Attacks Threaten Ceasefire

Summary

---

Amanpour – "Attacks Threaten Ceasefire"

Podcast: Amanpour (CNN International)
Host: Christiane Amanpour
Date: June 8, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode explores the increasingly fragile situation in the Middle East as recent attacks threaten a tentative ceasefire between Israel and Iran, with Lebanon becoming a key battleground and collateral victim. Christiane Amanpour presents exclusive interviews with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and veteran Israeli negotiator Nimrod Novik, who discuss prospects for peace, complexities of regional power dynamics, and the roles external actors (notably the US under President Trump) are playing. Later in the episode, Michelle Martin interviews former FBI executive Jacqueline McGuire, spotlighting politicization and internal purges within the FBI.

---

Key Discussions & Insights

1. The Middle East Ceasefire Under Threat

• Context: After a brief relative calm from the April ceasefire, fighting between Israel and Iran briefly resumed, with Israel striking villages in southern Lebanon shortly after Iran agreed to pause attacks.
• Trump's Influence: President Trump publicly insisted both sides halt firing, declaring, “I call the shots, not the Prime Minister of Israel,” highlighting the unusual level of Washington's direct involvement in Israeli security decisions.

President Joseph Aoun’s Plea for Peace

• Joseph Aoun addresses Israel directly:

  “Are you really want to live in a perpetual war? Aren’t you fed up with war since 1948? Do you want really to live in peace? Let’s sit and talk.” (01:51)

• Stresses a preference for negotiation over perpetual war, reflecting both military experience and the current exhaustion within Lebanon.

---

2. The Israeli Perspective: Nimrod Novik's Commentary

On Iran, Ceasefires, and American Dominance

• Novik praises Aoun’s courage in calling for talks but laments the current dynamic:

  “What we’re seeing right now is an exhibition of Iran’s bravado, a sense of vindictiveness ... Israel cannot accept the situation whereby Israel cannot defend itself in Lebanon because Iran might strike. So here we are in a three-way chess game.” (02:34)

• Notes that decisions about Israeli military action now come from Washington, not Jerusalem—“Decisions on major issues are made in Washington. And that’s a phenomenon of the last couple of years.” (04:48)
• Cites a series of instances where Trump overrode Netanyahu—the Gaza ceasefire, apologies to Qatar, and orders relating to not striking Iran or Beirut.

  “The President really imposed his will on the Prime Minister. And to many, it is puzzling.” (04:48)

On the Strategic Dead End

• Criticizes how Israel and the US entered conflict with Iran “on the basis of flawed assumptions and wrong analysis,” comparing it to regime change fantasies that have not panned out:

  “The assumption that Israel, even jointly with the awesome America, can overnight change the regime in Iran was a fantasy and we are paying the price of expectations unmet.” (06:18)

• Argues for any agreement “that … stops the fighting, opens up the Hormuz Strait and gives the parties the time to seriously negotiate the nuclear issue.” (08:22)

Election Outlook in Israel

• Notes opposition parties, if successful, would prioritize:
  • Ending the wars in Gaza and Lebanon.
  • Confronting Jewish terrorism in the West Bank.
  • Engaging (however tentatively) the Palestinian Authority as an essential partner.

“Even though they’re not two-staters, tomorrow morning it’s going to be a sea change that will change dramatically the dynamics on the ground and Israel standing in the region and beyond.” (09:59)

---

3. Lebanon’s Position: President Joseph Aoun Exclusive Interview

On Negotiating with Israel

• Position: Committed to “making a breakthrough,” leveraging President Trump’s “personal interest” (15:25).
• Advance achieved: A major breakthrough for a ceasefire, notes efforts over specific zones such as Beaufort Castle, a symbolic area near Nabatiyeh (pilot zones for de-escalation efforts) (17:49).

“We need to end the state of hostility between Lebanon and Israel forever. ... The intermediate step is the cessation of hostility.” (16:26)

On Hezbollah, Disarmament, and Avoiding Civil War

• Acknowledges Hezbollah formed in response to the 1982 Israeli invasion.
• His strategy: Remove the root causes for Hezbollah’s justification, offering state protection to their community.
• Warns against forced disarmament to avoid tipping Lebanon back into civil war (22:11):

  “The kinetic part of it is 10%. The rest is political, social, and economic. ... Strong government institution can overshadow all non state actors.” (22:11)

On Endurance and Asymmetric War

• On Hezbollah and Iran’s resilience:

  “Their strength is not measured by their capabilities only, their strength is measured by their presence ... it’s a question of beliefs, ... willingness.” (25:14)

• On Iranian patience and strategy:

  “Iran or the Iranians are famous for making carpets. It takes a long time to make a carpet. So this reflects their diplomacy and strategy.” (26:25)

Messages to Key Actors

• To Israelis:

  “It’s the time for the power of reason to prevail over the reason of power. Military activities or military solution will never provide you with security and safety ... If you are [ready], let’s sit and talk. If you are not, we will never live in peace ...” (32:15)

• To Iran:

  “You want to talk to us, you’re most welcome. ... But you are not allowed to interfere into our internal affairs. ... The people of Lebanon are being killed ... to serve your interests, not to serve the interest of the country.” (33:23)

• To the Lebanese People:

  “You deserve to live in a country free of war ... and it’s my duty ... to serve you. And I have full confidence in the willingness ... of the Lebanese people to make Lebanon great again.” (34:34)

On Calls for Lebanese Federalization

• Dismisses increasing calls for federalism or partition along sectarian lines:

  “It’s not the narrative of the state. The job of the state is a unified country.” (31:38)

---

4. The FBI Under Pressure: The Jacqueline McGuire Interview

(Hosted by Michelle Martin; begins ~37:47)

On Oath and Political Pressures

• McGuire: “We swear an oath to the Constitution, not to a particular administration ... We serve the American public.” (39:08–39:48)
• Details creation of the FBI Support Network, a new group to aid those purged or pressured out under the second Trump administration.

  “The FBI has been, I think, the agency that has been impacted the most by the actions of the Trump administration.” (41:20)

On Politicization and Retaliation

• Highlights that the new administration removed senior FBI officials, often because they “could not be trusted to uphold the President’s agenda.” (44:56)

  “My response was, I don’t carry out anyone’s agenda. I carry out the US Constitution ... That was honestly shocking.” (45:38)

• Nearly 1,100 agents left in a year, including 400 in supervisory roles; many had 21 years experience:

  “The impact has to be assessed not only by sheer numbers, but also the experience.” (47:11)

On Consequences for American Security

• Warns that the mass departure distracts from real national security threats (citing the diversion of resources away from working on Iran when war broke out) (48:55).

On ‘Weaponization’ of the FBI

• Responds to the administration’s claim that purges are needed to ‘de-politicize':

  “Both beauty and weaponization are in the eye of the beholder these days. … The first time I believed I experienced politicization or weaponization in my job was at the end of January 2025, when things became political.” (50:36)

• Calls for the FBI to remain apolitical and law-driven.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• President Aoun to Israelis:
  “It’s the time for the power of reason to prevail over the reason of power. ... Let's sit and talk.” (32:15)

• Nimrod Novik on US Control:
  “We are at a position where decisions on major issues are made in Washington. And that’s a phenomenon of the last couple of years.” (04:48)

• Aoun on Hezbollah’s Justification:
  “Removing the root causes, that’s my main strategy ... so that we can reason with Hezbollah.” (20:40)

• McGuire on FBI Mission:
  “My response was, I don’t carry out anyone’s agenda. I carry out the US Constitution. ... We serve the American public.” (45:38)

---

Important Timestamps

• 01:51: Lebanese President Aoun's direct appeal to Israel for negotiations.
• 02:34–04:48: Nimrod Novik explains Iran’s aims and America’s new dominance over Israeli security decisions.
• 08:22: Novik advocates for a ceasefire as an imperfect but necessary step.
• 15:25: Joseph Aoun outlines negotiations and reliance on Trump’s intervention.
• 17:49: Discussion of “pilot zones” (Chateau de Beaufort) in southern Lebanon as a trial for de-escalation.
• 22:11: Aoun’s comprehensive strategy for undermining Hezbollah’s raison d’être.
• 32:15–34:34: Aoun’s messages to Israelis, Iranians, and Lebanese.
• 37:47: Interview with Jacqueline McGuire on FBI purges and new support network.
• 44:56: Key quote about being purged for not supporting the “President’s agenda.”
• 47:11: Details on the scale and impact of the FBI exodus.
• 48:55–50:36: Discussion of the consequences for US national security and the weaponization debate.

---

Conclusion

This episode presents an urgent, multi-faceted discussion of the Middle East’s precarious ceasefire—highlighting the interplay of local dynamics, foreign intervention, and deep exhaustion with endless conflict. Parallel to these international tensions, the episode’s latter half offers a sobering view into how US domestic institutions (the FBI) are grappling with internal turmoil, politicization, and risks to national security. Through powerful interviews and candid analysis, Amanpour offers both context and critical insight for those seeking to understand the spiraling regional and institutional crises of 2026.

Transcript

[Christiane Amanpour]

Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpur. Here's what's coming up.

[Joseph Aoun]

We have to keep trying. We have to try to find by all means to settle this problem or to end this conflict.

[Christiane Amanpour]

The Lebanese president makes a plea for peace as the Middle east war threatens to escalate. We bring you more of my exclusive conversation with Joseph Aoung then the FBI

[Claire Duffy]

has been, I think, the agency that has been impacted the most by the actions of the Trump administration.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Michelle Martin talks to Jacqueline McGuire, an FBI veteran and public critic of Director Cash Patel's leadership. Welcome to welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christian Amanpour in London. For a while, it looked like the Middle east war might tip into full scale fighting again after the first major exchange of fire between Israel and Iran since the April ceasefire. President Trump responded, posting, israel and Iran must immediately stop shooting. Tehran announced it had suspended military operations against Israel, but warns that strikes will resume if attacks on Lebanon continue. Then less than an hour after that, the Israelis struck a number of villages in southern Lebanon. Trump even said that he calls the shots, not the prime minister of Israel. And Lebanon has become both a potential tripwire and collateral damage. Now, when I spoke with the president Joseph Aoun in Beirut on Friday, he addressed the Israeli government and the Israeli people directly.

[Joseph Aoun]

Are you really want to live in a perpetual war? Aren't you fed up with war since 1948? Do you want really to live in peace? Let's sit and talk.

[Christiane Amanpour]

We'll have more of my exclusive conversation with President Aun in a moment. But first, let's bring in Nimrod Novik, a veteran Israeli negotiator and former senior diplomatic adviser to then Prime Minister Shimon Peres. Nimrod Novik, welcome back to the program. So how do you sort of describe what just happened overnight? What do you think was the aim?

[Nimrod Novik]

Well, I wish more of us would hit the request of the president of Lebanon. Quite courageous calling us to sit down and talk, be seriously. What we're seeing right now is an exhibition of Iran's bravado, a sense of vindictiveness. The regime survived and therefore assumed that it won. It was inflicted very heavy pain, but apparently the regime is more resilient. And as long as the pain is on the population, that's all right. And what Iran is trying to do is really reverse its historical course where Hezbollah in Lebanon was supposed to come to aid Iran. If Israel were to strike it now, they reversed the direction and they are the ones who are trying to defend their remaining asset in the region. But as Our Prime Minister and others have already said Israel cannot accept the situation whereby Israel cannot defend itself in Lebanon because Iran might strike. So here we are in a three way chess game.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yes, indeed. And of course, with all these ceasefires that get signed, let's say, between Israel and Lebanon, the actual fight is between Israel and Hezbollah and they're not party to the ceasefire. So it's all pretty, pretty difficult and strange to figure out how it's going to. But, you know, you said you wish more people would heed the words of President Aoun and we'll get to that. But what about heeding the words of President Trump? President Trump has made it very clear that he told your Prime Minister not to hit Iran. That's a red line. And certainly not to hit Beirut. That's another red line. Israel seemed to agree after, you know, after the showdown last night, but nonetheless says that it will still hit south Lebanon, southern Lebanon. What, again, how do you see this? Because who's calling the shots?

[Nimrod Novik]

Well, many in Israel wonder how do we get to this point where on issues of national security, decisions are not made in Jerusalem? Yeah, you pointed out the sentiment in the country. We are at a position where decisions on major issues are made in Washington. And that's a phenomenon of the last couple of years. Now, the ceasefire in Gaza was imposed by Trump. Various ceasefires in Lebanon were imposed by him. Netanyahu's apologies to the embarrassing apologies to the Emir of Qatar after Israel struck Hamas militants in his capital was one. There was a series of events where the President really imposed his will on the Prime Minister. And to many, it is puzzling. What is it that brought us to the point?

[Joseph Aoun]

Yeah,

[Christiane Amanpour]

well, just to ask you, that means the President of the United States appears to want, and keeps saying he wants and that he's close to getting a end of war or peace deal with Iran. Clearly, the Prime Minister of Israel doesn't feel that way. He wants to keep having the ability to bomb Iran. Where do you stand on that?

[Nimrod Novik]

Well, look, when you enter a war on the basis of flawed assumptions and wrong analysis, you end up with a situation with no good options. The assumption that led the Prime Minister, and at least to the extent that it was made public, the president as well, was that this will be a Venezuela take two very quickly. The regime will collapse, the ballistic missile threat will be eliminated, the nuclear weapons threat will be dealt with for eternity. Iran's relations with proxies, with militant proxies in the region will end, none of which have been accomplished. And one problem that never existed, emerged to top the agenda. And that's the closure of the Hormuz Strait of Hormuz, which affects global economy. So, yeah, you entered the war on the basis of false assumptions and today you don't have good options. I think that the assumption that Israel, even jointly with the awesome America, can overnight change the regime in Iran was a fantasy and we are paying the price of expectations unmet.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Right. So the former Prime Minister Yahir Lapid, who is in an alliance with former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett to contest the next round of elections, he has said the current round of fighting serves no strategic objective for the state of Israel. Do you agree with him? And given everything you just said about entering a war on a false, whatever, false assumptions, poor war gaming, do you think it would rather benefit Israel to try to get to an end to this war rather than keep going at it?

[Nimrod Novik]

Absolutely. It is not that I. I'm optimistic about the substance of a possible agreement. It's not going to be a good agreement, but any agreement that pause, stops the fighting, opens up the Hormuz Strait and gives the parties the time to seriously negotiate the nuclear issue. The other issues are troubling, are very serious ballistic missiles, proxies and so on. But none are as important as the nuclear issue. The nuclear issue is complicated and therefore requires time and therefore stable ceasefire. The 60 days that the President has in mind, which probably will be extended with another 60, might give the beginning of time to negotiate a very complicated issue that took the Obama administration two years to conclude.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Right, Exactly. Nimrod Novik, you know, as we just mentioned, there's an election coming up in your country. Polls suggest that your Prime Minister Netanyahu is vulnerable. Apparently. One poll internally by the Times of Israel showed that parties not aligned with Netanyahu could get a majority if elections were held today. What do you think a new Prime Minister would. Would do differently? And you know, added to that, do you think there is any danger that Netanyahu keeps using this confrontation with Iran as a political strategy heading into these elections?

[Nimrod Novik]

I'm afraid so, because the polls also show that and polls of past elections show that what's uppermost in the mind of the electorate in the days in the lead up to elections affect their choices. Two, three mandates here and there, whether the issue is security or the issue is another. And there are plenty of issues in this country. But to your main question, when I look at the five leaders of the opposition parties, assuming that they will form the next government, I see them as having one mind on several issues. Let me start with what they are not. They are not ready the day after elections to run to Ramallah, embrace Abu Mazen and sign a two state agreement. That's not in the cards on our side, but on the Palestinian side and otherwise. But what are they in one mind, which differs dramatically with Netanyahu? One, they want to end the war in Gaza. Two, they want to end the war in Lebanon. Three, they are all in one mind that we have to deal firmly with Jewish terrorism on the west bank next. They all believe that the Palestinian Authority, with all its flaws, is an essential partner. For some of them, it is a partner for an eventual one day over the Horizon 2 state agreement. For others, like Bennett, whom you mentioned, it is just to spare Israel the need to care for the lives and fund the lives of 3 million Palestinians on the West Bank. So even though they're not two staters, tomorrow morning it's going to be a sea change that will change dramatically the dynamics on the ground and Israel standing in the region and beyond.

[Christiane Amanpour]

You know, you worked for Shimon Peres and also in the, in the sort of atmosphere of Yitzhak Rabin, they both came to the conclusion that there was no military and end to this. The president of Lebanon, who's a former military commander, says the same thing. It has to be negotiated. I hear what you just said. Do you think there will be a serious attempt to work towards negotiation to end it?

[Nimrod Novik]

If you're talking about the Palestinian issue, yes, I think. Well, I believe that the two state solution is way over the horizon. But that doesn't mean that one cannot have a sea change on the ground by pursuing a different policy, a policy that considered, as I mentioned, the Palestinian Authority as a partner rather than an enemy. Dynamics that put a hold on settlement, expansion, settler violence and all that give the Palestinian Authority hope and space.

[Christiane Amanpour]

I hear you and that's a really important thing that you've just said. So, Nimrod Novik, thank you very much for being with us and stay with CNN because we'll be right back.

[Claire Duffy]

I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy. This week on the podcast Terms of Service, the idea of riding in a car with no driver can feel daunting. And this technology raises questions about safety and the future of transportation. That's why I'm here with Nicole Gabel, head of business development and strategic partnerships at Waymo Waymo.

[Michelle Martin]

We've always been about safety.

[Claire Duffy]

No distracted driving, no drunk driving.

[Michelle Martin]

Waymo follows the rules of the road.

[Claire Duffy]

Listen to CNN's terms of service. Wherever you get your podcasts.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Craig Ferguson is going coast to coast to unpack what it really means to be an American today.

[Joseph Aoun]

What could possibly go wrong?

[Christiane Amanpour]

CRAIG Ferguson, American on purpose. New episodes now streaming on the CNN app. Go to CNN.com watch to subscribe or log in with your TV provider. When Iran announced it was suspending attacks on Israel, it warned they would start up again if Israel's strikes on Lebanon continued. As we've discussed, those strikes are in fact continuing, which makes Lebanon the key to determining whether this is about escalation or de escalation and the country is suffering for it. Two Lebanese army officers and a soldier were killed in a weekend attack by Israel. Now, the Israeli Defense Forces say they are investigating, but Beirut calls the attack aggressive and barbaric. President Joseph Aoun says it was, quote, a flagrant violation of Lebanese sovereignty and international law. Before that incident, I had sat down with President Aoun for an exclusive interview with. We brought you the first part of that conversation on Friday. Now here's more, including his direct messages to Israelis, Iranians and his own Lebanese people. Are you prepared to keep the negotiations with Israel going under the American auspices? How is that going at all?

[Joseph Aoun]

Actually, I have no other choice. I'm trying to benefit from the President Trump's personal interest in ending this conflict. And as I said, it's very difficult, but we are committed to it

[Nimrod Novik]

and

[Joseph Aoun]

we have no other choice. So we're counting on President Trump and his team to, to make a breakthrough. But we did yesterday or the day before. It was a tough negotiation until we were able to make to to have a major breakthrough which is a ceasefire, an exchange of the Israel of Hezbollah, withdrawal from this, the southern part of Israel, but south Kittani sector area.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And are they going to do it?

[Joseph Aoun]

This is different. They came up with this initiative and we're trying to work it out. It's very difficult, but we have no other choice. We have to keep trying. We have to try to find by all means to settle this problem or to end this conflict. It's in the best interest for both sides of both sides.

[Christiane Amanpour]

What is on the table? Is it a full scale peace agreement like Jordan has with Israel? Israel or.

[Joseph Aoun]

No, actually for the time being, it's non aggression agreement, security agreement, you name it. We need to end the state of hostility between Lebanon and Israel forever. And this could be a path forward for just and lasting peace. And as far as the peace is concerned, we are part of the Arab initiative of 2002 Beirut. So we are part of the Arab Initiative and we are committed to it. But you cannot jump from A to Z directly. You have to go through different steps. The intermediate steps is the cessation of hostility or ending the state of hostility between Lebanon and Israel.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Would you ever meet Prime Minister Netanyahu?

[Joseph Aoun]

Not now. Depending on what. Where we are. What would it take? Not. Not. Not before reaching an agreement to end the first phase.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Agreement to end the war.

[Joseph Aoun]

Exactly.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Let me just ask you point blank right now. Is there a ceasefire?

[Joseph Aoun]

I'm working on it. It's very difficult.

[Christiane Amanpour]

What about these pilot zones that you're talking about? And everybody's been quite taken by the Israeli reoccupation of what's in English called the Beaufort Castle. It's a very historic and important symbol.

[Joseph Aoun]

Exactly. During the negotiation. The military to military negotiation. They come up with the pilot zone. Actually this concept came up during. Before, during Christmas when we decided to increase our representation in Nakura was a civilian which is with Simon Karam. They come up with a pilot zone. The pilot zone stands for an area that the LAF will occupy. Clear it. The Lebanese army, the Lebanese Armed Forces. Actually. I'm sorry, Occupy it. And then we can move from another region to another region. It's like a trial region. It's a test region. And it's not only that we start rebuilding it. During this negotiation we proposed. I personally proposed the Chateau de Beaufort area. The chateau area because it's symbolic and it's very close to one of the largest Shiite city in the south which is Nabati. So I propose that the Israelis withdraw from it. And then the Lebanese armed forces will deploy in order to clean it. But on one condition. They. That we have a complete ceasefire. Because you cannot send your troops. You cannot send your troops while there is a fire is going on. The shooting is going on. So you'll be risking the life of the troops. So this is the idea. And if it works then we'll move into another area.

[Christiane Amanpour]

You have said that you cannot go from A to Z overnight. And it sometimes takes years. You mentioned the. The rebels in Colombia before they came to an agreement with the Colombian government. It took years. You mentioned the IRA before they came to an agreement. It took years. Decades. With a lot of intervention by the United States and others. A lot of real help to get there. Disarmament has always been part of these end of war scenarios. But Hezbollah refuses to disarm. Do you think there was any opportunity recently that they would have. Would have looked at this issue? Because we read that there was. And then there was another bout of fighting.

[Joseph Aoun]

Remember I mentioned the root causes of its existence. The first place the Hezbollah was formed was established in response to the Israeli invasion of 1982. The war should have been stopped in 2000 after the accomplishment of the weapon at that time accomplished its mission by liberating the country. But after 2000, Hezbollah took major strategic mistakes.

[Christiane Amanpour]

I was just going to say at that time, that's when Israel withdrew from

[Joseph Aoun]

Lebanon in 2000, 2000. Removing the root causes, that's my main strategy. By ending the state of hostility and strengthening the government institution, the security agencies, the Lebanese armed forces and other government institutions so that we can reason with Hezbollah and we can present them with alternative that the state is ready to protect the country and to protect everybody. They are Lebanese. You have the right to live indignity, but under the protection of the state. Otherwise, if they don't agree to turn down their weapon or to reason or to negotiate with the government, then they will be held accountable before their people, their people, who discredit them.

[Christiane Amanpour]

So let me talk about the people, because in conversation with people personally, in interviews, reading about what they say, it is clear, as we've discussed, discussed, that they are fed up. Every, every group in Lebanon is fed up and wants an end to this and wants a non state actor to stop threatening its sovereignty as a state. And yet, including some of your own former national security officials, your military commanders and this and that, they are very wary of a forcible disarmament by the state of Hezbollah because they do not want to take tip this country back into civil war. Do you understand that?

[Joseph Aoun]

Definitely. Listen, there is a concept, the military concepts called preparation of the battlefield. It doesn't mean that you have to set up your artillery as your tank. It's to shape up the environment. Before reaching that, that part we have to shape up the environment. We have to convince the mass base. We have to remove the. To remove the root causes of the existence of the weapon. And then, and we can move, we can proceed. And as I said at the beginning, it requires a strategy with multiple lines of effort. The kinetic part of it is 10%. The rest is political, social and economic. In 1975, the first institution to collapse was the Lebanese Armed Forces. As a result, we saw the disintegration of the government institutions and the emergence of local militias, Christian and Muslim. The normal people had to resort to their militias for security, safety, food, basic needs. Now it's the time for the government to replace those militias. The mainly the Shiite communities, believe me, are fed up. But we need to provide them with alternative, which is the government. The equation is simple. Strong government institution can overshadow all non state actors. We government institution, this non state actor will overshadow the state. So we have, we need to work on strengthening this government institution, whether security agencies militarily or other institution, and to work on removing the root causes of the existence of the weapon. Other way will be, will be, it will be a disaster again, you know, we will never achieve the objective.

[Christiane Amanpour]

I want to ask you whether you think Hezbollah and Iran are somehow strengthened, and I don't necessarily mean physically strengthened by the Israeli U. S war on Iran because everybody expected it to do exactly the opposite. You remember when Israel, you know, had this pretty successful anti Hezbollah, from the exploding pages to the killing of Hassan Nasrallah, their leader, and on and on and on, and then the weakening militarily of Iran. And yet both the state of Iran and the non state actor Hezbollah are still firing, still doing their thing, still there. And in fact Israel has been flummoxed by Hezbollah's rather innovative and asymmetric war. Do you think they're stronger?

[Joseph Aoun]

Hezbollah, the whole lot.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Do you think they're stronger? Since it's not this war?

[Joseph Aoun]

Their strength is not measured by their capabilities only their strength is measured by their presence. Even if only one person exists, it means for them it's something so. And when, when, when you're fighting an asymmetric warfare, it doesn't require that highly advanced capabilities. It requires some operations behind enemy lines. We have many examples throughout history that shows conventional forces engaged in asymmetric warfare never been able to achieve their objective. And it's a war of attrition, It's a costly war. So it's not the question of capabilities only, but it's a question of beliefs, it's a question of presence, it's a question of willingness to do what they believe that they are doing is sacred.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Do you think they have a higher pain threshold than either Israel or the United States? Do you think Iran and Hezbollah have a higher pain endurance to tolerance?

[Joseph Aoun]

You know, that Iran or the Iranian are famous for, you know, making carpets. It takes a long time to make a carpet. So this reflects their diplomacy and strategy.

[Christiane Amanpour]

You've been on the battlefield. Tell me a little bit and I know you've been wounded. Tell me the state of your body after 42 years in combat and on the battlefield.

[Joseph Aoun]

That's why, because I've served for 42 years in the army and eight years as a commander in chief of the Lebanese armed forces, I've been in combat situation many times. I was wounded twice. I've seen the hardship of the war. That's why I hate wars. And that's why I prefer negotiation over wars. Because I don't want my children, I don't want the people in Lebanon to live the same hardship. And this is the only way to end this conflict again. To end this bloody conflict in a very peaceful manner.

[Christiane Amanpour]

So you still carry shrapnel, as you were telling me?

[Joseph Aoun]

Yes, exactly.

[Christiane Amanpour]

I still have ear is damaged by the sound of combat in close quarters. And yet you are the President of this country. The presidency, as I understand it, is not the main executive arm, right? I mean, you're executive, but you have a more limited, sort of more. Not just ceremonial, but more of a moral and father of the nation capacity. It's the other groups, right? That's how it works. So what can you do?

[Joseph Aoun]

The presidential system.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Right. It's not exactly. So what can you actually do, you yourself in this office?

[Joseph Aoun]

Actually, I have according, I swear an oath, first of all, to protect the country and to safeguard its territorial integrity. And my job is to work very closely with the Prime Minister and the speaker of the Parliament. And we are working in harmony while in line with everything we're doing. We coordinate the slightest problem or the slightest situation together. And this is the job of the President. But negotiation is a prerogative of the president according to Constitution Article 52. But I'm doing it in close consultation with the Prime Minister and the speaker

[Christiane Amanpour]

of Parliament, which are all of different faiths. The President is historically Christian, the Prime Minister historically suddenly Sunni Muslim, and the speaker of the Parliament historically Shiite Muslim. And you mentioned Nabi Berry, who is the person representing also Hezbollah. Right, okay.

[Joseph Aoun]

Not Hezbollah, the Shiite.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Sorry, the Shiites. You're right, sorry. Are they all on board with your plan negotiations with Israel via the United States? Are they all on board with this?

[Joseph Aoun]

They are united behind ending this war.

[Christiane Amanpour]

How much do you think Nabi Berry, as the leader of the Shiites, the Speaker of the parliament can use his authority to push Hezbollah or to encourage Hezbollah or to make Hezbollah, whatever you want to say, stop their war. And I know you talk about root causes, but it also requires political pressure.

[Joseph Aoun]

No, definitely, I totally agree with you. But as I said, Speaker Berry is from the south and he spent 40 years trying to build the south south and seeing the south being destroyed. He's a man of state and he wants to end this war by peaceful means. And definitely, as a Speaker of the Parliament and the sole Representative of the Shiite. He has a job to do, but we need to understand how sensitive is his situation. I fully agree with you, but I'm in close coordination, close consultation with them to talk, to convince, to reason with Hezbollah to lay down their weapon. He can play a major role. And he's playing. He's doing it but being very careful not to be in military confrontation with Hezbollah or not to. And he's very careful about the delicacy of the situation inside the Shiite. He's trying to reason with them. He's trying to convince them to lay down their weapon for the best interest of the Shiite and the country.

[Christiane Amanpour]

You said a moment ago that you swore an oath to protect and guarantee the territorial integrity of this country. Now, I don't know whether you're aware, you probably are. There are increasing calls for a sort of Lebanese federalization splitting the country precisely nicely along the sectarian lines that you don't particularly want to see happening. A Lebanese political analyst, Sami Nada, says there are growing calls for federalism in Lebanon and even more for partition in some cases. More and more Christians and Sunnis are now saying they want federalism, a kind of separation, they say of Hezbollah. If you want to keep your arms, keep your army, keep it in your region, you cannot force us to align with Iran. How serious is that talk and how much of a solution could that be?

[Joseph Aoun]

It's not the narrative of the state. The job of the state is a unified country. And I think that he has to go back and read history. This is the history of Lebanon. And you cannot change Lebanon. You cannot change history.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Actually, here you are talking to us, and I wonder if you had a message, because this program is viewed in Israel, it's viewed in some quarters in Iran where they have prerogative, and it's viewed in your country as well. What would you say to the Israeli government and the Israeli people right now?

[Joseph Aoun]

Are you really want to live in a perpetual war? Aren't you fed up with war since 1948? Do you want really to live in peace? Let's sit and talk. For the Israeli government, it's the time for the power of reason to prevail over the reason of power. Military activities or military solution will never provide you with security and safety. To the northern people, we are ready to sit and talk. Our people along the border are fed up with war. But you need to show some willingness and commitment to end this war for the sake of both people and on both sides of the border. We are ready. We are willing we are committed. Are you? If you are, let's sit and talk if you are not. We will never live in peace and safety and security.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And what would you say to the Iranians and the patrons of Hezbollah?

[Joseph Aoun]

We seek good relationship with Iran based on mutual respect, non interference. But you remember Lebanon is a sovereign state. It has sovereign government. You want to talk to us, you're most welcome. But you do not interfere. If you're ready to help us, you're most welcome. But you are not allowed to interfere into the internal affairs. There is a huge difference between helping us or interfering into our internal affairs. Our interest maybe do not coincide with your interest. The people of Lebanon are paying the price. The people of Lebanon are being killed. Their houses or homes, they are being destroyed to serve your interests, not to serve the interest of the country. It's about time to realize this reality. You're not allowed to interfere into our internal affairs. Other countries are trying to help us, but you are not trying to help us. You are destroying the country for the sake of your own interest.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And what would you say to your own long suffering Lebanese people?

[Joseph Aoun]

I know you're fed up. I know you believe in this country. And you deserve to live in safety and security and stability. You deserve to live in a country free of war. You deserve to live in a prosperous country. You deserve to live in a country free of corruption. And it's my duty and I committed to it and my job to, to serve you. And I have full confidence in you. And I have full confidence in the willingness and the resiliency and the creativity of the Lebanese people to make Lebanon great again.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Is that a plea to Donald Trump to come and help?

[Joseph Aoun]

No, actually, really, honestly, he's committed. And his calls, his personal intervention are indicative of his commitment and willingness to end the side because he cares about the stability in the region. And he knows that stability in the region, Lebanon stability, is very essential for the stability of the region itself.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Well, we do understand that he did call on Israel very clearly. In conversations we hear heated to not pursue this, you know, to pull back. But do you think the war in Iran contributes to the stability of the region?

[Joseph Aoun]

Definitely. The stability of the region was affected by this war. Before the war, it wasn't that stable. I mean, Lebanon wasn't stable. But after the war, during the war or after the war, the whole region is affected. You see that? We saw that the bombardment of the Gulf countries, we saw the bombardment of different Arab countries. We saw what's happening here in Lebanon. So hopefully that will end very soon because it will have a spillover effect into regional security environment. But what President Trump did, really, it takes the courage and wisdom. True strength is not in the ability of waging war, but it's in the courage and wisdom of ending this war through negotiation. So what that's, that's what President Trump is doing now. And we are counting on him to end this conflict as soon as possible so that we can the whole region becomes stable and secure.

[Christiane Amanpour]

President Daoun, thank you very much indeed.

[Joseph Aoun]

Thank you.

[Christiane Amanpour]

The stakes are extremely high. And we'll be right back after this break. Now, pushed out for not upholding President Trump's agenda. That's what several former FBI officials say got them forced out of the bureau. Under Trump loyalist Director Kash Patel, the FBI has seen dozens of employees purged to allegedly root out political bias. One of them is Jacqueline McGuire, who who served for 25 years. And she joins Michelle Martin now to explain why she left and how changes within the FBI are making the U.S. less safe.

[Michelle Martin]

Thanks, Christiane. Jacqueline McGuire, thank you so much for talking with us.

[Claire Duffy]

Thank you.

[Michelle Martin]

You spent some 25 years at the FBI. You served in leadership roles that included special agent in charge of the Philadelphia field office, an executive assistant director of the science and technology brands. Before we get into the reason that we invited you to speak with us today, your current role in relationship with the FBI, I did want to ask, is there something at the bureau in your service that you're particularly proud of?

[Claire Duffy]

Oh, just being an agent and being able to serve the public. I don't think any FBI agent forgets their graduation day from Quantico. It is a special day. I still get chills thinking about it. I had my family there. And to take the oath of office. You take the oath of office. Office on your first day at the academy. You get sworn in, but then you do it again. Most often, the director of the FBI at the time is at graduation and he swears in the new class of FBI agents and you take your oath to swear allegiance to the Constitution. So I think that's just as long as my career was and as many opportunities and experiences I was fortunate to have. I would go back to the very beginning and say I'm just most proud to have become an FBI agent.

[Michelle Martin]

And you swear an oath to the Constitution, right? Not to a particular administration, not to a particular figure.

[Claire Duffy]

Yes. I think you may have picked up on my emphasizing the oath to the Constitution to swear allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. In my career I served under, it's five different Presidential administrations, both Republican and Democratic administrations. And it. It didn't matter who was in the White House at the time. It didn't matter what administration was in place. We serve the American public, and we uphold the mission of the FBI.

[Michelle Martin]

And so now you have decided to become part of a newly launched FBI Support Network. What is this new organization?

[Claire Duffy]

This new FBI Support network, which comes under the umbrella of the Justice Connection, is to really provide resources based on what is going on in our world, in our country right now. So the Justice Connection is an organization that was set up in January of 2025 when the new administration came in, the Trump administration came in and started firing and forcing people out in the Department of Justice. So this group, the Justice Connection, was formed, and it's made up of former Department of Justice officials. And they were providing resources since that time, since January of 2025, to people who had been forced out, and that included FBI personnel. The resources include legal resources, pro bono representation, mental health resources, career resources, and also just that, general support to make sure, with all that was going on, that they were not alone. But because of everything that has happened over the past year and everything that's happened at the FBI, the FBI has been, I think, the agency that has been impacted the most by the actions of the Trump administration. And we realized that the FBI really needed its own dedicated group under Justice Connection. So that's where the FBI Support Network has come from.

[Michelle Martin]

You served through five presidential administrations, including President Trump's first term. What is different about this moment than in previous administrations that you've served under?

[Claire Duffy]

There are always different priorities of new presidential administrations and different focuses, and that's okay. I think the difference now is that really the guardrails have come down. I think this current administration is no holds barred on taking action without any sense of consequences. Not consequences for people, because that's happening. People are personally affected by this. But the consequences for the mission and the work of the FBI, the consequences, honestly, to the American people and to our national security and to our safety overall. Because, again, the mission of the FBI is, is to protect the American public and uphold the U.S. constitution. And the actions that this administration and the current FBI leadership are taking really distract. And the FBI is supposed to be, and needs to be nonpartisan, apolitical. People need to be focused on investigations, no matter where the facts lead. And there's always going to be someone who doesn't like where the facts lead. But that's okay. That's. That's showing that we're doing our job correctly. Because it doesn't matter what the outcome is. We want it to be a fair outcome. And now I think the things are. Have been turned upside down.

[Michelle Martin]

Give an example. Give an example of why you say that.

[Claire Duffy]

An example, I think, is using the power of the FBI, its investigative power, to go after those who are disliked or those who have part taken in activities that this administration dislikes. So you have folks in the FBI, agent, analyst, or professional staff who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. They have conducted investigations that have been approved at higher levels. They were assigned those investigations. They. They took action that was approved by the courts, and now they're being fired. They're being, you know, acted against by people who are really betraying the same oath.

[Michelle Martin]

So people are fired because they were assigned to investigations. Presumably President Trump is one of the people that they investigated. And because your contention and that of others part of this group, is that because they were assigned a task and they fulfilled that task, they are now being retaliated against for doing a task to which they were assigned.

[Claire Duffy]

That's exactly it. We could look at a number of personnel who've been fired over the past year, whether it's prosecutors at the Department of Justice or agents, analysts, and professional staff in the FBI. That's a great example of the investigations of President Trump and those people, because of their participation in those investigations, and at times even because they're rumored to participation in those investigations, they've been fired and they have been retaliated against merely for just doing their job.

[Michelle Martin]

In early 2025, you were among a group of other senior executives who were pushed out of the Bureau. Did you ever get a rationale for it? Like, what was the stated rationale?

[Claire Duffy]

That is exactly the question I asked. When we were told at the end of January 2025 that we would be fired if we did not resign or retire from the Bureau within a few days. And the response was that we could not be trusted to uphold the President's agenda.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Hmm.

[Michelle Martin]

Agenda. Not constitutional requirements, but the President's agenda. You were specifically told you could not be trusted to uphold the President's agenda. How do you respond to that? And is there any legal recourse to that? I mean, do you. Does the FBI agents have civil service protections? I mean, is there any process required? Or were you at a level where you're essentially considered at will once you're a senior executive, Are you considered a political appointee?

[Claire Duffy]

I was not a political appointee. I was a career public servant. I was a career FBI official that served for 25 years, as were all of my colleagues. So those are all great questions. The response at that time was honestly shock, because we had never seen anything like this. We had seen it going on the previous few days at the Department of Justice, where attorneys were being fired. But I think the shock of that being the answer of the reason why that we couldn't carry out a president's agenda. And my response right away was, I don't carry out anyone's agenda. I carry out the U.S. constitution. I carry out the mission of the FBI. And again, I want to be very clear. Priorities change, right? Focus has changed. Threats change over the years. We saw that. We saw that way back at the beginning of my career, after 9, 11 and the refocus of the FBI on national security and counterterrorism. But those weren't agendas. Those things were done for the safety of the American public.

[Michelle Martin]

You wrote an essay for the Times, for the New York Times back in March. You wrote that the Bureau remains strong because of the people who serve in it, even as many experienced employees have left. Do you know how many people have left? I know that it's been estimated that some like 10,000 lawyers in federal service have left. Some people in the FBI service are also lawyers. Do you have a sense of how many FBI agents have left?

[Claire Duffy]

I do have a sense from the statistics that are put out by the Office of personnel management, OPM, and roughly, I believe the numbers are about 1100. I don't have an exact number in front of me, but I think about 1100 agents have left over the past year. Now, that includes retirements, but it also includes people who were fired. It includes people who were forced out, like myself. And it includes people who left because they could not tolerate and could not continue on in that situation and under the leadership of the current administration. I know that of that number, I believe it's about 400 of those people were in supervisory positions. So people like myself as executives, people who were supervisors of squads or supervisors at headquarters divisions. So I think the impact has to be assessed not only by sheer numbers, but also the experience. I believe that the average number of years that those people who left last year had was 21 years. 21 years of service in the FBI, 21 years of experience working against the threats that the FBI addresses.

[Michelle Martin]

One of the things that occurs to me when I travel is that many people are sort of insulated from the consequences of a lot of the things that we talk about on this program and other news programs. Is there something you could point to that can demonstrate to the public what the consequence of losing these experienced people actually can be.

[Joseph Aoun]

Sure.

[Claire Duffy]

I think the consequence is distraction from our major threats. And I think a perfect example, we went to war with Iran. And right around that time, and I mentioned this in my piece in the New York Times, the current director fired people who were working the Iran threat in Washington, D.C. and that is concerning that. There is no consideration of the impact. There is no justification for these actions being taken. So my fear is that these distractions, these actions are really going to impact the FBI's mission and then impact the safety of the country.

[Michelle Martin]

I do want to mention that we did approached the FBI to ask their response to the creation of the FBI support network. We do know that they received our request. But as you and I are speaking now, they have not offered any response to this whole question of weaponization. The current director of the FBI, Kash Patel, repeatshas repeatedly argued that the Bureau needs to rebuild public trust and address what he considers misconduct and bias within the agency. In fact, their argument is that people like him and people like in the President's Order, his supporters, they have been the targets of the weaponization of law enforcement assets. They are the victims, and that all they're doing now is addressing what they consider misconduct directed toward them. And I just don't know. How do you answer that?

[Claire Duffy]

I guess we could say that both beauty and weaponization are in the eye of the beholder these days. Right? Because the weaponization argument again, 25 years in the FBI, I never experienced weaponization the first time. And I've said it over the past year, the first time I believed I experienced police politicization or weaponization in my job was at the end of January 2025, when things became political. So I think there is a lot of subjectiveness in the view of what is so called alleged weaponization. You know, over time and over history, we could look back and yes, there have been instances, right, where people were wronged by the criminal justice system. And those people should be afforded the opportunity to clear their names to, you know, right those wrongs. Luckily, I think we could say while significant and impactful on our history, those cases are not the majority. And we can't just go around calling cases that we don't like because they were, you know, targeted. They were, they were targeting friends of ours. You know, we can't call those weaponize cases. I think the best way to avoid that is let the FBI be apolitical. Let the FBI do their job to follow the law, follow the facts without fear or favor. And that is exactly what we're seeing right now, the fear of employees of not knowing if what they're going to do is going to be the right thing or the wrong thing. In Cash Patel or anyone else in in the administration's eyes, we have to do that without favor, without favoring one side or another.

[Michelle Martin]

Jacqueline o', Greier, thank you so much for talking with me.

[Claire Duffy]

Thank you very much.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And finally, make way for mother. Leslie Manville has won her first ever Tony award for her Broadway debut as Jocasta, the infamous female lead in the timeless Greek tragedy Oedipus Rex. She won best leading actress in a play, bringing Robert Icke's adaptation of the Sophocles classic to life with Mark Strong, who plays Oedipus. I spoke to them in New York when the 2,500-year-old piece had its Broadway revival, and they told me why, despite its age, the tale still feels like a modern political thriller. And you can watch our full conversation this Friday on this program. That's it for now. Remember, you can always catch us online on our website and all over place the social media. Thank you for watching and goodbye. From London, this is CNN meteorologist Derek

[Claire Duffy]

Van Dam, thrilled to introduce the new CNN weather app.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Be prepared for anything with comprehensive coverage from real experts like me.

[Claire Duffy]

Download the CNN weather app on iOS today. I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast. Despite representing half the population, women get overlooked like and underserved too often when it comes to their health.

[Joseph Aoun]

We're gonna talk about it with someone

[Claire Duffy]

who knows a lot about this issue

[Joseph Aoun]

and is trying to do something about it.

[Claire Duffy]

Melinda French Gates, I founded Pivotal Ventures to really focus on women and families

[Christiane Amanpour]

in the US and now I'm really

[Claire Duffy]

including in that work Women's Health. Specifically, we have underfunded and under researched conditions that affect women. And so for so long, the medical community assumed the male body as the default. And then we would take medications and say, okay, we'll take it down by a certain amount of a dosage for a woman. That's just not true. A woman's body is very different than a man's. Listen to Chasing Life streaming now, wherever you get your podcasts.