← Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files
Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files
Q&A: Is Iran's pain threshold higher than Trump's? Plus Hormuz blockade & Virginia redistricting
00:24:24
Loading summary
Transcript46 lines
- [00:03]
Jamie Rubin
This is a Global Player original podcast.
- [00:06]
Christiane Amanpour
I'm just a little concerned because Russia obviously has been making money for its war chest because of this war on Iran.
- [00:12]
Jamie Rubin
They don't care about their own people, the irgc. They've demonstrated that a lot of European
- [00:18]
Christiane Amanpour
leaders have been loathe to challenge President Trump. They want to keep him on side.
- [00:23]
Jamie Rubin
And not so much attention has been paid to the fact that Russia is not doing very well on the battlefield,
- [00:29]
Christiane Amanpour
realizing that too much connection with Trump is actually not good for their domestic politics. Hello, everyone, and welcome to the Q and A bonus episode of the X Files with me, Christiane Amanpour and Jamie
- [00:45]
Jamie Rubin
Rubin here in New York.
- [00:47]
Christiane Amanpour
So here we are. As we record, the ceasefire is extended, but there's still no peace talks in the offing, at least not in the immediate future. The blockade, the control of the Straits of Hormuz continue. So how do we get out of this bind? Let's start. This is where we answer your questions. So, Jamie, I'm going to start. Lisa on Instagram says Trump appears to be using the art of the deal strategy with Iran as he did with tariffs. Why don't world leaders recognize this pattern of intimidation and refuse to engage? Okay, so that's the broad question.
- [01:21]
Jamie Rubin
Well, it's a fair question because President Trump's pattern of negotiation is very confusing. It's a mix of incentives and disincentives that are thrown out left and right all day long. We are in a situation now where he clearly does not want to return to war. That's why he's extended the ceasefire. The Iranians tried using that theory of de escalation to open the Strait of Hormuz, which they believed was part of the agreement that was reached in the beginning. And instead of agreeing to open the Strait of Hormuz, President Trump reversed course. And in their minds now I'm talking about the Iranian mines and shut off the ability of Iranian ships to come in and out. So it wasn't really open the way it was prior to the war. And so that leaves us in an economic state of warfare. I don't believe either country wants to go back to war at this point for the Iranians and the the United States, for each of their own reasons, but each of them thinks they're in control of the situation. The Iranians think they have this new lever, which is the Strait of Hormuz, and the United States thinks it has the pressure on Iran's not being able to get ships in and out. The problem is we're going to now have to learn whose pain threshold is higher. And I worry as an American that the administration, which has misread the Iranians step after step after step. And we don't need to go through all that, whether it was the regime falling in a few days, whether it was the fact that they could open the Strait of Hormuz for American ships, but not Iranian ships, they've misread them. The Iranians think they can tolerate pain more than President Trump can. And we don't know the answer to that question. And that's what we're going to find out. And that's why we're in a state of economic war. The art of the deal isn't going to help us in grand strategy between two countries who are not real estate brokers. And what President Trump hasn't understood is that Iran has its own approach to these things and it doesn't think it's losing and may believe, wrongly, perhaps, I don't know who, that its pain threshold is higher because they, they don't care about their own people, the irgc, they've
- [03:56]
Christiane Amanpour
demonstrated that it's clear that both sides don't trust each other. And as we've been saying, the war planners in Israel and the United States have essentially totally misread Iran's, up until now, resistance and resilience. I've heard a little bit of, you know, differing, you know, there are always new theories being offered. So here's one from a pretty well plugged in official very familiar with the Iranian regime and etc. And this is an official from the Middle east, and his suggestion is that now actually the Trump administration blockade on Iranian ports will actually very much harm Iran's economy. And while you're correct that they don't really care about the fate of their people, the fate of their people is also tied and the fate of their survival is also tied to their people's economic distress. So there is a feeling, I'm told, that the United States can simply wait this out for a while, squeeze Iran by its economic lifeline, which is selling oil and even getting around the sanctions, waiting for that to come to a critical mass in Iran and then forcing some kind of Iranian willingness to come to the table. Because what Iran wants is, as you know, and we've been talking about, first and foremost is a pact and undertaking a security guarantee, whatever you want to call it, that neither the United States nor Israel will ever attack it again. But in return for that, Iran is going to have to, you would think, agree that if that's the case, then it and its proxies will never again attack either the US Or Israel or their interests. So this could, in the light and the minds of these Iran people who I'm talking to, could lead to a changed Islamic republic. And I think that is an interesting concept, because if they do agree to this, that would be a complete step back from its fundamental basis for existence, which is to resist Israel and the United States. And if that does, that would be
- [06:05]
Jamie Rubin
victory, Christiane, if you're right, that would be victory for President Trump's objectives in this war. I agree. Assuming the nuclear issue could be resolved, and if they were prepared to resolve those other things, I suspect they'd be prepared to resolve the nuclear issue. But that requires the regime, as you said, to have a 180 degree turn.
- [06:25]
Christiane Amanpour
Correct.
- [06:26]
Jamie Rubin
From what it began in 1979 when you were, you know, living, going in and out.
- [06:33]
Christiane Amanpour
Yeah, yeah, I agree. But this is what some people are thinking and it's all down to, you know, we've had decades of so called maximum pressure on Iran. So the jury is out. They've still, they have existed under maximum economic pressure, but a full scale blockade has not happened before, as far as I know. And whether or not they can get rounded or whatever remains to be seen. But people are thinking, you know, who see this now, as you say, move from quote, unquote, kinetic warfare to economic warfare.
- [07:05]
Jamie Rubin
Just one last point that requires President Trump to do something which I worry he may not have the stomach for, and that is a long term closure of the Strait of Hormuz. And I think the business community and others are going to start to put pressure on him to resolve this. And that's why the pain threshold question, as you put it and I put it, is exactly it. Can the United States and its allies, which aren't very many, unfortunately, because of the way this war started, prepared to tolerate the pain or will the global economic pain put pressure on President Trump?
- [07:46]
Christiane Amanpour
Yeah, I know, but the thing that's new here. Yes, but Iran, almost at the top of its list, wants an agreement in any ceasefire. We've been talking about this, which is for them not to be attacked again. Well, for that to happen, they have to promise, presumably the superior military force, Israel and the United States will demand that they do not attack Israel or the US or their interests, either themselves or by their proxies.
- [08:14]
Jamie Rubin
We're going to have to wait.
- [08:15]
Christiane Amanpour
Yeah, I think that's where the interesting new thinking is coming anyway. Why don't you ask the next question?
- [08:22]
Jamie Rubin
Sure. It's Andy on YouTube. If targeting civilian power plants in Iran is considered a war crime, could long term energy blockades, such as those affecting Cuba be viewed the same way? And does a blockade effectively amount to a declaration of war?
- [08:38]
Christiane Amanpour
Well, I think a blockade is a declaration of war. And it is, I don't know. You'll know in terms of international law, but it is, it is in terms of a war that's an economic war like we've just been talking about. And certainly they use that against Cuba since the 1960s and they are using it against Iran. So I think international law will. Will is probably not clear on whether it's a war crime or not, because actually going after and attacking civilians and their infrastructure, that is the definition of a war crime. Whether by strang and you know, squeezing them, it's difficult to tell whether that would be called a war crime. What do you think? It's certain. I think it's a declaration of war. There's no doubt.
- [09:28]
Jamie Rubin
Well, look, I agree with you that when you blockade a country, that is the functional equivalent of declaring war on them. In the case of Iran, right now we're blockading them and we actually did go to war. So there's a lot of similarities. The problem here is that international law gets broken into categories. The United Nations Security Council is the ultimate arbiter of what is legal internationally. And it has never. It when it imposes economic sanctions, it does it through this legal mechanism of the United Nations Security Council. War crimes, as we were talking about with power plants, is about how you use military force. They, those rules have been established over a long, long period of time going back, say to the Geneva Conventions. And there are is clarity there. So I think you're right. There's no clarity when it comes to the economic pressure campaigns because when it's been used, it was used in what I would call normal times when the Security Council was functioning and the United Nations Security Council met and the Russians and the United States and China even agreed often to impose sanctions on countries back in the normal days. But now that President Trump has basically thrown the Security Council out the window. Window along with Russia throwing the Security Council out the window by virtue of invading Ukraine and China never wanting to be restricted by it, the Security Council can't make the judgments that the questioner is asking about whether the economic pressure on Cuba would be a war crime. So that's how you have to separate it.
- [11:08]
Christiane Amanpour
It's actually, it's a really good question.
- [11:14]
Grainger Announcer
When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery so you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.
- [11:46]
Christiane Amanpour
So when NATO Secretary General Mark Rutter speaks about global affairs, is he still being overly accommodating towards the US President? Should a NATO leader prioritize diplomacy with Washington over the alliance, broader interests? I'm just going to give it an initial stab. Look. Clearly the secretary general who was a former prime minister, who was a prime minister for a long time, ruled coalitions in the Netherlands for years, understands the politics of all of this and definitely understands not only his own politics, but the global politics and the need to have this transatlantic alliance. So, yes, he is politically trying to make Trump keep considering NATO as a valuable transatlantic tool that also benefits the United States. So I think there's that. I do, though, think that a lot of European leaders have been loathe to challenge President Trump because of the tariffs, because of unilateral declarations over, you know, the use of force, because of Ukraine, because of all of those things. They want to keep him on side. And I was at a group of ambassadors breakfast and one of them, a European, said, you know, it's all well and good to talk about challenging the president, but we need to do basically what I said, keep him on side, keep the transatlantic alliance going. And I wanted to say, but hang on a second. You know, one of the great leaders of Europe in her time was Angela Merkel Circle and she wrote in her book a couple of things about Trump because she was there for Trump 1.0. And she said that yes, he does act very emotionally and impulsively. That was her word for chaotic and transactional and all the rest of it. But if you put down your case forcefully and compellingly for your own interests and your own national security, he will listen. So that was in the first term. So that's just what I was asking. Why don't they all go and put their case for their own national interest, for instance, when he complains about them not joining the war on Iran and they still haven't got to that point. But, but you can see that, that leaders like the Spanish Prime Minister Sanchez or even the, you know, conservative right wing Italian Prime Minister Giorgio Maloney, they are all beginning to stand up for themselves, realizing that too much connection with Trump is actually not good for their domestic politics. Look at Orban Maloney, just lost a referendum, etc. Etc.
- [14:15]
Jamie Rubin
Yeah, well, look, the role of Mark Rutte is something I understand very, very well. The Secretary General of NATO. And I think the questioner needs to. The answer to the question is that he's not an elected leader of a country. His job is the Secretary General, not the General Secretary. In the old days, he's supposed to be recording consensus building among all the leaders who were elected by democracies. So the fact that he's not standing up to Trump doesn't surprise me at all. He's doing what he can and I, I appreciate it. I think it's shown enormous diplomatic skill to keep the most important member of NATO on side about NATO, which is his job.
- [15:04]
Christiane Amanpour
Yeah.
- [15:04]
Jamie Rubin
And so by being accommodating, not getting in public disputes, perhaps making the case privately that you were talking about for why NATO is important and why it's American interest, and you've seen, I think, the success in that. President Trump has stopped constantly threatening to pull out of NATO. He does it sometimes because he does everything sometimes. But we've stopped hearing about that. We've stopped worrying about that as much. Now, the divide between the NATO allies on the Iran war is not Mark Rutte's subject because he has to deal with the fact that President Trump, the leader of the started this war. He thinks it was a good idea. Now, how it affects NATO as an alliance is a very tricky question. It certainly helped President Putin in his confrontation with Ukraine, and that's not good news for Europe. And so what has Mark Rutte done? I was stunned. He's been giving speeches about how Europe needs to prepare for war. Europe needs to stockpile supplies, gas, energy, learn how to be ready for a long term conflict against Russia. Right, right. Because that's his job. And so I think what he's doing is dealing with President Trump as the most important member of NATO, as a subordinate, not as an elected leader who can talk on the basis of the views of his country's elections and their democracy.
- [16:38]
Christiane Amanpour
Yeah. So just a quick tag to that. This week I interviewed President Zelensky of Ukraine, who, you know, is struggling to keep the world's attention and their, you know, military and other help on side, given the distraction of the war on Iran. But this week there were real results to the people of Hungary, you know, basically toppling democratically. Their pro Putin prime minister, the new prime minister has unblocked a very Very important and life saving tranche of 90 billion euros in loans from the EU to, to Ukraine. Yeah, and he was really pleased about that. He said, look, this is really important. We need to buy these defensive weapons. We're struggling for our lives. And he said, you know, every day this war with Iran goes on is a plus for Putin. So this, this was very important. And it's a pie news for democracy and freedom.
- [17:34]
Jamie Rubin
Yeah, one small point on that, Christian. While this war in Iran has been going on, a lot of attention has been paid to it and not so much attention has been paid to the fact that Russia is not doing very well on the battlefield. They're not making much progress. And so that war is going to be about whether Europe continues to support Ukraine in its fight as they fight Russia, which has invaded them. And this, as you put it, this money is going to be absolutely crucial. So as tragic as the war in Iran has been for all of the Middle east and the global economy and obviously for the Iranian people, the meanwhile, on the much, let's face it, as an American, the much larger, broader front, for those of us who believe that a Russian victory would be a disaster, Russia is not doing very well on the battlefield. And now finally, the Europeans are in a better position to help Ukraine.
- [18:32]
Christiane Amanpour
Yeah, I'm just a little concerned because Russia obviously has been making money for its war chest because of this war on Iran. And also if you read some latest articles, I mean, the depth of their adapt, how they've adapted to this drone warfare and all the rest is remarkable. There's an incredibly interesting article about how Russia has literally turned everything over to the AI, the unmanned, the drones, the. But I mean, mean, deep. It's not just a couple of factories churning out, you know, daily drones. It's just a whole new military doctrine that apparently Putin is ordering. And I think we should keep an eye on that because it's apparently very, very intense. And I agree with you, it's not showing up yet in terms of its ability to get a lot of land back in or to keep a lot of land in Ukraine. But still, it's a worrying signal, as you said, especially for Europe, that does worry about Russia being, being the aggressor, even after this war with Ukraine, if and when it ends. Just one other little tiny. Funny I asked President Zelensky about this. I don't know whether you've read it, Jamie. There's this thing that's going around, the story about Donnyland, apparently at one of the recent peace, you know, ceasefire talks or whatever between the two sides. Somebody.
- [19:48]
Jamie Rubin
Donbass, right?
- [19:49]
Christiane Amanpour
Yeah. Somebody suggested they renamed Donbass Donnyland. Zielinski was, you know, diplomatic but affronted. He told me, look, it is called Donetsk and Luhansk. All in all, the Donbass. That is what we see it, that is our names for it, that is what our soldiers are fighting for. And that's the end of that story. I never had anything to do with Doniland. So just to say, but Jamie, again, he also said, and you'll appreciate this, it's very difficult to have ceasefire talks. As you know, mediation on the Ukraine, Russia war is almost nowhere right now. And he said, when the United States has very few negation negotiating teams and one team is meant to be doing everything, he's obviously talking about Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, who've been assigned Gaza, Russia, Ukraine, and now Iran, US So he's very conscious that nothing good is going to happen for Ukraine in terms of ending this war until the war in Iran is over. Just a note there. Do you want to read the last one?
- [20:51]
Jamie Rubin
I do.
- [20:52]
Christiane Amanpour
And probably answer it, because you know it better, especially as a Democrat.
- [20:55]
Jamie Rubin
Carrie, on Instagram, do you see the redistricting move in Virginia as a normal political strategy or a genuine threat to Democratic norms? All right, this is a very good question. And all I can say about this is the Democrats won the redistricting referendum. That means the voters decided. These are the voters in America. They decided they would accept a clearly retaliatory strike by the Democrats. Redistricting is a way of manipulating the Democratic process to advantage one party or
- [21:33]
Christiane Amanpour
another, which generally we shouldn't approve.
- [21:36]
Jamie Rubin
Generally we shouldn't approve. No. But the Republicans started this process. They began it all over the country. And then the California governor responded very aggressively and said, well, you're going to do that in states where you can do that, we're going to try to do it in ours. Now, what's interesting is that Virginia is not what's called a red or a blue state, it's a purple state. And the electorate returns are mixed. They're not an overwhelming victory.
- [22:08]
Christiane Amanpour
No, it's like 51.5%.
- [22:11]
Jamie Rubin
And the turnout is complicated. And I started looking into it, and it's not an overwhelming victory, but what it is is a demonstration by Democratic leaders that they can't play by the Marcus of Queensberry rules, the perfect rules, if the other side is going to break the rules of democracy over and over and over again and to just tie all your hands behind your back and say, I'm going to be perfect and never do anything, has any questions associated with it, while the other side is doing what it's done in the Supreme Court and the, in the Congress and breaking norm after norm after norm. This is one. It's not a rule. It's not. It's a norm. It's something you've come to expect that the system won't be manipulated this way. President Trump has broken 1,000 norms since I've watched him in office in these two terms. And the Democrats have usually been accused of not fighting back hard enough. And this is their fighting back hard enough. The governor of Virginia took a long time to come around to accepting this, and the voting was confused because President Obama was part of a movement against redistricting and gerrymandering, which was going on in the rest of the country by Republicans. But he came around as well because the Democrats can't fight by the rules that the other side is not respecting.
- [23:42]
Christiane Amanpour
I know this is the slippery slope,
- [23:44]
Jamie Rubin
not respecting, and that's why our democracy is so troubled right now.
- [23:49]
Christiane Amanpour
Well, it's a slippery slope. And, you know, now the pressure is on Florida to try to do something similar, to have a referendum, and that would be presumably to rest back, you know, on the Republican side, you know, their advantage. But anyway, it's, it's, it's. We'll see. That's all we have time for this week. Thank you for listening to the Q and A episode, our bonus episode of the X Files. And remember, you can always find us either on social media, by, by email and also, of course, on our YouTube channel. You can watch us and you can always listen on globalplayer.com that's for free. Our next main episode happens next Tuesday, and I will be recording it from Prague, where I'll be taking the temperature of some of this, you know, internal politics that's potentially reshaping Europe and the political landscape over there. So that's it for now. Thanks for being with us. And Jamie, I'll see you next week.
- [24:42]
Jamie Rubin
We'll see you next week. Goodbye from New York.
- [24:45]
Christiane Amanpour
Bye.
- [24:50]
Jamie Rubin
This has been a global player original production.
- [24:54]
Grainger Announcer
When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery, so you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.