Loading summary
Transcript82 lines
- [00:05]
Christiana Amanpour
Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpur. Here's what's coming up.
- [00:10]
Walter Isaacson
We're going to bring them back to the Stone Ages where they belong.
- [00:14]
Christiana Amanpour
Using Vietnam era language, threatening war crimes against Iran, attacking allies and still no exit strategy. Markets tank, oil prices spike again. Retired Admiral John Kirby, formerly of the Pentagon and National Security Council, joins me on Trump's way. Then Tehran pledges an eye for an eye. So is there any sign of the talks Trump said were happening? I ask Iran scholar and former adviser at the State Department, Vali Nasser.
- [00:43]
Edward Wong
Plus, there has been no regime change and in fact, he's seeking someone in the current leadership that he can do
- [00:49]
Christiana Amanpour
a deal with, as yet another senior Iranian diplomat is targeted for assassination. Walter Isaacson asks Edward Wong, who covers diplomacy for the New York Times, what is next? Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiana Manpur in New York. American and Israeli bombs will continue pounding Iran. Here's President Trump as he sought to reassure Americans that he does in fact, have a plan.
- [01:32]
Walter Isaacson
We are going to finish the job, and we're going to finish it very fast. We're getting very close. Everyone is talking about it. And tonight I'm pleased to say that these core strategic objectives are nearing completion. We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We're going to bring them back to the Stone Ages where they belong.
- [01:55]
Christiana Amanpour
So there's no definition of finish the job. And those Stone Age comments are blowing up in Trump's face. Iranians are angry about the verbal assault on their 2,500-year-old civilization. The diaspora shifting its support for the war, not to mention Trump's first national address, shed absolutely no more light on how this war ends. Oil traders were clearly hoping for a plan for reopening the Strait of Hormuz. They didn't get one. As for Trump wailing on his allies, here's how that landed with the French President Emmanuel Macron.
- [02:30]
Vali Nasr
I think we all need stability, calm, a return to peace. And this is not a show. We're talking of peace, of war. We're talking about the lives of men and women, the situation of our countries, the risks that there are for our countries and our economic situation. Whether it's the US We Europeans or Asians, everyone is paying the consequences. So we have to be serious.
- [02:55]
Christiana Amanpour
So can Trump find a serious off ramp? What exactly are the military options at this stage? John Kirby is a former US Navy rear admiral and has served as Pentagon spokesman, State Department spokesman, and national security communications advisor. And he's joining me now From Chicago, John Kirby. Welcome back to our program.
- [03:18]
Vali Nasr
Thank you.
- [03:18]
John Kirby
Good to be with you.
- [03:19]
Christiana Amanpour
Christiane, when you listened to Donald Trump, were you actually expecting him to come up with some kind of a more refined plan delivering, you know, concrete endgame and actually what the end would look like instead of just finish the job?
- [03:35]
John Kirby
That's what I was hoping I would hear. When I heard that he, the announcement that he was going to give a set of remarks here, you know, more than a month into this conflict, I thought, that's great. You know, you should talk to the American people and to people around the world and explain what we're doing, doing, why we're doing it, and what we're actually trying to achieve. And regrettably, we didn't hear that in the remarks. It was really, there was nothing more in there than what he has said in his social media postings. Really more than that. I was stunned by two things I didn't hear, Christiane. One was I didn't hear any mention of NATO, and I was glad for that. And I suspect European capitals were glad to hear that he didn't have a major announcement on NATO or diminished US Leadership or even membership in NATO. The other thing I didn't hear was any mention at all of the Iranian people. And that kind of surprised me because if you remember when this whole thing started, you know, his message was, hey, we're going to topple the regime and it's up to you. This is your moment to take it and to run your own country. But no mention at all of the Iranian people, what they're going through and any idea of what post conflict governance can or should look like.
- [04:46]
Christiana Amanpour
I felt the same things. I was focused, of course, on the Iranian people, but also on what actually they have achieved that they, you know, planned and what they want to achieve. So when he says we have to finish the job, and he uses honestly, very offensive language about bombing back to stone Age, as you know, that is Vietnam era talk. And that didn't end up so well for the United States. The, you know, I don't know, the emotions of the diaspora and other Iranians are shifting because at first they thought Trump was coming to save them, and now they're not. Now what does that mean for the U.S. okay, we know what it means for the Iranian people, but what do, what does essentially not winning hearts and minds mean for the United States?
- [05:31]
John Kirby
It means that this war is not going to end anytime soon. I mean, now you had the Iranian people behind you when the bombs first started falling, and now we're losing that, not only the diaspora, but certainly there in Iran proper, which means that the regime will get new life and will get perhaps support from the public that they didn't have before. This is a regime they hate, but now they're beginning to hate the United States even more. And I think that that just stiffens the spine of the regime, a very radical regime still, and may give them the resolve to continue to fight. One of the things that we need to remember here, Christiane, is that Donald Trump and the United States doesn't get to determine on its own when this war ends. We can certainly determine when we stop military operations. But the Israelis get a vote, and there's no indication that they're willing to stop. And the Iranians absolutely get a vote on how much more fighting they're willing to do. And when you talk about bombing them into the Stone Age, and you make it about now, the Iranian people, not just the regime, that makes it more likely that they're going to stiffen their spines and continue to fight.
- [06:36]
Christiana Amanpour
So you mentioned the Israelis. As you know, they have a policy of assassination. They call it decapitation, whatever it is, and they know where people are. So the latest is that Kamal Kharazi, who used to be in the reform era of Mohammad Khatami, foreign minister, and allegedly has been one of the, you know, speakers with Pakistan and others who've put themselves forward to try to bring both sides, America and Iran, together. There doesn't seem to be any negotiations going on. Can you tell whether there's anything happening? There doesn't seem to be.
- [07:14]
John Kirby
It's hard to discern. I agree with you. It's very difficult to see where there's any real diplomatic progress here. And as you well know, Christiane, I mean, communicating and dealing with the government, the official government of Iran, is not the same as dealing with the IRGC and the supreme leader and his offices. You know, the elected leadership of Iran don't actually determine the course of Iran, certainly in domestic or foreign affairs. In order to make any ground, you have to speak with somebody that has authority and accountability, and that's going to be the IRGC and the new supreme leader. So speaking to a member of Parliament, while that certainly scratches the official itch, I'm afraid that even if that. Even if those negotiations were going on, they probably wouldn't get much traction in terms of actual results.
- [08:05]
Christiana Amanpour
Okay, so if there's none of that, and there doesn't seem to at the moment be a military solution to ending this, let us talk about what goals look like and were enunciated that seem to have been pushed off. Like last night, I was actually stunned by the reference by President Trump to the highly enriched uranium, basically saying, you know, the nuclear dust is whatever he called it, nuclear dust. And he said that it's not accessible and that if anything starts happening, they would continue tothey would bomb again, which is an Israeli policy of so called mowing the lawn and endless war footing. How did you read just leaving the highly enriched uranium to take care of itself?
- [08:50]
John Kirby
I saw that very much the same way that it was an attempt by the president to pull back a little bit from the threats of actually going after it with ground forces. Now, could that be a feint and he was, you know, sowing some disinformation to mask his intentions? Perhaps. But the way I took it was it was him walking a little bit back from the idea of putting ground forces to go get it and reasserting that, as the Israelis have, that it is buried so deep that it would be very, very difficult for the Iranians to recover it anyway. And the president's not wrong. Should they make an effort to try to recover that material, we would know we would have all kinds of ways to be able to surveil that and to appreciate what they were trying to get done. He's not wrong on that. But I took it a little bit of a walk back, and he came back, if you remember, in that speech, really, to the four core military objectives, the same objectives, limited they are, that Hegseth and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs have been putting forward. No navy, no ballistic missile capability, no defense industrial base, and no exporting of terrorism. Those are very clearly defined and more limited military objectives that I think the President was trying to draw back last night.
- [10:01]
Christiana Amanpour
And are those achievable or have they been achieved? And if they have been achieved, what's the next two to three weeks needed to heavily bomb? In other words, what is he saying, do you think, as a military person yourself, needs to happen to make sure that they finish the job, as they keep saying?
- [10:19]
John Kirby
Well, it depends on what you mean by finish the job, right? I mean, if your goal is to eliminate every offensive capability that Iran has, every missile, every drone, every ship and every boat, I mean, that's a tall order. And I don't think even the US Military would say that that's possible. But if your job is to degrade their capabilities so that they no longer pose a threat to our interest in the region and our allies and partners, that is an achievable goal. And the US Military and the Israeli military have been working very hard at doing that. They have had immense military success, there's no doubt about that. But the one goal, the goal that I think is much more difficult, and this gets back to your issue about hearts and minds, is, you know, eliminating Iran's ability to export terrorism in the region. As you know, they work through proxies, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and these militias in Iraq and Syria that are not in Iran proper. They still have a measure of control and influence over those groups. And eliminating that as a threat, the terrorism threat, is a much more difficult thing, and it can't be done just through military means alone. So some of these goals are achievable. I think if you're talking about degradation naval and air capabilities and ballistic missile and defense industrial base, but the exporting of terrorism, delimiting their nuclear ambitions, I mean, that's very, very difficult to do from a military perspective, which is why President Obama got the Iran deal secured in the first place, because he knew that diplomatically in negotiations were the way to eliminate those nuclear ambitions.
- [11:48]
Christiana Amanpour
You used to be in the military, Admiral John Kirby. Now, you worked for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs when we first started interviewing, and you worked very extensively on the Iran file as well, because that was a big deal at that time and remains so. Do you think that given the fact that the nuclear file has been such a major issue for so many years, that what's happening now is potentially leaving the United States worse off than had it continued the negotiations, which the mediators said was leading to very, very serious concessions on nuclear by the Iranians?
- [12:29]
John Kirby
That's a really difficult question to answer. I'll say it this way. First of all, Iran is certainly not the threat to the region and the world that it used to be based on all the bombing and the strikes, there's no doubt about that. The regime's military capabilities have been severely degrade. That's a good thing for the region and for the world. I also believe that their nuclear capabilities and their ambitions have certainly been severely curtailed, starting with the strikes back in June. There's no doubt about that. But you can't bomb away knowledge and you can't necessarily bomb away intention. And if at the end of all this, when it's all over, the regime is still left in power, and if that material is still somewhat accessible and there's an argument about whether it is or it isn't, then I still think it's going to be a little bit More like the Israeli strategy of having to mow the grass here. I don't know that you're going to completely eliminate that capability, which is why I go back toand I recognize I worked for the Obama administration during the Iran deal, so I'm not impartial. I get that. But that's why the wisdom of the Iran deal was so important that you were taking away diplomatically and through negotiations, this ambition allowing Iran to have a civilian nuclear program that could be well monitored and inspected and they couldn't cheat. That was a way to do this in a sustainable way.
- [13:48]
Christiana Amanpour
The word sustainable is important there because mowing the lawn is different. It's the opposite of that. You're a Navy person. Just can you tell us what you read from Trump and the Strait of Hormuz issue? He essentially, after dissing the allies, said, well, actually, you know, it'll just open by itself because Iran needs to sell oil. What does that all say to you? And how could somebody force it open? What are the risks even if they landed, you know, a ground force on any of the islands or whatever?
- [14:21]
John Kirby
Look, it's not about forcing it open, Cristiano. And people have to understand the geography here. You can't just force the strait open. What you can do is try to secure it as best you can. You can do that through constant eye in the sky intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance over the strait. You can do it through the escorting of merchant shipping with US Naval or other naval assets, which I did back in 1988 when President Reagan orders over there to do that. That can be done. Certainly you can degrade the Iranians capabilities to threaten the strait, not just with mines, but with drones, both surface and air drones. You can degrade those capabilities. But forcing it open and sustaining it is a task that cannot be done just militarily alone. That's why, again, I think you've got to work with allies and partners in the region and you've got to find a diplomatic way forward here. It's an immense task. And it's not just going to, with all due respect to the President, I don't think it's just going to. It's not going to open. Naturally, the Iranians were able to close the strait, quite frankly, in the first few days of this war without firing a single shot. Just the fear alone. We'll make sure that insurance companies and shipping companies are not willing to go through that very narrow strait, 21 miles wide. And that fear is still there. And eliminating that fear is going to require an awful lot of resources, an awful lot of time. And even then, Christiane, it's not going to be 100% foolproof. It just takes one drone or one mine to get through to shut the strait down for an immense amount of time.
- [15:57]
Christiana Amanpour
So that goes to the real crisis, the energy crisis the world is in right now. What do you see as the possible outcome inside Iran? You've got, you know, the Iranians may be degraded, but they're still, you know, using missiles and drones. You've got the Gulf Arab states very angry at Iran. Now you've got, you know, who knows again, where this is going to end, what might happen, what's your worst case scenario for what happens inside Iran and might spill out?
- [16:29]
John Kirby
My worst case scenario, and we kind of already alluded to it, is that the administration, for whatever reason, pulls the plug on this. Look, I mean, we can all argue about the wisdom of launching these strikes at the time and the way that they were done, but now that we're in it, it's really important that the US Military be allowed to finish obliterating and degrading, I shouldn't say obliterating, degrading these military capabilities as best they can. So what I worry about is pulling the plug early, leaving the regime still in power, and it is still the same regime. There has not been regime change, leaving them in power to continue to persecute their own population and to be able to propagate terrorism and a threat to the region. And then where we are, we're simply back to again mowing the grass. So I worry about pulling the plug early and not letting the military finish its job.
- [17:22]
Christiana Amanpour
And how do you see in our remaining minute the relationship between the Gulf Arab states, which are American allies, have American bases and Iran going forward, given what's been happening and also the relationship of America with those Gulf states, would they keep having American bases there, do you think?
- [17:43]
John Kirby
All of this depends on what's left when it's all said and done. And if the regime is left in power, if that's the way this ends, then we are definitely going to have to rethink our footprint in the Middle east and so will our allies and partners who have hosted us in bases throughout the region. Because clearly, even a degraded, greatly diminished Iran, and there's no doubt about it, they have been greatly diminished, can still lash out and strike at civilian and military targets throughout the region. So I think if the regime is left in power, if that's where this ends up, then we're going to have to completely review our footprint in the Middle east and what that security posture looks like and perhaps even our arrangements and agreements with our allies and partners in the Gulf in terms of what sort of facilities the US Occupies and to what extent and at what scale. You know, one of the things that they did before they launched the strikes was disperse American military power around the region. It's going to be interesting to see when this is over, does that disbursement stay in place or do we re aggregate where we once were? I don't see if the regime is in power. I don't see how we do that.
- [18:52]
Christiana Amanpour
I mean, that is truly reshaping the Middle east then in a way that presumably neither Israel nor the United States intended. We need to take a break now, but thank you very much for your very unique perspective. And stay with cnn. We'll be right back after the break. Now, Iran's military says the US And Israel face, quote, lasting regret and ultimate surrender, while also denying that it's been weakened by more than a month of war. Despite Trump's claims of discussion with Iran, there seems actually to be no negotiations. And will there be any Iranian negotiators left to talk at all? Adviser to the supreme leader and former foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi has been the latest to be targeted, seriously injured in a strike on a residential building where his wife was killed. This according to Iranian state media. So let's bring in Valinas, now, a renowned Iran scholar and former adviser to the U.S. state Department. Valinas, welcome back to the program.
- [20:03]
Vali Nasr
Thank you.
- [20:04]
John Kirby
Thank you.
- [20:05]
Christiana Amanpour
So as you're watching all of this unfold, let me first ask you about the possibility for any talks. You've been a diplomat. What are you making? Even that Kharazi himselfand he's been seriously injured, was targeted, wife killed. Do you know what role he might have been playing in any negotiations headed going forward?
- [20:29]
Vali Nasr
Well, we don't know what his direct role was, but Iran has said that he was involved in the talks. He's a former foreign minister. Ultimately, Iran's diplomatic position will be managed by a team around the new supreme leader. And he's an advisor to the supreme leader. And targeting him, who has been retired for a long time now. And he's not an active member of Iran's ruling government unless it was by mistake or it's just wanton killing of whatever leader of Iran the Israelis can lay their hands on must have had to do with the role that he had in the negotiations.
- [21:07]
Christiana Amanpour
And what to you does this signal? Because we heard the Trump from what you heard from President Trump, last night, did you see any route or any opening for talks, or do you think it was just escalation?
- [21:24]
Vali Nasr
Well, I think what I took from his speech was that he's very frustrated and he's cornered. 30 days after the war has started. He's feeling pressured domestically, and he felt that he needs to explain to the American people why the United States is where it is. And he has only three choices before him. Either is to escalate by a ground invasion of Iran, which he didn't refer to at all last night, in any way, which suggests that he would view that as worsening the war, or that he just abandons the whole war and says, I'm done. I'm claiming victory, I'm leaving. Whoever wants to open the Strait of Hormuz, they're welcome to do it, which he might end up doing, or he has to negotiate an end to the war with Iran. The problem with abandoning the war and just leaving is that, first of all, Israel may not do so. Secondly, that does not open the Strait of hormones, nor will it actually de risk the energy markets and the global economy, which would view that the war is ongoing and may resume at any point in time. So it does not reduce the price of oil or calm economic nerves, which then leaves the only avenue that's open, which is a conversation, we know that the Pakistanis have been going between Vice President Ghanz, on the one hand, and leadership in Iran. Each side has presented to Pakistanis their terms for ending the war and what they're looking for afterwards. I don't think they're close at all. And President Trump is basically saber rattling and attacked a variety of sites today in Iran, including a major bridge, as a way of putting meat on the bone of his threat to send Iran back to the Stone Age. But in a way, he doesn't have many options here, and he needs to bring Iran to the table, and saber rattling is not going to do it. So at some point in time, he has to get serious about negotiations.
- [23:18]
Christiana Amanpour
You mentioned the Stone Age, and it's a comment that really has stuck in the craw of a lot of Iranians, both inside and outside. Strategically, what kind of effect do you think that terminology, that kind of, you know, offensive language does create? What kind of effect?
- [23:40]
Vali Nasr
Well, there is an effect on the people, in other words, whether they're inside Iran, outside Iran. It's a moment of clarity that this is not a war against the Islamic Republic. This is not a war over a nuclear issue. This is a war on the country and on its people. And aside from the terminology, when you bomb bridges, when you bomb the oldest healthcare institution in Iran, which provides vaccines, et cetera, you're no longer fighting the Islamic Republic, you're really fighting the Iranian. So that actually means that there would be a stronger rally to the flag and would make the Islamic Republic much stronger in confronting the United States. But strategically, also, what is being heard here is that America's goal is to make Iran into a failed state. This is not just threatening the government to come to the table. What President Trump has put on, has basically mentioned is that my goal is to turn Iran into Libya, into Syria, into another failed state in the Middle East. I'm going to bomb their bridges, their roads, their electrical and power infrastructure, and I'm going to basically make it impossible for the country to function and provide services to its people. So, you know, there's no two ways that in a moment of frustration, he is basically has decided that he cannot topple the Islamic Republic, he cannot make it break. So he's basically lashing out against the country itself. And yes, the United States can pulverize any country in front of it. It has the firepower to do so, but there are consequences under international law in terms of what he leaves behind, in terms of the legacy that it creates in the Middle east as a whole, that one has to also consider this is really wanton violence against the country and its people.
- [25:36]
Christiana Amanpour
Vali, the president and I was really stunned to find this piece of video and audio was having a different discussion from the White House with a different audience to the national address earlier. And he let slip, or just intended to say that he had predicted that the war would take three days. Now, that is very Putinesque, right, about the war against Ukraine. And it was what people thought about Ukraine. And we know four years later where we are. What did you take from A, Trump admitting that and making that prediction, and B, what it might signal? I mean, does that mean endless war till you actually get to where you think you want to be?
- [26:18]
Vali Nasr
Well, I do believe that. I believe that he thought it would be very simple, that he would kill Iran's supreme leader. Somehow, he was the only obstacle to Iran changing course, that there would be a Venezuela scenario afterwards, there'd be a new regime coming forward to sign a deal with him, and that the entire Islamic Republic could collapse very quickly. He definitely did not expect that he would be In a war 30 days on, that the Iranians would actually open a front on global energy in the Gulf. Completely surprised the United States in a way that it hadn't anticipated and would create a situation in which the United States can escalate against Iran, but it cannot prevent Iran from escalating against the global energy markets. So it means that he had really not planned for anything long term. And now he faces a conundrum. He faces a moment of truth that either he goes down a Vietnam path, keep escalating, putting boots on the ground, ending up in another trillion, multi trillion dollar forever war, or that he has to find a way to get out. And that is very uncomfortable for him because ironically, Iran has ended up being the first country in his second term that has really stood up to him. And it's frustrating. His plans, they're not coming to kiss the ring, they're not bowing, they're not being broken, and he's escalating pressure on them, and they're still there. And he basically, his usual playbook is not working out here. And that's the reason why we're seeing him constantly talking to himself. In one meeting, he says one thing, then he says something else, then he lashes out in anger, he lashes out at the Europeans, he tries to spread the blame. All of it indicates that this is a leader that has lost the plot, that his strategy hasn't worked. He's finding himself in a place that he didn't expect to be.
- [28:07]
Christiana Amanpour
You know, interestingly, you describe this shifting rhetoric, contradictory rhetoric from the United States. It's been absolutely straight on in terms of decisions and actually interesting communication from the Iranian leadership even. And I'm going to play this. The now seriously injured former Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told our Fred Plaikin when he was the first an exclusive team into Iran in the first week. This is what he said when asked about, you know, how it went. And this is in the first week of the war. Let's listen.
- [28:45]
Vali Nasr
I don't see any room for diplomacy
- [28:47]
Edward Wong
anymore because Donald Trump had been deceiving
- [28:51]
Vali Nasr
others and not keeping with his promises. And we experienced it in two times
- [28:57]
Walter Isaacson
of negotiations that while we were engaged
- [29:00]
Vali Nasr
in negotiations, the structures.
- [29:05]
Christiana Amanpour
So that's referring to June and February when they really thought the Iranians, that they were in a negotiating process and then they were struck.
- [29:16]
Vali Nasr
Exactly. And I think you could add him being hit as well, added a third time. Now, one of the reasons that President Trump is finding it very difficult to deal with Iranians right now is because they don't trust even talking to him about a deal because they think this might be a ruse. People in Iran actually say that the whole purpose of trying to organize a meeting between Americans and Iranians in Islamabad is to smoke out the Iranians out of their hiding places so they can kill them. And so that. So President Trump also has to deal with the legacy of distrust that he himself has created. And also the Iranians are asking for guarantees because they signed a deal with the United States in 2015. He pocketed the gains that the United States got out of that deal, came out of that deal. The Iranians want to make sure that if they sign a deal now, three months from now, he will not go out of the deal again. So the problem is not that the Iranians don't want to talk. I think every war ultimately has to finish diplomatically. The problem is that the distrust that he has created is so huge that he has difficulty trying to find a way to actually get the Iranians to agree to terms and sign a deal. And he doesn't know how he would give those guarantees to them to do so.
- [30:35]
Christiana Amanpour
Are you surprised by the fact that Mohammad Barre Ghaliboff, who is the speaker of the Parliament and is pretty much, you know, since others have been assassinated, has taken a bit of a lead in the sort of day to day running, it seems, of the country he keeps tweeting, or rather posting on X to the US and to Trump in very colloquial language, like it's either chatgpt or he's got some speechwriter. But let me just quote you this. For instance, the latest. This is Ghaliba saying, let me tell you something straight from the gut. Iranians don't just talk about defending their country. We bleed for it. We've done it before and we're ready to do it again. You come for our home, you're going to meet the whole family, locked, loaded and standing tall. Bring it on. I mean, that is, you know, very vernacular in language that clearly Americans understand.
- [31:28]
Vali Nasr
No, absolutely. Again, you know, I think he has a very good team. The people in Iran who work on these things in irgc, in the government, are very good. They're very knowledgeable about how to engage the United States and the global south in language they understand they learned from the Palestinians during the Gaza war. It is not chatgpt. I think we have to learn now, after 30 days that you should not underestimate the Iranians. Just like the United States underestimated what they might do in the Gulf, they should not underestimate them on the information warfare side of things either. They have proven to be very, very effective in getting their message out, not only to Americans, but to a larger population around the world through varieties of videos, using social media, TikTok, Instagram X. And they are basically trolling, if I might say, President Trump. They are pointed to the fact that they are still there, that they are fighting and they're resisting, and that they're not going away. And I think they're treating information essentially as another front in which they're gonna push back against President Trump and his efforts to justify this war.
- [32:45]
Christiana Amanpour
Vali, have you been noticing online or in any of the deep dives into the Iranian communications during this war, whether there has been any recognition inside of Iran that, in fact, they can't continue like this, that even if the regime stays, they have to change? Have you heard anything coming out of, for instance, the former President Rouhani or anything like that?
- [33:11]
Vali Nasr
I think the sense is that it is too soon for them to think about after the war. They're in the middle of the largest war, perhaps, that they have faced since the Iran Iraq war in the 1980s. And this one, in some ways, is much more dangerous and already might be more costly than that war. So this is not the time to decide how politics and economics will work later. But I think there's a sense in Iran that, you know, they're fighting the world's premier superpower. They're fighting the Middle East's most efficient and lethal military, and that they are alone in this fight, and they have to pull together, and they have to execute their strategy very methodically, and they believe that they actually have a strategy that has worked. They are obviously being punished heavily by the bombings. It's destroying the country in many levels. But they have not put the United States on the back foot when it comes to the strait of hormones and to the Gulf and global energy, and that they think that in the end, they have greater endurance than Donald Trump has. That's what they're betting on. And that the United States and particularly Trump, will be ultimately short of breath? And what if they were to listen to last night? I think they would feel vindicated that this is a president that basically is. Is lashing out, is frustrated, doesn't have a strategy, doesn't know what to do. And he's not actually in command of the war. He can punish Iran, but he cannot change the direction of this war right now. The threat to send Iran to the Stone Age does not change the direction of the war.
- [34:50]
Christiana Amanpour
Vali, Trump also essentially said the 400 kilos of highly enriched uranium is untouchable. And if it does get touched, we'll just Keep bombing. So signaled that he's leaving. That said that the Straits of Hormuz will essentially open itself. So signaled again that he wasn't going to do that. He's been really knocking back allies. President Macron came out and said this is not a TV show. This is serious war and peace and we have to get serious about this. Damaging allies interests now, according to many of them, their economic interests. But I don't know whether you heard John Kirby before you say that if the regime survives, the entire arrangement between the US and its Gulf allies, including its bases there. Sorry, I've only got 10 seconds. Might have to be revisited. Do you see that?
- [35:41]
Vali Nasr
Yes. I think the Gulf, we cannot look at the past as a model for the future of the Gulf. Everything about the Gulf has changed, whether this regime survives or doesn't survive.
- [35:52]
Christiana Amanpour
On that note, Valinassa, thank you so much for joining us. And we'll be right back after this short break. Now, as we've been hearing, America's shifting objectives for its war with Iran are giving the world whiplash. But what's behind the uncertainty? Well, New York Times diplomatic correspondent Edward Wong says it's all part of the president's destroy and deal doctrine. And he's joining Walter Isaacson to explain and also about China's increasingly complicated role in the Middle East.
- [36:35]
Walter Isaacson
Thank you, Chris. John and Edward Wong, welcome back to the show.
- [36:39]
Edward Wong
Hi, Walter. It's great to be here.
- [36:41]
Walter Isaacson
Let me ask you a broad brush question about the year and a half or so we're about to see of the Trump administration. You had Greenland, you had them making that big obsession and then kind of backing off. Likewise, President Maduro in Venezuela, he goes in, has a regime change, doesn't embrace the opposition. However, now we've seen this in Iran where he's going back and forth. Is there some method in this madness that maybe it's the art of the deal? And he's very transactional. Is there a Trump doctrine or is it just improvisation?
- [37:17]
Edward Wong
I would say it's mostly improvisation. I remember speaking to a very senior official, worked in the first Trump administration when I was doing reporting for an article. And this official, this now former official said that you reporters, you journalists and analysts like to somehow draw a picture that connects all these dots in Trump's policies and says here's the strategy that he's pursuing. But in fact, fact, from here inside the administration, what we're seeing is just day to day decisions, ramblings off kilter remarks and lots of waffling depending on the president's impulse of the day. And so he said that that's what we should keep in mind when we're assessing Trump's remarks and what he's up to. And I've kept that his advice in my head ever since then. I think that's important for all of us to remember. I do think, though, that when we look at Trump's foreign policy in the second term, there are some broad things that we can say are consistent and thus paint a picture of how Trump thinks about the world and about America's role in the world. One is that I do think Trump thinks, whether he explicitly thinks in these terms in his head or not, that the idea of empire is a good one, that America and other Western nations were in their greatest glory when they exercised coercive control over countries around the world, and that Trump would like to do this again. I think that's been borne out very clearly by his policies, and that includes acquiring territory. The other thing I think that we're seeing that is in terms of this exercise of American coercive power and military power overseas, he is very happy to bomb countries, to send forces into a region, in the case of Venezuela, to send US Ground troops in to seize the leader of a country. But he also shines away from this idea of nation building. What I see is him seeking regime compliance rather than regime change around the world. I call it a doctrine of destroy and deal, that he's going to destroy parts of countries in order to get them to submit, and then he's willing to make deals with a level of leadership that he thinks will comply with him or that will obey him once he's gotten rid of the tier of leadership above them. So I think that that's a very consistent action we're seeing. And Iran, even though he talks about regime change, in reality, there has been no regime change. And in fact, he's seeking someone in the current leadership that he can do a deal with.
- [40:10]
Walter Isaacson
Well, do you think some of the people in the administration actually buy the fact that we got a good, I mean, a regime change, because it's certainly a more hardline regime led by an ayatollah.
- [40:20]
Edward Wong
Well, Pete Hegseth said very unequivocally that the regime has changed in Iran. Hegseth has usually stuck to Trump's talking points. On the other hand, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who's also also the White House national security adviser, has been very skeptical of whether there has been real change in Iran. I think that comes across in public comments. He said in several recent interviews, that the problem with Iran is what he calls the radical Shia clerics that run it. He uses the present tense when talking about them, meaning including the current leadership, the one that is now in power after the killings of the supreme Leader and his top aides. And Rubio has made the assertion that the US has to completely degrade Iran's conventional weapons capabilities because the current leadership can't be trusted. The current leadership is essentially an adversary. And so the US has to take those measures. And so it's clear, I think, that Rubio is much more skeptical than Trump or Hegseth, that there has been regime change in Iran.
- [41:29]
Walter Isaacson
Well, that's really interesting, because there does seem to be some light between Rubio and his clear objectives for the war and President Trump's objectives for the war. Is there some light but daylight between them?
- [41:42]
Edward Wong
I'm not sure there's daylight as much as Rubio wants to present publicly a list of war aims that Trump can credibly say the US has achieved and so can declare victory and. And pull us out of combat operations in the country if he chose to do so. So I think that Rubio is playing a certain role here. And Rubio just this week listed four very concrete war aims. They're all centered around Iran's conventional weapons capabilities. It includes degrading or destroying the Iranian Air Force, their navy, what he calls severely diminishing their capability to launch missiles, and then also destroying factories that produce those weapons. So the US Can, I think, at this point, credibly claim that it, along with Israel, has accomplished most of those goals. And so Trump could essentially hang up a mission accomplished banner if he chose to do so. But Trump himself has been all over the map on his war goals. He has said things from we want to eradicate their nuclear stockpiles, which could involve sending in ground troops to seize highly enriched uranium. He has also said, we want to do regime change, and we've done regime change. So that's probably the most ambitious goal. And as I've said, not many people who look at Iran today think that there has been regime change in the
- [43:10]
Walter Isaacson
past week or two. Trump has said, oh, yeah, we're having talks, we're not having talks. And Pakistan was involved in some of those talks. To what extent was there some truth to that?
- [43:21]
Edward Wong
Well, there is a passing of messages between the two countries. It's mostly being done via intermediaries, and Pakistan is one of them. Pakistan has a high ranking official who is General Munir, who is in touch with military officials in Iran and Right now, we think that military officials in Iran essentially hold much of the power in Iran, even though the son of the former supreme leader is currently named as the top leader in Iran. And so that's a channel that is open. The US Is relaying messages via Pakistan. Iran is doing the same. And we've recently seen Pakistan go to China and ask for China to help act as a mediator in this. And China and Pakistan have then put out a five point joint statement saying that there needs to be an end immediately to hostilities in the region.
- [44:21]
Walter Isaacson
So China's involvement is very interesting here. Has this whole thing made China more of a player on the stage? And what will this mean if and when President Trump is scheduled to go to meet with President Xi in a month or so?
- [44:35]
Edward Wong
Well, China, as we know, is a country that is somewhat close to Iran. I wouldn't say that they are ideologically aligned, but it's the biggest purchaser of oil from Iran. They share commercial and military ties, and it's also Pakistan's closest ally. So there is a confluence of interests here. And China stepping to diplomacy is an interesting development. I think China has made some effort to get involved in Middle east diplomacy in recent years. It often tries to stay away from conflict, conflicts in the Middle east or other parts of the world because it feels that that might work against its interests. And I think it's seen how the US Gets involved and entwined in these conflicts in the Middle east, often because of decisions by American administrations. And it says it doesn't want any part of that type of scenario. But when it feels that there is an end goal that can be achieved with China's help, it does step in. A few years ago, during the Biden administration, we saw that China came in to help Iran and Saudi Arabia finalize a diplomatic opening after those two countries have been negotiating for several years on this opening. So China does take an interest when it feels it might be accomplished something. And so I think it's interesting that China is now partnering with Pakistan to try and push for negotiations towards a ceasefire. And also in their five point statement, they're pushing for an opening of shipping across the Strait of Hormuz, which, as we know, is probably the thorniest issue right now in the conflict. The fact that the Iranian military, in order to exert leverage, has essentially closed off the strait by threatening ships with attacks. If ships carrying oil and gas go across the strait, Iran does allow certain ships to go across if they're Pakistani flagged, for instance, or if they're bound for China. So China has been getting energy supplies from Iran, but at the same time, the closure to most ships of the strait has really sent energy markets around the world into turmoil. And I'm sure all your viewers who go get gasoline for their cars have noticed this. So I think China and Pakistan both have vested interests in trying to get the hostilities to end as soon as possible.
- [47:02]
Walter Isaacson
What does all this portend for the President Trump's scheduled summit with President Xi? What do you expect to happen there?
- [47:10]
Edward Wong
Well, I think that when Trump goes to meet with Xi, in Trump's mind, he would like to have leverage over China. He started a trade war with China, as you know, his second major trade war with China. And it really caused chaos in global markets. It was a tariff war, just like he imposed tariffs on allies in other countries. But it had a much bigger impact on markets because of the fact that China is the world's second largest economy and America's biggest trading partner. And so he wanted to basically pummel China to get what he considers to be better trade terms. But China called his bluff and said that we will limit or stop the export of processed rare earths and critical minerals to the US if you go ahead with this. And so Trump backed down and he called a halt to that trade war. So he wants to have leverage. Going into a meeting with Xi, he sees China as an economic rival. He doesn't see it as a strategic rival, in my opinion. He hasn't talked about its military technological advances. He doesn't talk about its system of governance and whether that's a challenge to US Influence and power overseas. He talks in very positive terms about Xi Jinping. He says Xi is a very good friend. He has talked in terms that shows admiration for actually the authoritarian system that Xi runs. And so I think he wants to be seen as an equal to China on trade, and that's essentially his main goal. But the Iran war and the fact that the US Is mired in this conflict in the Middle east and the fact that it has caused chaos in global markets actually gives him less of a hand to play in talks of China, because I think that he goes into this summit probably more cautious than he would otherwise. If he threatens to escalate or restart the trade war, then I think China might call his bluff on that. He knows that the markets depend on his every move at this point, whether it's in Iran or China. I think he wants to reassure markets that there won't be more turbulence going ahead. So I think that, in a way, constricts the type of arguments or assertions that he can make. In the summit with Xi, at the
- [49:43]
Walter Isaacson
very beginning of this war, Trump talked about six weeks as being something he wanted to talk about. Well, it's been about six weeks. Do you think this was always part of his plan?
- [49:53]
Edward Wong
Trump has been all over the map on stating when the war would end and how long it would take. I mean, he said six weeks. At one point, he said early in the war, he said, we're well ahead of schedule and it'll be another couple weeks. And that was more than two or three weeks ago. So. So people who observe Trump's statements have said he often says two weeks. Two weeks is a timeframe that he often throws out there, and things very often take longer than the two weeks that he cites. So we should approach the timeline that he lays out with some skepticism. And of course, as we know, when the US Got involved in wars, started wars, or supported wars in other places, U.S. officials would often say, we'll turn the corner in a couple weeks or in a month or so. Of course, those turn into many months and then many years. American leaders and American politicians don't seem to really have learned a lesson from those previous statements.
- [51:00]
Walter Isaacson
Edward Wang, thank you so much for joining us.
- [51:03]
Edward Wong
Thanks a lot, Walter.
- [51:06]
Christiana Amanpour
And finally, a historic blast off. The Artemis II successfully launched this week. And for the first time in 50 years, a crewed spacecraft is en route to the moon on a 10 day mission, taking the astronauts further from Earth than any human has been before. So far, so good. For the first 24 hours, the team completed a key maneuver, setting the space vessel on its path without a hit. Now, space travel is just irresistible for most mere mortals, cemented, of course, by the Apollo missions that landed men on the moon, including inspiration for Tom Hanks, whose London exhibition Moonwalker previewed Artemis and reflected on Apollo.
- [51:51]
Walter Isaacson
For myself when I was 13, the Apollo missions were this example of it was an evolutionary place in the consciousness of humankind because the only reason to
- [52:01]
Edward Wong
go to the moon was because we're
- [52:03]
Walter Isaacson
human beings and we desire to figure
- [52:06]
Edward Wong
out what is on the other side of the hill.
- [52:08]
Walter Isaacson
And that affected me very much then. And if we're human beings, do we not have to remain curious?
- [52:15]
Christiana Amanpour
Curious indeed. And with the last lunar venture back in 1972, it is no wonder that thousands of people gathered to watch the new mission to the moon from Cape Canaveral in Florida. A liftoff to lift orbit of our spirits. And that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find it wherever you want. Thank you so much and goodbye. From New York,
- [52:45]
Edward Wong
I'm Eva Longoria, and I'm setting out to really experience France, to savor its world celebrated cuisine and explore the country's rich history.
- [52:55]
John Kirby
Searching For France premieres April 12th on CNN. And next day on the CNN app.