D (3:45)

Thank you for having me First, Christian. I think that as long as I studied political science at the university, there's not a regime change. Classically, the people are the same and the top people who are dealing the United States are the same. The top negotiator will be the spokesman of the parliament. The constitutional law is the same, the organs are the same. The defense system is the same. And you know, the Defense Minister of the United States wants to just coin something to pretend victory that is not a big deal. I think people need to pretend victory after wars. It is understandable, but it is not that much professional way of redefining the concepts that are the people very familiar.

B (4:47)

Okay, well, does that mean Iran is doing what is expected? Pretending victory? Because it is claiming victory, calling it a great historic one. All the rightful demands of the Iranian people have been met. But as you know, I'm sure that by any means measure, your country has suffered great losses, particularly in the military field. As you know, the US keeps saying it's decimated capabilities, but there must have been big losses. How do you assess whether Iran won or lost?

D (5:20)

You know, victory in a war defines. Depends on which side you are. If you are attacking a country, occupation or any other manifest that declared gold before or during the war can be your victory. You know, achieving this. But if you are defending your country, only defense of your country, protecting your sovereignty and not being occupied will be your victory. Not, for example, no damage can affect your victory because when you are attacked, definitely you will be damaged. And it is not a point to criticize you or blame you as a loser. A loser in defending a country is not who is paying the cost that can be compensated in future by the violators. But anyways, it is not losing. Definitely. Iran suffers a lot and paying a lot of costs and a lot of assets are damaged. But you know, big loss like losing prestige of national prestige. And today people on the streets are much more united defending our country. And you know, they are much more. They feel much more prosperous. And that is a very big gain for a country that is defending itself.

B (7:01)

Okay, Professor Keremi, let me ask you. Obviously part of what statements went out and there were two. One from the Supreme National Security Council and one from the foreign minister. But the most, you know, the biggest demands by Iran is that America has agreed to in principle, lift all primary and secondary sanctions, withdraw U.S. combat forces from all bases in the region, accept Iran's nuclear enrichment, recognize its continued control over the Strait of Hormuz. While Trump says, you know, that no, we will have potentially a joint operation with Iran over the Strait of Hormuz. And he says there will be no enrichment of uranium and the US Will work with Iran to dig up and remove all the deeply buried, what he calls nuclear dust. Where is Iran on these points?

D (8:00)

You know, I think Donald Trump cannot find the things that he couldn't find with war now, with diplomacy or with a ceasefire. So he tested many things, serving the protesters and the terrorists, not the people who protested the terrorists with weapons that he confirmed in January, I mean, and two times aggression against the country. So he lost and he couldn't take what he wanted, like the uranium, etc. Iran is flexible inside the framework, declared from beginning other files that he agreed. But at the same time, you know, this part can be negotiated, but not that much. Today the topic is violation of the violating of the ceasefire by Israel in Lebanon and sometimes in Iran, even that is violating the agreement signed by the United States because, you know, Iran does not recognize Israel and signature. But, okay, a kind of agreement, a verbal agreement that is being violated. So this is today a kind of violence. And the agreement and the negotiations will be on the, about the same topics, but inside the framework that. And based on the framework that Iran declared.

B (9:47)

So Iran will push. Let me just jump in there. Let me just jump in because the US Says Lebanon is not part of it. But that's, that's to be discussed. But let me ask you about the Iranian people. You make a pretty notable distinction between the protesters and what you call terrorists who came in with weapons. But I want to ask you about the protesters, because your government massacred, killed, mowed down thousands of Iranians, thousands of Iranians who were protesting for their rights and their economic survival. So my question is, what is going to happen? What will your government do now that it's still in position to these protesters, including meeting their economic demands? Because right now you have no sanctions relief. There is no way that you can actually meet their economic needs. And already there are crackdowns and have been throughout this war on, let's say, democracy activists, protesters taking them to jail, their executions and the like. What is going to happen to the Iranian people?

D (10:59)

You know, it is not true because it was 11 days protest in Tehran. In Tehran, normal people protest, were protesting were on the street and police was also under street without any gun. And when Donald Trump declared whatever he said and threatened Iranian political system and also other things happened, a new group came that today there are big names like the Everlasting Guard. Let's say they are a fake group of terrorists and they're not real people. In the 11th day of protest they came to the streets and started to for bloody violation. So it was not a normal one. You know, I am following all the protests since 1997. You know, when I was teenager at the university and all in 2009 I witnessed all from very closely but this time was totally different. But yes, that's true. That beginning of this or the start of this protest was economic and without relieving the sanctions, it is very difficult to ease the situation. So that's why one of the main in terms of Iranian 10 point declared situation and the conditions on relieving all the secondary and okay primary sanctions also.

B (12:56)

Professor, I understand what you're saying. We got to the connection is getting bad. But you know, I don't know. Do you think you killed. No, no. I mean the regime killed no innocents. And do you think that once things quiet down a bit the people will come out and protest again?

D (13:16)

No, I don't have enough information. Definitely out of 3,000 people, it's difficult to say no protester was killed or not any police was killed. Both sides were killed. But it was very sad moment. But now it's not the topic of today again. But maybe not because today the social and the psychological condition of the society is totally different. Now it's very much more obvious that the pressures on the country is because of nonsense, you know, embargoes against Iran because of not having any nuclear weapon, not having any initiation of war, not having any aggression against any other country since a couple of centuries ago. So now, today, after this war, people of Iran are different, I think much more united and much more aware.

B (14:27)

Professor Sasan Karimi, thank you very much for joining us from Tehran. Later in the program, European allies are welcoming a pause with Trump railing against NATO after they decline to enter his war of choice. Where does the alliance go from here? I ask Greece's prime minister.

E (14:49)

I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy. This week on the podcast Terms of Service. I don't think I need to tell anyone that life these days is expensive. Now imagine that the cost you're charged is different from the cost your neighbor pays for the exact same product, maybe because you have different budgets or shopping habits, it's actually happening. A big shift. Is everyone seeing the same price tag in the store to now everyone's seeing prices on their private screens and also companies having a ton of information about each of us. I'm talking to Grace Getty, a policy analyst at Consumer Reports. She has some tips on how to look out for automated pricing schemes and what we can all do about it. Listen to CNN's terms of service wherever you get your podcasts.

B (15:38)

Trump's war on Iran has been a lonely one. A joint bombing campaign with Israel, but without the help of America's traditional allies who all declined to get involved. Europe is in a tricky spot, trapped between the United States that didn't consult them and then threatened with pulling out of NATO when they didn't join in his war of choice. Secretary General Mark Rutter is in Washington today on a damage limitation mission. Now to discuss all of this, I'm joined by the Greek Prime Minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis from Athens. Welcome back to our program. Prime Minister.

F (16:14)

Hello, Christian. Good evening from Athens.

B (16:15)

Good evening. So what do you what's your immediate thoughts about the so called ceasefire, the two week possibility and window, but also Iran is saying, you know, what's happening in Lebanon. Trump is saying we can't, you know, negotiate because they're showing us a different document. What do you think is going to happen from here?

F (16:36)

Well, first of all, let me point out that Greece joined a common statement which was signed by many European leaders welcoming the ceasefire and hoping that we can use this 15 day window to reach a negotiated settlement. And I do believe that we have reasons to be cautiously optimistic. Having said that, I would like to express my deep concern about what is happening in Lebanon because it is very clear to me as a country which is relatively close to Lebanon, that the Israeli offensive right now is completely counterproductive. And I do believe that if we want to talk about a complete ceasefire in the region, it needs to essentially extend to all theaters of operation, including Lebanon. We need to give some space to the Lebanese government to do its job in terms of taking control of the Lebanese south. And by attacking Lebanon right now, the only thing that Israel is achieving is giving Hezbollah, which has already been significantly weakened, a new lease of life.

B (17:43)

Well, I mean, you're very, very clear on a position. I could ask you, do you think, like many think, that the Israeli government just doesn't want a ceasefire and is not interested in lightening up, certainly not on Hezbollah?

F (17:58)

Look, I want to be very clear, Christian, we have a strategic partnership with Israel. But you know, France need to speak truth to France. And my view on Lebanon has been very clear. For the first time in decades, I think we have a competent government in Lebanon. If these attacks continue, you will have a humanitarian catastrophe. It is already evolving. But you will also end up legitimizing, delegitimizing completely the Lebanese government. I don't think this is in Israel's long term interest. And you know, I would hope that these operations stop as quickly as possible. Not just for humanitarian reasons, but also for, for making sure that we maintain a general framework of a ceasefire that encompasses the whole region.

B (18:43)

I hate to just harp on Israel, but the Prime Minister Netanyahu is speaking as we're speaking. He says we have more goals to accomplish either in agreement or by force. Our fingers are on the trigger. So let's wait and see what that means. In the meantime, what is your biggest takeaway from what needs to happen to in this, if it continues this ceasefire between the US and Iran, particularly around the Strait of Hormuz?

F (19:10)

Now obviously we have skin in the game, Christian. We are one of the largest players in terms of the Greek owned and Greek controlled maritime fleet. And I've always been defending the freedom of navigation. And this is becoming a critical topic vis a vis the future of the Straits of Hormuz. I mean, the Straits of Hormuz was always a free strait in terms of freedom of navigation. And I think it remains needs to remain that in the future. I don't think that the international community would be ready to accept Iran setting up a toll booth for every ship that crosses the straits. It seems to me to be completely unacceptable. So I do believe that intense negotiations will take place. I think it is possible, Christian, that we may end up needing a separate international agreement regarding the Straits of Hormuz. There have been, there are precedents in history, but this agreement cannot, I repeat, cannot include sort of a fee that ships will have to pay every time they cross the Strait of Hormuz. This was not the case before the war started and it cannot be the case after the war finishes.

B (20:19)

Well, I mean, you know, the Strait of Hormuz wasn't closed before the war started. The war made Iran do open and

F (20:27)

no one paid, paid anything in order to cross it. We would be setting a very, very dangerous precedent if that were to happen for the Freedom of Navigation group.

B (20:37)

So Prime Minister, what I mean, this is your major ally. The transatlantic alliance has been the formative, you know, alliance, you know, since the Second World War. Do you think it's weakened beyond repair? Do you think even Trump threatening to pull out weakens it? And where do you see it in the next months, years, you know, where do you see it going?

F (21:01)

Well, I'm a firm believer in the longevity of the transatlantic alliance. At the same time, I do recognize that we're currently faced with significant challenges. But I would also like to point out, Christiane, that as a result of initiatives taken by the US President, Europe has gotten its act together when it comes to defence. President Trump was right to say that essentially Europe did not pick up its fair share of the burden in terms of defense spending. Greece was always the exception for our own geopolitical reasons. We're currently spending more than 3% of our GDP on defense. And I can tell you that there is a lot of momentum in Europe to strengthen the European strategic autonomy pillar. And I think this will be good for NATO. So I need. I think we need to take our defence in Europe much more seriously than we have done so in the past. By doing so, I think we will also rebalance NATO in a way that will be in the interest of the alliance as a whole. And certainly Greece is hoping to lead in this initiative. And I'm happy that many other European countries are taking the defence of Europe much more seriously than they had in the past.

B (22:06)

Including Greece has joined an initiative to have nuclear protection like nuclear umbrella right here in Europe, as was proposed by the French President.

F (22:20)

That is correct. We've started preliminary discussions regarding some proposals by President Macron. As you know, France is the only country that currently possesses a nuclear deterrent within the European Union. And again, any discussion to strengthen the European pillar of our European defense, I think needs to be welcomed by European countries. Again, I don't think this will happen at the detriment of, of NATO, but we need to recognize that NATO was essentially and still is to a certain extent, an alliance that is way too much dependent on, on the US So we need to also do our pick up our fair share of the burden and make sure that we increase our defense spending, bolster our European defence capabilities. And I can tell you that this is a topic that is frequently discussed at the European Council, and we are making significant progress in that direction.

B (23:17)

The Trump effect, so to speak. Now, let me ask you about something else that you have announced as a government, and that is the social ban. You've announced that Greece will ban social media for children under the age of 15 from 2027. Um, tell me about these conversations. You Say you've had with parents, and obviously other nations have done it. Australia was the first. And there are also other nations who are very interested in doing this.

F (23:44)

Well, Christiane, I first raised this topic 18 months ago at the speech of the United Nations General Assembly. At the time, no one was really talking about the impact of social media on the mental health of children. I can tell you it is the first topic when I discuss with parents who have young kids and teenagers and they do ask us do something about it. Even the kids themselves recognize that the way these platforms are designed contribute towards them spending too much time on screens. There are clear correlations in terms of their mental health. And it shouldn't come as a surprise because these platforms are in the attention business, but they just should not capture start their business model with capturing and monetizing the attention of our kids and our teenagers. So we have announced a ban on social media for kids under 15 to go into effect January 1, 2027. But I've also sent a letter to the president of the European Commission because we cannot do this on our own. We need Europe's assistance. As you know, the large platforms are regulated by a European piece of legislation called the Digital Services Act. And my vision and my hope is that what is currently going to become Greece's policy, and of course, there are many other European countries moving that direction, will eventually also become European policy. And I would hope that Europe leads on this front because this is a global problem and the platforms need to recognize that they need to cooperate with us, and they essentially need to accept and acknowledge that they're not just intermediaries, but they are responsible for the design of their own products. And if these products are addictive by design, they need to do something about it.

B (25:30)

So tell me what the do something about it is, because you say you've written this letter to the president of the Commission. What can it look like and what penalties and what methods?

F (25:42)

Well, first of all, the penalties need to be imposed at the European level because we are part of the single market. But I think, Christian, in a few years from now, this discussion will be so obvious that, you know, no one will discuss about whether children need to have access to social media in the same way that, for example, we don't allow our kids to smoke or to drink alcohol. I mean, the evidence is out there. And again, I don't even need much scientific background. You just talk to the parents. They're desperate, especially younger kids, completely addicted to their phones, communicating with their friends through text messages, essentially trapped in a Virtual bubble. I mean, a kid should be outside, you know, playing, doing sports, playing, you know, playing music. This is not a normal childhood. And the earlier we recognize it, the more determined we will become in terms of just stating the obvious, that, I mean, these products should be off limits for kids under a certain age. And I would hope that we will reach a point where we have a European, EU digital majority age and where this becomes EU legislation. And I think that Europe, again, in terms of the protection of children, adolescents, will lead the way. We want kids to have access to technology. We're not banning technology. We're not banning the Internet, but we just want to make sure that they stay away from products which are designed to just capture their attention for hours, and that has a clear impact on their mental health.

B (27:24)

Just briefly and quickly, are you willing to risk Trump's ire on this as well? You know that he doesn't want any regulation of the U.S. tech companies. You've already stood up about Greenland and faced him down. You said no to joining this war. And now the digital space, you're growing some independence, you in Europe.

F (27:45)

Well, let me. Let me tell you, Christiane, I'm sure that if you talk or if there are parents listening to us in the US they're having exactly the same thoughts. And I wouldn't be surprised if this eventually also becomes U.S. policy.

B (27:57)

And on that note, Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis. Thanks for joining us from Athens.

F (28:02)

Thank you.

B (28:05)

Well, another European leader, one in particular has been an outspoken critic of this war. That is the Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchez. He closed his airspace to US Bombers, and upon news of a ceasefire, said this. The government of Spain will not applaud those who set the world on fire because they show up with a bucket. So many people are asking what exactly has been achieved here besides global economic chaos and too many lives lost? And what might a lasting peace deal look like? Let's now bring in Ray Takiah, an Iranian American senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations and who was a State Department adviser. And Suzanne Maloney, who's vice president of the Brookings Institution and a former advisor on Iran to both Democratic and Republican administrations. They also happen to be married, and that's relevant. Welcome both to this program. I see you smiling, Ray. I'm not so sure Suzanne is thrilled with that, but I do think it's interesting because. Because you have both actually had somewhat differing views on Iran and how best to deal with Iran. So, Suzanne, let me ask you, because you just had a big interview in which you, you know, it would be a war that we would have lost if the war winds down with the regime intact and Iran controlling the Strait of Hormuz. What are you thinking this morning? What are you thinking this morning?

G (29:31)

Thanks very much, Christiane, and I'm really glad to be here and to be here with Ray. We do have different views and I think in this case I believe that the war was a strategic miscalculation by President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu. And it is stunning to see that, at least at the moment, the Iranians appear to have retained the upper hand for the first time in history. They closed the Strait of Hormuz over the course of the past five weeks. And it appears that they will be able to continue to control that key waterway as well as to potentially monetize it as they've been doing. And that is an enormous victory for a regime that only two months ago was facing massive of protests on the streets as a result of economic problems.

B (30:16)

Ray? Obviously the Iranians say that they have won, but so do the Americans. Pete Hegseth was very verbal and loud and insistent today and listed all the ways in which the United States has won. You disagree with Suzanne, I think, about how this has turned out?

H (30:36)

Well, up to a point. As you mentioned, both sides have a narrative of success. And in both cases there's some plausibility to that narrative. The United States and Israel can demonstrate quantitatively the level of destruction that they have, particularly on Iranian defense forces and so forth. But the way this war is ending with Iran also having a narrative of success, namely that they managed to impose costs on the global economy, they managed to interdict maritime traffic through the Gulf with primitive technologies, and they also now have a diplomatic off ramp in terms of the discussions that will take place in Pakistan or mediation of it. So both sides are coming out with a narrative of success. I think in this war. The president failed to make the case to the American people that the United States would have to have a long term commitment to the security of the Gulf. And that essentially meant concentration of naval assets in that region for foreseeable future. He failed to do that. He failed to establish a domestic consensus. He failed to bring allies on board. These are not his strong suits. But the level of Iranian program that's been set back and the defense forces that have been set back, that's real. And it will take a long time for Iran to recover from 13,000American strike on their targets and the decapitation of many of their critical leaders.

B (31:54)

Can I now ask you Both to look a little bit forward to think what might happen if indeed the two sides meet in Pakistan at the end of this week. This is what Trump has put on Truth Social today. The United States will work closely with Iran, which we have determined has gone through what will be a very productive regime change. There will be no enrichment of uranium and the United States will, working with Iran, dig up and remove all the deeply buried. I don't know. He's put B2 bombers, nuclear dust. I think he means they were buried by B2 bombers. He also then said that we could have a joint operation to safeguard and securitize the Strait of Hormuz. Suzanne, is this wishful thinking or is it a way to come out of this?

G (32:42)

Well, I think that there is a possibility of constructing an agreement that does require some meaningful concessions from the Iranians in the aftermath of the war, particularly around reimposing constraints on their nuclear program and extracting the highly enriched uranium, which is believed to be buried near Isfahan, but may have been dispersed around the country prior to the June 2025 war. That's a really critical issue because the world needs to ensure that with this regime still intact that it cannot move quickly toward nuclear weapons capability. And I think the Iranians appreciate that there is going to be some need for some concessions and what that looks like and how they phrase that. The Iranians can't in fact enrich uranium at the moment anyway because of the destruction of the program over the course of these two wars. And so there may be a creative way to manage that. I find it quite interesting that the President is hoping to sort of get in on the action in the Strait of Hormuz in terms of, you know, the toll taking that the Iranians appear to aspire to at this point in time. I imagine that our partners in the Gulf, the Saudis, the Emiratis, and of course the Omanis whose territory is involved here, will have some views on exactly what a maritime regime in the Strait should look like and which parties should be benefiting from it.

B (34:03)

And Ray Javad Zarif, who as you know, was the former foreign minister under Rouhani and was the lead negotiator in the JCPOA the Obama era nuclear deal, he actually published a piece in Foreign affairs calling on Iran to declare victory and make a deal. So this was last week, but he also proposed nuclear limits and non aggression pact and even suggested that American companies could come into Iranian, you know, the Iranian oil space to do business. Do you think that's realistic?

H (34:36)

And he was criticized, yes, by all sides in Iran for making, for making that point. I don't think there's an overlap suggesting an agreement here. Both sides, the United States and Iran, have issued their terms and both sides have issued their terms that they had before the war. So this is the same essentially proposition they have. The Iranian 10 point plans are ridiculous. They're an eyesore. They call for essentially elimination of sanctions, secondary and otherwise, and so on and so forth. These not serious proposals between the two sides. However, they have allowed the two sides to essentially have some kind of a ceasefire and began a diplomatic process that may actually cause a ceasefire to be prolonged. I don't think those who are ruling Iran today are really that interested in the agreement. I'm not quite sure if the Trump administration is interested in that kind of an agreement along the lines that the Iranians are envisioning right now. That ceasefire has notionally broken down because Iranians are objecting to the fact that Israel has continued operation against Lebanon. And the United States suggests Lebanon was not part of that ceasefire, but it was part of the Iranian proposals. So we'll see how this goes. To suggest as an agreement possible here, I think is a misreading of what is happening. Both sides just wanted to essentially have a success story and get out of this war, and this process may allow them to do that.

B (35:59)

And then what? I mean, Suzanne Ray, then what? What if, you know, none of these proposals that either side are floating are good enough for the other, what then happens? I mean, do they come back and go to war again or what?

H (36:14)

My guess is that the United States doesn't want to do this again, doesn't want to go to war again, at least for the foreseeable future, unless there's some kind of a nuclear urgency in Iran, which, as was suggested, there is none. I think the President wants to move on to other issues, other crisis, other problems, and therefore the dependent diplomatic process may allow him to do that. In a sense, that there will be a process. The Gulf security is now going to remain unimpeded. The Iranians do have the ability to essentially interdict Gulf traffic as they wish, and that is their leverage over the international community, over the United States, and actually also over Israel. Because I think without American participation and at least approbation, the Israelis are unlikely to be able to strike Iran again.

B (37:02)

Suzanne, we need to, clearly, because this was really about the Iranian people when Trump started this and Netanyahu started this, and of course, the protest by the Iranian people at the end of December into January, the Massive crackdown and the bloodshed by the regime against the people. Now the people have been left with, oh, my God, what are we left with? A ceasefire that leaves them in place. And what happens to us? What do you think is going to happen to the people there?

G (37:33)

I think the Iranian people are, as has been the case for at least 47 years, really in the losing situation here. They have risked their lives countless times, and most recently in January, to try to push for some more responsible, more respected government in the world. And they have been repressed viciously by their own leadership. And what has happened over the course of the war is not just that the regime has remained intact, but the very people who were brutallyorchestrating the brutality in January are now in a stronger position. And they have been making that point through continued executions, through text message warnings to the Iranian people not to go back to the streets. It is incumbent on the world to ensure that their cause is not forgotten, that we continue to look for avenues to try to advance, advance a democratic outcome over the long term in Iran. This is a country that is profoundly ready for some kind of democracy. They just have a government that has been averse to it for 47 years.

B (38:37)

And, Ray, to you, this same question. You know, you grew up in Iran, you left at the time of the revolution, like many of us did. And clearly there are a lot of people outside of Iran who don't believe you can do anything with this regime. Reform is just a sham. Any kind of contact is appeasement and collaboration. Where do you think, as Suzanne says, that somehow the international community has got to try to encourage some space, some civic, some democratic space.

H (39:10)

The Iranian people are trapped in their usual position. Cruelty by their government and indifference by the international community. That is a reality. One of the things that one can be certain of in terms of Iranian politics is there will be another protest movement. And this is one of the reasons why the regime was so insistent on not capitulating to the American demands, because they understand that right now their power is demystified, their cadre is depleted, and their security services are stretched. So they're very concerned about their capabilities of dealing with the next round of protests. I suspect that the balance of power still favors the regime, and the Revolutionary Guards are capable of maintaining order. And throughout the past 30 days, when there has been war abroad, the Iranian regime has not stopped arresting and even executing some of its own subjects. So the question is, when that protest movement breaks out, and I think it will, what is the response of the international community? Not Just the United States, not just the Israelis, who actually have spoken on behalf of the. Behalf of the Iranian people, but the larger international community in terms of their reception. And I should say one thing. Having lived through the 1979 revolution, the future of the Iranian people depends largely on themselves. And that's just the reality of the situation. Whether they can displace this regime will be power that they have themselves, as they did in 1979. Whether they succeed or not, I'm not sure. But the agency lies with them, you know.

B (40:38)

Yeah. And unfortunately, as you know, they don't have the weapons the regime does. And as we've seen it, and I've also reported on that crackdown many, many times. But let me just ask you if it's possible to even think. Let me ask you, Suzanne. I'm sure the both of you have thought about this a lot. Is there a way to create a unified, competent opposition movement or oppos, something that can help? Like in many, many other countries, they've had their opposition, who's helped to try to, you know, further the cause of their own people? What do you think going forward now,

G (41:13)

Suzanne, there's a lot that we can do to help create the conditions for a serious opposition movement within Iran and also press for reform and splinters within the existing regime, which I think are probably more likely in the aftermath of this conflict than they were beforehand. There's a lot that we could do in terms of funding for free media, for Internet connections, for organizational capacity both inside Iran and within the diaspora. Many of those programs were those that were slashed by the Trump administration during the first year of this second term of President Trump's administration. And so I think that should be a high priority for the US Congress, for other governments around the world to really press for that kind of financial support that will make it possible for Iranians to organize in a way that would put pressure on the regime and help produce an eventual outcome that would be more favorable to democracy in Iran.

B (42:10)

And finally, Ray, just in the region, the United States, according to polling that's been happening right now, is really losing popularity and influence across the Arab world, across, you know, many, many parts. China now out polls the US in upholding, get this, international law, maintaining regional security and protecting rights. And China apparently had something to do with pushing Iran towards a ceasefire. How do you see the fallout in a part of the world that's traditionally allied with America, including having bases there?

H (42:44)

Well, I suspect the Gulf states will move back to their pre war policy of having detente with Iran. And having some kind of a balance. And there's a in terms of their relationship with the Iranian government and the American government because at some level they distrust both and they depend on both for their own security and safety, particularly as they want to have a tourism industry, data centers and so forth. In terms of China, actually the relation with Iran may change because one of the things that the Islamic Republic should recognize and perhaps has recognized, is that those great power patrons such as China and Russia that invested so much in ultimately didn't come to its defense. And there are a lot of voices within Iran today, particularly in the security services, that are talking about returning to the original principles of the revolution, self reliance and self dependence. And that leads only to one direction, an autonomous nuclear capability. One thing that the Iranian regime recognizes coming out of this war and the last one, if they had the bomb, they wouldn't keep getting bombed.

B (43:44)

Yep. And that is not a great lesson. Ray Taka, thank you so much. Indeed. Suzanne Belloni, thank you very much, both of you for being with us. And we'll be right back after this Short break.

I (43:58)

I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast. In his new documentary called 50 Years of Apple, my colleague and friend Bill Weir, he's going to look at how these diversity devices we carry every day didn't just transform technology, but they helped reshape our entire culture.

J (44:17)

I actually met some researchers and met a woman, Emma Durden, who's been studying the screen time effects on young brains for the last few years now. And it comes down just to the power of these things. I see it in my own kids, the addictive qualities in it at very young age especially. And when that young brain, as you know better than most, is not equipped to process these things, there's a cost to this.

I (44:42)

Listen to Chasing Life streaming now, wherever you get your podcasts.

B (44:51)

Now. The Middle east is anxiously awaiting further details of the U. S. Iran ceasefire. Pakistan says Lebanon is included, but Israel and the White House say it's not. And as we mentioned, Israel carried out its largest attack today just after the ceasefire was announced on Lebanon. Since its war with Hezbollah began, that is, more than 1,500 people have been killed and more than a million people have been displaced. David Miliband is president of the International Rescue Committee, a former UK Foreign secretary. He's just returned from Beirut and he's joining me now from New York. David, welcome back to the. And I just have to say, even the Greek prime minister was saying that absolutely, Israel has to stop this on Lebanon because It's just creating further and further instability as you're trying to get some kind of ceasefire and more stability, at least with Iran and in that region.

K (45:45)

Yes, the great fear in Beirut last week when I was there was that Lebanon would be left out of a deal to end the war in Iran. And the tragedy is that it looks like that fear is now being borne out. Yesterday on cnn, it was going across the bottom of the screen. Pakistan says that Lebanon is included in the ceasefire deal. France and Egypt have said the same thing. But now we understand from the White House and obviously from the Israeli actions that they're not included. I got a text just earlier saying this is the bloodiest day in Beirut for years. Over 100 dead. And the fact that this comes just hours after a quote, unquote ceasefire is just worse than cruel irony for people in Lebanon who have suffered enormously. I think you said this earlier in the program. At some point, over a million Lebanese displaced from their homes as 1 in 5 of the population as a result of the last five weeks.

B (46:46)

I know, and we're seeing these horrendous pictures and it's Beirut, it's also other parts of Lebanon. It's the southern part where Israel has actually said that all Shiites need to leave. That is Hezbollah and what they, I suppose, are accusing of being all Hezbollah supporters. How is A, is that possible? B, can they do that under international law? And what can you or the UN or anybody else do about it?

K (47:15)

Well, the real problem, of course, is that we've seen this play out before. Between 1982 and 2000, Israel occupied southern Lebanon and proved to be a recruiting sergeant for Hezbollah as the war and the violence continued. I spent last week in Syria and in Lebanon talking to people. And the sense of, of dread about the future in Lebanon was absolutely overwhelming. That you're right to say it was people from the south, it was people from the southern suburbs of Beirut. But also my own organization had a former employee and her husband and her 3 year old kid killed in the Beqar Valley. So this is a whole of Lebanon problem. And of course, the movement of people that we refer to is movement of people predominantly, but not only Shiite going into communities that are dominated by other confessional groups. And so the sense of dread is about not just personal circumstances and personal safety, but also about the future of the country. I just want to say one other thing. 2025 was actually a good year for Lebanon in the sense that it got a new credible government. It was also a good year for Syria because they got rid of the hated Assad regime. All of the sense of possibility is in danger of being quashed as a result of what's happened over the last five weeks. You could say there couldn't have been a worse time for a war with Iran and a further war in Lebanon.

B (48:44)

I know. And the UN is saying that Lebanon is a breaking point. You talk about Lebanon and Syria. I don't know. It seems that Israel, which Netanyahu tonight has said, we still have our finger on the trigger. We still have other business to finish whether, you know, he's talking about Lebanon. And it's just, I wonder what can be done, because it appears that Israel believes that its security is guaranteed by whatever you want to call it, fragmenting, destroying, collapsing countries around it, that it feels to be threat.

K (49:21)

I think there are three, you know, I think three things come to mind. First of all, the people I met need humanitarian aid now. I mean, they've been moved. 85% of the people who've been moved as a result of this latest conflict are living on the floors of relatives and friends. Only 15% are in government shelters. So there's a desperate need for help for the people who've been turfed out of their own homes. Secondly, the government of Lebanon is the right place to vest power and to support establishing that there is one rule of law in Lebanon and it comes through the government and there is one form of security, and that comes through the Lebanese government. The third thing, obviously, is that I haven't heard Prime Minister Netanyahu's comments. What I did hear before I came on is that the straits of Hormuz have now been reclosed because the Iranian government are saying that the ceasefire is not being upheld. And so we're in the first 24 hours of this ceasefire. And the point I would make is not only is Lebanon so often a victim of other people's wars, wars in Lebanon are in the get in the way of and multiply wars across the region. And that's what we have to watch.

B (50:38)

Exactly. And look, as a former foreign minister, you know, we know, and you've just alluded to it, that the current government of Lebanon and the Lebanon, the Lebanese people are literally furious with Hezbollah for bringing this down on them again. So how does one neutralize a militia that is not part of a sovereign government's army, you know, in this way? And also, I guess this is a compound question, but all the cuts in aid, in humanitarian aid, whether it's the us, the UK or whatever, that's obviously compounding these poor people's dire need right now.

K (51:13)

Yeah, that's a good point. I mean, first of all, the anger that was expressed to me by different Lebanese people. I went to meet government ministers, I met public officials. I met clients of the International Rescue Committee. I met our own staff. The anger is widely spread. There's anger at Hezbollah for dragging Lebanon into the war. There's anger at Israel for the way in which it's conducting the campaign. There's anger at America, there's anger at their own government. There's a lot of anger. And the tension is high because a whole society is at risk. Second point, there's also anger that Lebanon is the silent emergency it's ignored. Thank you for having me on your show to talk about Lebanon. But my own organization, we've had to cut in half from about 220 to 105 the number of staff that we've got in Lebanon over the last year because of precisely the funding cuts that you are describing. Overall, around the world, there's been a 50% cut in humanitarian aid in the last year, led by the US but it's not only a US phenomenon, sadly. The uk, Germany, France have also cut their aid programs. The European Union has not cut its aid program. I think that's very significant. And so the aid cuts are compounding the problem. I just want to bring something to your attention. New research from the center for Global Development, which is a highly respected organization, it's already tracked that the aid cuts of the last year have led to a 5% increase in the amount of conflict that's going on. So this is a very vicious circle that we have to understand. Yes, it's about politics that has broken down, but it's also about basic humanity that's broken down.

B (52:48)

Do you think there's going to be anything. And we've got 30 seconds. Do you think anything can be done to stop the Lebanon part of this?

K (52:57)

Yes, I think a lot can be done. First of all, the interests of the US and Iran are in upholding their ceasefire, and both of their interests are in upholding or enforcing or ensuring a new ceasefire in Lebanon. That's what the White House comes center stage. I know. You've only got 30 seconds. So that's the message.

B (53:16)

Yeah. In other words, Trump has said cease fire in Iran. He needs to tell Israel to, you know, cease fire in Lebanon, basically, is what people. Yeah. Thank you very much, David Miliband, thank you so much for being with us.

K (53:26)

Thank you very much.

B (53:28)

And a final thought now You've all heard of the madman theory, pretty self explanatory. Trump 1.0 used it against North Korea's nuclear threats and indeed secured summits with his so called little rocket man, Kim Jong Un. But look at North Korea now. Continued militarization, an ICBM test and nuclear bombs. In a recent speech, Kim called that irreversible and that no one would dare attack North Korea now as they have done Iran. As if to signal where his policy is headed even after he's gone, Kim is giving a whole new meaning to teaching your kid how to drive. In this case, his 13 year old daughter and presumed heir in a tank. A clear message that the family dynasty is here to stay. Peace and friendship with his previous best friend, Donald Trump. A long forgotten mirage, it seems. That's it for now. Thank you for watching and goodbye from London.

A (54:33)

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.

F (54:41)

Eva Longoria, Searching For France premieres April 12th on CNN.

I (54:45)

And next day on the CNN app.