← Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files
Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files
Q&A: Iran's future, media blackouts & what happens if NATO falls apart?
00:30:43
Loading summary
Transcript23 lines
- [00:03]
Jamie Rubin
This is a Global Player original podcast.
- [00:10]
Christiana Amanpour
Hello, everybody, and welcome to the Q and A bonus episode of the X Files with me, Cristiana Manpour and Jamie Rubin. And this is where we answer your questions. So let's get started. Jamie, I'm going to put the first one to you because it's pretty policy. Tim, on email. If NATO were to implode and was no longer to include the United States, what would be the repercussions strategically, geopolitically and economically? And I think you first have to say how it could ever implode. I mean, right now it's about Greenland.
- [00:40]
Jamie Rubin
Well, right. Look, if it implodes, it will be because President Trump has adopted policies that no other president has ever adopted and said things that no other modern president has ever said. Challenging our friends in NATO, talking about NATO as if it's an optional participation of the United States, threatening to pull out, and now actually threatening the territory of a NATO ally by suggesting that somehow, after Venezuela, the next target is Greenland, which is part of Denmark. Look, this is a very good question. In my entire life, NATO has been one of the fixtures of American foreign policy. And one of the reasons why America is such a strong and great country, because it has allies, alliances, is what makes America different from every other great leader of the world and, you know, large powers, the United States, Britain, Roman Empire, all of those historical analogies don't apply to the United States because we have real allies. And NATO is the core alliance of the alliance system created after World War II and has kept the peace as a result of these alliances. So what would happen if Donald Trump's threat to Greenland broke up the alliance? And for the first time, I have to admit, it's plausible. It's not something crazy. The first beneficiary of it would be Vladimir Putin, because it's the NATO alliance that protects the countries of Europe, the United States and Canada by bonding together in a unified defense system so successfully, the Baltic states, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia would be at risk, possibly Poland. But more importantly, it would cast the gravest jeopardy on America's role in the world. And our alliances all over the world doesn't immediately mean that Japan and South Korea and Thailand and Australia and New Zealand and South Korea, all the countries that have defense alliances with the United States would wonder, you know, what's their future? So let me just end with two short thoughts. One, Vladimir Putin would be the beneficiary, and it would be very good news for him. It's what he's been trying to do, break up NATO for the, the last decades. And secondly, it would be a disaster for America's friends and allies around the world and therefore for the United States. So I pray and hope that this doesn't come about. But I have to admit it's an excellent question in the current environment, given the.
- [03:15]
Christiana Amanpour
It really is. And you know, he said either we could, the latest threat was about Greenland. Either we can do this the easy way or the hard way. Now, that harkens back actually to the FCC guy, Brandon Carr, who threatened Jimmy Kimmel and ABC and Disney. Either we can do this the easy way or the hard way. And then they yanked Kimmel and it created a huge. But I was so surprised to hear Trump say that because, you know, on the one hand they talk maybe about trying to negotiate something, and then all of a sudden you have this, you know, military sort of hard talk, Mafioso talk, you know, the Goodfellas and all the rest of it. And I remember also Jamie used to say one of the distinguishing factors about the United States compared to other colonial powers like the UK and all the rest of it was that America is not an imperialist nation in that doesn't have an empire and doesn't want an empire. But clearly that seems to be changing right now. Why don't you read from Sarah and it's, it's, you know, more on this.
- [04:15]
Jamie Rubin
We can, yes, because it's directly related to this and we can get into it a little bit. Given that the US Already has access to bases and resources in Greenland. Sarah asks on email, why is Trump so intent on acquiring it? Could there be overlooked motives, such as using Greenland's vast, sparsely populated land as a future testing ground for, for military weapons as climate change makes it more accessible, that is Greenland more accessible once you start.
- [04:43]
Christiana Amanpour
So, so I will, you know, I don't think the US Needs Greenland necessarily, although it does have offshore military testing bases. That's, that is, that is quite clear. But it seems to be a heck of a price to pay just to get another offshore military testing range. I think, obviously everybody talks about the vast natural resources, the rare earth minerals and all of that, but I was speaking to, and I won't name this, but a European ambassador, a former European ambassador. And I said, what if you were currently ambassador for your country in Washington? How would you address all of this, including the misinformation and the sort of double talk and changing talk over reasons for getting Greenland? And this person said to me, well, first of all, I would start by listing everything we do for the United States, rather than bleating about what the US does for us and how we have to keep them close and all the rest of it. So, you know, you go around the world and you look at various countries and I'm sitting in the uk, right? So the UK does a lot for the United States. It has a base and a refueling base for American strategic bombers off Africa. You know, it's called the Ascension Islands. It's got a base in the Indian Ocean, which I actually did a big piece about called Diego Garcia. All this is paid for by the Brits, by the way. It's got an early listening post to the north of Scotland which intervenes if there is any, you know, danger or threat or missile launch from the Russians. It's an early warning post. That and all the other things, the intelligence sharing, the military sharing. And as for Greenland, sorry, Denmark, which is the sovereign nation over the autonomous state of Greenland or the autonomous area, Denmark has stepped up to the, you know, to helping the United States as a NATO ally and actually lost more than any other NATO ally, for instance, in Afghanistan. So I think, you know, people also need to know that. I've been told that currently. And Jamie, you can, you know, fill us in on this. The actual Russian and Chinese threat is not a huge threat right now. And the United States has everything it needs, you know, for national security in Denmark, bar the owning of it. It's got bases, it's got agreements, it's got all of that kind of stuff. So I think it's all just, you know, sort of trying to expand the territorial footprint of the United States, trying to go down in history as a president who expanded the territory, but at what cost? And somebody wrote, you know, is Greenland acquiring Greenland really worth the cost of crashing NATO and as you say, basically crashing all your alliances.
- [07:28]
Jamie Rubin
Exactly. Look, there is long term danger from Russia and China around the world. I talk about that a lot because I believe it. And the Arctic is a place we need to take seriously. But what's interesting about this is that the Danish country, as the sovereign nation in Greenland, is doing a lot about the Arctic and has wanted to do more. The Danish government has something called the Arctic Defense Framework with long range, medium range, ground based air and missile defense systems, surveillance, radar systems, drone acquisitions. Arctic vessels, they're establishing a special operational command, a joint Arctic command, a joint Arctic command headquarters in Greenland's capital. All of these things that the Danish government is doing because they agree that Russia and China are a risk. So why you use that threat to justify taking over Greenland. It shows you that that's not the real reason. What is the real reason? Well, obviously only Trump knows, but I think you've put your finger on it. This man thinks of the world. And only analogy I can use is the game of risk when we used to play as children or young adults and you have territory and you try to grow it, and Greenland is a big place. And the questioner is right. With climate changing, Greenland is going to become much more usable. But all of these things suggest that the United States should continue doing what has done so well, which is cooperating with its allies, working with its allies to defend its territory, to defend its allies territory, and to make sure that Russia and China, whether through climate change or through their own aggressive policies, don't advance their position in the world through joint collaborative defenses, which, as you point out, our other countries contribute to. You know, you probably, I don't know whether it was a British ambassador or not, but the British like to point out all the things they do for the West. And there are many, many countries who do a lot. Poland is spending an enormous amount of money and effort in Ukraine. And yes, Donald Trump, like President Biden and President Obama and Donald Trump's first administration, has seen the need to call on allies to do more. And they should do more. But the important is they are doing more. After Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Germany and France had a transformation of their defense policy, Germany in particular, and has now busted its budget and is spending billions, hundreds of billions of dollars more on defense. We should be encouraging that rather than alienating our friends, the poor Europeans have had to figure out what to do about this threat. And finally they've stood up and said, you know, that's it. This is far enough. Talking about invading a NATO country is not the act of a friend.
- [10:22]
Christiana Amanpour
Just even think of it, a NATO country invading a NATO country or acquiring it by whatever means, the easy way or the hard way, whatever happens. And not to forget, by the way, the indigenous people and the autonomous people of Greenland who need a say in this matter as well. But I was talking to another former ambassador and I was.
- [10:41]
Jamie Rubin
You talk to a lot of former ambassadors? I do.
- [10:42]
Christiana Amanpour
I do my homework. And I was saying, you know, perhaps the prime minister of Denmark should say, Mr. President, you know, we understand your concerns and we want to work all this out diplomatically. Obviously, it's ridiculous, ridiculous to think about invading us. But in the meantime, Mr. President, we're going to be sending a deployment of our forces just to make sure your security is fully, you know, fully, fully maintained there. But in my view was to actually send them, to show and to send a message. And my interlocutor said, and European countries should also think about all of them, all the NATO allies and European countries putting consuls in, you know, consular offices, Greenland, as a show of solidarity. And then, sure enough, Mark Rutter, the NATO Secretary General, just had meetings this past week in which they are thinking of putting a deployment of NATO forces into Greenland to show, willing to defend. But also, I think, to make a point, let's move on to Iran because there is a very, very serious situation.
- [11:49]
Jamie Rubin
Obviously, before we move on, just one small point. You alluded to it. You know, the best way to define, to determine whether someone is your friend is whether they help you when you're in trouble or whether you have needs or whether you need their support. And Denmark in particular has been remarkably shown solidarity with the United States. You mentioned Afghanistan. It's also in Iraq, also in Libya. And their soldiers have died and been willing to die alongside American soldiers. And when you have militaries that are willing to do that, for an American president to cast doubt on that solidarity is really, really the hardest thing for someone in my position or anyone really to swallow. As one of the many comments that come out of this, this administration's mouths, Logan Fury did something smart. He saved hundreds on auto insurance, switching to Progressive with that money, he bought a mini treadmill. Is walking on it during video conference call more distracting than he thought? Yes. And is that because he overestimated his foot eye coordination? Definitely. But it's Logan's savings. And if he wants to burn calories and any chance at a promotion, we say, good for you, Logan. Switch and see if you could save with Progressive and treat yourself. Progressive Casualty Insurance company and affiliates.
- [13:17]
Christiana Amanpour
There's a lot of rattling happening right now because after Venezuela, which we discussed a couple of weeks ago or last week, that none of us saw coming, really, the extraction of Maduro, that has created shockwaves throughout the continent, Latin America for sure, throughout Europe with this Greenland talk. And now in Iran, obviously, the seizure of the oil tanker, that would be a direct threat to Iran's economy. And the Iranians are worried about the possible seizure by Americans. And also the response, whatever Trump decides in terms of the killing of so many protesters in Iran. So they're very concerned and there is just to state it. And of course, this is very fluid. And by the time this episode, you know, drops, you know, as we talk, there have been, according to human rights organizations, several hundred deaths, including Some security forces, but several hundred deaths in the couple of weeks of these protests. The protests are considered to be unprecedented in size and. And demand. They're absolutely out there demanding the end of the regime now waving in some instances, the old monarchy flag, showing the picture of the current Crown prince or, you know, shah in exile, Reza Pahlavi, who has called on protesters to come out and apparently hundreds of deaths. The government there now claims it has it under control, but these protests continue. The government has shown itself bust in pro government rallies, and it's shown funerals for security officials who've been killed, but also they've shown body bags at a morgue, which most people believe is a warning and a chilling message to protesters because they never do this. You know, they never show body bags or dead protesters or anything. So this is the first time. So, you know, you've got the internal and you've got the external, and you've got the people wanting change in a big, you know, maybe. Maybe this will be the one. I don't know.
- [15:22]
Jamie Rubin
Right. I don't think we do know, but I think what we're seeing tested is this equation that's crucial when there is a revolutionary moment or moment of great change caused by popular demand. And the equation, as we've talked about during the Arab Spring, is the number of people willing to go into the streets and the risk they're willing to take. And then on the other side, the willingness of. Of government forces to kill them, kill their own people, not fight an enemy, not fight a adversary, not fight the United States, Israel. But no, kill your own people. And I think this equation is occurring right now, this conjunction of willingness to kill and willingness to risk death. And I think what we're seeing this time, I think for the first time, is the largest number of Iranians willing to risk their lives. And that may be because the protests are not as political as they used to be in the sense that they're occurring from all sectors of society, that they're driven by economic despair, they're driven by the feeling that life is never going to get better. And their own president has admitted that the government doesn't have a solution. And I thought it was a pretty remarkable thing he did to say that the Iranian government can't fix this problem and thus imply that the problem is deeper than that, and that is the regime. Now he's reversed course and attacked the protesters for putting at risk lives and the structure of government. But I think by saying that his government couldn't do anything for them economically or through their desire for greater freedom. He was sort of saying that you're going to have to make a fundamental change in the structures of power in the regime. And what we're seeing on the streets, I think for the first time is the willingness of the lower classes, the lower middle classes, the ones who may have supported the revolutionary regimes in the past, but are now fed up with their economic despair, their hardships, the fact that they can't get the basic needs of a decent life. And they, because of that, are therefore the ones that are willing to risk their lives and thus putting at risk this equation. Will those who are in the regime, who often come from that same class, shoot their own own, kill their own? And we're going to see this develop over the coming weeks. I don't expect this to end anytime soon. I don't think there's much the United States can do about it. They can weaken the regime as they're threatening to by making it harder for them to earn hard currency, possibly by military attack. But I don't think that changes the equation we're talking about because we're not going to send in troops, and we're not going to be able to target the regime in that sort of a discreet way so that we can can affect that equation of people on the street with guns from the regime willing to shoot protesters who are coming out in large numbers. So it's going to unfold over many weeks, I think. I don't see this going away anytime.
- [18:30]
Christiana Amanpour
Soon in terms of trying to fix things. The government in Iran has reached out to the US To Trump, to say that it's willing to negotiate, whether that's too little, too late, or whether that'll be, you know, put off the idea of intervention. But the truth of the matter is that Pezeshkian, the more moderate, reformist president, who's a civilian, understands, and presumably now the regime does, that if they have any chance and hope of survival, they do have to meet people's basic economic needs because it is poverty struck. The real has crashed over the last two weeks and the inflation is crazy high. And the only way to do that, apart from their mismanagement historically, is to get the international sanctions off. And the only way to get the sanctions off is to negotiate. I'm just going to say it, an end to their nuclear program. I doubt they're going to do an end, but they've got to do something more than they've already done. I was speaking to a senior Iranian official at the Doha Forum at the beginning of December before all this happened. And I asked him about negotiations and he said blood has been spilled now between us and the United States. And he was referring to the first military encounter, which was in June, when the US Supported the Israeli strikes on the nuclear targets and killed a lot of people. So at least Israel did and the US Was supporting it. So that aspect was already in their negotiating craw, you know, early December. I have no idea what they can think that they can achieve right now by negotiations. But it's interesting that they quickly reached out to Trump and Trump has confirmed, confirmed that there is a channel now between the Iranian government, elements of it, the Foreign Ministry presumably, and his envoy, Steve Witkoff. So we were basically just answering Zoe's question on Instagram. What are your thoughts on the situation in Iran and what's the likelihood that the current protests will topple the regime? We've answered a lot of that, so.
- [20:35]
Jamie Rubin
Well, let me just continue your interesting discussion of the diplomacy. Look, look, the Iranians, you know, you and I have been worked on this subject for decades. During, throughout our marriage we tried to once help the, I did try to help the regime figure out a way to talk to the Obama and the new Democratic administration about the nuclear issue, about the other issues. One of the problems is Iranians pride themselves on being great negotiators. And so they always think there's a slightly better deal they can get if they just wait. If they just wait a little longer, they can get a better deal, look better, seem tougher, and they may have reached the end of their race rope in terms of trying to get a better deal. The regimes needs to realize that its nuclear program has been set back, I don't think permanently, I don't think forever. I think they could easily, if they chose to move to a crude nuclear device, but it would be a terrible mistake and really would risk full scale war with the United States. And if they're not going to do that, that it seems to me it's time for them to accept that their program will have serious restrictions on it. And Trump would be very, I'm guessing, very flexible on the way in which uranium would be enriched and sold and American companies could get involved and the whole thing could be worked out and Trump wants to do that. And that's the weird part. They need to realize they have a very flexible negotiator. If they would show that they realize that this program and all the billions they've spent in it hasn't really paid off for them. They get some medical isotopes and some other modest benefits from it. But instead it's alienated the world, put them in this deep sanctions package. And now, arguably, the combination of that and their mismanagement, as you point out, has put their whole regime at risk. So maybe, just maybe, instead of trying to out negotiate everybody all the time and outsmart themselves and paint themselves into a corner, they can realize that this would be a good time to cut a deal. And I think there is a deal to be made. There was one on offer during the Biden administration. And then later, Tony Blinken, I think, talked about it on our program, about the discussions that were held with the Trump administration right before those military attacks in which they were prepared to do some interesting things. If they would get back to that, bring their enrichment levels down to the tiniest levels, I think they could make a deal. And, and this is a case where I'm willing to be a little bit risky and say, I think one could do that now. And that the fact that they're on their heels and they know they're on their heels, they know their regime is really at risk. And probably the most aggressive protesting, this might be the time to turn things around. And I certainly hope so for the people of Iran, for the world, it's a doable thing to negotiate this.
- [23:34]
Christiana Amanpour
The only problem with that is that the people of Iran don't want these people staying in power. And I don't know how you can negotiate now and whether all this stuff that you're saying, which was on the table and in discussions before this crackdown, is even relevant anymore. It's very, very hard from this perspective and this vantage point, to imagine that regime staying in place in any formal fashion or structure that it is currently because the people want freedom, after all, not only help and survivability, but the, you know, the ayatollahs and the regime, they're motivating. I think raison d' etre is also survival. So we will see what happens.
- [24:16]
Jamie Rubin
Just a small point there. Look, I agree with you. The people want freedom. I agree with you. If they had their choice, they would like the regime changed. But I don't think they can do it without an enormous amount of blood being shed. And I think if they were faced with the option of easing their economic hardship through some negotiated arrangement that got sanctions lifted, sorry to say, for those who want the regime change, I think the wind would come out of the sails of the protest movement over time if the real economic situation did improve.
- [24:53]
Christiana Amanpour
JENNA ON X Basically saying in light of the current situation, There and the restriction of journalistic access. How are media blackouts justified? To what extent do blackouts contribute to the spread of misinformation? What motivations typically underlie their implementation? Well, I can answer this. It's very simple. They don't want the news getting out. They want to crack down and, as they say, get the situation under control without the rest of us seeing it. But the problem is, whatever happens, the truth gets out. In dribs or drabs, maybe, but nonetheless, it gets out. We are seeing videos. When there is a break in the Internet blackout or a little chink in the, you know, in the ban, it gets out. Some have access to Starlink, not everybody. And it's not perfect right now. And also, people are leaving the country with stories of what they've seen with videos and things like that. So whether they're coming to Europe or to Dubai or elsewhere, video and firsthand testimonials are coming out. You know, it's not justified except by dictatorial regimes who don't want the truth of what's happening in their backyard to get out. And that's the answer to that.
- [25:58]
Jamie Rubin
One of the ironies of the modern world is that the people behind the movement on social media and the creation of social media believed that its creation would be a force for democratic change because they could spread information about protests, about injuries. Information would be easily available to people, and they could improve the chances of people getting together, knowing what's going on, and doing something about it. One of the lessons I think we've now learned about social media is that when you have a Russia, when you have a China, when you have an Iran, none of that holds, and that the social media ends up being another source of oppression. And so I think those people who thought, you know, Facebook was going to change the world and was going to bring democracy and positive change have been proven to be wildly optimistic. We need to figure out how in our own countries to regulate social media. And we need to realize that it's not the solution that people thought it was to promoting democracy. But I know there's another question I'll read.
- [27:05]
Christiana Amanpour
Yeah, yeah, but, but, but, but I would. Places like this one, social media is the. And, you know, other ways of getting it out onto the. On online is the only way to get things out right now. But that's slightly different point. Anyway, you want to read Ali, or should I read it for you? Because it's about America, even though neither of us are there, right? Ali on Instagram, protests and demonstrations have erupted following the murder of Renee Good in Minneapolis. Similar large scale demonstrations have occurred before. Do they actually influence elected officials or lead to meaningful political changes?
- [27:37]
Jamie Rubin
I think the behavior of ICE, in the way it's gone about finding and deporting and arresting and killing people during that process, has begun to divide America in a big way. And I think you've seen it in public events, you've seen it in people deciding that ICE now doesn't represent the values of the United States. States have taken on the position that ICE is not, you know, part of their system, but something to be dealt with by their own security system and their own protection. So does demonstrating that that feeling change things? Well, look, politicians need to be motivated. We know the Democratic politicians from the Democratic Party are motivated. The real question during the Trump administration, until we have another election, is what will motivate Republican senators and congressmen to no longer give Donald Trump carte blanche and a free hand to do whatever he wants with various government entities, including ice. And I think, oddly, and this is not the question, but I think it helps, you know, the prosecution of the Fed chairman that's going on right now has, for the first time, seems to be generating real anger on the part of Republican senators. And they, to me, are the ones that need to stand up and be counted. And if they aren't counted during this administration, they don't stand up for the rule of law. If they don't stand up for what has made America great, the power of our institutions and our love of our country and our belief in the rule of law, then they're going to be haunted for the rest of their lives. And maybe, just maybe, this ICE killing, the investigation of the Fed that other things that are way out of bounds, way over the top will generate finally some real spine in the Republican politicians that have been spineless for too long.
- [29:45]
Christiana Amanpour
I'll just say that it is the social media videos of what happened and the bystander videos of what happened in Minneapolis that can show us actually what happened and put the lie to what the administration claims happened because they called her, you know, a radical leftist and a domestic terrorist and how she was attacking the ICE agent. The video videos show that that is not the case. Anyway. Upheaval just about everywhere. That's it for this episode. Thank you for listening to the Q and A episode of the X Files with me, Christiana Manpour and Jamie Rubin. If you've got a question for us that you'd like us to answer next time, well, go ahead and email us@amanpourpod.com or you can find us on all the major social media platforms. That's Amanpour Pod is our handle and our next episode is out next Tuesday. Jamie and I will be back for that one. Whatever's happening in the world, we'll discuss it wherever you get your podcast. Don't forget to keep listening for free on Global Player. You can download it from the App Store or go to globalplayer.com you can also watch all of our episodes and the bonus ones. Just search Christiana Manpour presents and subscribe to our channel so that you never miss an episode that would be on YouTube. Bye bye goodbye.
- [31:09]
Jamie Rubin
This has been a Global Player original production. Meet Matthew Preston. Inside his apartment, everything he holds dear is protected by Progressives renters insurance, like his laptop and a surprisingly valuable collection of baseball bobbleheads. Outside his apartment, his leg laptop is still protected, as are his bobbleheads, which he carries around with him for reasons no one knows. Renters the limits of protection aren't just the four walls of your home. When you're in Progressive's protection zone, get a quote at progressive. Com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company affiliates and third party insurers.