← Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files
Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files
Q&A: Trump’s Iran "miscalculation", the bombardment of Lebanon & where’s the “Board of Peace”?
00:22:03
Loading summary
Transcript29 lines
- [00:03]
A
This is a Global Player original podcast.
- [00:06]
B
Hi everyone. This is our bonus Q and A episode where we hear from you and answer your questions to me, Christiana Manpour
- [00:13]
A
in London and Jamie Rubin in Costa Rica.
- [00:16]
B
Costa Rica is a long way from Iran. But why don't you ask the first question we here in the intermediate range, ballistic missile range.
- [00:28]
A
All right, let's start with Steve on email. It's a, it's a complicated question. So do you think Trump's apparent miscalculation on regime change might actually be a win win that benefits his domestic oil interests, aligns with Putin's goals and creates a pretext to distance the US From NATO question, or is that too cynical a way of reading how this war is unfolding?
- [00:53]
B
Well, look, you know, lot has been said about miscalculations and I keep reading how actually Trump was warned about many, many issues, including the possibility of instant regime change, even the Strait of Hormuz possibility, but he just dismissed them. Remember, he's been saying short term pain for long term gain. At the very beginning he said, you know, a spike in oil prices won't matter much. We can deal with it. We're the biggest producers in the world. Won't hurt. It doesn't actually apparently hurt the US Economy, but it does hurt the average American and it is hurting the global economies to the point that even the bank of England chief has been called into the Prime Minister's special war cabinet, called cobra for a meeting to figure out how to mitigate the terrible rise in prices. But on the whole other thing, Jamie, I'm going to let you discuss about the, you know, Iran, Russia, it's all so complicated and intertwined. It's like a multi headed hydraulic right.
- [01:54]
A
Well, the questioner is again trying to imagine there's some logic to this, that there's some long term outcome that's good for the United States. And I wish that the President had all these brilliant ideas in his head before he launched this war. Even assuming the questioners saying that, that he wanted to be nice to Putin and give him all the benefits of the oil proceeds that are now available, I just don't see it that way. I think Trump is a short term operator who, who doesn't think in terms of long term gains, that's precisely who he is. So he thought he was getting another Venezuela. We may break up with NATO, Putin may get these benefits, but there's no benefit to domestic interests in the United States because now we've seen how vulnerable we are. And if there is one beneficiary this is how come I know this isn't going to be Trump's motivation. It's the those who believe that we have to get off an oil and gas based economy. This war is demonstrating the risk associated with an economy based on oil and gas and the world based on oil and gas. Those are the people who believe in climate change and believe we need to change our economic beneficiaries. That is not something Donald Trump and his administration intended and they are the one beneficiary. So that's why I don't think that was his motivation.
- [03:19]
B
Yeah, I mean, I agree with you on that. I mean if anything demonstrates more clearly how the need to have adapted to this climate change world and to have sped up the renewables so that you're not held hostage by the addiction to fossil fuels, it's this war. I mean, it's plain and simple. Jamie, do you know what in the United States, apparently, you know, all of this is great for the EV car vehicles, they're giving deals on EV cars because it's costing at least $4 and maybe more for a gallon of gasoline. So the whole thing is asked backwards. But it would have been, I just want to imagine for a moment as I close my eyes dream where we would have been had we been really gung ho and, and kept to the timetable for a green economy and, and got it done because we wouldn't be over this barrel, so to speak.
- [04:12]
A
Let me just jump in there because I think you and I have done this because it was around the time of our move to London. If those 500 votes in Florida had gone a different way in the year 2000 and Al Gore had become president, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. That's pretty clear. And that caused enormous damage to our reputation, our military, our internal affairs. It probably was one of the factors that led such disconnection that brought us the Trump phenomenon. But more importantly, Al Gore would have led the world in changing our economic beneficiaries from those to those who are using clean energy rather than those who are using dirty energy. And the United States would be leading that revolution rather than who leading China? The Chinese. So that's a, a what if. That still boggles my mind.
- [05:04]
B
Yeah. Okay, let's power through this. Diana on Facebook. Is the growing frustration at US involvement in Israel's conflicts and the associated costs among ordinary Americans signaling a real shift in public opinion? And if so, is it significant enough to influence future political discourse and candidates positions on Israel? Well, look, this is actually one of the most Sensitive and, and unintended consequence of this, who obviously there's a whole load of people who believe that this was Israel's war that Trump got pulled into. Trump says, no, I'm the one who wanted to do this because I judged that there was an imminent threat and that we would be attacked, et cetera. But the facts remain that over the years, especially since October 7th and the Israeli war on Gaza, that the American people are changing their position on Israel. That by a long, long way, the Democrats are, are, are more pro Palestinian these days. This is a big change and a lot of movement amongst Republicans as well against Israel. And even now as this war is going on, the big Republican and MAGA sort of influences, you know, the media influences like Joe Rogan, like Tucker Carlson, like Megan Kelly and the others, there are some who support Trump, like Mark Levin, etc. But in general, the biggest cacophony is coming from those who do not support Israel in this war, who do not support what they consider to be Israel running American foreign policy. Now, a lot of people think a lot of those arguments are tinged with antisemitism and it veers into old tropes and things. But the fact is it is changing. And look, I tell you what, just as we speak in London, in a center where there's a lot of Jewish residents and population and communities, there was an attack overnight on ambulances used by a Jewish charity that, you know, set alight a bunch of ambulances. These are direct consequences of this war and are deemed hate crimes. So it's, you know, it's, it's really complex. Jamie, what do you think of, of how it's going to work out between the US and Israel?
- [07:15]
A
Wow.
- [07:16]
B
Well, I think just this, answer this, you know, the question, how will, will it influence future political discourse and candidates?
- [07:24]
A
I do think it will. I think the Democratic Party will. As pro Israel as it's been up till now. I can tell you from my own experience during the Gaza war and the Biden administration, I watched many, many, many, many young people particularly lose their appreciation for the difficulties Israel faced after the attacks of October 7th and lost any respect for the Israeli government's claim to be a different kind of government that was democracy and followed the rul. And the overreaction by Israel to October 7th will have long term consequences for the Democrats. That's the Democratic side. On the Republican side. I think it's going to be very, very powerful too because there is a cohort who I have now you, you hear more from now those who didn't like Trump because they thought he was opposing the Iraq war and then what was called the neoconservative agenda. And they are the ones, the Wall Street Journal, the former neocons like John Bolton and people in that camp who are pushing for Trump to escalate, they're his allies right now. I think the, the resignation letter from Tulsi Gabbard's right hand man showed how much the Trump constituency is breaking up over this war. I know you mentioned earlier that, that the, the voters may not be there yet, but I think the leaders in the constituency are there yet and they are going to blame Israel for this war. Not because I, I believe they're right, but because objectively speaking, the only real beneficiary so far has been Israel's desire to weaken the Iranian regime. They're the ones who get something out of this. They may not like the way it ends, but they, this is, was part of their strategy of the long term weakening of the Iranian regime. So you put those together on the democratic and republic and sides and you can see that it'll never be quite the same. I think there's a very good question, the second one by Daryl on email. If we could do that.
- [09:47]
B
I was, yeah, fine. I was going to go to Leila on Instagram because it's, it, it expands the, the point you're making which is the Israeli expanded war in the region. I don't know if you want to take that now. And then we go back to D
- [09:59]
A
first and we'll go back to Darryl. This is Layla on Instagram. Is there any justification for the ongoing Israeli operations in Lebanon? It started as a few retaliatory strikes against Hezbollah, but now seems to be on a much larger scale. Could it end up as another full blown invasion? Question mark?
- [10:16]
B
Well, I think it's going to end up as an invasion certainly of southern Lebanon and a gazification, in the words of their defense minister Israel Katz says we're going to turn this area, Khan Yunis, I mean that's one of the towns that was leveled in Gaza and they're doing it now. They're giving orders to, you know, raise residences and other such thing and they are, you know, occupying parts of it. And not to mention that bombing huge parts of Beirut, the capital, not just where Hezbollah is. Hezbollah triggered this, let's not be at all, you know, confused about that. They decided to just as they miscalculated after October 7th when they fired into northern Israel in Hamas, they fired into northern Israel in support of Iran after this war started and the Israeli government for the first time in a major public way and the Israeli people, even those who are Shiites and who, you know, maybe you know, have a different view sometimes they are furious, furious that once again this Hamas militia non state actor, although some of them are political and are in parliament, but the military part of it, have triggered yet another devastating Israeli reaction which will become an overreaction they fear as, as it's been telegraphed from the Israeli officials. They are furious that the sovereignty of their country is being violated once again. And, and let it not be forgotten. Jamie and I find this interesting. Almost immediately or at some point, the Lebanese Prime Minister reached out to Israel via I guess the third party and offered, you know, to make a peace deal, to recognize Israel, to make a peace deal with Israel and to get this sorted once and for all. And that was completely dismissed. And here we are in yet another full blown war. But Lebanon is in a dire, dire state and the legitimate, you know, sovereign government is being crowded out by, by a non state militia.
- [12:25]
C
Look, this is another example where Israel doesn't understand how to combine diplomacy and force. They achieved something dramatic. They were able to weaken Hezbollah dramatically. They got a Lebanese government that is the best they've had in a long, long time. Lebanon is ready to negotiate with them. But The Israeli post October 7 mentality has not figured out a way to combine diplomacy and force. They know how to use force and against Hezbollah. They've shown en skill and enormous ingenuity with the famous pager attacks. They've weakened Hezbollah. But now's the time to g capture those gains in a long term way so that they get what the founders of Israel always desired, which was the recognition of their neighbors. And it doesn't appear that the Israeli government has figured out a way to combine its extraordinary military intelligence skill with all of their occasional flaws, as we've talked about with diplomacy. And that's how you achieve long term stability and objectives and they just haven't done it. In any case, the only so called peace agreement that's come about is when Trump forced them to stop the war in Gaza and that didn't yield a long term good result because half of Gaza is controlled by Hamas and still,
- [13:44]
B
you know, hanging by a thread of humanitarian aid that's barely getting through right now. No, just no, no sign of any construction happening. People are living in, it's just a disaster. But as you say, Hamas still in position after two years of a withering, devastating ground and air and drone war. Let's get back to Daryl. I'm going to ask you, was Trump correct to claim that ending the Obama Iran nuclear deal prevented Iran from dominating the Middle east, or is that an exaggeration?
- [14:14]
C
The reason why I think this is an important question is because there was a time when people were worried about Iran's domination of the Middle eas. There's no question about that. It wasn't because of Obama's nuclear deal they were dominating. It was because they had built up militias in Hezbollah, they had gotten Assad victory in Syria by slaughtering 500,000 people and had Syria as an ally and they were working with Hamas. So they had this so called, you know, axis of resistance that was very strong. What killed it was not. Think about it, it was October 7th that killed Iran's dominance in the region. When the Hamas attacks happened, Israel decided that it couldn't tolerate the Iranian regime and has been steadily weakening Iran's capability and power. If October 7th hadn't happened, maybe they would have been the strongest country in the region. Now they are suffering across the board in Syria, in Lebanon, and now in Iran itself. So what's ended Iran's dominance, which was a real factor that people legitimately worried about, was October 7th. They can blame it on the leaders of Hamas who conducted that attack and caused this ferocious Israeli response.
- [15:34]
B
I just want to also just add in here because we're talking about Israel. There are some in the United States who are, particularly the Evangelical Zionists, they're called the Christian Zionists, who really do believe, in the words of Pete Hegseth, who's using all sorts of Christian crusader Armageddon kind of words, that this is the end days prophecy, that this war is to, you know, to, to, to bring back eventually the, the Messiah through a great cataclysm in the Middle East. So it's pretty. And it took the, the former Turk, sorry, the former Saudi Arabian Minister of Intelligence to remind me that on all sides there is this fundamentalist religion powering an ideology, powering so much of the conduct of this war and the, the eventual desired outcome from their perspective. So it's kind of strange really, in 2026.
- [16:29]
C
Why don't I ask. I'll ask this one and we can both answer. James on Instagram. Why is Trump turning to NATO for support while continuing to antagonize key allies instead of relying on his own Board of Peace?
- [16:43]
B
Well, look, I mean, I don't want to diss the Board of Peace, but you know, give me a break. Seriously. All the, you know, the, the Grown up negotiators, the people who are experienced, the UN People, and all the rest of it have been just completely sidelined. We were going to talk in the main episode about negotiations, negotiators and diplomacy. Nicholas Burns told me that the entire tranche of ambassadors were all fired when President Trump took office. It's kind of, you know, apparently you're meant to tender your resignation, but it's not always that everybody gets fired. And he just felt that the Trump administration didn't necessarily want professional diplomats, wanted just ideologues and loyalists and didn't believe that there was such a thing as a foreign, you know, foreign service or a civil service who are nonpartisan and who serve all administrations. So what you have is essentially a hollowing out of any kind of peace negotiators and diplomats. And I think my view on dissing NATO allies is just so painful to hear this. Constantly bullying and criticizing and using the most awful language against them and then saying, come and help me. We need your help. A former foreign minister told me that instead of Europe and NATO and the others saying, this is not our war war, they should get together. Do you remember, Jamie, when the, the leaders of all the NATO allies got together and rushed to Washington in tandem, not all of them, but the main ones to try to step in when Trump was sidelining Zelensky after that terrible dressing down in the Oval Office? Well, this, this former foreign minister in Europe believes that the allies should do the same again. But tell the President this is. Is now harming our national and economic and security interests. What you're doing here is harming us. What we want to see is a de escalation, not to ratchet it up by going to war in the Straits of Hormuz. So I don't know why they don't do that, frankly, why they don't all go to the White House. That would be a pretty dramatic picture.
- [19:01]
C
Donald Trump and his administration sometimes forget that there are things that allies can do that that are necessary. They have good minesweeper capabilities. To make sure the Strait of Horu stays open, you need minesweepers. You need people with experience doing it. The United States is a global power, has global responsibilities. We can't take our entire navy and deal with the sea, Strait of Hormuz, or else the sea lanes we're supposed to be keeping open all around the world won't be able to be protected. And there is a thing called China that we have to worry about and we'll always have to worry about as long as this Chinese Communist Party is in charge.
- [19:41]
A
So they don't understand alliances.
- [19:43]
C
We talked about this in the main episode with respect to Denmark and Greenland. I think that was a breaking point. You know, there have been various breaking points in, in the Trump administration. You know, Minnesota was one people talk about domestically, internationally, Greenland was a breaking point. And it's no longer realistic for, for President Trump to expect the kind of reactions from our closest allies who've always been there with us, Britain, Germany, Denmark, these are the three strongest allies. They, you know, Germany has been publicly supportive of the war because their chancellor has decided that's the wise course, but their people are not. This is a. What happens when you launch a war without preparation and consultation? Anyway, I think you get my. As a diplomat, a former diplomat, alliance management is rule number one. And yes, the diplomats have been left out of this whole operation from the beginning. They would have explained to Trump that the regime wasn't going to fall. They would have explained to Trump that the regime was going to launch the attacks on the Strait of Hormuz, that this was going to create a defiant Iran, not a cooperative Iran. Those were the experienced diplomats that Trump didn't advise.
- [20:59]
B
Let's see. You know, I think we always have to say, because we just don't know what Trump is thinking, that, hey, we might wake up tomorrow and find this is all fabulous. It's ended beautifully for everybody. That's my final word.
- [21:10]
C
Sure. Opiate.
- [21:12]
B
Okay, over and out from London, from Costa Rica. And don't forget that we will have our main episode on Tuesday as ever, and you can always find us. Thank you always for joining us on the bonus and on the main episodes. You can question us by reaching us on social media handle being Manpaur Pod or you can email us@amanpopodlobal.com and you can listen for free on Global Player and obviously subscribe to our YouTube channel where you can see us and see all the episodes you just search. Christiana Manpaur presents the X Files. Okay, bye.
- [21:59]
A
This has been a global Player original production.