Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) On Some Key Dems Not Being Briefed Until After U.S. Strikes On Iran; Ukrainian Officials: Six Dead In "Massive" Russian Strikes On Kyiv; Israel Launches New Strikes On Iran's Capital City. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired June 23, 2025 - 07:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:32:02]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right. New this morning it is safe to say that Wall Street is keeping an eye on oil prices after the U.S. attacks on Iran, and not to the mention the Israeli attacks on Iran. There is some fear that Iran could retaliate by disrupting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, and that would slow down oil supply around the world.

CNN's Matt Egan is with us now. Talk to us about the business implications here.

MATT EGAN, CNN REPORTER: Well John, financial markets are remarkably calm --

BERMAN: Yeah.

EGAN: -- this morning given how much chaos we just saw in the Middle East. Oil prices -- they did skyrocket last night six percent for WTI, the U.S. benchmark. But look at this. Almost all of those gains have evaporated. So yes, oil prices are higher but not dramatically so.

And I would argue this is really good news when you think about the economy, right? Skyrocketing oil prices would lift the price of gasoline. It would be another inflationary shock for the economy that we don't want to see. I think investors are relieved that this situation has not spiraled further out of control.

Yes, Iran is threatening to retaliate but so far, we haven't really seen that. I think the big fear is that they lash out by other -- attacking U.S. military assets, energy infrastructure, or the nightmare is that they try to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, right? That's the narrow waterway connecting the oil-rich Persian Gulf to the world's oceans. And every single day 20 million barrels of oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz. For some context that's about 20 percent of global oil usage.

So analysts have said that if they somehow disrupted the Strait of Hormuz, you could see oil prices go to $100-$120 a barrel, right? You're looking at $4.00, $4.50 national average, right? That would be a really scary situation for the economy.

Listen to Vice President J.D. Vance --

BERMAN: Yeah.

EGAN: -- weigh in on this topic.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KRISTEN WELKER, NBC MODERATOR, "MEET THE PRESS": If Iran disrupts shipping in the Strait of Hormuz which, of course, handles about a quarter of the world's oil trade, would that be a red line for the United States, Mr. Vice President?

J.D. VANCE, (R) VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well Kristen, I think our biggest red line is the Iranian nuclear weapons program. I think that would be suicidal, Kristen, for the Iranians themselves. I mean, their entire economy runs through the Strait of Hormuz. If they want to destroy their own economy and cause disruptions in the world, I think that would be their decision, but why would they do that? I don't think it makes any sense. I don't think that it makes sense for them or for anybody else.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

EGAN: So Vance arguing that this would be self-defeating because Iran's goes through here. Also, it's worth noting most of that oil that goes through the Strait of Hormuz and most of Iranian oil doesn't go to the U.S. It doesn't go to Europe.

BERMAN: Right.

EGAN: It goes to Asia -- China, in particular. Here you can see this Strait of Hormuz and this really critical chokepoint.

I would note though that despite what Vance said markets are signaling that this is not impossible.

BERMAN: No.

[07:35:00]

EGAN: In fact, if you look at Polymarket -- that a prediction market -- they're pricing in a 44 percent chance that Iran does close the Strait of Hormuz at some point this year.

I think the message though from the market is wake me up when there's an actual disruption, right? There's been a number of false alarms before and concerns about disruptions in the Middle East that have not actually impacted the supply of oil, and until it does the market is taking all of this pretty much in stride.

BERMAN: Yea. It's clear the market right now is betting on Iran not taking some kind of massive retaliation. They could be wrong --

EGAN: They could be.

BERMAN: -- but that's what the market is thinking right now. You can see very flat --

EGAN: Yeah.

BERMAN: -- today.

EGAN: Exactly.

BERMAN: All right, Matt Egan, thank you --

EGAN: Thank you, John.

BERMAN: -- very much -- Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, thank you both.

President Trump and his team were in contact with top congressional Republicans before his strikes on Iran, but some key Democrats were not told about the plans until after the bombs dropped. Most Democrats have condemned the president's decision to launch the strikes without congressional approval and now are demanding classified briefings.

Joining us now Democratic Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. First of all, thank you for coming on this morning.

How did you hear about the strikes --

SEN. JACK REED (D-RI) (via Webex by Cisco): : Hello.

SIDNER: -- and what was your initial reaction when you did hear?

REED: Well, we got cryptic notice that some incidents would begin but not details. And then we, like everybody else, picked it up on the news when it was released. So this has not been the appropriate, I think, coordination of operation between the Congress and the White House. And also, there's the issue of the constitutionality of attacking another country who has not attacked us.

At a minimum, we need intensive discussions and briefings on what took place, what's the result, what's the damage assessment, and we later have to make a determination of whether or not we should go forward with a War Powers Act.

SIDNER: I do want to ask you this. This isn't the first time that Trump has pretty much ignored Congress. He struck Syria in 2017 without informing the Gang of Eight, and he did it again when he took out Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani.

What should Congress do next and, more importantly, do you have enough support to make that decision have teeth?

REED: Well, I think what we should be doing is looking very carefully at the War Powers Act. That is legislation that was passed in 1973 that requires the president 1) to notify Congress, and then Congress has the option -- not the option, they vote either up or down to continue the operations or not.

The president I think is going to make the argument that this was a one-off event and he could not disclose it because of intelligence sensitivities but that now we've finished. I don't think we've finished. I think the danger here is retaliation by the Iranians. Also, ironically, perhaps an acceleration of their nuclear program with the aid of allies. Their foreign minister is in Moscow today speaking with the Russians.

So we could have some very unpredictable consequences and that's something I don't think was fully factored in by the president.

SIDNER: Yeah.

I want to follow up on something that you spoke to. The vice president, the Secretary of State, the secretary of defense, all of them said Sunday that the U.S. was only interested in destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities.

But then we saw Trump posting something on social media saying this. "It's not politically correct to use the 'regime change,' but if the current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again, why wouldn't there be regime change?" And then he said, "MIGA!!!"

Trump wrote this after hearing from his -- top members of his cabinet that it was only about getting rid of Iran's nuclear capabilities.

What do you think of this comment on Iran -- he is talking about regime change?

REED: Well, hearing is different than listening. I don't think the president listens very well when it comes to these critical matters.

Any regime change would require some type of physical intervention within Iran. Not only a strike but something more than that. And also it would be, as we learned from Iraq, a long and difficult process.

So I think that statement is, again, not based on sound analysis and another way for the president to get attention in the middle of the night.

SIDNER: We are also waiting for sort of a full assessment of what happened. The IAEA saying that there was heavy damage to Iran's nuclear facilities by the U.S.

[07:40:00]

Do you think that is good news that there is at least some sort of major damage to these facilities?

REED: Well, the airstrikes will definitely slow down any type of weaponization. The question is, and there's some doubt of whether we effectively took out their stocks of enhanced uranium which is necessary for it to create a bomb. The other problem I think too is how quickly these facilities might be

repaired. We don't know that yet because we really don't have -- been -- we haven't been briefed on damage assessment in detail.

And then I think again, as I mentioned before, there's always a possibility of "tactical assistance" from another country and that might ironically accelerate their move to a nuclear weapon. I think they would -- are going around the world now to their allies, particularly Russia but also China, and saying listen, unless we have a nuclear device, we will be subject to these airstrikes constantly. I don't know if that logic will work but I think they're going to try.

And then, of course, I think eventually they're going to have to mount some type of retaliation as a -- maybe just symbolic but it could be much more intensive than that.

And the question becomes what do we do, particularly if our forces or close allied forces are hit by the Iranians. Do we just stand back and say we're done? I don't -- I think that would be a difficult choice to make just to ignore attacks, particularly against our troops.

So we're in a very difficult and a very dangerous situation.

SIDNER: Senator Jack Reed, thank you so much for walking us through all of the scenarios that you see that are possible ahead. We will be in contact with you to get more information as you get these briefings. We are curious to hear what you learn as well -- John.

BERMAN: All right. New this morning the International Atomic Energy Agency is offering an updated assessment of the damage done in Iran's Fordow nuclear site. Its director saying, "...given the payload utilized and the extreme vibration sensitive nature of centrifuges, very significant damage is expected to have occurred."

This, though, as questions remain about whether the U.S. did damage to Iran's stockpile of already enriched nuclear material -- the enriched uranium. Even Vice President J.D. Vance says it's unclear what happened to all of that.

CNN's Zach Cohen is with us now on that and much more. What are you learning, Zach?

ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yeah, John, definitely still a lot of questions about the stockpile of already highly-enriched uranium, as Sen. Reed just mentioned, and whether the U.S. airstrikes did effectively destroy it.

And that is a key part of the weaponization process and one that U.S. officials are going to try to sort out in the next days and weeks. But it's really a challenge without U.S. boots or allied boots on the ground to get a fulsome answer to that. Still, we should know more in the coming days.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Dan Caine saying yesterday even after Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth declared that the program was completely destroyed, Caine taking a more sobered approach saying we need to be patient, and we need to wait and see what the facts bear out to be.

And look, one of the big questions too is the facility at Isfahan. That was the one facility that we're learning that these massive bunker-buster bombs -- the ones that are meant to penetrate deep underground, were not used. The other two facilities did get bunker buster bombs dropped on them by those B2 U.S. bombers.

Isfahan still remains more of an open question, and we've been told by multiple sources that even before the airstrikes Isfahan was expecting to be even more difficult to penetrate. They have underground facilities that are believed to be even deeper than those at the other facilities and potentially up to 60 percent of that enriched uranium stockpile could potentially be underground at the Isfahan facility.

The other possibility that U.S. officials are considering is whether that stockpile was moved before the strikes.

But J.D. Vance, the vice president, really offering or acknowledging this reality on Sunday talking to ABC. Take a listen to what he said when he was asked about whether the administration accomplished its objectives.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, (R) VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're going to work in the coming weeks to ensure that we do something with that fuel, and that's one of the things that we're going to have conversations with the Iranians about. But what we know, John, is they no longer have the capacity to turn that stockpile of highly enriched uranium to weapons-grade uranium, and that was really the goal here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: So despite the damage at these facilities though, as Sen. Reed just mentioned, Iran does have alternative ways potentially of escalating its nuclear program even after these strikes. We're going to have to wait and see though. The full battle of damage assessment could come out in the next few weeks.

BERMAN: All right, Zach Cohen. Thank you so much for that update -- Sara.

[07:45:00]

SIDNER: All right. While the world watches Iran, Ukraine is facing a major bombardment. This morning at least six people were killed after massive Russian drones and missile strikes on Kyiv. The strikes happened Sunday night into Monday according to Ukraine's emergency services. Hit sites included a residential high-rise building.

The Ukrainian Air Force said the attack included 11 ballistic missiles, five cruise missiles, and 352 drones.

It comes as talks of a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine have largely stalled. All right, a potential mass shooting stopped Sunday outside Crosspoint

Community Church near Detroit. The church's livestream -- you see it there capturing the moment that parishioners fled after hearing gunshots go off.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They've got to come. They've got to come. Come on!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on! Come on! Come on! Come on!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE; Go!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Parishioners say security guards struck the suspect with a truck which gave church security time to then shoot and kill the suspect.

About 150 people were inside at the time terrified, but only one person was injured.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NBA ANNOUNCER: For the first time, the NBA champion resides in Oklahoma City. The storybook season is complete.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: You heard it there, a first. This morning Oklahoma City is celebrating its first NBA title since the team moved from Seattle. One of the youngest teams in the league outlasted the Indiana Pacers in seven games.

Thunder fans packed the streets outside the Paycom Center in Oklahoma City last night after their team clinched the championship with a 103- 91 win over those Pacers.

All right. Ahead, did President Trump cross a legal line? The U.S. strikes on Iran sparking bipartisan backlash over the constitutionality and his war power authority. Those stories ahead.

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:51:23]

SIDNER: All right. We've just gotten some new video in to CNN showing the moment of impact of an Iranian strike near Ashdod, Israel this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (Speaking foreign language).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (Speaking foreign language). Iranian airstrike hits Ashdod, Israel.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whoa.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: You're seeing there on the side of the road and the response from those in the car.

Also this morning Israeli forces are hammering sites across Tehran. Our CNN team on the ground capturing huge clouds of smoke shrouding parts of the city. The Israeli military said its targets were the headquarters of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and other regime sites. They also claim to have hit airports and missile storage facilities earlier this morning.

Let's bring in Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus, a former IDF spokesperson and senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy. Thank you so much for joining us this morning.

First of all, Israel has really been concentrating over these many days on striking Iran's nuclear facilities and capabilities. That seemed to change this morning where Israel is striking government facilities and the regime's most feared enforcers.

Is this a change showing a signal that Israel is moving towards trying to create regime change in Iran?

LT. COL. JONATHAN CONRICUS (RET), FORMER IDF SPOKESMAN, SENIOR FELLOW, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY, CO-FOUNDER, BOTTOMLINE MEDIA (via Webex by Cisco): You could interpret that. Hello, and nice to be on the show. You could, indeed, interpret it in that way and I think it would make sense that is, indeed, what's happening.

But you could also interpret it as the Israeli government or the defense establishment signaling to the Iranians that if you continue to fire at Israel, which the Iranian regime has been doing, then Israel will escalate and we will higher the stakes for the Iranian regime, indicating that the first objective of dismantling Iran's nuclear weapons program is being dealt with an that things can escalate that would really threaten the regime unless the Iranian regime understands the severity of the situation that it is in and stops firing missiles at the Israeli civilians.

SIDNER: How is Israel now assessing -- I'm curious from you -- the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities where those bunker-buster bombs were used? How does Israel see what kind of damage might be there?

CONRICUS: Yeah. So Israeli intel -- they're working lockstep with American intel and is assessing as we speak. Of course, the more challenging location just physically to assess and really get updated verified technical BDA (battle damage assessment) is Fordow. And it's also the most important site very deeply underground and it will take time. And as I think also reported on CNN Israel conducted additional strikes at the Fordow location in order to limit access in and out of whatever it was there or wasn't there.

And I think the assessment is ongoing. I think the initial BDA, which is not yet final, is that the strikes were effective, but we'll have to be patient and wait for the final technical intel-based assessment. But it looks as if the strikes were very good and that a significant and perhaps crucial blow was delivered to Iran's nuclear weapons program.

[07:55:00]

SIDNER: The Trump administration says the goal is to get Iran back to the negotiating table.

Do you see Israel stopping its bombing campaign and its strikes if Iran agrees to come to the table with the United States and have direct talks?

CONRICUS: Yeah. I don't think, you know, Iranian willingness to come to the table will cut it because the Iranians come to the table a lot and then they negotiate. They're very good and skillful at negotiating. But then it's not really meaningful and doesn't bring about a good conclusion to events. It would rather serve Iranian purposes.

So I think the condition here would be for the Iranians to declare that yes, we are now giving up. First of all, to declare that it was all a hoax and it was all a lie, and that they were indeed pursuing a nuclear weapons program. I think that needs to be said by the Iranians. It's known by most countries around the world and acknowledged but that needs to be recognized.

And the second most important thing is that Iran understands that there will not be any enrichment on Iranian soil. If the Iranian regime says that and is willing to come and negotiate then I think Israel would have to based on U.S. directives to call it a day. I think that Israel would like to continue because Israelis are still threatened by Iranian ballistic missiles and Israel is still surrounded by terrorist organizations that the Iranian regime has paid for and supplied with weapons.

Those are two very important targets that Israel wants to achieve because Israel has been facing the brunt of Iranian aggression over the last 20-25 years. Now is the time and the opportunity for Israel to change that reality.

But I think bottom line, Israel will coordinate its steps -- continue to coordinate its steps according to U.S. interest and directives. And I don't see a situation where Israel will diverge from whatever the U.S. administration thinks is the best way forward for peace and stability and for positive things to happen in the region.

SIDNER: All right, we will wait and see.

Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus, thank you so much for your analysis there this morning -- John.

BERMAN: This morning some members of Congress are questioning whether President Trump had legal authority for these strikes on Iran.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): I learned about this strike last night on Twitter. I was a member of the Gang of Eight. You might think that for something this consequential we would be informed of any change in intelligence. And by the way, I mean, let's not lose sight of the fact that an offensive attack against a foreign nation is something that the Constitution reserves to the Congress of the United States. So bad enough that we weren't informed, but unconstitutional.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: With us now, Elie Honig, CNN senior legal analyst and former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.

For the purpose of this discussion, we'll establish there is what the law says and how many presidents have either obeyed or ignored the law -- much more the latter than the former.

But in terms of what the law actually says, Elie, there are two ways that a president can conduct military action by letter of the law, the Constitution or the War Powers Act of 1973.

What do those say?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: Right, John.

So let's start with the big constitutional principles. So as you just heard from Rep. Himes, and I think everyone knows this, Congress has the power to declare war formally. That's under Article 1, Section 8.

However, the president also does have some inherent constitutional military powers. He is, of course, the commander in chief. And it's long been recognized and accepted by legal scholars and by politicians on both sides of the aisle that the president does have inherent constitutional authority to use the military to protect American interests against imminent attacks.

So as we often wind up within the Constitution, we have split powers. Where that line is though has long been the subject of debate.

Now, on to the War Powers resolution. In 1973, Congress tried to define that line. This was during the Vietnam era. They passed this law -- actually, President Nixon vetoed it and then Congress overrode the veto.

And what the War Powers resolution says is if the president uses military force, first he has to notify Congress within 48 hours, which was done here. And second, he can only continue that military use for 60 days, or 90 days if he requests an extension, if there is a formal declaration of war or if Congress has specifically authorized it.

And so we end up in this sort of gray area John about what exactly has Congress or will Congress authorize.

BERMAN: And, of course, the AUMF, Authorization of the Use of Military Force -- for a long time, U.S. presidents used the one from the -- from after 9/11 to justify actions taken after that.

Could that apply here?

HONIG: Yeah. Yeah. We may see it used again.

So the last time Congress formally declared war -- capital "W" war -- was in 1942 at World War II. Since then Congress has used these AUMFs -- Authorization of the Use of Military Force. There was one in 1991 relating to Iraq and Saddam Hussein, and then there were two, as you allude to John, after 9/11.