Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Interview With Thomas Friedman; RFK Jr.'s Controversial Vaccine Panel Meets; Interview With Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-FL). Aired 11:30a- 12p ET

Aired June 25, 2025 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Up on Capitol Hill, we're learning a key congressional intelligence briefing on the situation in Iran is now set for this Friday.

The move is drawing the ire of some lawmakers in light of yesterday's intelligence assessment news. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PETE AGUILAR (D-CA): It is completely unacceptable that Congress has not been briefed on this in a timely fashion. We need evidence. We need details. And we need to know them now.

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): Is it in fact the case that Iran's nuclear program has been completely and totally obliterated? There apparently are reasons to believe that that was a blatant misrepresentation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Joining us now is the Florida Republican Congressman Carlos Gimenez. He serves on the Homeland Security Committee, as well as the Armed Services Committee.

Congressman, thanks so much for joining us. Do you have any concerns about the president's dismissing an early U.S. intelligence community report, this one from the Defense Intelligence Agency, in favor of going with Israeli intelligence and what he calls a statement from Iran?

REP. CARLOS GIMENEZ (R-FL): No, I think, look, we have a supposedly top secret document that was leaked to the press that had labeled as low confidence. I will take Israeli intelligence over that document any time, and I understand what the president's position is.

We're going to be briefed on what's happened in Iran and what the next steps are going to be early morning on Friday. And so we look forward to getting that briefing.

BLITZER: Do you understand why that briefing had been scheduled for earlier this week? And some had suggested it should have even occurred before the actual U.S. strike on those Iranian nuclear facilities. But those -- all those briefings, especially including Democrats, were canceled.

GIMENEZ: Yes, well, look, it was not just Democrats. I mean, it was it was canceled for all of Congress. And I certainly would have liked to have heard about it when I got here Monday or Tuesday.

I understand that there's -- they're pretty busy handling the situation. And then the president flew off to Europe. And so it was explained to us why it was delayed. I will accept it. I'm going to cut him some slack. In the future, though, I would like to get notified a little bit -- or briefed a little bit earlier in the process,but not before it happens.

I think that that's totally really not realistic to inform all members of Congress that you're about to strike a target in Iran. I don't think that's very smart. They need to do what they need to do. And they need to let some leadership know, but then, after that, brief us as quickly as possible.

BLITZER: And you're saying that even the so-called Gang of Eight, the top intelligence representatives in the House of Representatives, the key members of the Intelligence Committee and the leadership, should not have been briefed in advance of what the U.S. was about to do?

GIMENEZ: I'm not saying that. I'm saying -- I said in my statement that, yes, you should have let leadership know what we are about to do.

But you're not talking about all of Congress be briefed on what you're about to do. I think that that would jeopardize our fighting men and women. And so I don't want to do that. But also, after the attack -- and we need to get briefed a little bit sooner, but I'm going to cut the president some slack in this instance.

[11:35:10]

BLITZER: And I just want to clarify what you have been saying. Do you believe the U.S. intelligence community's initial assessment, we're talking about the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the initial assessment is wrong? Is that what you're saying?

GIMENEZ: I'm saying that on top of the document it says it has low confidence. So I'm going to take that at its word that their assessment, which is -- they deemed to be -- have low confidence in that assessment, is low confidence.

And so I believe that actually the Israeli intelligence assets inside Iran are probably superior to our intelligence assets in Iran. The things that they have been able to do inside of Iran are nothing short of incredible. And so if the Israeli intelligence is telling us that, yes, it's all been destroyed, I think I'm going to take their word for it a little bit more than our intelligence agency.

(CROSSTALK) BLITZER: So are you suggesting, Congressman, I just want to be precise, that the Israeli intelligence community has better information, is better at this kind of assessment than the U.S. intelligence community?

GIMENEZ: In Iran? Yes, I think so. I think Israel has demonstrated the capabilities that they have in Iran. I don't think we have that capability inside of Iran.

And, yes, they are considered some of the top people in the world when it comes to intelligence, et cetera. And so I have confidence in the Israeli intelligence. And, by the way, you want me to say, do I have confidence in the Israeli intelligence versus a low-confidence document from our intelligence agencies? Yes, it says they have low confidence in that intelligence assessment.

BLITZER: Pamela Brown, my co-anchor over here, Congressman, has a question for you as well.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: Hi, Congressman. I know I have interviewed you several times.

GIMENEZ: Sure.

BROWN: Just to follow up from Wolf's questions, you note that the preliminary intelligence report was low-confidence. Do you think then, given these early days and the fact that intelligence is still rolling in, that it was premature for the president to initially, shortly after the strike, say that the sites had been obliterated and proclaim that and then continue to double down, given the fact that our own intelligence has low confidence in terms of its own assessment?

GIMENEZ: It has low confidence, but our military doesn't have low confidence, I'm sure. And so I'm sure there's other documents that probably have a higher confidence level that haven't been leaked to the press that say otherwise.

BROWN: But do you think it was premature for the president to say that?

GIMENEZ: No, I mean, look, he had to get the assessment from the military. He's right there. So I'm not going to second-guess the president on what he said.

I have confidence that the president was confident in saying that it was obliterated, probably because of the information that he was getting at that time. And he continues to get the same information because he keeps saying that, yes, the sites were obliterated.

And so you have international agencies that are saying that the sites were badly damaged or obliterated. And so everything is saying that, yes, Iran's capabilities have been greatly diminished for years versus the months that this intelligence assessment, low-confidence intelligence assessment claims.

BROWN: And just to follow up on that, obviously, the president -- and, again, he is privy to all kinds of intelligence and information, but he clearly has an incentive to portray this as the biggest win possible, right?

This was a risky gamble and there was never certainty before the strikes that it would successfully obliterate. So does that factor into your view of what you're hearing from the president, the fact that he is incentivized and his leaders like Pete Hegseth, the leader of the Pentagon, are affirming this idea that it was obliterated, given the incentive at hand here?

GIMENEZ: Again, I have confidence in our leader. I have confidence in President Trump. I certainly have confidence in the ability of our military to carry out the mission.

Our military brought that to the president and said they could do it, that they could obliterate the other sites. Everything I have seen indicates that they did it and they did it with incredible precision. And it was unbelievable skill on the part of our military, the greatest military the world has ever seen.

And so I have confidence in them.

BROWN: And, just to be clear, there is no question that the military executed this with the utmost professionalism and precision and delivered on the mission at hand. There is no question at that.

There is always a question of whether it would -- they would be able -- this mission would effectively achieve the objectives.

Congressman Carlos Gimenez, thank you so much.

GIMENEZ: Thank you.

BROWN: And we will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:44:15]

BROWN: Happening today, the health and human services secretary's controversial new panel of vaccine advisers is meeting for the first time. RFK Jr. fired the previous 17 members and appointed eight of his own, prompting backlash from Republicans and Democrats alike.

Just ahead of today's meeting, one of those eight withdrew. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, who is a medical doctor, wanted today's meeting postponed.

CNN medical correspondent Meg Tirrell is at the CDC in Atlanta, where the meeting is happening.

What are you watching for, Meg?

MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Pamela, already, we have gotten some updates out of this committee that is alarming the public health community. As a reminder, this is a very influential panel of vaccine advisers to

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And this new group was pretty hastily put together. It's seven members. as you pointed out, one just withdrew before this. And there's been a lot of questions about the background of some of these members and their approach to vaccines.

[11:45:10]

Now, they emphasized this morning that they are not anti-vaccine and just want to review the safety of a lot of things.

But some of the things that are raising eyebrows among public health experts even so far this morning are new announcements to study things like the childhood vaccination schedule, the safety of all of the ingredients in the schedule put together, for example, also plans to look at the universal recommendation for babies to receive the hepatitis B vaccine at birth to protect them against that virus, as well as plans to look at the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine in combination with the chicken pox vaccine.

Now, folks, I have been speaking with about this say that the safety around these things and the science is well understood and these things are continuously looked at. Whenever a new vaccine is added to the schedule, for example, it's looked at not only by itself, but in the context of the other vaccines as well.

So we're really only just getting under way today. It goes the entire day. There's going to be a vote at the end of the day about RSV vaccines. And then tomorrow there's a second day, which contains even more controversial issues as well, Pamela, so we will be watching it closely both days.

BROWN: All right, I know you will be covering it all very thoroughly for us.

Meg Tirrell, thank you so much -- Wolf.

BLITZER: And just ahead, "New York Times" columnist Thomas Friedman will join us live here in THE SITUATION ROOM and explain why he thinks fighting between Israel and Iran could lead to what he's calling a forever war.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:50:41]

BLITZER: We're continuing to follow President Trump's visit to the NATO summit in the Netherlands. Moments ago, he said the U.S. will actually meet with Iran, in his words, next week to discuss a potential nuclear agreement.

I want to discuss that and more with "The New York Times" opinion columnist Tom Friedman. He's also the author of the great book "From Beirut to Jerusalem," which is still very relevant right now.

Tom, thanks so much for joining us.

Let me get your reaction, first of all, to these potential talks between the U.S. and Iran, and what kind of agreement do you think is really possible after these latest U.S. airstrikes?

THOMAS FRIEDMAN, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Well, Wolf, first of all, we have to determine, will these be direct talks or indirect talks?

Up to now, the Iranians have only agreed to do indirect talks with the Trump administration. From everything I heard from what the president said, they want these to be direct talks. That matters. That's important. And if the Iranians are ready to agree to that, that would be very interesting.

I'd like to know who is going to be conducting the talks for our side. But just if I step back, Wolf, right now, I think this is a good thing. There's nothing that has twisted the Middle East, contorted it, and destabilized it more than the U.S.-Iran cold war since 1979. And if the outcome of this clash and the bombing and the struggle of all this is to produce a new diplomatic solution, both for restricting Iran's ability to build a bomb, but maybe actually lifting sanctions and starting a new relationship between Iran and the United States, I'm all for it.

I think that would be a fantastic outcome. I'm dubious because the question I have in my mind is, this Iranian regime has always felt, to me, needed the hostility with the United States in order to justify its militarization of Iranian society, its control of its own people.

And if it really is ready to open up a new relationship with the United States, I think that's a good thing. But I will be watching very closely.

BLITZER: Yes, we all will be watching very closely indeed.

Let me also get your thoughts, Tom, on what the president appeared to be suggesting today, that he prefers the Israeli intelligence over the U.S. intelligence assessment on what exactly the damage from the U.S. airstrikes at those nuclear facilities was.

I just spoke with Republican Congressman Carlos Gimenez, who explicitly told me he trusts the Israeli intelligence community on this subject more. I know you have a new piece out in "The New York Times" on this, where you write how everyone involved in the current Middle East conflict, whether the U.S., Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Israel, they all went all the way, risking what you're calling a forever war.

If they don't stop now or soon, do you think this cease-fire that's ongoing right now and still is working at least right now between Israel and Iran will hold long term?

FRIEDMAN: So, a couple of questions in there, Wolf. One is who to believe on the intelligence. And I just have to say, up to now, I don't know who to believe. I find

it sort of weird that everyone says, well, if nothing else, we bombed all the entrances and exits to these underground facilities. Well, if all the entrances and exits are closed, I mean, how do they know what's gone on down there, for better or for worse?

So I'm just going to wait a few days before I -- I will be very interested to see what the Iranians say. Obviously, they have an interest in saying, we survived the attack, no problem. So that's the first thing.

The second thing, Wolf, I think you're going to see now is a real divergence between the United States under Trump and the Israeli government under Netanyahu, because Trump's a dealmaker. He looks at countries like Russia and Iran as not permanent foes or partners, as just another person to do a deal with.

And his attitude is, if I can do a deal with Iran that will restrict their nuclear capabilities and open their economy to American investment and vice versa, I'm going to do that.

That is not the Israeli view. The Israeli view is that this is a inimically hostile regime that needs to be replaced. And so I think you're going to see some real tension emerge here between Trump's impulse to make a deal and Netanyahu's impulse to undermine this regime.

[11:55:12]

BLITZER: "The New York Times" columnist Thomas Friedman, as usual, thanks so much for joining us. I'd love to continue our conversations down the road. Thank you very much.

FRIEDMAN: Thank you. Pleasure, Wolf. Thank you.

BLITZER: Pamela, very significant developments unfolding.

And I thought that some of the comments that the president was making at that NATO news conference, where he disclosed that there would be a meeting with Iran, for example, next week, for example, that this is a 12-day war, it's now basically, he says, over, he may be overly optimistic on that.

BROWN: Yes. And he talked about, well, there could be a deal, but maybe not. That was really loose.

And there's still a lot of questions about the military operation and the strikes on the three nuclear sites. And I think that Tom made a really good point that, look, no one really knows because it's under rubble, there's no way to get in, and really be able to know for certain.

And so I think it's -- having patience in this moment to really understand the devastation that these strikes caused is important.

BLITZER: Very important. All right, thanks very much. And, to our viewers, thanks very much for joining us. You can always

keep up with us on social media @WolfBlitzer and @PamelaBrownCNN. We will see you back here tomorrow, every weekday morning 10:00 a.m. Eastern.

BROWN: "INSIDE POLITICS WITH DANA BASH" is next after a short break.