Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Early U.S. Intel At Odds With Trump Claim That U.S. "Obliterated" Iran Sites; Political Earthquake In New York City As Cuomo Concedes In Mayoral Primary; Lawmakers Outraged Over Postponed Iran Briefing; Trump Hits Back At Impeachment Effort; Laura Coates Interviews Nuclear Expert Jeffrey Lewis. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired June 24, 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)

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Good evening. I'm Laura Coates. We begin with the question that could impact America and the Middle East for years to come. Just how effective were the American strikes on Iran's nuclear program?

Well, tonight, CNN is learning a preliminary intelligence assessment suggests they did not destroy Iran's nuclear sites. This early report is from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency.

CNN has spoken with seven people briefed on it. One source says that the strike set Iran back -- quote "maybe a few months, tops." Two others tell us the country's stockpile of enriched uranium was also not destroyed. Another says the centrifuges are largely intact.

Now, it's important to point out the report is, hear me now, preliminary. The full picture could change as the U.S. gathers more information. But it's at sharp odds of what President Trump and his team are saying.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We are confident, yes, that Iran's nuclear sites were completely and totally obliterated.

PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated.

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Their nuclear program has been obliterated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: The White House is acknowledging the report exists. But Trump's team says it's flat-out wrong, leaked by a -- quote -- "low- level loser in the Intel Community and meant to demean the president and discredit the pilots who conducted the mission."

But here's the thing. No one is questioning the bravery of the people who carried out those strikes or the skill involved. It's the extent of the damage to Iran's nuclear program that is being questioned and matters in this moment because that will shape what happens next.

Just like the U.S. strikes influenced the last three days and led to a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, it's a ceasefire that looked shaky early on, and Trump himself appeared frustrated with both countries.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing. Do you understand that?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I understand that. My team of military and foreign policy experts standing by to unpack all of this tonight. But first to Tel Aviv. Reuters senior correspondent Alexander Cornwell is there. Alexander, our reporting is that Israeli assessment of the strikes found less damage at the Fordow site than expected. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Iran's nuclear program and addressed the nation. What did he say there?

ALEXANDER CORNWELL, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: That's right. It has just gone 6 a.m. here in Israel. And last night, Netanyahu spoke to the nation, where he said that Israel had annihilated the nuclear and ballistic missile threat from Iran. Now, he hasn't expanded on those remarks, but that is what he is saying.

COATES: We're now almost, what, 24 hours into this ceasefire. How is Netanyahu explaining it to the Israeli people?

CORNWELL: I -- I think this is being really marketed as a success and there is certainly a sense of relief in Israel. As you mentioned, the ceasefire of Iran seems to be holding, at least for now. But I would also mention that here in Israel, the focus is quickly shifting back to Gaza, where there are calls to end the war and to bring home the 50 living and deceased hostages.

COATES: Is there the appetite from Netanyahu to address that as well right now?

CORNWELL: It remains unclear. But his position has certainly been strengthened domestically with what is being framed as a success of the war against Iran or with Iran. But there are members of his coalition who are adamant that the only solution to ending this war is military -- militarily. And there are some in his coalition government who want a reoccupation of the Gaza Strip.

And then just to remind your audience, it is a multiparty coalition government that has a slim majority in the parliament.

COATES: Alexander Cornwell, thank you so much for your reporting. I want to bring in CNN military analyst, retired Air Force colonel, Cedric Leighton, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program, Middlebury Institute of International Studies, Joe Cirincione, CNN anchor and chief national security analyst Jim Sciutto, and White House correspondent for "The Guardian," Hugo Lowell. Welcome, gentlemen, all.

[23:05:00]

Jim, I want to begin with you. This is one early assessment from 18 agencies in the Intelligence Community to come, by the way. What do we know of the Israelis' assessment of the operation, knowing that Netanyahu is talking about this being a success? Are they gauging it the same way in terms of obliteration or impact?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, I -- I spoke to an Israeli intelligence source who said that the Israeli Battle Damage Assessment or BDA is quite similar to the one that CNN reported. That is that while the U.S. strikes did damage to these sites, particularly the Fordow site, it did not destroy the sites entirely.

And, frankly, we -- we -- we should be clear, it wasn't expected to. Right? I mean, any assessment of what would be necessary to take out these sites entirely for years has been that it would likely involve multiple strikes and might even need a ground component to go inside these sites after the fact to not only to confirm what you hit, but also to do -- to do additional damage.

So, it shouldn't be surprising that one site, despite the -- the -- the weight of the bombs and -- and the power of the munitions used, did not completely destroy it.

Now, I -- I should say that when -- the Israeli assessment is that the collection of damage done by U.S. and Israeli strikes which, of course, the Israeli strikes took place over many days, set the program back two years collectively. And they also say that they're going to be watching very closely, Israel certainly, and the U.S. as well, to see if Iran attempts to reconstitute or rebuild any of these sites, and then strike again.

I think we should be prepared for that, that if Israel sees activity there at any of these places, they might very well go back in. Not clear the U.S. does the same.

COATES: Joe, on that point, I mean, you've got President Trump insisting that there was an obliteration. You also have, to Jim's point, the goal may not have been expected to be accomplished in that vein, but to have some serious impact that would negatively impact their ability to advance their technology to a certain level.

But I want to play for you what -- how top House Republican Michael McCaul says about what the goal never was. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL (R-TX): And I've been briefed on this plan in the past. It -- it was never to completely destroy these three facilities, but rather cause significant damage. But it would -- it was always known to be a temporary setback where they could then rebuild the centrifuge. I think right now, the key is to keep applying the pressure, the leverage.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Has the goalpost moved?

JOE CIRINCIONE, VICE CHAIRMAN, CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL POLICY BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Absolutely. They're just spinning this like crazy. That is not at all what the administration was saying nor what they claimed right after the strikes occurred.

Look, there's a reason that no president has done this before. It isn't because they weren't as intelligent as Donald Trump or they lacked the courage. It's because they listened to their military and intelligence officials who warned them that military strikes could be ineffective and could have serious adverse consequences. It could actually speed up a country's drive to get the bomb, not slow it down.

That's what we're seeing here. There's enough capability left in Iran for them just with the 60% enriched uranium that survived and the centrifuges and the other secret underground sites that they have that they could be racing right now to construct a bomb, which they could do, at least the material for the bomb, within a matter of days and perhaps have a weapon within a few months.

That's the danger of attacking and missing. You don't want to wound a nuclear program.

COATES: Well, the idea, of course, of how to define success militarily, knowing that there were already questions about the depth of the actual facility, whether the intelligence suggested that they could, in fact, destroy it or obliterate it or hurt it in some way and wounding it. How would you gauge the success?

Obviously, the explanation and description of how these pilots connect the operation, unbelievably brave and heroic. But how do you judge success of the operation?

CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST, RETIRED AIR FORCE COLONEL: Well, you judge it on several different factors, Laura. One of them, of course, is whether or not they're going to reconstitute a program like this, how quickly they're going to do it, and you also take a look at the damage, the actual damage that you could see.

Now, this is a problem when the -- for a case, especially of Fordow, because you have this massive underground complex, and there were others like it in Iran where you have a very difficult time, especially with a bomb of this type, with the GBU-57.

It -- when it goes into the ground, it has a very small hole that it enters -- that it -- that it creates, and then it expands out when -- once it hits the depth that it's -- it's programmed for. And once that happens, it destroys stuff underground. And, of course, you don't see that.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

LEIGHTON: That's much harder to get a -- bead on to figure out exactly what happened there.

So, these assessments, as Jim mentioned, these assessments can change quickly. They can either go much more in the direction of what the president said or they can go more than what we expect, that it's, you know, going to be much more of a temporary stop, potentially, to the Iranian nuclear program.

[23:10:01]

COATES: So, is our even request for information premature at this point? Even thinking about -- I mean, the way you're describing it, collectively, it sounds as if we're setting up an intel versus administration matchup here. What are you hearing, Hugo?

HUGO LOWELL, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, THE GUARDIAN: Yeah, look, I think that's fair. What was funny to me about this whole thing today with the -- with the report was it was mainly based on signals intelligence, and that's kind of both the admin and kind of people at the Pentagon were telling us that all day.

Well, if that is true and they're dismissing the assessment and say, well, it's only signal intelligence and it's coming from satellites, well, that's the same stuff that's available to the admin. And so, for them to then claim on the other side that we know for certain that it's obliterated and, you know, there's nothing left at that side, it's kind of, you know, two sides of the same coin.

SCIUTTO: Yeah. Listen. Obliterate is not a word you see in intelligence itself. You just don't see it. That -- that's political language. That doesn't matter. I had a security clearance. I know you did. Colonel, I've read a lot of intelligence reports, including classified ones. And oftentimes, you have differences of opinion in there. You -- you have minority reports as it were included.

But, you know, they're making imperfect assessments based on imperfect, incomplete information, and you make the best assessment you can. You don't see -- you -- you -- you don't see statements like I know exactly what -- what has happened or you rarely do. So, this is -- this is to be expected at this point.

But the indicators are consistent here. You have the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency saying we didn't get everything. You have the Israelis --

COATES: Who is saying they're wrong?

SCIUTTO: Well, okay, who do you trust? You have the Israelis saying you didn't get everything. And, by the way, what we know leading up to this is it would take more than one day, one series of strikes to destroy the entire program. And that's how it's designed in Iran. It's -- it's -- it's spread around the country in multiple sites underground.

So, what -- what we know matches up with what this assessment says. Now, it could change over time, but it's actually less surprising, I think, than --than -- than it seems.

CIRINCIONE: Right. That's exactly right. Many of us were warning about exactly this. I know -- I know -- I was. "The Guardian" was as well. Don't count on this. There is no military solution to stopping a country that's determined to build a bomb. Only negotiations can do that.

COATES: But on that point, CNN's Fred Pleitgen has reported that Iranian officials still insist that their nuclear enrichment program is still a red line. And so, there is no signed deal. Does that mean if -- if there's no military solution, then diplomacy is the only thing? There's no inked deal here. Did the president miss an opportunity?

CIRINCIONE: Well, not yet. That's why it was so encouraging, what both the the -- the -- well, rather limited strike that Iran did, a token, really, response to the U.S. strike, and the president's statement yesterday where he seemed to be reaching out, looking for an off-ramp to offer Iran. It seemed that he wanted to go back to negotiations. Now, he wanted to also go to the NATO summit and do a victory lap, which is now ruined on this.

So, a lot of this is about how the president wants to appear rather than about U.S. national security.

But there's still time to correct this. My worry is that this humiliation might encourage the president to go back and try it again, or even worse. And you hear people talking about this, to go back and this time use a tactical nuclear weapon to go after the site.

LEIGHTON: Yeah.

COATES: You would agree?

LEIGHTON: I -- I think that, yeah, if he uses a tactical nuclear weapon, that would be a disastrous idea, an absolute disaster.

CIRINCIONE: Right.

LEIGHTON: So that has to be avoided. One of the key things to keep in mind when we go -- when we go to the intelligence assessment, remember, DIA is an all source intelligence agency. So, they derive data from SIGINT, from HUMINT, you know, from all the various intelligence disciplines, and put that together in a fused product.

Now, it's not the final word from the entire Intelligence Community, but what it is, is a first stab at kind of an all source report that tells you, from as many sources as possible, what has happened and whether the BDA, the Battle Damage assessment, is -- you know, is the kind that the -- the political leadership is looking for. COATES: Well, Hugo, let me ask you. We heard the F-bomb dropped around the world, frankly, from the president of the United States, obviously expressing his anger towards both Israel and Iran. Is the White House confident that they can ensure that the ceasefire persists, especially when it comes to Israel?

LOWELL: Well, I mean, the ceasefire -- the ceasefire only came back online because the CIA director called up the Mossad director and said, you know, the president is about to blow a gasket, and that was the chain of events that led to that. I mean, the White House is always going to say that. You know, we're confident in our abilities here.

But if you just indulge me for a second on the intelligence and the DIA report, because I think some of this got lost when the White House was trying to spin it as, you know, this was a low-level intelligence officer who had Trump derangement syndrome and was trying to undermine the president.

Whether or not that is the case, this report got sent to congressional leaders. Right? It went to the House and Senate leadership. It went to the House and Senate Armed Services Committee.

So, it's not like this was a random report that was getting bandied around news organizations, which was how the White House characterized it. It was a formal intelligence report that went to Congress.

And so, I think, when the White House, you know, is trying to mischaracterize, frankly, what this product is, I think that's pretty dangerous.

[23:15:02]

SCIUTTO: And also, it was meant to be -- there was meant to be a broader briefing today for members of Congress, which was canceled. And I spoke to a member who was supposed to get the briefing, and he said, you don't cancel intel briefings for good news.

CIRINCIONE: Right. Now we know why they canceled it. They don't want military and intelligence officials going up and telling Congress the truth. They want to have their Cabinet officials spinning their side of the story.

COATES: Well, they said it'll happen on Thursday instead. So, canceled, delayed, perhaps the same effect when the information is needed now.

Thank you so much, everyone.

And a reminder, Jim will be anchoring our breaking news coverage on the Middle East starting at midnight Eastern, so be sure to tune in.

We got much more ahead. Lawmakers outrage after a briefing on Iran was suddenly postponed. Senator Peter Welch standing by with his reaction and the questions that he wants answers to. Andrew Cuomo conceding to Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani -- excuse me -- in the democratic primary for mayor. We're awaiting remarks from Mamdani in what could be a political earthquake not just for the city but for the Democratic Party as a whole. We've got live coverage next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Breaking news. A political earthquake hit in New York City in the democratic primary for mayor. Former Governor Andrew Cuomo conceding the election he thought would catapult his political comeback. Instead, Zohran Mamdani, the 33-year-old self-described Democratic socialist, is poised to win the primary. And moments ago, Cuomo spoke to his supporters and congratulated Mamdani.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREW CUOMO, FORMER NEW YORK GOVERNOR: But tonight was not our night. Tonight was Assemblyman Mamdani's night. And he put together a great campaign. And he touched young people and inspired them and moved them and got them to come out and vote. And he really ran a highly- impactful campaign. I called him. I congratulated him. I implored -- I applaud him sincerely for his effort.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: I want to bring in CNN senior reporter Edward-Isaac Dovere at Mamdani headquarters. Edward, Mamdani was on the upswing, but this result is stunning. How is the Mamdani camp feeling? I mean, I hear the noise in the background. I can surmise how they must be feeling. But tell me what you're hearing.

EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, look, we are standing on a roof deck, in a bar in Queens. It is a record-setting hot day in New York. It is still boiling hot.

COATES: Hmm.

DOVERE: But it is hotter on the inside part of this party. It's so packed with people who -- I will tell you, Laura, from my reporting on this race, even a couple weeks ago, some of the people in this room cheering, were telling me, they thought it was a done deal, that Andrew Cuomo was going to be the Democratic nominee. And now, they're standing here in excitement, in disbelief, trying to figure out what this means for New York City politics, but also for democratic politics across the country.

And you have someone who is not -- he -- he was first elected to the state assembly in 2020. He is 33 years old. He is a Democratic socialist. He has come up by using viral videos. He was at 1% in the polls just a couple months ago and now has gotten so much support that he was able to get Andrew Cuomo to concede even before the ranked- choice voting calculation was going to happen over the course of this next week.

COATES: In fact, on that point, it was going to take several days, people thought, to even identify with this ranked-choice system. What are you -- can you just describe to people what was the substance of his campaign? Why has this caught in such a spark?

DOVERE: Well, look, there is a deep desire for change among a lot of Democrats, a feeling that the Democratic Party is not up to snuff. You saw that in the aftermath of Kamala Harris's loss.

But also, you see in New York City, specifically, a real anger at how expensive the city has gotten and -- and -- when it comes to rent, when it comes to paying for groceries, when it comes to any of the things that people need to do to live.

Mamdani was earlier today doing an Instagram live chat with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, of course, the congresswoman from New York, a progressive leader, and they were talking about how even child care in New York is $25,000 a year per child. And that is a cost that needs to be addressed, they feel, by government action. So, it is people saying it is time for a change. It is people saying they want affordability dealt with in big ways.

And also, it's a big rejection of Andrew Cuomo here trying to come back just a couple years after having to resign in disgrace over those sexual harassment allegations. And people really are feeling like he was a metaphor for everything they wanted to leave behind in the Democratic Party, and then also just not liking him personally as Andrew Cuomo himself.

COATES: Edward-Isaac Dovere, I wish you air conditioning and a glass of water soon. Stay tuned. Thank you so much.

CNN senior data reporter Harry Enten, he is at the magic wall tonight. Harry, this is politically an enormous upset, never a foregone conclusion in American democracy. We should note, Mamdani started this race polling at 1%. Tell me how he pulled it off.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: I mean, my goodness gracious. This one is one for the record books.

[23:25:00]

If you had asked me six months ago, I never possibly would have thought that Mamdani would have done it. And the fashion that he has done -- I mean, look at this. Just in the first round. What is that? That's a seven-point lead.

But how did he do it? Well, he went into Andrew Cuomo's base and took it right away. You can see that we have Mamdani in green here, and you could see a lot more green, especially in the populous boroughs. What are we talking about? Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn.

Let's go into Queens. Right? This was a place where the pre-election polls had Andrew Cuomo winning and not by a little bit, by double digits, up to double digits. But look at what's going on in Queens right now. We got Mamdani up. Look at that. Up 46% to 39%, a seven- point advantage.

How about we go where I am right now, Manhattan? Again, the polling pre- election just a few weeks ago had Andrew Cuomo leading here by double digits. But what do we have? We got the same thing going on. We got Mamdani at 39%, Andrew Cuomo just a little bit south at 34%.

So, again, Mamdani went into Andrew Cuomo's base and took it away. And even where Andrew Cuomo was able to win up in the Bronx, which is where I'm from, I'm a Bronx boy, Andrew Cuomo had 52.5% to Mamdani's 34%. But the pre- election polls there, Laura, they had Andrew Cuomo winning by 30 points or more.

So, again, what we're talking about is it's not just that Mamdani won where he was doing supposed to do well, like down here in Brooklyn where he's ahead 49% to 32%, but he went into Andrew Cuomo's base, and he took it away, and that is the story. He just did well throughout the entire map, Laura, and outperformed basically everywhere.

COATES: I mean, Harry, you've mentioned the polls. I'm talking about as recently as this week. The polls had Cuomo winning. This is historic. It also is obviously a reminder to any incumbent or candidate that you cannot count the voters out. They will tell you what they want in the form of a vote.

ENTEN: That's exactly right. And it is historic. And what are we talking about here? Well, why don't we go back through time. Right? You know, I'm a New York City guy, so let's go back through time. Shockwave, then primary results.

You go back to 1989 mayor. We're talking about a mayoral race here. David Dinkins wins over three-term mayor, Ed Koch. Ed Koch started out that campaign as the leader over the Manhattan borough president, David Dinkins. But, again, Dinkins was able to rev up voters that traditionally might have stayed out of mayoral elections and was able to put together a coalition to defeat Ed Koch.

Or perhaps, even more recently, how about that 2018 dem primary New York 14? Remember Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Remember, she beat House Dem Caucus Chair Joe Crowley and came out of basically nowhere to do it. And I think that that is something that is going to be so important, is what stays in New York City or what happens in New York City, does it stay in New York City? I'm not quite sure it necessarily does, Laura Coates.

COATES: Harry Enten, I'm looking forward to how we extrapolate this information at a different time as well. Thank you, my friend.

ENTEN: Thank you.

COATES: This result could reveal what direction the Democratic Party will go. Former Democratic Congressman Max Rose, he joins me now. Max, how big of a surprise is this result to you?

MAX ROSE, FORMER NEW YORK REPRESENTATIVE: I mean, this is -- this is stunning. This is shocking. But I got to tell you, what -- what had been obvious for quite a long time in New York City politics is the fact that Zohran was running an incredible campaign, engaging in what I like to call digital retail politics, where he certainly was out on the ground, but also extraordinarily active in the digital space.

But also, it should be highlighted here that he actually spoke about tangible policies that were immediate, universal, and quite simple. Things like freeze the rent, universal childcare, free and fast buses. Heck, I wasn't a part of the campaign, and I can repeat them.

And that is certainly a lesson for the Democratic Party nationwide. We have to get out of the weeds, out of the nuance, and just hit home with hard- hitting policies that people can remember and that they find inspiring.

COATES: You know, you've mentioned they're simple, obviously, concise statements to make. Are they simple to accomplish and will that factor in to how the electorate will view not only his candidacy going forward, but compare it to, obviously, the person that he will be running against, now claimed independent, Mayor Eric Adams?

ROSE: Sure. I mean, look, it's always been true about politics, that you campaign in poetry and govern in prose. So, we'll -- we'll have to see if he is elected, that he'll rise to the challenge.

Now, what will be interesting over the course of the coming months is probably Zohran's number one challenge will be to prove that he is ready to govern. So, who does he say that he is going to appoint as members of his team? What kind of extra detail does he roll out in his -- in his policies? That's what these coming months --

COATES: Yeah.

ROSE: -- are going to be about.

[23:30:00]

But what I would also say is this: You know, he did not win because he is a Democratic socialist. The national Democrat should not take that lesson. He won despite the fact that he calls himself that.

COATES: Hmm.

ROSE: But the actual policies that he was talking about -- you know, I was known as a moderate Democrat when I was in office. I would have talked about many of those things, like free transportation, universal childcare. These are things that can certainly unite the national party.

COATES: I want to bring in former Democratic Congressman Jamaal Bowman. He endorsed Mamdani. How important is this win? Tell me about it.

JAMAAL BOWMAN, FORMER NEW YORK REPRESENTATIVE: I mean, it's incredibly important, not just for the city, but for our country. When you look at what's going on in Washington and the hate and the rhetoric and the vitriol that's coming from the Trump administration, and a Republican Party and an establishment which includes the Democratic Party that has not done a good job of really inspiring and motivating and getting people excited about our democracy, Zohran and his team, they have done that here in New York City.

So, you know, to have people excited and inspired about our democracy, that's exactly what we need right now because we need as many people as possible to participate, to have a voice, to share their voices, to share their perspectives.

And yes, affordability is something everyone should be running on because people are struggling with childcare, utilities, etcetera, etcetera.

And so, this is -- this is an exciting and inspiring moment for New York, but also for the country as well.

COATES: Let's talk about that as well, if I follow up with you, Jamaal, on this point, because, as you know, Governor Cuomo, he was part of a political dynasty. He was, as I said, New York's governor for years until he resigned after sexual harassment allegations. So, what does this say about how voters are feeling more broadly, even perhaps across the country, about establishment leaders?

BOWMAN: You know, voters, I think, for many years, have been communicating that they -- that they want a new vision for the country. They want change. They don't want to continue to support and vote for establishment politics. They don't want to vote for corruption. They don't want to vote for someone who was accused of sexual assault of 13 women. They want to vote for a new hope and a new path forward.

They've been saying that for quite some time. I mean, even Trump supporters, they support -- many of them support him because he communicates change. And so, change is great.

But now, for Zohran and his team and all of us here in New York, we have to show not -- not just that we can win a general, but that we can govern a city like New York.

And I think when the country sees that progressives actually know how to govern, it's not just ideas, it's not just a political imagination, it's just -- it's also that we are the wealthiest city and the wealthiest nation in the history of the world.

We can reallocate our resources to ensure that we have universal childcare and affordable housing, and free and fair buses, and the things that working class people want because working class people have been working their entire lives simply to survive. It's time to help them put a couple dollars on the side. You know, maybe invest, maybe start a business, maybe take a vacation.

And it's time for us to go to a place where not just the billionaires are winning, but the working-class people who build the wealth of this country are actually winning as well.

COATES: I'll be very eager to hear what he has to say after this victory tonight. The concession, of course, now from former Governor Cuomo. Former New York Congressman Max Rose, Jamaal Bowman, thank you both.

ROSE: Thanks.

BOWMAN: Thank you.

COATES: Still ahead, lawmakers demanding answers from the White House on the strikes on Iran. I'll ask one senator what he wants the administration to clarify.

Plus, make my day, President Trump's response to the attempt to impeach him over Iran. Are Democrats making a mistake?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Now, this last-minute postponement of our briefing is outrageous. It's evasive. It's derelict. There is a legal obligation for the administration to inform Congress about precisely what is happening. What are they afraid of?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer losing his patience after the Trump administration suddenly postponed a classified briefing on Iran. It was supposed to take place today. Now, it has been moved to Thursday.

The White House said it was because Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are at the NATO summit and wouldn't be back until Thursday to attend.

With me now, one of the many senators who are looking for answers, Democratic senator from Vermont, Peter Welch.

Senator, thank you for being here. I have to ask, first of all -- I mean, just given the gravity of where we are right now and the military operation that we know took place, what is your initial impression of the intelligence sourcing that seems to suggest that it was not in obliteration?

[23:39:57]

REP. PETER WELCH (D-VT): Well, it really -- it really goes to the point of why didn't we get a briefing. You know, we are all against Iran having a nuclear weapon.

And President Trump did something that was very bold. The question is, was it effective? He claimed it obliterated the nuclear program. I wish it did. But, apparently, the intelligent -- the intelligence we're getting is that it set it back by two or three months. Hardly an obliteration. So, we really want to get answers, and it's very important that we have that briefing ASAP.

COATES: So why do you think you're not getting that briefing? Is it because of this initial assessment or is it because, as they have articulated, Hegseth and Rubio, out of town, frankly?

WELCH: That's not a reason. I mean, this is -- unfortunately, this is standard operation for the Trump administration, to sort of carve out Congress.

And it's on us in Congress, including my Republican colleagues, to demand that we get the information that's relevant to the American people because what's so significant here is, yes, we share the goal of a non- nuclear Iran, we share that with Israel, we share it with President Trump, but what we don't want to do is get drawn into another Middle East regime change war.

And what we see is that Israel, and we agree on a non-nuclear Iran, but Netanyahu wants a regime change approach towards Iran.

And we've got to have that debate and discussion. We've got to get the report on the intelligence. And, in fact, that's the burden on the president and his responsibility.

So, I am upset, but it's not that we didn't get briefed. It means that we don't have an opportunity to talk to the people we represent and have this discussion about what is going on with this decision that the president made, what's the outcome of it, and what are the implications with Netanyahu's demands, essentially, that we get involved in his regime change efforts in Iran.

COATES: Well, let's talk about the decision making because, as you used the word carving out Congress, Congress was not a part of the decision that President Trump made in order to execute this operation.

And you have said that you think the president should have to ask Congress for obvious approval, obviously is the war powers. You have concerns about that.

Now, the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, does not seem to share that same thought. In fact, he seemed to suggest that the war power constraints for President Trump might be unconstitutional. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE JOHNSON, SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: Any respected constitutional experts argue that the War Powers Act is itself unconstitutional. I'm persuaded by that argument. They think it's a violation of the Article II powers of -- of the commander-in- chief. I think that's right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, he went on to say, by the way, that many military operations have taken place without the declaration of war by Congress. He named, for example, President Obama's campaign in Libya. What's your reaction?

WELCH: Well, I -- here's the issue. If there's an imminent threat to the United States, the commander-in-chief, whether Republican or Democrat, has to have latitude to defend us.

But if there is something where there's not an imminent danger and there's going to be a major attack, as there was, on the Iran nuclear facilities and where our intelligence said that there was no imminent threat of them breaking out and it was an optional decision, a discretionary decision by the president, to engage in what is clearly an act of war, then under the Constitution, only Congress can authorize that.

And let me tell you, the wisdom of our founders that we seem to be just erasing --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

WELCH: -- that decision means that we are going to be calling on men and women who are patriotic and are going to show up because the Congress and the commander-in-chief have called them to put their self -- themselves in harm's way. There's enormous magnitude and responsibility in that decision.

We've thrown that away. We did it in Vietnam, we did it in Iraq, we did it in Afghanistan. And what I'm really kind of astonished at is the president -- President Trump ran against forever wars. He was critical of what we did. And here he is, essentially plunging forward. And it was supposedly to -- quote -- "obliterate the nuclear threat." In fact, the intelligence suggests it was two or three months.

And this is after the president had the negotiations he was involved in to get rid of a nuclear Iran, obliterated by the bombing campaign of the Netanyahu government. So, then our ally, Netanyahu, undercut the president's actions in his efforts to get a negotiated resolution.

COATES: I want to also bring to your attention, as you all know, House Democrats. They overwhelmingly joined Republicans against holding a vote to try to impeach President Trump over the Iran strikes.

And earlier today, Trump even seemed to dare them, frankly, by writing -- quote -- "Go ahead and try impeaching me, again, make my day!"

[23:44:58]

Is this the right method for Democrats or anyone to address what President Trump has done?

WELCH: You know, I think that those of us who oppose President Trump have to be realistic in the choice of tactics we use to try to send that message. There was no chance that impeachment was going to pass. So, it was an expression of real discontent and legitimate discontent on the part of my colleagues in the House, who saw the president's ordering a strike without consulting with Congress as a violation of the War Powers Act.

But the bottom line here is, we don't have the votes to do that, but how can we stand up in a way that the American people are going to respect when we're saying, we want to get the facts about what has happened? Was there obliteration, as the president is claiming and Markwayne wants to celebrate, or was it two or three months? And then that puts us in a -- in a place where the American people can assess what makes sense here.

The people of the United States do not want us to be involved in a regime change war in Iran. We don't want a nuclear Iran. We don't want to send our men and women in uniform to get in yet another war in the Middle East after Iraq and -- and after Afghanistan.

COATES: Senator Peter Welch, thank you so much.

Up next, months, years, weeks? How long could it take Iran to start or restart a nuclear weapons program if all the uranium is indeed intact? And how many nuclear weapons are we actually talking about? My next guest is a nuclear expert who has been tracking Iran's facilities for years. I'll ask him next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: The preliminary intel assessment obtained by CNN casting doubt tonight on the effectiveness of Saturday's strikes, and it is renewing questions of what Iran's path to a nuclear weapon now looks like.

My next guest is a nuclear expert who's here to break down what this could mean for the United States' objective of disarming Iran's nuclear capabilities. Jeffrey Lewis joins me now. He's also the director of East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute.

Jeffrey, welcome. You say the United States and the Israeli attacks and strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were -- quote -- "tactically brilliant" but may turn out to be strategic failures. Can you explain why?

JEFFREY LEWIS, NUCLEAR EXPERT, DIRECTOR OF EAST ASIA NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAM AT MIDDLEBURY INSTITUTE: Well, I mean, it's pretty simple. If you're going to conduct a military strike to eliminate a country's nuclear weapons program, you probably need to strike all of the sites involved in the nuclear weapons program.

If you don't do that, if you leave a country with enrichment sites, the ability to make more centrifuges, and 900 pounds of enriched uranium, no matter how great of a job you did blowing some things up, you've still fallen short of your goal.

COATES: You know, the early assessment, to your point, that was described by sources, suggests that centrifuges, highly-enriched uranium at Fordow and Isfahan, also were not fully destroyed by U.S. bombers. Now, if -- if that's accurate, how soon could Iran potentially restart its nuclear program?

LEWIS: Well, Iran could restart the program almost immediately. I mean, there's a sense in which it hasn't stopped. I mean, there are many, many facilities that just simply were not struck. You know, there are some cases where they've struck things and it didn't work. But more importantly, there are some places they're just untouched.

So, you know, in terms of a full resumption, the estimates that I'm seeing are anywhere between one or two months or a year. That's pretty consistent with what we see when we look at satellite images. It's a fair amount of damage for some facilities, but not -- not for all.

COATES: I don't have a sense of how many in that month span or otherwise or months to a year. How many weapons are we talking about could possibly be created?

LEWIS: Yeah. So, if you look at the stockpile that the Iranians have, it's about 900 pounds of -- of uranium that's enriched, almost weapons-grade. That's enough for 10 nuclear weapons. So, when we're talking about what they might do in months or maybe a year, what we're really talking about is a stockpile of about 10 nuclear weapons.

COATES: And how is that compared to other nations with nuclear weapons?

LEWIS: Well, you know, it's pretty small. The United States has well over a thousand. And, you know, even a country like, you know, say North Korea, it probably has, you know, 50, 60, 70. At the same time, you know, the destruction we saw in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was tremendous. So, you know, one or two or three is plenty to ruin your day.

COATES: Do you think that this would be the case, what we're seeing right now, if the United States had stayed in the 2015 nuclear deal?

LEWIS: No. The 2015 nuclear deal was working fantastically. Both the International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.S. Intelligence Community agreed that Iran was following the deal. That deal got into facilities that what we've now discovered were too deep to destroy.

So, you know, we have this situation where we had a deal where Iran agreed not to do uranium enrichment at the Fordow plant, so we had no enrichment happening there.

Trump tears up that deal, walks away. The Iranians put that facility into operation, and then we try to bomb it, and it turns out that the bombing doesn't fully work.

So, I think what we're learning over and over and over again is that it's much, much better if you can solve things diplomatically.

COATES: Of course, the president at the time decided to do away with that deal because he thought it was not working as stated, but we're soon seeing the results of that come into fruition. Jeffrey, is there anything that can be done at this point to try to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons if they want to?

LEWIS: You know, I think that the fundamental issue for the Iranian has always been political, not technical.

[23:55:01]

They have been a few months away from a bomb for almost 20 years. So, we don't know why they have never gone all the way and built a bomb, but that's a good thing.

I mean, I think the hope for everyone is that as upsetting as this whole thing has been, that the Iranians will come back to the table and we'll be able to work out some kind of diplomatic agreement. If we just have to come back and do this strike again, I think that's ultimately going to be a recipe for failure.

COATES: Jeffrey Lewis, we shall see. Thank you so much.

LEWIS: It was a pleasure.

COATES: Hey, thank you all for watching. Our own Jim Sciutto picks up CNN's breaking news coverage on the Middle East next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)