← Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files
Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files
Q&A: Trump’s Iran strategy, Putin’s gain and why allies are turning away
00:25:48
Loading summary
Transcript24 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hello, everybody, and welcome to the X Files with me, Cristiana Monpour in Florida
- [00:05]
B
this week and Jamie Rubin in New York City.
- [00:08]
A
And of course, this is where we get to answer your questions. So we are going to get started. Jamie, you want to go with the first one?
- [00:14]
B
Yes, I do. This is from Mike on email. Is this increasingly unpopular war in Iran helping Marco Rubio or J.D. vance in the Republican primary, or is it bad for them both? Who do voters associate more with supporting it, or does everyone blame Trump?
- [00:31]
A
I think you should answer that, Frankie. I should have asked it and you should answer it because you're in the U.S. i'm just here flitting through. So what is happening?
- [00:38]
B
I think that J.D. vance sort of made his name as someone who was against the Iraq war and has been supportive of the president, obviously, but he's not been out front. To me, what I find interesting about this war right now is that it's a war that is being cheered on now by what you might call the former neocons, the people who supported the Iraq war. If you look at the Wall Street Journal editorial pages or you look at the various op EDS from the thinkers in Washington, they're the ones who supported the Iraq war, and they've always seen the Iranian regime as a threat and find it normal enough for the United States and Israel to be allied in a war against Iran. And Marco Rubio, I think, is the leader of that group and he's Secretary of State and National Security advis. He's on the front lines. He's the one who you could imagine supporting wars in both Venezuela and Iran. And so if you believe the war is going to have a residual effect below Trump, I think it's much more Rubio who will, who will suffer unless this thing turns magically to a success. I mean, obviously, if it did, that would be good for everybody. But assuming it follows its current path, I think Rubio has more at risk. I'm not sure he was ever going to be the nominee in this confusing Republican Party, but the questioner is certainly right that the two primary candidates are J.D. vance and Marco Rubio. And they're very different, very different people with very different backgrounds and upbringing. And I think Marco Rubio is much more associated with this war and will continue to be, however it turns out.
- [02:18]
A
Yeah, and actually there's something to be said on this next question. So, Kathleen, on YouTube, why wasn't Trump seen as a traitor when he removed sanctions on Russian oil, especially in light of Russia helping Iran fight the war against US Now Russia has money to continue fighting the United States and Ukraine. So, Kathleen, I'm not going to talk about traitors or non traitors, but it is crazy, all right? It is absolutely crazy that Trump, because of, again, an unintended consequence, something that actually they should have understood if they'd properly war game because actually Iran telegraphed it that we are going to squeeze the economies of the Gulf states and of the oil. That's the only way we know how to defend ourselves in this war of existential survival for our regime. That is what they said to all and sundry. So the idea, and I'm getting this from, you know, world leaders who I'm interviewing, the idea that they didn't know is in itself surprising, and that's a polite way to say it. So they have been forced now to lift some sanctions on some Russian oil because there's a shortage of oil. They've also been forced, this is even worse, to lift some sanctions on Iranian oil. So think about this. They are bombing the hell out of Iran, but lifting some sanctions, sanctions on its oil because they didn't war game as well as they should have done. So all of this, I don't know whether it's traitorous or just stupid. I don't know, but it's completely nuts. And now Rubio, who Jamie was just talking about, you know, is the strategist, you know, behind Trump on all of this and with particular interest in Cuba, given his background. He's the one who's been talking about squeezing Cuba, about trying to get the capitulation of the Castro family, of trying to, you know, the current President Diaz, and yet they allow a Russian oil tanker full of 730, whatever it is, the quantity, million barrels or whatever it is going through to save Cuba from total implosion. Go figure. I don't know.
- [04:17]
B
It is one of the great puzzles from the beginning of President Trump's arrival on the scene, on why he has been so willing to take Vladimir Putin's word, why he's been so willing to give Vladimir Putin the benefit of the doubt when he is arguably one of the great monsters of our era. Remember, millions of people have been killed and wounded in the war in Ukraine, and it was started by Vladimir Putin because he wanted to gobble up his neighbor and take over a country of tens of millions of people. This is a monstrous act. He will go down in history as one of the great monsters. And yet President Trump seems to have a soft spot, whatever you want to call it, for Vladimir Putin. We just talked in the main episode, and you just mentioned letting the Russians run this blockade on oil for Cuba, on the fact that President Trump has aware that Russia is giving targeting information to the Iranians so that they can target American military facilities, potentially causing the deaths of Americans. That in normal times is called aiding and abetting the enemy. Enemy? I, I don't know. I'm just being factual. I'm not trying to make a value judgment here. I'm not afraid to say the facts. The fact is that Russia is aiding and abetting an enemy of America in wartime. That's a fact. And they're benefiting from the war on by the virtue of oil prices. They're benefiting from the war because the United States and its allies are diverted from their, what should be their desire to support Ukraine, all of which has been going on with Vladimir Putin since his first term. It's one of the great mysteries. The Democrats spent a lot of time, you know, investigating all this. There's no question the Russians interfered in the election. To what extent in 2016, was it collaborating with Trump or he was just allowing? It didn't matter. We should have. The Democrats mistake was not to just focus on Russia's interference. There's no question they did it. But these questions obviously lend themselves to very personal, some conspiracy theories, some big questions we may never know the answer to. But there is a soft spot for Vladimir Putin that I think is now a weak spot in American foreign policy.
- [06:40]
A
And, you know, I mean, we've yet to see whether any negotiations pan out between Iran and the United States. But the latest reports are that Putin has no interest in negotiations. He still thinks he's going to win this war and force Ukraine to give up territory. It would be ironic indeed if there was a negotiated settlement with Iran while Putin is still fighting the United States and its allies and of course, Ukraine.
- [07:04]
B
This is about a subject we know very well. Darryl, on email. Was the Iran nuclear deal, JCPOA under Obama really that bad? Given the current turmoil, is it safe to assume that Iran will be stronger once this crisis is over than they would have been if Trump had not backed out of the Obama deal?
- [07:24]
A
So I would like to take the first bit. I don't think it was that bad. I mean, I'm one of those people who believe that a good deal is better than a perfect deal or no deal, in other words. And I think that an arms control deal between two adversaries, just as there were arms control deals between, in the Cold War, between the United States and the Soviet Union, I Don't see what's wrong with that, frankly. It puts a. It. It pushes the nuclear issue down many, many, many years, and according to all the observers, was actually keeping to its side of the bargain, which was to have very intrusive inspections and to also get rid of a lot of the enriched uranium and to keep its current enrichment down at a very low level. And it was only when Trump pulled out with no alternative and then added massive sanctions, which hurt who? The Iranian people, Not the regime, only the Iranian people, that this thing has just taken on another life of its own. Of course, and Jamie will say this in more detail, nobody who opposes the very existence of Iran appreciated the jcpo. The Israelis hated it. Netanyahu tried to torpedo it. He even came to the U.S. congress, I mean, in a very, very distasteful and unrespectful. Disrespectful breach of diplomatic protocol. Basically criticized a US President in Congress, and he had been invited by the Republicans. And then I think that, of course, other others also said in the Republican Party and in the opposition, the Iranian opposition, that this was just a sham, this jcpoa, and that it just kicked a can, maybe not even much down the road. What do you think?
- [09:06]
B
Look, I was in the arms control business for a long, long time. Was it a perfect agreement, as Christiane pointed out? No. Did it do the job? Yes. It controlled Iran's nuclear weapon capability. It gave us warning if that was going to change so you could do something about it. That was the minimum requirement. Could it have been better? Who knows? It was a deal that was working. But not having the deal is what led us slowly, inevitably, to the crisis we're now in. And what will be the weakening of. The questioner also asked a question about Iran's strength. And here things get complicated. I think the deal didn't keep Iran strong or weak. It just froze their nuclear program. What has weakened Iran, and this is the great irony, was the decision of Hamas to attack Israel on October 7th. That's what led to the downfall of the Iranian access of resistance in the region through the attacks of the Israelis. Absolutely. In. In Hamas, in Lebanon, in Syria, and now Iran itself. If those attacks hadn't happened, if the October 7th attacks hadn't happened, Iran would have had a certain strength. Not because of, or not because of the Obama deal, because of their willingness to fund the Hezbollah, to support Hamas, to have Assad as their ally. They had a. An axis of resistance, the great arc of Shiite power that used to be talked about, about. That's all gone now. But not because of the Obama deal or not the Obama deal. It happened because the leaders of Hamas made a grand miscalculation and, and destroyed their sponsors. And what Iran's suffering now is what happens when you put your, the power into one of your, your proxies and look what they can do to you. They can sell and the weaker, you know, the.
- [11:03]
A
Exactly. The weaker party can, can torpedo the stronger party.
- [11:07]
B
Exactly. So look, that's a complicated question about arms control. We could spend a long time on it. But the essential answer is the deal was working, it could have been improved. And the Iranians make mistakes here. This is one of the reasons why I'm concerned about these negotiations. The Iranians are always trying to get the best possible agreement. They think they're so brilliant at negotiations and sometimes they negotiated themselves into a corner, which is what they've done recently. I hope they don't do it this time because the sooner this war ends, better it will be for everybody.
- [11:40]
A
When you say recently though, Jamie, I'm telling you, people who are at the table said that Iran surprised them by going further than they expected. This is the day before the, the bombing started. And clearly that was because they were in a weakened state. And, and, and it, according to those people. And, and it's not just me saying it. Just look at the Foreign Minister of Oman who was the key mediator in the Geneva talks on Friday 27th February before the bombing started on Saturday the 28th. He then a couple of weeks ago, or sorry, a week ago, dropped this incredible piece in the Economist where he lays it out and he just said, dudes, you missed a pretty good chance here because Iran was moving further than even we expected on the nuclear issue. Okay, so Nav on email with the Iran war continuing, ongoing clashes between Afghanistan and Pakistan, Israel expanding operations into Lebanon, the war between Russia and Ukraine still raging and diminishing attention on the Gaza Strip. Are we approaching a broader regional escalation or can Western allies still contain the situation and prevent a wider war? So we've talked a lot about this, Nav. I'm just going to pick out the Gaza and what's happening in the west bank as well, which is not necessarily the Israeli war on them like it is in all the other areas around that you were just mentioning and the other wars. But something terrible is happening in Gaza and in the west bank and we at CNN have been reporting it very, very carefully and there is still no resolution after, you know, a ceasefire was signed in, in October. All the hostages, the live hostages were released, the bodies were returned. And there was meant to be something like humanitarian aid, reconstruction and international force, you know, political building, rebuilding and this and that. No, it's not happening. So that's really, really, very, very difficult. But worse on the occupied west bank right now, under cover of the Iran war and Israel's other military operations, there is a massively escalating war by settlers and IDF and security forces helping them to essentially kill, wound and expel Palestinians from their land. And it's gathering a massive pace and these settlers are now moving in. And Jamie, you know this stuff. There's areas A, B and C in the west bank, which is part of the Oslo Accords. They are moving fully into areas that they have no business being in. And it's very bad and it's absolutely being protected and helped. According to CNN's latest, very, very good reporting from the ground by the security forces. And it's terrible. It's really bad.
- [14:28]
B
Right, look, the questioner is correctly adding up all the places that are in conflict. You have Pakistan and Afghanistan literally at war with each other. And that's one of the great ironies of all time. Pakistan supported the Taliban. Pakistan enabled the Taliban. Without Pakistan, the United States would have been able to help Afghanistan become a relatively stable country without the oppression going on today to all the women of that region and would essentially have made Afghanistan a more tolerable place to live for those people. And the United States wouldn't have had to withdraw in the situation that it did that was enabled by Pakistan. And then lo and behold, what happens that that same Taliban who they helped put back into power, thinking they were so smart. Think about those Pakistani officials who are helping the Taliban. They think they're so brilliant and now they are facing a full scale attack from Afghanistan, the people of Pakistan, and suffering the consequences of their stupidity of helping the Taliban and somehow thinking that was better for them and their crazy calculation and then lying about it for all those years. What all this means is that wars have consequences that you cannot predict. Some are predictable and some are unpredictable. The ones in this war in Iran are been very predictable. I think we probably could have said this earlier and let me say it now. The, the president of the United States went to war. You know, they called the World War I the March of folly. This was the march of ignorance. To not understand that the Iranians were going to use the Strait of Hormuz to choke off the world economy. To not understand that they are led by a regime that believes and led the axis of resistance and that it wasn't just going to fold if you killed their leaders. That was based on ignorance of the Iranian regime. These were easily knowable facts. We talked about it on the program over and over again about what would happen. And of course, we weren't geniuses. We were just aware of the Iranian capability position.
- [16:39]
A
No, their position, their telegraph position.
- [16:42]
B
Exactly. And so this was a march of ignorance by this administration and we're suffering the consequences now. But to get to the questioner's question, I mean, I don't see an escalation in terms of a World War I or a World War II or something like that. Unfortunately, unfortunately, you're going to have instability. You're going to have wars in Ukraine and Russia going on for a long time. If the Israelis and the Iranians have their way, this or certainly the Israeli regime which wants this war to just continue in a, in a long war mode. This war is going to go on for a long time as well. Lebanon, the Israelis don't seem to know how to put together military success with diplomacy to achieve their objectives. I'm just going to throw one note of optimism in here because I have to do it for my sanity. Right now would be the time for the Israelis to achieve all of their objectives if they could find a solution. And it probably would be very manageable to the Palestinian question. That won't happen until there's a vote, a change of government in Israel. But if that happened, think about it. The Israelis and the Arabs could come together. Saudi Arabia could recognize Israel and the Iranian regime would be, you know, deterred, contained, controlled, would not have the power it now has. And the United States and Israel and the Arab countries and the Europeans would all be allied with each other against. Who are our real enemies? Russia and China, the real enemies. And those are the ones that are not getting the attention they deserve under this administration as we've gotten distracted by this war in Iran. And in a sense we've talked about this. The Chinese know now the American military has a number of weak points. The ammunition is running out. If Xi Jinping were inclined, this would be an opportune time to put pressure on Taiwan. And so the United States desire to so called pivot out of the Middle East. Talk about getting bogged down. We are literally bogged down economically, politically and militarily in this war because President Trump didn't take what I understood to go back to the last question was a pretty decent offer from the Iranians in that they were willing to not do Any enrichment and have the nuclear, the enriched fuel removed from the country, that would have solved the nuclear problem.
- [19:16]
A
Now they're going to war to achieve that. I mean, it's just, it beggars belief. Right, yeah. And I, and I just one other thing. In terms of missed opportunities, the Lebanese government offered to enter peace talks to recognize Israel, and Israel just thrust it away. And, and I, you know, talking to a former Israeli prime minister, said that everything that's happening now is all within. Certainly it's the domestic political situation and calculation that he says is dominant in Netanyahu's calculations. All right, so the next one, Jamie, do you want to ask that?
- [19:52]
B
Absolutely. This is our last question, I believe, from Callum on Instagram. Why is Trump lashing out at his allies and why is he specifically targeting the UK And Australia? Let me start on that. For my entire professional life, when the United States has used military force, UK and Australia are the ones you can count on. I could be wrong, but I think in every major conflict, the United Kingdom and Australia have been immediately willing to cooperate with the United States and do a fair share of their fighting or certainly be as supportive as they could be. That didn't happen in this case. And the two countries that are been our staunchest allies, remember English speaking countries who we have worked closely with through wars and are the closest of allies, special relationships, Australia and Asia, the UK in, in Europe, they need to be consulted and they need reasons, they need rationales, they need a sense that there is a threat that you cannot resolve diplomatically. And so war is the last resort. Those are the kind of countries they are. They need legal reasons. The fact that they didn't support us is what has led President Trump to lash out, because he is realizing that this is the only case in which our closest allies have not supported us. And again, they tried. I was struck, I think I was on a radio program in the UK and they were talking about all the efforts that Keir Starmer had made to try to come up with a legal rationale to help the administration because he didn't want to say no. But there was no effort made by the administration to go through the diplomatic legal steps, in preparation, in consultation, working with your friends to get to a point where they could say yes. And I think the fact that the UK and Australia are not part of this and are receiving Trump's anger is the demonstration of this march of ignorance because they saw negative consequences, they didn't see the upside, and they knew there were going to be downsides. These were predictable. They didn't want to join it because they want to stay. Yes. They want to stay away from this decision.
- [22:15]
A
Yep. And let's face it, it comes after, you know, a full year of Trump really going on the offensive against his allies, against Europe, first with the tariffs, then with, you know, all these other things where he insults them, where he bullies them. And a senior European told me that after Greenland and after Europe, essentially allies, NATO allies showed a spine and stood up to Trump over Greenland and said, no, we don't accept this, then bullying doesn't work anymore. You know, when you're insulted, when you're bullied, once you get over your fear of this, you know, bully, it doesn't work anymore. And so they realized that joining this particular war would not be in their interests. And of course, NATO is a defensive alliance. So the idea that Trump was calling on NATO to go to war with him and Israel was anyway a non starter. Of course they want the Strait of Hormuz to be open and they're having lots of discussions about that, but it won't be while, at least we don't think it'll be while the bombing is happening. So it's a, it's a real, real situation where everything has been thrown up. There's a lot of destruction of alliances and against adversaries, but very little, if any, idea how to construct.
- [23:30]
B
Let me just suggest there that I do think it's possible that in the end, if this war continues for a long time and the United States does need to try to open the Strait of Hormuz through a naval operation, I think it's very possible that European countries will end up helping because they do have minesweepers, they do have some of that capability. If we go through that, you know, multi week, probably multi month operation to try to keep the strait open, I could foresee Australia, I could foresee the UK and other European countries deciding reluctantly to support that for their own reasons, as Christiane, you pointed out, and I think you were absolutely right about Greenland and I, I should have mentioned that myself. I think that was a breaking point for the normal functioning of the alliance and that after that, calculations changed on everything and we'll continue to change potentially for decades to come because the United States cast doubt. I mean, think about the march we talked about. Denmark had a march of no kings. Denmark, the most pro American country after the UK and Europe because of Greenland. So Greenland, we're paying the price for Trump's Greenland decision in the Iran war.
- [24:48]
A
Yeah, yeah. And, and of course, Denmark was ready to resist. Imagine this, a NATO ally ready to resist another NATO allies inv invasion of Greenland. I mean, unbelievable. But also, don't forget that former foreign minister told me that Europe basically needed to tell Trump that not just this isn't our war, but you are harming now all of our interests, our major and basic interests are being harmed by your foreign policy and your dealing with us. Okay, we could go on, but we won't. That's it for this week. Our next episode, as you know, is out on Tuesday. That's our main episodes. You can always listen to us on Global Player. Don't forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel where you can watch all the episodes including the bonus episode. And you just search Christiana Monpour presents the X Files. And until we see you again on Thursday, no, until. Until we see you again whenever it is. Bye. Bye. We're both on the east coast today.
- [25:42]
B
Goodbye. From New York City.