Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Says Iran's Nuclear Sites Were Obliterated by the Strike; Israel Says Iran's Nuclear Program Suffered Systemic Damage, Was Set Back Years; U.S. Will Meet With Iran Next Week but Trump Says He Doesn't Believe Nuclear Deal is That Necessary. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired June 25, 2025 - 14:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:56]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": President Trump says the strikes on Iran were so successful, a nuclear deal with Iran may not be necessary. He says talks with Iran are set for next week on a potential agreement.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": Plus, we have lift off, a private astronaut mission taking flight after exposing a new twist in a lingering issue at the International Space Station. We'll explain in just moments. Also ahead, CNN exclusive reporting how the Trump Administration is planning to speed up deportations by targeting asylum claims. We're following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to "CNN News Central."

KEILAR: This hour, President Trump is heading back to Washington after making major news on Iran. Just before leaving the NATO Summit, the president saying the U.S. will be meeting with Iran next week, suggesting a nuclear deal with Tehran though may no longer be necessary. The president then repeatedly continued to push back against a leaked Intel report that suggested Iran's nuclear sites may not have actually been obliterated as the president has claimed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The document said it could be very severe damage, but they didn't take that. They said it could be limited or it could be very severe.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there any indication from U.S. Intelligence that Iran was able to move any material including enriched uranium?

TRUMP: No, just the opposite. We think we hit him so hard and so fast they didn't get to move. And if you knew about that material, it's very hard and very dangerous to move.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: President Trump also repeating today that he thinks the fighting between Israel and Iran is over, adding that he believes the war ended when the U.S. struck Iran's nuclear sites. The president though did acknowledge there are some doubts. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: They're both tired, exhausted. They fought very, very hard and very viciously, very violently. And they were both satisfied to go home and get out. And can it start again? I guess, someday it can, it could maybe start soon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: We go to the Netherlands now where the president just left the NATO Summit. Kevin Liptak there for us. Kevin, what more did the president say about the end game for this Israel-Iran conflict?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah, and this was so interesting, amid all of the bombast from the president about that intelligence report, and he did bring it up at every appearance he made here today. It was his comments about where he sees this conflict going forward that I think were so interesting. The president has said before, after these strikes on Iran, that he hoped that it would prompt a new round of diplomacy to try and ease tensions in the Middle East. And we know that there has been back channels between the U.S. and the Iranians, including through the president Special Envoy Steve Witkoff.

But now the president is providing a little more details about where he sees this heading. He doesn't sound particularly enthusiastic about re-engaging Iran in these talks, but he does say that now, a meeting is on the books. Listen to the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We're going to talk to them next week, with Iran. We may sign an agreement. I don't know. To me, I don't think it's that necessary. I mean, they had a war, they fought, now they're going back to their world. I don't care if I have an agreement or not. We -- the only thing we'd be asking for is what we were asking for before about, we want no nuclear, but we destroyed the nuclear.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIPTAK: So, a few things in that comment from the president, one is on this meeting. We don't know exactly what the format these talks will take, whether they are director, whether they are indirect. You remember, before Israel began its campaign in Iran earlier this month, the U.S. and the Iran had been holding periodic, meetings talking about the nuclear program. Those had been mediated through Oman, the Gulf State. It's not clear if the Omanis will again act as the mediators here.

[14:05:00]

President Trump has expressed his preference for direct talks with the Iranians. You also hear the president say he doesn't know that a written agreement will be necessary as part of all of this. If you talk to officials who are involved in some of these discussions, they don't think that Iran will essentially say, yes, we'll agree to a handshake agreement and that's it. They do want some sort of written down pact along the lines of what was being discussed before all of this began, which includes the U.S. provision that Iran not enrich uranium. And that at the end of the day, I think is still going to be the red line in all of this.

Iran has insisted that it be able to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. The U.S. President Trump, you heard him there in that soundbite, say that that's not something he's willing to agree to. And so, you do see how these two sides are still somewhat far apart in all of this. But now, it's clear that the diplomacy is getting underway. And that's exactly what the President, I think, wants to see how this is all resolved, very eager to see a diplomatic resolution. The president, of course, has called himself a peacemaker. He's openly pined for a Nobel Peace Prize. And certainly in all of this, I think he has a diplomatic agreement in his sights as a way that this all ends.

SANCHEZ: Kevin Liptak live for us in the Netherlands. Thank you so much. Let's now go to CNN's Natasha Bertrand live from the Pentagon for us. Natasha, your sources read the Pentagon intelligence arm, the DIA's initial assessment of the damage to Iran's nuclear sites. It does leave open the possibility that there could be more information that's obtained that might alter the assessment. Right? It also says that it's possible that Iran may have shifted some of its enriched uranium ahead of time.

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, absolutely. Boris. As we've reported from the very beginning, this is just a preliminary early intelligence assessment that was produced by one intelligence agency out of 17. And it is not the consensus at this point of the entire intelligence community because it is early and the battle damage assessments and the intelligence collection are ongoing. But in this snapshot from the IC that we're seeing, which came from the Defense Intelligence Agency, what they have assessed is that as of right now, given the pictures that they're looking at, given what they are seeing and given their experience conducting these kinds of battle damage assessments, they believe that the strikes appear to have only set back Iran's nuclear program by several months.

Now, it did leave open the possibility, of course, that the sites were severely damaged by these bombs. But my sources and our sources in coordination with my colleagues, Katie Bo Lilli and Zach Cohen, told us that the most severe damage appears to have been restricted to those above-ground facilities. Things like power infrastructure appear to have been very severely damaged. Things like facilities that are used to turn uranium into metal for bomb making, which is a very important aspect, of course, those were severely damaged, according to this assessment.

But the question remains of how much damage was done to those underground facilities. And the assessment, for now, says that it is still unclear. However, there is not a lot of signs at this point that those underground facilities were completely knocked out. And so that leaves open the possibility, of course, that some of the centrifuges are intact. The enriched uranium, we're also told, according to this assessment, appears to have been moved out of these facilities before they were struck. And so, again, a very early look at what the intelligence community is seeing, but by no means is it conclusive, Boris.

KEILAR: All right, Natasha, thank you so much for that. We are joined now by the author of "Nuclear Nightmares: Securing the World Before It Is Too Late." National Security Analyst, Joe Cirincione is with us here. And I did just get actually this alert that I want to talk to you about first here, Joe, Israel is saying that Iran's nuclear program suffered systemic damage and that it was set back years. This is Israel's military chief of staff saying this, and let me just read a little bit here.

According to the assessment of senior officials in the IDF Intelligence Directorate, the damage to the nuclear program is not a pinpoint strike, but a systemic one. The cumulative achievement allows us to determine that Iran's nuclear project sustained severe, broad and deep damage, and has been set back by years. What do you think of that? And we have to explain that I think overshadowing all of this is sort of a politicization --

JOSEPH CIRINCIONE, NATIONAL SECURITY AND NUCLEAR POLICY ANALYST: Absolutely.

KEILAR: -- of the intelligence. So, how are you reading this?

CIRINCIONE: Well, we've been through this before with the Iraq War, but this is taking it to a whole new level. Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu have systematically pushed out independent actors in their military and intelligence operation, and replaced them with a series of yes people, men and women. So, I would not trust what the DF is saying. Unfortunately, the comments today from President Bush -- from President Trump, however, are also pretty far from what we know.

[14:10:00]

Now, I've been to some of these facilities. I've been to the above- ground facility of Isfahan in Iran. That's an above-ground facility that you could destroy, as you could some of the pilot enrichment plant in Natanz. But the deep underground facilities are very, very difficult to destroy. And even though these attacks were strategically brilliant, they appear to be strategically ineffective. Damage the facilities, certainly. Set it back years, that's hard to believe. And it certainly did not eliminate the 60 percent enriched uranium. The IAEA reported Sunday that Iran had moved that gas. It is volatile, but it's not that hard to move.

KEILAR: OK. That's it. Talk a little bit about that because Trump was saying it's too heavy and difficult to move. You're saying it's not.

CIRINCIONE: It's not. Normally, they use -- they move this in very large canisters. Think of it as a toxic chemical that is difficult to move. But this particular 400 kilograms of 60 percent enriched were stored in tanks the size of scuba tanks. We saw satellite imagery of tanks moving up to the underground facilities before the Israeli and U.S. strikes. It wouldn't take more than three or four trucks to move that gas. It could be moved to other existing underground facilities that were not hit. There are several undeclared sites that we know Iran has built. They just announced one a couple of weeks ago. If they have centrifuges there, they could put that gas back into the centrifuges, spin it up to weapons-grade uranium. They could make the core of a bomb in about five days.

KEILAR: President Trump said today, as the U.S. will be meeting with Iran next week. But he also said kind of repeatedly, it may not be necessary to have an agreement with Iran. What do you think of that?

CIRINCIONE: Yeah, well, first, I'm glad he's exploring the diplomatic route. There is no military solution to this. The only way to eliminate Iran's capability is get the Iranians to agree. So, we're essentially back where we were two weeks ago when Trump said we were very close to a very good deal before the bombing attacks. So, you have to wonder what was all this about. But, the other part of his statement is, we may not need a deal. I take that as negotiation posturing.

He's trying to say, I don't really need this deal. I'm talking to you because I'm a nice guy. You're going to have to give me a lot in order to get me to make a deal. I think a deal is possible. I think Iran is in a tough spot. Their facilities and their overall position has been degraded. The question is whether Trump is willing to make a compromise. If he tries to get zero enrichment, no deal, no Iranian politician could agree to that.

KEILAR: So this DIA report that found, with low confidence, it's an initial report, we have to be clear about that. That's just kind of par for the course here. But it found that the program wasn't obliterated. The defense secretary stressed the low confidence in the data is low because the evidence is buried by the 12 30,000-pound bombs. He said that if you really wanted to know, you'd have to get a shovel because it's buried.

But there could also be indicators, right, from what you're looking at, if there could be some kind of cave in or something like that. Wouldn't you also need a shovel to prove the point that Trump is trying to make?

(LAUGH)

CIRINCIONE: That's exactly right. I mean, if it's too early to say that it hasn't been destroyed, it certainly is too early to say that it has been destroyed. We'd need more evidence. But the DIA is known as the most conservative of the intelligence agencies out there. So, this is not a bunch of pinkos trying to undermine the president. And they were basing their analysis on data collected by the Central Command, the people closest to the strikes who've been watching this most closely.

And this was a serious report. This was not some memo. It was sent to the Senate, which is probably the source of these leaks. So lots of people have read it. Lots of people are making judgments on that. Yes, we should wait for a full assessment, but I would trust the DIA over anything that's coming out of the political offices of Israel or the White House.

KEILAR: Really interesting. You give us great context, Joe. So thank you so much for being here to share that.

CIRINCIONE: Thank you.

KEILAR: And still more to come on America's surprise strikes on Iran, including what Congress was told about the operation and its effectiveness. Plus, after the White House meeting earlier this year ended in fireworks, Presidents Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy met behind closed doors at NATO, so what we're learning about their secretive conversation. And then later, CNN exclusive reporting, how the Trump administration plans to target asylum seekers and why they're doing that. That and much more coming up on "CNN News Central."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:19:06]

SANCHEZ: President Donald Trump and his supporters are disputing this early assessment from Pentagon Intelligence on the extent of damage to Iran's nuclear program. The details of this report first obtained by CNN indicate the strikes did not destroy the program's core components. Today, Trump saying that assessment was inconclusive, preliminary, and political. Since the strikes on Saturday, Trump has repeatedly said the attacks caused total obliteration of the facilities. Today, Trump cited Iranian officials who admitted their facilities were badly damaged.

Just moments ago. Israel's military chief of staff said the program suffered systemic damage, setting it back several years. Let's get the perspective of Congressman Adam Smith. He's the Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee. Congressman, thanks so much for being with us. What is your read of the intelligence, this preliminary report from the Pentagon, especially in contrast to the much more optimistic view in the Israeli assessment?

[14:20:00]

REP. ADAM SMITH, (D-WA) RANKING MEMBER, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Well, first of all, we don't know for sure. I think it's the honest answer. We're still gathering intelligence. Now, there are ways to gather intelligence other than just getting a shovel and going to the site. So, we are gathering information in that way. But look, based on 15 years of having these conversations, we've talked for a long time about what it would take militarily to stop Iran's nuclear program. And the conclusion of every expert is you can't do it with a simple bombing campaign.

You might be able to set it back. And then the debate is, six months, a year, three months. So what we do know, Iran still has a nuclear weapons program. They still have the capability of enriching uranium and they still have enriched uranium. And as far as we know, their intent hasn't changed. So, we still have this problem and President Trump wishing it away is really quite dangerous. SANCHEZ: I do want to ask you about how that problem of a nuclear- armed Iran may be resolved. But I, I do wonder how you read the administration's response to this, describing the leak as treasonous, announcing that an FBI investigation is underway. What do you think of their insistence that the report is inconclusive, low confidence, and therefore, politically motivated?

SMITH: Look, this is part of the Trump reality distortion field. Trump just says -- remember, Mexico was going to pay for the wall? He's not going to cut Medicaid even while he is cutting Medicaid. The Big Beautiful Bill is actually going to cut the deficit when it increases by $3 trillion. Look, one of Trump's great skills is to create the reality that he wants to create in his mind and for far too many people. But it didn't change reality. So, this is perfectly in keeping with that pattern.

He says, look, it's all done. We dropped one bomb one day. Peace in the Middle East has been achieved, all good, walk away from it because that's what he wants to believe. But the facts aren't really that hard to suss out here. It is pretty clear that one bombing campaign was not going to obliterate or destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program. So that's why they're saying it. But again, the reality is Iran still has this capability and we still need a plan to figure out how to stop them from taking the step to build a bomb. It is not over.

SANCHEZ: It seems, Congressman, like you have a low level of confidence going into a promise from Trump that there are going to be renewed diplomatic talks. Do you think there is a diplomatic solution ahead that would ensure that Iran quits enriching uranium?

SMITH: Yes, absolutely. I mean, the most distressing thing that President Trump insisted upon today was that we didn't need one. He said, ah, we don't really need an agreement. Don't need to talk. It's all good. Look, I think there is a diplomatic solution here. We had a diplomatic solution in the JCPOA that Iran was complying with, that Donald Trump tore up. So, this is all part of Trump's sort of I'm tough. I solve problems just by looking at them.

But the reality is very different. Yes, diplomacy is the key. Iran is on their heels, no doubt about it. Israel strikes, Israel's taking out of Hezbollah and Hamas has substantially weakened Iran. Their economy is in shambles. We are in a position to force a deal. But Trump has to force that deal. He has to do what he promised to do. He didn't promise to drop bombs on Iran. He promised that he was going to cut a deal and take care of it. And now, he appears to be walking away from that commitment. And again, that's dangerous.

And one final point, Israel is not living in Donald Trump's fantasy world. All right? They are going to wake up and they know that Iran still has nuclear capability, and then what are they going to do about it? So we have to deal with that as well.

SANCHEZ: So Congressman, you reject the idea that Iran violated the spirit of the JCPOA by enriching uranium far past what's required for a --

SMITH: But --

SANCHEZ: Go ahead.

SMITH: You got your timeline mixed up there. Once Donald Trump tore up the agreement, yeah, Iran violated it. But before Donald Trump tore up the agreement, they had not done what you just said. Now, you can make an argument that just because Donald Trump tore it up, there were, I think five other countries involved. Iran should have still paid attention to that agreement and shouldn't have done that.

But prior to Donald Trump walking out of the agreement, Iran was complying with it. Now since then, yeah, they've been in violation of the IAEA and of their -- I think they're a signature in the non- proliferation agreement. Enriching uranium up to 60 percent as they have done is a clear violation of that agreement. But again, they weren't violating it before the agreement. And the more important point, history aside, we are where we are and where we are is we still have Iran and Israel in a conflict, and we still have an Iran capable of building towards a nuclear weapon with apparently the intent to at least consider that we need a deal, we need to negotiate, we need Trump to do what he promised he was going to do.

[14:25:00]

SANCHEZ: There were signs that Iran was doing things that necessarily weren't in the agreement, but that went against the spirit of it. One of them is funding terror groups in the region, et cetera. I'm not defending exiting the JCPOA --

SMITH: Yeah, but that's -- that's a different fact.

SANCHEZ: And more so, Congressman, more so, I'm sort of wondering what your perspective is on how Iran is planning to move forward, because there is a lot of reason for skepticism that they would agree to give up the enrichment of uranium. Is there -- you're saying that there is a diplomatic path, but they're saying that the red line is that -- is giving up uranium enrichment. If they're not willing to do that, isn't some form of force necessary?

SMITH: Two points. Two points. One, the path got a lot more difficult after we bombed them because now, they have to say, gosh, even if we're negotiating, they can still attack us. So what are we really, really getting? Yes, there is a path forward. Now, the niche issue that you're getting into is, if you want to enrich uranium up to like 3 percent or 5 percent, that is enrichment that has a legitimate energy need, a non-military need.

Once you go past about 5 percent, you're clearly moving towards weapons grade which is -- that's what they did, was 60 percent. Now, in an ideal world, Iran's not enriching anything. OK? Because that gives us a great deal of more security. But if we were in a negotiation, this is something you could talk about. We talked about with the UAE and others having the uranium that they would use be enriched by another country. There's a bunch of different ways to negotiate it. But again, Donald Trump just said a couple hours ago, we're all done. We're not going to negotiate anymore. That's not a good plan.

SANCHEZ: Congressman Adam Smith, we have to leave the conversation there. Appreciate you sharing your point of view, as always.

SMITH: Thanks for the chance.

SANCHEZ: Of course. President Trump's former personal attorney turned top justice official is accused of telling prosecutors to ignore court orders. He was just grilled by lawmakers about those whistleblower claims. Plus, exclusive reporting you'll only see here on CNN, the Trump administration's new tactic to speed up deportations. We'll discuss in just moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)