D (3:57)

Well, I think the president has a lot of instincts. The president trusts his instincts. Whenever I talk to people in the White House, the phrase I keep hearing them use is preserving the president's optionality. The president always seems to be looking for another advantage, another opening. The challenge is that it becomes hard to staff him because you don't know exactly where he's trying to go. It keeps adversaries off base, but it also keeps our allies off base, because if you're a country in Europe, you're a country in East Asia, you want to help the United States. It's harder to do because you're not sure what the goals are. So I think in some ways, the president's really helping himself because it keeps the adversaries off, but the president is hurting himself because it makes it harder for both his team and his allies to act in ways that ultimately will help him accomplish what he wants to accomplish.

B (4:54)

So the very latest is that Trump is claiming that the Iranian president is asking for a ceasefire, that he will consider that in his postings when the Strait of Hormuz is open. Of course, the Wall Street Journal has been reporting that, actually, Trump has told aides that he's willing to leave, end this, perhaps declare victory without even the strait being opened, and leaving that to the allies who he's been, you know, essentially dumping on. What do you think? Can you see any emerging strategy for declaring an end? And do you have any idea whether the Iranians are actually engaging in asking for a cease fire?

D (5:34)

I don't know if the Iranians are asking for a cease fire. My guess is the Iranians are trying to explore what the options are. My guess also is the president is likely to say, I intend to continue operating for a while, but there's an end to this. If the Iranians make a deal before this ends, then good things can happen. If the Iranians don't make a deal before it ends, I will do something incredibly destructive on my way out the door. To me, there are a whole series of questions about what happens next, not only in terms of reopening the strait, but also in terms of, of whether if the United States backs out of this war, does Israel back out of the war? The US And Israel have been operating incredibly closely from before this war started. Planning together, targeting together, working intelligence, all those things. When the United States decides it's over, is Israel in agreement with that? Does Israel continue operating? If Israel is continuing operating from an Iranian perspective, then the war is still going on. And I would expect that the Iranians, if they can't get some sort of deal, are going to continue some low level harassment of traffic in the strait and perhaps some of the neighbors. So the United States may say we're done, but nobody else may feel that this is over. And that also creates some challenges because of a sense that the United States started this and then is just walking away in many cases, in the view of many leaving everybody worse off than they were beforehand.

B (7:09)

Let me just, I want to come back to the specifics about the strait and how it would be opened and what would be a reason to leave. But you did mention Israel and whether it would have the same goal as the United States. But you've also written about it and you've essentially the title anyway in the newspaper was America Essentially following the Israeli War Plan. You've written this close alignment comes with costs that are not fully appreciated. The United States has aligned with Israeli war aims without a clear strategy to accomplish them. What was once a win win has the markings of a lose lose. Future administrations may find themselves spending years picking up the pieces of an alliance that they conclude grew too close. So just detail a little bit what type of costs you're talking about and how is the US More aligned with Israeli tactics.

D (8:00)

So the United States and Israel plan together for this war in a way the US hasn't really planned with any allies since it worked with the British in World War II. We were really operating hand in glove with each other. The concern to my mind is that the Israelis have adopted a strategy in the Middle east that suggests they're always on a war footing. They always feel they have to be fighting and they will attack adversaries, degrade the adversaries capabilities. And then a few years later, when the adversaries rebuild, the Israelis attack again. The Israelis have been calling this for several decades mowing the grass. They just come in, they attack again. Limited aims, the adversaries build up, they go in again. That's not the way the US has treated problems around the world. The US is trying to pull out of the Middle East. And my concern was that as the US Thought about dealing with Iran. The President may be pushing the United States into this position of mowing the grass on Iran, having a war with Iran, Iran every few years, which I don't think is in the US Interest, and I don't think is the way the United States has approached problems in the past. That creates a whole set of insecurities in the Middle east in terms of transit through the Strait of Hormuz, which is so important not just for energy, but a whole series of commodities around the world. I don't think that leaves the US Better off. I don't think it leaves the region better off. And that was the concern I had in writing the piece, that in adopting this Israeli sense that maybe mowing the grass is okay, we may be falling into a pattern. Now, of course, the Israeli goal and the US Goal was maybe if we attack the entire leadership cadre, that the government collapses and there's no more Iran problem. I don't think that ever was likely to be the case. I also think that on that line, the fact is we have never assassinated an entire leadership cadre of a government as an effort to move a foreign policy goal. That's what we did in cooperation with the Israelis. Whether that turns out to be a good idea or a bad idea is yet to be seen. It doesn't strike me as a very good precedent to be setting.

B (10:18)

So actually, President Trump has indicated that they would go back. You know, he could pull out now, declare victory, but if anything that he didn't like or the US didn't like, down the line, it could be dealt again in the same way. So he's actually, from the presidential mouth, so to speak, put that down on the table. So I understand what you're saying about that. Could you just summarize for us how you would open the Strait of Hormuz? And if he says, I'm leaving, it's up to you allies, how they would open the Strait of Hormuz. Iran says it's under its full control. Pakistan is now thinking of securing transit through there by maybe reflagging tankers. Who controls it? Whose sovereignty is it under? And how would you open it up again?

D (11:04)

Well, the strange thing about closing this trade of Hormuz is everybody always said, well, that's a sort of a last ditch kind of effort. It's so hard to do. And what this war has demonstrated is just how easy it is to do. I remember seeing full page articles in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal detailing all the mines that the Iranians had. If they really want to close the strait. And the reality is all they have to do to close the strait is say, we're going to attack ships in the strait, and nobody wants to put ships through, endangering the crews and the cargo. And so actually, what we've learned from this crisis is just how low the threshold is. The Iranians say we will attack anything through the strait. The strait is not only relatively narrow, the shipping channels in the strait are narrower still. There are lots of ways for the Iranians to attack them, either through mines or through drones or putting things off small boats. You can disguise fishing boats to attack. You can do limpet mines. There are any number of ways. If the Iranians decide they want to threaten passage through the strait, they can threaten passage through the strait. And the problem now is not that there is actual mines or actual attacks going on, although there have been some. But the Iranians have announced their intention to attack things working through the strait. And so people say, well, we won't put things through the strait. It's a very low threshold. Mm.

B (12:35)

Again, about the war aims. This has been a constant worry about people who are watching it in terms of trying to figure out what they are, because they keep changing. Here is the latest from Secretary of State Marco Rubio. I'll repeat them to you now because I hear a lot of talk about we don't know what the clear objectives are. Here they are. You should write them down. Number one, the destruction of their air force. Number two, the destruction of their navy. Number three, the severe diminishing of their missile launching capability. And number four, the destruction of their factory so they can't make more missiles and more drones to threaten us in the future.

D (13:08)

All of this so that they can

B (13:09)

never hide behind it to acquire a nuclear weapon. And nothing about the 400 grams or kilograms of enriched uranium. And it just. I'm sorry. The Air Force was a nothing burger anyway. Every anybody knows that the navy is okay the missiles, but it was always about the nukes.

D (13:29)

And it was about the nukes and regime change. Right. I mean, regime change was up there. And that doesn't seem to be making any sense.

B (13:35)

This is a serious question. What if they pull out without some kind of possession or agreement on the 400 kg of highly enriched uranium?

D (13:46)

So I have two concerns. One is this has really demonstrated to everybody just how easy it is for Iran to trouble the neighborhood. And if the US Pulls out, leaving Iran with the ability to trouble the neighborhood, to threaten neighbors, to do all those things, that's dangerous. But it also increases the benefit to the Iranians of having a nuclear weapon because it would deter the United States and Israel from attacking Iran again. So what you've done is you've not only not solved the problem, but you've increased the likelihood that Iran would decide to go ahead and develop a nuclear capability that they don't currently have. Now, your hope is that the intelligence that led to this attack, that led to the targeting of the leadership, all those things, is good enough, that the Iranians can actually develop a nuclear weapon. But that's a hope. And the reality, when you ever talk to people in the intelligence business, they will all tell you intelligence is never as good as you wish it were. And there's the real possibility that a determined Iran, if it really wanted to build a nuclear weapon, could do so. And I think the fear is that this operation makes this more likely rather than less likely, given that perhaps an even more hardline group is now in power and they have seen that if they don't have a deterrent, this is what happens to them.

B (15:11)

And in 15 seconds, so we could be back to a position that's worse than the negotiations which everybody involved says were leading to Iranian concessions about the nukes.

D (15:22)

We could be in a worse situation. The neighborhood certainly feels less secure, and there is no clarity that we're going to have any sort of negotiations that will leave the Iranians wanting to behave any better than they have up to now.

B (15:37)

Jonathan Altman, thank you very much indeed for your extensive knowledge and experience in this realm. And stay with cnn. We'll be right back after the break. There are no real winners in war, but Russia is certainly benefiting from the escalating war on Iran with a temporary suspension of oil sanctions against it and pressure on President Zelensky not to hit Russia's energy infrastructure. This week marks four years since the massacre at Bucha, where the war crimes of Russia were laid bare for the whole world to see. It is a stark reminder of what Ukraine is fighting for. Dmytro Kulebo was the country's foreign minister at that time, and he's joining me now from Kyiv. Welcome back to our program.

C (16:33)

It's good to be with you again.

B (16:36)

I guess there's so much going on that's taking the attention away from the survival and the, you know, fight that Ukraine is waging against Russia. Then I wonder what you make of where you stand right now.

C (16:53)

We are exactly in the same position as we were a month or two months ago before this war started in terms of the fighting, regular air Attacks, frontline engagements, thousands, hundreds of them per day. Two points have changed, and unfortunately, both of them are crucial. The first one is access of Ukraine to Patriot interceptors has been, I would say, suspended because of the war in Iran. And secondly, Russia is making money on selling its oil again. So these two. These two elements are detrimental. But as for now, Ukraine is demonstrating resilience, strength, and we. Hold on.

B (17:41)

Let me just ask you about what Russia is claiming that it's taken. I think it says today all of Luhansk, apparently it had 99% or whatever has it taken, and what does that mean to you?

C (17:55)

Well, we have to wait for the official announcement of the Ukrainian armed forces, but this is not a strategic military advancement. It is rather a propaganda point, the point that Russia will communicate to the Trump administration and other audiences elsewhere in the world making the point that they are winning. There is no, no need to resist. They're getting what they want. I see more of PR than real politics in it.

B (18:25)

I see. Okay, well, let me ask you then about the real sort of what Ukraine really wants. And you know this more than anything. A, not to be forced to give up territory that it hasn't lost, and B, proper security guarantees. So you might have seen, President Zelenskyy has just tweeted after a virtual conversations with the two American negotiators, Witkoff and Kushner, along with Senator Lindsey Graham and, in fact, Senator IR Rather, Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutter standing by. Zelenskyy says, I'm grateful to everybody for their work in finding the right decisions. And Ukraine appreciates every effort America is making to forge a dignified peace. We agreed that our teams will remain in close contact. And they say they are trying to strengthen the notion of the security guarantees document between Ukraine and the United States, which is the only way, he says, to pave a reliable end to this war. What do you know about the existing talk around security guarantees and whether you think it will be strengthened on behalf of Ukraine?

C (19:30)

I regret to say it, but I'm afraid you will be quoting many more tweets of this kind in the coming weeks and months. President Zelenskyy is trying hard to keep everything together, to move towards peace, towards negotiated peace. The problem is that I think Russia has zero incentive to make a peace now, to make peace now. The United States are not doing anything to change their approach to peace, which is, as they believe, if Ukraine gives the territory, the rest of Donbas to Russia, Russia is going to stop. Ukraine has zero evidence that would make it believe in this, believe this in this assumption. So it doesn't matter how many more conversations there will be in video conferences, as long as there are no driving forces for peace on the Russian side and for the change of attitude on the American side, Ukraine will be, you know, Ukraine's tweets will be falling on deaf ears.

B (20:31)

And what about Kyiv's desire? And it might have been President Zelenskyy who raised this, but anyway, the government for a potential Easter ceasefire. Actually, it was Zelenskyy who told reporters this week that he will ask Negotiat to try to pass that on to the Russian side. And they've already dismissed it. Their spokesperson has. But if there was a ceasefire, how do you. Or a temporary cease fire, how do you think that could help or not? Negotiations,

C (21:03)

you make a concession only either when you have a motivation to do it or you are forced to do it. Russia has neither. There is no motivation to have a ceasefire and no one is forcing them to agree to a ceasefire. This is why President Zelenskyy's proposal is, of course, a very good one and it makes perfect sense under the circumstances. It sends a clear message to President Trump that Ukraine wants peace. But I can draw only one conclusion from Russia's refusal, that they are not interested in any ceasefires for the time being because they believe that they are on a good trajectory.

B (21:46)

Tell me something. Do you worry when you read President Trump's posts, Like, right now, he's, as you know, very angry with NATO allies, believing that they should join the war of choice that he started in order to open the Strait of Hormuz. And he called NATO a paper tiger, threatened to consider pulling out. Given that you want Trump to put pressure on Putin, how does Trump's perpetual attacks and belittling of NATO affect Ukraine and affect the balance of power in this war. In your war,

C (22:25)

the biggest risk Ukraine is facing in relation to Trump's mood towards NATO is that if President Putin decides to grab the opportunity and attack a NATO ally in Europe, Europe will be so focused on pulling itself together in order to repel that attack that Ukraine will not be able to receive substantial amounts, volumes of weapons from our European partners. So we are experiencing problems with the United States. Now. Our second largest source of weapons is Europe, and if that one is gone as well, because they will have to keep to focus on their own war, we will be in trouble.

B (23:17)

We started leading into you and introducing you by the fact that this is the fourth anniversary of the Bucha massacre, which, which essentially showed the world exactly what you were fighting. You had a lot of EU leaders and politicians come to Ukraine over the weekend and the last couple of days to continue to offer support, solidarity and material aid. I expect at the same time. Well, let me ask you first, are you getting enough, I know you've just said that the EU may be distracted and are you getting enough help from the eu given that the US is occupied elsewhere, including the reports that they are diverting weapons, as you, as you mentioned at the beginning, but maybe even eventually, that being a long term diversion because of needing to replenish their own cupboards of ammunition and weapons.

C (24:10)

EU is doing a lot, but as long as the war grins on, they will never be enough. History is ruthless. It doesn't judge us by the effort, it judges us by the outcome. And the outcome is something that we are discussing right now. It's the fourth year of the war, the year of destruction and atrocities. There is a long way for Europe to go, I think. I do believe they're trying their best, but there are some issues they have to address immediately if they really want to build up their deterrence muscle and survive without the backing of the United States.

B (24:50)

Well, I'm going to ask you, what kind of muscle do they need to bring to the table? Because this is what the President actually said to this issue. Let's take a listen. We do that all the time.

C (25:01)

You know, we have tremendous amounts of ammunition. We have them in other countries like in Germany and all over Europe.

D (25:06)

We have, you know, we're packed and

A (25:09)

we take, sometimes we take from one

C (25:11)

and we use for another.

B (25:14)

I mean, he sort of makes it sound as if it's, you know, not, not a big deal. But clearly Europe is worried. You're worried. What does Europe need to do to fill this gap?

C (25:25)

Make weapons and begin to believe that if the war comes, it will have to fight without the United States.

B (25:35)

What about, you know, you've talked about putting pressure on Russia now you know that they're considering letting some Russian lawmakers come into the United States. This is what Secretary of State Rubio said when asked by a journalist about this move.

D (25:52)

Seeing an increase in Russia's support for Iran in this war.

A (25:55)

And why was now an appropriate time

D (25:57)

for sanctioned Russian lawmakers to come to

B (25:59)

the U.S. russia is still a powerful

C (26:02)

country with nuclear weapons and it is important for nuclear powers to have some engagement at the governmental level, just like we do at the diplomatic level.

A (26:09)

I don't think that was a major

C (26:10)

concession in any way, shape or form.

B (26:14)

So it was actually last week that they came in. But what do you make of that?

C (26:20)

Well, if President Trump rolled the red carpet in front of President Putin on the US Soil, why should not US Congressmen roll out the red carpet for Russian members of parliament? I mean, it makes perfect sense from that perspective.

B (26:36)

But from your perspective, surely it chips away at this idea of putting pressure on Russia. Unless you think they put pressure on these lawmakers.

C (26:48)

I'm more concerned with the non delivery of Patriot interceptors and lifting sanctions from Russian from the ships carrying Russian oil. This is something that makes a real difference in war. Of course, it's painful to see how these guys who support the aggression, support the crimes committed against civilians in Ukraine and Bucha in particular, they enter Congress, they go to the Hill and they're welcomed. It is painful. But you know, to avoid seeing such things, you have to be strong and you have to be in a strong position. So no one dares to do these things anymore.

B (27:34)

Okay, so you're sounding probably more pessimistic than I've heard you in a long time. And I want to know therefore, in the last 30 seconds that we have, do you like a lot of people are now looking to China to help, including President Zelensky. Is that a goer, do you think?

C (27:52)

I do strongly believe that Ukraine has to engage with China. And it is no secret that President Trump, for example, also believes that China has to be on board when it comes to making peace in Ukraine. But I don't see why China would be interested in that effort under these circumstances.

B (28:15)

Dimitro Culeiba, thank you for being with us and we'll check in with you again. Thank you so much. We'll be right back after this short break. Now the economic pain at home and abroad from this war risk driving millions of Americans to financial breaking point. Not only the massive spike in gas prices and food prices, but this follows years of housing scarcity and employment volatility. In his new book, There Is no Place for Us, Brian Galston follows five working families in Atlanta. Together they tell the story of the changing face of homelessness. And he's joining Hari Srinivasan to discuss why working hard no longer buys you the American dream.

E (29:08)

Christian, thanks. Brian Goldstone, thanks so much for joining us. Your book is titled There Is no Place for Working and Homeless in America. You write in there that the working homeless, the term seems counterintuitive and oxymoron in a country where hard work and determination are supposed to lead to success or at least stability. There is something scandalous about the very concept. What kind of myth, does this phrase kind of break apart?

A (29:35)

Yeah, I think when we hear the term working homeless, the myth of, first of all, the American dream, that if you just work hard enough, if you just clock enough hours, okay, you might not make it rich, you might not be able to buy a mansion, but you'll at least have your most basic material needs met. The term working homeless says that that myth or that promise has just spectacularly failed. It's. It's been devastating to see how it's failed. It also tells us that the line separating housed from unhoused is much more porous than many of us would like to acknowledge. What it says is that, you know, many, many people, many workers in this country are one missed paycheck, one lapsed month of child care, one rent hike away from losing their home. So I think the term working homeless, that's part of why it is so scandalous. Not just oxymoronic or contradictory, but really scandalous because it says that so much of what we take for granted as Americans, this idea that hard work is the key to success, really no longer holds.

E (30:50)

According to HUD, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. homeless population in 2024 was 771,480 people. That's the ones who are counted. And that is up from 2023, up 18%. That's the largest single year increase. What percentage of unhoused people have some kind of employment?

A (31:13)

Well, a lot of the data that we have on this comes only on homeless individuals who are counted as officially homeless according to HUD's definition. So people who are in shelters or on the street. And a study from University of Chicago, together with Yale and other researchers, showed that the number of people just in those situations who have formal employment, I believe was about 40%. So already a really striking number of people who are just officially counted. We don't have data on the invisible homeless in America who are employed, but I can tell you that, that, you know, these extended stay hotels, these. That families who are doubled up, they are by necessity, they are overwhelmingly part of the labor force.

E (32:11)

You chose to focus in on Atlanta and you introduced us to different characters and kind of different plights of their life. And one of the things that was interesting to me when I said, well, Atlanta's kind of a thriving city, I don't know why he would pick this. Right. And you actually go out of your way to say that this is a product of thriving cities, not necessarily just failing ones. Explain that.

A (32:33)

Yeah, well, first of all, I based the book in Atlanta because so much of the coverage and reporting on the housing and homelessness crisis tends to be centered in kind of the predictable coastal areas like New York City, L.A. san Francisco. So it was important to show that this crisis is by no means confined or reducible to those areas, that it truly is a national disaster, a national crisis. I this is a crisis not of poverty, but a crisis of a very particular kind of prosperity. One that has seen the wealthy get richer and richer and richer, and not just the poor and working class, but vast swaths of the middle class as well, struggling not only to remain in the neighborhoods they grew up in, as our cities revitalize, as they undergo this transformation, where what used to be the inner city becomes a kind of playground for those wealthy enough to enjoy all the new green space and amenities. It's not just that poor and working class and as I say, middle class people are being priced out of the neighborhoods they grew up in and forced to go elsewhere. They're increasingly being pushed out of housing altogether.

E (33:44)

To that point, you said that there is not right now a single state, metropolitan area or county in the United States where a full time worker earning the local minimum wage can afford a two bedroom apartment. So is this a problem about wages because we have different high minimum wages in different cities?

B (34:03)

Right.

E (34:03)

Or is this a problem with housing availability?

A (34:08)

The single greatest predictor in. In whether a particular region or city will see a spike in homelessness, the single greatest predictor is the growing chasm between what people are bringing in and their incomes, not just in their wages, but also fixed income like Social Security or disability payments on the one hand, and what it costs to have a place to live on the other. The bigger that g grows, the more homelessness goes up. It's very. It's very simple. It's also important to say that it's not just wages, it's the nature of work itself. Work itself has become ever more volatile and insecure. Where, you know, you might get a raise, where you're now making $12 an hour instead of $8 an hour, but you're only given 29 hours a week at your job because at 30, you would be eligible for basic benefits like sick leave or health insurance. And that's exactly what a mother in my book experiences, where she works at the Atlanta airport, the pride and joy of Atlanta's economy, and she is given 29 hours a week. You know, for. For many workers today, the greatest fear isn't that they will lose their job. It's that their job will never pay enough, never provide enough security and stability to keep them and their, and their children housed.

E (35:30)

Most people, when they think about homeless, they literally think of the sort of end case where somebody is on the street and they are begging for money. And just this very notion of what this is providing to people is that, look, that's not the case. But give me an idea of some of the people that you talk to who aren't in the census numbers officially as homeless.

D (35:48)

Yeah.

A (35:48)

You know, I was astonished to find in the course of reporting this book that what we see on the street, you know, the tents, the encampments, people asking for money on the street, is really just the tip of the iceberg. So all the five families in my book, and, and not the hundreds of thousands, but I argue millions of men, women and children like them, they literally don't count. They are in hotels and motels, they are in their cars. They are living in the overcrowded apartments of others, doubled up, tripled up in these apartments. All of these people, they're not just written out of the statistics and the newspaper headlines saying this is what homelessness, you know, is at this year. They are also, I argue, written out of the very story we tell about homelessness in this country. And you know, one, one person in the book, Celeste, she experiences this firsthand when she goes to Gateway center, which is every city in America has its own version of Gateway, which is where people go to sort of receive homeless services, where they try to get assistance into, into housing. And Celeste, because she and her children are living in the community ex in an extended stay hotel, paying, you know, more than double for this squalid studio sized room than they were paying for the apartment that they were formerly living in. But because her credit score has fallen below a certain threshold, she's effectively locked out of the formal housing market. She can't rent a place and, and she like, like scores of other families are forced to, to pay these exorbitant fees, these, at these hotels. When she goes to get help, she is told that basically she's not homeless in the right way, she doesn't qualify for assistance. And, and, and she's told that, you know, if she was on the street or in a shelter, she could get help. She leaves Gateway center empty handed because she doesn't fit this, this kind of cruel and arbitrary definition of homelessness business.

E (37:53)

You know, you also profile a different woman, Brit, who takes the path that most of us assume people who are struggling take, which is apply for, you know, Section 8 housing or vouchers where you pay a smaller fraction of what the rent is owed. What happened in Britt's case?

A (38:11)

Yeah, Brit. You know, her roots in Atlanta go back five generations, and Britt was actually born in public housing. She was born at a place called Eastlake Meadows, which eventually was demolished to make way for new development. She and her mother were displaced. And by the time she was an adult with her own children, she realized that the key to remaining housed, the key to having a future in the city of her birth, was really to win a voucher lottery. To win the Section 8 voucher lottery. And the fact that we even use the word lottery in relation to the. This essential public good, this essential thing, housing, I think, is itself damning that we've allowed such scarcity to proliferate in that way. But she applies for the voucher lottery. She wins. And two years later, when the book opens, she's finally gotten off the waiting list and is given a voucher. Fast forward. After receiving the voucher, she ends up losing it because she can't find a single landlord who will accept it. The voucher expires even after she gets an extension to get more time for her search. And, you know, when I first. When I first saw that, I thought, surely this is some kind of bizarre anomaly. But come to find out that the year that Brit received her voucher, about 1800 families in Atlanta received a housing voucher that year, and more than 1,100 expired before they could be used. Because the fact is, in gentrifying cities like Atlanta, where the rental market is, quote, unquote hot, landlords have very little financial incentive to accept these vouchers. And again, that is by no means unique to Atlanta. That is a trend we are seeing in. In cities across the country. And that again proves the. The argument about this being a crisis not of poverty, but of prosperity, that, that it's a thriving economy that is leading all to experience this kind of precarity.

E (40:15)

There has been a political dimension. I don't know if it's always been there, but it certainly has been injected into the conversation recently. The president has called affordability a hoax, a Democrat con job. Is there any evidence to say that this is something that has a political nature to it?

A (40:33)

The official statistics say about 700,000 people are homeless. And by cobbling together different data sources, I show it's closer to 4 million. So roughly roughly six times greater than the official figure. When we look at those numbers, we. We have to remind ourselves that this did not always exist in America. That this is a relatively recent emergence, a relatively recent phenomenon. Mass homelessness erupted in the 1980s and it was the result of very specific policy choices. It was the result of the decimation of the social safety net. It was the result of the withdrawal of, of the government, the federal government, from low income housing and housing assistance. And as more and more people were pushed out of their homes onto the street, or as was often the case, out of sight in these other spaces, a narrative emerged. A narrative emerged that said that if you are homeless, it's your own fault, it's the result of some pathology like addiction or mental illness, or you're just lazy, you're not working hard enough. And that that narrative was very much part of a concerted effort on the part of the administration at that time to shape public perception, because there was a, I think, justified fear that if people connected the dots between policy and the suffering that people were experiencing, they would be outraged about those policies and they might vote differently. But, but homelessness was detached from policy. It became the object of charity at best, or vilification and criminalization at worst.

E (42:12)

The Senate recently passed this bipartisan effort. It's called the 21st Century Road to Housing Act. It is supposed to expand rental assistance. It's supposed to, you know, promise zoning reforms and curb big investors. Did it go far enough?

A (42:26)

It's important to say, I think that, that we need everything on the table. This, this legislation, if it goes through the House and if President Trump signs this legislation, would be the most significant housing bill in decades. And, and I don't want to diminish its importance. It is important. We need more supply. This is largely a supply side bill cuts a lot of, as you mentioned, a lot of red tape around building more housing. It allows for more manufactured housing. It allows for more innovation. And these things are all important. But, you know, I was. It occurred to me that this is only as significant as it's being billed as because of our diminished expectations for, you know, what our government, what the federal government will do where housing is concerned. Right now, There are between 4 and 7 million affordable housing units that we lack as a country. And this bill will not come close to meeting that scale anytime soon. It won't do anything to address the immediate, immediate needs of the 12.1 million renter households right now who are categorized as severely cost burdened, meaning they're paying more than 50% of their monthly income on rent alone. It won't do anything immediately to prevent rents from going higher and higher and higher. It won't provide direct rental assistance. So I think we need to just be clear about the fact that while this is important bipartisan legislation, the true scale and severity of this crisis demand a much more not only comprehensive

C (44:13)

but

A (44:14)

visionary and courageous approach.

E (44:17)

Author Brian Goldstone, thanks so much for your time.

A (44:19)

Thank you for having me.

B (44:22)

And finally tonight, for civilians inside Iran, this is a particularly terrifying moment caught between American and Israeli bombs and their own brutal regime. And for Iran's political prisoners, it's even now. According to her supporters, Nobel laureate Nages Mohamedi has suffered a suspected heart attack in Zanjan Prison and is being denied medical care. A recent short animated documentary drives home the vulnerability of these prisoners. It focuses on a fire that broke out in Evin prison before this war. Here's a clip

C (45:00)

SA.

B (45:27)

Now, Hoda Sobani directed the documentary and she's joining me now. Welcome to the program. And we wanted to focus on this because it tells us a little bit about the risks for prisoners today. What was it about the fire and whose story were you telling that made you want to tell it like this?

F (45:46)

Hi, Christine, thank you so much for having me. This is a story of my friend, long time friend, Nada Naji, who was an activist and who is an activist who is outside of Iran now, but she was inside of Iran and inside of Ebin prison during Woman Life freedom Movement on October 15th when the fire happened inside of the Ebim prison. And it's her narrative of what happened to her and her cellmates and how they survived and what was their strategy to survive the atmosphere.

B (46:19)

And given what happened to them there. And there's all sorts of disputed accounts of how that fire started, as you can imagine. What do you think about what's happening to the prisoners inside right now given what your friend must have told you about how they were treated like Siamak Namazi. As you know, the prisoner who was the longest, the American Iranian prisoner held the longest says they are the easiest to grind punching bag right now in the hands of a rogue regime. Do you what do you what do you make of that?

F (46:53)

Yes, I would say like the film that night was just a story of one person, one night of fear, darkness and uncertainty and how what happened to them and how like what they went through. And now it's been more than almost a month that the prisoners inside of the prison not only like hearing bombs around their environment and like the fear and uncertainty, but also they don't have enough connections to outside and they cannot talk to their loved ones. And this uncertainty is like been there for, like, more than a month. And I cannot imagine what they are going through. And whenever. Whenever I talk to Neda, my friend who was inside of the prison, she's like, even that one night was enough for me to think about it, like, for more than three years now. And I still have the trauma of that night. And I don't. I can't imagine what they are going through it right now.

B (47:56)

I know. And I want to show another quite moving clip because the film was really interesting, all done in animation, obviously with subtitles. So this next clip we're going to show is of a bus ride out. The women are holding hands. It's a time when the women were standing up together, having been thrown in prison. As you mentioned, it was during the woman life freedom crackdown. What did it reveal to you? Let's just. Let's just play this. Let's play this clip.

D (48:32)

Beginning,

B (49:03)

You know, despite the horror, it's a very beautiful representation of women and their solidarity. What did your friend tell you about how women particularly stick together and have to survive in these terrible conditions?

F (49:18)

Thank you. Yes. Neda always was like this. She was inside of prison having, like, back in 2019, and this was her second imprisonment. And she mentioned this specifically, that this time was very different with the first time, for her first time being in prison, because this time there was like, all the cells were, like, filled and so many more arrested. And many of them, they didn't have, like, the intention of being political, you know, just they were like, asking for their basic rights and they were there. But they very, like, very quickly they learned to adjust themselves into this new environment. And just this adjustment happened just with the support of, like, having the support of each other and holding hands and saying and telling them, for example, Neda, who was there for the second time, telling. Telling each time after the integration that, don't worry, like, this is the process that they are doing to like, to break you down, but then don't let them do that and be strong. And then, for example, when someone wanted to cry, they would go to the bathroom because they wanted to keep everyone happy and safe and mentally stable. So all of these details of how people in a very hard situation try to keep the safety and the support more than usual. It was very inspiring to me.

B (50:57)

And there's another occasion in the film where you're talking about her release eventually. And she was told. On no account must you tell this story. Don't talk about the fire. But of course, she did. Did and she told you. So then they're not being in, they're not being cowed by, by the threats against them.

F (51:17)

Yes, of course. It's like she was after she got released also, she was like she was integrated few more times. And honestly, she was at some point she was very, very tired of these like regular integration. Even after she got released, she was like, you know, but I'm living because I cannot live through this. Like going through this every few weeks and talking to the integrators about what I'm doing and my daily life and demanding the freedom is more important to them than being island person.

B (51:58)

Well, it's really powerful. Even though it's about a different situation, it really reflects today, that night. Oda Sobani, thank you very much indeed for being with us.

F (52:07)

Thank you so much for having me.

B (52:09)

And we want to finish on a joyful note. Congratulations from us at Amanpur to Bosnia Herzegovina beating the odds against Italy to qualify for this year's Soccer World Cup. It was a nail biting playoff final, the second time in five days that Bosnia and Herzegovina held their nerve to win on penalties. So good luck in the U.S. mexico and Canada this summer. That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always catch us online on our website and all over social media. Thank you for watching and goodbye from New York.

A (52:56)

I'm Eva Longoria and I'm setting out to really experience France, to savor its world celebrated cuisine and explore the country's rich history. Searching For France premieres April 12th on CNN. And next day on the CNN app.