Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Discrepancy over the Administration's Iran Statements; Bipartisan Group Pushes for War Powers Resolution; Trump Watching Oil. Aired 9:30-10a ET

Aired June 23, 2025 - 09:30   ET

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

[09:30:00]

MICHAEL ALLEN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, BEACON GLOBAL STRATEGIES:: So, what I think the -- what we can do here is sort of parse to -- parse out these two different statements. I think the president is expressing a preference for a regime change, but it's not the policy of the United States per se. In other words, we aren't putting ground forces in. We aren't actively trying to assist different groups within Iran in their quest to overthrow the particular government here.

So, I kind of segment this out a little bit. I think everyone agrees that if the Iranian regime will fall, it should be a bottom up movement. It should be the people that decide that they want a new government, not for the United States. Although I -- I admit, you know, to be talking about it is a little bit confusing, but I think that's the way you might differentiate between, hey, I would love for this to happen but it's not our policy per se.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you so much, Michael Allen and Lieutenant General Dave Deptula, for your expertise this morning. Really, really appreciate it.

All right, ahead, U.S. markets opening now. Investors are bracing for Iran's decision on whether it will close the Strait of Hormuz, which could have devastating impacts for the world's oil supply. It looks like Dow, Nasdaq and S&P 500 all down just a bit.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:35:29]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, this morning, international nuclear watchdogs say it is too soon to know the extent of the damage inflicted on Iranian nuclear facilities by the U.S. strikes. The White House, though, is claiming they were, quote, "totally obliterated." This is what the press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, just said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We are confident, yes, that Iran's nuclear sites were completely and totally obliterated, as the president said in his address to the nation on Saturday night. And we have a high degree of confidence that where those strikes took place is where Iran's enriched uranium was stored. The president wouldn't have launched the strikes if we weren't confident in that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: With us now, CNN political commentator Paul Begala and Republican strategist Melik Abdul.

Melik, let me just first ask you because there seems to be this discrepancy. J.D. Vance, the vice president, says no regime change and we're going to try to find out where that enriched uranium is. Today, the White House press secretary says, well, you know, the president did suggest maybe regime change, but he was just asking questions., and we did destroy the enriched uranium. Why the discrepancy there?

MELIK ABDUL, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I think this is probably Karoline Leavitt trying to catch up probably with Donald Trump at this point. As you said, and it was a great introduction here, we don't know the extent of the actual damage, but Donald Trump has already articulated that it is -- it was the biggest, it was the boldest. This is what Donald Trump does. And I guess from Karoline Leavitt's perspective, she's just probably trying to tow that line.

But we really don't know the extent of the damage at this point. But the fact that J.D. Vance is saying something maybe a little different, I think probably the truth is closer to what J.D. Vance is saying, as opposed to in a total obliteration, because, again, we don't know.

BERMAN: And I will say, we also heard from the chair of the Joint Chiefs, General Dan Caine, who was really clinical in how he laid out the assessment there and said, we're just going to have to wait and see, Paul, what the damage is there. He was giving all the information.

I want to shift gears to the politics of all this, because Democrats are saying Congress should have been consulted. Congress should have voted here. And Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York said even more than that. He said the -- she said, "the president's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and congressional war powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment."

PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I know we got a heat wave on, but I think Congresswoman. Ocasio-Cortez, a little over her water ski tips here, OK. Come on.

Politically -- so, constitutionally, I think it is the right thing to do to go to Congress because Congress is supposed to be declaring war. Set that aside.

Politically, it would have been really brilliant for Trump to come to Congress because then he -- if you want them on the landing, you got to have them on the takeoff, you know? But now this is his deal. This is -- remember Colin Powell's Pottery Barn rule, you bomb it, you own it. So, he owns every aspect of this.

And nobody wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. But nobody's sure that he has stopped them from doing that anyway. Now, Dmitri Medvedev, the former Russian president, is saying, well, other countries, meaning Russia, could give Iran, just give them a nuclear warhead. Now, that may be baloney, too. But he's going to own all of this. He's going to own the homeland security of this, which he has diverted resources away from counterterrorism, away from intelligence, away from homeland security, all toward deportation. ProPublica did a story about some guy running one of the most important counterterrorism operations, 22- year-old kid straight out of the grocery store and mowing lawns. He fired a guy who had 20 years' experience in the Army in counterterrorism.

So, we are really vulnerable. We're vulnerable because of Mr. Trump. And -- and he owns this entirely because he didn't get Congress on board with him.

BERMAN: What if it works?

BEGALA: God bless him. Then, that's great. Nobody wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Nobody. I mean, nobody. But he needs to make the case that it was the last option, the only option, and that it worked, and that he has now postured us to defend ourselves. And I know he has not done that.

BERMAN: You know --

BEGALA: He is running around deporting people at Home Depot instead of engaging in counterterrorism in -- on the homeland.

BERMAN: You know, and really Paul brings up an interesting point here, which a lot of people writing in the last few days have said, which is that President Trump never even really tried to make the case to the American people that this is a threat, that Iran is a threat now, that these nuclear facilities are a threat today. There is imminence, which does carry legal weight to the nuclear threat there. It's a departure from what we heard -- certainly a departure from what we heard in 2002 from the George W. Bush administration when trying to justify the invasion of Iraq.

[09:40:02]

But it was a little bit different. He's just saying, I decided we needed to do it, but he didn't quite explain the why behind it. What do you think of that?

ABDUL: I think that there's valid criticism to be made about Donald Trump not doing the, you know, traditional Oval Office address when we're getting ready to engage in some type of military conflict. But let's be clear here, what Donald Trump did, at least as far as what it seems to be at this point, it did damage Iran's nuclear capabilities. And at the end of the day, the majority of the American people, and as you were just saying, people support the notion of Iran not being able to have nuclear weapons. And that is what Donald Trump was focused on.

So, I don't think that it is a -- I don't think it is even, you know, even though you can criticize Donald Trump for not coming before the American people, as you have pointed out, the American people is on board with the idea that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. And if you look at some of the polls, even some of the polling suggesting that a majority or maybe a plurality of Americans believe that even attacking Iran was appropriate here.

So, yes, there's a way that you can go about the scalpel versus the sledgehammer approach. But what Donald Trump did here, and even keeping it under wraps for as long as he did, we have to talk about the military operation and the Yeoman's work that many people in the intelligence community did to make sure, not only that we carried out the operation successfully, but we got our boys back without being touched. That's an important thing.

BERMAN: Paul, just very quickly, two things can be true. Number one, the law can be pretty clear about when the president can use military action, and when Congress needs to approve, but also that presidents for decades have ignored it and it largely goes unresponded to at this point.

What about the politics of Democrats pushing for it? Is there anything to gain for them at this point by, you know, yelling and screaming, hey, you should have contacted us, hey, we need to vote on this?

BEGALA: Well, yes, they're sending a signal. They're going to win the House, OK. Mark it.

BERMAN: Yes, (INAUDIBLE).

BEGALA: It's 500 and some odd days away but -- but -- but Trump is handing the House to the Democrats. And they're going to stand up and say, this is what we need in this country. We need checks and balances. This man is unchecked and unbalanced. I don't know if you saw this morning, but apparently Donald Rumsfeld hacked his Twitter account from the grave because now he's talking about regime change. I think Malik makes a good point, it starts -- OK, nobody wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And then he's musing about killing the ayatollah. Now he's talking about regime change. Pretty soon it's going to be, invade, conquer and occupy and nation building. And, you know, shock and awe can turn into an awful quagmire very quickly. And -- and that's what the American people don't want.

BERMAN: Paul Begala, Malik -- Malik Abdul, thank you both very, very much.

So, the markets just opened on Wall Street. And if you were expecting a big, huge reaction for the significant military action over the weekend, not so much. The markets pretty flat this morning, taking it in stride. Why? That's ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:47:17]

SIDNER: A bipartisan group of House lawmakers could force a vote this week on a resolution to limit President Trump's ability to carry out more military strikes. While many Republicans praised the -- the president, a growing number of critics have called the strikes unconstitutional and accused Trump of skirting or even breaking the law.

CNN's Lauren Fox joining us now from Capitol Hill.

What do you know about this War Powers Resolution and whether or not its going to mean anything or go any further?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean last week, before this action was even taken on Iran's nuclear facilities, you had a group of bipartisan lawmakers who had put forward and introduced resolutions to limit Donald Trump's power to act in Iran without coming to Congress first. Now, obviously, there is broader concern about the U.S. getting drawn into more of an escalated conflict in the Middle East.

So, the question becomes, will these members try to force this vote this week? That is certainly a possibility. Representative Thomas Massie made clear yesterday that is something that he is eyeing in the House of Representatives.

And Senator Tim Kaine said this about his own resolution yesterday in the Senate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TIM KAINE (D-VA): We will have Republican votes. How many, I don't know.

We're going to have the briefing this week. We'll have a vote. I know many Republicans will fall in line and say a president can do whatever he wants. But I hope members of the Senate and the House will take their Article One responsibility seriously and say, you didn't even notify us, much less get an authorization. The U.S. should not be at war without a vote of Congress.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOX: And what he's referring there is there were some members on the Democratic side in the Gang of Eight who say that they were not notified ahead of these strikes.

There's also some Republicans who are warning that if Donald Trump does escalate this fight, people like Senator Lisa Murkowski, that they do need to come to Congress for permission. She tweeted, "Congress alone holds the constitutional power to authorize war."

Sara.

SIDNER: Lauren Fox, thank you so much for that reporting. We'll see what happens there on The Hill.

Also new this morning, ahead, the White House spokesperson now responding to Trump's Truth Social post trying to clarify the president's suggestion there should be regime change in Iran. We have the latest developments coming from the White House this morning. That's ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:54:07]

BERMAN: All right, the markets opened a short time ago. And let's revel, there you can see, the markets up a little bit. I mean pretty much flat. But the fact there's any green at all is remarkable, giving the amount of global turmoil there is right now. The market collectively shrugging its shoulders.

We will note that President Trump posted on Truth Social a short time ago, "everyone, keep oil prices down." I'm emphasizing because it's in all caps. "I'm watching. You're playing right into the hands of the enemy. Don't do it."

Also, "to the Department of Energy: drill, baby, drill. And I mean now."

CNN's Matt Egan is here.

What do you see in all this, Matt?

MATT EGAN, CNN REPORTER: Well, John, investors are incredibly calm about this very alarming situation in the Middle East.

BERMAN: Yes.

EGAN: I mean if you would have told me a few weeks ago that the U.S. would be striking Iran, I would imagined oil prices would be way up, stocks way down. And we did see that last night, but just briefly, when oil prices spiked as much as 6 percent.

[09:55:04]

We take a peek at where things are now. Oil prices are up, but only barely given the magnitude of what just happened.

And this is good news, the fact that oil prices are pretty chill here. I think that is really good news because a spike would raise gas prices for everyone. It would be another inflationary shock for this economy. I think investors are relieved that even though Iran has threatened to retaliate, we have not actually seen that yet.

The big fear, though, is that Iran ends up attacking U.S. military assets and/or energy infrastructure in the region. The nightmare, of course, is the Strait of Hormuz, right? This is the most critical choke point for oil on the planet every single day, 20 million barrels of crude flows through the Strait of Hormuz. Analysts have said that if Iran somehow shut the flow of oil there, you could see gas prices go to four. $4,00, $4.50 a gallon, maybe even higher.

And the White House is signaling they're watching this very closely. The press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, she said that she can assure you the administration is actively and closely monitoring the Strait of Hormuz. And she said the Iranian regime would be foolish to take action here. But I would just note, though, that the prediction markets, they're

signaling this is still a possibility. There's about a 20 -- I'm sorry, a 40 percent chance priced in on polymarket (ph) that Iran does try to actually close the Strait of Hormuz this year.

BERMAN: I will say that green though you see in the market today, that's a bet by investors that Iran may not take severe action.

EGAN: Yes.

BERMAN: But we'll see.

Thank you, Matt Egan. Great to see you for the grand finale of the show today.

EGAN: Thank you, guys.

SIDNER: Thank you, Matt. Appreciate it.

And thank you. Thank you, John, for being here.

BERMAN: Thank you.

SIDNER: And thank you for watching us. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL. "THE SITUATION ROOM" is up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)