B (5:45)

Let me ask you, because the Omani foreign minister who was brokering the talks, indirect talks between America and Iran right up to the day before the war started, has written a very open and forward leaning and quite rare kind of. And he is basically saying that first of all, he believed that a nuclear deal was possible and was on the way just before the war broke out or the Americans and the Israelis attacked Iran. He also said that this has been America's gravest miscalculation in terms of this administration. The greatest miscalculation of all for the US Quote, was allowing itself to be drawn into this war in the first place. And he obviously says drawn into the war by Israel. I just want to know from you, do you agree with that assessment?

C (6:44)

I do. I mean, if you start back three weeks ago when the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio was asked, why did you get into this war? What was the purpose? He gave an answer that the next day the president completely dismissed. And so we've seen three weeks of a war now that continues to increase in every way with no clear purpose. And I think the statement you just read is an accurate reflection of the trouble we're in and the difficulty we're going to have to get out. Once you start these things, just like in Vietnam, just like Afghanistan, just like Iraq, and particularly if you've got no strategy and you can't answer questions like what comes next? Starting with, what was the purpose? How do you get out of this? And I don't know. I don't know what the answer is, but it will only get worse, and it will have severe consequences all over the world in every way. And you've got the other element of this, too. As we continue under President Trump to unwind the Post World War II world order, we're isolating ourselves, the United States, where that's just increasing the supremacy of China, helping Russia and all against our interests.

B (8:17)

I want to play something from one of your, you know, latest successes. The current Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, he goes out every day and essentially listen to what he said today.

D (8:31)

The media here, not all of it, but much of it, wants you to think, just 19 days into this conflict, that we're somehow spinning toward an endless abyss or a forever war or a quagmire, Nothing could be further from the truth. Nobody can deliver perfection in wartime. This building knows that more than anyone. But report the reality. We're winning decisively and on our terms.

B (9:06)

So Secretary Hagel, he looked straight into the camera and he said before he delivered that that he wanted to talk direct to the American people because the press was, you know, basically getting it all wrong and was against Trump and wanted Trump to fail. So I want to ask you, from your perspective, how as. And you were a Republican, as a Secretary of defense, we're winning decisively on our own terms. They'll never be spinning towards an endless abyss or forever war or a quagmire. Nothing could be further from the truth.

C (9:41)

Well, I think the reality is just the opposite of what the secretary said. We continue to spin out of control. We continue to accelerate. And again, as I said here a couple minutes ago, where is all of this going? And as you widen the war and you widen the war in every way, and you continue every day to say, the Americans say, this day, today is going to be the worst day for Iran, we're going to hit them harder than we have in the last three weeks. Well, if that's not escalation, a forever war, I'd be interested in knowing from the president or the secretary of state, secretary of defense, how is this going to end? When is this going to end? And it's hard to answer that. I know, because you can't even answer, why did we get in this war? What was the purpose? We still have conflicting, depending on who you talk to, conflicting answers to that.

B (10:44)

I just want to ask you to react to yesterday's congressional hearings with the, you know, American national security and intelligence. You know, the dni, CIA, I think FBI was there as well. And they contradicted the Trump administration's reasons for going to war, all refused to back up what he had said on Iran's ballistic missile threat, on Iran's imminent nuclear weapons threat. You know, they did not say that there was an imminent threat to the United States.

C (11:19)

Well, what's interesting about this, too, is that they are now investigating Mr. Kent, that official. But that may be just a coincidence, like so much of this. They like to project it is. But to answer the question, first of all, I don't have the intelligence, so I can only speak from my own experience and how intelligence is handled. But from, from what I've seen and the people that I've talked to over the last month, no, Iran was not a threat to us. I mean, what was all this this about last year when, when the United States bombed the hell out of all their nuclear facilities and the president took credit for eliminating any nuclear threat. Now, because we've bombed them, it's over. So how does that all factor into this as to the threat that was so imminent? And I just don't think from what I know and the people I've talked to, and like Mr. Kant said, there was no imminent threat. And we were talking to them right up at the time that he started bombing them with Israel. So the inconsistencies here are blaring.

B (12:47)

You mentioned Mr. Kent. That's Joe Kent. He's the former administration official who resigned saying exactly that, that Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation. I want to ask you also, Tulsi Gabbard, the head of dni, said that US And Israeli objectives difference, basically saying that the objectives laid out by each side are different. Do you see that as well? Because on each side they say there's no daylight between us and that we're winning and et cetera.

C (13:21)

Well, what I see there first is further confirmation of the continued inconsistency of this administration in their top officials being able to say it the same way or at least be on the same page to answer some pretty basic questions. I mean, is our objective regime change? Is that what we're talking about? Israel's? I don't know. I mean, Israel's now very actively involved in a war to their north in Lebanon, bombing Iran. How much influence Israel had Mr. Netanyahu over Mr. Trump to start this war? I mean, all those are inconsistencies and unanswered questions that will come out. I used to tell my staff all the different jobs I had, just remember, there are no secrets in the courthouse. Everything comes out. And it should. But just bottom line is the American people ought to be told the truth. They should have been told the Congress. The Congress is absent here. Why are we doing this? I'd like to have the Congress's involvement. Constitutionally, they have a role as well. But we started this war without any of that.

B (14:46)

Let me just also add, Tulsi Gabbard of DNI testified that while the Iranian regime, and I'm going to add, and its military is largely degraded, the government still appears to be intact. So I want, I'll ask you now to reflect back to your time, because the JCPOA was being negotiated, I think, while you were still in office under President Trump. And it did. Sorry, under President Obama. Obama, yeah, Obama. And it was a lot of people who just do not trust the Iranian regime at all, said, oh, it was just, you know, window dressing. Oh, it was just a band aid. Oh, it had all these sunset clauses and would never really give you a security. Security on the, on the nuclear front. Just tell us now, in retrospect, what it did do and what it might have led to, different to where we are now.

C (15:43)

Well, I think it was hugely important. I was a strong, strong supporter of it. I think it was exactly the smart way, the right way to go for not only Iran in our interest, but for the entire Middle East. Because what it did, it didn't do everything. But the first thing that that agreement addressed was the nuclear threat of Iran. It, for the first time, gave us, the United States, our ability to put our own inspectors in Iran with the IAEA from the United nations, which was a huge, huge deal. Another part of this was that we had, I think, eight nations total with the United nations, all signing off, all supporting it. Our allies, China, Russia, all of them supported this. What it also did, it opened up Iran. Yes, yes, it relieved them of some sanctions. But here is the important thing for the future of Iran. For the young people of Iran who want new leadership, deserve new leadership. This was an opportunity as it was developing and opening up their country where other countries could come in trade with them, where you could see things really start to develop and open up without killing each other, without the incredible destruction that's going on now. I mean, there are a lot of other pieces to that act, but it was the smartest of all possibility.

B (17:23)

Let me ask you finally, the idea of rules of engagement and what you've just talked about. I think the destruction of the country and what will it mean for the future? President Trump talks about hitting Iran so hard, quote, they'll never recover, or raining death, fire and fury on Iran. That's Hegseth as well. European leaders are calling foul, saying that it's reckless and illegal. That's one of the European prime ministers and that former French prime minister says Trump is taking the US towards becoming a rogue state. Since Secretary Hegseth has talked about, you know, I'm going to paraphrase but useless rules of engagement, are you concerned about them going even further off the reservation, not just conducting a military campaign, but one that could be, you know, could, could have, like the whole business of we will take no quarter, which means not saving and perhaps executing prisoners.

C (18:22)

Oh, sure. I mean, this crowd does not comply with any guidelines or rules or laws. I mean, all you need to do is once again reflect on what the president himself said when he was asked about when the war is going to end. And his response was, well, when I say it's going to end. And they said, well, how do you know that? And he said, well, I just. My instincts will tell me when it's ready to end. Are you kidding me? No president has ever done anything like this. One of the things that is going to occur here and the results, consequences of what's going on is that we are manufacturing a whole new generation of young terrorists in the Middle East. That's just one consequence of what's coming here. And I too, am concerned with your question to me about engagement in rules and international norms and how we deal with prisoners. Now, they say they're not going to introduce ground troops three weeks ago, but now some of them, the officials are saying, the administration are saying, well, that option's open. And we're evidently sending a Marine Battalion of 2,200 Marines over into that area without any, at least I know of. What is the purpose of sending those. Yeah, those ground troops.

B (19:54)

Just stopping you right there because the latest is the president in the Oval Office saying I'm not deploying ground troops. If I were anyway, I wouldn't tell you. So we don't know. It's the latest public utterance, so we're not sure. But anyway, Secretary Hagel, thank you very much for your perspective, your wisdom, your experience in this very dangerous time that we are in. Thank you for joining us and stay with CNN because we'll be right back after the. Now for the Islamic Republic, this war is existential and asymmetrical. It continues to pursue a high risk strategy of striking the Gulf states and disrupting the global energy supply. Their plan to cause them pain so they pressure President Trump to end this war. Meantime, Israel continues its assassination strategy with near daily decapitations of regime officials. One senior Iranian official told the New York Times the mood within the regime is, quote, one of shock and anxiety, while a senior official told me that it's energizing the base. Ali Vaez is an Iranian American nuclear expert who advised on the jcpoa talks in 2015. He's also Iran Project director at the International Crisis Group and he's joining me from from Geneva. Alivaez, welcome back to the program.

E (21:22)

Great to see you, Christiane.

B (21:23)

So very quickly I want to start with the news today, which is the Arab states, the Gulf states have all said stop it and we basically reserve our right to retaliate on you, Iran. What do you think will be the result of that from Iran?

E (21:43)

Well, I don't think it's going to work with the Iranians because there is more and more evidence that some of the attacks that the US has conducted has been from either the territory of these countries or the airspaces of these countries. And Iran doesn't have a lot of other options for externalizing the pain of this conflict. So I'm afraid as long as US Israeli attacks on Iranian territory will continue, Iran will also continue to attack Arab Gulf states. The way that this can get way worse, Christiana, is that if, as we saw in the past 24 hours, that both sides would start going after each other's energy infrastructure. If Iran is to it's one thing to limit the exports of energy out of this region, which can recover in a matter of days or weeks. But if production is taken down, this might have a long term effect, maybe months, if not years, and that would be disastrous for all.

B (22:41)

In fact, that is what a whole load of oil company executives did warn just recently. So where do you think this is going? Because clearly there are tactics. Israel has remarkable intelligence. It has conducted a wave of top, top, top level assassinations. You'd think that the entire lot was out of commission. They're not. But you heard what somebody said to the New York Times, that there's panic, that there's shock. Others say, no, it's Consol. What do you see as the effect now of this strategy, or rather whatever strategy or tactics in the last three weeks?

E (23:25)

So, look, I think there is an Israeli strategy and there is an American lack of strategy that we can discuss separately. Israeli strategy, I think, is to dismantle the states in Iran by removing anyone with experience in statecraft, anyone who can engineer any kind of off ramps. Israel wants to ensure that this war ends with Iran becoming a failed state. Iran, that is completely defanged and does not pose any challenge to Israel's full dominance over the region. So anything that emerges, whether it's chaos or civil strife, it's totally fine with Israel. And it can stay in this war as long as it's required because the majority of the cost of it is shouldered by the United States. For the US I think it's different. The US Went into this based on a lot of wishful thinking. I think we've ended up believing in our own rhetoric that this government in Iran is a terrorist organization. So if it's decapitated, it would fully fold and very quickly collapse, not realizing that this is a state. It's a very entrenched state. It's also very deeply benched. Every commander has a replacement, every leader has a replacement. And if we are to completely eliminate the leadership class of the Islamic Republic, we have to be in this for several months. And this would come at a cost of completely destroying the country at a very high civilian casualty cost, and we would create a very unstable situation the day after. So from what I see, the Iranian leadership is nowhere near the brink of collapse. With elimination of Lari Jani now, power has gravitated towards Mohammad Baghrakhali Baf, who's the speaker of the Parliament, former commander of the IRGC's Air Force. And even if he is eliminated, there will be other people standing in the line to fill his truth.

B (25:28)

So then what options for off ramps? If you've, as you've, described, Foreign Minister arakchi said on March 15, we never asked for a ceasefire and we've never asked even for negotiation. The President Peseshkian says any peace deal requires reparations and a guarantee the US And Israel will never attack again. Trump says Iran wants a deal, but on terms that he won't accept. And as You've pointed out Israel doesn't want a deal. It just wants to do the best it can to. To decimate the regime. So where do you see this headed? Is there any prospect of a negotiation? And what would that look like?

E (26:09)

Look, I think it's very clear that both sides are caught in an escalation trap. President Trump could have come up with a narrative of victory in the first week of this war. He could have said that he had killed the Supreme Leader, degraded Iran's military capacity, re obliterated its nuclear program and walked away, but he stayed in it. And now the war is about something else. The war is about opening the Strait of Hormuz. And that is not possible unless the US Is willing to engage in a Vietnam style massive carpet bombing of the southern shore of Iran. And potentially even then, would have to put boots on the ground either in some of the Persian Gulf islands belonging to Iran or again, occupy the southern shore coastline. And all of that is the definition of mission creep. Will increase the human cost of this on both sides and would make it so much more difficult to resolve. But it appears that the President wants some sort of a concrete achievement like that. Or he has to be able to take out the stockpile of highly enriched uranium that is missing. That, too, is a very complicated, risky mission, would put American special forces in harm's way. Or he might have to kill the new Supreme Leader. I feel that he needs some sort of a big tangible win in order to be able to pull back. But even then, the Iranians might not agree to an unconditional ceasefire because they've seen this movie before. They agreed to a unilateral ceasefire that Trump imposed last year, only to be the target of an illegal and reckless aggression eight months later. And so they want to make sure that this is either a Security Council resolution or a big power like China, for instance, intervenes and provides some sort of a security guarantee. It is true that at the end of the day, there is no such a thing as a binding guarantee, other than the fact that it becomes clear that this kind of war is extremely costly and doesn't necessarily bring the kind of strategic objectives that the US And Israel had in mind.

B (28:24)

I want to talk about the Iranian people right now. You may have heard Secretary Hagel saying that the JCPOA was beginning to empower a middle class, was beginning to lay the groundwork for them to take more of their life, their politics, their economy, their freedoms into their own hands. And that might have, you know, mitigated the hard line reality. A lot of people say that's just wishful thinking. And right now, as you know, there's a whole Gen Z who obviously, like everybody, is suffering under the bombings, but want to see this regime toppled once and for all. Tell me about that. You know, cuz many who believed that there may be some glimmer in reform or whatever have been. Have been. Have sort of been discredited.

C (29:15)

Yeah.

E (29:15)

I think Secretary Hagel is right that in 2015 there was space for strengthening the middle class in Iran. If there was 10 years of 5% economic growth, the middle class will grow from 65% to around 85%. And that would coincide with basically the ruling elite who were in their 70s and 80s, dying out by the force of nature. And so the country by now would be in a better place to transition to something more moderate. But what President Trump did in 2018 by withdrawing from the nuclear deal, reimposing sanctions, was to reverse this dynamic. He weakened and impoverished the middle class and strengthened the hard men with guns in the Islamic Republic. So Iran of 2026 is definitely not Iran of 2025 of 2015. And the Iranian people definitely would like to see the back of this regime. The question here is, you know, without any doubt, bombs can destroy military capabilities, degrade infrastructure, but they cannot manufacture alternative. And that alternative does not exist on the ground. So although a lot of people would like to see their tormentors being punished or eliminated, but in the aftermath of this war, the only force that can emerge that could hold the country together again are those men with arms and guns. And that's unfortunately the Revolutionary Guard.

B (30:48)

And what about way back under Khatami, the president who came in actually overtly promising a whole sort of moderated version of the Islamic Republic and even talked about entering nuclear negotiations with the United States. Then there was the Axis of Evil speech that President Bush delivered lumping Iran in with North Korea and Iraq. And the whole thing just stopped. And the reformers, if, you know, if people believed in that, were discredited, you, you know, you studied that pretty closely. Was there really an opportunity to try to moderate and improve relations with the west in the early 2000s?

E (31:31)

Christiane, you know that better than anyone that the history of Iran US Relations is replete with missed opportunities and, and miscalculations on both sides. You're absolutely right that the Khatami era was an opportunity for a new beginning and was missed because both sides always allowed the perfect to be the enemy of good enough. That Khatami's more friendly tone was not enough. And the expectation was that Iran would also unilaterally change its regional policy. The United States rarely recognized that Iran would have any kind of legitimate security concerns. The Iranians, for their part, too, they never understood that they could play a more constructive role in the region. And by having direct channels of communication with the United States, they could correct perceptions about Iran and its policies and its hopes and fears. And again, it's a very long history. I think the biggest moment of squandered opportunity, however, is really 2016 is right after the nuclear deal was negotiated and implemented. And I think everybody, after two and a half years of negotiations, was exhausted and failed to build on that agreement before the tide turned with President Trump's return to office, there could be steps towards normalization of relationships. Instead, the Iranians took more American citizens hostage. They doubled down on their regional policy and missile policy, and President Obama turned around and started selling arms to Iran's neighbors. That, I think, was, in at least the past two decades, the most important moment of mistake.

B (33:23)

Let me ask you this. I was speaking to the former Israeli prime minister last night, and he was saying that, you know, we have taken out now the centrifuge ability, the missile launch ability, the actual missile ability, that even if they wanted to start a nuclear program again after this, they wouldn't have any means to deliver it. Others have said that actually you could, with all that highly enriched uranium they have, they could actually do so with just a few centrifuges. You're the nuclear expert. I want you to answer that. But also, once this is over, if that regime is still in place, do you think that they will decide to go for the bomb?

E (34:06)

Well, first of all, the fatwa, the religious edict that the former supreme leader had in place against nuclear weapons died with him. And given the fact that the country has now paid the economic price of a nuclear weapon through years of sanctions and has been attacked twice in less than a year, I think there is plenty of intent and motivation to try to try to weaponize Iran's nuclear know how. The real question is whether, given the degree of intelligence penetration in the Iranian system, they would be able to do so without detection after this war. But, Christian, what is important to understand is that the stockpile of highly enriched uranium that Iran has is sufficient for 10 sophisticated nuclear warheads, but it is also enough for four rudimentary, sort of like crude nuclear weapons. And if Iran manages to do a test, so we see a boom in the desert one day, we wouldn't know if Iran has managed to weaponize more of its nuclear warheads would have maybe dirty bombs out of that stockpile. And so we would be in a situation that would create enough nuclear ambiguity that Iran would be able to sit behind that nuclear shield. And this is why at the end of this war, if the president has not been able to address the fate of that stock buyer, regardless of what else he has achieved, I think this war would have been considered an absolute failure, especially given the fact that there was a diplomatic path to try to take that nuclear material out of Iran. It was put on the table on the sidelines of the General assembly in New York in September. It was put on the table again during the nuclear negotiations that happened in the city that I'm sitting in on February 20th.

B (36:10)

Well, the Omani foreign minister who was mediating has said that this war is the biggest miscalculation of this administration. But very quickly, in 30 seconds, don't you think Iran's policies over the last 47 years have been revealed as massive miscalculations? It's, you know, attacks against, you know, the right of Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, the whole nuclear aggressive talk about it and program?

E (36:39)

Absolutely. Iran has miscalculated gravely and I think it allowed its ideology and its domestic politics to blind it. But at the end of the day, there is plenty of blame to go around. The US Made mistakes. Iran made mistakes. I think Israel has also made mistakes and so did Iran's neighbors. This failure has many authors, Christian, and

B (37:06)

as always, it's the people who will be caught in the middle trying to pick up the pieces and see what kind of a life they have for the future. Ali Vaez, thank you very much indeed. And we will be right back after this short break.

F (37:24)

See a nation's enduring love for baseball when Shohei Ohtani and Japan's biggest major league stars return home to play in front of their fans for the first time. Homecoming, the Tokyo series premieres March 27 on the CNN app.

B (37:45)

Now, the MAGA movement is very fractured over the Iran war, but there are other issues sowing divisions within. Rampant misogyny is one of them. And young women who were once drawn to MAGA are defecting, disillusioned by the explicit cruel and fickle sexism they see. In his recent New York magazine article, journalist Sam Adler Bell writes about the women leaving the new Right, and he's speaking to Michelle Martin about it.

G (38:12)

Thanks, Christiane. Sam Adler Bell, thanks so much for talking with us.

H (38:16)

Hi, I'm glad to be here.

G (38:17)

Your story's crazy. The short version is conservative women who have Buyer's remorse.

H (38:23)

Yeah, that's a good way to put it.

C (38:24)

Fair.

G (38:25)

How did you get onto this?

H (38:27)

Well, I mean, I have a sort of group of sources on the right that I talk to relatively frequently for my work, for my podcast, and also for my reporting. And so I'm kind of always in touch with them, trying to get a sense of where things are at, what's going on internally. I mean, there's an enormous amount of internal conflict on the right that we wouldn't necessarily know about if there wasn't people doing this kind of reporting. And in this case, the way it came to me was really last fall after Nick Fuentes, this kind of pipsqueak, anti Semitic incel character who's very popular on the online right. He was interviewed by Tucker Carlson, as many people might remember. And a lot of the fallout from that there was sort of internal, to the right, a lot of dissension over it, but a lot of the fallout was about his anti Semitism, a little bit about his racism. But when I was talking to women on the right, people that I know, they were frustrated that nobody was talking about the main thing, the kind of least ironic and most kind of obvious and painful aspect of Fuentes self presentation, which is that he hates women. And it's just so apparent. And they were frustrated that while the right was having this internal debate about where to draw the lines about anti Semitism and about racism, they weren't talking about the sexism, which from their perspective has become kind of the lifeblood of the movement that they are a part of.

G (39:48)

So your piece opens with somebody called Anna, and she doesn't want to be identified by her real name for reasons you're going to tell us. But tell us Anna's story.

H (40:01)

Well, Anna is really a representative character for a certain kind of young woman who was attracted to the right during Trump's first term, who was a very talented writer, became a popular pundit, writing for major outlets, working in conservative institutions, and often writing about women as a woman, including this kind of narrative that the right was adopting at the time that women are really unwell, you know, that feminism has diverted their natural motherly instincts into this quest for worldly success. And now that they have it, women are using this newfound authority to punish and fetter men, which imperils civilization in the process. This is the kind of thing that Anna was writing, but her experience is one that is representative of a lot of people I talked to in the piece, which is that over time she started to see that basically she was Basically selling people the rope to hang herself. She started to realize that she was participating in a movement that was using her and that it wasn't worth it really, to get this kind of career and status as the right. Sort of basically made their whole project about punishing women, pushing them out of public life, out of the workplace. And she did start to see that this was wrong and that she didn't want to be a part of it. And that's where she came to me at that point, this moment of kind of one foot in, one foot out, not ready to come out and say what you wanted to say under her own name. And I think, to be clear, she's not making money on the right anymore. She has left those positions that she once had. Her fear, I mean, her motivation for keeping her name out of the piece, and I do believe this is out of fear. People who support Nick Fuentes, who is sort of one of the antagonists in this piece, they say they will rape, die and kill for Nick Fuentes. You know, they say this smirkingly, ironically, they might say. But nonetheless, Anna is somebody who lives around a lot of conservatives. She's somebody who was very connected, personal, on a personal and professional level with this movement, and she fears retaliation.

G (42:16)

At what point would you say the break came for her? Was it having kids herself where she realized a, I don't want that life for my kids, or was it realizing that being a mother, being a trad wife is actually harder than it looks?

H (42:30)

Well, I mean, we're combining two stories a little bit here because one of the people I spoke to, Alex Kishuta, who is named in the piece, she describes very vividly that it was partially having kids where she realized that this sort of of trad life, you know, trend on the right about, oh, women should just want to be mothers and stay at home and just focus on, you know, tending their garden and growing and making food with their kids? That. That was ridiculous. That was totally absurd. First of all, because she wanted to continue to have, you know, a career, but also because the idea that she would have to do everything for the kids and her husband would do none of it was totally untenable. It just would not work. As she says, it kicks the trad out of you really fast. And I think that was a big part of it for her. I think she also talks about. Alex talks about how when she was on the right and before she had kids, she accepted the idea that female coded things were low status. And that was something that she experienced amongst the men on the right. But once she became a mother and sort of experienced her womanhood in that way, she ceased to feel that way and thought that was an absurd thing to think. I mean, I think this is another important part of this, which is that while people like Fuentes and Andrew Tate and Tristan Tate and these sort of red pill, awful manuscript manosphere people are saying, you know, we're going to be awful to women, we're advertising it, that we're gonna, that, you know, our, our authority is going to be fickle and vicious. On the other hand, you have the traditionalists who are saying women need to be re. Subject to male authority, totally dependent upon them all the rudiments of the ability to have an independent life. We're going to take those things away from women. And so what you've got here is what I described in the piece as a pincer movement. On the one hand, you have the traditionalists saying you can't have an independent life. You are going to be forced into a marriage and forced into a home. And at the same time, on the sort of red pill, you have people saying, and the authority of men is going to be awful.

G (44:39)

What's fascinating to me is that I'm just wondering why they didn't figure this out before these incels, these, I don't know, these brute force guys. I'm just wondering, why would anybody go for that?

H (44:50)

I would say that the prominence of these red pill, as you say, the brute force guys in the MAGA movement and the sort of acceptability of their views has just grown and grown and grown. They undermine the plausibility of the old conservative, patriarchal Christian deal, you know, because that involved a certain amount of reciprocity. Now these people are saying, no, men don't have to do anything. And in fact they can treat women awful, awfully. And nonetheless, women should subject, you know, submit to their authority. And I think that became more and more clear and more and more sort of just explicit amongst various spheres of the MAGA world. And that contributed to, you know, these women moving away from men.

G (45:35)

How widespread do you think does your reporting indicate that those attitudes are? How prevalent are those attitudes among men who consider themselves who are part of the MAGA movement?

H (45:49)

Yeah, I mean, it's hard to judge. I mean, one thing to look at is just how incredibly popular Nick Fuentes is.

G (45:57)

How popular is he?

H (45:58)

I mean, he was banned from X, the X platform and when he was welcomed back by, by Elon Musk, his audience grew from a couple hundred thousand to well over a million. Now he gets more than a million views on many of his streams, his live streams that he posts on Rumble. And I've heard from sources within the White House, within the Trump administration, that there is no doubt that the younger people who work there, the junior staffer class, that many of them listen to Nick Fuentes. So this is not quarantined to just, you know, I don't know, our idea of the incel loser in the basement. These are people who have actual power over policymaking in the current government who are listening to this stuff, absorbing it, and talking about it. Another source who works on the Hill, a conservative, you know, a devoted MAGA operative, he told me that all men are really concerned about this, quote, unquote, feminization of public life. And basically what that means is that there's too many women involved in positions of power. I mean, one of the things I write in the piece, which I think does sort of encapsulate this, is that if you listen and you pay close attention to all of the problems that the right, in particular the MAGA right, is diagnosing, at the center of every problem is a woman with too much power.

G (47:25)

And how widespread do you think, based on your reporting, is this disillusionment among women who. Who used to consider themselves part of this movement?

H (47:37)

Yeah, that's also hard to judge. I mean, the women that I spoke to say that every single woman involved in conservative politics knows about this problem, and they are talking about it with each other. Whether they have decided it's fine, it's not a big deal, or they've decided it is a problem, but I can't leave. This is my career, this is my livelihood, and I have sort of political goals that are more important than my hurt feelings or whatever, whatever their responsibility response to it is. The sources that I've talked to say that all women involved in MAGA politics are aware of this problem. And you see it sort of come out in little bits and pieces every once in a while. You had the New York Times reporting on women in Congress who are disappointed by Mike Johnson's leadership, saying that he's too patriarchal, he's not listening to women's voices. You saw it with the sort of revolt over the Epstein files, which was led by conservative women. In little glimpses, you can see that this problem is there. But for the most part, amongst this sort of pundit, influencer, operative class of women that were most of my sources for this piece, they're talking about it in private, they're talking about it in group Chats. They're comparing notes about, you know, bad men they've encountered in the movement. But they're not, for the most part, coming out publicly and, you know, calling for a reckoning.

G (49:00)

This is white people. I assume these are white women. This is a white people thing. These are all white women, Right?

H (49:04)

Yeah.

G (49:05)

Just because in the African American context, they're just not sustainable. I mean, African American women have just a long history of being heads of households. Co. Equal partners.

H (49:18)

Yes.

G (49:19)

You know, especially in the modern era.

H (49:22)

Yeah. I would just say, I mean, something that should be noted about this whole phenomenon. It is mostly white women who get these jobs and who are working in conservative politics. And we can applaud them for coming around and seeing that sexism is a huge problem and that this thing that's affecting them is making them upset and maybe considering leaving conservative politics or the MAGA movement. But it's fair to say that they've tolerated an enormous amount of racism, which doesn't affect them personally and therefore isn't the thing that has pushed them, you know, out of the movement. I mean, this movement is, you know, unbelievably and explicitly racist. And that wasn't the thing that caused these women to change their mind.

G (50:10)

What's interesting about Trump, though, is how many women in his orbit have had significant power. He did appoint the first female chief of staff in White House history. That is, in fact, his press secretary, you know, who he seems to think highly of, you know, is a woman. The head of one of these largest departments. Yes. Kristi Noem. He recently, you know, dismissed her. But the fact is that is one of the largest agencies. It's one of the agencies that has been sort of marked for prominence in this administration. She did have that role. It is understood that he did consider women as running mates. You know, obviously you thought about it, and some of the people you interviewed thought about it. What do they say?

H (50:53)

Well, I mean, I think that's a good point. I mean, there is a difference between Trump and the movement that's grown around him. And I think, you know, whatever we want to say about Trump, he's won two national elections and he's done so because he does have a feel for how to build a plausible majority for his politics. A lot of these people, who are these right wing men in the manosphere, the Nick Fuentes of the world, their project is totally different. I mean, they're just trying to maintain this audience and keep them rabid and angry and clicking on their videos and watching them. And there is a tension between this part of the movement that, that feels apparently no compunction about alienating half the population and the project, the political project of Trump and maga, which needs to try to win majorities, win congressional majorities and win in 2028, whoever the candidate is. And there is a fear about that. I think you're starting to see. It's partially what this piece is about, but in other sectors, too, there's this fear of what happens when Trump leaves the stage. If he's not there, do we think JD Vance is going to be able to hold that coalition together? I mean, that's the fear, I think, that is represented by all of this contestation over whether it's sexism in my piece or last year, the conversations over anti Semitism. This is the fear. And conservative operatives, people who are working in the movement don't want to talk about it because Trump doesn't want to hear or be reminded of the fact that he's not going to be in charge forever. But that's why this is happening.

G (52:29)

Sam Adler Bell, thanks so much for talking with us.

H (52:32)

Thank you. This was really nice.

B (52:36)

And finally, it's New Year's Eve in Iran and parts of Afghanistan. Nowruz is centered around the spring solstice of renewal, hope and light. This year, war does cast a dark shadow over celebrations. For over 3,000 years, Iranians have taken part in long standing traditions, including the Fire Festival, Char Shambeh Suri, where people jump over small bonfires and set off fireworks. It's meant as a way of cleansing and warding off misfortune. But inside Iran, morale is quite low as war fatigue sets in. Markets that would be bustling with holiday shoppers are quiet under the bombs. And while there is hope for change, this Nowruz, the year ahead, is bound by an uncertain future. That is it for now. Thank you for watching and goodbye from lunch.

I (53:32)

I'm Eva Longoria and I'm setting out

H (53:34)

to really experience France, to savor its world celebrated cuisine and explore the country's rich history.

F (53:42)

Searching For France premieres April 12th on CNN. And next day on the CNN app,

J (53:47)

Claire I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy. This week on the podcast Terms of Service, there's a growing category of products aimed specifically at addressing women's unique health needs. These tools and services are sometimes known as femtech and they can provide big opportunities and benefits, but they can also come with some risks. To walk us through all of this, I spoke with Bethany Corbin. Bethany is an attorney and CEO of FEM Innovation, where she advises startups, clinicians and healthcare organizations.

I (54:17)

In my opinion, what it really does is gives us a collective language to talk about women's healthcare innovation and the tools that are out there so that we can take control of our healthcare experiences and know how to advocate for ourselves in a system that's probably not been designed to advocate for us.

J (54:33)

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