Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Iran FM Meets with European Counterparts; Trump to Attends National Security Meeting; Israeli Military Hit Dozens of Targets in Iran; Risks if Trump Decides to Strike Iran; Stealth Bomber Commander on Possible U.S. Strikes on Iran. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired June 20, 2025 - 10:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[10:30:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Israel's recent warnings that Iran was quickly nearing a point of no return in. Its in its efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon, and that is at odds with recent U.S. intelligence assessments.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Sources tell CNN. The U.S. intelligence found that Iran was not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. It was up to three years away from having the ability to produce one. President Trump has taken a different tone this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. I've been saying it for a long time. And I think they were a few weeks away from having one.

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Iran has all that it needs to achieve a nuclear weapon. All they need is a decision from the supreme leader to do that. And it would take a couple of weeks to complete the production of that weapon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Here with us now is Senior National Security Reporter Zach Cohen, with all these conflicting messages. Zach, just how close was Iran to having not only a nuclear weapon, but also the carrier? Because that's part of the equation too.

ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes. Well, let's start with what we know about Iran's intent, right? Like is there evidence and does the U.S. believe and does Israel believe that Iran had made a decision to complete the work of building a bomb, right? It's the final step in the process, but you have to put all the pieces together.

The U.S. Intelligence Community assessment has been and remains even before and after the Israeli strikes, that there was no evidence that Iran had made the decision to start that process of building the actual bomb itself. That's something obviously the Israelis have pushed back on and said that come to a very different conclusion. They believe that Iran was using negotiations with the U.S. to secretly start that process.

But the White House, even just yesterday, acknowledging that the supreme leader of Iran had not given -- made that decision yet. So, that's really a key sort of moment. And we haven't seen a shift there as far as the U.S. is concerned. But at the same time, that's also what Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's Director of National Intelligence, testified to back in March. Adding -- and this is something that is agreed upon across the scale, that Iran does have enough enriched uranium to produce a bomb. So, they could, if they wanted to, but they decided not to. But take a listen to what Tulsi Gabbard testified in March.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: So, there -- again, there is unanimous consensus here amongst the UAE -- or the IAEA, which is independent watchdog, the Israelis and the U.S. that Iran does have enough enriched uranium to produce a nuclear bomb and to do it within a matter of months, according to some timelines. Again, they differ in the opinion of whether or not Iran has decided to start that process.

The other sort of issue here though too is whether or not Iran could develop a delivery system, a viable delivery system in addition -- to essentially deliver that weapon toward a target of its choosing, right? And that was the Intelligence Community assessment that we reported on earlier this week that put the timeline for them to be able to have that delivery system at up to three years.

So, there is some picking and choosing of certain details and facts here based on the sense of urgency of the parties involved. But everybody does agree and the U.S. has agreed or has sought this since the beginning that Iran has not made that decision to actively start building a nuclear weapon. Though the timeline could be short if they decided to do so. And some are concerned that the ongoing military conflict with Israel could make Iran want to pivot and start that process.

BLITZER: So, the assessment is it would take them a long time to, A, build a nuclear bomb, but then to have a nuclear bomb warhead on a missile that could reach, let's say Tel Aviv?

COHEN: Well, Tel Aviv, but also the United States. The United States has really connected themselves to the Iranian nuclear, they've said that the it -- their nuclear program posed an existential threat not only to Israel, but to the United States itself. Iran does not currently have the capability to deliver a nuclear warhead to the United States or to Tel Aviv. That timeline is much longer than what it would take for them to make an actual bomb itself. [10:35:00]

BLITZER: As the Israeli officials keep telling me if Iran were able to do that and with one drop of a bomb on Tel Aviv, they could kill hundreds of thousands, if not a million Israelis.

COHEN: Absolutely. And we know that Iran has been pursuing sort of more some shortcuts and some crude potential opportunities to deliver a nuclear weapon that don't require a delivery system either. So, that is part of the concern, the calculation. Obviously, Donald Trump weighing all of this as he decides whether or not to strike Iran's nuclear facilities.

BLITZER: Yes. That fear is clearly motivating the Israelis right now. All right. Zach Cohen, thanks very, very much. Pamela.

BROWN: All right. Wolf, and just ahead, as Iran meets with key European leaders, is diplomacy still on the table? We're going to speak to a former Middle East and North Africa coordinator for the National Security Council. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:40:00]

BLITZER: Returning to our breaking news, high stakes talks are underway right now in Geneva, Switzerland between Iranian and European officials opening a critical window for diplomacy even as Iran and Israel are trading major new strikes. President Trump is trying to buy more time before deciding if the United States will directly join the fight.

With us now, CNN Global Affairs Analyst Brett McGurk. He's the former Middle East and North Africa coordinator for the National Security Council. Brett, thanks so much for joining us. As you know, President Trump says he will make a final decision about Iran in two weeks. Two weeks, his words. How do you read that decision? Is there still, in your opinion, a realistic chance of a diplomatic or peaceful solution?

BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST AND FORMER MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA COORDINATOR, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: Wolf, I'll say one thing, diplomacy with a firm deadline can be very effective. So, if this is a firm deadline with clear expectations, that actually can be conducive to diplomacy.

I'll just give an example. You know, when I worked with Steve Witkoff, who's now President Trump's current envoy in the last few couple months of last year after the election on the Hamas-Gaza ceasefire, we had a combination of a few things. We had a deadline on the inauguration date. We had real pressure on Hamas that had been increasing throughout the past year. Hezbollah, the key ally of Hamas, had already cut a deal around Thanksgiving time, and we had very clear expectations. That all kind of lined up to create -- we got an agreement and a ceasefire and Gaza hostages coming out.

So, I'm looking at the next two weeks, if you have a firm deadline, clear expectations, it has a chance for the diplomacy to succeed. We should want it to succeed. But I'm looking at this, Wolf, and I give this -- I have very low expectations. The meeting today in Geneva, it looks to be a cast of thousands, about 30 people in the room or so, that is really not conducive to diplomacy or getting an agreement.

The Iranians are very defiant from all of their public statements. It seems like they are not budging at all and may not even realize the difficult situation they're in. So, I hope the diplomacy can succeed. I think if this deadline is firm and expectations are clear, we have a decent chance, but I'm -- what I see right now, I give the diplomacy low odds. And I think you also have to be preparing in that circumstance the military option and moving forces into the region, again, to show the Iranians also if diplomacy fails the president is prepared to use force, particularly on Fordow.

So, as I see it right now, I'm hopeful diplomacy can succeed, I just don't see the stars aligning for that. But we got to give it a shot.

BLITZER: We'll see what happens. How does this new two-week diplomatic push impact Israel's calculations as it tries to basically destroy Iran's nuclear capability?

MCGURK: I think if it's the full two weeks, obviously Israel's going to do all it can to continue to degrade the nuclear facilities, the ballistic missile facilities, Iran's military power. But the key question, Wolf, as you and I have been talking now for a week, this crisis started about a week ago, is Fordow. And Fordow is something that has vexed multiple administrations. We have a military option designed specifically for it. The Israelis really don't.

The Israelis can do -- you just mentioned this earlier on the show, they did an operation in Syria against an Iranian missile facility. The same depth, about 300 feet, same depth as depth as Fordow. They did that operation with a commando raid. They called it Operation Many Ways, and that was a signal to Iran to show, you know, we have -- we, the Israelis, have many ways to do something like this.

But Fordow is very different. Fordow is much farther, it's about 1,400 kilometers compared to 200 kilometers away from Israel where that Syria facility was, much higher magnitude of risk. But I would suspect that the Israelis are looking at options like that to try to dismantle the Fordow site should the Americans not come in.

Bottom line, let's use this time wisely. Let's try to give diplomacy a shot. We'll see what comes out of Geneva today. But right now, I think we're still kind of in the same spot we've been in over the last week or so.

BLITZER: Brett, do you see Iran being open to the possibility of giving up their nuclear program in the face of what many say could be a formal existential threat to the Iranian regime?

MCGURK: I think -- I'm looking, again, Wolf, at these scenes in Geneva. It's very interesting. It is the same hotel where the JCPOA was negotiated in 2015. It's the same hotel where I did hostage negotiations with the Iranians. The Iranian individual, Abbas Araghchi, the foreign minister, is the same guy who was there for that. The Europeans are different.

[10:45:00]

And the Iranians have consistently had a position that they will not give up their enrichment program. However, their situation today has fundamentally changed. They're in such a weakened state, but Iranian decision making, Wolf, for Abbas Araghchi to show up with new instructions, they're a very top-down system, usually, they would have a meeting with the supreme leader or with the -- their equivalent of the National Security Council, like they call the Supreme Council for National Security. Most members of that body have been killed.

So, even for the Iranians to come up with a more flexible position under these circumstances it seems like they haven't because they're on the same talking points they were on before the crisis. So, you're asking the right question. The easiest way out of this crisis, if I was talking to Iranians right now, take the deal that Steve Witkoff put on the table about six weeks ago.

From my understanding, it's a balanced deal. It's a fair deal. I don't know every detail in it. If Iran -- if Abbas Araghchi were to call Steve Witkoff today and say, actually, we've re-looked at this, we take the deal, I think this crisis is over. And my understanding that would mean no enrichment, particularly at that Fordow site.

That -- this crisis has to end with Fordow. Those cascades cannot be in Fordow at the end of the day. Hopefully, by a deal, if not by other means.

BLITZER: And very quickly, Brett, before I let you go, why isn't the U.S. directly participating in these Geneva talks?

MCGURK: It's a key question. The U.S. has to be at the table. Iran right now is saying they will not negotiate so long as Israel's military campaign is going on. I don't think Israel's military campaign is going to stop just to negotiate. But it's a key question, Wolf. Because, look, what does Iran want? Iran wants the military campaign to stop and they want sanctions relief out of a deal. Those are things only the Americans can really deliver. The Europeans can't. These are American sanctions.

So, you're absolutely right, without the Americans at the table, there's really no clear path to a diplomatic outcome. I think the Europeans will use today to get more information from Araghchi and the Iranians, see if there's any possible way forward. But again, my expectations here are pretty low as I'm seeing this unfold on the diplomatic tracks.

BLITZER: All right. As usual, Brett, you always help us appreciate what's going on. Thank you very, very much. Pamela.

BROWN: Yes, that's a really important question you ask, Wolf, why isn't the Trump administration part of those talks? All right. Coming up right here in the Situation Room, what are the risks if President Trump decides to strike Iran? A former Middle East adviser who served in the Pentagon during the Obama era Iran nuclear deal negotiations joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:50:00]

BLITZER: The breaking news this morning, top European diplomats are meeting in Geneva, Switzerland with Iran's foreign minister right now in a new push for a diplomatic path out of the now week-long military conflict between Israel and Iran. Both countries trading strikes overnight and Iran attacking this morning as well, showing no signs that de-escalation is on the horizon.

Joining us now, the former Pentagon Middle East adviser during the Obama administration, Jasmine El-Gamal. Jasmine, thank you so much for joining us. You say the U.S. would be taking a huge risk if it joins Israel in this military conflict against Iran. Tell us why.

JASMINE EL-GAMAL, FORMER PENTAGON MIDDLE EAST ADVISER AND MIDDLE EAST ANALYST: Wolf, thank you so much for having me. A couple of reasons why I am really worried at this moment. First of all, I'm looking at the relationship between the political reasons for going to war versus the intelligence reasons and how that intelligence is being used to justify war.

I was in Iraq during the first weeks of the Iraq invasion, you know, as a translator, suited up in chemical suits before realizing that that whole thing was based on a lie. The danger here is when we have a political reason, Benjamin Netanyahu right now, when he has already made up his mind to go to war, then it's very easy, Wolf, as we both saw in Iraq, for that intelligence to be used to justify a pre-made decision versus being used to look at the situation and figure out whether we need to go to war. So, that's just first of all.

In terms of the ripple effects, the unintended consequences, and the risks of going to war in the region, we always talk about -- and I hear this a lot, about Iran's military capabilities and how they're much less impressive than Israel's military capabilities. And that's completely true. There's no parody objectively between the two. But the thing is, Wolf, Iran doesn't need to parody with Israel in order to inflict serious, serious damage on Israel across the region and to U.S. forces stationed in the region and U.S. interests as well.

So, I'm looking at if Iran is cornered in these negotiations, if there's no diplomatic off-ramp, then it feels like a cornered animal, it feels like it has nothing left to lose, and therefore, let's burn the house down. And that's when we start to see the real risks that'll affect not just Israelis, not just Americans, Wolf, but really everyone living in the region, Arabs, Israelis, Iranians alike.

BLITZER: And U.S. troops potentially as well, about 40,000 U.S. troops stationed throughout the Middle East right now. Jasmine, as you know, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, says European diplomats will push Iran to agree to zero enrichment of uranium during today's high stakes negotiations in Geneva. Do you see any chance at all that Tehran would agree to that? EL-GAMAL: I think, and as I heard you say earlier, Wolf, in your earlier conversation, the U.S. is really the key here, not the Europeans. It all hinges upon whether Donald Trump decides to enter this war with Israel, and that I think will tell us a lot about how the Iranians are going to respond.

[10:55:00]

Now, the Iranians have reached out to their Arab neighbors in the region and they've said, listen, we'll come back to the table if the U.S. doesn't get involved. So, I think that's the key opportunity here, is to look at elements and ways to de-escalate. And one way to do that is to try to bring Iran back to the table, which it already was at the table, just as a reminder, when this all started. To try to bring Iran to the table to say, OK, we won't go in, but if you don't want this to move forward in a way that's really bad for you, you need to come back to the table as well.

Wolf. I think this is a really -- and I've been saying this recently because I think it's really notable. This is the first time in decades that you have a Middle East region where every Arab country has stated publicly its willingness to work with Israel to move this region past the wars and the conflicts and to turn a new page. Most of the countries in the region now are in peace treaties with Israel, even the new government in Syria, under Ahmed al-Sharaa, has said, we don't want war with Israel. We want to cooperate. You have a government in Lebanon that for the first time in decades as an anti-Hezbollah government and is working to disarm Hezbollah.

So, this is a real opportunity, Wolf, for diplomacy to have a chance with all of the actors involved to get to a solution that is comfortable for everybody.

BLITZER: You make really excellent points. Jasmine El-Gamal, thank you so much for joining us. We will continue these conversations to be sure. Pamela.

BROWN: All right. Wolf, coming up right here in the Situation Room, we're going to speak to a former commander of the nation's only B-2 stealth bomber unit about what potential U.S. strikes in Iran could actually look like.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:00]