US-Israel War Spreads

Summary

Amanpour Podcast Summary
Episode: "US-Israel War Spreads" (March 2, 2026)
Host: Paula Newton (for Christiane Amanpour), CNN Podcasts

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Amanpour delves into the rapidly widening Middle East conflict following the US and Israel’s joint military campaign against Iran. The show explores the military, political, and humanitarian ramifications of the escalating war, the constitutional and diplomatic crises enveloping the US and Iran, rampant civilian casualties, and questions about the possible path forward. Guests include former US Deputy National Security Advisor John Finer, European Council on Foreign Relations' Elie Guermaier, retired USAF Colonel Cedric Layton, and NPR’s Stephen Fowler, whose investigation into the withheld Epstein files raises further questions about transparency and governance in the US.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. War Escalation and Political Context

[00:05–02:27]

• The conflict has moved beyond Israel and Iran, with explosions reported across the Gulf.
• President Trump, in his first remarks since launching the war, characterized it as a necessary action to "eliminate intolerable threats," projecting a war duration of four to five weeks but leaving long-term engagement open.
  • Quote: “Whatever it takes. … We have capability to go far longer than that.” – Donald Trump [01:54]
• Iran is retaliating, targeting US bases in neighboring countries and warning that it is prepared for a long conflict.

2. US Objectives, Legality, and Risks

John Finer Interview [04:43–14:40]

Regime Change & War Aims

• Despite US denials, regime change rhetoric persists. Finer challenges the assertion that the Iranian regime has effectively changed.
  • Quote: “The Iranian regime today remains, maybe in a different form, but still intact.” – John Finer [04:43]
• Criticized the war’s lack of necessity, legal basis, and clear objectives.
  • Quote: “The United States has entered into a war that is not necessary, that is probably not legal, and that has no clear objectives.” – John Finer [04:43]

Nuclear Threat Justification

• Finer dismantles the justification for preemptive war, noting public evidence that Iran’s nuclear program was halted and is not currently enriching uranium.
  • Quote: “...there is no nuclear threat to speak of today posed by Iran, and the conventional threat can't be justified.” – John Finer [06:23]

American and Regional Security

• Iran’s capabilities could inflict casualties but cannot defeat the US militarily. The main threat is to regional partners and civilians.
  • Quote: “The concern I have is not that Iran can somehow win a conflict against the United States. That’s far-fetched.” – John Finer [10:57]
• Finer emphasizes casualties are mounting on both sides, with at least 500 Iranian civilians and four US service members confirmed dead.

War Powers and Constitutionality

• Finer argues there’s no Congressional authorization for the war, contrasting with the Iraq War precedent.
  • Quote: “...most Americans would probably agree that if you were going to launch a significant enough war that you're going to try to change the government of a hostile country, Congress should have some say.” – John Finer [12:14]

Risks of Overconfidence

• US military successes (including previous high-risk operations) may have bred a false sense of security in the administration, risking costly underestimations.
  • Quote: “I worry that the administration believes it has learned the lesson it can do these sorts of things without incurring costs.” – John Finer [13:30]

3. Iranian Domestic Mood and Regime Stability

Elie Guermaier Interview [16:02–28:02]

Public Sentiment in Iran

• Iran is a country “of over 90 million people” with a divided response: celebration and mourning coexist following the Supreme Leader’s assassination.
  • Quote: “It’s a country of over 90 million people. So just like in the United States, you have a real range of opinions about events.” – Elie Guermaier [17:32]
• The regime retains a hardcore ideological base but has lost broad legitimacy among many.

Civilian Costs

• Heavy civilian casualties reported, including a devastating strike on a girls’ elementary school.
  • Quote: “There will be also similar high costs of war...for the Israeli public, unfortunately, in this counterescalation by Iran.” – Elie Guermaier [19:10]

Regime Survival and Leadership

• An interim leadership council appears to be consolidating authority, with Ali Larijani as a key emerging figure. Regime is likely to fight on to avoid capitulation.
  • Quote: “This triaka seem to be trying to...find a solution in which the regime survives, but also shows it does not surrender to US maximum pressure.” – Elie Guermaier [20:25]

Prospects for Regime Change and Opposition

• Unlikely for the opposition or public to topple the regime during wartime, given security repression and ongoing airstrikes.
  • Quote: “[It’s] unlikely that they're going to storm the streets...when you also have shrapnel and bombs dropping from the skies.” – Elie Guermaier [22:39]
• Exiled figures like Reza Pahlavi are discussed, but prospects for government transition remain remote as the regime monopolizes violence.

European Response

• Europe and the UK, appearing flat-footed, now face risks at home (e.g., British base in Cyprus struck), with growing debate over deeper involvement.
  • Quote: “There is a real mission creep already happening.” – Elie Guermaier [26:53]

4. US Military Posture and Challenges Ahead

Cedric Layton Interview [28:02–37:21]

Nature & Duration of the Conflict

• Gen. Daniel Kaine warns military objectives “will take some time to achieve…will be difficult and gritty work.”
  • Quote: “This is not a single overnight operation.” – Gen. Daniel Kaine (via John Finer) [28:45]
• Colonel Layton expects a protracted and complex campaign, potentially months long.
  • Quote: “Two to three months is a reasonable time… things will unravel in Iran even further than they've already unraveled.” – Cedric Layton [36:41]

Air Superiority & Iranian Capabilities

• US has “local air superiority” but Iran’s ability to retaliate with missile and drone swarms persists.
  • Quote: “Local air superiority basically means you're in control of the airspace over a certain area...It does not necessarily mean they’re going to be able to stop all the missile launches.” – Cedric Layton [30:41]

Friendly Fire Incident

• Three US fighter jets shot down by Kuwaiti air defenses—attributed to a lack of training and interoperability.
  • Quote: “This was a training and an interoperability issue.” – Cedric Layton [32:24]

Sustainability and Logistics

• Concerns raised over munitions stockpiles and capacity for sustained operations, as the US defense industrial base is strained by multiple conflicts.
  • Quote: “We have the capability right now, but we have to be very careful that those missile stocks…are replenished and replenished quickly.” – Cedric Layton [35:51]

---

5. DOJ’s Handling of Epstein Files & Political Fallout

Stephen Fowler Interview [38:13–52:48]

Investigation into the Files

• NPR’s Stephen Fowler details findings that the Justice Department withheld or removed documents related to allegations against President Trump in the Epstein files.
  • Quote: “...there were multiple documents of multiple dozens of pages in the Justice Department’s possession that were not made available to the American public.” – Stephen Fowler [40:54]

What’s Missing and the Law

• Only partial records exist for key allegations; law requires release with limited exceptions.
  • Lawmakers from both parties report being denied access even in secure briefings.
  • Quote: “The public record about these two specific claims is much less than what it should be under the law and what lawmakers say it should be.” – Stephen Fowler [48:15]

White House and DOJ Response

• The White House asserts President Trump has been “totally exonerated,” points to his signing of the transparency act, but provides no details on the withheld documents.
  • Quote: “The White House has been pretty consistent in defending how they have handled the Epstein files… but what happened to those files? The White House doesn’t answer.” – Michelle Martin and Stephen Fowler [45:25]
• Members of Congress remain “in the dark” and are frustrated by lack of transparency and answers from the DOJ.

Institutional Trust and Political Implications

• Fowler notes growing public and political distrust toward US institutions regarding transparency and accountability, drawing parallels with disputes over election investigations.
  • Quote: “There’s certainly a through line…of distrust in public institutions and the shifting of the Overton window of what an investigation is.” – Stephen Fowler [51:33]

---

Notable Closing Moment

[52:50]

• Kiana Ramani, daughter of imprisoned Nobel Peace laureate Nargaz Mohamadi, urges the world not to forget Iran’s political prisoners amid the chaos:
  • Quote: “We cannot allow political prisoners, especially those in solitary confinement and those under execution sentences, to be forgotten…” – Kiana Ramani (via Paula Newton) [52:50]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:05 – 02:27 | Episode opening & President Trump’s remarks
• 04:43 – 14:40 | Interview: John Finer on US war aims, legality, and risks
• 16:02 – 28:02 | Interview: Elie Guermaier on Iran’s mood, regime, and European response
• 28:02 – 37:21 | Interview: Ret. Col. Cedric Layton on US military strategy and expectations
• 38:13 – 52:48 | Interview: Stephen Fowler on missing Epstein files and DOJ transparency
• 52:50 | Human Rights: Appeal for Iran’s political prisoners

---

Memorable Quotes

• Trump: “Whatever the time is, it's okay. Whatever it takes.” [01:54]
• Finer: “The United States has entered into a war that is not necessary, that is probably not legal, and that has no clear objectives.” [04:43]
• Guermaier: “It’s a country of over 90 million people. So just like in the United States, you have a real range of opinions about events.” [17:32]
• Layton: “This is not a single overnight operation...will be difficult and gritty work.” [28:45]
• Fowler: “We have the beginnings of this story… but there’s so much missing in between that we just don’t know.” [43:35]
• Ramani: “We cannot allow political prisoners…to be forgotten…” [52:50]

---

Summary

This episode offers a comprehensive, sober analysis of the US-Iran war’s spiraling consequences: the lack of strategic clarity and legal basis for the US intervention, Iran’s battered but resilient regime, the steep civilian and military toll, rising doubts about Western readiness, fraying diplomatic processes, and a mounting crisis of institutional trust back home—most vividly showcased by the controversy over withheld Epstein files. The tone is deeply concerned, reflective, and, at times, bleak about the prospects for de-escalation or resolution in the near-term.

Transcript

[Paula Newton]

Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up. The war in the Middle east is escalating in scale and intensity as explosions rock countries across the Gulf and Israel and Hezbollah trade blows. I ask former U.S. deputy National Security Adviser John Finer if the U.S. and Iran still have a path to de escalation. Then Iran vows revenge and says it will not neg with America. Could it be time for Europe to resurrect its role as interlocutor between Washington and Tehran? Eli Guernmeyer from the European Council on Foreign Relations joins us. Plus, the US Joint chief's chairman warns that America's mission will not be a single operation and that more US Casualties should be expected. Retired Air Force Colonel Sandra Clayton breaks down what the next few days and weeks might hold. And also ahead, Michelle Martin sits down with Stephen Fowler, the NPR reporter whose investigation revealed the discrepancies in the DOJ's handling of the Epstein files. And welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Paula Newton in New York, sitting in for Christiana Manpour. War is spreading right across the Middle east as hour by hour more countries are feeling the impact of the conflict launched by the US And Israel against Iran. Earlier, President Trump gave his first live remarks since the start of the war, talking about why he chose to launch it and how long it may take.

[Donald Trump]

This was our last best chance to strike what we're doing right now and eliminate the intolerable threats posed by this sick and sinister regime. We're already substantially ahead of our time projections, but whatever the time is, it's okay. Whatever it takes. We will always and we have right from the beginning, we projected four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that.

[Paula Newton]

Those comments come as the US And Israel have been hitting Iran with waves of strikes for a third straight day. Now Iran is retaliating, warning it is ready for a long war and launching attacks against neighbors with US Bases. In a Pentagon briefing, the US Defense secretary and the Joint Chiefs of Staff both denied that regime change was Washington's goal while also calling on Iranians to rise up against the Islamic Republic.

[Pete Hegseth]

This is not a so called regime change war, but the regime sure did change and the world is better off for it. We didn't start this war, but under President Trump, we are finishing it

[Paula Newton]

so that as the fog of war is already starting to show earlier, three US Fighter jets have been shot down, were shot down by Kuwait in an apparent friendly fire incident. US Central Command says it is investigating and that all six air crews successfully ejected and are now in stable condition. In total, the US Military has confirmed that four American service members have died since the conflict began in Iran. Meantime, the death toll is climbing. The Red Crescent says more than 500 people have been killed since the initial attacks over the weekend. Iranian state media reports more than 100 of those were school children who were killed in an Israeli strike on a girls elementary school. Israel says it is checking reports and is not aware of any Israeli or American strikes in that area. So now with no side showing signs of backing down, is there a path to de escalation here or has diplomacy between the US And Iran been killed for good? John Finer was deputy national security adviser under President Biden and he joins us now. Good to have you on the program as we continue to parse these extraordinary events. You know, we had heard from Secretary Pete Hek saying this is not a so called regime change war, but the regime sure did change. It is a pithy comment. Is that true though, even with the seismic events of the last two days?

[John Finer]

No, I don't think that's true. I think the Iranian regime today remains, maybe in a different form, but still intact. And taking a step back, I think the bigger concern is the United States has entered into a war that is not necessary, that is probably not legal, and that has no clear objectives, either military, military or political. And every time you ask somebody in the administration or even the same person speaking multiple times, you get a different answer to those questions. And that is not confidence inspiring to say the least. It should be concerning not just to Americans, but to others around the world. And to your point about whether diplomacy is still possible, the United States has twice been negotiating with Iran in this administration and curtailed those negotiations by taking force while talks were still going on. So I think that raises the bar and makes diplomacy significantly harder going forward.

[Paula Newton]

Now the administration has had a counterpoint in the last 24, 48 hours and I want you to listen now to U.S. defense Secretary Pete Hegseth who says we didn't start this war, but here's his justification.

[Pete Hegseth]

Listen, Iran was building powerful missiles and drones to create a conventional shield for their nuclear blackmail ambitions. Let me say that again. A conventional shield for their nuclear blackmail ambitions. Our bases, our people, our allies, all in their crosshairs. Iran had a conventional gun to our head as they tried to lie their way to a nuclear bomb.

[Paula Newton]

John, what about those arguments? Could that prove to be justification for this preemptive attack?

[John Finer]

Well, I suppose anything could prove to become a threat over the broad swath of time. But we were told by this administration that they obliterated, totally obliterated, I undersold Iran's nuclear program last summer. It is, according to the public record, Iran is not enriching uranium today. So the idea of an imminent threat posed by Iran's nuclear program is belied by the basic facts of the state of that nuclear program. Does Iran have conventional capabilities? It does. It has a significant number of ballistic missiles. It has an even more significant number of drones that can menace countries in the region. None of those capabilities can reach or hit the United States. And, and by the way, those countries in the region, including close allies of the United States, maintain both defensive and offensive capabilities aimed at Iran. And so, you know, nobody should be surprised. This is a region of the world in which there have been a number of conflicts in which the United States has too often become embroiled in them. But nothing that has been presented by this administration suggests an imminent threat to us or candidly, that Iran was on the verge of attacking any of our partners or allies in the region in the near term. So again, it's a convenient talking point. Point, it's an artful turn of phrase. But there is no nuclear threat to speak of today posed by Iran, and the conventional threat can't be justified.

[Paula Newton]

And John, you're comfortable with that? I mean, the ap, the Associated Press was reporting at the end of February that a report from the IAEA indicated that, in fact, they couldn't verify that about any kind of nuclear restoration, shall we say, of those capabilities in Iran. So you're comfortable with that?

[John Finer]

I mean, I guess here's the thing. We were told by the administration, the U.S. administration, that Iran's nuclear program had been set back for, at a minimum, several years, call it three years, that the program had been totally obliterated. I believe Secretary Rubio said just in the last few days that Iran is not enriching uranium today. So Iran maintains a supply somewhere, maybe underneath a bunch of rubble, of highly enriched uranium that they enriched over the course of previous years, but they are not currently processing that material. And if they're not enriching uranium, they can't bring that material to weapons grade or pursue a weapon. And by the way, if the program was not totally obliterated, if there was still a meaningful threat, that suggests that this military option for going after the program may not have been the best course of action in the first place. And maybe they should have pursued a diplomatic deal like the one that they withdrew from in 2018, that Iran was adhering to at the time.

[Paula Newton]

Now I want to ask you just to deal with the here and now, especially given your experience in the Biden administration. Now look, Donald Trump told CNN's Jake Tapper just earlier that the so called big wave, in his words, was yet to come. Given, you know, the fact that you've seen, you've played this out, you know what this might look like, what could he be getting at here in terms of what you believe US Strategic capability is, right?

[John Finer]

The United States has a formidable military. We have an incredibly capable military. We have the strongest military in the world. If the United States wants to do massive amounts of damage to Iran, particularly in Iran's weakened state, we can do that. And it seems like that is the course that the Trump administration seems to be on. So I have no doubt that this can be a successful military operation. What I have a lot of doubt about is whether that leaves us in a better place place in the aftermath of this, whether that will actually lead to a different, more hospitable to us and our allies regime in Iran. So far that has not been the case. And nothing that I've seen the United States do militarily up till now suggests that Iran is changing its, its calculus. Stopping taking shots at our partners and allies, stopping taking shots at us. We've had US Casualties now in a war that we cannot justify in terms of basic necessity. So does this leave us better off? I don't see the argument how it does.

[Paula Newton]

So you don't believe it makes Americans safer? I do want to ask you though, given how well you know this, how formidable is Iran even in this current state, how long do you believe they could keep this up? Because Ali Laranjani, who you know is Iran's national security chief, I mean, he says, look, Iran will defend itself regardless of the costs and they are prepared for a long war. I mean, look, those are words but speak a bit to their capacity, especially when you think about their standing army, the Revolutionary Guard and the stockpile of missiles and drones that they have.

[John Finer]

Yeah, look, the concern I have is not that Iran can somehow win a conflict against the United States. That's far fetched and isn't going to happen. The concern I have is that Iran can inflict significant casualties in partner countries to civilians, to our military forces. You know, we've already had at least three US Service members killed in this conflict and I hope there aren't more because it is hard to justify the loss of any of those lives given the objectives that we have not even been able to explain at this point. So can Iran get off more shots that cause more harm and more damage? They can. Can they beat the United States militarily? Of course they can't. And that is a credit to, first and foremost our service members and our military capabilities. But you should go to war when it's necessary, and you should risk American lives only as a last resort. And that's not what's happened in this case.

[Paula Newton]

And given that you alluded to this earlier, Congress did not authorize the attacks, what do you believe? Is there any constitutional basis for war with Iran? I mean, you don't believe there is, but again, given you've been in the room, there are war powers here. And what about Congress? They keep saying, some of the Republicans, I've heard that they'll say, look, well, if this goes on for more than 30 days, then Donald Trump should go to Congress.

[John Finer]

Yeah, I mean, I won't get into all the technicalities of it. That's not at all how it works. Look, I think as a basic matter, most Americans would probably agree that if you were going to launch a significant enough war that you are going to change and try to change the government of a hostile country, Congress should have some say in whether or not that conflict is authorized. Even the Bush administration, when they went to war in Iraq, which was a massive mistake, went to Congress in advance of that and got an authorization for the use of military force. That doesn't make it a good judgment to have gone to war, but at least they went through the exercise of making sure this was broadly endorsed by the US Government. That didn't take place here. But to be honest, my bigger concern is just that this is a very unwise decision that has been made because the risks don't justify what so far has been just a modest benefit. The Iranian regime that all of us loathe, and I am in that category of people who loathe, this regime is still, as of right now, in place.

[Paula Newton]

And given how you feel we have seen the attack on allies in the region, I'm not sure how ready the United States was for that or the allies themselves. What do you see of the risks of that going forward? And I am wondering, did that surprise you as well, the scale of it?

[John Finer]

Well, I think we've been lulled into a bit of a false sense of security, again because of the extraordinary capabilities of our armed forces. You know, the Trump administration has ordered a number of military actions during just more than a year in office. Obviously was part of the 12 Day War alongside Israel that took place with Iran last summer and conducted from a military perspective, virtually flawless operations. Then there's the Venezuela operation in which the president ordered an extremely high risk raid, sending U.S. special Forces on the ground into a hostile, densely populated foreign capital to extract the head of state of that country. And again, our military performed virtually flawlessly in conducting those operations. But that doesn't make these sorts of operations low risk. And I worry that the administration believes it has learned the lesson that it can do these sorts of things without incurring costs. And I think we are learning with the catches that have already taken place and with the relatively modest accomplishments of this operation up till now, even though they have succeeded in taking out significant numbers of leadership, that this is not as easy as we have sometimes made

[Paula Newton]

it look, especially as they have already come in with replacements for that leadership. And there is a leadership council in place right now. John Finer for us. Really appreciate your insights. Thank you and stay with us. We'll be right back with more news in a moment.

[Elie Guermaier]

Foreign

[Claire Duffy]

I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy. This week on the podcast Terms of Service, all across the country, from Portland to Minneapolis, protests have risen against President Trump's massive immigration crackdown. Many people have shared videos showing ICE agents appearing to photograph or videotape people with their cell phone cameras. What does it mean for people whose status ICE may be trying to assess and even for those who may come into contact with ICE while protesting or observing their operations?

[Stephen Fowler]

The app is called Mobile Fortify. It was developed by the Department of Homeland Security. If you are an ICE agent, you can walk up to someone, take a photo of their face, and it will pull from internal federal databases to be able to determine your immigration status and your immigration history.

[Claire Duffy]

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

[Paula Newton]

A top Iranian official says Tehran will not negotiate with the United States and is vowing revenge after the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khomeini. Iran's retaliation has been fierce and widespread, striking many of its Gulf neighbors over the past two days. Inside Iran, more than a 500 people have been killed and many more injured. That's according to the Red Crescent. This was the scene outside Tehran's Gandhi Hospital earlier, which was struck and badly damaged over the weekend, forcing patients to evacuate. Now Europe has been a key interlocutor with the Iranian regime, but hardened its stance after Tehran's bloody, brutal crackdown on its own people. Elie Guermaier is a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and worked closely with on the diplomacy leading to the 2015 nuclear deal. And she joins us now from London. Ellie, good to have you here. As we watch recent events, I mean, look, it is truly unprecedented, the killing of Iran's supreme leader and of course, the aftermath as it now plays out on the ground celebrations in some parts of the country. Then we had mourning in others. Even as these airstrikes continue at this hour, we have seen strikes on civilian infrastructure. We just talked about the school. How do you put all of this together in terms of describing the mood in Iran right now?

[Elie Guermaier]

Look, it's a country of over 90 million people. So just like in the United States, you have a real range of opinions about events. It's the same in Iran. And I think that description that you laid out of both mourning and celebration reflects the fact that this is a diverse country. The Islamic Republic of Iran we saw in January has lost an incredible amount of its base legitimacy with its own people and was willing to use unprecedented force to kill thousands of its own citizens. And yet Iran's supreme leader, after his death, it was also clear that he also has his support base, primarily those who are very ideological to the Islamic Republic of Iran and seem willing to basically take on this fight with two nuclear armed states, Israel and the United States, before they surrender. And we may be looking at a case where they are now willing to throw everything they have at this fight because there is no other off ramp for them.

[Paula Newton]

And what you described seems incredibly dangerous, especially for the people of Iran. We saw the civilian consequences already a strike on that girl's school. I mean, reportedly more than 150 were killed at that site, apparently was part of a military base or perhaps close to. When you look at an event like that, an Iranian seeing that, Iranians seeing that on tv, what does it tell them in terms of shaping their perception about what is to come here?

[Elie Guermaier]

Look, unfortunately, we saw similar scenes in the June war that Israel began against Iran where civilian infrastructure was hit. We've seen, frankly, Israel conduct hits against hospitals and schools in places like Gaza as well. So I think the public in the Middle east and Iran understand the high cost of war. There will be also similar high costs of war, I think, for the Israeli public, unfortunately, in this counterescalation by Iran. And I think it's a reflection that the bombs being dropped from the skies and being launched through the missiles will carry a high civilian cost for not just Iran and Israel, but also the United States and the rest of the region, as we've seen in the last 48 hours.

[Paula Newton]

The regime appears to be, as you indicated earlier, you know, trying to stabilize itself through an interim leadership council. How much power do you believe that council has right now? And I am curious on your thoughts on, on Ali Laranjani. I mean, how does he fit into this moment? Because if you believe his messages and how he stepped forward, he really is emerging as a powerful figure.

[Elie Guermaier]

That's true. And in the last eight months, really, he has been a figure that was pushing the decision making from the shadows and trying to create consensus amongst the different ranks of the political establishment, but also the security forces in the country. Now he is emerging as one of the three figures, in my view, that one should watch besides from this race now for the succession of Iran's supreme leader. And this includes former President Hassan Rouhani, who's in the backdrop, but he's still seemingly quite influential. And the speaker of Iran's Parliament, Khali Baf. Now, this Triaka seemed to be trying to push the decision making in the system towards finding a solution in which the regime survives, but also shows that it does not surrender to us maximum pressure and this war. So, unfortunately for the civilians involved, I do think that we are in this war condition for some days or potentially weeks, given the tempo we're seeing and the rhetoric we're seeing from both Tehran and Washington at the moment, and the need for Trump to say that he's had victory and for the Iranian regime to say it has victory before they accept any sort of ceasefire conditions.

[Paula Newton]

You know, we speak of what this will mean in terms of that hardline posture for Iranians themselves. It is possible, in fact, that tens of thousands were brutally massacred just a few weeks ago trying to stand up to their regime. You know, I always think about them thinking that they are still grieving, they are still traumatized, and yet we have Secretary Hegseth saying, we hope the Iranian people take advantage of this incredible opportunity. President Trump over the weekend told Iranians, take over your government. It will now be yours to take. I mean, how realistic is any of this when I'm sure that these menacing security services inside Iran are still trying to intimidate Iranians and really having success at doing so?

[Elie Guermaier]

Look, I think that for those people on the street, no matter how much they despise and are opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran, it's unlikely that they're going to storm the streets when not only they have their own oppressive security forces still maintaining command and control of those streets, but you also have shrapnel and bombs dropping from the skies. So it really doesn't seem realistic to me that in wartime conditions, that President Trump's message, which by the way, was also a message delivered in June when both Israel and President Trump were encouraging the sort of toppling from within by encouraging people to rise up on the streets. It failed then and it's likely to fail now. Now, there is a theory, and President Trump himself has alluded to it, that right now it's not safe for people to come out, but that they are trying, through this use of force to tip the balance of power in terms of the use of violence on the street to favor protesters to come out again and basically storm a very weak security apparatus on the ground. That remains to be seen if it's true. But what is, I think, quite certain is that no matter what happens in this game of potential regime change, there is a hardcore ideological base for the Islamic Republic of Iran. And my concern is that we may get a sort of Iraq 2.0, where you have a successful toppling potentially of a regime, but the aftermath of insurgency warfare is where the bloody and very chaotic part of it starts.

[Paula Newton]

Yeah, it could get quite ugly. As to the example that you point out, some have said that, look, what's missing here is an opposition figure to the Unite People, the exiled son of the Shah Reza Pahlavi, has also been key here. I want you to listen to him. Recently,

[Donald Trump]

they trust me as a transitional leader, not as the future king or future president or future whatever. I'm totally focused on my mission in life, which is let me bring the country to a point that they can make that free choice. That will be enough for me. Having said mission accomplished, credible, Ali, especially

[Paula Newton]

given, you know, what you just described is quite grim. Just the prospects of having some kind of, you know, civil war within Iran. I mean, is he the figure? Is he the person to come forward here?

[Elie Guermaier]

Look, I think many Iranians inside the country, just like anywhere else in the world, want to have the choice of self determination, want their vote to count, want to have an economy that delivers for them. But I think we are far from this potential transition phase of government. We are seeing on the ground that the regime has held a unified position. The security establishment is not cracking from within, and they still retain a strong monopoly, if not full monopoly over the use of violence. So while the opposition abroad and inside the country are preparing for the day after, and that sounds like a smart strategy from an opposition stance, I think that there is a long way to get there. And I would also say that there are Many figures, civil society figures, activists, political prisoners inside Iran that have paid a very heavy cost over the last four decades, basically fighting this system and opposing this system from inside the country. And we shouldn't forget their voices and the fact that they also have a base in the country for opposition. So I think the key will be to see if there's a leadership structure within the opposition that provides a big tent for all of these.

[Paula Newton]

Uh huh. Challenging what you point out there, to be sure. And speaking of challenging, it seems the UK and Europe somewhat flat footed here. I mean, Prime Minister Keir Starmer shifted his position. He's now allowing the US to use British bases. How do you see Europe's role, especially given that we saw a suspected drone strike at that British base in Cyprus?

[Elie Guermaier]

Look, I think that for those of us like myself who, who warned against the start of such a war, unfortunately we've proven very correct in saying that what happens in Iran will not stay in Iran and you will have reverberations not just in the Middle east, but now potentially on European territory for the first time. And my concern is that the British government, in terms of trying to stay in the good books of Washington, potentially for reasons that are bilateral to their relationship or related to the fight in Ukraine, believe that by supporting the US on this fight they can pocket some points on other issues. But there is a real mission creep already happening. You have President Trump now not discounting the possibility of having ground troops. Does that mean that the Europeans are going to support this ground troop offensive, so called defensive operations, inside Iranian territory? So I think the European public need to have a real debate on this before their governments go in on this fight.

[Paula Newton]

Indeed. Elliot, Maya, thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate it. Now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Daniel Kaine says that after days of strikes, the US has now gained air superiority over Iran. Kaine warned, however, that the US mission will not be a single overnight operation and that more US Losses are expected. He also announced the deployment of additional usage forces as we were just discussing, to the region which are expected to arrive on Monday. For more now, I want to bring in retired U.S. air Force colonel Cedric Layton and he joins us now. So we heard from Dan Kaine giving us that more fulsome briefing. I just want to listen to him for a moment.

[John Finer]

This is not a single overnight operation. The military objectives at CENTCOM and the Joint Force have been tasked with will take some time to achieve and in some cases will be difficult and gritty work. We expect to take additional losses. And as always, we will work to minimize US Losses.

[Paula Newton]

He's laying the table there, isn't he, Colonel Layton? He's warning Americans there is more to come here.

[Cedric Layton]

Yeah, he sure is, Paula. And one of the things, when you look at what General Kaine actually was saying, this is going to be a long term and as Ellie mentioned previously in her segment with you, this is something that cannot be legislated or even coerced from the air. This is something that has to be done on the ground. And when General Kaine talks about difficult, gritty work that lies ahead of us, that is going to really mean either some intricate special operations forces going in there there or potentially intelligence operatives going in there, the CIA or something similar to that. So this is a very difficult issue because Iran, being the vast country that it is with over 90 million people, is not going to be an easy area to pacify if that is actually the goal. And it's also not going to be an area where you can go in there and with impunity get rid of weapons of whatever type, whether it's the missiles, the ballistic missiles that are part of the effort right now, the mission right now, or even the nuclear program.

[Paula Newton]

Given your experience obviously, as a former air force colonel, local air superiority, how significant is that and how much do you believe it will blunt Iran's ability to counterstrike here?

[Cedric Layton]

So it will have an effect. Local air superiority basically means that you're in control of the airspace over a certain specific area. The general didn't define specifically what he meant by local air superiority, if he meant the entire country of Iran or if he meant certain discrete areas. We have seen that the Iranians have been able to launch a few aircraft, but those aircraft were shot down near Qatar. The Qatari Air Force reports shooting them down with British. And so that was one aspect of this particular operation. And then you also have a situation where there were several aircraft that the Israelis claimed to have taken out while on the tarmac in western Iran. So These were an F4 and an F5. These are older model US aircraft. So that is indicative of at least localized air superiority in those areas. So it means that the Iranians were at the very least going to have it almost well have a very difficult time and maybe even an impossible time in those areas of launching aircraft against any US Or Israeli air assets. It does not necessarily mean that they're going to be able to stop all the missile launches. So that's basically the difference there.

[Paula Newton]

Yeah, and it's a significant one. We did See, unfortunately, that chaos in the skies in Kuwait. I am wondering when you got that news, what you were thinking. I mean, their air defense has accidentally shot down three US fighter jets. Thankfully all the crew members ejected and are recovering. What were you thinking when you heard that?

[Cedric Layton]

Well, I thought right away that this was a training issue, basically a training and an interoperability issue. So what's essential when it comes to operational of this type is from a military perspective is that you have to have the ability to deconflict. And you know, presumably the Kuwaiti operators of their air defense system saw these, what they call targets on their radar scopes and thought that these were targets that were coming after Kuwait. Now what they should have realized is that it was a highly unlikely that Iranian air assets would be going into Kuwait at that particular moment in time. And they should have been able to identify the type of aircraft since that apparently did not happen. And they in essence, I don't want to say panicked exactly, but at least were pretty trigger happy in this particular case. And what they ended up doing was shooting down three aircraft where they should have been able to see where they were taking off from, what their flight path was. And of course, if there's an issue from the US side, if they didn't pass that information on to the Kuwaitis, that would also be an issue. But whether it's, you know, one or the other or both, it clearly means that interoperability is something that has to be worked at, has to be trained for. That's why you have exercises, multinational exercises between countries like this. And that's a key thing.

[Paula Newton]

Yeah. Incredibly busy skies though, given the fact that these counterstrikes are still ongoing. You know, there are two schools of thought here, Colonel. One is that Iran is, has been crippled and we have seen some counterstrikes, but we are unlikely to see more. The other though is that they are pacing themselves. I am wondering what school of thought you're in there. Which camp are you in right now?

[Cedric Layton]

I'm in the camp of they're pacing themselves. And I say that because we've seen pictures from Iran showing a whole, well actually two rows of shot head drones lined up very neatly in some underground bunker. That, that is a critical element right there. And assuming the pictures are real, which I think they are, that indicates that they have certain capabilities. So they've got a doctrine on the Iranian side that basically involves the use of swarm techniques. And they do this in several different ways. There's the aerial component where drones, like the Shahed series of drones would be used to overwhelm the air defense. And those air defense systems would be either the Israeli air defense systems or the Gulf State or Gulf State air defense systems, or of course, the US Air defenses that are supporting both of those other entities. So that's one aspect. The other side of this is the swarm techniques are also used in the Persian Gulf itself. And that's where the Iranians have often used facts, boats to come after larger vessels, to include aircraft carriers. And when they do that kind of thing, what they're trying to do is use their asymmetric advantages, their local knowledge, plus the agility of these platforms to go after larger vessels that have a much more difficult time of maneuvering.

[Paula Newton]

It is that agility that you speak of that can be so dangerous in terms of trying to fight this. I don't have a lot of time left, but I am curious. There's a debate right now about how long the US can keep this up. There are dwindling stockpiles of munitions. How seriously do you take that risk? Or do you believe it's overblown?

[Cedric Layton]

No, I think I take that risk very seriously, Paula. And the reason I take it seriously is because for a long time we've talked about the defense industrial base here in the US and in the larger Western world not being able to replenish the stocks when it comes to Ukraine, when it comes to defending Israel in June and in other previous engagements, we have the capability right now, but we have to be very careful that those missile stocks, like for the Patriot missile batteries, for example, that those stocks are replenished and replenished quickly. So the defense industry really needs to step it up, whether it's the US Defense industry or the European defense industries. This is essential. This is essential for our security and for possible future conflicts, not only with Iran, as we're experiencing now, but also with potential foes like Russia and China.

[Paula Newton]

And Colonel Leighton, just to put a quick button on that, given what you just said, how much longer do you think this can go on? Are we talking four to six weeks, or do you think two or three months this could go on?

[Cedric Layton]

Well, I think it could go on for a longer time than four to six weeks, for sure. So two to three months is a reasonable time. But I think what will also happen is that we have a situation where the US May do their thing, they think they're done with everything, and then things will unravel in Iran even further than they've already unraveled, and we may have a real mess on our hands. If we're not careful.

[Paula Newton]

Some sobering insights there, Colonel Layton, but we thank you especially for your expertise when it comes to the US Air Force. Cedric Layton for us. Thanks so much.

[Cedric Layton]

You bet, Paula. Thank you.

[Paula Newton]

Now stay with cnn. We'll be right back after a quick break.

[Michael Ian Black]

T I GOT NEWS FOR YOUR Ears, the podcast. I am your host, Michael Ian Black. If you look at the favorability ratings, in 20 years, Trump will be lower than Gacy because Trump destroyed so many more lives than Gacy. What's Casey's body count? 60.

[Cedric Layton]

Yeah, something, maybe.

[Michael Ian Black]

I mean, Trump blows up that many in a boat on the weekend. That's what he's doing.

[Claire Duffy]

Everything's so hard to keep track of.

[Michael Ian Black]

That's why shows like have I Got News for your exists.

[Paula Newton]

Oh, right to camera.

[Michael Ian Black]

Have I Got News for your Ears releases new episodes every Wednesday. Don't miss an episode. Follow us wherever you get your podcasts.

[Paula Newton]

In the US the country is still reeling from the fallout of the Epstein files, which ensnared the world's elite, including CEOs, a former prince, and even President Trump. But despite millions of pages being released, an NPR investigation reveals the Justice Department withheld or removed a number of pages related to allegations involving the president. Stephen Fowler is the reporter who broke that story, and he tells Michelle Martin how he uncovered the discrepancies and what this suggests about the DOJ's mishandling of those files.

[Michelle Martin]

Thanks, Paula. Stephen Fowler, thanks so much for joining us.

[Stephen Fowler]

Thanks for having me.

[Michelle Martin]

So you're NPR's lead on the Epstein files. You've been combing through what like 3 million different files, 3 million pages. There's no table of contents. There's no sort of order to it. But there's something that made you think there was something missing that you couldn't just attribute to over redaction or confusion or disarray. So what was it?

[Stephen Fowler]

There was this PowerPoint that the Justice Department put together in late July and August of last year about the Maxwell and Epstein cases. And in that PowerPoint was a slide that talked about prominent names. Atop the prominent names was President Trump. And under his name, there were two different women that had allegations or accusations that mentioned him. There was one that had a very salacious claim that said four decades ago he sexually abused her when she was a minor. There was this second allegation from a woman who said when she was a teenager and accompanying Epstein on travel, she met Trump at his Mar a Lago club. And there were some remarks made about isn't this a good one and what stood out was that for the first claim, the claim that the President of the United States sexually abused a minor, there was only one other mention of that claim in all of the millions of Epstein files that we were able to look at. And it was part of a list of claims against the president that the FBI collected. They looked through these claims. Many of them were marked as unverifiable or not credible or, you know, couldn't be tracked down. But this claim said that it was enough to be sent to a field office for further investigation. And doing a little bit more digging, we found that interview that took place, but there was no information about that claim against Trump. So there were a lot of missing pieces.

[Michelle Martin]

Ultimately, you figured out that the FBI had interviewed one of the complainants several times. How did you figure that out? Because those interviews are not in the file.

[Stephen Fowler]

There are several sets of stamps on the bottom of all of these documents in the Epstein files. The most common is efta, and then a multiple digit number. That's the Epstein Files Transparency act, which is the law that President Trump signed to release the files. This tracking number is a sequential order of docum that are released. Now, this FBI interview with this woman who made this accusation had three stamps. There was another set of stamps that had a tracking number for non testifying witness documents that were handed over in the criminal case for Ghislaine Maxwell. And then there was a second set of stamps in the middle. And looking at those numbers in order, you found as the bottom stamps increased by one to go to the next file, the top stamp increased by 6, suggesting that there were other documents there. And that middle stamp went up by 53. So you have these numbers that suggest there were multiple documents of multiple dozens of pages in the Justice Department's possession that were not made available to the American public.

[Michelle Martin]

And the law requires. What does the law require? That these documents be made available to the public.

[Stephen Fowler]

There are a few exceptions. There are things that can be redacted and withheld to protect victims personal information. And the redactions have been a little hit or miss that we found. We found victims names that have been included and other information. The Justice Department has also taken down and republished things that fit that bill. At the same time, there are a few ways that documents could be withheld. The Justice Department says if it's a duplicate file through all of these cases, if it's something that is a privileged document of information dealing with their deliberative process and things, or if it's part of an ongoing federal investigation, and it's not clear that any one of those three withholding principles apply to any of these documents. We asked the Justice Department. They did not answer specifics about these documents or some of the other things that we found. So, like many things with the Epstein files, Michelle, we just don't know.

[Michelle Martin]

And it is important to point out that being mentioned in these files does not mean that you engaged in wrongdoing or some criminal activity. But the fact that the FBI interviewed this witness multiple times suggests that they felt there was a reason to interview this witness multiple times. Do we have have access to or did you see any of those interviews?

[Stephen Fowler]

The only interview that's in the files is the first of four interviews. And we know because there is an FBI case log called a serial report and this witness testimony document log that was handed over in the Maxwell case. We know that there were four conversations. We know that they took place over a several month span. We know that the first one does not mention this specific salacious allegation against Donald Trump. And we know that the other three are not there. We have the beginnings of this story in the initial conversation and the tip that was called in. We have some semblance of the end of this story in that it made it into a Justice Department PowerPoint about the case, but there's so much missing in between that we just don't know. And to your point about being mentioned in the files, there are a number of incredibly salacious and incredibly untrue things about Donald Trump and others that are in the files. But they are in the files. They are released in their entirety, and you can read them and evaluate them and see that investigators didn't find anything there. This is the exception.

[Michelle Martin]

And so, needless to say, you asked the White House about this, and when you did, what did they say?

[Stephen Fowler]

The White House has been pretty consistent in defending how they have handled the Epstein files and the calls to release the files and the law. A White House spokeswoman said that President Trump has been totally exonerated by the files and said that he has done more for Epstein survivors than anyone ever before him, pointing to the signing of this law that made things public, among other things. And so they are confident that how these files have been released and what they say is no sign of wrongdoing.

[Michelle Martin]

Okay. Okay. But what happened to those files? I mean, what are they saying about those specific.

[Stephen Fowler]

The White House doesn't answer. The White House has directed to the Justice Department. The Justice Department has not answered us, have not answered other media outlets that have asked and they haven't answered. Members of Congress that are asking the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Robert Garcia, sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi asking for more answers because he ticked through those exceptions for the files to be made public. And he said, said it doesn't appear to be a duplicate because you can't duplicate zero. He said it doesn't seem that there's anything privileged in these documents. So he asked the attorney general to answer point blank if there is an ongoing federal investigation into the president of the United States. And we don't have those answers. But what we also have is Republican House Oversight Committee James Comer told reporters last week that he was looking into the reporting that NPR did and he was still trying to get answers from the White House and Justice Department.

[Michelle Martin]

What are they going to do to follow up on this? I mean, do they at least credit your reporting that says that these files are indeed missing, that they are nowhere else to be found? Do they at least acknowledge that that is true?

[Stephen Fowler]

Well, I have spoken with members of the House Oversight Committee on the Democratic side who have sent the letter and asked follow up questions of the attorney general. Outside of the Clinton's deposition testimony, there was question and answer from reporters. Somebody asked about the FBI files and if they were concerned there was a cover up. And that is where Chairman Comer said that he saw the report and was looking into it. But you also have to remember for this that in many ways members of Congress are just as in the dark about what is in these files and what's happening as the American public. They have done their own separate investigation. That's how we were able to have emails and other documents from Epstein's estate in previous months. They are running a parallel investigation to anything that happened with the Justice Department. And as the Justice Department has allowed members of Congress to go in and look at the unredacted files, we have seen lawmakers from both sides of the aisle say there's information that's still redacted even for us. There's questions even for us. And so the Venn diagram overlap of what the Justice Department knows, what lawmakers know and what the American public knows is smaller than you would think.

[Michelle Martin]

But you know what's interesting though is you talked about redactions. This doesn't seem like redactions. This seems like entire documents were removed. That's what I'm hearing you say, which means if that's the case, that if members of Congress go back into these secure areas and try to look at these documents it doesn't seem as though they will be there.

[Stephen Fowler]

No. And that's what we found when this reporting came out. You had members of Congress say, we were looking into this, we were looking to these allegations. There are no documents for us to look at because they are not included in the files. So you have two things going on here. You have the withholding of documents that were never made public, and there's the pressure to push to have these made public. And then you have separately other mentions of President Trump from this second accuser, who said she met Trump at Mar A Lago when she was a teenager being abused that were up, up and then down and then put back up again, in some cases haven't been put back up again. And so the public record about these two specific claims is much less than what it should be under the law and what lawmakers say it should be. And what, depending on the day and time you look at the files, it's a different story.

[Michelle Martin]

Okay, so just to be clear, the White House has responded to this specific, this specific circumstance by saying, as they have done before, that President Trump has done more for Epstein's victims than anybody before him by signing the law, which he didn't want to sign, it has to be said. But at this point, what I think I hear you saying is that they're going back and forth between the White House and the Justice Department. And the Justice Department has been non responsive. Is that accurate? Right.

[Stephen Fowler]

Because this is a criminal investigation that has turned into a political problem on the campaign trail. When I was following President Trump on the campaign trail, releasing the Epstein files was part of a message that there was a group of powerful people in control hiding the truth about the Epstein files or other things, and that if you brought him into office, he was going to unveil the truth and figure out and release the files. And what we have seen over the past year or so is an ever changing story from Trump and from the FBI and from others who made those claims. And it's become a political problem not just with Democrats or independents or people that might not necessarily be predisposed to, like, the President's policies, but we have seen major crackups and the Make America Great Again movement and mentality. Because now I have talked to many Republicans and Trump supporters who feel that the President is the powerful person that is holding the truth from the American people. And that when you take the seriousness of the accusations against Epstein and Maxwell and other things mentioned in, there is just a combination where nobody is going to be satisfied because it's a political problem of a criminal investigation with real people's stories pushed by the wayside.

[Michelle Martin]

So before we let you go, in addition to this story, you've reported on the FBI's seizure of of 2020 election materials in Georgia, where affidavits relied on claims that state investigators had already examined. And so when you look at these stories, which sort of touch on how law enforcement is proceeding under what prompts and with what degree of thoroughness, do you see a sort of a pattern here or do you see any through line in how law enforcement is responding to these prompts and how the public is responding to that?

[Stephen Fowler]

There's certainly a through line over the last decade or so of distrust in public institutions and sort of this shifting of the Overton window of what an investigation is and how it should be conducted based on the person wielding the power. In 2020 and in 2021, as the election results were done and as the challenges to the election took place, I did a lot of reporting in Georgia crime based about the efforts to challenge the results or the false claims about boat counting and things like that. And there was hard documentary evidence of what the truth was, what the people who knew what they were talking about said. And then there was the counter narrative that tried to override that. And I think you're seeing some of the same things here. One, with the 2020 election being litigated for the sixth year in a row. But two, with the Epstein files, where there are the documents, there are the hard evidence and connecting of the dots and the showing of the work that is butting up against a narrative of power and control and what a conclusion to an investigation might look like before the investigation even starts.

[Michelle Martin]

Stephen Fowler, thank you so much.

[Stephen Fowler]

Thank you.

[Paula Newton]

And finally for us, returning to our top story, the daughter of imprisoned Noble Peace laureate Nargaz Mohamadi is is calling for the release of all political prisoners inside Iran. With her mother behind bars, Kiana Ramani says human rights groups should be allowed to enter its prisons. She shared this poignant reflection on X. My heart is breaking for my mom and every soul held behind the prison walls. Now more than ever, they are trapped between the cruelty of a brutal regime and terrifying thunder of explosions outside. We cannot allow political prisoners, especially those in solitary confinement and those under execution sentences, to be forgotten, a message that feels especially pertinent following the mass arrests during recent protests in Iran, which Human Rights Watch reports to be in the tens of thousands. That's all for our show. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always catch us online, on our website and all over social media. I want to thank you for watching and goodbye from New York.

[Stephen Fowler]

Carvana is so easy. Just a click and we've got ourselves a car.

[Pete Hegseth]

See so many cars.

[Paula Newton]

That's a clicktastic inventory.

[John Finer]

And check out the financing options payments

[Stephen Fowler]

to fit our budget.

[Paula Newton]

I mean that's Clickonomics 101.

[John Finer]

Delivery to our door.

[Michelle Martin]

Just a hop, skip and a click away and bought.

[Paula Newton]

No better feeling than when everything just clicks. Buy your car today on Carvana. Delivery fees may apply.