Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

U.N. Nuclear Watchdog: Iran's Nuclear Enrichment Capabilities Have Been Set Back "Significantly" But Not Completely; Sources: Trump's Thinking Is Shifting Toward Using U.S. Military To Strike Iranian Nuclear Facilities; Sirens In N. Israel As Incoming Iranian Missiles Identified; Right Now: Trump Meeting With Natl Security Team In Situation Room; Appeals Court Weighs Case Of National Guard In California; Dem Sen. Tina Smith Confronts GOP Sen. Mike Lee Over His Viral Posts On MN Lawmakers Killings; Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-CA) Discusses About The Mood Among Lawmakers. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired June 17, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:00:04]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: We are starting with breaking news. President Trump is weighing his options as fighting between Israel and Iran intensifies. Right now, the President is meeting with top national security officials in the White House Situation Room. As sources are telling CNN, he is warming up to the idea of using the U.S. military to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. The chief of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog telling CNN a short time ago, Iran's enrichment capabilities have been set back significantly, but not completely.

And earlier today, President Trump issued a not-so-veiled threat to Ayatollah Khamenei, warning, quote, "We know where the Supreme Leader is hiding, but are not going to take him out, at least for now." Trump then posting unconditional surrender. CNN's Chief National Affairs Correspondent, Jeff Zeleny, is at the White House for us.

Jeff, the President has a major decision to make here. Tell us what's going on.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Brianna, unquestionably, the biggest, at least, foreign policy decision of his second term back at the White House. And the President at this hour is meeting with the Vice President and an array of national security officials, the Defense Secretary, the Secretary of State and others, really answering or trying to reach an answer to the fundamental question here. Will the United States deepen its engagement? Will they help Israel and further go after the Iranian nuclear capability?

And really what we are seeing many signs of really throughout the day, as you were pointing out, that this once would have been a nonstarter. The President, obviously, has long talked about an America first agenda, but he is getting much advice from the outside to assist Israel here. And look at the language. The President, just shortly before noon today, he sent out a message on Truth Social using the words we, saying, we now are in complete control of the skies over Iran. Obviously not saying Israel is, but saying we is. Going on to say that nobody does it better than the good old U.S. of A.

But perhaps the most interesting sign here is from Vice President J.D. Vance. Of course, there is much consternation among Republicans, among the President's own base of supporters about the deepening engagement of the United States into a Middle East war. And the Vice President is simply talking about this being a good opportunity. Let's read this together.

He says he may decide he needs to take further action to stop the Iranian enrichment. That decision ultimately belongs to the President. And of course, people are right to be worried after foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy. But I believe the President has earned some trust on this issue. So, if you unpack that there, of course, talking about several administrations, Republican and Democratic administrations alike, the entire Bush administration's decision to enter the Middle East war, of course, more than two decades ago, is hanging over this decision as well.

President Trump has long talked about his opposition to that, but now he is facing this question as well. Will the U.S. deepen its involvement and go after those the nuclear facilities in Iran? And that is a question we don't have an answer to at this hour, Brianna.

KEILAR: And Jeff, what's the timeline for a decision here?

ZELENY: Well, look, several of the allies who believe this is a good idea, Lindsey Graham among them, saying that the President needs to act fairly soon. He told our colleagues on Capitol Hill just a short time ago, the window here is now for the U.S. to really strike Iran and go after the nuclear program. And that would, of course, take the weaponry from the United States to go after the bunkers of the facility there. So fairly soon, but again, we do expect some type of a decision, but the question is when, Brianna.

KEILAR: All right, Jeff Zeleny, thank you so much. Boris.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Iranian state media is reporting that just a short time ago, continuous and intense explosions have been heard in western Tehran. This video just into CNN shows air defense systems in Tehran being activated. That development happening as Israel's defense minister says the IDF plans to strike, quote, "very significant targets" in the Iranian capital today.

Meantime, the Israeli military says it's identified a new wave of incoming missiles fired from Iran. Sirens are going off in different parts of the country. We understand primarily in the north, including Haifa. CNN's Clarissa Ward joins us now live from Tel Aviv.

Clarissa, what more can you tell us about this warning?

[15:05:01]

CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, that alert happened about half an hour ago, I would say, Boris, and really focused on the northern part of the country. Haifa, in particular, which has come under pretty consistent bombardment. It's been a real focus for these Iranian ballistic missiles, perhaps in no small part because there is a large oil refinery there. Three people were killed in that oil refinery just a couple of days ago.

We have heard as well from the leader of Iran's military issued an evacuation order for everyone from Tel Aviv and Haifa, saying that Iran plans a night of punitive strikes, although I would say that we heard similar rhetoric last night. And then it was a relatively quiet evening. I believe the Israeli military said 30 missiles and drones were intercepted last night compared to some 200 on Saturday night.

So clearly, Iran is struggling to launch as many of these missiles. We also heard from the IDF this evening saying that they had destroyed a number of missile launch pads near Isfahan. Nonetheless, of course, precautions being taken, everybody preparing for what could be another long night. As I said, yesterday was quieter, but nobody is certainly getting cavalier here. And I think there's also an air of anticipation around what President Trump might say publicly.

Israel's leadership has been careful not to try to force the U.S.' hand, so to speak. We heard from Israel's defense minister, Israel Katz, today, who said so far the U.S. has been helping us in a defensive role, and we're very glad for that. But it's perhaps no surprise that privately they are absolutely supportive and really pushing for the U.S. to take a more decisive role in intervening in this conflict.

So, people here are waiting to see what the night will bring, but also crucially what this meeting in the Situation Room will bring, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Clarissa Ward, live for us in Tel Aviv. Thank you so much.

Let's discuss all the angles with Kimberly Dozier. She's a CNN Global Affairs Analyst. Also with us, Andrew Miller, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for Israeli-Palestinian affairs.

Andrew, as we await this Situation Room meeting to hear details from what comes of it, what is it like to be in the room? What kind of options do you think they're presenting to President Trump right now?

ANDREW MILLER, FMR. DEPUTY ASST. SECY OF STATE FOR ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN AFFAIRS: Well, in addition to presenting potential military options for engaging Fordo, the facility in Iran that is embedded in a mountain and difficult to reach, you have to anticipate the consequences and take necessary contingency actions to protect against them.

There is a very real risk that Iran could retaliate to an American strike by going after U.S. military facilities located in the Gulf or against energy facilities of Gulf Arab states. And unlike with Israel, you don't have the same missile defense architecture in place. It's much shorter, too. It's physical - it's harder from a physics perspective to intercept these weapons over a shorter distance than over a longer distance, fewer opportunities. So, they need to be ready not just for the first punch, but for the counterpunch. KEILAR: Yes. Such good points. What, Kim, would the arguments be for

U.S. involvement and against?

KIMBERLY DOZIER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: They will probably never have another opportunity to strike Iran's nuclear and other facilities without Iranian air defense as a threat. Israel has gone in and cleared out much of the threat. The Iranians have been, according to the Israelis, focusing on moving some of their missile launchers to safer areas, which only exposes them, and then they get taken out. And you can see right now that the Israelis seem to be striking even the Iranian defense ministry's manufacturing capability, which is largely in western Tehran, including centrifuge construction.

So, the Israelis are not only clearing the field for a potential American penetrator, bunker-buster strike on Fordo, but they're also just making the entire area just easy pickings to next probably go after the energy infrastructure to leave Iran crippled not only militarily, but energy and economically wise, so that they have to come to the negotiating table.

SANCHEZ: There's also a question of whether the Ayatollah, the Supreme Leader, is going to be targeted directly. Our reporting indicates that Israel laid that out as an option initially, that President Trump didn't want to go that route. But now today you have him on social media saying that he knows where the Supreme Leader is. We know where the Supreme Leader is. I mean, that is a tacit threat.

DOZIER: Yes, that's saying that you are only staying alive because we want you to be alive to negotiate with us. And from the Supreme Leader's perspective, there was reporting that they had reached out saying that they wanted to talk.

[15:10:06]

But it looks like, ironically, the Trump administration is taking the tack that Mike Waltz, the former National Security Advisor, had tried to push for, defang them first, and then force them to the negotiating table.

KEILAR: Andrew, this talk, though, about the Ayatollah, now you're into that zone of talking about assassination, right? At least sort of exploring that territory, which is not generally where the U.S. is supposed to be.

MILLER: That's correct. And both from a legal perspective, there are challenges dating back to President Ford, but also from a policy perspective. If the objective is to intervene in Iran for the purpose of eliminating the nuclear program, but avoiding a regime change with unpredictable consequences, any discussion of taking out the Supreme Leader is going to raise doubts in Iranian minds about U.S. intentions. It's going to be harder to avoid misperceptions about what the U.S. is doing.

And I'm personally afraid that we're forgetting the lessons of the last 25 years in the region, for as vile and despicable as the Islamic republic is, there's no guarantee that whatever would replace it would be any better from an Iranian perspective, an Israeli perspective, or a U.S. perspective.

SANCHEZ: Kim, isn't this now almost a self-fulfilling prophecy or a trap for the U.S. if they don't completely eliminate Iran's ability to enrich uranium? Because if they don't, you'll have the hardliners justifying reaching for a nuclear weapon even faster given these attacks.

DOZIER: I think you're going to have the hardliners pushing for that either way. But what this series of strikes is aimed at doing is setting back Iran decades. If they use the bunker-busters on Fordo, U.S. bunker-busters, which are carried by the B-2s, can reach about 80 meters - sorry, about 60 meters, and the tunnels go about 80 meters. But they could pretty thoroughly destroy all the approaches to whatever's buried in that last 20 meters and just make it really difficult, together with reports that the Israelis have not only killed nuclear scientists but stolen the backup of the nuclear archive, the how-to instructions.

So, the idea is kneecap them at every point. Then the question remains, though, okay, when they emerge out of this kneecapped, what if Russia or more likely North Korea comes to their aid and says, you want nukes? We've got nukes.

KEILAR: Well, yes, and that raises, obviously, a very big concern. What do you think the dynamic shift is if Iran, Andrew, is set back decades?

MILLER: I'm very skeptical that Iran would be set back decades. The Israelis themselves are saying they're hoping for two to four years. It's worth noting that the JCPOA, which President Trump withdrew from, provided a one-year breakout time. So, we're not talking about orders of magnitude greater assurance than what existed previously. He's partly undoing what he has already done.

But if the Iranian program is set back, it is reversible in that knowledge can't be destroyed. Yes, they've assassinated scientists, but there are others who understand how to make these centrifuges, understand how to convert uranium into metal. And importantly, the highly enriched uranium, 900 pounds worth, that is only a couple weeks away from reaching weapons grade, as far as we know, has been untouched. If that remains in Iranian hands, once the centrifuges are back up and running, we could be faced with a very narrow breakout time. And that is the question here. Is this tactical military success going to translate into an enduring success?

Israel faces the same problem in Gaza. The United States and Israel could encounter it in Iran.

KEILAR: Andrew, Kimberly, thank you so much. Great insights. Really appreciate it.

DOZIER: Thanks.

MILLER: Thanks for having me.

KEILAR: And still to come, members of Congress are calling for more protection and resources just days after a state lawmaker and her husband were killed in Minnesota. We'll discuss with California Congressman Jimmy Gomez.

SANCHEZ: Plus, a federal judge is currently hearing arguments to decide whether President Trump can continue to control National Guard troops in California.

And later, jurors in the retrial of Karen Read are about to wrap their second full day of deliberations. We have more on some questions that they pose to the judge when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:18:50]

SANCHEZ: Happening now, the legal face-off over some 4,000 National Guard troops in California responding to anti-ICE protests there. Three judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals are right now hearing the case that pits California Governor Gavin Newsom against President Trump. CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig has been listening in to these developments.

What are your takeaways?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Boris, this case is really all about just how much power does the President have, and is that power limitless? Now, the very first thing that the DOJ lawyers representing the Trump administration said, I'm paraphrasing here, is the district court judge, the trial court judge, when he blocked the President's deployment of the National Guard last week, that was an interference with executive authority, that upended the military chain of command, and that was an abuse of discretion by the district court judge.

Now, the judges who we just saw, there's three appellate judges sitting on this panel. Two of them are Trump appointees. The first thing they asked the Trump lawyer was, is your position that Donald Trump, the President's determination about the National Guard, cannot be reviewed at all by the courts? Or is your position that whatever the President does is due deference by the courts, but it can still be reviewed?

[15:20:00]

And the Trump administration lawyer said, you cannot review this at all. The courts have no role. The President's power here is absolute.

Now, it seemed to me, Boris, that that answer did not go over super well with the judges, including the Trump appointees. They seem to be pushing him towards a more moderate stance. Not of the President is completely unreviewable, but rather. Well, the President can maybe be reviewed, but he has to be given deference.

So, the Trump administration came right out and took a very extreme absolutist position. Judges don't seem enamored with it at the moment. SANCHEZ: And speaking to the position that's being reviewed, you had

Judge Charles Breyer essentially deciding before it was put on hold by the appeals court that the President had not provided significant justification for putting the National Guard in California, or rather, calling up the National Guard in California. What do you make of that argument from the judge?

HONIG: So that's exactly what is being asked right now by the judges. They said essentially, look, the President said that this was rebellion or danger of rebellion and that the National Guard was necessary to enforce federal laws. The district court judge, the lower-level trial court judge, completely disagreed. And now the appeals court judges are pressing the DOJ lawyer on that.

They're essentially saying, look, the governor doesn't want National Guard. Their local law enforcement does not want National Guard there. So where are you basing, where's the President basing this determination that there is a rebellion or it's necessary to enforce federal laws? And the answer from the DOJ lawyer was, well, we have a declaration by DHS that this is necessary.

Of course, DHS is in-house to the administration. But basically, that's the administration's position, that our own DHS, Department of Homeland Security, has gone in and said we do need national troops there. And that's what justifies the President in his action.

SANCHEZ: Elie Honig, thanks so much for watching that for us. We'll check back in with you in a few minutes.

HONIG: Thanks, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Brianna?

KEILAR: Today, members of Congress are demanding heightened security measures after a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband were assassinated over the weekend. The man accused of attacking them is also suspected of shooting a Minnesota state senator and his wife, both of whom survived. And also, he's accused of targeting dozens of other elected officials.

Senators and House Democrats were briefed on the matter today. And afterwards, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that more protection is needed and that threats against officials have, quote, dramatically increased. In the meantime, Republican Senator Mike Lee has deleted a series of inflammatory social media posts about the Minnesota shooting after facing significant backlash.

Lee posted an image of the suspect with the caption: "This is what happens when Marxists don't get their way." Then, in a follow-up tweet, Lee wrote: "Nightmare on Walt Street," an apparent reference to the state's governor, Democrat Tim Walz. U.S. Senator Tina Smith in Minnesota confronted Lee yesterday for spreading misinformation. This is a picture of it captured by reporter Jamie Dupree.

Smith described their conversation to Kaitlan Collins.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TINA SMITH (D-MN): I went to him and I said, you know, your message on social media showed the image of the man who killed my friend, potentially minutes before that happened. And your message was, this is what happens. You need to take responsibility and accountability for what you are saying and doing out there in the social media world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Let's talk about this now with Democratic Congressman Jimmy Gomez of California. Congressman, thanks for being with us. And there were these security briefings, of course, on the Hill today. Tell us about the mood among lawmakers, how worried members are. Did the briefing help?

REP. JIMMY GOMEZ (D-CA): Yes, a couple of things. One, I find it rich that none of the Republicans are basically denouncing the killing of these individuals are political violence, while they're demanding that we denounce any kind of attack during protests on law enforcement. No cop has been killed in the streets of L.A. We denounce it every single chance we get. I do it again. But when it comes to political violence, they put up an image.

So, that's why people are also angry, and people are angry on this call, because they know that security of members of Congress away from the Capitol, we're on our own. Plain and simple, we're on our own.

After January 6th, I know members of Congress that got bulletproof vests. We ended up getting money to beef up security at home. But largely - largely, it's up to the local police department. And some of the stuff, the threats we get are crazy, and there's nothing we can do about it. I had somebody leave a message a few years ago that said somebody should shoot me in the face, but that wasn't against the law.

So, people are angry because they know that when Donald Trump's in office, political violence increases, violence across the board increases. So, we're definitely concerned, and members are concerned.

[15:25:06]

KEILAR: I do just want to state, and listen, I hear your point, and I'm not minimizing what happened in Minnesota, but you obviously serve with a Republican who has been shot there in the House, Steve Scalise, and we've seen members on both sides of the aisle who are fearful. So, have you talked to Republican - your Republican colleagues? I mean, what are they saying? You say they're not condemning this. What are they saying to you?

GOMEZ: I haven't been back, so this happened while everybody was - we're all coming back for the district work period. So, we have to wait and see. But when it comes to the comments of some people like Mike Lee, it just kind of reflects the - what people are saying on the Republican side.

Across the board, you know, Steve Scalise getting shot, unacceptable. Any political violence is unacceptable because what you're really trying to do is intimidate the elected officials who have been chosen by their districts, by the people, and you want to silence them. Because the bigger the - here's the thing, the people that get targeted the most are often the highest profile individuals. The higher the profile, then they're most likely to get targeted. So, it's a way to intimidate.

So, we're waiting - I love to see the Speaker of the House take this seriously. Mike Johnson should say, okay, we're going to do something to make sure, one, that we can provide more security, two, we should condemn it as well.

KEILAR: The moment that we're looking at here is horrific. It's not the first horrific moment, though, that you are aware of. There were two attempts on the President's life. We've seen so many moments of political violence here in recent years, Gabby Giffords. I wonder, though, how you see this particular moment. Do you think it's an inflection point or not when it comes to the consequences of our politics? Do you have that hope?

GOMEZ: No. I think that things are going to get worse before they get better. I think that what you're seeing is just a constant ratcheting up of the rhetoric, ratcheting up of the extremism across the political spectrum. People - members of Congress need to lead by example, call it out when we see it, condemn it, tell people to cool it after the attempted assassination on Donald Trump during the summer. That's exactly what I did and other members of Congress on the Democratic side did.

But we - then all of a sudden, we don't hear that necessarily from the other side. With - but this is only going to get worse. It's not going to get better. It hasn't got better. It always kind of just ratchets up and keeps continuing. I mean, I know members of Congress that had to hire their own security because of the threats that they're receiving. So, we don't see this getting better anytime soon.

KEILAR: I am curious, when the House is back, that's obviously a time where you can - reporters up on the Hill, get a better chance to see where members are and to get their reaction and see if they associate themselves with certain comments. So, we'll get to see what the case is there.

I do want to turn now, Congressman, to Iran, as the President is ramping up rhetoric about potential U.S. involvement in this conflict between Israel and Iran. Would you back a U.S. strike if it meant setting Iran back significantly from getting a nuclear weapon?

GOMEZ: Well, here's the thing, we have to remember why Israel took unilateral action. We had Donald Trump, who was negotiating directly with Iran. And he was not including the Israelis. One thing that Donald Trump has proven time and time again is something that's not trustworthy when it comes to - I'm standing up for our allies - he's literally more or less abandoning Ukraine. He said that Taiwan is - they stole our microchips. And all of a sudden, he's negotiating directly with Iran without having Israelis involved, or even consulting with them. So, all of a sudden you have them strike because of their concern of

Iran not only getting nuclear weapons, but also continuing their proxy war against Israel. So, this lack of leadership, lack of trustworthiness, the chaos of this administration is directly responsible for what's going on. So now we're at this situation, what happens next? Well, I think we need to make sure that Iran has a - we deter Iran from taking any further action, that we can try to de- escalate.

[15:30:00]

And then at the same time, ensuring that there are no nuclear weapons or their program has been stunted to an extent that they can't use.