Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

DHS Warns Iran May Target Officials; Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) is Interviewed about the Ceasefire; U.S. View of Airstrikes on Iran; Trump Lashes Out. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired June 24, 2025 - 08:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:30:58]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: New this morning, President Trump says Iran will never be able to rebuild its nuclear program again following the U.S. strikes over the weekend. That remark comes as two U.S. agencies are issuing new warnings, though, that Iran could now try to target Americans in retaliation for the U.S. operation. A bulletin from the Department of Homeland Security says that Iran could try to, quote/unquote, "target U.S. government officials if Iranian leaders believe the stability or survivability of the regime is at risk." That's according to the new -- the new DHS bulletin obtained by CNN.

And also in an internal email, the FBI is putting out a new warning, according to "The New York Times." I'll read their reporting in part. "They urged field offices to monitor their collection platforms and stay in close contact with the Defense Department, including the National Guard, who may be targeted for retaliation, while specific attention should be paid to U.S. military facilities connected to the strikes in Iran."

Joining us right now on what this threat now is -- what this new threat now may pose is CNN's senior law enforcement analyst, former deputy director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe.

Andy, thank you for jumping on this morning.

What do these bulletins do? What do they trigger among DHS, FBI and law enforcement across the country?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Sure, Kate.

So, part of the job of the FBI's counterterrorism program is to monitor events around the globe and try to understand which of those events might inspire others to act out violently here in the homeland. So, what you're seeing with the bulletins is the first step of that process, basically putting all of the law enforcement community, state, local, tribal authorities on notice of this new elevated threat.

And right now, I would expect, I remember this from going through these experiences many times during my tenure running the counterterrorism division, they are running at a very high level of readiness and alert because the expression of national power, in terms of the U.S. operation to take out the nuclear facilities in Iran, is exactly the kind of event that could inspire retaliatory acts here in the United States. Everything from trained, directed official operatives from the Iranian government, all the way down the scale to people who are simply supporters of the Iranian regime and may be, you know, motivated to act out in retaliation.

BOLDUAN: CNN also has this reporting, Andy, that the FBI is in the process of temporarily scaling back the number of agents that it has assigned to assist with the Trump administration's nationwide immigration enforcement efforts in order to ensure agents are adequately focusing on any potential threats to the homeland that may result, as we're discussing here. Is that unusual to see a shift in resources like this?

MCCABE: Kate, what's -- what was unusual is -- was to see a shift of resources away from counterterrorism issues to assist in immigration stuff, right? The job of counterterrorism is to prevent every act of terrorism. And the, you know, the home team has to be right all the time. The terrorists only have to get it right every once in a while. So, to take those precious, highly trained, selective counterterrorism resources and start directing them towards immigration, you're really taking your eye off the ball.

One of the things that the FBI has to be doing right now is going backwards and looking at every subject of every investigation, closed or open, who had any sorts of connections to the government of Iran. All of those cases have to be rescrubbed. All of the informants that were feeding those cases have to be regenerated. They've got to start collecting current intelligence on what any of those people might be doing now, making assessments as to who among that group might be motivated or likely to engage in some sort of terrorist activity, whether that's planning or supporting, moving materials or actually engaging in operation.

[08:35:08]

So, that is a massive effort that has to look back over years and decades of counterterrorism work. They absolutely need all of their terrorism resources doing that right now.

BOLDUAN: The -- the -- the DHS bulletin also, and I'll read this to you in part because I found this is another important aspect of this is, "in the short-term, we are most concerned that Iran-aligned hacktivists will conduct low-level cyberattacks against U.S. networks, including distributed denial-of-service attacks. And we are also concerned about cyber or physical attacks against critical infrastructure in the homeland."

I have also seen, Andy, some security analysts point out that Iran has mixed results in terms of being able to pull off really disruptive cyberattacks and often exaggerate their effects. How real do you see this as a threat?

MCCABE: The existence of the threat is absolutely real, right? The severity of the threat is where we start to kind of parse out how serious it is. So, the Iranian cyber campaigns have never quite reached the level of sophistication and -- and potential devastation of those of Russia and China. However, they have improved massively over the last decade.

And we know that they continue to invest in the people and the resources needed to pull that stuff off. As recently as 2022, DOJ was indicting hack -- Iranian-based hackers for attacking critical infrastructure, health care, transportation, all those sorts of things. So, will they try it? Absolutely they'll try it. They did it at the beginning of the U.S. support to Ukraine. Not so successfully. But the thing about cyber is, you never know that -- you can't judge the next attack by the one that happened a few years ago.

Cyberattacks are cheap. They're easy. They can be staged from within Iran. You don't put people and resources at risk in the same way you would to send terrorist operatives overseas. So, it is just one -- probably the easiest way for the government of Iran to strike back. And so you can -- you can guess they'll try it.

BOLDUAN: Yes. It's great to see you, Andy. Thank you so much for coming on.

MCCABE: Thanks.

BOLDUAN: We're going to continue following the breaking news this morning. And there's a lot of it.

President Trump heading over to the NATO summit in the Netherlands right now. Also speaking with reporters aboard Air Force One. This is after he fumed to reporters while he was leaving the White House, lashing out against both Israel and Iran, as he said, for both of them violating the ceasefire. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:41:43]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, we do have some breaking news just in. CNN has confirmed that Israel did strike a target inside Iran after the ceasefire took effect. Israel saying it hit a radar installation after the ceasefire took effect. Again, isn't necessarily seen as something that will destabilize the situation in the conversation that President Trump had with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister. Apparently, the prime minister made clear that Israel will not strike again, or has refrained from any more strikes after that.

But now we do have confirmation that both sides have at least launched some military activity since the ceasefire was supposed to have taken effect. What happens next I guess remains to be seen.

With us now is Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat from the state of New Hampshire. She is in the Netherlands ahead of this NATO summit.

Senator, thank you so much for being with us. The president, on his way to where you are right now.

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-NH): Nice to be with you.

BERMAN: Just, what's your reaction to the current situation we have here, this fragile ceasefire, though each side taking some shots since it went into effect.

SHAHEEN: Well, I think it's good news that both Israel and Iran seem to say that they're going to stop hostilities and they're going to go back to the ceasefire that they agreed to. That's in their interest, and it's in the interest of the 40,000 American service members who are in the region and all of those Americans who are in the region. We want to see hostilities end, and hopefully the ceasefire will be the start of that.

BERMAN: What has been accomplished, in your mind, in the last 12 days?

SHAHEEN: I think we would all agree that it is not in America's interest or the world's interest to see Iran get a nuclear weapon. That's -- that's the goal of the airstrikes that President Trump enlisted the United States in. We don't know at this point how much Iran's nuclear program has been set back. Hopefully, it has been, if not eliminated, at least set back significantly in a way that will allow for some negotiations to address that.

So, I think, if that happens, that's positive. If we can get a ceasefire, that's positive. I'm disappointed that President Trump didn't engage with Congress before he took this action. I think that would have been helpful so that we could see and engage with the administration on what should come next. But, at this point, we'll have to wait and see.

BERMAN: You say a positive. So, do you think the U.S. is safer today than it was two weeks ago?

SHAHEEN: I think preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon makes the United States safer. Absolutely. We know that Iran has been a promoter of terrorist activities across the Middle East. Whether that's been Hamas or Hezbollah or the Houthis. We know that they have threatened Americans and officials in the United States with assassination.

[08:45:01]

So, I think they have been a threat. And I don't want to see them get a nuclear weapon. And not only use that in a way that would be harmful to Americans, but set off a nuclear arms race across the Middle East in a way that would be devastating.

BERMAN: So, another way of asking that is how necessary was this action, both by the Israelis and by the United States at this time?

SHAHEEN: Well, unfortunately, one of the -- the things that we've heard from the administration has been inconsistent messaging about what's happening in the Middle East. We heard the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, say that there was not a threat of an immediate nuclear weapon on Iran's part. We heard the president say that was not the case. He didn't agree with that. So, we're not -- we're not sure at this point what the intel says. Again, another reason why I think a briefing of Congress would have been very helpful.

We've also heard inconsistent messaging about whether the goal was to eliminate the nuclear weapons program, or to have regime change in Iran. I think we would all agree with eliminating the nuclear weapons program, or at least setting it back dramatically. Regime change is another issue that I think raises real questions about what comes next.

BERMAN: There are questions about the continued presence of enriched uranium inside Iran, and whether or not that has been destroyed or degraded. What concerns do you have there?

SHAHEEN: That we don't know yet, and we probably won't for some time. It would be helpful to have IAEA inspectors on the ground who could help us determine that. Obviously, we'll have intelligence, we'll have satellite imagery that can provide us some insights. But right now we don't know exactly what the impact of those airstrikes were. Again, hopefully it is to, if not eliminate, set back Iran's nuclear program dramatically to allow for negotiations. And I hope that Iran will ultimately come back to the negotiating table.

BERMAN: You may learn before we do. You're in The Hague right now for these NATO meetings. I imagine a lot of discussions between some nations will take place there.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen from New Hampshire, we appreciate your time this morning. Thank you very much.

All right, the breaking news, we've been following this all morning and it keeps on changing. A source tells CNN that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is refraining from additional strikes on Iran after the president had what they're calling an exceptionally firm and direct call with him. Although we have learned now that there was an Israeli strike after the ceasefire went into effect. Much more with us. Our breaking news continues after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:52:04]

BERMAN: All right, how fast are things moving this morning? We've got a brand new poll on opinions of the U.S. airstrikes on Iran. But since then, a ceasefire went into effect. Still, a lot of telling information inside.

CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten is with us this morning.

So, what are the opinions on the strikes?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Yes, these things are moving quite quickly, but these are initial readings. And I will say, from a historical perspective, I am surprised that the net approval rating is so low on these strikes. And it's in two different polls. It's our CNN/SSRS poll. Twelve points underwater. One thumbs down. How about the Reuters/Ipsos poll? Look at that. The exact same readings, minus nine points underwater. Two thumbs down.

And why am I so surprised from an historical perspective? Because usually airstrikes rank fairly highly. What are we talking about?

Let's go back through the time machine. Net approval of U.S. airstrikes. You see it here. Iran, minus 11 points underwater on the average. Compare it to ISIS back in 2014, 58 points in the positive direction. So, this is a nearly 70-point difference. That is why I'm so surprised, from an historical perspective, because normally these airstrikes rate quite highly. But this one, you go back through history, it rates as the lowest that I could possibly find on the historical record.

BERMAN: And military action often popular at the beginning at least, which is, of course, what this is.

How about Republican opinion on this?

ENTEN: Yes, you know, I think there's this idea, OK, maybe the MAGA base wouldn't necessarily like this. Look, this is Donald Trump's Republican Party. That's what I think is so important to note. GOP on the U.S. airstrikes in Iran, 76 percent in the average of the two polls approved, compared to just 18 percent who disapprove. Now, I will note that is a bit higher than Donald Trump's disapproval rating within the Republican Party. But overall, Republicans are with Donald Trump on this. Tucker Carlson be darned. The bottom line is, he does not speak for the majority of the Republican base. The majority of the Republican base is with Donald Trump.

BERMAN: Needless to say, all this could change depending on whether the ceasefire holds or not. It could become more popular if the ceasefire holds, less popular if it doesn't, but that's where we are right now.

ENTEN: But that's where we are. Initial readings are, from an historical perspective, this is quite unpopular.

BERMAN: Harry Enten, thank you very much.

ENTEN: Thank you, John.

BERMAN: Kate.

BOLDUAN: All right, joining us right now is Lee Carter, strategic communications expert, former Republican strategist and pollster. And also with us, Van Jones, CNN's senior political commentator and former Obama administration official.

Guys, thank you so much for being here.

Lee, what is your take on this new CNN polling coming out this morning? Broadly, Americans disapprove of the U.S. strike, but Republicans behind him.

LEE CARTER, STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS EXPERT: So, from a historical perspective, I agree, it's -- it's -- it's actually really surprising how negative the polling is. But from where we are right now, we're such a divided country that it's -- this reflects exactly what the polling says. If you support the president, you support what he did. If you oppose the president, you oppose what he did.

I think the other thing about this poll that's remarkable is it doesn't capture the not sures. I think there's a lot of people who say, OK, I approve of it, but I'm waiting to see what the output's going to be. Those disapprove it say, I'm really scared that this isn't going to result in peace, and I'm worried about what's going to happen here on American soil. So, I think there's a lot of people out there that are saying, let's wait and see that's not reflected in this poll.

[08:55:01]

And I think we're going to see that in the coming days for sure.

BOLDUAN: Well, and there's also just plain old uncertainty of where things stand minute to minute.

CARTER: (INAUDIBLE).

BOLDUAN: I mean just since the beginning of the show this morning. And what happened as we came to air this morning was President Trump furious and fuming to reporters as he was leaving the White House? He wanted a ceasefire in place. He wants it in place. He wants this done. And any -- it seems anything short of him being able to go to NATO with saying either progress or take a victory lap, in his view, is not acceptable.

How fraught is this moment, do you think, for him, given what is playing out, the uncertainty of it, and the polling that we're seeing?

VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, you know, Trump wants to be the puppet master and the controller of everything, but you can't control Bibi Netanyahu. You cannot control the Iranian regime. You can't control Putin. And it just turns out that being president of the United States, not being king of the universe or, you know, God, emperor of all reality. And so, he's going to have to deal with that.

I do want to point out, though, that, you know, the difference between ISIS and Iran is ISIS did not have a PR budget. Iran is doing a remarkable job of shaping public perception online. If you look at -- if you look at TikTok, they are presenting themselves as a victim, a party that had a deal with America, that America tore up the deal. And they've been trying to get along. And now they're being bullied. And that is being very effective.

And so, ISIS had no PR budget. They were just chopping heads off. And people could see what they are -- what -- they could see ISIS for what it is. People are having a hard time seeing Iran for what it is, which is a brutal, horrific dictatorship that, you know, kills gays, that blinds women, and that has had a whole circling campaign around Israel of -- of people firing rockets and killing people. So, Iran's public image is very different than ISIS.

BOLDUAN: And this is something that you spoke to this weekend before, I mean it was pretty prescient, where -- that you said this weekend before this -- the U.S. operation occurred. Do you think -- do you see that as what is driving the Democratic divide on this?

JONES: Well, look, I think, first of all, a lot of Democrats are very frustrated with Israel and its conduct in Gaza. That shapes a lot of opinion. They're reflexively anti-Bibi Netanyahu, reflexively anti- Trump. So, the Democrats are not going to be supportive in general, just reflexively.

And the Constitution was violated. Though (ph) presidents keep violating the Constitution, bombing people with no -- with no permission. But I do think that we've got to do a better job of making people understand, the bully and the bad guy in that region is Iran. Israel makes mistakes, does things I don't like, but Israel is -- does not have terror proxies around Iran raping people and sending in rockets and -- but -- but that -- that PR battle is being lost, I think, by Israel and, online, social media, won by Iran.

BOLDUAN: I want to play something -- Republican Congressman Carlos Gimenez was on with us just last hour. He 100 percent supports the president's move -- President Trump's move here. But he also, he thinks, and he has previously called for regime change in Iran, he thinks there needs to be more still.

Let me play this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. CARLOS GIMENEZ (R-FL): I support 100 percent what the president has done. All right, I do. But, you know, looking to -- at the future, you know, maybe, maybe we're going to be facing a stronger Iran, you know, four or five years from now.

When they find themselves down, they want to negotiate, give me some room and now I'll come back. I'll go back to the gym, get stronger, and then we'll go at it again when I think I can beat you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: I mean his point is, I mean, he's saying, in four to five years Iran could come back stronger. That is not a message you're going to want to -- the president is going to want to hear. I mean, how -- it seems at odds with the message coming from the president that Iran's nuclear program has been obliterated and will never be -- never exist again. How do you see -- what is the divide amongst Republicans here?

CARTER: Well, I think most Republicans support what the president and the military carried out this -- this weekend. I think you saw in that CNN poll, 82 percent of Republicans are supporting the action. And I think there's a divide in the party about how long and how far we need to go.

BOLDUAN: Definitely.

CARTER: I mean everybody is against the forever wars. Whenever you hear anybody talking about regime change, that indicates that this is going to be a long-term -- a long-term entanglement. And that's not what Republicans are after. What Republicans want is a surgical strike here to say, let's get in and let's get out.

The question is, how far did we go? What really was accomplished? And I think there are some people who look at it and say, the nuclear program was absolutely obliterated. And then there are some who are still saying, let's wait and see. Did anything get out before the strike happened?

BOLDUAN: Yes.

CARTER: And so there's still very much of a wait and see. This just happened on Saturday.

BOLDUAN: And the wait and see could take time. I mean no matter how it must be -- continue to be covered and reported on accurately, and that will continue. But just the assessment of what actually happened, what actually was moved beforehand.

JONES: Yes, we know (ph).

BOLDUAN: We -- it is not known. And it seems very clear, from how J.D. Vance has kind of deflected on that question overnight, that the administration doesn't know and isn't saying.

JONES: Right.

BOLDUAN: Lindsey Graham posted something this morning. Let me read this for you, Van. He wrote, "a simple question for the Iranian regime: is it still your policy to destroy the state of Israel and refuse to acknowledge its right to exist?

[09:00:04]

A ceasefire that leads to peace is wonderful.