Amanpour – Former Israeli PM Naftali Bennett

CNN Podcasts | March 18, 2026

Overview

In this episode of Amanpour, host Christiane Amanpour conducts incisive interviews on the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict as targeted assassinations intensify, Iranian retaliation escalates, and the regional landscape shifts dramatically. She speaks first with Naftali Bennett, former Israeli Prime Minister, probing Israel’s endgame and rationale behind its strategy of targeted strikes on Iranian leadership. This is followed by insights from former Iranian diplomat Sayed Hossein Mousavian on the resilience of the Iranian regime, then a discussion with author and former US official Edward Fishman on the economic and geopolitical impact of the Strait of Hormuz blockade.

Key Segments & Insights

1. Interview with Naftali Bennett: Israel’s Strategy and Endgame

Timestamps: [02:35] – [20:32]

Israel’s Objectives and Strategy

• Main Goal:
  • Israel seeks to dismantle three primary threats from Iran: its nuclear program, ballistic missile capabilities, and regional terrorism.
  • “Our goal is to dismantle the threat and the threat is the nuclear Threat, the ballistic missiles and the regional terror.” – Naftali Bennett [03:13]
• Assassinations as a Tool:
  • Recent assassination of top Iranian figures (including Supreme Leader Khamenei and intelligence head Ali Larijani) are part of this effort.
  • Acknowledgment that Iran rapidly replaces leadership, but Bennett argues the sustained, multi-pronged campaign is “working very well.” [03:13]

The Endgame and Regime Change

• Criteria for Success:
  • Israel will consider the operation successful when “on the three dimensions, the nuclear, ballistic, and terror dimensions, threat has been all but, you know, pretty much removed.” [04:18]
  • Bennett clarifies, “the issue of the rise up, that’s a decision the Iranian people will have to make. That’s not ours to decide.” [05:13]
• Internal Contradictions and US Concerns:
  • Amanpour pushes on the contradiction between public Israeli statements about encouraging Iranian uprising and diplomats’ warnings that the IRGC would crush such unrest.
  • Netanyahu (via a cable): “We are undermining this regime in the hope of giving the Iranian people an opportunity to remove it.” [06:05]
  • Bennett: The regime is “corrupt, old, disconnected and incompetent” and “ultimately, it will collapse,” but Israel cannot dictate timing or outcome. [06:56]

Retaliation and Wider Impact

• Iranian Response:
  • Bennett “not surprised” by Iran’s strikes and blockade, citing expectations of strong Iranian retaliation due to its “formidable war machine.” [08:32]
  • Draws a parallel to the need for preemptive action, referencing the Cuban Missile Crisis and North Korea. “A threat that’s been building for 40 years cannot be dismantled in 10 days.” [10:19]

Negotiations Versus Preemption

• On Failed Negotiations:
  • Bennett claims negotiations “were going nowhere,” referencing Trump’s team’s failed attempt with Iran. [11:58]
  • Asserts responsible leadership cannot wait for an "imminent threat" before acting, “When is the threat imminent? When they have a bomb? When they have 10 bombs?” [13:01]

The Nuclear Issue

• Highly Enriched Uranium:
  • Amanpour asks about the fate of Iran’s stockpile; Bennett says dismantling the broader program renders enriched material ineffective, but emphasizes the importance of removing it. [14:21]

The Lebanon Front and Risks of Ground Invasion

• Concerns about Quagmire:
  • Amanpour invokes past experience with Lebanon to question whether Israel risks “another major quagmire.” [15:29]
  • Bennett: Refuses the idea that Israel is trying to “bomb the Middle East to change it.” Claims sole aim is security for Israelis, specifically children in northern communities; blames prior inaction for the current “ring of fire” around Israel. [16:36]

West Bank and Settler Violence

• Accountability:
  • Amanpour asks about increased violence by settlers against Palestinians.
  • Bennett: Condemns illegal actions by settlers, supports investigations but maintains “there is a huge amount of terror against Israelis as well.” Emphasizes Israel’s rule of law. [19:02]

Timeline for the War

• Uncertain Duration:
  • When pressed on how long the war will take, Bennett responds: “It ends when the threat ends.” [20:26]

2. Sayed Hossein Mousavian: Iranian Regime Resilience & War’s Impact

Timestamps: [21:39] – [35:33]

Differing Objectives: US and Israel

• US Goal:
  • Mousavian claims parts of the US establishment aim for regime change in Iran, referencing statements by American officials about controlling Iranian oil. [22:06]
• Israel’s Goal:
  • He asserts Israel’s objective is broader, alleging aims for “Greater Israel” and not just regime change but “total destroying Iran.” [22:50]

Regime Resilience & Popular Sentiment

• Unexpected Durability:
  • Mousavian notes widespread surprise at the regime’s resilience after high-level assassinations and intense attacks:
    “The American Israeli assumption was that the regime would collapse 48 hours, maximum 72 hours…But Iran retaliated just three hours after the assassination…During past 20 days, Iran has demonstrated significant resilience.” [25:43]
• Assassinations Won’t Collapse the Regime:
  • Despite thousands of assassinations since 1979 and more than 200 officials killed in the recent escalation, “we have never seen regime collapse or dysfunctionality.” [27:41]
• Counterproductive Results:
  • Argues Israel’s actions may be uniting Iranians rather than weakening the regime, especially when facing foreign attacks. [28:52]

Internal Discontent and “The Day After”

• Popular Frustration:
  • Mousavian acknowledges severe economic and social dissatisfaction.
    “Majority of Iranians, they are not satisfied with the social and economic situation of the country.” [29:15]
• Distinction in Unity:
  • Differentiates between anger at government and unity against foreign aggression:
    “When the nation is faced with foreign attacks…they have already united and now they are united in order to defend…the country.” [30:29]
• The Day After:
  • Predicts Iran will face a “double burden” of economic hardship and war destruction; says substantial reforms (economic, political, diplomatic) are vital for post-war stability. [32:03]
  • “I really cannot imagine they can sustain the type of governance system which they have been doing during the last two, three decades.” [32:36]

On Possibility of Reforms

• Skeptical of Immediate Change:
  • Mousavian concedes it is unclear if the regime will pursue major reforms even if it survives (“I don’t know even if the war would end, the governing system of Iran would go for reforms.”) but insists such change is necessary. [33:58]
• Notable Personal Anecdote:
  • Mousavian recalls his own arrests and opposition to government policies, emphasizing his call for diplomacy as being in the interests of both Iran and the US:
    “The current war is neither in the national interest of the U.S. nor Iran…We need diplomacy and…a very influential mediator.” [33:58]

3. Edward Fishman: Strait of Hormuz and Economic “Choke Points”

Timestamps: [37:51] – [52:58]

The Hormuz Blockade and Oil Market Shock

• Scale of the Crisis:
  • Fishman characterizes the closure of the Strait of Hormuz as “the largest disruption in the history of the world oil market already.” [38:15]
  • Despite limited direct attacks, Iranian drone strikes have transformed global shipping risk, causing prices to spike. [38:15]
  • “They can disrupt shipping…just by attacking about a dozen or so, they've been able to change the risk calculus of the entire shipping industry.” [39:13]
• Pressure on Allies:
  • Notes reports of European countries seeking separate deals with Iran to keep their oil shipping flowing. [40:16]

Economic and Financial “Choke Points”

• Invisible Leverage:
  • Fishman explains the US dollar and China's rare earth control as “invisible choke points” capable of shaping global markets and diplomacy. [41:13]
• Potential Leverage Shift:
  • If Iran demands payment in non-dollar currencies (RMB), or for the US to close Gulf bases, that could erode US influence. [42:46]

Sanctions Evolution & Effectiveness

• Innovation in Sanctions:
  • Recounts how, post-2005, the US began manipulating private-sector risk calculus to cut Iran out of financial systems—foundational for modern sanctions. [44:19]
• Sanctions on Russia:
  • Describes recent US tariffs/sanctions against Russian oil, their effects on global prices, and subsequent reversal amid the current crisis, benefiting Russia financially (“windfall...on the order of $150 million to $200 million each day”). [47:23]

Broader Lessons and Tools

• Limits and Utility of Sanctions:
  • While sanctions rarely change adversaries’ fundamental behavior, they do “attrition,” weakening their capabilities (“Sanctions have certainly worked...in terms of attrition.”). [50:01]
• The Future of Economic Warfare:
  • With the US having experienced the limits and collateral damage of military force, Fishman anticipates renewed interest in “economic warfare” and sanction tools after this conflict. [51:16]
  • “It’s much easier to start a war than to end it on terms...advancing U.S. interests.” [51:41]

Notable Quotes

• Naftali Bennett:

  • “A threat that’s been building for 40 years cannot be dismantled in 10 days.” [10:19]
  • “We want security. That’s all we want. We don’t want a broader Israel. We don’t want anything. We want my children here in Ranana and up in the north to live. That’s all we have, our only goal in this tiny little country.” [16:36]
  • “It ends when the threat ends.” [20:26]

• Sayed Hossein Mousavian:

  • “During past 20 days, Iran has demonstrated significant resilience...But Iran retaliated just three hours after the assassination...” [25:43]
  • “We have never seen regime collapse or dysfunctionality...Assassination strategy could be more counterproductive for Israel and for the US…” [27:41]
  • “No doubt...the majority of Iranians...are asking for major, major reforms and a better life. No doubt about it. No question.” [29:15]
  • “If the war is finished today, the problem for the Iranian government...would be at least double or triple compared to before…” [32:03]
  • “The current war is neither in the national interest of the U.S. nor Iran, nor the region. Therefore, we need diplomacy…” [33:58]

• Edward Fishman:

  • “The Strait of Hormuz is...the world’s most important maritime choke point...20% of global oil supplies…through that narrow waterway…” [38:15]
  • “It’s much easier to start a war than to end it on terms that are advancing U.S. interests.” [51:41]

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Segment | Timestamp | |---------------------------------------------|--------------| | Amanpour lays out episode context | [00:04]–[02:35] | | Naftali Bennett interview | [02:35]–[20:32] | | Sayed Hossein Mousavian interview | [21:39]–[35:33] | | Edward Fishman & Walter Isaacson segment | [37:51]–[52:58] |

Memorable Moments

• Amanpour challenges Bennett on whether Israel’s assassination policy can ever achieve strategic aims, pressing on both the logic and ethics of regime-change by force.
• Mousavian points to historical precedent—eight years of Iranian resistance during the Iraq war—as an indicator that external pressure historically unifies, not fractures, the regime.
• Fishman vividly describes the power and peril of modern “choke points,” from the dollar to the Strait of Hormuz, and how they're leveraged in geopolitical conflicts.

Conclusion

This episode lays bare the strategic dilemmas, moral ambiguities, and geopolitical risks inherent in the Israel-Iran conflict, highlighting both the limits of military action and the cross-cutting economic repercussions rippling through the region and world markets. Through in-depth discussion with high-level Israeli, Iranian, and American experts, Amanpour underscores the urgent need for rethinking both ends and means in the pursuit of security and stability in the Middle East.