Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump To Allow Up To Two Weeks For Diplomacy Before Deciding On U.S. Strike On Iran; Netanyahu: Israel Will Strike All Iran's Nuclear Facilities; Dodgers & Trump Admin At Odds Over Agents' Presence At Stadium Grounds Amid Tensions In L.A. Over ICE Raids. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired June 19, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: --and meanwhile, you have to take into account that there are diplomatic pressures, going on as well, not just from the U.S., who are presumably trying to use this space that they've given themselves--
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Yes.
WARD: --with this two-week window, to engage further. And we know that Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, is continuing to talk to the Iranians. But also, from other actors in the region, particularly in the Gulf, where there's an understanding that Israel is going to do what it's going to do. But there are efforts, ongoing, to try to, like, set -- ring-fence certain areas--
COOPER: Yes.
WARD: --particularly with regards to oil production, and things of that nature.
COOPER: We will see what happens with the diplomatic efforts, in the next 24 hours in Europe. That's where attention will be turning.
Clarissa Ward, thanks so much. Appreciate it.
That's it for us. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now. See you, tomorrow.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: One week into Israel's airstrikes on Iran, we're getting two weeks' notice from President Trump.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, the President is giving himself a very familiar deadline, to make what could be a legacy-defining decision. Two weeks. That's how long the White House says the world may have to wait, to learn whether or not the United States military will join the fight between Israel and Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I have a message directly from the President, and I quote: "Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The weight of deciding whether or not to commit to military action is obviously a serious one, one that many presidents have struggled with.
But if that two-week timeline that you heard there sounds familiar, that's because it is. Since his first time in office, President Trump has often relied on a two-week metric, promising big answers, tough solutions, new policies, and even decisions on some of those pressing issues that are facing him, like efforts to end Russia's war in Ukraine.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you trust President Putin?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I'll let you know in about two weeks.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In your mind, is Ukraine doing enough to get this, to get this...?
TRUMP: I'd rather tell you in about two weeks from now.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you still believe that Putin actually wants to end the war?
TRUMP: I can't tell you that. But I'll let you know in about two weeks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: President Trump has actually put forth a two-week timeline, so frequently, that it's tough to fit many of the instances on the screen, all at the same time.
And of course, when you look at this, and how many times this has been the answer, when pressed by a reporter, for what his timeframe is for something, listen to the President in his own words.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think you're going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks.
We've got the plan largely completed, and we'll be filing over the next two or three weeks.
We're going to be having a news conference in about two weeks. I will make that decision, I would say, over the next two weeks.
And I'll be making a big decision, on the Paris accord, over the next two weeks.
At some point in the next two weeks or three weeks, I'm going to be setting the deal.
Over the next two, three weeks.
In about two weeks.
Within two weeks.
In two weeks.
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: In two weeks.
You'll be hearing about it a lot more in the next two weeks.
Maybe in a 100 years from now, maybe in two weeks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, the White House didn't say what exactly prompted the President to offer this two-week window, this time. That we have learned that the Iranian Foreign Minister plans to go to Switzerland, to meet with European counterparts, for talks in the coming days.
And several White House officials and sources that I've spoken with still believe the President is leaning in favor of a U.S. strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. But those who are opposed it, in his world, and in his base, notched today's statement as a small win.
And also, consider this. Just before that announcement from the press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, this afternoon, that two-week timeline, the President's former adviser, Steve Bannon, was spotted by CNN, entering the West Wing. Sources told me, he had lunch with the President.
And here is what he has said, he thinks President Trump should, or, I guess, should not do.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, AMERICAN COMMENTATOR AND HOST: I think it's going to happen. I don't, you know, who cares what I think.
STEVE BANNON, EXECUTIVE AND FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST: You think the -- do you think we're enjoining the combat--
CARLSON: Yes, I do. BANNON: --offensive combat operation.
CARLSON: I do.
BANNON: Well, we have to -- we have to -- we can't just--
CARLSON: But these things are never the--
BANNON: --assume that we have to stop that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: As the world waits to see what the President decides here, I want to go live to the ground, in Tel Aviv, where Anderson Cooper is.
And obviously, Anderson, this is a two-week deadline that has not stopped what's happening between Israel and Iran, certainly the fighting between the two of them. What has the reaction been on the ground, since this afternoon, when the President made this announcement?
[21:05:00]
COOPER: I mean, I think, it's a surprise, just as it has been for many people. But I think there's some confidence that I'm hearing from Israeli officials about how this operation has been going, about the response from Iran in it, and the failure of Iranian missiles so far, the failure of their capabilities, to stop Israel from gaining control over the skies, more or less control over the skies, over Iran, or certainly western Iran. I think there's a lot of -- there's -- they're pleased with how it's gone thus far.
And I think they certainly made this plan, in mind, not relying on the fact that the United States would join in the fight. They did, it seems, ask the White House in advance. President Trump made clear that the first night a week ago that the U.S. was not informed of this in advance, was not part of the initial attack.
They certainly have plans for continuing the attack, with or without the United States. Whether they would actually do that in this two- week window, I think there's probably a desire to wait and see what the United States -- because obviously, if the United States was willing to join in defensive operations, that would -- that would improve the situation for Israel greatly.
But they clearly have plans in place, and have thought about this long and in advance, and it remains to be seen whether or not they will execute that, before this window is up.
COLLINS: Yes. Anderson, we'll continue to check in with you, as the news warrants throughout the hour. Thank you for that report.
Also tonight, my next source served as the U.S. Ambassador to Israel under President Obama. Dan Shapiro joins me now.
And it's great to have you here. I wonder. You heard what Anderson said he's been hearing from people on the ground. What do you think Israel makes of the President coming out with a two-week timeline for something like this?
DAN SHAPIRO, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO ISRAEL UNDER OBAMA, FORMER DEPUTY ASST. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR THE MIDDLE EAST, SENIOR FELLOW, THE ATLANTIC COUNCIL: Well, based on the montage you played, it does create some doubt about how determined he is to bring this episode to a conclusion.
He set the right goal in the talks before the war started, which was to end Iranian enrichment. That's the capability. That means they still have the path to a nuclear weapon. And they refused. Then the war started.
Now there's three ways this can be taken care of. It all hinges on that underground Fordow facility. Either the Israelis have a solution, different from ours, not the massive aerial bombs, but some other creative and ingenious solution. We know they have those capabilities. Maybe that's something that can be discussed with them in these two weeks, if they have an answer. Second, of course, is a U.S. strike. And the third is diplomacy.
And so, he's opened up a window to do coercive diplomacy with the forces arrayed and ready to go. But this is a window when the Iranians have to know it's now or never.
COLLINS: Could you see Israel acting without President Trump here?
SHAPIRO: I think it would be much better, let's put it this way, if it was coordinated. If they have a solution that they can disable Fordow, if the Iranians won't relinquish that capability in the negotiations? Then maybe that's just as good as a U.S. strike. If the U.S. is prepared to do the strike when Iran -- if and when Iran says no? That's another solution.
But, again, we have this window. But if you say two weeks, and everybody thinks that really means indefinite? The Iranians will stall during those two weeks. They need to understand that one way or another, in this period of time, I would say, it should be less than two weeks, they're going to lose that facility. Either they give it up in negotiations, or it's going to be taken from them by the U.S. or Israel.
COLLINS: And in terms of what the White House was saying today, in that statement, they said negotiations that may or may not happen. I mean, they kind of left the window open. They weren't saying that, We're trying another diplomatic try here. We're just seeing, Maybe if that happens.
We know the Iranians, at least some of them, are going to Geneva to meet with their foreign counterparts, as Europe is kind of trying to stave this off.
Does Israel, in your view, though, really see diplomacy as an option here? Do they think the Iranians are going to come to the table at all?
SHAPIRO: I think they doubt it, based on all our previous experience with the Iranians, on the red line the Supreme Leader has long drawn that he won't give up the enrichment capability.
But this meeting, tomorrow, in Geneva, where the Iranian Foreign Minister will meet with the British and French and German ministers, is an opening. Perhaps they can convey the U.S. position that it's now or never, you either give up this facility and this enrichment capability, or it's going to be taken from you.
We could also get our Gulf partners involved. The Arab states have their own relations with Iran, and they might be able to be persuasive in a different way.
So, we have a window. But if we make that window too big, we know what the Iranians will do. They'll stall and stall and stall.
COLLINS: Yes. And in terms of just how you look at this, generally. The shift that we've seen from President Trump, to even getting to the point that he was at, a few -- a few days ago, of leaning towards a strike, from what we were hearing. Obviously, nothing was final or decided.
It is remarkable, in terms of how that has changed from when he was telling Netanyahu, Don't strike. You don't have the U.S. greenlight, you're not going to have us go on with you, when Netanyahu was visiting the White House, I think as recently as April, when he was kind of laying out what they could do here.
SHAPIRO: The President did have an opportunity to give Netanyahu what we call redlight, and say, Look, I need more time. It was super -- clear he wanted more time. He said, 60 days. But they had a meeting set for day 63, and it would seem clear he wanted that to go.
And when the Prime Minister came to him and said, I can't wait any longer, I'm going? Then the President had a decision. He made a decision, which was to give a yellow or a green light, and say, the United States would support Israel's defense, and perhaps in some other limited ways, not on the attack.
[21:10:00]
But that's brought us to this point. It kind of moved up the crisis that was likely to come anyway in those negotiations to this minute. And so now, the decision point is, how do we get Iran to relinquish that facility, and relinquish that enrichment capability?
Again, coercive diplomacy for a limited period of time is the best option. But if not, there are two potential uses of force that can -- that can get the job done.
COLLINS: Yes, I mean, and The New York Times just came out with this story tonight, saying that U.S. spy agencies assess Iran remains undecided on building a bomb. We'll see where that goes.
Ambassador, great to have you, and thanks for sharing your expertise with us tonight.
SHAPIRO: Thanks for having me.
COLLINS: And of course, a big question here has been how Washington is responding to this, what Republicans are saying.
When we were at the White House today, the press secretary was asked, what is her message to the President's supporters who voted for him, on that campaign pledge that he would stop endless wars in the Middle East. And this was her answer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: Trust in President Trump. President Trump has incredible instincts. And President Trump kept America and the world safe in his first term as president, in implementing a peace-through-strength foreign policy agenda.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That message of just trusting the President is one that we've been hearing repeatedly, from Republicans, up on Capitol Hill, when asked if they support strikes in the Middle East.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BERNIE MORENO (R-OH): I'm personally comfortable that we have a Commander-in-Chief that knows that he needs to strike the right balance.
SEN. TIM SHEEHY (R-MT): The President has to decide, Am I going to send American bombers, and American technology, and American servicemen, to carry out this strike? If so, that's his decision. And I think if he decided to do so, I'd support him.
SEN. JONI ERNST (R-IA): Whatever that call is that is made by President Donald Trump, I will be supportive of.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Obviously it's going to be up to the President.
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): I believe that this president should be given a fair amount of leeway to affect that.
SEN. ERIC SCHMITT (R-MO): The President's got a lot of important decisions to make. I trust him to do it.
SEN. RICK SCOTT (R-FL): So first off, I trust President Trump will do the right thing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And with that, I want to bring in Politico's Dasha Burns.
And David Sanger of The New York Times is back with us, as always this week.
David, you're like our resident panelist, which I love because of all your reporting.
But Dasha, let me start with you, just in terms of what you've been hearing from sources at the White House, since Karoline Leavitt came out at the briefing today, quoting President Trump as saying -- and I should note, she didn't say it's a solid two weeks. They said, within two weeks.
DASHA BURNS, WHITE HOUSE BUREAU CHIEF, POLITICO, HOST, "THE CONVERSATION WITH DASHA BURNS" PODCAST: Within two weeks
COLLINS: I mean, that allowed for the space that we could see a strike in these next two weeks.
BURNS: Exactly. I know. What I'm hearing is it's very much day by day at this point.
And look, what I've been hearing consistently from sources, very close to the President, everyone wants to know, who's he listening to, right, who has his ear? This is one of those moments, where he really is taking in information from everyone. You saw, Steve Bannon was at the White House today. He's been on the phone with some of the more hawkish senators and lawmakers on the Hill.
And he feels like this is something he's been wanting to do for a long time. He has been pretty consistent on this issue, that he does not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and he's seeing this window here. He feels like it hasn't existed before. Iran's in a weaker position than it has been, and this would be the window to take action.
And even if his base isn't fully on board, he feels like he can ultimately bring them along, and that depends on operational success. So, if he is successful in what he does here, he feels like he can message it to the base. And he feels like -- look, this is his second term. Is it more important to try to keep the coalition together in these moments? Or is it more important to take action in what he thinks is the right decision here? And he's leaning towards the latter.
COLLINS: Yes. And David, when you look at what this two-week period could mean, for this decision-making process, you have a fascinating new report, out tonight, basically just analyzing what it provides to the President, what options and time it gives him.
DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE & NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES, AUTHOR, "NEW COLD WARS": Well, as Ambassador Shapiro said before, obviously it gives you some time for diplomacy. Not much.
And as we discussed last night, I'm not sure the Iranian system can make a decision in the kind of time period we're discussing here, of two weeks. It took them two years, you'll remember, when the last agreement came through, in 2015.
COLLINS: That's a good point.
SANGER: But this also gives some military and covert options to the President.
First of all, it could be a head fake, right? It could be a point Admiral Stavridis (ph) was making on CNN, earlier today. He might strike within those two weeks, hoping that their defenses are down.
The second option is, it gives General Kurilla, who runs Central Command, time to get this additional carrier group in place so that they can deal with the reactions.
COLLINS: Yes, and General Kurilla, I think, is an interesting figure that maybe is not a household name.
SANGER: Yes. Fascinating guy.
COLLINS: People look at him, they call him, The Gorilla, I mean.
SANGER: Yes.
COLLINS: And Politico also had a new report on him, recently, about just how much influence he's having inside the West Wing. When you're looking at the power structure of the Pentagon, and Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, this is someone who also has been holding a lot of influence inside the West Wing
BURNS: Operational experience. You know, as well as I do, how much the President loves generals, as well people that have the kind of command of how to navigate these waters.
One thing that I do want to add, and I asked Karoline Leavitt about this in the briefing today, there's been a lot of argument on the right, in particular, about the concern that the U.S. would get involved beyond just a targeted strike in the idea of regime change. Karoline Leavitt kind of dodged the question today.
[21:15:00]
But that is something that, what I'm hearing, is right now, not on the table within the White House. They really are trying to find a solution if they are going to use military assets there, that it would be targeted, specific, pull in and pull out.
COLLINS: Yes. And today, the other thing at the briefing that stood out to me was Karoline Leavitt saying that Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than ever before, I believe, was the quote.
SANGER: Yes.
COLLINS: I mean, I'm looking at this report that came out from your colleague, Julian Barnes in The New York Times tonight, David--
SANGER: Yes.
COLLINS: --that says, U.S. intelligence agencies continue to believe Iran has yet to decide whether or not to make a bomb. Even though they have the huge stockpile of enriched uranium. And they say that senior U.S. intelligence officials said Iranian leaders were likely to shift toward producing a bomb, if the American military attacked the Iranian uranium enrichment site, Fordow, or if they took out the Supreme Leader.
SANGER: So, at the end of the briefing, I think it was pretty much the last question, she was asked, Does it mean that they have enough fuel, they could get to the fuel, to make the weapon in a few weeks, or the weapon itself? And her answer was, the weapon itself, which is not consistent with what Julian, and I, and others, have been reporting through the intelligence community for some time.
The U.S. assessment is a year or more to put the weapon together. In January, we reported that the Iranians were looking at a faster, cruder way to do this. In other words, make a crude bomb that probably wouldn't fit on a missile, but you could use in some way, and that that might be six, seven, eight, months.
I'm not sure where the press secretary got her numbers here, but I don't think they match up with what's in U.S. intelligence.
COLLINS: Well, I mean, and speaking of, I mean, Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, has been a focal point, not in terms of -- my indication has not been that Trump has totally soured on her to the point where he wants to get rid of her or anything. But she just doesn't seem to have a ton of influence inside the decision- making process, from what we've heard.
BURNS: Right. And she hasn't been on message, which does tend to sour the President -- to people.
Look, I think, right now, anyone who is jockeying for a position, anyone who's jockeying to have influence, is not going to have as much as the people that are genuinely coming to the table, giving the President, the optionality.
That's the word that I've heard a lot from sources. He wants optionality here. And that's why he wants some people there, sort of, I wouldn't say, defending him from his base, but priming his base, to trust him with what he's going to do, because he doesn't want to get boxed in, either by the isolationists or by the hawks in his party.
SANGER: But remember, she's not in a policy job. She is in a job to present the intelligence. It is not her job to give a policy option. That is deliberately what the intelligence community is not supposed to do. And I think she may have not made that full transition.
BURNS: And anyone that's seen as being too big for their britches in this White House doesn't have a productive position.
COLLINS: Dasha Burns. David Sanger. Great to have both your reporting.
Up next here. There are questions of what's happening inside Iran, and their thinking of all of this. CNN goes inside an Iranian TV station that was hit by an Israeli airstrike. What Fred Pleitgen saw in that damage. [21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, CNN is inside Iran, with Senior International Correspondent, Fred Pleitgen, becoming the first Western journalist to enter the country since that conflict with Israel began one week ago tonight.
He's bringing us a look at what's left of Iran's state news channel, after this striking moment, where an Israeli strike, happened while they were on air this week.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): This is that studio now, burned out with only a skeleton of the charred anchor desk left.
Authorities say three state TV employees were killed here.
PLEITGEN (on camera): You can see how much heat must have been emitted by the impact and by the explosion. The phones that they had here are molten. Here, also, the keys molten, this screen.
And there's actually someone's lunch still at their desk, standing here, which probably they would have been wanting to eat until they had to evacuate the building. You can see, there's a spoon here that's also been melted away by this explosion.
And the devastation here is massive, at the Iranian state broadcaster.
PLEITGEN (voice-over): Iran's leadership vows to persevere, saying it will continue to target Israel, if the Israeli aerial campaign doesn't stop.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: Now, after days of Israeli strikes across Iran, the White House says the country is in, quote, A very weak and vulnerable position. That's no doubt true, given what you just saw there. But Iran does still have lethal capabilities. All of which the U.S. has taken into consideration when debating whether or not the U.S. will participate in a strike on Iran.
My military sources are here.
Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan, former Director of Operations for U.S. Central Command.
And Chris Meagher, Chief Pentagon spokesperson during President Biden's term.
And it's great to have both of you.
And Vice Admiral, when you look at this, I do think there are real questions about how Iran could use this two-week period. How are they kind of preparing for what has been a very public kind of questioning, a negotiation, that President Trump has let everyone into, where his head is at and what he's thinking. How's Iran watching all of this play out, you think?
VICE ADM. KEVIN DONEGAN (RET.), FORMER DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND, DISTINGUISHED MILITARY FELLOW, MIDDLE EAST INSTITUTE: Well, from a military standpoint, there's not much they can do when, you know, when they're watching. And you look at Fordow, right? And it's --there's not anything more they can do to secure that facility. It's set up the way it is.
And from another military standpoint, when you look at their leadership being decimated, they're probably trying to organize that group, and align them, and get the folks that have moved into their new positions, at least comfortable and lined up with what the Iranians want them to do.
[21:25:00]
Now, no one knows now what the Iranian reaction was going to be to a possible strike on the U.S., and that's really the harder question to answer.
COLLINS: Yes, and that's something that they're obviously weighing because there are thousands, tens of thousands, 40,000 U.S. troops in the region.
And that has been the primary concern that we've heard from a lot of U.S. officials, Chris, in terms of what could Iran do, and how do they spend these next two weeks trying to fortify that, or to move and have assets in the region, to protect, if there is a U.S. strike.
CHRIS MEAGHER, FORMER CHIEF PENTAGON SPOKESMAN, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY UNDER BIDEN: Yes. Well, the good news with this time period is this will give the United States and our leadership more time to prepare, in case Iran directs their militia groups, or decides to attack U.S. capabilities ourselves.
We have another carrier strike group headed to the region, which will serve as a deterrent. And we'll really be taking that time to make sure that our bases are fortified, and that the ships patrolling the seas are on alert, and everybody is ready to go for what might happen.
COLLINS: Well, and one key thing that Iran could do is the Strait of Hormuz, is, blocking it, and kind of potentially trapping U.S. assets inside of there. I think that has been a concern that we've heard, as well, in terms of what that would look like. And obviously, you can see it there, here on the map, with the Iranian Coast right there, north of it, of what that would look like, and how you protect against that.
DONEGAN: And -- well, first, we probably need to even just talk about why is the Straits of Hormuz so important.
With one quarter of oil, the world's oil supply going through there, every day, and about 20 percent of liquid natural gas, it's really our energy highway, the world's energy highway, right? So, if Iran were to threaten to shut that down, that's going to change strategically, the entire dynamic, right? Because now it's just not Israel, and Iran, or Israel, Iran, and the U.S. It's now, this thing is now on the world stage.
Because if the Straits of Hormuz were, for instance, to get mined by Iran, that doesn't just clear itself up in a matter of days and weeks. So immediately, you would see pressure on the global energy market, prices going up. So the entire dynamics change with the threat to close the straits, and it also hurts Iran, because they export their oil through that same straits and get money from China -- I mean, from China, as a result.
COLLINS: Yes, and what you said a minute ago, I think, is really worth emphasizing. No one knows how Iran would respond, if U.S. strikes Fordow, this nuclear plant that's buried deep underground.
And the question is whether or not, does it make them accelerate? I mean, what -- we had someone point out, last night, Chris, which I didn't even know, the bomb that they are considering dropping on Fordow has never actually been used in combat before.
MEAGHER: Yes, that's right. So, there are a lot of questions that are -- surround its effectiveness, and what will actually happen if we deploy this. I think, right now, our leaders are thinking, hopefully, first and foremost, as we just discussed about force protection, about those troops in the region, and what we can do to keep them safe, while leaders, back here in Washington, D.C., are focused on what we're going to do as it relates to Israel.
We have General Kurilla at the helm. He's the Commander of CENTCOM. He knows the region really well. He has great relationships with the Israelis.
COLLINS: Yes. Any advice for him?
DONEGAN: Well, General Kurilla has an amazing amount of things on his plate, when you look at it, right? He not only has to prepare for all of what's going on. He has to protect his forces. He has to be a deterrent -- you know, show a real, good deterrent force to Iran. And at the other time, he has to be ready to launch a strike, if he needs to launch a strike. And at the same time, he has to -- he has to prepare for any possible outcome that can come from the strike.
And that all that together, now he has to also talk to all our allies and partners to assure them, on the backend, that we're still going to be there, because they're going to be the ones under the missile envelopes, also, if we were to strike--
COLLINS: Yes.
DONEGAN: --in this retaliation of some kind.
COLLINS: No easy job.
DONEGAN: Yes.
COLLINS: Vice Admiral, great to have you.
DONEGAN: Thank you.
COLLINS: Chris Meagher, thank you as well.
Up next here. As the President is giving this new timeline for what he is going to do about Iran's nuclear future. The Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, is vowing to intensify his own strikes inside of Iran, saying they'll strike all of Iran's nuclear facilities.
One of the most deeply-sourced reporters, in the region, joins me ahead.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: As the President gives himself a two-week window to decide whether or not the United States will attack Iran, Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is warning that Israel's military is going to strike all of the nuclear facilities in Iran, signaling his own forthcoming attacks.
He didn't give a timeline for Israel's operation. But he did tell an Israeli broadcaster this, and I'm quoting him now: "We are at war; we will not disclose the timetable. We will achieve all the objectives, strike all the nuclear facilities -- we have the power to do it."
One of the most deeply-sourced journalists, in the region, is with me tonight. CNN's Political and Global Affairs Analyst, Barak Ravid.
Barak, are officials in Israel still confident? What are they -- what are they saying tonight, about whether or not the United States is ultimately going to do this?
BARAK RAVID, CNN POLITICAL & GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST, GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT, AXIOS: Good evening, Kaitlan.
[21:35:00]
I think Israeli officials I talked to still think that Trump eventually is going to join this war, especially because they don't believe that there's any diplomatic solution that can be achieved. They don't think that Donald Trump's minimum can meet Ali Khamenei's maximum.
And that's why they think that even if it's going to take another few days, maybe two weeks that Donald Trump spoke about today, at the end of the day, Donald Trump will end up joining this war to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program.
COLLINS: One question that was asked at the White House today was, what would they do, what would President Trump do, if Israel attacks in these next two weeks, more so than they're doing now, but if they go after the nuclear facilities?
Do you think that's possible, likely? What's your sense of that?
RAVID: I think Israel had a list of targets and a timetable to bomb each one of them. I think, right now, they're ahead of schedule. From what I hear, the targets that they have will be exhausted in the next few days, including the nuclear program. I think what's left -- every day that passes leaves the facility in Fordow as the big thing that is left to destroy.
And I think what the U.S. wants to see is how much can Israel get in those few days, or maybe in those two weeks that Donald Trump was talking about.
And the Israelis, on the other hand, also say, We want to see how much we can do before Donald Trump goes in.
So, the Israelis have a plan for another few days of bombings. The Trump administration has a plan for another few days of diplomacy. I think it's going to meet -- those two timetables are going to meet sometime next week.
COLLINS: All right. Barak Ravid, great reporting. We'll stick with you, as we continue to follow this very closely.
Also someone who is here with me tonight that is very familiar with high-stakes decisions, former Congressman, White House Chief of Staff, Ambassador to Japan, and current CNN Senior Political and Global Affairs Commentator, Rahm Emanuel.
You always have too many titles to even list out.
But can you just walk us through? I mean, you've been in the White House, you've been in the Situation Room. The Situation Room has basically had a meeting, every day, since Israel first struck about a week ago. I was just telling you that one White House official said, there were like 30 generals inside the lobby on Friday.
RAHM EMANUEL, FORMER CHICAGO MAYOR, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL & GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO JAPAN: Yes.
COLLINS: We've seen the Joint Chiefs Chairman, there, every day. We've seen the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio.
What is it like when you're actually in the Situation Room, and you're bringing these options, to the President?
EMANUEL: Well, I think you're going through a number of options, and gradations of those options. If you were in the Situation Room, you need to go around kind of, what is it -- if you do this decision, what is the impact? What is the positive, negative? And you're weighing equities.
My view is you have basically a good cop, bad cop, situation. If I was there, this is what I would say. Israel is going to do, what they're going to do militarily. You should be -- here's the table. I'm sending my team. They're on the plane right now. We'll meet you there, and we're ready to negotiate. This plane over here is going to take everything Israel needs, everything they need, from an offensive defenses capability. And that plane over there is going to start practicing, the B-2. And I think I would be the good cop, bad cop.
And that would be the communication to Iran. You pick, but here's what's happening. These three planes are all practicing.
COLLINS: Yes.
EMANUEL: One to take the diplomatic corps. The other one to supply Israel the weapons they need. And our third one to practice.
COLLINS: Yes--
EMANUEL: And I would make sure -- and the reason is, because if you do something now, there's no room for diplomacy, and to--
COLLINS: So, in your experience, do you think the two-week window is actually helpful?
EMANUEL: I don't--
COLLINS: I mean, what do you make of it?
EMANUEL: I think it's a -- I think -- look, it's already said, so it's out there. You got to make the most of this time. Because if you decide to take a military action which would be against -- and I want to be clear of this. For 80 years, Israel has always said, We will fight our wars.
This will be a change in the military ethos and structure for the State of Israel to ask the United States to come and do something. We've never done that, and they never wanted. I don't think it's good for either country.
So if you get to that point, you have got to show them that you've run the diplomatic thread as far and as long until it's no good. And you've got to put that decision on Iraq (ph).
Now, the other thing that's important is comparing this moment to 2015. Israel's number one -- number one complaint was, You left Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria intact. That's over. There's no octopus. The number two, which has not gotten a lot of reporting, their complaint was, You left the missile production in Iran totally intact.
And if you look at the bombing that Israel is doing, everybody is focused on the nuclear facilities. The Prime Minister put this out, very early, in the tweet, they are going after that missile production. Because without that missile production, the nuclear program, not the nuclear facilities, is dramatically degraded. And Israel has been hitting that missile production constantly, and taking it down and degrading it. And that too has its own ability to set back the timeframe significantly.
And that was their number one complaint about the 2015 agreement. COLLINS: Well, I mean, and they had a lot of complaints.
EMANUEL: Right.
[21:40:00]
COLLINS: So, I mean, you said one and two. I think, If Netanyahu is here, he might say, I've gotten 15
EMANUEL: No, there was--
COLLINS: But -- but--
EMANUEL: But even the Israeli security apparatus was -- there was a big portion of it that was for that agreement with the caveats that one and two were the big--
COLLINS: Yes, they wanted this thing changed.
EMANUEL: --deficits.
COLLINS: But so from your view, do you think the United States should strike Fordow, like, what -- I mean, what is -- if you were in that Situation Room advising the President--
(CROSSTALK)
EMANUEL: So, I would say that -- look, I mean, I'll give you a practice we had. You had to give your argument, and then what was wrong with it.
So, I would not break that ethos, until Israel has shown all its capacity and run its course, and you've run your diplomatic. You always -- they know you have the military option. It is already having an ability where they have said they want to get back to the table. I'd leave that, but put a timeframe on the negotiations as well.
Now, I'm haunted by two things. Not haunted, but I have a flashing yellow light. In 1994, same room, Situation Room, Bill Clinton was getting very --basically, his security team bombed North Korea. Carter, President Carter, having gone there, messed it up, and messed up that opportunity, and now you have a nuclear North Korea.
The second thing to evaluate here, and what, I don't know -- I'm saying, is you pause and make diplomacy work all the way to the end, and there'll be a timeframe on that diplomacy. They've already missed one clock. And now Iran realizes the cost.
But the second thing is, Russia has been kicked out of Syria. The rest of the world now sees that when the chips are down, Russia, China and North Korea are nowhere to be found near Iran, you're on your own.
COLLINS: Yes.
EMANUEL: And there is a play here that this Axis of Resistance has been shown to be, literally, very thin gruel. COLLINS: I mean, that's why this is such a huge decision, in terms of shaping the Middle East, and what that could look like in this moment.
Can I ask you, though, because we -- before we go. We have talked about this on the show before--
EMANUEL: Yes.
COLLINS: --what your intentions are, what you're thinking. You've kind of gone there. But you went there a lot further today, in terms of you being the person inside the Situation Room, and making these decisions.
EMANUEL: Look--
COLLINS: Are you considering actively running for president?
EMANUEL: No, I mean, look, I mean, if I said no, that would not be true. If I said yes, it also would not be true. Yes, I'm evaluating.
I think, look, you got to look at this, you got to be comfortable understanding the family room. You got to be comfortable understanding, literally, the classroom, comfortable in the, what I would call, the boardroom, comfortable in the Situation Room, and periodically comfortable in emergency room. And my problem is, our party has only been good in the locker room and the bathroom. And so, you got to be comfortable in all those rooms and understand that.
I have been there. I have something I think I can offer. But I haven't made that decision. So, if I said I wasn't, it wouldn't be true. If I said I have decided, that also wouldn't be true. I mean, I kind of periodically, once a while, check my email, make sure my family hasn't hired a lawyer to sue me.
So, I think about it, and I'm thinking about moments like this, and what it takes to lead this country. And I think the biggest thing that I care about is that the American Dream is unaffordable. And it is exactly in time that that American Dream became unaffordable is when our politics became unstable. And restoring confidence in that is the most important thing a president can do.
COLLINS: Rahm Emanuel, we look forward to you making your final decision, an announcement here on THE SOURCE. We'll have you back for that.
Of course, here tonight, also in the United States, we're following a developing and confusing situation that's been happening in L.A., between the Dodgers and the Department of Homeland Security. The team says immigration agents descended on Dodger Stadium today before their big game tonight. DHS says something different.
We're live on the ground, with a report, ahead.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COLLINS: Tonight, the Los Angeles Dodgers and the Trump administration are at odds over the presence of federal agents at Dodger Stadium today.
You can see this video from earlier, federal agents stationed on one of the streets, leading up to the ballpark. It's not entirely clear who was there and why.
The Dodgers came out, and put out a statement, a remarkable one, that said, ICE agents came to the stadium and requested access to the grounds, which they said they denied, ahead of tonight's game.
But the Department of Homeland Security then weighed in, and said this. Quote, "This had nothing to do with the Dodgers." Customs and Border Protection "vehicles were in the stadium parking lot very briefly, unrelated to any operation or enforcement." ICE added, False. We were never there.
CNN's Natasha Chen is joining me, live tonight, from outside Dodger Stadium.
And Natasha, obviously, there's been a game going on. There's a lot happening behind you. But are you getting any new details on why exactly federal agents were at Dodger Stadium?
NATASHA CHEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kaitlan, not publicly. But what we understand is that agents from some unit were, in fact, here this morning, and we saw that from our affiliate footage, through aerial footage and on the ground. Our own crews came here, around noon, when the last of the vehicles were leaving the stadium area.
Now, the Dodgers organization gave out that one statement, this morning, saying that they had denied entry when agents tried to ask for permission to enter.
[21:50:00]
This, by the way, in the context of two weeks of bubbling anxiety and, for some fans, resentment against the team for not having said anything at all, up to this point, regarding the immigration raids. And that's why you see a lot of people behind me here, protesting against ICE, against the Trump administration, but also against the Dodgers whom they believe should have spoken up long before this, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Yes, notable commentary there. Natasha Chen, thank you for that.
Our political sources are also here tonight.
CNN Political Commentator, Maria Cardona.
And Editor at the National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru.
And it's great to have you both. And Ramesh, when you look at this situation, one, I was kind of confused because I saw the Dodgers statement, this afternoon, which was really remarkable, to see what they were saying, as we were seeing what was happening there.
But then ICE putting out one statement, CBP putting out another. I mean, they're both -- they both technically work under the same government, but they had different versions of what happened, which I think contributed to the confusion here.
RAMESH PONNURU, EDITOR, NATIONAL REVIEW, COLUMNIST, THE WASHINGTON POST: Not the first time that the administration has not spoken with one voice, and where the truth has been very murky.
I think the Dodgers are in a position, though, where they may get it from both sides here.
That they've sort of alienated people on their left, who are unhappy at how long it's taken for them to make a statement. They clearly used today as an opportunity to make the statement.
But at the same time, I think now, there are going to be a lot of people, particularly Trump supporters who are going to be against them, because they are taking sides against it.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, what's your take of what we've seen playing out? Because the Dodgers did say that they were essentially requesting access.
They came out and said, This isn't true. That's not what we were trying to do here.
MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.
COLLINS: Obviously, as there's been so much criticism in Los Angeles over ICE carrying out--
CARDONA: Yes.
COLLINS: --just enforcement operations.
CARDONA: And I think that's exactly the point, Kaitlan. Because what we have seen from this administration is how they have weaponized the Department of Homeland Security, into going into communities and, literally, terrorizing the people who live in the community, the people who are just living and working and trying to live a better life.
Donald Trump promised, during the campaign, that he was going to go after violent criminal undocumented immigrants. And everyone is for that. Democrats want that. Democrats were doing that when we were in office. But that's not what he has done. He has detained, and he has imprisoned, and literally snatched off the streets, without telling families where they are, by agents who are covering their faces. Why are they covering their faces, Kaitlan? And they don't tell them why they are doing this. They don't present a warrant, which they need to do under the law. They don't tell their families where they are, for days on end. This is a massive overreach, and that's why you're seeing communities come out and say, This is not something that is acceptable.
PONNURU: And you're also seeing something in the polling that I think is pretty interesting. If you look at what CBS asked recently, they had the bright idea of asking, Do you support Trump's methods? Do you support Trump's goals?
And you had majority support for the goal, presumably, enforcing the immigration laws. But a lot of unease, about 10-point gap, where people weren't happy with the methods the administration's using.
COLLINS: Yes, and I think -- when we've had Tom Homan on, President Trump's border czar, he said that a lot of the agents are covering their faces. Because we asked this specifically about the mask, what is the policy? He said, it's because the agents are getting doxxed, and people are targeting their families and their home addresses, for which he argued was them just doing their job simply.
And I've heard people talk about, your distinction there, of going after the people with criminal backgrounds, and what this looks like now, especially with the confusion over, are they going after agriculture, hotels?
CARDONA: Right.
COLLINS: And they've said, Well, the President had signs at his rallies that said, Mass deportations. It didn't say -- you don't have an asterisk on there.
CARDONA: Yes. That is true. And I think that's an important point to bring up.
But when you talk to immigrants, and specifically Latino voters, who voted for Trump, they will tell you, He told me, he told my family that they were going to go after violent, criminal undocumented immigrants. We are not violent. We are not criminals.
But these are people who lived in mixed-status families. So, what's happening now? These same voters who voted for Trump, because they trusted him when he said, We're only going after the violent criminals? They are now saying, My people have been detained, my people have been deported, and that is not what I voted for.
PONNURU: But there's another thing, which is, voters still trust Trump over the Democrats on this issue, because they don't think the Democrats really mean it, on illegal immigration.
CARDONA: Though he's upside down on immigration, which was one of his major issues. And I do think Democrats have a huge opportunity here.
COLLINS: Yes, we'll see if they take it.
Maria Cardona. Ramesh Ponnuru. Great to have you both.
CARDONA: Thanks, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Up next. It's a bit of a setback for SpaceX today. One of Elon Musk's Starship rockets exploded, the fourth consecutive failure. But Elon Musk says, Just a scratch.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Before we go, three things that you may have missed today.
People across the country came together in honor of Juneteenth, the fifth year that the newly-enacted federal holiday, commemorates the end of slavery, has been recognized.
Some U.S. cities scaled back or canceled celebrations, following the Trump administration's DEI rollbacks. Organizers say, safety issues, combined with increasing resistance to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives, are making it more challenging to hold events.
Also, TikTok just got another lifeline from the White House, after President Trump granted another 90-day extension, delaying the enforcement of the bipartisan law that is requiring the China-based parent company to sell it to an American owner, or be banned in the United States. That new deadline stands. It's September 17th.
[22:00:00]
And finally tonight, SpaceX's massive Starship rocket exploded, late last night, during a ground test that was underway in Texas. It was preparing for its 10th flight test, when it experienced what the company called, a major anomaly. No injuries were reported. And SpaceX says it's still figuring out the exact cause of that explosion. Elon Musk's response? Quote, Just a scratch.
Thanks so much for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
