Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Early U.S. Intel Assessment Says Strikes Did Not Destroy Iran's Nuclear Sites; Iranians React to Ceasefire with Israel; Trump in Netherlands for NATO Leaders Summit; U.S. Lawmakers Seeking More Details on Iran Strikes; Gaza Health Officials: 49 Aid Seekers Killed Over 24 Hours; Mamdani Poised to Win Democratic Primary for NYC Mayor. Aired 12-1a ET

Aired June 25, 2025 - 00:00   ET

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

[00:00:21]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, and welcome to our viewers joining us from all over the world. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington.

And we begin with new reporting on exactly how much damage U.S. airstrikes did or did not do to Iran's nuclear program. CNN has learned that a preliminary intelligence assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency suggests that the damage may be far less extensive than the president and others have said since the attack.

This, according to seven people briefed on the early DIA assessment, with two of those briefed saying that Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium was not destroyed. One said the centrifuges used to make such material to enrich the uranium further are now largely intact still. Another source said that the intelligence assessed enriched uranium was moved out of the sites, at least some of it prior to the U.S. strikes.

The same source said that Iran's nuclear program has only been set back by maybe a few months, tops. An Israeli assessment, I'm told, found less damage at the Fordow facility than expected as well. The Israeli assessment says that U.S. and Israeli strikes have together set back the Iranian nuclear program by two years.

President Trump and the White House, they're not happy, and they're pushing back hard.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They hit the target perfectly, wiped it out, and the press is very disrespectful. It was perfect. They said maybe it did destroy it. We agree. It did destroy it, but maybe it could have destroyed it more. No, no, it couldn't have destroyed it more. Everyone hit, and its very disrespectful to those great geniuses and patriots that flew those planes through tremendous danger.

(END VIDEO CLIP) SCIUTTO: Well, in fact, it's not the press. This was an intelligence assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

In the region the fragile cease fire between Israel and Iran appears to be holding for now. People across Israel are heading back to work and to school as air raid alerts so frequent there have fallen silent.

More now, though, on the early damage assessments of the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites from CNN's Natasha Bertrand.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: It is an early assessment. It is not the judgment of the entire intelligence community. It is simply one agency. But our first reaction, obviously, is that it indicates that President Trump's comments about the destruction of these nuclear facilities and the obliteration of Iran's nuclear ambitions appear to have been vastly overstated.

Even if you take his comments that these nuclear sites have been obliterated, it appears that this intelligence assessment rebukes that. And ultimately, what the DIA found, which was based on an assessment from U.S. Central Command, was that much of the core components of Iran's nuclear program remain intact, even though there was significant damage that was done to some of the above ground structures at these nuclear facilities, much of the underground structures were not touched.

So you have things like the power facilities, you have things like above ground facilities that were used to turn uranium into metal for bomb-making. Those were very severely damaged, if not destroyed. But ultimately those can be rebuilt. And the question now is how long is it going to take Iran to rebuild those? How long is it going to take them to dig out of this? And the DIA found that it is likely that the Iranians could reconstitute within a matter of months.

And so the U.S. basically set it back by several months, rather than destroying it entirely. Another really important point in this is that the assessment, apparently, according to our sources, found that much of the enriched uranium that had been stored at these sites, which obviously is such a key part of the nuclear program, was actually moved out of the facilities prior to them being hit.

And so I think all of this taken together, suggests that whereas President Trump is saying that this was all obliterated, you know, it is far too early to say that. And in fact, that's something that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Caine, he made clear on Sunday as well. Look, this assessment is still ongoing, but early reports, you know, he did not go as far at all as to say that it had been obliterated.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Our thanks to Natasha Bertrand there.

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

Good to have you on, Cedric, given you yourself was an intelligence officer in the Air Force. Let's just begin with what happens after military strikes. Intelligence officers, agencies assess the damage. They do battle damage assessments as the DIA did here. This is normal, is it not?

[00:05:08]

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: It is absolutely normal, Jim. And it's great to be with you. The key thing that happens just so that people understand the process briefly is that when a pilot conducts a mission like this, they get debriefed by the local intelligence shop that they belong to, like the wing intelligence shop or something similar to that. And that is -- that pilot report is then combined with all the different reports from the intel agencies, the satellite imagery, and the signals intelligence snippets that they get.

All of those things are put together in what amounts to, what we call an all source intelligence report. And that then forms the basis for a battle damage assessment that can include multiple sources, can include different points of view in some cases. But the basic idea is to try to find out exactly what was hit and what the damage was because from a military operational perspective, what you want to know is, do I need to restrike that target?

Was I effective in knocking that target out, or do I need to come back and hit it again in order to knock it out? Maybe the second go around or the third go around, whatever it might take, if that in fact is part of the military campaign.

SCIUTTO: So to be clear, my understanding is that the Israeli battle damage assessment of the U.S. strikes is similar. It found that those strikes did not completely destroy or obliterate, the word the president likes to use, particularly the Fordow facility, the underground facility, though, they say that it did. The collection of the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran over the last several days has set the program back perhaps two years.

Given what we know prior to these strikes of what was estimated to be needed to completely destroy Iran's nuclear program, multiple strikes, perhaps a ground element, is it so surprising that one strike, even with quite significant munitions would not have completely obliterated the program?

LEIGHTON: Yes, it's not surprising at all. In fact, that's what we expected. We expected it would take multiple strikes and perhaps a, you know, another effort like a ground component, you know, special operations forces or something similar to that, to actually destroy something like a site, like the Fordow site. That's the kind of thing that would normally have to happen. And we're looking at this just from the prism of a -- the effectiveness of a military operation without considering necessarily the political risks involved in something like that, although those, of course, should be considered. But that's the kind of thing that would happen. So this is not a

surprise at all. The administration should not be surprised at this. And they should, in fact, take this information and in essence learn from it and then figure out what they want to do next based on the actual occurrences.

SCIUTTO: Listen, I imagine that's what's actually happening right now inside, for instance, the DIA, but also the U.S. military, right, is they want to learn what hit the target and when it hit the target, what exactly it did, and perhaps what it didn't do, right? So that they could then make plans for the for the next operation.

You, yourself in your service were, I'm sure, involved in similar -- in similar processes. Isn't that what the military does?

LEIGHTON: It is absolutely what the military does. And, you know, for example, we have to remember that the GBU 57, the massive ordnance penetrator, has never been used in combat before. So this is the first combat test of this kind of a munition, although it's been tested in a, you know, in a mechanical sense before, but it has not been tested this way. So of course you want to know whether or not it actually works and whether or not the American taxpayer is getting the proper bang for the buck literally in this case.

That becomes a very important component of this. And yes, every time you do something like this, you want to assess its effectiveness and you want to make sure that if you have to do something again, that you do it the right way or improve upon what you did before in order to have a more effective result.

SCIUTTO: Final point here, even if this didn't entirely destroy the program, right, as the early assessment shows, doesn't mean this wasn't a significant strike, right? It was a bold move. It did damage. It certainly sent a signal to Iran. And by the way, you know, given all the damage that Israel did prior, I mean, U.S. bombers were able to fly over Iran unscathed and dropped multiple munitions. I mean, that -- it doesn't take away from the success, I think one could call it, of these strikes.

LEIGHTON: That's right. One of the key elements here is the fact that not a single air crew member was lost in this operation.

[00:10:04]

It was a very complex operation involving -- you know, basically 125 or so different aircraft. And not just the seven B-2 bombers, that, you know, of course, carried out the actual dropping of the ordnance. But what is key here is the fact that from an air campaign perspective, this was incredibly successful. And the bomber pilots, the B-2 bomber pilots that conducted this operation, combined with the fighter pilots that provided escort, did a magnificent job, as did the Israeli air force pilots, who in essence softened up the target from a military operational standpoint.

So just from a pure military operational standpoint, there's a lot that we can learn from what happened here. But there's also a key element that is an absolute success from a planning perspective and an air campaign perspective.

SCIUTTO: Cedric Leighton, thanks so much for joining.

LEIGHTON: You bet, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Well, our Fred Pleitgen, he has been in Tehran throughout this, and he spoke to Iranians at a demonstration in support of the country's armed forces. We should note that in Iran, it is difficult to criticize the government. But as Fred was finding, there are many there who are backing their government through this.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: So Iran's leadership is hailing the ceasefire between Israel, Iran and the United States as a victory for Iran. They say that they forced the U.S. and Israel into a ceasefire. They essentially say that President Trump came begging for a ceasefire because of Iran's strong response, not just to the U.S. bombing Iran's nuclear installations, but, of course, also by firing missiles towards Israeli territory.

And the Iranians are saying that, for them, they consider this to be a show of strength by their military. And the event that you're seeing right now is actually Iran's leadership saying thank you to the military and thank you to the armed forces.

We've been speaking to folks here on the ground, and many of them are hailing and praising the ceasefire. But others say that they're also critical of the ceasefire and feel that Iran's military should have fought on.

(Voice-over): "Now we're obeying the commands of the supreme leader," she says. "Whatever he says, we will follow. If he orders jihad, we will follow. If he orders us to hold back, we will hold back."

"The ceasefire has not been something good or profitable for us," he says, "because we should have finished the story. We should have totally wiped out Israel."

"We will crush their might," he says. "We'll throw a punch into the mouths of the United States and the Zionists."

"Our opinion is always peace," she says. "Now it depends on them how they behave."

One thing Iran's leadership has been very clear about is they say that Iran's nuclear program was not destroyed by those airstrikes conducted by the Trump administration. They say the knowledge of nuclear energy remains here in Iran, and that its nuclear program will certainly come back to life and even exists right now.

The other thing that the Iranians are saying as well, despite that the ceasefire is taking place, they do not trust the United States and certainly don't trust Israel. And they say at any point in time their finger is on the trigger.

Fred Pleitgen, CNN, Tehran.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Donald Trump is now in the Netherlands for a brief stop at the NATO summit, tailored to suit his preferences. As he left Washington on Tuesday, he shared private messages from NATO secretary- general praising President Trump's decision to launch those strikes on Iran.

In those messages, Mark Rutte writes, quote, "Congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran. That was truly extraordinary," adding that, "It makes us all safer." He also says that all member nations will commit to spending at least 5 percent of their GDP on defense, up from 2 percent, a long time demand from President Trump. The NATO chief commended Trump again, saying, the spending commitment, quote, "will be your win."

Donald Trump and Turkey's president discussed the ceasefire between Iran and Israel, among other things, at the NATO summit. The Turkish government says Recep Tayyip Erdogan told President Trump that he hoped the ceasefire would be, quote, "lasting," and he emphasized the importance of dialogue to ending the wars ongoing in Gaza and ongoing in Ukraine.

President Trump is expected to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the sidelines of the NATO summit. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are among the top U.S. officials joining the president on the trip.

Ahead of the gathering, President Trump dodged a question about his support for NATO's Article Five, which requires -- which says that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all. He said his support for Article Five, quote, "depends on your definition." Later, though, he said he was committed to saving lives.

[00:15:06]

Joining me now, William Taylor, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council.

Thanks so much for joining us this evening, Ambassador.

WILLIAM TAYLOR, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: Thanks, Jim. Good to be here.

SCIUTTO: The president said, depends on your definition of Article Five. And I could read Article Five. And it says quite clearly what it means. And that is, yes, an attack on one is an attack on all and that the presumption is that then NATO members would come to the defense of others who were attacked. Is the president claiming wiggle room there that doesn't exist?

TAYLOR: Article Five has language in it that allows each individual member to -- NATO member to decide how to respond as if they were attacked. So there is some -- there is some flexibility in this. It doesn't require a military response, for example, in every case. So there is some flexibility in each of the responses that would be

required under Article Five. But the basic commitment needs to be very clear that all nations will come to the aid of any nation that's attacked by, in this case, Russia.

SCIUTTO: So tell me the importance, though, of the U.S. president, which has the largest military in the world, and of course, arguably the most important member of NATO, do to that clout of the leader, saying, well, you know, kind of depends on what you mean, right? Because I mean, the nature of the alliance is such, is it not, that it's only a credible alliance to the extent that its members believe that and its adversaries believe that? Has the president just injected some doubt?

TAYLOR: There needs -- it's important that there is no doubt, Jim. You're exactly right. It's important for deterrence. It's important that the Russians understand that any incursion, any attack on any NATO member will be, will be an attack on all. That is every nation will come -- so that needs to be very clear. And every nation, including the United States, needs to be especially emphasis on that responsibility and that commitment. And there needs to be no doubt that we will respond.

SCIUTTO: Tell me now, just as we enter this summit, a U.S. president that, and this is not the first time he has expressed doubts about NATO, but also has expressed doubts about continuing to support Ukraine in the midst of Russia's ongoing invasion. That said, he has not pulled entirely U.S. support and that had been a worry. Where does this go? Where do you see this going from here? Do you see the president holding the line and continuing to help? Do you see him making entirely a European responsibility?

TAYLOR: As you say, there's no real clear answer to that question yet. But the president -- President Trump has not said that we won't continue to support.

SCIUTTO: Right.

TAYLOR: He has not said that we will pull back on the intelligence sharing. He hasn't said anything about selling weapons, Patriot interceptors, other weapons to the Ukrainians. Those are all real possibilities, really important possibilities that the Ukrainians are counting on. They're eager to buy them from U.S. firms. And if the president allows that, then that could be the support that they need.

SCIUTTO: Without that, can they hold the line? Without U.S. support can Europe backfill, in effect, U.S. support as they've been trying to do? They've certainly been increasing their commitments, both financial and in terms of weapons.

TAYLOR: They have. They have. I was in Ukraine a month and a half ago. I was in Kyiv a month and a half ago, and asked the minister of defense that question. And he said, you know, if the Americans pull back, I'll have a heart attack, but I won't die, he said. So this -- and the Europeans will step up, are stepping up, as you've indicated. SCIUTTO: Final question, as you know, there are leaders of NATO member

nations, particularly in the East, who do believe that Vladimir Putin might strike a NATO ally next. You certainly hear that from leaders of the Baltic States. To hear President Trump question, raise doubts about Article Five, how will that land with those in Europe who are generally -- genuinely worried that they're Putin's next target?

TAYLOR: You're exactly right. And the Baltic States are particularly vulnerable and worried about this. So, again, it's going to be very important tomorrow when President Trump speaks that he allay those concerns. He has to be very clear that we will respond.

[00:20:04]

The United States will respond. The United States will have its duty, its understanding, its obligation to Article Five and to NATO. That's what the Baltics and the rest of NATO are going to be looking for.

SCIUTTO: Ambassador William Taylor, always good to have a conversation.

TAYLOR: Jim, thank you.

SCIUTTO: Well, the Senate's top Democrat and other lawmakers want answers after the Trump administration postponed classified briefings on the Iran strikes. The explanation from the White House still to come.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Our breaking news this hour, sources tell CNN that early U.S. intelligence assessments indicate that the massive weekend strikes by the U.S. did not entirely destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and perhaps set back the overall nuclear program by months.

Joining me now from Washington to discuss, Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow and founding director of the Iran program at the Middle East Institute.

Alex, good to have you on tonight. Thanks for staying up late.

ALEX VATANKA, SENIOR FELLOW, MIDDLE EAST INSTITUTE: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: So, first, your reaction to these assessments. We were talking earlier in the hour about how this is standard military fare.

[00:25:04]

You carry out strikes, you do an assessment as to how far those strikes went. The administration doesn't like this reporting and apparently doesn't like the intelligence assessment because it defies Donald Trump's characterization that he wiped everything out in one go. But given the extent of the program and how it's been deliberately distributed around the country and buried deep underground, is this that surprising? VATANKA: You know, it's really difficult to say where we are in terms

of actual Iranian nuclear program, in terms of what wasn't damaged and what was damaged. We know from the International Atomic Energy Agency that about 408 kilograms of enriched uranium that were taken out, the IAEA is desperately trying to get back in and supervise what's left of Iran's nuclear program. The Iranians are holding IAEA back, basically saying IAEA is not to be trusted.

So that's one part of it. And then we have this sort of mixed signals coming from the U.S. side, from the White House and the various, you know, defense and intelligence community reporting that suggests it might not have damaged everything the way it was first announced. So it's really difficult to say.

But let me also say this, Jim, the Iranians on their part, officials, and I don't know if this is political posturing or if this is reality, but they're saying their nuclear program is pretty much intact. So that might be worth for us to take into account as well. But again, that could be just posturing on their part because we all saw the images and we know what U.S. Air Force can do once it, you know, targets assets as they did over the weekend.

SCIUTTO: Listen, of course, Iran has an incentive to claim that its program survived this.

VATANKA: Right.

SCIUTTO: Notable from the intel assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency is it answers a question that had been a burning question following the strikes. And that is, what happened to the 400 kilograms of enriched uranium. And the assessment says that that uranium was not destroyed, at least not all of it. And of course, we have noted on CNN, as have others, that there were trucks seen leaving the sites prior to U.S. strikes.

And of course, the theory is that perhaps they drove some of it out prior. What does that mean? If some of this fissile material, if Iran maintains it?

VATANKA: Right. That means they have the option to, at least, again based on my knowledge, be able to produce a crude nuclear weapon if that's what they want to do. And again, we have to -- two things I say about it. Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel saying they know, he's been hinting that the Israelis know where these 408 kilograms of enriched uranium is actually located. Again, that could be just that disinformation on his part.

But the fact is that the Iranians had known for probably days, if not weeks, that attack, as has happened over the weekend, was likely. So one has to presume they had plans to store it somewhere else, and they very well have done that obviously as of today.

SCIUTTO: What happens now? The administration, the Trump administration has floated the idea of sitting down at the table again to come to a diplomatic solution that restricts Iran's nuclear program going forward. Is there a possibility, in your view, that Iran wants to take the seat on the other side of the table now, not just in the wake of the strikes, but also with the administration saying it deliberately misled at the end of last week, claiming that it was invested in the talks when the president had already effectively given the go ahead for military, for military action?

VATANKA: So, Jim, if you're Iran at this point, it doesn't really matter whether President Trump was lying all along. He wasn't interested in those rounds of talks that were planned a couple of days before the actual strikes, and whether he had coordinated with Bibi Netanyahu all along, going back months, as some reports suggest. It doesn't really matter. From Iran's point of view, the fact is they have a lot to gain and a lot to lose if diplomacy isn't at least tried.

Let me just quote what President Masoud Pezeshkian of Iran has been saying today, that they want to resolve their differences with the United States. I assume that means talking about the nuclear program. And in fact, I assume they're interested and they should be in broadening that conversation with the United States to talk about things like Iran's policies in the region, which we know is at the heart of this issue, which includes Iran's position on Israel.

Again, it's very difficult for the Iranians to come out and say all this openly right after they've been attacked by essentially two nuclear armed states. But that's exactly what Iran has to go, because what happened to them over the weekend could happen to them again if we go back to square one and diplomacy isn't tried one more time.

SCIUTTO: Alex Vatanka, thanks so much for joining us this evening.

VATANKA: Thank you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Well, Gaza health officials said that dozens of Palestinians have been killed simply waiting for food. When we come back, food distribution sites have once again turned into scenes of violence and chaos.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: An early U.S. intelligence assessment is casting doubt on President Trump's claims that the U.S. has completely destroyed -- annihilated as the president has liked to say -- three of Iran's nuclear facilities, its most important ones.

[00:33:31]

The assessment produced by the Pentagon's own Defense Intelligence Agency. Sources tell CNN the analysis suggests the U.S. strikes did not destroy the core components of Iran's nuclear facilities. Instead, they may have set Iran's enrichment capabilities back by mere months.

The sources say the impact to the Isfahan, Fordow, and Natanz sites largely restricted to above-ground structures. However, despite the inconclusive results, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is claiming success.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER (through translator): We have thwarted Iran's nuclear project. If anyone in Iran attempts to revive this project, we will act with the same determination, with the same strength to cut off any such attempt. I say again, Iran will not have nuclear weapons.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: U.S. lawmakers are eager for more details on that intel assessment. But on Tuesday, the White House postponed all congressional briefings on the strikes until later in the week.

One member told me that you normally don't delay briefings for good news. CNN's chief congressional correspondent Manu Raju reports now from Capitol Hill.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: There are still a lot of questions on Capitol Hill --

RAJU (voice-over): -- about the impact of the strikes, the unprecedented strikes launched by the U.S. against those three Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend and whether or not Iran could, in fact, still build a nuclear weapon; how fast it could do so; or whether it totally and completely obliterated key nuclear enrichment sites, as Donald Trump said on Saturday night.

[00:35:13]

Now, I put that question to John Thune, the Senate majority leader, whether or not he, in fact, agrees with Donald Trump's assessment. But he did not go that far.

SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD): I don't -- I'm not sure I have -- You might want to hear from senator Cotton, who chairs the Intelligence Committee, an answer on the full extent.

But we know for sure that their nuclear program was set back considerably. And that is a victory not only for that region, but for our country's national security interests.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): If the press reporting about the impact of last weekend's strikes in Iran is true -- and I cannot confirm them -- then that might be the reason why the administration postponed our classified briefing today at the very last minute, and deprived senators of their right to know what's happening. So, I ask again, what is the administration hiding? It's time for answers.

RAJU: That last comment coming from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, referring to the fact that the Trump administration scrapped scheduled briefings on Tuesday for senators and House members. They have delayed those until Thursday for senators, Friday for House members. They contended that the White House did -- that it was because of an

ongoing and evolving situation in the Middle East. They wanted to get all the right briefers in line to talk to House members and senators.

But Democrats said that there was something to hide. That was their accusation. And one of the things they're pointing to is new reporting from -- from our colleagues at CNN, showing that initial --

RAJU (voice-over): -- intelligence assessments don't line up with Donald Trump's claim that Iranians, the -- Iran's nuclear capabilities was complete -- were completely and totally obliterated; suggesting that it was set back, but not as far as what Donald Trump had said.

That is one question that senators and House members will have for these key briefers later this week.

The White House pushes back against that initial intelligence assessment. But what do the facts actually say? That's what members on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers --

RAJU: -- want to know when they hear from those key briefers in the classified setting later this week.

Manu Raju, CNN, Capitol Hill.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Alon Pinkas is a former Israeli consul general in New York. He also served as an advisor to four Israeli foreign ministers. He joins me now from Tel Aviv.

Good to have you back, sir. Thanks so much for joining.

ALON PINKAS, FORMER ISRAELI CONSUL GENERAL IN NEW YORK: Good morning, Jim. Good to be with you, as always.

SCIUTTO: So, to be clear, I've been told by an Israeli intelligence source that Israel's own battle damage assessment of these strikes mirrors that of the U.S.; that the strikes did significant damage but did not completely destroy the sites.

I just wonder why the outrage in response to getting an intelligence assessment that, you know, here's an intel agency doing its job, right, saying, here's what worked and here's what didn't. Why the outrage?

PINKAS: Yes. Well, because people hate party poopers. And when you boast and you gloat that, you know, we -- we obliterated, President Trump said. And Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke about setting it back by years and eliminating an existential threat.

And -- and here you have those BDA'S, so-called battle damage assessments that, by the way, they're inconclusive. But at this point, they indicate that there was, like you just said, severe damage, but not complete elimination and obliteration now. But -- but, you know, for the benefit of our viewers, there are two

things here. One is how much damage was actually caused to the three facilities? The one in Fordow, which is a uranium enrichment plant. The one in Natanz, which is also a partial enrichment plant, and the one in Isfahan, which is a uranium separation facility. It doesn't matter right now.

But the damages caused to those three are exactly what the president and the prime minister were boasting about so giddily.

But there's another issue, and that is over 400 kilos of already enriched uranium, up to 60 percent, that -- that Iran has in its stockpiles. Now, those 400 kilos can be condensed into anywhere between 10 and 20 canisters and could be moved around in your average sedan cars.

So, the question is, did they conceal those in time? If they did, then their path, if they so choose their path to a military nuclear device, hasn't been set back by years, but rather by months, which is exactly what those intelligence assessments pointed to.

[00:40:05]

SCIUTTO: So, let me ask you this. And this is just you -- you making your own best assessment here. What is Iran's most likely next move? Is it to take what it still has, bury it deeper, hide it better, and try to reconstitute? Or is it to accept President Trump's invitation and sit down at the negotiating table again?

PINKAS: That's -- that's a very hard question, because it requires getting into the mindset of Iran's leaders at this point. And that's difficult, because if they feel, which I do not know. But let's speculate, you and I together.

If they feel, if they perceive to be under an existential threat, then option one that you just mentioned is the one that they will choose, that path, meaning that they will try and reconstitute this as quickly as possible, as surreptitiously as possible.

And in fact, there is a case to be made, Jim, that until now, Iran refrained from breaking out from its so-called threshold state and actually manufacturing a weapons-grade device. But now, that process will be accelerated. Now there's a political decision to -- to do so, because the Iranians are saying to themselves, if we had a nuclear device, say the -- like the 45 or 50 that North Korea has, we would not have been bombed so ferociously in the last two weeks or 12 days.

Option two says, let's be rational about this. We can always go back to this. Right now, our economy is so weak and the pressure is such, and Israel can strike at any point right now in the next few months. So let's begin a negotiated process with the Americans, be on their good side.

I would imagine that the Saudis, the Qataris, and the Emiratis are trying to influence them in that direction. And, you know, and we'll do it Iranian style. We'll stretch for time. We will stall. We will emphasize and demand that we have the right to enrich certain amounts of uranium to certain percentage points for peace and medical purposes, peaceful and medical purposes. OK.

The third option is basically where we're right -- we are at right now, Jim. And that is nothing. Meaning no negotiations, no war, no -- no nuclear program. But that's -- that's very temporary. That's very transitory. And I think that's going to change.

So, it's either going to be one or two. If you ask Israel, it's going to be one. If you ask Donald Trump, it's probably going to be option two.

SCIUTTO: Well, listen, I'm glad to be speaking to you, this time without you just running out of the shelter. That is one benefit, at least, to the ceasefire. So, let's hope that it stays that way. And thanks so much for joining. Thank you.

PINKAS: My pleasure, Jim. Thank you.

SCIUTTO: And we will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:46:08]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back. I'm Jim Sciutto. Let's take a look at the top stories we're following today.

CNN has learned that the U.S. strikes did not destroy the core components of Iran's nuclear program. Sources say an early U.S. intelligence estimate -- estimate suggests the program was likely only set back by months.

One source says that enriched uranium was moved prior to the strikes.

Donald Trump is in the Netherlands for a brief stop at the NATO summit. He received a warm welcome as he met with allies ahead of the opening dinner on Tuesday.

NATO's secretary general lavished praise on the U.S. president's leadership in calling for NATO to increase defense spending.

Just a brutal heat dome over the Eastern United States is shattering temperature records. On Tuesday, several cities hit or surpassed 100 degrees Fahrenheit -- that's 37 degrees Celsius -- including New York City, Boston, Newark, and Philadelphia.

It's pretty hot here in Washington, D.C., as well.

Aid distribution sites in Gaza have been turning into scenes of deadly chaos and violence. Palestinian health officials say dozens were killed by Israeli fire over the course of a single day.

CNN's Nada Bashir has more. A warning: this story contains some graphic imagery.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NADA BASHIR, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At least 49 people have been killed near aid distribution sites or while waiting for aid trucks across Gaza over just 24 hours, according to Palestinian health officials.

On Monday, Gaza's Health Ministry said at least 21 people had been killed by Israeli fire while waiting for aid just South of the Netzarim corridor, near a distribution site managed by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.

The controversial aid organization, backed by the U.S. and Israel, has been mired in tragedy and deadly chaos, with multiple instances of civilians being killed trying to obtain lifesaving aid, though on Monday, the organization claimed that aid operations had proceeded smoothly.

The Israeli military has said it is reviewing reports of injuries sustained as a result of IDF fire in the area.

Meanwhile, in Khan Younis, distressing video obtained by CNN shows civilians being rushed to hospital, wounded while attempting to secure aid elsewhere, according to health officials.

Those who do survive the desperate search for aid still face crippling hunger. The U.N. has repeatedly voiced serious concern and cited that one in five people in Gaza now face starvation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)

GRAPHIC: I have lost my children. I have lost my family. I have been displaced. I wait for the food. I'm a human who needs to eat. I want to eat, but I have no food or water. Everyone is exhausted. We wait and surrender ourselves to death. We came here to die.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: "We came here to die." The words of one person suffering in Gaza today, that thanks to our Nada Bashir, reporting.

We'll be back with more right after a short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:53:07]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back. We will have more on our breaking news coverage of the situation in Iran. But first, Assembly Member Zohran Mamdani is on the brink of a stunning win in the Democratic primary for New York City mayor. This after former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo conceded the race on Tuesday night.

Since Mamdani's first round support is below 50 percent, the race will formally be decided by ranked choice votes, which will be announced starting July 1. However, that margin he has there, virtually impossible to overcome. CNN senior reporter Edward-Isaac Dovere joins us now live from Mamdani

headquarters in New York. And listen, this is a stunning upset in the New York City mayoral race. Tell us just how big an upset this was.

EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Anderson, I don't think that there are words that can describe how big an upset this is, given that just a couple of months ago, Mamdani was barely registering in the polls.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I was in New York reporting about this race. And people who were here at this party tonight cheering were telling me they were resigned to the idea that Cuomo was going to be the nominee, and he was probably going to be the mayor.

This is a huge win. It's bigger than the Mamdani campaign was anticipating. They figured this was going to at least go to ranked- choice voting. They didn't think that they had it in the bag, even this morning. And yet here he is, winning with a -- an hour and a half after polls closed, Andrew Cuomo calling him to concede.

Cuomo trying for this comeback that really fell completely on his face as Mamdani surged ahead.

SCIUTTO: Big picture, put it in some context for us here, because there's been a lot of talk in Democratic circles of what they have to do to win again, right? Not just the -- you know, New York City mayor's race, but the White House, Congress.

[00:55:04]

And the general talk has been move to the center. What you have here, though, is -- is a move very much to the left. Does this have broader national party implications?

DOVERE: Well, I think it definitely will. And I've heard from Democrats across the country and across the ideological spectrum who have a lot of different reactions to this Mamdani win tonight.

But what they are saying is, look, this is very different from what Democrats thought the path forward was after Kamala Harris lost. That said, what they are saying here is that Mamdani was speaking to real concerns about affordability, about the need for change and a new direction, and that that's what the Democrats need to be about.

They say it's not really so much about the policy ideas, although Mamdani has a lot of big, very far left policy ideas. It's about wanting to fight and feeling like he is answering what working people and what people who feel disaffected from politics have been asking for. And they think that's what gave him this win tonight.

SCIUTTO: Yes. And it's remarkable, you know, that that that Venn diagram. Right? There's an overlap there. Working people, people who want to change the direction of the company [SIC] describes a lot of the folks who voted for Donald Trump.

Edward-Isaac Dovere in New York. Thanks so much for joining. DOVERE: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: And thanks to all of you for watching. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. Our breaking news coverage continues right after a short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

SCIUTTO: Hello, and welcome to our viewers joining us from all over the world. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington.