The U.S.-Iran Escalation Explained 06/23/25

0:00Bring in show music please. Today on Squawk Pod. The U.S. is launching key strikes against Iran nuclear facilities. President Trump says it was decisive. Bullseye with three exclamation points. But where does the international community go from here? I've got a mixture of hope and fear. Colonel Jack Jacobs, military analyst and Medal of Honor winner, joins us. We should be concerned about what Iran's going to do next, but we all should be concerned about what we're going to do in response. And reporter Emily Wilkins on the congressional response to the strikes, with the big, beautiful bill still in the balance.

0:43You do see a lot of lawmakers, and heck, there are even Democrats who were praising what was done with the particular strike. Then, Gilead, with a landmark FDA approval, potentially marking an end to the AIDS epidemic. CEO Dan O'Day. It's a milestone moment in the history of HIV. This is a first-of-its-kind medicine for preventing HIV. And the rest of today's news that got us squawking. Like a disappointing showing for Elio at the box office. That's the worst ever opening for a Pixar film. Doesn't help that I'd never heard of it. Nope. I'm CNBC producer Zach Valisi. It's Monday, June 23rd. Squawk Pod begins right now.

1:29Stand Becky by in 3, 2, 1. Cue it, please. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to Squawk Box right here on CNBC. We're live from the Nasdaq market site in Times Square. I'm Becky Quick along with Joe Kernan and Andrew Ross Sorkin. Let's bring you the latest developments right now following this weekend's U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. The full extent of the damage is still unclear. It's also unclear if Iran had moved its enriched uranium before the attacks, and there are some images and other things that reflect that. But President Trump making the case on Truth Social that the mission was a success.

2:03Now, last night in the Post, he said, quote, monumental damage was done to all nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term, exclamation point. He said the white structure shown is deeply embedded into the rock, with even its roof well below ground level and completely shielded from flame. The biggest damage took place far below ground level. Bullseye with three exclamation points. Now, Iran and Israel continue to trade air and missile strikes in the wake of that U.S. attack. Meanwhile, Iran saying the U.S. mission expanded the range of targets for its armed forces, saying it now reserves all options as it tries or thinks about how it's going to be responding.

2:49But President Trump said online following the U.S. strikes that any retaliation by Iran against the United States would be, quote, met with force far greater than what was displayed over the weekend. The State Department telling U.S. citizens worldwide to exercise increased caution. And I'm still trying to figure out, obviously I'm worried about our military on bases that are close by. But, you know, when you think about retaliation, what does that really mean? Are there cells inside the United States? Are there things that are going to take place in Europe and other places in the Middle East?

3:23Or is it the straight-up moves? Do you end up closing that to try and inflict economic pain? That would be the biggest business economic pain. But I was sort of referring to the State Department's comment that all U.S. citizens are supposed to be on high alert. We're on high alert? What that really reflects. I've got a mixture of hope and fear. Fear for our troops. And I don't know who came across the border. I saw crazy numbers. about how many people that they identified from Iran that were trying to get across the border and that are here now. There's no doubt about that. So we need, obviously, I think it says it all, U.S.

4:02citizens need to be wary wherever they are, both here and abroad. Let's get to Jack Jacobs. Join us now for more on Israel, Iran, and the United States. Retired Army Colonel Jack Jacobs, NBC and MSNBC military analysts. I don't know what you know beyond what we're reading as well about the assessment of how much damage was done, how how long it sets back Iran on its nuclear ambitions. They may have moved uranium, I guess. It's hard to move centrifuges. I don't I don't we won't know for a while exactly what you'd have to think that there was a large degree of degradation of that program. Yeah, a couple of ways to look at it.

4:48There certainly was a lot of degradation to the facility itself. It's difficult to tell exactly how much damage was done. You've got to be on the ground, and we're not going to do that anytime soon. But there was clearly a lot of destruction. Whether or not they're able to ramp it up again, we won't know for a long time. And even they won't know. The Iranians won't know for a long time. But there was clearly a great deal of damage to the one particular site at Fordow. With respect to moving equipment, centrifuges and all the equipment to support them, difficult to move. And we would have picked that up.

5:28But there's little doubt that they've already moved and had previously moved some amount of the fissile material that was at Fordow to other locations below ground around the country. But the majority of it, as far as we know, was still at the Fordow site when it was struck. He raised a significant issue about what happens next, about retaliation. You know, Iran has been behind a significant number of cyber attacks. They're really good at it. We're good at offensive cyber, but we're terrible at defense. So that's one of the things that business and government needs to pay close attention to. We can expect perhaps that some cyber attacks will take place by either Iran or its agents.

6:21With respect to physical attacks, you're quite right to be concerned about attacks on troops. We have more than 40 ,000 troops in the region in the Middle East. I think Iran is probably going to be less interested in doing physical. I mean, just because they're less interested in doing physical attacks on American troops doesn't mean they won't do it. But they know that the retaliation from that will be devastating. and they're going to think twice about direct attacks by Iran on American troops. But they use proxies and have for a long, long time. And their concern right now, their focus right now is attacking Israel.

7:05Thinking about Israel, they've been defending with the Iron Dome and the Arrow system for a long time. The munitions for those, I wouldn't say are running low, but they're not at the levels they were when the war, when the exchange of missiles began some time ago. And we have to pay close attention to rearming Israel, particularly with munitions for the arrow system, if Israel is going to be properly defended against Iran. So you can expect Iran to continue to use proxies. You need to be concerned about the Houthis in the Gulf and in the Straits of Hormuz and about agents and proxies around the world, but particularly with respect to American interests.

7:52It's a chess match. I mean, how much oil does China get through the Straits of Hormuz? like 80 percent, some crazy number. And I don't I don't know what the chances of of that are. The oil markets are acting like the chances aren't great that they would do that. They've never done it before. What do you think? No, they probably wouldn't do it before. You're right about that, about Iran's supplying oil to China. There's another there's another aspect to this, I mean, Iran is very close to Russia, and Russia is not very close to China. And so the likelihood of anything happening in the Straits is very much lower than one would think.

8:38However, the Houthis, though they're an agent and have acted as agents for the Iranians for a long, long time, sometimes act on their own and do what they want. Anytime you empower somebody not under your direct control. They're likely to do something that are inimical to your own interests. So it's difficult to contain or control the Houthis and they're liable to do just about anything. But you're right. The likelihood of something in the streets is quite low. President Trump said that one and done and that that was going to be, you know, if if if Iran would have come to the table now, there's there's room for negotiations.

9:17Would they ever do that? Would they ever just say, uncle, all right, you got us? I just can't see it. No, that's unlikely, too. We have to remember what takes place inside Iran. The theocracy with the mullahs at the top of the food chain, they control everything, almost everything, but not everything. They exist there at least partially, if not mostly, because of the forbearance of the military enforcement, but particularly the Revolutionary Guards. To the extent that the Revolutionary Guards decide that the Bullas are not the right guys to run the country, then you will have some turnover at the top of the food chain.

10:01Not necessarily regime change, but you might wind up with the military establishment running the country. They're not more liberal, to be sure, but they're going to be very much different in how they approach everything, and particularly those relationships in the region. So look for changes, perhaps, in the country, but not the way we would expect. We should be concerned about what Iran's going to do next, but we all should be concerned about what we're going to do in response to that. Yeah. Colonel, I've got another question for you, but what do you mean different how? Different in terms of being more aggressive, different in terms of being more tactical?

10:44What would that mean for the region? You know, we remember Ahmadinejad a few years ago, and we thought he was the worst person in the world. He was the liberal. I mean, he was a terrible person, but he was the liberal in the country. So while we might not be particularly happy with the with the mullahs at the top of the government, we might be less thrilled if there's a military takeover inside Iran. The people who take over might be even worse. The idea of regime change was something that was severely knocked down by every member of the Trump administration on the airwaves yesterday, everyone from the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, with Vice President J.D.

11:29Vance, all of them saying this is not about regime change. And then last night on Truth Social, President Trump himself suggested that if they can't make Iran great again, why wouldn't there be a regime change? And that kind of changed the equation a little bit. How did you read into that? Well, we've had a very well, it's probably bluster. I mean, there's not very much that we can do to affect what takes place inside Iran. You remember some years ago, there were these enormous demonstrations in Iran, a million people. in the square. I remember being on the air talking about it. The interest was there that they're all tweeting now there's going to be regime change because the people are rising up.

12:09That was on, let's say, a Friday. On Saturday, after a bunch of people were killed by the Revolutionary Guards, there were only 5 ,000 in the streets. The next day on Sunday, there was nothing. We have to remember how that place is run. Regime change can only take place from within. And our attacking a few nuclear sites is not going to make that happen. Yeah. When you're using live ammo, not rubber bullets to disperse protests, it has a tendency to thin out the protesters. Colonel, what's your sense? That changes your mind about how things ought to be run. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Go ahead. There's two other players that have not been named thus far.

12:50Russia and Putin and what you think his role in all of this will be. Obviously, it sounds like they want to try to de-escalate this via the U.N. Same with China. But nonetheless, both of those countries have been supporting Iran in all sorts of ways, including by propping up their economy by buying oil. Now, clearly, Iran is, you know, Iran matters more to China than or as you say, China matters more to Iran than Iran matters to China. But nonetheless, do you see them doing anything? Yes, but not in a military way. They're going to probably continue to do what they've been doing and and probably not do a great no more.

13:30It's it's it is not in either Russia's or China's interest to get involved in what's taking place in the Middle East. They have not had a very good experience in the region. The Russians in particular got run out of there. They're going to stand by. They'll continue to support. But it's unlikely that they're going to get involved in anything. Don't forget that Russia's almost decisively engaged in Ukraine and things there while are sort of going on Russia's side on the ground tactically. There's a long way to go before that thing is going to get, that's going to be resolved. And most people do understand exactly how that's going to end some sort of negotiated settlement, whereby the Ukrainians give up part of the Donbass.

14:19Neither Russia nor China is particularly interested in getting involved in the Middle East. There's two issues that are interesting here. One is that the U.S. is asking effectively China to help them with Iran as it relates to the traits of Hormuz. Will they? And the other question is just what kind of message this sends to China's allies, To the extent that China has been trying to make friends all over the world economically and arguing, look, if we have an economic strategic alliance, clearly we will be allied in other ways, too. It appears that there is no alliance beyond maybe economic for China in almost any realm.

14:54I think that's a good and focused perception. Look, let's face it, most actors, whether they're individuals, economic entities or nation states, basically their focus is aggrandizement. They're only focused on themselves. And relationships that exist, exist at least primarily, if not wholly, for aggrandizement. aggrandizement. So Russia's and China's allies are not going to be particularly interested in anything beyond their own interests. I don't think that these U.S. strikes on Iran, the war between Israel and Iran, figures heavily in how either China or Russia views the world and what they're going to do in the mid to long term.

15:40All right, Colonel, no one knows. And near term is one thing long term? I don't know. Is it a pipe dream to hope for spreading of the Abraham Accords and I don't know, the Arab Spring and whatever you want to refer, however you want to refer to it. But peace in the Middle East, is that is it closer or is it just never going to happen? I mean, maybe maybe. I think it's never been close. I mean, did go back 3000 years and We'll see it any farther away or closer than it is now. I think it's extremely difficult. Reliance on the United Nations, for example, makes absolutely no sense because nobody's going to.

16:21I mean, we've got a veto and we're not going to we're not going to do anything that they say. No, I think peace in the Middle East is as far away as it's ever been. Well, I hope springs eternal. Maybe it's a baby steps. Thanks, Colonel Jacobs. We'll see you. Thank you. It's bad when we see you, but thanks for coming. I appreciate it. Let's get some more reaction from Washington this morning. Emily Wilkins joins us for that. Emily. Hey, Becky. D.C. is waiting to see what Iran does next. But for now, Republicans on Capitol Hill are widely supporting Trump and the attack, with top Republican leaders backing the strikes.

16:57But we're going to get a better sense this week of where lawmakers stand when senators are going to vote. They're going to be on the record on whether Trump needs to get approval from Congress if he wants to continue to use military force. The measure from Senator Tim Kaine, it was actually introduced more than a week ago at this point, but it would require Trump to get congressional approval before military attacks on Iran. And senators, including Lindsey Graham, have backed up Trump. They said that Trump did have the power to authorize the attacks, but not all Republicans are necessarily united on this.

17:30Senator Lisa Murkowski said on X that while she did back the limited strikes that we saw over the weekend, She said that if it is clear this is becoming a wider conflict, we must remember that Congress alone holds the constitutional power to authorize war. Over in the House, you're seeing Congressman Thomas Massey say the strike was not constitutional. He's co-sponsoring a war power resolution in the House that's similar to Keynes in the Senate. Other lawmakers also raised some concerns about the constitutionality, including Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a close ally of Trump's. She took to social media to break with the president, tweeting that every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war.

18:12And then she added later, this is not our fight. Lawmakers returned to D.C. this evening. They are expected to get a briefing on the strikes tomorrow. But the main focus on Capitol Hill, it's really likely expected to remain on that Trump mega bill and the tax package. Senators could begin to vote on that bill this week. And remember, that package does include$150 billion for defense spending as of now. And we'll be watching closely to see if any changes are made as a result of the attacks. Becky? Emily, just to the tax package, it sounds like they are still counting to see if they can get the votes through the Senate before they decide to start the vote this week.

18:50That's part of it, Becky. The other part is, remember, the process that they're using, it allows Republicans to get this done without any Democratic help. But it has a number of other rules they have to follow. So everything in this giant thousand page package has to have a budgetary impact. And so what's happening right now is a process where the Senate parliamentarian goes through the items and says, OK, you can include this. You can't include this. That AI moratorium that we were talking about. She has approved that for the package because that is tied to broadcast spending. But a couple of other items, including SNAP funding, SNAP cost sharing with states, have not made the cut.

19:26I don't know if I'd say some Republicans aren't on board. I'll trade you one Fetterman for one Murkowski any day. And then you throw in Thomas Massey. And even Murkowski didn't say she was against. I mean, you can't even get Murkowski to say she was against the initial strikes just from here on out. So I don't know if I'd characterize it like that. Yeah, Joe, I mean, I think in a certain degree you do see a lot of lawmakers. And heck, there are even Democrats who were praising what was done with the particular strike. I think the question is what comes next. And I think that's one of the big things that I know in D.C.

20:02and probably across the country, everyone's waiting to see today. We, and it's well known how often, you know, President Obama dropped quite a few bombs. It's just rich. That's been pointed out. I'm not even going to go into it because we've seen historically a lot of, there were, I think we've had 150 conflicts and maybe actually had a war resolution, what, eight times or something. So it's rare to do it, but thank you. Yeah, you're right. It hasn't always been been used for a number of wars. You can go back and kind of track that Congress has not always given approval. But, you know, it is coming up.

20:41And I think it's very interesting because obviously not every lawmaker posts their opinion on X. So we can only go with those who have made public statements. You couldn't have done this. It will be very interesting this week when they get back. You couldn't have done it. You couldn't have done it. You couldn't have done the strike if you talked to if you got a resolution from Congress. It would have been it couldn't have been a surprise. It would have leaked if you tried to get all those people together to vote. But thank you, Emily. Tease will be next. Coming up next on Squawk Pod, a landmark public health moment decades in the making.

21:17Gilead with federal approval for an HIV preventative injectable. The company's CEO, Dan O'Day, in an exclusive conversation on the news. It's a public health crisis in this country and around the world that, as to go, we believe, really can bend the arc of the epidemic moving.

21:40This is Squawk Pod. Up on Becky. Thank you. And you're watching Squawk Box right here on CNBC. I'm Becky Quick along with Joe Kernan and Andrew Ross Sorkin. Well, the world has a new wonder drug for preventing HIV AIDS. the FDA approving Gilead's injectable just a few days ago and joining us right now exclusively to talk about this is Gilead Sciences Chairman and CEO Daniel O'Day. Dan, welcome. Thank you very much for coming here. I know that this is something you've been working on for a very long time. I think we've been talking about it for over a year at this point. But this is Gilead's focus to try and bring new drugs and hopefully eventually eradicate this disease.

22:19What is this latest injectable? Why is it better? It's a milestone moment, Becky, in the history of HIV. Yes2Go is potentially the best tool we've had yet and a number of great tools that could potentially end the epidemic. And the reason why is this is a first of its kind medicine for preventing HIV that's given only twice a year. And in clinical trials, it provided almost 100 % protection against HIV, which is really unheard of. So it's one of the most important scientific breakthroughs of our time that could help millions of people, 20 years in the making by Gilead scientists that have really made it their life's work to end HIV.

22:59I mean, there are pills available for this at this point. Why does the injectable work better? I mean, I would almost prefer a pill. What's going on with that? Yeah, the issue is that it's difficult to take a pill, particularly when you don't have a disease. In fact, only about 50 % of people that are taking pills today, and it's only about a third of the population that is defined by CDC, are compliant on their medicine. And particularly with a virus like this, if you're not compliant, you can have breakthrough crisis of HIV. So we needed to create a medicine that kind of met people where they were in terms of prevention and twice a year meets people where they are.

23:37You go into the doctor's office every six months. Correct. You get the injection. I didn't realize we still have 30 ,000 new infections a year in the United States of HIV, 1.3 million worldwide, and that there are 400 ,000 Americans who are using some of these preventative options right now. Yeah, it's really, I don't think it's spoken about that much. There's more than 2.700 new cases in this country a week, and about 100 people sadly die of HIV-related illnesses. And importantly, although it's everywhere in the country, there are certain pockets in the country, particularly the South, the Southern United States, states like Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, Florida, where the rates are arising disproportionately.

24:18Amongst women account for about 20 % of new HIV cases in this country, about 50 % globally. And Black and Latino men in the South are also more vulnerable. So this is a public health crisis in this country and around the world that has to go, we believe, really can bend the arc of the epidemic. You want to give it to everyone, but it's expensive. And you don't know about insurance. What's$28 ,000? $28 ,000 a year. And has it got the 12-year protection? How long? Patent protection. When would it generically be available? Yeah, it's got basically the normal patent protection, which is around 12 to 15 years.

24:55But let me say something about the price, because I think that's important. We price this roughly in line with other PrEP medicines, branded PrEP medicines, similar to the medicine we were just speaking about. And yet it provides significantly greater benefit for patients. The other thing is that, you know, because of the economic, beyond the human impact, the economic impact of preventing an HIV illness in this country, what can cost as much as$1.1 million lifetime costs, this is highly covered by PrEP medicines that exist today are highly covered by insurance companies. more than 90%. And Gilead also has programs for those that are uninsured or that need support for their co-pay.

25:35Equally important, Joe, is the fact that we've got programs to help people outside the United States. Because if you don't stop this virus everywhere, you don't stop it anywhere. And so we ventured into licensing agreements with six generic manufacturers immediately after this news last summer that will provide medicines to more than 120 low and middle income countries. And Gilead's also going to work with global aid organizations in the gap period of time, because it takes about two years for those generic companies to get up and running, at no profit to Gilead for about two minutes. The most favored proposals from the Trump administration, would that have any?

26:11So you would have generics being made in other countries then, but not here for 12 years. So once again, there'd be really cheap versions other places, but not here, which immediately raises the ire of all the politicians. Yeah, the most favored nations, first of all, I'd love to talk about that. It's really not geared towards the low and lower middle income under-resourced countries. It's really geared towards countries that are more economically similar to the United States. So, I think that is why we're so focused on getting these generic medicines to countries around the world. You mentioned that most of these PrEP, these preventative measures are covered by insurance, but the Supreme Court is watching a case right now that could overturn those requirements.