Return to Transcripts main page

State of the Union

Trump Bombs Iran; Interview With Former U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton; Interview With Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA); Interview With Israeli President Isaac Herzog. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired June 22, 2025 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:37]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST (voice-over): Totally obliterated. President Trump bombs three nuclear sites in Iran, an extraordinary escalation that brings the U.S. to the brink of war.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: These strikes were a spectacular military success.

HUNT: What's left of Iran's nuclear program, and what happens now? Israel's President Isaac Herzog joins me next.

And make peace. Trump moves against Iran and then offers a choice.

TRUMP: There will be tragedy for Iran.

HUNT: But will Iran carry through on a vow to retaliate against the U.S.? Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton joins me.

Plus, the path ahead, as the president takes sides in a GOP split. Some Republicans join Democrats to warn, the U.S. risks a wider war. Will Congress take a stand against Trump? Democratic Senator Adam Schiff is coming up.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HUNT: Hello. I'm Kasie Hunt in Washington, where the state of our union is waiting to see what happens next.

The world is on edge this morning after President Trump took decisive action against three nuclear sites in Iran last night, using more than 125 aircraft, including a decoy operation of bombers deployed over the Pacific meant to draw attention away from the actual strike, according to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff this morning.

The actual attack, code named Operation Midnight Hammer, took just over two hours. And you're looking at the results right now, satellite images of the Fordow nuclear site after the strike.

The White House says it was meant to be a limited attack. The question this morning, will Iran see it that way? This morning, Iran's foreign minister ruled out diplomacy for now, and the Revolutionary Guard Corps said their response to the U.S. will cause deep regret, as the Middle East region braces for potential retaliation and we wait to see whether Trump's goal of limited U.S. involvement pays off.

I want to start this morning with CNN's Jeremy Diamond, who is live for us in Tel Aviv.

Jeremy, that question, what next?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: That is indeed the question on the minds of all Israelis here, as they saw the first barrage of Iranian ballistic missiles this morning since those U.S. strikes, but there certainly is the possibility for much, much more.

Let's first just talk about the enormous kind of earthquake that was delivered to the region with those U.S. strikes on those three key nuclear facilities overnight. This was all the culmination of a weeklong Israeli military operation inside Iran that delivered one stunning success after the next, in terms of killing senior Iranian military commanders, destroying half of Iran's ballistic missile launch capabilities, and also doing significant damage to several of those nuclear sites.

And following those successes, President Trump clearly saw an opportunity here to get involved and to deliver what Israeli officials had hoped he would do following days of Israeli military operations. And that was deliver the final blow to Iran's nuclear program.

Now, we heard, of course, from the Pentagon there that they are still waiting for the full and complete battle damage assessment, but for the time being, they are talking about significant damage to those structures. And the defense secretary talked about Iran's nuclear ambitions having now been obliterated.

The Israeli prime minister early this morning speaking with President Trump following the successful conclusion of those strikes and also delivering a message to the Israeli public.

We know that the public here is indeed being prepared for the possibility of very significant retaliation, perhaps far more than what we have seen so far. Schools and workplaces remain closed today, as Israelis are told to remain nearby to shelters should that next level of retaliation come to fruition.

HUNT: And, Jeremy, what level of damage are you seeing from strikes this morning?

DIAMOND: Yes. Well, we are right near the site of one of those Iranian ballistic missiles that made it through Israel's air defense systems and struck a residential area. We are in the northern part of Tel Aviv.

[09:05:08]

You can see some of the destruction behind me here, as there are debris that have fallen. This is actually not even the worst of it Kasie. There is a site that is currently being assessed by engineers right now due to a risk of collapse. And we can't access it at the moment.

But I was able to get a look. And you can see that part of the building has been entirely shaved off. Every single window has been blasted through. There are piles of concrete on the floor, destruction very similar to what we have seen at several other sites of Iranian ballistic missile attacks over the course of the last week.

And so, as Iran's destructive ballistic missile capabilities are on display, we are also having an eye towards Iran's more conventional missile capabilities, those that are not as specialized, but can hit U.S. military bases much closer to Iran, just dozens of miles away, where U.S. forces are stationed.

That is indeed one of the concerns now for the United States and Israel.

HUNT: All right, Jeremy Diamond for us.

Jeremy, thank you very much for that.

And joining me now for more on this, the president of Israel, Isaac Herzog.

Mr. President, very grateful to have you on the show here today.

So, last night, the president of the United States, President Trump, he announced...

ISAAC HERZOG, PRESIDENT OF ISRAEL: Thank you, Kasie.

HUNT: Of course -- that the U.S. completed a -- quote -- "very successful" attack on these three nuclear sites in Iran.

At this hour, what's your understanding of the extent of the damage that was done?

HERZOG: First of all, I think we all need to commend President Trump for his bold decision. It's a historic decision, an outstanding decision that clearly can shift the direction of the Middle East to a much better future.

He has eliminated, together with the Israeli, in coordination with Israel -- and I also commend Prime Minister Netanyahu and all the security forces and defense forces who worked on it, eliminated the Iranian nuclear program one way or another, meaning remove it as an imminent threat, which, of course, uplifts a huge veil that was lying down on the Middle East with an Iranian threat of dominance.

And what we are seeing is a different venue. We just need to look ahead. It won't be easy. It's not -- nobody is shying away from the risks. But it was a historic and very important decision. I thank him for that.

HUNT: So do you assess that the nuclear program has been eliminated?

HERZOG: I can't say it's been eliminated. I can say it's been hit very hard, both by the Israeli attacks and absolutely by the American attack overnight.

This is a very important development. It has major repercussions. Look, Iran has spent billions and billions, some people say $100 billion, over decades to build this monstrosity, which sole aim was to destroy Israel and then all other infidels in the world.

We just -- our viewers just need to understand what type of regime we are dealing with. This regime has bred hate to its children, tens of millions of people throughout the generation, on one thing only, America is the big Satan, Israel is the small Satan, meaning the values of America, the values of the free world, the values of Europe, the values of other beliefs is -- should be annihilated fully.

That's what jihadist regimes are all about. And this is a decision of real leadership to remove such a threat and enable the world to breathe, and not -- and that's why the world for years has decided that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons.

HUNT: Sir, now that this has happened, as you outlined, the president has done what he has done, do you, the government of Israel, need additional military action from the United States of America on this? Or are you satisfied with how -- what we have seen play out in the last 24 hours?

HERZOG: So, just to explain to your viewers, I'm not the head of the executive branch. I'm the head of state of Israel. It's somewhat of the European model of constitutional structure.

HUNT: Yes.

HERZOG: Therefore, all the other details are dealt with through the Israeli Security Cabinet headed by Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister.

In this respect, we're just a few hours after the attack. Everybody is studying the results of the attack, the assessment of the battle -- the battle results assessment.

HUNT: I think Americans are just trying to -- right. I think Americans are just trying to understand, how far is this going to have to go? Are more American resources going to need to be contributed to this?

[09:10:01]

And I understand the separation, but I think -- I'm interested to know from the head of state of Israel, does Israel feel like they need a deeper commitment from Americans right now?

HERZOG: So, one thing ought to be made clear, because I followed the American public debate intensely, and we made clear throughout that we are not dragging America into a war, and we are leaving it to the decision of the head of the president of the United States and his team, because it had to do with America's national security interest, period.

We are not intending and we don't ask for America now to go to war because the Iranians are threatening Israel. The decision was taken because the Iranian nuclear program was a clear and present danger to the security interests of all the free world, especially the leader of the free world. And America, as the leader of the free world, was actually at risk from this program.

And that is why it was the right step to do. As for how to exit from the war, that's now the moment where one thinks about diplomacy. But diplomacy has to be effective, because previous diplomacy failed because the Iranians kept on lying constantly. We tried to prove it. It was actually previous American leaders who exposed the fact that -- that Iran was trying to hide a lot of its clandestine military operations and missile development and nuclear program.

And, therefore, diplomacy has to be nuts and bolts and very clear...

HUNT: Right.

HERZOG: ... so that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons.

HUNT: Sir, the IDF says that they have a variety of goals still left to accomplish in Iran.

Is Israel seeking regime change now in the wake of this?

HERZOG: It's not any of the official goals of this -- of this war, not at all.

On the contrary, we leave it to the Iranian people. But it would be a very blessed side -- major side effect, if you can call it, or outcome. After all, this regime is a very oppressive regime. It's a very dangerous regime. It spreads havoc and hate for decades, building terror machines and terror cells all over the world, operating through terror all over the world, not accommodating the real need of the universe of the family of nations to move on.

And I truly believe, as somebody who believes that peace will come, that this is an opportunity now to move the Middle East in a trajectory of nations getting to know each other and moving towards peace together, including, by the way, between us and the Palestinians.

HUNT: Did you, Israel, know ahead of these strikes what the president was going to do?

He had said earlier this week that he was going to take the next two weeks. Was that all just a ruse?

HERZOG: So, all I can say is that I know that there was a very close and intimate dialogue between the president and the prime minister. The president said it publicly overnight.

I think it was a very important dialogue. And I congratulate both of them. I do not know the exact details. But all I know is that actually this corporation can lead to further benefits, meaning we have to make sure that Iran cannot develop nuclear weapons and cannot develop missile programs that reaches London.

And you ask yourself, why London or why a small tribe in Yemen? The Houthis, 50,000 people in all, have ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. And how can they block the main arteries of international trade? These are the questions of the day. And that's why this achievement is so substantial and so important.

And I sincerely pray and hope that it will bring both a positive and peaceful development in the region and bring back our hostages who are still there in Gaza.

HUNT: You used the word peaceful. The Iran Revolutionary Guard has said that the country's response to what America did will cause -- quote -- "deep regret."

What kind of retaliation are you in Israel preparing for?

HERZOG: So, we know that the Revolutionary Guards are the cruel people here for decades. They have no mercy towards anybody. They -- their missiles in Israel have killed Jews and Muslims and Christians, children in all the age. Today, they attacked an old-age home in Tel Aviv and in other places.

But our nation is very resilient. Our air defense systems are good. And we are trying to eliminate and -- eliminate the capability of sending missiles to Israel.

[09:15:04]

HUNT: But what are they going to do to the U.S.?

HERZOG: Well, I cannot go into that at all. It's something that the U.S. and its incredible experts and security personnel and the military of the United States of America, which is the strongest in the world, can explain much better than me.

But if I had to choose between being on the Iranian missile launching battery or being in the American -- an American base in the region, I would absolutely, unequivocally be on the American base in the region.

HUNT: All right, Israeli President Isaac Herzog, sir, thanks very much for being on the show.

HERZOG: Thank you very much.

HUNT: All right, up next: Several key Democrats were not briefed ahead of Trump's Iran attacks yesterday. Now the party wants Congress to put some guardrails on the president.

What does the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee think? Senator Adam Schiff joins me next.

And there are 40,000 U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East. What is the risk facing them now?

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:20:39]

HUNT: Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION.

President Trump authorized last night strikes against Iran without asking for congressional approval, and some Democrats are vowing to push back.

Joining us now is California Democratic Senator Adam Schiff.

Senator, so glad to have you on the program.

Obviously, the president authorized these strikes again against Iran last night. He says that they have been successful. Do you see any upside, any positive news for the security of the world in learning of the success of these strikes?

SEN. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): First of all, Kasie, I want to express my gratitude that the pilots are all out safely and acknowledge the skill, the bravery, and the professionalism of all the military forces that were engaged in this military operation.

But it's not an operation that should have ever been authorized by the president in the absence of intelligence showing that Iran had made the decision to break out and build a bomb.

The intelligence I have seen -- and it's been limited -- indicates that Iran had certainly enriched uranium, but had not made the decision to build a bomb or pursue the mechanism of a bomb. And, in the absence of that, this is not a strike that should have been ordered.

In watching Hegseth during that press conference this morning, we saw a lot of arrogance from the defense secretary. And as wars in the Middle East have demonstrated, arrogance is a deadly commodity. We simply don't know what is going to occur now, whether Iran will retaliate, whether Iran was able to evacuate some of the enriched material from Fordow.

There were satellite -- commercial satellite images of trucks lined up at Fordow and leaving Fordow in the days preceding the strike, so, a lot of questions, including the risk to American service members

In terms of is there anything positive to come out of it, yes, I mean, the destruction of these facilities is a positive, in the sense that it will set back Iran's program. And, look, this is a nefarious regime that is a -- the preeminent state sponsor of terror. It should have never been pursuing a nuclear program. But it is very possible and I think we have to anticipate Iran now

kicks out any inspectors, it leaves the Nonproliferation Treaty, and if it wasn't in a sprint for a bomb, it is now going to engage in a sprint for the bomb, so, a lot of uncertain (AUDIO GAP).

Finally, this was not constitutional, it was not lawful in the absence of a declaration by Congress. And so the administration should have come to Congress. We will have a vote on a war powers resolution. But there's a reason to bring this to Congress. And it is, you want the Congress bought in, you want the American people bought in on an action this substantial that could lead to a major outbreak of war.

HUNT: So, just to put a finer point on it, do you think the world is less safe this morning than it was yesterday?

SCHIFF: I don't think, to be honest, Kasie, there's any way for us to know.

Anyone who says they can see into the future and what the Iranian response will be, whether it will claim American lives, or whether there will be some change in the Iranian regime or new opening, a new opportunity, we simply don't know. We simply don't know.

And I think, because of that uncertainty, you don't want to take an action like this without a strong basis. That is that Iran was imminently pursuing a bomb. And we simply don't have that intelligence. Or, if we do, it hasn't been shared with the Congress.

And that last question asked of Hegseth at the press conference indicates he doesn't know either. He was asked, do we have some new intelligence, is it our own intelligence, or we were lying on Israeli intelligence for the conclusion that we had to take this strike now? And he simply said, well, the president looked at everything.

That's really not an answer, but we will demand answers this week when we're briefed. In the absence of it, though, and not knowing what the future will bring and the consequences, this is an order that should not have been given.

HUNT: So, speaking of the constitutionality, legality of this, the reality, of course, Congress currently controlled by Republicans entirely.

[09:25:01]

One of your congressional colleagues, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez, wrote on the platform X last night that what the president did is -- quote -- "absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment."

Given the limited tools available to Democrats in Congress, do you think impeachment is the right move here?

SCHIFF: We have seen what a high bar there is to impeachment when one party in Congress, the Republican Party, is willing to work completely in lockstep with the president. I think the better remedy, frankly, is -- if Republicans will show any

backbone whatsoever, is to pass a war powers resolution to prevent any further military action that is not purely defensive, that is designed to protect service members' lives, American lives and our interests. That, to me, ought to be the most immediate step.

HUNT: Senator, we, of course, have learned that Democrats on the Gang of Eight, that key group of top intelligence leaders in Congress, were not briefed ahead of these strikes, while Republicans were.

What is the significance of the failure to brief Democratic lawmakers?

SCHIFF: Well, the failure to brief Democratic lawmakers, the -- making this just another partisan exercise by the administration, when it comes to something as serious as the decision to potentially engage in warfare with another nation, it means that you're not going to have the whole country bought into this, which is a real problem.

If everything goes well, then maybe it works out fine, in the sense of not being an issue that tears apart the American people. But if things don't go well, if Iran retaliates, if we get in an escalating war with Iran, and you don't have the country bought in because the president didn't seek the approval of Congress, because he didn't make the case to the American people, because he didn't even inform one of the parties in Congress, that's when you have a real problem engaging in warfare on a partisan basis.

So, a lot of risks here for the country, which is the reason why you come to Congress in the first place. It's the reason why our Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war, not the president.

HUNT: Very briefly, sir, you mentioned the intelligence and what the president was using here.

You have seen what our intelligence community is capable of. You also are aware of what some of our allies' capabilities are. Do you think the U.S. was relying on Israeli intelligence here? And, if so, can we trust that intelligence?

SCHIFF: Well, we're reading between the lines now, because we haven't been briefed and won't be briefed until early this week.

But judging from the evasive answers of the administration, judging from what the DNI said just a couple months ago, it certainly appears that the intelligence we have was that Iran had enriched uranium to a very high degree, was only days or maybe a week away from having the kind of material for multiple bombs, but that we saw no evidence that Iran had made the decision to build a bomb or was actually affirmatively building the mechanism, which takes time.

So, in the absence of that, you don't order a strike like this. You don't take the risk of a future that is beyond our visibility. So that's, I think, the flaw in this unilateral decision -- unilateral decision by the president to engage in this kind of warfare. I don't know what Israeli intelligence shows, and I don't know what sources they have and how reliable they are, but it doesn't appear that this was even the basis for that decision.

HUNT: All right, Senator Adam Schiff, thanks very much for your time today, sir. Really appreciate it.

SCHIFF: Thank you.

HUNT: All right.

Up next: Iran vowed to retaliate against the U.S. if there was an attack.

President Trump's former National Security Adviser John Bolton joins me on what that might look like and much more next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:33:44]

HUNT: All right, welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION. I'm Kasie Hunt.

So, what went into the president's decision to strike Iran? And what happens next?

My next guest probably has a good idea. Joining us now, is Trump's national security adviser from his first term Ambassador John Bolton.

Mr. Ambassador, so grateful to see you. Thank you for being here.

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Glad to be with you.

HUNT: Were you surprised that President Trump took such decisive action?

BOLTON: Well, let me say this unequivocally. I think President Trump made the right decision for America to attack Iran's nuclear weapons program.

And I think we're on the verge of potentially seeing regime change in Iran as part of that. I think this is a huge change in the Middle East. It was a decisive action. It was the right thing to do. I thought somebody should do it for a long time, but better late than never.

HUNT: Why do you think it is that President Trump did this now? Obviously, the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been pushing to do this for years, including when Trump was president the first time.

BOLTON: Right.

Well, I think, because of the launching of Iran's war against Israel on October 7 in 2023, it was going to come down to this at some point enemy. This -- at some point anyway. This is Iran's effort to go after the little Satan, and the next target was the big Satan.

[09:35:02]

So Israel really faces an existential threat from a nuclear Iran. But Iran is not just Israel's problem. Iran is the world's problem. It's particularly the U.S. problem. And we have now acted against this nuclear proliferation threat. It's clearly the right thing to do.

And if Netanyahu's going in first helped persuade the president, so much the better.

HUNT: So, you have obviously been in these rooms. You have seen how President Trump makes decisions.

We heard late last -- late this past week that it was going to be a two-week timeline. Do you think, considering the timing of this, that two-week timeline was just a ruse?

BOLTON: Well, he said up to two weeks. And I thought that was a pretty clear giveaway.

As I say, I would have done this a long time ago. We will see what happens now. This is only day one. And I think how Iran responds to this, if they're foolish enough to attack American positions, American personnel in the Middle East or anywhere around the world, what happened overnight would just seem like the beginning.

HUNT: So, speaking of retaliation, how do you expect Iran to retaliate? What are, in your view, their list of options? And what is the most likely thing to happen next?

BOLTON: Well, they have got a large range of options, but the most important thing is what happens inside Iranian decision-making.

So far in this war, since October the 7th, they have only had one military adversary, and that was Israel. And, in fact, when Iran launched the first ballistic missile attack in human history against Israel, the Biden administration restrained Israel's response. And even the second response in October was somewhat restrained.

I think, if I were an Iranian general now, seeing my terrorist proxies pounded by Iran, seeing the Assad regime in Syria fall, seeing my ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs lying in ashes, I'd be saying to myself, do I really want to take on a second military adversary in the form of the United States?

They need to think about it long and hard, because, if they do, whether they try to close the Strait of Hormuz, whether they attack American military deployments or American civilian personnel, whether they attack oil infrastructure among the Gulf Arabs, whether they carry out terrorist attacks around the world, at that point, neither Donald Trump nor any other American president has any option but brutal force against the Iranian regime.

HUNT: Well, to that point, what is the risk that the U.S. gets drawn into a wider, deeper conflict that potentially involves boots on the ground?

BOLTON: Well, I don't think there's any question of boots on the ground.

The only conflict -- there's only one adversary we face here, and that's Iran. And their military capability is being decimated as we speak. I think the regime is very vulnerable. I have called for regime change for a long time. I think the regime is weaker now and was weaker before October 7 than at any point since 1979.

And every day that goes by, every military commander who's killed, every piece of ordnance that's destroyed leaves that regime weaker. The populace of Iran has seen this regime as in it for themselves for a lot of reasons, the corruption, the self-enrichment of the ayatollahs and the top generals, the economic misery across the country, the discontent of the youth.

The population under 30 is over 60 percent of the total population. They know they can have a different kind of life. And since the Mahsa Amini murder two years ago, 50 percent of the population has basically demonstrated they don't think the ayatollahs really do speak with the word of God when it comes to female dress codes.

This regime is in trouble. And, after last night, it's in even more trouble.

HUNT: You, of course, have personal experience with this. You were the target, are the target of an assassination attempt. The president stripped your Secret Service, your law enforcement protection when he came into office.

Do you face greater risk today from the Iranians and do others who face similar personal threats on American soil face greater threats today?

BOLTON: I think we do. I think it's not just me, of course. It's a list of people that the Iranians have targeted.

And it's not just present and former government officials. It's Iranian Americans, people in the Iranian diaspora. This is a terrorist regime. And it started with the attack on the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979, when they took our diplomats hostage.

It continued with an Iranian-backed attack on the American Embassy in Beirut in the summer of 1983, an Iranian attack on -- Iranian-inspired attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon later that year, and a whole series of Iranian attacks against American military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This regime is a threat to international peace and security. And, until it goes, there will never be a foundation for peace and security in the Middle East.

[09:40:05]

HUNT: All right, Ambassador John Bolton, very grateful to have you on this show today, sir. Thanks for being here.

BOLTON: Thanks for having me.

HUNT: All right.

All right, up next: Some of President Trump's key supporters have been warning him not to risk a wider war. What are they saying now?

Our panel will weigh in up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[09:45:03]

HUNT: All right, welcome back to the STATE OF THE UNION.

That was President Trump calling on Iran to make peace after authorizing a strike on the country's three nuclear sites.

Our panel is here now.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you for being here.

Scott Jennings, I actually want to start with you. You have spent time with President Trump in recent months. He had come out late this week and said -- late last week and said that he would decide within two weeks. And then we saw events unfold very quickly from there.

What can you help us understand about the president's decision-making process here? Because, certainly, I think there are many in MAGA world who may have been surprised that he did this. But tell us what you know.

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Why would you be surprised? I mean, Donald Trump has been clear-eyed and full of resolve about the Iranian threat for 20 years.

He has always said you can't have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon. And I would also say that my observations of him over the last few months are that things are running quite smoothly over in the White House and at the Pentagon. Look what happened, the deception that was involved here, no leaks, the resolve, the precision, execution.

We have a commander in chief right now who is decisive and who knows how to operate a government and operate a military operation with absolute precision. The level of deterrence that this will put throughout the world that our enemies should be perceiving is very, very high. This is a great day for this president.

And it's a great day for the world, because he's making us safe for Western civilization.

XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think there are a lot of questions here. First of all, why did Trump -- the whole reason why we're in this situation is because he withdrew from the nuclear deal in the first place.

And now he's trying to bring Iran back to the table, and they wouldn't do that. And so he decided to move forward with these strikes. But this was his doing in the first place. Obama had a deal.

(CROSSTALK)

JENNINGS: ... enriching uranium.

HINOJOSA: He withdrew from it. He withdrew from the deal, and now he's trying to get back into something very, very similar.

The second piece of this is, I think there's a real -- two real questions about, where are we going next, whether or not this is going to lead into a war, and whether or not -- and Iran has already indicated that they do plan on retaliating, and Trump has said and threatened that he will then escalate as well.

And I think the third question is a legal part of this, which is the -- whether this was constitutional and whether or not they needed approval from Congress.

JOEL RUBIN, FORMER U.S. ASSISTANT DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE: Yes, look, Kasie, we're clearly in the new Middle East right now, and there are so many unanswered questions, to Xochitl's point.

And I will say, I agree with this entirely. Look, Donald Trump got out of the Iran nuclear deal, which was verifiably preventing this exact moment from happening. Now he owns it. This is his decision.

We could not tolerate -- I will say, we could not tolerate Iran's nuclear program where it was right now. And it was a courageous decision. And thank goodness we have the military that we have to execute, as Scott said, the way it did.

But now we're in this new Middle East, and these questions need to be answered. Congress needs to start asking harder questions. And we need to know how our forces will be protected.

HUNT: Rebeccah, you're obviously an expert on security policy. When you think about the Iranians and what they are potentially looking at doing next, what is their -- what is the calculus there? I mean, we were just talking with John Bolton about this. I mean, what do you expect, and what are the risks to the U.S. from that?

REBECCAH HEINRICHS, THE HUDSON INSTITUTE: Well, the Iranian regime is severely militarily wounded. So I think part of the calculation for President Trump was, do -- are we going to have clear air superiority if the United States is going to go in and directly involve itself militarily? The Israelis provided that for us. They took out a lot of the Iranian

launchers. They took out a lot of the Iranian air defenses. And so Iran is extremely vulnerable. I mean, you saw General Caine even say that the United States, when we launched this air campaign, there was no indication that the Iranians even saw us.

There was no attempt to even shoot down anything that the United States was doing. So I think, if you were going to see some kind of defensive action on the part of Iran, you would have already seen it by now.

A couple options they have. There's about 40,000 U.S. troops deployed in the Middle East. Clearly, Iran's going to try to threaten them, like they did after President Trump took out Soleimani during his first term. But that attack was essentially a failure, when the Iranians tried that as well. Or they could threaten to close down the Strait of Hormuz.

But that, of course, comes with severe consequences. The United States has all of the momentum. It would be a dire mistake for the Iranians to try that, because I think the response from the United States would be overwhelming and successful.

HUNT: This, of course, is splitting both parties. We touched on yours, Scott.

But, Xochitl, Congressman Josh Gottheimer posted this on X. He says this -- quote -- "Tonight, the United States took critical and decisive action to protect America. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. Dealing with the Iranian threat is central to America's national security. The world is safer because of the actions of our brave service members."

How widespread do you think the sentiment is going to be? I mean, historically, there's been a lot of support for Israel in the Democratic Party. That has been quite different since -- in recent months. But how far do you think that goes?

[09:50:00]

HINOJOSA: So I think that there are a lot of questions that are being raised by Congress right now.

And the reason that they're being raised is because, normally, you would need congressional approval for something like this. And I know that my friend here is laughing a little bit.

JENNINGS: Yes, I am laughing.

HINOJOSA: But I will say...

HUNT: I mean, as someone who covered Congress for a long time, they gave a lot of that away.

(CROSSTALK) HINOJOSA: But I will say, I mean, in order for them -- in order for the president to take action without congressional approval, he needed to show that there was a real, true threat to the United States and that the strike would not cause escalation.

The problem with this is that normally you would have a group of lawyers from all across the agencies that actually would make these determinations. Trump did away with that at the beginning of this administration. So it's unclear what type of legal advice Trump was getting.

The Department of Defense usually puts out a statement and says what the legality is of any strike that the president is taking without congressional action. Here, we have not heard from DOD what is happening there.

So what will be critical in the weeks to come is, Congress must see the underlying intelligence about how they were in direct threat and how the U.S. needed to respond without congressional approval. But, as of right now, I have not seen that.

JENNINGS: You're arguing that, after 46 years of the Iranian regime killing Americans, threatening Americans, saying over and over and over again "Death to America," that maybe they were just -- didn't mean it, that they're fiery, but mostly peaceful Iranian butchers?

I don't understand. This is a righteous...

(CROSSTALK)

RUBIN: That's not exactly the -- go ahead.

HEINRICHS: You also had this mix. You also had a clear opportunity, where American troops were going to be -- the least amount of danger for us to carry out a successful attack.

So you have the combination, as Scott said, of a direct threat on the part of the Iran regime, very close to having a weaponized nuclear capability. To take that off the table brings greater peace and security to our troops deployed and to Americans here at home.

HUNT: All right, we unfortunately have to go. We are going to see several of you back here at noon.

Rebeccah, thank you very much for being with us.

The big, outstanding questions after President Trump strikes Iran's nuclear sites.

We will be back after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:56:37]

HUNT: How will Iran respond to President Trump's strikes? And is the U.S. fully prepared for what might come next?

We're going to be right back here at noon for a live hour. I will talk to the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who was not briefed before the attacks. We will have that and much more.

I will see you back right here in two hours. Thank you for spending your Sunday morning with us.

But don't go anywhere. "FAREED ZAKARIA GPS" starts next.