Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Israel And Iran Launch New Rounds Of Attacks; Israel PM: 400+ Missiles Launched By Iran Since Friday; IDF Says It Struck Key Military Targets In Tehran Area; Sources: Trump Weighing Strikes On Iran Nuclear Sites. Aired 5-5:30a ET

Aired June 18, 2025 - 05:00   ET

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

[05:00:00]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR: Hello and welcome to our viewers joining us in the U.S. and around the world.

It is Wednesday, June 18th. I'm Audie Cornish in Washington, D.C.

BECKY ANDERSON, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Becky Anderson in Middle East programming headquarters here in Abu Dhabi where the time is 1:00 p.m.

We are following the breaking news out the Middle East. On day six of this conflict, here's what we know, from Tehran to Tel Aviv, sirens and explosions have been ringing out during waves of new attacks, as President Trump considers whether to get directly involved in this conflict.

More than 400 missiles and hundreds of drones towards Israel since last Friday. Some of those strikes have breached the Iron Dome and hit 40 sites inside Israel.

Meanwhile, the Israeli military says a fleet of some 50 fighter jets carried out around of strikes overnight in the Tehran area. They targeted missile production and centrifuge sites, according to Israeli authorities.

Israel had warned a part of the Iranian capital to evacuate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIG. GEN. EFFIE DEFRIN, ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES SPOKJESPERSON: We've struck deep, hitting Iran's nuclear ballistic and command capabilities. The Iranian regime has spent years getting closer to a nuclear weapon. They have spent billions building a ballistic missile program. Our mission, our mission is clear, to remove the threat at its source.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON: Well, the Israelis are now waiting to see if the U.S. president decides to help them destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, specifically sites that Israel has not been able to reach. Even though Donald Trump swore off foreign wars, sources say he is warming up to military action and souring on the prospect of a diplomatic solution.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They've been negotiating. I told them to do the deal. They should have done the deal. The cities have been blown to pieces. They've lost a lot of people.

They should have done the deal. I told them, do the deal. So I don't know. I'm not too much in the mood to negotiate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: President Trump is demanding Iran's unconditional surrender in a post on social media. He also had a warning for the country's supreme leader, calling him an easy target, but saying the U.S. won't take him out, at least for now.

CNN's Kristen Holmes has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: The White House confirming President Donald Trump and prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, spoke on the phone on Tuesday. However, they would not give any indication of what the two leaders spoke about or when that call was. The timing of that call is particularly important, particularly given the fact that Donald Trump sat down with his National Security Council with his heads of cabinets, as well as top advisers, for an hour in the Situation Room.

And what we were trying to glean from the White House from sources familiar, was when the call with Netanyahu took place, was it before or after? But they are not offering any information here. As we continue to talk to these White House officials who say everything is just too sensitive.

Now, one of the things that we have been reporting is Donald Trump's shift away from this diplomatic avenue that he originally wanted to take. Donald Trump had been incredibly wary of getting the United States more involved in what was going on between Israel and Iran. But the president in recent days has started to shift towards this understanding, towards this posture that the United States might need to be involved. Now, one of the things that I've been told by administration officials that they are watching for is if Iran strikes any U.S. assets, any military bases, anything that has any place that houses American citizens, that would lead to an almost immediate retaliation.

But what we're not quite sure of is, is the United States or has President Trump come to a place where he will agree to have the United States strike first, to be actually more participatory in this fight between Israel and Iran? As we've said, there are so many factions within the Republican Party

and within Donald Trump's closest advisors, some urging him America First policy. Do not get involved. Others saying Israel can handle themselves, and others still saying that it is the United States duty to get involved and to protect Israel.

One of the things I am told is a big consideration for the president and for the White House is how long this would actually take to be done. Is this if the United States did enter into this conflict, is this something that would be incredibly drawn out, or could be concluded in a matter of days? Donald Trump, president, he is insistent that anything that happens, whether he's involved or not involved, is a short runway. They do not want to be tangled up into something in the Middle East for years to come.

One of the things, of course, he promised on the campaign trail was there would be no wars when he became president.

Kristen Holmes, CNN, the White House.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[05:05:01]

CORNISH: And amid this conflict, the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem will be closed for the next three days. All employees and their families have been directed to shelter in place. A statement from the embassy says consular services in Tel Aviv will also be closed until Friday. So far, there's been no announcement about whether the embassy will help private U.S. citizens leave Israel, given that the country's largest international airport and its seaports are currently closed.

ANDERSON: Well, Ellie Geranmayeh is the deputy program director and senior policy fellow of the Middle East and North Africa program at the European Council on Foreign Relations. And she joins us now live from London.

Let's be very clear about this. You know, there are things we know at this point, things that we know about what has happened overnight and in the last six days. And there are things that we very specifically don't know, not least whether the U.S. president is determined to get involved militarily in this. The U.S. president calling for Iran's, quote, unconditional surrender. Meantime, Iran's supreme leader saying the battle begins as Israeli officials wait for a decision by Donald Trump.

Ellie, nothing pointing towards a diplomatic off ramp at this point. Do you agree?

ELLIE GERANMAYEH, SENIOR POLICY FELLOW, MENA, EUROPEAN COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Certainly. We're now in a war of narratives, and there's a lot of fog of war. Exactly what is happening on the ground inside Israel and Iran.

But I think that it's really important, especially for your American viewers, to understand that President Trump currently has a choice of taking a diplomatic off ramp, which the Iranians are signaling that they are interested in and actively pursuing through back-channel talks, or to take a war of choice -- actually, maybe it's not even a war of choice. It's being dragged by Prime Minister Netanyahu kicking and screaming into this conflict with Iran.

And the thought that this is going to be a short runway or a quick hit and run. I think just defies every single example of U.S. military intervention we've seen in North Africa and in the Middle East over the past two decades. Once you open up this pandora's box, we have no idea where things go. And this will most likely consume the rest of President Trump's presidency.

ANDERSON: We've been discussing here on CNN overnight why it is that Iran's leadership is more willing to face Israeli bombs than to, quote, surrender to American terms. Can you just explain why it would be difficult for Iran's leader to return to the negotiating table in this moment, in terms of its own domestic pressures? For instance, we've seen protests in the first days of this conflict calling for a robust response to Israel.

GERANMAYEH: So, I think there has now been a shift inside Iran that the concept of no war, no deal, that Iran's supreme leader had maintained for the past decade, frankly, with relations with the U.S., is no longer sustainable and that the supreme leader now has to have this. This attack is basically accelerating a decision. Either Iran will have to cut a deal with the United States, or essentially go all the way, potentially towards weaponizing its nuclear program and reestablishing deterrence against an Israel that currently has carte blanche across the Middle East to attack at will.

ANDERSON: As this conflict was breaking out a few days ago, you wrote, and I quote, rather than retreating from diplomacy, Israels attack should trigger intense engagement in order to maintain a channel aimed at immediate de-escalation. I speak to sources around this region of the Gulf. I keep an eye on the oil price, which is on the rise, although it's pared back slightly in the past hour, but still some 3 percent up from recent lows. There is a real concern about further escalation. What might happen next with U.S. involvement and how this might have significance for a wider regional conflict.

I just wonder, given your thoughts on the importance of immediate de- escalation, is that a realistic outcome at this point?

GERANMAYEH: I think that leaders always have a choice in these moments. President Trump has in the past stepped back from the brink of war with Iran in his first term. He has the ability to do so again. And I think again, for American viewers, it's very important to understand that by striking nuclear facilities inside Iran, if the president decides to do that, which is banned under international law, Iran will view this as a declaration of war from the United States.

And because of geography, Iran's escalation options are limited to essentially targeting U.S. military personnel against the -- across the region, in bases, across the region. And this is why the GCC states, Iraq, Turkey are all doing a flurry of sort of behind the scenes diplomacy to try and prevent this outcome. And as you said, we're keeping an eye on oil prices.

We're not even at the stage of escalation phases where Iran could essentially carry out its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz. It hasn't done so yet, because that's, again, a sort of escalatory option down the road. But if that happens, be sure that the American consumers back home will feel the cost of this war.

And I think in Iran's mindset, surrender is not an option. It also knows that it's not going to win militarily, but it's trying to ensure that there are only losers here, including for the Israeli population, for the Israeli government, but also if the U.S. engages on this for the United States as well.

ANDERSON: Ellie, the stated goals of the Israeli government is to degrade the nuclear infrastructure in Iran to avoid the development of a nuclear weapon and to degrade the missiles. The ballistic missiles supplies. It is also becoming clearer, it seems, that were the fall of the regime to happen, that would be a positive step, as far as Israel is concerned. Finally, I just want to get your perspective on what that might mean in Iran and for the wider region.

What does a day after this regime, to your mind look like, given that there is no clear leadership in opposition, ready to take over on a day after?

So, what might the consequences be of a fall of this regime?

GERANMAYEH: Frankly, it looks more likely that Israel is just after instability and chaos and a failed state in Iran rather than a positive regime change development. It's taking out Iran's oil and gas infrastructure, something that belongs to the Iranian people long term. And if this degree of escalation continues, I think the remit of Israeli action is going far beyond taking out Iran's nuclear capabilities, and it's to ensure that Iran is just out of the equation, a toothless country, another toothless country in the region that can never challenge or set red lines for Israeli military action.

And I think this is very concerning, and it should be very concerning to Iran's immediate neighbors, because this is a country of 90 million plus people with multiple land and sea borders. And the worry is that, like in other contexts of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, you name it, that there will be an exodus of migration into the region and that what happens in Iran doesn't stay in Iran. And this is very concerning.

And I think a second very concerning issue for regional countries is that there may well be regime change in Iran, but not in the way that people hope that it could actually expedite, for example, a military takeover in the country. If there is, for example, assassination of senior political leadership ranks. And again, this would not be the pathway for a Democratic Iran going forward.

ANDERSON: Ellie Geranmayeh, it's good to have you. Thank you very much indeed.

I'm Becky Anderson in Abu Dhabi still to come, Iran has been launching waves of strikes against Israel, and some experts believe they may be depleting their arsenal. More on that is after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[05:18:40]

CORNISH: Now, just how long Iran can continue launching missile strikes on Israel depends on the size of its arsenal, which in many ways remains a mystery.

CNN's Nick Paton Walsh tells us what analysts believe Iran may have.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The loudest clock ticking is how long this intensity of conflict can go on. Iran, under greatest pressure, may reach a breaking point first, they're estimated to have had a stockpile of up to 3,000 missiles. Between 2,000 and 1,000 of them able to reach Israel.

BEHNAM BEN TALEBLU, SENIOR FELLOW, FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: The best estimate we have is, at best, a back of the envelope calculation of anywhere between 1,000 to 2,000 medium range ballistic missiles.

WALSH: But those stockpiles were challenged before this phase of the conflict. Iran fired about 120 at Israel on the 13th of April, 2024, and then another 200 on the 1st of October that year, and in the last five days have fired an estimated 380. Seven hundred used in a year and at very best, 1,300 left.

Others less optimistic.

EYAL PINKO, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR MIGRATION AND SECURITY RESEARCH: Take into consideration that they fired around 400 -- 400, 500 in the last four days, and Israel destroyed some of the arsenal of what they had.

[05:20:05]

I believe they stayed now with 800, 700 more.

WALSH: But Israel has claimed success in hitting the missiles launchers, releasing this graphic of targets including at least a third, they say, of Iran's surface to surface launchers.

PINKO: Israel is trying now not only to hit or to defend the missiles in the air to intercept them, but also to destroy the vehicles before launching because this is the -- this is the weakest part of the chain.

WALSH: Israel has claimed Iran could make 300 ballistic missiles a month like this Fattah-1 apparently used in the recent attacks. But on October the 26th, three waves of retaliatory strikes by Israel hit Iran's air defense and missile production, in which the U.K. defense chief said only 100 bombs took down nearly the entirety of Iran's air defense system.

"It has destroyed Iran's ability to produce ballistic missiles for a year," he said.

TALEBLU: I don't even think they want to go below four digits, but it's certainly a bind that the regime finds themselves in. You know, for the Islamic Republic, quantity has a quality of its own and having to expend these ballistic missiles during a time of war rather than a time of crisis, precisely puts it in this bind.

WALSH: The mystery number of how many missiles Iran has left dictating its actions, and the outcome of this defining conflict.

Nick Paton Walsh, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANDERSON: Let's get you live now to Tehran. Abas Aslani is a journalist and senior research fellow at the Center for Middle Eastern Strategic Studies.

Sir, thank you for joining us.

Can you just explain what's happening where you are right now?

ABAS ASLANI, JOURNALIST AND RESEARCHER : Becky, you know, in the past few days, conflict has been escalating. And after the initial shock that Iran faced on early Friday morning, it tried to recover in terms of air defense and then efficiency of its response against Israel. Every time we see statements from the IRGC, they are saying that they are using new missiles. But it seems that -- that they are not coming with full force because they are keeping part of their power for the possibility of engagement in this conflict. And as the -- as it continues, I think this might further escalate and maybe expand in the other parts of the region.

But it is back and forth between the two sides and Iran's nuclear chief, when he was asked about the situation and the condition in the nuclear facilities, he said that it is doing okay, and it seems that the damage to those facilities have not been that much significant.

ANDERSON: Yeah, I mean, the IAEA has said it's significant, but the -- but the program has been set back by some months. It is -- it is not completely degraded.

Iran's state TV airing in the past moments, footage of an Israeli drone it says was shot down in Isfahan. Now CNN, abbas is working to get that video to our viewers in the U.S. and around the world. But as we do, and to your point about capacity at this point, the leadership there, one assumes, is likely to tout this as a military success.

But given the reporting that we have on Iran's military capability being depleted, I just wonder just how robust is Iran's defense at this point?

ASLANI: Becky, you know, the aim by Israel was to want to destroy the chain of command. I mean, the military command. And then it was to destroy the country's nuclear capabilities. The Israelis wanted to create a chaos. And in order to provoke the people to come to the streets and to protest against the government, as well as to decapitate Iran's missile power.

But in action, what we have been seeing that the air defense system in the country is yet working, contrary to the claims made by American officials or Israeli ones, and the downing of those drones not in Isfahan, in Hamadan, in Qom and other provinces indicates that. Yet you know that air defense is working. However, there have been damages to as a result of, you know, those attacks coming from the Israeli side.

And in terms of, you know, provoking the people against the government, this has backfired. We're seeing unity among the different factions and walks of lives, and there are even those who have been critical of the government these days are calling for a decisive response against Israel in order to establish a deterrent against further and future attacks coming from outside.

ANDERSON: Let me just pick up on a couple of things that you've just said. The U.S. and Israel has said it has total control over Iran's skies. Very specifically, Donald Trump said, we have total control over Iran's airspace and skies. To paraphrase him. But the use of the term we there very specific.

We have also seen lines of cars evacuating Tehran. How seriously are people there taking the warnings that the U.S. president gave to the 10 million residents of Tehran to evacuate?

ASLANI: You know, Becky, with the population that Iran has is above, you know, 10 million and more than 15 million in the metropolitan city of Tehran. It is impossible to evacuate the city. And it is seen as a kind of psychological warfare in order to intimidate the public and in order to somehow create a sense of fear in the country, specifically in the capital city, and then weaken the basis of the government and the establishment.

But the way that Tehran sees these remarks coming from the American president indicates that if the attacks and the oppression from the Israeli side was successful, there was neither. Need for, let's say, American involvement or remarks on this that they are -- they might -- they might be the possibility of, let's say, American engagement in this issue or calling for negotiations or surrender.

This indicates that maybe Israeli operation has not achieved its goals. And that's why the United States is interfering. And this is the way Tehran sees those remarks from President Trump.

ANDERSON: Given the demand by President Trump for, quote, total surrender and the post by the supreme leader in the past hours to prepare for the big battle, we have been discussing this morning and must continue to discuss the -- what seems to be, you know, dying embers of an opportunity for a diplomatic off ramp at this point. Abbas, from your perspective there in Tehran, is that still an option? ASLANI: Becky, you know, the negotiations were taking place on the

head of, you know, those expected round of new negotiations between Iran and the United States. Israel initiated that aggression against Iran in order to disrupt this process, in order to maybe cause some damages to Iran's nuclear capabilities and military ones, in order to get more concessions from Iran.

But normally, in the past decades and years, this has backfired from Iranian side. And not only Iran has not scaled down its nuclear activities, but in practice, we have been seeing that Iran has been scaling up its nuclear program. And, you know, if the cases that Iran surrender for the fear of, let's say, a U.S. engagement in this conflict and commit suicide out of the fear of death, I think this could not be feasible because the harms that Iran might be facing as a result of that surrender, many believe in Tehran that it could be much more than, let's say, resisting militarily and let's say even, you know, suffering and receiving some damages as a result of that resistance.

So, in the long run, I think we could have more precise assessment of the result of this operation and this crisis. But the harms that Iran thinks that might be coming as a result of that surrender is not expected to be less than, let's say, that military resistance and let's say fighting with the external threat.

ANDERSON: The perspective of Abas Aslani in Tehran, this Wednesday morning. Abas, thank you.

Just ahead, we go back to Audie in Washington for some more of today's top stories, including Russia's latest attack on Ukraine, the deadliest in nearly a year. More after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)