Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
Joint Chiefs Chairman: Weapons all Guided to Intended Targets at Iran's Fordow Nuclear Site; U.S. Intel Chiefs: Evidence Iran Nuclear Sites "Severely Damaged"; U.S. Economy Shrank 0.5 Percent in the First Quarter; Several People Killed After Israeli Settler Attacks; Venice Prepares for Bezos-Sanchez Wedding. Aired 9:20-10a ET
Aired June 26, 2025 - 09:20 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[09:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BECKY ANDERSON, CNN HOST, CONNECT THE WORLD: Well, I'm Becky Anderson from CNN's Middle East programming headquarters in Abu Dhabi. Time here is 20
past 5 with continuing coverage of the Pentagon briefing in the last hour, detailing the U.S. attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities.
The Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth calling a preliminary intelligence assessment the attacks delayed Iran's nuclear program only by months,
preliminary and low confidence in backing up President Donald Trump's insistence that Iran's three major nuclear sites were obliterated.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: The reality is you want to call it destroyed. You want to call it defeated. You want to call it obliterated.
Choose your word. This was an historically successful attack, and we should celebrate it as Americans, and it gives us a chance to have peace, chance
to have a deal, and an opportunity to prevent a nuclear Iran, which is something President Trump talked about for 20 years and no other presidents
had the courage to actually do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Well Pete Hegseth talking not long after Iran's Supreme Leader made his first public comment since the U.S. strikes. Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei proclaiming victory for Iran and saying the U.S. did not gain anything by attacking his country.
CNN's Senior National Security Analyst Juliette Kayyem, and Vali Nasr Professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and an
Iran expert joining me now. And Juliette, let's start with you. What did you learn from this Pentagon press conference?
JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: And it was two press conferences, and that's sort of the way to look at it. So, the political
one was clearly run by Secretary of Defense, Hegseth, in terms of just a narrative to support President Trump's early statements of the magnitude
and success of the strikes.
That was caustic. It was typical of this administration. I'll just going to put that to the side, because that's sort of the political side. On the
military side, the joint chiefs actually gave information that we did not know before that would probably never have been shared before, but for this
debate in the United States about what happened in terms of the capacity that was used, the weaponry that was used, and that the success of the
mission in terms of where strikes hit.
So at least two of the three major issues were satisfied in terms of the U.S. strike. The question that still remains that neither of them answered
was, what was it successful in terms of the magnitude, in terms of destroying, or at least thwarting, for a long period of time, Iranians --
Iran's nuclear capabilities.
And the key question not answered was, did the Iranians, because they knew this was coming, were they able to move a lot of the materials beforehand?
To me, notably, that was not -- it was asked, but that was not answered. So that's sort of how to think about a very unruly, very odd press conference
at times.
There were things in it, and most of them were unresponsive to the specific question of, do we know that this was truly a transformative strike?
ANDERSON: I was fascinated to learn that the operation to bomb the Fordow facility was based on 15 years' worth of planning specifically to attack
that underground plant. And we heard that the operation was perfectly conducted according to the joint chiefs of staff.
KAYYEM: Yeah.
ANDERSON: We don't know, of course, because this was not an intelligence briefing, and joint chiefs of staff made that point a number of times, is
the extent of the damage. I just want to be clear about that. Vali, listen to what the supreme leader said not long ago about enrichment.
[09:25:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI, IRANIAN SUPREME LEADER: The U.S. President said that Iran should surrender. That means there's no more enrichment. It's the
question of Iran to be surrendered. To mention the word Iran is too much for the mouth of the U.S. President to even pronounce it, to say it, a
great Iran and the word of surrender, they don't match, they don't match with each other, is a joke. Is a ridiculous thing to say.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Khamenei equating stopping enrichment with surrender days, implying he's not going to do that. Look, this is the first time that we've
seen these supreme leaders since those attacks. So, you'll have heard his full speech. What did you make of it? How do you read his thinking at this
point?
VALI NASR, PROFESSOR AT SCHOOL OF ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL STUDIES AT JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: Well, I think it was expected that he would be defiant,
that he's not going to come out waving the white flag. And also, I think the Iranians understand that even if the Fordow attack was successful, that
they performed better in this fight, in their own view, than was expected, that they didn't collapse.
The military didn't collapse. In the first wave of Israeli attacks, they were able to mount attacks against Israel. Even the president at NATO said
that a lot of their missiles were quite damaging to Israel. And in the end, Israel managed to bring the United States into the fighting.
The U.S. bombed Fordow and then decided that, President Trump decided that he really doesn't want to continue into a larger war. And I think perhaps
Iranians look at all of this -- the leak essentially as a way in which those who wanted the war to continue are trying to goad the president to go
back to fighting by saying that America's own intelligence says the job was not done.
I think the Iranians understand they were better, but they're not defeated in a way that they would basically come and say, you know, we now accept
whatever terms you put before us.
ANDERSON: You've already written about this to this in "The New York Times". I'm saying, and I quote here, if Khamenei's record is any guide, we
shouldn't expect surrender in nuclear talks. He sees this as a long conflict, and may compromise enough to get no war and no peace.
And does that suggest to you that Iran, then, is still interested in talks? Because we should discuss, Vali, the fact that whilst Donald Trump
suggested U.S.-Iran talks were back on for next week. He also said he wasn't that interested in any agreement at this point. You know, the
nuclear file is over. As far as he's concerned, it's done at move on.
NASR: Well, I mean, the Iran has always been interested in talks, at least since Trump became president. They're not interested in talks that are
going to discuss surrender. They're interested in negotiations to arrive at a deal, which means that you give and take a bit.
And also, there is now a question of trust. They think that President Trump says one thing does another thing. They were still talking to the
President's Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, when Israel attack, the president first leaned into the attack, then didn't, then sort of said, now I'm
actually interested in talking.
You know, the question is, can they trust President Trump? They may come to the table, but don't expect them to immediately jump at what President
Trump puts on the table, because, aside from whether it's something substantial or something really attractive. There's -- they are skiddish
about where they can trust the negotiator on the other side of the table.
ANDERSON: Juliette, I just want to bring you back in today. I think it's important, as we've been discussing the U.S. sort of side of what we do or
don't know about intelligence. There will be a briefing for Senators today. We know that. And so more people may learn more of what is already known as
it were, but there's a lot that is likely not, as Stephen Collinson points out in his analysis.
He argues he's one of our colleagues, of course, everything that involves intelligence is by definition opaque. And lasting judgments from technical
or human sources on how far the U.S. set back Iran's nuclear program could take months, he points out. It's also not possible to know whether the
administration does have more information on the aftermath of the strike said it is not releasing for operational reasons.
CNN spoke earlier to Republican Congressman Former Navy SEAL, Ryan Zinke, who explained, based on his experience, what he thinks the key questions
are still and why he thinks reports contradicted President Trump to begin with. Have a listen.
[09:30:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. RYAN ZINKE (R-MT): Well, I think some of it was because Donald Trump said it. There is pushback. Whatever Donald Trump says, there's always
pushback. In this case, I'll go back to look. This is a 13,000-pound bomb going into a bunker. It's not going to survive.
That site is going to be destroyed. Now, the question is, well, did they move it? Did they not move it? There's also, you know, human there is --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A human Intel.
ZINKE: A human Intel.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah.
ZINKE: But also signal intelligence. What do the Iranians say afterwards? What do they say leading up to it?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: And I guess the next question is, you know, what is the U.S. Administration's strategy next here, regardless of the state of this
nuclear program at this point, is Vali, and I have just been discussing.
KAYYEM: Yes. So, and I want to just sort of remind people how different this is, because I think any of us who have been in the national security
world have never experienced a president making assessments hours after a military mission that can't be validated by the intelligence or by an
operational entity like, say, the Pentagon.
So, think, for example, about the killing of Bin Laden, the capture and death of Bin Laden. There are pictures. There is validation by the team, so
that a president can authoritatively say in the Oval Office, this is what happened. We don't have that here. Part of it is because of the
intelligence, but more importantly, it's because we don't know.
And I think a president who can -- who had instead said mission success, we know that now, right, that the strikes hit where we needed them to strike,
and this was professional. And no one's doubting the professionalism of our military, the assessment of the long-term impact.
We won't know for some time. And then that's how it should work, to protect the intelligence, to protect the human intelligence. We are talking about
intelligence gathering out in the open, as if this is a political football. These are real people who are putting themselves in dangerous positions.
So, I'm sort of unapologetic about pushing back on the White House's narrative, because by doing it this way, an assertion final, you know, of
perfection. It is worth asking, is that actually it. So, we are going to have the unwinding has to be done because of Donald Trump's statement, not
because of reporters or analysts or people like you know, Vali, you know, are asking questions as to be unwound because of that assertion at the
beginning,
ANDERSON: It's good to have you, Juliette and Vali. I know that you will -- you stay with me through the next hour or so, or a couple of hours, as we
begin to really look to what has happened and where this 12-day war, as Donald Trump has now termed it, where that leaves Iran, the U.S.-Israel,
the wider region and what happens next.
It's always good to have you both. Thank you very much indeed. Vali, stay with us. Still to come, a key gage on the health of the U.S. economy is
out. We'll have those numbers and the market reaction ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:35:00]
ANDERSON: Well, the final reading of the U.S. economy for the first quarter this year showed the economy shrank by 0.5 percent. That is a much faster
slowdown than initially reported. All those numbers are out. Markets are open. Let's have a look at the markets and well, they're in pretty good
form, actually.
I mean, not super high. This was projected by or indicated by stock futures today. And these markets, I think, very much focused on the narrative from
Donald Trump yesterday at the NATO summit, when he talked about the fact that he has whittled down to just a small number of people.
His candidate for Fed Chair when he is able to pretty much move Jerome Powell out of it. Let's get you more on this. Mohamed El-Erian is Chief
Economic Adviser at Allianz, joins us now live from New York. And I want to start exactly then we can get to these numbers on the economy as we discuss
the sort of primary focus here, which has been, you know, to Donald Trump's chagrin.
This current Fed Chair is determined that he will not change rate policy while he has concerns about what is going on in this economy, whether it's
-- what the growth numbers look like, what the inflation numbers look like. And there's -- quite frankly, the stock market quite likes the fact that
Donald Trump is talking about who's going to come next, because they are convinced it will be somebody who will cut rates.
Would that be the right move at this point? How do you read what's going on at this stage, Mohamed?
MOHAMED EL-ERIAN, CHIEF ECONOMIC ADVISER AT ALLIANZ: And thank you for having me, Becky. I mean, what is happening is this Fed Chair Jay Powell
wants to go out with a legacy of defending the independence of the Federal Reserve, because that erases two other legacies.
One that he lost control of inflation, and inflation went all the way up to 9 percent when he thought it would be transitory, and inflation still isn't
back to his -- the fed started of 2 percent and we are four years after inflation started going up. And the second legacy that he would like for
that people forget, is that certain banks were badly supervised under his chairing of the fed.
So now the market believes that the Fed Chair is now stuck in this protection of fed independence, almost regardless of the data, and that's
why, the more that the president talks about appointing a shadow share, the more the markets go towards a new high.
ANDERSON: Let's explain for those viewers you may not be, as you know, watching this as closely as you are, why it is that Donald Trump wants rid
of Jerome Powell at this point?
EL-ERIAN: Simple answer, he wants lower interest rates. He's worried that the economy is weakening, and he now sees the notion of his big, beautiful
fiscal bill pressing on the accelerator and the Federal Reserve pressing on the brakes. So, what he would like the fed to do is to stop pressing on the
brakes.
ANDERSON: What's this big, beautiful bill were it to get through, going to do to U.S. national debt? Because it's the repayments on that debt that
Donald Trump has issue with. It's more expensive -- it's a more expensive debt to make repayments on, of course, if rates are higher.
EL-ERIAN: Correct. He believes that if rates come down, that the government will pay less. Of course, what the government pays is not determined by the
fed, as much as it's determined by markets.
[09:40:00]
So how do the markets see this? There's a split view, Becky. There's one view that says this is simply going to add to the deficit, and there's
another view that said this is going to promote economic growth, and it is growth that's the answer to our deficit. I think it's more likely to be the
first and the second, but the market is split on this.
ANDERSON: Very briefly, what do you make of these latest growth numbers?
EL-ERIAN: The shocking element was that GDP was lower because of consumption, but that is really in the rear-view mirror. I think the
markets also saw that durable goods investment came in much stronger, and they said, negative, positive. Let's forget about it. And he didn't get
much of a market reaction.
ANDERSON: Yeah, it's fascinating. It's always good to have you, Mohamed, thank you very much indeed. Mohamed El-Erian in the House. We are back
after this quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANDERSON: U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth calls the U.S. attacks on Iran's three main nuclear facilities, historically successful mission. In a
media briefing at the Pentagon last hour, he played down an initial intelligence assessment that the attacks only set back Iran's nuclear
program by months, insisting they obliterated the country's three main nuclear sites.
I want to bring you some insight from a former member of the Trump inner circle, Alyssa Farah Griffin, who was the White House Communications
Director during Donald Trump's first term. She had this reaction to today's Pentagon briefing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Pete Hegseth has an audience of one Donald Trump truth doubt that this was
going to be a game changing press conference. So, Hegseth knew who he was performing for. His job was to attack the media and to defend this as the
most successful operation, but -- incredibly impressed with General Caine.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah.
GRIFFIN: I think many of us were kind of concerned when he leapfrogged over four stars who were more in line to become the next Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, and he conducted himself exactly how he should. He focused on the pride he had in the troops, the success of the operation, and he
pointed out something we shouldn't forget in this.
There have been plans for about 15 years, spanning multiple administrations, to hit Fordow. So, this is not something that was out of
step with things that have been considered by previous presidents. It's that there was a target of opportunity, and Donald Trump chose to do it.
And I would encourage the White House take a beat. You're going to get more assessments. You're going to hear from the Israelis. The Europeans will
very likely do their own assessments. We've heard from one of 17 Intel agencies with this DIA report.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right.
GRIFFIN: Being almost overly argumentative and defensive is making it look like a bigger story than it needs to be, because all indications point to,
as McGurk said, this very likely set the Iranians back significantly. And I'd also remind, folks, 79 percent of Americans believe that Iran should
not have a nuclear weapon.
[09:45:00]
So, attacking the public for wanting to have answers to questions about how successful this was, is such a fool's errand. We actually just simply want
to know, is the world safe for today, or is it not?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: All this is our breaking news this hour, and we will bring you more as it develops. With that U.S. brokered ceasefire holding between
Israel and Iran. There are now questions over whether Gaza could be next. Donald Trump certainly thinks so.
On Wednesday, he told reporters that American strikes on Iran's nuclear sites could lead to a deal on Gaza. Source tell CNN that Israel's Prime
Minister is expected to convene a meeting with top officials later today to discuss Israel's future strategy in the enclave.
Right now, though its offensive, shows no signs of abating, more than 860 people have been killed by Israeli fire in just two weeks, according to
Gaza's Health Ministry, many of those killed while seeking lifesaving aid.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOHAMMED AL-MASRI, RELATIVE WAS KILLED WHILE SEEKING AID: We are facing very difficult things in order to get only a kilo of floor. The situation
is very, very difficult. Here we are going to death on our feet in order to provide food for our children. This U.S. aid, our death aid, not only aid,
we go there to die.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Well, CNN's International Diplomatic Editor, Nic Robertson is in Tel Aviv. Where are we right now in regard to possible indirect talks
between Israel and Hamas for a ceasefire and not hostage release, just remind us?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: I think we're in a place where people feel that there's reason to be hopeful that Hamas has,
over the last few days, sent a delegation to Cairo. I think it's unclear precisely what is happening. There's optimism, because there's a sense that
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has more political flexibility because of his success in Iran.
There's that perception. But speaking to regional sources here, they're still guiding me that while there's an anticipation that something could be
underway in the coming days, realistically those days may stretch more like a couple of weeks, that's the anticipation.
And as you say, the daily death toll in Gaza be it from direct, indirect fire, according to Palestinian health officials, for Palestinians who are
trying to go and get food, who are near one of these food distribution centers or waiting to try to get food from one of the convoys as it passes
through the neighborhood continues to grow.
33 more people killed last night or over the past 24 hours as a result of trying to get humanitarian aid. The U.N.'s organization for human rights
puts that they say that the number of Palestinians in Gaza killed by direct Israeli fire, they say, is 410 people. You know, when you put that in the
context now of more than 56,000 Palestinians killed, more than 130,000 wounded in Gaza since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack and the ongoing and
escalating and deepening humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Those figures and the need to move talks along, speak for themselves. But I think there is, I would gage from yesterday, a bit more caution in the
timeline of how this could all proceed. But I think there is that high hope, particularly among hostage families here, that this deal, that
supposedly in the works, could actually move ahead in some shape.
ANDERSON: Yeah, that term hope. I spoke to the advisor to the Qatari Prime Minister yesterday about this very subject, hoping that they could get
these talks back on track in the very near future. And he said, you know, of times, hope is all we have in this region on this very subject.
And he's right. I mean, we've been here before. We just got to hope that we can make some progress. In the occupied West Bank, several people reported
killed after Israeli settler attacks. Nic, what do we know there?
ROBERTSON: Yeah. Again, Becky, let's just try and give a little bit of context of what's happened in the West Bank since October the seventh on
Hamas' attack. Violence in the West Bank has escalated. Israeli military operations there escalated. Settler violence has escalated.
According to B'Tselem NGO that tracks the figures of the numbers of Palestinians killed in the West Bank. They put it at 918 almost 200 of
those children. What happened last night appears to be part of that broader picture. According to the mayor of one of the West Bank towns, he said that
dozens, and this was eye witnesses in this in this village too.
[09:50:00]
That dozens of armed and masked people they described as settlers were coming into their town, setting fire to home, setting fire to vehicles, the
people on the streets whose homes and vehicles were being set on fire. The mayor said that they came out they threw rocks back at the settlers, and
shots were fired, they say, by the settlers, and three people were killed, 10 injured.
Now the IDF said that they were called out to a disturbance that was between Israelis and Palestinians. They say that the Israelis, the
settlers, by implication here it appears, were unarmed, and the IDF say that rocks were thrown at them. One of their soldiers ended they say that
shots were fired from the midst of the terrorist's implication, it appears they're implying from the Palestinians.
So, they didn't specify that. The IDF says they fired back, and that's when three Palestinians were killed and 10 injured. These figures are coming the
numbers of deaths and injuries coming from the Ministry of Health in the West Bank, Palestinian Ministry of Health.
The violence there wasn't limited to that one village, by the way, that it started in the afternoon, went into the night, but has spread to some other
places today.
ANDERSON: Right. Thank you, Nic. We are back after this quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANDERSON: Well in Venice right now the most closely guarded secret just maybe the exact location for the wedding of Amazon Founder Jeff Bezos and
Lauren Sanchez. It is expected to be a multimillion-dollar event. And rumor has it that some of the world's richest people will be there.
But many Venetians say they've got a problem with that and are determined to make their feelings known. CNN's Melissa Bell reports on one of the
hottest events of the year.
MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It is in historic Venice, but also in extreme weather conditions, temperatures of up to 90
degrees that this wedding is going to take place over the course of the next few days. Amazon Founder Jeff Bezos marrying, of course, Lauren
Sanchez, in what we expect to be, even if the details have been kept very secret so far.
A star studded and very glitzy, lavish wedding ceremony over the course of three days. So, because of the protests we've seen these last few days, not
just those protesting Jeff Bezos' extreme wealth, but there are climate activists.
[09:55:00]
There are those that object to the Disneyfication, as they call it, a Venice, many of them have been taking to San Marcos square to the Rialto
Bridge, with their big banners saying no space for Bezos, and they had threatened to jump into the canal for the.
Many of them have been taking to San Marcos Square to the Rialto Bridge with their big banners saying no space for Bezos, and they had threatened
to jump into the canal for the last parties on Saturday, which is why we understand those events had to be moved.
The one thing we do know, or believe we know, is that some of the events, the early events planned for tonight will be taking place here at the
Madonna Dell Orto Church. It's a 14-century church which has a private cluster next door. You can see some of the fruit and vegetables arriving.
We've seen security guards and photographers milling about since Saturday. But otherwise, as with everyone else, we're going to be keeping a very
close eye on where the events are taking place. And, perhaps more importantly, whether the protesters managed to get in the way. Melissa
Bell, CNN, Venice.
ANDERSON: Melissa, playing sleuth in Venice. That's it for the first hour of "Connect the World". We'll be back though at the top of this hour with
more.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
