Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump to Decide on Action in Iran Within Two Weeks; Netanyahu Says No One in Iran Should Have Immunity From Strikes, Including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired June 19, 2025 - 14:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:32]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": We are following breaking news. The White House has now issued a timeline for when President Trump will decide whether to take action against Iran. This is Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt just moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Now, in the meantime, Iran claims that it's shooting down Israeli drones over Tehran. And moments ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to strike all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Let's go to CNN's Clarissa Ward, who is live for us in Israel. Clarissa, does Israel believe that Trump has two weeks' time to make a decision?

CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we haven't yet had, Brianna, any official reaction here in Israel to this news, this two week timeline. But I can tell you based on conversations I've been having previously, that this is not what Israeli officials want to hear. They had been feeling quietly optimistic. They had given timelines of 24 to 48 hours. I think there's a sense from the Israeli perspective that you have to act when you have the momentum and that slowing things down and allowing for diplomacy, which is very much the favored option for much of the world, but not here in Israel, that that carries a cost with it in terms of potentially losing that momentum.

The other question, of course, Brianna, becomes how much fire power does Israel have in terms of keeping up the same level of strikes against Iran? And can they keep that going at the same pace for another two weeks? So, this will really be an open question now in terms of how Israeli officials interpret it and also, how they officially respond to it. Because it's been notable that up until this point, they have been very careful about not explicitly advising the U.S. to get involved, about not wanting to be seen as trying to strong arm President Trump or push him to make one decision or another. The sort of party line, if you like, has been very much to say that they are grateful for all the assistance that the U.S. has given up until now, primarily in a defensive capacity, and that they are waiting and watching to see what President Trump decides.

So, as I said before, this two week timeline unlikely to be very popular here in Israel, but as we have seen so many times with President Trump, this could well be some kind of an obfuscation tactic. It's not clear whether this really means that there is now some room for diplomacy to try to play out and to slow down the dramatic escalation, Brianna, that we have seen over the last week.

KEILAR: Yeah, very good point. Clarissa Ward, thank you so much. Let's go now to CNN's Kristen Holmes who was in that White House press briefing. Kristen, just tell us about what you are observing here. The president likes to talk, as Clarissa said, about two weeks so often, it's hard to really put stock in what he's saying here or what his quote was as delivered by the White House press secretary.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, that's right, Brianna. But I mean, you have to remember here, we're talking about a very specific thing. In the past, when he has used this two weeks, it's been kind of vague or I can tell you down the road if Putin wants peace in two weeks. He isn't saying here, and this is something we're going to hold him accountable to. I'm making a decision in two weeks if we cannot get to the table on some kind of deal here. I mean, that is a very specific timeframe.

Now, we are actually trying to get more answers on this. Does that mean that he is going to authorize strikes on Iran at the two-week mark if no deal is reached? He would not answer that? I asked the question of, we have heard from U.S. officials and Israeli officials that they believe Iran never wants to make a deal, but they're going to just string us along. How can you ensure that they are not stringing us along when you are now effectively adding time to the table? Remember, this is now the second deadline they've given Iran. The first one was 60 days. Now, they're adding an extra two weeks and there's no real answer to that other than the fact that Karolyn Leavitt is saying that the president believes that there is, and I want to say a substantial chance for negotiation. That's what they use, but we still don't have any idea why exactly they mean that.

[14:05:00]

Now, one of the things she told me is that Iran is incredibly weakened, and that gives them some kind of insight into the potential for a diplomatic deal because Iran has become so weakened. But still, we don't have a lot of answers as to what this means if Iran doesn't come to the table. The other part of this that has been so fascinating is the U.S. Middle Eastern Envoy, Steve Witkoff, who we know has been in touch with his Iranian counterparts, has been really leading the talks in this process, he's not attending the talks with European nations on Friday in Switzerland. She did not have an answer for why that was.

He has been in touch. We know that the United States has been in touch with Iranians. We still don't know if that's direct or indirect, but why exactly we're not taking part in diplomatic talks between European countries and Iran on Friday, that still also remains to be seen. So, we're trying to piece together what it means at the end of a two-week deadline. And again, as you said, yes, Donald Trump uses this a lot, but this is a very specific thing that he's giving two weeks for and there are still questions as to what hap -- if this is what he wants to diplomacy, what happens if they don't come to the table? Is he going to extend again? And we simply don't know the answer to that.

One thing we do know though is that Donald Trump behind the scenes has said that he does not want to enter into a long-term war, into a long- term conflict in the Middle East. So clearly, here he is using that going forward and saying he's not doing anything, giving two weeks for negotiations.

KEILAR: And tell us about this moment, Kristen, in the briefing where the press secretary issued a message to MAGA supporters.

HOLMES: Yeah, this has been something that we have been watching very closely because one of the things that we have seen, and this is playing out both publicly and privately, is these different factions of the MAGA base and how they feel about entering into this conflict with Israel against Iran. You have a real section of his base who is absolutely against this, saying this is America First president. You ran on no new wars. Now, you're talking about getting into this. And we've seen it both play out privately with his advisers telling him different things, some of them saying stay out of it, others saying it's time to engage.

We've also seen it publicly between these high-profile Trump supporters kind of speaking out against the president and against any action. Karoline Leavitt was asked about that today and she said essentially, trust in President Trump. So, trying to issue a message here to his supporters. But again, that might not be that reassuring since we still don't have the details of what does it mean at the end of two weeks. Is he hovering with his finger on the button and two weeks comes and goes, and then he engages. It's going to be interesting to see if people take this as reassurance.

KEILAR: All right. Kristen Holmes live for us on the North Lawn. We do appreciate it. Boris?

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": First on CNN, our team on the ground in Tehran is getting a firsthand look at the damage caused by recent Israeli strikes. Fred Pleitgen obtained access inside the state-run news agency that was severely damaged in a strike on Monday during a live broadcast. The agency says at least two people were killed in the attack. Here's Fred's report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: We're inside the Iranian State Broadcasting Company, IRIB, which was hit by an Israeli airstrike a couple of days ago. And you can see the damage is absolutely massive. I'm standing in the atrium right now, but if you look around, this whole area has been completely destroyed. All of the offices, all of the technology that they have inside here, the broadcast technology, everything has been rendered pretty much useless.

All right, so we're going to go inside the building now. They have told us that we need to be very careful because, obviously, there might still be unexploded parts of bombs in here or something like that. What we see here is the actual studio where an Iranian State TV anchor was sitting and reading the news when the strike hit. You can see here that is an anchor desk right there. And of course, when it happened, the anchor was reading the news and then all of a sudden there was a thud. The studio went black. At the beginning, she got up and left. But then later, apparently came back and finished the newscast and is now being hailed as a champion of Iranian media.

Some of the main bulk of the explosion must have been here because this place is absolutely charred. And if we look back over there, that's actually seems to be the main part of what was the newsroom with a lot of the desks, computers, printers, phones. You can see how much heat must have been admitted by the impact and by the explosion. The phones that they had here are molten. Here also, the keys molten. This screen and there's actually someone's lunch still at their desk, standing here, which probably they would've been wanting to eat until they had to evacuate the building.

You can see there's a spoon here that's also been melted away by this explosion. All of this is playing very big here in Iran. There's a lot of public anger that the Israelis attacked this site.

[14:10:00]

And certainly, the Iranians are saying that they condemn this and that there is going to be revenge for this.

Fred Pleitgen, CNN, Tehran.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ: Our thanks to Fred Pleitgen for that report. Joining us now to discuss is the Executive Director of the McCain Institute, Evelyn Farkas. She, again, is the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia. We also have with us Aaron David Miller, former State Department Middle East Negotiator and Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Literally just moments ago, we got an alert that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked specifically about targeting Iran's supreme leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei. I wonder, Aaron, when you hear Netanyahu saying that no one in Iran should have immunity, floating the idea of regime change, what that might look like?

AARON DAVID MILLER, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT MIDDLE EAST NEGOTIATOR: Regime change, it seems to me, at least at the moment -- Boris, thanks for having me -- is out of the question. I mean, you've got three models for regime change in the last 20 years. You have Egypt and Tunisia, where large numbers of Egyptians and Tunisians went out in the streets and security forces refused and/or failed to respond. (Inaudible) Mubarak's removal. Then you have HTS, a well-organized force, former Al-Qaeda derivative surging in Damascus. Within 10 days, the outsides (ph) are gone, and then you have Bush 43 and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

None of these circumstances, Boris, are appropriate or relevant, frankly, at least at the moment, to Iran. So, I think the Prime Minister is reflecting his aspiration. It is not enough to destroy Iran's nuclear sites. Even with Fordow gone, he has a much broader game plan in mind. I just think, and I'd like to see the regime change too. I just think it's (inaudible).

KEILAR: And Evelyn, as you said last hour, you are reading this as Trump buying time and that probably we're not going to see the U.S. using military force on Fordow as had been discussed or Trump had looked at. How do you think Israel may be looking at that?

EVELYN FARKAS, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RUSSIA, UKRAINE AND EURASIA: Yeah, I mean, Brianna, I think it's less likely, although I will say that the threat is still there and it has to be credible. So I don't want to take away any credibility. Not that my words matter that much to the Iranian government, but, we want the threat out there to make sure that negotiations continue. Because ultimately the -- even if you were to bomb, completely obliterate those underground facilities, you still need verification and you still need a negotiation to get the Iranians to capitulate to say, we'll give up the program.

In Israel, of course, they don't like this because they wanted us to just do a quick strike and take out those underground facilities. Now, they'll have to, as they themselves have said, send people in or find other means. They are determined to take out any bit of the program. Again, you could achieve that diplomatically as well, but the Israelis seem to not be putting any stock in diplomacy.

SANCHEZ: I do wonder, Evelyn, what you make of the question that our Kristen Holmes asked at the White House press briefing. How does the United States know that Iran is not simply kicking the can down the road? Arguably, the Trump administration when it left the JCPOA, the original nuclear deal that Iran, was making the case that they were not living by the spirit of that agreement.

FARKAS: Right. And that's why, I think this threat that President Trump put out there, and it's a threat that will hang over Iran for two weeks now that we will use our military force. It needs to be credible. Unfortunately, as Jeff Zeleny and others pointed out, President Trump has used the same timeframe and this kind of language before, and then hasn't done anything. But in this case, he did say, he did indicate probably what would happen if Iran did not negotiate in good faith. So, I think that that would be the answer.

KEILAR: Aaron, if Israel is not putting stock in diplomacy, but the U.S. is saying, yeah, we're in touch with Iran and Trump is saying there's a substantial chance of diplomacy, so where is it? Where does that actually leave the chances of something?

MILLER: Look, guys, we've got three options here. Strike, no strike, because you've got the possibility of diplomatic off-ramp, or preservation of the status quo. I think the president, frankly, is in a box and Netanyahu, in some respects, is in the same box. If the president doesn't go through with the strike on Fordow, then the Iranian Iranians will claim, regardless of what these Israelis do, that the campaign to destroy, cripple, let alone eradicate Iranian nuclear program basically has failed.

[14:15:00]

And the prospects of an agreement within a magic timeframe, look, the president imposed a two-month timeframe. You had five rounds of negotiation. I've been around negotiation for a long time. You need three things. You need two parties who are willing and able, number one. You need a sense of urgency, which hopefully we have. But then you need a deal. You need something that would reflect a balance of interest between the U.S. and Iran. That's not the way Donald Trump rolls.

I don't think he's got an effective strategy. If you look at Russia, Ukraine, he wants to end the war but not the fighting. If you look at Israel, Hamas, he wants the hostages out, but he's not interested in a broader resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian deal. And had the Israelis not struck and negotiations between Iran and the U.S. continued, I think he would've ended up with JPOA, not a JCPOA, in which the Iranian nuclear issue might be parked for the remainder of Donald Trump's term. He doesn't think strategically, he thinks short term, situationally and transactionally. And that's why I think the two-week time period is a way to deflect pressure, internal pressure, buy some time in the hopes, vain hopes that somehow a deal will be reached.

The only unhappy party right now, the only party that's not breaking open the champagne bottles that U.S. isn't going to war are the Israelis. And I suspect Netanyahu is going to be extremely unhappy. This really does not -- was not anticipated as part of his plan.

SANCHEZ: And quickly, Evelyn, is it your assessment that Iran may actually give up the enrichment of uranium the way that the White House has demanded?

FARKAS: Well, they may not have a choice in the near term, so they may be willing to give it up in exchange for what they really want, which is a return to global trade and a lifting of the sanctions. And the Europeans can help with this, which is why I think they were able to convince President Trump that diplomacy has a chance because they, of course, also are part of the sanctions regime and the pressure on Iran.

KEILAR: Evelyn Farkas and Aaron David Miller, great to -- sorry, Evelyn, go on.

FARKAS: One other quick thing is that, if we have diplomacy and it looks like we're not going to use force, that will also have an impact on the global price of oil, which could help in other contexts, like in the Russia, Ukraine context, because we don't want Russia getting more money coming in their coffers because the price of oil goes up. KEILAR: Yeah. Really interesting point there. Evelyn, Aaron, thank you so much to both of you.

MILLER: Thanks for having us.

KEILAR: And still to come, President Trump is downplaying Republican division over possible U.S. intervention in Iran, as the White House announces he'll make a decision within the next two weeks. We'll have much more on our breaking news, right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:22:45]

SANCHEZ: As the world watches closely to see if President Donald Trump decides to strike Iran, Congressional Republicans are at odds over how he should respond. Some in MAGA point to the president's America First stance as a reason not to get involved. While others, especially some of the Republican side's most vocal war hawks argue that it's in the United States best interests.

KEILAR: We have CNN Senior Reporter, Annie Grayer, with us in studio. So Annie, is this playing a role in the president's decision now to give diplomacy more time? Two weeks he says.

ANNIE GRAYER, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, certainly, everyone in Trump's orbit is trying to get the president's ear here. We've seen Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who's been very outspoken that he wants to see the U.S. get more involved in this conflict. He's been speaking on the phone with Trump regularly. We see the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He met with Trump at the White House yesterday.

And then on the other side of this, some of the isolationists like Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, she has been messaging with the president in recent days. And publicly, we have seen this debate playing out in the Republican Party in a very big way. The split between the war hawks, those who are wanting the president to be more aggressive here, and those like Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene, who are very much calling for a "America First policy" that would not have the president be getting more involved. But Trump for himself is at least trying to downplay these divisions. Take a listen to what he said recently.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: No, my supporters are for me. My supporters are America First and Make America Great Again. My supporters don't want to see Iran have a nuclear weapon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRAYER: So, we'll see what happens when Trump does make his decision within the next two weeks, if the party does actually fall in line behind him. SANCHEZ: Meantime, Democrats are trying to limit the president's war powers. Tell us about that.

GRAYER: So there are two resolutions that have introduced in Congress so far. One from Democratic Senator Tim Kaine in the Senate, and one from Republican Congressman Thomas Massie. Now, we know the long history between Massie and Trump there, and this will be a really big moment for Congress to decide, are they going to claim their authority and try and get involved here? I mean, this is a theme we've seen again and again, in this Congress during Trump's term is what role does Congress have to play? It can -- they can try and assert some authority, but the timing of when this vote happens is going to be really critical.

[14:25:00]

As we learn from the briefing, the president has up to two weeks to make this decision. If this vote happens before that, that's going to be a very politically tricky vote, specifically for Republicans to when they don't know, ultimately, where the president might be coming down on the issue.

SANCHEZ: Yeah, we don't know how it might impact negotiations. Annie Grayer, thanks so much for the reporting. So, Israel claims that Iran was racing toward a nuclear weapon when it launched its first attack last week. A Democratic Senator, however, says that lawmakers were told during a briefing this Monday that the U.S. intelligence community does not believe that Iran was mobilizing toward weaponization. So, which is it? We'll discuss with a former top nuclear weapons expert right after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)