Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
White House Installs New Flagpoles; Trump Says Iran Wants to Negotiate but It's Very Late; Trump Waffling on Whether to Strike Iran; U.S. SecDef Testifies before Senate Committee; U.S.' Previous Experience with Iranian Regime Change; Trump Says He Told Netanyahu "Keep Going"; Middle East Conflict Sends Oil Prices Higher. Aired 10-11a ET
Aired June 18, 2025 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[10:00:00]
(LAUGHTER)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: But Harvey's seen a better day, so it won't be Harvey but it'll be somebody. And they'll say that that guy is perfect
for a movie. And you're going to become a star and your friends are going to call you and you won't even return the phone call.
They'll say, what do you do for a living?
I put up flagpoles. I'm not even going to talk to you.
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: Big movie star. So some way you have that.
Anyway, let's have a good -- they call it a lifting. They also use another word but I'm not going to use that word.
Do you know what that is?
The word, it starts with an E.
You know what the word is?
If I ever used it, I'd be run out of town by you people. All right, so enjoy it.
Doug, you're going to get some good -- he's going to win another Nobel Prize, I think, for this picture. So maybe the flag will be even more
exciting. But this is pretty exciting. That's some equipment. I tell you what, look at that thing. That's some beautiful equipment.
There's nothing like America. Have a good time, everybody.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: -- answer questions about whether you are moving closer or you believe the U.S. is moving closer to striking Iranian nuclear facilities.
Where's your mindset on that?
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Can't say that, right?
You don't seriously think I'm going to answer that question.
Will you strike the Iranian nuclear component?
And what time exactly, sir?
Sir, would you strike it?
Would you please inform us so we can be there and watch?
I mean, you don't know that I'm even going to do it. You don't know. I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do. I can
tell you this, that Iran's got a lot of trouble and they want to negotiate.
And I said, Why didn't you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction?
Why didn't you negotiate?
I said to people, Why didn't you negotiate with me two weeks ago?
You could have done fine. You would have had a country. It's very sad to watch this. I mean, I've never seen anything like it. It's so, you know,
everyone thought it was going to be the reverse. I didn't, I didn't think so.
And I was telling them you got, you got to do something. You've got to negotiate. And at the last minute they said, no, we're not going to do that
and they got hit. Remember 60 days? And then came the 60 -- 61 is going to become a very famous number. That was one hell of a hit, that first hit.
That was one hell of a hit; not sustainable, to be honest.
That's where -- it ended on the first night. Yes.
QUESTION: Is it too late, though?
Do you think it's too late to now --
TRUMP: Nothing's too late. The only thing too late is Powell. Powell's too late, Too Late Powell.
QUESTION: Have the Iranians --
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: What?
QUESTION: Have the Iranians reached out to you?
TRUMP: Yes.
QUESTION: And what did they say?
TRUMP: I said it's very late. You know? I said it's very late to be talking.
QUESTION: Mr. President --
TRUMP: We may meet -- it's...
I don't know. There's a big difference between now and a week ago, right.
QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) may meet (INAUDIBLE)?
TRUMP: (INAUDIBLE) about anybody. They even suggested they come to the White House. It's a big difference but they've suggested that they come to
the White House. That's, you know, courageous. But you know it's like not easy for them to do.
But they suggest because I can't go now because of what's going on. I had to come back early from the G7, which was terrific, by the way, in Canada.
Really terrific, good people.
QUESTION: Is there a possibility of next week or sooner that you're (INAUDIBLE)?
TRUMP: Well, I don't know how much longer it's going to go on. They're totally defenseless. They have no air defense whatsoever, totally captured.
You know, we've totally captured the air, Brian.
QUESTION: -- Mr. President, you've been fairly compassionate toward the Iranian people suggesting --
TRUMP: (INAUDIBLE). I know a lot of people from Iran, from New York, from Washington, mostly from New York. They're incredible people. They're smart.
They're energetic. They can be difficult but so can you. You know, no, they're great people, smart people.
And those people are getting the hell beat out of them now. And it's really a shame. It's so stupid. It's so stupid. This is another one, you know,
Russia, Ukraine is so stupid. Would have never happened if I was president. You guys agree with that. Would have never happened if I was president.
Putin would have never done it. And I spoke to him yesterday and I said, you know, he actually offered to help mediate.
I said, do me a favor, mediate your own. Let's mediate Russia first, OK?
I said, Vladimir, let's mediate Russia first. You can worry about this later.
But I think that's going to work out, too, but it's so many people have been killed. The big thing with that one is far more people are dead than
have been recorded. In the Ukraine, Russia, many, many more people. A building falls down, they say nobody was hurt, you know. So ...
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: What does unconditional surrender mean?
TRUMP: (INAUDIBLE).
Very simple word. Very simple, unconditional surrender. That means I've had it. OK, I've had it. I give up. No more. Then we go blow up all the, you
know, all the nuclear stuff that's all over the place.
[10:05:00]
No, they had bad intentions, you know, for 40 years they've been saying death to America, death to Israel, death to anybody else that they didn't
like. They were bullies. They were schoolyard bullies. And now they're not bullies anymore. But we'll see what happens.
Look, nothing's finished until it's finished. You know, war is very complex. A lot of bad things can happen. A lot of turns are made, so I
don't know. I wouldn't say that we want anything yet. I would say that we sure as hell made a lot of progress and we'll see.
The next week is going to be very big, maybe less than a week, maybe less.
But is there anybody here that said it would be OK to have to have a hostile, very, you know, zealots, really. But to have a hostile country
have a nuclear weapon that could destroy 25 miles but much more than that, could destroy other nations just by the breeze blowing the dust.
You know, that dust blows to other nations and they get decimated. This is just not a threat you can have. And we've been threatened by Iran for many
years. You know, if you go back and look at my history, if you go back 15 years, I was saying we cannot let Iran get a nuclear weapon.
I've been saying it for a long time. I mean it more now than I ever meant it.
Yes.
QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) deportation. You said last week that changes would be coming, that farm workers could see a lot of progress they rely on taken
away. But then DHS said this week that work site enforcement would remain in place, that it's a cornerstone.
So what's your message to farmers?
TRUMP: You got to get the bad people out of here first and we're doing that. We're taking them out by the thousands -- murderers, drug dealers,
people that are mentally insane from insane asylums.
What they gave to us, fellas, they gave them -- do we have anybody in here that's a member? (INAUDIBLE)? You know (INAUDIBLE) people for a long time.
Any illegal immigrants in here? No?
If they'll were, they'll find out.
Right?
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: They'll be checking. You won't believe. You're whole life will be destroyed because of this press conference. They'll destroy these people. I
didn't want to tell them that before this. They'll end up being, "he's so- and-so. This one is from you-know-where."
Don't worry, I think -- I think you're going to be OK. I'll be right behind you. Not far behind. I'll be right behind you.
Now look, we have to take care of our farmers. We have to take care of people that run leisure, hotels. I mean we have to take care of them. But
most importantly, we have to get the criminals out of our country. And Biden let in thousands and 11,888 murderers. Many of them murdered more
than one person.
Can you believe it?
Many, almost 50 percent of them murdered more than one person. He let them into our country. They emptied out the jails of countries from all over the
world, from the Congo, from Venezuela, from all over the place.
They emptied out -- there's just many of them. I would if I were running one of the countries. I would have emptied out my prison population into
the U.S. and many countries did. And we're getting them out, OK, we're getting them out.
Thank you very much. Let's watch this.
Brian, go ahead.
Are you OK?
QUESTION: Just want to follow up on the immigration (INAUDIBLE).
Can you comment on the impact of the Trump card?
TRUMP: Yes, we have a thing called the Trump card. This has not been done before I thought of. And for $5 million, this is usually people that would
either be working for companies like Apple -- I think is going to buy a lot of them -- because they can't get people into the country.
You know, if you come in through the southern border, you have no problem. You can be a criminal, you can be a drug dealer and you have no problem.
But if you go and graduate number one in your class from a great school, you can't get a job because there's no access to getting here. You can't
get a green card.
So we're going to sell that to people, in some cases, wealthy, in some cases not wealthy. They'll be paid for by universities. Look at Harvard.
They've got $53 billion. That whole thing is coming to an end. It's amazing what we what we found out. What a disgrace.
They have $53 billion. We gave them $5 billion, $6 billion and some people say it's as much as $9 billion over a short period of time. So that's very
much coming to it. They want to make a deal, more than -- I would say Harvard wants to make a deal more than Iran wants to make a deal. And Iran
wants to make a deal.
But I mean, a lot of things, look, a lot of things are happening on a lot of fronts, Brian. A lot of good things are happening. And frankly, you
know, it's a little bit of a -- as we used to say, liberal. Now they say progressive. I use the word liberal. Progressive is too nice a word because
they're destroying the country.
They're really destroying, these liberal politicians are destroying our country. Look what they've done during Biden's four years. I mean, we're
working on, I mean, so much of our effort goes to getting people out of the country that should have never been here in the first place.
What he's done to this country, it's not him. He had no idea what was going on. Everybody knows that. It's other people. It's Lisa and this one and
that.
[10:10:00]
All these people, all the scum that was around the Oval, you know, the Oval Office or around the beautiful Resolute Desk, telling this guy, here, do
this, do that. And not even telling him. They just go over to the autopen and sign whatever the hell they wanted to sign.
Because say what you want about Biden, he wasn't for open borders. He wasn't for transgender for everybody. He wasn't for men playing in women's
sports. But he has no idea what the hell. He has no idea. And they were very upset. They wanted Bernie Sanders.
And after about a week of this guy, they said, Wait a minute, we just, we just hit -- we just hit gold. This guy has no clue. He'll do anything we
tell him. And then they realized they don't even have to get permission. They just go up to the autopen. That's a subversion. That's a takeover of
our government.
And you people ought to start looking at it. That's a takeover. Not only did they cheat, I guess you saw yesterday, came out with China and the
license plates, tens of thousands of cards. They used those cards to vote on the second election, my second, the one in 2020.
Because as everybody here knows, I won that election by a lot. But the only good thing I can say is this is a much more historic term than I think I
could have had as a second term. This is a much more historic election.
And now we're going to put up a beautiful flagpole and we're going to put up a flag and I hope you enjoy it. And let's see how real people work.
These are real people.
You're not real people because your job is (INAUDIBLE), OK. Thank you very much.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: How tall is the flagpole?
TRUMP: Close to 100 feet.
QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) meeting today with the with the Pakistani army chief of staff.
What are you -- what are you looking forward to achieving diplomatically?
TRUMP: Well, I stopped the war between Pakistan -- I love Pakistan. I think Modi is a fantastic man. I spoke to him last night. We're going to
make a trade deal with Modi of India. But I stopped the war between Pakistan and India.
This man was extremely influential in stopping it from the Pakistan side, Modi from the Indian side and others. And they we're going at it and
they're both nuclear countries. I got it stopped. I don't think I had one story.
Did I have one story written about?
I stopped the war between two major nations, major nuclear nations. I don't think I had a story about it.
(INAUDIBLE)
You know why?
The people know. The people know.
Did anybody write that story about the war?
Did anyone?
Did you write it?
You wrote it.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) Marine One is in the process --
TRUMP: Right now we put it so that Marine One is very far away. We did it in conjunction with the Air Force with everybody. And everybody signed off
on it. We now -- no, we have to have it far away. It's very far from -- Marine One's out there in the field.
So you have to have a certain distance. We're about three times that distance.
OK?
Thank you very much, everybody.
QUESTION: Can you share what you told prime minister Netanyahu about getting involved?
BECKY ANDERSON, CNN HOST: (INAUDIBLE) Donald Trump some time to walk away from the gathered pool of press there, because, of course, with Donald
Trump, it is never over until it is over.
That being an opportunity to address journalists that he was joining a group of workers, erecting a couple of flagpoles on the White House lawn
this morning. But during that, what, 15-minute period, Donald Trump letting rip on Jerome Powell ahead of a Fed rate decision later today.
Heavily criticizing the Fed chief for his lack of action, as Donald Trump describes it, on rates and the costs Donald Trump says that Powell is
causing America in terms of servicing the U.S. debt.
Very importantly, he was asked by gathered reporters and what his intentions are in getting involved in the Iran-Israel conflict. Very
specifically, at what his intentions are. And look, this is how he answered that question.
In the first instance. He said, "You don't think I'm seriously going to answer that question, do you?"
But then he went on to say, "I may do. I may not do it. No one knows what I'm going to do.
"Why didn't Iran negotiate with me two weeks ago?" he said.
And then he said, "It's very sad. I didn't think it was going to be like this," he said.
Well, the first Israeli hit was "one hell of a hit." And that, he said, describing Israel's actions on Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile
infrastructure on Friday.
[10:15:03]
But he also described that as not sustainable. He said war is very complex. A lot of bad things can happen. And then he said the next week is going to
be very big, he said maybe less than a week. He said, well, he was asked very specifically whether the Iranians have reached out to him.
And the answer to that question, he said, is yes. Quote, "And I said, it is very late to be reaching out," they, Iran, suggested they come to the White
House, he said. And he described this as all very sad.
Well, you are watching the second hour of CONNECT THE WORLD here on CNN. I'm Becky Anderson from our Middle East programming headquarters here in
Abu Dhabi. Time is 6:15.
Paula Hancocks, who has covered this region extensively for CNN for years, and Aniseh Bassiri Tabrizi is a senior consultant at Control Risks here in
Abu Dhabi. Both back with me this hour.
Look, that was 10 or 12 minutes that we listened to there from Donald Trump. Let's ask you both, what do you make of his comments?
Starting with you, Paula, what have we learned?
PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well --
ANDERSON: if anything.
HANCOCKS: -- the main thing that struck me was the way that the president was talking about Iran's reaction, is polar opposite to what we have been
hearing from Iran itself. Donald Trump saying that they are asking for negotiations, that Iran has asked to come to the White House, that they
want to make a deal.
Just an hour or two ago, we heard from the supreme leader, ayatollah Ali Khamenei. And we certainly didn't hear any of that.
Now obviously, when he is speaking publicly, there is going to be bellicose rhetoric. But he was saying the exact opposite of what Donald Trump has
said. He did say that that there is no way that the Iranians would surrender, also criticizing the fact that Israel did this whilst he was
talking to --
ANDERSON: We've actually got sound from that speech that the Iranian supreme leader made just moments ago. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALI KHAMENEI, IRANIAN SUPREME LEADER (through translator): Surrender to what?
The Iranian nation cannot be surrendered. We have not been subjected to anyone. And we will not accept any kind of submission. And we will not
submit to anyone's submission.
This is the logic of the Iranian nation. This is the spirit of the Iranian nation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Let's be very clear about this. I mean, earlier on today, overnight, in fact, U.S. into regional time, Donald Trump had demanded the
complete surrender of the Iranian regime in a post on Truth Social.
The way, in 2025, it seems, you know, diplomacy is conducted.
What did you make of those comments that we've just heard there from the supreme leader?
As frankly, you know, the world watches and waits for the U.S. president's next moves in this conflict.
ANISEH BASSIRI TABRIZI, SENIOR CONSULTANT, CONTROL RISKS: Well, I think Iran has been trying to, if you wish, reduce the scale of this conflict by
targeting just Israel for now, not targeting the U.S. obviously, being very aggressive when it comes to the rhetoric against the U.S.
But for better or worse, being cautious about escalating this and broadening up the conflict. So I think there is concern from the Iranian
side about the U.S. being involved and the U.S. targeting the Iranian side and potentially damaging even more, causing more damage.
But I think even that is not enough for Iran to come to an unconditional surrender. The way that Donald Trump has been asking. And I think that it's
very unlikely that the Iranian side has actually reached out to the U.S. They have been stating that they are OK with negotiations but not until
Israel stops striking.
And that resonates really with how Iranians have been operating and are likely to operate in the coming days and weeks.
ANDERSON: What did you make of what we just heard from the U.S. president there on the lawn?
TABRIZI: Well, the messaging is very confusing. I think yesterday, with the posting on X, it seemed almost that the operation was happening last
night or tonight. We know that the U.S. embassy in Israel has been closed until Friday.
So it seemed like the timeframe resonated with what we have seen in terms of the movement, the deployment of naval capability, air capability in the
region, the statements issued on X.
And it seemed something was going to happen in the next 24 to 48 hours. What you said about, the next week is going to be big, seems to kind of
confirm that trend. But at the same time, you know, the kind of muddling through and saying, I may do it, I may not do it.
[10:20:00]
And the sustainability also about the type of strikes that were conducted on the first day makes me think that he might have not decided and there
might be other forces that are trying to still dissuade him from --
(CROSSTALK)
ANDERSON: It is, I mean, you know, let's be quite clear about this and very transparent about this. It is very difficult to read what Donald Trump
means. I mean, how much of, you know, what is -- what he's saying is part of his negotiation.
What we do know is that there is a battle of narratives out there at present. We've just been discussing what the supreme leader's positioning
is. And we've just heard from the U.S. president. And just to underscore what you just said, war is very complex. A lot of bad things can happen.
The next week, he said, is going to be very big. He said maybe less than a week. And he had promised something very big when he left G7 in Canada
early this week, which, by the way -- and I was surprised to hear it -- he described as very good.
And you know, he's actually very polite and supportive of that G7 meeting. When I talk about battle of narratives, that is what we are witnessing at
present as we wait to see and watch to see what happens next with the U.S.
That battle of narratives, of course, includes Israel. You had some reporting just earlier on in the past couple of hours about new messaging
from Israel to the people of Israel. Just explain what we are hearing domestically and for the consumption of an international audience,
including Iran.
HANCOCKS: Yes. So this was from the defense minister, Israel Katz. And he said that he had taken a recommendation from the military. He had approved
it to actually ease restrictions on the Israeli civilians.
So at the moment, when the air raid siren sounds, they have to go straight to the shelter. They are not allowed to leave until they get the all clear.
(CROSSTALK)
ANDERSON: And described this as a message of victory.
HANCOCKS: That's the exact words he used. So it's -- at the same time as you're wondering whether the U.S. is going to get involved in what is
happening, you are seeing Israel showing that they believe that militarily they have had significant success, which to some degree, they have.
Certainly we are seeing less missiles being fired into Israeli territory. Now.
ANDERSON: I'm going to stop you there. Both of you. Stand by. We've just heard Pete Hegseth on the Hill. He's in front of a budget committee. But he
has just been asked, the Defense Secretary has just been asked very specifically about Donald Trump's comments, "I may do it. I may not do it.
No one knows what I am going to do next."
And this is how he responded.
SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): It's probably no more true in your department that it's a presidential level decision.
This is the president's core constitutional responsibilities as the commander in chief. I mean, it's important what he does with Labor and HUD
and the rest.
But as the commander in chief, it's the most important role he has. And therefore, the department where you take the most direct guidance from the
president, everyone in the department has to support the president's decisions, once those decisions are made.
Correct?
PETE HEGSETH, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Correct, Senator. As I've said, there's only one person that was elected President of the United States and
the American people elected him to make these decisions on their behalf. And if and when those decisions are made, the department is prepared to
execute.
COTTON: And I know that you welcome and have robust policy debates in the department. And no doubt you have very differing views on many questions,
whether it's what to do with Iran or what kind of aircraft or ships we need to build or what the quality of commissaries are on our bases. And that's
welcome.
You need that kind of robust debate to make the right recommendations.
But once the president's decision has been made on any question, that's final, right?
That's your standard?
HEGSETH: The president welcomes -- I've watched it in real time -- views on all issues from all aspects. But, yes, once those have been represented,
intelligence represented, options represented, upsides, downsides, threats, of course, when the president makes a call as the commander in chief, we
will execute.
COTTON: Well, thank you. Because I know there was some controversy earlier this year inside the department and not everyone seemed to be on the same
page that you and the president are after presidential decisions had been made. And you had to make some tough decisions there.
And I commend you for those decisions. I think you did the right thing. You have to make sure that everyone stays on the same page and everyone
supports presidential decisions.
One decision I also want to call out, since we haven't spoken about it here and I'm not sure we will, I want to commend you for as well and commend
your team is the redesignation of base names for Army bases.
In the summer of 2020, as a Jacobin fever swept the country during the BLM riots, it was decided to rename several army bases. To be honest with you,
I think most soldiers serving those bases didn't even know who they were named after. They just had fond recollections for decades of their time at
Fort Benning or Fort Bragg or other places.
[10:25:04]
And I think now you've completed the effort to redesignate those names, those bases to the names that so many generations of soldiers served at for
new American heroes.
Is that right?
HEGSETH: Yes. All of the previous names for the U.S. Army installations have been returned.
COTTON: Well, thank you. I think that was an inspired approach. It complies with the law. It teaches a new generation of soldiers about those
who went before them. And I hope the matter is settled.
I especially want to commend you for Fort Gordon, named after Gary Gordon, one of two Delta operators, along with Randy Shughart, who willingly laid
down their life in the battle of Mogadishu to protect their buddies.
Not even in the battle at the time and against commanders' repeated wishes until they pestered the commanders finally to let them get on the ground
and protect those soldiers on the ground.
ANDERSON: U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee about next year's budget.
But we did get a number of other issues come up, not least those on the committee asking very specifically what he understood Donald Trump to mean
when, in the past 15 minutes on the lawn at the White House, when asked by gathered reporters what his intention is with regard getting directly
involved in Israel's fight against Iran.
He said, and I quote the president here, "I may do it. I may not do it. No one knows what I am going to do."
When asked to explain that, the Defense Secretary very specifically said, this is Donald Trump's choice. The American people voted him in.
And when asked whether, as Defense Secretary, he would support whatever decision Donald Trump made, he said, of course. You know, he is the
commander in chief. That is what we are set up to do.
Should we listen in or should we take a very short break at this point?
Let's take a short break at this point, back after this.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
ANDERSON: Back to CONNECT THE WORLD with me, Becky Anderson. I want to bring in my panel here in Abu Dhabi; Paula Hancocks, who's covered this
region and we are in Abu Dhabi in the Gulf and covering the wider Middle East.
And Aniseh Bassiri Tabrizi, also with us, senior consultant at Control Risks.
We have just heard from Donald Trump on the White House lawn, picking apart, you know, quite a lot of what was, you know, a lot of jocular
narrative.
[10:30:08]
You know, taking a pop at Jerome Powell, who is the Fed chief, ahead of a rate decision later on today. Very specifically, he was asked what his
intentions on Iran were. And he very specifically said no one knows what I'm going to do. I may do, I may not do it. No one knows what I am going to
do.
Why didn't Iran negotiate with me two weeks ago?
It's very sad. I didn't think it was going to be like this.
Pete Hegseth was very specifically asked about those Trump comments, literally in the past couple of minutes. And he is still on Capitol Hill in
front of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, being cross-examined about a number of things.
But what he said is, you know, when asked, would he support whatever Donald Trump's decision is on Iran?
He said, Donald Trump is the president. He was elected by the American people. Donald Trump's choice is -- it's his choice. And the American
people voted him in.
End of story, effectively, Paula.
HANCOCKS: Well, at this point, everyone is waiting on the U.S. president. Clearly, some of the comments could have been seen as quite flippant, as he
was at the White House there. There are very, very serious undertones to this.
We have had a couple of U.S. officials familiar with this matter speaking to CNN. And they believe that he is warming to the idea of military action,
that he is veering away from the diplomatic messages that we really heard as he was leaving Canada.
It seemed to be that he wanted his officials to reach out to Iranian officials and see if there was a deal to be done.
What we are hearing from U.S. officials at this point is that he is most definitely veering toward being involved militarily. I mean, military
officials, we've been told as well, have also readying to be able to help Israel; for example, refueling its fighter jets.
So going that step further, not just helping in a defensive manner but helping potentially offensively as well.
ANDERSON: Let me just remind our viewers what we're doing here. We are discussing what we've heard from Donald Trump, who continues to speak, by
the way, on the White House lawn. He's being asked about a, you know, a bunch of issues.
But he spoke earlier about what his intentions are on Iran.
He said, "I may do it. I may not do it. Nobody knows at this point. Only I know," he said. "The next week is going to be very big," he said. "Maybe
less than a week."
So at this point, you know, we are no further down the road to understanding specifically what Donald Trump's intentions are.
The world continues to watch and wait at the same time that Donald Trump is on the lawn, ostensibly just celebrating the erection of two flagpoles, let
me tell you today, there on the White House lawn in Washington.
We are listening as well. And keeping an eye out for headlining comments from Pete Hegseth, who is testifying before the Armed Forces -- Senate
Armed Forces Committee.
And as we listen in to that and anything that is pertinent for you, we will, of course, get that to you. It is busy there in Washington and there
is a lot at stake, as Paula rightly points out.
The atmosphere of the back-and-forth with reporters on the lawn, whilst jocular to a degree -- and as Paula rightly suggested, somewhat flippant --
you know, this -- these are really important and serious times.
And, you know, the world waiting on the word of the U.S. president, who clearly at this point either hasn't decided what he's going to do or isn't
prepared to share it.
TABRIZI: Absolutely. I think obviously a U.S. escalation and U.S. involvement is going to dramatically change the dynamics of the conflict.
And I think, for the region, this is something that is of a significant concern.
They wanted de-escalation. They wanted not to see any kind of repetition, if not worsening, of what we have seen back in 2019-2020. And I think what
we are likely to see if there is a U.S. involvement is for Iran likely to strike U.S. bases across the region.
But also for, I would say, potentially repercussions for countries across the region, including the Gulf, becoming more prominent.
ANDERSON: I don't think it's a secret when I say that there is no love lost for this Iranian regime in Tehran.
[10:35:04]
And when I think back, pre-1979 and the, you know, the rise of the republic before that, of course. For example, you know, the leader of Dubai, as it
was then, you know, very warm relations with Iran.
So you know, there are, you know, there is -- there is opportunity for a new and different relationship. Here in Abu Dhabi and in Riyadh, there's
been a rapprochement with this very leadership at present. But it's the -- you get the sense here, you know, keep your friends close and your enemies
closer to a degree.
So you are right to point out that the region is, you know, very mindful about what might -- what might happen next. All right. Thank you both.
We are just learning about a blockbuster ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. The court has upheld a ban in the state of Tennessee on gender-
affirming care for trans kids.
Jeff Schwartz joins us now. He's a former judge in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and a professor at Thomas M. Cooley Law School.
And I welcome you to the show, to CONNECT THE WORLD with me, Becky Anderson. First, bring us up to speed on the crux of this case and why the
Supreme Court has decided to uphold this ban on youth gender-affirming care.
JEFF SCHWARTZ, FORMER MIAMI-DADE COUNTY JUDGE; PROFESSOR, THOMAS M. COOLEY LAW SCHOOL: Well, it's kind of going -- by the way, good morning, Becky.
It really comes down to going into the weeds, the question of whether this statute SB1 out of Tennessee has to be ruled upon using what's known as
strict scrutiny as opposed to reasonable scrutiny.
And SB1 basically said that -- and made findings when they passed it that - - and I'm going to read this because I want to make sure everybody knows exactly what they said.
They determined that "administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder or gender appropriateness
carries risks, including irreversible sterility, increased risk of disease and illness and the adverse psychological consequences."
Making those findings, the court determined that they had the power to intercede even where there is parental approval to allow minors to have
these treatments, because we -- they said that the state has the right to protect minors' health and welfare.
And so, as a result of which they basically found that the state has -- the state has the power to outlaw the use of these type of drugs. And it
limited itself to Tennessee. But, of course, it has a national effect.
ANDERSON: Yes. Jeff, this is a significant loss for trans rights supporters.
But some on the other side of the argument are going to argue that this protects kids, right?
What is the -- what's the real-world impact of this ruling for that community and beyond?
SCHWARTZ: The real-world impact, at least as far as the United States is concerned -- again, I can't talk about the whole world. But the real-world
impact for the United States is simply this is now going to be a state issue.
States will be able to do this if they want to; for example, whether it's Colorado or Arizona or other states that really want to ban this type of
treatment for minors or to be allowed. In other words, the court is not determining that you can't allow it. But they're not saying that you have
to allow it.
And that's kind of what's going on here. So we're back to another states' rights issue as to whether the state has the power to make its own
decisions.
ANDERSON: It's fascinating. Good to have you, Jeff. Thank you very much indeed for unpacking this.
Well, coming up, calls for regime change in Iran are growing louder. But as ever, history has some lessons about how that might play out. We'll take a
look at the last time the U.S. helped overthrow an Iranian government. That is after this.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:40:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
ANDERSON: Well, while we are hearing talk of Iranian regime change, not least that talk in Israel and indeed in the U.S., it is important to
remember that the United States has toppled an Iranian government before. Here's how that worked out for them.
It was 1953. The U.S., along with Great Britain, helped stage a coup to overthrow Iran's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh.
He was pledging to nationalize the country's oil fields.
Well, the Americans and the British didn't like that. Great Britain had significant control over Iranian oil for decades, so they turned to the CIA
for help. Together, they sought to strengthen support for Iranian monarch Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and consolidate his power.
Declassified CIA documents show the extent of the operations. Along with British intelligence services, they spread anti-Mosaddegh propaganda and
propped up pro-shah forces, helping them organize protests that the army eventually joined.
Once the shah was decisively in charge, he appointed prime minister Fazlollah Zahedi. Documents show the CIA covertly made $5 million available
to Zahedi in days. But it all backfired.
Anti-American sentiment spread widely across the country. By the late 1970s, the shah was facing a fully-fledged political crisis.
Angered by foreign interference and fed up with the shah's regime, mass protests rocked the country. And it all culminated in the Islamic
revolution. The shah fled in January of 1979, eventually making his way for a time to the United States.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON (voice-over): Well, this man, ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, returned from exile the following month and took control of the country,
installing the clerical rule that is still in place today.
[10:45:04]
Anti-American protests continued throughout the year. And in the fall of '79, a group of Iranian students famously stormed the U.S. embassy, taking
dozens hostage with the support of Khomeini.
The hostages were held for 444 days, setting the stage for decades of U.S. animosity toward the Islamic Republic.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Well, my next guest is Dina Esfandiary, who is the Middle East lead for Bloomberg Geoeconomics.
As Iran's leadership once again being threatened, she writes, and I quote, "Every time Iran has been attacked or threatened, the fiercely
nationalistic country has rallied together. So despite widespread discontent, regime change is unlikely to occur at the hands of Israel's
bombs."
And Dina joins us live from Istanbul.
And I assume you mean Iran's regime change, not a distinct possibility as you are concerned at this point from within, correct?
Collapse from within?
DR. DINA ESFANDIARY, MIDDLE EAST LEAD, BLOOMBERG GEOECONOMICS: Absolutely. Like I said, I mean, I think discontent in Iran is rife. It's well known
that that the Iranian public is unhappy. They've got a difficult economic situation. They've faced isolation now for many years. There are very
little prospects for their situation to improve.
So discontent is very much there. And we've seen it through protests over the last few weeks that have spilled out in various sectors in Iran. But
Iran is a nationalistic country like many others.
And so when faced with an external enemy, the Iranian public has a tendency to forget that discontent and really rally around the flag, which actually
buys the elites and the governing elites a little bit of breathing room.
ANDERSON: I mean, there are people inside who have paid the price of that dissent and are still being very vocal against, for example, the following.
The son of the late shah, Reza Pahlavi, has been urging Iranians to break with the current government.
How much of a fracture do you see him potentially creating within the country?
And let's talk about whether or not you believe he has sufficient support outside to ride in on the back of Israeli military strikes.
ESFANDIARY: So I think the problem is that there is no viable opposition inside Iran. Iranians are in disarray. They don't agree on much. On top of
that, they want change. But the last time that they had change, look where it's led them.
They look around them at countries like Syria and Iraq and those places are full of chaos and instability right now. So they want that change but
they're uncertain of how to get it.
And because there is no rallying figure inside the country, it makes it really difficult for them to channel their energy to support someone in and
pose a threat to the system at the moment.
ANDERSON: Can I just get you, very specifically, what Donald Trump has been saying on the White House lawn?
We were listening in to what he said for some time. And when asked whether or not he had made a decision to support Israel strike Iran, he said, I may
have done, I may not have done. I'm not going to tell you.
Frankly, it was said in quite a flippant way, it has to be said. He's also been speaking in the last few minutes. He has a message for Benjamin
Netanyahu, quote, "Keep going." And he says that he has offered Iran the ultimate ultimatum.
Look, it's very difficult to basically cross-examine, you know, much of what Donald Trump has said over the past 25 minutes. But I'm asking, you
know, those who are experts to do so as we watch and wait for some indication of what he is likely to do next. And we are hearing a drip feed
now.
What do you make of what he is saying?
ESFANDIARY: I mean, it's been somewhat consistent with how the U.S. administration has behaved in the last few weeks. It's -- a lot of the
statements coming out of the U.S. have been very contradictory.
When the U.S. was engaged in talks with Iran, for example, it was we don't need zero enrichment. And then it was we need zero enrichment.
[10:50:00]
Now it's we may go in, we may not go in. I think part of that is part of president Trump's tactics. It's part of the pressure, the psychological
pressure that he can put on the -- on the Iranian government. And to a certain extent, it will work.
But it's also very difficult, if you're in Iran's shoes, to read what U.S. red lines are. Keep in mind that Iran wants to avoid a war with the United
States at all costs, because that's a war that it can't win.
But right now, it can't tell what exactly the United States wants and what it would take to get the U.S. into a war. So it's difficult for Iran to
position itself in a way to avoid that.
ANDERSON: And on his message to Benjamin Netanyahu, "Keep going," it is -- it's very clear that Israel has been reaching out to Washington, hoping for
support from the U.S. president, not least in its efforts to degrade, fully degrade the nuclear infrastructure, including the, you know, below ground
enrichment facility at Fordow.
So what do we make or what do you make of that message at this point to Benjamin Netanyahu?
What are you reading into that?
ESFANDIARY: Well, whether the U.S. knew and how much the U.S. knew about what Israel had planned in terms of these strikes on Iran, I think now
that's irrelevant today. It appears as though Israel has full U.S. backing to continue its campaign.
Israel's stated aim is, as you said, the destruction of Iran's nuclear program. But it can't achieve that on its own. Many of Iran's facilities
are buried deep underground. And to have a chance at destroying them, you need some of those American bunker busters.
So Israel can't be successful in destroying Iran's nuclear program unless the U.S. joins in. And in the meantime, Israel has very much expanded its
campaign to target the Iranian leadership and has also targeted residential areas throughout the capital city and other cities in Iran.
And the U.S. seems less on board with that but, at the same time, is also issuing threats to vacate Tehran, for example, which is difficult to do for
a city of 11 million people. So it really is unclear what the end game is for both Israel and the U.S.
ANDERSON: Dina, thank you. And you made a point and I'll underscore it. Do not discount the importance of the art of the deal and negotiation and
language that befits what Donald Trump, I assume, feels is negotiation. And that is perhaps what we are seeing playing out in real time.
But it is playing out in real time. And, you know, it's a significance and consequences are impactful for millions of people in Iran, in Israel,
around the region where I am and beyond.
Dina, thank you.
As the Israel conflict then entered a sixth day, Wall Street's main indices opened muted when trading began about an hour or so ago. I mean, they are
slightly higher, a little bit more robust at present. But these are oil prices. This has been quite interesting.
These oil prices have been somewhat spiking today. They are still rising but they are not as high as they have been. Right now, Brent crude trading
just less than 25 bucks on the barrel; WTI at 71 and -- or 72 and small change, just under 72.
And that's interesting because, to a degree, it's so indicative, what we see on these oil markets, of how people are feeling about what might happen
next. Let's bring in Anna Stewart.
And what are you seeing, what are you hearing at this point from the markets and investors who are keeping a keen eye on what is going on in
this region?
ANNA STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And they really are keeping a keen eye on this. On Friday -- of course, we saw a much bigger spike today. We've seen
prices rising again. But it's pared back some of that.
And what all this is, is really speculation from investors on what this conflict is going to mean for oil supplies, global oil supplies, and
thereby what it means for oil prices.
Now the question, of course, is, is this conflict going to be limited to Iran and Israel?
Is this going to escalate further?
The idea that there could be U.S. intervention, of course, that definitely pushed up prices.
But would intervention lead to a swift resolution or would, of course, could it spill over?
And one of the biggest threats really isn't actually to do necessarily with Iran's own oil supplies. It produces about 3 million barrels per day. So
it's not one of the biggest oil producers in the world. And it's got limited customers. It's pretty much just China.
The question is, what does it mean for the broader region?
And what does it mean, particularly for a very narrow bit of water between Iran and Oman, the Strait of Hormuz, which is where a quarter of the
world's oil supply transits?
[10:55:03]
It is critical for the Gulf oil producers and has been this ongoing threat from Iran in the past, that they could potentially close it. Of course, we
could see conflict there and that is why oil prices keep spiking every time there's kind of movement in terms of the conflict.
ANDERSON: Thank you. I've got 45 seconds.
What are you expecting a Fed -- the Fed to do today on rates?
And what did Donald Trump say about all of this?
STEWART: Well, president Trump has given us a teaser of what's going to happen later today. He said, "We have a stupid person, frankly, at the
Fed." He's referring to the chair, Jay Powell. "He probably won't cut today."
And I think the president is right on that. He did go on to say Europe had 10 cuts and we had none; both incorrect. Europe's only had eight by my
count. And the Fed did cut twice at the end of last year.
Huge pressure from the White House. The Federal Reserve is highly unlikely to make any cutting decisions.
And you know what?
It's got even more issues to look at, not only tariffs and the impact of inflation, not only the one big, beautiful bill but also, of course, now
this conflict, Becky.
ANDERSON: Yes. Good to have you. Thank you.
And that is it for CONNECT THE WORLD with me, Becky Anderson, from our middle-east programming headquarters here in Abu Dhabi. Stay with CNN
though. "ONE WORLD" is up next.
END
