Return to Transcripts main page

State of the Union

Interview With Israeli President Isaac Herzog; Trump Orders Attack on Iran; Interview With Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT). Aired 12-1p ET

Aired June 22, 2025 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:52]

(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 Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger coming up.

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? Top House Intelligence Committee Democrat Jim Himes is next.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HUNT: Hello. I'm Kasie Hunt in Washington, where the state of our union is on alert.

The world is wondering what's next after President Trump's decisive, but risky attack on three key nuclear sites in Iran overnight, designed to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities and pressure them back to the negotiating table.

President Trump said the attacks -- quote -- "completely obliterated" the sites. This morning, his national security team says they are still assessing whether Iran still has nuclear capability after the attack code named Operation Midnight Hammer involving a decoy operation over the Pacific Ocean, 30,000-pound bombs, and attacks by submarine.

CNN's Clarissa Ward joins me now live from Tel Aviv.

Clarissa, what are you watching for right now?

CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think everybody is watching to see, Kasie, how Iran will respond.

And here in Israel, they have reinstated the highest level of protective measures after they had eased them somewhat and tried to reopen the economy back on Wednesday,. The second the news of those strikes came through, they once again urged people to basically stay at home, not go to work, stop schools.

And we saw this morning a large barrage about 7:00 a.m., some hours after those U.S. strikes against those Iranian nuclear facilities, we saw a barrage of Iranian ballistic missiles. They were quite close to where we are here in Tel Aviv. You could literally feel the blast wave.

And the damage and destruction done to this area to the north of Tel Aviv as a result of those strikes was significant, although only 20 people reportedly injured, and those injuries light. That is because Israel, of course, has this warning system in place whereby people have at least 10 minutes to try to get to a shelter.

Meanwhile, there are thousands and thousands of Americans, Kasie, who are here stranded in Israel, have been trying to get out since this thing first kicked off last Friday. They had been told, many of them, that they would be able to evacuate today, flying to various destinations. Those flights have been canceled now, and those people continue to wait and watch what will happen to see how they might be able to finally get out of the region with the whole region a knife's edge, Kasie.

HUNT: A knife's edge, indeed.

And, Clarissa, speaking of that, I mean, what could retaliation look like from Iran?

WARD: So I think there's a sense that Iran has to retaliate. And, indeed, that's what the foreign minister said. Iranian state media talked about how vulnerable U.S. bases are in the region. We know there are some 40,000 U.S. service men and women in various bases across the region.

We could also be looking at some kind of an asymmetric attack. We could be looking at cyber. We could be looking at terrorism. We could be looking at kidnapping. I spoke to one U.S. official or former U.S. official, I should say, who said that the place they're really focused on in terms of vulnerability at the moment is Iraq.

[12:05:04]

There are a number of different Iran proxy militias inside Iraq. We saw, if you remember, after the killing of Qasem Soleimani back in 2020, that Iran fired ballistic missiles at the U.S. Al Asad Air Base. Nobody was killed there, but it was the largest ballistic missile attack on a U.S. base in history.

We know as well that some 500 diplomatic personnel from Iraq have been pulled out as a result of this state of high alert. I spoke to one source with -- on the Iraqi government side who said they're working very hard to try to contain the situation. But like so many governments across this region, there is a very real concern that this has now escalated to a point where it is becoming much harder to bring everybody back from the brink.

And one more thing to consider is the possibility of something on the Strait of Hormuz. That, of course, is the choke point for the world's shipping industry, would send oil prices sky-high. It would have the consequence as well of having a devastating effect on Iran's economy, but that is still a possibility, Kasie.

HUNT: All right, Clarissa Ward for us live in Tel Aviv.

Clarissa, thanks very much for that.

All right, joining me now is Connecticut Congressman Jim Himes, of course, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Congressman, thanks very much for being here.

As a member of the Gang of Eight -- you are, of course, one of them -- you typically would get a briefing before a significant U.S. military engagement. You and your Democratic colleagues were not, as we understand it, while your Republican colleagues were. Can you explain when and how you learned about this?

REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): Yes, look, I learned about this strike last night on Twitter, which, as you point out, is an uncomfortable thing for the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, particularly given the fact that the whole premise here is that something changed, right, that Prime Minister Netanyahu made reference to new intelligence.

There was some mention of it this morning. As a member of the Gang of Eight, you might think that, for something this consequential, we would be informed of any change in intelligence. And, by the way, I mean, let's not lose sight of the fact that an offensive attack against a foreign nation is something that the Constitution reserves to the Congress of the United States.

So, bad enough that we weren't informed, but unconstitutional that we didn't have the opportunity to debate and speak, as the representatives of the people, on what is one of the more consequential foreign policy things that this country has done in a long time.

HUNT: Sir, when you talk about the intelligence that we have, the American intelligence, there all -- have been questions about whether we have been relying and doing this on American intelligence or Israeli intelligence.

What is your understanding of the American intelligence? And how recently were you updated on that?

HIMES: Yes, look, it's been the same story now for decades, right, which is that the Iranian regime has been making progress towards the development of enough uranium to do a weapon.

They were -- and if you just look at sort of kilograms of uranium, it's a pretty scary number, right? And the IAEA made this point that they were enriching. Now, creating a weapon is a lot more complicated than just having a bunch of highly enriched uranium, right? It requires a lot of mechanics and technology to actually build that weapon. And, of course, it requires the determination to do it.

Now, on the second two things, I had not seen any intelligence as a member of the Gang of Eight to suggest that Iran had taken the decision to build a weapon. I don't think there's any intelligence out there that suggests that that's true.

And, secondly, while it's a little hazier, because you don't know what you don't know, I think that our intelligence community and other intelligence agencies around the world believed that Iran was still a fairly long way from being able to put a weapon into a missile that they could use to deliver a weapon outside of Iran.

So it's a pretty murky picture, intelligence-wise. My own view is that this timing of this attack had an awful lot more to do with the fact that the Iranian air defenses were down because of the Israeli strikes of several months ago, and the fact that you now had a regime -- a president in the United States, Donald Trump, who was likely to be far more amenable to this than the previous president was ever going to be.

HUNT: So I take your earlier point about the constitutionality of these strikes.

But when we look at what the administration says that they have accomplished here, that they have set this program back significantly, that these strikes were successful, do you think the world is a safer place this morning than it was yesterday?

HIMES: Kasie, stop. Look, that's insane. That's insane. You don't need to be an intelligence professional to know that we have no idea whether these strikes were successful.

[12:10:05]

Now, if what you're looking for is a big boom and a large hole in the ground, I have very little doubt that our bunker-busters did a big boom and a very large hole in the ground.

But, Kasie, we don't know sitting here right now whether the highly enriched uranium was in the Fordow facility or in the Natanz facility. We have no idea (AUDIO GAP) weeks we will develop a more specific idea. But we have no idea in the world right now whether these strikes were in any way successful.

Look, I think all three facilities are probably smoking rubble right now, but the Iranians are not dumb people, right?

There's some chance that, given that this raid was telegraphed for a couple of days, that they might have thrown a couple hundred kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium into the back of a truck and moved it somewhere else, in which case you have got the possibility -- and I will stress possibility here -- that there's a lot of highly enriched uranium sitting underneath a hornet-mad regime that has decided that the only way we're going to forestall this in the future is to actually sprint towards a nuclear weapon.

Now, if tomorrow morning, they kick out the inspectors and decide to do this in some cave that we don't even know about, there is a very real possibility that some time in the next six months or so, we see what we saw in Pakistan or in India, which is, holy smokes, there's a nuclear weapon being tested.

So, anyway, as you can tell, anybody who says that they have an -- any idea whatsoever about whether these raids did anything other than create a big boom and a lot of dust has no idea what they're talking about.

HUNT: Fair points, all.

Sir, if this is where the assessments are now, which is, as you say, we don't know what's happened next, what is your understanding from everything you know in your position the Gang of Eight, of what the possibilities are for retaliation against this? What should we be most worried about? What do you expect to happen next?

HIMES: Well, Kasie, a lot of people are talking about the obvious military implications here.

The Iranian regime could decide to unleash their short-range missiles against our air base in Qatar and our naval base in Bahrain and lots of troops in the region, 40,000 of them. They could do a lot of damage. Now, that is -- a number of people have pointed out, would probably be suicidal on their part.

But, again, I want to stress that there is another, worse option here, which is that the Iranians go quiet for the next three to six months. They just -- we don't hear from them because they have decided that they don't want to end their regime by an open-front attack on Al Udeid or on the Bahrain naval base, but they managed to move that uranium.

And, again, we just don't know, but they managed to move that uranium, and they go quiet for three to six months, during which time they assemble a weapon. That is a possibility. Again, the United States was caught completely off guard when Pakistan and India tested nuclear weapons back in the late 1990s.

And if you were a cagey Iranian leader right now, you would say, hey, we should not poke this tiger anymore, but you know what, we're going to learn the lesson of Ukraine, which gave up its nuclear weapons. We're going to learn the lesson of North Korea, which, once it developed a nuclear weapon, was not going to get attacked by the United States, and let's develop one of these things.

So, again, I'm not saying that I know the probabilities of that happening, but the president has just taken an enormous, enormous gamble. And if history matters, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, if history matters, gambles very -- in the Middle East very rarely go the way you expect or even hope they might go.

HUNT: Are there any risks to Americans here at home based on this, do you think?

HIMES: Yes, I mean, of course, there are, right?

And we talk a lot about the possibilities that the Iranians have terrorist cells, et cetera. Our FBI and our intelligence community is very, very good. So I don't want to overstate the risk. But if the Iranians decided to just burn the whole house down and close the Straits of Hormuz and attack American bases and activate whatever terror cells that they do have around the world -- and I do suspect they have some -- things could get very, very hot very quickly.

So, again, I don't want to get into the game of trying to scare Americans, but if this goes very hot and very ugly, yes, we will have to be really, really focused on the possibility that there could be attempts to strike Americans in the homeland.

HUNT: All right, Congressman Jim Himes, vice chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

Sir, thanks very much for spending some time with us today. I really appreciate it.

HIMES: Thanks, Kasie.

HUNT: This morning, new Iranian attacks on Tel Aviv after America struck three nuclear sites.

Ahead, my conversation with Israeli President Isaac Herzog about what comes next.

Plus, U.S. forces in the Middle East on high alert after Iran says there will be everlasting consequences. Former Congressman, former National Guard Lieutenant Colonel Adam Kinzinger coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:19:22]

HUNT: Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION.

In the wake of President Trump's Iran strikes, Israel says they have more objectives to accomplish. Just this morning, Israel struck a coastal city that's home to Iran's only functioning nuclear power plant, as Israel waits to see what Iran may do next.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HUNT: 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.

[12:20:05]

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?

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.

[12:25:12]

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.

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.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HUNT: Is President Trump a foreign policy hawk now? Former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger will be here to weigh in.

And then, despite U.S. bombers and submarines getting involved, Vice President J.D. Vance says America is not at war with Iran.

Our panel will discuss.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:34:08]

HUNT: Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION. I'm Kasie Hunt.

It's been over 12 hours since the U.S. launched strikes on Iran, and now the world watching to see if and how Iran will retaliate.

My next guest is former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger.

Congressman, thanks so much for being here.

You, of course, have not hesitated to criticize President Trump on all matter of things, but you're also saying that he made the right call here. Considering the way events played out leading up to this, were you surprised by the scale and timing of these strikes?

ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I was surprised. I think a lot of people were. They did a good job of kind of throwing off the scent, when they claimed that B-2s were headed West, and actually they were headed east. The whole idea when the president said like two weeks and then he bombed within that window, I think was smart to catch Iran off guard.

[12:35:01]

But, yes, I think one of the things that drives me crazy in foreign policy, and it always has -- I was critical of my own party when Obama went into Libya -- is, it seems like people oppose the president just based on his party.

And if you truly oppose the strikes in Iran, I respect that. I fully understand it and respect it. It's when somebody opposes something because somebody of the other party is doing it, on foreign policy, particularly, that I think that's where it gets a little dangerous.

So I do think this was the right move, very limited. I think now just defending American troops in the region, trying to sue for peace with Iran, and I think that would be the right move.

HUNT: So you have also said that you don't think this is going to be World War III, that it's not going to be a repeat of the experience that we had in Iraq.

What do you think the response should be from the U.S. if Iran retaliates in a significant way?

KINZINGER: Yes, I think when people just jump to the kind of Iraq argument, it's -- no offense, it's kind of a lazy argument because it's a very different kind of fight.

So, Iraq, we went in with 200,000 troops. The goal was regime change. It was a dictatorship with really nobody underneath. And we de- Baathified. So we basically got rid of the entire government. There's no -- there's no essence to seek to do that right now in Iran.

If regime change comes, it'll come from within. There are all kinds of competing factions within Iran. It won't be us. But I think what's our response? Look, let's see what Iran does. If they -- it's in their interest to de-escalate right now because they are fighting for the survival of their regime.

If they de-escalate, then I think we should, again, sue for peace and try to get this situation -- move on from it. If they do retaliate, depending on what that looks like, if it's more of perfunctory, or if it's intense, then we have to do what we have to do to protect our troops.

But we can do that from the air, as Israel has shown. By the way, nobody expected Israel to have air superiority over Iran ever, much less than 48 hours. Iran's shown itself to be maybe not quite the -- quite the iron fist we thought it was.

HUNT: So many Democrats, but also some Republicans, have said that these strikes are not constitutional. Congressman Thomas Massie was one of them. Do you agree with that? The president didn't go to Congress before he did this.

KINZINGER: Yes. No, I don't.

And, I mean, I think ultimately the Supreme Court's going to have to figure out someday what the president's laws -- or what the president's ability is or isn't to do stuff like this. But, according to the War Powers Act, the president simply has to notify Congress, and then he has 60 or 90 days in which to stop the action or come to Congress for approval.

And any time within that window, Congress can proactively prevent him, so in essence can bring the troops home. So it appears that they did notify Congress. And so they are in compliance with the War Powers Act. Again, this is exactly, by the way, what Obama did when we started bombing Libya.

And so I have no problem with people that are consistent. Like, Rand Paul has been actually very consistent in his criticism of the use of the War Powers Act. What kind of bothers me a little bit is when it's OK for me, but not for thee for some of these folks.

HUNT: One of the other pieces of this, of course, is that the White House notified Republicans in the Gang of Eight, the speaker of the House, others. They didn't notify Democrats. Does that concern you in terms of seeming to be a partisan approach to national security?

KINZINGER: Yes, I didn't know that. And that is 100 percent concerning.

This is -- again, my point on saying foreign policy issues is, we had -- I'd love to get America back to where foreign policy ends at the water's edge and people's disagreements are based on legitimate disagreements and not some domestic policy fight. So, yes, I think it's absolutely wrong if that's in fact what happened.

Democrats have as much of a right to figure out what the U.S. should do on foreign policy when it comes to Congress as Republicans. And I think that sends a bad message, unfortunately.

HUNT: Congressman, what is your top concern here as we sit here and wait to find out what Iran might do? I mean, what do you think is the most likely course of action?

And do you think that they might have ways to retaliate within the U.S. homeland in some way?

KINZINGER: You know, it's possible within the U.S. homeland.

But I think we have kind of built this picture around Iran that they have had sleeper cells for decades in the United States. I mean, every time we almost either go to war with them or whatever, there's this idea of sleeper cells. I don't think it's quite what some people fear. There could be. I mean, nothing -- there's no military action that is done without

risk. There's the possibility of missile attacks on U.S. bases. But one of the things Israel has done really well is gone after what they call the archers, so the launchers of these missiles, which is actually the limit.

HUNT: Right.

KINZINGER: And so -- and, of course, closing the Strait of Hormuz potentially for energy prices, we have to be ready for that.

But, again, I think, given all the risks, the thing that's even more riskier is Iran with a nuclear weapon. And we have seen in North Korea, when you negotiate trying to keep them from getting a nuclear weapon, they ultimately do. We were about to bomb North Korea in 1994. We decided to go to negotiations, and not much after that North Korea got a nuclear weapon, and now they're generally untouchable in their homeland.

[12:40:12]

HUNT: All right, Congressman Adam Kinzinger, thanks so much for spending some time with us today. Really appreciate it.

KINZINGER: You bet. Take care.

HUNT: All right, President Trump pledged to be a peacemaker. Can he keep making that case now?

Our panel joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:45:03]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I certainly empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East. I understand the concern, but the difference is that back then we had dumb presidents and now we have a president who actually knows how to accomplish America's national security objectives.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: That was Vice President J.D. Vance earlier this morning. He's been a skeptic of military involvement in the Middle East, but he's praising the president's decision this morning.

Our panel is here to discuss.

And, Scott Jennings, I actually thought it was an interesting choice to have the vice president, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense with the president last night when he addressed the country. Typically, in these moments, or often in these moments, it's only the president.

But, obviously, the vice president has been out there trying to give some credibility with the MAGA base -- we know that J.D. Vance is very much a skeptic of foreign intervention -- for President Trump in this decision-making. What do you make of what he said?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think it was important for them all to be out there to show absolute unity and resolve across the entire government.

And that's what they were doing. So that was a good public relations move. I mean, the fact is, we have a strong president, a decisive president, and the most lethal military in the world. And there's a huge difference between what's going on in Iran right now and what happened in Iraq over 20 years ago.

So, I think having J.D. Vance out is great. I think having Marco Rubio out is great. I think the president bringing his whole national security team out and showing that the entire government here was operating in lockstep with great precision, great resolve, and the execution of this was flawless, it ought to give the American people a lot of confidence in the competence in our government right now, as compared to what we had in the previous administration.

HUNT: Rebeccah, what do you think the risk here is that America hasn't learned the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan in this context?

REBECCAH HEINRICHS, THE HUDSON INSTITUTE: Well, I think President Trump, we can actually see from his first term, too, what his impulses have been are clear military objectives that are scoped. And he has no interest in doing regime change operations from the top down, imposing them on people who do not have the civil society to welcome regime change.

And so President Trump, you can see that during his first administration.He had scoped actions to take out ISIS, to take out those Russian mercenaries in Syria, to respond to Assad's chemical weapons in Syria and that -- attack back against them.

So I think the lesson is, if you're going to go in and use military force, to make sure you have a clear military objective, and then just be resolved in your mind not to have mission creep and to get out when you're done. And that's going to be, I think, a primary lesson here with dealing with the Iran regime.

HUNT: All makes sense.

But, Joel, as we know, there's always unintended consequences.

JOEL RUBIN, FORMER U.S. ASSISTANT DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE: Tremendous unintended consequences.

And, look, I got to say, the line by the vice president does not do anything to instill confidence in me and in Democrats to say that they can support this kind of action. You don't need to call previous American commanders and chiefs stupid to justify your own actions. And there needs to be an explanation, a clear explanation, as to what

comes next. Look, I supported the action last night. I think it was the right call because this is the moment in time where we needed to take this stand. But this administration needs to be clear about how to protect us from the threats that are now on our doorstep.

XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.

And, also, I just want to point out that there was a poll that came out this week that said 60 percent of Americans thought the U.S. should not get involved in this conflict, and 55 -- 53 percent of Republicans said that they do not want the U.S. to join Israel in this war.

I will say that the president, during his inauguration speech, promised to be a peacemaker. He promised -- he essentially said that we should not be getting into wars. He pointed that out in his speech. And he has been very, very clear that he wanted to end conflicts in Ukraine and would overall not get into unnecessary wars.

And so I think the risk that Donald Trump certainly has here and the implications of this is that they are -- they do escalate, they do attack Americans abroad, and that we end up seeing a back-and-forth and war moving forward.

JENNINGS: This is not an escalation. This is a de-escalation. We're -- this is not a nation...

(CROSSTALK)

HINOJOSA: Well, Trump promised escalation. Trump promised escalation.

(CROSSTALK)

HUNT: Bunker-busting bombs is not an escalation?

(CROSSTALK)

JENNINGS: Because, well, she said President Trump promised us peace. I ask you, can we have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon?

HINOJOSA: Well, we had a deal. And...

JENNINGS: OK. You're litigating the past. I'm asking you today.

HINOJOSA: No, I'm not litigating the past. I'm not.

JENNINGS: Can we have peace if they have a nuclear weapon?

HINOJOSA: He wanted -- we had a deal. He's trying to get back into that deal.

JENNINGS: And they were violating it.

HINOJOSA: And he withdrew from that.

JENNINGS: They were violating it.

HINOJOSA: And not only that. Now he's trying to have another deal.

JENNINGS: Look, bribery and appeasement does not work with terrorists.

(CROSSTALK)

HUNT: Hold on for one second.

I just want to kind of draw this conversation back and ask a big picture one, because I think it's something that a lot of Americans are asking. Is America at war with Iran right now, Scott?

JENNINGS: No, we're not.

We had a precision military strike to keep them from getting nuclear weapons. We're at war with a terrorist regime having nuclear weapons, but not with the Iranian people, who, by the way, should take this opportunity to throw these butchers out, in my opinion.

[12:50:03]

HUNT: Yes or no?

HINOJOSA: I do.

And the president has said -- he's made that clear. He's also said that we would escalate if they potentially strike U.S. embassies or anything like that. And I believe that they have said that they will.

HUNT: Rebeccah?

HEINRICHS: It depends on how the Iran regime responds. The Iran regime has been at war with the United States since 1979. President Trump just took decisive action to end that war.

Now we're going to see how the Iranians respond. It's my hope, obviously, that they stand down. Otherwise, I would just disagree. I do not think that escalation is our biggest problem. I think that ceding escalation to the adversary is our biggest problem.

And one thing that we have to learn from President Biden's handling of Ukraine in Russia as well is, if your fear is escalation constantly, you cede escalation control to the adversary. So I actually think this was an escalation, but my hope is that we escalate to compel the adversary to now back down because we have the advantage they do not.

HUNT: Do you think we're at war?

RUBIN: You know, there's a key word that's missing in all of this, which is the word diplomacy.

And President Trump, he has basically failed on diplomacy on Russia and Ukraine, on Gaza. We have seen those wars get worse. We are technically -- we will see this week. The War Powers Act is the justification for this action. So, yes, we have been at war.

We need to find a way to de-escalate, to lock in, as he said, a diplomatic achievement here with Iran, so it does not go further beyond this nuclear strike.

HUNT: All right, thank you all very much for joining us today. This obviously is a conversation that we are all going to continue to have as a nation, as a world for quite some time to come.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:56:07]

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

Stay with CNN for all the very latest. Thank you so much for spending your Sunday morning with us.

"FAREED ZAKARIA GPS" starts next.