Monday, June 30, 2025

‘A Very Consequential Two Weeks’


That’s Selena Zito’s take and I fully agree with her.  

There is an old wisdom in political science that real presidential power, whether domestic or international, is the power of persuasion. In less than two weeks, Trump has shown that his impact on American history has centered on his persuasive powers and using them to execute leadership.

While elites struggle to understand the appeal of Trump and conservative populism, what they miss, what they have always missed, is the nuance of what “Make America Great Again” meant to voters. The media saw it as a vulgar attempt at nationalism, often brazenly calling it so. But it never was. For most Trump supporters, it meant the connective tissue not with him, but with each other, that they were all part of something bigger than self.

To date, President Franklin Roosevelt has had the longest impact on American politics in our short history. Trump will exceed that, especially if he continues to have two-week stretches such as these.

So much has happened in the past two weeks to confirm her view that I cannot cover all of it -- especially all the successes in the economy, tariff negotiations, peace deals around the world, lowering the rate of inflation, closing the border and deporting illegals, included. All of these are greatly consequential but this week I concentrate on the amazing successes in Iran and the Supreme Court. I picked these to clarify what the legacy media distorts. 

Bombing Iran’s Nuclear Facilities

Despite CNN and much of the legacy media misusing a leaked preliminary assessment (of “low confidence”) the bombing was of great value to both Israel and the United States. 

Israel’s use of the F-35 was an absolute success for the U.S. for the following reasons:

1. Combat-Proven Validation -- Israeli F-35s successfully struck deep into Iranian territory without losses, proving the jet’s stealth and precision in real-world combat.

2. Global Surge in Demand -- The success triggered a wave of interest, with countries like Romania, Greece, and Germany accelerating purchases, boosting U.S. defense exports.

3. Massive Economic Benefit -- Lockheed Martin gains billions in new deals, creating thousands of American jobs and expanding the U.S. defense industrial base.

4. R&D and System Improvements -- Israeli combat experience helped identify and fix performance issues, saving the U.S. billions in research and development.

5. Strategic and Tactical Edge -- Insights from Israeli operations now inform U.S. Air Force tactics, improving readiness and increasing pilot survivability.

In short, this wasn’t just a success for Israel. It was also a major win for Lockheed Martin and the U.S. economy.

Catherine Herridge posts the Pentagon Assessment, which should put paid to media liars:

Pentagon Assessment Operation Midnight Hammer : Planned Over 15 Years #Iran

Chairman Joint Chiefs GEN Dan Caine @thejointstaff

 Strike at Fordow exploited two ventilation shafts

Days before, Iran tried to cover shafts with concrete cap

First US weapon removed concrete cap

Weapons 2, 3, 4, and 5 entered main shaft, traveling at 1000 feet per second  to Iran’s underground mission center

Weapon 6 “flex” capability

The “kill” mechanism was the combination of blast and overpressure on the target

Officer from DTRA (Defense Threat Reduction Agency) began the mission 15 years ago when the underground target was identified and the officer recognized the US did not have a weapon to counter it. 

Years of highly classified (likely special access program) development and testing followed.

Caine said he talked with the two DTRA officers who “lived this single target” for years. 

Post mission, they described hearts “ filled with pride to be a part of this.”

@SecDef  HEGSETH

Leaked DIA record was preliminary assessment and low confidence.     He accused some media of amplifying the report to create doubt, search for scandal, division and to “cheer against Trump”

NOTE: In the hierarchy of intel reports, a preliminary assessment with low confidence would not carry much weight.  It’s an early snapshot that concedes the picture will likely change as more intelligence is developed. 

IRAN RETALIATION

44 service members defended the Al Udeid base from Iran retaliatory strikes

Ranged in age from 28 year old captain to 21 year old private

Had “2 minutes to succeed or fail”

Single largest Patriot engagement in US history

GEN Caine “they absolutely crushed it”

BOMBER CREWS

Active Duty Air Force and Guard

said goodbye to their families Friday, not knowing the outcome, when they would return.

On Sunday, teams returned, tears flowed with families,  said it “felt like the Super Bowl”

You can bet that surveillance of Iranian efforts -- if any -- to reconstitute nuclear weapons is and will continue to be extensive, and the President has made clear that any such construction will be bombed again.

It was days after the ceasefire agreement before Iranian Ayatollah Khamenei was seen, and then he gave an utterly delusional account of events in which Iran was victorious, following which President Trump canceled all sanction relief for Iran. Reasonable analysis indicates the reins of power have shifted elsewhere to more rational Iranian actors (likely the military commanders) away from this lunatic.

Implications of this success -- besides the world understanding that we have a leader whose words have meaning and consequences -- are substantial for the entire Middle East, a focal point for decades of mushy-mouthed “foreign policy” gurus -- John F. Kerry comes to mind and, like Khamenei, he made a televised appearance this week, deserving the same back of the hand dismissal the Ayatollah now gets.

Immediately after the American attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, there was a quadruple phone call between US President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer.

President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu intend to quickly break into new peace agreements with Arab countries, as part of the expansion of the Abraham Accords.

The following principles were agreed upon in general lines:

The war in Gaza will end in two weeks. The termination conditions will include the entry of four Arab countries (including Egypt and the United Arab Emirates) that will manage the Gaza Strip in place of the murderous Hams terror organization. What is left of the Hams leadership will be exiled to other countries, and of course, the hostages will be released.

Several countries around the world are expected to absorb many residents of Gaza who wish to emigrate.

The Abraham Accords will be expanded: Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Arab and Muslim countries will recognize Israel and establish official relations with it.

Israel will express its willingness to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians in the future under the concept of "two states," and this is conditional on reforms in the Palestinian Authority.

The United States will recognize the application of some Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.

The Supreme Court

The Court issued three significant opinions this week: The first in a case involving birthright citizenship obliterated the Left’s obvious plan of hogtying the President through a series of nationwide injunctions in a few Democratic districts. The second enforced parental rights over the public school board’s insistence that parents could not exempt their kids from clearly pornographic and pro LGBT+ lessons. The third found constitutional a Texas law requiring porn sites to confirm the age (adulthood) of viewers.

All three cases are important, but the ruling against district court nationwide injunctions frees up the carrying out of the Trump agenda and rightfully has garnered the most attention.  Jeff Childers explains for those who are non-lawyers or who went to one of those There-Ought-to-be-a Law schools, which have in recent years replaced real ones: 

Let’s discuss what this decision is and what it isn’t.

It isn’t a ban on injunctions, per se. Activist lawyers can still haul their wife-beating illegal aliens into court and get temporary deportation relief for that criminal. But they can no longer get midnight orders on behalf of all the other illegal aliens around the country who aren’t parties to their lawsuits. One wonders whether it will be worth the effort in most cases.

They can still litigate the merits of their cases, seeking final decisions that a particular executive order or statute is unconstitutional -- but they can’t get it frozen nationwide while the case unfolds. Just frozen as to the specifically named parties.

Activists can also still seek to certify class actions. If they can certify a class -- and a slew of those types of emergency motions were filed yesterday in the wake of SCOTUS’s decision -- then they can still get a national injunction for their certified class, which in many ways is similar to a regular nationwide injunction.

The problem -- and the reason why they haven’t tried it so far -- is that class certification is much harder and more demanding even than getting a straight injunction.

In other words, certifying a class is more than double the effort. Now, the activist lawyers must both prove entitlement to an injunction and meet strict requirements for class certification. It almost certainly rules out after-hours temporary injunctions, since there’s no class yet at that early stage of the proceedings.

Naturally, efforts are underway by the Left immediately to fill friendly courts with class-action suits. Maybe the now chastised judges will be less amenable to ignoring the law.

A lot of attention has been focused on the unique, sharp criticism by Justice Amy Coney Barrett (Notre Dame) of the outrageously political and unreasoned dissenting opinion of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (Harvard). This is not a “cat fight” as some idiots have claimed. All six of the justices who signed on to the majority opinion signed on to this rebuke, something that Jonathan Turley summarized for those who do not want to read the whole opinion:

Liberals who claim “democracy is dying” seem to view democracy as getting what you want when you want it.

It was, therefore, distressing to see Jackson picking up on the “No Kings” theme, warning about drifting toward “a rule-of-kings governing system”

She said that limiting the power of individual judges to freeze the entire federal government was “enabling our collective demise. At the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutiae of the Government’s self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.”

The “minutiae” dismissed by Jackson happen to be the statutory and constitutional authority of federal courts. It is the minutiae that distinguish the rule of law from mere judicial impulse.

Justice Barrett clearly had had enough with the self-aggrandizing rhetoric. She delivered a haymaker in writing that “JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.” Ibid. That goes for judges too.”

She added, “We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

In other words, the danger to democracy is found in judges acting like kings. Barrett explained to her three liberal colleagues that “when a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”

The last term has laid bare some of the chilling jurisprudence of Justice Jackson, including a certain exasperation with having to closely follow the text of laws.  (In an earlier dissent this term, Jackson lashed out against the limits of textualism and argued for courts to free themselves from the confines -- or shall we say the “minutiae” -- of statutory language). In this opinion, Barrett slams Jackson for pursuing other diversions “because analyzing the governing statute involves boring ‘legalese.'” Again, what Jackson refers to as “legalese” is the heart of the judicial function in constraining courts under Article III.

Untethered by statutory or constitutional text, it allows the courts to float free from the limits of the Constitution.

For many, that is not an escape into minutiae but madness without clear lines for judicial power.

Any week in which good sense and rational, effective government prevails is a rare, much to be wished for one. And we just had two of them.



X22, And we Know, and more- June 30

 



Democrats: From ‘Woke’ To Broke


Democrats are worried that their party won’t be able to afford to even pay its employees through the end of the year, their donations have dried up so much. It couldn’t happen to a nicer group of people. They absolutely deserve every bit of it, and I will cheer so loudly if it happens that you’ll hear me do it, no matter where on the planet you are.

How did the party go from woke to broke? Easy, it’s right there in the question.

At no point in the last 10 years have Democrats found themselves on the positive side of an 80/20 issue – meaning one where 80 percent or more of the public are on the side the Democratic Party has taken. 

Think of it as puppies and kittens – people love puppies and kittens, even my dad, who claimed not to like cats, loved his some kittens. Democrats have come out against puppies and kittens, calling for all of them to be destroyed.

No sane person would do that, even if they hated puppies and kittens. If they did, they’d just not talk about it. But Democrats can’t shut up about their hatred of puppies and kittens and how they want to wipe them all out.

On the trans issue, do you really think they support the idea of sterilizing and mutilating the genitals of children? Some do, sure, but the vast majority likely see it as insane and sick, as we in the 80 percent do. But Democrats are ruled by their fringe now, it’s where all of the party’s energy is – Joe Biden’s presidency did that much damage to the entire Left-Wing Industrial Complex – that standing up for what is right is the equivalent of swallowing a bunch of hemlock.

Political suicide used to be committed on an individual basis, but the Democratic Party has turned into Jonestown as they are all set to Thelma and Louise the party over the edge of the cliff. I don’t know about you, but I’m enjoying the show.

Every time an AOC or Jasmine Crockett speaks, they dig a deeper hole. Their districts, and the districts of all the Goon Squad members, are so gerrymandered that there is literally nothing they can do to lose, except maybe something pro-American. Ilhan Omar was married to her brother to commit immigration fraud (at least that’s why I hope she was married to her brother, but you never know) and took a million dollars from her campaign funds (which she didn’t need to raise because her district is so fixed) and gave it to her current husband (number 3, as she is the most sexually liberated female practitioner of Islam on the planet, apparently) for “consulting.” If she’d put the money into her own pocket, that would be a crime. Pay her husband for “consulting,” and he puts it in their joint bank account, and it’s perfectly legal corruption.

Yet, she wins in a landslide, every single time. 

They all do. There is no consequence for Democrats taking unpopular and radical positions in their districts; it just solidifies their support. A small group of mutants, distributed throughout the various states and gerrymandered into districts designed to elect Democrats, can swing dozens of seats to their side. 

Thankfully, they appear to have reached their maximum potential at this point, and the financial issue isn’t likely to improve it.

Where are the sane voices? Pennsylvania. I probably shouldn’t have pluralized it; there’s one sane voice on the left, and that’s John Fetterman.

Fetterman is a very left-wing guy, but he recognizes the insanity of supporting terrorists over the American military and Israel. He’s uncomfortable hearing about how they need to finish the job Hitler started, chanting on college campuses, and he has the balls to say so. He’s also spoken out against an open border and his Democrat colleagues embracing violent criminal illegal aliens as martyrs while ignoring the American victims of their crimes. He’s right on both, and he’s hated by Democrats for both, too.

When he ran, he was a hero to the left; they circled the wagons around him to protect him from scrutiny when he could barely speak from his stroke. Now, they want to silence him.

What does it say about a political party that the only sane voice in it is the person who verifiably suffered brain damage? It means they don’t want you to think about the damage all the other brains have suffered.

Democrats have gone from woke to broke because they’re too afraid of their own voters to speak the truth. Good, let them go broke, and let them rot. It couldn’t happen to a nicer, more deserving group of people.



The Democrat We Conservatives Need to Worry About in 2028


Between the economy booming, illegal aliens being punted back over the border, and Iran getting neutered like some kid named Kaden whose wine woman Munchausen mommy needs attention, as well as the president not being a senile eggplant, the future looks good for the Republicans in 2028. Obviously, JD Vance is the GOP frontrunner, but we’ve got an amazing bench – Ron DeSantis, Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio, and more. It’s an embarrassment of riches. In contrast, the Democrats are generally just an embarrassment – though, in fairness, most of the people who run the party are rich.

The Democrats have real problems with their prime candidates because most of them are simply terrible. I’m not worried about any of them. Would you be?

Maybe Kamala Harris will try again. No, stop laughing. I’m serious! America could forget how awful she was – if America was as senile as Joe Biden.

Perhaps Chris Murphy? The only thing he’s famous for is being the Connecticut Democrat who didn’t claim to win the Tet Offensive all by himself. But don’t worry; on social media, he has been very offensive. His contempt for us is limitless. That will probably help him in the Democrat primary, but he’s going to need some votes from some of the people he hates should he get to the general.

How about Chris van Hollen? Well, Chris, if you want to be hit with $100 million of ads showing you having margaritas with an illegal alien human-trafficking, wife-beating child sex pest, go ahead and run. Those do sound like key Democrat constituencies, so give it a shot; JD will be measuring the drapes.

How about AOC? Nah. Maybe some America is ready for a loudmouth commie like her, but that America doesn’t exist in this dimension. 

There’s always Amy Klobuchar. At least our enemies will fear her throwing a stapler at them. 

Maybe Gretchen Whitmer (Governor-Stepford), if you imagine the American people want to spend four years being told to use their inside voices.

Josh Shapiro? He’d make a good candidate in the general, but he’d have to get through the primary, and he’s got a problem. He’s Jewish, and the Democrat base hates Jews. You know, because of tolerance.  

Gavin Newsom? No. Just no.

Pete Buttigieg? Leaving aside that he’s terrible and a pinko, he gives off the vibe of that kid who reminds the teacher on Friday afternoon just before the bell rings that she forgot to give the class its homework assignment.

JB Pritzker? Fat chance.

No, it’s not a very exciting field. It certainly doesn’t terrify me. But there is one guy who worries me. There’s one guy who’s doing things differently, who seems to be aiming for the empty “I’m not crazy and I don’t hate you” lane to the nomination.

It’s Representative Ro Khanna from California, specifically Silicon Valley.

Perhaps you haven’t heard of him yet, but if he has his way, you will. The guy is intensely ambitious. He’s a Yale lawyer from back before Yale Law School became a communist joke. He is wired into the tech world (a bunch of big tech companies are in his district). He can also speak in coherent sentences. He tells a powerful story as the son of legal immigrants. He’s got the résumé, but he’s also got the drive. He ran and ran and ran until he finally won an election to Congress against a long-term congressman. And he won’t admit it outright, but he’s got his eyes set on the White House.

I became familiar with him by listening to the Hugh Hewitt Show here on Salem, and when I recently guest-hosted for Hugh, I asked our booker to reach out and see if he would come on. I didn’t expect he would. After all, I am me. But he did. And he was really, really good. It pains me to admit it, but the guy has talent. And we should be, if not worried, concerned.

His politics are straight-up California Democrat. He’s pro-abortion, pro-trans, and very left-wing about economics despite the total failure of left-wing economics. He was Big Mad over bombing Iran. If all you were talking about were his preferred policies, he’d be interchangeable with any number of progressive CongressBots. But you know what distinguishes him?

He doesn’t seem to hate us. 

We conservatives are the ultimate political cheap dates. You could be the pinkest of pinkos, and if you don’t treat us like members of the Third Reich, we’re going to at least politely hear you out. But if you have contempt for us, you’re going to make us mad, and when we get mad, we campaign hard. Trump supporters despised Hillary Clinton because she despised us. We despised Joe Biden because he despised us. We despised Kamala Harris because she despised us. They made no bones about it – they were going to hurt us in any way they could once they obtained power. Look at what Joe Biden did. He waged war on us, totally weaponizing the government against us. Defeating them was not just an aesthetic choice but a matter of survival.

But this guy doesn’t give that vibe, and he makes it hard to dislike him. Ro Khanna came on an unashamedly right-wing show with an unashamedly bomb-throwing right-wing guest host without a hint of fear or malice, explaining that he believes he should be challenged by our ideas. Whoa. The last time I challenged somebody on a left-wing show was December 22, 2015, the day Don Lemon kicked me off his show for being insufficiently respectful to Hillary Clinton (I mentioned that her husband used his intern as a humidor); this was also the last time I appeared on CNN. But he wasn’t afraid to give me answers even when I might not like them. No sugarcoating it – speaking as a guy who talked to juries for a living, that directness and candor can be compelling.

He easily gets over the low bar of not appearing to hate us. Khanna does not give you the impression that he believes that, because of your conservatism, you should be disenfranchised, enslaved, or murdered. He doesn’t go in for the MSNBC blood libel stuff. Instead, he’s open and sincere, and he sounds reasonable, though I need to emphasize that on policy, it’s all commie nonsense.

And he does something else that I appreciate as a citizen, as an interviewer, and especially as a lawyer. He actually answers the questions you ask him. I asked him about what policies would make a conservative like me consider him. He emphasized that he is a big defender of free speech and an opponent of cancel culture. We’ll have to see how far that goes, but he doesn’t immediately label anyone who disagrees with him as a purveyor of disinformation. That’s definitely an improvement.

Then I asked him which of his policies I wouldn’t like. He told me about his economic policies, and no, I did not like them. But he answered my question clearly. That puts him ahead of about 95 percent of politicians.

Now, none of us hardcore conservatives are going to vote for him. He just released a tax proposal aimed at achieving a balanced budget, which includes a tax on unrealized gains, the end of stepped-up basis for estates, significant marginal rate increases, and a range of other insane measures. His budget proposal doesn’t account for his other major proposal, which is socialized medicine, nor does it take into consideration of the lost revenue when the economy tanks due to his tax increases. He’s not going to be with us on guns. He’s not going to be with us on defeating our enemies overseas. He certainly is not going to be with us on shipping home every single illegal alien. 

But again, he doesn’t seem to hate us, and he doesn’t come across as a lunatic. Like John Fetterman, another Democrat who is unrepentantly progressive yet doesn’t seem to hate our guts, his advantage is that he’s not going to make us angry. We’re not going to vote for him, but we might not get so mad that we turn out in full force to vote against him. Perhaps we won’t be motivated because he doesn’t seem like a bad person, even though he’d be a terrible, terrible president because of his left-wing policies.

Does he have a chance of winning the Democratic nomination? He’s smart and ambitious. He famously refuses to accept any PAC or corporate money, but his explanation of how he would raise money seemed like a lot of wishcasting. Still, his real problem in the primary will be the same thing that could make him dangerous in the general election. He doesn’t seem to hate our guts, and I’m not convinced that any Democrat who doesn’t hate our guts can ever be nominated.



🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


New Satellite Images Show Iranians Feverishly Trying to Clean Up the Mess at Fordow Nuclear Site


Bob Hoge reporting for RedState 

There has been much discussion and conflicting opinions on how much damage the U.S. “Operation Midnight Hammer” strikes did to Iran’s nuclear facilities, especially the underground site Fordow. President Trump and his team claim that the 14 bunker-busting bombs destroyed the place and left it inoperable, while the mainstream media has been working aggressively to say the attacks only set Iran’s nuclear dreams back by a few months.

Now there is fresh evidence that the late-night B-2 stealth bomber-led strikes caused plenty of destruction, and the Iranians are already trying to clean it up:

The rest of the tweet from independent journalist Catherine Herridge in full:

“…new high-resolution satellite imagery today (June 29th) that reveals ongoing activity at and near the ventilation shafts and holes caused by last week’s airstrikes on the Fordow fuel enrichment complex in Iran.

On today’s imagery, an excavator and several personnel are positioned immediately next to the northern shaft on the ridge above the underground complex.

The crane appears to be operating at the entrance to the shaft/hole. Several additional vehicles are also seen below the ridge and are parked along the access path that was built to access the site.”

I think we should tell the Iranians to get their equipment out of there right now or else we’ll blow it up too, but hey, I’m not in charge. 

The strikes were meant to prevent the Islamic Republic from making a nuclear weapon, and even if the exact amount of devastation to Fordow is not known, it’s clear that there was plenty of pain inflicted:

The Fordow site, which is buried within a mountain near Qom, about 60 miles southwest of Tehran, was bombed by the U.S. on June 22, resulting in six prominent craters and a noticeable spread of grey debris, according to satellite photos.

On the following day, Israel confirmed it had conducted a second strike on Fordow, specifically targeting the roads leading to the facility. Iranian officials later acknowledged this attack.

Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters during a Pentagon briefing last Sunday that while all three Iranian nuclear sites targeted in the strike "sustained extremely severe damage and destruction," the full damage would take time to assess.

The $64,000 question now becomes, if the Iranians are successful in clearing the tunnels, will they find anything down there that hasn’t been blown to smithereens? I'm betting they'll find a hellscape waiting for them, and if so, they certainly won't admit it. 

Even if they did discover some functioning machinery, who would ever feel safe operating it? After all, the U.S. could always make a return visit.



IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi Explains “Comprehensive Damage” to Iran Nuclear Ambitions


Something lost amid the ‘western’ discussion of the issues with Iran and their nuclear ambitions, relates to the age of the current governing class of the Ayatollah and mullahs (assembly of experts).  Ali Khamenei is 86-years old, in unknown current health condition and has served as the Supreme Leader since 1989. He is somewhat of a ‘wizard of oz’ like caricature in the system.

Many people have begun to ponder if the reason why Iran refuses direct negotiations or contact with any foreign government, is related to the incapacity of Ali Khamenei. Is he technically in charge, or is he Bidenesque in capacity?

Within this interview, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi, talks about the severity of the airstrikes carried out by the U.S and Israel, along with the consequential damage done to ability of Iran to continue developing nuclear weapons. WATCH:



[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: And we go now to the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, or the IAEA. Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi, welcome to the program.

DIRECTOR GENERAL RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: Thank you very much, Margaret. Good to talk to you again.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Director General, there is so much happening. I’m hoping you can walk us through what you know. Iran’s foreign minister has said that the damage to their nuclear facilities from the U.S. bombing is significant and serious. We know Israel has also killed a number of top Iranian nuclear scientists. What exactly is Iran’s capability at this moment?

DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: Well, yes, and I think you can pick and choose any adjective to characterize this, but you will see that there is an agreement in describing this as a very serious level of damage. It can be, you know, described in different ways, but it’s clear that what happened in particular in Fordo, Natanz, Isfahan, where Iran used to have and still has, to some degree, capabilities in terms of treatment, conversion and enrichment of uranium have been destroyed to an important degree. Some is still standing. So there is, of course, an important setback in terms of those- of those capabilities. This is- this is clear. And now the important issue- the important thing is, what are the next steps? Now the characterization of the damage, I think we can, you know, speculate, and still, until, of course, the Iranians themselves will have to go there and sift through the, you know, rubble and look at what is the exact degree of the damage. At some point, the IAEA will have to return. Although our job is not to assess damage, but to re-establish the knowledge of the activities that take place there, and the access to the material, which is very, very important, the material that they will be producing if they continue with this activity. This is contingent on other, you see, everything is connected. This is- this is contingent on negotiations which may or may not restart, so- so what we see this here, I think we have a snapshot of- of- of a program which has been very seriously damaged, to quote Dr. Araghchi. And now what we need to focus on is on the next steps.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You mentioned there diplomacy. President Trump has been calling for diplomatic talks with Iran to settle all the issues around the nuclear program. I know you were in regular contact with envoy Steve Witkoff. Are you talking to him now? Will the IAEA be involved in any agreement?

DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: Well, at some point we will have to be, because if his efforts, which I support wholeheartedly, succeed, this will come to a point where there is some agreement, some understanding on things that Iran will continue doing, and some things where there could be an agreement on certain restrictions. And of course, who is going to verify that is the IAEA so this is why we’re in constant contact. Now they need to reconnect. And it’s not going to be easy, one can imagine, after the traumatic events that took place. Even for us, you may have seen that I wrote to Foreign Minister Araghchi a few days ago, immediately, I would say, after the cease-fire was considered to be holding, and I said to him that we should perhaps sit down and analyze in a gradual way the reconnection, the modalities for the inspectors to go- to go back. So there is a level where the IAEA is not involved, and this is the direct conversation. What is the deal? And then, of course, we will be connecting to make sure that that deal stands and it’s verifiable.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But to that point, Tehran just passed a law saying they want to suspend cooperation with the IAEA inspectors. The foreign minister said he had no plans to let you personally, Mr. Director General, into the country. Does that mean Iran will completely block all inspectors? Do those you already have in the country have any access?

GROSSI: Well, certainly I hope this is not the case. I think that what the foreign minister said is that they were looking into this law and how this law would impact our activities. I think it’s time- this is why it’s so important that we sit down around the table and we look into this. Iran- and I think nobody has put that in question, and I hope nobody will, is a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, like more than 190 countries in the world. So- so, that implies that they have to work with the- with the agency. So we have to go- we have been going through this law that they have, that the Majles approved, and we see that they are talking about cooperation on the basis of- of the security and the safety of their sites. I think that is not incompatible with the inspection work that needs to take place. But of course, it’s not Rafael Grossi and Margaret Brennan discussing this that we are going to solve it. I think we- I have to sit down with- with- with Iran and look into this, because at the end of the day, this whole thing, after the military strikes, will have to have a long lasting solution, which cannot be but a diplomatic one.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So they’re not kicking- they’re not kicking out your inspectors at this point?

DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: Not in this sense. I would not say that I am looking with interest and with some concern what they have approved. But of course, it’s their law. It is their parliament. But you know, here there are legal implications. An international treaty, of course, takes precedence. You cannot invoke an internal law not to abide with an international treaty. But Iran is not saying that at the moment, and I think this is constructive. So this is why I think we have to go down into the details, because the work will have to continue, otherwise nobody will have an idea of what is happening in Iran. Iran will continue with a nuclear program, the contours of which are still to be seen and will be I am sure, part of these negotiations, which I hope, will be resuming soon.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Iran officially reported weeks ago that they were going to take measures in advance of these strikes to try to protect their nuclear assets. Did they share with the IAEA what those plans were? Where they were going to stash things like centrifuges, the machines that help enrich fuel? Where they were going to put the gas canisters that have enriched uranium?

DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: No, no, they did not inform that- that to us, but at the same time, there was no physical time, perhaps, to do it. Iran, for example, had announced to us that they had a new enrichment facility in Isfahan, and we were going to go on the 13th of June to- to check on that facility so that- and the site has been severely damaged and hit. So this is why I say it is indispensable. We will have to, aggravation or not, feelings and emotions or not, there has to come a point with- with cool heads. We sit around the table and- and see what- I mean, these protective measures, of course, it’s their right to protect their assets, like any other sovereign nation. They can, of course, protect- but they know and there are, I don’t want to get too technical or legalese here in this conversation, but there are provisions in the agreements we have, not only with Iran, with any- with any country. If a country at a- at a moment, feels that some of the things we inspect must be protected or whatever, they have to tell us, and we have to go, etc., etc., as you can imagine. So, this could not happen because of the unfolding of the circumstances, of a military conflict where, of course, you know, decisions are taken and this is not planned or announced, obviously. So now- now it’s the time to reconnect and to talk and to talk to each other.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah, but there was roughly 400 kilograms, which is just under 900 pounds, of highly enriched uranium, before the attacks. I know these are in small canisters and relatively easy to move. Do you have any idea where that was moved, and if it was moved before the attack?

DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: We presume, and I think it’s- it’s logical to presume that when they announce that they are going to be taking protective measures, this could be part of it. But, as I said, we don’t know where this material could be, or if part of it could have been, you know, under the attack during those 12 days. So some could have been destroyed as part of the attack, but some could have been moved. So there has to be at some point a clarification. If we don’t get that clarification, this will continue to be hanging, you know, over our heads as- as a potential problem. So this is why I say it’s so important, first of all, for Iran to allow our inspectors to continue their indispensable work as soon as possible.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I ask you about what things might still remain, because there’s that open question of could Iran sprint towards a bomb even now, if they wanted to. If we don’t know where the highly enriched uranium is and cannot account for all the centrifuges, is that still a risk that they could be rushing towards a bomb?

DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: Well, you know, I- we don’t want to be alarmists here, and I don’t want to be part of, you know, a messaging that would be spreading, as I say, alarm. But we need to be in a position to ascertain, to confirm what is there, and where is it and what happened. Iran had a very vast ambitious program, and part of it may still be there, and if not, there is also the self-evident truth that the knowledge is there. The industrial capacity is there. Iran is a very sophisticated country in terms of nuclear technology, as is obvious. So you cannot disinvent this. You cannot undo the knowledge that you have or the capacities that you have. It’s a huge country, isn’t it? So I think this should be the incentive that we all must have to understand that military operations or not, you are not going to solve this in a definitive way militarily. You are going to have an agreement. You are going to have an inspection system that will give everybody, everybody in the region and- and- and elsewhere, the assurances that we can- we can definitely turn the page.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So up until right before the strikes, the IAEA still had inspectors, as I understand it, going to some of these sites. There’s been a lot of focus here in America on the trucks and satellite images of them outside of Fordo. What was happening in those days before the strike?

DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: Well, as- as you were pointing out there were- there was an announcement of protective measures that could have included moving equipment and material. We don’t know. We saw the same images that the whole world has seen of these trucks, and we don’t want to get into any rush conclusion about it, but it is, it is clear that we need the things that we ignore, okay. And after a reasonable period, after the war, there has to be a process that needs to continue. Otherwise the uncertainties will continue, will continue to linger on. And this is, you know, in a final analysis, not good, and perhaps even preventing a good agreement, because who is going to have an agreement where you don’t know what the counterpart really has? What are the assets that they really have after the- after this- this- this military campaign that took place.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So up until these strikes Iran- Iran was still disclosing information to the IAEA–

DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: –Well yes, yes, yes, yes–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –-In certain amounts–

DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: There were deficits. There were deficits, and we were referring to those in the- in the sense that there were some things that they were not clarifying to us. But our inspection work was- was constant. In particular, in this sensitive area of the number of centrifuges and the amount of material, we had perfect view. We didn’t have view on other things that we wanted to have. But on this one, it was- it was complete. It was comprehensive. And, of course, at the moment, there is- there is nothing.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, Iran wasn’t keeping its stockpile of enriched uranium secret. The world was concerned–

DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: –No–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –You said you were concerned about it. What do you think it was intended for? And did you see anything that suggested they were looking to weaponize?

DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: They- let me be clear here, because we said, first of all, something very, very important. They have all these capabilities, but for the agency, they- first of all, they didn’t have nuclear weapons. Okay? This needs to be said. One can have an assessment nationally that they were close, okay? And I don’t get into that, because we, the IAEA, does not judge intentions. The IAEA looks at the activities of a country and reports it to the world. So it is countries that- that say, well, this is of concern or not. What we were concerning- what- what I was concerned about is that there were other things that were not clear. For example, we had found traces of uranium in some places in Iran, which were not the normal declared facilities. And we were asking for years, why did we find these traces of enriched uranium in place x, y or z? And we were simply not getting credible answers. If there was material- where is this material? So there could be even more. We don’t know. This is why it is, I’m sorry I’m repeating it for the third time, I think we need to go back.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Understood, understood. But your statement and that report that you gave about some of these open questions or unanswered questions, the Iranians are pointing to it now, and the foreign minister seems to be sort of blaming you for the military strikes. He said it wasn’t honest and fair, your report. He said, after the facilities, you didn’t even condemn the strikes- after the strikes, I should say. What do you make of those criticisms?

DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: Well- I, to an extent, I understand. They have been under attack. But, really, who can believe that this conflict happened because of a report of the IAEA? And, by the way, what was- what was in that report was not new, Margaret. We have been saying that for a long time, and in previous reports as well. So, this- maybe it’s because it’s easier, maybe, to criticize an international organization or a director general, I don’t know, but it’s not reasonable to say that. And, if anything, the IAEA, as always, has had a very honest assessment of the situation. And there were many, I can assure you, there were many that- that were saying in your report, you must say that they have nuclear weapons, or they are very close to have nuclear weapons. And we didn’t. We simply didn’t, because this was not what we were seeing.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you also said you couldn’t verify that it was a peaceful program.

DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: Absolutely, because we have to see everything.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.

DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: They did- we didn’t see them. We didn’t see a program that was aiming in that direction, but at the same time, they were not answering very, very important questions that were pending. So this is- this is the truth.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And I appreciate the nuance here, because there’s so much gray. People here are looking for clarity, and there’s confusion in the United States. CBS is reporting that the Defense Intelligence Agency assesses Iran’s program was set back a few months, but once they dig out, they could resume in a number of months. They have to rebuild electrical and water supplies. The CIA and the National Intelligence directors say the facilities were destroyed, and it would take years to rebuild. Israel says the military program is set back many years. What’s the truth here? What do you make of these assessments?

DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: You know- you know what, this hourglass approach in weapons of mass destruction is- is not a good idea. Remember, we had cases 45 minutes and so on, which were quite- quite off spot. All of that depends on your metrics, Margaret. If you tell me it will take them two months or three months, for what?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: The capacities they have are there. They can have, you know, in a matter of months, I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium, or less than that. But as I said, frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there.

Because, first of all, as I- and I think the intelligence- we are not there making any military evaluations, first of all, but, out of the logic of our conversation, it is clear that there has been severe damage, but it’s not total damage, first of all. And secondly, Iran has the capacities there; industrial and technological capacities. So if they so wish, they will be able to start doing this again. This is again- and I’m sorry, fourth time, we have to go back to the table and have a technically sound solution to this. Otherwise, this will come hit us again, in terms of a situation which is not well clarified. And this is an opportunity. We do have an opportunity now.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Understood, and we will see if that opportunity is picked up by either side. Director General, thank you for your time today.

DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: Thank you, as always, a pleasure. Thank you very much.

[End Transcript]