten a briefing. He's the ranking member.

MATTINGLY: Right.

MOSKOWITZ: So the fact that he didn't get a briefing is concerning. These are not things that happened in the last administration. And these are not things that Republicans, when they're in the minority, right, they're not going to want this to happen if there's a Democrat in the White House. And so I urge the White House to immediately reschedule these briefings, regardless of whatever the information is, good, bad or indifferent. They got -- they got to come to Congress.

MATTINGLY: Yes. And put the Article 2 versus Article 1 issues to the side, this is a precedent issue I think when you talk to lawmakers in both parties why it matters. And we should note, Speaker Mike Johnson said that there will be a briefing. The briefing was rescheduled for Friday. What questions do you have?

What would you want answers to at this moment when you're in that briefing?

MOSKOWITZ: Well, I think -- I think obviously, you know, the strike success is a big question. You're going to want to know what is the assessment for how long we've delayed their ability to produce either more fissile material or obviously putting together the other pieces to do a bomb. You want to figure out what the delay is. This idea that we've destroyed it forever is not a thing, right? As long as you have a regime that wants to try to do it, they can always try.

But -- but what have we accomplished? Is it -- is it weeks, is it months, is it years? And there's lots of components, right? There are nuclear scientists that are no longer alive. There are pieces of the military that are disjointed. You have facilities that were attacked. You have enriched Uranium, you have centrifuges.

So there are lots of different pieces here. What we have done to where I think is what we want to hear. And so, that's what they got to tell Congress. Like I said, look, we took this action and this is what we think the results are of that action is. That's, I think for me, the most important component.

Then we have other questions. Why weren't the Gang of Eight notified, right? We have other procedural things, but now that we are -- this is finished, right, the 12 days is done, we have a cease fire that's holding, let's hope it continues to hold. I support the cease fire, we got to figure out what we've accomplished.

MATTINGLY: How concerned are you that if this strike did not go as far as the administration wanted or as President Trump has said publicly, that it opens the door for future military involvement from the U.S.

MOSKOWITZ: Well, look, I know there's two schools of thought on this, right? And everyone is pretending like they're Nostradamus and they know what's going to happen, like, oh, this means it's going to go faster or this means, you know, we've dissuaded them, we don't know. We do have to engage in diplomacy. I do support, you know, the fact that we got to figure out whether it's directly or indirectly on diplomacy to dissuade the Iranians from the Iranian regime from relaunching this program. And we can figure out, you know, how we get there and what they need to do that.

But that is the only way, right? Because, you know, look, it's all going to restart. They're going to sell oil to China around the sanctions. They're going to continue to get billions of dollars. And so yes, maybe that's a year from now or two years from now or three years now.

But at some point, if they're intent on doing this, the only way to stop it long term is to say, look what happened last time, do you want to go down that path? Let's get to some sort of deal for the region. I think that would be productive.

MATTINGLY: Refusing to speculate or predict how -- how non lawmaker of you, but very important, particularly in this kind of a moment. Congressman, really appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

MOSKOWITZ: Thank you.

COOPER: Brian.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was like Anderson Cooper and --

MATTINGLY: Anderson.

COOPER: Thanks very much, Phil. Coming up, new comments a short time ago from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the recent series of attacks trying to destroy Iran's nuclear program. We'll have that coming up.

[17:14:07]

MATTINGLY: Also, Anderson, despite this conflict, oil prices, they're actually plunging again. So will your gas prices be quick to follow? We're calling an expert who might actually know the answer. That's ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: We're back in Tel Aviv with breaking news. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this afternoon spoke about President Trump saying that Israel has, quote, "Never had a greater friend in the White House." CNN's Jeremy Diamond is here with me.

He made those remarks, obviously, after we've learned about this phone call between President Trump and the prime minister.

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And listen, when you think back to those remarks that President Trump gave this morning, I mean, you saw that he was very angry with the Israeli prime minister. It was especially notable because it came after this period of these Israeli strikes in Iran, with ultimately the United States joining perhaps the closest cooperation we've seen between Trump and Netanyahu, who have had no difficulties in their relationship over the years in quite some time. But clearly, when President Trump got on the phone with Netanyahu and said, you know, you need to cut out these strikes going forward, that changed the calculus for the Israelis. After they had initially accused Iran of violating that cease fire, the Israelis made clear they were going to hit Iran very, very strongly.

But ultimately, the Israeli prime minister's office acknowledging they only struck a radar site north of Tehran and refrained from further retaliation. A clear acknowledgment that they paired those strikes back following President Trump's urging.

COOPER: Earlier this morning, there was a series of sirens. We were down in a bomb shelter together for a while. You went out to the site where one missile struck.

DIAMOND: Yes. This missile struck a residential building in the southern city of Be'er Sheva. That's the same city where a hospital was struck last week. And -- and this is kind of just the tragedy of the moments between when a cease fire is announced and the moment when that cease fire is implemented. And sadly, four people lost their lives in that ballistic missile strike today.

You know, the four final victims of this conflict, at least here in Israel, three of them at least, were on the top floor of that building which suffered a direct impact. At least one of those individuals was actually in the bomb shelter. But because it was such a close hit to that shelter, no shelter could save you from -- from that.

[17:20:06]

We know, of course, that in Iran as well, a very similar picture of tragedy in those final hours, 107 people were killed in Iran overnight, according to the Iranian Health Ministry. Again, just that awful moment between when the cease fire is announced, it's implemented, and now hopefully at least there is calm in this region, but a very precarious calm at that. We will see if it lasts.

COOPER: Yes. Jeremy Diamond, thanks very much. Appreciate it.

I want to bring in David Sanger, who is a White House and national security correspondent for the "New York Times," and retired U.S. Army Brigadier General Steve Anderson.

Brigadier General, let me start -- start with you. I want to just ask you about this early U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency assessment that CNN has been informed about by three people who were briefed on the matter. This assessment, according to these three people, claims that U.S. strikes only set the Iranian nuclear program back by a few months. Again, this is a very -- this is an early assessment, the White House says it's flat out wrong. Clearly, President Trump says -- would disagree with it, though he hasn't commented directly about this.

I'm wondering what you make of where an early assessment should be viewed in the, you know, the spectrum of assessments that will be coming out. BRIG. GEN. STEVE ANDERSON, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, thank you, Anderson. The assessment is pretty much what we expected. But what really scares me about this whole incident is the politicization of our national intelligence. I mean, it's so sad to see Secretary Hegseth and Karoline Leavitt and others try to align our national security apparatus and our intelligence apparatus with what the president said earlier, which was total obliteration. If that's not true, we need to know it.

If our enemy is 10 feet tall and bulletproof, we need to know this. And this is just so sad to see this now -- in light of what they said, I mean, surely the centrifuges are very sensitive and probably unstable, and so they spin and of course, they just don't turn off. So one would think that 12 bunker buster bombs would probably set those off somehow. But you're still trying to penetrate 300 feet, I mean, that's higher than the Statue of Liberty of hardened concrete. And these bombs have never been used before, so it's quite understandable that although significant damage was no doubt achieved, total obliteration is pretty much laughable.

But it's just really sad to see our politicization intelligence community like this.

COOPER: David, I'm wondering what you make of that. And do you see any world in which if in fact this early assessment is borne out by others that the United States would take further military action against Iran's nuclear program?

DAVID SANGER, WHITE HOUSE AND NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Well, first, Anderson, I'm not sure that the Defense Intelligence Agency is the last word on this. They look a lot at underground bunkers, which this certainly was. But it's the Energy Department's intelligence unit that has the most experience with centrifuges. And this kind of technology, and you may recall, was critical to assessing how much the program got set back when the U.S. and Israel did a cyber-attack, the Stuxnet attack on the Natanz plant 15 years ago. So we -- we need to hear from some others.

That said, the president turned out his obliterate line before there had even been a battle damage assessment of any kind. And so the idea that they are now policing everyone else's language to make sure that it matches up goes, you know, opposite to what the core purpose of intelligence assessments are supposed to be. We try to give unbiased advice to policymakers.

It would not surprise me if there's significant damage at Fordo. It seems pretty clear from talking to the International Atomic Energy Agency that the other major plant, Natanz, where they did enrichment, was quite badly damaged and they think most of their centrifuges were probably destroyed. The big question, Anderson, is where is that near bomb grade uranium that was stored at Isfahan? And on this, the administration says, oh, it's buried in the rubble. And the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, says they think it was removed before the bomb struck.

COOPER: And, David, that's really critically important. I mean, the idea that it may have been removed before. And I spoke to the head of the IAEA about this date. I mean, days ago, before the attack, they don't know what they don't know, and they acknowledge there may be other facilities they have no idea about.

SANGER: That's right. In fact, we do know that there are at least two other deep underground facilities that the Iranians were building that have been detected either by U.S. Intelligence or that in one case the Iranians said to the IAEA before the war broke out, we're getting ready to open this. That tells you that there are a lot of other facilities out there.

[17:25:20]

And there's an interesting op-ed in the Times today by former Secretary of State Antony Blinken making the point that there was an assumption during the Biden years and probably back during the Obama years as well, that the Iranians were building some secret facilities and keeping some centrifuge capability in them in case they lost their major facilities. And just watching this program over the past 20 years, Anderson, I'd be shocked if they weren't doing that.

COOPER: Brigadier General, you said there are four key questions that you think need answering before any meaningful negotiations occur with Iran on nuclear weapons. What are they?

ANDERSON: Well, the first is what we've been talking about here. First is battle damage assessment. What do we truly destroy these targets, the Isfahan facility, Natanz and Fordo. The second is this the secret nuclear enrichment facility that David mentioned? You know, is there one, is there two, do they have them?

Are they operational? The third is, as David mentioned as well, you know, where is the 400 kilograms, you know, of highly enriched nuclear uranium? Where did it end up? We have reports that Perhaps on Wednesday, 15 trucks left Isfahan with loaded for bear and perhaps headed out into a huge area. I mean, I mean, Iran is two and a half times the size of Texas.

And the fourth question is, you know, will Iran try to rebuild? I mean, that's the big question. Which way are they going to go? Are they going to decide that they've been humbled enough and the U.S. and Israel, you know, has destroyed anything that they would try to build and so they're going to stand down? Or they -- are they going to redouble their efforts to obtain a nuclear deterrent, which is something they've been trying to do for the last 30 years.

COOPER: Yes. Brigadier General Steve Anderson, I appreciate your time. David Sanger as well, thank you very much.

Coming up, given the tension here overseas, what law enforcement officials in the United States are saying about fears of some kind of lone wolf or cyber-attack back home?

MATTINGLY: Yes, but first -- first Anderson, about that expletive this morning from President Trump, he dropped an F bomb before he left for the NATO summit. How the visible frustration may play politically. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:32:10]

MATTINGLY: We're back with the World Lead. Well, before leaving the White House for the NATO summit earlier today, President Trump, he was frustrated, and you could tell. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: 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)

MATTINGLY: I want to bring in Alyssa Farah Griffin, she was the White House communications director in President Trump's first term. Alyssa, what did you think? I think that's a side of him that we hear about oftentimes from staff. And by the way, every president that I know of or that I've covered is rather profane as well.

So there's no -- no judgment for somebody who also tends to swear as long as his kids aren't around. But what did you see in that based on your experience with the President?

ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, listen, something remarkable about Donald Trump is he swears quite prolifically privately, but manages to not do it in T.V. and formal settings. So it stood out to me, this response. And I think it speaks to the fact that he's incredibly frustrated with the Israelis' decision to carry on continuing strikes.

Trump took a lot of flak from his base for -- for choosing to engage directly with the Iranians by taking out these nuclear sites. He's had Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie and his own party criticizing him. And I think he feels like he really stood alongside the Israelis and was supportive, but he wanted them to stand down so that he could have this moment of announcing a ceasefire, kind of get his base at bay.

And also ease the tensions and fears of many Americans who do not want to see this escalate. So I think it simply spoke to this. There's a great relationship with the Israelis, but he wants to see that we're singing off of the same sheet of music.

MATTINGLY: The new CNN reporting sources saying an early U.S. intel assessment suggesting strikes did not destroy nuclear sites nor its stockpile of enriched uranium. I'm interested how you think that fits into the, as you referenced, the kind of intraparty warfare in the lead up to these strikes.

GRIFFIN: Well, let me say this. Something I learned at the Pentagon is initial reports are often wrong. So because of that, we really try not to use definitive language in our initial statements. So for the President to come out and say these sites were obliterated, to me, those words stood out because it's often so hard in the fog of war to make that kind of a definitive statement.

But I would highlight this is just the DIA. Other intel agencies are going to make their own assessments. They may determine something different. But also the Israelis are going to make their own assessments, and I would imagine some of our European allies will. So what actually happened, what was actually damaged and the degree of it is ultimately going to come out.

So if this is wordsmithing by the White House to say, oh, no, no, no, there's nothing to see here, I don't know that that's going to last. That's why you really do benefit from saying we hit the targets we meant to, our troops performed, you know, heroically, and we are confident in our initial assessments that we have destroyed the targets. That's where you need to be.

[17:35:05]

And I think going further than that without firm confirmation could prove to be -- to be damaging, knowing that there are folks within the Trump administration who don't support that these strikes took place.

MATTINGLY: How much of the -- the ceasefire that the President brokered, which, by the way, was remarkable, both in its speed and -- and the fact that happened at all, given where things were credit where it's due on that front.

My biggest question has been the durability of it going forward and whether or not the President and his team are willing to put the effort in for as frustrating and as long as it may have to be to ensure that it does stick.

GRIFFIN: Listen, I think Donald Trump deserves tremendous credit for both the strikes themselves, which I think many former presidents would not have, frankly, had the backbone to have done. And then to immediately afterward want to pursue a ceasefire, having those talks going on almost simultaneously with those strikes.

What I think he has in his favor is the upper hand here and the fact that the Iranian regime is incredibly weakened. The Ayatollah is 86 years old. He's in hiding right now. He's the least popular he's been with the Iranian people.

So for him to do anything significant back, we saw what I would say was sort of a formulaic response by hitting some trying to target our bases in Qatar. I think that he's got an upper hand in bringing the Iranians to the table is something that very well may be able to offer a lasting peace.

MATTINGLY: The relationship between the prime minister and the President, obviously, we saw the frustration this morning. It is a storied history and past. Barak Ravid, our colleague over at -- at Axios, has done a tremendous reporting on it from the first term. Where do you think that goes going forward? GRIFFIN: Listen, they've overcome worse hurdles. You'll recall that when Donald Trump lost and Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Joe Biden, that relationship frayed between Trump and Netanyahu for quite some time. And there were concerns, would they ever be able to recover?

But what they share is a -- is a very much a joint interest in the region, realizing that Iran is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism, that it is a mar this Iranian regime on the entire Middle East. And keep in mind that this -- this issue with Iran is also personal for Donald Trump. I think he's thinking of the security of America. But the Iranian regime has a price on his head, as well as former advisers of him.

So he is not just a bystander in this. He's somebody who has directly been threatened by Iranians. So I think that sort of joint effort and mutual interest is what's going to keep Netanyahu and Trump at least talking to each other and engaging when they're able to.

MATTINGLY: That is a really underappreciated point that you just made. Alyssa Farah Griffin, as always, thanks so much.

Well, this fragile ceasefire in the Middle East and what the situation could mean for threats here in the U.S. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[17:42:04]

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER: What are they afraid of? Why won't they engage Congress in the critical details? The potential risks facing American citizens and our service members who we all have an obligation to protect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: That was Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer earlier today blasting the Trump administration for postponing classified briefings for Congress on Iran and Israel. The briefings initially set for today have been rescheduled for Thursday. As for those potential risks to Americans that Schumer mentioned.

I want to discuss with Juliette Kayyem who is the -- the Assistant Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security. Juliette, thanks for being with us. Federal officials telling CNN that the ceasefire has not stopped them from closely monitoring any threats stemming from -- from the conflict here in the Middle East. They seem to be primarily concerned about lone wolf and cyberattacks in the U.S. What are you hearing?

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I think the same -- former intelligence agents and senior leaders, so a nervous public. I want to help explain it. So the first pool is of course Iranian-backed terrorist attacks in the (inaudible). I think it's very unlikely as one former senior official said to me. They would be very loath to do that.

Because it just -- it just gives the United States an obvious reason to continue in the fight. The second pool is the potential of rogue. What, you know, what kind of command and control does Iran have over elements to go rogue and going to attack here or a cyberattack? (Inaudible) to tell. And I think that's where our intelligence agencies are right now.

The third area is of course what's going to happen if the ceasefire ends. Or more importantly if the language gets into things like regime change again. I got a little bit nervous when Trump was talking about regime change because that would put the Iranians in a corner. And then that they -- that they would launch a lot of what we call asymmetrical attacks either in Europe or the United States.

So we're looking across all three of them. But I think a targeted planned attack by Iran in the -- in the homeland is the least likely at this stage.

COOPER: I mean there have been assassination attempts by -- traced back to Iran of -- of individuals in the United States. There were threats against President Trump during the -- during the campaign. We hear a lot about so-called Iranian sleeper cells inside the U.S. How -- how real is that? How -- how much of a concern is that these days?

KAYYEM: Yes. And I don't mean to minimize any of that. Nor that Hezbollah still has a footprint harmed and undermined. But it still has a presence. But if you're asking me is Iran's response going, you know, going to be focused on the homeland. There's lots of reasons to say (inaudible) has a strategy it makes no sense for them.

Secondly, with the news that our attack may have not been as successful as originally explained in the early days after the attack. They can -- they can -- poking us here in the homeland doesn't make a lot of sense. The -- the problem is, of course, what control do they have over elements that may have been radicalized or decide to act on their own? That we don't know.

[17:45:23]

And I think that would be the biggest fear of the FBI as it scours its intelligence, determines who's here, who's been, you know, targeted by the Joint Terrorism Task Force. It's still real. There's a range of different kinds of attacks. But that's how we're thinking about it for the -- the homeland, knowing that it would be easier for Iran to attack in Europe if it decided to go outside of its borders.

COOPER: And what about Americans abroad? How do you think they should think about safety while traveling?

KAYYEM: That's exactly right. I mean, I'm -- I'm also a friend and a mother and all that stuff. I get all the emails and the texts. That is very real. So one is follow the State Department. There are countries now that are on the no-travel list. Don't -- don't fool around. I don't fool around with that list. I'm just, you know, even if I'm going to visit, you know, for a conference or a family member, don't fool around. That list is serious because it means that State Department doesn't have the apparatus to protect you. There's then a level of kinds of -- of -- of threat environments. Just be smart. Sign up with the State Department to the country that you are going to so the embassy knows that you're -- that you're there. Have what we call situational awareness.

Know what's going around you. Minimize that you're an American at this stage, especially if you're in high-risk areas.

COOPER: Juliette Kayyem, I appreciate it. Thanks very much. We'll have much more from Tel Aviv tonight on AC360, 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time. I'll speak with Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona. He sits on the Intelligence and Armed Services Committee. Look for that tonight at 8 o'clock right here on CNN. Phil, back to you.

MATTINGLY: Thanks, Anderson. Well, up next, another steep drop for oil prices today. So why isn't it reflected yet in the price of gas? We'll answer, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:51:17]

MATTINGLY: Well, despite tension in the Middle East, oil prices, they dropped again today. Gas prices, however, not so much. According to AAA, the national average for a gallon is up $0.6 in the last week. So why aren't those two actually tracking together? Let's ask someone who would actually know.

Matt McClain is a petroleum analyst at GasBuddy. Matt, I think I've been fixated on watching WTI crude drop, I think, nearly 15 percent in the last two trading days. For people who maybe are seeing that and wondering, when am I going to see this at the gas station? When am I going to see it at the pump? What should they know?

MATT MCCLAIN, PETROLEUM ANALYST, GASBUDDY: That's one of the easier questions I've answered for today, actually, Phil. Here's the really simple answer for you. We're looking at really an inventory at the local stations and where those stations get their gasoline from. The higher price point that they have all paid has to basically run through the system in order for prices to actually start being reflected at the pump.

However, here at GasBuddy, we certainly have a little bit of good news, and we do project that prices should be falling, hopefully starting by this weekend, and should continue on into early next week.

MATTINGLY: You make a good point or an important point that I want to jump off of, which is that this market isn't necessarily a straight line to some degree, which brings me to the President, who -- who his take on oil prices going down, he gave a bit of his response. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: We're drilling like we've never drilled before. We're keeping it down. We're going to keep it down until all these wars are settled.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Obviously, yesterday, you also wrote on Truth Social, everyone, keep oil prices down. I'm watching. You're playing right into the hands of the enemy. Don't do it. Kind of level set with people. How much of a role does the President have in gas prices day to day?

MCCLAIN: You know, every administration really wants to put their fingerprint or thumbprint onto the different types of legacies that they wish to leave behind when they leave the White House.

Crude oil has obviously been that hot potato in gasoline prices for decades, regardless of which person is sitting behind the Resolute desk in the Oval Office. Presidents can, at times, with their administrations and the help of Congress, create a generalized direction, but anything overnight, really not a whole lot. That's controlled by literally supply, demand, price points, selling crude oil, as you have just talked about, dropping 15 percent over the past couple of days.

In the short term, it -- it's really difficult for a President or really anyone in that type of a position to simply come out and say, I don't want prices to rise. Well, most consumers really don't want that either. And as far as, you know, drill, baby, drill, and the other comments that the President has made, keeping in mind long term that could be a good thing for lower gas prices, but if you start drilling a well today, it's not like it comes online tomorrow.

MATTINGLY: Yes, it's a very different moment, I think, for the global market, but it's still a global market, which presidents will tell you if gas prices are going up, if they're going down, it's definitely all the president that's driving it. We -- everyone has been watching, I think, warily about the Strait of Hormuz, what may happen there. It seems like markets are not nearly as concerned as maybe some geopolitical analysts had been over the course of the last 24 hours. What are your expectations there? And what do you see in the market?

MCCLAIN: You know, that's just it. It looks like the analysis going forward looks as if the Strait of Hormuz at this point really isn't much of a worry. I know that just a few days ago, that was a bigger worry with some saber rattling coming out of Iran regarding potentially closing the Strait of Hormuz.

I recognize that that is a, you know, a narrow body of water, but it's still several miles wide, so that's easier said than done and could financially be a disaster for Iran if they did the same thing, because they need to be able to get through that Strait of Hormuz just like anybody else does.

[17:55:11]

So I think the market at this point is really looking at everything and simply saying, you know what, the comments are one thing, but reality is a different situation. Let's not panic over that right now. Let's go ahead and kind of treat it as basically what it was, a lot of rhetoric that probably will not take place.

And there seems to be some factoring in when it comes to the price point of crude oil at this point with comments like that. And again, the ceasefire, the same thing. I mean, we've had a kind of a loosely- based ceasefire today, but the markets are basically betting on the idea that that's pretty much going to happen.

MATTINGLY: We'll see. Matt McClain, as always, my friend, thanks so much.

And just notable lines, two notable lines just in from Israel's ambassador to the United Nations. He said diplomatic talks with Iran will, quote, happen soon. He also said Israel will respond forcefully to any violation to the ceasefire. Well, coming up, the brand new reporting first on CNN about early U.S. intelligence on the Trump administration's weekend strikes on Iran and what was not destroyed. We're back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)