Return to Transcripts main page
What We Know with Max Foster
Trump: I Haven't Decided Yet Whether To Strike Iran; 6-3 Ruling Upholds Ban On Transgender Medical Intervention; U.S. Federal Reserve Holds Interest Rates Steady. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired June 18, 2025 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:24]
ISA SOARES, CNN HOST: Donald Trump says his patience with Iran has, quote, run out as he weighs deploying U.S. military assets.
This is WHAT WE KNOW.
We begin this hour with breaking news in the Iran-Israel conflict. U.S. President Trump is weighing whether the United States should get directly
involved militarily, as some Trump supporters on Capitol Hill urge him to help facilitate a diplomatic solution.
Earlier, the president told reporters that nobody knows what I'm going to do on Iran. Trump says his patience with Tehran, though, has run out, and
Iran's leadership, in his view, has only one choice to make. And this is it.
Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Unconditional surrender. That means I've had it. Okay. I've had it. I give up. No more. Then we go
blow up all the, you know, all the nuclear stuff that's all over the place there. No, they had bad intentions. You know, for 40 years, they've been
saying death to America, death to Israel, death to anybody else that they didn't like.
They were bullies. They were schoolyard bullies. And now they're not bullies anymore
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: Iran's supreme leader rejected President Trump's call to surrender and says the United States will face irreparable loss if the American
military joins the fight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI, IRAN'S SUPREME LEADER: They are threatening us, and they are also clearly asking us to surrender. With an unacceptable
language, they ask the nation to surrender, and they ask us to come and surrender, which surprises us. First of all, they should threaten someone
who is scared of their threats. The nation of Iran has shown that it does not feel intimidated by the threat of those doing the threatening.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: On the back and forth comes as sources tell CNN the United States is set to deploy a third aircraft carrier close to Israel.
I want to turn to CNN's Stephen Collinson, who joins us now from Washington.
Stephen, so we heard the president today saying he may do it or may not do it, but we know we are six days now into this conflict, which does look
like is expanding and ratcheting up. What is your sense as to what the president's strategy is and who is advising him here?
STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN POLITICS SENIOR REPORTER: You know, that's a good question. I was just thinking when I was listening to him there, what he's
saying doesn't sound much like a strategy. He's sprinkling around rationales for why he might take military action. All the signs outside
seem to be pointing to the United States getting ready to ratchet up its involvement in this conflict, but we don't know whether that would be
trying to use bunker busting bombs to go after the Fordow plant, whether it would be to support further Israeli operations.
And Trump creates this position of ambiguity in many situations to give himself more flexibility when he says, I might do this, I might do that.
It's almost like he enjoys being part of the center of attention, but doesn't want to give his hand away, or perhaps hasn't even decided himself
what path he wants to follow. I think he's very impulsive and driven by instinct and emotion rather than strategy, and reasoning.
The one problem here is that if Trump really does want a diplomatic solution, as he keeps saying, demanding a blanket surrender by Iran doesn't
seem the way that you might get Iran to the table and open off an off ramp, since you know the very foundation of the Islamic Republic's 45-year rule
has been institutionalized, hostility and opposition to the United States. Blanket surrender to an American president may be the one thing that Iran
cannot do to get out of this situation.
SOARES: And like our Nic Robertson in the last hour, is a bit of an anathema to Iran to actually even take that, as they said, you know, that
that would not force the leadership at all.
Let's talk about then what we're hearing from the United States. I wonder, and you were talking there about maybe this -- you're hinting at this being
a strategy free administration, perhaps one guess in the last hour was telling me, Stephen, that, you know, maybe this is part of psychological
warfare. I don't know if you, you know, this administration is going there, but has there been any talk within the administration of the risks here
being dragged into a war, another war, a war they did not start and not having critically, an exit strategy given, of course, as what we have seen
in terms of the United States and the war, it has started and not ended in the Middle East.
[15:05:00]
COLLINSON: That's an interesting question, because one of the key underlying principles of Trump's political career has been that the United
States should not go and get into open ended wars in the Middle East, because once you start a war, you don't know how it's going to end. And
let's face it, the U.S. spent the last 20 years trying to get out of wars in the Middle East, and that was a driving force behind Trump's original
2016 presidential campaign. And I think one reason why he got a lot of support in the heartland, the administration hasn't spoken publicly about
contingency planning for the day after what happens after U.S. bombs start falling in Iran.
There is, I think, a strong sense in Washington among politicians and pundits and journalists that the U.S. could just go and drop a couple of
bombs on Fordow and that's it. It's all over and everyone can go back to normal. That, of course, doesn't take into account signs that Iran would be
ready to hit U.S. bases in the region, other things it could do, like targeting the oil fields of its rivals in the Gulf.
There's not a great deal of sign that the administration is thinking about that and playing that out. Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, was on
Capitol Hill this morning, and there was a very interesting exchange with the Democratic senator in which he said that the U.S. has plans for
everything, but it didn't give a great deal of confidence that the United States government was really thinking about all the aspects of negative
consequences that could flow from, you know, diving into this conflict.
And that in some ways is surprising because I mentioned those wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States went into those wars without a plan
for the day after, and after the early success of its shock and awe offensives found itself getting bogged down. I don't think anyone's talking
about troops. U.S. troops on the ground in Iran, but that region does have a real history of pulling the United States into much longer engagements
than it thought it was getting to in the first place.
So I think that's something we need to look at White House and something that really needs to be asked.
SOARES: Yeah. And I'll be speaking to some military analysts in about 20 minutes or so, some of these questions. But on that point, you were saying
about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, I just want to give the quote to viewers that you brought to us.
He was asked by Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, have you commissioned any day after planning, so any force protection, any use of
ground troops in Iran, any cost assessments, if you were authorized day after planning? To which we reply, as I've said, we have plans for
everything. So that is all the detail that we got.
Stephen Collinson, appreciate it as always. Thanks, Stephen.
Earlier, my colleague Christiane Amanpour spoke in a CNN exclusive to Iran's deputy foreign minister, and she asked him about the possibility of
the U.S. involvement in the conflict. Have a listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAJID TAKHT-RAVANCHI, IRANIAN DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER: If the Americans decide to get involved militarily, we have no choice but to retaliate
wherever we find the targets necessary to be acted upon. So, that is -- that is clear and simple, because we are -- we are acting in self-defense.
If, you know, another country joins the -- joins the fight, so that is another instance for our self-defense. You do not expect Iran to be to --
not to use its right of self-defense based on Article 51 of the U.N. charter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: And there continues to be speculation over what role in the U.S. the U.S. may play, of course, in the Israel-Iran conflict, as you heard me
discussing there.
U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres urging against any additional military interventions. His remarks come as President Donald Trump says he
remains undecided.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do. I can tell you this that Iran's got a lot of trouble.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: Well, the president himself, in a unique position, of course, of facing pressure not just from Democrats, but even different factions within
his own party. CNN sources say the president is increasingly open to using U.S. military assets to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. What we don't
know is how will Trump decide to respond to Iran.
Joining me now is Evelyn Farkas, executive director of the McCain Institute and former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense.
Evelyn, great to have you on the show.
We are seeing I think it's fair to say, kind of searing threats from both leaders, Iran and from President Trump, as this looks to potentially, at
least for now, looks to be escalating. But they're sending the U.S. military to use force is one, of course, the most consequential decisions
presidents can make.
Just walk us through the strategy and the thought process.
EVELYN FARKAS, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: Yeah, I mean, usually, if you're considering using force, you have to have very good, you
know, the highest level of intelligence with regard to the risks that you would essentially incur in using the force.
[15:10:07]
So in this case, if we're going to get involved by using our, you know, bunker buster munitions to essentially eliminate or, or get as close as
possible to eliminating the Iranian nuclear capability, then we have to think through what the Iranian response will be and what whether that poses
a significant risk to the United States. And that's where intelligence capabilities, of course, are incredibly important, because we know that
Iran in the past has been able to conduct strikes against military facilities that are housing American personnel. And, you know, even there's
the potential that some have raised of attacks in the homeland using their terrorist cells. So, there is risk to the United States that any president
has to take into consideration.
But on the flip side, there is a potential advantage. If he were able to, of course, eliminate this nuclear threat from Iran, that would be a great
win for the region and for national security. The United States has been against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. And of course, the
proliferation to Iran, which is -- which is a stated enemy of the state of Israel, which is our allied country.
So, there are many reasons why, of course, we wouldn't want them to have the nuclear capability, but the cost might be too high for military action.
And another way to try to address the same threat is diplomatically, of course.
SOARES: Yeah. On that, you mentioned diplomacy. You know, this is quite the U-turn, though, Evelyn, from this president, because only just ten days
ago, you know, we were talking about a diplomatic solution. They were going to meet us, was going to meet again with Iran. And, you know, it was
Netanyahu was pressuring on the military front. What do you make of this sudden U-turn?
FARKAS: Well, I think that President Trump likes to have what are normally decisions that most other presidents would make in private. He likes to
kind of bring the public along. He enjoys clearly the -- I guess, the drama, the attention. There's nothing wrong with, of course, educating the
American public. But the problem is that here we don't have him stating his objective. We don't have him really educating. He's just creating interest
without creating some real knowledge on the part of the American people and of course, on the part of our allies and adversaries.
So, this kind of public rhetoric doesn't illuminate where our adversaries or friends, what we want. And it may actually be counterproductive to what
we want to achieve.
SOARES: And as you're talking about the drama and the attention we're seeing, we're just seeing video, Evelyn, of the president at the White --
just speaking as he was earlier at the White House lawn.
And of course, just for context, for our viewers, he cut his G7 trip short today. He was, you know, going up against Jerome Powell, the Fed Chair
Jerome Powell, complained about Joe Biden. Yesterday, he took on immigration.
How much, Evelyn, do you think he's sitting down and through his intelligence on this to weigh up this decision?
FARKAS: Well, I mean, most of the anecdotal information we have about the president's consumption of intelligence information focuses on more verbal
briefings. It doesn't focus on him sitting down and reading, necessarily, to use your words. But I can imagine that he is getting briefed. He is. It
sounds like he is considering his options again, I think it would be better if he didn't consider them publicly. If he's not going to make a decision,
then it's better to preserve for himself and for our country the space, the decision space.
You know, at the end of the day, what the ultimate, you know, objective we want is an elimination of Iran's capability, nuclear capability. If the
president doesn't take action and he speaks of taking action, there is a potential that we also end up looking weak, and it has ramifications for
other negotiations that he and his team are conducting simultaneously in other parts of the world, or even in the Gaza context.
SOARES: Let me ask you this, because Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was asked today about the next plans going ahead on this, and he was asked by
Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan asked, have you commissioned any day after planning so any force protection or use of ground troops in
Iran, any costs assessments? Have you authorized day-after planning? And he said, as I've said, we have plans for everything.
I wonder what your sense is, Evelyn, of the risks here being dragged into yet another war in the Middle East and potentially not having an exit
strategy.
[15:15:01]
Or maybe there is one, but there hasn't been communicated. So the lack of transparency here.
FARKAS: Well, what makes me a little bit nervous is that his answer is a little bit flip. You know, we have contingency plans, the United States
military, for contingencies that we can anticipate. So, certainly, there are plans for making an attack to take out a nuclear facility in Iran. But
whether we have day-after plans, he should actually seriously answer that question because it is a serious question. And frankly, Congress deserves
to know the American people deserve to know. So, the fact that he didn't makes me a little bit nervous that they don't have that contingency, that
particular contingency plan, you know, he says, we have them for everything.
I've also heard him make that same statement in another context or in another interview before. So, it -- to my ears, it sounded a little
nonspecific. It is important that we have that we think through the strategy. And unfortunately, when we look at what Israel is doing in Gaza
and then in this context, it's also not clear what their strategy is.
And in essence, we would be joining them here in this attack on Iran. And if it's not clear what the Israeli objective is, then that could pose a
problem for us, because Israel has said they've named two objectives. One is, of course, taking out the nuclear capacity in Iran. The other one is
regime change.
So those are two very different objectives. And we need to know exactly what objective we support. And we need to communicate that clearly to our
Israeli partners.
SOARES: Evelyn Farkas, really appreciate you coming on. Thank you very much, Evelyn.
FARKAS: Thank you.
SOARES: Now Iran is imposing temporary restrictions on Internet access across the country, citing security concerns. Just another example of how
the conflict has turned the lives of everyday Iranians upside down.
And Nick Paton Walsh joins us now.
And, Nic, I was able to speak to a guest on the last hour out of Tehran and he was, you know, he was saying there is a really a sense of unity that
rallying around the flag whilst they try to deal with, of course, with the day to day challenges.
Give us a sense of what you have seen.
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. I mean, that internet restriction potentially not as it's been used in the past
when Iran's been dealing with internal repression. So, the essentially the authoritarian government, they're trying to stop its population
communicating amongst itself, possibly in this instance, a bid to try and limit the Internet traffic that Israel has probably been preying upon and
surveilling quite successfully over the past week or maybe months as they prepare this operation.
Remember yesterday, Isa, there were warnings to Iran's population from the government to try and avoid WhatsApp and Telegram suggesting that indeed,
those had been used by Israel to potentially facilitate its military operations. Remember, a lot of the nuclear scientists, military hierarchy,
it seems, killed in strikes of some precision on civilian buildings, possibly even to specific bedrooms, as they slept. So that may explain some
of those restrictions.
But it comes at a time of extraordinary peril and anxiety, given President Trump's overt deliberation about whether he might join in Israel's
onslaught here, Israel claiming air superiority and quite seemingly having freedom of movement in the skies above Tehran to pick off what remains on
its military target list and that now causing deep concern and anxiety amongst Iran's civilians.
The capital, though days ago seemingly a place of deep concern and panic, some pictures today suggesting much emptier streets.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALSH (voice-over): Try to flee Tehran and you're lucky if the roads are this empty. A four-hour wait for gas. Hospitals overflowing. People living
in tents by the roadside. One doctor told CNN. Everyone who can is leaving with the suitcase, they said empty handed or carrying their babies.
On the way out, temperatures in the 90s, cold water passed around. Government advice given to those caught in strikes while driving out reads
if you can get out, seek refuge and turn your back to the blast. If you're stuck in the gridlock, unbuckle, recline the chair back, cover your head
with your hands.
This baker's brother died in the strikes. He learned 20 minutes before this video was shot, his response to keep working.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE BAKER: There's no reason for me to go. Don't people need bread? What crime have the people committed? My duty is right here.
WALSH: In the north, where most have fled, the flour ration has been raised owing to bread shortages, official media said.
What they left behind is a world upturned. This yellow building slant, a taste of ordinary lives bent beyond recognition.
[15:20:05]
In Tehran, where two days ago screamed, echoed, now the streets quieter, vacant where the made so by Netanyahu and Trump's warning for the capital
to evacuate, all the constant blasts overhead and around. Night after night, these barrages continue. Israel and Trump now saying they control
the skies and Iran's strikes against Israel, seem lesser.
Families crammed underground, normal here, gone tomorrow, panicked and unknowing.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WALSH (on camera): Now, when we heard from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Iranian supreme leader, today, the statement was not, I would say, his most
combative. Yes, there was some fiery rhetoric in there suggesting if the U.S. did join Israel's onslaught, there could be, quote, irreparable
damage. But he didn't say necessarily that would be to U.S. bases in the region or even say necessarily to the United States assets nearby. He
didn't personally attack U.S. President Donald Trump.
It's important to point out that obviously, Iran's theocratic, authoritarian government can't suddenly give in to Trump's demand for their
unconditional surrender. That's practically impossible. And a far stretch for a country that has portrayed or a government that's portrayed the U.S.
as the great Satan for decades.
But we are to a point now where Iran clearly has a diminished capability militarily. Weve seen that as a result of the strikes over the past weeks,
they just fired a rocket of a new, heavier type, possibly at Israel that was intercepted. That's a significant reduction from the tens of rockets
we've seen fired over the previous nights. More yet may yet still come.
But there's certainly a sense that Iran's arsenal is diminished, and there may be down to the small number that they need to hold on to as some
deterrent against future.
SOARES: Nick, Nick, apologies -- apologies to interrupt. Let's go to the White House. President Trump taking questions on Iran. Let's listen in.
TRUMP: -- verifiable agreement. But it was such a shame, they were so close. You know, Iran was very close to signing what would have been a very
good agreement for them. And maybe that could still happen, I guess, you know?
They do want to come and see us. They want to see me in the White House. That's a big statement but it's very late.
REPORTER: Is it enough of a statement to hold off?
TRUMP: We're going to see what happens. We're going to see what happens. Ending it as soon as you can would be -- would be good.
REPORTER: Have you closed the door on meeting with them?
TRUMP: No.
REPORTER: Okay. So, you're still open to them coming here?
TRUMP: Yeah. I mean, they asked if they could come. We'll see if that happens. It's not that easy for them to come. They can't get out. You know,
they're in Iran. And in one case, the guy wanted to come so badly, but he can't get out because his bombs dropping all over the place.
REPORTER: Have you seen the Tucker Carlson Senator Ted Cruz interview? It seems like this issue on whether or not the United States should strike is
kind of dividing a lot of your supporters.
TRUMP: No, my supporters are for me, my supporters are America first. They make America great again. My supporters don't want to see Iran have a
nuclear weapon.
Tucker is a nice guy. He called and apologized the other day because he thought he said things that were a little bit too strong, and I appreciated
that.
And Ted Cruz is a nice guy. I mean, he's been with me for a long time. I'd say once the race was over, he's been with me ever since, right?
But very simple, if they think that it's okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, then they should oppose me. But nobody thinks it's okay. People
that don't want -- I don't want to fight either. I'm not looking to fight.
But if it's a choice between fighting and them having a nuclear weapon, you have to -- you have to do what you have to do. Maybe we won't have to
fight. Don't forget, we haven't been fighting.
We had a certain amount of genius to everything, but we haven't been fighting at all. Israel's done a very good job of that, but we'll see what
happens. The bottom line is, they can't have nuclear.
And if Ted -- I can't imagine that Ted Cruz said it's okay for Iran to have nuclear, including Tucker. I don't think Tucker says it's okay. The problem
is then they get themselves into a -- they don't want them to have nuclear, but then they say, well, we don't want to fight. Well, they're going to
have to make a choice, because it's possible that you're going to have to fight for them not to have nuclear.
And it's interesting because I did ask Tucker. I said, well, are you okay with nuclear weapons being in the hands of Iran? And he sort of didn't like
that. He didn't want to, but he sort of didn't like that. And I said, well, if it's -- if it's okay with you, then you and I do have a difference.
But it's really not okay with him. Therefore, you may have to fight and maybe it will end and maybe it will end very quickly. But there is no way
that you can allow whether you have to fight or not, you can allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon because the entire world will blow up.
[15:25:01]
I'm not going to let that happen.
REPORTER: Mr. President, you had a bit of a row with President Emmanuel Macron of France the other day at the G7.
TRUMP: No, he's a nice guy. Look, he said I was going back home to make a ceasefire, not a ceasefire, we'll long beyond ceasefire. And I said, why do
you say that? Why would you say ceasefire?
It's a bad term to use because a ceasefire means like everything's going swimmingly. We'll take a little time off. It's not. We're not looking for a
ceasefire. We're looking for a total, complete victory.
Again, you know what the victory is? No nuclear weapon.
REPORTER: Mr. President --
TRUMP: So I thought it was a very badly worded statement by him. And obviously, I let him know that.
REPORTER: On the southern border, you've had record low numbers for the month of May, 95 apprehensions, zero releases compared to that of the
previous administration exactly a year ago.
TRUMP: Yeah.
REPORTER: More than 60,000 releases. What do you attribute that success to?
TRUMP: I like you. Who are you with?
REPORTER: Turning Point USA, sir?
TRUMP: Well, they're very good. Turning Point. Charlie, it's very good. That's -- see, that's what I call a good question, fellas. One out of ten,
John. One out of ten. But that's a really good question.
No, we had record good numbers on the border and people are coming in, but they have to come in legally, like some of these guys behind me. They have
to come in legally. And if they come in legally, we want them.
They have to say they love America, they love our country, and if they can't say that, we don't want them.
Thank you very much. Very nice. Thank you very much, everybody.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. Thank you, thank you guys. Thank you guys. Thank you.
TRUMP: Thanks.
REPORTER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
TRUMP: Thank you very much.
SOARES: And President Trump at the White House taking questions about Iran, saying Iran was so close. He said to sign an agreement. He then said
that Iran, they want to come to the White House, but they can't. That was actually denied by an Iranian official on Christiane Amanpour show in the
last two hours or so, they actually deny that.
Before we went to him, I was told by my producer, who was listening in to what the president was saying, that he was asked about his relationship
with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and he said the president said he hasn't made a decision on whether they will go. Of course, into conflict
with Israel. And he says, I don't want to fight either. But if the decision is between fighting, having nuclear weapon, we have to do what we have to
do.
But then he said, at the same time, maybe it will end very quickly. But again, stressing, you can't let Iran have a nuclear weapon. The world will
blow up, he said if Iran gets a nuclear bomb.
Nic Robertson, I believe is in Haifa -- was in Haifa the last hour. I'm hoping still in Haifa.
Nic, I'm not sure whether you heard that there, but again, just so much walking around. Clearly, he hasn't made a decision, but so much
inconsistency I should say, from what the president is saying. How did you read what he heard -- what he said?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yeah, yeah. And I think there were words that he didn't use tonight that he did use
yesterday, that have caused a little bit of concern, you know, on this idea of, you know, what's he trying to achieve. And it is pretty clear on it
now.
He says, we're looking for total and complete victory. And if and then sort of pause. And that means no nuclear weapons for Iran. And he said that
several times now yesterday he was talking about needing to see an unconditional surrender from Iran.
And a lot of experts here. I was talking to some former intelligence officials from Mossad, somebody who actually was very senior handling the
Iran file and knew, you know, knows the ins and outs of Khamenei, the supreme leader, and many of the other figures in Iran. And her take on that
language, unconditional surrender is the sort of language that there's no way that the Iranian leadership can give in to for them.
They feel like even just coming back to the negotiating table is a surrender. Just talking to Trump again is a surrender, because he was the
one that pulled out of the nuclear agreement during his last presidency. So that kind of language forces the Iranian leadership into a corner.
So I get the sense here that that President Trump is finding language that is familiar to him, that he's used before. But again, unless he really
spells it out in full specificity, they cannot have a nuclear weapon. And the question for the Iranians is, but can we have nuclear enrichment?
That's the question. And he didn't go there and he didn't say that.
So I think people are still left guessing. And that's part of his intent. You know, he said before in the Rose Garden that, you know, nobody knows
what I'm going to do. And one of the those intelligence officials I was talking to today reminded me of what happened in 2019, when the Iranians
were blamed for targeting two Saudi oil facilities.
[15:30:07]
I went to see those facilities, by the way. They were -- they were hit by drones and missiles very, very badly and severely damaged. And at that
time, you know, the intelligence official told me President Trump had launched a mission to take action against Iran. And then at the last
minute, he said, pulled it back.
So even the intelligence officials here trying to trying to estimate and understand the moves that President Trump is going to make, you know, think
that maybe he will spin up a whole military operation, maybe as a pressure point, and then pull back at the last minute.
And the other -- the other senior Mossad, former senior Mossad intelligence official I spoke to said to me, look, I said, where are we going to be in
two weeks? And they said, essentially, I have no idea. We're in the intelligence business. We can't look two weeks ahead. And I think that
tells you where we're at, at the moment.
SOARES: Yeah, maybe ambiguity is part of the strategy. Who knows?
Nic, thank you very much indeed. Nic there for us in Haifa, in Israel.
We're going to take a short break, be back after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOARES: If you're just joining us, let me bring you up to date with what we know and what we've heard.
Just in the last ten minutes or so, U.S. president Donald Trump, speaking at the White House, saying he hasn't made a final decision yet on whether
to strike Iran. And he said, I have ideas as to what to do, but I haven't made a final. I like to make the final decision one second before it's due,
you know, because things change. I mean, especially with war, things change with war.
He then went on to say Iran was so close to signing agreement. They -- Iran wants to come to the White House.
[15:35:00]
That has been denied, per Iranian official on Christiane Amanpour show two hours or so ago.
And he said and he repeated this on numerous times, that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. The world will blow up, he said, if Iran gets a nuclear
bomb.
Listening to that was our White House correspondent, Kevin Liptak.
And, Kevin, what were your takeaways? Critically, it's looking for the language and the clarity or where -- which way he's weighing up this
decision. What did you take away from that?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Right. And I still think when you listen to the president, he is still clearly, I think, skeptical
that diplomacy can work to end all of this. He still says that he's weighing some options when it comes to joining Israel in its campaign
against Iran.
But notable, he says, that he hasn't made a decision on that front. You know, we had been waiting to sort of see how the president would go after
that Situation Room yesterday that lasted about an hour. That meeting does not appear to have been a decision. One, this is still something of an open
debate between the president, apparently, and his team. And he did note that that team would reconvene in an hour from now to sort of continue
these discussions going along.
It was interesting. The president sort of acknowledged, I think it was for the first time that he and the United States are the only ones with the
capacity to take out Iran's nuclear program completely. He didn't mention it specifically, but I think he's alluding to the use of those bunker
busting bombs, the B-2 bombers that could potentially target the nuclear facilities that are buried deep underground.
That's an argument that the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been making to Trump on the telephone over the last several weeks, including as
recently as Monday. But now, you hear the president acknowledging that out loud and acknowledging the great power, essentially, that he has in all of
this going forward.
The president also said here and he said it earlier today on the south lawn, that he doesn't want this to become sort of a long-term engagement
for the United States. He doesn't want to get dragged in to a conflict.
Obviously, that's a promise that he made to his voters on the campaign trail. He seems to be suggesting here that there is a possibility and a way
for the U.S. to get involved without this becoming some sort of prolonged engagement for the United States.
But I think it remains to be seen what exactly that particular option might look like.
SOARES: Indeed. Kevin, appreciate it. Thanks very much for coming to the camera so quickly. And we have this news coming in to CNN just the last few
moments. Tehran's, this is according to Iran's state media, reporting that Tehran's air defenses have been activated. They've also engaged hostile
targets. And that is according to Iranian state affiliated news.
And this comes as a third U.S. aircraft carrier set to deploy near the Middle East region as the Pentagon builds up its military presence there.
The USS Ford is likely to head to the eastern mediterranean sea next week. That should be USS, of course, another aircraft carrier, the USS Nimitz, is
already heading towards the Middle East, and it will join the USS Carl Vinson, which is already there.
It is unclear for how long both strike groups will remain in position. Separately, two sources tell CNN Washington has spent more than 30 airborne
tankers, which can refuel combat planes in the air to the Middle East.
So, what we want to know this hour is what military assets could the U.S. use with Iran?
Joining me now is Colin Clarke, director of policy and research at the Soufan Group. He's also the author of "After the Caliphate: The Islamic
State and the Future of the Terrorist Diaspora".
Colin, great to have you back on the show. We'll get to those details in just a moment. We are -- we did hear from the president. You probably heard
just in the last ten minutes saying he hasn't made a decision yet, but we are starting to see the drums of war sounding ever so slightly louder. Of
course, as the third USS carrier is deployed to the region. We're seeing also Americans evacuate -- U.S. embassy working on evacuation flights for
citizens in Israel.
As you look at the military posture of the United States, does this show the presidents moving one way or another, even though he said he hasn't
made a decision? What is -- what is your take?
COLIN CLARKE, DIRECTOR OF POLICY & RESEARCH, THE SOUFAN GROUP: Well, I mean, far be it for me to be able to predict what Donald Trump is going to
do. I think, you know, he's made that clear. He's unpredictable. I'm not sure he knows what he wants to do, but moving this much military muscle
into the region shows that the noose is tightening around the neck of the supreme leader.
It certainly is not just a bluff. The United States is preparing to go to war with Iran. Whether or not the U.S. crosses that line and actually joins
the fray militarily, beyond the intelligence support, I think is, you know, we're going to learn that pretty soon.
[15:40:02]
I think the president still opening up a sliver of hope that the Iranians will come to the table. But if they don't, certainly the posture shows the
U.S. is ready to act.
SOARES: Then just game it out for us here, Colin, what that would look like for Trump, President Trump to strike Iran because, of course, the
prevailing consensus is that U.S. bunker busters bombs would try to take out the Fordow nuclear if we can bring them up, if we have the nuclear
site, how would that one fold? And do we know also whether this bunker buster bomb can be successful? Or is it just hope at this moment? Because
obviously hope is not really a strategy.
And then on that same question on that point, why are we focusing only on Fordow? There are so many others. Why only this fascination with Fordow?
CLARKE: I think that's kind of become, you know, the holy grail in some respects, the Fordow site, probably the most hard and deeply buried target
that the Iranians have. In some ways, it's beyond just the physical sense. It's become symbolic in these discussions.
So, the question I have is if the United States gets involved and does help attack that site with bunker busters, does it stop there? Does it then kind
of farm out the rest of the operations to the Israelis? Or does the United States keep going?
And much of that will depend on how the Iranians respond. If the Iranians respond by activating their proxies to attack U.S. bases in the region, if
the Iranians go after some of the Gulf states, then I think you'll see a very forceful and muscular U.S. response, full-throated against the
Iranians. And I think at that point, it's pretty safe to assume that the regimes days would be numbered.
SOARES: Colin, really appreciate you laying it all out for us. Worrying times, indeed. Colin Clarke there. Thank you very much, Colin.
We're going to take a short break. Be back after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOARES: A major U.S. Supreme Court decision today. The high court says the state of Tennessee can ban transgender minors from receiving medical
interventions such as puberty blockers.
[15:45:07]
The 6 to 3 ruling fell along ideological lines. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts cited concern over the policy debates on safety
as well as efficacy for medical treatments in an evolving field.
Joining us now is CNN's Paula Reid.
So, Paula, just lay it out for us. What does this mean in real terms and in practice here?
PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is one of the biggest cases of the term. And one of the reasons it's so significant
is because roughly half the states have similar bans on the books. And hear this case focused specifically on a law passed in Tennessee that banned
minors from being able to access gender affirming medications.
Now, folks who had children who were transitioning challenged this, arguing that this was a violation of the equal protection clause because they said
that other children who are not using it for this purpose could still have access to the same medicine. But here, in a 6-3 decision that fell along
party lines, the court disagreed.
And writing for the majority, chief justice John Roberts said, quote, this case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates
about the safety, efficacy and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field.
Now, the three liberal justices dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that here the court abandons transgender children and their families to
political whims. She wrote, quote, in sadness, I dissent.
Now what we're looking for next is the impact of this ruling and whether it will bolster a state lawmakers to pass more laws targeting transgender
individuals, specifically minors. This is something we've seen over the past several years. And now after this decision, those laws will be
reviewed sort of under a lower standard. Making it easier for them to be upheld by the courts.
SOARES: Paula Reid there for us, laying it all out. Thank you very much, Paula.
And still to come right here on the show, the U.S. Federal Reserve makes its latest decision on interest rates. We'll look at the impact it will
have on the economy.
Richard Quest joins me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOARES: U.S. President Donald Trump is slamming the Federal Reserve chair, suggesting he could do a better job. Have a listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Well, maybe I should go to the Fed. Am I allowed to appoint myself, Doug? I don't know.
[15:50:00]
Am I allowed to appoint myself at the Fed? I do a much better job than these people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: Am I allowed to appoint myself.
Well, the president's comments come as the Federal Reserve announces it's keeping rates the same, unchanged. The latest rate decision reflects the
uncertainty on tariffs as well as consumer spending and large purchases such as homes. For its part, the Central Bank has been apprehensive about
huge rate cuts, fearing it could move inflation further away from the Fed's 2 percent target.
Richard Quest joins us now.
So, Richard, you were you and I were talking when that decision was made, what, two hours ago?
RICHARD QUEST, CNN BUSINESS EDITOR-AT-LARGE: Uh-huh.
SOARES: Outline for us the reason that Jerome Powell didn't move on that because as we've heard time and time again, President Trump wants him to
move. He even called him stupid today.
QUEST: Yes. The chair was quite clear that there is no immediate necessity to cut rates while there is such uncertainty. And if there's one thing that
came out of today's press conference post the meeting, it is the Fed really doesn't know about the tariffs. I mean, it's he that he said we've not seen
this before. It's highly uncertain. We don't know where they're going to end up.
So, in this environment and as the Fed chair put it, we are well-positioned for all options. And I think that is the takeaway from today. There's no
urgency for the Fed to do anything at the moment other than to sort of watch see whether tariffs what I was surprised at. Well, actually just
listen to what he said. If we actually listen on this question of tariffs because it was a surprise just how unsure they were.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEROME POWELL, FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN: The amount of the tariff affects the size of the tariff effects. Their duration and the time it will take
are all highly uncertain. So, that -- that is why we think the appropriate thing to do is to hold where we are as we learn more, and we think our
policy stance is in a good place where we're well positioned to react to incoming developments.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: Now, what is also interesting is that he was asked by our colleague Matt Egan about the Middle East. And this was the question I thought was
really going to nail it. The uncertainty of the price of oil, oil ratcheting up, slowdown, Strait of Hormuz, et cetera. He didn't -- the Fed
chair just basically swatted it back saying, look, oil prices go up and they come back down again. It basically was that.
SOARES: And pouring cold water on any fears.
QUEST: Yeah. And that there is usually no long-term impact from these sort of things. He was much more interested in the high, he's interested in
tariffs and he says that there's no necessity to cut rates. I can see the president being absolutely --
SOARES: That was going to be my question because, you know the president today we have we have a stupid person frankly at the fed. He probably won't
cut today. Maybe I should go to the Fed. Am I allowed to appoint myself at the Fed?
And we heard Fed Chair Jerome Powell saying since March, slower growth, inflation moving up, the effects of tariffs. We are adapting in real time.
That will not be well received at the White House.
QUEST: No, it won't. And the chair was asked, so are you going to stay on if you're not reappointed as Fed chair because you stay on as a governor?
It's 14-year terms. And he said, I'm not discussing that. I'm not discussing that.
SOARES: Because Trump has repeatedly said he wants to oust him.
QUEST: Powell will not be the chair after next year. Whether he stays on as governor. They tend not to is a moot question at the moment, but he was
also asked how much of this policy today will survive after you've left. And he basically said, it's -- this is about institutions. It's not about a
personality.
SOARES: For our viewers, trying to get a sense of which way they're going to go, the Fed chair is going to go dot plot. Talk us through what is --
what do we --
QUEST: Look, we will -- we will get two more cuts this year, all being well, all things being equal. Next year, we should have had two. But
there's only going to be one.
But to be honest, it's all so uncertain. This is really a snapshot in time of what people think is happening now. So, look for two more cuts. Yeah.
And then and then next year, just a quarter off.
SOARES: Can I ask you a question that maybe some of our viewers may be asking themselves, which is and the question I think this is something that
President Trump has made, you know, other European -- European central bank, other central banks have cut. Why hasn't the United States? They're
facing similar pressures. Can you answer that?
QUEST: Yes. Very simply policy certainty. The ECB has got policy certainty. The Bank of England has an element of policy certainty.
There is no policy certainty in the United States. When you've got tariffs going like this and this and this, and the effects of that could be
inflationary where you've already got some inflation into the economy. No one wants to take the risk. This is about insurance. And that's why they --
it's mercurial. It's difficult.
There's just no -- and don't forget also the U.S. economy is very vibrant. Therefore, you could have inflation roaring off quite so.
SOARES: And Richard's here with us as you can see. But you normally -- when you're normally in New York.
QUEST: Yeah.
SOARES: What is the sense then when we're talking about, you know, the trade wars and trade tariffs and the pressures this is putting on
everything.
[15:55:06]
What is the back-and-forth rollercoaster of emotions?
QUEST: Confusion, total confusion. And those tariffs that are there. No one's quite sure that they're going to work. Steel is a really good
example. The history of steel tariffs shows more job losses than actually job gains in the long run. And yet we've got steel tariffs again and again
and again.
So it's vast uncertainty.
SOARES: Richard Quest will be here. You can see the bell. There we go. Am I allowed?
"QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is up next. See you tomorrow.
END
TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS
