Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Stockpile of Enriched Uranium Missing; Iran Could Block Strait of Hormuz in Retaliation; Trump Floats Idea of a Possible Regime Change in Iran; Escalating Israel and Iran Attacks. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired June 23, 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: The head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog admits he's not sure where Iran has stashed nearly 900 pounds of its enriched uranium. Rafael Grossi is calling on inspectors to safely return to the country and assess the situation. We're joined now by former senior director for Gulf Affairs over at the U.S. National Security Council, Kirsten Fontenrose. She's also a senior fellow at the Atlanta Council here in Washington. Kirsten, thanks so much for joining us. How concerning is it that there potentially could be a stockpile of enriched uranium missing?

KIRSTEN FONTENROSE, FORMER SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR GULF AFFAIRS, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, PRESIDENT, RED SIX SOLUTIONS AND SENIOR FELLOW, ATLANTIC COUNCIL: It is very concerning because this means that they could potentially move to a bomb one to two within a very short time period if they were successful in moving enrich material from Fordow before we struck the site.

And what this means is that they could be much closer to being able to cause catastrophic destruction than we thought. For instance, there's a difference between a dirty bomb and a nuclear warhead. So, you can take the fizzle material, you can enrich, and you can create something that will cause havoc and mass death in a small location by simply dropping it out of an airplane or placing it there. So, you could even smuggle into the U.S. or into Europe. Whereas it will take about six months to create a warhead that could be delivered on a missile that's very accurately guided, a lot more difficult, but that dirty bomb piece, all you need is that material.

BLITZER: If the Iranians were able to smuggle out and hide some enriched uranium, how would that impact their possibility of eventually developing and having a nuclear bomb?

FONTENROSE: It makes it much more easy, much more -- much faster to actually creating that bomb. They would only need then help rebuilding some of their assembly plants and for instance, their centrifuge production facilities. China might be willing to offer them that help. If they have the enriched material, that's the tough part. And that would be all it would take to restart, kind of like the sourdough bread seed.

BLITZER: You know, as everybody in the world is watching to see how Iran will eventually react to these U.S. strikes against these nuclear facilities in Iran, all eyes are on the Straits of Hormuz right now. What's your assessment? Do you think the Iranians would actually seek to shut down and destroy the Strait -- the Straits of Hormuz in order to prevent oil from moving through those straits?

FONTENROSE: Their parliament has already voted to require this. And whether that's just a statement, sort of a signaling, a message, some saber rattling, or whether they fully intend to do things like activate the Houthis or their own offense capabilities to shut down the straits, it would be significant. About 20 percent of the nation's oil, I'm -- sorry, the world's oil flows through there from many origin countries.

So, you wouldn't have to, if you're Iran, take out the oil facilities in Saudi or the UAE for instance, you could simply shut down their ability to export.

BLITZER: Wouldn't that also be an economic disaster for the Iranians themselves, since that's where they ship their oil and they make money.

FONTENROSE: They do make money. They make quite a bit of their money. They have -- 85 percent of their economy is based on two facilities, Hajar and Bandar Abbas, where they export. But they do that for pennies on the dollar and they do it to China.

[10:35:00]

So, if they think their economy is going to be undermined by the fact that we've struck their facilities anyway, and they know that we might come in and hit those export facilities in retaliation, they may just be saying, we're going all in. You know, we're going to -- we have to inflict some pain somewhere. That might be the easiest place to do it, where it attracts the world's attention.

BLITZER: You know, it's interesting, the Department of Homeland Security here in Washington is warning of a potential for cyberattacks and what they're calling lone wolf attacks from the Iranians here in the United States. What's your assessment of that?

FONTENROSE: Very likely, it's one of the easiest tools for them to use. We are essentially in a low scale gray matter war with Iran all the time. A lot of it in covert, in cyber kinds of spaces. They're good at this. I get targeted all the time by Charming Kitten, one of their many, many cyber teams. And they will be focusing on things like grids or water plants, who knows, banks. They'll be looking for things that will cause a domestic unrest, not in the streets, but requirements by the American people to ask the government to do something about this now. To distract the U.S. government from issues in the Middle East from Iran and force it to pay attention domestically to whatever the service provision that has gone down is.

BLITZER: So, this thing could really explode even more big time in the coming days and weeks, right? FONTENROSE: It could, because we don't know how -- which asymmetric method they will use to retaliate they have sworn to. But Iran is also always saying in any of this tit for tat or any of these escalation moments that they will respond in the time and place of their choosing. So, it could be tomorrow, it could be a week, it could be months from now. We just don't know. And that's part of their power in this.

They are so militarily disadvantaged, but they can say, we could hit you in Argentina. We could hit you at a community, school somewhere. We could bring a dirty bomb to your own communities. We could hit you a cyber on your grid infrastructure. So, there are a lot of ways that they force us to then bolster our defenses, which is expensive and time consuming.

BLITZER: Excellent analysis. Kirsten Fontenrose, thank you very much for joining. Kirsten Fontenrose, I should say. Thanks very much for joining us.

FONTENROSE: A pleasure to be here. Thank you.

BLITZER: Good to have you here in the Situation Room. And just ahead, Iran's top diplomat is meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Could Russia get involved in this escalating conflict?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:40:00]

BLITZER: We're back now with the latest breaking news on Israel and Iran. President Trump floating the idea of a possible regime change in Iran. Joining us now here in the Situation Room, CNN Global Affairs Analyst, Brett McGurk, the former Middle East and North Africa coordinator for the National Security Council. He is advised the last four U.S. presidents and has a lot of experience negotiating with Iranian officials. Brett, thanks very much for joining us. How likely you see the possibility of regime change in Iran?

BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST AND FORMER MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA COORDINATOR, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: I think Wolf, we're not even 48 hours out from this historic military operation. We got to stay disciplined on what we're trying to do, and that is trying to ensure Iran cannot reconstitute this nuclear program. And right now, we're in a very serious window of escalation.

And so, I would -- I think that talk is really not appropriate right now. Let's stay disciplined and focused. You know, think about where we are. We're kind of on the escalation ladder. So, we did the strike the other night. The nomenclature that's kind of uses turn -- we did turn one. Let's turn one as you go up this ladder. We're now waiting to see what Iran does. We're using a lot of diplomacy and military maneuvers to deter any potential response. Hopefully, they don't do anything.

If they do something, we have then turned three, I'm sure probably ready to try to stop it there, but that's where we are. Very serious moment. So, a lot of diplomacy going on behind the scenes. A lot of intelligence collection, a lot of military maneuvers to deter. We don't know what Iran is going to do.

In the Qasem Soleimani strike that Trump did in early 2020, it took about five days for Iran to then launch a series of ballistic missiles at American positions in Iraq. It could be five days here, it could be two days, we don't know, and we don't know what Iran's going to do. It's a very serious situation. I would say focused and disciplined on the objective. Not trying to talk about regime change right now.

BLITZER: And it sort of reminds me, I covered the first Gulf War when I was the Pentagon correspondent for CNN. And there was a buildup to the war. It was called Operation Desert Shield. But then, it became Operation Desert Storm when the U.S. directly got involved in dealing with Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. And sort of, right now, we're moving from Desert Shield to Desert Storm in this situation.

MCGURK: I would say --

BLITZER: I don't know if you agree with me on that.

MCGURK: -- avoid mission creep. I thought the White House, the administration was very disciplined. This is about the nuclear facilities. It can stop here. And talking about regime change, I just -- first of all, strategy is such an overused word in this town, but strategy is about your ends and means. What are you trying to achieve? I think we can very much achieve ensuring Iran never has a nuclear weapon.

We can degrade their missile program and system, which the Israelis are doing systematically. Trying to use American military force to effectuate regime change, that is fraught, that's an objective. We really cannot, I think, achieve. We all hope for it. I hope this awful regime with American blood in his hands falls in the dustbin of history. I think inevitably, the Iranian people will take care of that, but we should stay focus right now. A very serious 72 hours that we're in right now.

BLITZER: It's a critical moment.

MCGURK: And we need discipline and focus.

BLITZER: The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as you know, seems directly concerned about the whereabouts of Iran's nuclear materials. I want you to listen to what he said. Listen to this.

[10:45:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY: Iran has made no secret that they have protected this material. We need to ensure that we are not moving towards a situation where the unthinkable would happen, this being Iran going towards a nuclear weapon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So, Brett, what do you think are the potential ramifications if some of around stockpile of enriched uranium was in fact moved before these U.S. airstrikes?

MCGURK: Well, Wolf, this is why we need to remain focused on the task. The task that began the other night was a U.S. military operation focused on the nuclear program. Look, I even if the stockpiles moved, I suspect -- I don't know but I suspect in working with the Israelis and Mossad over the years, they probably have a pretty good sense of where that material is.

But the centrifuges, the cascades can be very difficult for Iran to move into recreating and reconstituting that program, because a key thing here, we never even assumed ever that Israel would effectively control the airspace over Iran. I mean, that is the situation now. That is going to maintain for the foreseeable future.

So, if Iran ever tries to reproduce centrifuges, reinstall cascades, I suspect that is something the Israelis will be prepared to take care of. But bottom line, right now, let's stay focused. Let's try to make sure that we don't expand the mission. Because this is not finished and we're still waiting to see what Iran does. We have to try to deter them and also be ready to respond if they do have a counter.

BLITZER: Brett McGurk, always good to get your analysis. Thank you very much for coming in.

MCGURK: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Appreciate it very much. Coming up, attacks between Israel and Iran are escalating right now. President Trump is floating regime change. Iran is vowing revenge. So, is diplomacy right now even still an option?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:50:00]

BLITZER: This morning, Iran and Israel are trading more attacks following this weekend's surprise strikes carried out by the U.S. on Iran's nuclear sites. Israel confirmed that it also struck access routes to one of those sites, the Fordow nuclear facility just this morning.

We're joined now by Aaron David Miller. He is a former State Department Middle East negotiator. He is a senior fellow now over the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Aaron, thanks so much for joining us. The president, as you know, is floating this notion of regime change as Iran is promising, quote, "everlasting consequences," their words. If diplomacy -- is diplomacy, I should say, in your view, still realistic, still possible?

AARON DAVID MILLER, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT MIDDLE EAST NEGOTIATOR AND SENIOR FELLOW, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: I mean, it is possible, Wolf, but you know, as Woody Allen said, 80 percent of life is showing up, but it's showing up at the right time. And frankly, now is the wrong time.

I mean, for successful negotiation you need two parties that are willing and able, you need a sense of urgency. You surely have that. You need the prospects have gain by each side. A balance of interest and you need some sort of framework, a deal whether it's sensational hostilities, whether it's relief of sanctions for constraints or ending Iran's nuclear program. None of these conditions, Wolf, are not present. And we're waiting, as I think Brett McGurk pointed out at a, in a very fraught moment, we're waiting for an Iranian response.

Will it be calibrated, which could conceivably maintain the possibility of a negotiation or will it be full on, which is going to require the U.S. going up the escalatory ladder and the prospects of negotiations for the foreseeable future? Under those circumstances, Wolf, I think are frankly slim to none.

BLITZER: The former U.S. defense secretary, Leon Panetta, told me, he sees this military conflict turning into what potentially could be, in his words, a prolonged Middle East war. Do you agree with that assessment?

MILLER: It's not Iraq and Afghanistan. We're not talking about the deployment of scores of thousands of American forces and an effort to essentially change the regime. But since there's no diplomatic off ramp that would meet the conditions. And remember, it is not a bilateral affair here, Wolf, it's trilateral. You've got three parties here. You have Jerusalem, you have Tehran, and you have Washington, all of whom clearly not on the same page, even Washington and Jerusalem, when it comes to an outcome that would be acceptable to the Israelis.

So, I think we're dealing at best you're talk -- if you can avoid a major Iranian response that directly attacks U.S. soldiers, diplomats, oil infrastructure, the best I think you can hope for is that this will devolve into something that you and I are quite familiar with, with respect to the Israeli Iranian relationship, a sort of grim slog in which both parties pursue black ops, cyber, assassinations, Iran will try to build up their proxies. I don't foresee anything that normal humans would regard as a period of stability, let alone, a sort of regional accommodation.

Too many variables in the wind and too many miles to go on this before we can make any determination of whether Former Secretary Panetta is right. I think no one, I put myself at the top of the list, really has a clue.

We know the headlines, Wolf. We really don't know the trend lines, and I think we have to be respectful and you -- and humble about, right now, what we don't know.

[10:55:00]

BLITZER: Yes. My own sense is this could very easily heat up big time in the coming days and weeks. Aaron David Miller, as usual, thanks for your expertise. We always welcome you here in the Situation Room. Thank you. MILLER: Thanks so much, Wolf.

BLITZER: And coming up, President Trump is now floating the idea of regime change in Iran. Up next, I'll ask Republican Congressman Mike Lawler of New York if this could provoke Iran. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:00]