D (3:09)

Well, thank you for asking. I mean, this is actually a very dangerous situation because this war does not only create havoc in the Gulf and in the Middle east, but has very serious global consequences. We're seeing not only the rising price of energy, but also the shortages and, you know, the threats to supply also on fertilizer, which means food in the future, and to supply supply chains in general. So this is really a situation that if it's allowed to continue, will be very bad for the people in the region, obviously who are most affected, but also undermine the global economy. So I think this has economic and political and security implications for everyone, which is why I really want this war to stop. I really think it's time to find a diplomatic solution that all sides can live with. We have an Iranian regime which has, you know, previously demonstrated its ambition to have nuclear weapons. That should not happen. But I think that these things are best taken care of through going back to negotiations and get some very firm agreements with very strong inspection mechanisms to make sure that Iran can never get. I think that the current situation has moved into a stalemate that is just making the world more dangerous for everyone.

A (4:32)

As you know, President Trump has called upon Europe to help. He's variously said, you're ungrateful, you're cowards, you're this and you're that. Norway has been to say response is to stand up to that pressure and say, Norway will not do that. That was your prime minister. Do you think the president has made a miscalculation? Do you believe that this war was not just not your war, but a general miscalculation?

D (4:59)

Well, I'm afraid that what we are seeing now is that at least there was a serious underestimation of the capacity of Iran to conduct a long term asymmetric countercampaign. Because, you know, in a certain sense, Iran has the advantage of the underdog, that it does not need full spectrum dominance. It only needs to maintain a certain ability to threaten and challenge and create a fear for ships transiting the Hormut Strait or for the neighboring countries in the Gulf. And that will give them a certain advantage, which is hard to really take out by military means without coming in on the ground, which I understand is unlikely to happen. And let me say it's correct that we have said, like most European countries, that we are not going to enter the war and take part in the fightings and military vessels, for instance. But we do want to be helpful in trying to see if there are other means by which we can encourage parties to reopen, in whole or in part, the hormones straits to see if we can get more, you know, a more responsible behavior Trying to ensure that at least certain products can get through. And also, of course, to see if there are ways to help towards a diplomatic settlement. I know that other countries are more engaged in that, but I think it is really important now to understand that if this war continues, it will not only be a long war, but the consequences can actually last for years, because further destruction of important energy production facilities, you know, for instance, Ras Lafan LNG field in Qatar, it will take a lot of time to repair what is already damaged. And if there are more damages to either Gulf State or Iranian facilities, the consequences will not only be this year, but maybe years into the future with very severe consequences. So help, yes, but not with military participation.

A (7:00)

I think we do actually have to say that it was one of the participants of this war, Israel, that began the energy war by attacking the Pass Gas field in Iran. But. And that's where we are now with this major energy war. I want to ask you, because Europe is kind of caught, as some people always say, between a rock and a hard place, between wanting to protect your own interests, which are currently being damaged by this war, and also wanting to, you know, be proper, secure members of the transatlantic NATO alliance. You know, you haven't joined. But nonetheless, many European countries are actually facilitating parts of this war, whether it's the uk, whether it's Germany using their bases. How much, again, how much pressure are you all under? And with that question, Marco Rubio's Secretary of State is coming to Europe to meet with the G7. I know you're not G7, but what do you expect that conversation to be?

D (7:57)

So I hope that that conversation will be around trying to find out where we can have some landing zones, where this war can be brought to an end in the proper manner. Because what we all agree upon, and very strongly so, is that we have to ensure that Iran can never attain a nuclear weapon. They don't have any yet. They were not around the corner in getting them either. And we know that from the JCPOA times when there was a nuclear agreement. But we still have to work together, preferably by diplomatic means and by agreements and inspection, to ensure that that will not happen in the future. And so there are many things to discuss beyond the actual military contributions. And we are. Norway is a country that takes NATO very seriously. We are very committed to a stronger European defence inside the collective defence responsibilities of NATO. We believe in the transatlantic bonds. But this particular war is not a NATO war, and there is no initiative either to make it a theme for NATO as such individual Members, yes, some of them have long term base agreements with the us they have facilitated certain use of those. But it's not NATO. These are not NATO decisions, these are individual decisions. And you know, here in Europe, the very large, the main challenge that we have is what's going on in Ukraine with Russia, which is our neighbor, Norway's neighbor in the north and where, which is waging an illegal and very dramatic war in Ukraine still. And last night there were massive air attacks all over Ukraine. That war is going on. And one of the consequences of the, of the Iran war is that there is less attention to what's happening in Ukraine. And all the consequence is that one of the countries that actually benefit from these high energy prices is Russia itself. So they get more money to pay for more weapons to attack Ukraine. So it's all related. And we would very much like to see that we can get some kind of face down of the war in Iran, get some proper settlement, including on the nuclear issue, and then be able again to focus on what's seen from our perspective is a very, very key issue, which is how we can contain Russia, not only in Ukraine, but also to prepare for a post Ukraine war Europe that is safe and sound against further Russian aggression.

A (10:20)

Well, what is the realistic hope for that? Because you've just laid out the danger of this distracting from that. And we know that as you said, Russia's war chest is being filled up and it's using this period to continue attacking UKRA very viciously. How do you see the battlefield there now? And what do you think is going to be the effect of this war distracting not just attention but resources from helping Ukraine, let's say over the next month or two.

D (10:50)

So I am really worried that if the war in the Gulf continues for months that we will see a severe impact. You know, I mentioned the oil price for Russia, benefit for Russia. I mentioned the lack of attention. You could also add that so much advanced military hardware is now being spent in the war with Iran that, you know, these were weapons that could have been put to use in defense of Ukraine. And Norway along with many European countries were ready to pay for American weapons, to donate them to Russia, but now they will be less available. So there's all kinds of consequences. That said, however, the battle, the front, the military front, battlefront in Ukraine is quite static. Russia has not gained much lately. Actually Ukraine has had a few tactical advances into villages previously occupied by Russia. And it seems that we have a rather static situation on the front, which is why we are now seeing an Increased use of attacks on the deep, meaning that attacks on energy infrastructure in Ukraine and also some Ukrainian attacks deeper into Russia. Exactly, because there's not much more to get from the battlefront. And hopefully this will take us to a situation where even Russia understands that this cannot go on forever, where they have to come to some kind of ceasefire and peace talks. And in order to make sure that Ukraine is as best prepared as possible, we both need to have a solid Western unity behind Ukraine, but also continue to make sure that they have the military means to defend themselves until we get there. And thirdly, to prepare for the post war integration of Ukraine into Western structures, including European integration.

A (12:38)

Can I ask you to go back quickly? You said, you know, obviously the US was surprised, Israel was surprised by Iran's reaction. Now we're getting information that the President of the United States appears to be getting very short, very select video montage on a daily basis to show him what's happening in the war. And it tends to emphasize U.S. successes with comparatively little detail about Iranian actions. I know you don't know the details, but what does that say to you?

D (13:08)

So as you said, I don't know what information he gets and not much to say about that specifically, but on a very general level, I think that leaders in war really need to get as concrete and honest and unfiltered information that's possible. You know, we have, in the US more than anybody has excellent intelligence service. They have a lot of information available. It is very important that those who take the big decisions are aware of how things are really going. Because we have seen so many conflicts where the smaller party in military terms can use their, you know, their inferior role almost as an advantage because they have this, what I call this, this benefit of the underdog that you, you, you only need to maintain sufficient capacity to continue to create shocks or to create fear of, of retaliation. And then you, you, you get much more out of your weapons than, than the attacker. And, and I am, I would be a little bit surprised if this has not been war game because I think for most of us it was a rather natural development of things. We from Norway's side said on the very first day on 28th February that we fear that this would lead to a regional escalation and that Iran would retaliate also against third parties in the region, because that, I know, has been discussed in previous rounds of conversations about what to do about Iran. So in a sense, although we very clearly condemn the attacks on third parties and civilian infrastructure, it is more or Less what could have been expected from a country like Iran?

A (14:55)

Right. Yeah. Finally, I would like to ask you about the Middle East. The huge issue that rips the Middle east apart, and that is Israel, Palestine, and you in Norway have had such, you know, important work trying to get peace processes. So, you know, now on the West Bank, Israeli settlers are strategically consolidating control of Palestinian lands, even in areas that are meant to be administered by the Palestinian Authority. Those are areas A and B. The settlers are displacing Palestinian communities, sometimes very violently, and dividing the west bank up, which goes right against the heart. And the word of the Oslo agreement, your foreign minister was instrumental in bringing that all together. Do you think it's totally dead now? Do you think that there literally is no bringing it back and Gaza is still, you know, an unfinished business?

D (15:50)

No, I don't think it's over. I do think that, you know, this is the quintessential conflict in the Middle east, and it relates to all the other tensions and conflicts we're having. They are separate, but all of them in one way or the other, come back to the Israel, Palestine issue. And you, Christiane, you very correctly point out that while the world has had its focus on Gaza for understandable reasons, for years now, during the Gaza War, a lot of bad things have happened on the west bank. And now it is going into overdrive. It's worse than ever. Settler violence, settler activity, you know, even supported by the Israeli government, allowing settlers to take full control of territories that, you know, legally is Palestine and which even agreements that Israel has signed has recognized as to be controlled by Palestinians. And remember, these are not the Palestinians of Hamas. This is the Palestinian, the moderate Palestinian administration, Fatah. And the people who originally were PLO who are controlling these areas, they are the anti Hamas. They are the opposite. They are the people who are ready to live side by side in peace with Israel. So undermining them not only the territory, but also the key institutions of the Palestinian state is very dramatic because it's a clear violation of UN principles and agreements that Israel and Palestine assigned. But it's also dangerous for Israel itself because in the long run, it could leave more space for the extremists when they see no progress in a more peaceful approach. So I'm really worried about what's happening in the west bank, and it's really important that we are not allowing, once again, the Palestinians to be forgotten when something else happens in the neighborhood. And on top of that, we could mention what's happening in Lebanon, where it seems that we are at the beginning of yet another very dramatic war there.

A (17:44)

I mean, honestly, it looks dark whichever way you look. Foreign Minister Bard Ayde, thank you so much indeed for being with us. Thank you, Christine, and stay with cnn. We'll be right back after the break. While Israel's war on Iran and the bombing and incursion into Lebanon continue, there are also serious developments in the occupied West Bank. Violence against Palestinians by both settlers and security forces has skyrocketed since the October 7 attacks by Hamas and they've risen further since this war began. Ten Palestinian civilians have been killed this month alone. And troubling reports continue to emerge about heinous abuse and aggressive evictions. Israel ambassador to the United States claims it's only a tiny minority perpetrating these acts, but says it is a serious problem for Israel's reputation. Meanwhile, in Gaza, a disarmament proposal has been submitted to Hamas by the Board of Peace, with Hamas expected to respond soon. Now, Husam Zomlat is the Palestinian ambassador here in the United Kingdom and joins us in the studio. Welcome back to our program. Just react to what the Israeli ambassador said, that it's only a tiny minority of people, nonetheless, it really does hurt their reputation.

B (19:09)

Tiny minority of people in Gaza, he means, or in the West Bank.

A (19:12)

In the west bank committing these crimes.

B (19:14)

No, this is a state sponsored, we shouldn't call it settler terrorism. This is a state sponsored direct complicity by the army and involvement by the Israeli army, as per UN Reports. And this is a very organized terror campaign.

A (19:32)

When you say state organized, clearly the prime minister never condones this kind of stuff. I had the actually, let me just, let me just have what he said. The former prime Minister Naftali Bennett told me this.

C (19:48)

I have zero tolerance for any sort of illegal actions against Palestinians. And it's been investigated and I stand behind all investigations because Israel is a democracy with rule of law and I insist the law abides. But to put it in context, there is a huge amount of terror against Israelis as well. And it's tough.

B (20:15)

He's lying. I mean, for a decade, with all this rising level of settler terrorism backed by his government, there was no one prosecution. Fourteen years, not one settler was brought to justice. And you know how many hundreds of Palestinians have been subjected to terror, violence and murder at the hands of the settlers. So, no, this is a state sponsored terrorism, straight and plain.

A (20:43)

So the reason I got that answer out of him was because of a really, I said a heinous crime that was committed by settlers this week in the west bank. There was a man, Abu Al Kibash, you obviously know the story. Said settlers beat him, stripped him, zip, tied his genitals. And our Jerusalem correspondent, Jeremy Dimon spoke to him and this is his testimony.

B (21:25)

What was going through your mind when that was happening?

A (21:35)

What's your reaction to that?

B (21:37)

This is just one example of many. And this is not just the last few weeks or months. It's been on for 80 years. Christian, thank you for having me back. But the last time I sat on this chair with you was on October 7th.

A (21:53)

I've had you back since on October 7th.

B (21:55)

And I warned the world through you and your program that Israel will use the events of 7th October to declare and start afar greater attack and aggression against the Palestinian people, effectively warning that we will run the risk of genocide. And look where we are today. Look. And it is very important that we remember that we have been saying ever since that Palestine is not only the litmus test, but it is the crystal ball for what is coming. Gaza has been flattened, almost 2 million people, if not more. Most of them are intense. No aid is getting in restrictions. Israel refuses any national or international presence in Gaza. It is only after chaos, disintegration and it is now exporting this model to the region. They are dropping leaflets Lebanon telling them we are doing to you what we have done in Gaza.

A (23:01)

They're not just believeless, they've actually said it publicly. The Defense Minister said it publicly.

B (23:06)

Yeah, and therefore this is one of the gravest moments of our history. But we should not just be discussing the current war with Iran.

A (23:16)

Just while I have you on this issue, because I want to ask this issue. I had said that Bennett responded to that particular attack on Al Kabash, but actually it was on the killing by the IDF of a family, a four in a car. That's what I was asking him about then.

B (23:31)

But nonetheless, did they bring their soldiers who opened fire on that family to justice?

A (23:38)

We're following it.

B (23:39)

They did not. You know, how many soldiers have. You know there were British citizens murdered by Israeli soldiers all through the years. Never once justice was served in the way it should be, as he claims, by democracy. But the conversation is not about this incident or that incident. The conversation is about an 80 year old campaign of complete mayhem in the region and of Israel wanting to reign supreme in the region, as you know. And Palestine was only the playground. Now this playbook is being exported everywhere. And if we don't address this very long campaign, we will be coming back to discuss the next war, not just the war with Iran.

A (24:23)

Well, you know, I was just speaking just before you sat down to the Norwegian foreign minister, and there have been small periods of hope, and tragically, like the Oslo process, they haven't gone anywhere. But I want to ask you about what you're talking about now, because you wrote for the Economist. You called on Israel to stop land annexations in occupied Palestinian territories. As this war is unfolding, you write, a permanent transformation is unfolding in occupied Palestine. This is not accidental. It's a strategic decision by Israel to establish regional dominance and deal a deadly blow to Palestinian statehood under the COVID of war. Play that forward to us. What does this look like? You're talking about every last Palestinian being, you know, being pushed out of the occupied West Bank. You're talking about Israel maybe reoccupying parts or all of Gaza. What does it look like in your view of the future?

B (25:22)

The west bank is being annexed, full stop. Settler terrorism is organized to drive people out. Nakba 2.0, with the full backing of the state. Under the COVID of war, the Israeli government is aiming at the national institutions, the Palestinian Authority, pushing it to almost near financial collapse in Gaza. They refuse any scenario whereby we bring about some sort of stability, that Gaza is an inseparable part of the state of Palestine, united with the west bank under one government. Why are they doing that? Why are they doing that? Because Israel, since its establishment, wants to see failed states, chaos everywhere, disintegration. It started there. The wars with Egypt, the wars with Jordan, with Syria, with Lebanon, with Iraq and now with Iran. It's the same concept. So what they're doing in the west bank, practically speaking, and in Gaza, is definitely erasure, acts of erasure everywhere, displacement and replacement. And of course, by exporting this to the outside world, they are enabled by Israel's friends to do so under the COVID of war.

A (26:39)

So the Palestinian Authority, which recognizes Israel, which signed the Oslo Accords and is the internationally accepted Palestinian entity, political entity, they are also being, you know, sort of sidelined, as the Norwegian prime minister told me. And that, he says, is a shame, because they are the ones, you are the ones who actually would do, you know, peace and et cetera with Israel. On the other hand, the Israelis are saying even now, and they've said it before, certainly when the war with Iran started or their war on Iran started, that this is a once in a generation, lifetime chance to reorganize the Middle east, change the face of the Middle East. I think their words are in order to give Israel security. And I know you grimace I know you do, but, but you did have Hezbollah firing into Israel. You did have Hamas do what it did on October 7th. And these now can be seen as giant miscalculations because it's come back to, you know, terrorize them and everybody. They've, they failed and they are being, you know, Israel wants to make sure that they don't have the ability to attack them in the future. What is the answer out of this?

B (27:56)

Not, not, not aggression. Israel has been doing this for 80 years and it didn't work. And it will never work. Netanyahu's definition of a new Middle east is a definition of utter hegemony by Israel. Complete devastation of the region that has not materialized and will never materialize. Of course, Iranian regime, we have issues with it and the region does, particularly its immediate neighbors, the Arab Gulf countries. But the Arab world, including the Arab Gulf countries, have chosen diplomacy, dialogue, re, establishing full diplomatic relations. But, but Israel chose aggression and it has been choosing aggression ever since. And you can, you can, you can see clearly what is Israel's interest in this. It's very clear they really want to undermine any possibility of any successful state. The Arab world is very affected negatively. The Gulf is really paying heavy price for this. As you are following, so is the rest of the world. From Texas to Shanghai. People feel the consequences of the Israeli instigated war. I believe also there is. Now we need to ask the question is, what is the American interest in this? What is the American interest?

A (29:07)

Well, I'm going to ask you because the US Is clearly different. So do you have any dialogue, do you have any dialogue with the United States at all on how to get at least Palestinian rights and Palestinian security and to move forward? For instance, as we said, leading into you, apparently there's a new phase in the, you know, Gaza situation whereby the Board of Peace has presented a disarmament plan to Hamas and expects their response. What do you think will come out of that and is that the way to go?

B (29:36)

Yes, the way to go is first to stop the annexation immediately, because this is an existential threat to us, the Palestinian people, and it is an existential threat to regional and global security and stability. Number two, yes, we need to go back to the plan to stabilize the situation in Gaza, to have Israel withdraw from Gaza, to have the Palestinian Committee that was welcomed by us start managing Gaza and to unite Gaza and the west bank together. But also we need to make sure that the US Interest is allied with the region and the interests of the region. We need to press the brakes now. This war has to stop. Immediate ceasefire, always. Civilians bear the brunt of such wars. Number two, we need to bring back the guardrails that we have already, which is international law and international order. We must bring it back. And we must also start really once and for all realizing that we have got to stop dealing with the symptoms. We must deal with the root cause of all this. And the root cause of all this is the question of Palestine. A question of inalienable rights, a question of law and a question of accountability. Address the issue of Palestine and you really have the biggest possibility for peace. Ignore it, and then you and I, Christian, will be discussing the next war. And this is the realization that is now being spread all over the region and the world. And I believe the international community has enabled this situation to fester for 80 years. It has. The fact that Israel was allowed to do what it did to Gaza in the last two and a half years is exactly what has prepared for what you see now.

A (31:25)

Do you, first of all, do you have any contact? Again, you are. You and the Palestinian Authority are the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people. And do you have any contact with, let's say, the named envoy for the Gaza part of the Board of Peace initiative? Do you think there's any hope left for a two state solution?

B (31:51)

Yes. And they came and visited us to Palestine. Some of our officials met them, including Mr. Vladanov, of course, and Tony Blair before him. And the Palestinian Authority was absolutely supported, supportive of any, any international presence and plan to stop Israel's mass murder and mass destruction. And you saw that there was an announcement of the Board of Peace, but since then, guess who has been blocking it? I mean, there is no such a thing as ceasefire. Since the announcement of the cease fire, Israel has literally killed hundreds of Palestinians in Gaza, including yesterday. Every day there are bombardment, these people are sitting in tents as we just described earlier. And the most dangerous of all, that Israel refuses any international or national presence. They don't want this. I believe that part of Netanyahu's calculation for starting a war with Iran was to derail even the Board of Peace. And I say even because the Board of Peace and the composition were not perfect. I mean, we had so many reservations on it. We wanted to be primarily rooted in international law and international legitimacy, focus on our rights. It does mention our right to self determination and statehood. But yet even that in my opinion was refused indirectly by Netanyahu. So everything has been put on hold while the people of Gaza are being starved again because there is such severe restriction. And The Rafah crossing has been shut down.

A (33:18)

Very troubling. And there's a lot of pushback from your allies actually in the region. But as you said, Mr. Mladinov, the envoy laid out a framework last week. He said it requires one clear full decommissioning by Hamas and every armed group with no exceptions and no carve outs. In this season of hope, may those responsible make the right choice for the Palestinian people. How do you assess that and do you agree that? I assume you agree because Fatah is not Hamas. Fatah is your group. Do you think they will decommission and should they?

B (33:53)

Well, we want to see Gaza free from Israeli occupation. Remember, Israel is in military control of 53% of Gaza until now, squeezing the 2.3 million in the remaining and by the way, expanding the so called yellow line, squeezing these people more and more while again, again slaving them and starving them. We want to see a solution, yes, and we have been cooperating with the entire world. But the decommissioning needs to happen also in the terror militias in the West Bank. And it needs to happen the terror militias in the west bank, that the Jewish terrorism in the west bank, those people who are armed to their teeth and are storming our communities in all over the west bank, in Al Khalil, Hebron, around Jerusalem and around Ramallah, in Nablus, in Jenin, in Tulkar, in Salfit, everywhere. Those militias must be disarmed immediately and the Israeli army must do if it considers itself an occupying power, which does not, by the way, as you know, annexation is happening, but it has to protect the civilian population under. So the concept of decommissioning must happen absolutely right across the board. What we are saying to Mladinov and all the people around the world, we want to put back the guardrails of international law, but international law must be applied equally Enough the selectivity. We pinpoint one small issue of the whole picture and then we forget about the actual issues.

A (35:30)

Ambassador Hussam Zomblap, thank you very much for being here. And actually we will follow this up with the head of the United Nations Humanitarian Organization tomorrow. So we will follow this up as well. And we'll be right back after this short break. An escalation trap. That is where our next guest says the United States is headed in its Iran war. Robert Pape is a professor of political science and an expert on global security who argues that the major decapitation of Iran's leadership failed to immediately break the regime while upping the pressure for more force, including raising the specter of a ground war. And he joins Hari Srinivasan to discuss the difference between the initial tactical successes and long term strategic success.

E (36:24)

Christian, thanks. Robert Pape, welcome back to the program. You recently launched a substack called the escalation trap. First of all, what does that mean,

C (36:33)

the escalation trap, or a set of frameworks I've been developing for 30 years. I started developing these when I taught for the US Air Force to help people understand what's in the middle between when bombs hit target and a political outcome. Everybody understands that there's military action and then some political end state they want. What is that middle? There are escalation dynamics. It's where politics and the military interaction and that is what is so special about the escalation trap. And in this particular case, when I set it up just before the bombing started in the Iran war, I called it a trap, not just escalation dynamics. And I did that on purpose because I laid out the stages, 1, 2, 3 of the likely escalation trap that we were getting ourselves into. And yet with each stage, you lose more control. So the illusion of control is what helps set off the escalation trap. In stage one, precision bombs hit targets, kill leaders, but that leads to then strategic failure. Regime becomes more aggressive, more dangerous, don't get the enriched uranium, then double down, regime becomes more aggressive, still takes Hormuz. Now that's stage one and stage two. And I laid that out before the bombs even fell. And here we are with the escalation trap, the teeth closing.

E (38:04)

In a way, stage one is alluring, right? If we can achieve our goals from 20,000ft up without putting a boot on the ground and go in and out quickly. But how is it automatic that it goes from stage one to stage two? How does the trap kind of get sprung?

C (38:30)

What happens is that add to what you just said, which was excellent, one more point, which is you're so confident of success, strategic success, you don't have any backup plan to deal with the enemy lashing back. So once you are so confident and then it's. And really with precision bombs and when you have generals with stars saying this will be destroyed, 90% plus probability here, my goodness, this is true. These are not false statements. But it's the illusion of control. And that illusion then leads to downplaying worst case scenarios. And it's not unique to President Trump. This may be the worst escalation trap ever, by the way, with smart bombs. But what happened, say for Example with Kosovo, March 99, the Clinton administration three day air war tried to take down damage. The Milosevic regime in Serbia tried to help the pro democracy movement in Kosovo, this republic in the former Yugoslavia. And what does Milosevic do? He launches 30,000 troops and ethnically cleanses half of Kosovo. That's 800,000 plus civilians, kills 3,000. And there was no army at the time. That three day air war was the worst case. And I know because I talked to the people who planned it, they did not even imagine what would be the worst case. What we see here is taking Hormuz. It's not so much. There wouldn't have been some mention of that in the briefings to Trump. That's not really quite right. It's the illusion of control. It's President Trump and others around his circle saying, my goodness, we will not just have the bombs hit a target, we control, we will dominate. They wouldn't dare take Hormuz. Well, they did, they got it. Now they control more oil than we do.

E (40:23)

Is there a difference here? Can you spell out for our audience kind of was this tactically a success versus strategically a failure or kind of, what's the difference? Parse that out.

C (40:32)

Yeah, yeah. So it's very important to understand that when bombs hit targets, they destroy the facility, they destroy the communications of leaders and they kill leaders. That's tactical success. That's what our military is the best in the world at. I've taught our military, I've taught the best pilots in the air force, and they put bombs on targets better than anybody else. What's happening is once the bomb hit the target, then how do you get to the political outcome, the strategic success, that's the stages of escalation. Where politics are comes in, bombs hit the target and now suddenly politics inside of the target country, both the regime and the society change. So all those pre war trends you had all that intel that was, you have like sitk, all these fancy words here for the top secret intel. None of that now is still the same because the politics is changing literally with the dropping of the bomb. And that is where my work has come in to show that for over 100 years when you bomb leaders, air power alone has never toppled a regime because what it does is it changes politics inside of the target. Makes the regime more likely, the new leaders more likely to fight back and be aggressive. Makes even the pro democracy democracy movements gun shy about supporting the bomber. The 800 pound gorilla of the United States who's doing all this and what you end up with then is the possibility of lashing back. Lashing back. And in this case, that always meant horizontal escalation. The GCC countries, which, again, President Trump has said, we didn't think they'd hit the GCC countries. Well, this is just like the Clinton administration didn't think they would cleanse the coast of ours. And worse than that, they could take the Straits of Hormuz. So, unlike Serbia, this is likely going down as the worst catastrophe of the escalation trap we have seen with air power in history.

E (42:44)

So we've had these moments where each side has now escalated because of what the other did, what the other perceives the first one did, et cetera. But there was a moment when The President, on February 28, he told Iranians, he said, take over your government. It will be yours to take. Is there any example in history where an air campaign has led to a citizen uprising to take power that's been successful?

C (43:16)

The answer is no. Not a single case in over 100 years. So my book, Bombing to Win, covers every air campaign from World War I here, and then also many articles I've published in Foreign affairs in probably about 40 cases. We're over 40 now. This is rare. Rarely do you get in anything, much less military operations, literally 100% of a pattern. But that is what you have here. And what did we see in the case of Iran? Was Iran likely to be an exception to this rule, for example? You might say, no, there's something exceptional here. Well, in the middle of January, Iran murdered some 20 to 30,000 of the protesters as they took to the streets. So what the Iranians showed was their security forces were both plenty capable and plenty willing to be incredibly brutal here. So when President Trump is asking those protesters to come up and to rise up, we need to understand he's playing with other people's money. He's like a gambler playing with other people's money, other people's lives. Here, the people who have to take the risk are the Iranians who just saw 20 to 30,000 bodies pile up in the streets. This is pretty difficult here. And now, on top of it, President, the air campaign is imposing all kinds of costs now. There's all kinds of disruption to the economy. That price is being paid by the Iranian people, not by the leaders. And we can say, well, they'll blame their own government for this. They're never gonna blame their own government for this. They're blaming the people doing the harm. They're going to blame America and Israel.

E (45:08)

So what happens? How does this escalation play out where now you've got the entire neighborhood, so to speak, involved. Iran has lobbed missiles at Dubai and Abu Dhabi. And so the Emirates are kind of on edge. And then you've got kind of flight paths being diverted over countries and of course an absolute bottleneck and chokehold of global oil flowing back and forth.

C (45:33)

And that point you made, we're heading to stage three of the trap, which will be when the trap really closes and we're likely in for months long war here. And so why is that? It's because as I've been laying out in stage two, there's not just the tit for tat that is going on, but the Strait of Hormuz. That's what's special about this case. See, for 50 years, America's number one goal in the Middle east has been to prevent an oil hegemon in the Middle east, not Israel. Israel maybe could help with this, but that wasn't Israel wasn't number one preventing oil hegemon. What is an oil hegemon? One country, whether it's the Soviet Union, the Cold War, Iraq or now Iran controlling the oil in the Middle East. That's the Persian Gulf, that's the Strait of Hormuz. Now, Iran has never been an oil hegemon before. Now it is. And that 20% of the world's oil is more than the 16% America produces. So now they are in charge of oil prices more than anybody else and they're leveraging that for geopolitical gain. Let's say the Indians and so forth, they're also making money. They've made about a billion and a half dollars so far here on this oil. The money's in Chinese banks, so we can't go take it out. And if this goes on for another six weeks, another six months, they're an oil hegemon. With all that nuclear capability, the balance of power is really going to change here. The other military shoe to fall, which is stage three, is the ground operations. Those Marines are moving. The 82nd Airborne is preparing. And this would be stage three. This is the threshold of stage three. They're not there yet. It'll be another 10 days, 14 days before these beginning forces are in place. So in that period of time, we're going to see a lot of back and forth. I'm hoping we'll find a way out so we don't cross stage three. But if we cross stage three, politics will change again. This isn't just about military action. When those Marines hit the beaches, many will die. When they die, many who are Trump supporters will double down their support. They don't want to leave. They don't want to say these people died for us and now we're going to abandon them.

E (48:03)

Now, for the record, the president has said, look, last week, I'm not putting troops anywhere. And if I was, I certainly wouldn't tell you. Is there a way to withdraw from this without boots on the ground?

C (48:16)

Well, there's still diplomatic option here, but I think the price is going up high. And I'm not sure President Trump will pay the price. You see, on February 27, before the first bomb fell, there was Iran was willing to have a deal. And this was being explained to Trump in the Oval Office by his negotiators. And the deal was Iran would keep the 3.5% enriched uranium. TRUMP said no deal, he's going to do the bombing. Well, now Iran, because it controls, it's more powerful, it's not weak tanker, it's going to want more. So it's going to want the 3% enriched uranium. And what I've been saying in the media the first week is they're going to want the oil sanctions lifted. Well, Scott Bessen just lifted the oil sanctions. So they've already got the 3.5% they're going to want. And now they already got the oil sanctions. They're going to want more. And what is that more probably military containment of Israel.

E (49:10)

You know, look, on the one hand, the president and the administration said that we had, quote, obliterated the nuclear capability and the facilities in Iran. And then before this campaign, that was also in part the justification that we want to really prevent them.

C (49:28)

But I mean, that's right. So what's happening? So I've modeled the bombing of Iran for 20 years. Americans are going to bomb Fordo and Natanz because the Israelis can't do that. They don't have the air power to be able to take out Fordot. So we are going to take out Fordeau and when we do, we disable the industrial facility, but we don't get the nuclear material. And on top of that, the IAEA is never brought back in. Iran's not going to just open this back up to on site inspection, give it up and so forth. They're angry. And we saw that right away. Even though President Trump declared obliterated the program, he began negotiating with Iran again. Why? Because the nuclear material. So my analysis was always. Then about a year later, you would panic that dispersed material. You'd never really know if it was being fashioned into a nuclear weapon or a radiological bomb. So you would do regime change. Bombing for regime change was always stage two. I said, this is how America will talk itself into the regime change war, which they have resisted for decades. They will first start by bombing Fordeau. And that's exactly what happened. And that's why I could publish the stages of the escalation that we're going through days before we did the bombing on February 28th. That's why I was confident what the target set would be. I confident of this because this was always, always the stages you would go through. Once you knocked out Fordeau in June, you knocked out the facility, not the enriched uranium. And it's always about the enriched uranium.

E (51:10)

University of Chicago professor of political Science Robert Pape and author of the Escalation Trap Substack. Thanks so much for joining us.

C (51:18)

Thank you for having me.

A (51:21)

And finally, a hero who stopped a terrorist attack with a hug. Today, Nathan Newby received the George Medal for Bravery from King Charles at St James palace here in London. But he says he was just in the right place at the right time on January 20, 2023, when he prevented a lone wolf terrorist from detonating a bomb at a British hospital. Newby was a patient at the time who had stepped outside for some air. Noticing a man acting strangely, he went over to see if he was okay before realizing this man had a bomb. Newby managed to talk Mohammad Farouk out of committing an atrocity at the maternity ward by spending hours listening to him. He said the would be attacker opened up to him and eventually asked for a cuddle before telling him to phone the police before he changed his mind. Farouk was jailed last year for 37 years for taking the homemade pressure cooker bomb to the Leeds hospital with the intention to kill. Nathan Newby demonstrated the power of an ordinary citizen to care enough, to step in and to act with kindness and empathy to save so many lives that day. And that is it for now. Thank you for watching and goodbye from London.

C (52:42)

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

D (52:58)

I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy.

C (53:00)

This week on the podcast Terms of

D (53:02)

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.

A (53:17)

To walk us through all of this,

D (53:18)

I spoke with Bethany Corbin. Bethany is an attorney and CEO of FEM Innovation, where she advises startups, clinicians and healthcare organizations. In my opinion, what it really does

A (53:29)

is gives us a collective language to talk about women's healthcare innovation and the

C (53:34)

tools that are out there so that

A (53:35)

we can take control of our healthcare experiences and know how to advocate for

D (53:39)

ourselves in a system that's probably not been designed to advocate for for us. Listen to CNN's terms of service wherever you get your podcasts.