Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
Iran's Supreme Leader Warns U.S. of "Irreparable Damage" if it Intervenes; IDF: Air Force Striking Iranian Regime Targets in Tehran; IAEA: Iran's Nuclear Capabilities Set Back "Significantly"; Trump Warning to U.S. Strike in Iran; Trump Demand Iran's "Unconditional Surrender"; White House Installs New Flagpoles. Aired 9-10a ET
Aired June 18, 2025 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[09:00:00]
BECKY ANDERSON, CNN HOST, CONNECT THE WORLD: Well, this is the view of the White House right now, where the world is watching and waiting to see
whether the U.S. President will decide to strike Iran. And its Supreme Leader rejects Donald Trump's call to surrender. It's 09:00 a.m. in
Washington. It is 05:00 p.m. here at our Abu Dhabi Middle East Programming Headquarters. It is 04:00 p.m. in Tel Aviv and it is 04:30 in Tehran. I'm
Becky Anderson, you're watching "Connect the World".
Well, the stock market in New York will open about 30 minutes from now. Futures indicating that prices are somewhat stalled to slightly higher as
investors await further news on any imminent involvement of the U.S. in this Iran, Israel conflict.
Oil prices spiking, reflecting ongoing concern about the impact of further escalation in the region. Investors also today keeping a keen eye on the
Fed as it makes a decision on rates later in the day. We'll get you back there in half an hour's time for the opening of these markets.
Well, the big question today, will the United States militarily get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran? Two U.S. officials
telling CNN President Donald Trump is growing increasingly warm to the idea of using U.S. assets to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. As for diplomacy
that, for now, at least, seems to be off the table after the president's social media post calling for Iran to unconditionally surrender.
Well, in comments a few hours ago, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed that surrender will never happen, and he warned of, quote,
irreparable damage to the U.S. if it gets involved. In the meantime, Israel and Iran exchanging strikes for a sixth day.
Israel's military says it targeted Iranian centrifuge and missile production sites. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says that Iran has
launched at least 400 missiles at Israel and hundreds of drones since hostilities began on Friday, since those Israeli strikes on Iran in the wee
hours of Friday morning.
CNN National Security Reporter Zach Cohen is in Washington working his sources on current thinking at the White House Senate. Sanam Vakil is
Director of the Middle East North Africa Programme at Chatham House, with perspective on what we are hearing from Tehran and what the consequence of
any U.S. action on Iran might be.
Zach, let's start with you three unmistakable signals from Donald Trump on Truth Social calling for unconditional surrender, calling for Iran's
Supreme Leader, calling him an easy target that's been spared thus far, and using we to describe Israel's operations. Why has Trump shifted his stance
so dramatically? What do we know about his thinking?
ZACHARY COHEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yeah, Becky, those public comments really do underscore what sources have described as a significant
shift in Donald Trump's thinking. And one that's taken place over the course of just a few days, as recently as this weekend and into Monday.
Sources said that discussions in the White House and with the president and his advisors really centered around trying to find a diplomatic off ramp to
the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. But into Tuesday, the president had grown increasingly frustrated with the Iranians,
specifically, and as you mentioned.
His head space now is more is warming to the idea of U.S. direct military involvement in the conflict, which obviously would be a significant step by
the U.S. President and an evolution of what's already taking place. Now look, the question as to what prompted this shift is a little unclear.
One is that Trump has voiced frustration, even publicly, about the Iranians unwillingness to agree to some sort of a deal about its nuclear program,
and Trump's ultimate goal has always been, as he says, to dismantle the Iranian nuclear program, either via a deal or potentially now through
military strikes.
The other part of this too is he is hearing from a range of close advisers, both internal White House administration officials, who span the entire
spectrum of isolationist, sort of focused individuals to the more hawkish wing of Trump's own party, the Republican Party, members of Congress,
falling on both sides, have been talking to Trump about this issue as well.
And of course, Trump has been talking to Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, who has been pushing his own views about not only what he
wants to see from the U.S., but about what Israel believes Iran is pursuing as far as a nuclear weapon is concerned.
[09:05:00]
So, at the end of the day, all of these voices are being heard by the president, but it will come down to what he ultimately decides. As of now,
he is reviewing his options. We know that his national security team has presented him with an array of options for potential military strikes, or
military providing military support to Iran.
One of those options, as you mentioned, includes potentially the U.S. conducting joint strikes with Israel against Iranian nuclear facilities.
ANDERSON: So, we watch and wait at this point, has been described to me as sort of the world being held hostage to a degree by Donald Trump. As we
wait for his decision on this Sanam you heard the Iranian Supreme Leader reject Donald Trump's call for surrender, perhaps not surprisingly.
He also said the U.S. stepping in is a quote sign of the Zionist regime's weakness and inability. What do you make of what we've heard more Iran's
calculations right now to your mind?
SANAM VAKIL, DIRECTOR, MIDDLE EAST & NORTH AFRICA PROGRAMME, CHATHAM HOUSE: Well, this is a huge, consequential moment for Iran, but I think more
broadly, also for the region that risks the spillover effect, an escalation that they've been very much fearing.
Iran's Supreme Leader, who has long been in post since 1989 is deeply anti- American, very distrustful of the United States, and the gamble of the nuclear talks, which clearly didn't pay off for the Supreme Leader, is
leading to this bluster and confrontation.
This is an individual, but this is also political establishment that is going to hunker down and look to showcase resilience. They believe that 46
years of the Islamic Republic can't be overturned overnight, and they want to use similar sort of strong language in order to perhaps deter the United
States into coming into this war for the Islamic Republic. This is the worst-case scenario.
But Khamenei himself, said war will be met with war and at the same time, of course, the fact that the United States has to come into the war as the
-- as he sees it, and as his cadre of officials around him see it, do demonstrate Israel's weakness, because Israel can't get the job done or
meet its war aims on its own.
ANDERSON: So, then that begs the question, what is the capacity for Iran to sustain a fight against Israel, in whatever position Israel is in at this
point, with or without U.S., support? Is it clear at this point what is the state of affairs behind the scenes for Iran? Just how much -- how
substantive is its capacity?
VAKIL: Well, you know, on the one hand, this is very much a numbers game. Iran has what is estimated, about 2000 missiles, and as was just reported,
you know, about 400 have been used. They have been holding what they have back, clearly trying to play a longer game and acknowledging that further
escalation is very much in the cards.
We also don't know if they have other missiles that have not been reported. The problem is, of course, that Iran is the weaker party. It doesn't have
conventional military capability, so it has to also showcase resilience. It has to inflict damage, spread the cost, and put as much pain on Israeli
society, knowing full well that in this moment, the Iranian state hopes that Iranians are going to rally around the flag and stick together and --
play a longer game.
ANDERSON: Well, I want to bring in Paula Hancocks because we just had news out of Israel, it is easing domestic restrictions, according to its defense
minister in a quote message of victory over Iran, can you just explain what's been said?
PAULA NEWTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Becky, this was from Israel Katz, the defense minister, saying that they were going to start easing these
restrictions for residents in Israel. At this point, they are very tight restrictions.
The second you hear this preemptive in some cases, air raid sirens saying that something may be incoming, you go to the air raid shelter and you're
not allowed to leave until you get the all clear from Israeli officials. Now we're hearing that that is going to be relaxed somewhat.
[09:10:00]
And Katz actually called it a quote message of victory, saying that it shows that the Israeli military is having success in trying to prevent
Iran's ability to be able to fire the number of missiles that it had been. If you look at early on this week, in the early hours of Monday, there were
hundreds of missiles and drones being fired the last couple of mornings, including this morning, there was just about 30.
So, the Israeli military is claiming it has had success in targeting the missile abilities, the production sites, the launches in Iran itself. Now
we've also been hearing from the opposition leader in Israel. We're hearing some rare unity, really, between the government and the opposition leader
when it comes to trying to convince the U.S. to get involved, to try and convince the U.S. President, let's listen to the opposition leader.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
YAIR LAPID, FORMER ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: I trust President Trump to do what is right for the United States. But in conversations with
international officials and in the international media, I keep repeating, the United States needs to join this campaign.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Now, we also on the diplomatic front, hear from the Foreign Minister, Gideon Saar. He says on X that he actually sent a letter to the
UN Security Council, and it said and claimed that Iran had a, quote, strategic plan to eliminate Israel, saying that it is -- it was developing
its nuclear program in such a way that it was a critical development, and that was a decision that Israel had to make, but it was made as a measure
of last resort.
So, you can see on the diplomatic front, a lot happening at this point. Israel explaining why it decided to go ahead and carry out these strikes at
this point, worth mentioning, though we know that the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has wanted to target Iran's nuclear program
for years, if not decades, Becky.
ANDERSON: Yeah, it's good to have you. Sanam, let me just bring you back in for a final thought here. This is -- you know very clearly, a battle of
narratives at the moment playing out in real time as we literally sit and wait for a decision, an official decision, for word from the White House as
to what the U.S. intends to do next.
Millions of lives in Iran, in Israel, of course, and around the region where I am, the Gulf and wider Middle East, are at risk. I just want your
sense as we quite literally sit and wait this out.
VAKIL: My sense is that if there's ever been moments for Gulf States who welcome President Trump just a few weeks ago to play a role, it's now
President Trump came to the Gulf repudiated past neo con regime change actions in the Middle East, calling out previous U.S. Presidents and
promising to build a pathway of peace and partnership, repudiating chaos and terrorism.
And I think the Gulf should be on the phone, appealing to the president that this foray in Iran, if it should go forward with American support, can
be very dangerous. There could be environmental consequences that will impact the Gulf. Gulf States are worried about radiation contamination to
their water.
But more broadly, the possibility that bringing down Iran's nuclear program and bringing down the Islamic Republic, two goals that the Israelis are
trying to pursue, will be very hard to achieve. And so, it's the Gulf States themselves it's the broader region that will bear the impact, as
well as ordinary people around the Middle East.
This is thereby a time for de-escalation. It's time to buy a little breathing room. Certainly, the Israelis think that this is maybe a lull, a
moment to capture their breath. But this conflict can very much heat up and drag on, and the region can ill afford yet another conflict continuing.
It's worthwhile noting that the war in Gaza is also underway with little international attention to that either.
ANDERESON: Sanam, thank you. Zach, good to have you, and we've had Paul Hancocks in the mix as well. Let me just read to you what we're just
getting into CNN to keep you bang up to date on where we are at. The Israeli military has just released a statement saying that its Air Force is
currently striking, quote, military targets belonging to the Iranian regime in Tehran.
[09:15:00]
Now, CNN could not and cannot currently independently verify this claim. The IDF did not immediately provide further details. Just to repeat that,
to keep you bang up to date, the Israeli military has just released a statement saying that its Air Force is currently striking quote, military
targets belonging to the Iranian regime in Tehran.
Well, people have been fleeing the Iranian Capital to avoid the Israeli bombardment, many of them heading north. This, of course, after the U.S.
President warned the city of 10 million residents to evacuate. Nick Paton Walsh has more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): Try to flee Tehran, and you're lucky if the roads are this empty. A four hour wait for gas, hospitals overflowing, people living in tents by
the roadside. One doctor told CNN, everyone who can is leaving with a suitcase, they said, empty handed or carrying their babies.
On the way-out temperatures in the 90s, cold water passed around. Government advice given to those caught in strikes while driving out reads,
if you can get out, seek refuge and turn your back to the blast. If you're stuck in the gridlock, unbuckle recline the chair back, cover your head
with your hands. This baker's brother died in the strikes he learned 20 minutes before this video was shot, his response to keep working.
In the north, where most have fled, the flour ration has been raised owing to bread shortages, official media said. What they left behind is a world
upturned this yellow building slant a taste of ordinary lives bent beyond recognition in Tehran, where two days ago, screams echoed.
Now the streets quieter vacant, whether made so by Netanyahu and Trump's warning for the capitol to evacuate, all the constant blasts overhead and
around. Night after night, these barrages continue, Israel and Trump now saying they control the skies and Iran strikes against Israel seem lesser.
Families crammed underground, normal here, gone tomorrow, panicked and unknowing. Nick Paton Walsh, CNN, London.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON: Well, next up, what could recent deployments of specialized U.S. planes and other military assets to the region suggest about Donald Trump's
plans here? That is up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:20:00]
ANDERSON: Well, the world is watching and waiting to see if the U.S. will enter the conflict between Iran and Israel directly. What we do know is
that military aircraft being deployed, giving President Trump a range of options in the region. Sources now saying the U.S. has sent more than 30
aerial tankers, for example, meant to refuel combat planes in the air here.
Shashank Joshi is the Defense Editor for The Economist. He's joining me now from London. It's good to have you, Shashank. We're going to dig into the
U.S. military options to hear. But first, if you will, just break down for us, why these refueling tankers have been sent to the region and how likely
it is that they'll be used?
SHASHANK JOSHI, DEFENSE EDITOR FOR THE ECONOMIST: Well, this is the big question. There are many reasons why tankers may be sent to the region. For
instance, if there are U.S. fighter jets involved in helping to shoot down drones or other missiles over Israeli airspace or over the airspace of
other U.S. allies then those fighter jets tend to be fairly short range, and they need help to stay in the air from refueling aircraft.
So, in theory, a lot of tankers could be supporting lots of jets in the air for any number of reasons, including completely defensive ones. However, it
is clear that the administration is strongly considering whether to intervene in Iran directly, particularly to use strategic bombers,
specifically the B2 bomber, to strike the Fordow nuclear site, as I'm sure you've been discussing extensively on your program in recent days.
And so, refueling tankers would be necessary to facilitate those kinds of operations, as well as any fighter jet escorts that the bombers may
require, because bombers tend not to carry the same or enough armament to protect themselves from other kinds of threats. Now, to directly answer
your question, I think the administration is moving towards a strike on Iran.
And I think it's interesting, isn't it? We've it's now been probably 15 hours since President Trump met his national security team. He's a
loquacious man. We haven't heard anything from him. And I would guess that is bad news, because if he had decided against a strike, I suspect we'd be
seeing a lot more commentary right now, a lot more bluster from him.
The fact that it's gone quiet suggests to me he may well be moving in the direction of authorizing a strike, if he hasn't done so already.
ANDERSON: Yeah, it's fascinating to get your perspective. And we have been gaming out for some time what it would look like for Trump to strike Iran.
The prevailing consensus being that it will be U.S. bunker busters that would try to take out the Fordow nuclear site.
So, let's park that just for a moment, we know that Natanz and Isfahan, two other key Iranian nuclear sites, have taken substantial hits, based on
satellite imagery and U.S. and Israeli officials. How much could a U.S. operation expand in Iran across nuclear sites. Is it clear?
JOSHI: I don't think Israel needs the United States to hit any other nuclear sites, although there is one exception, which is a deeply buried
site that is more recently excavated south of Natanz. Natanz itself has been struck. The power supply to Natanz has been struck.
In fact, the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, says that the underground enrichment chamber at Natanz has also been struck, according to
more recent satellite images that were analyzed yesterday. But there is a deeply buried site, south of Natanz, where American bombs may assist
Israel.
On other sites, I don't think Israel needs America. Where I think Israel may need more help is suppressing Iran's ballistic missile launches. Israel
has done that pretty well in the northwest of the country, but I understand from some people I've spoken to that there are still quite a few active
Iranian ballistic missiles launches in the south of the country and Israel strikes have been concentrated in the northwest of Iran.
So, there are some concerns. And in fact, last night, we saw more Iranian strikes on Israel, and the number of those, I think, ticked up again after
several nights in which the rate of launches had gone down. So, I think that's where the Americans may also be called upon to help the Israelis, if
indeed they do intervene.
ANDERSON: Yeah. And as part of those strikes, allegedly, Iran is suggesting the use of their fatter ballistic missile, which they describe as a
hypersonic.
[09:25:00]
Can you just describe for us what sort of, you know, scope capacity something like that has, and whether or not we should be surprised that
that is being used against Israel on day six.
JOSHI: I think we should be surprised by any Iranian capability being used at this point. We've already seen a very wide range of Iranian ballistic
missiles employed. When you hear the word hypersonic, I would advise you, know, being a little bit skeptical, because, of course, we like to talk
about hypersonic missiles these days.
In practice, all ballistic missiles, particularly intermediate range or intercontinental range, ballistic missiles, are hypersonic when they're
enter the atmosphere, as they come down to the target, they come down at more than five times the speed of sound. That's what hypersonic means.
And you know that would have applied to 1950s era ICBMs as much as it does modern missiles. Hypersonic means something a bit more specific. It means a
missile that can maneuver while maintaining those speeds for most of its flight. Iran does not have those sorts of missiles.
However, the ones it does have can cause enough problems for Israel, and what you're seeing is Israel is still trying to intercept a lot of these
missiles, what we call exoatmospherically, in other words, in space when the missile is very high up before it's coming down at full speed.
But the problem for Israel is it has relatively limited numbers of the arrow interceptors that conduct those kinds of very high-altitude
interceptions. And I think that's going to be one of the concerns that Israel has as this conflict goes on and approaches its second week.
ANDERSON: This is fascinating. The Europeans have sort of been relatively quiet through all of this, letting the U.S. clearly take the lead here.
This is clearly not their fight, they believe. But this is a striking comment from the German Chancellor. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRIEDRICH MERZ, GERMAN CHANCELLOR: Yes, Israel did the dirty work here. I can only say that I have the greatest respect for the fact that the Israeli
army had the courage to do this. The Israeli leadership had the courage to do this. Otherwise, we might have seen months and years more of this
regime's terror, and then possibly with a nuclear weapon in their hands.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: What do you make of those comments from the German leader?
JOSHI: Well, I think it's really striking, isn't it? I think what Merz is saying that Israel is sort of doing the rest of the world a favor without
endorsing that statement myself. I think it's true that it reflects what some other Europeans believe in private, but are very reluctant to say out
loud, because they have grave reservations about the scope of the Israeli campaign and whether it may turn into, if it hasn't already a campaign of
regime change in Iran, which they do not appreciate.
But I will note that if you look at that statement by the G7 out of Canada yesterday that I'm sure you covered at the time, and the G7 includes,
obviously, a number of European states, France, Germany, as well as the UK. It was very clearly, highly critical of Iran, saying that Iran is the
source of instability in the region.
Iran must not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. There was really very little. There was no explicit criticism of Israel, I think. And so that
tells you the mood in Europe. But what they don't want, I think, given the Israeli campaign in Gaza, particularly, where we also saw a number of, sort
of large numbers of deaths yesterday in a very nasty episode.
I think they don't want to be seen as piling in behind an Israeli war at this stage, which would play very badly in many of their domestic
populations.
ANDERSON: Shashank, before I let you go, I want to just take a step back and remember that Israel's stated concern about Iran's nuclear program and
its ability to build a bomb has been a rallying cry of Benjamin Netanyahu now for nearly three decades, at least since 1996. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: The deadline for attaining this goal is getting extremely close.
And Iran, by the way, is also outpacing Iraq in the development of ballistic missile systems that they hope will reach the eastern seaboard of
the United States within 15 years.
By next spring, at most, by next summer, at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage.
From there, it's only a few months, possibly a few weeks, before they get enough enriched uranium. Iran for the first bomb, the foremost sponsor of
global terrorism, could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.
[09:30:00]
The foremost sponsor of global terrorism, could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons. That
would place a militant Islamic terror regime week away from having the fissile material for an entire arsenal of nuclear bombs. If not stopped,
Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time. It could be a year. It could be within a few months, less than a year.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Shashank is critics call this Iraq 2.0, iteration 1.0 of course, using the premise of mass weapon, weapons of mass destruction to attack.
Briefly, your thoughts.
JOSHI: I think, as your colleagues reported yesterday, there are the U.S. intelligence community believes that Iran was, quote, not actively pursuing
a nuclear weapon, and that it was probably about three years away to be able to produce and deliver one to a target.
That doesn't mean it didn't have it wasn't dabbling in nuclear weapons research, and it doesn't mean Iran wasn't accelerating some of that
research. That's a possibility. But right now, I think more evidence is needed on whether those specific claims by the Israeli Prime Minister are,
in fact, correct.
ANDERSON: It's always good to have you. Your perspective, extremely important as we consider what is going on at present. And as I've said
earlier, watch and wait for this decision about what the U.S. President's intentions are in this Israel-Iran, escalating conflict. It's good to have
you, sir. Thank you.
Coming up, Wall Street is open for the day. Let's take a look at the live markets for you. We're expecting a sort of mixed open and that is the story
there. Pretty much stall, to be honest. And we'll check in on oil prices as investors weigh up, what is this unfolding conflict between Israel and
Iran? More on that is after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANDERSON: I'm Becky Anderson. Welcome back. You're watching "Connect the World" from our programming headquarters here in the Middle East, Abu
Dhabi, where the time is just after half past five in the evening. It is just after a half past nine, of course, in the morning in and on Wall
Street. And we've looked to add a picture which is very mixed on the open there, some real concern about escalation of tensions in the Middle East
helping spike oil prices.
[09:35:00]
The energy market on high alert and crude oil on track for a weekly rise. On Tuesday, prices surged to their highest value in nearly five years,
before falling slightly this morning. Right now, Brent on the rise again, trading at well above 76, bucks on the barrel. Well, Donald Trump is
growing increasingly warm to using U.S. military assets to strike Iran.
Two officials have told CNN. If Washington intervenes, Tehran could retaliate by striking U.S. Middle East military bases, where around 40,000
troops are currently stationed, that's one option. A potential escalation of the conflict, sparking fear then across the region and beyond.
The UAE's President called his Iranian counterpart on Tuesday to discuss the grave implications of the fighting on regional peace and security.
Well, I'm joined in the studio now by Aniseh Bassiri Tabrizi, who is a Senior Consultant at Control Risks Consultancy that looks at political
risks.
She has over a decade of experience in international relations and security in the Middle East. So, you calculate and assess geopolitical risk. What is
the risk? Let's start with the Fordow site firstly, because -- with U.S. involvement, were that to happen? That is where this sort of regional
concern about a cascade and escalation comes from. Your sense?
ANISEH BASSIRI TABRIZI, SENIOR CONSULTANT AT CONTROL RISKS: Yes, absolutely. I think that is obviously the main target. It could be the main
target. We know that Israel has been wanting to strike against Fordow and that is one of the targets that it's more challenging for Israel to do by
itself, and we can assess that.
It's probably why has been insisting on the U.S. to get involved in this. I think that obviously would lead to a further escalation. Now we are in the
first level of escalation in which things have been mainly bilateral between Iran and Israel, but obviously a U.S. involvement, namely a U.S.
involvement in targeting Fordow obviously, would lead to another level of escalation.
One that would lead Iran to potentially target U.S. bases across the region, as you mentioned. And this is something that I think the U.S. is
concerned about. We saw already one week ago that the U.S. decided to reduce its presence in the region, particularly in Iraq, Bahrain and
Kuwait.
So, I think there is a concern, an assessment from the U.S. side itself, that if there is any involvement, that would definitely lead to the U.S.
also being the next target.
ANDERSON: We are in the Gulf here.
TABRIZI: Yeah.
ANDERSON: I mean, we haven't been in Abu Dhabi the Gulf region, outside of this region, but still in the wider space. Jordans air defense coming into
play. We have this video from not long ago. They say their airspace will not be used as a battlefield, but they are obviously not happy about this,
and we've seen that map of the ranges that Iran's weapons can reach.
Do you sense growing anxiety in the region, in places like Jordan and around the Gulf?
TABRIZI: I think the U.S. involvement would definitely increase the level of risk, also for regional countries, including for the Gulf. I think we
would still not be in the higher level of the escalation ladder. If you wish, you know like other targets were to be struck, like the gas and oil
infrastructure, not the production one, but the one for exports, then that is likely to lead Iran to another type of retaliation, which could also
involve the Gulf countries.
We have been seeing more mentions about the Strait of Hormuz. We know that Iran has been mentioning this for now, since 2012 to my knowledge, and --
ANDERSON: About closing the Strait of Hormuz --
TABRIZI: About closing the Strait of Hormuz.
ANDERSON: Through which, of course, a fifth of global oil and gas is shut in --
TABRIZI: -- every --
ANDERSON: Yeah.
TABRIZI: Yes. So, I think that's a threat that Iran is going to continue to use. But I think until there is basically this is going to be one of the
last resorts that it's going to use, because otherwise there is going to be damage to its own economy.
ANDERSON: You have to wonder how the risk calculus has changed in given in this region, given the rapprochement the better relations between Tehran
and, for example, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi over the past couple of years, there is clearly some influence and some diplomatic activity. A lot of it going
on behind the scenes, including influence from these very strategic capitals.
TABRIZI: Absolutely. And I think there is, as you say, concern that a replication and not worsening of what we have seen already in 2019, 2020,
could happen.
[09:40:00]
The Gulf countries were targeted when the escalation took place in the first administration of President Trump during the maximum pressure
campaign, and they wanted to avoid, at all cost, that to replicate in the second mandate. And that's why they have distanced themselves so much from
a potential involvement in any of these escalation ladder.
But I think if we are going up and up in the escalation ladder against Iran, Iran, despite the rapprochement, might decide to target or affect
also these countries, because if left without choice, we heard Khamenei speech today. It doesn't look like they're going to resign and capitulate
anytime soon, right?
ANDERSON: -- surrender.
TABRIZI: Surrender. So, I think they're going to use all the levers at their disposal. There are not many. So, all they have, they're going to
use.
ANDERSON: We all remember the speech by Donald Trump in Riyadh back in May during his whirlwind trip around this region. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Before our eyes, a new generation of leaders is transcending the ancient conflicts of tired
divisions of the past and forging a future where the Middle East is defined by commerce not chaos, where it exports technology not terrorism, and where
people of different nations, religions and creeds are building cities together, not bombing each other out of existence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: And that speech was widely applauded around this region of the Gulf. We know that the President of the UAE has called Iran's President. We
know there was a lot of shuttle diplomacy going on through Doha at present, with the Emir there speaking to regional leaders and to the U.S. and to
Donald Trump.
Just how intensive is that Arab lobbying? Do you believe on both Iran and Israel, including through the U.S.? And how much, ultimately, can they
avoid being involved at this point?
TABRIZI: It's a great question. I think the question, the main one, though, is how much influence they have on the U.S. at this point. Because I think
the ultimate decision maker at the moment is the U.S. The Iranians and Israel are involved as I said, the conflict is bilateral.
Is not going to stop at the moment, until there is some sort of change in the posture from the U.S., either towards a de-escalation or towards an
escalation. And in neither scenario, I see, you know, like the UAE and the Gulf countries in general, being able to shift so much the U.S. position,
if this is so much swayed by Israel at the moment.
And this is something that I think it's going to be watched with concern from capitals across the Gulf.
ANDERSON: It's fascinating, isn't it? It's good to have you. Thank you very much indeed for joining us. And a lot more on our breaking news is just
ahead. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:45:00]
ANDERSON: Iran's Supreme Leader rejecting U.S. President Trump's call for surrender while saying quote, the battle begins. Whether he can follow
through on that promise, and whether the Iranian people will stand with him remain open to questions of course.
CNN's Chief International Security Correspondent, Nick Paton Walsh is in London. What do we know about the Supreme Leader stature right now? How
realistic is all this talk of no surrender on the one hand, and this talk of regime collapse, if not change, on the other?
PATON: Yeah. I mean, important to point out the battle begins and him saying that the Iranian people are not one to surrender two separate posts,
the former slightly preceding this the second time that we heard a speech from Ayatollah Khamenei since this phase of his conflict with Israel began.
But I think in terms of the fieriness of rhetoric we've seen come out of Tehran, this is not the most combative we've heard, certainly, and when he
refers to how if the United States attacks it will cause irreparable damage. He's not necessarily singling out U.S. President Trump, or even
widening the threat to U.S. bases in the region.
Some of the terms here comparatively vague. Of course, he is going to say that Iran is not going to surrender. And frankly, I don't even know how
that would even look in the current age where they're facing mostly airborne Israeli enemy inflicting enormous damage on their military
infrastructure.
But it's exactly how that military looks, and indeed, how Iran's nuclear program looks, that leaves -- probably the most perilous moment in his
tenure so far. He is the face of a theocratic system. This is not just about a one-man dictatorship that could potentially vanish overnight.
There are even suggestions his great grandson has been on the streets of Tehran, suggesting the potential longevity and replacement that could
happen if there was. It's been hinted at, not only by Israel's President Benjamin Netanyahu, but indeed by President Trump himself, the possibility
that he might indeed be taken out.
Although Trump said there wasn't something the U.S. was planning on doing at the moment, when Trump posted he put the words killed with an
exclamation mark in brackets during that statement. So, I think we're looking at a Khamenei who is deeply weakened by what we've seen over the
past five days now, whose military has been not only decapitated, but repeatedly found those replacement people put in the vacant posts killed
again, as well nuclear scientists.
So, the brains trust behind this program killed as well, nuclear infrastructure taken out, and most importantly, now Iran, Israel very
clearly saying it has control of the skies. Indeed, Donald Trump using the first-person plural, we to describe potentially how the U.S. feels.
It's alongside Israel in that task. That is the key thing going forward, if Israel still has targets to hit across Iran's military infrastructure, it
seems it can now do that and will. And in fact, potentially a sign of how reduced the threat from Iran may indeed be. Israel has reduced some of the
threat warnings to its own economy and civilians in the past hours.
And we've been tallying up quite how many missiles that could reach Israel, Iran could have, and they appear to have got through at least seven
possibly 800 in the past 15 months, in different waves of attacks that could leave them with anything between just 200 to 1200 left.
And most analysts, I think that that even that latter larger number is still a remarkably small one if you want to retain some kind of deterrence.
So, Iran's options smaller in terms of what we publicly know, a big question mark about whether its intentions to get a nuclear weapon indeed
are still there if they were there in the first place.
Iran has always denied that. And quite what it does going forwards, but the options appear as they frankly were when Israel's campaign began. And
perhaps a reason why Israel's campaign began that Iran is significantly military weakened was five days ago, is even more so now, and therefore
doesn't suddenly have a ray of particularly attractive options ahead of it, Becky.
ANDERSON: It's good to have you, Nick, thank you. Well, you're watching "Connect the World" with me Becky Anderson. And still to come, we are going
to get you live to Capitol Hill as Republican hawks versus MAGA isolationists battle to steer Donald Trump on Iran. That up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:50:00]
ANDERSON: Well, Republicans divided on Capitol Hill in Washington as they seek to steer the president on Iran. On the one side, there are hawks like
Senator Lindsey Graham, often the president's go to on national security, urging him to go all in when it comes to Iran.
And then there are MAGA isolationists like Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, urging, let's be America first. Let's stay out. We'll CNN
Congressional correspondent Lauren Fox tracking it all on Capitol Hill, and I wonder what you are picking up. I mean, is it clear who has the upper
hand at this point?
LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think it's really clear that Donald Trump is taking in a lot of advice, taking in a lot of
thoughts from some of these MAGA conservatives who have up to this point, been extremely loyal to the president, right?
We're talking about someone like Marjorie Taylor Green, who has, in my memory, never really gotten out of lockstep with Donald Trump, and is
clearly trying to use her voice to influence him in this moment. There are also others on the outside MAGA world who have huge microphones --
ANDERSON: Right, Lauren, let me just jump in. I need to get to the White House. Let me just jump in. I need to get to the White House; Donald Trump
is speaking at an event there.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: -- incredible people. I don't know them, but I love them. And I would bet that they all voted for Trump. I mean, I don't know for a fact,
but I think so. But we're about to lift it, and we also have one going on, what's called the front of the north we have one going there, identical.
So, we'll have one on this side of the building. We'll have one on that side of the building properly placed. In this case, we had a lot of
choices. Putting it on that hill, putting it different places. It's such a beautiful pole, we thought we'd put it nearby. I mean, it always looks best
when it's near Doral, I put it right nearby.
Have a similar poll. And these are the best polls anywhere in the country or in the world actually. They're tapered. They have the nice top, you
know, I don't know if you people are esthetic, you know, they're the fake news. I don't know -- I don't know -- but it's a very exciting project to
me.
And then at 11 o'clock, we're lifting the flag. But we're going to lift the poll now. And then they go into the other side get that. And then we're
going to do, I think two flag lifting will be --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Right, let me just explain what we are seeing here. Donald Trump on the lawn there at the White House. I mean, they are erecting flag poles,
new flag poles. He's been decrying the fact that these flag poles, aren't there, weren't there at the White House originally to, you know, to
effectively accommodate huge American flags.
So, this is an event to establish those, put those up. Let's just listen in, because he's been talking about what's going on. We are expecting from
the press gathered there, questions that he may answer about the current political situation, not least his intention on what happens next with Iran
and Israel. Let's listen in.
TRUMP: -- tariffs, no inflation, and it's going to get even more so.
[09:55:00]
I know what I'm doing. So, we have a stupid person, frankly, at the fed, he probably won't cut today. Europe had 10 cuts, and we had none. And I guess
he's a political guy. I don't know he's a political guy who's not a smart person, but he's costing the country a fortune. So, what I'm going to do
is, you know, he gets out in about nine months.
He has to -- he gets, fortunately terminated, Biden -- I would have never reappointed him. Biden reappointed him. I don't know why that is, but I
guess maybe he was a Democrat. You know, I got great advice from Mnuchin on this one, great advice, but he's done a poor job.
So, we have no inflation. We have only success. And I'd like to see interest rates get down now. Biden did a lot of very short-term debt, so we
have short term debt coming due and because of this guy's rates, you know, if he'd lowered a point, I'd pay about a point, less, than if it lowered
two points.
I'd pay about two points less, and that's for 10 years, 12 years, 15 years, 5 years, it's hundreds of billions. It's even trillions of dollars that
we're going to lose because of this too late. I call him too late Paul, because he's always too late. I mean, if you look at him, every time I did
this, I was right 100 percent he was wrong.
Maybe I should go to the fed. Am I allowed to appoint myself, Doug. I don't know, am I allowed to appoint myself at the fed? I do a much better job
than these people. So anyway, we should be two points lower. Be nice to be 2.5 points lower. We'd be saving $800 billion, 700 billion.
It's a lot of money. Thank you for nothing. Couple for absolutely nothing. We'd save 6, 7, $800, billion we have, I think we're 38th now in interest,
and we should be number one. We should be the lowest. But, and by the way, if he's worried about inflation, that's OK.
I understand that. I don't think there's going to be any. So far, there hasn't. I mean, we have almost no inflation. We've done a great job. We had
when I came in, we had a lot of inflation. We went through four years of the highest inflation in the history of our country, with sleepy Joe Biden
and sleepy Joe, and he didn't know what the hell he was doing.
And so, we had the highest inflation we've ever had in the history of our country. And then it came down, because when I got elected, it started
dropping because people understood that I knew what I was doing. But now we have a man that just refuses to lower the fed rate, just refuses to do it,
and he's not a smart person.
I don't even think he's that political. I think he hates me, but that's OK, you know, he should. He should, I call him every name in the book, trying
to get him to do something. I've been nice to him. I do it always. I don't know how to sell. I've been so nice to him. Fellas, you wouldn't believe.
Let's have dinner too late. I'd call him too late. Come on, too late. Let's have dinner. I do it every way in the book. I'm nasty, I'm nice. Nothing
works. He's like just a stupid person, but I don't expect anything. Maybe he does a little bit, but we should be 2.5 points. Remember, Europe had 10
cuts, we had none.
We're paying more rate, more interest than a lot of European nations that can't carry our suitcase. I'm going to be nice. There's another expression.
You know what the other expression can't carry or you know what it is, but I shouldn't use it in front of the fake news.
So, it's very sad to see it. And what I'm going to do is I'm going to go very short term, like six months, seven months, eight months, wait till
this guy gets out, get the rates way down, and then go long term, because we have a tremendous appetite for our debt, because our country is doing
well.
But think of it. I got a call from Congress. Three nights ago, sir, we can't account for the money coming in. I said, that's a good problem. You
know, the bad problem is we don't have any money. They can't account there's so much more money than we thought is coming into the treasury.
We don't know where it's coming from, sir. I said, check out the tariffs. He calls back about a day later. Wow. I think you were right. Yeah, he's
right. That's nothing you haven't seen anything yet. More importantly than the money coming in, we have factories being built, AI, auto factories, two
of them stopped yesterday in Mexico, you read and they're coming here because they don't want to pay the tariffs.
They can't pay the tariffs. Doesn't work. So, I just want to wish you a lot of luck with the new flag, Paul. We have two of them, and we're going to do
this one now that we're going to do the other one 11 o'clock or so. We're going to have a flag raising, which would be great.
And I got to get these guys back to work. They're making a fortune. They're standing around making a fortune. But remember, there's somewhere in this
group, there's somebody that is going to captivate some movie producer, not Harvey Weinstein, but -- Harvey seen a better day.
So, it won't be Harvey, but it will be somebody and say that by that guy is perfect for a movie.
[10:00:00]
END
