Return to Transcripts main page

The Brief with Jim Sciutto

Iran Fires at Al-Udeid in Qatar; Iran Warned Qatar in Advance About Attack; Trump Claims Iranian Nuclear Site Is "Obliterated"; Israel-Iran Ceasefire To Be Phased In Over Next 24 Hours; Major Russian Attacks Hits Kyiv; Iran May Suspect Cooperation With U.N. Nuclear Watchdog; NATO Summit To Be Held In The Hague. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired June 23, 2025 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:00]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: Hello and welcome to our viewers joining us from all around the world. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington.

We begin with damage assessments in Qatar as Iran retaliates, firing a handful of missiles at a U.S. air base there in Qatar. After the Trump

administration ordered strikes on Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend. Video from Iranian state media reports to show one of those missiles

launching directed towards the Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar. Qatar says its air defense systems intercepted all but one of the missiles. However, it

did not report any deaths or casualties. A source says Iranian officials gave Qatar advance notice about append attack. And since then, U.S.

President Donald Trump, thanked the Iranians for giving him, the U.S., advance notice about the incoming missiles. The president wrote on social

media, quote, "Most importantly, they've gotten it all out of their system and there will hopefully be no further hate."

S However, Iran vowed that the U.S. will directly pay for the strikes on those three nuclear facilities over the weekend. Today, it said, the number

of missiles used matched the number of bombs that the U.S. dropped on those sites in Iran.

The attack sent panic throughout Qatar. Here, shoppers seen running for cover at a mall in Doha. The country called it a flagrant violation of

Qatar's sovereignty and airspace. Added that Qatar reserves the right to respond.

Jeff Zeleny is now at the White House. And, Jeff, it appears from the president's social media postings that he wants to declare the end of this,

in effect the end of U.S. military action there, which he previously described as a one-off, and now, encouraging Israel to stop its own attacks

on Iran. But we see now that Israel is warning residents of Tehran that more attacks are coming. I mean, what are White House officials telling

you?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF U.S. NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Jim, it has been a day of a bit of mixed messaging here, but White House officials

largely, as they often do, defer to the president. And we did not see the president here in public today at least. But we do have his series of

social media posts.

And the one he posted this afternoon, about three hours or so after that missile strike on the Al-Udeid Air Base outside of Doha was very

interesting because it had clearly trying to de-escalate, also trying to turn the page. But, Jim, lost in all of this is the president's

defensiveness over the strike on Sunday. And how much of Iran's nuclear program actually has been obliterated.

The president has used the word obliterated several times. No one else is using that except people on his direct staff. The Pentagon is not using

that. So, we are still waiting to see what the actual outcome of that strike was. How much of the nuclear program has been degraded or Gotten rid

of? But the President clearly is trying to sort of go back to a previous posture of saying it's a one-off and really make the case as concern mounts

among some of his supporters that this is not a protracted war that he wants to get into.

But, Jim, again, I'm struck by his defensiveness there in, again, insisting that the nuclear program has been done away with and we have no evidence of

that whatsoever.

SCIUTTO: No. And the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that it's way too early to determine, and I've spoken to Israeli officials who say it's

too early for them to determine the impact of these strikes. I wonder, we should note, Jeff, should we not, that it's remarkable that Iran

telegraphed these strikes to the U.S. via Qatar in advance. Was the White House surprised by that communication?

ZELENY: They don't seem to be surprised. I mean, they were expecting a retaliation, and this is certainly perhaps the best one they could have

hoped for. What we don't know, obviously, is this the only a bit of a retaliatory act? I mean, we've heard certainly reports of sleeper cells and

other potential events here on the homeland or another basis.

So, certainly, there is still a high degree of readiness. There's no indication that this is the only response from Iran as aside from the fact

that their capabilities have been a degraded to a large degree because of Israel's bombardment here. But the president went out of his way to thank

Iran for giving them a heads up.

[18:05:00]

That was a little -- I'm not sure how honest those words were in the sense because there were some frightened moments in the Situation Room and here

at the White House not knowing exactly what was happening on the air base.

And, Jim, sort of interestingly, President Trump actually visited the Al- Udeid base just a month or so ago, the first American president to visit since 2003. So, he knows, well, at least in his mind, of where these

missiles were heading.

But again, the bigger question is the attack on Sunday, what did it do to the nuclear program? And we still don't have an answer to that. There's a

classified briefing for both House and Senate members tomorrow, even as the president is still scheduled to fly to The Hague in the morning for an

abbreviated NATO Summit. Jim.

SCIUTTO: Jeff Zeleny, we're just getting this news into CNN, and that is a new post from President Trump saying the following, I'm going to read it

here, congratulations to everyone. It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a complete and total ceasefire,

approximately six hours from now. Again, reading directly from the president's Truth Social post. When Israel and Iran have wound down any and

completed, he says, they're in progress final missions.

So, again, I'm reading this to you, Jeff, as it comes out. So, you're at something of a disadvantage without the opportunity to ask White House

officials about this. But this would be remarkable that both Iran and Israel agreed to this. Now, I suppose we could take the president at his

word here. I mean, certainly he would know Israel's intentions given that they are allies. I suppose the question is, does he have confidence in

communications he's receiving from Iran regarding as ceasefire?

ZELENY: I mean, that is very much an open question, is the president speaking for Iran? It's hard to imagine that. For Israel, as you said,

possibly. But just looking through this at the same time, this shows you how quickly President Trump is eager to move on from this conflict, not

only a one-off, he wants to turn the page and close the book. He says after the as ceasefire, this will be known as the 12-Day War. And each side will

remain peaceful and respectful. We'll congratulate both countries. This is a war that could have gone on for years, the president said, destroyed the

entire Middle East. But it didn't and never will. God bless Israel.

Jim, this sort of defies history, the thought that a war, this conflict can be ended in a social media post. We have nothing in our history to compare

this to, but this is generally not how it works. So, we certainly will have to see the response from Iran. We'll have to see if Israel also is going to

end its bombardment campaign. But again, it does not answer the central question, what of Iran's nuclear program? If that was the point of all of

this.

The president seems to want to turn the page again very quickly, but that remains a central question that will be clear at some point in the coming

days.

SCIUTTO: Well, listen I suppose it would be -- it would fit the pattern with this president is that he often declares victory, right, and attempts

to move on. And what we haven't seen, to your earlier point, is proof of the extent of the damage done to Iran's nuclear facilities, evidence,

assessment, et cetera. Jeff Zeleny at the White House, thanks so much.

ZELENY: Sure.

SCIUTTO: I do want to go now to Tel Aviv where Jeremy Diamond is. And, Jeremy, I'm sure you're seeing this post from President Trump now as well.

Have you heard or have the chance to speak to any Israeli officials as to whether they're on board with this? Because it was only within the last

hour that the Israeli military posted on social media that residents of a certain area in Tehran should prepare themselves for additional attacks.

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean, listen, the atmosphere here certainly has been, you know, more optimistic about the

possibility of some kind of resolution to this conflict between Israel and Iran.

I mean, I was reporting in just the last few hours that Israeli officials were telling me that they believed that they would wrap up their military

targeting in Iran within the coming days, meaning that they had worked their way all the way down the bank of targets that they have, military

targets that they have to go after in Iran, and that they believe that they were now very close to completing those military objectives.

But for President Trump to now be talking about a, quote, "complete and total ceasefire" within approximately six hours is completely outside of

what the conversation had been here in Israel in just the last few hours. You know, this is President Trump and we know to expect anything with him

and anything is indeed possible.

[18:10:00]

We know that he and the Israeli prime minister have been coordinating extraordinarily closely over the course of the last 10 days and even before

the last 10 days when Israeli officials came to him, when the Israeli prime minister told him that he was going to launch this military operation in

Iran, which ultimately culminated with those U.S. strikes on those, three Iranian nuclear facilities in Iran.

You know, we will be asking Israeli officials immediately, you know, whether or not they believe they are moving towards a ceasefire now. I can

tell you that in just the last few hours, Israeli jets have been over the skies of Tehran. Our Fred Pleitgen was in Iran reporting that there was

anti-aircraft gunfire going into the air. I immediately asked the Israeli military about that and was told, yes, indeed, our jets are in the skies of

Iran right now, carrying out airstrikes.

And so, the question now, Jim, is whether or not those were some of the final Israeli airstrikes at least for the time being if indeed this

ceasefire becomes a reality?

SCIUTTO: No question, Jeremy Diamond. Another question I suppose is, what is Israel's view of America's participation? Did they consider America a

party to this war, assuming the war? I mean, the president's claiming it was a 12-day war and that it's over. It's not. We'll have to watch events

in the coming hours and days to see if that's true. But does Israel consider the U.S. a party to this?

DIAMOND: Well, you know, I think that would probably be a legal definition, and I don't think that they've spoken out on that, what I can tell you,

they certainly expected and believed from not just the first days of this operation, but from before it was launched, that they always hoped,

certainly, and perhaps even expected that the United States would indeed get involved to deliver the final blow to Iran's nuclear program.

There was always an understanding that this military operation could only be as successful as eventual U.S. participation in particular as it relates

to bombing that Fordow nuclear facility that is in a mountain, you know, buried deep beneath the mountain in Iran.

The Israelis, of course, had considered other scenarios, planned for other potential options, including a daring commando raid on that Fordow facility

in order to be able to destroy it. But ultimately, they certainly hoped and expected that the United States would ultimately see the successes of the

Israeli military in Iran, and that President Trump would see an opportunity to get in here and effectively end or at least delay for many, many years

the Iranian nuclear program.

SCIUTTO: And the question of course now is exactly how much damage was done. The U.S. has yet to present evidence or full assessment. Jeremy

Diamond in Tel Aviv, thanks so much.

Joining me now to understand the significance of all we're witnessing right now, retired U.S. Navy Admiral James Stavridis, who served as NATO Supreme

Allied Commander. He's now CNN senior military analyst, partner at the investment firm Carlisle Group. Always good to have you on, sir. Thanks so

much for joining.

ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST AND FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: Always good to be with you, Jim. One quick point,

I tweeted the end of the war in Libya in 2011. And you and I are old enough to remember that. I think that was the first time in military history a

commander has tweeted the end of hostilities. But what we are seeing from the president I think is an enormous move on his part. We'll have to see

how much reality is in there.

SCIUTTO: Yes. The question is, would -- I imagine the president can read Israel's intentions here, given the closeness of the relationship. How well

can he communicate or understand Iran's position here? And can we have confidence in Trump's interpretation of Iran's position going forward?

STAVRIDIS: I think in the tactical moment, he's got pretty good access to what's going on, and I highly believe that he has put out something that he

thinks is true and we're going to have to kind of wait and see.

Look, I'm hope for the best, but plan for the worst kind of kind of person. And so, I'm hoping everything in that tweet comes to be true. What I worry

about, and you've talked about it a bit just now, can be summed up in three letters, BDA, battle damage assessment.

[18:15:00]

And if we discover over the next few weeks, and it will be weeks, not months, but we discover that, there's still almost a thousand pounds of

enriched uranium missing in action, we discover that maybe all those centrifuges weren't inside Fordow when it was hit. Maybe there's a cache of

those somewhere else, or we discover through signals intelligence listening, that the Iranians are still talking about a program, those are

the kind of things that we're going to discover as we do BDA, battle damage assessment. And that may require kind of resetting the assumptions.

But from where we sit at the moment, I was certainly happy to see the tweet and let's hope it leads to a negotiation.

SCIUTTO: You wrote a piece for Bloomberg laying out three potential paths for Iran to take the first, unconditional surrender. A second one where it

tries to rescue, Iran tries to rescue as much of its nuclear program as possible and do some symbolic retaliation. Then a third option, which you

call a go big strategy with far broader attacks, including shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. Is it safe to say that Iran is taking that middle

option based on what you're seeing here?

STAVRIDIS: Absolutely. I mean, this is the Goldilocks solution. You know, you want to get the bed that's just the right size, and I think they've

made a pretty rational choice. You know, in a perfect world, they would wake up on a Monday morning and realize the world is never going to let

them assemble a nuclear weapon. I don't think that realization has landed, but I think it's door number two from the article, which is performative

strikes followed by a return to negotiations.

No doubt they are trying to recreate some semblance of that nuclear program somewhere, but I think it's been damaged badly. That gives us, on our side,

leverage if we can then get to the negotiating table. I think you can start to put together a longer lasting peace, which ultimately would be the hope

of President Trump's tweet.

SCIUTTO: Final question, if I can. Given the increased closeness of the relationship, even alliance, I think you could call it, between Russia and

Iran, and keeping in mind that Iran has supplied weapons to Russia for its ongoing invasion of Ukraine, particularly those Shahed drones, could we

expect Russia to attempt to come to Iran's rescue here, try to help it resurrect its nuclear program?

STAVRIDIS: I certainly hope not. And I don't think so. I think Russia will confine its support to diplomacy. They may provide some air defense

capability, that I could very much see them helping the Iranians reconstruct the S-300, maybe the S-400, the advanced Air defense systems. I

don't think Vladimir Putin has the global capital to restart a nuclear weapons program.

If I was going to worry, by the way, Jim, I'd worry less about Moscow and more about Pyongyang, I'd worry about North Korea doing something along

those lines. They have been strangely silent. They, the North Koreans. There's a lot of mischief that comes out from them, as you well know. I

think that's a vector to worry about. But Russia, no, I don't see them leaning in and helping reconstruct the nuclear program.

SCIUTTO: Admiral James Stavridis, always good to chat.

STAVRIDIS: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Straight ahead, Trump claims a key nuclear site in Iran is "obliterated," quote/unquote. Is it? I'm going to speak to a nuclear expert

in just a moment for the best assessment one can make at this time.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:20:00]

SCIUTTO: President Trump has announced on social media a ceasefire between Israel and Iran that he hopes will become permanent. No word yet from

Israel or Iran confirming that arrangement. Trump said on social media short time ago, quote, "It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and

Iran that there will be a complete and total ceasefire in approximately six hours from now when Israel and Iran have wound down and completed their in

progress final missions, for 12 hours, at which point the war will be considered, ended."

This after the president call today's Iranian attack on Qatar, quote, "a very weak response." He also said, I want to thank Iran for giving us early

notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost and nobody to be injured. Quite a remarkable statement there. Trump saying that Iran

telegraphed its attacks in advance.

Qatar's aired defense system intercepted most of the missiles fired at the U.S. Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the largest U.S. military installation in

the region. Former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry sat down for an exclusive interview with CNN and spoke about what he hopes happens next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: What's important to remember here is there's no military solution to this. This can go on and on. It

could get uglier and uglier and more and more dangerous with greater and greater implications for a global basis. This is very dangerous. My hope is

that this is more performative than consequential and that it will satisfy their need to be able to respond. I think President Trump needs to clearly,

you know, be very judicious about measuring that and understanding it and hopefully, take the higher ground of getting back to the table.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: U.S. defense officials told CNN last week that the Pentagon moved some of their aircraft from the air base there in Qatar, as well as other

locations in the region, part of its effort to protect its assets and personnel in the Middle East in the event of Iranian retaliation.

CNN National Security Correspondent Natasha Bertrand joins me now. I wonder, given this announcement of a ceasefire by the president, whether

that reduces the alert level now among U.S. forces in the region?

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, I mean, we don't know yet if Iran has actually agreed to this ceasefire, right? The

president appears to have unilaterally declared it on social media. And so, I think it's going to depend in large part on how Israel does react to this

because the U.S. has been on high alert regarding its troops in the region for several weeks now, ever since Israel began its campaign against Tehran.

And the U.S. has been, as you said, consolidating assets across the region. They have put troops there on higher alert just in case, not only Iran, but

also, of course, its many proxies in the region decided to launch attacks against U.S. forces. So, if indeed this is a ceasefire that actually holds

I think that U.S. forces will be able to breathe a little bit easier because, of course, Iran doesn't have perfect command and control over the

many proxy groups in the region, but they do have some level of influence.

And so, I think that if Iran were to tell some of its proxy groups, don't attack, stand down for now, then that is likely what they are going to do.

But still the U.S. is going to continue to keep a pretty substantial, you know, heightened force posture here because it is unclear whether, even if

there is a ceasefire, whether it's actually going to hold, because there are questions about whether all of the objectives have actually been

achieved as part of this 12-day war, as President Trump branded it.

[18:25:00]

I mean, Iran, of course, was carrying out retaliatory strikes against Israel. Israel said that it wants to destroy Iran's nuclear program and

potentially even go further than that into regime change. And there are still questions about whether the U.S. mission, the Pentagon mission was

even successful in destroying all of Iran's enriched uranium, or whether some of that was able to be siphoned off by the Iranians to other

facilities that the U.S. doesn't know about.

And so, there's still so many questions here that I think that for now the U.S. military is probably going to stay on high alert particularly because

we have seen the proxies hurt and injure U.S. forces before. And of course, we saw what happened the last time in 2020 when Iran decided to attack a

U.S. military base in Iraq, dozens and dozens of U.S. service members were wounded in that, many sustaining traumatic brain injury. So, there's

definitely a real threat here in a real fear that things could escalate, even if there is a very tentative ceasefire, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Or stop for a period of time and then start up again, right? So, many players and variables. Natasha Bertrand at the Pentagon, thanks so

much.

Well, these Iranian missiles strikes on Qatar came after the U.S., of course, struck nuclear sites in Iran over the weekend. How U.S. lawmakers

are now reacting to the developments. I'm going to speak to Democratic Congressman Greg Stanton coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Welcome back to "The Brief." I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. Here are more international headlines we are watching today. President Donald

Trump says that Israel and Iran have agreed to a, quote, "complete and total ceasefire." It will take effect, he says, in six hours. No word yet

from Israel and Iran. This comes after Iran launched a retaliatory missile attack on a U.S. air base in Qatar.

[18:30:00]

Qatar says its air defenses intercepted all but one of those incoming missiles. Authorities say no one was killed or hurt.

10 people were killed, dozens injured after another major Russian attack on Kyiv. Waves of Russian missiles and drones hit targets in and around

Ukraine's capital overnight, including residential areas and hospitals. The strikes took place as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited

Britain to discuss its help for his country's defense.

Parts of the Central and Eastern United States are in the midst of a massive heat wave, bringing the hottest temperatures of the year so far.

High temperatures are causing roads and highways even to warp and deform. Authorities in Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota and Colorado shared images

of roadways buckling from the heat. And extreme heat risk is in place through at least Thursday, stretching from the Midwest to the Mid-Atlantic,

including some parts of the northeast, including here in Washington.

Returning now to our top story, President Trump says Israel and Iran have agreed to a ceasefire, this after the U.S. over the weekend dropped massive

bunker buster bombs on Iranian nuclear sites, including the Fordow underground nuclear site.

Joining me now, Arizona Democratic Congressman Greg Stanton, serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee. Thanks so much for joining.

REP. GREG STANTON (D-AZ): Good to be here.

SCIUTTO: First of all, I want to ask your reaction to President Trump's announcement via social media that there's now a ceasefire. We're still

awaiting confirmation of that ceasefire from Israel and Iran. Do you have confidence that this war is now over?

STANTON: Well, if the ceasefire turns out to be real, of course, that is a really good piece of news. The problem, of course, is that the president

has engaged in subterfuge, not just subterfuge with Iran, but subterfuge with the American people. Remember, he was indicating that we were in

active negotiations with Iran. He's told the American people those negotiations were going very well, and then all of a sudden, he made a 180-

degree turn and ecided to engage in the bombing. It appears that all of those negotiations were subterfuge to get Iran to not be expecting the

secret attack.

But when you're, you know, dishonest with the American people about what's really going on, especially on -- in issues of war and putting our service

women and men in jeopardy, it puts in doubt whether we can trust other things that comes out of this White House, and that's what's very

troubling.

SCIUTTO: Yes. And I imagine Iranian leaders, for their part, what would the confidence they would have in a new diplomatic effort from the U.S. to

believe that that diplomatic effort is real and in good faith, given what you cited, president, at a minimum, misinforming, right, on what U.S.

attentions were just a few days ago?

STANTON: Well, in fact, going back further, as you remember, President Obama did sign an agreement, a multi-state agreement that included Iran,

the JCPOA, the Iran Nuclear deal. President Trump pulled us out of that deal when he became president the second time. And immediately started

entering the negotiations with Iran and led both the world and the American public, the people of our country, led them believe that he was going to

take a negotiated position trying to reach another agreement, it turned out to be wrong.

So, of course they should be skeptical of his credibility, but so should American people because of that history of pulling us out of agreement,

then going in a very different direction.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you this, it's still an open question as to exactly how much damage the U.S. strikes did to Iran's nuclear sites coupled with

Israeli strikes over the course of the last several days. Are you confident that you, as a member of Congress and the American people, frankly, will

see an accurate assessment of that damage or are you concerned that President Trump, the administration, might attempt to color it in such a

way to be able to call this strike a success?

STANTON: Well, what do you mean attempt to, they already did. Moments after the strike when the president went on television the night of the strike,

he indicated that it was a hundred percent successful. He already judged it to have been a completed mission even though we haven't had that real

assessment by intelligence experts. Certainly, Congress doesn't have that information. The president chose not to come to Congress to provide any

information or try to gain support in Congress for this attack. I think it was a real missed opportunity by the president.

It's not really a partisan thing. This is -- you want the American people to behind you. He didn't really get the American people to support this in

advance, make that strong case. He could have done that by coming to Congress. Then he announced it was a huge success, and yet now, we're

hearing some assessments that maybe it wasn't such a big success and there may be more work to do.

[18:35:00]

Look, we all agree that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. We all agree on that. But that doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that Trump took

the right approach. President Obama had one approach with a negotiated solution. President Trump seemed to be going in that same direction with a

negotiated solution, then he went with a military one. We don't know where it stands right now as we speak.

SCIUTTO: I want to ask about the other ongoing war now, that, of course, Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine. Because while the attention has been

focused on the Middle East, Russia has been further ramping up its attacks, including in the last several hours, just a massive missile barrage on the

capitol, Kyiv.

How do you understand the inconsistency between President Trump going after Iran quite directly and saying, in effect, Iran's strikes on Israel shall

not stand, but still delaying any increase in pressure on Russia? He's been talking about for weeks and months imposing further sanctions on Russia,

and it hasn't happened, and Russia continues to attack. And by the way, Russia has not agreed to ceasefire there that President Trump demanded.

What -- why that difference in approaches?

STANTON: Well, we still see an inconsistency. We supported our ally Ukraine in that war for so long before President Trump came to office. They were

doing so well. They're fighting so hard. It's inspiring for people across the world to see Ukraine and their citizens fight for their basic freedoms,

and then Trump flipped on them and ended up taking more of Putin's side, just like we are supporting our ally Israel. We should be consistent. We

should support both Ukraine and our ally Israel from the attacks that Iran was placing on them.

Of course, there's strong bipartisan support for -- in terms of a defensive posture to support the attacks on Israel, just like there was strong

bipartisan support for Ukraine before President Trump came along and switched sides in that conflict.

SCIUTTO: Congressman Greg Stanton, thanks so much for joining.

STANTON: Thank you so much. Have a good one.

SCIUTTO: Well, President Trump said earlier that, as we were just noting there, Iranian sites targeted by the U.S. were, quote, "totally destroyed."

However, Western military sources say it is too early to tell. Nuclear experts say the U.S. almost certainly caused severe damage but warn there

is still so much we don't know.

Perhaps most importantly, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog says it does not know where Iran has stashed its large stockpile of enriched uranium. The agency

last saw the stockpile as a result of inspections on June 10th, just three days before Israel began striking Iran. Now, Iranian state media says the

country's parliament is reportedly considering a bill that would suspend Iran's cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Joining me now is John Erath, senior policy director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. John, good to have you on tonight.

JOHN ERATH, SENIOR POLICY DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR ARMS CONTROL AND NON- PROLIFERATION: Thanks for having me.

SCIUTTO: So, neither you or I have the benefit of seeing a battle damage assessment by the U.S. or Israel. And in fact, we're told that both the

U.S. and the Israeli BDA is still being done and that it'll take some time. But based on what you've seen of these strikes via satellite images, et

cetera, both the Israeli strikes and the U.S. strikes over the weekend, is it likely that the program has been entirely destroyed or is it more likely

it's been damaged?

ERATH: It is certainly likely that there was some damage done. There were some very large bombs dropped on the sites, and some of the equipment that

is in an enrichment site is fairly sensitive. So, being shaken about by large explosions in the vicinity is likely to cause some damage. So, I

think it's fair to say that there is going to be some damage, probably considerable damage done to the site.

But Iran retains the most important factor, and that is the technical knowledge that it has built up over the years. So, it would be possible

whatever the damage to the physical plant of the enrichment sites for the facilities to be reconstructed at some point.

SCIUTTO: What about the status of the enriched uranium? Because some officials have acknowledged publicly, they just don't know. They don't know

where it was at the time of these strikes and they don't know where it is now. Is it likely that the U.S. and Israel will come to know the status of

the enriched uranium, which was numbered in the hundreds of kilograms prior to this, or might that remain a mystery? I mean, is it most likely that

Iran retains at least some of it?

[18:40:00]

ERATH: It's likely that some of it is going to be a mystery for some time. Israel has a fairly robust intel capability. So, I would not put it past

them to be able to track at least some of the enriched uranium at some point. But it's likely that some of it will be hard to locate at -- in the

near future. And some of it may just go missing, and that's always going to be a concern.

SCIUTTO: No question. And we know the intelligence agencies of both countries are working very hard to answer that question. John Erath, thanks

so much for joining.

ERATH: Thank you for having me.

SCIUTTO: Coming up, NATO will begin its annual summit in just a few hours. We're going to tell you what the secretary general had to say about U.S.

airstrikes on Iran just after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: In just a few hours, President Trump will travel to The Hague for this week's NATO Summit, casting a massive shadow those U.S. strikes on

Iran as well as now the Iranian response. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said they did not break international law, the U.S. strikes. Take a listen

to his exchange with a reporter just ahead of the summit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: James (INAUDIBLE), Al Jazeera. Secretary General, NATO's position for more than three years has been very consistent, it's been

criticizing Russia for breaching the rules-based international order by invading Ukraine. Doesn't all of that seem very hypocritical given the

U.S.'s recent actions, which are clearly dubious under international law?

MARK RUTTE, SECRETARY GENERAL, NATO: Well, I don't agree with that assessment at all. Obviously, NATO is concentrated on the Euro0Atlantic.

But I do not at all, and not one syllable of your assessment. Sorry. On what you just said, with all the respect of course, for your news outlet,

which I always respect, but I think you have this completely wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Michael Carpenter is the former Europe Senior Director for the National Security Council, and he joins me now. Good to have you on.

MICHAEL CARPENTER, FORMER EUROPE SENIOR DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE OSCE: Thanks.

[18:45:00]

SCIUTTO: Before we get to some of the larger issues that NATO has to contend with at the summit, on Iran, you see NATO, in effect, backing the

U.S. strikes there. Is that, do you believe a majority or unanimous opinion among NATO countries?

CARPENTER: No, I don't. I think you're going to find a lot of differentiation across the alliance. You've had some leaders like German

Chancellor Merz who've been very supportive of President Trump's action in Iran. But you're going to find many others including a lot of the Southern

Europeans, the Spanish, the Portuguese who are much more critical.

So, this is going to span the gamut across the alliance. There's not going to be a consensus position on this issue.

SCIUTTO: NATO, of course, has other issues to contend with, including Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine and significant ramping up of strikes

in the last several days while the world's attention has been focused on the Mideast.

Will NATO leaders be confident as President Trump flies to The Hague, if he does indeed go, that he is still invested in the alliance, or is there

still significant concern that he might go so far as to pull the U.S. out?

CARPENTER: Well, that's a great question, Jim, and I think there's a lot of apprehension on the part of many leaders. At least on the outside, they're

going to issue a lot of statements using words like resolve and unity, but behind the scenes, I think they're very worried about potential future U.S.

forced posture cuts in Europe.

And frankly, also the fact of the matter that there is an unraveling transatlantic consensus on both Ukraine and Russia. In fact, at last year's

summit in Washington, which I helped plan for, there was a tasking to complete a strategy on Russia by the time of this year's summit in The

Hague, and that was shelved because there's simply no consensus whatsoever across the alliance, primarily due to the United States, on how to deal

with a Russia threat.

And you're seeing as well that there's dissents on what to do about how to help Ukraine. So, this is going to be a major issue that leaders talk about

in private. Again, there's a lot of concern that Trump is just on a very different page from the rest of the alliance.

SCIUTTO: We've already seen evidence of Europe adjusting to that, providing its own military assistance to Ukraine and quite public comments from folks

including the new German chancellor, right, that Europe has to go ahead without confidence in U.S. leadership or even U.S. commitment to the

alliance. Will we see more of that here, Europe, in effect, concluding it's got to go it alone to some degree?

CARPENTER: So, I think in The Hague at the summit itself you're going to see a lot of statements of unity. They're not going to try to ruffle

President Trump's feathers all that much by striking out on an independent course. But ultimately, Europeans are going to have to make up their minds

very soon about whether to try to continue to enlist the Trump administration in supporting their efforts with a European reassurance

force for Ukraine and other steps that they think that the U.S. might support further sanctions on Russia, or as I think they should do, they

need to embark on a strategy of their own to give Ukraine what it needs, which is air defense and missiles.

Right now, they're running dangerously short on those. And also to seize the 300 billion euros -- excuse me, dollars of frozen Russian assets that

are really, truly necessary at this point to fund Ukraine's defense. Without that, everything they do is really on the margins. So, this is

their moment of truth. I don't think it's going to come to a head at the summit itself, but in the weeks after, they're going to have to make this

critical decision.

SCIUTTO: From Russia's perspective, does the U.S. strike on Iran over the weekend, and perhaps for China as well, does it make them less likely to

test President Trump in Europe by possibly attacking a NATO ally in Asia by possibly making an attempt to seize Taiwan by military force?

CARPENTER: No, you know, I don't think those things are connected. I don't judge that Russia would want to test NATO's resolve right now by attacking

a NATO ally. I think they're going to continue to attack Ukraine so long as they can get away with it. And once they've accomplished the mission in

Ukraine, they'll probably turn their sites to other countries in the region like Moldova.

But you know, ultimately, they have seen what President Trump has said about defending allies and questioning whether the U.S. would be there at

their time of need or whether they've paid their, quote/unquote, "share" of their NATO defense spending obligation. And so, I think Russia, you know,

would like to test the limits, but unlikely to happen now.

SCIUTTO: Michael Carpenter, thanks so much.

CARPENTER: Appreciate it.

SCIUTTO: Still ahead, global investors are reacting to the fast-moving developments in the Middle East. Oil prices took a dramatic turn after

Iran's retaliatory attack against the U.S. ended. All that and more next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:50:00]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back to "The Brief." U.S. stocks rallied at the price of oil tumbled after Iran's somewhat limited attack against U.S. forces and

Qatar ended just a few hours ago. The Dow, S&P, and NASDAQ all rose about 1 percent. Tech stocks outperformed. The most dramatic reaction to today's

events came in the energy markets, both Brent and U.S. Crude down more than 10 percent, extending the drops after President Trump announced a ceasefire

deal between Israel and Iran. Though we still have yet to hear Israel and Iran confirm such as ceasefire.

Helima Croft joins me now. She's the head of Global Commodity Strategy at RBC Capital Markets. Good to have you on. I mean, listen, it's been a lot

for the markets to absorb in the last week to 10 days here. Are they right to be calming at this point, right, or might that be its own overreaction?

HELIMA CROFT, HEAD OF GLOBAL COMMODITY STRATEGY, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS: I mean, I still think we need to see the details of this ceasefire proposal.

We have not heard anything yet from the Israelis or the Iranians about whether they are going to agree to this, you know, deal that President

Trump announced. Has he built them a golden bridge that they can each retreat over? To be determined.

But certainly, the oil market believes this is a repeat of January, 2020, after the killing of Qasem Soleimani, you had this response from the

Iranians that was very telegraphed, as you know, firing on that base, housing U.S. troops in Iraq, and essentially it allowed the conflict to be

parked. The question is, are we seeing that again?

I will tell you, this is an oil market that is, you know, well supplied, you have strong U.S. production, you have more OPEC barrels on the market,

and we have not had a physical supply disruption. A lot of concern about the security to the Straits of Hormuz, but both are still traversing that

critical waterway.

So, I think a lot of market participants are ready to fade this story. But again, we still need to hear from the Iranians and from the Israelis.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Let's see what happens next. I mean, it's notable that Iranian oils exports increased since this most recent phase of the conflict

flared. How is that possible?

CROFT: Well, I think the Iranians were eager to get, you know, every barrel they could on the water. And we have seen, you know, strong U.S. sanctions

announcements, but we haven't seen especially strong enforcement or we've not seen China curb its appetite for Iranian barrels. So, that has been a

present factor in the oil market is that we've had, you know, strong Iranian production at like five-year highs. So, that has been one of the

reasons why we talk about a market being well supplied.

Now, we have always said it would be difficult for Iran to close the Straits of Hormuz, but certainly, if we got back into an escalatory

situation, Iran does have the ability to target infrastructure related to energy in the Gulf. But again, if we are moving into an off-ramp phase, I

think the market will very much breathe a sigh of relief and focus on other more fundamental factors in the market.

[18:55:00]

SCIUTTO: And I imagine, just briefly, that Iran would suffer as much from closing of the Straight, right, because that's his primary source of

revenue?

CROFT: A hundred percent. But the question always was, was Iran going to look to close the Strait or impede, you know, the traffic of some ships?

Would they potentially attack other infrastructure in the Gulf? I mean, we saw this play out in 2019 when we imposed maximum pressure sanctions. They

did target ships, pipelines, and critical facilities. So, we've seen them use the energy playbook before. The question is now, if we're moving into

an off-ramp phase, is that sort of in the rear-view mirror?

SCIUTTO: Helima Croft, RBC Capital Markets, thanks so much for joining.

CROFT: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: And thanks so much for your company. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. You've been watching "The Brief." Please do stay with CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:00:00]

END