Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
Khamenei: U.S. Intervention Will Result in "Irreparable Damage"; U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Key Transgender Care Case; USS Ford Carrier Strike Group to Deploy Next Week; U.S. Builds Up Mideast Forces as Trump Weighs Options; Trump Calls Iran's Supreme Leader an "Easy Target"; World Leaders Weigh in on Escalating Israel-Iran Conflict. Aired 11a-12p ET
Aired June 18, 2025 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ZAIN ASHER, CNN HOST, ONE WORLD: All right, Iran's Supreme Leader pushes back against President Trump.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN HOST, ONE WORLD: "One World" starts right now. Israel says it's striking Iranian regime military targets in Tehran on day six of
the deadly conflict.
ASHER: -- President Trump is reportedly warming up to the idea of U.S. involvement in this conflict.
GOLODRYGA: Plus, the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the State of Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for transgender children. Everyone live from
New York. I'm Bianna Golodryga.
ASHER: I'm Zain Asher. You are watching "One World". Uncharted territory, we begin with a dangerous escalation in the Middle East and what appears to
be an increasingly distant diplomatic off ramp.
GOLODRYGA: Yeah, as the Israel and Iran trade another round of missile strikes, the U.S. President remains non-committal when asked whether the
U.S. will intervene. Just a short time ago, President Trump spoke to reporters and said he may use the U.S. military to carry out strikes in
Iran, or he may not.
And he described last week's initial Israeli strikes on Iran as, quote, one hell of a hit. The president also claims that Tehran wants to negotiate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I said it's very late, you know, I said it's very late to be talking.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE Mr. President.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President.
TRUMP: I don't know there's a big difference between now and a week ago.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: Just a short time earlier, Iran didn't sound like it was any mood to talk when the country's Supreme Leader dismissed Trump's demands for an
unconditional surrender and warned that any U.S. military intervention would result in, quote, irreparable damage.
CNN's Kevin Liptak is at the White House. But first let's go to Nick Paton Walsh. He joins us live now in London. So, in terms of what the president
just said about an hour or so ago, he said a number of things. One is that he may or he may not strike Iran, and this idea that it sort of seemed a
bit too late in terms of a diplomatic off ramp.
And that there was such a huge difference now compared to a week ago, in terms of what the situation was, essentially telling Iran, listen, you
should have negotiated with us while you had the chance. What stood out to you Nick in terms of what the president said there.
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: I mean, I think he clearly doesn't want to commit himself to one way or the other.
He's holding out the possibility that he may decline to join in the Israeli operation. But still remember, this is a man who floated the possibility of
an assassination of the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, just 24 hours ago.
Putting the words kill exclamation card inside brackets in a sentence where he said they weren't going to contemplate doing something like that yet.
And then in block capitals, he demanded unconditional surrender. I think possibly we're seeing a White House that's noted what the Israelis say and
appears, independently to have been the extraordinary efficiency of their military campaign against the Iranians.
And that has now left Trump with a different set of options than potentially he had a week ago. Indeed, too it seems as though Iran's
ability, as we see at the moment, looking at the reduction in the number of missiles they fired at Israel over the past night, Iran's ability to offer
an effective deterrent against Israel, as we say now, seems to have diminished slightly.
So, it gives Israel a freer hand, and then potentially the United States a slightly freer hand as well. Those comments, though, just a sign, I think,
of how Trump puts himself in the center of the decisions in key moments in geopolitical history like this, and then doesn't really want to commit
either side to provide maximum leverage.
Do we really think at this point that Iran is necessarily going to send a high-profile delegation to the White House to start talks? I think that
would be unlikely. It would be impossible for someone like Khamenei to accept the unconditional surrender pushed upon it that Trump has asked.
But at the same time, as I say, their options are relatively limited. In terms of the rhetoric, we heard from Khamenei in his second public comments
since this phase of the conflict, it's not the most combative we've heard him the irreparable damage he referred to if the United States joined this
war.
Well, he didn't actually spell out that would be against U.S. assets in the region, for example. So extra steps he could potentially have taken. He
didn't appear to attack Trump personally in that statement either. And so, I think it's fair to say Iran accepts it's been significantly weakened by
the last week or so.
Indeed, maybe facing an entirely different set of military options, if many at all, since the continued Israel bombardment against its military
infrastructure that may have taken out half or more of the missiles that could reach Israel and that also will be impacting its nuclear calculations
as well.
There are a lot here that we don't know at this point, in terms of Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon, which they deny they even did in the first
place.
[11:05:00]
But it's pretty clear we're dealing with the Tehran now in a phase it's never seen before, with the authoritarian government there certainly having
to contemplate options that were not even on the table a week ago.
GOLODRYGA: And so many advisers and top military leaders around the Supreme Leader haven't been assassinated by the Israelis over the course of the
last six days as well. Nick Paton Walsh, thank you. Kevin Liptak, I want to go to you because both the Israelis and President Trump have said that they
have the capability of actually going after the Supreme Leader.
Though, President Trump, in his post yesterday, saying that will not be an option, at least for now. Walk us through some of the contradictory
language we heard from the president there today in front of the White House, suggesting that his patience has run out, that things are quite
different today than they were a week ago, but also saying that it's not too late for negotiations.
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah, and I think it's clear the president still does view a window of diplomacy being open. It has
closed significantly since last week, but it is not shut entirely. And I think you see the president there at least giving the glimmer of an off
ramp to Iran, in his view, to avoid the destruction of its nuclear program entirely.
And so, I think that's significant. We know behind the scenes that the president has largely discounted the prospect that diplomacy could end this
conflict. He said just yesterday, as he was flying back from Canada that he was in no mood to negotiate. That was his quote.
But I do think it's interesting that he hasn't, at least in public, ruled it out entirely, and in fact, said as recently as a week ago that the
Iranians could potentially have come here to the White House to negotiate, although I should note that the Iranians have since the president said
that, denied that there was any effort to bring them here to Washington.
And so, it's clear the president is weighing an enormous decision. He is not revealing any of his thinking. It was interesting. He provided more of
a definition of what unconditional surrender meant. That's what he posted on Truth Social in all capital letters yesterday. And in his telling, that
means that Iran says that they've had it, and that we quote, we will go in and bomb all of their nuclear sites.
And so, you hear the president continuing to use that word to describe this effort. But I think it was just interesting the way that the president sort
of refused to be pinned down on exactly where he stood in his thinking so far. Listen to how the president described all of that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You don't know that I'm going to even do it. You don't know I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do. I can tell
you this, that Iran has got a lot of trouble, and they want to negotiate. And I said, why didn't you negotiate with me before all this death and
destruction, why didn't you negotiate?
I said to people, why didn't you negotiate with me two weeks ago? You could have done fine. You would have had a country. It's very sad to watch this.
I mean, I've never -- I've never said anything like it. It's so you never thought it was going to be the reverse. I didn't, I didn't think so. And I
was telling him, you got to -- you got to do something. You got to negotiate. And at the end, last minute, they said, no, we're not going to
do that. And they got hit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LIPTAK: Now the president was asked at various points his message one for the Supreme Leader, and he said, just good luck. And he was also asked what
he told the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in their telephone call yesterday, and the president says that he told the Israeli leader to,
quote, keep going. So, no sort of indication that he's trying to get the Israelis to de-escalate.
Now it's clear the president is now weighing, perhaps the biggest decision of his entire life, something that could potentially affect the world for
years and years to come. But I don't know that you would know that just looking at what he was doing this morning, the reason he was out there on
the South Lawn was to survey the installation of an 80 foot flag pole that he says he's paying for himself, and that will be both on the North Lawn
and the South Lawn.
So clearly, the president is a man of many different passions, even as he is now weighing this most consequential of decisions. It's clear he's focus
is, in a lot of ways, on other areas as well, and I think it's just an interesting contrast as we wait to hear what the president ultimately
decides.
ASHER: All right, Kevin Liptak live for us there. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.
GOLODRYGA: Well, here in the U.S. lawmakers are deeply divided as President Trump weighs his next steps on Iran. We're seeing in fighting emerge from
even within the Republican Party.
ASHER: Yeah, some so called hawks, like Senator Lindsey Graham are urging the president to use military force to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear
weapon.
GOLODRYGA: And then there are the MAGA isolationists like Steve Bannon saying that the U.S. must stay out of it and focus on America First. Things
got quite heated in one interview. Take a look at this exchange between Senator Ted Cruz and Former Fox News Anchor Tucker Carlson.
[11:10:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, FORMER FOX NEWS ANCHOR: How many people live in Iran by the way.
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): I don't know the population at all. No, I don't know the population.
CARLSON: You don't know the population of the country you see to topple. What's the ethnic mix of Iran?
CRUZ: They are Persians and predominantly Shia. OK --
(CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: You don't know anything about Iran.
CRUZ: So, OK, I'm not the Tucker Carlson bird on Iran.
CARLSON: You're a Senator --
CRUZ: -- who's calling the country, no --
CARLSON: You don't know anything about the country.
CRUZ: No, you don't know anything about the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: Oh boy, CNN's Annie Grayer joins us live now from Capitol Hill. I mean, that exchange aside. I mean, I think really what's interesting is
that what you're seeing is people who have been typically aligned with the U.S. President, Republicans who are very loyal to him, like, for example,
Marjorie Taylor Greene, are really divided and sort of going against what he's saying in terms of whether or not the U.S. should intervene in Iran
right now. Walk us through that.
ANNIE GRAYER, CNN REPORTER: This issue absolutely is putting the fractions of the Republicans on display, the issue of foreign policy. And President
Trump is in the middle, and he has not decided which way he's going to lean, but we know that his allies on Capitol Hill are trying to make their
pitch to him directly.
So Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is on one side, representing the defense hawks who are encouraging the president to take action against
Iran. He has spoken with the president multiple times over the last few days. Take a listen to what he told us recently.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Iran with a nuclear weapon is a threat, not only Israel, but to us. And four presidents have promised to make sure that
Iran never had a nuclear weapon. I think it will be Donald Trump who delivers on that promise.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRAYER: Now on the other side of the debate are right wing -- like Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has been encouraging
the president not to take any further action. She has been public on her social media, calling on the president not to go make take any military
action against Iran. She said recently, quote, we have all been very vocal for days now, urging, let's be America First. Let's stay out.
So now the question also will be for Congress is, is there a role for them to play? There are a -- there are war powers resolutions in both the House
and the Senate being introduced that would require the president to get congressional approval for any military action that it takes.
There's a question of when those resolutions will come up. But that will also put a lot of Trump's allies in a bind, depending on what the president
ultimately decides.
GOLODRYGA: And Annie that's the focus within the Republican Party. What are the Democrats saying? Because it appears that they are, on the one hand,
the majority, at least, in support of Israel's right to defend itself. On the other hand, saying that whatever military action if the president
chooses to take one has to go before Congress and get Congressional approval beforehand. Is that a united front that we are hearing from
Democrats at this point?
GRAYER: No, absolutely not. It is very divided on the Democratic side as well. And we are seeing those factions emerge over this issue. You have
Democrats like Senator John Fetterman who is praising Israel for its attacks against Iran. And then you have the top Democrat on the Senate
Armed Services Committee, Jack Reed, calling the move by Israel completely reckless.
And you also have very progressive Democrats like Senator Bernie Sanders, who is saying that Israel needs to -- that the U.S. needs to pursue
diplomatic relations in this matter and not get into and the U.S. should not get into another long war.
And in the middle of all that, you have the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, who is trying to take a more balanced approach,
showing support for Israel, but at the same time encouraging diplomatic measures here. So, there are people all over the spectrum, and Congress is
really just on pins and needles waiting to see what the president ultimately decides.
ASHER: All right, Annie Grayer live for us there. Thank you so much.
GOLODRYGA: And still ahead for us, the U.S. military is on the move. We'll take a look at how the possible involvement of the U.S. could change the
trajectory of the Israel Iran conflict?
ASHER: Plus, the U.S. Supreme Court wades into the debate about transgender rights with a major decision. We'll tell you what it means in just a
moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:15:00]
ASHER: All right, just a short time ago, we got a major ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that will impact the debate across America about
transgender rights.
GOLODRYGA: That's right. The High Court upheld a Tennessee law that bans minors from getting gender affirming care like puberty blockers or hormone
therapy.
ASHER: All right, about 26 states right now where this kind of care is banned for children, and the court decision today is seen as a major blow
to the rights of transgender people across the United States.
GOLODRYGA: Yeah, the 6-3 decision fell exactly along ideological lines, with the court's conservative majority all voting to uphold the ban, while
the liberals dissented. To help us understand the ruling and what it means, we are joined by David Weinstein. He is a Former State and Federal
Prosecutor and a Partner at the Law Firm of Jones Walker.
And really this comes down to whether this was a case that exposed any sort of sexual orientation discrimination. The majority ruled, no those in
dissent, and if we can pull up the dissent from that was written by Justice Sotomayor, she really spoke out harshly against this, arguing against this
decision by saying, by retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most.
The court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims in sadness. I dissent in sadness. She doesn't say respectfully, which
is what we typically hear in dissent in sadness. So, a lot of emotional, I think, reaction here from the minority in dissent. But walk us through the
decision making as it relates to the majority rule.
DAVID WEINSTEIN, FORMER STATE & FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, it comes as no great surprise to me or many others. The way this decision came down, the
6-3 parts of it, the very heart felt and saddened dissent, but the way it breaks down is they're analyzing it under the Equal Protection Act, a part
of the 14th Amendment.
Does this law discriminate against a certain category of individuals, or is there what the court says a rational basis? And the majority found that
there is this rational basis, and they make that finding based on the language in the statute itself. And so, for those who are strict
constructionists of both constitution and statutes, that's what this broke down to the language in the statute.
Keep in mind that the statute applies to minors, and that the majority found is that it was not based on a categorization of what the sex of an
individual was, whether they were transgender, whether they were male or female, but what they were receiving the treatment for?
And that's perhaps where Judge Sotomayor came really down on this, because they seem to ignore some of the science that goes into it. They make
reference to the science, but they found that the way the statutes written and that it allows for congenitative defects and issues that are related
not to what they call mental conditions and other and uncertainty about what the sex of an individual might be.
[11:20:00]
For those parts, it allows for treatment. The portion of the statute that prohibits the treatment, again, is for minors and for those who are having
issues regarding their choice of what their sexual orientation should be? They also distinguished it from what they called the Title 7 cases, which
came down somewhat differently.
And so, a lot of hard thought went into both the majority and the dissenting opinions. I haven't had a chance to dig deeply into either of
those, but based on the court's reasoning and why they did this, they're finding what they call this rational basis in the statute, one that doesn't
in their mind the majority discriminate against any particular sex of any individual.
ASHER: And to that point, I just want to read part of what Chief Justice Roberts actually wrote. If we could actually pull that up. He said, our
role is actually not to judge the wisdom, the fairness of the logic of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal
protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment.
So, to your point and then he goes on to say, having concluded it is not we have -- we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their
elected representatives and the democratic process. So, this idea what you're saying is essentially, this is not about, you know, equal protection
just in terms of what the majority decided.
This isn't about equal protection under the 14th Amendment. You talk about the rational basis. But for the minorities who are now affected by this
ruling, that is very difficult to get your head around. How much of a setback is this for transgender rights in the United States? And sort of,
what recourse do people have who are experiencing -- you know gender dysphoria and who need medical treatment essentially?
WEINSTEIN: Well, Joseph Sotomayor is not far off when she said this is a setback, because what they're doing is they're cutting off medical
treatment. Again, the majority takes pains to say that there are other ways to treat this by talking to doctors who don't treat you medically, but
rather sit down, talk with you, help you walk through the issues.
Again, it's only for minors. It's not directed at adults. But in terms of the transgender movement and what they're going through it now sets back an
entire category of individuals who are minors, who are unsure about what their orientation is, and takes away the medical treatment that might be
available to them unless, as is the case in Texas here, it's some sort of congenital defect that they will still allow to be treated.
But it certainly cuts off their pass. It gives a way for other states who are either preparing this type of legislation or already have it to modify
their legislation. And oddly enough, in the majority opinion, they talk about the democratic process and leaving it to the democratic process.
Well, these people their voices and their way to be heard was now just cut short, so they're going to have to have a louder voice if they want to
convince their legislators, whether it's state or federal, to change the law and make the difference that way.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Attorney David Weinstein, thank you so much.
ASHER: Thank you, David.
GOLODRYGA: We've got this breaking news into CNN, the U.S. has announced that it will deploy a third aircraft carrier to Europe, likely into the
Eastern Mediterranean Sea. The USS Ford Carrier Strike Group will deploy next week. This announcement comes on the heels of President Trump's
comments saying nobody knows what he's going to do on Iran.
Ali Vaez is the Iran Project Director for the International Crisis Group, and he joins us now live in Washington. So, on the one hand, Ali, we have
the president saying that he doesn't know what he's going to do, and that perhaps even diplomacy is still an option, but at the same time saying that
it's too late for that.
But just reading the tea leaves and looking at the increased force posture going into the region, does that suggest to you, on that basis alone, that
the United States is at least seriously contemplating taking some action to help Israel in going after Iran's nuclear facilities. Rather soon,
ALI VAEZ, IRAN PROJECT DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP: It's good to be with you. Look, I think the odds of the U.S. joining this war are higher
than the U.S. ending it. And this is because I think President Trump is impressed by the amount of military achievements that Israel has been able
to score in a very short period of time.
And President Trump probably believes that he would be able to go in and finish the job of which the majority of the heavy lifting has already been
done by Israel, and be able to basically get the credit for ending Iran's nuclear program.
But of course, he thinks that eventually, then he can also negotiate a deal with Iran now that Iran's nuclear program is in ruins, but all of that
could it amount to wishful thinking. This is all hope, and as they say, hope is not a strategy.
[11:25:00]
ASHER: I just want to sort of take a closer look at this dramatic about face by the U.S. President over the past 10 days or so. I mean, literally
10 days ago, the U.S. was really focused on this idea of a diplomatic solution. They've had a number of talks between American officials and
Iranian officials.
And it was Netanyahu that was really sort of trying to tell the president that listen, the sort of diplomatic process isn't going to work. We want to
sort of work in terms of military to try to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities. The president seemed very hesitant on -- with that approach.
And then you sort of see the president essentially, sort of start to change his mind, now, very much in support of what Israel is doing in Iran. And
now you have the president debating publicly whether or not the U.S. is actually going to get involved, especially as it pertains to these bunker
busting bombs.
Even sort of tweeting on social media saying that, listen, we could take out the Ayatollah if we wanted to, not that we're going to do that, but we
could if we wanted to. Talk to us about how dramatically the U.S. has sort of changed its stance over the past 10 days, Ali.
VAEZ: Look, it's a fundamental shift. As you said on past Sunday, Iran and the U.S. had actually scheduled for the sixth round of negotiations to
happen in Moscow. And even on Thursday a few hours before Israel started bombing, President Trump said that he hopes that Prime Minister Netanyahu
doesn't do anything that would blow up his diplomacy with Iran.
So, it is an about face, but -- you know and we still are not privy to what happened exactly behind the scenes that the president changed his mind. But
one thing is clear and matters the most, I think, which is that the Iranians believe that the entire negotiating strategy of the United States
was a ruse in order to make them believe that the U.S. is seeking a diplomatic solution, while it was allowing Israel to prepare for a military
solution to the nuclear crisis with Iran.
And seeing the U.S. as complicit in Israeli aggression against Iran, I think would make any future diplomatic engagement that much more difficult.
And this is why I'm saying that the president might believe that Israel bombing Iran would make Iran more amenable to capitulate and accept his
terms.
But from the Iranian leadership's perspective, I think the only thing that is more dangerous than suffering from Israeli bombs is surrendering to
American terms.
GOLODRYGA: And we heard from the Supreme Leader today saying that his country would not surrender and that there would be irreparable
consequences if there were a U.S. military intervention, which sort of gives you more of a signal as to where the Iranian position is.
And in speaking with Israeli officials and the former defense minister earlier this week, his point was that once this operation started, the
Israelis, and hopefully, from the Israeli standpoint, with the United States assisting, they will bring this to an end, because there is no going
back.
Meaning that if the Iranians have seen now what Israel has done and is capable of, and if they don't have the trust that the United States will
intervene, then any sort of negotiations would not be fruitful. What do you make of that standpoint? Are you envisioning now that the only way to bring
this to an end, most likely is a military solution, and not one that can have a last-minute level of diplomacy?
VAEZ: Look, as long as this regime in Iran stands. It can always reconstitute its nuclear program because it has gained the knowledge and
nuclear technology in Iran is now indigenous. So, the only long-term solution that the United States has is to change the regime.
And we've of course, seen that regime change in that part of the world almost often ends in grief for the United States, and we can't really get
what we want out of regime change in the Middle East. So, it's a very risky approach.
I think a much better alternative to President Trump is to now, instead of allowing this to continue escalate, expand, drag the U.S. in with
unforeseen consequences for the region and beyond. A much better option for him is to hold the president -- Prime Minister Netanyahu, back and be the
person who stops Israel from escalating this war further, which could put American lives at risk.
There are 40,000 U.S. troops in the region. There are hundreds of thousands of Americans in Israel. And then with that credit that he would gain by
holding Netanyahu back, he could go to the Iranians and try to negotiate a much more sustainable agreement. I think that's the only way out.
GOLODRYGA: Yeah, sort of the good cop, bad cop rule the president says you know, last week was different than even this week. So, we'll see if that
ultimately, is the approach the president is still looking for in terms of an off ramp, or if he has decided once and for all to assist Israel
militarily. Ali Vaez, thank you so much.
[11:30:00]
VAEZ: My pleasure.
ASHER: All right, still to come, the U.S. military is bolstering its forces in the Middle East as Donald Trump takes stock of his options. we'll have
much more on the Israel-Iran conflict, just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ASHER: Right, welcome back to "One World". I'm Zain Asher.
GOLODRYGA: And I'm Bianna Golodryga. Here's some of the headlines we're watching today.
ASHER: The European Union is a step closer to balling, banning, rather, all Russian fuel imports. The EU Commission is proposing to outlaw the purchase
of natural gas from Russia by the end of 2027. It says that Russia has repeatedly tried to blackmail the EU by weaponizing energy supplies.
GOLODRYGA: One of Indonesia's most active volcanoes is putting on a powerful display that mountain there, Mount Lewotobi Laki erupted on
Tuesday, spewing ash nearly 11 kilometers into the sky. Officials are urging tourists to stay away as dozens of flights to and from Bali have
been canceled.
ASHER: The Palestinian Health Ministry says more than 50 people were killed and hundreds injured by Israeli gun fire while waiting for aid on Tuesday,
the deadliest outbreak of violence yet reported at aid distribution sites. The IDF says the incident is under review.
GOLODRYGA: Iran Supreme Leader is warning that any U.S. military intervention will lead to irreparable damage as the conflict between Israel
and Tehran moves into its sixth day. But a short time ago, Donald Trump said Tehran wants to negotiate, and he declined to say whether he has made
a decision to use U.S. military assets to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
[11:35:00]
ASHER: As Donald Trump weighs his options for responding to the Israel-Iran conflict, the Pentagon is building up the U.S. military presence in the
region. As we mentioned, the U.S. has announced it will deploy a third aircraft carrier, the USS Ford likely, into the eastern Mediterranean Sea.
GOLODRYGA: Yeah, and another U.S. strike group is already there, led by the carrier, Carl Vinson. It's unclear how long the two groups will remain in
position. And the U.S. official says the USS Nimitz Carrier Strike Group is steaming towards the region as well.
ASHER: Sources say that Washington has sent more than 30 airborne tankers, which can refuel combat planes in the air to the Middle East. According to
"The New York Times", commanders are putting American troops on high alert at military bases around the region.
GOLODRYGA: Let's bring in CNN's National Security Reporter Zach Cohen. And Zach, we know that the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, has been testifying
before Congress as well, and we heard from numerous Democrats saying that if the United States will intervene here to assist Israel militarily, that
they need to go before Congress and say so. What more are we hearing from the Pentagon?
ZACHARY COHEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yeah, we do know that the U.S. military is moving a variety of assets in and near the -- in to the
Middle East. So really positioning a lot of fire power, both with offensive and defensive capabilities, in the immediate proximity of the ongoing
Israel-Iran conflict.
And that really is an effort to provide Donald Trump with options, if he does decide to take that step and involve the U.S. directly into that
conflict. That's something, as we obviously know, the president still was hedging a little bit today in his comments, saying he may or may not
intervene in the ongoing war.
But look the assets range from more than 30 aerial refueling tankers to now a third carrier strike group that's going to be moving near the Middle East
next week that really options under consideration range from sort of on a lesser scale, providing support to Israeli jets.
Those tankers can fuel those jets in midair. Israel doesn't have enough refueling capability to really sustain the tempo of attacks on Iran that
we've seen so far. So, this would allow those Israeli jets to have more fly time, and really, you know that will be beneficial if they continue to try
to target Iranian ballistic missile capability.
Look on the more extreme end of the options that we know Donald Trump has been presented with is this plan to potentially strike Iranian nuclear
facilities, and specifically facilities that are deep underground and that U.S. officials say, can only be penetrated by a specific heavy bomb that
the U.S. has in its arsenal, and Israel does not.
Now that bomb would have to be dropped by a B2 bomber, which a B2 bomber is also an aircraft that the U.S. has and Israel does not, so that's really
something that we are watching for. B2 bombers would have been deployed in the past from the one base where they sort of live in Missouri.
We're waiting to see if there's any movement on that front. But really a variety of assets being put in position here, as Donald Trump continues to
warm up to the idea of potentially taking military action against those Iranian facilities.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Zach Cohen, thank you so much.
ASHER: Let's bring in Aaron David Miller, a Former U.S. State Department Middle East Negotiator. He's also a Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace. Aaron, always good to see you. So obviously, Israel does, of course, need the USS help with this particular campaign.
President Trump says he's weighing his options. He might assist in this particular campaign against Iran. He might not. As he points out, nobody
knows what he's going to do. But obviously, Israel has been squarely focused on targeting the Natanz nuclear site so far, and we believe there
has been, we believe there has been significant disruption to that particular facility.
Obviously, the Fordow facility is a little bit different because of how far underground it is, and that is really where Israel does need the United
States help. If Israel is successful, or has been successful with Detroit destroying Natanz, but not necessarily destroying Fordow. Will this
campaign still have been a success if the United States does not intervene here?
AARON DAVID MILLER, FORMER U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT MIDDLE EAST NEGOTIATOR: Look -- thanks for having me. The logic chain here is pretty clear if
Fordow is left running and Fordow is important for two reasons. It houses most of the advanced centrifuges and the stockpile of fissile material.
If Fordow was left standing, the Israelis have done extraordinary damage to the knowledge base in terms of killing scientists, destroying records. They
have eliminated Iran's offensive capacity to surge ballistic missiles, but no, without dealing with Fordow this, in my judgment, would be viewed,
certainly in my -- Benjamin Netanyahu, as a defeat, because the Iranian nuclear program would, in fact, have survived with significant capacity.
[11:40:00]
And that's the essence of the problem here, even -- an American intervention, unless you can change the acquisitive character of this
regime. That is to say, eliminate its desire and need to remain screwdrivers turn away from weaponizing. The reality is it's going to be
extremely difficult to claim success, and that's Donald Trump's real challenger. He doesn't want this war, but he's now on the cusp of joining
it.
GOLODRYGA: And conventional wisdom would suggest that if Fordow remains intact, that the Iranians would quickly want to continue moving forward on
its nuclear program, as opposed to pausing or curtailing it. Aaron, Amit Segal, who is an Israeli reporter who is closely connected and plugged in
with the Netanyahu government, has reported that this essentially was a deal that the U.S. signed off on weeks ago.
Assuming that once 60 days of attempted negotiations passed without a deal that on day 61 Israel would get the go ahead. And his reporting is that
that official green light came last week. In fact, he went on to say, quoting a senior Israeli official, I've never seen a green light like this
before.
So, if in fact, the United States had been working with Israel on this for weeks, one would imagine, and then the green light ultimately given after
negotiations failed after 60 days, one would imagine that this is pretty much a done deal. Know that this wasn't the United States sort of caught
off guard.
MILLER: Well, it's one thing to, and by the way, some adventurous reporter is going to create a more authoritative. "The New York Times" did a great
job in creating a pretty good TikTok of what happened between Monday and Thursday of last week. I don't think the word green light was used.
And the Israelis, I don't know who amid is talking, the Israelis have a stake in spinning this clearly, because they -- what they've done is
necessary, but not sufficient. Do I think that there was a pre-arranged, ironclad agreement on the part of Donald Trump that if negotiations didn't
conclude by June 11, that he would have not said no to an Israeli effort to deal with the Iranian nuclear program militarily.
There may have been somewhat of an understanding, but, and there was -- on Thursday, the president was still talking about sending Steve Witkoff to
Oman for that fateful six round of negotiation. That clearly was part of the ruse that helped the Israelis mask. The initial phase of that
operation, which is a decapitation strategy.
The Iranians truly believe there would be no military action undertaken on the part of Israel until after that negotiating session took place. So,
Donald Trump, in that respect, played along. Look, I would like -- you know, if there were strategy would actually be, in some respects, a clear
indication that there was serious thinking going on.
I don't think that's the way this president operates. He wants to end the fighting in Ukraine, but not the war. He wants to free hostages from Gaza,
but really isn't invested in any sort of broader day after plan that would deal with Gaza or the broader Israeli-Palestinian problem.
And up until June 11, June 12, I think what he was looking for was an agreement to park the Iranian nuclear problem for the remainder of his
administration. He would have settled for something roughly approximated the former Iran nuclear agreement. So, a strategy, I think this is a
strategy free administration when it comes to Middle East.
ASHER: Yeah, a lot of people have said that any kind of deal with the Iranians would have ended up being broadly similar to what was negotiated
under Obama back in 2015. So just in terms of, you talked about the sort of nonchalant attitude of this president, you know, I am curious what the
Israelis make of, you know, some of the sort of language on social media by this president.
You know, I could have taken out the Ayatollah if I wanted to. Sure, I could kill him if I wanted to. But, you know, he's safe for now. We're not
going to do that for now. Or you know what we just heard about an hour or so ago from the president, you know, maybe I'll get involved.
Maybe I'll help the Israelis out. But maybe, I mean, what do you think the Israelis make of that kind of messaging around something that is so
sensitive?
MILLER: I mean, what does anybody make of a president who publicly uses those sorts of formulations? I worked in every administration, from Jimmy
Carter to Bush 43.
[11:45:00]
No American President of either party would ever have used anything remotely resembling the vocabulary, the lexicon or the way Donald Trump
delivers these sorts of messages, and what it reflects, I think, is the reality that life begins and ends with Donald Trump, if the U.S. attacks
within the next 48 or 72 hours, it would be as a consequence, in my judgment.
Of number one, Donald Trump, feeling angered and frustrated by the Iranians. Number two, the seeming perception that he believes he is now
looked at as a week actor in this drama that's playing out. And number three, he was unable or unwilling, Amit Siegel says green light, he was
unable or unwilling even to say no to the Israelis.
So, it all begins and ends with the personal. And I think that in some respect -- reflects the inconsistency and the verbal gymnastics, which are,
frankly, head exploding. Therefore, I mean, if you had a guess whether or not the administration will attack Fordow I'd still put the odds at well
over 60 percent that they're going to go through with it, because if he doesn't go through it, imagine the Israelis will have waged this campaign.
They will not have been able to destroy Fordow. There will be no negotiations in the wake of what the Israelis have done. And you're going
to be left between with no successes.
ASHER: Right. And also, the president has sort of telegraphed publicly that he's thinking about it.
GOLODRYGA: Yeah.
ASHER: And so now there's the added pressure that you know, since you've told the entire world that you're thinking about it, there is the added
pressure to actually --
GOLODRYGA: And who's to say that the Israelis would stop, even if the president doesn't intervene at this point?
ASHER: So, a lot of unknown. Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: All right, Aaron David Miller will be following this. Thanks so much.
ASHER: All right. Still ahead, oil prices surge. Why conflict in the Middle East is giving energy traders a cause for concern?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:50:00]
GOLODRYGA: The Israeli-Iran conflict has the energy market on high alert, and crude oil prices on the rise.
ASHER: On Tuesday, the price of a barrel of oil surged to its highest in nearly five months. Right now, U.S. West Texas crude, and we'll see Brent
crude are both rising again, both of about 2.5 percent. Let's bring in Anna Stewart with more on this. I think the fear for oil analysts at this point
is whether or not the U.S. ends up getting involved.
What that means for supply disruptions, especially as it pertains to the Strait of Hormuz? Walk us through that, Anna.
ANNA STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, what we've had is relentless speculation, really, from investors ever since Friday. In terms of, what
does this conflict really mean for global oil supplies, and therefore, what does it mean for oil prices? And in terms of global oil surprise, Iran's
not the biggest player.
It's probably ninth in the world, I think, in terms of oil production, about 3 million barrels per day, with limited customers, of course, due to
sanctions, so largely just China. But of course, this is a really strategic region, and Iran has potentially a lot of control when it comes to what you
call the Strait of Hormuz, which is a very narrow body of water, you can see in this map, it's between Iran and Iman at its narrowest point, it's
just 21 miles across.
Now this little narrow body of water is where a quarter of the world's global oil transits, and actually a quarter of LNG, Liquefied Natural Gas
as well. So, it has a really out sized role when it comes to oil production and oil exports around the world. So, the question here is, what are all
the latest noises that people are hearing in terms of potential U.S. intervention?
What does it all mean in terms of whether this escalates, whether it isn't contained between Iran and Israel, whether Iran retaliates and antagonizes
the Gulf by trying to close the street? What would that mean for oil prices? And so, investors are playing this game at the moment of trying to
figure out what all of these geopolitical moves actually mean in terms of the global oil picture, and it's a tricky one to have.
So, if you're looking at oil prices right now, they're up about 2.8 percent right now. They were up high this morning. They spiked on Friday. But what
we're seeing is just end of speculation. So, I think we can expect them to see a little bit of volatility for the coming days.
ASHER: Yeah, you can say that again. All right, Anna Stewart, live for us there. Thank you. Right back with more after the short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ASHER: All right, leaders around the world are weighing in on the growing conflict between Israel and Iran. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz praised
Israel's actions.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRIEDRICH MERZ, GERMAN CHANCELLOR: Yes, Israel did the dirty work here. I can only say that I have the greatest respect for the fact that the Israeli
army had the courage to do this.
[11:55:00]
The Israeli leadership had the courage to do this. Otherwise, we might have seen months and years more of this regime's terror and then possibly with a
nuclear weapon in their hands.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: Meantime, Turkey's President calling on the Israeli Prime Minister, the quote, greatest threat to security in the Middle East. Mr. Erdogan is
also warning the conflict could spread.
GOLODRYGA: And in his first comments on the conflict, Chinese Leader Xi Jinping says his country is deeply concerned. Adding military conflict is
not a way to solve problems, and the escalation of regional tensions is not in the common interests of the international community.
And this just in to CNN, the U.S. is arranging transportation for Americans who want to leave Israel. Ambassador Mike Huckabee just made the
announcement on X, airports and transport routes in Israel have been closed because of the conflict with Iran. And do stay with us. We'll have much
more "One World" after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:00:00]
END
