Trump's Iran War: what's the actual plan?

Summary

---

Podcast Summary

Podcast: Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files

Episode: Trump's Iran War: what's the actual plan?
Date: March 2, 2026
Hosts: Christiane Amanpour (B), Jamie Rubin (A)

---

Overview of the Episode

This emergency episode, released ahead of schedule due to fast-developing events, grapples with the sudden escalation of U.S. and Israeli military action against Iran following the targeted killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Christiane Amanpour and her ex-husband Jamie Rubin, both veteran foreign policy experts, dissect the motivations, tenuous logic, downstream risks, and lack of coherent "day after" planning behind what US President Trump has described as a historic opportunity for regime change. The hosts bring together insights from decades in journalism and diplomacy, offering a candid, layered, and sometimes darkly humorous look at the meaning and consequences of a policy that appears part improvisation, part wishful thinking, and wholly perilous—for Iran, the wider Middle East, and the international system.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. No Clear Plan for the 'Day After'

• Jamie Rubin makes clear that while the US and Israel have succeeded in weakening the Iranian regime militarily and targeting its leadership, there is scant evidence of a coherent transition strategy or "exit plan."
  • “There is no exit strategy.” (A, 00:35)
  • “The rest of the countries don’t believe the United States and Israel have a plan to achieve their regime change.” (A, 05:47)
  • The lack of clarity is heightened by inconsistent statements from President Trump ("I have ideas about who’s going to take over, but wouldn’t say who.") and the sense of improvisation evident in their public rhetoric. (B, 09:17–09:28)

2. The Myth of Spontaneous Uprising

• The hosts repeatedly challenge the belief that millions of ordinary Iranians, traumatized by decades of repression and recent cycles of deadly crackdowns, will heed outside calls to "seize the moment" and topple the regime.
  • “Will millions of people come out in the street? And it would take millions to overcome the tens of thousands with guns...Will they face those bullets?” (B, 00:11; also 09:56–10:11)
  • “You can’t bomb guns out of people’s hands.” (A, 14:19)
  • The IRGC reportedly sent mass text warnings vowing an “iron fist” if unrest occurs. (B, 07:24)

3. Trump Administration’s Motivation and Faulty Analogies

• Trump is animated by comparisons to Venezuela and a belief that decapitating the regime will quickly force a more compliant leadership to emerge.
  • “Sorry to say … Iran is not Venezuela … In Venezuela it was a thugocracy. It wasn’t an ideological system. Deep down in the Iranian system is a belief in this Islamic regime.” (A, 09:56–10:34)
  • Both hosts challenge the applicability of Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc analogies ("analogies are dangerous if you don’t dig down" – A, 18:15), emphasizing the unique religious and ideological motivations sustaining the regime.

4. Regional and Global Consequences

• The attacks have expanded to non-Iranian bases (British, French, Gulf states), pulling long-reluctant European allies into a defensive posture and raising the risk of a broader conflagration.
  • “It’s a natural alliance because Iran has … led what they called an axis of resistance.” (A, 05:20)
  • “This war is expanding… many of these countries are having to decide whether to join in or not.” (B, 03:44)
• The ostensible rationale—imminent nuclear threat—does not withstand scrutiny, as both American and international intelligence suggest Iran’s capability remains years away.
  • “This is not about an imminent threat. It’s just not...None of that was an urgent threat.” (A, 23:20–25:09)

5. Impact on International Norms and Laws

• The episode repeatedly highlights how the operation sidelines established norms: no parliamentary or UN debate, no legal justification under international law, echoing Russia’s actions in Ukraine and potentially paving the way for similar moves by China in Taiwan.
  • “International law has become a bit of a joke. Russia invaded Ukraine… China is threatening to invade Taiwan…” (A, 25:49)
  • “All of that is thrown out the window now because you have a president who doesn’t believe in domestic law… and he doesn’t believe in international law.” (A, 31:29)

6. Dangers of Chaos: Lessons from Iraq, Libya, Syria

• The hosts underscore Iranian fears of chaos, referencing the US occupation in Iraq and collapses in Libya and Syria as cautionary tales. Most ordinary Iranians, while desperate for reform, fear total collapse more than continued oppression.
  • “The evil you know is better than the evil you don’t know is what will decide whether people go out in the street. And I fear that the evil they don’t know is bigger right now.” (A, 33:16)

7. Nuclear Proliferation as a Likely Lesson

• Rubin points out that the most durable result of such interventions is to convince future regimes to acquire nuclear weapons—making the world more dangerous and undermining the rationale for the original strikes.
  • “…the real lesson … is that they should have built nuclear weapons. … this war that we’ve just launched will generate an urgent desire on the part of many countries … to develop their own nuclear weapons so that their regimes are safe.” (A, 34:58–36:03)
  • North Korea is cited as the cautionary archetype—“he’s got 50 nuclear weapons. So nobody’s going to attack.” (A, 36:10)

8. The Price Paid by Ordinary People

• Throughout the episode, the hosts return to the fundamental reality that the biggest costs—in blood and chaos—will be borne by the Iranian people, not elites waging power struggles.
  • “As ever, the people will pay the highest price.” (B, 00:48; 36:18)
  • “There have been powerful statements from people in Iran … how much they hate the regime … but they’re not prepared to have nothing.” (A, 33:16)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “There is no exit strategy.”
  (Amanpour, 00:35)

• “Trump has said…he thinks that he can assassinate the leader, damage the country, and then another group will develop who want to do business with the United States and will become more pragmatic… sorry to say, for those who think this, Iran is not Venezuela.”
  (Rubin, 09:28–09:56)

• “You can’t bomb guns out of people’s hands.”
  (Rubin, 14:19)

• “This is not about an imminent threat. It’s just not…None of that was an urgent threat.”
  (Rubin, 23:20–25:09)

• “International law has become a bit of a joke…All of that is thrown out the window now because you have a president who doesn’t believe in domestic law…and he doesn’t believe in international law.”
  (Rubin, 25:49, 31:29)

• “The evil you know is better than the evil you don’t know is what will decide whether people go out in the street.”
  (Rubin, 33:16)

• “The real lesson … is that they should have built nuclear weapons.”
  (Rubin, 34:58)

• “As ever, the people will pay the highest price.”
  (Amanpour, 00:48; 36:18)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:35 — "There is no exit strategy" – Framing the lack of long-term planning
• 02:08–03:44 — Should the US decide Iran’s future? Historical comparison with past US inaction
• 03:44–05:47 — The war’s rapid regional escalation and shifting alliances
• 09:17–10:34 — Trump’s logic and misconceptions (Iran ≠ Venezuela)
• 14:19 — On the myth of spontaneous armed uprising
• 18:15–20:21 — Soviet Union and Iran: Why the analogy fails
• 23:20–25:09 — Legality and "imminent threat" under international law
• 25:49–31:29 — “Law of the jungle”: what the collapse of norms means for world order
• 33:16 — Iranian fears of regime collapse vs. fear of civil war
• 34:58–36:10 — On nuclear proliferation as the enduring lesson
• 36:18 — Recurring theme: Civilian suffering as the ultimate cost
• 37:01–40:08 — Recommendations and personal reflections

---

Recommendations (37:01–40:08)

• Jamie Rubin: Cites Amanpour’s own documentary, "Revolutionary Journey," as an essential watch for understanding Iran and defends her against critics who conflate journalism with advocacy.

  • “Few honest, objective journalists left in this world … you have been brave enough to risk banning from the regime on several occasions.” (A, 38:08)

• Christiane Amanpour: Recommends "The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam Will Shape the Future" by Vali Nasr, highlighting the necessity of understanding the ideological foundation of Iran’s theocracy.

---

Conclusion

This episode is a dense, urgent, and occasionally raw meditation on the ambiguous logic and immense dangers of the US and Israeli approach to Iran under President Trump. The hosts meticulously challenge the wishful thinking animating Western policy, from misplaced analogies to the fantasy of instant regime change. They show, with history, empathy, and searing honesty, that there is no pretty outcome—and that the greatest cost of this gamble, as ever, will be paid by civilians. Their core message: in geopolitics, especially in a region as bruised as the Middle East, no intervention is simple, no collapse is neat, and no one—but the people—suffers the fallout.

---

Transcript

[A]

This is a Global Player original podcast.

[B]

The real question now is who wins the battle of the street?

[A]

But will millions of people come out in the street? And it would take millions to overcome the tens of thousands with guns. Will they face those bullets?

[B]

But this is what Putin has wanted. He's never negotiated in good faith. What is to stop him now from pulling a Trump, pulling a Netanyahu and dropping a gosh darn bomb on Zelenskyy's head? This terrifies me, Christiane.

[A]

I fear this is gonna go on for a long time. This isn't a one and done. Weeks of bombing, then we see what happens on the streets, then we bomb again. There is no exit strategy.

[B]

Oh my God. And as ever, I'm telling you, as ever, the people will pay the highest price. Right, everybody, welcome to the latest episode of the X Files. It's about as an emergency one as we get in that we are dropping it today, Monday instead of the usual Tuesday, because it's a fast and furiously developing war between Israel and the United States and Iran and it's expanding. So we're going to ask, you know, US and Israel attack, what's the plan? Is there one for a day after Ayatollah Khomeini, supreme Leader after nearly 37 years dead, who replaces him? What will it do to the regime? Will it pave the way for regime change? And what do Iranians there actually want? So here we are. Jamie, I'm going to ask you one thing. President Trump has partly justified this in saying that this was the moment, this is a historical opportunity. It's the moment that no other US President took, despite the fact that there were always plans and contingencies for this kind of operation. Do you think your government and subsequent governments, including the George W. Bush government after 911 or Obama during the so called Green uprising in 2009, should have taken this action?

[A]

No, I don't think it's up to the United States to decide what kind of government is in Iran. It's up to the people of Iran. But, but there have been times when the US Government has prioritized its national security concerns, like the nuclear issue over the people of Iran, certainly human rights issues and the damage done by the Iranian regime to the people of Iran for these past 40 years has been not the highest priority for the US government. But in terms of launching a war with no urgent need, no imminent threat, and I think it's pretty obvious there was no imminent threat, that government is as weak as it's ever been. And the nuclear program was delayed, if not anything for several years. So this is a war of. People call it a war of choice. I would call it a preventive war. You're acting in advance with no preemption because you're facing a threat. It's a preventive war. I don't think it's up to the United States to try to bomb or way into a new government. And that's the problem here, is that the bombing is going to weaken the Iranian regime. It has. It will. And it will continue for several weeks. But will that be enough to cause a revolution, which is what you need? And I don't think so. I feel.

[B]

Okay. I really want to dive into that because for me, that's all that matters, is what happens on the. On the ground to, with and for the Iranian people. Because, as you say, to be frank, no Western democratic government, you know, based on human rights has ever put the Iranian people's rights at the top of the agenda or as you say, anywhere on the agenda. It's always been the hard power. Now, let's just talk about the latest, because the latest is that Fast and Furious, this war is expanding. And it's gone to the Gulf states, It's gone to a British air base in Cyprus. It's gone to a French base base. It's gone to, you know, all these. All these allies of the United States. And now many of these countries are having to decide whether to join in or not. The British and the French and the Germans have said that they will allow now their bases to be used for defensive actions, even though they are not going to be, they say, taking part in any offensive actions. But we'll see. So are you surprised that, oh, my gosh, shock and horror, Iran has retaliated? They telegraphed it.

[A]

No, I'm not surprised. I predicted this precisely because the regime is on its last legs. The last time around, their retaliation from the Israeli and American attacks was rather modest, was very careful, was designed to de. Escalate. This time they are throwing what they can at the rest of the world because they are on their last legs. They've lost their leader. And. And that leader was and was important to that regime as a symbol and a reality of power.

[B]

That's Ayatollah Khamenei, who'd be.

[A]

Exactly. And so they made clear they were gonna do this. But what this does show is the tragedy here. There is a natural alliance between the United States, European countries, Arab countries, and Israel. It's a natural alliance because Iran has been the country that has led a, what they called an axis of resistance, the region. And we have to remember that had Israel been able to make a peace agreement with the Palestinians, all of this would have been in an organized way. Saudi Arabia and Israel together, the Arab countries and Europeans and Americans together. Now Iran thinks it's going to make things worse by causing this damage to the region, but has now forced Europeans and Arab countries to align with the United States and Israel, frankly, in a way they didn't want to. The British didn't want to be part of this. They didn't believe it was justified. But now because of the attack, presumably on this base in Cyprus and others, they're now in an alliance. It's an uncomfortable alliance because the rest of the countries don't believe the United States and Israel have a plan to achieve their regime change. And so in the end, what this will do, I'm sure, is weaken the Iranian regime even further. The threat to Israel, the threat to the Arabs will be weaker. The missiles, the navy, things that threaten the outside world. But inside Iran, that's where the challenge is. And I don't see anything developing yet that tells me the people are going to rise up.

[B]

So let's walk through that because one of the most alarming aspects of this is not that they want regime change, but that there is no, and I'm talking about Israel and the United States, no, at least delineated, explained, case made for any day after. So let's just recap what I've been told about what's happening inside Iran. I'm in contact with some people privately, not officials who talk about going out into the streets and celebrating the death of or the killing of Khamenei on Saturday morning, they quote, which has now been, I think widely reported, sort of a speech from or allegory from the Shahnameh, the book of shahs by the famous poet Ferdowsi. Basically you Khamenei are Zaki, who was a horrible monster, two headed serpents on their shoulder and was a monster. Now you're under the earth. They say it's a bit of a rhyme in Persian, not in English. So there's been a lot of that. There has also been quite a lot of organized mourning ceremonies that the regime has managed to bring people out either spontaneously or not, or they brought them out who have been mourning harmony. So to me the real question now is who wins the battle of the street today? I've been told that the irgc, the Revolutionary Guard Corps, has issued text messages to every Iranian phone which is One of the ways they keep control. Do not come out and protest. You will be met with an iron fist. And therein lies the problem, which I do not know and none of us know where it's going to end. And Jamie, that's an open question. The other question is, and we'll get to who's running the place right now is what Trump has been saying publicly and what Netanyahu have. They've been calling on the Iranian people now, now to come out on the streets and seize the moment that here we are giving you this historic opportunity. Now come out as they say, that they're going to continue bombing for a long time. And the other thing, Jamie, that just struck me crazy is Trump saying first to the New York Times that a, this could go on for three to four weeks. I have, you know, three, you know, I have ideas about who's going to take over, but wouldn't say who. And then to ABC a couple of hours later said, of the three people I had in mind, we killed two of them. So, I mean, what does that actually mean?

[A]

All right, I think one can sift through this and come to a pretty simple conclusion. Trump has said the president, that this is going to be like Venezuela. He said it, he thinks it will be. He thinks that he can assassinate the leader, damage the country, and then another group will develop who want to do business with the United States and will become more pragmatic.

[B]

You mean from inside and from inside

[A]

the way they did in Venezuela where they just removed the top guy and the number two, started working with the United States. Sorry. Sorry to say, for those who think this Iran is not Venezuela, this is a regime whose revolutionary anti Americanism is part of their DNA. That's not true in Venezuela. In Venezuela, it was a thugocracy. It wasn't an ideological system. Deep down in the Iranian system is a belief in this Islamic regime. Now, how many people are part of that isn't is an open question. But we know there are tens of thousands who believe this. Wrongly, in my opinion, but they believe it. I've seen there, I've been there, I've visited it with you. You know it better than I do. There are tens of thousands of people who believe in the Islamic revolution and the Islamic regime. Alternatively, the people who would have to come out, all they know now is they want to get rid of the regime. But will millions of people come out in the street? And it would take millions to overcome the tens of thousands with guns after seeing what happened to their friends and relatives and colleagues, when tens of thousands were probably killed in the last time around in January, will they face those bullets and for the president to sort of throw it over to them as if he's saying, well, I've done what I can. Now you, millions of people have to come out in the street and brave bullets where tens of thousands, if not more will die from the IRGC and Basij. Who will shoot them? I have no doubt that they're going to shoot them. How many will, I don't know. And people say, well, what about arming the rebels? There are no rebels. The only rebels in Iran, you know better than me, are in places like Azerbaijani borders or Kurdish borders. They're not throughout the country. So I don't understand why they think this is going to be so easy and why the president is so casual about thinking the people are just going to, he said the IRGC is going to hand their weapons to the people. Well, who and why would they do that? So all this tells you is they don't understand Iran. They've hated the place. They took this opportunity. They think it's going to be easy. It's not going to be easy. We've seen that already.

[B]

Let's deep, let's dig a little bit further into that because this is for me the crucial question. So, yes, the president said, surrender your arms to the Iranian nation is similar words that Reza Pahlavi, the main exiled opposition leader, used to the, to the military there, surrender your arms to the Iranian people. But he also told the people, stay in place for now. Don't come out on the street. Protest from inside your houses, on your roofs or whatever, but don't come out until we give you the sign. So that's quite clear. They believe then that there is a period of time that this bombardment will last. Trump has said four to five weeks. And then maybe there's a moment of opportunity that they will call people onto the streets. Okay, that's what they believe. And it might happen. The other side, though, Trump is signaling a sort of a Venezuela and other kind of mode because he sort of said, Venezuela, that would be perfect. That's working so great for us in the United States. But he also said, or maybe there's a transition to be had in Iran or maybe there's somebody we can work with and somebody we can negotiate with. And I've heard from a source that the, if there is any planning, the kind of plan is for Reza Pahlavi and an insider. That's what I've heard from an insider in Iran And I'm like, okay, who's the insider? And Trump said, anyway, two of the insiders that we thought about are being killed. But then the question is, does Reza Pahlavi accept to work with insiders? He said he wants to do a transition, but his people are very clear that nobody should have anything to do do. And it's all online. People can go and have a look at it with any regime types. They call them. You know, anybody who suggests that is called a collaborator. And they say that anybody with blood on their hands has to be strung up. So I don't know how this works.

[A]

It doesn't work the way people are saying to me, the only chance, the only chance is that these millions of people do come out after the bombing stops, because they're not going to come out during the bombing other than to come look at the bombing from their rooftops. They're going to be dealing with destruction across the country. They're going to be trying to get food and medicine and figure out where their families are and try to do the normal things in daily life. And will they then think that if millions of them come out, the IRGC won't shoot them, the besieged won't shoot them, or only a small number will shoot them, and then a small number of people will take over a police station and get some weapons, and then there'll be some battles on the street, and then the IRGC and besiege have to put their weapons down. And I don't understand why we think that's going to happen when my experience tells me that there are too many of them willing to shoot their own people. And the experience is what just happened in January, the brutality with which it was put down. Now, maybe, just maybe, deep inside the IRGC types, there are those who've never believed in this, and they're just doing it for their own good. Maybe, just maybe. But it's a pretty thin read when you have evidence of what the people with the guns are going to do. The other side doesn't have any guns. You can't bomb guns out of people's hands.

[B]

Okay, so there is one other group, as you know, Jamie, the mek, which I think has weapons, but nobody really takes them seriously as a legitimate opposition because they've been, you know, they've have, or they were named as terrorists for a long time by both Britain and the United States. They have had senior U.S. officials or former officials on their payroll. So they've had a very, very clever campaign inside the United States and inside Europe over the years to say they are the legitimate democratic opposition. They call themselves the Iran, I think the Iranian Council of Resistance, something like that. In any event, they're basically based in Albania, having been based in Saddam Hussein's Iraq and were kicked out after he cleared out.

[A]

Not going to be them, Chris.

[B]

So here's, here's, here's, here's a question. Israel, the United States, CIA obviously had great intelligence. They have shown over and again, whether it's the walkie talkies and the pages for the Hezbollah types in Lebanon, whether it's bombing, you know, and taking out Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas in Tehran last summer or so, whether it was, you know, targeting that building that, you know, Iranian official building in Damascus and taking it, taking out Revolutionary Guards, very surgical, precise, successful targeting. Even the last time when they went after in the 12 Day War, so many of the system's leaders and got rid of them. And the thing on Saturday was quite extraordinary. And from what I've been told, maybe this is public now, I don't know that, you know, the Iranian leadership thought that if it hadn't happened on Friday night, it wasn't going to happen in the morning on Saturday because historically the missions have been started overnight. So they decided to meet and I'm being told that they must have an insider. It can't all just be techcoms, you know, SIGINT or whatever. So the question, Jamie, for you, since you know a lot about the Israelis, the intelligence American relying on intelligence and this and that, if they manage that, does it then follow that they have inside information about what could happen next? And many people say, look, everybody thought the Soviet Union would never collapse. And then one day the Berlin Wall fell and then two years later the Soviet Union collapsed.

[A]

You're right. Let me try to address that because it is the mega question. Look, everybody likes to use analogies, but analogies are dangerous if you don't dig down. Soviet Union was a brittle system. We've read over and over again about people in Eastern Europe, but Iran is

[B]

too, to be fair, its economy is, I mean, devastating.

[A]

I'm talking about brittle that nobody believed the ideology. Nobody believed the ideology in the Soviet Union. Everyone knew the place didn't work. There are still too many people in Iran in the system, either benefiting from the system or believing in the system because it's a religious basis.

[B]

Yeah, but that's still the critical question because I have always maintained that and nobody will take this seriously. But there have been elections in Iran, not the kind of elections that you and I are used to not democracy.

[A]

Christian, you're right.

[B]

But no, no, most people voted for change and voted for the Islamic system. You know what I mean? In a choice between two evils, I

[A]

think you're absolutely right.

[B]

They try to choose the lesser of those two evils.

[A]

I think you're right. Most Iranians want change. That is tens of millions of them. My problem here is that it only takes tens of thousands with guns who believe in the Islamic regime, who believe in the revolutionary regime, who've demonstrated just last month in January, that they will shoot their own people in the face, kill them. Tens of thousands, if you don't break that group either directly through some military action or through some technical means. That's an ideological opinion. It's not something you can just break up from the air. And if those people are willing to shoot, then you need millions, millions willing to face those guns. And if Iran was the Soviet Union, where the system was false, people knew it was false. Unfortunately, tens of thousands of Iran still believe in it.

[B]

Yeah. Okay, we've got to take a break, Take a quick break and we will come back to actually look to what might happen, the ripple effects of all of this. And we'll talk about that when we come back because there's some pretty difficult questions to ask about what message this sends to the likes of Putin XI and others. When we come back, It's sports, greatest soap opera and we've got your VIP pass to all the drama. This is up to Speed, your new Formula One podcast with me, Will Buxton, David Coulthard, Naomi Schiff and Jolie Sharp. Expect unfiltered race reactions, behind the scenes insight and blockbuster interviews, plus answers to the questions you've always wanted to ask, like do F1 drivers pass their driving tests first time? Spoiler.

[A]

They don't.

[B]

When the race weekend's over, we're here

[A]

to keep you up to speed.

[B]

Listen and watch today. Search up to Speed on Global Player. Up to speed. Okay, Jamie, we're back, everybody. We're back with our second segment. Basically continuing all the questions that are out there. First and foremost, we need to say that Iran claims the Red Crescent Society. There more than 500 people, civilians, they say have been killed, but including more than 100, many of them elementary students in one of the towns outside of Tehran that was struck in the opening salvo. And notes suggest that this location might previously have been an IRGC base. But still children have been killed. There have been deaths in Israel and I think some elsewhere where Iran has retaliated. So this is ratcheting up very fast. Jamie, I really first want to understand because Israeli president was asked today and many American officials have been asked about a, the legality and the notion of preemptive or preventative strike generally under international law, that means you face an imminent threat. And many have said that the US And Israel have broken international law because it never went to anything. Not their parliaments, not the UN Nothing. And others have said in this era, international law doesn't exist anymore. So there's so much there in that one statement. So Jamie Bloomberg suggests that U.S. defense Intelligence Agency assessment said that Iran's nuclear progress remained constrained, while the Israeli intelligence painted a far more urgent picture. Some U.S. officials, according to this Bloomberg report, quietly warned Trump's top envoys not to lean too heavily on the Israeli conclusions. From your perspective, who's wagging this dog, right?

[A]

This is not about an imminent threat. It's just not, you know, whatever damage was done to the nuclear enrichment facilities was damaged that would take years to repair and turn into a weapon. It's not about a nuclear threat. It's not about a missile threat because the icbm, the international threat to the United States is a decade away or more. So this is how and yet Trump

[B]

used some of that. The Trump officials, right, it's been reported as flimsy evidence and flimsy basis, but they use some of that to convince.

[A]

I'm deeply conflicted by these events because I have a natural instinct to want my military for the United States to be successful. And the odd thing here is the US Military is a pretty efficient and organized and thoughtful entity and does its job extremely well. They're not being led by people who know how to achieve a political objective because I think the military told the, the civilians, in this case President Trump and his advisors, we can destroy Iran's military and its security structures. We can weaken them, we can make them no longer a threat to the region, but we cannot guarantee regime change. And that's why you see Trump backing and forthing between a three to four week war that destroys their missiles, that destroys their navy, that destroys their air force, that gives Israel and the United States freedom to fly all over the country. That they can do. And the military will do it. There will be some casualties that result from that today. I gather we found out Kuwaiti air defenses shot down American planes.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. It's apparently friendly fire. Was it Kuwait?

[A]

That was. Kuwaiti air defenses thought the American planes were in, you know, coming in because missiles were coming in and they shot them down. Now fortunately the pilots evacuated and were not killed. But this just shows you that war is uncertain. What is certain is that Iran will be weaker. What is certain is that the missile capability will be down to the minimum. But none of that was an urgent threat. And that's why there's no lawyers who are going to figure out a way to legitimately claim the so called international law was met in this case. But I have to admit that international law has become a bit of a joke. Russia invaded Ukraine. International law suggested that the Security Council should have put a response to that invasion. But Russia's on the Security Council. China is threatening to invade Taiwan. That would be a violation. So what we've done here, every other case there's been at least a plausible argument that something urgent or imminent existed. The reason the British didn't participate is because the British are a legalistic country and they needed some plausible argument and there was none.

[B]

Well, now they have.

[A]

Change is not a plausible argument.

[B]

Now, now they said they will that now they've changed their mind, they've changed

[A]

lanes and said because they were, they're operating defensively and they were attacked by the Iranians and now they have a reason to participate because the Iranians attacked in a military base of the British or they needed to help their allies in the Iranian retaliation.

[B]

I think that's the first one because Iran apparently attacked after Starmer made this statement. I think I'm right about saying that, that they were.

[A]

In any event, I think the British were operating very legalistically because that's what they do. I've been this in the Kosovo era and the Iraq era. They need their lawyers have to come up with something that meets a certain test. And that's why so many European countries didn't jump on board until after the Iranians retaliated.

[B]

I've heard, you know, obviously, you know, officials from Israel and from the United States speaking this morning. Their answer, instead of coming up with some kind of legalistic thing as you described the Brits have done, is to say there's no international law. What is international law? You want us to be friends with these murderers? That's their view. The other thing you say you want nothing more than your country to do well and I want nothing more than the Iranian people to be successful in having a free, democratic, affordable and life. Basically. I want to ask you because you raised Putin and xi, so I'm going to ask the unaskable and the unutterable. I really don't even want to ask this, but first of all we know that because Witkoff said it, that the negotiations were, in a sense, this is my word, a ruse, because they were never negotiations. They were to get capitulation. Witkoff said it. He said Trump was frustrated that the military buildup had not forced a capitulation. So that, that, is that right. So they went, they had talks, and if Iran didn't bend over, then it was going to be bombing. So that's not negotiation. That is capitulation. But this is what, you know, Putin has wanted. He's never negotiated in good faith. He wants capitulation by Ukraine. What is to stop him now from pulling a Trump, pulling a Netanyahu, and dropping a gosh darn bomb on Zelensky's head? This terrifies me. Am I out of my mind? You think it's out of the realm of possibility? And what is to stop Xi taking whatever route he wants to take to ensure Taiwan remains part of China? I mean, I Gen. And, and, and, and the, the first war aim of, of Putin was to decapitate the Kiev leadership. Now he's literally being given carte blanche.

[A]

Look, many thinkers and writers and strategists talk about the law of the jungle and how in the modern era, after World War II, we tried to end the law of the jungle, the era of wars between states and chaos between states, so that the world could grow and thrive. The law of the jungle has been revived by this administration because the President has made clear that it makes right, in this case what he wants, because he has a powerful military he wants to get. He wants them to capitulate. They didn't capitulate, so I'm going to attack them. I know that sounds sort of juvenile, but I think at one level, that's what's going on here. And so the United States will take generations, decades, to be able to put this kind of a military operation behind it and re win the support and cooperation of its allies around the world who will believe that this great power we have, remember, the United States has this unique, awesome military. And the fact that we have largely used it. I know people will disagree with me because they hate various operations, but largely, we've tried to justify our uses of force. We've tried to have at least noble goals, even if they were badly implemented. We've tried to follow, to an extent, the principles of international law. All of that is thrown out the window now because you have a president who doesn't believe in domestic law, as we've seen in many cases in Minnesota and all over, and he doesn't believe in international law. The voters voted him in. And unless our voters start turning America to the country that people believed at least operated with some principles, this awesome power, other countries are going to be able to make us look hypocritical when we oppose what they do. And yes, you're right, Vladimir Putin wanted to kill Zelensky in the first few weeks and he was protected and saved. You're right. Xi will use this if he invades Taiwan. Because one day we woke up and decided we wanted to change the Iranian regime with no imminent threat. And that is a world of the jungle. We can rebuild it. It will take time, but first we have to see what happens here. And Christiane, I fear this is going to go on for a long time. There is no exit strategy. UN you just say we wanted to degrade their military and we can do that and then let the world evolve as it will. But to think we can dictate millions of people coming out in the streets and facing the bullets of the irgc. I'm sorry, that is not realistic. That's really, really, really unrealistic.

[B]

Unless they decide to change sides like they did in Iraq. But then the problem was they were told that they'd be part of a new Iraq, and then the US Bailed on that. I, I do worry a little bit about the Iraq, because I remember I was there. The Iraq military operation by the US And Britain and the others was successful. It took three weeks. Saddam was overthrown and there was no opposition, frankly, because the US Told them, stay in place, hunker down, you'll be part of our new Iraq. And then the US Broke that promise. And more to the point, there was a plan. It was the plan that Colin Powell and his people had written for the transition. But the Defense Department, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and his guys ripped it up and did debathification and did occupation and created the insurgency that to this day is having ripple effects. So all I know is that I want the Iranian people to be successful. And I just hope to God and hope and pray that they can be.

[A]

And that's really an important sort of bottom line. I've seen some powerful statements from Iran, people in Iran who've talked about how much they hate the regime, how much they want change, how much their lives are not acceptable the way they are, but they're not prepared to have nothing. They've seen Libya, they've seen Iraq, they've seen Syria, they've seen what total chaos and civil war brings to these. And the Iranian People are very dignified people, and I'm not sure they want to choose chaos and, and, and no government over the evil that they know. And it's evil. But the old phrase, the evil you know is better than the evil you don't know is what will decide whether people go out in the streets. And I fear that the evil they don't know is bigger right now.

[B]

So what I also fear is that no matter what happens, as we've seen, Israel is doing it all over the region. The Netanyahu government, including in liberated Syria, they're still bombing it, because they have no interest in a strong and unfailed state. They want a failed and fragmented state. They think that helps their security. And I'm very worried that they might think that about Iran as well. And, and, and it would be a disaster for the country. But then, nonetheless, this is an incredible moment. The Israeli President Herzog today told the BBC that, and the way, you know, this war ends will shape the Middle East. And I think he might have even said the world forever. He said, the future of the Middle east depends on success in this war.

[A]

Let me just bring it down to the core level here. And this is where I started in government and foreign policy. It was about nuclear weapons and arms control. What's really going to be the lesson of this attack on the regime in Iran is that the, that they should have built nuclear weapons. And one of the architects of all of this has been quoted somewhere saying, I think it's. It may not be Lara Johnny or some other, one of the other major players, that when they were in a time when they had enrichment, when they could have made a nuclear weapon in the 90s and the 2000s, let's say to 2000 to 2010, they should have done so, because in a regime like this, with a nuclear weapon is a totally different case. And I fear that this war that we've just launched will generate a urgent desire on the part of many countries in this law of the jungle, this world of chaos without law, without principles, without a leader that people trust to develop their own nuclear weapons so that their regimes are safe. Kim Jong Il.

[B]

Kim Jong Un. Yeah.

[A]

Jong Un in North Korea is as hated as any leader, but he's got 50 nuclear weapons.

[B]

So nobody's going to attack after failed negotiations. Yeah. With Donald Trump, because he didn't have a plan and he didn't see it through, you know, and, and it's, it's. Oh, my God. And as ever, I'm telling you, as ever, the people will pay the highest price. They will pay the highest price unless there is a Berlin War moment. And I think everybody there is hoping that that will be the case. We're going to take a break now and come back with our recommendations. All right, everybody. We've had a pretty robust discussion of all the pros and cons and the maybes and the what's and the ifs about the current war on Iran and the expanding war. Now it's recommendation time. Jamie, go ahead.

[A]

Well, you know, in the Senate, when a senator wants to say something personal, they start off, they say, I want to point out point of personal privilege. So I'm going to take a point of personal privilege here. I have watched with horror, shock and fury people attack you for doing your job. And it seems to come from those who don't understand what it means to be a journalist and to take risks and to be brave. You have demonstrated that in your career on Iran. Let me just give the first example as my recommendation. You wrote, did a documentary called Revolutionary Journey. You went into Iran. You interviewed average people. You brought up your family's experiences. You showed people having alcohol in their homes with the doors closed. They banned you from Iran. I think it was five or six years later on, you sat in an interview with an Iranian official who refused to show up because you wouldn't wear a headscarf during the very times that, that the headscarf became a political issue

[B]

inside Iran after of Masa Amini.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. And you also were banned after the Green Revolution. These people who attack you for not being supportive enough of Reza Pahlavi. That's what it's all about. They want you to be a, a megaphone for their cause. They don't understand journalism. You have been brave enough to risk. Banned, banning from the regime. On several occasions, you've been been banned. What more could people ask for? Holding leaders to account. Then you had an interview with the Reza Pahlavi and you asked normal journalistic, hard questions. That's your job. What they probably didn't like was that you got him to denounce the crazies in his camp who attack everyone who doesn't agree with them. Journalists job is not to take a side. It's to be brave enough to, to, as you say, report without fear or favor. You've done that. And for me to see all these people who, who hate the regime, to blame you somehow, to think they can push you to one side or the other, that's not your job. And people should wake up and understand there are a Few honest, objective journalists left in this world. Every network is skewed. Not everyone. Too many of them are skewed one way or the other. Every issue is politicized. People can't know what is as objective as you be. You've tried to be that. And for you to be attacked by these people infuriates me. So Revolutionary Journey was the first documentary. There have been many other things you've done. I remember it caused you to be banned. And these people who attack you ought to watch that documentary and then decide whether they should attack.

[B]

Is that, is that your recommendation? I'm blushing. I don't know whether you can see. All I can tell you is that I'm being defended by my ex and.

[A]

But I couldn't take it anymore. Everyone sends me these attacks, attacks on you. And I'm like, are you crazy?

[B]

I know, But I've also, thank God, had so much, so much love has come out of this. So many Iranians are saying, you've done your job. You keep doing your job. We love you, we're proud of you. So that's, that's fine. The one thing I will say is that Reza Pahlavi himself was super gracious, was fine with the interview, and it was a professional job. So I, I have no problem whatsoever. And I do think, and maybe we can talk more about it in the, in the bonus Q and A. It goes to the heart of how, how these days, any conflict is so politicized that it becomes weaponized. So you can't even. Well, I can. I do do my job objectively, but, you know, it's hard with that sort of cost. But, but I've had so much love, so much love, and I'm so pleased and proud to have been a young Iranian who became a journalist because of this revolution and who actually spent the last 40 plus years humanizing, as I started to say in this program, the Iranian people. The Iranian people who were collectively punished and demonized by a world. So we maybe talk a little bit more about that in the bonus segment. But my recommendation, going to the heart of what you said, Jamie, that this is a ideological theocracy who doesn't play by the same rules or instincts that maybe others would. So I recommend the Shia revival. It is not a new book. How Conflicts with Islam Will Shape the Future is by our friend Vali NASA, who's a frequent guest on my show, who used to work for the Obama State Department, the Hillary Clinton State Department, and who's one of the best historians on this and particularly goes into the heart of Shiism, which is, you know, Iran is a Shiite nation and it's the only major Shiite power in the world. And it's a very particular ideological, religious journey that they take. And I think what's clear is for 47 years there has been a complete lack of understanding between Iran and the United States, at least between the, the, the politicians and the leaders. And they just like talking past each other, bombing, past each other, bombing their own people. And from, for me, I think Iran's, the current regime's greatest threat has been to its own people. On that note, Jamie, it's been a robust discussion and there's so many unanswered questions and we still have to wait and see. Trump will be speaking. Hegseth will be speaking. We're going to come back on Thursday with our bonus, you know, bonus episode, which we hope you will send us lots of questions about this issue because we want to really focus on this issue, particularly as the, the war is expanding and there's increasing, increasing so called collateral damage beyond Iran itself, beyond Israel perhaps beyond the region. So we will keep looking at this and don't forget again, you can always catch us on globalplayer.com for the audio part of the podcast and on our YouTube channel, just search Christiana Monport presents the X Files and you'll find where you can watch this and of course the bonus episode. But for now, Jamie, we watch and wait and monitor.

[A]

Very good. We will wait and see. Time will tell, unfortunately.

[B]

And thanks for your defense. You can be my lawyer in court.

[A]

This has been a global Player original production.