Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
Iran Fires Missiles Into Israel As Air Raid Sirens Sound; U.S. Assessing Damage To Iran's Nuclear Sites After Strikes; Anxiety Grips Gulf Arab States Amid Israel-Iran Conflict; Reza Pahlavi Appealed To The International Community To Force Out Khamenei's Regime; Trump Suggests 'Regime Change" Is Possible In Iran; NATO Chief Responds To United States On Iran; Concern Conflict Could Impact Strait Of Hormuz; Trump's Iran Strike Presents Legal And Constitutional Questions. Aired 10-11a ET
Aired June 23, 2025 - 10:00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:00:41]
ANNOUNCER: Live from CNN London, this is CONNECT THE WORLD with Becky Anderson.
BECKY ANDERSON, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back to our special coverage here on CNN, just after 6:00 p.m. here at our Middle East broadcasting headquarters
in Abu Dhabi.
And we've been watching a day of intense attacks as it unfolds between Israel and Iran. Israel unleashing what it calls unprecedented force on the
Iranian capital, targeting military and paramilitary sites in Tehran, they say, as well as the notorious Evin prison.
And Iran launching wave after wave of missiles towards Israel today, setting off air raid sirens from the north to the south.
Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump claims Iranian nuclear sites were obliterated in American strikes over the weekend. Military officials in
Israel and the U.S. still assessing the extent of the damage. Trump also alluding to the possibility of regime change in Iran in a social media
post.
Well, CNN's International Diplomatic Editor Nic Robertson is in Tel Aviv. First, let's talk about today's waves of attacks. What's -- what were the
targets in Israel, first and foremost?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes, it's not clear what the targets were, because, according to Israeli authorities, there
were no casualties. There was an explosion that was seen right by a roadside, a father and daughter were driving down the road. They've been
discussing where the sirens were going off, and then, boom, the impact, and they sort of drive right into the debris falling.
We do know that a strategic facility, there was a strike near what the electricity company is calling a strategic facility, and they're saying
that that strike resulted in a loss of electricity to a number of communities that appeared to be in the south of the country.
I think the tactics that Iran is you -- is using a slightly different today, the timing of the attacks and the way that it was done today, a
number of waves of strikes, not using a lot of missiles, but it meant people spent a longer time in their shelters.
So, disruptive for people's lives, just one missile actually fired in a barrage at 3:00 a.m. in the morning, which, of course, just that one
missile caused much of the country to go to its shelters to be safe, and that you get a sense of just how perhaps Iran is mixing up its tactics, but
with the result of trying to sort of be disruptive for society, rather than destructive of certain targets.
ANDERSON: Meantime, and briefly, Nic, what do you make of Israel's goals in Tehran?
ROBERTSON: They seem to point to the potential for regime change, the targeting of the feared Evin jail, the targeting of the internal security
apparatus inside of Iran, the very -- the very way that that's been spelt out, the language that's been used by the IDF, by the defense minister, the
foreign minister saying, we warned you not to target civilians, but you carried on, and this is our response today, showing a picture of the doors
being blown off of Evin prison.
It appears that while targeting nuclear facilities, missile launch sites, those sorts of targets, Israel is also doing things that can create the
potential space for people in Iran to dispense with the current leadership.
ANDERSON: Nic, thank you. We've got a crew in Iran's capital. Frederik Pleitgen and Claudia Otto, his photojournalist. They witnessed a major
Israeli aerial bombing on the north of the city earlier, take a listen to Fred describing what they saw.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: So, we've just witnessed a massive air strike here on the area of sort of Northern central
Tehran. We actually went downstairs into a shelter once we heard planes overhead, and then we heard explosions.
You can see now the sky over the northwest of Tehran is completely filled with smokes. It seemed to us as though it were several really, really
strong impacts that took place.
[10:05:03]
And if we look over to the left here, you can see the smoke seems to be emanating from that area that's more towards the west of Iran, the sort of
northwest of Tehran of the Iranian capital. This is the first time since we've been here that we've seen a heavy air strike like this in the fairly
central part of the city, so we're only going to be able to be up here for not much longer.
But this is definitely something that I wouldn't say is unprecedented, definitely something that we haven't seen in the past couple of days
coming, of course, exactly after the Trump administration struck those nuclear facilities, and the Iranians are vowing revenge for that.
Of course, the Israelis also continuing their air campaign, and right now, as you can see, the skies over Tehran filled with thick, black smoke.
Frederik Pleitgen, CNN, Tehran,
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON: Well, even before Israel's further strikes on Fordow, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said, the U.S. bombing of the
nuclear side likely caused very significant damage. But Rafael Grossi cautions that no one is able to fully assess the extent of the destruction
there.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAFAEL GROSSI, DIRECTOR GENERAL, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY: There are clear indications of impacts. But as for the assessment of the degree
of damage underground on this, we cannot pronounce ourselves. It can be important, it can be significant, but no one -- no one, neither us, nobody
else could be able to tell you how much it has been damaged.
Different is the case, for example, in Natanz, where we know very, very clearly that the above ground facility has been completely destroyed, and
the -- even the back the underground centrifuge halls have suffered a lot because of the combined effect of lack of external power supply, which was
also caused by the -- by the attacks and subsequent direct attacks. Or Isfahan, which has been sustaining damage and attacks for several days,
including last night.
So, overall, all in all, we can say that there is a very significant damage already there, which we can confirm. As for Fordow because of the
morphological characteristics of the of the site and the plant.
Yes, we can say it has been -- of course, it has been said by the United States and Iran has confirmed there has been a direct kinetic impact
internally. We cannot judge, but of course, one cannot exclude that there is significant damage there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Right. Well, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff says it is still way too early to determine if Iran still has nuclear
capabilities, but a CNN analysis of these new satellite images found that the attack on Fordow left behind at least six large craters. They are
likely from the U.S. bunker buster bombs, which are designed to go very deep underground before detonating, excuse me.
And there is a dramatic difference in what are the before and after images from Isfahan. This is Iran's largest nuclear complex. Includes huge amount
of R and D there, that was hit by more than a dozen cruise missiles.
Well, I'm joined now by CNN Chief International Security Correspondent Nick Paton Walsh in London for you today. And CNN's U.S. National Security
Reporter Zachary Cohen.
And Zach, let's start with you. We heard from the White House press secretary a short time ago reiterating Trump's claims that the U.S.
completely obliterated Iran's program. Let's have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Yes, that Iran's nuclear sites were completely and totally obliterated as the president said in his
address to the nation on Saturday night. And we have a high degree of confidence that where those strikes took place is where Iran's enriched
uranium was stored. The president wouldn't have launched the strikes if we weren't confident in that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Is that strictly true? Because we've been reporting to this point that the U.S. is still assessing the damage, the impact.
ZACHARY COHEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, other than President Donald Trump, I think every other top U.S., official international watchdog
that we've heard from has said that they're still in the process of collecting the facts and trying to figure out exactly how much damage these
U.S. military strikes inflicted.
And look, the White House has been painting a overly bullish sort of assessment of the impact of these strikes since the night that they
happened. And I think the early returns are that it's clear that there was damage inflicted on these three nuclear sites.
But you may have noticed that Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary even went further today, saying that there's a high degree of
confidence that they know that the stockpile of enriched uranium was stored at one of the three sites that was targeted by the U.S.
[10:10:14]
That's something that we have not -- that is not the sense, at least with that level of confidence that we have heard from U.S. officials who do
suspect and have believed that some of that enriched uranium could be at the site and is behind, but very deep underground, ironically, is behind
the one location that b -- U.S. B-2 bombers did not drop those Massive Ordnance Penetrators, those bombs that are intended to penetrate deep
underground.
So, it's a little unclear here, but I think the consensus outside of what the White House press secretary said today is that the status of this
stockpile remains uncertain. The IAEA chief saying as much today that they cannot confirm the whereabouts. There's been concerns and questions as to
whether or not the Iranians could have moved the stockpile prior to the strikes.
And again, our reporting indicates there's also suspicion that it could be stored in those underground facilities at Isfahan. But the fact of the
matter is, until there are boots on the ground, people that can inspect these sites that were struck, it remains an open question, really.
ANDERSON: Yes, let's just hear from Iran's foreign minister, who spoke in the wake of these strikes on Sunday. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBAS ARAGHCHI, IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: My country has been under attack, under aggression, and we have to respond based on our legitimate drive of
self defense,
and we will do that as long as needed and necessary.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: So, considering Iranians options at this point, what do you make of the list as it were?
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: I mean, I think it is just by definition of the intense onslaught against Iran over
the last 10 days by Israel and indeed by the United States, an uphill challenge for Iran to find a manner of responding which potentially
satisfies the anger amongst hardliners to do something, to restore a sense of deterrence, while at the same time to not necessarily pushing the United
States into escalating the conflict back.
And so, I think that means that Iran will be looking to see what it has left in its ballistic missile stockpile. Latest Israeli assessment went
further than some Western thoughts as to how many they originally had that could have struck Israel today, suggesting 2,500 were originally there,
that 800 had been destroyed or rendered useless on the ground by Israeli assaults, and 500 fired.
So, that leaves them, some experts would say, with just about enough in their reserves to feel comfortable going forward, so not with an awful lot
more to fire.
We have, of course, the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which could potentially be a target, and 5th Fleet in Bahrain.
But look, these are huge U.S. military facilities and the possibility of an Iranian attack telegraph for days, if not, you might even argue, decades.
So, it may be hard for Iran to launch an effective attack there, and maybe dangerous for them to launch an ineffective attack, as that would simply
invite a retaliation that would do more damage to their military infrastructure. There's a possibility of asymmetrical attacks. People might
refer to that as terrorism in other parts of the world, depending on specifically the target Iran uses. That's a more common response at times
from Iran.
And then, of course, there's a Strait of Hormuz, which is just for shipping lanes, about six kilometers in total wide that ships can get through. Has
previously experienced Iranian pressure in Iran's to its north, about a fifth of the world's energy gas and oil goes through it, nearly half a
trillion dollars' worth.
And so, Iran could, and indeed, its parliament has suggested it should, in a vote today authorize the closure or impediment of that that could
potentially hit world oil prices. President Donald Trump has just posted suggesting that people need to get on the job of trying to keep oil prices
low. Drill, baby, drill, he said.
And so, that is clearly in the forefront of the White House's mind.
But remember too, if Iran damages the capacity of its Middle Eastern neighbors like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar to export hydrocarbons, it also
stops itself, and apparently about a majority of its oil exports go through Hormuz too, and many that goes to China, which is one of his its key
allies.
So, a very complex set of calculations Iran has to make here. And it's clear it seems that it feels the need to do something in terms of
retaliation. Indeed, look at experience the most intense onslaught since the Iran Iraq war, frankly, which the U.S. has joined breaking the taboo of
hitting its nuclear infrastructure, but quite what choice it makes exceptionally hard and will essentially define the power of Iran within the
region for the decades to come.
[10:15:03]
Remember, Becky, Qasem Soleimani, the most prominent military figure in Iran, assassinated by President Donald Trump in 2019. Many analysts thought
that it was reckless, it was certainly unprecedented. Many felt that could lead to a massive Iranian response, but their response was relatively
muted. And maybe we're looking at a similar situation here.
ANDERSON: Yes, it's fascinating, isn't it? Good to have you Nick and Zach, it is watch and wait as Iran mulls its response then and the countries on
the doorstep of this conflict are particularly anxious. We have the view from the region, up next.
And we'll have the latest from Paris as the exiled son of Iran's last shah makes an appeal to the international community. Details on that is up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANDERSON: Well, Iran firing more missiles into Israel today, this dash cam video shows a moment of impact from a strike near Ashdod. Air raid sirens
have been heard today in Jerusalem, in Tel Aviv and across northern and central Israel, with this conflict now into its second week.
Fears that it could spill out into the region are deepening. U.S. Embassy in Qatar today recommending American shelter in place, out of an abundance
of caution. There is no specific threat, though, according to the foreign ministry there in Qatar in response to this advisory, it has to be said.
And bombs, of course, continue to fall, both in Iran and in Israel, of course. And as they do, Anwar Gargash, Special Adviser to the UAE president
here, saying that we are in the midst of a geostrategic shift. And he told me, "The longer this war takes, the more dangerous it becomes. The region
cannot really live with a war that will just go on and on, the sort of blow by blow actions that we see every day."
And he also suggested that the dialog of conflict is sort of overshadowing the dialog of de-escalation, a dialog of prosperity rather than perpetual
conflict, which has been the dialog which has been very noisy here for some time now, as this gulf region looks to sort of pivot away from this era of
conflict.
Well, let's stay on this with Fawaz Gerges, he's the author of The Great Betrayal: The Struggle for Freedom and Democracy in the Middle East, as
well as Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics. Always good to have you, regular guests on this show, and a good
friend.
And the UAE pushing for diplomacy. The Gulf region very sort of aligned on its language, condemning the Israeli strikes. Certainly not using the word
condemnation against U.S. strikes, it has to be said, but suggesting that there is a real need for de-escalation here.
[10:20:12]
How much weight -- weight do you think this carries with the U.S. administration, who, despite those calls ahead of Sunday, when it hadn't
gotten involved in this fight in support of Israel?
FAWAZ GERGES, PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS: Not very much. In fact, when Donald Trump visited the Gulf. Gulf
leaders, including the Amir of Qatar, even the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, impressed on President Trump to use diplomacy, to avoid war, and
Donald Trump said it publicly, as you remember, as you recall, that leaders in the Gulf wanted a diplomatic solution.
The fact is that Donald Trump listened to Benjamin Netanyahu, not to Mohammed bin Salman, not to Mohamed bin Zayed. And this tells you a great
deal that the voices of Gulf leaders who have basically promised to invest trillions, as opposed to hundreds of billions, in the U.S. economy. Israel
seems to be much more important to Donald Trump that the very idea of prosperity and the very idea of investment in the U.S. economy.
And this is really quite very shocking. It's very shocking because everything we know about Donald Trump is that he follows the trail of
money. It's all about, he says, America is a huge department store. He believes that money and not security, narrowly defined, is it.
But it tells you a great deal about the success of Benjamin Netanyahu and how he has been able to draft Donald Trump into another, you know,
battlefield and quagmire in the Middle East.
ANDERSON: The longer a war takes, the more dangerous it becomes, was one of the things that Anwar Gargash said, and I think there is a lot of support
for that contention.
And there are now, of course, fears that Iran could disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. The parliament is certainly in Iran voted for that. The
decision, it seems, not yet taken or certainly not officially reported as such. Here's what U.S. officials have -- had to say about that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: I think that would be suicidal, Kristen, for the Iranians themselves. I mean, their entire economy runs through the
Strait of Hormuz. If they want to destroy their own economy and cause disruptions in the world, I think that would be their decision.
MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: If they mine the Straits of Hormuz, the Chinese are going to pay a huge price. And every other country in the
world is going to pay a huge price. We will too.
It'll have some impact on us. It'll have a lot more impact on the rest of the world, a lot more impact on the rest of the world. That would be a
suicidal move on their part, because I think the whole world would come against them if they did that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: I just think it's really important at this point to sort of game out what these options are for Iran and Fawaz, just some sort of
understanding and insight into who's taking decisions in Tehran at this point. We've certainly heard from Iranian officials, but nothing, of
course, from the Supreme Leader, certainly not since the U.S. strikes.
GERGES: I think Iranian leaders will take their time, will weigh their options, historically, Becky, historically, a key lesson taken from Iranian
foreign policy. Iranian foreign policy is cautious, calculating, defensive, rational and not suicidal.
I mean, think of how Iran has responded to American and Israeli attacks on Iranian targets, on the Iranian nuclear program, on Iranian nuclear
scientists, on the homeland in the past 10 years or so, because Iran's strategic doctrine is called strategic patience, so Iran will have to
respond, no doubts about it.
But I doubt it very much whether Iran will actions -- whether Iran will go do anything that triggers all out war with the United States.
Again, another lesson we have heard about -- we have learned from Iranian foreign policy in the past 10 years or so, Iran has gone out of its way to
avoid, really to be dragged to war with the United States. Iranian leaders believe that Benjamin Netanyahu was trying to drag the United States into
war against Iran, and they have really gone out of their way to do so.
And I still believe that Iran will not retaliate in any you might say, devastating way against American targets, because it wants to avoid all-out
war with the United States. It will have -- my take on it, it will be a symbolic attack, a symbolic action, as opposed to really all out using its
ballistic missiles against American bases or against any kind of oil or gas targets, because Iranian strategy now is focusing on Israel, Israel and not
the United States. You're going to see more escalation against Israel because they believe -- Iranian leaders believe that Israel cannot afford,
cannot really basically absorb the pain of a war of attrition with Iran in the long term.
[10:25:40]
Of course, it could be miscalculation, but that's what I think Iranian leaders view the expanding -- the expanding battlefield with the United
States and Israel now.
ANDERSON: And what that leadership looks like going forward. Still worth a discussion. We've run out of time at this point, but we will have that
discussion going forward.
Fawaz, I leave that as a thought, because, as Tehran molds a decision driving regime change is being talked about out loud by Israel and indeed,
by the U.S. president himself.
I want to get you to Paris, where, a short time ago, the exiled son of Iran's last shah offered himself up as interim Iran leader if it
transitions away from what he would describe as dictatorship, Reza Pahlavi. His father was the last shah. The unpopular monarch was deposed in 1979
Iranian Revolution.
CNN's Melissa Bell is in Paris. She was at that news conference for CNN, and she joins us now. Just get us up to speed on what Reza Pahlavi has been
saying there.
MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think it's important just to note, first of all, Becky, that the Iranian opposition
and diaspora are remarkably divided still, apart from this question that many of them want to see an end to this war, they're worried about their
people back home.
But there has been this move to unite the opposition. Back in February, Reza Pahlavi, the last son, the son -- the eldest son, rather, of the last
shah, had managed to get together about 30 or so opposition groups behind him, not in the name that he should take power, but rather in the name of
his leading a transition towards a democratically elected Iran should the current regime fall. And this is what he had to say about the moment we're
in.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REZA PAHLAVI, SON OF LAST SHAH OF IRAN: This is our Berlin Wall moment. But like all moments of great change, it comes fraught with danger. We stand at
a crossroads. One road leads to bloodshed and chaos, the other to a peaceful and democratic transition.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BELL: Reza Pahlavi announced that they were creating a new platform to try and field some of the incoming messages that he says he's been receiving
from Iranians inside the country from all walks of life, people who work with the regime, people within the military, ordinary citizens as well,
hoping for change. He says he's organizing this platform that will be secured so that people can reach out more readily.
But I did put to him also that there did seem to be this opposition to the bombing, first and foremost against the regime. His take is, Becky, that
the regime is crumbling from within, and it is only a matter of time.
As far as he's concerned, the regime is finished, and it is now that the international community needs to step up to help him, he says, sort out
that transition that would lead to a democratically elected government in Iran.
I think it's important to stress here that very few Iranians hope for the return of the kind of regime that his father had in Iran. What they do want
is a democratic transition, and a growing number of them have been looking towards him in the hope that that might happen, Becky.
ANDERSON: Yes, and significant portion of others suggesting that there is - - he is simply not viable as a -- as a leader for Iranians inside the country or away in the diaspora.
I mean, he has support. There are other factions who would not want to see him in any transitional power position. Thank you.
Well, coming up, the Iranian officials meet with Vladimir Putin, with the Russian leader, condemning U.S. attacks in the Middle East, (INAUDIBLE)
that is coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:32:07]
ANDERSON: Well, welcome back. You're watching CONNECT THE WORLD with me, Becky Anderson, your headlines this hour.
And it's be a day of intense attacks between Israel and Iran. Iran sent missiles towards multiple Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem,
while Israel struck Tehran with what it called unprecedented force. Well, a source says Israel believes it can achieve most of its goals in Iran within
days. It says it targeted access routes to Iran's Fordow nuclear facility today. That follows the weekend U.S. strikes on the nuclear site that the
head of the IEA says likely caused significant damage. The Fordow site buried deep inside a mountain to shield it from attacks.
President Trump is floating the idea of a regime change in Iran, despite some mixed messages from within his own administration. His top officials
saying the strikes were not about regime change. However, Trump posted suggesting, "making Iran great again would require regime change.
I want to bring in Alayna Treene in Washington. What's the disconnect here, then, between his top advisers, his team, and the president himself?
ALAYNA TREENE, CNN CONGRESSIONAL AND PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS REPORTER: Yes, look, Becky. You know, the idea of a regime change is something not only
we've been hearing privately in our conversations for days now, but also, we've heard publicly from the president's top advisors, including those who
flanked him when he delivered that address to the nation shortly after announcing the strike Saturday evening. That included Vice President J.D.
Vance, secretary of state and National Security Adviser Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. All of them went on television yesterday to
make clear that the message was, we were not calling for a regime change, and that really, this is a war on Iran's nuclear program, not Iran itself.
But that message, Becky, only held for a couple hours before the president went out and posted that public statement, really saying, suggesting that
he's open to this idea of regime change. Now, I can tell you, it is something we've heard again, repeatedly, that they want to avoid. Part of
the reason, of course, is because they do want to avoid a prolonged war. And many critics, including people inside this administration, argue that
regime change would lead to a full-scale war, something that they are hoping they can really try to avoid by having some sort of diplomatic
solution reached between the United States and Iran.
Now, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, in a gaggle with reporters including myself, this morning, we asked her about that post.
Take a listen to how she tried to explain it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I can assure you, the administration is actively and closely monitoring the situation in the
Strait of Hormuz, and the Iranian regime would be foolish to make that decision.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TREENE: Now, Karoline also added there, the press secretary, that -- she kind of added, you know, if Iran -- if the Iranians, want to try to see a
regime change, why shouldn't they be able to do that?
[10:35:01]
Kind of arguing that the president was talking about the Iranian people calling for regime change, not necessarily the president himself.
All to say, this is, of course, something is going to come up during their 1:00 p.m. meeting in the Oval Office, where the president will meet with
his national security team. But another key thing I think that's very important to bring up in all of this, Becky, is how the United States is
really trying to communicate with the Iranians right now.
We heard Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, say yesterday that there have been a number of different messages, both public and private, that have
been sent to the Iranians through multiple different channels. I asked Leavitt this morning, you know, have the Iranians responded? And she kind
of sidestepped that question, referring me back to Hegseth's comments yesterday, all to say, what is clear is they do want this to deescalate at
this point. They are aware that many people in the American public, including within the president's own supporters are very afraid that this
could be, you know, kind of reminiscent of what we saw the former President George W. Bush do in getting involved in the second Iraq War.
It's something that we've heard many people in this administration say they want to avoid regime change is another one of those things. So, we just
have to wait and see if this is really the president trying to posture and kind of pressure the Iranians into coming back to the negotiating table, or
if it's something he's actually seriously thinking about down the line, if a diplomatic solution is not tenable. Becky?
ANDERSON: Yes, and the memories of conflicts past are very, very fresh in this region.
I'm in the Gulf, of course. Thank you.
On the heels of the attacks by the United States, Iran's foreign minister is in Moscow and met with the Russian President Vladimir Putin today.
Let's bring in CNN's Matthew Chance. He is reported extensively from Russia, of course. He is tracking developments today from London.
I actually want to get to that in a moment. I just want you and our viewers to hear an exchange between the NATO secretary general, and a reporter,
just in to CNN, have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES BAYS, DIPLOMATIC EDITOR, AL JAZEERA: James Base, Al Jazeera. Secretary General, NATO's position for more than three years has been very
consistent. It's been criticizing Russia for breaching the rules-based international order by invading Ukraine. Doesn't all of that seem very
hypocritical, given the U.S.'s recent actions, which are clearly dubious under international law?
MARK RUTTE, SECRETARY GENERAL, NATO: Well, I don't agree with that assessment at all. Obviously, NATO is concentrated on the Euro Atlantic,
but I do not at all -- not one syllable of your assessment story, on what you just said. With all the respect, of course, for your news outlet, which
I always respect, but I think you have this completely wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Well, argument of hypocrisy, holding anyway, internationally. What do you make of that exchange?
MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It wouldn't be the first time, I think, that NATO has been accused of double standards. And of
course, the fact that there is been this strike by Israel and United States against Iran, you know, being sort of largely accepted by the Western
alliance, whereas, you know, the attacks against Ukraine by Russia are being seen in an entirely different category, rightly or wrongly, you know.
But that's a fact of the matter.
And inevitably, you know, you are going to get people on both sides of that debate that have -- that have different views.
I think, that under international law, which is obviously, you know, an incredibly, you know, kind of inexact thing, nations have the right to
self-defense, and they also have the right to, you know, define what that self-defense is. And so, in that sense, it's going to be argued by the
United States, I expect, but they haven't done anything in violation of international law.
But on the other side, there will be people who, you know, contest that, stance. Becky.
ANDERSON: Let's get you -- Thank You.
I want to get you back to the Iranian F.M.'s visit to Moscow. What's the goal in that visit do you think?
(CROSSTALK)
CHANCE: Yes.
ANDERSON: He came off the back of his trip to Europe, of course, and then to Istanbul? Why was he in Moscow today? And how do you expect Russia to
play into this, if at all at this point?
CHANCE: Well, I'm a bit -- a bit steadier ground on this issue, I can tell you, because I think that there is been a long-standing relationship
between Russia and Iran. They've got a strategic partnership, but they haven't got a defense pact. And that's an important distinction which
Vladimir Putin himself has, you know, kind of, you know, articulated when he was asked why he hasn't provided weapons, for instance, to Iran. That's
one part of it.
Another part of it, of course, is that, you know, Russia, you know, doesn't have the capability or excess capability, to provide Iran with kind of
weapons or air defenses, things like that, because it's got its hands full in Ukraine. There is another part of it as well. I think, when it comes to,
you know, why Russia isn't doing more to help its Iranian sort of partner.
[10:39:59]
And that's the -- you know, for many years, Russia has been one of the few industrialized countries that actually benefits from instability in the
Middle East. The oil price spikes, Russia is one of the biggest oil producers in the world, money floods into its coffers. And there is also a
sense in which, you know -- you know, when it comes to negotiating a compromise on the Iranian nuclear question, Russia has contacts with the
United States, with Iran, with Israel as well, and it allows Vladimir Putin to sit at the top table of international diplomacy and to play the sort of
regional power broker. And I think that trumps any sense of allegiance that the Kremlin has towards the Islamic Republic.
ANDERSON: I just want to finally discuss with you what the Iranian response might be. That same foreign minister vowing a response when the -- when he
was in Istanbul yesterday, ahead of this Moscow trip.
We have been discussing one of the responses or options that Iran or Tehran, has very publicly posited, because his parliament, its parliament,
has voted for this. Today is the closure of what is known as the Strait of Hormuz.
Now, how you actually affect that closure? You know, is difficult to describe, but it's possible to really disrupt shipping in what is a really
strategic waterway for, you know, a significant chunk of the world's energy supplies that could, were it to happen, affect the price of oil. And we've
been discussing how that might impact different countries, not least Iran itself and those of the Gulf region.
Also, China gets a significant amount of its discounted oil these days from Iran itself, and that would be disrupted. What do you think Russia's
perspective of all of this is?
CHANCE: Well, look, I mean, I think, you know, as I mentioned, you know, if oil prices do spike as a result of a closure of the Straits of Hormuz, as
they certainly would if the strait were closed, then, you know, Russia would benefit financially in the short term. You know, I'm not saying that
it necessarily is gunning for this, but you know, it's got an economy which is based on, you know, the price of oil, you know, Euros blend oil, and it
needs to be over a certain threshold for them to be able to meet their budget commitments.
And so, in a short-term way, I think it would be, you know, something that would see billions of dollars pour into the Kremlin's coffers. But, I mean,
long term, the Russians, I think, you know, this is one of the -- one of the, the areas where they sort of play a more sort of traditional
diplomatic role. They want to see stability in that region, particularly amongst countries who are their client states, like Iran.
I mean, remember, Russia has already lost a lot of alliances, a lot of partner countries in the region, Libya, more recently, Syria, Iraq. And
now, you know, Iran is on the -- is on the cusp of, you know, a potential regime change, as well, or at least, you know that's the, you know, that's
the language now being used by Israel in the United States about the Islamic Republic.
And you know, the Kremlin is not going to be happy about the idea of losing yet another friend, if you like, or ally in that middle eastern region.
ANDERSON: Washington, meantime, will be looking at what is this sort of Iran, Russia, China axis, and saying, how do we bust that? And the
potential for sort of sweetening Moscow by suggesting they could help mediate this, and somehow get on the right side of it, is also an
interesting narrative that is doing the rounds at this point.
Good to have you -- always good to have you. Matthew, thank you so much.
Look, still to come, anger on Capitol Hill, as some members of Congress are questioning whether President Trump strikes on Iran were actually legal.
Some changes they are seeking from here on out, just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[10:46:19]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- two, three, four!
AMERICAN CROWD: One, two, three, four!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don't want you waste this war!
AMERICAN CROWD: We don't want you waste this war!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Well, U.S. strikes on Iran prompted some protests in the United States and abroad. Demonstrations were held in several cities, including
Washington, D.C., in New York, and Los Angeles. Opposition to U.S. attacks on Tehran's nuclear facilities result in similar scenes from Paris to
Pakistan, frankly, as protesters around the world did take to the streets to call for no war in the Middle East.
Well, progressive independent U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders has been speaking out against us activity in Iran, citing similarities between the strikes
and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): We cannot allow history to repeat itself. The United States faces enormous problems here at home. We should be spending
our money and our manpower, rebuilding America, not going into a war against Iran.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: While some members of Congress questioning President Trump's legal authority over these strikes, under the U.S. Constitution, Congress
has the power to declare war formally, the president, however, has the authority to use U.S. military to protect American interests against
imminent attacks.
And we wind-up with split powers in the Constitution. Lauren Fox joining us from Capitol Hill in Washington.
Look, there is a -- there is a -- there's a real split here, isn't there, between those who believe this simply wasn't legal and those who say he had
absolutely every right to do this. Where is this going to land?
LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Becky, I mean, a large number of Republicans are behind the president, especially if this is as
far as it goes. And obviously, that is a huge question mark right now across the world. But you do have some within the President's own party who
are voicing concerns about whether the president had the authority to attack these nuclear facilities without coming to Congress first.
Now, Thomas Massie is someone who has repeatedly come out against the president on his domestic agenda, and now, obviously, on this issue. But
take a listen to what he said over the weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): -- bombings to neutralize Iran may turn out to be the 2025 version of two weeks to slow the spread. This could turn into a
protracted, prolonged engagement.
And I'm here to represent the, you know, the base of the MAGA party that got Trump elected. Most of us were tired of the wars in the Middle East and
Eastern Europe, and we were promised that we wouldn't be engaging in another one. Yet, here we see this happening, and there is a, you know, the
president and the administration say, oh, we're done. We've had our little bombing, and now this is over.
But what happens if this drags on between Israel and Tel Aviv gets pummeled by Iran? Is President Trump going to say we're going to sit by and not do
anything. And that instance, I just, I'm leery of this, given everything that's happened before.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOX: Now, the Republican leader in the Senate, John Thune, says he does believe that Donald Trump was within his authority, as does the Speaker of
the House, Massie, does have a resolution that is privileged that could come to the floor as soon as this week. We'll be checking in with him
tonight at votes to see whether or not he's going to try to force that vote later this week. Becky?
[10:50:06]
ANDERSON: Good to have you, Lauren. Thank you. That is the story on the Hill. It is 10 to 7:00 in the evening in Abu Dhabi, 10 to 11:00 in
Washington. Going to get the latest oil prices as investors react to U.S. strikes on Iran. Those markets have been open for an hour and 20 minutes in
the States, of course. Let's check in on those prices after this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANDERSON: Let's check in on the latest prices in your market. See whether they have responded to these U.S. strikes on Iran. We've been watching
these numbers. The futures market over the weekend saw somewhat of a spike. You can see that these prices have come off their highs, and in fact,
trading a little bit lower at the moment.
Sunday Brent and U.S. oil futures had jumped by more than three percent. Before we see that drop back today, investors closely watching to see
whether Tehran retaliates to the U.S.'s strikes and these Israeli strikes by closing shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. We have been discussing where
about 20 percent of daily global oil production flows through. Experts predicting a disruption there. Could see prices soar towards $100 on the
barrel, but might not do, because these oil markets are tricky things. They didn't seem to respond the way we would expect them to. I've been watching
these markets for 25 years.
Matt Egan is a keen observer of these markets as well. Matt, it is -- it's an odd one. This one, if you told me, you know, a year ago, that if the US
attacked Iran in support of Israel attacking Iran, if there was talk of regime change and the rest of it. I would have told you these prices will
be sky high, but they are not. They are not reacting the way they might. Why is that?
MATT EGAN, CNN REPORTER: Becky, it's remarkable how calm investors are responding today to this increasingly alarming situation in the Middle
East. And I'm with you. If you told me the U.S. was striking Iran, I would imagine you'd see oil prices way up and stocks way down. And we are not
seeing that.
Let's take a peek at where oil prices are, as you mentioned, they are now solidly in the red. Now, last night, we did initially see oil prices pop.
At one point, U.S. oil prices WTI, were up six percent, but obviously, that was very short lived. And I think this reaction here is very good news when
it comes to the economy, because if you did see a sustained spike in oil prices, that would lift gasoline prices, that would be terrible for
inflation and for everyday Americans, and really citizens around the world who are dealing with high inflation.
But look, the concern is still, how does Iran respond? And I think that the fear is that they're going to respond by either attacking energy
infrastructure in the region or potential U.S. military assets in the region. The nightmare scenario is that they try to shut the Strait of
Hormuz. This is just the most critical oil choke point on the planet. It is what links the oil rich Persian Gulf to the world's oceans.
And as you mentioned, every single day, you have 20 million barrels of oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz.
[10:55:00]
That's about a fifth of what the world consumes. And analysts do say you could easily see $100 oil if Iran actually was able to close the Strait of
Hormuz. Possibly higher, ups in 120, 150. That would mean a return of four, four, $50 gas in the United States.
And look, J.D. Vance, the vice president, he was asked about the risk here. Take a listen to what he said on "MEET THE PRESS" over the weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTEN WELKER, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, NBC NEWS: If Iran disrupts shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, which, of course, handles about a quarter
of the world's oil trade, would that be a red line for the United States, Mr. Vice President?
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, Kristen, I think our biggest red line is the Iranian nuclear weapons program. I think, that
would be suicidal, Kristen, for the Iranians themselves. I mean, their entire economy runs through the Strait of Hormuz. If they want to destroy
their own economy and cause disruptions in the world, I think that would be their decision. But why would they do that? I don't think it makes any
sense. I don't think that it makes sense for them or for anybody else.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
EGAN: Vance, they are arguing that this would be self-defeating, because Iran relies on the Strait of Hormuz to get its oil to market. Also, we
should note that about 90 percent of Iran's oil exports, they don't go to the U.S. or to Europe, it goes to China.
But what's notable to me is that the prediction markets are not ruling this out, right?
(CROSSTALK)
ANDERSON: Yes.
EGAN: On Poly market, they are pricing in a 45 percent chance that Iran does close the Strait of Hormuz here. So, look, we've got to pay very close
attention to what happens next. Becky.
ANDERSON: Good to have you. That is it. CONNECT THE WORLD. Stay with CNN. "ONE WORLD," up next, folks.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
