Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Announces Ceasefire Between Israel And Iran; Israel And Iran Suggest No More Strikes Unless Other Does; Sirens Sounding In Israel, IDF Says Iran Launches Missile; Democrats Introducing A New War Powers Resolution; "NewsNight" Discusses Israel-Iran War. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired June 23, 2025 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York, we begin with a monumental and a rollercoaster, it appears, meant from the Middle East. It appears that Israel and Iran have agreed to a ceasefire after 12 days of a region changing battle deal that President Trump first announced. It comes just hours after Iran retaliated against the United States for the operation that targeted three nuclear sites.
Now, today's response targeted a U.S. base in Qatar, but was limited in its scope and one that Iran gave a heads up to the United States about. There were no casualties that were reported in that attack and no real damage either. In fact, the president actually thanked Tehran for the, quote, weak response, and suggested that this was the beginning of peace.
CNN's Anderson Cooper is live in Tel Aviv for us tonight. Anderson, what does the situation -- where does this all stand? What is Iran saying about whether there is a deal? Has everyone agreed to it?
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Yes. So, Abby, I mean, according to President Trump's social media post the clock on this ceasefire is supposed to start in about two hours. Now, it remains to be seen exactly how that plays out but it is a remarkable turn of events, as you mentioned, given what we have witnessed during just the last 12 hours here in the region. Iran's retaliation strike on the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East, in Qatar, was limited, to say the least, according to the reporting, to actually telegraphed in advance to authorities in Qatar, whom they have good relationships with, and therefore also to the U.S. as well.
Now, Iran publicly announced the number of missiles they fired toward the U.S. base was the same as the number of bombs dropped on two of Iran's nuclear sites by the United States. So, the Iranian regime portrayed the strike to its own people as a strong response. The reality is there were no reports of any injuries at all, or damage of note.
Now, Iran is in perhaps the weakest position they have been in with proxy forces, like Hamas and Hezbollah, badly damaged, and the change of leadership, of course in, in Syria. There are many questions though remaining about what happens next. I mean, assuming a ceasefire does in fact take place and holds, there's difficult diplomacy, negotiations that would lie ahead, but with dawn, about to break here or just starting to break here in Tel Aviv, this day could have begun in any number of ways, but at least today, this morning in Israel, in Iran and the region itself, there is a chance that no missiles, no bombs, and no armed drones could be fired today. And that is certainly good news, Abby.
PHILLIP: Yes it's good news and it's extraordinary given the high stakes of the situation that we're in. Anderson, thank you very much. Stay safe out there. And we'll stay close with you throughout this story.
Back here in the studio, President Trump is hardly the first president to talk the talk when it comes to Iran, but was he the only one to walk the walk?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL CLINTON, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: From the beginning of our administration, we have moved to counter Iran's support of international terrorism. At the same time, we have tried to stop its quest to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Let there be no doubt, America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.
JOE BIDEN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: We will not, let me say it again, we will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Here in the studio, Jamil Jaffer was it that all these other presidents overestimated Iran? And, ultimately, is this the victory that it seems to be for Trump's decision to actually go forward with these pretty high-stakes attacks?
JAMIL JAFFER, FORMER ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, look at a minimum, Abby, the president was able to successfully conduct an operation where he took out three major sites in Iran where they were obtaining nuclear capabilities, enriching uranium and the like.
And so at a minimum, that's a big win for the United States, a big win for the region, a big win for the world. Does that mean Iran won't eventually obtain a nuclear weapon? Of course not. Does it set them back a significant amount?
[22:05:00]
Absolutely. And is that an important part of this operation for the world and for the region? 100 percent. PHILLIP: Too early to take a victory lap?
JAFFER: No. I --
PHILLIP: I mean, because at end of the day -- well, I know you are. I mean, I guess at the end of the day though, the question is. How do we actually get Iran to not have a nuclear weapon? That's really where we're at.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, functionally we did it, you know, with these strikes. I mean, what he did was a courageous move and working in concert with our special partner, Israel. You know, we let them pummel them, take out their air defenses, and then we swoop in the way only we can with these B-2 bombers and these special massive ordinance penetrators, and we deal with the situation. So, it was great tactically.
Ultimately, the only way to get Iran to stop seeking a nuclear weapon, I suppose, would be if the people of Iran rose up and tossed these butchers out and got themselves a new government. I'm not suggesting that we should be involved in that. But you would hope someday that the people of Iran would decide to have, you know, something more like a normal government where, you know, you're not constantly trying to get nuclear weapons to bring about the end of the world, which is effectively what they're constantly trying to do.
But today is a great day for America. It's a great day for western civilization.
JOHANNA MASKA, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL: Scott, my problem is the Trump administration is taking a victory lap as if they're the only ones who planned this. And I understand he took the action, but this action was planned by the military for multiple administrations. You just said yourself. Israel has been pummeling Iran because the Biden administration was providing weaponry for them to do so.
So, I will say, you know, this -- no, it's just amazing to me.
(CROSSTALKS)
MASKA: It lasts multiple administrations --
(CROSSTALKS)
JENNINGS: Occasionally, the correct answer is just --
MASKA: He rolled the dice.
JENNINGS: -- good job President Trump. Well done. Occasionally, that's --
MASKA: But he rolled the dice. We don't know how this is going to end. Is this going to bring about peace? I'm not sure. If you want to say tonight for sure, 100 percent, it's peace, I'm actually willing to look at that bet. Because over the course of time, history --
JENNINGS: You're hoping for something else?
MASKA: No, I'm not. Over the course of time history will tell you that when I went around the world with President Obama, these other countries are planning in 100-year plans and we are looking at two and four-year plans. And what I'm saying is this military strike was many years in the planning by our very capable military. And I think they deserve the credit.
PHILLIP: But it is true that, I mean, as we pointed out, all these other American presidents have said, we're going to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with the big caveat that we actually don't know if we have stopped Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. But no one has taken this step before now. I mean, you generally do not, Dr. West, like military actions.
DR. CORNEL WEST (I), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Absolutely.
PHILLIP: But do you think that in this case that it has opened up a path to diplomacy or a path to peace?
WEST: You see, I try to look at the world through the lens of the cross rather than primarily the flag. The flag signifies military might in crushing enemies. The cross is about unarmed truth and unconditional love. Condition of truth is to allow suffering to speak. The suffering in Gaza, the suffering Iran, the suffering in Tel Aviv, the suffering anywhere human beings are being mistreated, so I don't believe any nation should have nuclear arms.
We got nine nations in the world have nuclear arms, right? 5,500 for Russia, 5,200 for the United States, 40 for North Korea. Now, Israel has a hundred, and somebody won't admit it, nuclear ambiguity, right, Germany, France, and so forth. Why do we assume that somehow this sense of trying to ensure that we can keep control of this organized greed and the institutionalized hatred that leads toward the need for bombs, and then to drop them and think the more bombs we have, the safer we are, that's just a logic I reject.
That's why what you just saw was the continuity of the policy between Democrats and Republicans. That policy, I think, is morally bankrupt. Because sooner or later, Iran is going to develop the bomb, no matter how many times you dropped this buster bombs on these folks, they're going to develop it. But how do we create conditions under which we can eliminate nuclear bombs?
PETE SEAT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I'm an evangelist --
PHILLIP: Or negotiation. I mean, at the end of the day, I think a lot of people say, this is fine, but we still have to get to the negotiation table with Iran to actually take this off the table.
SEAT: Sure. I'm an evangelist of the three Ds of foreign policy, not to be confused with the five Ds of dodgeball for everyone watching, and that is development, diplomacy, and deterrence. The Iranians do not speak the language of diplomacy unless force is used. And that is what President Trump in the United States used this past weekend in a precision, perfection way.
[22:10:01]
It was --
WEST: It's illegal, unconstitutional.
SEAT: It is not illegal and a violation of rapport. The United States --
WEST: You can't violate the national sovereignty of a country.
JENNINGS: Why?
WEST: Why?
JENNINGS: We do it all the time.
WEST: I know because America violated a national law.
(CROSSTALKS)
WEST: You would think morality ought play some role?
JENNINGS: Do you think it's immoral to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?
WEST: I think that any condition --
JENNINGS: Who's the moral actor here? Iran or the United States?
WEST: In terms of insuring if we don't have nuclear bombs anywhere?
JENNINGS: No, in terms of ensuing these butchers don't have nuclear bombs that they have fully said they will use on Israel.
WEST: Well, we got a lot discuss. We've got United States, Israel.
PHILLIP: Hold on, Scott.
WEST: What they've done in Gaza or give neither one of them moral authority. Genocide is ethnic cleansing. Israel has no moral authority. United States has no moral authority.
JENNINGS: You disagree?
WEST: You think there's some -- no, we just have deep disagreements on that. But I'd like to hear your Christian formulation on this.
SEAT: So, your alternative is to allow them to develop and deploy a nuclear weapon?
WEST: Where does (INAUDIBLE) play a role, my brother?
PHILLIP: Hold on a second.
WEST: Where is the love, where's the love for you, for Iranians and for Palestinians and others?
JENNINGS: We don't live in a theocracy, but they do. And their theology is --
WEST: I don't defend theocracy.
JENNINGS: Their theology is to get a nuclear weapon, destroy Israel and destroy the great Satan, which is the United States.
Our government is based on one thing, national defense. And what's in the best interest of our national defense is for these fanatics not to have a nuclear weapon where they can wipe us off the map. It has nothing to do with Christian or whatever. It has everything to do with national defense.
WEST: And you don't think this fanatics --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. Jamil, go ahead.
JAFFER: And, look, it is absolutely ethical to act your own self- defense. It is a matter of international law. It's completely permissible to act in self-defense. And when you see a gathering threat, a nation that has repeatedly called for the destruction of the United States, repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, has fomented terrorism around the globe for decades, for four decades that supported Hezbollah, Palestinian, Islamic Jihad, you name it, they back terrorism.
So, the idea that we would even consider allowing them to get a nuclear, the idea that the Obama administration will allow them to enrich uranium in their own country, something we wouldn't even allow our own allies to do, is ridiculous.
So, the fact of the matter is --
WEST: You know and I know that it was United States that initiated the nuclear program in Iran.
JAFFER: A civilian --
WEST: 1957 -- 1967 under the shah, after they overthrew a democratic regime, all of a sudden now under the shah, it's fine, it's fine. We know that apartheid South Africa was looking for a bomb, right? Who helped apartheid South Africa, United States and Israel. When Nelson Mandela came to power, he had to dismantle it. But all of a sudden now apartheid South Africa can have the bomb because United States and Israel say so? No.
PHILLIP: Let me play this.
WEST: You got to have a morally --
PHILLIP: Let me play this exchange between the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, and Margaret Brennan on Sunday, because she was asking him about what the intelligence really said about whether Iran was actually pursuing a bomb. And just listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARGARET BRENNAN, CBS NEWS HOST: Let me follow up on a phrase, you just word weaponization ambitions. Are you saying there that the United States did not see intelligence that the supreme leader had ordered weaponization?
MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: That's irrelevant. I see that question being asked in the media. That's an irrelevant question. They have everything they need to build a weapon.
BRENNAN: That is the key point in U.S. intelligence assessments. You know that.
RUBIO: No, it's not.
BRENNAN: Yes, it was.
RUBIO: No, it's not.
BRENNAN: The political decision has not been made.
RUBIO: No. Well, I know made that better than you know that, and I know that's not the case.
BRENNAN: But I'm asking you whether the order was given.
RUBIO: And the people who say that -- it doesn't matter if the order was given. They have everything they need to build nuclear weapons.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: I mean, I wouldn't -- I mean, does it matter whether or not they actually were going to do this?
MASKA: I think it does matter, very much so. And I would agree with Dr. West. As the world as it should be, we should not have nuclear weapons. I agree with you 100 percent. The world, as it is the president of the United States, I worked for an anti-war president and I saw -- no, he was. He ran against --
JENNINGS: How many countries did you bomb the crap out of?
MASKA: That's what I'm going to say, Scott.
JENNINGS: Lord Mercy.
MASKA: Like, no. Like you guys didn't just use bombs for diplomacy? But just to be clear --
JENNINGS: Do you want to put the scorecards up against each other between bombs and drones?
MASKA: I'm happy put out scorecards. I got lot of scorecards.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Let her finish her thought, Dr. West.
WEST: You've got the drones killing innocent folks under Democrats and Republicans. Do you agree with that?
MASKA: But you do because the American president's job is to keep the American people safe. And after 9/11, we have given them more and more power to make sure that they can do that, and it has been unilateral.
I actually think it would be a very interesting idea for Congress to get involved in or others, but they've kind of ceded their responsibility because they can't even pass any legislation. So, we are in this situation because of design, because we've empowered them to do this.
JAFFER: Look, but we've seen what happens when you get Congress involved. President Obama went to the podium in the White House, said, I've decided as commander-in-chief to strike Syria, to enforce the red line. And then -- but I'm going to wait for Congress. And, of course, what happened?
MASKA: Nothing.
JAFFER: They did nothing. And what did President Obama do? He went up to Russia, made a deal with Russia, and more Syrian civilians died with the use of chemical weapons because we didn't enforce the red line.
[22:15:01]
Everyone around the world saw that. They learned the lesson, America doesn't stand for what it says. Whatever you might think of President Trump, he stepped up, did what he said he was going to do and took action.
MASKA: He did. But the women in Iran are not free tonight. There're no freedom for women in Iran.
WEST: That's true. That's true. Women, the life, freedom movement, women, life, freedom movement.
JENNINGS: Are you suggesting that we should send American military into Iran to free women.
MASKA: Here's what I'm suggesting, Scott, is that sometimes this is not about a victory lap for a party, but it's a more complicated situation that we should educate ourselves about the world. And if we're talking about ceasefire and we're shot popping champagne, which Fox News is doing tonight, I'm sorry, people in Iran are not free. There are plenty of people in Gaza who are not free. There are plenty of people around the world who are not free. I am happy that we're not dropping bombs, but if we want to be the peace president, then we're going to actually have to bring about peace.
JAFFER: Well, let's talk about what should happen to get freedom in Iran, right? The people of Iran now have an opportunity after that. After that, after that, the nation's government has been pummeled by Israel, pummeled by the United States, they now have an opportunity to rise up and we should back them up.
PHILLIP: All right.
JAFFER: The fact of the matter is when the Green Revolution came around, we didn't back them up.
PHILLIP: To be continued. We have more on that conversation coming up.
Next, Donald Trump contradicts his own officials and himself by floating, as we've been discussing, this idea of regime change in Iran, which is obviously a very loaded phrase. We'll debate that.
Plus, did the U.S. actually obliterate Iran's nuclear program as Trump is claiming? We'll break down the evidence for and against that, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: Some breaking news just in, sirens are sounding in Israel as the IDF says missiles have been detected from Iran. Anderson Cooper has just raced down to a shelter. Anderson, what are you hearing and seeing?
COOPER: Right. So, we got a warning that there were something incoming to Israel. As you know, there's nationwide alerts that go out about usually you get about a ten-minute warning for missiles coming from Iran. So, that occurred probably about four, five minutes ago, maybe. So, we are now in a shelter waiting to get probably a minute warning, which is like the red alert warning, which is like it's about to strike or it's about to be intercepted. And then we'll get wait for an all clear.
But what's significant about this, Abby, of course, is the president's social media posts, which said that around 6:00 A.M. that Iran would be the first to stop any firing of any weapons. It's now 5:50 in Iran. It's 5:20 something here in Tel Aviv. There's a time difference between Iran -- between Tel Aviv and Tehran. So, it's almost 6:00 A.M. in Iran. It's 5 -- yes I guess, 5 -- very close to 6:00 A.M. So, it's still within that window that President Trump had talked about, I assume. So, we will see what happens with this strike. We'll see if there's any other after the 6:00 A.M. approximate time that President Trump cited in his social media post.
Again, that post was a little confusing, but it seems to me he was saying that at 6:00 -- around 6:00 A.M., there would be -- Iran would be the first to stop any kind of strikes, while one side starts a ceasefire, the other side is to remain peaceful and quiet, and then Israel would officially stop all of their operations after several hours that Iran did. So, remains to be seen exactly what's going to happen, but basically we are now, and many people here in the hotel I'm staying at, are now waiting in this basement for whatever is incoming to Israel to be intercepted or to land wherever it may land. And we'll bring you any updates on that.
PHILLIP: Yes. And, I mean, as you can see in the live pictures, it is dawn in Israel, so the sun has come up. And these moments right before a ceasefire is supposed to go into place can sometimes be the most tricky, where we don't know if it's going to hold, whether it's -- they're going to adhere to it.
In this case, Anderson, it also seems that there's a little bit -- because President Trump announced it himself on social media, there's a little bit of uncertainty about what exactly all parties agreed to in terms of the timeline of this all, and I feel like that's kind of where we are right now.
COOPER: Yes, it is -- there's -- yes, it is certainly uncertain. Iran's foreign minister put out a statement, which I have here, essentially saying that there is no agreement and maybe this is an argument over the term agreement, but that there is no agreement on a ceasefire with Israel, but that Tehran, in his words, had no intention to continue any activity, he said, if Israel stops at strike on Iran by 4:00 A.M. local time here. So, that's slightly -- that is different than what President Trump's timeline was. So, unclear exactly why there's a difference in those statements.
Again, we're just going to wait and see what happens here. But this is certainly -- you know, it still seems to be within the window, you could say, that President Trump had set. Again, we're in a bomb shelter. It's hard to get information, but we'll -- you know, as soon as we get an all clear and we'll see what happens after.
PHILLIP: All right, Anderson.
[22:25:00]
Continue to stay safe for us and keep us updated, of course.
One of the tense points is the idea of Iranian regime change coming as a result of all of this. Trump yet again floated that possibility on social media. He wrote, quote, if the current regime is unable to make Iran great again, why wouldn't there be regime change?
But that is not the message that we heard from the administration this weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: Our view has been very clear that we don't want a regime change.
PETE HEGSETH, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: This mission was not, and has not been about regime change.
RUBIO: This wasn't a regime change move.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: And Trump's post contradicts what he himself said just last month while he was in Saudi Arabia.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: This great transformation has not come from western intervention or flying people in beautiful planes, giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs.
The so-called nation builders wrecked far more nations than they built and the interventionalists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: That was a welcome message, Pete, when he delivered it in the Middle East when he gave that speech. And it was unusual because he was critiquing really his own party. I mean, if you go back to these conflicts, Afghanistan in 2001, that intervention, that regime change ended up with the Taliban back in power, Iraq, 2003, that regime change ended up with ISIS in power, Libya, 2011, now a failed state. So, there's not really a good history of regime change, but I can't really tell where Trump actually is on this question because he is all over the place.
SEAT: Well, I disagree that he's advocating that the United States orchestrates regime change, so he is not contradicting anyone in the administration and he's not contradicting himself. Instead, he's signaling to the Iranian people that their window of opportunity to do it themselves is open, just like our window of opportunity to eliminate their nuclear sites opened and we acted. The opportunity is now here.
You look at the actions of the Iranian leadership, they already have their head on a swivel. They're worried that this could happen. The supreme leader is hiding somewhere in a bunker. Just like Saddam Hussein cowardly was in a spider hole for 235 days. He is worried about what will happen in his own country. So, today's attack, the missiles that they launched today, this symbolic, telegraphed, ineffective, intentionally ineffective campaign of sending missiles was all propaganda for a domestic audience to say we attacked great Satan, we took the fight to them, knowing full well that absolutely nothing was going to happen.
MASKA: Abby's right. We have such a mixed history with regime change and getting involved in these conflicts, and I think the American people voted for their president to care about them and to focus on them, which is why you're seeing so much division.
Now, there are hawks in both parties, Democrats and Republicans, who are saying, now's the time change Iran, change it forever. The question is what comes next? And I don't think we know that answer.
JENNINGS: Well, a minute ago you were upset that this bomb dropping didn't free the women of Iran.
MASKA: Women aren't free. I'm just saying, you're popping champagne, oh, Trump, I'm taking my victory lap over here, and I think it's a little premature. That's all I'm saying.
SEAT: It's a victory lap for American --
JENNINGS: Which of us is popping champagne? Listen, I mean, the reality is this was a targeted strike, designed to do one thing in one thing only, stop these butchers from having a nuclear weapon, period. There's no regime change.
MASKA: That's what they say.
JENNINGS: There's no what comes next. What comes next comes is up to the people of Iran. And what comes next is whether Iran and Israel abide by the terms of a ceasefire and have a negotiated peace. I hope that they all can get to the table and do it, but it's the Middle East and it's difficult.
WEST: Oh, Scott, the problem is though, I think you'd agree with this now, that when you attack a nation like Iran, the quickest lesson one learns is to make sure you now have a nuclear weapon so you're never attacked again. That's the only reason why Israel got its weapon in 1966. That's why North Korea got its weapon. That's why France got its weapon. That's why the United States and Russia got their weapon.
And for those of us to go all the way back to the United States to kill 250 million people in two days in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that's not a high moral moment for the American --
PHILLIP: So, Jamil, what do you make of that? I mean, he's saying --
WEST: does that make sense so far?
PHILLIP: -- that by attacking Iran, you could push them even further into a decision to actually have a weapon.
JAFFER: Look, I don't disagree that one lesson that a lot of countries that threshold nuclear states are going to take away is don't remain a threshold state. If you are on the path to get a nuclear weapon, go get one. North Korea did that. They established themselves. It's hard for anybody to attack them. That being said, what this also says, if you're going to try to be a threshold nuclear state, you better watch out because you'll get whacked.
[22:30:02]
Don't even try. Don't go down this road. So, I would rather take that lesson.
It is true that it is going to make some nations more likely, when they get close to jump straight to it, but that is not the right answer.
And this whole thing, by the way, the DNI has said for now the better part of a decade and a half about the leadership decision making in Iran. It is completely ridiculous that you would allow a country to get to a valid weapons design, enough enriched uranium to create a nuclear device and a ballistic missile delivery capability and then say, well, we're not going to do anything about it because they leave -- their leadership hasn't decided to go.
Because when they're at that point, when they make the decision, it's a day, it's a week, it's a month. There is not enough time to strike. You can't wait for the decision. It's too late.
(CROSSTALK)
WEST: But -- but -- Saudi Arabia, Turkey. America's going to go into the wacking business to make sure no nation has a capacity to have a nuclear weapon?
(CROSSTALK)
WEST: How much wacking can you lose?
(CROSSTALK)
JAFFER: If it's in our interest --
(CROSSTALK)
WEST: -- wack ourselves away.
JAFFER: -- that have -- that have supported terrorism for four decades, killed thousands of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.
WEST: I would never defend that. I would never defend the Iranian --
(CROSSTALK)
MASKA: It's a real question but --
WEST: -- regime. I'm not defending them --
MASKA: Here's -- here's --
WEST: -- not -- not at all. I'm talking about being morally --
(CROSSTALK)
MASKA: My question was, Scott --
PHILLIP: Well, this is why -- this is why this is why people like Marjorie Taylor Greene are still --
MASKA: Yes. Yes.
PHILLIP: -- as we sit here in the MAGA camp, but saying where -- what -- Doctor West is saying, where does this end? You said that you weren't going to go into any wars, and now here we are.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Yeah, but Abby, this isn't a war.
SEAT: We were a targeted -- PHILLIP: Trump says it was a --
SEAT: But Marjorie Taylor Greene is right.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Saying it.
SEAT: And meanwhile, like, we've got -- we're cutting food stamps. We're cutting social -- we're -- we're cutting our social safety net here, and we are spending money on this attack. So, the question is, was it necessary, and is it in the American citrus?
Now, do I, as a woman, want women of Iran to be free 100 percent? Do I think that they're getting Trump's Truth social post tonight, and that's going to motivate them to rise up? I'm not so sure it works like that. But I want a free Iran. I also want our social safety net and our kids taken care of. And I think it's right for Marjorie Taylor Greene to ask that question.
(CROSSTALK)
JAFFER: You know, this idea that Marjorie Taylor Greene is right, I think, is totally bummed. Marjorie Taylor Greene is just wrong.
(CROSSTALK)
MASKA: She's --
(CROSSTALK)
JAFFER: The reality is -- the reality is that other nations in the world understand one thing. They understand power. Pete is exactly right. America demonstrated power. It demonstrated we're not going to take it. Marjorie Taylor Greene, frankly, is afraid of American power and that's why she and Tom Massey are just wrong.
They're not real Republicans. They want to talk about fake Republicans. They're the fake Republicans. Republicans have always been about American national security and using American power to create deterrents to the world. That's what Reagan meant when he said peace through strength. He did not mean the nonsense that Marjorie Taylor Greene and -- and Tom Massey and all the other ultra-modern Republicans.
And frankly, it is good that President Trump has stepped away from that part of the Republican Party. He is right to step away. He should stay far away from it. They are all wrong.
PHILLIP: It's interesting that you said that because we've talked about this before. I mean, Trump has, in doing this, Trump is shifting away from that part of the party that he created and cultivated, and that's a big shift in his MAGA coalition. So, we'll see if they come with him. Some people like Massey and Marjorie Taylor Greene are not.
But, we're just moments away now from an apparent ceasefire between Israel and Iran. But sirens are now sounding in Israel, and the IDF says that Iran has fired missiles. Stay with us. We'll have latest on that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:38:07]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS HOST: Know for sure where all the highly enriched uranium is?
J.D. VANCE, VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, Bret, I think that's actually not the question before us. The question before us is can Iran enrich the uranium to weapons grade level? Our goal was to bury the uranium, and I do think the uranium is buried. But our goal was to eliminate the enrichment and eliminate their ability to convert that enriched fuel into a nuclear weapon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: More on our breaking news. The White House says that the U.S. military action, quote, "--totally obliterated Iran's nuclear program." Western military sources tell CNN, though, that it is still too early to fully assess the damage." Retired army major Mike Lyons is at the magic wall with us to discuss this. Is it an important question where the uranium is, whether we have actually, in fact, buried it all, and will they need to find out?
MIKE LYONS, RETIRED U.S. ARMY MAJOR: It is an important question, and it has to do with the activity that was taking place at Fordow right prior to the attack taking place. And there were reports of trucks and big, vehicles that were moving dirt and things in and around this area there.
Now, I've got to think the Israelis were on top of this. They knew what specifically was coming in and out. Most of the reports said it was dirt trying to block up the tunnel entrances and make -- make it more of a difficult attack should -- should the United States have made that attack like they did. So, I -- I think they were trying to reinforce it before.
PHILLIP: But is it possible that they could have moved it given that Trump has been sort of teasing this attack for --
(CROSSTALK)
LYONS: Yeah, it's possible he could have moved it, but given what we know about the Israelis and their intelligence and the human intelligence they have on the ground, they likely know where it is if that's the case.
PHILLIP: Yeah. And what about this idea that the United States has obliterated the Iran nuclear program? Is -- is that how you would describe where we are right now? LYONS: I wouldn't describe it as that. I mean, that's a bold comment.
I'm kind of in the in the camp of the Chairman of the joint chiefs who said, we have to see. It's unclear as to what's going on there. We know, for example, that in in Fordow, this was the before picture. Again, the dirt was used to cover up a lot of those tunnels here that were on this spot, but you can see right from here -- that you could see from here that that this is where the attacks were taking place.
Bunker busters got deep into those locations, and then they were able to -- they were able to, you know, attack the target from there. So, I do think that the program is very set back. It's been crippled but obliterated. I'm not sure that would be the word to describe it.
PHILLIP: Yeah. And, I mean, in -- when J.D. Vance was talking about not allowing them to enrich it to weapons grade --
LYONS: Yeah.
PHILLIP: --levels, is it possible that they could do that at other locations? We know about Fordow. Maybe it's buried under the rubble right now.
LYONS: Yeah.
PHILLIP: But that -- could they have the capacity in other places?
LYONS: Highly unlikely, they had the advanced centrifuges in Fordow. So, it would take that level of technology in order to -- to spin up centrifuges and -- and create that kind of uranium, type operation there. So, I -- I don't think so, they would get any other place. Look.
The -- the capacity for them to produce nuclear weapons is severely limited. Obliterated, no. The nuclear genie's out of the bottle. This has kicked the can down the road for however many years, that, we -- we can monitor to make sure that they can't make any more nuclear weapons.
PHILLIP: Why is it that this military option you think has not been taken before? And is it a model to use military action to then push for the diplomatic conclusion that the United States has wanted for decades and decades?
LYONS: I think we finally achieved the escalate to deescalate model that the United States military hasn't done in the past 40 years, especially with since we've been dealing with Iran. Look what's happened twice. We've used large formations, sent them to the Middle East on these forever wars that were -- the first one successful desert storm, the second one not so successful.
This time, we have this new model. We're -- we're aligned with Israel, our -- our partner. They're --they're the ones who are leading on this attack. We have a very specific military mission, taking out the Iranian military -- of nuclear capability. You know, I personally think Iran is our greatest foreign policy failure in the post-World War two era. And so, it -- this has been a long time coming. This was about to, you
know, happen at some point. So, so, again, the United States army in particular, and the military has learned that this is the way to do it. This is the way we conduct war.
PHILLIP: Yeah. I mean, if it's a -- if it's a foreign policy failure, it's certainly been a bipartisan one over many, many presidents. Thank you very much, major Mike Lyons, for joining us. Moments ago, we learned that Democrats are introducing a new resolution to try to rein in the President's power, accusing him of now overstepping his authority with these strikes. So, was it legal? We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:47:12]
PHILLIP: How far is too far? Sources tell CNN that Democrats are introducing a new war powers resolution to reign in President Trump's authority, arguing that Trump overstepped his power when he ordered the attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Now, it all comes as top Democrats say the White House is intentionally keeping them in the dark.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HAKEEM JERRIES (D) HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: I asked for a gang of eight briefing. It has yet to occur, and it's not clear to me what the administration is hiding from the Congress and from the American people.
REP. JIM HINES (D-CT): By the way, I mean, let's not lose sight of the fact that -- that an offensive attack against a foreign nation is something that the constitution reserves to the Congress of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: You know, we had Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis, a Republican here last week, and she was saying they're not going to brief us until after this thing is all said and done. And there -- there is something about that, Scott, that, you know, maybe you don't go to a full vote in the Congress. But to wait until you've already taken the action to brief even the gang of eight, this is a smaller group of senior leadership in the Congress, about what the intelligence says, I think is pretty extraordinary.
JENNINGS: Well, they did call Schumer, and I know they talked to him, and they tried to call Jeffries, apparently didn't pick up the phone. So, I know some calls were made. Look, one of the ways to keep things from leaking is to not tell a bunch of people who leak. And so, you know, I'm -- I'm sensitive to this.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I mean, the gang of eight, I mean --
JENNINGS: This is a pretty sensitive operation. There was a lot of misdirection. There's a lot of stuff going on here.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But the gang of eight is a close hold. It's generally a close hold.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: I don't -- and they called Schumer, and they tried to call Jeffries, and they told the Republicans. And look, we're not going to debate this in an open committee hearing when we're, you know, on a tight time window. You got bombers going one way, bombers going another way. I mean, this thing had to be held airtight, and that's what they did. And it worked perfectly, so --
PHILLIP: Except that Donald Trump tweeted his way or "Truthed" his way through the whole thing. I mean, we do have to remember --
JENNINGS: Are you arguing it wasn't a success?
PHILLIP: No, I did not say that. I'm just saying President Trump spent a lot of time talking through this publicly on social media to the point where they had to have a contingency plan to have B-2s going in opposite directions, just in case, they needed to sort of misdirect the Iranians.
WEST: But we don't know whether it was a success or not, but you don't make a major judgment like that based on a one day span. He's come out and said, I have a covenant with the American people. I tell them the truth. What do I say? We have completely and totally obliterated. No. You haven't. That's a lie, brother Trump. Get off the crack. Bye. You destroyed. You had severe damage. You didn't completely obliterate. Did -- was there a complete obliteration, you think?
SEAT: You don't know that.
JENNINGS: How -- how did you know?
MASKA: We don't know.
SEAT: Is there intelligence that you possess that says that?
WEST: Yes. You know why I know it?
[22:50:00]
Because if in fact there was evidence for it, they would make it available, my brother. The fact that they not make it available means --
(CROSSTALK)
MASKA: Going back to the war powers --
(CROSSTALK)
WEST: -- there's a good chance that they don't.
MASKA: The war power resolution, though, I would say, like, there is a reason for Congress to exist. Right now, our Congress has a bunch of peacocks who like to appear on television and not do their job, which is frustrating because then when you are trying to brief people and have serious conversations, they're trying to score a political point, and that sucks.
It sucks for Democrats and for Republicans. If that changed, then 100 percent, I think Congress should because they will deal with the financial repercussions of Trump's decision with their budget. We all have to figure out what we want to pay for and if we're going to authorize just strikes all the time. It is a real question because this does cut our budget.
JAFFER: Yeah, but look. The reality is the war powers resolution is a hotly debated question, right?
UNKNOWN: Right.
JAFFER: Congress had -- Congress has the power to declare war. The President's commander in chief. The constitution has tension in it about who's authorized to do what, when. So, Congress tried to resolve it by saying the President can deploy forces overseas into hostilities for up to 60 days simply by notifying Congress. He doesn't have to get their approval at all to do it.
That's the war powers resolution. People would get confused and say no, it requires a president to get a congressional approval. That is not true. For up to 60 days, the President can go forward. In fact, the Obama administration attacked Libya and said --
MASKA: No.
JAFFER: We can go past 60 days because it's not hostilities, because we're not firing back.
PHILLIP: Funny you should mention that. Here's what Republicans said about that very thing, 14 years ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: The constitution is very clear. You don't go to war without a declaration.
UNKNOWN: This latest decision was taken without adequate consultation with Congress.
UNKNOWN: When you commit U.S. troops and resources to combat, you should consult with Congress.
RICHARD LUGAR (R) FORMER U.S. SENATOR: Allowing this assertion to stand unchallenged would increase the risk that presidents will conduct similar military interventions in the future without seeking or receiving congressional authorization. JOHN MCCAIN (R) FORMER U.S. SENATOR: They've never gone to the Congress for any authorization, and that has led to some pretty inflamed, or shall I say, bruised egos around here. And understandably, because the -- the President should consult with Congress.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, let's be honest. I mean, whenever it -- it's like with a lot of things in Washington, when it's your team doing it, you're fine with it. When it's the other team doing it, you're not. And I think this is one of those cases, as well.
SEAT: I love that you showed John McCain there at the end because he famously would say every senator looks in the mirror and sees a future President of The United States. I think he was wrong. I think every senator sees the current president of The United States. They believe they are commander in chief.
And Lindsey Graham said it, I think yesterday, there cannot be 535 commanders in chief. There is one. And when it comes to making decisions that are related to national security and protecting the interests of America, we can't wait for Congress to get their pesky hands in in it and delay and delay and delay and delay.
And then the window of opportunity would be completely gone.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Yeah, I guess --
(CROSSTALK)
SEAT: But I do want to say, the only person --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I -- I think you're right. I just have to say that one -- the thing about it though, is that it's always fine to start something.
MASKA: Yes.
PHILLIP: But when it comes time to finish it, then you have to go to Congress and Congress won't have their choice.
(CROSSTALK)
SEAT: Yeah, but then what would happen -- what would happen if --
(CROSSTALK)
SEAT: -- uranium deployed the weapon and then the look at the government and say, why didn't you do something about this?
(CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: I'm not -- I'm not advocating -- I'm not advocating one way or another about this. I'm just saying , and it's always easiest to say, oh, Mr. President, go do it -- do whatever you want to start this thing. But when Congress comes into play is usually when it comes time to finish it. And that's when things get really tricky. And that's when the American people start to push back on these conflicts.
JAFFER: But here's the thing, Abby. The U.S. has been in conflict overseas and deployed troops in the combat, in the hostilities over 300 times since 1982. Congress authorized Houston built air force three times. Three times.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I think that is exactly -
MASKA: That's the problem.
(CROSSTALK)
MASKA: Yes.
WEST: It's hypocrisy on steroids when the Republicans do it and you get to rationalize those other --Democrats do it rationalizing other Democrats. Who's going to speak the truth?
MASKA: Well, and what do we get out of these conflicts?
WEST: Who's going to speak the truth?
MASKA: I mean, that's the bigger question is, like, what is the end result?
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: One thing is that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. That's the one thing.
MASKA: Do we know that? That's the big question tonight.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Looks pretty good to me.
MASKA: Well, I'm glad you're the one with the champion.
WEST: They probably never had one. They probably never had one.
JAFFER: At a minimum --
MASKA: I'm not so sure.
JAFFER: -- for a lot further back today --
WEST: That's true.
JAFFER: -- than they wear a week ago, than they were a year ago --
WEST: But they never had one.
JAFFER: To rely on some -- some JCPOA agreement where we're going to bend it around. It might do the right thing.
(CROSSTALK)
MASKA: I was a Jayhawk at the University of Kansas when they were playing bombs over Baghdad and celebrating that we were going to war with Iraq. What did we get for that? That's why you have people who were former service members in these wars saying --
PHILLIP: Jamil --
MASKA: We want to say --
PHILLIP: -- real quick. I mean, if -- every time Iran -- because they're going to get close again.
JAFFER: Yeah.
PHILLIP: Do -- are we just going to have to bomb them every time?
[22:55:00]
JAFFER: You know, that's a really interesting question. I think that what you might see if they continue to try and enrich domestically, you may very well see Israel go after those targets. You may very well see the U.S. have to step in. The reality is this is exactly why we have to make it clear to Iran, no domestic enrichment.
JENNINGS: They -- they --
JAFFER: You want a civilian nuclear program? You can get your -- you can get your name from elsewhere. No domestic -- this is the original sin. JCPOA was the original sin by allowing Iran, a terrorist state, to have domestic enrichment capabilities. That was the mistake by the Obama administration.
PHILLIP: All right.
(CROSSTALK)
JAFFER: -- of President Trump to walk away from it.
JENNINGS: It -- it depends. This is the first time we've ever actually gone this far. In the past, I think they thought, well, you know, Americans aren't strong enough or bold enough to actually come in here and do something about it. We'll talk. They'll send us pallets of cash, whatever. In this case, we sent Operation Midnight Hammer. It's the first time we've gone that far, so maybe it will prove to be a deterrent for the future.
(CROSSTALK)
WEST: They can't bomb you. If they can't bomb you, you're on your way to peace, though. And peace is not --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Thank you very much. We do have to go guys. Everyone, thank you very much. Much more -
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- much more on our breaking news ahead. Israel and Iran apparently have agreed to a ceasefire. It's set to begin just moments from now, but sirens are already sounding in Israel. Standby.
