Reza Pahlavi (2:16)

Well, it seems like that would be the best thing that could happen. For 47 years, they've been talking and talking and talking. In the meantime, we've lost a lot of lives while they talk and legs blown off, arms blown off, faces blown off. Has been going on for a long time. So let's see what happens. In the meantime, we have. Meantime we have. Tremendous power has arrived and additional power, as you know, and other carriers going out shortly. So we'll see it how, if we could get it settled for once and for all, that would be Good.

Jamie Rubin (2:49)

So, Jamie, 47 years he mentions because it is now 47 years since the an Islamic republic was declared. I find that really interesting that he's moved back towards the military posture because he was moving away slightly and towards negotiations. And as we speak, Jamie, a maybe last round of negotiations between Trump special envoys Witkoff, Jared Kushner and others along with the Iranians, is taking place on Tuesday in Geneva. So what do you think is the most likely outcome there?

Christiane Amanpour (3:25)

Well, obviously the first answer to that is I don't know. But I would speculate along the following lines. I found it stunning and I smiled because I the way Donald Trump as president talks about regime change in this casual way, as if, you know, I might make it better, I might do this and it would be better and, you know, solve the problem. Not realizing, I don't think anyone in the administration, frankly, at the top levels, the depth of the power of the regime there and how difficult it would be to take out a regime that is organized itself around an Islamic revolution and a leader, Khamenei, who has ultimate and supreme power in that system and have demonstrated that tens of thousands of their foot soldiers will shoot and kill those protesters. So in the absence of an invasion, which is obviously not going to happen, I don't really see how military power will change the regime. Now, that doesn't mean we won't do it. When you build forces up like this and you remember a second parrot carrier battle group, that's a big deal to move all these systems into the region. And what happened was last time he threatened to use force if they continued the crackdown. He encouraged the people, the administration to put come out and protest and then failed to help them when the regime started slaughtering them. And that is a black mark on my country's government that I think will take a long time to erase. I suspect that hurts and he knows that. And the regime, sorry, our system, our government leaders know that. And so I find it hard to believe they're bluffing this time.

Jamie Rubin (5:16)

Right. And actually Senator Lindsey Graham, who's a big Trump supporter and has always been against the Iranian regime, remember he was amongst the bomb, bomb, bomb Iran cohort during the 2003 Iraq invasion. But he was saying, yes, we need somehow to have regime change there. And I was speaking to quite a lot of diplomats on background, off the record, Middle Eastern key Middle Easterners, Israeli, European and others. And the consensus appeared to be that something is coming, something military is coming. And there was a bit of a confusion as to what would it be attacking again, the Nuclear sites? Would it be an attempt to get this 400 kilos of highly enriched uranium? Would it be the missile defense sites and the ballistic missile areas? Would it be regime targets that have gone after the people I.e. iRGC and others? Graham was saying what we have to do is make it so that the people of Iran can do their own regime change. And I found that really interesting because as you said, Jamie, a week ago they started to back off the military thing. But I was told this week that one of the reasons that they backed off was because they did not have enough US Military in place. As you just said, a lot more is steaming there. A lot is there already. Now they need to defend and protect, I don't know, Americans which are in some eight bases in the Middle east there they need to help protect their allies like Qatar, like Israel. And that's why they're building up this force in case they do that and Iran, you know, retaliates. But the interesting thing is that Reza Pahlavi, who is the leading well known opposition figure in exile, he is the Shah's son, the late Shah's son, the Shah was overthrown by the Islamic revolution back in 1979. And he has now become the person around whom more and more people, certainly in the diaspora, are rallying this weekend he had called for, I'm going to call it a Valentine's Day action. It was February 14, calling on people to mobilize all over the world. And there's a figure of between 600,000 to a million people in the diaspora turned out from Australia to Munich to the United States to Europe and elsewhere over the weekend. So that's a lot of people now it is the diaspora and they do rally around him just to let people know, Jamie, you know, you and I met him, didn't we, a few years ago in Washington. He wasn't front and center of the opposition movement back then, but he has put himself forward in the last several years, most importantly during the women life, freedom and then now after this brutal crackdown and people calling his name in Iran during the latest, during the latest protests. So he was there and I spoke to him. But just a thought, Jamie, about who the west might rally around in terms of if they do regime change.

Christiane Amanpour (8:33)

You know, I've been in government for, I don't know, 15 odd years in the executive branch. I've seen decisions made about the use of force. I've examined scenarios about that sort of subject on several occasions. I don't see how they regime targets in a way that will yield help for the protesters. And I say that because the protesters are fighting tens of thousands of foot soldiers armed with small weapons. It's not like there's some central location you can take out, as the people like to say, using air power, and somehow change the equation. I guess, theoretically you could try to kill their leader. But that's not how the system works. The system works based on an elaborate mechanism of control. So much so that they control everyone's access to the Internet. They follow them on the Internet. They have a massive control system and a willingness to kill. And when you have that, it's really, really hard. I've never seen as much willingness to fight as there is today in Iran. And outside. I agree this is a big deal. This is a big moment. And the, you know, millions inside Iran who protested and the hundreds of thousands, if not a million who spoke outside, it's a lot of people. But how do you organize that in a way that changes the regime? I don't get it.

Jamie Rubin (10:05)

Well, I think we're sitting on the edge of perhaps the most serious and focused attempt by Reza Pahlavi and the diaspora that he leads the monarchists to convince the United States that this is the moment and to try to convince people and, and leaders in the other parts of the world as well that are relevant. For instance, when I was in Munich, I sat down and had a conversation with him, but also with some of his aides. One of them is a UK based aide, Justin Forsyth. And he's quoted as saying, and you know, I'll play now what Reza Pahlavi says. But Justin says Pahlavi is making the case that the Iranian people want the US to militarily intervene. The Iranian people want and need US help. So I put that to Reza Pahlavi during our conversation and he started with the fact and he called it, you know, the sea of blood. So he's talking about what happened with all these people who rose up over these last late December, early January, who were then bloodily crushed. And as I said, the crackdown continues in various different ways. So this is what he said about intervention.

Reza Pahlavi (11:17)

This is really something that is right under our eyes. There's a sea of blood that separates today Iranian people with this regime. So if you ask me whether this time the nation is fed up and ready to act, they are. What we do need, however, is an equalizing factor because we saw how the regime treated its own citizens. That's where I think a lot of Iranians, inside and outside, hope that an intervention that will Neutralize the regime. Instrument of repression will finally give us an opportunity for.

Jamie Rubin (11:46)

And what does that look like is that intervention by the United States? Certainly even now, I know people are saying inside Iran, certainly everybody outside Iran, that they are waiting for President Trump to actually deliver on what he said. Remember, he said, seize your institutions, help is on the way, etc. And it didn't happen.

Reza Pahlavi (12:07)

Well, not yet. And I think the reason it hasn't is perhaps because, first of all, mobilizing for it is not an easy affair. We have to consider many aspects. But most importantly, I think President Trump realizes that he needs to convince the whole world that I've given a diplomatic solution or diplomatic effort the maximum chance.

Jamie Rubin (12:25)

And that seems to be what President Trump is doing. Right? I mean, he is going walking the diplomatic route, while also, as you used to say, you know, it's diplomacy backed by the threat of force because there's force buildup in the Gulf. And now the question is, do they actually get to a agreement of something or again, will it fail? And then will they be. Will their hand be forced or their hand liberated in order to take action?

Christiane Amanpour (12:57)

Right. I think Mr. Pahlavi is giving too much credit to the diplomatic effort as part of a global diplomacy to build the case for force. This administration doesn't actually spend enormous amounts of efforts trying to build diplomatic support for its uses of force. They prefer to do it and talk about it afterwards or get support afterwards. So I don't think that diplomacy is designed to back the use of force the way he suggested. That's what he hope. But what he said, and I think this is the nub of the issue, the instruments of control and repression need to be equalized. That's the nub of what he said by the United States. But he doesn't even begin to understand what that entails because it's their instruments of repression, as I keep saying, and I hate to be a one note, but I think it's the nub of the issue are the tens of thousands of foot soldiers willing to shoot protesters. That is the instrument of repression, oppression and control, as is their control of the Internet. Those are things that you cannot destroy from the air. And to suggest that you can, to imply that you can, I think is misleading. And so I think where we are is some set of airstrikes that show that he did something that weakened their missile systems and missile production, possibly another hit on the nuclear to show that it wasn't all for naught. And then to have in place the elaborate system to defend against Iran's likely retaliation because, remember, this time they're likely to do, or possibly will do more because they're at the end of their ropes. They know how weak they are, they know how isolated they are. They know how damaged they are. And so they're less likely to, you know, to hold back. And there are a lot of targets they can hit in the region. That's why it took so long to build up these defensive air systems and aircraft and battle air carrier battle groups so that we can defend all those sites. But again, that doesn't change the regime. On the other hand, I've said before, and I'll say again, there is a deal on the table on the nuclear. It's right in front of us. We can smell it. Whether you could do that and use force, I have my doubts. But that's possible, too. But none of this is regime change.

Jamie Rubin (15:21)

As you can imagine. None of his supporters want to see any deal because that would extend the life of the regime that, you know, has committed such, such crimes against their own people. So you've got all this going on as well. This, this huge public. It's playing out in public. The end days or not, is playing out in public between the United States, between Pahlavi and his supporters, between the US Rather the Iranian government, the regime there, and the people on the ground. Okay, so, JB let's pause there for a moment. When we come back, I also want to raise from my perspective what I think is a troubling issue, and that is the zero tolerance amongst some monarchists. Maybe a lot, because it's all over online. I don't know how many are bots, but for anything other than kissing the ring and it's. I worry about that. If you want a future Iran that's inclusive, tolerant, secular, democratic, free, you gotta be able to embrace quite a lot of opinion, opinions and, and a plurality unification, or rather unifying people is the most important of any leader anywhere. I wanted to also play because I asked him about his plans. And by the way, on the issue of, of how do you get people to, to flip, I think it's true to say, and I sort of remember that one of the reasons that the Shah Reza Pahlavi's father eventually left and his monarchy fell is because he actually refused to kill as many people as it might have taken to, to kill, to stay.

Christiane Amanpour (17:14)

They don't have that problem right now in this regime.

Jamie Rubin (17:16)

Right, exactly. And he refused to do that. And their military, the Shah's military, also wouldn't do it in the end. You know, I remember people going and putting flowers in the barrels of the, of the guns of the military there. What he's saying is that they are, and he believes that they have an inroad to getting people to defect. Of course, I said, well, fine, but where were they protecting these last protesters? In any event, I asked him, what is it that you want? Because many of your supporters call you shah, they want you to be king, and we had a revolution in Iran against a monarchy. What is it that you are proposing for yourself going forward? Here we have what he said.

Reza Pahlavi (18:06)

You know, from the first day I started, I considered my mission in life to bring the country to a point that we can have that final referendum and the people elect their first democratic government in the future. That to me is the finish line and mission accomplished in life. I don't have any personal ambition. I'm not seeking power. I don't want to have a crown on my head or a title. But I think that they should look at me as a bridge to that destination and not the destination itself. That's my focus. And any other argument about whether or not I will have a future role is placing the cart before the horse.

Jamie Rubin (18:37)

So that's pretty convincing in terms of very clever transitional figure. And he's saying the right things in public. It's just, it's going to. This is really a crucial moment.

Christiane Amanpour (18:51)

I agree with you. I mean, it's a very clever answer. It, it shows and claims not interest in power. I don't actually believe that someone who grew up as the son of a shah can never quite give it up. I was reading a book recently. It's going to be my recommendation about the second Napoleon.

Jamie Rubin (19:07)

Don't tell us, don't tell us.

Christiane Amanpour (19:08)

I won't tell you the name of the book, but the second Napoleon, dictator king in France who lived his life in horrible circumstances as a, you know, sort of effectively a policeman and a cab driver in exile. All these different jobs, but always dreaming and hoping and imagining to come back with the crown on his head. I don't believe that he doesn't want a crown on his head. But his answers, it could be a.

Jamie Rubin (19:32)

Constitutional monarchy that we have here in.

Christiane Amanpour (19:34)

The us I'm not against, you know, his, his desire to be a bridge. I just think we should remember people's human behavior and not be completely falling in with a clever answer. But if he becomes a bridge, that would be fine. Anything that can get to a real democratic Iran would be fine. But what I don't see and what I don't hear. And what I have not seen any evidence of in all the time I served in government and had access to a lot of information was the internal divisions in the Arab government. What I've never seen is IRGC battles, the kind of bloodletting that's going on in China where they fire the top six people. The only time you've seen evidence of internal dissent is when the Israelis were able to attack and obviously got a lot of information, but it wasn't clear whether that was from espionage traders or just technical intelligence. My point again is, during that, that previous time, the Shah's fall, there were deep divisions in the country. Within every institution. There were, you know, monarchist family members who wanted the Shah to go. As you know, there were, you know, in, in the military, in the government, in the business community. There were people on both sides. This regime isn't like that. There are a lot of people who've quietly hoped for a better Iran living, you know, the best lives they can, but they're not part of the power system. The power system there is organized around an Islamic revolution in the military and the, with the clerics, with the business leaders that are essentially often clerics themselves.

Jamie Rubin (21:12)

And the oligarchs who are doing quite well there, and the military structure, they're.

Christiane Amanpour (21:17)

Organized around their current system, and there's no evidence of deep splits within them. And when people claim there are, I'm skeptical.

Jamie Rubin (21:26)

I'm just going to cover myself because you just never know. It's no, no, no, no. Until there's a.

Christiane Amanpour (21:33)

Resolution.

Jamie Rubin (21:34)

Yeah. So you never know. But I think one thing I also asked him, because in many parts of the diaspora, certainly here in the uk, monarchists are protesting outside the Iranian embassy here with monarchy flags and with Israeli flags. So I asked him about that. I asked him about why are you, you know, aligning yourself so closely with Israel? Let me just read a couple of things from the ft. There are some very serious researchers at the University of Toronto who last year, and I'm quoting now, exposed a network of more than 50 online accounts, quote, very likely to be linked to Israel, sharing AI generated content, encouraging revolution in Iran. In October, the Israeli newspaper Haarez identified a network of Persian language accounts supporting Pahlavi that intelligence sources attributed to the Israeli government. There is a lot of concern, and if you remember, Trump's first or former Secretary of state in 1.0, Michael Pompeo, when these protests started December, January, said, and I'm paraphrasing, you know, keep going, we're with you and Mossad is with you too.

Christiane Amanpour (22:43)

Let's get to a thing that he's claiming that a lot of people are claiming. And I want to ask you a question because this was always something that puzzles me. One of the arguments against the United States engaging in rhetoric and or the use of force to help overthrow the regime is that it can harm those who are fighting for their freedom to be associated with the United States. Or in the question that you raised with Israel and Pahlavi suggested that the people of Iran will rally behind a U.S. airstrike. And I've always wondered whether the damage done by airstrikes, whether by the US or Israel, generates a patriotic response or revolutionary response. And maybe you could address that because it is very important. If this thing happens, how will people react to that? The average person, people thought that this.

Jamie Rubin (23:42)

Was going to happen in the so called 12 Day War in June, which was directed solely, mostly against while leadership targets, but also against the nuclear and ballistic sites. Right. And certainly Israel was hoping that there'd be some kind of, you know, advantage taken by the people, people to, to rise up. They even bombed, you remember Avine Prison and unfortunately got the wrong people when they bombed. That did backfire. And as you saw there was a rallying around or there was a, some, there was a, a crackdown on any potential dissent back then and they went after, I mean the regime after this war went after and had roadblocks and questioned many, many people to look for so called called Israeli spies or fifth column and this and that. And we know that Israel is there. We know this. They're activists or whatever you want to call them, Jamie, because I think with the permission of the American government, they've been killing nuclear scientists and et cetera, et cetera. We know that. And sabotaging various nuclear facilities and centrifuge facilities, et cetera. So anyway, it didn't happen then, but I'm telling you now, and I don't know whether they're ordinary people, but the people who I'm talking to, some of them are saying to me whatever it takes, whatever it takes.

Christiane Amanpour (25:02)

The first time you think that's different?

Jamie Rubin (25:04)

Yes, And I find that is new.

Christiane Amanpour (25:07)

And I think it's certainly new. The number of people in Iran are willing to risk their lives that we saw in the last months, that's for sure. We've never seen that number of hundreds of thousands of people willing to face the bullets. And if that number stays high and increases rather than decreases over time, which is what the regime is trying to do, by going after all these people and their families. If that number increases, increases over time, that's how a revolution can happen to me. But it's not going to happen at the barrel of an American gun because I think that gun causes a mixed reaction among people.

Jamie Rubin (25:44)

Well, here's the thing about that. The gun doesn't, you know, let's face it in Iraq. Let's just go back to Saddam Hussein, who was literally one of the most tyrannical people in our, in our time, who had invaded Iran, remember when he thought Iran was weak at the beginning of the revolution. And don't forget, Iran called on Iraqi Shiite militias to come and help them put down the latest, the latest protests. But what I'm trying to say is that I don't believe that Saddam Hussein would have been deposed by the, by his own people because it was just too tyrannical. Look, he put chemical weapons on his own people. They were the Kurds. But he did it. He mowed down people in Basra.

Christiane Amanpour (26:29)

This regime showed that same willingness to slaughter their own.

Jamie Rubin (26:33)

So then that is why certain people say it'll only happen with a help from his eye. But I found this also interesting from Pahlavi, again, saying a lot of the right things. I'll tell you some of the things that I really did question him on. But he said, and I think it's smart, no debarthification if we come to power, if this regime falls. Yeah, but you know, a lot of his supporters are saying everybody who's there has to be strung up from a, you know, from a tree in a lamppost. He said only people with blood on their hands, you know, those regime who are proven to have been part of the, of the, you know, fatal crackdowns on people. So that's one thing. I've been subject to this. But many, many other people more important than me have been subject to a zero tolerance criticism from many monarchists. And it's as if, I don't really get it, but it's as if, I don't know, if you don't kiss the ring, somehow you're pro the regime. It's very bizarre. So I put it to him that many transitional, post revolutionary or post whatever new governments or transitions, one of the most important thing is unity and unifying a country. Right. Look at Al Sharah in Syria, the new president that, that's front and center on his agenda and it's taking a long time because of decisions is very, very hard. So I asked him why a lot of the monarchist supporters Are, for instance, let's just take criticizing, but very heavily, their Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Nargis Mohammadi, who is currently in jail, who I had the Nobel Peace Committee chief on last week, telling me that she is being attacked viciously by the regime while in jail. I mean, physically abus abused, physically kicked in the groin, kicked in everywhere, kicked on her chest, she's got a heart issue, pulled by her hair and scalp across the floor, scalp bleeding. I mean, just really bad. Right. But some of them are criticizing her because she's from prison, not calling for regime change. I don't know how you call for regime change from prison, but that's their beef with her. So I put all this to Reza Pahlavi. Here's what he said. Will you tell your supporters online or wherever they might be, to stop in your name this kind of attack on ordinary Iranians? Because it's very terrifying.

Reza Pahlavi (29:05)

I have, and they know it. And it's not only them. I think this should be for everyone to follow as a principle. There shouldn't be any place for political violence or intimidation from anyone. And I think we should all adhere to principles. I'm not talking to just one group. I'm talking to every single Iranian out there, regardless of their political affiliation. We need to show and demonstrate that. Exactly. That's where we differ. A regime that is, in a punitive way, forcing an ideology and has been discriminating against every possible aspect of people disagreeing with them, as opposed to those of us who cherish the values of freedom, have tolerance for other viewpoints, believe in pluralism, and that's exactly how we define ourselves. As a contrast to this regime, we have to show it beyond words in action. And that's something that I always called for. But I cannot control millions of people and whatever they say in social media and who knows if they are real people or not, that I can't control. But I can only stress the importance.

Jamie Rubin (30:07)

You don't approve of it.

Reza Pahlavi (30:08)

Of course I don't. And I've condemned it. I think there are many people in this room who in fact, often have reposted my. My statements that are aware of this fact, that I've done my part as much as possible to condemn that type of behavior that I will not tolerate and will not stand for.

Christiane Amanpour (30:23)

He's speaking really well. He's quite persuasive. He said it exactly right. I couldn't improve on it, you know, with. At all, but.

Jamie Rubin (30:32)

And you were Madeleine Albright's press spoke.

Christiane Amanpour (30:34)

That's right. And that's Something I know how to do is to answer a question like that. He spoke beautifully about pluralism and tolerance for other points of view, especially for people in prison who are facing the dangers, as opposed to the monarchists sitting in Geneva or France who can say whatever they want while going out to dinner and having a steak.

Jamie Rubin (30:54)

And on that note, actually, it was the lack of having steak. I'm just using your frame framing that caused this in the beginning. It's the desperate poverty caused by sanctions and by their own mismanagement that honestly, ordinary people, a lot of them, the base of the regime, the poor, especially not the oligarchs in Iran who can afford whatever they want, but the ordinary people who literally can barely afford to live, to pay their rent, to feed themselves or their family. I mean, literally, people not being able to have chicken, not being able to maybe even eat more than once a day. I mean, it's truly, truly tragic for a great, great nation. We're going to take a short break. We're going to come back with our recommendations in a very brief line about what transpired one year later after JD Vance slapped the alliance around and cast them afloat in the last Munich Security Conference. Rubio is a little different. Welcome back. We're going to talk a little bit about what happened at the Munich Security Conference between the United States and its allies. And we have our recommendations. So very quickly, Jamie, I saw a different tone. We heard a different tone. Rubio was sort of giving a Valentine's hug to Europe, but the message was, you're on your own.

Christiane Amanpour (32:18)

Yeah. Look, Rubio is a chief diplomat and has an ability to speak more diplomatically. But when you peel away what he said and what the Defense Department official accompanying him said to the people of Europe and the leaders of Europe, it was pretty chilling because it was a statement about their personal preferences for the way the world should be. They want white people to rule Europe. They want a white European, Christian, Judeo Christian tradition to dominate Europe. They're telling Europeans what we're fighting with and for and to is to prevent the world from evolving. And I think someone said it very well. What was important about Rubio's speech was not. The speech was where he went next. And he went next to meet with far right conservative leaders in Europe, in Hungary and I think Slovakia. That's what they're doing now. They're making their foreign policy what's good for the billionaires, the tech robber barons that are their friends, but not based on what's good for Americans.

Jamie Rubin (33:24)

And actually, some of the senators who I met off, you know, off the stage was saying, yeah, the government is still, the administration is still funding those right wing groups in other countries, as you mentioned. And also Rubio denounced, quote, appeasing the climate cult and also managing your own decline through free trade and as you mentioned, immigration. So it wasn't exactly a touch Archie feely, but it was said a lot less aggressive, much more diplomatic. But I will say the, the Europeans were very, very hard in terms of, okay, we want America. If you don't want us, whatever, we'll continue, but we are going to stand on our own. After all these years, America, you told us we couldn't have our own European army. Now you're leaving us in the shit. We're going to get our European army together and, you know, put billions of dollars. Most important.

Christiane Amanpour (34:13)

And here's what I found the worst part of their presence in, in this security conference. There is a war going on an hour away by plane from Munich in Ukraine. And Vladimir Putin has been responsible for literally millions of people being killed and wounded. Millions. And for the leaders of the United States not to go to Europe and make that war. And the Russian danger from Russia itself, from Putin itself, a theme of their speech tells you they do not have a strategic bone in their body.

Jamie Rubin (34:49)

He didn't even mention Ukraine, except, except for a still elusive piece he said about Ukraine. President Zelensky said to me in response to my question that he feels Trump is still a little bit pressuring them to give more than they pressure Russia. So that's where we are on that. And I would say I thought Chancellor Mertz was very strong as well, very tough. First of all, in English, he said, NATO and the alliance serves the United States just as much as it serves us. And then he also said, and he used this word, American leadership is being basically let go, but also squandered. He didn't say by Trump, but, you know, squandered right now. So I thought that was interesting. Now we have to get to our recommendations.

Christiane Amanpour (35:32)

All right, let me go first. And this fits with, with what we've been talking about. This is an old book, but as you know, I like books and I like old books sometimes. It's by Mark Twain, our great, great, great humorist and author. It's called the Innocents Abroad. And it's about traveling to Europe and the Middle east in the late 1800. Yeah, late 1800s. And what it felt like to be an American to see places like Tangiers and Spain and Paris and Marseille and Jerusalem and all of these places for the first time and how an American reacts to the world. And it's called the Innocence Abroad, about American innocence. And I think it's a beautiful recollection of when America was a different country and how the rest of the world was seen as the civilized part of the world that Americans should learn from. And now the arrogance coming from our tech robber barons and our leaders. They would benefit a lot from a read of this book.

Jamie Rubin (36:32)

Yeah, well, let's, let's put that in there. Not their Christmas stocking because that's too far away. But in their, I don't know, reading soon stocking, Easter, Passover, whatever, quick in their stocking. I'm recommending Cutting Through Rocks and, and that adheres to my Iran theme. It is the first Iranian documentary ever to be nominated for an Oscar and it is just beautiful. In short, it is about a woman in northwest Iran, in rural rural Iran. And it's about her defying the patriarchy and running for and winning the seat to lead the little council, the city council, the town council, and what her aims are and how does she do it? Who are her constituents? She had been a midwife, that was her career. But she delivered something like 500 babies. They were now grown up and they.

Christiane Amanpour (37:26)

Were her foot soldiers.

Jamie Rubin (37:27)

They all voted for her. It's absolutely beautiful. Of course there's backlash. The patriarchy strikes back, but still, it's an amazing film. Cutting through rocks by Muhammad Reza Aini and Sara Haki, two Iranians married who, who did this film? Iranian Americans. Now, thanks for listening. Remember, you can always listen for free on Global Player. And Jamie and I will be back later this week with our bonus episode, the Q and A episode. Don't forget, you can always watch us as well, so subscribe to our YouTube channel. You just search. Christiana Monport presents the X Files. And goodbye.

Christiane Amanpour (38:05)

Goodbye from New York.

Jamie Rubin (38:08)

I think. I think we're single handedly upholding the transatlantic alliance.

Christiane Amanpour (38:12)

Yes, this has been a global player original production.