'This Week' Transcript 6-22-25: Vice President of the United States JD Vance, Sen. Tom Cotton & Rep. Jim Himes

A rush transcript of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" airing on Sunday, June 22, 2025 on ABC News is below. This copy may not be in its final form, may be updated and may contain minor transcription errors. For previous show transcripts, visit the "This Week" transcript archive.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JONATHAN KARL, ABC "THIS WEEK" CO-ANCHOR: Good morning from Washington.

Stunning developments last night as American warplanes attack Iran's nuclear program. A special edition of THIS WEEK starts right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The U.S. military carried out massive precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime.

KARL: President Trump brings America directly into Israel's conflict with Iran.

TRUMP: Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.

KARL: With fears of a wider war, the president warns Iran not to retaliate.

TRUMP: There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days.

KARL: This morning, Vice President J.D. Vance and Intelligence Committee leaders Senator Tom Cotton and Congressman Jim Himes on all the fallout as the United States gets pulled deeper into conflict in the Middle East.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: From ABC News, this is a special edition of THIS WEEK, “The U.S. Strikes Iran."

Here now, Jonathan Karl.

KARL: Good morning. Welcome to THIS WEEK.

It's the most consequential and high-risk decision Donald Trump has ever made. The man who told the world in his inaugural address that he would measure success by the wars he ended, and, more importantly, by the wars he never got into, has launched a major military strike on Iran.

The big question this morning, did the president's actions effectively end a long-simmering conflict with Iran that has been going on since 1979, or did he just get America into a major new war in the Middle East?

The president met with his national security team in the Situation Room last night as the attacks were underway. Massive attacks featuring more than 125 U.S. aircraft, including B-2 bombers that dropped a number of massive ordnance penetrator bombs during their mission over Iran, directly targeting three of Iran's key nuclear sites and a number of Tomahawk cruise missiles were also fired at targets inside Iran from a U.S. Navy submarine.

Not long after the bombs fell, I called President Trump's cell phone. He answered, telling me the mission was, quote, “a tremendous success.” Not long after that, he gave his address to the nation claiming mission accomplished.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KARL: My guests this morning, Vice President J.D. Vance. We'll also talk to the Republican chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who applauded the president's decision, and the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who has grave concerns about what just happened and what is to come.

But first, we have team coverage from our reporters around the world.

We begin with White House correspondent Mary Bruce.

So, Mary, the president clearly took a big gamble last night, betting that the United States could destroy Iran's nuclear program without getting -- drawn into a long, drawn-out conflict in the Middle East.

MARY BRUCE, ABC NEWS CHIEF FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jon, look, there is no question this morning this is absolutely the largest and potentially most dangerous risk and gamble of Trump's presidency. He is betting that the U.S. can destroy Iran's nuclear program and capabilities without dragging America into yet another long, drawn-out conflict in the Middle East, something he has promised Americans he would avoid.

Trump has long vowed to end wars, not start them, but he has also long promised that Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Now, last night, the president came out here at the White House and declared that this mission was a success. He said that Iran, quote, must now make peace, believing this will somehow push Tehran to finally make a deal and negotiate.

But if they don't agree to peace on Trump's terms, he warned that future attacks will be, quote, “far greater and a lot easier,” saying there are many targets left and promising to go after them with precision, speed, and skill.

Now, what comes next is unknown. Should Iran strike back, this could escalate very quickly. And it remains to be seen, ultimately, what impact this will have on Iran's nuclear program, whether these strikes have destroyed their chances to rebuild, Jon.

KARL: And, Mary, just -- just quickly, what do we know about the president's decision-making here? He had set a two-week deadline. He had set a two-week deadline. He had said he wanted diplomacy. What caused this to happen so quickly?

BRUCE: Yes, it's a very good question. The president, for weeks, was pushing for a diplomatic solution. He had given himself two weeks to make the decision, trying to give diplomacy one last chance. Instead, he took just two days to make this decision.

It was just on Thursday that the president said that there was a substantial chance for negotiations. At the time I pressed the White House on -- on why he believed that, what progress was he seeing, and they wouldn't say. So, it's still not clear what exactly changed, what led the president to decide that diplomacy was dead and that he had to strike. Or, Jon, was this all just a head fake to give the U.S. cover to go ahead and bomb Iran.

KARL: All right, Mary, thank you.

Let's go to our chief foreign correspondent, Ian Pannell, in Tel Aviv.

Ian, we saw the first Iranian response was a barrage was missiles targeting Israel, but Iranian officials have declared that America's actions will have everlasting consequences, the implication towards America.

IAN PANNELL, ABC NEWS CHIEF FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps saying that there will be a huge response. Also adding that the situation for American military bases and the vulnerability has just doubled.

Now, we heard the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff earlier saying that force protection measures had been put into place proactively, but the -- the role model, if you like, that we have was the assassination by Donald Trump during his first presidency against General Soleimani, who was the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Crops. He was taken out, and Iran did respond. It attacked U.S. bases in the region.

However, we've heard, again, explicitly warnings from Defense Secretary Hegseth, from President Trump and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, that any action by Iran will be met by a much stronger reaction from the United States. But, of course, this need not necessarily be conventional from Iran. It has proxies in the region, albeit weakened through Israeli action over the last 20 months or so. You have Hezbollah in Lebanon. You have the Houthi rebels, who are potentially capable of targeting U.S. assets, going through the Persian Gulf, and you also have the popular mobilization units. These are the pro-Iranian militias who are very active, very powerful inside Iraq. I think it's unlikely that there won't be a response, but is it enough to then trigger a further reaction from the U.S.?

One other thing I think is worth bearing in mind, the president and the defense secretary declaring that this has been a huge success. We have to wait and see for the battlefield damage assessment to take place. That will take a certain amount of time.

Israel saying this morning that it is looking at how successful it was. And I think potentially worrying for the United States are these satellite images that have now emerged of trucks gathered at the Fordow underground nuclear site on the 19th and 20th of this month. So, just two days before. What were they doing? Were they extracting material from the Fordow site, and will that have an impact on that battlefield damage assessment?

Jon.

KARL: All right, Ian, thank you very much.

Just before we came on the air, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs chairman briefed reporters at the Pentagon on the American strikes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. DAN CAINE, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF CHAIRMAN: More than 125 U.S. aircraft participated in this mission, including B-2 stealth bombers.

This was the largest B-2 operational strike in U.S. history, and the second longest B-2 mission ever flown, exceeded only by those in the days following 9/11.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KARL: That was Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Caine.

Senior political correspondent Rachel Scott now joins us.

And, Rachel, that press conference underscored that this was a really complex and high-risk mission.

RACHEL SCOTT, ABC NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: A complex, high-risk mission known as “Operation Midnight Hammer.” An 18-hour flight carried out under the cover of darkness. A highly classified, top-secret mission that only a handful of U.S. officials even knew about, that was shrouded not only in secrecy but also full of deception, decoy and fighters. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth saying that they spent months and weeks positioning the United States so that they could be prepared when the president gave the green light. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs saying that in a matter of weeks they went from strategic planning to global execution, that the bombers were deployed over the Pacific as a decoy, part of that deception effort. Hegseth saying the B-2s then went in the opposite direction, in and out, and back without the world knowing.

Now, forces now remaining on high alert, ready to respond to any attacks, which the chairman of the Joint Chiefs have said would be a very poor decision. Hegseth says that the fact that those fighters went undetected for so long on Iranian skies should serving as a warning and Iran should take that into their calculation as they figure out how they are going to respond, Jon.

KARL: And, Rachel, on Capitol Hill, we see Republicans almost unanimously praising the president. Democrats raising alarm. In fact, Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer suggesting that the president did not have the authority to do this.

SCOTT: He says the president did not have the authority. He is now urging Senate Majority Leader John Thune to put some legislation on the floor as early as this week to serve as a check to the president's military power.

Democrats expressing concern here, particularly over the fact that we are learning from sources that they were only notified without really getting any full details.

Now, I'm told that Republican leaders, Speaker Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, as well as Majority Leader John Thune were, in fact, briefed, and as you said, Jon, Republicans now rallying behind the president after he decided to move forward with these strikes.

KARL: All right. Rachel Scott on the North Lawn, thank you very much.

Let's dig into how the United States pulled this off. We have Colonel Steve Ganyard here, ABC contributor.

So, Steve, what do you know? What have you learned this morning about the extent of this operation?

COL. STEVE GANYARD, U.S. MARINE CORPS (RET.), ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I think just how big and extraordinary it was, 125 aircraft as you noted. So those 125 aircraft also came from a place that we didn't know. So, on Friday, we thought that these -- all these B-2s were taking off and they were heading to Guam, going out over the Pacific.

So, there were selective leaks that yeah, look at what's going on over the Pacific when in reality these aircraft took off and flew east, over the Atlantic, across the Mediterranean to conduct their attack.

So complete operational surprise, complete operational security that allowed this attack to go without being noticed by the Iranians.

KARL: And this was an overwhelming attack. I mean, this was not a pinprick operation on a few nuclear sites.

GANYARD: It was. And the fact here that we had three separate sites -- so we know that the B-2 had to be used because it's the only aircraft that could drop this massive ordnance penetrator. So, we know that buried sites 200 to 300 feet underground at Fordow, six aircraft here.

We also believe that one went down to Natanz because there is one area around Natanz that may have a buried site.

Then there were 30 Tomahawk missiles launched against Natanz and Isfahan sites on the surface.

So, we'll have to see what -- how effective they were, but we're already getting some images -- some satellite images that show very precise pinpricks into the mountain in Fordow that would suggest that the mission was successful.

KARL: Yeah. It's 300 feet below ground if you start -- if you count from the bottom of the mountain. But it's beneath a mountain, it's really a half a mile underground if you -- if you measure from the top of that mountain.

The president claims that Fordow was completely -- they were all totally completely obliterated. Is there any way to know that? Any doubt about that this morning?

GANYARD: We've seen some imagery from satellites that suggests that it was successful. But that's 14 ord -- 14 MOPs going into a single site, seven B-2s, an extraordinary amount of firepower.

But we will have to wait to see what the satellites tell us. We also know that there -- Israelis have drones. We probably have drones on the -- over the area as well.

And because Mossad has been operating with impunity within Iran, perhaps the Israelis will get some eyes on in person close to the Fordow site.

KARL: All right. Iran's vowing revenge. What do we know about what capabilities they still have to attack the United States?

GANYARD: We know that the Israelis have degraded these long-range missiles that can attack Israel, but they still have thousands of these shorter range missiles that could go after sites in Saudi Arabia, U.S. sites in Qatar. And so, we're concerned about bringing in some of those gulf states and attacking U.S. forces. We are also concerned about the Strait of Hormuz.

So, we know down here, there's a four-mile channel where 20 percent of the world's oil and a third of all the liquid natural gas transits on a daily basis. You take that off the markets, and you're going to see markets react around the world, and it could push some countries into recession within days.

KARL: So, I -- the big question with that possibility, the president vowing retaliation if that happens, are we seeing the beginning of a long, protracted war in the Middle East? That's the big question this morning.

GANYARD: The Iranians have a choice to make, Jon, do they come back at the U.S., which would probably mean that the U.S. is going to join the Israelis in a broader conflict or more attacks on Iran, or do they go after some of these other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, which would pull those countries in and maybe the U.N.?

So, the Israelis -- or the Iranians could either say, we're going to continue to get pounded by the Israelis and not retaliate against the U.S., or we're going to make it into a broader conflict that will turn it into an international incident.

KARL: All right. Colonel Steve Ganyard, thank you.

Let's get the -- more on the homeland security posture here with those Iranian threats. We're joined now by chief justice correspondent Pierre Thomas.

So, Pierre, a lot of Americans are wondering, what is the danger now that Iran somehow strikes the American homeland?

PIERRE THOMAS, ABC NEWS CHIEF JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Jon, Iran does have capabilities that could impact Americans here at home. One of the most immediate concern is the threat of cyberattacks by Iran or hackers tied to Iran's proxies.

In the days right after Israel began its recent attacks on Iran, the Department of Homeland Security issued an urgent bulletin. And I'd like to read some of what it said. “The Iranian government affiliated cyber actors will probably prioritize retaliatory attacks against Israeli targets in the short term but may also target U.S. networks due to their perception of U.S. support for Israeli strikes.” The networks mentioned involve U.S. infrastructure, the energy sector, the electrical grid, financial sector. The bulletin urged infrastructure officials to immediately assess their security to make sure their defenses were strong enough to block any malicious activity by Iran.

And U.S. authorities also have been focused on whether Iran has operatives within the United States who commit acts of terror. In recent years, DOJ has prosecuted a number of operatives allegedly acting at the direction of Iranian officials, including some plotting acts of violence. And, of course, now there's concerns that extremists, infuriated by the U.S. attack on a Muslim country, might launch lone wolf attacks on their own. And today, Jon, D.C. police on high alert, maintaining stepped-up security at Jewish installations and houses of worship, although they have identified no specific, credible threats.

KARL: You certainly get a sense of that stepped-up state of alert here in Washington.

Pierre, thank you very much.

Earlier this morning I spoke with Vice President J.D. Vance.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KARL: Mr. Vice President, thank you for joining us.

The big question, is the United States now at war with Iran?

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No, we’re not at war with Iran, Jon. We’re at war with Iran's nuclear program. And I think the president took decisive action to destroy that program last night.

If I could step back a little bit. We have to give an incredible amount of gratitude to the troops who did an amazing thing last night. Think about this, Jon, they threw -- they flew thousands of miles away, a 30-hour non-stop flight. They never touched down on the ground. And they dropped a 30,000-pound bomb on a target about the size of a washing machine. No military in the world has the training, the skills and the equipment to do what these guys did last night.

I know the president and I are both very proud of them. And I think what they did was accomplish a very core American national objective. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapons program. The president’s been very clear about this. And thanks to the bravery and competence and skill of our great pilots and everybody who supported this mission, we took a major step forward for that national objective last night.

KARL: It certainly was a complex and overwhelming mission, 125 aircraft involved, we are told. Can you say definitely that Iran's nuclear program has -- has now been destroyed?

VANCE: Well, Jon, I don’t want to get into the sensitive intelligence here, but we know that we’ve set the Iranian nuclear program back substantially last night. Whether we -- whether it’s years or beyond that, we know it’s going to be a very long time before Iran can even build a nuclear weapon if they want to.

But I actually think that raises the most important question. The president talked about this last night. We want Iran to give up their nuclear weapons program peacefully. But there is no way that the United States is going to let Iran have a nuclear weapon. And so, they really have to choose a pathway, Jon, are they going to go down the path of continued war, of funding terrorism, of seeking a nuclear weapon, or are they going to work with us to give up nuclear weapons permanently. If they're willing to choose the smart path, they're certainly going to find a willing partner in the United States to dismantle that nuclear weapons program. But if they decide they're going to attack our troops, if they decide they're going to continue to try to build a nuclear weapon, then we are going to respond to that with overwhelming force.

So, really, what happens next is up to the Iranians.

KARL: So -- but -- but let me drill down on what was accomplished, because there's a -- there’s a report this morning in “The New York Times” that Fordo, that deep, underground enrichment facility, was severely damaged, but not fully destroyed. But the president said last night the enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.

Can -- can we say that definitively, or are we just not sure yet? I mean, have those facilities been obliterated?

VANCE: Well, Jon, severely damaged versus obliterated, I'm not exactly sure what the difference is. What we know is we set their nucleal program back substantially.

KAR: Well -- well, one -- I mean --

VANCE: And I -- again, Jon, I don't want to get into very sensitive intelligence about what we know, but I feel extremely confident, and I can say to the American people with great confidence that they are much further away from the nuclear program today than they were 24 hours ago. That was the objective of the mission, to destroy that Fordow nuclear site and, of course, do some damage to the other sites as well. But we feel very confident that the Fordow nuclear site was substantially set back, and that was our goal.

KARL: The -- the UN's atomic energy watchdog said that Iran had 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium. What -- do we know what has become of that? Is -- was it destroyed in this attack? Do we know? That's a big stockpile.

VANCE: Well, we're going to work in the coming weeks -- yes, Jon, we're going to work in the coming weeks to ensure that we do something with that fuel. And that's one of the things that we're going to have conversations with the Iranians about.

But what we know, Jon, is they no longer have the capacity to turn that stockpile of highly enriched uranium to weapons-grade uranium. And that was really the goal here. Uranium is not that difficult to come by, Jon, but enriching uranium up to the point of a nuclear weapon, that is what the president put a stop to last night.

KARL: This morning, the Russian reaction caught -- caught my eye. Dmitri Medvedev, of course, the former president, prime minister of Russia, now, the deputy chairman of Russia's security council, said, "The enrichment of nuclear material, and now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons will continue. A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads."

What do you make of that Russian response? And are they -- they off base? I mean, they're -- they're saying that the nuclear program in Iran is -- is still well underway.

VANCE: Well, first of all, I think it's a bizarre response, but I also don't know that that guy speaks for President Putin or for the Russian government.

One of the things that we've picked up, Jon, in our conversations with the Russians over the last few months, despite our many disagreements, of course, with the state of Russia, they've been very consistent that they don't want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. And -- and this is what I think many commentators underappreciate about what the president did last night.

Iran having a nuclear weapon, nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, is a disaster for pretty much everybody. It's one of the few issues where Russia, China and the United States have broad agreement is that we don't want to see a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. So, what the president did was very important. I'll let President Putin speak to what the official Russian position on this is.

But I feel very confident that both for Russia, for China, and most importantly, of course, for us, we don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And I think that -- that goal is going to continue to animate American policy for the next few years.

KARL: Well, President Trump, last night, also threatened additional military action if Iran retaliates or if peace does not come quickly. How quickly are we talking about? Are we talking about days? Are we talking about weeks?

VANCE: Well, look, Jon, I'll let the president make those determinations, actually. But we're now going to have a serious conversation about how to get rid of Iran's nuclear weapons program permanently, meaning they have to choose not to have a nuclear weapons program, and they have to give this thing up.

Now, if you go back a little bit, Jon, what we have said consistently and repeatedly is they cannot have a nuclear weapon. We accomplished the goal of putting them back substantially last night. But there are two big things that the Iranians are going to have to choose from here. Number one, do they attack American troops in the region? If they do, as the president said, you're going to see overwhelming force from the Americans.

If they continue to pursue a nuclear weapon, you're also going to see overwhelming force from the American people. So, we've got really the ball in Iran's court here. If they make smart decisions, I think they're going to find us willing to work with them. If they continue to support terrorism, nuclear weapons programs, then they're going to find overwhelming American force from the American military. That is really the choice before the Iranians. And that's a choice only they can make.

KARL: So what retaliation are you expecting? I mean, I know what you're hoping for, but they have vowed retaliation. What are you prepared for? What are you expecting from the Iranians?

VANCE: Well, it's always hard to guess what the other side is going to do. But what we're prepared for is, if they attack us in a maximal direction, first of all, we have got maximum defensive posture. I think that we're going to be able to defend as many of our people as possible. And, of course, I'd encourage Americans to pray for our guys in the Middle East because, yes, they are under a significant amount of duress and a significant amount of threat right now.

But then, of course, Jon, if the Iranians attack us, they're going to be met with overwhelming force. And I don't think the president could be clearer about this. If -- if you look at what we did yesterday, Jon, we did not attack the nation of Iran. We did not attack any civilian targets. We didn't even attack military targets outside of the three nuclear weapons facilities that we thought were important to accomplish our goal of preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

So, how Iran responds, I think, is ultimately the ball is in their court. But if you look at what we did, it was very precise, very narrowly tailored to our objective. And if the Iranians decide to expand this, then that's ultimately their decision. And the president of the United States will respond in kind.

KARL: So -- so you're raising the real possibility that this is not the end of this conflict, but the beginning of this conflict. You know, U.S. response to -- to Iranian retaliation.

There's one thing the president has been really consistent about throughout his entire life in politics, and that is the idea of no more wars.

Let me play you what he said on election night and, of course, at his inauguration.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm not going to start a war. I'm going to stop wars.

We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps, most importantly, the wars we never get into.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KARL: So, let me ask you, what do you say to those, including some of the president's strongest supporters who were really worried this morning that the United States is now involved in yet another protracted war, conflict, whatever you want to call it, in the Middle East?

VANCE: Well, first of all, Jon, I think the president has been very clear that we are not interested in protracted conflicts in the Middle East. But there's a question about, how do you achieve peace? And we believe the way that you achieve peace is through strength.

We took a very narrow and limited approach to destroying the Iranian nuclear program, Jon. That's what the president did. And I think that, more than anything, is going to ensure a peaceful resolution in that region of the world.

You can't be weak. You can't sit there and allow the Iranians to achieve a nuclear weapon, Jon, and expect that's going to lead to peace. It would lead to absolutely disastrous military conflict all over the Middle East.

We don't want that. Our Gulf Arab nation allies don't want that. Israel doesn't want that.

And it's one of the few issues, frankly, that unites the Arabians to the Israelis is none of them want the Iranians to get a nuclear weapon, because they know that it would lead to the opposite of peace.

And so, I'd say to people who are worried about a protracted military conflict is, number one, the president, more than anybody, is worried about protracted military conflicts. That is not what we're getting ourselves involved in.

What we're getting ourselves involved in is a very targeted effort to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program. That will continue to be the goal of American foreign policy. And it's that goal that is going to motivate our action in the weeks and months to come.

KARL: But this was, as we discussed, a complex and overwhelming military action last night. And the president is vowing something bigger if the Iranians respond by retaliating.

He's also raised the specter of targeting the supreme leader himself. As you know, earlier in the week he said he knew where this -- where the ayatollah is hiding and that he would be an easy target.

Has the U.S. ruled out targeting the supreme leader in Iran? Has the U.S. ruled out trying to achieve regime change?

VANCE: Well, first of all, we don't want to achieve regime change. We want to achieve the end of the Iranian nuclear program, Jon. That's America's objective. And that's what the president has set us out to do.

The president, in the very tweet you mentioned, or the Truth that you mentioned, Jon, said explicitly that he's not trying to take out the Iranian supreme leader. He's trying to take out their nuclear program. And, of course, we took a major step forward with that last night.

And again, Jon, I think we have to back up and test some premises here. How do you achieve long term peace? How do you prevent spiraling Middle Eastern conflict? Is it through overwhelming military power targeted to an American objective, or is it by sort of walking yourself into these long-term, protracted military conflicts?

I think by choosing overwhelming force and overwhelming force tied to something that is important to the American people, that is the end of the Iranian nuclear program, we can achieve peace much more fully than if we sort of sit on our hands and hope that somehow, if the Iranians get a nuclear weapon, they're going to be more peaceful. That is a stupid approach, and the president rejected it.

KARL: All right. Vice President J.D. Vance, thank you for joining us this morning.

VANCE: Thanks, Jon. Take care.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KARL: Coming up, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Tom Cotton, on the U.S. strikes and what might come next.

We'll be right back with our special edition of "This Week".

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KARL: I'm joined now by Sen. Tom Cotton, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Army Veteran. Cotton served overseas in both Iraq and Afghanistan before being elected to the House and then the Senate. Senator Cotton, thank you for being here this morning.

You heard the president say this was a spectacular military success. He said, obliterated, is what has happened to the Iranian nuclear program. What is your sense? It sounded to me from Vice President Vance that it hasn't been thoroughly destroyed.

SEN. TOM COTTON, (R-AR) CHAIR OF SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Well, I think we heard from General Caine, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that obviously, we have a few days left of battle damage assessment, but there's no doubt that because of the president's decisive action, we have severely damaged Iran's critical nuclear infrastructure, which is what the president has said he would do for 10 years if we thought Iran was getting close to a nuclear weapon.

Remember, this is a regime in Iran that has terrorized Americans for 46 years. For 25 years, American presidents have worried about them getting a nuclear weapon, have said that they'd never be allowed to. Finally, President Trump has taken decisive action to ensure that they're not going to get nuclear weapons on his watch.

KARL: So, what should we be prepared for in terms of a response from Iran? As you said, they've sponsored terrorism for nearly half a century. I mean, what should we be prepared for?

COTTON: I think we have to be prepared for Iran to retaliate. And I join the president in his warning to the supreme leader of Iran, that if he targets Americans, the military force he will see, will make last night look like child's play. We have troops in the region. Iran has targeted Americans around the world and Marine barracks in Beirut and barracks in Saudi Arabia. They've targeted embassies of countries around the world. For all we know, they may have gotten sleeper cells into the country during Joe Biden's wide-open border.

So, the threats are serious, and we take them seriously. President Trump has no higher priority, as do I, than the safety of the American people. And again, the supreme leader and the Ayatollahs in Iran need to understand that President Trump means business. They have a chance to sue for peace here, to dismantle whatever remnants of their nuclear program remain, and to continue to actually survive. Because we haven't targeted the supreme leader; we haven't targeted their energy infrastructure. We haven't targeted other critical infrastructure. That's an implicit message that Iran still has things that they hold dear that neither the United States nor Israel has struck. Iran needs to heed President Trump's warning.

KARL: And if Iran retaliates, should the United States target the supreme leader?

COTTON: I won't rule any single target in or out, but I'll say that President Trump was very clear in his warning last night to Iran that last night will look like child's play if they target Americans. Clearly, President Trump means business. The Ayatollahs understand that now. He was not bluffing. He does not bluff. And there are still numerous targets that Iran holds very dear. They should not target Americans.

KARL: But it sounds like what you're saying, and frankly, what the President said last night is that we may be on the beginning of this, not the end of it.

COTTON: Well, that's really up to Iran at this point.

KARL: But given Iran's track record, I mean, it's hard to imagine they're suddenly going to come out and say, yeah, OK.

COTTON: In 2020, President Trump killed Iran's terrorist mastermind, Qasem Soleimani.

KARL: Yeah.

COTTON: Iran did target one of our bases, but frankly, they telegraphed what they were going to do, and it led to minor concussive injuries. No Americans were killed. Likewise, in the 1980s, when Iran was targeting naval ships in the Persian Gulf, Ron Reagan sank half of their navy. That did not lead to war. It led to peace, not just with their targeting of Americans, but actually the eight-year Iran-Iraq war.

So, our message to the supreme leader is, look at the lessons of history, do not, do not tempt fate. Do not target Americans. Heed Donald Trump's warning.

KARL: Let me ask you the famous question. Petraeus asked at the beginning of the Iraq War. How does this end? I mean, how does this end? I mean, we're going to have retaliation, retaliation. How does it end?

COTTON: Well, it is really up to Iran to decide how it ends here. President Trump made clear last night, he wants it to be the end of the matter.

We have severely damaged their nuclear infrastructure. We have set back for a very long time their aspirations to get nuclear weapons that they can then use to threaten the United States and their friends around the world. So, the ball is in Iran’s court here. If they are willing to sue for peace and to give up their nuclear ambitions and to not target Americans, then that can be the end of it.

KARL: Is ultimately the only way to be safe from the Iranian threat, in your view -- because I’ve heard you talking about this for a decade now -- is regime change. Does the regime have to go?

COTTON: That's not President Trump's military objective. In fact, frankly, what’s --

KARL: But I'm -- I'm asking you.

COTTON: But, frankly, it wasn't Prime Minister Netanyahu's objective either.

KARL: Yes.

COTTON: He said the objective here was two-fold, to eliminate their nuclear program and to eliminate their ballistic missile threat to the United States, to Israel, to our friends in the region.

KARL: But you’re --

COTTON: We are not pursuing -- we are not pursuing regime change. We are not trying to put any troops on the ground into Iran. We are trying to eliminate their nuclear weapons program. And by destroying three critical nuclear facilities, we've taken huge steps in that direction.

KARL: But -- but let me read you what you said back in 2017. This is eight years ago. You said, “the policy of the United States should be regime change in Iran.” And then you said this, “I don't see how anyone can say America can be safe as long as you have a power -- as you have in power a theocratic despotism.”

Has your view changed?

COTTON: Well, as long as Iran's leaders continue to terrorize Americans after these strikes, then, no, America won't be safe from the Iran threat. That's the point that President Trump made last night. We're trying to ensure our safety through deterrence.

KARL: But you don’t believe the policy should be regime change now?

COTTON: We're not going to invade Iran. We're not going to try to topple their government or try to replace it with a new government. As Prime Minister Netanyahu said, the Iranian leaders are so hated by their own people, have so failed to deliver positive results for their own people, that that might be the end of this, but that’s not the American policy and, frankly, it’s not the Israeli policy either. It is to set back --

KARL: That’s --

COTTON: It is to destroy their nuclear program and to eliminate the missile threat to the United States and their friends.

KARL: It's been a deeply unpopular regime in its own country for a long time.

Senator Cotton, thank you very much for joining us.

COTTON: Thank you.

KARL: Coming up, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Jim Himes.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KARL: I'm joined now by Congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Congressman Himes, thank you for joining us.

Looking at what you have seen so far, have the objectives been met? We see the -- heard the president say the nuclear program has been eliminated. Obliterated was his word. That's been a goal of U.S. presidents for some 20 years.

REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): Yeah, Jon. I mean, obviously, it's way, way too early to tell.

You know, we don't even know at this point in time whether the nuclear material, the highly-enriched uranium, was actually still at Fordow or at Natanz, right?

This raid was signaled many days in advance. It's not inconceivable that the Iranians, not being dumb people, might have put this stuff on a truck and taken it elsewhere, in which case we just, you know, closed a bunch of, you know, tunnels in a mountain.

So, it's way too early to tell what the actual effect on the nuclear program is. And of course, it's way too early to tell how this plays out, right?

I mean, we've seen this movie before. Every conflict in the Middle East has its Senator Tom Cotton who promised us mushroom clouds. In the Iraq war, it was Condoleezza Rice promising us a mushroom cloud.

And initially -- and this is true of every one of these wars -- in Libya, in Iraq -- in Iraq and Afghanistan, initially, things look pretty good. Saddam Hussein is gone. Moammar Gadhafi is gone. The Afghan Taliban are gone.

And then over time, we start to learn what the cost is. Four thousand four hundred Americans dead in Iraq. The Taliban back in power.

So, bottom line, the president has taken a massive, massive gamble here. Some chance it works out, I'm, as a member of Congress, disturbed that this was undertaken without congressional approval. There's not much ambiguity in the -- in the Constitution about who gets to approve these things.

But bottom line is we don't know, and if you look at the three conflicts I just mentioned, I would keep the optimism under the hat for a little while yet.

KARL: But some of the president's critics have actually applauded the action last night. Let me read you what Adam Kinzinger -- obviously no friend of the president -- had to say.

He said, "The U.S. attack on the nuclear facilities in my opinion was the right call. We will see what the results are, but now, the key -- but now, the key is suppressing surface-to-surface missile fire and negotiate an end to the fight with Iran. Good call by the president.”

Is it possible that this ends up being just that, a good call by President Trump?

HIMES: Is it possible? Again, setting aside the constitutional issues which we should never set aside because the Constitution matters, is there some chance that, you know, we got all the nuclear material, the regime falls, and you know, next spring, we're picnicking at Summer Con? Yeah, there is some chance that that is true.

But if you look at the history -- and again, all we have is history to go on, if you look at the history of our military involvements in the region, they almost never end with the best-case scenario. In fact, they usually end in something approximating the worst-case scenario.

And, you know, again, the president owns this thing, and we'll see down the road.

You know, the Iranians may decide that it's foolish to attack our troops, to move terrorist cells around the country, maybe they're just going to withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty, kick the inspectors out of Iran, take the uranium which they have left -- if they have any left, and build a bomb in secret.

So, you know, sadly, the story will not be told probably for months or years. But again, if you're rolling the dice on the idea that we're going to see a best-case scenario coming out of military action in the Middle East, at best, you are taking a very, very tough gamble in which the house almost always wins.

KARL: And what do you think is the worst-case scenario?

HIMES: Oh, well, the worst-case scenario is that, you know, the Iranians have a lot more missiles than we think they do, and we end up with dead soldiers and sailors in the region, that they managed to move the nuclear material out of Fordow, and it's sitting in a warehouse right now. And as we speak, they are building a device.

I mean, believe me, I will concede that there is some small chance for a best-case scenario here, there always is. But again, history suggests that you better be well -- you know, aware of the fact that the best-case scenario almost never happens.

So, I mean, you can paint a truly apocalyptic picture of any number of a dozen. Look, we haven't even talked about the other rulers in the region, right? You know, king -- the king of Jordan, right, who is a critical American ally speak (ph), you know, sits at top a great deal of popular unrest. You know, it's not inconceivable that his people may decide, hey, we've had it with you being allied with the Israelis and the United States, and now, we have chaos in Jordan.

So again, we could spend the next hour spinning the downside of this thing, and it may be a while before we know whether this gamble paid off or not. But again, you know, looking at history, you would be sort of crazy to put all your chips on the best outcome anytime we enter into military conflict in the Middle East.

KARL: All right, Congressman Jim Himes, top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, thank you for joining us.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KARL: To help us understand the fallout in the U.S. and in the Middle East from President Trump's action against Iran, I'm joined now by ABC News contributor and former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Iran expert Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Karim, let me start with you. You know more about Iran than just about anybody I've ever spoken to. What's going to happen now in Iran?

KARIM SADJADPOUR, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE SENIOR FELLOW: Well, Iran is in a very difficult position because they have an 86-year-old supreme leader who is living in a bunker right now. He has limited physical and cognitive bandwidth and he's someone who's the longest serving dictator in the world. And you don't get to be that title if -- if you're a reckless gambler. So on one hand he has the survival instincts, but he also has defiant instincts. He's been deeply humiliated.

But Iran's options for retaliation are like the tactical equivalent of a suicide bombing. They can go after U.S. embassies. They can go after oil installations in the Persian Gulf. They could try to close the Strait of Hormuz, but the blowback for them would be tremendous.

KARL: But unconditional surrender, which is what the president was demanding and is still demanding, it seems implausible, may be too nice a way to say it. I mean, is that really possible that he just comes out and says OK?

SADJADPOUR: It is unprecedented for this supreme leader to agree to an unconditional surrender, but we've entered unprecedented waters already. The big question, as I said, is, is he thinking about the survival of the regime, and what is best for the survival of the regime? Either he swallows poison, as Ayatollah Khomeini did four decades ago, or he continues to react defiantly?

KARL: And, and within Iran, what has this done to public opinion? This has been a deeply unpopular government for a long time.

SADJADPOUR: I think this war and this bombing gives the regime what I would call a short-term sugar boost. They're trying to rally nationalist fervor. But my sense is that three, six, nine months from now, people will go back to being angry and it essentially polarizes existing public opinion. If you're a regime supporter, you have more reason to dislike America and Israel. If you're a regime opponent, you have more reason to dislike a regime which has always put their interest ahead of people's interest.

KARL: But there's no obvious replacement. You talk about regime change. There's no like opposition that you can conceive that would come right in, is there?

SADJADPOUR: You know, at this moment, the people best placed to take over power in Iran are the Revolutionary Guards. There are 190,000 strong army. They're not monolithic. You know, best -- best case outcome you could get an Iranian el-Sisi like the leader of Egypt who is pro-American. You could also get an Iranian Putin. So that's -- that's an open box.

KARL: So, Governor, are you surprised that the president ultimately did this?

CHRIS CHRISTIE, ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I'm not, Jon, and I think that the president deserves enormous amount of credit. This is against type for him. I'm sure it was a difficult decision. But what I think his analysis was he cannot live with a nuclear weaponed Iran. And Israel did all the heavy lifting. They wiped out any of their air defenses, really severely damaged them in what they've been doing over the last week and a half or two, and the president saw an opportunity that he might never have again.

And I think we see the way we dealt with North Korea, that we missed opportunities to take them out before they became a nuclear power. I think Donald Trump looked at this, and the president said, I'm not going to let the same thing happen in Iran in what is an even bigger powder keg in the world.

KARL: And what next? I mean, he was vowing a bigger operation, a bigger attack if Iran retaliates.

CHRISTIE: Well, that's up to Iran. And I think if Iran decides that they wanted to -- and I think, your analogy is exactly right, it's a suicide bombing. If they decide they want to do that, I have no doubt that Donald Trump will bring more force to bear against this regime, which is probably teetering as we speak right now.

So, I don't think that's what the president wants to do. I think what he said last night was exactly what he believes, which is, I did this, I did it to stop a nuclear powered Iran. And if they now come to the table, I'll make a deal. If they don't and they try to attack us, we're going to go get them.

And I think Jon, the Democrats have been kind of tone deaf on this and the reactions they've given so far, Congressman Himes, who I have respect for, I just think they're tone deaf on this one. The fact is, I think most Americans are going to say, if in fact this slows or prevents Iran from getting nuclear weapon, we're for what the president did.

KARL: And what about that divide within MAGA? I mean, we saw a lot of that going in and we saw some prominent figures, Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, others, that really didn't want this to go forward. Does that just disappear now? Everybody rallies around Trump?

CHRISTIE: You know how this works, Jon.

KARL: I think I do. Yes.

CHRISTIE: You know how this works. But, these folks, Donald Trump is their oxygen. He is their water, he is how they live. And for Bannon and Carlson, how they get rich. And the fact of the matter is that if Trump calls them and says, shut up, they're going to shut up.

KARL: So Karim, just in closing, you made a very interesting point recently, which is the Iranians and the Israelis are not natural adversaries.

SADJADPOUR: This, in my view, has really been an elective war for the Islamic Republic of Iran. After the 1979 Revolution, they decided they wanted their official slogans as "Death to America and Death to Israel." And the irony is that they've been vowing for Israel's eradication for four decades. And this war that Israel has now launched against Iran may accelerate Iran -- the Islamic Republic of Iran's eradication.

KARL: And October 7th, Hamas' action may be the biggest miscalculation ever made in that region?

SADJADPOUR: Ayatollah Khamenei was the only leader in the world to praise Hamas on that day.

KARL: Right. Thank you very much, Chris Christie, Karim Sadjadpour. Appreciate it. We'll be right back.

CHRISTIE: Thank you, Jon.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KARL: Stay tuned to ABC News Live for continuing coverage of the strikes on Iran, and David Muir will have the latest on "World News Tonight." Thank you for sharing part of your Sunday with us. Have a good day.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)