Q&A: Was Iran really an existential threat to the US?

Summary

Podcast Summary: Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files
Episode: Q&A: Was Iran really an existential threat to the US?
Release Date: March 12, 2026
Hosts: Christiane Amanpour (London) & Jamie Rubin (New York)

---

Episode Overview

This candid Q&A bonus episode dives deep into urgent questions on global security, the Middle East’s ongoing turmoil, the US–Iran relationship, Israel’s policy dilemmas, the erosion of international norms, and even a personal reflection on the legacy of JFK Jr. Amanpour and Rubin, leveraging decades of reporting and diplomatic experience, provide sharp, sometimes sobering analysis in their signature back-and-forth style—combining hard facts, historical insights, and flashes of dark humor.

---

Main Discussion Points & Insights

1. Was Iran Ever an Existential Threat to US National Security?

[00:19–03:11]

• Rubin’s Response:
  • To be an existential threat, Iran would need both a nuclear weapon and a true intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capability—something Iran has not yet achieved.
  • Quote:
    “Iran was a long way from both after the strikes on its nuclear facilities… Certainly years before they could reconstruct an enrichment facility, then do the enrichment to the highest levels, then weaponize the weapon and then combine it with the missile. So short answer… is no, not in the next 10 years.” (Rubin, 01:43)
  • The possibility of Iran pursuing nuclear weapons is what propelled international concern.
  • Ironically, Iran's decision decades ago to remain a “threshold” state, not to actually weaponize, may have been a miscalculation, especially after seeing North Korea’s deterrence success.
  • Quote:
    “Countries who feel threatened now know that it’s only nuclear weapons that can deter an attack on you the way North Korea is deterred.” (Rubin, 02:46)
• Amanpour’s Take:
  • There’s a dangerous emerging lesson: states may regret disarmament (e.g., Ukraine’s denuclearization led to Russian invasions).
  • Neither Trump nor Netanyahu could provide convincing evidence of an “imminent existential threat” from Iran to justify preemptive military action.
  • Quote:
    “President Trump was unable to give any evidence… that Iran posed an imminent threat… And also Netanyahu was unable to provide any clear evidence at all.” (Amanpour, 03:18)

---

2. Israel’s Multi-Front Operations: Sustainability & Security Strategy

[03:30–11:06]

• Amanpour:

  • Israel faces mounting criticism, including from the US, regarding its military actions, especially the Lebanon operation resulting in massive civilian displacement and another humanitarian crisis.
  • She critiques Israel’s “mowing the grass” policy—repetitive bombings with no clear long-term political vision, which “negates the power and the possibility of any kind of proper… diplomatic solutions and peace deals.” (Amanpour, 05:33)

• Rubin:

  • Historically, Israeli leaders (pre-Netanyahu) balanced military defense with pursuing peace, as seen in the Camp David Accords.
  • The shift post-October 7 marks Israel’s unprecedented war footing—a “forever war” it can afford due to its robust economy and Western support.
  • The US should leverage its support to press Israel for diplomatic progress, particularly on Palestine and normalization with Arab neighbors.
  • Quote:
    “It’s time for President Trump to pick up the phone… we’ve achieved something… Now it’s your turn to do something hard… begin the process of making peace with your neighbors.” (Rubin, 07:27)

• Further Key Points:

  • Israeli assassination policy (e.g., against scientists, leaders) and funding paradoxes (Netanyahu’s indirect support for Hamas via Qatari money).
  • The “permanent war is not a policy” argument: Israel has choices, and upcoming elections may reveal the public will.
  • Quote:
    “To do the hard thing, to actually make everybody more secure, we’ll need a new leadership who believes that diplomacy… is not enough. You need force and diplomacy.” (Rubin, 10:40)

---

3. Historical US-Iran Relations and the Law of Unintended Consequences

[11:07–16:34]

• Prompted by Teresa’s Question:
  "What if the US hadn't backed the coup in 1953? Would Iran have developed democracy?"

• Amanpour’s Summary:

  • The 1953 coup against Mossadegh (who desired a fairer oil deal and parliamentary democracy), led to decades of bad blood and propelled the Islamic Revolution’s grievance narrative.
  • Iran’s desire for democracy predates 1979, reaching back to the early 20th century.
  • Quote:
    “Iran, over many, many now, more than 100 years at least, has been lobbying for democracy unlike any other country in that region.” (Amanpour, 13:56)

• Rubin:

  • The “law of unintended consequences” illustrates how interventions often trigger unpredictable, sometimes adverse results—relevant both in 1953 and today (e.g., economic fallout, oil spikes post-Trump’s Iran policy).
  • Quote:
    “Had the United States known back in 1953… I think anyone knows we would have preferred Mossadegh… The law of unintended consequences is the story of interventions right now.” (Rubin, 15:04)

---

4. International Norms, Ukraine, and Russia’s Complicity

[16:35–20:06]

• Tabby’s Question:
  "How does the erosion of norms impact Ukraine given Trump and Putin’s positions?"

• Rubin:

  • Rising oil prices help Putin’s wartime economy, but not his military prospects in Ukraine. Russia now allegedly provides Iran with detailed targeting for attacks on American troops/facilities.
  • Quote:
    “Russia is enabling… Iran targets… American military bases, targets of hotels where Americans officers stay.” (Rubin, 17:36)
  • If US political leaders link American casualties to Russian intelligence, this could—Rubin hopes—shake Trump’s stance vis-à-vis Putin.

• Amanpour:

  • She expresses disbelief at some US advisors’ credulity in “taking Putin at his word,” underlining the naivete and potential dangers of such an approach.
  • Missed opportunities: Ukraine’s offer to share anti-drone expertise with US/Gulf allies was ignored—now urgently needed.
  • Quote:
    “Honestly, you really actually cannot, cannot make this stuff up.” (Amanpour, 19:43)

---

5. Personal Reflection: The Real Story of JFK Jr. & Carolyn Bessette

[20:06–25:16]

• Alice’s Question:
  Asks Christiane if the new series about JFK Jr. and Carolyn Bessette is realistic, and for personal memories.

• Rubin:

  • Shares warm remembrances of a final weekend spent with John and Carolyn, noting their joy and the specialness of those days.

• Amanpour:

  • Strongly criticizes ongoing sensationalized media coverage of the couple, refusing to participate in further projects she sees as exploitative.
  • Quote:
    “I just cannot bear the exploitation… people who don’t know their full story or their story at all… it’s all pretty bitchy, pretty mean.” (Amanpour, 21:47)
  • Stresses their dignity, love, and resilience under intense scrutiny.
  • Quote:
    “John Kennedy Jr. received a level of scrutiny unlike any human being on the planet… I learned an enormous amount about the word dignity.” (Rubin, 23:16)
  • Recalls the sadness of paparazzi harassment, especially for Carolyn, but insists: “They were amazing people… they had so much joy and they didn’t lead miserable lives.”

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On nuclear deterrence:
  “The really sad part… [is] countries who feel threatened now know that it’s only nuclear weapons that can deter an attack on you.” (Rubin, 02:46)

• On Israel’s strategy:
  “Permanent war is not a policy.” (Rubin, 09:56)

• On US–Iran history:
  “The law of unintended consequences is the story of interventions right now.” (Rubin, 15:04)

• On US-Russia relations:
  “Take Putin at his word… It’s just unbelievable.” (Amanpour, 18:59)

• On JFK Jr. & Carolyn:
  “I just cannot bear the exploitation… people who don’t know their full story or their story at all…” (Amanpour, 21:47)
  “I learned an enormous amount about the word dignity.” (Rubin, 23:16)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:19 – Was Iran ever an existential threat to the US?
• 03:30 – Can Israel sustain multi-front wars? Does this increase its security?
• 11:07 – US-Iran history: What if the 1953 coup had never happened?
• 16:34 – Deteriorating international norms: Impact on Ukraine, Russia’s role.
• 20:06 – JFK Jr. & Carolyn Bessette: Personal recollections and critique of their media portrayal.

---

Final Takeaway

Amanpour and Rubin offer an unflinching, multidimensional look at the Middle East, nuclear politics, and global security, consistently foregrounding the human cost and the need for diplomatic courage. The episode’s ‘ex-files’ lens—personal yet analytical—brings both the geopolitics and their consequences vividly to life.

Transcript

[A]

This is a Global Player original podcast.

[B]

Hello everyone, and welcome to the bonus episode of the X Files with me Christian Amanpour in London and Jamie Rubin

[A]

here in New York.

[B]

So this is where we love to answer your questions and let's get straight to it. Jamie, how about you taking the first one?

[A]

Great. I think this is one of the ultimate questions by Paul on email. He asks, given Iran's repeated threats against Israel and the regime's slogans such as Death to America, do you believe, believe Iran has ever constituted a legitimate existential threat to US national security? This is a good question because a national security threat is what justifies a war. I think the way in which you could construct a legitimate national security threat would require you to combine Iran's nuclear weapons capability with a long range missile capability. Something that frankly very few countries can do. It's very difficult to do the weapons. The nuclear weapon has to be small. The missile has to be able to launch it from one, you know, continent to another. Iran was a long time from having a missile capability that was called international, it's called icbm, International Intercontinental, sorry, ballistic missile. Unfortunately, the North Koreans are building such a thing and they actually have 50 nuclear weapons. So to, to have an existential threat to the United States, you would need to combine missiles and nuclear weapons. Iran was a long way from both after the strikes on its nuclear facilities. I don't know what the reasonable estimate is, but it's certainly years before they could reconstruct an enrichment facility, then do the enrichment to the highest levels, then weaponize the weapon and then combine it with the missile. So short answer to the question is no, not in the next 10 years. But that time was coming when Iran may make a nuclear weapon. That's why the whole world cared about it, not just the United States. And frankly, and this is the really sad part for the issue, Iran has now looked back and said, I wonder some of their leaders whether we should have made a nuclear weapon. They could have 20 years ago, 15 years ago, had they decided to do a crash program. They had the capability to do so. They chose to just be a threshold state thinking that would deter the United States, Israel, etc. That was a grave miscalculation. And one sure fire effect of this war is that countries who feel threatened now know that it's only nuclear weapons that can deter an attack on you the way North Korea is deterred.

[B]

Yeah, and that is actually a really, really horrible and quite terrifying downside of this kind of, of situation. And I think you can just look Back at Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons when the whole Soviet Union collapsed under pressure from the United States.

[A]

Everyone forgets, right?

[B]

I know, to Russia in exchange for the security guarantees that are so important. And then, you know, Vladimir Putin invades twice. And, and they said, I remember the beginning of this latest, you know, four years ago, we shouldn't have given up our nukes, we shouldn't have given up our missiles. So this is a very bad lesson to learn. And I think also just to finish the answer to Paul, who is, you know, an email, you've just read out his question. I think it's important when you ask about an imminent existential threat. President Trump was unable to give any evidence that proved or showed at all that Iran posed an imminent threat that would require and justify this kind of, quote, preemptive or, you know, preventative strike, strike. And also Netanyahu was unable to provide any clear evidence at all. In fact, they had told us all that they had, quote, obliterated Iran's nuclear program for generations. Anyway, here we are. Let me ask you the next question. So, Maria on Instagram, how does Israel sustain the financial and military resources to conduct operations in multiple places such as Lebanon, Gaza, Iran and Syria? And do Israeli leaders believe that military strikes on neighboring countries ultimately increase Israel's long term security? I'm going to have one stab at that and then you can finish it. Certainly there is literally horror being raised in many, many capitals, including I understand within the United States administration at the, you know, Israeli operation in Lebanon that's up until now claimed a lot of deaths, including civilians, and has got somewhere in excess of 700,000 Lebanese fleeing wherever they can for their lives and essentially creating yet another massive humanitarian crisis. So that's one thing. The other thing that I think Jamie is worth discussing is that I think I don't see any policy beyond Israel's belief that bombing these countries that this, you know, this, this correspondent on Instagram, Maria, asked, they don't have a policy beyond that. It's this horrible mowing the lawn or mowing the grass policy that means you just keep bombing whenever a threat comes up. And that really does delay any or just negates the power and the possibility of any kind of proper, hard, long work to create real diplomatic solutions and peace deals to change this dynamic.

[A]

Well, I think that's exactly right. And let me pick up from that. Look. Prior to Netanyahu, Israeli leaders going back to the Camp David accords with Egypt, with Jordan, the peace agreement, the peace agreements with the Palestinians they understood that the goal for Israel is not to fight a war for a long time, forever. A forever war. Talk about a forever war. Or to make a peace agreement with your neighbors. And smart leaders in Israel like Yitzhak Rabin fought wars hard, but fought for peace just as hard and understood that they needed to do both. So right now, Israel can sustain militarily a massive war. And they can do that because their country is now on a war footing and has been on a war footing since October 7th. And as painful as it is to remember how this all began, we need to remember that prior to October 7, Israel was tolerating the Iranian regime, tolerating Hezbollah running Lebanon, tolerating Assad, the younger Assad running Syria, and Hamas in Gaza. It was October 7 that changed that calculation. And that led Isra, for better or worse, its government, to decide to launch a kind of forever war that they can afford. And here's where the interesting part comes to your point. What we have done has helped them. No question this is helpful to Israel's long term security, but we should get something from the Israelis out of this. It's time for President Trump to pick up the phone to call the Israeli leader and say, look, we've achieved something that would have taken you years to do with our military capabilities, to weaken, weaken Iran to an extreme degree. Now it's your turn to do something hard, and that is to begin the process of making peace with your neighbors. That means Saudi Arabia, it means Syria, it means Lebanon. And to do that, you're going to have to solve the Palestinian question one way or another. President Trump has the leverage to do that. He's launched a war that's extremely costly. It's time for him to get something from the Israelis other than us serving as an arm of their military and we can their foes.

[B]

He first, President Trump has to convince them that this war, you know, does need to end and figure out terms on which to end it. But can I just ask you, because, you know, this is always roiling around my head, especially now, you know, this attempt to regime change or kill off everybody. You know, Ronan Bergman, the great New York Times investigative reporter who wrote that great book Rise up and Kill first, essentially the policy of assassination from lowly scientists to now, you know, supreme leaders in Iran has been very front and center in many Israeli administrations, not to mention Benjamin Netanyahu. And I say all this because two years of bombing and really hard bombing and ground operations that leveled so many buildings and killed so many civilians in Gaza actually managed to leave Gaza half occupied still by Hamas who still have their weapons. So that's 1, 2. When you say tolerated Hamas, we know for a fact that Benjamin Netanyahu actually requested inroads, writing with signatures to the Qataris to keep sending Hamas, you know, millions and millions of dollars every month in order to be able to, you know, operate as, you know, their civil society in, in, in Gaza. He thought that would be enough for them. But he did find, find, fund them through, through Qatar. That's, you know, that's something. And then the other thing is what your administration said during the war on Gaza, that our intelligence shows that for every Hamas we're killing, you know, however many thousands are being recruited. The same thing in Iran. For every Ayatollah Khamenei you kill or every Revolutionary Guard commander, there are layers and layers and layers who are built in and who will rise to take their positions. So I, I don't know. I just think this policy is, is doomed.

[A]

Well, exactly. And, and, you know, permanent war is not a policy. Israel has been in a permanent war state for many, many, many years now, since October 7th, and they seem to be tolerating it. I don't know how long their voters are going to tolerate it. The questioner is asking a good question. Do Israelis want to live in a permanent state of war when there are alternatives? I mean, everyone understands if you have to fight a war to defend yourself, you're going to fight a war. And that's what the Iranians are doing right now, because they don't have a choice. But Israel has. They have an economy. They have a knowledge economy. They have great business leaders, they have great scientists. They have many, many choices. There's going to be a big election in Israel, and I think that will tell us what that democracy wants. And if they want a permanent war, that'll be easy to get because it's easy to find enemies in that part of the world and to be in a permanent war. But to do the hard thing, to actually make everybody more secure, we'll need a new leadership who believes that diplomacy should be back of force is not enough. You need force and diplomacy.

[B]

Why don't you take Teresa on email? Because now we're getting into some of the history and the bad blood between the US and Iran, which stretches back decades.

[A]

The US and the CIA helped reinstall the Shah in Iran in the 1950s. His rule eventually contributed to the Iranian revolution. Teresa on email, asked if Iran had had a democratic election back then instead of restoring the Shah, what kind of government might have emerged.

[B]

Well, look, it's hard to say what kind of government. I mean, Mohammad Mossadegh, who was the prime minister in question, who was kind of nominated by a plurality in the Parliament. It wasn't, it was kind of a referendum. It wasn't like your election that we know in the West. But it was the closest that the Iranian people and civil society and political society got to naming a prime minister under a monarchy, which was the Shahs, when then the British and the Americans decided to launch a coup to remove him. And, you know, because they did not like the British, did not like Mossadegh's nationalization of the oil. Remember bp, British Petroleum was operating in Iran and they had all the concessions on the oil. They pretty much owned Iranian oil. And Iran was pretty much pumping it out of the ground for the benefit of bp. And Iranians are proud, nationalistic people, people. And Mossadegh said no more. So that really irritated and angered the Brits. The, the Americans came in the CIA more, I think, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but more because they viewed the Shah and not Mossadegh as a real bull walk against the Soviets who were, you know, in, in the Soviet Union. And it was the height of the Cold War, and they believed Iran, you know, located on the southern border of the Soviet Union all the way to the warm port, warm water port of the Persian, was a vital, vital ally. And they didn't want to see it fall and they wanted to, you know, make sure that it didn't. So, you know, they, they engineered a coup against Mossadegh to bring the Shah back. And for sure, that did lead to a lot of bad feeling between the US and Iran and also eventually was justified by the revolutionaries as one of the reasons to have a revolution because they just, you know, built up all their grievances against the Shah, including the fact that he had been brought back by the United States and Britain and the, you know, those who were sort of really agitating for democracy, which is what they wanted back in 1979, thinking that the Ayatollahs would give it to them. Slightly misguided thought and hope. Obviously they blame the Shah and that was a big, big pillar of the revolution. So the, the question asked what might have happened if that hadn't have happened? Well, you know, you can't look back entirely accurately, but you can say that there might have been a chance in Iran for democracy. As slightly kooky as Mossadegh was, he was a very peculiar kind of fellow. But Nonetheless, you know, Iran in 1908 had had this constitutional democracy, you know, this assembly that was then quashed by the shahs of the time. So just to say that Iran, over many, many now, more than 100 years at least, has been lobbying for democracy unlike any other country in that region. And certainly that's what the people still want. And sadly, though, both President Trump and. Well, certainly President Trump does not have democracy or regime change on the agenda, as the senators who were briefed again this week came away telling us that the goals are not to bring democracy or regime change to Iran. I mean, it's bizarre.

[A]

It is bizarre. Look, this is called the law of unintended consequences.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Had the United States known back in 1953 or the British known in 1953 that the choice was between Mossaddak, who was difficult about oil prices, and it wasn't like he wanted to control everything. He just wanted to change the rules so that it was closer to 50 50, rather than the British Petroleum Company getting too big a share and chose between that and the Iranian revolutionaries that followed. I think anyone knows we would have preferred Mossadegh. And, yes, there were sufficient stirrings of a parliamentary democratic system that could have evolved in a way that might have avoided the Iranian revolution. We don't know that, but it's possible. Law of unintended consequences is the story of interventions right now. It is absolutely clear that the Trump administration didn't expect the effect on the economy and the oil prices. They didn't expect the degree to which this is damaging the economy and causing an oil spike and possibly a real oil crisis, as well as gas prices increasing and shipping and all of that. They didn't expect that. That's quite clear from the reporting out of Washington. Why they didn't expect it. You and I don't understand because we talked about it over and over again. If you give the regime nothing left to hold on to, they're going to lash out and do whatever they can. So the law of unintended consequences is what you have to think through when you're making big decisions.

[B]

Yeah. And to be fair, this is what they planned, and they told everybody that this is what they planned if they were attacked in quite a clear detail, and it is, in fact, being carried out. Okay, Tabby on YouTube. How might the continued erosion of international norms affect Ukraine, particularly given Trump and Putin's positions? Could it lead to greater pressure on Ukraine to concede territories or step aside?

[A]

Right, look, we talked a little bit in the main episode about the confusing effect of this war on both Russia and China. And so let's put China aside and focus on Russia. No question oil price increases is good for Vladimir Putin. He needs the price of oil to be high to fund his war economy. But he has not made much progress on the ground because the Ukrainians are determined to defend their own territory. And that's not going to change no matter what the price of oil is. It's a little less painful for Putin. He's smirking, he's smiling, but he's not getting any more drones from the Iranians, that's for sure. So what is he doing? And this is monstrous. The evidence is now out there that Russia is giving Iran targets. Targets of American facilities, targets of American military bases, targets of hotels where Americans officers stay. Think about that. Russia is enabling because, remember, as effective as we're going to be in the air, they're going to have drones, they're going to have the ability to target individual locations. And now they're going to get exquisite targeting information from Moscow. So when American soldiers have been attacked in Kuwait, in Saudi Arabia and other places, some of that may be the fault of Vladimir Putin. Once the Congress and senators are starting to pick up on this, puts that together with what Russia has done in Afghanistan, when they gave money to the Taliban to kill American soldiers, when they gave the Houthis targeting information, President Trump is going to realize that Vladimir Putin is responsible for the deaths of American soldiers. That will, I hope, change his mind and stop this appeasement of Vladimir Putin.

[B]

Except I have to tell you, the. What I'm now going to describe as the hapless Steve Witkoff, who hangs out on the stages when President Trump is speaking, actually literally voiced the following. We called the Russians, they told us they were not doing any intelligence sharing. You got to take them at their word. I hope we can. I mean, I'm sorry, it's just, it's just unbelievable. Take Putin at his word when he's lied to their faces point blank in all the Ukraine negotiations. And one other thing, Jamie, which is not so. Several months ago, when this was being planned, this war, apparently the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, suggested that he help his drone squads and his anti drone squads could help based on all their experience now in four years of war with Russia, you know, the, the US and, and other allies in the Gulf. And that was refused. And now they need it and now they're calling for it. Honestly, you really actually cannot, cannot make this stuff up. But final question, Jamie.

[A]

All right. This is going to be a very personal one for you. So I'm going to read it and then say a few words so you can think about how to deal with it because it's hard. I've really enjoyed watching the new series Alice on Instagram asks love story about JFK Jr. And Carolyn Bessette. Have you watched the series, Christiane? If so, is it realistic? And either way, please can you tell us a bit about what he was really like? I know you two were close friends. I'll just say one thing about it and leave this to you because he really was your friend. You and I were lucky enough to spend the last weekend of his life with him and his wife in their house in Martha's Vineyard. And if you were going to pick a weekend that was. Had all the elements of a great last weekend, it had that we had dinners, we had barbecues, we went out for a drink. He got out of the house. He was very happy about it. And so your friendship with him allowed him, I think fairly stated to say that that he had a great last weekend.

[B]

He did. And there was so much love between him and Carolyn and his cousin Anthony was there, if you remember. Of course he was, you know, on his last few weeks. And he actually died shortly after Carolyn and John were killed. And Anthony's wife Carol, our friend, was there and it was an amazing group of friends who we never knew it was the last week and we thought Anthony was going to be the one who we would be mourning soon. And instead it was John and Carolyn. Look, all I can to, to, to, to. Who is it there? I'm sorry, I've lost it. And in any event, in any Alice

[A]

on Instagram, I thought might throw you a bit for a loop. So I was trying to fill up some air for you.

[B]

You did. So I'm just going to say to you, Alice, front and center, that I'm not watching it. I refuse to watch it anymore. And I refuse to take part in any more exploitative documentaries or, or features on John and Carolyn because I think there's a narrative that all the producers want, oh my goodness, you know, it's Carolyn's fault or they were just other all the time or she was just a fashion plate and he was just a, you know, a hunk who could have been so much more, etc. Etc. It's just, I just cannot bear the exploitation, exploitation of these two anymore and by people who don't know their full story or their story at all and want to pretend they're doing Good. By showing this lovely couple. But in the end it's all pretty bitchy, pretty mean. Focusing on some of the well known own arguments. Like that episode in Central Park. Yeah, they had a fight. Yeah. The paparazzi were there. Yeah, they got it. Yeah, it was published. But these two were a very close couple. They were great friends of ours and they were, you know, just amazing people. And until somebody actually does that one, I don't want to watch any of this. And, and, and you know, people are writing books about Carolyn's fashion sense and her this and that. They're just making money off off these two people who were killed tragically and too young. And so. No, I'm not. But I'm glad you're watching it, Alice. And I really hope anybody who's watching it gets a really good feeling about them. I hope that comes across and not something else. So that's really all I have to say about it.

[A]

Just one small point which I'm sure you'll agree to. I mean you watched this over many, many years. But John Kennedy Jr. Received a level of scrutiny unlike any human being on the planet really from the moment he was born and grew up in the first place. First, you know, age of television. I think he handled that with such extraordinary dignity. Despite the intrusiveness, despite the pain, despite the horrors of people all over you not letting you think. Watching him deal with those people, I, I learned an enormous amount about the word dignity.

[B]

Me too. And, and charm as well. And he was polite to them. But when they started getting, getting over aggressive and especially in his wife's face and she wasn't used to it. Right. She hadn't grown up like that. But as you say, he had. And no matter how annoying it was for him, you know, his mother taught him to just be dignified. Don't engage, just keep moving, smile when you have to and, and get on with it. They really intruded into their lives and I, I don't forgive them for that. I just don't think it's, I just don't forgive the paparazzi for that because I don't think it's fair and I don't think it's justified. I think, you know, public figures, certainly there's amount of publicity they have to do, an amount they have to bear. But to be in the cross hair and the crossfire all the time and, but let me say I use this word because you, we've all heard massive. You know, the camera clicks, the motor drives. It sounds like war. Like a you know, like automatic weapon fire. It's incense with the lights. And the thing that pains me so much is always seeing them walking together in the street and Carolyn's head is always bowed. That to me is just sad. I mean, it just is sad. But I want people to understand that they were amazing people. They were happy people. Of course, they had their ups and downs, but they had so much joy and they didn't lead miserable lives. And they were. They were lost and cut down too, too soon. For sure.

[A]

They had a great last weekend.

[B]

They certainly did. So on that note, thanks everybody for joining us on this Q A bonus episode of the Excellent Files. If you have a question for us, you can always find us. Our handle is@amanpur pod. Or email us@amanpod global.com and remember, you can always see it on our YouTube channel. You just go ahead and look for Christiana Manpur Presents and you can find it there. Presents the X Files. So don't forget to subscribe to that YouTube channel. And thank you for all your subscriptions because we're doing really well so far. So buy from London and goodbye from New York.

[A]

This has been a global player original production.