Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Announces Ceasefire Between Israel And Iran; MAGA Comes To Grips With Trump's Strikes On Iran; FBI, DHS Warn Of Heightened Threat Environment In U.S.; Former B-2 Pilot Speaks Out. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired June 23, 2025 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): This is CNN Breaking News.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Good evening. I'm Laura Coates. We begin with the major breaking news. In just an hour from now, we are waiting to see if a ceasefire between Israel and Iran really goes into effect.
And moments ago, President Trump addressed the ceasefire deal that he had announced just hours earlier. He says -- quote -- "Israel and Iran came to me, almost simultaneously, and said, 'peace!' I knew the time was now. The world and the Middle East are the real winners. Both nations will see tremendous love, peace, and prosperity in their futures. They have so much to gain, and yet, so much to lose if they stray from the road of righteousness and truth. The future for Israel and Iran is unlimited and filled with great promise. God bless you both."
Now, Trump earlier indicated that Iran will start the ceasefire around midnight Eastern Time, and Israel will stop attacks 12 hours after that.
Iran's foreign minister posted this on social media two hours ago. "He seemed to hint the fighting might have ended, saying Iran had been attacking Israel 'until the very last minute.'"
The last hour, sirens were sounding in Israel, and the IDF said it had identified missiles that were launched from Iran. Now, this video shows missiles intercepted over Haifa, Israel. The Israeli government has not yet independently confirmed the ceasefire, but we are learning more about how it came together.
A senior White House official says that Israel agreed to a deal on the condition that Iran stop striking Israeli targets. Another source tells CNN that Qatar helped broker the agreement on the Iranian side after Trump told Qatar's leader that Israel was on board.
Word of the deal came just hours after Iran launched missiles at the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East in retaliation for America's strikes on its nuclear program. These were the skies over Qatar where the base is located. U.S. Central Command says American and Qatari air defenses intercepted those missiles, and there are no reports of anyone being hurt. But some debris did land dangerously close to a highway.
Trump says Iran gave the heads up that it was going to strike, and Iranian officials say the number of missiles fired matched the number of bombs the United States dropped on Iran's nuclear sites.
Well, tonight, Vice President J.D. Vance is claiming the U.S. destroyed Iran's nuclear program, and he says the ceasefire deal is an opportunity to the conflict or for it, which he and President Trump are now calling the 12-day war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: What the American national security interest here is very simple. It's to destroy the nuclear program. That's what we've done. And now that the 12-day war appears to be effectively over, we have an opportunity, I think, to restart a real peace process.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: My team of military and foreign policy experts are standing by to cover all of the angles tonight. But first, we go straight to Tel Aviv. Senior correspondent for Reuters, Alexander Cornwell, is there.
Alexander, I understand you're just coming out of a shelter there after even reports of missiles being launched by Iran, just as we're watching to see if this ceasefire will begin. So, describe what the last hour has been like.
ALEXANDER CORNWELL, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: That's right. We've had two warnings, in fact, from the Israeli military of incoming missile barrages over the past hour. The -- it has just gone 6 a.m. local time here, and the first came just after 5 a.m. Now, the first barrage, there were reports of sirens in the north of the country. And in the second barrage, we had sirens here in Tel Aviv, and there are also initial reports of an -- of an impact in southern Israel.
COATES: Iranian state media, meanwhile, has announced the ceasefire deal in Iran, claiming it was -- quote -- "imposed on the enemy." So, what, if anything, have you heard from the Israeli government about that?
CORNWELL: We have not yet heard anything officially from the Israeli government in regards to Trump's announcement on the ceasefire.
[23:05:00]
Now, a number of Israeli officials speaking to Reuters ahead of that announcement yesterday did tell us that Israel was ready to wrap up its campaign and it was just working out exactly when it would be doing that.
COATES: Alexander Cornwell, thank you so much. Please stay safe.
I want to bring in Marc Caputo to the conversations here, politics reporter for Axios, who covers the Trump White House. Marc, what is your understanding of how this ceasefire was actually put together?
MARC CAPUTO, SENIOR POLITICS REPORTER, AXIOS: One of the things with stories like this is there's a thousand different voices. And I don't think right now, we really know. What we're told is what you were told. The president picked up the phone and called Qatar and said, I'm ready to make a deal, I can get the Israelis award, can you get the Iranians award?
Steve Witkoff, his special envoy, Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, J.D. Vance, the vice president, all through direct and indirect channels throughout the Middle East to make these entreaties. And eventually, something came together. Whether it's going to stick, we're going to see.
COATES: I mean, ceasefire is not a term of art. It either is one or it's not one. Do you know if this is indeed going to be a ceasefire or simply just the opening or reopening salvo to negotiation with Iran?
CAPUTO: I think everything from this point on should be viewed as temporary until the temporary extends to a longer period of time. We just have to get to the first stage of a ceasefire where they're cease-firing at each other. I don't think they're at that stage yet.
COATES: You know, you and I spoke last week, around the time that Trump announced this two-week timeline, and we were wondering whether or not it was indeed real or, as you now say, perhaps a head fake. That's, of course, from an unnamed Trump adviser telling you that. And Trump knew, you say, what he wanted to do all along. So, was this always really the plan?
CAPUTO: Well, I don't know how long. It was always the plan. Our understanding now after the fact is that on Thursday, the president had pretty much made up his mind to do this. And so, when he said within two weeks, they say that that was a head fake to make us all think, okay, well, this is a guy who delays everything. And who knows? Two weeks could be two months, maybe it'll be a day, but it'll probably be longer than that.
However, they say, President Trump was willing to call off the B-2 bombers and the Tomahawk missiles if Iran reached out, picked up the phone, and said, hey, let's make a deal. That never happened.
At a certain point, those B-2 stealth bombers went into stealth mode, lost radar and communications control with the United States and with CENTCOM based in Tampa. And at that point, the die was cast, it was too late, all the rest is history, and here we are.
COATES: Marc Caputo, thank you. Keep with the reporting. We look to hear from you again.
With me now, former defense department and Pentagon official, Alex Plitsas, retired U.S. Army brigadier general, Steven Anderson, and CNN anchor and chief national security analyst Jim Sciutto.
So, Jim, first of all, we don't have total confirmation of a ceasefire actually happening. What is that Netanyahu is saying about this?
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: He hasn't confirmed this publicly either. But you just have to look at -- fhas the fire ceased? Right? And -- and Israel -- sorry -- Iran seems to communicate that it's no longer going to be shooting, and we'll watch Israeli fire going forward.
But I think the -- the important point is this: It's a ceasefire. It's not a peace. It's not a negotiated peace. It doesn't have lasting agreement.
COATES: It's a pause.
SCIUTTO: It's a pause, in effect. And -- and that pause could last for some time. And -- and why is it a pause? It's a pause because Israel has concluded for now that it has done what it could do.
And it has done significant damage to Iran's nuclear program over the course of, you know, dozens of strikes on -- on installations. And not just nuclear installations, but missile installations.
It has taken out fighters, etcetera. It has significantly degraded Iran's ability not only to enrich uranium, but also to fight back, to fire back against Israel and against other targets in the region.
It's -- so -- so, it has gotten to a point where it has accomplished what it can for now, and -- and -- and it's an enormous accomplishment.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
SCIUTTO: We should acknowledge that. And then from Iran's perspective, Iran has weakened, enormously weakened. Right? I mean, their -- their nuclear program has been damaged. Their air of invincibility in the region has been deeply damaged. They've lost significant ability. Not all of its ability to fire missiles as we saw just in the last several hours, but it has lost significant ability to do so against targets in the region.
And the most amazing event of -- of the last 24 hours, in my view, is that it gave the U.S. a heads up before it fired at the U.S. via Qatar. It gave a heads up that it's going to shoot at Qatar.
And as the president himself has said, that is a -- that's an Iran that's deeply weakened by events of the last several weeks and felt that if it didn't do so, it might get hit back so hard that it couldn't -- it couldn't withstand it. Right?
So, I think that, you know, parties come to a ceasefire when they conclude they either can't go further. Right? Or -- or might be -- be pushed back even further.
[23:10:04] I think that's where Iran is and that's where Israel is right now. Whether that lasts, whether Israel concludes at some point there are more targets it can strike or must strike, or Iran, you know, concludes that it has to do something, you know, the ceasefire may end. But, for now, the two sides have gotten to this because they need to.
COATES: I -- I wonder if there's as much room for optimism, that this means totally weakened Iran. Is there some risk militarily in having a ceasefire, in having that pause? I mean, it seems on the surface to be very positive, but I wonder if that's an opportunity for people to sort of recalibrate, for people to be stronger yet again.
BRIG. GEN. STEVE ANDERSON, FORMER BRIGADIER GENERAL, U.S. ARMY: Well, that's exactly right, Laura. I mean, that's what -- definitely what Iran wants right now. They need a strategic pause. They're -- they're --
COATES: Right.
ANDERSON: They're getting -- they're -- they're -- they're getting hit pretty hard. And Israel, as Jim said, has pretty much culminated their offensive operations. They've even said that as much. So, it's probably a very good thing.
But there are two major issues still at play here. First, the 400 kilograms of enriched -- highly-enriched uranium. Where is it? What is the battle damage assessment on that? Did it get moved to a cave on the other side of Iran? Iran is two and a half times the size of Texas. There's a lot of room out there. It might very well have been moved and been -- been hidden. We got to find that.
And the other thing, of course, is we need to have some kind of a political resolution to this. We need an assurance from the Iranians that they're not going to try to build another nuclear weapon. And -- and -- and otherwise, the ceasefire is not going to achieve the effect --
COATES: What assurance would you trust? Is it just a statement or is it some -- I mean, obviously, trust would verify as a general policy, but what assurance would -- how would that look?
ANDERSON: Some kind of a treaty. Some kind of a treaty that we tried to -- that Obama tried to negotiate years ago. We need to have some kind of treaty that says the Iranians will not allow -- develop nuclear weapons, and they will allow international inspectors to get in there to ensure that that is, in fact, the case.
COATES: And the latter, of course, will decide whether it was actually effective, the bombing in and of itself.
Alex, I want to tell you that President Trump in just -- minutes ago on Truth Social said, they have so much to gain, and yet, so much to lose if they stray from the road of righteousness and truth. Can you translate that for us?
ALEX PLITSAS, FORMER OFFICIAL, DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AND PENTAGON: Sure, I'll do my best to interpret the president on this one.
(LAUGHTER)
I think, you know, he has made some statements about, you know, make Iran great again and some other statements sort of eluding the fact that they come to the table and have a deal, that there's an ability, potentially, for economic relief and things down the road and sanctions relief.
But much to the general's point and as Jim was mentioning, there's -- the ability to do so is going to be -- is going to require them to give up domestic enrichment.
The reason we got into this position in the first place is the JCPOA allowed them to keep the enrichment technology, to get to highly- enriched uranium, which they exploited and abused, and that has been made clear by the IEA report and information that has come to light recently.
So, the Iranians today clear -- signaled very clearly by their -- their counterattack that they were willing to come to the table. So, I think they remembered after the U.S. took out Qasem Soleimani during the first Trump administration, that when they launched the ballistic missiles at our forces in Iraq, that were unsuccessful. Granted, when you launch missiles, you're meaning to kill and hurt somebody. But when it was small and intercepted and unsuccessful, the ones that did hit, the U.S. didn't strike back.
And so, I think when they looked for an off-ramp, they needed to save face. And when we do an analysis for -- course of action analysis to present to a decisionmaker, you take in to account the most likely and most dangerous course of action that your adversary will take in response to what you're doing.
So, in plain English, what does that mean? Well, if you look at the track record, if we were to launch missiles, give them a heads up, they don't impact, then the U.S. probably won't retaliate, we're allowed to save face, then we can have an off-ramp to the immediate crisis at the moment.
UNKNOWN: Yeah.
PLITSAS: But we've been at this with them for -- I mean, I fought, you know, Iranian militias in the streets 20 years ago in Iraq. They tried to assassinate people on U.S. soil, plotted to assassinate President Trump a year ago. This is not something new. It may be an end to the immediate hostilities, but this is a decades-old conflict.
COATES: Well, there's all -- he also mentioned 'they.' He expects this of Israel as well, not just Iran.
SCIUTTO: No question. I mean, here's the thing, is that Trump always seems to imagine there's some business deal to be made that's going to solve every problem in the world. Right? I mean, you -- you heard him use similar language to -- to Vladimir Putin regarding Ukraine. Oh, imagine the business we could do together. COATES: This is a pipe dream in this context, you think?
SCIUTTO: Well, the -- the thing is that countries, sure, they have -- they want to do business. Right? But they also have strategic interests. Right? And just as Russia has concluded, in -- in Putin's warped way, that it needs to absorb Ukraine for its national security interest and there is no business deal, there's no Trump Tower Moscow that's going to take Putin off of that conclusion.
From Iran's perspective, the nuclear program is existential. Right? It's -- it's a means of survival. It's not dissimilar from, say, Kim Jong-un and his nuclear program. He wants nuclear weapons because it's going to ensure his -- his regime's survival.
So, there's -- there's no, you know, trade agreement to -- to send cars back and forth between the U.S. and Tehran.
[23:14:58]
That's going to get Iran off that -- off that sense, that it needs nuclear weapons to survive. Now, it may not be able to get there. Right? Because it may not survive. Because, you know, it's -- it just had its power, you know, grossly depleted by U.S. and Iranian and Israeli military action.
COATES: To general's point, though, there's the prospect that they could maybe secretly sort of retrench and get more uranium.
SCIUTTO: Very possibly. But the -- the two things that the military -- military action has not apparent -- first of all, we don't know the extent --
COATES: Right.
SCIUTTO: -- of the damage because there has been no completed bomb damage assessment done regardless of President Trump saying it has been obliterated. I've talked to --
COATES: And whose job is it to do that?
SCIUTTO: It's -- it's American and Israeli job. I've talked to Israeli officials. They haven't completed their BDA. So, it's -- it's not clear. So, that's -- we don't know the extent. But clearly, there has been damage done.
But the two things that haven't been killed -- one, knowledge. Iran has knowledge about the nuclear process that didn't disappear in a day. And two, where are 400 kilograms of enriched uranium? It's -- it's not clear. The administration is not even claiming that it has destroyed all of that. Some of it may very well have survived.
COATES: Is that why this gives you pause for this, even have done this operation?
ANDERSON: Absolutely. I mean, we didn't need to do this. Well, you know, the United States did not need to execute Operation Midnight Hammer. I mean, I'm -- I'm a military guy. I love a great military operation. I mean, that's a much better demonstration of our military prowess than a parade down in Washington, D.C., by the way. But I will tell you that I'm very proud of the way we executed this.
But we did not need to do this. The Israelis were doing fine. They had air superiority. They got information superiority. They've -- they were taking it to the Iranians in a big way. We did not need to make an unprovoked attack against a sovereign nation and cross a threshold. Now -- we are in a situation now where we are -- we are in this fight.
And the Iranians are not going to forget it. Now, they might not forget -- you know, be able to do anything about it right now, but I guarantee you, there's 91 million Iranians out there, and they're mad at the United States. We are the great Satan, and we proved it.
COATES: What do you think?
PLITSAS: So, I think the -- if you look at the options that were on the table, the Israelis had the option of a -- of a conventional aerial bombing to try to take out as much of the facility as possible.
The other option that was on the table, which has been speculated for a long time and talking to Israeli officials was very much on the table, as you mentioned, we had air superiority and air dominance, was to put commandos on the ground to go inside the facility in what we would call a render safe operation.
When you look at the risk and the chances for success, the determination was made, I'm told by the U.S. and Israeli officials, that the -- the best chance of success at this would be the B-2s dropping the massive ordnance penetrators, the 30,000-pound bunker- busting bombs.
But to the general's point, now the U.S. has entered in the conflict where we were not a party to it prior to that. And then to Jim's point, I think about the knowledge, the Israelis tried to deal with that to a certain extent they thought on the opening night.
I'm told that they targeted 15 nuclear scientists. And the reason they did so is that they thought that if they killed them, they would take the knowledge as well as the technology of the grave, which would make reconstituting the program afterwards more difficult.
But again, to the point that was just made about the nuclear material missing, I'm told satellite imagery saw somewhere between 15 and 16 vehicles leaving facilities on Wednesday afterwards. They don't know what was in them, if the highly-enriched uranium --
COATES: Before, obviously, the bombing.
PLITSAS: Before the strike took place. Now, you have to imagine, U.S. and Israeli intelligence have been watching that thing like a hawk for who knows how long. But perhaps they didn't want to strike vehicles with highly-enriched uranium on the way out. Perhaps it has been moved somewhere. You know, there has been some quiet nods and statements from officials that perhaps they know where things are. But until we get the full battle damage assessment and have an understanding of where that highly-enriched uranium went, this problem is not completely done in the long run.
COATES: A lot of questions to linger. I wonder if the public will get the answers or this will be something that will be militarily or within the administration alone. Everyone, thank you.
A programming note, Jim is going to be anchoring our breaking news coverage on the Middle East starting at midnight Eastern. Great to have him here.
Much more still to come, including the major change from the FBI tonight as it warns of a heightened threat environment right here at home.
Plus, Trump calls to -- quote -- "make Iran great again" with a message about regime change that has his party holding their breath.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Breaking news. In less than an hour, a possible ceasefire agreement between Israel and Iran could take effect. President Trump says that he's the one that brokered it.
Let's discuss what happens next now with Ned Price, former State Department spokesman and senior adviser to Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
Ned, first, I got to get your reaction to Trump's announcement that a ceasefire will go into effect less than an hour from now.
NED PRICE, FORMER SPOKESMAN FOR U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT: Yeah. Laura, look, as we think about where we are and how to grade this, I think, ultimately, we have to recall the original assignment. And we need to be clear that the original assignment was never just getting to a ceasefire and essentially preventing World War III. If that were the case, of course, let's pop the champagne and give President Trump and his team a passing grade.
But the original assignment was much more significant. It was to permanently and verifiably ensure that Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon, to do precisely what the Iran deal was doing and was working to do before President Trump tore it up in in 2018.
And my concern with all of this -- look, we all want to see a ceasefire go into place. But if you go back to the original assignment, Laura, my concern with all of this is that the equation we've arrived at today is neither permanent and it's not verifiable. Your previous panel referred to this.
But senior Israeli and U.S. officials have already conceded that we may not know the disposition of the enriched uranium.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
PRICE: That raises the concern, that whether in the near term or over the longer term, Iran could use the remaining enriched uranium they have. If they have remaining centrifuges, they could enrich it to higher levels.
[23:25:00]
And they need not build a sophisticated nuclear device. They could create a crude nuclear device and lead us down to a point of crisis once again.
Because all of this was done at the barrel of a gun rather than through diplomat -- diplomacy and negotiations, we don't have the ability to monitor, we don't have the ability to guarantee that Iran doesn't go down this path again.
What needs to happen here, let's all hope the ceasefire goes into effect. But even then, the assignment won't be closed out. What needs to happen from there is, once again, to go back into some sort of diplomatic agreement, to see to it that, through diplomacy and not only through the use of force, Iran is once again permanent and verifiably prevented from going down that path.
COATES: The question, of course, is with whom they'd be diplomatic with, because the president posted yesterday -- quote -- "If the current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again, why wouldn't there be a regime change?"
So, if he is suggesting something organic, some kind of organic Iranian-led change in regime without any foreign intervention, how exactly would the strikes further that, and does this foreclose that diplomacy you speak of?
PRICE: Yeah. Look, Laura, it's -- it's unclear to me whether the president meant something organic, as you were suggesting, or something that would be instigated by the United States and our partners and allies.
I know his subordinates, namely the secretary of state and the vice president, have gone to great lengths, and they went to great lengths about a couple hours before president posted that tweet to suggest this wasn't about regime change, only potentially to have the rug removed from under them.
Look, if we're talking about the design --
COATES: Wait. I'm sorry. Ned, hold on. The rug, do you mean that the Iranians can't trust the United States as a result of this? There's no diplomacy forthcoming? What do you mean?
PRICE: No. I -- I -- I was referring to the fact that President Trump's subordinates went out to try to assure the world this was not about regime change, only to have President Trump go out in a way to contradict them.
But I think the irony of all of this, Laura, many of us would like to see the Iranian people be in charge of their own destiny, be the ones who are choosing their own leaders, something they have not done and been able to do in decades.
But the irony of this operation is that if we're talking about an organic change of government with Iran, the fact that Israel and the United States work together to pursue the infrastructure surrounding, the Islamic Republic, that will do nothing but solidify and cement, I think, this government's grip on power.
If we're talking about going at this through the barrel of a gun, and my concern is that President Trump was, in fact, alluding to that, it's another indication that this president just doesn't know his history, the same president who only, a couple weeks ago, joked to the German chancellor that D-Day was a very bad day for his country, the very day that his country was relieved of the totalitarian government that has been oppressing its people.
We've done regime change in Iran before, Laura. The United States did this in 1953 when we overthrew the Iranian prime minister. We all know how that worked out. It worked out just fine until it didn't. And, ultimately, our actions in that country, in many ways, over the course of years, instigated the rise of this revolutionary regime and, of course, we're -- we're paying the price in some ways for that today.
COATES: Ned Price, we'll see if diplomacy is in the future or the review mirror, won't we? Thank you so much.
PRICE: Thank you.
COATES: Still ahead, breaking news out of southern Israel as we get word of damage from a missile strike just as we await the start of this potential ceasefire. The very latest from the scene is next.
Plus, Marjorie Taylor Greene accusing Trump of a bait and switch on Iran, and then having to defend herself by saying Trump is not a king, MAGA is not a cult. How's Trump's party racking tonight?
Plus, division among Democrats as well. Some backing the strike, others calling it illegal, and some even flirting the idea of impeachment. So, why can't they get on the same page? We'll discuss them all next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Breaking news. Moments ago, Israel says Iran fired off a new round of missiles just minutes before a possible ceasefire could take place. At least one missile hit a residential building in southern Israel, in the city of Beersheba. Israel's emergency services says at least three people were killed and six others were injured. This is damage from the scene. You can see the explosion left behind charred vehicles. It caused part of the building to collapse. And much more on this later this hour as our team works to gather information on this strike.
Top Republicans on Capitol Hill swiftly rallying behind President Trump following the strikes on three Iranian nuclear strikes on Saturday.
But for a few outspoken Republicans who drew a line in the sand, take Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a fierce Trump ally, who in no uncertain terms said the military operation -- quote -- "feels like a complete bait and switch on the MAGA agenda." Minutes before the presidency's fire announcement, she said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): I think what you're seeing is a very big divide in the MAGA base.
[23:35:00]
And I think that's also something important to talk about. And I think it's generational. We've been lied to too many times. And I think it's right to be skeptical. But I think you're seeing a major divide in Republican voters.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, as a potential end to this conflict is on the horizon, the congressman writes on social media, "Thank you, President Trump, for pursuing peace."
I want to bring in former Democratic congressman Joe Crowley. Also here, CNN political commentator Brad Todd. I'll begin with you for a second, Brad, on this point because it is worth flashing back for a second to remember what some Republicans in Congress had to say to President Trump about -- excuse me -- President Obama about his air campaign against Libya in 2011. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RON PAUL, FORMER TEXAS REPRESENTATIVE: The Constitution is very clear. You don't go to war without a declaration.
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): This latest decision was taken without adequate consultation with Congress.
UNKNOWN: When you commit U.S. troops and resources to combat, you should consult with Congress.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, let's just say this with a Democrat ordering this operation. Would there have been the type of support or silence? BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, you know, in 2013, Barack Obama established a red line in Syria, and the first people in Congress to stand up and say, we'll back you up on this, were Tom Cotton and Mike Pompeo.
They were Republicans who felt like he was doing the right thing in Syria. They -- they wanted to make sure that he knew that they had his back. They offered to help enlist other Republicans who would help him.
COATES: The latter, of course, on the out now with President Trump, but --
TODD: That's right. It has been a while.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
TODD: It has been a while. I think Congress always -- leaders are always going to want to be consulted more. That's the role of the push-pull of the division of power between the Congress and the president.
But I think in the end here, what I'm most surprised about is, you know, Chuck Schumer voted against the nuclear deal with Iran. I don't know why Chuck Schumer is not out here endorsing what President Trump just did. It's surprising to me. Steny Hoyer did. Steny Hoyer said the world is safer. I'm surprised we haven't seen -- we've not seen more Democrats who've long wanted to reign to not have a nuclear weapon to praise President Trump.
COATES: But, congressman, I mean, you -- you were in office. You expressed support and skepticism over the president's war powers. But he says they want to consult more. Isn't it something as simple as that or should there had been more an in-depth consultation as in it is Congress's right to declare it?
JOE CROWLEY, FORMER NEW YORK REPRESENTATIVE: I actually think, politically, the president probably should have shifted some of this on to Congress because --
COATES: Why?
CROWLEY: Because you own it all. Maybe that's what he wanted to do. You know, he saw Israel being successful, and he wanted it on the game. And so, he takes this move, but he controls it solely. It -- there's no -- there has been no vote. I'm -- I'm not saying there will never be a vote. It could be months. It could be a year from now. We can actually do this again. But, right now, the president owns it solely.
And I do think, though, you're right, Brad. I think both in the Republican and Democratic party, there is a divide on these issues itself. There's not -- there's not everyone seeing eye to eye in all this.
I think when you have Democrats, Republicans who are sincerely concerned about -- about the state of Israel, its right to survive as a state, and the imminent threat that Iran may have posed to that and to the rest of the world, could look at one way. But at the same time, the Constitution is clear.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
CROWLEY: That the Congress will declare war. This was a preemptive act. This was something that we were not attacked, where the president went out and took this action. So, I think there has been a clear crossing of that line again in terms of what is constitutional and what is not.
COATES: So, what can Congress do about it?
CROWLEY: Well, that's a good question. But when the president's party controls both houses, there's not a lot that Democrats can do at this point. They can try to use some procedures within the Senate, fewer in the House. There is more opportunity in the Senate for senators to express their dismay, but less in the House.
COATES: I mean, Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasui-Cortez speaking about impeachment --
CROWLEY: Uh-hmm.
COATES: -- as a solution. You've got Thomas Massie, who has his own views as well. I mean, Massie, of course, is facing a critique, shall we say, from President Trump on that point, saying, get this bum out of office ASAP. So, I mean --
TODD: The clock is ticking --
COATES: There you go.
TODD: -- on Massie's political career.
COATES: The clock is perhaps ticking, but so is -- in some ways, there are unanimity among Democrats and Republicans. You've got some divide on these issues.
TODD: There -- there certainly are. There's a small group of what I would call doves in the Republican Party. But it's the terrarium compared to the size of the garden. That's the rest of the party.
Now, CNN's polling last week showed that 69% of Republicans felt like strikes would be in order. I guarantee you now, after President Trump did them -- did them in a decisive way and did them successfully, that number of 69 is about 99. The only people who now think this was a bad idea are Thomas Massie and a few internet commentators on the Republican side. Strength is the new ideology of the Republican Party, and he demonstrated it.
COATES: Do you think -- I mean, Massie stands alone in his viewpoints on that. I mean, obviously, you have to wonder if this is a bit of a slippery slope. If you are doing something preemptive and going around what Congress can do, does this start a trend that concerns all congresswomen and congressmen?
[23:40:03]
CROWLEY: I think what the president did very quickly was to get right on Massie. He wouldn't send a message to the rest of the members of Congress, especially the members of MAGA movement and the Republican Party. Get on the person right away who's outspoken against you. And he has done this before at Massie. Massie has been a target for --
TODD: But Massie, he's strongly anti-Israel. He votes with AOC and the squad every time on Israel. He votes like Bernie Sanders when it comes to this. There's just not a Republican who has ever been this anti- Israel in our memories.
COATES: What about not for the anti-Israel component? What about Margaret Taylor Greene's comments about being feeling as though this is the bait and switch? Does that carry any weight?
TODD: Marjorie Taylor Greene was for it when it worked. And so, I think that will continue to be the case. And I think, you know, President Trump is comfortable with that. He's comfortable with taking bold decisions and knowing some people are going to get on board after it works. And that's -- that's -- that's a pretty good trait for a leader to have.
COATES: That's his comfort but, of course, this is the United States with electorate.
CROWLEY: And you mentioned impeachment. And I think there's a weariness there. I think the American electorate are very weary of impeachment.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
TODD: We learned that the hard way, too.
CROWLEY: That's true. But, I mean, at the same time, at the very same time, is Congress feckless? Does it -- does it mean for -- does it have any role in this process?
And, you know, again, Article 1 clearly states that the declaration of war must happen in the Congress, not in the presidency. I -- I think they -- they were concerned about the almighty president.
TODD: Right.
CROWLEY: You know, the --
TODD: They certainly were. Joe is right about where our founders were, but it's -- it has been -- it's a bedeviled Congress since 1968.
CROWLEY: Yeah.
COATES: I don't know that we had an all is well that ends well clause of the Constitution, but we'll see. Joe, Brad, thank you both. Well, look, ceasefire or not, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security aren't taking any chances. They're warning tonight of a heightened threat environment here at home. So, what are they most worried about? Are the agencies actually equipped to track these risks and protect us? I'll ask a man who used to run a terrorism prevention unit that's now being led by a Trump-appointed 22-year-old, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: The U.S. bombing of Iran's nuclear sites is raising serious concerns tonight about a possible retaliation on U.S. soil.
DHS is warning of a -- quote -- "heightened threat environment," citing the possibility of low-level cyberattacks and the potential for violent extremists independently mobilizing.
CNN has also obtained a new memo from DHS stating that Iran could potentially target U.S. government officials if their leader believes the regime's survival is at risk.
Still, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem telling reporters the U.S. has not seen any new current threats from Iran.
Joining me now is William Braniff. He is the executive director of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab and the former director of the DHS Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships. William, welcome. Obviously, everyone is wondering how serious the threat of retaliation is here on U.S. soil.
WILLIAM BRANIFF, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF POLARIZATION: Clearly, the attack we saw today in Qatar is not the end of the story. Iran will pivot to relying on more asymmetric threats like terrorism, like cyberattacks, as the DHS bulletin warned about.
And so, I think we should expect that they will look to tactics like they've leveraged in the past, things like political assassinations and proxies to strike at U.S. interests when the time comes.
COATES: Secretary Mike Pompeo on Sunday said there is a real -- a real -- real concern that Iran could activate sleeper cells. Federal intelligence officials, though, say they're less concerned about sleeper cells and more about lone wolf and cyberattacks. Who's right?
BRANIFF: The latter. It would be my opinion as well. Sleeper cells make for good Hollywood. In reality, most political violence is conducted by individuals who are in the United States, who are inspired to take an action, who are aggrieved and decide to take an action, but not necessarily state's planted cells.
COATES: That's even scarier, though, at times because then, how does one prevent that if you don't have the intelligence vehicles and avenues to identify and prevent that if it's a lone wolf, for example? BRANIFF: It's a perfect question. We need to invest in upstream prevention programs, the kinds of interdisciplinary prevention programs that you might see for suicide prevention or intimate partner violence prevention.
We were actually running programs like this out of DHS while I was there, and we were able to do about 1,200 interventions through state and local partners for people who were gravitating towards violence, but hadn't gotten there yet.
COATES: The FBI, we are learning -- sources telling CNN that the FBI is scaling back its immigration support in light of the potential threats from Iran. As you know, the administration had been -- had been criticized a great deal for the diversion of resources away from perhaps threats such as this. Is this the right course?
BRANIFF: Putting those resources back to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces? Yes. We are seeing massive ups -- uptick in terrorism in the United States, hate crime in the United States, and grievance-based violence like school shootings in the United States. These are happening three times per day in terms of violent plots. So, those resources need to be in the counterterrorism and terrorism prevention fight.
COATES: You know, the office you used to lead is now being led by a 22- year-old. The person's name is Thomas Fugate, I believe. The office oversees ways to prevent terror attacks among other things, school shootings, as you mentioned as well.
What kind of experience does somebody need ideally in order to understand the scope of the threats that are posed and also to address them?
BRANIFF: The young man needs to be surrounded by a really competent multidisciplinary team, and that team has already been dismantled.
[23:50:02]
There's only about five people left at CP3. So, it really doesn't matter who's directing it at that point in time. There's no team in place. There's no real capability in place. So --
COATES: So, what does that mean for us?
BRANIFF: -- the office is shuttered. It means that the Department of Homeland Security is no longer investing in terrorism prevention. They're hoping for --
COATES: So now, what?
BRANIFF: They're hoping for counter terrorism outcomes with the law enforcement community.
COATES: Is law enforcement prepared and skilled enough to do that with the -- with the training that exists and currently have? BRANIFF: We are blessed with an incredible law enforcement community. But in a free and open society, if someone wants to conduct an act of violence, they have access to a vehicle or a bladed weapon or a firearm, they can do it. And so, we really need these upstream prevention programs because it drastically increases the window of opportunity for an intervention.
COATES: I wish you had -- you had a different answer. But I believe in your credibility. William Braniff, thank you so much.
Up next, it was America's stealth B-2 bombers that carried out what the Pentagon is calling a historic military strike more than 30 hours in the air after top secret planning and pressure. So, what was it like for the crew who had to carry it out? A former top B-2 pilot is standing by to tell us all about that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: It has been dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer, a journey the White House is saying took 36 hours from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri all the way to Iran. Seven B-2 Spirit bombers, each with two crew members, perceived their targets undetected and with minimal communication, dropping over a dozen 30,000-pound bombs.
Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Caine says it was -- quote -- "The largest B-2 operational strike in U.S. history." Kind of like a movie. Right?
My next guest is here to break down how they managed to pull it all off. Joining me now is Joseph VanDusen. He's a B-2 pilot instructor and founder and CEO of Stealth Elevation. Joseph, welcome. You got to explain to our viewers how difficult the B-2 mission on Saturday would have possibly been.
JOSEPH VANDUSEN, FOUNDER AND CEO OF STEALTH ELEVATION, B-2 INSTRUCTOR PILOT: Hi, Laura. Thanks for having me. It was very difficult. And I've been out of the -- the B-2 community now for seven years, but I can tell you that after flying my own 31-hour mission when I was an instructor pilot, this was a very difficult task.
And so, imagine, you know, they took off in silence and they went eastbound, like you said. And they -- they hit the refueling tankers in silence. It's kind of like meeting your -- your partner on a silent date. Right? And you -- you have to come together in air to get the gas to continue on to your -- your mission objective.
They probably did two air re-fuelings before heading into the actual theater, and then they met up on perfect timing with their escorts going into F-22s and F35s, I imagine, and I think, F-18 Growlers from the USS Newton, and then they pushed forward into Iran to take out these targets.
Everything is based on timing, which was absolutely incredible, impeccable. That's why they were safe. They are the very best at mission planning in the Air Force. This is -- I often say this is an Air Force within the Air Force. It's the cream of the crop, an iron sharpens iron environment, and it was absolutely amazing to be part of this community.
COATES: Oh.
VANDUSEN: They went forth and did their -- they prosecuted their targets with those GBU-57s, those 28,500-pound bombs. And can you imagine, when one of those comes off the airplane, and I don't think anybody has really talked about this, is you're going to get a big jolt, you just lost a lot of weight. Right? You're going to go up in altitude, and then you have to drop the other one in a very confined space.
The amount of tactical and strategic discipline required from these men and women who are flying the B-2 stealth bomber was absolutely on display.
COATES: Oh.
VANDUSEN: The precision required was impeccable. And, like you said, they didn't get targeted. So, they made it out safely, they made it home, and it's -- it's an incredible job from the 509th Bomb Wing.
COATES: I mean, there are two crew members per plane, I understand. You're right about the amount of weight that they would have been carrying, getting fueled mid-air, and then they had to keep communications to a minimum to even avoid drawing attention. I mean, how much more difficult does that make things to have such little communication?
VANDUSEN: It makes it exponentially harder. Right? When you try to communicate with anybody, you're just -- you know, that's -- that's the basis of relationship, that's your basis of friendship.
What we're doing right now and to do it in complete silence -- and hats off to the tanker crews, too, because they did it in complete silence. Nobody knew that this was coming. And the discipline required, it's -- it's all about timing and precise. We train to it all the time.
And -- and it's just incredible. You know, the standard is perfection, and -- and they executed flawlessly. It's just crazy.
COATES: I'm so glad that they returned home safely. Just thinking about the expertise that would be required to accomplish this mission and return home unscathed, unfathomable.
[00:00:00]
Joseph Vandusen, thank you so much.
VANDUSEN: Yes. You're welcome. Thank you.
COATES: Well, thank you all for watching. Jim Sciutto picks up our breaking news coverage on the Middle East right now.
