Monday’s CBS Mornings kicked off its second hour with a guest from the George Soros-funded (and pro-China) Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft to declare that not only were the weekend U.S. military strikes ordered by President Trump on Iranian nuclear facilities a failure in not taking out the regime’s nuclear program, but made them even more dangerous and more likely to build a nuclear arsenal.
Featured co-host Vladimir Duthiers began by asking him to evaluate Vice President JD Vance’s assertion from Sunday that the strikes “set” the Iranian nuclear “program back substantially” and if Iran could still have the “ability to get a nuclear weapon at this point.”
Based on Parsi’s response that the U.S. hasn’t really done anything to “set back the program,” it made seem as though all the B2 bombers did was drop a few water balloons and, with a reading between the lines, Donald Trump has made the Iranians more likely to go all the way:
First of all, we actually do not know exactly the extent of the damage, but we do know that the crown jewel of the Iranian nuclear program, which is their stockpile of enriched uranium, was not there. As long as that is not destroyed, you actually have not really set back the program, because facilities can easily be rebuilt and if the Iranians were to choose to go in a military direction, which they had not chosen to do, at least not prior to these attacks, they could do so at a much smaller site, much more difficult to detect. I frankly think that what has been done here more or less guarantees that Iran will be a nuclear weapon state five to 10 years from now.
Asked how that was the case, Parsi elaborated that, by messing with their vibes, “pursu[ing]” nukes “has now dramatically increased on the Iranian side.”
“The U.S. intelligence itself has been completely solid on this for quite some time, the Iranians had not made a decision to weaponize their program. After this attack, that decision likely will be changed....[I]t is inconceivable that the debate in Iran will not shift towards weaponization. There’s still opportunities to prevent that from happening, but that depends on actual diplomacy, not military action,” he added.
Hours ahead of a sudden ceasefire brokered by President Trump, Parsi insisted doing just that would “be very difficult” because “[a]fter you bomb a country, they’re not necessarily going to be more eager to talk to you, particularly mindful of the fact that the bombing took place in the midst of negotiations.”
Cue the sad trombone.
But, wait, there was more! For good measure, he went after Israel for swaying President Trump that Iran shouldn’t be trusted to enrich any uranium:
I think the key mistake that was committed here is that Trump actually originally had a very workable and realistic red line, which was no weaponization, meaning the Iranians could have a nuclear program, but it would be so restricted that it could not be weaponized. Halfway through the talks, Trump shifted the goal post to no enrichment, which was the Israeli red line, meaning that the program had to be entirely eliminated. That’s where we see the trajectory going from having been positive to a negative one, stalling the talks and then eventually leading to the Israelis starting this war. Had Trump stuck to his original American red line, I believe he actually would have had a framework agreement with Iranians by now.
With time running out, he doubled down by saying Iran won’t “end nuclear ambitions in terms of giving up their entire program, I find that to be extremely unlikely, and pushing for that essentially ensures confrontation.”
To see the relevant CBS transcript from June 23, click “expand.”
CBS Mornings
June 23, 2025
8:01 a.m. Eastern[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Breaking News; Escalating Tension in the Middle East; Trita Parsi on Implications of U.S. Airstrikes on Iranian Facilities]
VLADIMIR DUTHIERS: We begin this hour with the growing concerns in this country and overseas about what could happen next after America’s military strikes on Iran. Overnight, the Iranians launched more missiles at Israel, but so far, Tehran has not targeted any U.S. sites. International observers confirm the United States hit three nuclear facilities on Saturday, including Fordow, Iran’s main location for enriching uranium. So far, the full extent of the damage is unclear. President Trump announced the attack Saturday night, raising concerns that the United States could be drawn into an all-out war in the Middle East. Joining us now is an expert on us Iranian relations, Trita Parsi. He is also the Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Trita, good to see you, sir. How are you?
QUINCY INSTITUTE’s TRITA PARSI: Good to see you.
DUTHIERS: All right, so let me ask you about what President Trump called “a spectacular military success” — that’s a quote — in the effort to stop the nuclear threat from Iran. The Vice President of the United States, J.D. Vance, he said that they set the Iranian nuclear program back substantially, so what does this mean to you for Iran’s ability to get a nuclear weapon at this point?
PARSI: First of all, we actually do not know exactly the extent of the damage, but we do know that the crown jewel of the Iranian nuclear program, which is their stockpile of enriched uranium, was not there. As long as that is not destroyed, you actually have not really set back the program, because facilities can easily be rebuilt and if the Iranians were to choose to go in a military direction, which they had not chosen to do, at least not prior to these attacks, they could do so at a much smaller site, much more difficult to detect. I frankly think that what has been done here more or less guarantees that Iran will be a nuclear weapon state five to 10 years from now.
DUTHIERS: How so?
PARSI: Because the determination to pursue a nuclear deterrence has now dramatically increased on the Iranian side. The U.S. intelligence itself has been completely solid on this for quite some time, the Iranians had not made a decision to weaponize their program. After this attack, that decision likely will be changed at some point. It may not happen immediately, but after being attacked by nuclear weapon states such as the United States and Israel, it is inconceivable that the debate in Iran will not shift towards weaponization. There’s still opportunities to prevent that from happening, but that depends on actual diplomacy, not military action.
DUTHIERS: So one of those opportunities, the United States, before these strikes was negotiating with Iran. Do you think it is then possible to have the Iranians back at the negotiating table with the United States in good faith?
PARSI: It’s going to be very difficult. After you bomb a country, they’re not necessarily going to be more eager to talk to you, particularly mindful of the fact that the bombing took place in the midst of negotiations. I think the key mistake that was committed here is that Trump actually originally had a very workable and realistic red line, which was no weaponization, meaning the Iranians could have a nuclear program, but it would be so restricted that it could not be weaponized. Halfway through the talks, Trump shifted the goal post to no enrichment, which was the Israeli red line, meaning that the program had to be entirely eliminated. That’s where we see the trajectory going from having been positive to a negative one, stalling the talks and then eventually leading to the Israelis starting this war. Had Trump stuck to his original American red line, I believe he actually would have had a framework agreement with Iranians by now.
DUTHIERS: So Trita, before we go, let me just ask you, President Trump yesterday intimated that he might be open to regime change. There’s been some mixed messaging on that. How crucial is it for the Ayatollah to stay in power versus coming to the negotiating table and ending nuclear ambitions?
PARSI: Well, first of all, they’re not going to end nuclear ambitions in terms of giving up their entire program, I find that to be extremely unlikely, and pushing for that essentially ensures confrontation. Regime survival is obviously the absolute top priority for the Iranians. The more the President hints that regime change is the American objective, the more likely it will be that the Iranians believe that the only chance for their survival is to actually fight back rather than to negotiate.
DUTHIERS: Trita Parsi with some analysis for us this morning. Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate it. Gayle, over to you.
PARSI: Thank you for having me.
