Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Suggests 'Regime Change' Possible In Iran; Iran Warns Of 'Everlasting Consequences' After U.S. Strikes; IDF Chief Of Staff: Israel Still Has 'Targets To Strike' In Iran; Iranians Demonstrate In Tehran Against U.S. Strikes; International Community Reacts To U.S. Airstrikes. Aired 12-1a ET

Aired June 23, 2025 - 00:00   ET

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

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

[00:00:28]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Hello and welcome to our viewers here in the U.S. and around the world. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. We're covering breaking news, continuing out of the Middle East.

We are getting conflicting messages out of Washington over just how effective the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities actually were.

You'll remember that shortly after they were announced, President Trump used the word "obliterated" to describe the success of those strikes. He posted this on Truth Social late Sunday: quote, "Monumental damage was done to all nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term!" He ended his post with simply, "Bullseye," exclamation point.

But the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has said it is way too early -- his words -- to determine if Iran retains nuclear capabilities.

There is a difference in the before and after images from one of those sites, Isfahan. This is Iran's largest nuclear complex. It was hit by more than a dozen U.S. cruise missiles.

And at Natanz, this satellite image appears to show craters in the ground.

There also appeared to be more strikes on Iran Sunday. This, the scene in Tabriz with smoke rising over the city. These are Israeli, not U.S. strikes.

The questions, of course: How far did the damage go inside those deeply buried nuclear facilities? Those questions still unanswered.

President Trump appears to be changing his stance on whether the U.S. is seeking possible regime change in Iran, suggesting in a social media post on Sunday it might help, quote, "make Iran great again."

Our senior White House correspondent, Kristen Holmes, has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: President Donald Trump now talking about a potential regime change in Iran.

HOLMES (voice-over): Now, this was something that most members of his administration had shied away from. President Trump posting this on Truth Social, saying, "It is not politically correct to use the term 'regime change.' But if the current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again, why wouldn't there be a regime change?" Then he wrote "MIGA" --

HOLMES: -- a play on MAGA. "Make Iran great again."

The important point to look at here is the fact that --

HOLMES (voice-over): -- we have been talking to the administration a lot about whether or not they supported a regime change.

On Thursday, press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked directly about this. She sidestepped the question, saying there was no focus on a regime change at this time. This was all about not letting Iran develop a nuclear weapon.

Now, even earlier in the day, before President Trump posted this, Vice President J.D. Vance was asked about the same topic, and he said there was no consideration of this. Take a listen.

J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: Our view has been very clear that we don't want a regime change. We do not want to protract this or build this out any more than it's already been built out.

HOLMES: And he was again, one of a number of officials who said that that was the current Trump administration's stance.

HOLMES (voice-over): Obviously, now we have President Trump throwing a wrench into that, stating that he might be supportive of an Iranian regime change.

Now, one thing to keep in mind here is that President Trump is still looking for some kind of diplomatic solution, and whether or not he believes saying that he would support a regime change is something he thinks could bring the Iranians to the table, that, of course, remains to be seen.

HOLMES: But the really interesting part of all of this is that the reason we have been asking so much about this to the Trump administration was because we had learned from Israeli officials that --

HOLMES (voice-over): -- while it might not be the direct hope for the war, it was certainly an indirect hope for the Israelis: that they would come out of this with a regime change in Iran. And now the question is whether or not Trump truly agrees with that.

HOLMES: Kristen Holmes, CNN, the White House.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: It's quite a big question, given that that would be an entirely new U.S. objective.

We're joined now by CNN's Paula Hancocks, live in Abu Dhabi. And, Paula, I wonder how, when you speak to officials in the region and also just read the coverage in the region, do they see the U.S. now at war with Iran, or do they buy President Trump's framing of this: that this is a isolated, one-and-done military operation?

PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, this is exactly what leaders in this region did not want to see happen.

We knew that they had been calling the U.S. president, trying to dissuade him from taking this course of action. They wanted to see diplomacy happen. And now, clearly that wasn't the case. That fell on deaf ears.

[00:05:04]

So, there is great concern in this region with the Gulf nations that this is now going to escalate.

When you listen to the responses of -- of all the countries of the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, other countries in this -- this area, the key word that was used by everybody was "de-escalation."

You look at the geographical reality for these countries: whatever happens in Iran could have a significant impact on these countries themselves.

When you look at, for example, the fact that there are so many U.S. military troops, U.S. military bases dotted around this region. There are concerns that they could become a target themselves.

In fact, we've heard from -- from one advisor to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, that troops in Bahrain could be a target.

So, this is a very real fear here, that this is going to have significant impacts on these countries. Bearing in mind, these are the countries that the U.S. president, Donald Trump, visited just last month. And he was talking about the birth of a new Middle East. He was talking about billions of dollars of deals being done.

And now these countries are seriously concerned about possible military repercussions from Iran on their territories. And also, possible environmental contamination for their countries to be dealing with when you see these nuclear facilities being bombed -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: And part of his message during his visit to the Middle East, as I know you well remember, was that the U.S. is out of the business of nation building in the region. Yes, at a minimum, certainly involved once again.

Paula Hancocks in Abu Dhabi, thanks so much. Joining me now, Democratic Congressman Mike Quigley of Illinois. He's

a member of the House Appropriations Committee, co-chair of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus and, crucially, member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Congressman, thanks so much for taking the time this evening.

REP. MIKE QUIGLEY (D-IL): Glad to be back. Thank you.

SCIUTTO: So first, let me ask you about the president's statement just in the last couple of hours, raising the possibility of regime change. Do you read that now as the administration's objective here? Is that official U.S. policy?

QUIGLEY: Well, you've got to take the president at his word, as scary as it sounds. I mean, one and done is one thing, which certainly invites retaliation, concern for our troops and civilians, 40,000 of them in the Middle East. And as a state sponsor of terrorism, real concerns for terrorist attacks in the homeland.

But this is a whole different ballgame, and regime change isn't going to be accomplished, by anyone's thoughts, with missile strikes or bombings. It's -- obviously would have to be troops on the ground.

So, for a president who campaigned on isolationism, who would keep us out of any conflict, just months into his -- his term, this is a war.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Your reaction to -- to the strikes that you posted on Sunday said that you would prefer diplomacy as a solution here.

Do you see diplomacy as still a realistic path, if you have the U.S. president at least floating the idea of regime change? What would Iranian officials -- how would they trust a negotiation, given not just that the president ordered military action, while at the same time he said he was still pursuing negotiations? You'll remember those statements from the White House podium just in the last several days?

Is a diplomatic path still realistically open?

QUIGLEY: You know, we always say there's always room for diplomacy, but it's just hard to imagine that the supreme leader and anyone in Iran would trust us at this point in time.

It's still important to remember, as well, that diplomacy is the only thing that really slowed and kept Iran from moving forward: with the JCPOA, the Iran deal that I supported and voted for.

Iran was in compliance with that deal. They weren't moving forward with the material necessary for -- for a bomb. They were in compliance. And in his first term, President Trump pulled us out of that deal.

So, ironically, he put the world in a situation where this -- this strike was going to happen. Obviously, it wouldn't have been necessary at all, had we just stayed with those diplomatic results and tried to move forward with them. I recognize Iran as a threat, and I recognize the deal wasn't perfect.

But it's certainly far better than the situation we're in now, where both our troops, civilians, and the homeland are at great risk.

[00:10:07]

SCIUTTO: Given your position on the Intelligence Committee, you've been briefed numerous times on Iranian capabilities. Also, the -- the difficulty of hitting these targets in Iran. And I certainly wouldn't push you to go into classified material at all.

But with that in mind, based on the scale of the strikes we saw over the last 24 hours by the U.S. and what we've seen from satellite photos, is it apparent that this can be a one-and-done attack, based on what you've seen? That -- that's the presidents expressed intention. But is it likely that the U.S. has eliminated or close to eliminated Iran's nuclear capability?

QUIGLEY: Yes. It's just so hard to tell. And as I think your earlier reporting said, it's early. And, you know, I've been on the committee over eight years now.

All I can speak about is generally, it takes some time to truly assess what has taken place there. And obviously, in a denied area that's even more difficult.

So, I think it's just too early to -- to make that determination and know for sure.

You know, what I was always told, generally, was that you would need what we used, those bunker-busting bombs. But, you know, the possibility of troops on the ground just to make sure. You know, this is -- this is the whole ball game here. And we have to know what's going to take place.

Otherwise, you know, the Iranians have been bombed and attacked before, and they rebuilt, and they moved forward. So, in the final analysis, it was always going to involve diplomacy, albeit with an extraordinarily difficult opponent here.

SCIUTTO: As you well know, given your long service on the Intel Committee through multiple presidents of both parties, it has been protocol to -- to brief members of the relevant committees, including intel, without regard to party. Republicans and Democrats get briefed.

It's CNN's reporting that there was not an equal sharing of information by this administration with Republicans and Democrats.

Are you concerned that that raises the prospect that the intelligence on the aftermath of this strike will -- will or could be politicized in some way?

QUIGLEY: Well, first, it makes the decision and the manner of going forward a political one by President Trump, which is concerning.

And I don't know exactly, because I haven't been in Washington since the attacks. I'll know a lot more tomorrow. It's my understanding that most Democrats were not informed, and perhaps only the Gang of Eight were informed about this.

But what I'm hearing is the Republicans were deep -- got a much deeper briefing, and the Democrats were just -- on the Gang of Eight were just giving a heads up on this.

I have had concerns since Trump took office the second time that the intelligence would be politicized on a number of fronts. It's hard to tell. You don't know what you don't know or what you're not being told.

So, the best we can do is -- is to push as hard as possible to make sure that the administration is being candid with us, particularly on these sensitive committees.

SCIUTTO: Congressman Mike Quigley, thanks so much for joining tonight.

QUIGLEY: Thank you. Talk soon.

SCIUTTO: And we will have more coverage of our breaking news when we return, including how exactly the U.S. carried out its strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. That's just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:17:31]

QUIGLEY: Let's take a closer look now at exactly how the U.S. carried out its air and missile strikes on Iran, in what it has dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer.

U.S. officials say the strike package involved B-2 stealth bombers carrying two crew members each, launched from the U.S. overnight on Friday. Some headed West and flew over the Pacific -- Pacific as a decoy.

A U.S. submarine also launched more than two dozen Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles. Those targeting the Isfahan nuclear site.

The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff explains exactly how the bombers' massive payloads were deployed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GENERAL DAN CAINE, U.S. JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF CHAIRMAN: At approximately 6:40 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, 2:10 a.m. Iran time, the lead B-2 dropped two GBU-57 massive ordnance penetrator weapons on the first of several aim points at Fordow.

The remaining bombers then hit their targets, as well, with a total of 14 MOPs dropped against two nuclear target areas.

PETE HEGSETH, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: The battle damage assessment is ongoing, but our initial assessment, as the chairman said, is that all of our precision munitions struck where we wanted them to strike and had the desired effect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: To be clear, the joint chiefs chairman has warned it is, quote, "way too early" to determine whether Iran retains nuclear capabilities. However, President Trump has claimed, quote, "obliteration is an accurate term."

Joining me now, CNN military analyst, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton.

As you look at the weapons used -- the B-2s, the cruise missiles fired from submarines and the number of targets and just how hard those targets were -- does that look to you like enough to have destroyed, rather than just damaged, these nuclear facilities?

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, Jim, to be honest, I'm not completely sure yet, because we've never used the GBU- 57 in combat. And it's hard right now to assess exactly what the damage is on the ground at Fordow, for example, or at any of the other sites like Natanz, where we used the GBU-57.

It's a bit easier, perhaps, to assess what happened with the Tomahawk cruise missiles that hit Isfahan, but there's still some question as to exactly how much damage was caused and whether or not it actually stopped -- it has -- or has the capability of stopping the Iranian nuclear program.

[00:20:05]

I think the right answer right now is that there was considerable damage at these locations. Whether or not that damage is sufficient to stop the nuclear program, I think, is questionable.

And I would bet that it probably isn't sufficient to stop it. But it has certainly curtailed it in certain ways. And that -- that is -- is significant, in and of itself.

SCIUTTO: Israeli officials have said to me, and others have said so publicly in this country and there: the open question remains, what happened to the material that Iran has already enriched, the some 400 kilograms of enriched uranium?

And it appears that U.S. officials acknowledged they're not quite sure. But -- but a very basic question. If these strikes had hit and destroyed that material, would we not see a radioactive signature, easily identifiable from the strikes or surrounding the strikes, or at least some of the strike zones?

LEIGHTON: There's certainly the possibility that we would see a radioactive signature if something like that had happened. So, one of the key elements in the battle damage assessment is going to be to assess if there is any -- if there are any radioactive anomalies of any type.

So, that's going to be part of this kind of assessment. There will be, you know, the physical part. You know, what structures were destroyed. And then also, are there any radiation elements out there? Is there any -- any, you know, spike in radiation?

It would probably be quite localized. So, it might be difficult to detect. And even if we have destroyed some of these, you know, some of these 400 kilograms, it may be possible that we won't know that.

So, it's -- you know, there are several unknowns in this particular situation or potential unknowns that could impact how we assess it and what the actual ground truth is.

SCIUTTO: Israel has continued to strike targets in Iran following the U.S. strike here. Can you assess at all what the intention is of those strikes? And I mean, and if the U.S. strike had, in fact, obliterated those nuclear sites, would -- would Israel still be targeting, still feel the need to -- to continue to hit targets in Iran?

LEIGHTON: Yes, that is really a great question. So, we're not quite sure exactly what the Israeli goal is, because it has shifted. It seems, at least, it has shifted from destroying the nuclear program that the Iranians have to potential regime change, depending on which official you're listening to.

But the key question here is they -- that may be an indicator that the Israelis, at least, are not convinced that the nuclear program has been completely damaged, totally damaged, still catastrophically damaged.

And so that, I think, is the reason that the Israelis are doing this.

The other part of this, though, is they want to keep the path open for further attacks, should they be necessary. President Trump has threatened further attacks if the Iranians don't come to the table. And I think that is a distinct possibility: that the Israelis are continuing to soften up targets, and they're going further and further East.

One of the things to note is that they hit the city of Yazd, for example, in Iran. And that's kind of in the central area of -- of the country. And that means that they're looking at a further expansion of their -- the area in which they are holding aerial superiority.

SCIUTTO: And one can reasonably say that Israel and Iran, at least, are still very much still at war. Cedric Leighton, thanks so much for joining us this evening.

LEIGHTON: You bet, Jim. Any time.

SCIUTTO: Well, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, waited a long time for a U.S. president to decide to attack Iran's nuclear sites. Still to come, we're going to tell you exactly what the Israeli prime minister is saying now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:27:42] SCIUTTO: The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said U.S. President Donald Trump placed no conditions on Israel in exchange for the U.S. striking Iran's nuclear facilities.

Mr. Netanyahu said Israel did not have to commit to ending the war in Gaza, and he underlined that Israel's campaign against Iran will continue.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER (through translator): There is no doubt that this is a regime that wants to eliminate us, to erase our existence. That is why we launched this operation to remove the two existential threats: nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

We are progressing step by step toward achieving these goals, and we are very, very close to completing them.

I can tell you one thing: we will not be dragged into a war of attrition, but we will also not end this historic campaign before all our objectives are accomplished.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: The Israeli chief of staff echoed that message in a video statement released on Sunday. Eyal Zamir said Israel would, quote, "increase the rate of strikes," adding that it would continue for as long as necessary.

Joining us now, Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus, former IDF spokesperson, now senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, joining us from Tel Aviv.

Jonathan, good to have you on again. Thank you.

JONATHAN CONRICUS, SENIOR FELLOW, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Good night. Thanks for having me.

SCIUTTO: First, if I could ask about Israel's continued strikes in Iran. I wonder what your best assessment is of the intent of those strikes, because if the U.S. attack had severely damaged or completely destroyed, obliterated Iran's nuclear program as the president claims, I imagine it wouldn't be necessary for Israel to continue striking as it is.

Does Israel assess that it needs to do more, in effect, to set back the program?

CONRICUS: Yes, I think we're still within the realms of what Israel made a goal of to do in the beginning, and that is to deal with nuclear facilities and their weaponization of nuclear program. The missiles that Iran has scattered all over Western but also Eastern Iran, and its ability to continue to project and to fund terror organizations.

These are the three key components, with the nuclear being the most important.

[00:30:05]

But of course, the Iranian regime has the ability to fire missiles at Israel. They did so just a few hours ago, and I myself was in a bomb shelter.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

CONRICUS: And that's, of course, something that Israel needs to be taken care of and is taking care of.

SCIUTTO: What's the endgame, then? I've heard some Israeli officials say Israel is coming close to meeting its objectives. Can -- can you describe what the final objective is?

CONRICUS: Well, ideally, the objective is to make sure that Iran doesn't have the ability to produce a nuclear bomb. Ever. That's obviously paramount and the most important objective.

Second would be to defang Iranian offensive capabilities to such an extent that Israelis, for the first time in 20 or 25 years, won't be under a threat of either Iranian proxies -- Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad -- or Iranian missiles.

And that's what Israel is busy working at now. Every night that goes on, every day and every night, Israel continues to strike at Iranian military facilities, missile launchers. That's a key component of Iran's offensive capabilities. Israel continues to strike those.

The chief of staff mentioned that there's more than 55 percent of the missile launches have been destroyed, and that's a very important figure here, for however the dust will settle here diplomatically and globally, at the end of the day, Israel needs to have better security in the future.

And one of the reasons that will -- will make that happen is less Iranian missiles and less Iranian launchers.

SCIUTTO: I'm sure you've seen President Trump's latest social media post mentioning the possibility, at least, of regime change in Iran. Is that Israel's goal: regime change?

CONRICUS: I'd say it's an aspiration, and it's something that I am pretty sure the Israeli government and many parts of the defense establishment would like to see happen.

But there's a difference between defining that as a national goal and wanting to see it happen as a result of our actions. And I think Israel is -- you know, with all the success and the the general joy here in Israel of -- of achievements against Iran, at the end of the day, I think Israel is aware of its own capabilities, its own size, its own ability to influence change in Iran.

But, you know, all things considered, regime change in Iran would be a very, very positive thing for the Iranian people, for the region. And from our perspective, very positive for Israel. But I wouldn't say that it's an official goal that Israel is really trying to bring about.

SCIUTTO: So, if it's at least an aspiration, and if you have now the U.S. president describing it, perhaps, as an aspiration, as well, why would Iranian leaders negotiate? Right? Why would a diplomatic process still be a real possibility under those circumstances?

CONRICUS: Actually, that makes pretty good sense. And I would -- I think that what the president is signaling to the Iranians is, here's your off-ramp.

The off-ramp is take a deal now, and commit, and understand, and acknowledge the fact that you're never going to have a nuclear weapons program. That's what I'm offering you.

If you're not going to do that, then the next escalation and the next possible thing that you will be putting on the line is the very existence of your regime.

So, I think it's a very strong incentivizing fact that the president is providing them. And I think, in this case, U.S. and Israeli interests are perhaps a little bit different, because the U.S. hasn't been at the receiving end exactly as Israel has been.

Of course, as the president said correctly, the Iranians have been killing and maiming U.S. servicemen but -- for many years, thousands of them.

But for Israel, this is, you know, very close and personal. We've been suffering from Iranian terrorists, or Iranian-funded terrorists, for the better part of 25 years.

So, regime change in this sense, it's also a tool that the president and the West has, in order to tell the Iranians there are various options, and this can get much worse for you. And it depends on what you, the Iranians, want to do in the future.

SCIUTTO: Jonathan Conricus from Tel Aviv, thanks so much.

CONRICUS: Thank you. Jim.

SCIUTTO: Well, there is anger now on the streets of Tehran directed at the Trump administration after the U.S. launched those strikes. CNN was there as those protests broke out.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:38:24]

SCIUTTO: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi arrived in Moscow Sunday. According to Iranian state media, he will consult with Russian President Vladimir Putin following U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Despite the Kremlin's ongoing war in Ukraine, Russia's foreign ministry has condemned the move by the U.S., saying it, quote, "flagrantly violates international law." No mention of how that different from the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Iran is asking the U.N. Security Council to condemn what it calls the United States and Israel's acts of aggression. Tehran also dismissing the offer of diplomacy that has been scheduled -- on nuclear talks scheduled for June 15th as an effort to mislead the international community.

But the U.N. secretary=general warns that the U.S. attack, quote, "marks a perilous turn in a region that is already reeling." He says talks are the only alternative, while the U.S. argues that Iran must come to the table in good faith.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTONIO GUTERRES, U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL: I have repeatedly condemned any military escalation in the Middle East. The people of the region cannot endure another cycle of destruction. And yet, we now risk descending into a rat hole of retaliation after retaliation. To avoid it, diplomacy must prevail.

DOROTHY SHEA, ACTING U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: To fulfill its core mission of maintaining international peace and security, this council must call upon the Iranian regime to end its 47-year effort to eradicate the state of Israel; to terminate its drive for nuclear weapons; to stop targeting American citizens; and interests; and to negotiate peace in good faith for the prosperity and security of the Iranian people and all other states in the region.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[00:40:25]

SCIUTTO: Crowds of Iranians gathered Sunday in Tehran to voice their anger over the U.S. strikes on the country's nuclear facilities.

CNN's Fred Pleitgen was there, and he reports from those protests in Tehran.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(CHANTING)

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: There still is a lot of public anger unloading here on the streets of Tehran.

Thousands of people have come here to Revolution Square, first and foremost, to criticize U.S. President Trump and to vow revenge for those strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.

One of the interesting things that we're seeing on the ground now here is that it's not only conservatives and hardliners who are here, but also people who say they're normally quite critical of the Iranian government.

"Even if missiles rain down on my head, I will stay here," she says. "And I will sacrifice my life and my blood for my country."

This member of Parliament says, "A lot of those standing here chanting slogans against the United States may have been critics of the policies of the Islamic Republic, but today, all of us are standing in one line behind the supreme leader."

People now chanting "death to America" here at Revolution Square, and you can really feel how angry a lot of them are towards President Trump.

Of course, the Iranian government has said that it reserves the right to retaliate for those strikes on the nuclear facilities, saying that it is their right to have nuclear enrichment. It is their right to have a nuclear program. And it's not something that they're going to allow the Trump administration to take away from them.

And that is certainly also the sentiment that we're seeing here on the streets of Tehran.

Fred Pleitgen, CNN, Tehran.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Joining us now from Tehran, Abas Aslani, a journalist and senior research fellow at the Center for Middle Eastern Strategic Studies.

Thanks so much, Abas, for joining again.

ABAS ASLANI, JOURNALIST/SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, CENTER FOR MIDDLE EASTERN STRATEGIC STUDIES: Thank you, Jim, for having me on.

SCIUTTO: I wonder, as -- as you speak to others there in Tehran, given the setbacks for the Iranian leadership, with the losses to Hezbollah in Lebanon; the loss of their ally in Syria, in the regime of Bashar al-Assad; and now these strikes on its nuclear facilities, is there a perception now in Iran that the leadership is now vulnerable?

ASLANI: Jim, there has been damages to the country from different perspectives. But the feeling here is that this could be recovered, and they can restore those capabilities, you know, gradually in the long run.

And when it comes to the nuclear facility, which has been the latest, you know, case of the damages, you know, three crucial components could be discussed and addressed in this regard.

You know, when we are discussing about nuclear program, it is mostly based on the facilities and the equipment. The nuclear material, as well as the knowledge and the know-how.

The first one has been, you know, damaged so far several times, specifically -- I mean, recently. And the extent of the damage is yet being investigated. We have to be waiting for a precise assessment on that.

But the nuclear material was relocated to a safe place, because Iran was expecting that attack.

And the third point is that the know-how or the knowledge which Tehran believes, that cannot be destroyed.

That's why they are insisting on developing nuclear program. And they think that this could be restored. They're looking at -- at this issue from this perspective.

And the others, like the commanders who were killed recently and assassinated in the Israeli aggression. There are lots of numbers of people who could be replacing those who have been killed.

SCIUTTO: Right.

ASLANI: So, that's why they think, in this regard, they can be replacing those capabilities.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you this. You have now President Trump at least raising the possibility of regime change in Iran. Granted, not an official statement, but -- but he tweeted it. And he is the president.

Is there openness among Israeli leaders now to continuing negotiations with -- with the U.S.? Just a few days ago, before he ordered these strikes, the president had said he was interested in negotiations. And then, of course, ordered military action.

[00:45:03]

Do -- do Iranian leaders, does the Iranian -- does the Iranian public believe that negotiations can happen?

ASLANI: Jim, one thing about the negotiations is that, you know, Tehran was engaged in those talks. All of a sudden, Israel disrupted that process. Next week, Iran was engaged in discussions with European parties. Then the United States attacked the nuclear facilities.

And now Tehran thinks that the U.S. was using those negotiations as a cover to deceive Tehran in order to, you know, surprise the country by the recent attacks.

But when it comes to the regime change, it seems that was the case for the Israelis. They -- they liked to have it. And they had initial calculus, maybe, that following their aggression, people would come to the streets to protest against the government.

But because people here in Tehran, you know, consider the recent attacks not just against the Islamic Republic, but against the country itself, that has made them united, backing the government to respond against Israel and the United States.

And because they are somehow rallying around the flag, they're supporting the government, the possibility of a regime change, you know, cannot be considered in this regard.

Because this has united the country, and this has increased the level of support for the government, contrary maybe to the calculations in Tel Aviv. And that's why this is not, you know -- the feeling for a regime change does not exist here in Tehran, if it exists in Tel Aviv or in Washington.

SCIUTTO: Abas Aslani joining us from Tehran. Thanks so much.

ASLANI: My pleasure, Jim.

SCIUTTO: We will have more news coverage when we return. Coming up, how world leaders are reacting to the U.S. airstrikes on Iran. Please do stay with CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:50:52]

SCIUTTO: In many cities in the U.S., antiwar protests have erupted following President Trump's decisions to strike on Iran.

Demonstrators from New York to Los Angeles took to the streets, urging the White House to stay out of war in the region. Some protesters also called out growing concerns over a possible global war and criticized the relationship between the U.S. and Israel.

In the wake of the U.S. airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities, America's European allies, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, are urging Iran to, quote, "engage in negotiations."

All three reiterated their firm stance against Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Speaking with his Israeli and Iranian counterparts on Sunday, Britain's foreign secretary stressed the need for the two countries to de-escalate. French President Emmanuel Macron also weighed in, voicing his desire to see a diplomatic resolution to the conflict.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EMMANUEL MACRON, FRENCH PRESIDENT (through translator): We call on everyone that there be no escalation. I am convinced that no strictly military response will produce the effect that we seek.

Restarting diplomatic and technical talks is the only way to achieve the objective we are all seeking: that Iran may not acquire nuclear weapons, but also that there be no uncontrollable escalation in the region.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Protests sprang up around the globe against U.S. involvement in that conflict, and a growing number of world leaders are pushing for peace in the region, as we just noted. CNN's Larry Madowo brings us the latest.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(CHANTING) LARRY MADOWO, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Protesters burn a joint effigy of U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Eastern Indian city of Kolkata, as the world reacted to the U.S. military strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities that the U.N. secretary-general called a dangerous escalation that could get out of control.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ceasefire now! Ceasefire now!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ceasefire now! Ceasefire now!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ceasefire now! Ceasefire now!

MADOWO (voice-over): In Tokyo, pro-Palestinian demonstrators branded the attacks a war crime. Japan's prime minister called for a quick de- escalation but said that Iran's nuclear weapons development must be stopped.

It's not enough for some protesters.

MYOKO HIDAKA, PROTESTOR (through translator): The Japanese government should be criticizing the U.S. and Israel much. More strongly. Japan is, after all, the only country in the world to have suffered atomic bombings. So, we really need to understand the horror of nuclear weapons more deeply and to make the world aware of it.

MADOWO (voice-over): Pope Leo XIV appealed for peace in his Sunday Angelus prayer.

POPE LEO XIV, LEADER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (through translator): Every member of the international community has a moral responsibility to stop the tragedy of war before it becomes an irreparable abyss. There are no distant conflicts when human dignity is at stake.

MADOWO (voice-over): Many European leaders did not explicitly condemn the U.S. strikes on Saturday, but asked Iran to return to the negotiating table.

KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Well, we've long had concerns about the Iranian nuclear program and been very clear that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.

The U.S. has now taken action to alleviate that threat.

It is important that we now de-escalate the situation, stabilize the region, and get the parties back around the table to negotiate.

MADOWO (voice-over): The Iranian foreign minister said he was heading to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin on Monday, describing Russia as a friend of Iran.

MADOWO: Russia had condemned the U.S. strikes, calling them irresponsible and a violation of international law. And that echoed comments we saw from several Arab states that castigated the U.S. for violating the sovereignty of Iran. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates all called for de-escalation, warning of serious consequences if war broke out in the region.

Larry Madowo, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[00:55:03]

SCIUTTO: Concerns now about the effects of a growing conflict on oil prices, and oil prices are on the rise. In Wall Street's initial reaction to the U.S. airstrikes on Iran, U.S. oil futures jumped more than 2 percent, trading at just over $75 per barrel.

The global benchmark, brent crude, seeing a similar spike now at more than $78 a barrel.

Economists are concerned Iran may now close the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20 percent of the world's oil flows through, in retaliation for the U.S. strikes, potentially disrupting the flow of oil and trade in the region and sending those oil prices up further.

We'll continue to watch all the effects of the ongoing conflict in the region. Thanks so much for joining us. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. I will be back with more of our breaking news coverage right after a short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

SCIUTTO: Hello and welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. You are in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington.