Former Colombian President Ivan Duque

Summary

---

Amanpour – Episode Summary

Episode Title: Interview with Former Colombian President Ivan Duque
Date: December 4, 2025
Host: Christiane Amanpour, CNN Podcasts
Episode Focus:
Christiane Amanpour interviews former Colombian President Ivan Duque, discussing U.S. military actions targeting Venezuela, the regional response to Nicolas Maduro’s regime, Colombia’s anti-narcotics efforts, and the shifting political landscape in Latin America.

---

Main Theme

The episode centers on the sharp escalation of U.S. military operations against Venezuela under President Trump, regional reactions to these actions, and the deeper geopolitical and domestic undercurrents affecting Colombia, Venezuela, and Latin America at large. Ivan Duque provides insight into anti-narcotics policies, the case for ousting Maduro, and the dilemmas facing U.S. and regional policy.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. U.S. Military Operations Against Venezuela

• The Trump administration has intensified strikes on drug trafficking targets, with specific focus on Venezuela and its leader, Nicolas Maduro.
• The U.S. now has more military resources in the region than at any point since the Cuban Missile Crisis ([01:13]–[02:21]).
• Quote:

  “The US has now deployed more military resources and forces in the region than at any time since the Cuban Missile crisis.”
  — Christiane Amanpour ([01:41])

2. Regional Support and Perceptions

• According to a Bloomberg Atlas poll, 53% in Latin America support U.S. military intervention in Venezuela ([02:24]).
• Duque frames the U.S. campaign as a critical anti-narcotics and anti-terrorism effort, referencing cooperative operations such as the Orion Complaint ([02:51]).
• He justifies support for U.S. actions as necessary deterrence to narco-terrorism, highlighting Venezuelan provision of “safe haven to narco-terrorist organizations” ([03:19]).

3. Colombia’s Role and Changing Policy after Duque

• Duque refers to Colombia’s history of bipartisan cooperation with the U.S. against cartels and criticizes his successor, President Petro, for being more permissive and closer to Maduro ([04:17], [05:35]).
• Quote:

  “We had that kind of a relationship. Today, sadly… because Petro has aligned with Maduro, we don't have that level of support.”
  — Ivan Duque ([04:31])

4. Is it Really About Narco-Terrorism?

• Amanpour questions the narcotics rationale, citing facts: Colombia produces most cocaine, while Venezuela is mainly a transit point, and there’s no Venezuela connection to the fentanyl trade ([05:35]).

• She suggests regional exhaustion with the Maduro regime is the real driver.

• Quote:

  “Colombia…sent 3,000 tons of cocaine to the US…accounts for about 70% of the world's overall cocaine production…there's literally no Venezuela connection to the fentanyl trade…”
  — Christiane Amanpour ([05:51])

• Duque maintains that Venezuela under Maduro is nonetheless central to the problem, pointing to the “Cartel de los Soles” and safe haven for Colombian groups like FARC dissidents ([06:51]).

5. Why Not Regional Action Against Maduro?

• Amanpour presses: Why doesn’t the region act alone, without the U.S.? ([09:09])
• Duque turns to the Inter-American Democratic Charter, saying the region is obligated to defend democracy but acknowledges U.S. power and interest are key and draws parallels between Maduro and Milosevic for human rights abuses ([09:22], [10:37]).
• Quote:

  “Nicolas Maduro is also an equivalent of a Slobodan Milosevic in Latin America—brutal violations of human rights, systematic annihilation of opposers…”
  — Ivan Duque ([10:37])

6. Legal Basis and Criticisms

• Amanpour outlines criticism of the legal basis for the U.S. campaign; Trump claims he doesn’t need Congress for strikes ([11:19]).
• Reference to opposition figure Maria Corinna Machado, who supports intervention and even dedicated her Nobel Peace Prize to Trump ([11:40]–[12:29]).
• Amanpour notes support for intervention is far higher among Venezuelan diaspora (64%) than within Venezuela (34%), probing the complexities of internal versus external opinion ([12:40]).

7. Migration and Human Rights Crisis

• Duque emphasizes the migratory catastrophe, over 7 million Venezuelans fleeing, and widespread human rights abuses ([13:13]).
• Suggests any operation should enable a unity government and democratic transition for Venezuela ([13:13]–[15:15]).

8. Historical Parallels and Cautionary Tales

• Amanpour brings up the Iraq War as a cautionary tale for U.S.-led intervention ([15:15]).
• Duque acknowledges differences, argues U.S. has learned lessons, and foresees a non-occupation transition for Venezuela ([15:56]).
• Quote:

  “I don't think the US is thinking in Venezuela as an occupation operation as it did in the case of Iraq. I think there is a great room to create a unity government…”
  — Ivan Duque ([16:37])

9. U.S. Double Standards

• Amanpour critiques apparent contradictions: Trump pardoning Honduran ex-president convicted for drug trafficking, while ramping up drug war rhetoric against Maduro ([17:23]–[18:13]).
• Duque calls for fighting all cartels equally and hopes for more transparency on the pardon ([18:22]).
• Quote:

  “I just believe that it is a duty at this moment to keep on fighting the cartels, fight the Soles cartel, denounce Maduro, because I think that's the most important objective…”
  — Ivan Duque ([19:35])

10. The Political Tide in Latin America

• Amanpour observes a conservative swing in Latin American politics, but points out the U.S. has historically intervened to install, not topple dictators ([20:11]).
• Duque champions democratic norms and “pedagogues not demagogues”—arguing a rejection of populism and polarization in favor of technocratic governance ([20:39]–[21:56]).
• Quote:

  “People now prefer no more demagogues, but more pedagogues…”
  — Ivan Duque ([21:31])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On U.S. military escalation:
  “The US has now deployed more military resources…than at any time since the Cuban Missile crisis.”
  — Christiane Amanpour ([01:41])
• On Colombia–U.S. anti-cartel operations:
  “We, we started a plan that was called the Orion Complaint…Colombia participated actively with the US and 18 more countries…
  — Ivan Duque ([02:54])
• On regional hypocrisy:
  “Colombia… accounts for about 70% of the world’s overall cocaine production…96% of fentanyl seized by the United States is intercepted on the Mexico border.”
  — Christiane Amanpour ([05:51])
• On Maduro as the region’s Milosevic:
  “Nicolas Maduro is also an equivalent of a Slobodan Milosevic in Latin America…”
  — Ivan Duque ([10:37])
• On U.S. lessons from Iraq:
  “I think the United States has learned lessons from occupation operations and I don't think they're planning to do an occupation operation in the case of Venezuela.”
  — Ivan Duque ([15:56])
• On policy consistency:
  “It is a duty at this moment to keep on fighting the cartels, fight the Soles cartel, announce Maduro, because I think that's the most important objective…”
  — Ivan Duque ([19:35])
• On the new political climate:
  “People now prefer no more demagogues, but more pedagogues…”
  — Ivan Duque ([21:31])

---

Important Timestamps

• Opening Discussion & Framing of U.S.–Venezuela Standoff:
  [01:13]–[02:21]

• Duque Endorses U.S. Anti-Narcotics Operations:
  [02:51]–[03:55]

• Amanpour Questions Cocaine/Fentanyl Narrative:
  [05:35]–[06:51]

• Debate Over True Motives: Narco-Terrorism vs. Regime Change:
  [05:35]–[08:29]

• Regional Responsibility & the Case Against Maduro:
  [09:09]–[11:19]

• Legal Justifications and U.S. Criticisms:
  [11:19]–[11:59]

• Diaspora vs. Homeland Opinions on Intervention:
  [12:40]–[13:13]

• Reflections on Iraq and the Prospect of Occupation:
  [15:15]–[16:33]

• U.S. Policy Contradictions & Pardoning Honduran President:
  [17:23]–[19:35]

• Latin America’s Political Shift and Democratic Values:
  [20:11]–[21:56]

---

Episode Tone and Language

• Direct and Forthright:
  Amanpour presses for honesty — “Can we just please discuss honestly what this is really about?” ([05:35]).
• Decisive and Urgent:
  Duque maintains a firm stance on regional security and democracy.
• Nuanced and Critical:
  The conversation does not shy away from double standards, legal ambiguities, and the complexities of regional intervention.

---

Conclusion

This episode offers a penetrating look at the complexities of U.S. interventionism, Latin America’s narco-politics, and the waiting game by regional and American actors to force regime change in Venezuela. Ivan Duque defends the need for decisive regional action, denounces Maduro as more than just a dictator but the region’s chief narco-terrorist, and insists on the importance of technocratic, law-bound governance. Amanpour’s probing questions and cold facts add nuance, pressing against selective political narratives and placing today’s maneuvers within a longer history of intervention and its consequences.

Transcript

[Christiane Amanpour]

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

[Ivan Duque]

Venezuela sends us drugs, but Venezuela sends us people they shouldn't be sending.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Trump ramps up threats against Venezuela. The administration faces serious questions from Congress. But do the President's actions have support in the region? I'll ask Colombia's former president Ivan Duquet. Then.

Defiance in Iran. Journalist Farnaz Fassi. He tells me about the younger generation breaking taboos. Plus, as Putin threatens Europe, is peace in Ukraine really possible? And what will it take? Journalist Joshua Yaffa, chronicler of Putin's Russian Russia joins Michel Martin.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. The Trump administration has some serious questions to answer as Congress probes the so called double tap strike that killed survivors during an attack on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean, a potential war crime. The administration insists that what it did was legal. They've hit 21 boats in recent months as part of their self declared war on narco terrorism. Of course, it's all part of a wider campaign though, that seems aimed at Venezuela and its despot leader, Nicolas Maduro. The US has now deployed more military resources and forces in the region than at any time since the Cuban Missile crisis. So are the alarm bells ringing in Latin America?

[Farnaz Fassihi]

We.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Well, not really. The president's actions have plenty of supporters there, like my first guest tonight, Ivan Duque, who was president of Colombia from 2018 through 2022. Millions of Venezuelans fled to his country at that time. So there's no love lost there for Maduro. Welcome to the program.

[Ivan Duque]

Thank you so much, Cristiano. It's always a pleasure to be with you.

[Christiane Amanpour]

So you're joining me from Yale University where you're teaching. So you're seeing the American reaction and you know what's happening obvious in your own country and on your own continent. But how do you explain. I've said that you're a supporter of Trump's actions. That 53%, according to a poll, 53% of people across Latin America support US military intervention in Venezuela. That's according to Bloomberg Atlas. Paul?

[Ivan Duque]

Well, the first thing to say, Cristiana, is that this is not the first time that we have a campaign of this nature in the Caribbean. As you know, in 2018, we, we started a plan that was called the Orion Complaint where Colombia participated actively with the US and 18 more countries in order to do effective interdiction against narco trafficking. And I think that operation had a very important success at the time. Now the United States is deploying more military resources. And I think this is an effective deterrent. And I have to also mention that this is also a message to Maduro because as you know, we. Maduro has provided safe haven to narco terrorist organizations inside Venezuela and they have used Venezuela as a route to deploy cocaine throughout the whole Caribbean. So I think this is a very important and decisive operation that needs to be seen as something that is comprehensive, as an interdiction campaign that we must believe will have a potential benefit for the region.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yeah, so look, I know that that's your position. It's much more than an interdiction campaign because President is actually sitting in the White House saying that he's going to bomb the mainland of Venezuela soon. And by the way, maybe even your country, Colombia, because he said you make cocaine. So are you not a little bit worried?

[Ivan Duque]

Well, Cristiane, as you know, we had during my administration a very close relationship with the United States, which was bipartisan and it was also bicameral. We worked with President Trump, we worked with President Biden, and the previous administrations also worked with President. President Obama, with President Bush and President Clinton. It was very successful, that work that we had between Colombia and the US and we destroyed labs. We faced many of the campaigns of the cartels. In fact, I, for example, extradited Otto Niel to the United States, which was the most dangerous campaign after Pablo Escobar. So we had that kind of a relationship today, sadly to say, because Petro has aligned with Maduro, we don't have that level of support. And you have seen how, for example, the interdiction numbers have dropped, how, for example, there has been more permissive behavior with the kinpins of narco trafficking organizations. So I think this has created a lot of tension. I hope that President Petro can give it a second thought and not to keep on supporting Maduro and instead allow the US and our Colombian forces to keep on doing strategic strikes against the cartels. If not, I think it will only make Colombia an accomplice of of the Maduro structure, which I think is a reckless behavior from President Petro.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Okay, so you're talking about your successor, who's from a very different party than you are, and you've just described his differences and your differences with his strategy. But can I just get to the heart of it? Can we just please discuss honestly what this is really about? Because most of the people who are commenting on it point out correctly that actually Venezuela is not classically. Well, you can describe it what you want, whether it's narco Terrorist or not, for facilitating the routing of it. But you're the country, Colombia, that sent 3,000 tons of cocaine to the US in 2023, accounts for about 70% of the world's overall cocaine production. As you said, Venezuela is a transit route. Only about 5% of your cocaine passes through there. 96% of fentanyl seized by the United States is intercepted on the Mexico border. So there's literally no Venezuela connection to the fentanyl trade and production, or indeed the cocaine production. So I'm trying to figure out, is this really about narco terrorism or in the case of Venezuela, is it about a continent that's had enough with Maduro and wants to get rid of him?

[Ivan Duque]

Well, I think it's a. We have to see it in a nihilistic way. Cristiane, as you know many times that I've been sharing this situation with you, you know that I denounced Nicolas Maduro before the International criminal court in 2019 when I was President of Colombia. And you know that for various years I denounced that he was the head of a cartel called the Soles Cartel. That him and his structure of cronies, they have been participating in narco trafficking operations. I denounce that for many, many years. And I think there has been an advance in the way the United States has dealt with this because they have declared Cartel de los Olles a foreign terrorist organization, which I think was something that was spending. And that particular cartel has allowed many of the Colombian narco terrorist organizations to have a safe haven in Venezuela. It has happened with the FARC dissidencies, it has happened with eln and they have used the Colombian bordering line as a safe haven for them to do cross border operations. And yes, also Maduro has another criminal structure linked to the Cartel de los Olles that is trend Aragua. And they have been doing cross border narco trafficking and micro trafficking operations. So is Venezuela the whole problem? No, but it's a substantial part of the problem. And obviously if you keep having a cartel running that country, it would only become a threat to regional security, hemispheric security, and also a threat to the United States national security.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Okay, So I just want to say that as you know, critics and analysts dispute even whether Solis, as you call it, is even a cartel. But I get your point on what you're saying. There are different views around Latin America, Argentina, Ecuador, Panama. Like you say, they support US military intervention to depose President Maduro. Several others, like Mexican President, the Brazilian President, they're quieter, avoiding big statements or being public, because it seems that they're more worried about what might happen, you know, if they antagonize the United States. So again.

I guess one question is, if you guys are also committed to removing Maduro for whatever reasons that you cite, why don't you do it yourselves? Why does the United States have to do it?

[Ivan Duque]

Well, I think that's a great question, Cristiana. As you know, there's something very important in this region and is that we are one of maybe or exclusively the region in the world that has a inter American Democratic charter. And that charter invites us all to work jointly in the defense of the rule of law and the defense of democracy. Maduro is a dictator, yes, but he's also a narco dictator, head of a criminal organization. And I think we all have to use our diplomatic power, our diplomatic coordination, and also our security coordination to fight the threat. And the fact that the United States has seen this as a threat for the whole hemisphere, I think it just points out that Maduro is not only supporting terrorists in his territory, but he has also allowed the presence of Hezbollah effectives in that territory. And he has also, from Venezuela, used territory to allow enemies of the United States to plot against US Assets in the region. So that's why the US has also been very much involved. But I have to say something else, Cristian, and you've heard this from me many times, Nicolas Maduro is also an equivalent of a Slobodovan Milosevic in Latin America. Brutal violations of human rights, systematic annihilation of opposers, and also a promoter of crimes against humanity on a permanent basis. But he has also stolen elections, elections in that country for a permanent base in order to keep his illegal structure. So I think the fight against Maduro in the United States, because you've mentioned that many times, it is one important to say bipartisan. Second, it's bicameral. And I think most of the countries that respect the rule of law, that defend democracy were united that it is a good aim to oust Maduro out of power and facilitate a democratic transition in Venezuela.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Okay. As you know, there's quite a lot of criticism in the United States. There's no stated legal basis for this. President Trump also says that he doesn't even have to get Congress's position they can keep, I'm going to paraphrase, you know, killing the bad guys, basically. And you see what. But let me just take your other point.

In terms of stealing the elections. I spoke with Maria Corinna Machado. As you know, Very well. The key opposition person, the Nobel Peace Laureate, not only does she support this intervention, but she dedicated her Nobel to President Trump because of what he's doing. And this is what she told me about that.

Oh, because it's absolutely fair.

[Farnaz Fassihi]

And that's what the Venezuelan people feel.

[Christiane Amanpour]

We're getting.

Finally a leadership that is addressing this tragic situation in Venezuela that has been involved in for 26 years, as it should. We have been asked that this criminal.

[Farnaz Fassihi]

Structure be addressed using law enforcement.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And that's finally what's happening.

She also said to me that if the election had been respected, regime change would anyway have happened because her party would have been in office.

So question, though. Is she speaking for all the Venezuelan people? And I want you to explain this to me because it's interesting. Within Venezuela, support for a US intervention is about 34%. According again to the same Bloomberg Atlas Poll, amongst Venezuelan diaspora, outside support is 64%. So there's clearly a lot of agita outside and less than, you know, less than half the people support it from the inside. Just tell me how you analyze that.

[Ivan Duque]

Well, Cristian, we have seen in Latin America, but also in the world more than 7 million Venezuelans that have left the country in seeking opportunities because of all the destruction that Maduro has triggered. So is it good for the Venezuelan people to house Maduro? Their response is yes. Is it good for the region? Obviously, yes. And I think that triggering a construction of a democratic system that is credible and based on the rule of law is something that is not only beneficial to Venezuela, but beneficial to the whole region. But I also have to say something that it's essential. We have to understand that the situation in Venezuela is the most dangerous migration crisis ever generated in this region. And the human rights violation situation that is taking place in Venezuela, it's insane. The United States historically played a very important role to depose Milosevic and take him to the international court systems, which has worked in that specific case. But the United States has also undertaken operations against terrorist organizations. As you know, we saw the operation against Osama bin Laden, you saw the. The operation against Soleimani, you've seen the operations against isis. So I think there is a legal basis. And when people ask me, do I believe there's going to be an invasion, I don't think this requires an invasion. I think there has to be an operation that will be supported by some people within the structure of power in Venezuela. But I think there has to be now a plan to construct a unity government, a transition framework that would Allow the Venezuelans for the first time in 25 years to really enjoy democracy and the economic freedoms and a credible rule of law system. This is a must for the hemisphere and in order to embrace, protect and defend the democratic charter that we have in the inter American system.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Look, there's no doubt that he's a very unpopular man. I've interviewed him myself. I know that his commitment to democracy, if I can put it that way, is seriously lacking from what he told me. But what I want to ask you also is you mentioned a whole bunch of instances and examples. You didn't mention Iraq, which was a case of intervention to depose under the COVID of, you know.

Wmd, which proved not to be the case. And as you know, it turned into a huge, huge issue. A debacle, some people say with decades of backlash. Are you not slightly afraid? What makes Venezuela different?

[Ivan Duque]

Well, I think also historically speaking, Cristiano, I think the United States has learn lessons from occupation operations and I don't think they're planning to do an occupation operation in the case of Venezuela. I think there will be some kind of an operation that would allow a transition to take place which I think is pretty much needed. But I also have to say, and I know what I'm gonna say is controversial, but I think when you look at Iraq today, definitely is in a much better place than it was during Saddam Hussein's.

Now was a success. The operation in Iraq. Well, I think there are a lot of criticisms to be made, but there are also things to be applauded. But in this particular case, I don't think the US is thinking in Venezuela as an occupation operation as it did in the case of Iraq. I think there is a great room to create a unity government that would allow a transition for democracy and also for the implementation of a credible rule of lawless system. And if Maduro keeps his staying in power, what we're going to see is more migration, more narco trafficking and more protection of terrorists in his soil. So it's not good for the hemisphere to allow Maduro to remain in office specifically when he is an equivalent of Oslo Vlad Milosevic in this region based on his human rights violation record.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yeah, I mean as you know, Milosevic was tried for genocide and so were his hench people, which is slightly different. But I understand what you're saying to an But I also want to ask you about double standards and how we're meant to make sense of what the US policy actually is because as you know, just this just this week, the former honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez received a pardon from President Trump. Now, he had been sentenced to 45 years in prison in New York for taking bribes from what, drug traffickers who move some 400 tons of cocaine through Honduras to the United States. I mean, can you make head or tails of that? On the one hand, he frees an actual person who's been convicted in the US for doing this stuff.

And on the other hand, he's pursuing this anti drug trafficking thing against Maduro.

[Ivan Duque]

Cristina, I don't know what were the arguments.

[Christiane Amanpour]

I know, but the facts are that, you know, what he was convicted of and he's now been pardoned.

[Ivan Duque]

Well, I mean, I can tell you by my own experience, Cristian, because I think it's the best judgment that I have available when I was in office. And as I said, I served during President Trump's first administration, but also during President Biden's administration. And we had a very strong support to fight narco trafficking in all its forms, including also the extradition of members of the drug cartels that were trialed in the United States of America. So far, I think the strategy that the United States has against all these cartels has been bipartisan and bicameral, and I think that should remain like that because that is what the region requires. And in this particular case, I just hope that there can be a farther explanation from the legal adviser in the White House on why that burden was justified. Because as you know, those are not just decisions that come out of the president's mind. They have to be based on a study and rigorous study of the circumstances. So I just hope those things can be explained, but concrete. I just believe that it is a duty at this moment to keep on fighting the cartels, fight the Soles cartel, announce Maduro, because I think that's the most important objective thinking on the home security in the region. And let me just also say this. I think the best legacy that President Trump can contribute in defense of the Democratic Charter of the Americas is that working with all these administrations that defend democracy is that by the end of this term, we don't have more dictators in Latin America. I think this should be the end of all the governments that want to have a region governed by democracy as a cornerstone.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Okay? So just very finely and as tightly as you can, you know, the politics are slightly changing in a wave across Latin America. They're becoming much more conservative than perhaps they were a few years ago. Do you think that's part of it? And by the way, when you say you hope the US can remove dictators. As you know, the US Historical experience with intervention in Latin America has been to introduce and to prop up military dictatorships.

[Ivan Duque]

Well, you know, Cristiane, I think we've all learned from the historical lessons. I just have to say that one of the biggest conquests that we had in institutional terms in this region is the Inter American Democratic Charter. That is something that has to unite us. What we're seeing in Cuba, what we have seen in Nicaragua and what we see in Venezuela is just insane. Our constant violation of human rights. And as you say, it's not just the United States. I think regionally we all have to work towards that purpose. And I think when you mention about this ideological changes in governments, I think more than ideological, I think people have realized that populism, demographery and also polarization just for the stake of winning elections is not working. And that's why people now prefer no more demagogues, but more pedagogues that will tell the people that in order to accomplish results, we all have to contribute and we have to contribute with sound policies, with sound government and technocratic administrations. I hope this will be a lesson that we have learned out of the last decade where so many populists and demagogues have created so much damage in terms of economic values and dividing our societies. So I really cheer for pedagogues winning elections in Latin America in order to defeat the demagogues.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Former President Ivan Duquet of Colombia, thank you very much for being with us and stay with us because we'll be right back after this break.

And now take a look at this video.

Music blaring, people dancing freely, women dress casually. Nothing unusual except this is Iran. And while the country is still a theocratic police state, increasingly women are going hijab free. Three years since Mahsa Amini died in the custody of the so called morality police arrested for allegedly failing to wear her headscarf properly. Protests over her death were met with a brutal crackdown and yet a growing youth movement is now bravely insisting on social freedom. Joining me with more on this is the New York Times. Iran chronicler Farnaz Fasihi. Welcome back to our program.

[Farnaz Fassihi]

Hi Christiane. Thank you for having me.

[Christiane Amanpour]

So there you are in New York, you know, reporting all these interesting developments. Okay, so what is it, do you think? It's just a bunch of young people letting off steam and the authorities thinking, well, let's let them for a little bit, let's not crack down and create another political earthquake or is it more real than that.

[Farnaz Fassihi]

I think that this is far too widespread and nationwide and a sort of a collective movement of really the youth reclaiming public space in Iran. We saw this start with, as you pointed out, post Mahsa Amini protests, with the women sort of collectively deciding that they were going to be done with the mandatory hijab rule and making that a fact on the ground. Because when the numbers are too much, when this is happening not in small pockets, but all over the place, the government has a challenge, although it wants to, and it says it wants to counter it, but it's really challenging for them to do that. So, you know, I've sort of been watching these videos, including the concert one that you just show, pouring in from, you know, parks that have morning yoga to a marathon in the conservative city of Yazd, where men and women are running together. A rave party in Isfahan. Impromptu dance parties at cafes and malls all over the country. Street musicians and women singing solo have become sort of a staple of cities. Hip hop dancers are popping up with young women dancing to crowd, cheering crowds. So really, you know, it really points out, Christiane, to a really courageous Gen Z that wants to sort of say that we are not going to allow the Islamic government to tell us how to behave, how to dress, what to do, when we're going to kind of remove this barrier that has existed where you lived one way privately and you lived one way publicly. The youth just want to live the way they want to live everywhere. And I think that this is the long game.

[Christiane Amanpour]

So as you say, you quote in your article Young Iranian Saints, you we have a. We have a fearless generation that is breaking taboos. Um, so do you think, before I get to the reaction from the government, which is also really interesting, do you think there are underlying social, economic, even military intervention, you know, those kind of pressures that lead to that? We know that the economy is so awful, especially young people can barely, you know, keep their head above water. We know there are actual water shortages because of mismanagement, you know, the environment threats that the capital city might have to be evacuated. And then there's the whole public demand for unity after the war that Israel and the United States launched. Are those contributing to this or not?

[Farnaz Fassihi]

I think that the government has its handful of lots of crises, as you pointed out, water pollution, energy crisis, you know, a tanking economy, dealing with sort of another war with Israel and a potential other round of, you know, strikes that everybody is worried about. And of course, the youth are not immune to this, you know, a Lot of people we interviewed in Iran said, look, just because we're out dancing at concerts or like, you know, going to this event and that event doesn't mean that we are not. We're indifferent, that we don't care. But the government seems to want to give a little bit of open space perhaps to sort of not create another social crisis for itself. And people are running with that little openness that has happened. So I think that, you know, to the extent that the government's concerned, it seems like the government of President Pizzaskian doesn't want to now create another front where it's cracking down on the youth or cracking down on the women and risk having another social uprising added to all the problems it's having. So I think they are underpinning it. Yeah, but they're not just the only reason, you know, Gen Z is very connected to the outside world. And it just, you know, it's a movement.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yeah. You know, it's really interesting. Obviously, you mentioned the new president. Well, the president, Pezesh Kyan, his spokesman for the government, said in September that concerts will, quote, increase collective happiness and that holding concerts with millions of people participating strengthens our unity. I mean, I don't know what kind of time warp, you know, I'm reading here, because just a year or more ago they would have said exactly the opposite. But Pezeshkian have said they don't want to use, quote, the failed methods of the past, I assume the crackdowns on, certainly women and outside music and stuff like that, hijab, social freedoms, et cetera.

And he has really campaigned on that, didn't he? He campaigned on that. So what is he saying to the supreme leader that so far has avoided a crackdown on this?

[Farnaz Fassihi]

Well, I think today, you know, the judiciary chief said that we're gonna try to find ways to. To make women observe the hijab law, or we're going to try to find ways to bring, you know, bring people back in. But there's been pushback by the president because he campaigned on more social freedoms. And I think because, again, they recognize that they. This is too many people. It's not limited to a pocket in northern Tehran or here and there. It really is a nationwide phenomena. And they can't arrest everybody. They can't crack down and fine everybody. And, you know, he has said that, look, my policies are not to create, I quote, he said, I don't want to create a conflict that I can't really then contain in society. So there's been hesitation by the government to unleash sort of the morality police or crackdown and arrest. And it's sort of to the extent that they have fined a business that is holding sort of a DJ or a dance party or canceled an event here and there at the design show. It's like playing a game of whack a mole. They crack down, they arrest somebody, they find somebody, but it's too widespread. It pops up at another whack a mole. So I think this is really, it's totally a game of whack a mole. And it's really like, you know, it's interesting because, you know, conservative politicians are acknowledging this. They're saying that, look, we, we are facing a generation that is not. Is indifferent to power, that is not allowing us to tell it what to do. And this is where Iran is going to change. And this is where Iran is changing. The things that we're saying are not happening with, you know, with bombs, they're not happening with military intervention. They're not happening with opposition figures telling people in Iran what to do. This is a grassroots movement from within. And I think this is why people that we spoke to in Iran, sociologists, young people, political analysts, said this is so grassroots that we think that this is the youth and the women are going to win the long game.

[Christiane Amanpour]

So I just want to pick up on what you just said, because there are obviously some fissures amongst the conservatives. So the Atlantic magazine quotes a conservative politician last month telling a news outlet that he didn't believe in the hijab mandate, that its enforcement was no longer feasible. And he said the majority of people, quote, want to simply live their lives. Well, that's all true, obviously, but he was, there was pushback from a Friday prayer leader who said, who do you think you are to say such things? Who gave you such permission? So you and I know that there's, there's always a battle between the public and the people and sometimes within the leadership. Who's going to win this war inside the conservative, conservative side, the religious conservative side?

[Farnaz Fassihi]

Well, you know, Iran is fluid, right? There's definitely tension within the conservatives as well. Conservatives who say we need to be a little bit more pragmatic and the hardliners, including the supreme leader, who says, no, we're an Islamic country, and the optics have to look like an Islamic country. They have lost their optics. And that's what very concerning for them, right? Because, you know, to the extent that the revolution was going to deliver Islamic justice, economic justice, supporting the poor, getting rid of corruption, it has failed on all those fronts. Right. And it hasn't even been able to deliver, you know, any sort of, you know, democratic change or any of the really foundations that they claimed that they were bringing. So the only thing that it has to cling on is the optics of an Islamic revolution. And now they've lost the optics. So it's really kind of like they view this as an existential crisis Now. I think that ultimately the pragmatics are going to win because they have tried as many point out all the other ways, and it has only backfired. It has only led to, you know, the youth being more sort of, you know, emboldening them. It was interesting, I read somewhere that one of the conservatives said, you know, we've gotten to a point where, you know, Mahsa Amini's hijab and what was happening when we were cracking down has become our dream. We dream of, you know, women coming out with just, you know, a loose scarf, but they can't get back to that point. It's.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yeah, it's moved far too. Yeah, loose scarf to no scarf. But here's the thing. Of course there is no, you know, there's no political space that's still very repressed. Dissidents still, or any ordinary people are still filling the jails. And according to Amnesty International, in September they said over 1,100 people were executed in 2025. So that's in the first three quarters of 2025, highest in 15 years. So we can, you know, enjoy what's going on in terms of social movement. But the actual so called Islamic justice is being meted out fiercely.

I mean, how do you reconcile all that?

[Farnaz Fassihi]

Look, political repression is still a cornerstone of the Islamic government in Iran. They're still cracking down on dissidents. They just recently arrested.

Economists and journalists and dissidents. And that's going on, as you pointed out. Death sentences are being handed out, executions are happening. Not really seeing any sort of opening on the political front, but socially it is. So, you know, I think that people in Iran say, look, it's not like the government has decided to allow us to, you know, not wear the hijab. It's not like the government's decided that we're suddenly going to allow yogas and marathons. It's the people, the young, brave people and youth and women who, you know, through their sheer perseverance and, you know, civil disobedience are reclaiming that. Right, right. So it is a tension between the government and the people. Socially, we're seeing these freedoms, politically we're not. So really where to watch is whether this is the social freedoms, if they last are going to have any influence on politics or not or like, you know, in places like Saudi Arabia, maybe there's, you know, we're seeing social freedoms but not political freedom. So, you know, I think Iran is sort of a little bit like that right now.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And Pezeshkian has admitted that there's literally almost no support for the government. He says when we visit provinces, we see in surveys that people are discontent about the administration. We're answerable since we cannot provide services to people. So very, very quickly, what does answerable mean? Do you think there will be what everybody outside wants to see anyway, which is a toppling of the autocracy, the theocracy. 10 seconds.

[Farnaz Fassihi]

I don't think there's any real signs of the government toppling from within and I don't think we have any military invasion to top topple the regime right now from the outside. So toppling of the government.

[Michel Martin]

Does not.

[Farnaz Fassihi]

Seem like it's in the immediate future, even if many people desire it.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Farhanaz Fassihi, thank you. Always fascinating. And we'll be back after this break.

[Joshua Yaffa]

Coming to cnn, candid conversations between Hollywood's hottest act. New episodes of Variety's acclaimed series Actors on Actors premiere exclusively on CNN starting December 5th. Go to CNN.com watch to subscribe or log in with your TV provider.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Now. Despite lengthy negotiations, it appears the war Russia launched against Ukraine is no closer to ending. Russian and American aides reported that five hours of conversations in Moscow earlier this week produced progress. But during a visit to India, President Putin threatened to liberate the Donbas by military or other means, that is eastern Ukraine. A Ukrainian delegation heads to Florida to meet with U.S. officials in a bid for a ceasefire and a fair deal. Joshua Yaffa, a contributing writer for the New Yorker, has reported on the war since 2022, and he joins Michelle Martin to discuss what it would take to stop it.

[Michel Martin]

Thanks, Christiane. Joshua Yaffa, thank you so much for talking with us once again.

[Joshua Yaffa]

Thanks for having me.

[Michel Martin]

You know, we talked at the beginning of this conflict, the beginning of this kind of all out Russia's all out invasion of Ukraine. Are you surprised we're having the same conversation four years later?

[Joshua Yaffa]

Hard to think back to those early days of the war when I was in Kyiv and we spoke. I think I was actually in a subway station where.

Sheltering with other residents of the city where actually many residents of Kyiv still go these nights to shelter from Russian air attacks. So there is a kind of sad, tragic, Groundhog Day nature to the conflict and how it feels certainly for the people in Ukraine, really, the dynamics of the war, why the war started and how the war might end, have stayed remarkably constant, which essentially is Russia. Vladimir Putin seek to severely limit, if not negate Ukrainian sovereignty, to limit both politically, certainly militarily, the kind of potential Ukraine has to chart its own course, especially if that means growing closer with the west, either politically, above all militarily, through NATO. So that's something that Putin seeks to not just limit, but essentially take off the table for generations to come. It's a kind of historical project for him. And Ukraine looks to preserve that sovereignty. Right? Looks to preserve its sovereign right, to chart its own historical path culturally, politically, militarily. Right. The military aspect actually is seen as a way of protecting those other realms. And so what Putin seeks to achieve, his kind of ultimate strategic war aims are exactly what Ukraine considers anathema and sort of non starters, something it can't agree to as it understands for the survival of the nation. And so we're, we're at loggerheads, right? We're at a war that, that grinds on each side, thinking that a bit more time can improve its position, mainly because it will exhaust its opponent. And, and that's really the kind of the, the grinding logic of the war of attrition we're still stuck in four years later.

[Michel Martin]

So one of the reasons we're speaking now is that we're in the midst of kind of a flurry of diplomatic moves. The President Trump's envoysteve Witkoff, a former golf buddy of his, a fellow real estate developer, and his son in law, Jared Kushner. They just concluded this, you know, sort of hours long session. NATO is meeting without the United States, interestingly enough. And the Ukrainian president has been kind of back and forth to Europe, Europe trying to shore up support there. This comes after this lengthy sort of peace proposal was put on the table, ostensibly crafted by the United States. But it's emerged that it's very muchit was very much initially based on Russia's sort of talking points. So the first thing I wanted to ask you is does this flurry of diplomacy mean anything to your knowledge, in the context of what we've seen so far? Does it, does it seem like it is any kind of an inflection point or is it just another day?

[Joshua Yaffa]

There are some new dynamics, right. Despite what we talked about a minute ago and that the kind of overall, the kind of the logic of the war has remained constant. Of course, there are dynamics that come up. The most important one is Donald Trump as President of the United States, who has a dramatically different position regarding Russia. And I don't think we need to sort of go over, right, his history of, of conciliatory statements toward Putin. But I think ultimately what's most important is Trump's desire to end the war. If President Biden had a desire to end the war in a way that, as he and European partners understood it, would deliver some kind of, kind of both durable and just peace for Ukraine, Trump is interested in ending the war, getting a victory, a diplomatic victory, his Nobel Peace Prize, like, for example, was the case with the Gaza deal from last fall, where how the war ended was less important than the fact that it did end. And so then it flows from that, that it's only natural, if you're interested in speed, that you effectively put pressure on the weaker party. And that is Ukraine. Right. And Ukraine is the weaker party for a number of reasons, certainly just by looking at the battlefield dynamics. Russian army just objectively, quantitatively, much larger, it's moving forward and Ukraine is losing territory. At the same time, Ukraine is under increasing financial pressure. The Ukraine budget could really be running out of cash, effectively. And the third point is a political crisis coming stemming from a corruption scandal in Ukraine that hits really close to Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's president. People around him, his longtime chief of staff, right hand man, Andrei Yermak, was forced to resign this week under the specter of a corruption allegation. So all of that comes together to, to put Ukraine in a much more difficult and vulnerable position. And it's that position that Russia hopes the Trump administration will effectively exploit.

[Ivan Duque]

Right.

[Joshua Yaffa]

That the Trump administration will be so interested in a peace deal fast and kind of really twist Ukraine's arm. Putin thinks that time will bring him closer to victory. So as far as Putin sees it, either he gets the deal he wants or he doesn't and keeps fighting. And that will still get him closer to the deal he wants eventually.

[Michel Martin]

So what does Putin want? This is one of the things that was interesting about this 28 point peace plan that was evidently at least based on a kind of a transcript of a leaked phone call that was reported by Bloomberg, where the President's envoy, Steve Witkoff, was overheard speaking to his Russian counterpart and coaching him on how to win over President Trump. But one of the things that was interesting about this document is it really kind of laid out Russian objectives in black and white. What are they first, I would caution.

[Joshua Yaffa]

A little bit of seeing the 28 point Witkoff plan as a kind of pure expression of Russian or Putin priorities. Certainly there was Russian input, we know now about the genesis of that document. But my sources in Moscow, foreign policy circles, I wrote about this in the New Yorker last week, were actually cautious about that Witkoff document. Kind of potentially some kind of attractive for Russia sounding proposals. But how are they implemented? How can Russia count on them? Politicians come and go. Even Trump, as one Moscow source told me, right, is a temporary political phenomenon, right? He could be out of office in three years. And just like US Policy shifted so dramatically from Biden to Trump, it could shift again. Now to the sort of core question, right, What Putin wants. And he's actually spoken about this quite openly, right. And what he thinks is that Ukraine has essentially become, he calls it a quote, anti Russian project, right? It's been led astray by the west, that its integration with Western political and certainly military structures like NATO, right, is the kind of ahistorical aberration that's not Ukraine's place. And it's, it's being kind of led out of Russia's rightful sphere of influence. And, and Russia simply cannot tolerate this, quote, anti Russian project on Russian borders. That the idea that there would be foreign military bases, foreign troops stationed in Ukraine, with a Ukraine that is culturally and historically rejecting Russia, all of that feels like a kind of security threat, as Putin sees it. That is simply a kind of non starter, a non starter for Russia, a non starter for his own political legacy that he's trying to ensure this is right. We're also dealing with an autocrat who's been in power for 26 years and counting. And I think that also kind of affects, affects how he sees the world at his own place in Russian history. What this is not about is territory. It's not about lines on a map. It's not about, you know, where are the borders drawn, who controls what city. All of those issues are proxies for Putin's real issue, which is that Ukraine simply cannot be allowed to be a threat as he defines it.

[Michel Martin]

And why is the cost worth it to him? I mean, we've been reporting at NPR. We reported that he's losing as many as 25,000 soldiers a month. What makes it worth that cost in lives?

[Joshua Yaffa]

What's important to remember is that Putin's initial calculation in launching this invasion was that the war would be quick, the Ukrainian army would crumble, he'd be in Kyiv in three days. So we have to understand that Putin has ended up in a protracted war that he never counted on and either would have made different calculations or not launched the invasion if he knew. Who knows? Those are all on the right, the realm of kind of hypotheticals. But he counted on something very different. What he's ended up in is a war of attrition. And the kind of grim, dark logic of a war of attrition is you win by having your opponent lose more. So everything you just said about loss of troops, cost of the economy.

It'S relative to how those factors are weighing on Ukraine. Right. And Ukraine is a smaller country economically, population, and there are large questions about Ukraine's ability to continue to field trained, equipped infantry. Right. There's a huge problem with troops going awol, deserting in Ukraine. Right. So the kind of the, the manpower question is very real in the Ukrainian army. And the financial question, you know, according to some prognoses, Ukraine could be in serious financial deficit, really running out of cash to run the country by the first quarter of next year. Europe has Ukraine's chief financial backer. They can't seem to get a plan together. They can't seem to get this money to Ukraine. So getting back to your question, this war is incredibly, incredibly costly for Putin. He would like for it to end, but his calculation is that he can achieve his strategic objectives with time because things are actually worse for Ukraine. And as Ukraine, who will be forced to effectively bend the knee faster than Russia, will run out of whether it's troops to fuel the war, money to fuel the war, and so on.

[Michel Martin]

Let's talk about the European position. I mean, one of the arguments from the sort of the European side is that if Russia is rewarded or is successful in invading Ukraine, you know, who's next? You know, could it be Poland? Could it be, you know, Moldova? Who's next? And so the question is, you know, why isn't there more urgency in Europe around supporting Ukraine at least, at least giving them the resources to, to resist.

[Joshua Yaffa]

That's a great question, one I ask often as a reporter myself, who, who lives in Europe. I'm, I'm based in Berlin. I'm talking to you tonight from, from Warsaw. And of course, the view in Warsaw is very different than the view, let's say, in Budapest, Hungary, right. Where Viktor Orban just recently went to Moscow to meet with Putin, or in a place like Portugal, Greece. Right. Frontline states, as they're called, like Poland, have, of course, different view of this than, than, than states elsewhere in Europe. And that's part of the problem. Right. Is kind of how do you triangulate positions among these states that have different sense of urgency, different sense of priority. Some are trying to deal with their own domestic situations. There's little appetite in European populations for, for taking out, for going further into deficit. Right. For provide, for taking out new loans to essentially having new European taxpayers foot the bill for increased aid to Ukraine. But your parent, your point or your question really is, is absolutely the correct one and I don't have an answer to it. Right. The Europeans were so upset about the emergence of these 28 points and how it was done by kind of end run around European states. European diplomats didn't take into account European interest. Well, where is the European peace plan? Right. I mean if in a vac a vacuum will be filled perhaps in ways that you don't like. Right. But, but I didn't see European, you know, diplomats out in front of a U. EU led peace. There was an attempt to create one after witkoff and the 28 points emerged but that plan was quickly discarded effectively both by Russia and Trump. And it seems like, you know, Europe hasn't attempted since. And the point about the money I think gets to the real crux of the matter, which is European politicians say all the right things about the importance of supporting Ukraine, the strategic interest of making sure Ukraine doesn't lose this war, that that Russian aggression cannot be rewarded.

But where, you know, where kind of does the rubber hit? The road.

[Michel Martin]

You've been in and out of Ukraine over the course of these years and you've talked to people there all the time. Clearly they're war weary. But do you have a sense of how they view the current situation? You just pointed out that there's just been just body blow after body blow, some of them sort of self inflicted, like this corruption scandal that you just mentioned. What is your sense of. Of morale?

[Joshua Yaffa]

War weary I think is. Is exactly the right way to put it. I mean Kyiv right now, which at various points in the war had been more or less relatively spared, at least a kind of semblance of normal life continued and still does continue actually during the day. But you know, regular drone attacks at night. But more importantly for daily life, you know, long stretches of blackout hours at a time, you know, 10 hours or so or more of rolling blackouts across the capital city of Ukraine. So of course that leads to, that brings the war home and it leads to a new sense of exhaustion that even in the capital city life is so impacted. You know, you ask however many million, you know, tens of millions of Ukrainians about how the war should end. You'll get as many millions of responses. But generally, I think there really is a willingness to end the war knowing that it's not going to end with a kind of resounding Russian defeat, that Ukraine gets all its territory back and joins NATO. Ukrainians understand that this, that there's going to be an ugly deal to end this war. It's going to be ugly and it's going to be unfair for Ukraine, that the aggressor in some way will be rewarded. I think we're just objectively on that trajectory. What Ukrainians want above all is that a sense that for the sacrifices, certainly for the lives lost, both huge losses in the military, incredible losses that you myself, other colleagues have documented among civilians, at least Ukraine gains. They're often talked about as security guarantees. What it really means is the confident hope that this will not happen again in one year, two year, five years, that there is a durable peace, and that means a Ukraine that is secure and sovereign over the medium and long term.

[Michel Martin]

Joshua Yaffa, thank you so much for talking with us once again.

[Joshua Yaffa]

Thanks for having me.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Which is exactly what Ukraine is battling for. And finally, despite a nominal ceasefire in Gaza, Israel has again launched airstrikes, this time on a makeshift camp in Khan Younis yesterday evening, killing a number of children. But amidst the pain and destruction, people found a rare moment to rejoice this week as hundreds gathered in the ruins to celebrate the marriage of more than 50 couples. A parade of drummers, dancers and singers joyfully escorting couples to the wedding venue. In this case, outdoors in the open air amid mountains of rubble. The war made it impossible for Palestinians to hold these kinds of gatherings. And while children and families are still suffering tremendously, small rays of light and glimmers of joy shine through. 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 London.

[Farnaz Fassihi]

I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy.

[Michel Martin]

This week on the podcast Terms of.

[Joshua Yaffa]

Service, I'm here with Nikki Petrossi.

[Farnaz Fassihi]

She's a mom of three and a former social media executive turned social media reform advocate.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Why do we have to be in.

[Ivan Duque]

This position to try to fight with our kids over this when it's the.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Company'S decisions to make these things addictive?

[Farnaz Fassihi]

In a Pew research poll from 2024, nearly half of US teens said that they were online almost constantly so how can parents even begin to moderate all.

[Ivan Duque]

Of this screen time? We need to pressure the companies to do better. Like, we need to push back.

[Farnaz Fassihi]

Listen to CNN's terms of service.

[Ivan Duque]

Wherever you get your podcasts.