Latest news with #IntelligenceCommittee
The Hill
20 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Democrat: Trump two-week Iran deadline ‘not a bad thing'
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) tepidly praised President Trump on his handling of the ongoing military conflict between Israel and Iran, after the president said he would wait two weeks to decide whether to take direct action against Iran. 'The fact that we're not reading about a U.S. attack on Iran right now actually gives me a little bit of comfort,' the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee told independent broadcaster Jim Acosta in an interview posted online Thursday. Trump said in a statement that White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt read to reporters during Thursday's press briefing that there is 'substantial chance of negotiation that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future.' 'I will make my decision whether or not to go in the next two weeks,' the president said. The announcement prompted Trump's critics to revive the TACO meme, short for 'Trump Always Chickens Out,' and accuse the president of frequently falling back to a two-week timeline for decisions — regardless of their importance. 'We can sort of joke about TACO, and you know everything is two weeks or four weeks or never, but I think when you're talking about war in the Middle East, going slower than rather than faster is not a bad thing,' Himes said. The United Nations Security Council is meeting Friday to discuss the ongoing strikes between Israel and Iran as the conflict enters its second week. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, met with Britain's foreign secretary Thursday to discuss potential diplomatic off-ramps. Himes told Acosta that he thinks there is still time to work out an agreement before the U.S. military jumps into the war. 'The advice I would give the president is, you are in a point of maximum leverage right now, and the regime has been badly hurt, badly embarrassed,' Himes said, describing the U.S.'s ability to negotiate a deal on Iran's nuclear future. 'They're probably worried about what's gonna happen inside Iran with the Iranian people.'
NBC News
2 days ago
- Politics
- NBC News
Trump and U.S. intelligence appear at odds over Iran's nuclear progress
The U.S. assessment of Iran's nuclear program has not changed since March, when the director of national intelligence told lawmakers that Tehran has large amounts of enriched uranium but has not made a decision to rush toward building an atomic bomb, according to the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and a source with knowledge of the matter. Comments by President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have painted a different picture, suggesting that Iran is racing toward creating a nuclear weapon. Trump said Wednesday that Iran was 'a few weeks' from having a nuclear weapon, and Netanyahu said in a recent interview that Iran was pursuing a 'secret plan' to build a bomb within months. 'The intel we got and we shared with the United States was absolutely clear, was absolutely clear that they were working on a secret plan to weaponize the uranium,' Netanyahu recently told Fox News. 'They were marching very quickly. They would achieve a test device and possibly an initial device within months and certainly less than a year.' U.S. intelligence reporting on Israel is typically based in part on information provided by Israel's intelligence services. It was unclear whether Netanyahu's remarks were based on a different interpretation of the same intelligence. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the vice chair of the Intelligence Committee, told reporters he was perplexed by Trump's assertions as lawmakers have received a different picture from U.S. intelligence officials. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, told lawmakers in March that U.S. spy agencies assessed that Iran had not made a decision to build nuclear weapons but that it had stockpiles of enriched uranium far beyond what is required for civilian purposes. The U.S. intelligence community's view has not changed since her testimony, the source with knowledge of the matter said. Warner said Wednesday that he received further confirmation of the March intelligence assessment 'this week.' On Tuesday, Trump publicly dismissed Gabbard's testimony, saying, 'I don't care what she said.' Warner said the administration needed to clarify whether there was new intelligence on Iran's nuclear work. 'So far, at least, the intelligence community has stood by its conclusion that Iran is not moving towards a nuclear weapon. They were enriching additional uranium, but they were not weaponizing that yet, and that [decision] was left with the supreme leader,' he said. 'If there has been a change in that intelligence, I need to know, and I want to make sure that if it is changed, it's based upon fact and not political influence,' he said. Building the bomb For Iran to acquire a nuclear arsenal, it would need to enrich uranium to 90% purity. At the moment, it has a significant amount of uranium enriched to 60%, about 400 kilograms' worth, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. It would take a small technical step to enrich to 90%. Iran has enough uranium now to produce up to 10 weapons over several weeks, according to U.S. officials' estimates. But enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels is only the first step. Then Iran would have to build and test a device that could be delivered in the form of a bomb or a missile. Estimates vary, but Western officials and analysts say it could take months to more than a year to build a nuclear weapon. Weapons experts say that Iran is not weeks away from securing a nuclear weapon but that it is weeks away from securing enough fissile material for an eventual weapon. The director general of the IAEA, Rafael Grossi, said in a report this month that 'Iran is the only non-nuclear-weapon state in the world that is producing and accumulating uranium enriched to 60 percent.' But on Tuesday, Grossi told CNN said that U.N. inspectors did not have proof that Iran was engaged in 'a systematic effort to move into a nuclear weapon.' Israel's airstrikes on Iran have probably set the country's nuclear program back by a few months, according to two sources with knowledge of the matter. Since it launched its campaign against Iran last week, Israel has bombed centrifuge plants used to enrich uranium, including a site at Natanz, south of Tehran, and labs used to convert uranium gas into a metal, according to the IAEA and Israeli officials.
CBS News
6 days ago
- Politics
- CBS News
Transcript: Sen. Tom Cotton on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," June 15, 2025
The following is the transcript of an interview with Sen. Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on June 15, 2025. MARGARET BRENNAN: And we're joined now in Washington by Senator Tom Cotton, who is the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Good morning and Happy Father's Day to you. SEN. TOM COTTON: Thank you, Margaret. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, I know you are staying on top of all these events. When it comes to what President Trump has said publicly, he seems to be indicating not just that the U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, but he's saying this is not America's fight, unless Iran hits the U.S. Should it be such a bright line? SEN. COTTON: Well, what the President said in his overnight post was a clear message to the Ayatollahs, that if you hit America in any way, whether our troops or our citizens or our ships, for instance, then you're going to feel the full force and strength of the US military in a way no one's ever seen. That's a clear deterrent message, setting aside the threat that the nuclear program poses to Israel and to the United States, because let's remember, the Iranian regime has been terrorizing Americans. It's killed thousands of Americans. It's taken them hostage. It still chants "death to America," it's building missiles that can strike not just our troops or our friends in the region, but soon enough here in the United States as well. And that's why President Trump has been consistent for his 10 years in political life that we cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. We cannot allow them to have a path to a nuclear weapon with uranium enrichment. That's the deal that he was trying to negotiate for the last two months. But as he said early last week, Iran was simply too stubborn. They weren't willing to come to the table and negotiate. And I have to disagree with the reporter who said that Israel strikes in Iran ended those negotiations. It was Iran's- Iran's stubbornness that ended them. President Trump was clear about that, and he is still clear that there is time if they want to come back to negotiate an end to the uranium enrichment program, that he would accept that. But he's given them chance after chance, as he said. MARGARET BRENNAN: But in terms of the line, he's drawing on military force, should the U.S. involvement be purely defensive and deterrent, or should the U.S. be willing to be engaged in these military operations? SEN. COTTON: Well, I don't think he's drawn that line. He's been very clear that all options remain on the table to defend our own people, to support Israel-- MARGARET BRENNAN: -- He hasn't said that-- SEN. COTTON: But he- well, he said that for 10 years, and he said it for months leading up to this moment. He said that Iran can make a deal and live happily without death or there will be bombing. So, I think he's appropriately kept all options on the table. He made clear in the early days of this conflict, on Thursday night and Friday morning, that we back Israel to the hilt. There's almost 700,000 Americans in Israel at any time. So of course, we're going to protect Israel, and that we have the best military technology in the world. And he said that he has proudly provided Israel with those weapons, both in his first term and in this term as well. So, we back Israel to the hilt all the way. But he's appropriately keeping all options on the table. MARGARET BRENNAN: But he's emphasizing again and again, this isn't us. This isn't America. This isn't an American operation. SEN. COTTON: So far in this operation, we have not been involved in offensive strikes. We've been involved in other ways, through our provision of Israel with weapons over the years, or our defense of Israel and its citizens and our citizens in Israel. Now he has said his objective remains the same, which is Iran's nuclear disarmament, and he has said that that can happen still through a deal, I don't think-- MARGARET BRENNAN: --He prefers diplomacy. SEN. COTTON: And he would like Iran to come back to the table. I think now that Iran sees that Israel and America mean business and surrender its enrichment capabilities voluntarily. If that doesn't happen, though, I think the strikes are going to continue. MARGARET BRENNAN: But to the point, if it's really about destroying the nuclear program that Iran has, you know this very well, that there's this underground facility at Fordow, very deep, under a mountain. It's long been assessed that only the U.S. has the capability with a bunker buster bomb to take it out. Should the United States offer that kind of massive ordnance penetrator to Israel to finish the job? SEN. COTTON: Well, I'm not going to speculate about the methods that the United States or Israel might use-- MARGARET BRENNAN: --But should they?-- SEN. COTTON: --to protect our own interests. I'll simply say this, it is, as you say, widely known that Israel does not have heavy bombers. It doesn't have those 30,000 pound penetrating munitions. But as we saw with Hezbollah last fall, as we saw in Iran on Thursday night, when the Mossad had infiltrated officers and agents and manufactured drones in Iran, Israel has more than a few tricks up their sleeve, and I wouldn't be surprised if Israel has other cards yet to play. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, when it comes to differences in intelligence assessments, the U.S. intelligence that was made public in March said at the time the U.S. does not assess Iran's building a nuclear weapon, and that the supreme leader has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended back in 2003. Was there more recent US intel sharing or intel indicating that there was some kind of sprint for a bomb? Because that seems a very different assessment from what Israel's claiming. SEN. COTTON: Well, unfortunately, Iran enriched a lot of the uranium to near weapons-grade over the four years of the Biden administration-- MARGARET BRENNAN: --But that's not weaponization, you know that-- SEN. COTTON: -- They are- they are close to having enough pure weapons-grade uranium for several weapons. Now that's not the only step to having a weapon. You also have to have the weapon design. We've seen indications that Iran is once again exploring those weapon designs. And then if you want to use a missile, obviously you have to marry up the warhead to the missile. But Iran has other delivery methods as well, through terrorist proxies. So I think that's one of the reasons why both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu thought we- things that were coming to a head. A second reason is Iran is rapidly producing ballistic missiles, both medium range to target Israel, and short range to target our troops, and they add substantially to those stockpiles every single month. And at a time when Iran is both continuing its work on its nuclear program and trying to rebuild its offensive missile capacity, that the window to actually stop Iran from entering that zone of immunity was rapidly closing. MARGARET BRENNAN: But why Thursday night? SEN. COTTON: Well, as President- MARGARET BRENNAN: -- There seems to be a difference in this-- SEN. COTTON: --Well as President-- MARGARET BRENNAN: --idea of a sprint. SEN. COTTON: Well, as President Trump said on Friday morning that he had given Iran 60 days to make a deal. That was day 61-- MARGARET BRENNAN: --And he scheduled talks on day 63 you know that. I mean, this was a, this wasn't really a hard deadline. SEN. COTTON: He gave them 60 days. On day 61 the strikes began. MARGARET BRENNAN: Day 63, Steve Witkoff wanted to meet with him. But if this was a covert race to weaponize, though it- it raises questions here, because it appears President Trump's offer is to negotiate with the existing regime that is in place in Iran. Do you support a deal with the existing regime in Iran to stay in place? Do you support his push for diplomacy? SEN. COTTON: President Trump has always said his goal is to end Iran's nuclear weapons program, which means the surrender of its uranium enrichment capability-- MARGARET BRENNAN: -- Right. This would be offering them a lifeline, wouldn't it? SEN. COTTON: Well, it would be protecting our interests and securing Israel's interests as well on Iran not having a nuclear weapon. We've seen what happens when they don't have nuclear weapons. They're deliberately targeting civilian areas in Israel. We've seen their campaign of terror against Americans over the decades. That's why we can't allow them to have a nuclear weapon. And presidents have said for 20 years, presidents have said that. George Bush said it didn't act on it, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, frankly, aided and abetted Iran's nuclear program. Only Donald Trump has drawn that line and is willing to enforce that line. MARGARET BRENNAN: But he's not enforcing that line. It is Israel that's bombing. As you just said, the United States is not involved in these offensive operations-- SEN. COTTON: -- But in Israel, we are helping- we're-- MARGARET BRENNAN: -- Do you- but do you share the President's assessment that the way to finish this is through negotiating with the existing regime that the Israelis have called for the Iranian people to rise up against? SEN. COTTON: I think there's multiple ways to eliminate Iran's enrichment capability. They are today what they were Thursday morning, before these strikes started. As the President has said repeatedly, they can make a deal, or there's going to be bombing. MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to move to some domestic issues, but very quickly, I know in the past, you have said that former officials who have a direct threat against them from Iran should continue to receive security. President Trump pulled it. Should they get it now? SEN. COTTON: We should probably revisit the threat that all persons face. Remember, President Trump faced assassination threats from Iran as well. In this moment of tension to ensure that no one who worked for President Trump in the first term or works for him now could be the target of Iranian agents. MARGARET BRENNAN: And that security detail was pulled by the president himself. On immigration, the Trump administration has decided to pull back its policy a little bit. They are pausing raids on farms, hotels and restaurants. Arkansas has a lot of agricultural business in your state. Do you support this decision? SEN. COTTON: I think we need to have robust worksite enforcement. I don't think ICE is going to show up at one or two restaurants where they have an illegal migrant working. Usually, it's unscrupulous employers who have large numbers of illegal immigrants working in their work sites. And whatever work site it is, whatever industry it is, ICE has to be able to go and enforce our immigration laws and remove illegal immigrants. MARGARET BRENNAN: But the President has pulled back from that. That was the change in policy last week when it came to farms, in particular. SEN. COTTON: I don't think we should pull back on any kind of enforcement at all. I think worksite enforcement in all industries needs to be able to move forward. And I think ICE agents on the front lines need the support of political leadership. MARGARET BRENNAN You would want more enforcement, including in manufacturing, including in construction, which could impact the economy? SEN. COTTON: We should not declare any industry or any work site that uses large numbers of illegal immigrants off-limits for enforcement of federal law. MARGARET BRENNAN: I also want to ask you about the enforcement to date. As you know, there has been outcry. We've seen protests across the country because of the enforcement policies. You wrote an op-ed supporting President Trump's decision to send in federalized National Guard troops and active-duty Marines to California. You referred to it as the threat from the radical left , an overwhelming show of force to end the riots, and talked about communities being terrorized. Given the amount of tension in the country right now, is that really the language to use? SEN. COTTON: Yes, when you see left wing street militias who are throwing bricks and frozen water bottles at police officers and shooting them with fireworks, and unfortunately, you have mayors and governors in some places that won't allow police to maintain order, the next step is to call in the National Guard, and if the governor won't call on the National Guard, then the President has to federalize them. We always hope that the local police are allowed to do their job and have sufficient numbers to do their job to maintain order and protect innocent life and property. But if they can't, or they're not allowed to, the National Guard has to be on scene to restore civil order. MARGARET BRENNAN: LAPD says they were handling when things turned violent, yesterday, they fired rubber bullets, but they said they had it under control. SEN. COTTON: The LA police chief said last weekend that his forces were overwhelmed, and they couldn't manage the situation. MARGARET BRENNAN: Senator Cotton, thank you very much for your time today. Face the Nation will be back in a minute, so stay with us.
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Stefanik returns to influential House intel committee
Elise Stefanik is finally back on the House Intelligence Committee. On Friday morning, Speaker Mike Johnson added the New York Republican back to the influential spy panel, after months haggling over how to return the GOP star to her coveted committee post. Stefanik was added to the committee under unanimous consent, along with Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.). The congressmember was originally set to maintain her seat on the Intelligence Committee this January, but gave up the assignment when she was tapped to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. President Donald Trump pulled his selection back in March due to the GOP's narrow majority in the House. After her ambassador bid flamed out, Johnson said in April he intended to get Stefanik back on the committee. But fulfilling that promise put him in a bind: He could either strip a current Intelligence Committee Republican of a spot, or work with the minority to circumvent committee rules and add another Democrat. Johnson opted for the latter, pairing Stefanik with Cohen and expanding the panel past a limit under committee rules of 25 members. A spokesperson for Johnson declined to comment on any potential deal with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). A spokesperson for Jeffries didn't immediately reply to a request for comment. Cohen has been in Congress since 2007 but has never served on the Intelligence Committee. Stefanik's allies hold Johnson responsible for her losing out on the ambassador post, which could have given the Republican rising star a prominent voice in Trump's foreign policy. Johnson and Stefanik have been warring behind the scenes for several weeks as they have sought to restore her previous positions in Congress. Tensions spilled into public view in April when the congressmember publicly denied Johnson's claims that the pair had spoken about potentially running for governor of New York. The two sat down together in April in a bid to resolve tensions. Stefanik has sat on the Intelligence Committee since 2017. It was her role on the panel that catapulted her into the national spotlight in 2019 when the committee, then led by Democrats, spearheaded the first impeachment investigation into Trump. Stefanik — once seen as a moderate Republican— emerged as a key defender of Trump in her prosecutorial questioning of witnesses and sharp rebukes of Democrats on the panel. Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.
Politico
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Politico
Stefanik returns to influential House intel committee
Elise Stefanik is finally back on the House Intelligence Committee. On Friday morning, Speaker Mike Johnson added the New York Republican back to the influential spy panel, after months haggling over how to return the GOP star to her coveted committee post. Stefanik was added to the committee under unanimous consent, along with Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.). The congressmember was originally set to maintain her seat on the Intelligence Committee this January, but gave up the assignment when she was tapped to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. President Donald Trump pulled his selection back in March due to the GOP's narrow majority in the House. After her ambassador bid flamed out, Johnson said in April he intended to get Stefanik back on the committee. But fulfilling that promise put him in a bind: He could either strip a current Intelligence Committee Republican of a spot, or work with the minority to circumvent committee rules and add another Democrat. Johnson opted for the latter, pairing Stefanik with Cohen and expanding the panel past a limit under committee rules of 25 members. A spokesperson for Johnson declined to comment on any potential deal with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). A spokesperson for Jeffries didn't immediately reply to a request for comment. Cohen has been in Congress since 2007 but has never served on the Intelligence Committee. Stefanik's allies hold Johnson responsible for her losing out on the ambassador post, which could have given the Republican rising star a prominent voice in Trump's foreign policy. Johnson and Stefanik have been warring behind the scenes for several weeks as they have sought to restore her previous positions in Congress. Tensions spilled into public view in April when the congressmember publicly denied Johnson's claims that the pair had spoken about potentially running for governor of New York. The two sat down together in April in a bid to resolve tensions. Stefanik has sat on the Intelligence Committee since 2017. It was her role on the panel that catapulted her into the national spotlight in 2019 when the committee, then led by Democrats, spearheaded the first impeachment investigation into Trump. Stefanik — once seen as a moderate Republican— emerged as a key defender of Trump in her prosecutorial questioning of witnesses and sharp rebukes of Democrats on the panel. Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.
